Einstein was WRONG!!!!! And EVIL!!!

[bascule]

This was so hilarious I just had to share it. I love prudish douchebags who think SR/GR somehow condone moral relativism.

 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/050128

 

A critique of Einstein

 

Fred Hutchinson

 

Discover Magazine had a special Einstein issue for September 2004. Fifty-eight pages of glossy magazine space was devoted to Einstein! Einstein seems to be growing as an American cult hero. He is not only a dominating figure in the sciences but he has a profound influence on the culture. His theory of relativity sends the message that all things are relative in the cosmos, with the strong implication that the realms of morality, truth and culture are relative. I dissent. I disagree that morality, truth and culture are purely relative. And I deny that the physical world is what Einstein says it is.

 

Who Am I to Question Einstein?

 

I claim to be able to criticize Einstein on grounds that do not require an advanced degree in physics. My grounds for criticism are: a) Einstein's theories were based on false presuppositions drawn from Enlightenment philosophy about the nature of the cosmos. b) Einstein said that he does not trust a scientific theory which cannot be reduced to a simple elegant picture which a child can understand. Einstein himself started with such child-pictures and developed them through mathematics on the black board. The whole of his work consisted of imaginative mind exercises in his office. He left the empirical testing to others as a "mopping up." If I can show that Einstein's child-figures are self-contradictory, then the theories based upon those concepts must be false. c) Einstein uses plug figures to make the numbers balance. In short, Einstein cheats. d) The empirical proofs of Einstein's theories do not constitute a discovery of "laws of nature," as many people assume. Even scientists sometimes fall into this trap. The empirical proofs only establish that Einstein's mathematics are practically useful for a limited range of applications. The are useless for problems which are above or below the "radar range" of these applications. e) Einstein's ability to predict physical nature in a spotty way, does indeed demonstrate the existence of orderly laws of nature we can count on, but does not demonstrate that he knows what those laws are. He has only found a technique to impersonate those laws in order to calculate predictable outcomes. A convincing impersonator of a celebrity might not have any clue to the inner psychology behind the quavery voice, blinking eyes, and nervous tic which he mimics. Einstein's ability to mimic the measurable phenomenon of nature (the exterior of nature) gives us no reason to believe that he understood the realities which lie behind the phenomena (the interior of nature.).

 

Parallel Lives

 

In 1929, Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals Himself in orderly harmony that exists, not a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings." Albert Einstein-Scientist, edited by Paul Schilipp, 1970. Source of Quote, New York Times 4/25/29. As we explore the outlines of Spinoza's philosophy, we find remarkable parallels to Einstein's cosmology. Even the lives of the two men have interesting parallels.

 

Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza (1632 – 1677) was born of Sephardic Jews who emigrated from Portugal to Holland because of the religious and intellectual tolerance of Holland. Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) was born of Ashkenazi Jews living in Germany. Einstein emigrated to Zurich Switzerland to escape the authoritarian and regimented ways of Germany. Spinoza earned a living as a lense grinder as he developed his famous philosophy. (Some historians argue that Spinoza ground lenses for experiments in optics, and lived off an inheritance.) Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office while he developed his famous theories of physics. The young Spinoza was excommunicated by his synagogue because of his vague Deism involving an impersonal God and other heretical ideas. Einstein lost interest in Judaism and organized religion but retained a vague Deism involving an impersonal God. Spinoza was influenced by the French Philosopher Descartes and became a rationalist. Spinoza accepted Descartes mechanist view of nature but rejected Descartes dualism and his transcendent God. Einstein became a rationalist after the example of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant. Spinoza developed a theory out of a fine tissue of logic that the cosmos is a closed deterministic system of cause and effect. Every idea and every object in this imaginary world is interrelated and interlocking. Everything is one. This "one" is the impersonal "god." Every particular thing is a "mode" emanating from god. Spinoza's god was a complex, eccentric intellectual version of pantheism. Einstein adopted Spinoza's god, and Spinoza's cosmos. Just as Spinoza created a world out of a tissue of logic, Einstein created a world out of a tissue of mathematics. Both men were determinists and therefore both denied the existence in free will. Both men were rationalists and accepted reason, even though reason cannot exist in a deterministic system.

 

A False World View

 

If reason and free will exist, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If a spiritual realm exists outside of a closed system of cause and effect, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If God is personal and transcendent then Einstein's cosmos is false. If God is the creator and differs in quality from the creation, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If there is a discrete separation between elements of the creation (heaven-earth, light-dark, land-sea, species after their own kind, man/creature, man as an individual) then Einstein's cosmos is false.

 

Einstein claimed he was inspired by the beauty and harmony of the cosmos. But a picture of everything melting into every other thing is the epitome of ugliness and disorder, as we learn from surrealist artists such as Salvador Dali. A regimented closed system is the barrenness of a prison. Order, yes. Beauty, no.

 

Did Einstein build all his theories on the presuppositions of Spinoza's pantheism? Yes. When he said, "God does not throw dice with the universe," he was referring to the seeming disorder of Quantum Mechanics which deals with the realm of atoms and molecules. If there are nooks and crannies in the cosmos where things can happen which are incongruent with other parts of the cosmos, then the cosmos cannot be an interlocking closed system. Einstein rejected this out of hand, not because of evidence or logic but because of his faith in Spinoza's pantheistic cosmos. The second half of Einstein's career was wasted with the futile search for a "Unified Field Theory," which would reconcile Quatum Mechanics with his Theory of Relativity. The motive of his quest was to vindicate his vision of the cosmos. He did not pause to consider whether that vision was wrong or whether the facts led away from the direction he was going.

 

The Theory of Relativity and other theories of Einstein always have one thing melting into another thing. Matter and energy are the same thing. (Remember Spinoza's notion that everything is one.) Matter can melt into energy and energy can be precipitated as matter. Time and space are also relative. A mass of matter warps the space-time continuum which causes gravity. Time is relative to speed. Time slows down in a rocket as it approaches the speed of light. All of these ideas were conceived in Einstein's youth and all emerged out of Spinoza's pantheism — a fantasy of a young excommunicated Jewish heretic who dreamed up a pantheistic prison system and called it god. It is a monstrosity which we now call science, thanks to the mind experiments of the young Einstein, who is now a cult hero.

 

Contradictions About Moving Objects

 

Einstein said that movement is relative. If one is on a train pulling out of a train station, the train is moving relative to the station and station moving is relative to the train. However, when Einstein tried to prove that movement and time are relative, he ignored his dictum about the relativity of the movement of two objects. Einstein proposed that if one twin brother took off in a spaceship flying near the speed of light and if the ship returned fifty years later, the twin which stayed on earth would be old and the twin in the spaceship would still be young. But this is nonsense. The twin on the earth was moving away from the twin on the ship at nearly the speed of light. Why would not the twin on the ship get old and the twin on the earth stay young? Scientists call this the twin paradox.

 

Some scientists think they resolve the twin paradox by noting that the rocket twin reversed course, first flying away from the earth and then flying towards earth. Since the rocket twin did not travel with constant relative velocity, the two viewpoints are not the same. Hence, the rocket twin can age slower than the earth twin. But this is nonsense. Just as both the twins moved away from each other at nearly the speed of light, both changed course relative to the other. The twin on the rocket ship changed course in relation to the twin on earth and the twin on earth changed course in relation to the twin in the rocket ship. Notice how Einstein's relativity principles do not work unless you apply them selectively.

 

Mistakes Concerning Gravity

 

Einstein claims that gravity is not the attraction of two bodies containing mass as Newton said. Einstein claims that gravity is caused by a warp in the time — space continuum. For example, if a beam of light passes earth within the zone of warping, the beam will bend. During an total eclipse of the sun in 1919, Einstein predicted that when the sun peeked out from behind the moon, the first rays of light could be observed from a point on the globe which would lie beyond the horizon if the sun's rays are straight. Einstein predicted that the rays would bend when they passed near the earth so that they could be seen over the horizon. Not only did the light rays curve, but they curved nearly the amount Einstein predicted. This proof made Einstein famous.

 

But wait a minute! Einstein said that light sometimes behaves as a wave and sometimes as a particle. If light behaves as a particle, why could not the sunlight bend when it passes through earth's atmosphere, like light refracting as it passes through water or through a lens?

 

Both Einstein and Newton had a model for predicting the revolution of moons around a planet and planets around the sun. But Einstein's calculations are more accurate for calculating the orbits of space stations or the movement of spaceships through the solar system. For NASA, Einstein rules. However, Newton is more practical and makes more sense when it is applied to the human scale, to falling bodies and flying baseballs. Einstein's theory of gravity cannot explain why a falling bodies near to the earth fall straight downwards.

 

Einstein's gravity has an oblique effect on moving bodies. A space ship flying near a planet will enter the "warp in the space-time continuum" surrounding the planet. The pilot will think he is maintaining a fixed course, but his movement relative to the planet will curve. If the ship does not change course and enters a rotation which spirals towards the planet, his movement will resemble a whirlpool. The standard illustration of Einstein's illustrates a whirlpool effect, not a falling body. Imagine a gigantic mattress with a heavy weight placed in the center which warps the center down a few inches. A rolling pool ball on the surface of the mattress will curve towards the mattress in a whirlpool trajectory. Water going down the drain forms a whirlpool. Why? Because water molecules are attracted to one another and moves in fluid sheets. Water is just like Einstein's universe: everything is connected and everything moves in sheets, vortexes, and whirlpools. Indeed, our galaxy looks like one big whirlpool. Great minds like da Vinci, Descartes, and Einstein were obsessed with whirlpools and vortexes. Da Vinci, Descartes, Spinoza and Einstein were obsessed with the behavior of light. Descartes thought that the whole cosmos moved in vortexes in clockwork fashion. Like Einstein who lived two and a half centuries later, Descartes thought that planetary rotation were vortexes.

 

So what is my problem? Gravity on earth has nothing to do with vortexes, whirlpools, or warps in the space-time continuum. A dropped baseball falls straight down. If their were a deep enough hole in the ground, it would fall to the center of the earth. It would steadily accelerate (if there was a vacuum in the hole) until it reached the center. After it passed the center, it would lose velocity because it would be pulled back to the center. This is a simple straight line attraction between two objects. It has nothing to do with a warp in the space time continuum which works obliquely upon moving objects in space.

 

Einstein's gravity has no effect on the atomic level, and a negligible, if any effect on a baseball because other nearby forces overwhelm it. A baseball on the ground or flying through air is bound up with the elements of earth and is not free to move in spirals like objects in space. A baseball is attracted straight down towards the earth with Newton's gravity, not with Einstein's gravity. Different principles are at work at the atomic level, the human scale, and in outer space. The creation is not an integrated system neatly packaged as the tidy minded Einstein supposed. His cosmological pantheism is false.

 

Einstein Cheats!

 

The "cosmological constant," is a term Einstein coined in his theory of general relativity. The constant represents the theoretical possibility of density associated with empty space. Einstein's numbers indicated that the force of gravity would cause the cosmos to collapse. Since the cosmos is not collapsing there must be a balancing force. Einstein introduced the "cosmological constant" to supply that countervailing force. As a CPA, I would say that this is the equivalent of supplying a plug figure to make the books balance. Einstein's mathematics did not work. He made up a number to make his equations balance and called it the cosmological cosmos. Einstein cheats! But he got away with it because of his great prestige. "Einstein's mathematics could not be wrong. There must be something we are missing in the cosmos to vindicate his numbers."

 

Years later, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the cosmos is not in equilibrium but the galaxies are moving away from us, Einstein said that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career. Yes, cheating is a "mistake."

 

Modern cosmologists are still cheating. They cannot understand why the universe is not flying apart. The mathematics does not work for big-bang theory, a theory built upon foundations laid by Einstein. The mathematics cannot be wrong, of course. There must be "dark matter" out there which we cannot detect. Hmmm. Our calculations indicate that 90% of the cosmos is dark matter. (Some calculations put it at 99%.) Most of the equation is a giant plug figure. 90% cheating and 10% mathematics based upon real data.

 

Some scientists claim that they can infer the presence of dark matter by observing gravitational forces (Einstein's vortexes) in space. I do not know enough about their math and the data it is based upon to say if this is true. However, I do know that scientists never empirically verified the existence of "density" which Einstein assumed must be in space to support his cosmological constant. I also assume that the computations of the imaginary dark matter must be going poorly because scientists are talking about bringing back the cosmological constant. "Dark matter is not enough. There must be more stuff out there. We need another plug figure. Hey remember Einstein's quaint old idea of the cosmologic constant...." Sounds like the cosmologists are floundering.

 

May I offer a suggestion? Maybe there is something wrong conceptually with Einstein's theory of gravity when you extend it to galaxies. It does not work at the atomic or the human scale. It does work with spacecraft and planets. It does not work with galaxies. It is a niche theory, not a unified theory.

 

One more suggestion. Get out your supercomputers and do more mathematical work on the forces within vortexes. Misunderstanding the dynamics of a vortex is the sort of thing that can throw the mathematics off by a factor of ten or one hundred.

 

Final Comments

 

I have shown that Einstein is a niche scientist whose math only works within a limited range. Therefore, we should use Einstein when he is useful, but not regard him as our teacher about the nature of the physical world. This satisfies point d) under the heading Who Am I to Question Einstein?

 

Question e) concerns why Einstein's work should not be counted as "laws of nature" but as practical engineering techniques for the space program. Newton observed the patterns of gravity and could predict the trajectories of bodies moving through the air with mathematics. But he humbly confessed that he did not know what gravity is and why it works that way. He correctly insisted that he was in the dark about the laws of nature. He said that he was like a small boy sitting on the sea shore playing with a pretty shell but oblivious to the great ocean of truth all around him. The same is true of Einstein's knowledge, but he mistakenly thought that he understood the cosmos because of his faith in Spinoza's philosophy.

 

Einstein reminds me of a science fiction story about a scientist who built an android which convincingly mimics human behavior. The scientist claimed that he had discovered the secrets of human biology by observing his android. A medical doctor came into the room, opened the chest cavity of the android to reveal wires, computer chips, gears, motors and gauges. The doctor said, "I see no blood vessels, digestive system, muscles, bones, nerves or lungs. You know nothing about human biology. Your android is merely a mimic, a programmed parrot." Einstein's mathematical models, developed entirely at the blackboard, are like the android. They can predict certain natural events as a mimic. But they cannot tell us about the laws of nature just as the android could not tell the scientist anything about the circulatory system.

 

It is high time for physics to outgrow Einstein. He has served his short term purpose but has become an historical dead end. I suspect that when a critical mass of physicists get up the nerve to defy Einstein, science will make a great leap forward.

 

Fred Hutchison, a Christian layman, has had a variety of opportunities to teach, ranging from pulpit invitations to being a banquet speaker. He has written hundreds of essays about religion, politics, history, philosophy, and science, and is the author and director of short dramas and comedies.

 

He has an MBA and a CPA and is retired. During his career, he was a technical specialist in governmental accounting and auditing, and he wrote technical literature, did research, taught classes, prepared training seminars, and performed quality review work.

 

Fred is motivated by the pursuit of truth, and is fascinated by how we can abstract information from many fields to assemble a framework of ideas with which to understand the world. However, he believes that scriptural truth is the essential foundation for wisdom and knowledge and an indispensable antidote to self-deception. His book The Stages of Sanctification is the product of twenty years of intermittent study and meditation on the subject.

 

Fred is working on another book, which will be titled, The Rise and Fall of Western Culture. Later chapters in the book will examine the roots of Postmodernism and our present culture war. Fred was the first "Christian intellectual" selected by the Talbot Department of Philosophy, of the Talbot School of Theology, for a special program. Talbot seeks to network with Christian intellectuals for cooperation in fighting the culture war and to build up the intellectual discipline of Evangelicals.

[the tree]

Heh, people are crazy.

[flyboy]

i second that ^

[ecoli]

indeed, Einstein did propose thought experiments and left "he empirical testing to others as a "mopping up."", but his models tended to be very accurate nevertheless.

[Bettina]

Right now, I'm on page 67 of Brian Greenes "The fabric of the Cosmos", and although its 560 pages long, I already consider it the best science book I ever read.

 

Those first 67 pages talk about the works of Newton, Mach, and Einstein. Geez, I would have given anything to work in Einsteins office as a floor sweeper just to watch him work. I have never found anyone else that interested me more than him.

 

If you check out this Fred Hutchinson, you will see he has theist views of the universe, so his motive may be something else.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

Fabric of the Cosmos is an awesome book.

 

We see, time and time again, special and general relativity being tested by more and more novel experiments, each time showing that Einstein was right. The author of this article clearly has no respect for any of that, nor any clue about what he's describing, citing the "twin paradox" like so many idiots who have posted that in the physics forums in a vain attempt to "debunk" SR.

 

I would consider this article indicative of the anti-science sentiments which run throughout the Evangelical community.

[JohnB]

Well he convinced me! I have seen the light!! I understand now!!!

 

Morals are only relative if they are moving very fast.

[Red_Ninja]

Morals are only relative if they are moving very fast.

 

Indeed, if you murder someone at relativistic speeds, you'll be taken to court and verbally reproached.

 

Hilarious article by the way.

 

"He made up a number to make his equations balance and called it the cosmological cosmos" - Heheh.

[reverse]

I get totally where he is coming from.

 

either reality is a big complex predictable mechanism with some predefined purpose...or it has at it's heart "random" operations...

 

you cant have it both ways.

 

or maybe you can?

[JustStuit]

I read this book by Paul Davies which explained the why the twin paradox supported Einstein pretty throughly and it seemed concievable. I don't remember what he said but I can look tomorrow.

[insane_alien]

this seems a case of "special" relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

 

hmmm. thats going into my sig.

[bascule]

this seems a case of "special" relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

 

LOL, freaking awesome, and so very true...

[JohnB]

I believe it's known as "The Dopeler Effect".

[insane_alien]

No we see some phenomena in the theory of "special" relativity that we don't see in the dopeler effect. for example, an outside observer can see that the idea is stupendously stupid(and fast) but in the frame of the person that the idea is coming towards its all the other smart ideas that appear stupendously stupid.

[reverse]

And yet you cant get past the fact that the terror of the world (Atomic missiles) can call Uncle Albert …well, Uncle Albert.

 

Japan got the brunt of it.. countries this very day are invaded to preempt it.

 

That is quite an EVIL legacy.

(and my momma said that evil is as evil does).

[starbug1]

All the proof I need that this guy is wacko: direct your attention to his picture. What a jackass. Also, I read stuff like this quite often, not to the detail this guy give's, but I often wonder if they do it for fun. Of course, sadly, they are never that way; however, I could do it very easily. taking the opposite site is interesting and challenging and you also learn a lot more about the subject than you did before.

 

As a side note: has anyone read Einstein's book "Relativity?" There are so many books on him and his theories, how many have read his actual book?

[padren]

When I was young I had fun trying to prove math was "wrong."

 

I had a great teacher that humored me and help me figure out new concepts when needed, since naturally I was only proving my own ignorance of the subject.

 

I think Hutchinson would benefit from a teacher like that.

[cchea]

Well he convinced me! I have seen the light!! I understand now!!!

 

Morals are only relative if they are moving very fast.

 

this seems a case of "special" relativity' date=' stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

 

hmmm. thats going into my sig.[/quote']

 

That is a joke right? i never studied SR before, can anyone explain this joke to me please..?

[JohnB]

Yep, it's a joke.

 

In relativity as you go faster;

 

Time slows down,

Length shortens,

Mass increases.

 

In other words, wierd things happen.

 

As an object moves away from you at near lightspeed, the light emitted by it moves to the dull, "red" end of the spectrum. If the object was moving towards you, the light would shift to the bright, "violet" end. This is known as Doppler Shift. (This also works with sound. A car engine sounds higher pitched as it comes towards you and lower pitched as it is going away.)

 

So a stupid idea coming at you very quickly will;

A) Have a lot of wierd things happen to it. and

B) Move from the dull, red (stupid) and of the spectrum to the bright, violet end.

 

Does that help?

[cchea]

Yep' date=' it's a joke.

 

In relativity as you go faster;

 

Time slows down,

Length shortens,

Mass increases.

 

In other words, wierd things happen.

 

As an object moves away from you at near lightspeed, the light emitted by it moves to the dull, "red" end of the spectrum. If the object was moving towards you, the light would shift to the bright, "violet" end. This is known as Doppler Shift. (This also works with sound. A car engine sounds higher pitched as it comes towards you and lower pitched as it is going away.)

 

So a stupid idea coming at you very quickly will;

A) Have a lot of wierd things happen to it. and

B) Move from the dull, red (stupid) and of the spectrum to the bright, violet end.

 

Does that help?[/quote']

Let see if i get it right. Basically, weird things happen when object moves faster than the speed of light, right? those weird things specified by SR are only Time, Length, Mass. And religious people are either misunderstood or are dishonestly applying the theory to some stupid idea that they can come up with, like moral/stupid idea...etc, right? i can't laugh now as i am not sure..hehe.

 

I am thinking about the idea that you can travel faster than the speed of light, 186,000 miles (300,000,000 meters) per sec. Due to the time difference, when you travel from Boston to CA in the matter of seconds, you're younger than yourself in Boston 3hours. What about from CA to Cambodia? umm...likewise, in the twin paradox, the rocket twin would be younger than earth twin, but how young? age (time) or his appearance? i guess he would look younger. but i've never seen that.

[Jim]

Fabric of the Cosmos is an awesome book.

 

We see' date=' time and time again, special and general relativity being tested by more and more novel experiments, each time showing that [i']Einstein was right[/i]. The author of this article clearly has no respect for any of that, nor any clue about what he's describing, citing the "twin paradox" like so many idiots who have posted that in the physics forums in a vain attempt to "debunk" SR.

 

I would consider this article indicative of the anti-science sentiments which run throughout the Evangelical community.

 

I enjoyed Greene's books more than I can say even though I still do not understand the concept of "space" let alone "spacetime." I finished these books with a sense of awe and envy. Awe for the concepts discussed and envy that people actually get to spend their lives working in the area of theoretical physics. All in all, I'd still have a hard time turning down Roger Ebert's job...

[Bettina]

I enjoyed Greene's books more than I can say even though I still do not understand the concept of "space" let alone "spacetime." I finished these books with a sense of awe and envy. Awe for the concepts discussed and envy that people actually get to spend their lives working in the area of theoretical physics. All in all, I'd still have a hard time turning down Roger Ebert's job...

 

Well, I have a problem with "Entanglement". I understand it, I just have a hard time believing in it.

 

However, I'm still reading.... I like the book so much, that I only read about five pages a night, then think all day about what I read. I only do this to books I really enjoy so it delays the last chapter from getting to me.

 

Bettina

[matt grime]

Let see if i get it right. Basically' date=' weird things happen when object moves faster than the speed of light, right?[\quote']

 

not quite. if an object has *mass* (which you can think of as transmitting information) then as it approaches the speed of light something 'strange' happens. it is possible for a non-massive event to move faster than the speed of light since relativity won't affect a non-massive object.

 

 

those weird things specified by SR are only Time, Length, Mass.

 

GR/SR applies purely to the physical realm. i wonder what the mass of a 'sin' is in this crackpot's view.

 

And religious people are either misunderstood or are dishonestly applying the theory to some stupid idea that they can come up with, like moral/stupid idea...etc, right?

 

 

yep, that's right.

 

i can't laugh now as i am not sure..hehe.

 

laugh away, the bloke's being intellectually dishonest in drawing spurious analogy.

[Jim]

Well' date=' I have a problem with "Entanglement". I understand it, I just have a hard time believing in it.

 

However, I'm still reading.... I like the book so much, that I only read about five pages a night, then think all day about what I read. I only do this to books I really enjoy so it delays the last chapter from getting to me.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Heh, I'm exactly like you. I took about a month and a half to read each of Greene's books. Even though I enjoyed them both, they just wouldn't go down any quicker.

 

Quantum entanglement wierds me out too.

 

Right now I'm reading Janna Levin's, How the Universe Got its Spots. I wonder if I've pretty much hit the wall in terms of how much of this stuff I can understand from popularized science books like these. It's frustrating that I don't have a better science & math background.

[Bettina]

Heh' date=' I'm exactly like you. I took about a month and a half to read each of Greene's books. Even though I enjoyed them both, they just wouldn't go down any quicker.

 

Quantum entanglement wierds me out too.

 

Right now I'm reading Janna Levin's, How the Universe Got its Spots. I wonder if I've pretty much hit the wall in terms of how much of this stuff I can understand from popularized science books like these. It's frustrating that I don't have a better science & math background.[/quote']

 

I understand whats being written, I just have a hard time Conceptualizing a photon on the other side of the universe "knowing" what the photon on this side is doing. I find it hard to believe......so far. I'm as skeptical as Einstein was. I keep wondering if QM is going to be around in the next 20 years.

 

Bettina