"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 16,523

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Full Story

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11506 Jul 22, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Which standard model in particle Physics?
Among physicists, there *is* a 'Standard Model' that is pretty well described. It is a quantum field theory with three generations of fermions and four forces with associated bosonic particles. It also has a Higg's mechanism for generating mass.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11507 Jul 22, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
Oh I see your own personal delusion. Tell me are you game to run your "equations" with numbers, lets see you put your money where your mouth is?
I have already been running numbers and the gravity model works fine without any magical dark energy or dark matter patches. It works to model gravity in the universe.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11508 Jul 22, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
mass, distance, and time are real qualities of the universe. Its trivial to say that when you decide to call an arbitrarily chosen quantity of mass "1", then twice that mass will be "2". The masses are still real, independent of our measurement conventions.

The acceleration is the SAME, whether we express it in m/s/s or feet/minute/minute, or spaghetti lengths/per sputnik orbital period per sputnik orbital period. Of course NUMBER changes, but the acceleration the number represents does not.
Of course from the philosophical stand point the acceleration is the same. You still are unable to put any absolute value for that acceleration for the two reasons:
1. you are only able to make relative measurements
2. you will never be able to relatively measure anything with absolute accuracy, there will always be some error and differences in measurements

Do you now understand that whenever you want to measure/calculate the mass of something you will always have to do it relative to some chosen fixed measure?
Chimney1 wrote:
No, not circular. Because G is an expression of REAL qualities in the universe:

distance * distance * distance / mass / time / time.

These are real, and their relationship is real, and you cannot complete the definition of gravity as a force affecting particular MASSES at a particular DISTANCE without a discovered measure of this quantity. You can use any units you like, and, trivially, the NUMBER will change but the underlying field strength does not.
You are not getting it. Here's what you have:
- your gravity equation does not work without G
- you need to calculate G
- you calculate G from the gravity equation that requires G

That is as circular as it can get. Perfect circle.
Chimney1 wrote:
That is WHY you cannot derive actual MASS from your equations, only "relative mass". Your equations lack any expression of the actual mass tied to fundamentals.
You can calculate Earth's mass relative to 1 kg within my model and then you will get Earth's mass in kilograms. Then you can sort out all the masses of other celestial objects using those premises.

In that case masses will have been expressed exactly as in the current models. The calculated mass values are just different in the new model.
Chimney1 wrote:
Hypothetical? Drop a pen, right now. There is a non-hypothetical force accelerating that pen towards the floor. A force field of non-hypothetical masses at a non-hypothetical distance. Not arbitrary, not virtual, not hypothetical: real, observable, physical qualities. mass, distance, time.
The fact that the pen accelerates is absolute. What causes the pen to accelerate and how the pen actually accelerates is unknown, only falsifiable models exist to mathematically approximate how the pen falls.

Do you understand this? Do you understand that we don't know HOW the pen exactly falls?
Chimney1 wrote:
Acceleration, force, momentum, power, are all relationships based on mass, distance, time. G is a particular discovered quantity of this universe, telling us how much gravity force a mass will exert on another at a given distance.

Your equation does not replace it. All your equation achieves is to tell us proportional mass without absolute mass...utterly trivial, and already possible from Newton's original work.
Once more, you can never know the absolute mass of anything. The new model can give you the mass of the planets in kilograms within the model if it is required. Apparently you haven't really understood the new equation. Fundamentally the basics of the new equation are no different than the old equation's. The new equation just forms a different curve and manages to model gravity in the whole universe better.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11509 Jul 22, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
the average distance between the earth and the sun is not "relative", its a real quality of the universe. Its a real distance.
The unit we choose to measure it with are arbitrary.
You still cannot see the difference.
You're still refusing to understand what I am saying to you. Philosophically the distance from Earth to the Sun is absolute.

HOWEVER, science can never find out what that absolute is. Science can only produce an falsifiable model to approximate what that distance might be relative to some chosen fixed measure. It is even possible that the current science has calculated wrong the relative distance from Earth to the Sun.

What you have in science is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT MASS IS, we can only mathematically approximate it through falsifiable models that use relative masses.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11510 Jul 22, 2012
"Philosophically the distance from Earth to the Sun is absolute."

This requires the additional rule of "at any given time" because the distance is varying.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11511 Jul 22, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
G, c, and h are universal constants.
Wrong. The universe does not require your constants. Only your falsifiable model does.
And the whole dark matter and dark energy fiasco has already falsified your model a long time ago.

You've just grown attached to your model and are unable to let go of it, so it is the universe that must change instead of the model.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11512 Jul 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Only in the trivial sense that you cannot measure length unless you have a standard against which to measure. We define the length of one meter also. That does not mean that all lengths are relative in this sense. We define the unit of time also. But that does not mean it is a relative thing to say something lasts 30 seconds. The same thing happens with mass. We have a standard that we have chosen so we can get numbers out. But that doesn't change the fact that mass is a property of the object and not a property of our choice of standard.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
All measurements have error bars, of course. But except for those, we *can* know how much mass something has by a variety of means. For example, while a scale will give different weights on the earth and the moon, a balance will not give different masses.
Again you use the words 'just falsifiable' as if that weren't the *best* we can expect from a scientific theory. A theory that is falsifiable and has not been falsified is the gold standard. A theory, like Newton's, that has been falsified in some cases, but works well in many cases, is still a good theory.
Everything in science is relative. There are no absolutes in science.

The relativity can exposed in one simple question:
What is the fundamental definition of one meter?

Would you like to throw in a circular explanation that one meter is 100 cm?:D

Absolute definitions in science do not exist.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11513 Jul 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
It has been tested and is wrong. It predicts all planets have essentially the same mass, which is wrong. It fails miserably compared to Newton's laws.
Yes, the masses are the same within the new gravity model. It falsifies nothing. It is just a mathematical model.

Why are you so emotionally attached to some specific numbers? Don't you know how a model needs to be falsified? You not liking the values used within the model does not really falsify the model.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11514 Jul 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is what a system of units provides.
<quoted text>
Yes, but the actual acceleration doesn't. That's the difference. If you want to use 'natural units', just choose units where G=h=c=k=1. This is done. In that case, the standard of length is the Planck length, the standard of time is the Planck time, and the standard of mass is the Planck mass. In that case, Cavendish's experiment can be interpreted as determining the Planck mass.
The problem with your gravity model(s) is that they don't work at the Planck scale :)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11515 Jul 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
What does it mean to have a 'full understanding' of the standard model? Does it require knowing all the consequences of that model in all situations? If so,*nobody* has a full understanding of *any* model, including Newton's. For that matter, nobody has a 'full understanding' of arithmetic.
Is a 'full understanding' required to understand a model? No, clearly not. What is required is a basic understanding of the concepts of the model and how it is used to compute observables. It is also good to know the tricks and pitfalls in the model and how it is used.
Finally, is a 'full understaning' of a model required to not be considered taking the model on faith? Again, clearly not.
So your question is a trick question that avoids the way understanding actually works in practice.
If someone does not fully understand something, why in the world that someone would then go proclaiming that something and even claim to have have full understanding?

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#11516 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything in science is relative. There are no absolutes in science.
The relativity can exposed in one simple question:
What is the fundamental definition of one meter?
Would you like to throw in a circular explanation that one meter is 100 cm?:D
Absolute definitions in science do not exist.
All measure in distance and time are based on the speed of light in a vacuum now.
Which is a universal constant , which makes a meter the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. This is a universal constant and absolute unchanging figure.

As for time the newest Quantum logic clocks have tick rates between two of them that the error between them extend 17 decimal places , and are accurate within 1 second in 4 billion years.

You you fail in you allegorical assumption that absolute definitions in science do not exist. Because they in fact do.
That makes relative time pretty absolute and a physical constant.

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#11517 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone does not fully understand something, why in the world that someone would then go proclaiming that something and even claim to have have full understanding?

Yes exactly so.... why do you?

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#11518 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like to make an actual argument to go with that?
As such that question is just nonsense.
Watt balance is an instrument used to accurately measure mass.
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Mass is a virtual concept in any of our falsifiable models. We can not know what mass is, we can only approximately model some hypothetical structures of masses and their behavior.
Do you understand that if you want to measure any property of some mass, you will have to perform that measurement relative to some chosen fixed measure? Measurements are always relative.
We have units to mesure real things. Units are arbitrarily chosen.
For example meter is a unit of length. There is actually a "International Prototype Meter" kept in International Bureau of Weights and Measures - the same place where the International Prototype Kilogram is also kept.
So length can also be viewed as something relative to IPM - therefore length is a virtual concept by your logic?
Standard meter has been since been redfined in terms of another measure - the speed of light in vacuum - "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1&#8260;299,792,458 of a second" is now the standard meter.

Tell me HB, is length a virtual concept?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#11519 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your gravity model(s) is that they don't work at the Planck scale :)
The problem with your moddel is it doesn't work at any scale.

You would be a fool to waste your energy using relativistic mechanics to design your next whirligig when Newtonian mechanics will perfectly suffice. Besides, said whirligig wouldn't work any way cause you'll square where you should have rooted or denominate a numerator and decide your failure was using meters and centimeters when you should have used cubits and furlongs.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#11520 Jul 22, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Until a few days ago, you were insisting that mass was purely relative, and that 1 kg of mass on earth was only 0.16 kg of mass on the moon. Showing you did not understand the difference between mass and weight.
That is his MO. He starts out saying something utterly absurd, but as he gains understanding, he will make subtle changes in his arguments, and after a number of posts, he will say something totally different from what he started with, claiming that that was what he was always saying.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#11521 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that the equation I have given also predicts that all the satellites will neatly orbit the Earth. So there is no distinction there between the competing gravity models.
In essence all you have is a straw man.
<quoted text>
An mathematical model that can be used to model universal gravity without any added magical components such as unobservable dark matter, dark energy etc..
What are you waiting for?
Why don't you publish this and get your Nobel prize?
May be you have a small problem that your model doesn't reflect reality?

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#11522 Jul 22, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is his MO. He starts out saying something utterly absurd, but as he gains understanding, he will make subtle changes in his arguments, and after a number of posts, he will say something totally different from what he started with, claiming that that was what he was always saying.
Yeah he doesn't stop with just shifting goalposts , he switch's the
countries the stadiums in ...the game and the goalposts.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#11523 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The universe does not require your constants. Only your falsifiable model does.
And the whole dark matter and dark energy fiasco has already falsified your model a long time ago.
You've just grown attached to your model and are unable to let go of it, so it is the universe that must change instead of the model.
The universe doesn't require squat from you nor me.

Nevertheless, those immutable constants work just fine, but if you want to throw a pile of manure in the Cuisinart set to emulsify in order to come up with a better model of the universe, have at it.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11524 Jul 22, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
All measure in distance and time are based on the speed of light in a vacuum now.
Which is a universal constant , which makes a meter the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. This is a universal constant and absolute unchanging figure.
You fail to understand that all the constants you are using are confined within the scientific models which are falsifiable. If a model is falsified so are the constants defined within it.

It is possible that the speed of light is not constant but instead dependent on the pull or "resistance" of the gravity field in travels through. This would mean for example that light would travel faster from Earth to the Sun than it does vice versa.
Aura Mytha wrote:
As for time the newest Quantum logic clocks have tick rates between two of them that the error between them extend 17 decimal places , and are accurate within 1 second in 4 billion years.
You you fail in you allegorical assumption that absolute definitions in science do not exist. Because they in fact do.
That makes relative time pretty absolute and a physical constant.
Let's see. Atomic / quantum clocks tick slower at faster speeds and hypothetically also in strong gravitational fields. In essence all these clocks in the universe are running at different rates because of different velocities and gravitational effects.

So what's the constant part of all these clocks ticking at different rates?:D

I find it funny though that you oddly turned this around to say that the relativity that I talk about is absolute. That indeed it is, relativity is absolute to science and without it there is no science at all. So now you've just agreed with me. Good for you!:)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11525 Jul 22, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Yes exactly so.... why do you?
Yes, why do I what?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr emrenil 1,322
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr emrenil 564
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr marksman11 140,882
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr replaytime 149,063
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr Jaimie 176,785
Thereis no real truth in this world 8 hr The Dude 16
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 9 hr paul porter 1
More from around the web