Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

by AlanF 122 Replies latest jw friends

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    A Critique of Suzi Mayhem's Theory of God

    I thought, when Suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like John Cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a Monty Python episode. But Mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.

    I'll address this to Suzi, but Suzi dear, don't take this too seriously. I'm only humoring "dark clouds". I'm also assuming you're not the same person.

    First we have some statements about Einstein's theory:

    : E stands for Energy
    : m stands for mass
    : c ... represents the speed of light, 186,000m/sec. squared

    So far so good.

    : or something to that affect..

    You should have quit while you were ahead.

    : forgive me, it's been over ten years since I had to even discuss this topic...

    From your description, you should have quit ten years ago.

    : So.. basically, what Einstein was saying with this equation was that when an object approaches or is pushed toward the speed of light, it becomes bigger,

    Wrong, it shrinks in the direction of motion as measured by an outside observer.

    From the standpoint of an outside observer, time on the moving object runs slower, and the object gains mass. But from the standpoint of the moving observer, nothing moving with him changes.

    : and accelerates.

    How profound. An object that approaches the speed of light is accelerating.

    Wrong in any case. An object that is approaching the speed of light can accelerate only up to the point where the energy flow necessary to speed it up matches the rate at which that energy is converted into the increasing mass of the moving object. At that point, the speed must remain constant. However, even if the source of energy of acceleration is unlimited, the upper limit of velocity -- "c" -- means that the object will cease to accelerate as it gets 'close enough' to the speed of light. In that case the object can get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, but because in the real world energy is limited, real objects that have mass can never quite get there. In the real world, massive objects can reach only up to a large fraction of "c", at which point they no longer accelerate. Only massless objects like photons can travel at the speed of light, and for reasons I won't go into here, can only travel at the speed of light.

    : When said object REACHES the speed of light,

    Nothing ever "reaches" the speed of light. Either it never gets there, like an accelerating electron, or it is there at its 'moment of creation', such as when a photon is ejected by an electron.

    This is all part of Einstein's theory, so you must have been sleeping during physics class.

    : it becomes pretty damn big. So big that ultimately it is split into its pure energy elements.

    Where'd you come up with this gem?

    : As was proven with the Atom bomb... DUH.

    Duh is right. As a great physicist once told a colleague, "your idea isn't even wrong."

    Now we proceed to applications:

    : So here's where my theory came in ...

    From your description, it was the product of a hangover. Interesting that you cherish such a memory.

    : I got up to the front of the room, I stared out at all the hostile faces. The only thing that popped into my head, oddly enough, was Einstein's equation ( it was a physics class, afterall). I took a piece of chalk, and I wrote the equation on the blackboard and actually prayed, yes PRAYED for a miracle while I stalled (and I'm not exactly the praying kind). And, staring at that dumbass equation, it all fell into place... and so my presentation began...

    Amazing what you can do when drunk or hung over, and under pressure.

    : E=mc2, we all know it, we've all heard of it, and once more I am presenting it for the masses to do with what they will, as I did that day in a freezing cold classroom, with the scent of chalk dust invading my nose.

    You've left us breathless!

    : In a nutshell, what I proposed is that the thing we refer to as "God" is actually an entity

    Always a good start, that. Yes, God would be an entity.

    : (or in some cases an imaginary unicorn, if you will)

    Or a kind of conceptual entity.

    : moving either at or faster than the speed of light, which would make it massive and beyond the realm of time-- or if you prefer, INFINITE.

    You actually said this in class? I'll bet you confirmed your status as class clown.

    More seriously, if "God" were a physical object within our universe, it would be subject to all the 'laws' of the universe, including the limitation that an object possessing mass cannot ever travel at the speed of light. You might have thought that God is massless, which would mean that he's a sort of super photon, but you didn't, and I won't add fuel to the fires of speculation. Therefore God, if he exists, must exist outside our universe in some sense, but you didn't propose this either, and so I won't pursue this line of thought.

    : -- and naturally would have no real definable colour. >:)

    Ah, I see you're from the 51st state!

    : It would transgress the thing we call time, and be able to exist in all times, and at all places at once, and therefore would be all-knowing, and pretty much all-powerful.

    Which means it would be outside our universe, and outside the application of Einstein's theory. Yeah, you really nailed that one.

    : Theoretically,

    There are theories, and then there are theories. Which one is your notion?

    : and in this case even mathematically,

    Cool! Oh please write down the equations! Please, please, please!

    : it would be possible for God (or aforementioned mythical creature of questionable greenish hue) to exist as defined by general concensus, and to behave as it does. It would be pure energy.

    Ach! God has made me see the light! He is a being of pure energy according to Einstein!

    : And that, friends and neighbors, is the mathematical/scientific backup for anyone who wants to believe in an existence other than this one.

    Yes!!! What sparkling mathematics you've shown us! Pray, why have you not become another Einstein, with such astounding insights?

    : Especially since-- and get this one-- we all have the opportunity to be "godlike", if we can just wrap our tiny lil minds around the concept of what infinity actually IS.

    Readers can see that you've done it!

    : So start running, dammit, I wanna see some evolution, people!!

    See why I thought this was a joke?

    So which is it, Suzi? Am I right, that this is all a joke? Or is "dark clouds" right and you're serious?

    AlanF

  • emyrose
    emyrose

    I think someone has a crush on Suzie,
    what do you think?

  • freeATlast
    freeATlast

    AlanF (resident genius),

    Einstein's equation does not preclude an object traveling FASTER than the speed of light. It says that an object may not cross the boundary of the speed of light. An object travelling slower than the speed of light cannot go faster than light speed by the equation. But, if an object traveling faster than light speed from it's creation, it would always be traveling faster than light speed by the same equation. (kind of the universal equivalent of the bus in the movie Speed.)

    Look at the ACTUAL equation, not the simplified "for dummies" version. gee I thought you were a smart guy, but really you're just a smart ASS.

  • dark clouds
    dark clouds

    god someone hit a nerve, and a sore one. . .

    Alan, do you feel berated because a female wrote a toungue in cheek post, or because the actual idea that a woman can think and actually throw out a theory that can hold some truth upsets you because you did not think of it first?

    her satirical humor breaks away from the programming you endured and apparently havent let go of yet,
    you know the one where you are assimilated to believe that women should be subservient, and not speak. much less think.

    granted that the post is far from accurate,
    its the element of the possibility that you overlook,
    you apparently don't know how to think beyond black and white, technicolor was around in the sixties, or did you grow up on black and white tv,
    oh sorry, you where a dub, same thing as black and white. . . .(to be read in a mock homer simpson voice):BO-RING

    anyhow i know you will attempt to crucify me once more for this one. . .but you know what fuck it, cause fuzzy is just a label and it don't hurt. . .

    Einstein while working on his theory of relativity used a concept of a geman mathematician
    (this is where the cross and nails comes out because i do not remember his name, but when i do i will post it, believe me and i will laugh so enjoy this while it lasts cause your brief moment will pass)
    anyways back to Einstein,
    this German mathematician had speculated that 2 parallel lines could continue being parallel even if they touched for a moment at a point. . .
    totally going against everything we learn in basic geometry, this speculation, when used by Einstein led to aiding him in the development of his theory of relativity,
    you do know that there is more than simply E=mc^2 right?

    i never claimed to be a physicist but my thinking is very clear that is why i am no longer assimilated,
    and its this ability of mine to think outside the blinders that keeps me creative. . .and open to possibilities

    you also said something else that amused me,
    something about a physical object not being able to reach the speed of light,
    god is understood to be a concept/ spirit form, when did we start believing she/he was physical(had mass)?
    even the dubs got this one right, McFly

    did you see the movie contact with jodie foster?
    when the pod goes through the rings she experiences 18 hours of travel where on the outside it seemed like seconds. . .
    granted that the movie is fiction,
    i'm fairly sure physicists were consulted to some degree about this for those of us wise-asses out there that would say
    "hey that is not what Einstein said"

    From the standpoint of an outside observer, time on the moving object runs slower, and the object gains mass. But from the standpoint of the moving observer, nothing moving with him changes.

    but then again i'm not a physicist so i can only speculate, try it sometime it's fun,
    i forgot when we are assimilated we are not allowed to have fun

    CHUCK

    by the way Suzi has a boyfriend, so resort to the fantasizing

    one more thing
    Free thanks for the input
    the equation does say E=mc^2
    hhmm . . . that could be rewritten as c=sqrt(E/m)

    dude

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Alan F,

    John Cleese is a resident in my home town of Weston super Mare, I often see him in our local Indian restaurant. Here's a pic of him judging the towns beauties a few years back.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Let me paraphrase DC/Suzi's life philosophy;

    (Dark Clouds) Man, some stuff is just really hard to understand, lets just make shit up to deal with it.

    (outside observer) But, isn't that what religions have been doing for thousands of years, more recently and specifically the JW religion?

    (Dark Clouds)hmmm, yeah....uhhmmm....ok...huummm...but we are different....I know we are...I know! WE wear black while we make shit up!!! Plus, besides witch , we play around with words and numbers and philosophy like it was our privates!

    (Suzi) yeah, cool. ps. I'm wearing a sheer black thong under all this goth gear.

    (outside observer) Oh, right then. Gotta go.

  • emyrose
    emyrose

    "It's Fuzzy math" cried the pathetic presidential candidate.
    "It's fuzzy and your're just making it all up."

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    To freeATlast

    Man, bozos are just flying out of the woodwork lately! Let's take a look at this latest bozo's words:

    : Einstein's equation does not preclude an object traveling FASTER than the speed of light. It says that an object may not cross the boundary of the speed of light. An object travelling slower than the speed of light cannot go faster than light speed by the equation. But, if an object traveling faster than light speed from it's creation, it would always be traveling faster than light speed by the same equation. (kind of the universal equivalent of the bus in the movie Speed.)

    : Look at the ACTUAL equation, not the simplified "for dummies" version. gee I thought you were a smart guy, but really you're just a smart ASS.

    Yes, bozo, let's take a look at the equations. In standard form the Lorentz transformations are, for motion in the x-x' direction:

    x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
    t' = (t - vx/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

    Similarly we have for the relativistic mass:

    m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) where m0 is the rest mass.

    And for the relativistic length contraction we have:

    L = L' * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) where L is the length of the object in the x direction in the 'at rest' reference frame and L' is the length of the object in the moving reference frame.

    Clearly, if v > c, the factor sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is imaginary. This means that the transformed quantities of distance, time, mass and length are imaginary.

    Do you have any idea what an imaginary distance is? Or an imaginary time? Or an imaginary mass? Or an imaginary length? Of course not, and neither does anyone else.

    Therefore, plugging velocities greater than c into the various relativistic equations gives meaningless results.

    The fine book Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles by Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick has this to say about velocities greater than the speed of light (p. A-11):

    Note that for v larger than c the Lorentz transformation equations are meaningless, in that real coordinates and times are transformed into imaginary ones. Thus c appears to play the role of a limiting velocity for all physical phenomena.

    So, bozo, can you say anything at all about the physical properties of, as you so astutely referenced, "an object traveling faster than light speed from it's creation"? Perhaps you can measure its mass as 3i kilos. Perhaps you can say that it's 25i cm long and that it split in half 6i seconds ago.

    If you can, you'll win next year's Nobel Prize.

    At this point it's obvious that you don't know your ass from your elbow, physically speaking. You know that Einstein existed but you know nothing of the equations of mathematical physics. You know in a vague way that the speed of light is a limiting velocity but, not having examined and, most importantly, understood the various equations of Special Relativity, you think that there's no problem for velocities greater than c. Your ignorance is shown by your completely stupid use of the term "Einstein's equation". What people refer to as that is the famous E=mc^2, which has nothing to do with motion at all in this simple formulation. So when you say that "Einstein's equation does not preclude an object traveling FASTER than the speed of light", you're quite right, because it has nothing to do with velocity at all.

    Given the above, I'll be interested to see your answer to a couple of simple questions: just what is the "ACTUAL equation, not the simplified 'for dummies' version" that you're referring to? And just what is the "for dummies version"? Please provide source references.

    Once again we find a complete ignoramus expounding upon that which he knows nothing besides what he read in Weekly World News. While in his estimation I am a smart ASS, he has proved himself a dumb ASS.

    It seems pretty clear that this bozo is a typical raving Fundy.

    AlanF

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hey Englishman

    I'd love to meet Cleese one day. His sense of humor is off scale.

    Thanks for posting the picture.

    Do me the favor of writing me privately. One of these days I'm going to get to England and I'd like to visit as many of my Brit friends as possible.

    AlanF

  • emyrose
    emyrose

    ah..oh, and the big bully grabs him next victim!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit