Essay talk:Einsteinian gravitation for poets

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between science, religion, and magic[edit]


Science is a set of relations between things that are tested against their occurencies and especially against lack of occurencies at certain conditions.

Examples: Einstein's gravitation, corpuscular theory of gasses, hydrostatics (Archimedes' Law), hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, electrostatics, magnetostatics, electrodynamics, and many others, though many of them might just belong to religion or magic.


Religion is a set of relations between things that are not tested but assumed, on faith in supernatural, as true.

Examples: Christianity, Islam, Voodoo, (spooky) action at distance, creation of energy from nothing (used in miracles like in the Big Bang).


Magic is a set of relations between things that are partly tested and assumed as true but in reality they work only through accidental agreement of results with theory.

Examples: Newton's gravitation, quantum mechanics, (spooky) action as distance, creation of energy from nothing, other miracles but not involving supernatural which belongs to religions.

What is all this stuff? what are you trying to do here? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to expalain differences between 3 major ways of gethering information that is used in sciences (also in theology). JimJast (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


From this. Not even bothering to edit out the "back to top" bits is a bit of a giveaway. Delete? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the famed RW toleration of "Essays" being taken advantage of. This guy and Maratrean seem to be spamming crap around for little reason other than to advertise their weird ideas. --Scream!! (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. rather than being a vaguely on-mission defence of something RW opposes, this is just taking advantage of free hosting. Start your own wiki and spam your pseudo-philosophical tldr's there please. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This stuff about Einstein can't be printed in regular Wikipedia since it is original research supporting Einstein, but against contemporary cosmology with is partly magic, partly religion (that's why I add explanation of differences between them. It is not allowed in Wikipedia but only in RationalWiki which allows original research. JimJast (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleteing something without discussing it first is not rational thing to do, is it? JimJast (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing it. Posting up mystical "science is magic" mumbo-jumbo isn't rational either, mate. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
incidentally WP and RW aren't the only wikis in the world. Have a look at Wikia, You can start a new wiki on pretty much any subject you wish. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you ~happen to know where science come from (before scientific method was invented together with critical thinking)? JimJast (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Lots of people observing natural phenomena and writing down what they saw as being something other than the actions of an invisible person with superpowers? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No, It was by explaining "natural things" with attraction across empty space. You may recall that even you might believe in it once (unless you've read my essay on Einsteinian gravitation). JimJast (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
All naturalists/natural philosophers (the protoscientists) explained natural phenomena by attraction across empty space? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


This is a guy who created whole new physics. He should be discussed on RW rather than on any other wikis since there is not that many guys anyplace with whom there is possible a rational discussion about Einstein. Most people don't even know that his theory was highjacked by creationists in 1973 (so after Einstein's death, by adding to it creationism as a law of physics, and it was not taken back up till today (April 2011). Young professors of physics teach this "law" the PhD students, probably even in good faith since the knowledge of Einstein's theories is not that common. I met a few lecturers who didn't understand what they taught, as they frankly admitted while they were asked to explain puzzling phenomena; two of them at Harvard, Camebridge, MA).

If we don't care about new Middle Ages too much (the age of faith as they call it) we better do somwthing about it while it is still allowed. Even if already it's not allowed in moderated physics fora where creationists hold the upper hand and on many other fora where creationists block the access to the internet moderated fora (mentioning "Einstein universe" is enough to be banned for life from some phisics and astronomy fora; I'm banned for life for wanting to discuss Einstein's universe, on which I'm doing my PhD project). And who cares about the other fora where the noise level is so high that one hardly hears himself. JimJast (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"rather than being a vaguely on-mission defence of something RW opposes, this is just taking advantage of free hosting."[edit]

Correct, Totnes. Which is why it should get vaped. P-Foster (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Aye! Vape. --Scream!! (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the headline voices my thoughts, as well. '86 from my Wiki. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 16:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Kill it w/fire. ТyTalk. 16:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Having bothered to read some of it, I have to agree. Maybe userspace, but really, this isn't the place for tl;dr conspiratorial philosophy. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep it, but only because it will allow me to better argue for my upcoming essay "Why we all actually live in a cat's anus" Quaruexit sign - You can't explain that! 16:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We either have essay space which is free to use or we don't. We've amended the essay box to say it doesn't necessarily represent our views. We've got other essays that are worse. Look up the stuff that HOG wrote. I really don't like this "I don't like it - delete it immediately." attitude for stuff outside of mainspace. --BobSpring is sprung! 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My argument was that this is a random essay about someone's personal theory, rather than a right-to-reply defence of something we attack. Also, the thing was basically a copy-paste (see further up for link), so it's not even necessary to keep here on academic/intellectual/free-speech grounds. Let JimJast link to the original from his userpage if he wants, or even to some other website that's more accepting of his ideas as suggested above, but I see no reason for keeping it here. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Then we need to set some standards for essay space which allows to delete essays under certain circumstances. At the moment what happens is a group gets together, thinks they have consensus and zaps something. Now, in this case, it's no loss. But it sets a precedent that, if for some reason a group doesn't like an essay, they can zap it. If we are going to zap essays we need to expand the definition of what is not allowed on the wiki. I tried to redefine fun space a while ago and the result was "let's delete some stuff". With regard to both parts of the wiki the solution is to decide what is and what is not allowed and then apply that rule consistently and transparently.
It's the same with the low-level debate on notability - misionality and the qeustion of how much time we should give before deleting stuff. We really need to get this going as one big debate, get a vote with a time limit and then apply the standards we agree on.
The mob lynching of content isn't the way to go.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
the trouble is that now there is, effectively, more than one mob. We don't all know each other any more and there are too many changes for people to keep up. I know RW has traditionally disliked rules, but it's time for some rules/standards on what goes in essayspace, and less importantly funspace. So: Forum:Essay standards and Forum:deletion policy. Shall we? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Captain Sensible Bob. Some stuff gets deleted here far too quickly without proper discussion. The mob is not three or four bored misanthropes it is everyone, and a suitable period should be allowed for the busier ones amongst us to contribute to the discussion before it is executed. Unfortunately whenever we try to define some standards here it invariably develops in to HCM.  Lily Inspirate me. 19:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is why the proposed 24-hour minimum waiting period is necessary, before we even begin to discuss the actual criteria for deletion. I think, personally, that the limit should be more like three days, but the one-day number came from a compromise a few weeks ago. Blue Talk 19:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the ever-sensible Bob and Totnesmatin. Trying to decide essays on a case-by-case basis, like we've been doing so far, only works if those deciding have a goals or purpose in mind for what the essayspace is for—which we don't. And working out the essayspace's purpose is something that needs to involve the whole community. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My last proposal is here.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)