☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Albert Einstein And The Scientific Proof Of 'God'
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 139647" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>Not so fast.</p><p></p><p><em>"In the universe as we experience it, we can directly affect only objects we can touch; thus, the world seems local. Quantum mechanics, however, embraces action at a distance with a property called entanglement, in which two particles behave synchronously with no intermediary; it is nonlocal. This nonlocal effect is not merely counterintuitive: it presents a serious problem to Einstein's special theory of relativity, thus shaking the foundations of physics."</em> — Scientific American</p><p> </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity" target="_blank">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity</a></p><p></p><p>In science, anything is refutable. And in recent years, even Einsteins work has come under fire.</p><p></p><p>Needless to say. I've noticed that both atheists and theists turn to Einstein to often support their atheism/theism. <em>Einstein was an atheist/theist so you should be an atheist/theist too.</em> In some sense, his word is being held in a higher regards then the actual arguments in favor or against atheism/theism. This is troubling especially when you take into account that Einstein's quotes can be taken largely out of context to support either position. Although this post dealt with his scientific findings (albeit—very non technically) I feel like its just alot of fluff and no substance. </p><p></p><p>Why does the author keep referring to a "force"—why not just say "gravity"?—Einstein didn't elaborate on the other three fundamental forces as much as he did gravity. I suspect the author used the term "force" in leiu of the term "gravity" to set up a pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious tone to his article. Furthermore, even with Einsteins elaborations, gravity is the least "known" force out of the four. </p><p></p><p>Furthermore, "Force" and "Energy" are not interchangeable terms in the context of this discussion. Its a very misleading post written by someone with only a vague or "pop" knowledge of Einsteins work.</p><p></p><p>I especially "lol'd" at his explation of the formulation E=MC^2</p><p></p><p> His target audience isn't exactly all that bright if they couldn't figure that out by themselves. But its evident he wasnt writing to convince an atheist—I dont know why this is in the atheist forums though. Perhaps we should have a seperate forum for dealing with matter of science? As much as I love science, and feel that scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of atheism. It seems odd to mix scientific matters in the same bed as atheism (or theism for that matter). Science just is—it has no belief system. A thread devoted to science though would deal with the implications of said science. For example, my post on biological immortality would also be better suited for a "science" forum then an "atheist" forum.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 139647, member: 5962"] Not so fast. [I]"In the universe as we experience it, we can directly affect only objects we can touch; thus, the world seems local. Quantum mechanics, however, embraces action at a distance with a property called entanglement, in which two particles behave synchronously with no intermediary; it is nonlocal. This nonlocal effect is not merely counterintuitive: it presents a serious problem to Einstein's special theory of relativity, thus shaking the foundations of physics."[/I] — Scientific American [URL]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity[/URL] In science, anything is refutable. And in recent years, even Einsteins work has come under fire. Needless to say. I've noticed that both atheists and theists turn to Einstein to often support their atheism/theism. [I]Einstein was an atheist/theist so you should be an atheist/theist too.[/I] In some sense, his word is being held in a higher regards then the actual arguments in favor or against atheism/theism. This is troubling especially when you take into account that Einstein's quotes can be taken largely out of context to support either position. Although this post dealt with his scientific findings (albeit—very non technically) I feel like its just alot of fluff and no substance. Why does the author keep referring to a "force"—why not just say "gravity"?—Einstein didn't elaborate on the other three fundamental forces as much as he did gravity. I suspect the author used the term "force" in leiu of the term "gravity" to set up a pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious tone to his article. Furthermore, even with Einsteins elaborations, gravity is the least "known" force out of the four. Furthermore, "Force" and "Energy" are not interchangeable terms in the context of this discussion. Its a very misleading post written by someone with only a vague or "pop" knowledge of Einsteins work. I especially "lol'd" at his explation of the formulation E=MC^2 His target audience isn't exactly all that bright if they couldn't figure that out by themselves. But its evident he wasnt writing to convince an atheist—I dont know why this is in the atheist forums though. Perhaps we should have a seperate forum for dealing with matter of science? As much as I love science, and feel that scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of atheism. It seems odd to mix scientific matters in the same bed as atheism (or theism for that matter). Science just is—it has no belief system. A thread devoted to science though would deal with the implications of said science. For example, my post on biological immortality would also be better suited for a "science" forum then an "atheist" forum. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Albert Einstein And The Scientific Proof Of 'God'
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top