Energy

[littlemissmartypants]

[DavidDvorkin]

1. WTF?

[Occulus]

19. Omega Minimo.

[Squinch]

2. That's great! K&R

[limpyhobbler]

3. I have no idea what it means but I love it.

Sounds like something Doctor Who would say

[tama]

4. So

by energy we mean something and anything and everything with a frequency... so in the zero energy ontology/state of configuration space of purely euclidean Hilbert space of straight lines. Lines which number theoretically consist mostly of transcendental numbers... so step on the first and best known transcendental, the pi, and there you go waving around and about. So every thing is transcendental, QED.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Tried looking that up.

A bunch of goofy new-age sites are using it and a few science forums are disputing whether Einstein actually said it.

Couldn't find anything definitive.

Put me down for "that's not something Einstein would say"

[NoOneMan]

6. QI says:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/16/everything-energy/

Probably not.

I did like this quote of his:

It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind.

What is that "thing", and what other manifestations might it have?

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Thanks.

Apparently, Google never heard of quoteinvestigator since it didn't come up in the search(!)

On what the "thing" is ... yeah, we really don't know that much about the parts our universe is made from.

We've just cataloged some of the predictable behavior you find when you lump a bunch of these parts together.

(Still a pretty effective first step, though)

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Thanks for the link to Quote Investigator. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

20. I'm not surprised that it's a false quotation.

[Posteritatis]

8. I really doubt that's an actual Einstein quote. (nt)

[progressoid]

12. The trouble with quotes on the internet...

[Posteritatis]

13. Exactly. Everyone knows Herodotus said that. (nt)

[xocet]

9. Why post this in the science group? Are you a crank? n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Thanks guys

for taking the time to research this. Now did he say this? "God is subtle, but He is not malicious" Peace. LMSP

[xocet]

11. You are posting possible quotations so that others can verify them for you?

Can't you be bothered to look them up yourself or at least ask people if they have ever seen a citation for a particular potential quotation?

Here is what you do: start with the obvious book by A. Pais, find the citations you need if they are there, and post these citations (if you can find them) so that everyone knows that you are not posting misinformation. Then simply continue this process until you have found and revealed citations for all the supposed quotations that you have conjured out of nowhere and decided to post anyway.

Also, your OP ought to be self-deleted unless you can defend it: i.e., I would love see your citation for that god-awful piece of text and the original German from which it supposedly emanates - if you can be bothered to find it. Can you even begin to try to defend that quotation as anything other that balderdash? As it stands, it is your claim and, therefore, your burden of proof. Give me a valid citation to an original source, and I'll retract this paragraph.

If you cannot do the above, just post the quotation to a pseudo-science/fantasy group as a conjecture and ask others if they have ever seen a citation for the quotation.

Peace.

[eppur_se_muova]

16. "Raffiniert ist Der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1920s

I believe this is engraved on a mantelpiece somewhere in Princeton.

[littlemissmartypants]

14. It appears,

even from the small sample of opinions here, that this quote cannot be attributed to A E. Some readers like the quote regardless of origin. Others apparently were able to intellectually manufacture a belief that I endorsed it as his. I posted nothing but a picture without commentary or endorsement. What occurred in the minds of those viewing it is not my concern. I posted a picture, in a group that I believe is visited by thoughtful members. Clearly members here interested in either verifying or refuting its origin. Some members interested in pondering the meaning and other members more interested in attacking the poster. Give me a break. It is a picture alone with out endorsement or commentary with the intent of stimulating discussion. Frankly, when I first saw it I thought of Neville Goddard and if it is his quote it belongs in a very different group. Now when others search the picture there will be a thoughtful alternative to the blind faith belief it indeed was said or written by Albert Einstein.


Peace. LMSP

[xocet]

15. You must have missed the sort of things that are posted in this group....

Welcome to the Science Group ! (Please read before posting)

This forum is for the discussion of science. Please feel free to post any news about science from scientific journals (Nature, Science, Cell, etc.) or from the mainstream media (The New York Times, AP, BBC, Wired, etc.). Also, feel free to post your own questions, comments, or other topics about science.

This forum is open to a everyone with an interest in science. Whether you're a tenured professor with a PhD in physics, or an interested lay person who occasionally watches science documentaries on the Discovery Channel, you are welcome here.

Threads about topics that are not science are not welcome here. Please do not post threads about pseudoscience (astrology, homeopathy, crop circles, bigfoot, alien abductions, and the like), which is not science. Don't even post threads bashing pseudoscience, because most people here in the science forum don't need to be convinced, but more importantly because such topics are bait for people to come here and argue the opposing viewpoint -- and then all hell breaks loose. If you want to discuss pseudoscience there are plenty of other places on DU where you can do so. (Visit the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group for discussions from the skeptics-only perspective. Visit the Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group for discussions from the mystics-only perspective. New to DU3, there is also the Creative Speculation Group, for other topics where empirical evidence is subordinate to free expression.

Questions and comments from non-experts are welcome. You need not hold a consistent scientific worldview in order to participate here, but visitors are expected to have a genuine interest and appreciation for science. We reserve the right to bar anyone from posting here who is trying to deliberately stir up trouble or push some sort of personal agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12281629

From your own Post#14, you admit essentially to trolling the science group without concern for the purpose of the group. You had no comments or questions. You only had the bare assertion in the title that the OP would represent energy. Please enlighten me by showing me how your OP represents news from the world of science, how your OP represents a questioning of anything related to science or how your OP presents anything scientifically known about energy.

...

I posted nothing but a picture without commentary or endorsement. What occurred in the minds of those viewing it is not my concern.

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122813763#post14

Clearly, you cannot reply with any enlightening information:

• the picture with its bizarre quotation in the OP is not news;
  
  
• you disavow any comment - be it a questioning or a pondering of the nature of energy - in Post#14 ; and
  
  
• the quotation taken as a whole says nothing remotely true about the nature of energy as it is understood.
  

Please take your balderdash to the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group for evaluation.

Peace.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Sounds extremely dodgy, but I'm leaving the thread open.

I do want to keep the woo out of this group, but I don't believe it really hurts anybody to ask questions.

"The frequency of the reality" is such a misbegotten phrase I can't imagine AE ever using it. Like Tesla and Goedel, Einstein has become something of a Rorschach inkblot for people to project their own interpretations and prejudices onto. As a result he has ended up saying a great many things he never actually said.

[xocet]

21. You are quite correct about asking questions....

However, no questions were asked. This is sufficiently demonstrated by LMSP's own commentary:

...

I posted nothing but a picture without commentary or endorsement. What occurred in the minds of those viewing it is not my concern.

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122813763#post14

If a picture is posted without commentary, the picture has no commentary be that in the form of an assertion or of a question. Q.E.D.

Here is an example of an incomplete sourcing of a quotation which at least is an attempt to provide useful information to those who would like to know if the quotation were legitimate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1199122

It would be complete, but Testament de Jean Meslier has not been fully read yet.

At any rate, it is your choice how to maintain the integrity of the group.

[Occulus]

22. The stench increases

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122813692#post3