Tag Archives: newton

The Death of Science Part 3: Reality Requires Religion


Almost every American colony had some form of establishment of religion. This was because their religion consisted of proven and necessary facts of existence. Religion was reliable, logical and rational to them. The modern established religion of Secular Humanism teaches that it is the only scientifically-based belief system in existence. It claims that all other religions are not scientifically-based, but the opposite is true. The Bible, upon which true religion is based, is a book of Science, and Secular Humanism is a religion of mythology.

  • … Scientific history … is that the method that we use is something akin to the scientific method. It is based on at least three characteristics …. The first is to establish that the evidence is reliable. The second is making certain that the analysis being made is logical. And third, the analysis must lead to a generalisation that is based on rational argument.1

Since time began man has only been able to take one of three positions toward a scientific fact. The first is belief, which means to accept the fact as it is and interpret its significance correctly. The second is unbelief, which means to reject a fact or give it the wrong interpretation. The third position is some degree of compromise between the other two, such as accepting a fact but wrongly interpreting its significance. It is also possible to misinterpret the true nature of the fact and misapply it to come to other wrong conclusions.

While entire courses can be written on the Scientific method, applying the universal principles of observation, experimentation, hypothesize, test the results, revise the hypothesis to bring it in line with the observed test results, retest, repeat as necessary, then develop a theory, is based on the work of Sir Isaac Newton. No such system, applied to all observable phenomena existed before him.

Newton understood that, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Though Newton understood and believed the Bible, he also understood that General Revelation only leads us to a Intelligent Designer, not the God of Glory revealed in the Word of God.
The scientific method of Newton is based entirely on the principles of the Word of God.

  • 1) Ex Nihilo; The material world we see was made from things we do not see, cannot measure and are not material.
  • 2) Entropy; all energy, matter and matter-energy transformations are toward a greater amount of disorder and less usefulness. In other words in a downward direction. The heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment. Isaiah 51:6 Without intervention, the entire material universe will eventually be motionless at absolute zero.
  • 3) Stability; For I am the Lord, I do not change. Malachi 3:6 An experiment, a test, a measurement performed today will yield the same results under the same conditions as any other time the experiment, test or measurement is performed. Therefore it can be accurately repeated.
  • 4) Order; A stable universe does not have to be orderly. Yet God gave us an orderly universe. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Genesis 1:14,15 NASB
  • From these four foundational principles clearly laid out in the Word of God, Newton deduced the Laws of Motion by observing General Revelation, the material world.
  • 5) Inertia; Every object in motion tends to remain in motion unless an external force is applied to it. It is also known as Newton’s First Law of Motion.
  • 6) Force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma) This is also known as Newton’s Second Law of Motion. It is similar to Aristotle’s Force equals mass times velocity (F=mv). Newton defined acceleration as a change in velocity. According to Aristotle these is only velocity when there is force. But according to Newton’s first law, inertia, there is velocity without force when the object is already in motion. Thus acceleration is a more accurate term because it is a change in the preexisting velocity, even if that velocity is zero. Though the word acceleration is always used in physics, if the applied force is opposite the existing motion, it is more commonly referred to as deceleration or braking.
  • 7) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is also known as Newton’s third law of motion.
  • Without these foundational principles, we no longer have science. We a simply left with technology, how things work, not why. And devoid of a moral restraint, technology unchained is the worst of tyrants.

1 Professor Romila Thapar, Frontline magazine Volume 18 – Issue 19, Sep. 15 – 28, 2001 India’s National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU.


Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Education, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Death of Science Part 2: The Biblical Foundations of Science by Michael J. Findley

“There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly.”
“Mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the Universe.”
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” All attributed to Galileo Galilei
Popular fiction to the contrary, both the ancient Greeks and Romans were excellent engineers and experimental researchers. What they lacked was a system to tie everything together. Until Isaac Newton, every branch of learning had not only their own method of learning, but their own set of standards.
This changed with Isaac Newton. He took the learning, the methods, the mathematics of those who went before him and developed what we know today as the scientific method.
“Newton singlehandedly contributed more to the development of science than any other individual in history. He surpassed all the gains brought about by the great scientific minds of antiquity, producing a scheme of the universe which was more consistent, elegant, and intuitive than any proposed before. Newton stated explicit principles of scientific methods which applied universally to all branches of science. This was in sharp contradistinction to the earlier methodologies of Aristotle and Aquinas, which had outlined separate methods for different disciplines. “© 1996-2007 Eric W. Weisstein
Newton built on the foundations laid by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Hus, and Savonarola, as well as the ancients. But Newton had a far more important foundation. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
“This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God (Greek), or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere.”
(Scholium [postscript] at the end of Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Translated by Andrew Motte, Revised by Florian Cajore)
These statements clearly show that Isaac Newton certainly believed that the evidence demonstrated more than just Intelligent Design, but the need of a personal God to not only create but also superintend, watch over, direct His creation.
But Newton does not stop with a loving, caring God watching over His creation. He states that the material universe could not exist apart from Him. In the same work Newton continued with the following.
“We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however.”
The order of a scientific method of observation, categorization and understanding the material universe requires, to use Newton’s words, “the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords.” Newton very clearly understood what he said and he understood that the opposite was not possible. “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things.” More than 150 years before The Origin of Species, Newton showed that the very foundations of evolution were not scientific, because science is based on God. “All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics III: Hawking Rewrites History

There are two ways to rewrite history. The common lie is ineffective. The amazingly effective method is far more difficult. Simply eliminate any information which contradicts what you are attempting to promote. Never tell any outright lie, simply be very selective in what you allow your audience to hear.

Secular Humanists always start from the simple and “progress” to the complex. Cave paintings are presented as the simplest, therefore earliest, of man’s art expressions. Then man’s art “evolved” to flat painting, to one-dimensional perspective, to two-dimensional perspective, and finally to realistic painting. This is a means of expressing man’s supposed “evolution” in culture and of course took thousands of years. The Parthenon, the Acropolis, Luxor, Angor Wat, the Great Wall of China and thousands of other ancient works of art, created during the same time periods as cave paintings and flat paintings are either ignored or added at the end as an appendix. In music the same “evolution” is foundational. Simple percussion, simple harps, animal horns, these ancient instruments develop over millennia. The complex orchestras of Babylon, ancient India and China are once again either ignored or added as an appendix.

“Our present ideas about the motion of bodies date back to Galileo and Newton. Before them people believed Aristotle, who said that the natural state of a body was to be at rest and that it moved only if driven by a force or impulse.” These are the opening words of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2, Space and Time. The writings of Galileo and Newton, their ideas of gravity, inertia and motion laid the foundation for modern Physics. It is not true that nobody before them “bothered to see” if Aristotle was correct by experiment. Herodotus opens his Histories with “Those of the Persians who have knowledge of history declare…” He views the Persians as more knowledgeable than the Greeks but less knowledgeable than the Babylonians or the Egyptians.1 Francis Bacon declared in 1620 that “printing, gunpowder and the compass” were the greatest inventions of all time. Each of these inventions go back to the early Chinese.2

Printing, cannons, navigation, massive stone structures, 2,000-year-old roads and bridges which are still in use all require advanced use of physics. Where are their records? Alexander the Great burned the massive Persian archives. Julius Caesar, later Eusebius and later still Islamic Arabs burned the majority of the library of Alexandria. Throughout history wars have destroyed much of the information of earlier cultures.

In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking uses the same tactics: destroy or ignore all facts of history which disagree with uniformitarianism/evolution. Even Albert Einstein’s much smaller work, The Evolution of Physics goes back to the mathematics of the Greeks. Many Greeks contributed to the system of geometry known today as Euclidian or two-dimensional geometry, which includes trigonometry. It is foundational to both Newton and Galileo. It is also contrary to Aristotle and Stephen Hawking’s ideas, therefore ignored.

After the book’s conclusion, Stephen Hawking takes the three men he credits with the founding of modern physics, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, and devotes 2 pages to each one. Perhaps these pages were intended to be tributes. The fact that each of these men believed that the universe was designed and created with a moral purpose is ignored. When it is mentioned, it is ridiculed.

Albert Einstein said hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, “God does not play dice with the Universe.” Stephen Hawking said, “All the evidence show that God was actually quite a gambler, and the universe is a great casino, where dice are thrown, and roulette wheels spin on every occasion.” He also said, “Not only does God play dice, but … he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”

Steven Hawking points out that Albert Einstein publicly protested against Germany’s involvement in WWI, became a pacifist, supported Zionism, was offered the Presidency of Israel, which he declined, supported the US in WWII helping to build the first atomic bomb.

“Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy…” Stephen Hawking’s high praise shows the crux, the lynchpin of modern science: principled resistance of the established religion when it stands for error and unwavering devotion to truth. Stephen Hawking then twists this praise to advance his own religion at Galileo’s expense. He falsely claims that “Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.” What about Job? What about the 10,000 Arabic documents on astronomy, their widespread use of the Greek astrolabes? Scholarly Arabs rejected the Ptolemaic system in 1070 AD. What about the Mayans, Egyptians, Babylonians, the Indus Valley, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Incas??

Galileo took the same position as John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, the Anabaptists, Augustine of Hippo and all other Reformers. The Holy Spirit guides the conscience of the individual believer to correctly understand both special revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (the material world). “It seems to me that it was well said by Madama Serenissima and insisted on by your reverence, that the Holy Scripture cannot err, and that the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But I should have in your place added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways, and one error in particular would be most grave and most frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words.”3

Galileo did not believe, as Stephen Hawking so boldly lies, “that the Bible was not intended to tell us anything about scientific theories, and that it was usual to assume that, where the Bible conflicted with common sense, it was being allegorical.” Instead, Galileo, like Martin Luther, took the position of Augustine; “I have insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”4

Galileo believed that the Established Religion of the day, the Roman Catholic Church was suppressing the truth of the Bible. Savanarola was burned at the stake in 1498 AD for the very same belief. Galileo explained this in detail in his 1610 publication Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Stephen Hawking even admits this. Galileo “wrote about Copernicus’s theory in Italian (not the usual academic Latin) and soon his views became widely supported outside the universities.” At that time, the universities represented the thinking of Aristotle. Stephen Hawking fails to understand that the modern University system took the place of the Roman Catholic Church in suppressing scientific truth.

Stephen Hawking is retired from the position Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a position once held by Sir Isaac Newton. Yet Stephen Hawking opens his comments on Isaac Newton with: “Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disputes.” Another view might say that Sir Isaac Newton was a very principled man who spent the later part of his life defending himself against baseless personal attacks. Neither statement is entirely true, but when Hawking spends less than two pages on Newton, such a charge is entirely unwarranted. Rather he should have expanded on Sir Isaac Newton’s considerable contributions to physics, such as his works in the field of optics, the prism and the invention of the reflecting telescope, none of which are mentioned with more than an offhand comment in A Brief History of Time. Instead of attacking Isaac Newton’s character, Stephen Hawking should either be complimentary or stick to Newton’s scientific accomplishments. This comes across as an attack because Newton was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Except for the personal attacks on Einstein, Galileo and Newton, A Brief History of Time is an extremely seductive and interesting collection of important facts. It is completely religious, carefully selecting the facts which support Stephen Hawking’s conclusions.

“We find ourselves in a bewildering world.” This is the simple position of those who believe in the “new” or “progressive” physics, represented by Stephen Hawking. Though this thinking is now so dominant they simply refer to their beliefs as physics, this is the opposite of classical or traditional physics represented by Albert Einstein. Einstein believed “One may say the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”6

Stephen Hawking uses the label scientific determinist for his belief in this “bewildering world.” “The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” “…Why is it that we and the universe exist? If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God.”

Compare this with the attitude of Galileo. “Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of unknown truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts, not their diminution or destruction.”5

All quotes of Stephen Hawking are from the book A Brief History of Time.

1 The History of Herodotus by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, 440 BC, Translated by George Rawlinson 1858 AD.
2 Novum Organum, Liber I, CXXIX 1863 translation
3 Letter to Benedetto Castelli (1613) fro Galileo
4 Augustine of Hippo The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 408 AD.
5 Essay published in 1615, in response to enquireies of Christina of Tuscany, as quoted in Aspects of Western Civilization: Problems an dSources in History (1988) by Perry McAdow Rogers, p. 53.
6 Albert Einstein, article “Physics and Reality” in Journal of the Franklin Institute (March 1936).


Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics II: The High Priest Pontificates

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”1 Stephen Hawking

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”2

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.”3 Justice Antonin Scalia Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillera, 1987

“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy … At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: ‘What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”4

This funny opening to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time makes us smile and trust the author. It is also a not so subtle way of saying that anyone who disagrees with their belief in modern physics is crazy. Since this book is the best selling nonfiction book besides Shakespeare and the Bible, this is a very serious charge. This attitude sadly is repeated throughout the book.

“(Ptolemy’s model of a stationary earth) was adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe that was in accordance with Scripture, for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”5 Though the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Ptolemaic system the only system in accordance with Scripture, neither the Ptolemaic system nor any other system is found in the Scripture. I am not aware of any group which refused to acknowledge the authority of Rome to endorse the Ptolemaic system. The issue with Rome was authority. Rome wanted everyone to obey Rome. Though Stephen Hawking has room to include this great error of Rome, he complete ignores Sir Isaac Newton’s unorthodox Christianity.

“…On the general climate of thought before the twentieth century . . . It was generally accepted that either the universe had existed forever in an unchanging state, or that it had been created at a finite time in the past more or less as we observe it today. In part this may have been due to people’s tendency to believe in eternal truths, as well as the comfort they found in the thought that even though they may grow old and die, the universe is eternal and unchanging.”6 So according to Stephen Hawking, people who believe in eternal truths are ignorant and have such a belief because they need to draw comfort. It is important to mention here that the eternal truths found in the Bible do not say that the “universe is eternal and unchanging.” The eternal truth found in the Bible says that universe was created in a point of time, that God is now stretching it out, and that it ends by melting in extreme heat.

“St Augustine accepted a date of about 5000 B.C. for the Creation of the universe according to the book of Genesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 B. C., which is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began.)”7 Stephen Hawking makes archaeologists, or at least the dates which they give us, more authoritative than Scriptures. While this is the date any author who expects to be published must use, this is not even a commonly accepted date among archaeologists. Also, after calling St. Augustine a liar, or at least mistaken, a page is devoted to Aristotle and Immanuel Kant’s use of reason.

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”8 Why? Why does Stephen Hawkins believe, without any scientific evidence, that an expanding universe places limits on God?

“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.” Stephen Hawking believes that in order to do that, we must correctly understand the universe from it’s beginning. “…it appears that he (God) chose to make it (the universe) evolve in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.”9 The Bible says very clearly that God “worked” on the first six days of creation. That is, the existing laws of physics did not apply to those first six days because God was making changes and inputting energy and order (design) into the universe. Stephen Hawking is promoting the religious leap of faith called uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past).

When Stephen Hawking faces the insurmountable problems of devising a unified field theory, this “single theory that describes the universe,” he turns to the religion of evolution. “The only answer that I can give to this problem is based on Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate. It has certainly been true in the past . . .”10

I have no desire to get anyone angry with me, but this was the well-stated goal of Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf (My Struggle). I am not accusing Stephen Hawking of any desire to murder anyone. But this philosophy he pens here is the foundation of the Star Trek movie about Eugenics, Khan in Star Trek The Original Series and the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the rationale for selective breeding and abortions, the impetus for the books 1984, Brave New World and Animal Farm. To be fair to Stephen Hawking, I believe that all he intends is for a better person to find the answer in the future. But the reality of this race of supermen, designed by controlled natural selection, is a race of powerful evil which must be destroyed before they enslave and destroy us all.

“Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”10 This is an impossible goal when you begin, as Stephen Hawking does, by rejecting the scientific information about our origins which God revealed to us.

1 Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

2 Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in “Stephen Hawking on Religion: ‘Science Will Win'” on ABC World News (07 June 2010)

3 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurring with Scalia.

4 A Brief History of Time, 2001 Chapter 1 Stephen Hawking

5 Chapter 1, Hawking

6 Chapter 1, Hawking

7 Chapter 1, Hawking

8 Chapter 1, Hawking

9 Chapter 1, Hawking

10 Chapter 1, Hawking

1 Comment

Filed under Bible Teaching, Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, History, Scientific

The Religion of Physics I: What Is Physics?

“I put a lot of effort into writing A Briefer History [of Time] at a time when I was critically ill with pneumonia because I think that it’s important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion.”1

“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”2

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.”3

“So Einstein was wrong when he said, ‘God does not play dice.’ Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen.”4

Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is modern Physics. Only the Bible and Shakespeare have sold more copies in the nonfiction books category. The deep disagreements Stephen Hawking has with Albert Einstein’s meaning of general relativity are actually religious disagreements. Before reading A Brief History of Time you should grasp Albert Einstein’s understanding of general relativity. A clear and simple work is the 1938 The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.

They take us to 221-B Baker Street where Sherlock Holmes ponders the great mystery of the universe. How do we go about solving this great mystery? What tools does Sherlock Holmes have available? How should he use them? What clews are available?

Since both Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld were born and raised as German Jews, English was a foreign language to them. The book is filled with archaic British spellings, such as clew for clue, which will either annoy or amuse you. While their writing style requires some thought, their perspective helps us think through some complicated issues. This book has no formulas or mathematics. The illustrations are very simple and the picture plates are black and white. This three hundred-page book only has four chapters.

“There comes a time where the investigator has collected all of the facts he needs for at least some phase of his problem. These facts often seem quite strange, incoherent, and wholly unrelated. The great detective, however, realizes that no further investigation is needed at the moment, and only pure thinking will lead to a correlation of the facts collected.”5 Sherlock Holmes hones in on the problem of defining motion. Because of the concepts of point, line, curve and vector developed by the ancient Greeks, we have the tools to analyze motion. Einstein and Infeld then expand to the rest of Euclid’s two-dimensional geometry. These ancient concepts are the foundation of modern physics.

The opening chapter, “The Rise of the Mechanical View,” covers almost 2000 years of thought, from Greece to the kinetic theory of matter developed by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Einstein, Newton was the most important physicist prior to the twentieth century. He wrote down two ideas which define classical physics. The formula for gravity allows for the prediction of mass, velocity and direction of objects. Even more important than the formula for gravity is the concept of inertia.

The Ancients, including the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Chinese, built massive stone structures which required advanced math. Whatever tools they developed are lost. The Greeks rediscovered some of these tools and their math is written down. In Einstein’s book, they developed physics in what we call three-dimensional space, but only used two dimensions. Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler used three-dimensional physics in astronomy. The next step was developed by Newton. The mathematical basis of Calculus was written down by Newton, though the theory of Calculus goes back to Egypt.

The value of a theory is its ability to make a prediction. Though gravity was known and understood since Adam, Newton was the first to understand that gravity is field-related to mass and to derive formulas for the relationship between gravity and mass. With these formulas, careful observations of objects such as planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc. can be used to predict their orbits, determine their mass and calculate their relationships to one another. These gravitational formulas depend on a new discovery by Newton, inertia. He also wrote down the two laws for inertia.

His laws for inertia, building on the mathematics of the Greeks and Arabs and extending via gravity into the motion of heavenly bodies, depend on what Einstein calls absolute time and absolute space. That is, everyone views the same actions and reactions the same way at the same time. For the way the average person views the universe, this is true.

Newton even had a theory of relativity. Newton’s example uses a man with a ball bouncing up and down on a table with two observers. One man is traveling with the table and bouncing ball. To the man in motion with the table, the ball appears to be bouncing straight up and down. The other man is stationary and observes the other man, the table and the ball bouncing up and down to have an additional motion which the man traveling with the ball and table do not observe. Newton believed that even though the two men observed different motion of the ball, time was absolutely the same for both men. However, more precise instruments began to find problems with this.

The next chapter, “The Decline of the Mechanical View,” begins with these words: “The following pages contain a dull report of some very simple experiments. The account will be boring not only because the description of experiments is uninteresting in comparison with their actual performance, but also because the meaning of the experiments does not become apparent until theory makes it so. Our purpose is to furnish a striking example of the role of theory in physics.”6

This entire chapter is devoted to the problems of mechanical physics and is theoretical. Though the authors use humor and clever illustrations, it is a boring topic. It is also very necessary to properly understand the rest of the book. What are heat and light? What is magnetism? What is electricity? What is gravity? Are they energy? Are they properties of the substance emitting them? Do they have mass? The answers to these questions require a new examination of the facts and new theories to explain the facts.

The next chapter, “Field, Relativity,” begins about the time of Newton, so it covers much of the same time period as the previous chapter with a great shift in perspective. “The Decline of the Mechanical View” examines the problems and failed attempts to explain the universe with the mechanical view. “Field, Relativity” abandons the mechanical view and proposes different solutions. Modern readers will be more familiar with the term classical physics to describe what this book calls the mechanical view and field theory.

Field theory is better known today as electromagnetism. Field theory deals with the forces between neutrons, protons and electrons, rather than the matter made by atomic particles. Understanding the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity was the “death knell” for strictly Newtonian physics and the need for a new approach.

Though many men before him worked on the problem before he tackled it, Albert Einstein was the first to work out the math of special relativity. The real import of The Evolution of Physics is the distinctions between special and general relativity in Einstein’s own words. These distinctions are written in terms as simple and easy to understand as is possible.

Albert Einstein attempted to solve these problems with the mechanical view by using the mechanical view. His failure resulted in the theory of special relativity. He illustrates special relativity with a man in an idealized elevator falling forever towards the earth. He releases both a handkerchief and a ball. The elevator, the man, the handkerchief and the ball are all falling at the same rate. Inertia is real to the man because he is part of the closed system. Time, as well as gravity, is the same for all four because they are all part of what Einstein calls the same co-ordinate system (CS). Therefore, time is part of that CS. This relationship between this particular CS and time Einstein calls the space-time continuum. To the observer inside this CS, it is not much different from classical or mechanical relativity, except that time is added as part of space. It recognizes, however, that there are other co-ordinate systems existing at the same time as your CS.

General relativity, which Einstein worked on for years after publishing special relativity, is looking at the first CS (the man in the falling elevator) from a viewpoint outside of the elevator, an entirely different CS. Now time is moving at two different speeds. Time slows down with greater gravity and each CS has its own gravity. Now there is no inertia, only apparent inertia. Gravity warps time. Objects, such as photons of light, traveling outside of any gravitational field, such as between stars or galaxies will travel much greater distances in the same amount of time as an object in a gravitational field, such as on earth. The speed of light is a constant, but the time it is traveling is not.

Too much information, too quickly? This is why Einstein uses so many illustrations and spends many pages laying the foundation.

The chapter Quanta clearly shows differences between classical and modern physics. In the serious rift between the quanta physicists, such as Steven Hawking and the classical physicists, this brief chapter is a very fair presentation of the quanta position by a classical physicist. Modern physicists regard Albert Einstein’s views as classical and opposed to modern quantum mechanics. That is certainly the position of Stephen Hawking.

Newton wrote a theory of relativity which is called classical or mechanical today. The way Einstein describes classical relativity is a ball bouncing up and down on a table in a moving train. To the man on the train moving with the train, the ball seems to be bouncing straight up and down. But to a man standing on a platform looking into the window of the train, the ball is taking a zigzag path as it moves with the train. Both observers, however, use the same clock and the same space (CS, Co-ordinate System). This led to some problems with the results of several experiments with light.

“Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories – the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. They are the great intellectual achievements of the first half of this century. The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, that is, the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (1 with twenty zeros after it) miles, the size of the observable universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other. They cannot both be correct.”7

“However, we still use Newton’s theory for all practical purposes because the difference between its predictions and those of general relativity is very small in the situations that we normally deal with. (Newton’s theory also has the great advantage that it is much simpler to work with than Einstein’s!).”8

Einstein’s oft-repeated statement God did not play dice with the universe showed at least a deistic belief. As Einstein grew older, he seems to have returned to some form of liberal Judaism. He also stated quite often that the most miraculous part of the universe was that it made sense. The variety and complexity of the universe should result in chaos, not order. General Relativity to Einstein was an astronomical increase in complexity and order of the Universe.

“Modern” or “Progressive” physicists represented by Stephen Hawking see General Relativity as an infinite universe with life becoming insignificant. “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.”9

Stephen Hawking disdains religion, because religion “is based on authority” while science “is based on observation and reason.”3 The only honest scientific answer is that is this statement is a lie. The entire basis of the religion of modern physics is Stephen Hawking’s Papal pronouncement, “The life we have on Earth must have spontaneously generated itself. It must therefore be possible for life to exist spontaneously elsewhere in the universe.”10

Spontaneous generation is anti-science. Every attempt to generate life has failed. Spontaneous generation is pure religious belief without a shred of any kind of evidence, scientific, circumstantial or hearsay. It is a desperate belief in the ridiculous in order to ignore the scientific evidence.

1 A Brief History of Time Chapter 8 1988, 1996, 2001

2 Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

3 Interview with Diane Sawyer, as quoted in “Stephen Hawking on Religion: ‘Science Will Win'” on ABC World News (07 June 2010)

4 During the 1994 exchange with Penrose, transcribed in The Nature of Space and Time (1996) by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, p. 26 and also in “The Nature of Space and Time” (online text)

5 The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, 2007, 2008, p. 4.

6 The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, 2007, 2008, p. 69.

7 A Brief History of Time Chapter 1 1988, 1996, 2001

8 A Brief History of Time Chapter 1 1988, 1996, 2001

9 From an interview with Ken Campbell on the 1995 show Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken

10 From an appearance in the Discovery Channel program “Alien Planet” (May 14, 2005)


Filed under Current Issues, Politics, Excerpts from our Nonfiction Books, Scientific