Yo, Barry!
Posted on 02/07/2010 8:51:21 AM PST by AJKauf
According to the Washington Post, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s senior advisor, said that the president worked with “[Harvard professor] Laurence Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” I’ve read that paper, “The Curvature of Constitutional Space.” It’s complete nonsense. It shows no understanding of Einstein’s theory of relativity, or of the relationship between relativity theory and Newton’s theory.
I — to use Obama’s favorite word — do understand relativity theory. I was trained in relativity theory by the best. I was the post-doc of the late Princeton professor John A. Wheeler, who was himself the post-doc of Nobel Prize winner Niels Bohr. Wheeler’s most famous student was Nobel Prize Winner Richard Feynman. I was also the post-doc of the late Oxford professor Dennis Sciama, who was a student of Nobel Prize winner Paul Dirac. Sciama’s most famous student was Stephen Hawking.
The key thesis of the Obama-Tribe paper is contained in the opening sentences of its abstract: “Twentieth-century physics revolutionized our understanding of the physical world. Relativity theory replaced a view of the universe as made up of isolated objects acting upon one another at a distance with a model in which space itself was curved and changed by the presence and movement of objects. Quantum physics undermined the confidence of scientists in their ability to observe and understand a phenomenon without fundamentally altering it in the process.”
All of these sentences are completely wrong. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Obama and the Liberals are quickly becoming a laughingstock!
Special or General relativity? Sounds like a typical leftist trial balloon, sent up for the purpose of lecturing the “little people” as to the existence of a massive GREY AREA—nothing is black and white; nothing can be presented as unchanging fact; in short, everything is RELATIVE...except of course the words of our “leaders!” So Hussein understands Einsteins theories. Now THAT’S funny!!
Someone please tell me that this is satire. Please!!
Yo, Barry!
Is there nothing this man cannot do!!!
I think Mr. Tipler fails to realize that Pres__ent Zero is so brilliant that even he is incapable of understanding the breadth and capacity of his intellect. /s
Just ask his “highness”, or better yet, read any one of the daily reminders provided by the state-run media propogandists in their endless quest to convince the populace that their Pres__ent isn’t really as ignorant, inexperienced, incompetent, and socilaist as they know he is.
Obama is certainly qualified to expound on his theory of “moral relativity”!!!
Well, OwlGore invented the internet so that was already taken.
I read an article in, it may have been "OMNI" or "Scientific American" about a doubt of Einstein, because the Sun was not a perfect sphere.
I would not know, often I have contemplated eternity...
and I wonder about the 'Big Bang'...
perhaps, it has happened before...
bang and growth leads to all we know now... but after eons, the super-massive black holes begin to draw all that matter back and as each super massive black hole gathers all the matter....
perhaps the immense gathering of all the matter into a singularity.......
leads to the next 'Big Bang'!
“I - to use Obama’s favorite word...”
B=ME2
Typical liberals. They take a subject of which they have no capacity to understand, and try to apply it to a completely unrelated topic. The end result is gibberish.
They feel safe because they are positive the Great Unwashed could never hope to see through it.
He hit seven holes-in-one in one day as well, and will be making a movie of Him wrestling a crocodile soon.
OT, but I recently read (not on the internet, I believe it was a letter to the editor in Physics Today) that the Professor Wheeler would have gotten a Nobel except for one thing: he was not against the Vietnam war, and had been public in his non-support for the anti-war movement.
BE STILL MY HEART!
With reference to the "living Constitution" school, Dr. Walter Berns explored that idea in an essay which appeared in "Our Ageless Constitution," back in 1987. The following paragraphs, excerpted from that essay, point out the flawed premise upon which much of the "progressives'" argument for what some have called "amending to fit the times." Here are Berns' words:
"The living Constitution school also claims to have a source more venerable than legal realism or Ronald Dworkin - justice John Marshall. A former president of the American Political Science Association argues that the idea of a " 'living Constitution'...can trace its lineage back to John Marshall's celebrated advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs' " The words quoted are certainly Marshall's but the opinion attributed to him is at odds with his well-known statements that, for example, the "principles" of the Constitution "are deemed fundamental [and] permanent" and, except by means of formal amendment, "unchangeable" (Marbury v. Madison). It is important to note that the discrepancy is not Marshall's; it is largely the consequence of the manner in which he is quoted - ellipses are used to join two statements separated by some eight pages in the original text. Marshall did not say that the Constitution should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs; he said that the powers of Congress are adaptable to meet those crises. The first statement appears in that part of his opinion where he is arguing that the Constitution cannot specify "all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit;" if it attempted to do so, it would "partake of the prolixity of a legal code" (McCulloch v. Maryland), In the second statement, Marshall's subject is the legislative power, and specifically the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the explicitly granted powers.
"Neither Marshall nor any other prominent members of the founding generation can be 'appropriated' by the living Constitution school to support their erroneous views. Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitution as written.
"They were under no illusions that this would prove to be an easy task. Nevertheless, they had reason to believe that they had written a constitution that deserved to endure and, properly guarded, would endure. Hence, Madison spoke out forcefully against frequent appeals to the people for change. Marshall had this Madisonian passage in mind when, in his opinion for the Court in Marbury, he wrote:
"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequentlyrepeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental: and as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."
"At this point, it is well to remember Hamilton's strong warning about unwarranted presumptions by those in government of a power to depart from the people's established form as quoted in the title of this essay.
"Marshall referred to the "principles" which he called "permanent," and the "basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected" Yet Marshall also chose to address the much broader issue of the general scope of the national powers. The Constitution must be construed to "...allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." It is these powers, not the Constitution, which are flexible and adaptable to meet the crises of "human affairs."
"Ironically, the very case cited by the "living Constitution" school, when properly read, demonstrates that John Marshall, at least, saw, no need for flexibility in the Constitution."
-----End of Excerpt from Berns' Essay-------
Tribe's association to ideas which conflict with the views of Marshall and the Founders, undoubtedly, will come into question if he is nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice by his long-time associate.
Interesting article.
Each of the empirical entities gets to wander around the various galaxies and report back. I am checking on this one. We are working on number 8, but trying to figure out a way to keep Politicians out of government:-))
Was this one of Obama’s long lost papers from his Harvard days? No wonder he is hiding such total nonsense. This paper reminds me of something “scholarly” written by Kim Jung-il.
AJKauf, ,
This thread has been a revalation. I’ve always been puzzled by the reaction people consistently get from leftists whenever someone tries to explain that 2 plus 2 always equal four, or that businesses are going to produce less and hire less when you hit them with exhorbitant taxes. They either their eyes upward and wearily moan “whatever”, or they come out with the big bluff, waiving a hand dismissively and saying “if you believe that I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.”
From the aticle and posts on this thread It appears that we have arrived at the threshold of a Grand Unified Theory of American Liberalism:
1. Logic is just a parlor game.
2. Reality is an illusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.