#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
clrscr();
printf(“Hello World!”);
getch();
return 0;
}
Category: General Knowledge
“If I could turn back time”, “If only I could see the future”, we often hear these phrases when people regret doing something or whenever they do lose hope in solving their extremely hard problems. Some individuals really wish to alter time although it may seem impossible for now, but what if we could really go back and change our past or rather see what the future might bring to our lives through time travel?
The idea of time travel started with the Theory of Relativity from the very superb thinking of the genius, Mr. Albert Einstein on which he stated that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another and that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light. The theory of relativity may seem undeniably correct but it also has some surprising consequences based from what I have read from Wikipedia, one of these consequences are time dilation which states that moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer’s “stationary” clock. Albert Einstein explained this phenomenon when he was riding a streetcar in Bern and looking back at the city clock then he imagined that if his car was to travel on the speed of light, being Einstein as the reference point city clock would seem to stop but his watch inside the car would continue moving typically but an observer outside the car will just say that everything is normal. Einstein concluded that time can beat at different rates throughout the universe depending on how fast we move and therefore there is a possibility of time travel.
Another evidence of the possibility of time travel is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that would be, fundamentally, a shortcut through spacetime which is what we call a wormhole as described in Wikipedia. Some wormholes collapse quickly which prohibits anyone to cross from one end to another. Further researches are still conducted in order to have standard basis on the existence and research of wormholes and in order to use it as a milestone in opening ways to other places in the universe.
This phenomenon can cause great disturbances in the lives of people because I am sure that every single person on earth did wish to travel back to time or would want to see their future. Time travel can help make our world a better place to live in. It might be the only answer of the greatest and most devastating problem on earth which is Global Warming. Through time travel, maybe we can stop the formation of nuclear bombs and other establishments that have cause great emissions of carbon dioxide.
Until now, it is really hard to accept that there is indeed a great possibility of the existence of time travel because I was only expecting that travelling through time only exist in sci-fi movies and novels. Being aware of this possibility gives me the feeling of excitement because I can’t imagine myself talking to myself but a lot older or a lot younger but still it is only an idea for now so let us reserve our hopes and dreams for our time travel in the coming future.
1. Socrates
Socrates (Greek: Σωκράτης, soˈkraːtɛːs, Sōkrátēs; c. 469 BC–399 BC, in English pronounced /ˈsɒkrətiːz/) was a Classical Greek philosopher. Credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, he is an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of later classical writers, especially the writings of his students Plato and Xenophon, and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes. Many would claim that Plato’s dialogues are the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
2. Plato
Plato (pronounced /ˈpleɪtoʊ/, Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn, “broad; 428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Plato was originally a student of Socrates, and was as much influenced by his thinking as by his apparently unjust execution.
Plato’s sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him. Plato’s writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato’s texts.
Plato’s dialogues have been used to teach a range of subjects, including philosophy, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, and other subjects he wrote about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
3. Aristotle
Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato’s teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. Aristotle’s writings constitute a first at creating a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
4. Thomas Acquinas
Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P. (also Thomas of Aquin or Aquino; ca. 1225 – 7 March 1274) was an Italian priest of the Catholic Church in the Dominican Order, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism, known as Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor) and Doctor Communis or Doctor Universalis (the Common or Universal Doctor).[1] He is frequently referred to as Thomas because “Aquinas” refers to his residence rather than his surname. He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of the Thomistic school of philosophy and theology. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived as a reaction against, or as an agreement with, his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law and political theory.
Aquinas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood.[2] The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. One of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered the Church’s greatest theologian and philosopher. Pope Benedict XV declared: “The Church has declared Thomas’ doctrine to be her own.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Acquinas
5. René Descartes
René Descartes (French pronunciation: [ʁəne dekaʁt]; 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650;) (Latinized form: Renatus Cartesius; adjectival form: “Cartesian”),[2] was a French philosopher, mathematician, physicist, and writer who spent most of his adult life in the Dutch Republic. He has been dubbed the “Father of Modern Philosophy”, and much of subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings, which continue to be studied closely to this day. In particular, his Meditations on First Philosophy continues to be a standard text at most university philosophy departments. Descartes’ influence in mathematics is also apparent; the Cartesian coordinate system—allowing geometric shapes to be expressed in algebraic equations—was named after him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes
6. Paul Ricœur
Paul Ricœur (27 February 1913 in Valence, Drôme – 20 May 2005 in Chatenay Malabry, France) was a French philosopher best known for combining phenomenological description with hermeneutic interpretation. As such, he is connected to two other major hermeneutic phenomenologists, Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer.
Ricœur was born in a devout Protestant family, making him a member of a religious minority in Catholic France.
Ricœur’s father died in a 1915 World War I battle when Ricœur was only two years old. He was raised by his paternal grandparents and an aunt in Rennes, France, with a small stipend afforded to him as a war orphan. Ricœur, whose penchant for study was fueled by his family’s Protestant emphasis on Bible study, was bookish and intellectually precocious. Ricœur received his licence in 1933 from the University of Rennes and began studying philosophy at the Sorbonne in 1934, where he was influenced by Gabriel Marcel. In 1935, he was awarded the second-highest agrégation mark in the nation for philosophy, presaging a bright future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ricœur
7. John Paul Sartre
Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (French pronunciation: [saʁtʁ], English: /ˈsɑrt/; 21 June 1905 – 15 April 1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. He was one of the leading figures in 20th century French philosophy, existentialism, and Marxism, and his work continues to influence fields such as Marxist philosophy, sociology, and literary studies. Sartre was also noted for his long relationship with the author and social theorist, Simone de Beauvoir. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature but refused the honour.
Jean-Paul Sartre was born in Paris as the only child of Jean-Baptiste Sartre, an officer of the French Navy, and Anne-Marie Schweitzer. His mother was of Alsatian origin and the first cousin of Nobel Prize laureate Albert Schweitzer. (Her father, Charles Schweitzer, was the older brother of Albert Schweitzer’s father, Louis Théophile.)[2] When Sartre was 15 months old, his father died of a fever. Anne-Marie moved back to her parents’ house in Meudon, where Sartre was raised with help from her father, a high school professor of German, who taught Sartre mathematics and introduced him to classical literature at a very early age. At twelve his mother remarried and the family moved to La Rochelle, where he was frequently bullied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
8. Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) (German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈniːtsʃə]; in English UK: /ˈniːtʃə/, US: /ˈniːtʃi/[1]) was a 19th-century German philosopher and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy and science, using a distinctive rhetorical and evocative style, displaying a fondness for metaphor, irony and aphorism.
Nietzsche’s influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and postmodernism. His style and radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth have resulted in much commentary and interpretation, mostly in the continental tradition. His key ideas include the death of God, perspectivism, the Übermensch, the eternal recurrence, and the will to power.
Their Works
By: Mark Anthony A. Cabanlit
1. Socrates
“Unexamined life is not worth living”
If a person is not open for others to question his or her thoughts and action, or lives in denial of the motivations that prompt his or her thoughts and action, then it is a waste of his or her life. Such a life is a superficial act, revealing nothing new, nothing unique. Such a life is not “real.”
As an addition to the above response, a very good point at that, let us also point out that Socrates’ careful choice of words give much color to this quote. “Examined” has many definitions, including: To observe or inspect carefully or critically; To study or analyse; To check the health or condition of something or someone; To inquire into; et cetera. We could imagine that Socrates would insist that asking other people what the quote means goes against its very nature; it’s best to take your own meaning from it. Since this is an answer site, Socrates also suggests that, in addition to the above response, the “unexamined life” refers to a life whose purpose has never been questioned; a life that has never been analyzed, inquired into or inspected; a life that has not been appreciated beyond face value. By suggesting this, Socrates gives praise to questions such as, “Is there more to reality than that which we can see and touch?;” “Am I living my life according to my own rules, or the rules set for me by others?;”
Finally, the quote may suggest Socrates’ belief that a human who does not examine (in every sense of the term) their own life, nature, reality, relationships, motivations, and thoughts, is wasting the experience, therefore such a life is not worth living.
2. Plato
“Déjà vu Phenomena and Anamnesis”
Anamnesis
The word anamnesis is commonly translated as “recollection.” Anamnesis is a noun derived from the verb anamimneskein, which means “to be reminded.” According to Plato, what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form.
Plato argues for the theory of recollection in two dialogues—the Meno, and the Phaedo—and mentions it in one other—the Phaedrus. His basic strategy of argument is that human beings know certain things, or possess certain concepts, which could not have been gotten from sense experience. Plato’s explanation is that the human soul knew these things before it was born, so that learning these things is really just a matter of remembering them.
It is important to see that anamnesis is not meant to explain all learning. The Greek word translated “learning,” manthanein, (from which the English ‘mathematics’ is derived) does not pertain to information acquired through the senses, or knowledge of skills. So, for example, ananmnesis is not meant to explain the acquisition of skills such as being able to play the guitar, or with simple factual information such as the dates of the battle of Marathon. The claim that learning is anamnesis appears to be restricted to a priori knowledge, that is knowledge which does not depend on experience for its justification.
All of this ties in with Plato’s anemnesis.’ This is an philosophical paradox of sorts. Here’s the gist: If you know something, you will not search for it, but if you do not know something, how will you recognize it when you see it? The root of this problem involves the matter of learning, and Plato’s position that because this seems to be the case, we must have a priori knowledge, that is; all learning is actually relearning, or recalling. Plato might have described Dj vu’s as episodes in which we are for some reason exposed directly to that source of prior knowledge
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anamnesis
3. Aristotle
“Golden Mean”
In philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice.
To the Greek mentality, it was an attribute of beauty. Both ancients and moderns realized that “there is a close association in mathematics between beauty and truth”. The poet John Keats, in his Ode on a Grecian Urn, put it this way:
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” — that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
The Greeks believed there to be three ‘ingredients’ to beauty: symmetry, proportion, and harmony. This triad of principles infused their life. They were very much attuned to beauty as an object of love and something that was to be imitated and reproduced in their lives, architecture, Paideia and politics. They judged life by this mentality.
In Chinese philosophy, a similar concept, Doctrine of the Mean, was propounded by Confucius; Buddhist philosophy also includes the concept of the middle way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)
4. Thomas Acquainas
So his best known work, the Summa theologiae, is often cited by philosophers when Thomas’s position on this or that issue is sought. How can a theological work provide grist for philosophical mills? How did Thomas distinguish between philosophy and theology?
Sometimes Thomas puts the difference this way: “… the believer and the philosopher consider creatures differently. The philosopher considers what belongs to their proper natures, while the believer considers only what is true of creatures insofar as they are related to God, for example, that they are created by God and are subject to him, and the like.” (Summa contra gentiles, bk II, chap. 4) Since the philosopher too, according to Thomas, considers things as they relate to God, this statement does not put the difference in a formal light.
The first and major formal difference between philosophy and theology is found in their principles, that is, starting points. The presuppositions of the philosopher, that to which his discussions and arguments are ultimately driven back, are in the public domain. They are things that everyone can know upon reflection; they are where disagreement between us must come to an end. These principles are not themselves the products of proof—which does not of course mean that they are immune to rational analysis and inquiry—and thus they are said to be known by themselves (per se, as opposed to per alia). This is proportionately true of each of the sciences, where the most common principles just alluded to are in the background and the proper principles or starting points of the particular science function regionally as the common principles do across the whole terrain of thought and being.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
5. Rene Descartes
“Cogito Ergo Sum”
Cogito ergo sum (French: Je pense donc je suis; English: “I think, therefore I am”), often mistakenly stated as Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum (English: “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”),[1] is a philosophical statement in Latin used by René Descartes, which became a fundamental element of Western philosophy. The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an “I” who is doing the thinking).[2]
Descartes’s original statement was “Je pense donc je suis,” from his Discourse on Method (1637). He wrote it in French, not in Latin, thereby reaching a wider audience in his country than that of scholars. He uses the Latin “Cogito ergo sum” in the later Principles of Philosophy (1644), Part 1, article 7: “Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.” (English: “This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whoever conducts his thoughts in order”.). At that time, the argument had become popularly known in the English speaking world as ‘the “Cogito Ergo Sum” argument’, which is usually shortened to “Cogito” when referring to the principle virtually everywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
6. Paul Ricœur
“Man is a Narrative Subject”
The constitutive features of a narrative form the basis for Ricoeur to hold that personal identity, itself constituted by an idem-identity and an ipse-identity, is a narrative identity. First, narratives draw together disparate and somehow discordant elements into the concordant unity of a plot that has a temporal span. Second, all the elements that a narrative unites are contingencies. All of them could have been different or even nonexistent. Nonetheless, as emplotted, these elements take on the guise of necessity or at least of likelihood. Taken by itself, an element of a story is of interest only if it is surprising. But when it is integrated into a plot it appears as a quasi-necessity. Third, narratives are made up not only of actions and events but also of characters or personages. Plots relate the mutual development of a story and a character or set of characters. Every character in a story of any complexity both acts and is acted upon. Finally, a narrative’s characters only rise to the status of persons—fictional or real—who can initiate action when one evaluates their doings and sufferings and imputes them to the persons as praiseworthy or otherwise. One evaluates how the person responds when confronted by another living being who is in some need that the person can address (OAA, 141-45).[21]
In sum, a narrative about human persons tells of both the connections that unify multiple actions over a span of time performed, in most cases, by a multiplicity of persons and the connections that link multiple viewpoints on and assessments of those actions. “The narrative constructs the identity of the character, what can be called his or her narrative identity, in constructing that of the story told. It is the identity of the story that makes the identity of the character” (OAA, 147-48).[22]
We make sense of our own personal identities in much the same way as we do of the identity of characters in stories. First, in the case of stories, we come to understand the characters by way of the plot that ties together what happens to them, the aims and projects they adopt, and what they actually do. Similarly I make sense of my own identity by telling myself a story about my own life. In neither case is the identity like that of a fixed structure or substance. These identities are mobile. “Narrative identity takes part in the story’s movement, in the dialectic between order and disorder.”[23] Until the story is finished, the identity of each character or person remains open to revision.
Second, each personage’s individual identity always intersects those of other personages in the narrative. This intersection can give rise to second-order stories, e.g., stories about families, that narrate the intertwining of multiple individual stories. Similarly, the story by which I constitute my own identity shows that my life is always linked to others, not always in the way I would prefer. Hence, other persons are always constituents in my identity and vice versa. Indeed, our individual identities are incorporable into a we-identity, as for example the identity we share as fellow citizens of the United States.
Third, every personage that figures in a story that is not a piece of science fiction does so as a full fledged bodily being, a being of a determinate sex and age as well as the native speaker of a particular language. Each comes from a particular place and is the inheritor of a particular heritage. So it is with us. However cosmopolitan a person may become, he or she has a distinctive heritage that always matters.
Finally, all narratives have ethical dimensions. As narratives that contain promises clearly exemplify, narratives present characters in such a way that evaluations of what they do or suffer are ingredient in the very meaning of these events. But narratives also call for us to evaluate their characters as such. They especially prod us to evaluate their ethical probity by considering their talents and their use of them.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/
7. John Paul Sartre
“Life is what you make it”
Though critical of its bourgeois variety, Sartre does support an existentialist humanism the motto of which could well be his remark that “you can always make something out of what you’ve been made into.” In fact, his entire career could be summarized in these words that carry an ethical as well as a critical message. The first part of his professional life focused on the freedom of the existential individual (you can always make something out of…); the second concentrated on the socioeconomic and historical conditions which limited and modified that freedom (what you’ve been made into), once freedom ceased to be merely the definition of “man” and included the possibility of genuine options in concrete situations. That phase corresponded to Sartre’s political commitment and active involvement in public debates, always in search of the exploitative “systems” such as capitalism, colonialism and racism at work in society and the oppressive practices of individuals who sustained them. As he grew more cognizant of the social dimension of individual life, the political and the ethical tended to coalesce. In fact, he explicitly rejected “Machiavellianism.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/#6
8. Friedrich Nietzsche
“God is DEAD”
“God is dead” never meant that Nietzsche believed in an actual God who first existed and then died in a literal sense. It may be more appropriate to consider the statement as Nietzsche’s way of saying that the “God” of the times (religion and other such spirituality) is no longer a viable source of any received wisdom. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.”[1] This is why in “The Madman”, a work which primarily addresses atheists, the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.
The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the “will to power” that he described as “the essence of reality.”
Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He may have seen himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra, Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical orientation to future generations to overcome the impending nihilism.
Kung may Teen Clash of 2010 ang PBB, may Office Classh din ang CMSC (ComSci). Oh di ba!!
In your own opinion, aling office suite ang pinaka-”THE BEST”?
a. Microsoft Office
b. Open Office
Sa unang kita ko ng computer which was noong Grade 4 ako,at sa pagkamulat ng aking isipan na pwede pa lang bumili at magmay-ari ng isang computer which was noong Grade 6, Microsoft Office lang talaga ang ginamit ko when typing documents and preparing presentations. By the way, Grade 6 ko lang talaga nalaman na pwede pa lang magkaroon ng computer sa bahay kasi akala ko na sa paaralan at mga business establishments lang iyan makikita. Nalaman ko na pwede pa lang bumili ng isa dahil nagulat talaga ako na mayroon ng computer ang aming kapitbahay, aba akalain mo at na-”outshine” ako. Pero back to the CLASH, solid Microsoft Office user talaga ako, hanggang sa pumunta ako internet cafe noong first year high school ako at sinabihan ko yung in-charge na “Ate! asa ko pwede musuwat sa computer?(chars..suwatan lageh ang computer)” and mabuti at hindi naman “PHILOSOPHY” iyong in-charge sa internet cafe kaya sinabihan lang niya ako ng “Abliha lang ng Opin Opis dong adto sa start nga button!(overss..mu-knock-knock pa teh? ablihan man kaha?)”. And there it is, ang akung first encounter sa Open Office , isn’t it remarkable?
Well, based on our Lab Activity which was to use Open Office Impress which is the counterpart of Microsoft Office PowerPoint, I can say that I really did had a hard time designing and adjusting sizes of text boxes and some other stuff. Well, lets face the fact that it was my first time using Open Office Impress but lets put into the situation that it would also be my first time using PowerPoint, I still do believe that PowerPoint is would be more user friendly because it is easy to explore and has nice design and it has a greater feel of technological innovation.
On the second activity which was to use Open Office Calc, well it was a lot the same with Microsoft Office Excel as based on its “looks” well I don’t actually know how to compare these two because for me they’re just the same. But while I was exploring Impress i was really impressed when i pressed the butoon “fx” or function then a dialog blox opened and it has greater ease on choosing functions rather than Microsoft Office. Indeed I am a little bit amazed with Impress rather than Excel.
At sa ngayon, may One point each na ang dalawang office suites. Saan nga ba talaga ako kakampi? sa Open Office na bago ko pa lang nakita o sa Microsoft Office na aking minahal noon at magpakailanman(bias!!)
Ikaw? choose na!! NOW na!!! but honestly, huwag na nga lang nating ikumpara ang dalawa kung pwede namang i-combine gaya ng Voltes V na video ni Sir Chito.
BONGGA!!
Kung may sagot na kayo sa aking unang tanong, ay tatanungin ko kayo ulit gaya sa bagong portion sa NNNN ang “Instant Tanong, Instant Sagot, LAGOT!!”. So the question goes like this:
Kung sakaling mag-merge and dalawang office suites, ano ang karapat dapat na pangalan sa bagong program?
A. OpenSoft Office
B. MicroOpen Office
C. Ayaw na lang i-merge kay hasul na!
D. All of the below.(para something new na phud ba kay kapoy kaayo ang “all of the above” kay muhangad pa ta! duhr)
Just type Office <space> letter of your answer and send it gamit ang telegrama sa panahon pa sa lola sa imung lolo nga si Tinong’s nga tiyo ni Julie’s nga mama ni French Baker. Tan-awun natu kung maka-reply ba ka! Overs!
“Thank you, I’ve completely solved the problem”, Albert Einstein told Michele Besso. It’s a simple act of gratitude for a complex theory that he had made.
It all started when Einstein realized the building conflict between the ideas of Newton and Maxwell. Newton’s concept of absolute space and time seems to contradict with Maxwell’s thought on the constancy of the speed of light, this situation lead to Einstein’s confusion, but indeed our great hero lose hope and felt that he was defeated. Well, as what people say “Try and try until you reach your goal!”, although Einstein was really weary because he thought that he have failed, his mind was still thinking of a possible answer to his greatest confusion. Alas! He did got an answer as he remembered riding in a streetcar in Bern and looking back at the famous clock tower that dominated the city, then he imagined what would happen if his streetcar raced away from the clock tower at the speed of light. He quickly realized that the clock would appear stopped, since light could not catch up to the streetcar, but his own clock in the streetcar would beat normally. He really did think of his very judicious answer incredibly because even I, who studied so hard can’t even think of that. Then he concluded that time can beat at different rates throughout the universe, depending on how fast you moved and thus he has arrived at the Theory of Relativity. He did publish his works on Annalen der Physik in September 1905 and it became a masterpiece forever.
Lots of generalizations and lessons can be found from Albert Einstein’s experiences, such being a non-quitter because we shall believe on the fact that nothing is impossible if we just believe in ourselves. I’ve realized that I have something in common with Einstein and it was when he was still thinking of a possible solution to his problem although he already thought that he have failed. Well, for me, it’s not really that serious though, every time I do something wrong, my heart would never stop beating fast even though I have already solved my wrong act. I have that feeling that I shall do something really great that can benefit the people that I have disturbed so that I can be calm and peaceful again. I also like the way he finish his works. Once Einstein starts his work, he must do it with speed and precision thus he finishes his researches on a small amount of time, unlike me. I always have a lot of disturbances when making my assignments and tasks in school, such disturbances are the social networking site called Facebook, online games and different blogging sites such as Tumblr and WordPress. I hope that someday, I can learn to manage the number of hours I spend in just surfing the net because this simple act of irresponsibility might damage my future and my performance in school.
All in all, Einstein’s innovation in the world will never fade and will remain in our hearts and in our textbooks in Physics and maybe in other Science books. Reading articles about Albert Einstein greatly helps me to be Einstein-like and be molded as a better citizen in the society because Einstein is my inspiration for me to change the world.
When I was still in high school my section was “Einstein”, although I always write “IV-Einstein” on my little piece of intermediate paper during tests and seat works, I really never did understand who Albert Einstein was. All I knew was that he always had a bad hair day and that he contributed lots of things in physics that makes lessons and classes harder from day to day besides the fact that I had a bad teacher when I took up Physics that’s why my Advanced Physics teacher is always mad at our class because we haven’t mastered the basic principles of physics. Well, all these things that I’ve said were just from the days when I really was so silly at school.
Albert Einstein, the man who changed the world’s perception in this endless universe we live in. This genius really impressed me with his annus mirabilis or the miracle year during 1905 when he did a lot of phenomenal things that changed the world until the twentieth century. I cannot think of any other person rather than Albert Einstein who can disprove a famous scientist, make the quantum theory of light, publish two papers that are highly accredited for its great help in the world, and has introduced Special Relativity all in just one year. Only a certified genius can do such extraordinary things and I am a hundred and one percent sure that Einstein is one breed of a genius.
Yet he didn’t stop there, which made me adore him more. No one will ever argue that he is the genius among the geniuses if they will know that he did some works on the thorough discovery of the relationship of gravity and acceleration, he made the Theory of Relativity, and the Modern Quantum theory. Inquisitive children will also adore him because he gave us the answer to one of the greatest “why question” in the world which is “Why is the sky blue?” which is basically because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light which was from Einstein’s paper called Critical Opalescence.
One of the greatest things that I will never forget in my whole life is the equation that Einstein formulated which is “E=mc²” not because it’s the name of Mariah Carey’s album but because I can see it everywhere from my secondary school logo to the vandals on the wall to the notebooks of my older friends, but I don’t really know what this is because I haven’t attend lessons where I will be given the chance to know and learn but I do agree that this one of Albert Einstein’s greatest contribution to the world of Physics. The equation means that small amounts of mass could be converted into huge amounts of energy as based from my readings on the internet. This became the basis of nuclear energy.
Einstein did change our lives and our understanding of the world we live in, up from the Universe down to the minute details of our world. And indeed Albert Einstein is the genius among geniuses next to God, our Creator. Einstein is the greatest thing that ever happened to the history of Science and I hope one day someone can exceed the works of Albert Einstein and I hope that this person will come from our generation and our time.
I have read an article about Albert Einstein in Time Magazine and it was entitled “Einstein’s Feet”. Basically, I would think directly that maybe the article would generally talk about Einstein’s Feet and not on his innovations in the society but I was partially wrong for it was all about how he scientifically solved his foot ache. In order to solve his problem, he contacted a shoemaker named Peter Hulit and Einstein showed him two sketches of shoes, showing the pattern of foot pressure. The first one was labeled “BAD” which shows that the pressure was concentrated on the outside of his foot and on his big toe while the other one was labeled “GOOD” on which the pressure is evenly distributed on the whole foot and is ideal based on Einstein’s inquisitive mind. The shoemaker just gave Einstein a black dress shoes that were bigger and comfortable. Well enough with his shoes, but given the chance to be Albert Einstein, bothering my self by solving my shoe problem through the scientific way would never be a choice because I know that I can just ask the shoemaker to give me shoes that fit me.
If we look closer to Einstein’s life, I would exactly agree with most of the things that he did, well, who wouldn’t. Like Einstein, I would never give up even though the whole world would be against me. Einstein has a lot of courage, strength and ability to still stand up and be proud of what he did even if everyone in authority seems to put him down. If I were in his shoes during the time when Joseph Degenhart told him that it was best for Einstein to leave, I would surely surrender and give up my dreams and just look for another job that will help me earn lots and lots of dollars.
I applaud him for staying true to his thoughts because not everybody will do the same. Even though he had experienced a lot of misfortune especially on his job and studies, he still did try although he fails again. Einstein might quite seem so intelligent; it was so amazing to know that he was such a joker and was a confident man, as stated on the text.
There was another great thing that he had which not most men have and it was his wife who stayed beside him especially in times of his mishaps. Some girls nowadays, seem to be hungry for money and fame but luckily Einstein’s wife was really supportive of his genius husband. Einstein must really be a great man to have such a loyal wife to stay with him on his ups and downs.
Being Albert Einstein maybe as hard as passing your Final Examination without even attending a single class but I would surely want to be like him. If I were to live Einstein’s life, I can survive a day specially when it’s his day off from his job, but a week would be a lot of brain squeezing for me, a month would feel like horror and I am sure that I will never survive a year because only Albert Einstein is the genius among all geniuses Even though I want to be like him, I’ll just make the little genius out of me.
