"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

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

Comments
11,341 - 11,360 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11669
Jul 24, 2012
 
Chimney1 wrote:
Your whole argument is a straw man.
Mass is an absolute as in actual, as in a real, tangible, quality of the universe. Whether our previously chosen measure of mass - an actual, real, lump of mass, might in fact lose some mass over time or "decay" is a trivial irrelevancy and fixable by using a different definition such as the one currently under proposal.
All was explained above.
The philosophy of mass of course is that mass is absolutely real (whether the universe is simulated or not).

The fact still remains that in science there is no such thing as an absolute quantity which contents could be known. You can choose a fixed measure of 1kg and see how it feels in your hand relative to something else, perhaps two times 1kg.

There is no way for you to have a perfect absolute constant of 1kg that would always be the exact same. You have no measurable absolute constants in science. You can have hypothetical absolute constants though, but then you will never know if they're truly constants. They just feel constant to you.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11670
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so lets open this package you have here.
1. an observer can cause a relativistic doppler effect by trying to move relative to light
2. that observer can never move relative to light and will always observe light move at c
3. oddly while not being able to move relative to light the observer manages to change the observed frequency of light
4. your explanation for the frequency change is the expansion of space-time itself
So are you saying that an accelerating observer can not observe the same effect by moving towards or away from the light source?
Nope I was wrong hypothetically.
But in truth we will only see a few light sources that can even possibly be headed toward us, everything else will be headed away no matter what direction we choose to take. Also with current limitation of velocity of any method ,virtually everything will have the same phase shift.

The difference here is theoretical vs reality , to make a 1% change in frequency shift I would have to travel 2,000 miles per second. The fastest speed even possibly obtainable ?
About 200,000 miles per hour using ion engines or 55 mps.

That was my point that is we will never see any other effect.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Level 1

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11671
Jul 24, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
You can biuld a pair these 10GHz transcievers for pretty cheap and hear the phase shift just walking around with them. In fact, one end doesn't even need to have a moduclator or demodulator and the other doesn't need a modulator. Of course that takes all the fun out of communicating.
http://www.kwarc.org/10ghz/10GHZ-4.htm
In a nutshell, the oscillators are tuned 30MHz apart and the demoduator is a 30MHz IF and phase shift detector.
Hmmm,'phase shift detector'. That's probably one of the myriad things Humbro doesn't get.
I'm not sure you do either.

How did we get from frequency red-shift to phase shifting. Phase shift keying is one of the tricks we used back in the late '70s to increase BPS over 900 baud copper wires, but has nothing to do with red-shift. Red-shift is the elongation of oscillation frequency.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11672
Jul 24, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
The difference here is theoretical vs reality , to make a 1% change in frequency shift I would have to travel 2,000 miles per second. The fastest speed even possibly obtainable ?
About 200,000 miles per hour using ion engines or 55 mps.
That was my point that is we will never see any other effect.
Yes now it indeed is quite difficult to produce the speeds required for proper testing.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11673
Jul 24, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure you do either.
How did we get from frequency red-shift to phase shifting. Phase shift keying is one of the tricks we used back in the late '70s to increase BPS over 900 baud copper wires, but has nothing to do with red-shift. Red-shift is the elongation of oscillation frequency.
No, phase shift in the scenario described is entirely consistent with the Doppler effect. When you are talking about radio frequency radiation with wavelengths measured in cm or more, one of the ways that the Doppler effect will be manifested is indeed through a phase shift, observable with the proper equipment. Remember in the scenario given we are talking about very small relative velocities (walking pace) so that any "compression" or "expansion" of the wavelength will be only in the order of a relatively small percentage of one wavelength, ie a phase shift.

The tricks applied to audio signals involving phase shift for modem operation are entirely different.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11674
Jul 24, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Ok , now how do observers in relative motion, see universal expansion? Say we are looking at stars
that are moving away from us due to expansion , what do we see?
There is a dipole effect if you are moving with respect to the background radiation. This, by the way, is actually seen because of the movement of our sun with respect to that radiation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11675
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Once more:
The equations have been created to model the change in the frequency. The equations themselves do not explain what is the actual cause for the change.
No, the equations were *not* created to model the change in frequency. They were created to model the constancy of the speed of light in all frames in uniform motion. They *concluded* the nature of the Doppler shift and that was verified by experiment.
What you are saying above is:
"This is how it is calculated, but the reason why the frequency changes and the calculation needs to be like this is unknown".
The transformation equations can be derived from the form of the Maxwell equations for the propagation of light.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11676
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Change from one reference frame to other? Light does not have and can not have a reference frame. The observer's reference frame is always the same.
The change from the emitters frame to the observers frame. The observer only sees one frequency, but it differs from that seen by the emitter.
Everything happens in the observer's reference frame. The observer always sees light moving at the constant speed c. Now supposedly when the observer moves "relative to" this light, he actually can not move relative to the light but somehow manages to change the frequency of that light. There is absolutely no sound logic in the relativistic doppler effect of light.
This is wrong at every stage. There are two frames relevant: that of the emitter and that of the observer. The Doppler effect is that these are different and depend on the relative motion of the emitter and observer. it isn't the motion 'relative to the light' that is relevant. it is the difference of frequencies between the emitter and the observer.
I did go through the wiki presentation of the relativistic doppler effect. It presents no explanation for why there is a change in frequency, it just states that there is without no explanation what is the logical cause for it. The presentation has very nice graphical illustrations to depict the math and I can see that it is easy for people to just swallow it blindly without asking any questions.
The effect is due to a difference in the number of crests of the wave passed in a given period of time because of relative motion of the observer and the emitter and because of time dilation. Both effects are relevant. The Doppler effect shows up when comparing the frequency as measured by two observers.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11677
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the only way in your model you can calculate it, and you can not explain why you need to calculate it so and what causes the frequency to change.
You need to do the calculations because each observer needs to determine the frequency in their own reference frame. The same would be true if we were discussing energy, momentum, or any other physical quantity. That's what the Lorenz transformations are for: to change from one reference frame to another. In this case, we change from the reference frame of the emitter to that of the observer. The Doppler effect is the fact that the frequencies are different in the two frames.

You seem to be stuck with a reference frame for the light itself, which does not exist. Light has a frequency in each reference frame, but a different frequency in each frame. Same light wave, different observers.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11678
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
No, the equations were *not* created to model the change in frequency. They were created to model the constancy of the speed of light in all frames in uniform motion. They *concluded* the nature of the Doppler shift and that was verified by experiment.
<quoted text>
The transformation equations can be derived from the form of the Maxwell equations for the propagation of light.
It does not matter where you can derive your equations. The forced uniform motion of light in all frames kills off the conventional reason for frequency change in the doppler effect.

You have absolutely no explanation for the frequency change, other than the fact that the relativistic model does not work without it.

Frequency changes are absolutely trivial and their causes are easy to explain with only a few words. In the regular doppler effect these words to explain are "change in relative speed causes a change in the rate of observed wavefronts".

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11679
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter where you can derive your equations. The forced uniform motion of light in all frames kills off the conventional reason for frequency change in the doppler effect.
You have absolutely no explanation for the frequency change, other than the fact that the relativistic model does not work without it.
Frequency changes are absolutely trivial and their causes are easy to explain with only a few words. In the regular doppler effect these words to explain are "change in relative speed causes a change in the rate of observed wavefronts".
What are you smoking? You need to get a better dealer quick smart.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11680
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter where you can derive your equations. The forced uniform motion of light in all frames kills off the conventional reason for frequency change in the doppler effect.
No, it does not. The fact that you think it does only shows you don't understand the usual Doppler effect either.
You have absolutely no explanation for the frequency change, other than the fact that the relativistic model does not work without it.
The way frequencies change from one reference frame to another *is* the explanation.
Frequency changes are absolutely trivial and their causes are easy to explain with only a few words. In the regular doppler effect these words to explain are "change in relative speed causes a change in the rate of observed wavefronts".
No, that is NOT the explanation of the usual Doppler effect.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11681
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
The change from the emitters frame to the observers frame. The observer only sees one frequency, but it differs from that seen by the emitter.
<quoted text>
This is wrong at every stage. There are two frames relevant: that of the emitter and that of the observer. The Doppler effect is that these are different and depend on the relative motion of the emitter and observer. it isn't the motion 'relative to the light' that is relevant. it is the difference of frequencies between the emitter and the observer.
That is what your model requires to work, otherwise it collapses. You have another myth and contradiction there. In your model supposedly light is separate from all reference frames and moves separately from them and identically for all observers. Now suddenly light is no longer separate from these reference frames but depends heavily on them.

Funnily the model requires:
1. light does not have reference frames and its speed is constant and same for all observers
2. light does have reference frames and its frequency depends on these reference frames
polymath257 wrote:
The effect is due to a difference in the number of crests of the wave passed in a given period of time because of relative motion of the observer and the emitter and because of time dilation.
This is the same explanation you gave earlier. The speed of light is constant for the all observers no matter how fast and to what direction they are moving. The observers can not escape light or move closer to it. Only light moves relative to the observers. Given this setup this is what the relativistic model predicts:
1. an observer accelerating away from light will observe constantly slower and slower time and still always observe that light to come closer at the speed of light
2. an observer accelerating towards light will observe constantly slower and slower time and still always observe that light to come closer at the speed of light

The time dilation effect dictates there that both observers should observe the exact same thing even though they are traveling to different directions.

The logical explanation for the natural requirement of the frequency change is absent.
polymath257 wrote:
Both effects are relevant. The Doppler effect shows up when comparing the frequency as measured by two observers.
The doppler effect also shows up by one observer moving towards and away from the light source. Only one observer is required, this one observer is always at rest in his own reference frame. This observer also always observes light move at the same speed according to the model.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11682
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
You need to do the calculations because each observer needs to determine the frequency in their own reference frame. The same would be true if we were discussing energy, momentum, or any other physical quantity. That's what the Lorenz transformations are for: to change from one reference frame to another. In this case, we change from the reference frame of the emitter to that of the observer. The Doppler effect is the fact that the frequencies are different in the two frames.
You seem to be stuck with a reference frame for the light itself, which does not exist. Light has a frequency in each reference frame, but a different frequency in each frame. Same light wave, different observers.
Actually you're the one forcing light now into reference frames. If light does not at all have reference frames then all will observe light having:
- the same speed
- the same frequency

Frequency is always tied to relative speed which is shown by the doppler effect. The constant speed of light is arrange in the relativistic model by modeling different rates of time for all observers moving at different speeds. This can only result in one sided relativistic doppler effect not the full effect.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11683
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what your model requires to work, otherwise it collapses. You have another myth and contradiction there. In your model supposedly light is separate from all reference frames and moves separately from them and identically for all observers. Now suddenly light is no longer separate from these reference frames but depends heavily on them.
There is no reference frame that moves at the speed of light with respect to any other reference frame. Light is NOT 'heavily dependent' on reference frames. What we measure to be the frequency and wavelength of the light *is* dependent on the reference frames.
Funnily the model requires:
1. light does not have reference frames and its speed is constant and same for all observers
2. light does have reference frames and its frequency depends on these reference frames
Both statements show your lack of understanding of the concept of a reference frame. For 1, light moves at the same speed in every reference frame and there is no reference frame that moves at the speed of light with respect to any other reference frame.

For 2, it is NOT the light that has reference frames. We simply measure things like the frequency, wavelength, energy, etc, of the light from some reference frame. Those measurements depend of the specific reference frame even for the same ray of light.
This is the same explanation you gave earlier. The speed of light is constant for the all observers no matter how fast and to what direction they are moving. The observers can not escape light or move closer to it. Only light moves relative to the observers. Given this setup this is what the relativistic model predicts:
1. an observer accelerating away from light will observe constantly slower and slower time and still always observe that light to come closer at the speed of light
2. an observer accelerating towards light will observe constantly slower and slower time and still always observe that light to come closer at the speed of light
The time dilation effect dictates there that both observers should observe the exact same thing even though they are traveling to different directions.
The logical explanation for the natural requirement of the frequency change is absent.
No, the relativistic explanation does NOT say that the two observers will observe the same thing. That is *your* misunderstanding of what relativistic physics says. In part, it is your meager understanding of how time dilation and length contraction work.
The doppler effect also shows up by one observer moving towards and away from the light source. Only one observer is required, this one observer is always at rest in his own reference frame. This observer also always observes light move at the same speed according to the model.
Yes, but the Doppler effect is the difference in frequency between that observed and that emitted at the source. There are *two* reference frames: that of the source and that of the observer. With only one frame, there is no Doppler effect, there is only light with a frequency in that frame.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11684
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you're the one forcing light now into reference frames. If light does not at all have reference frames then all will observe light having:
- the same speed
- the same frequency
Incorrect conclusion.
Frequency is always tied to relative speed which is shown by the doppler effect.
Wrong.
The constant speed of light is arrange in the relativistic model by modeling different rates of time for all observers moving at different speeds. This can only result in one sided relativistic doppler effect not the full effect.
Wrong.

At some point, you really should go and read a treatment of special relativity that goes beyond the basic, popular, gee-whiz accounts. You might just learn where you have gone wrong in your understanding. More likely, you will just brush it off and keep spouting more nonsense.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Macungie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11685
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
YES. Everything must be considered virtual. You could be a brain it a vat. You don't know HOW you exist. You only observe thoughts and it is even possible that they are not your own.
Everything in essence is VIRTUAL. We are not able to measure anything absolutely. What we have is fixed relative measures of all these virtual concepts.
Can you comprehend this?
You say you were talking about mass and length. If you think there is something absolute related to those concepts, please do explain to us all what is mass or what is length on an absolute fundamental level without resorting to relativity. What do you have?
Aha - now you resort to solipsism to cover up your blunder in claiming that mass on Earth is different from mass on moon.
Do you remember a question that I asked you months ago - I asked you whether you consider this universe to be real. Your answer was that it is real.
There are three basic assumptions about reality that we must make, without which logic cannot really exist:
1. Reality exists
2. Reality is capable of being understood.
3. Our perceptions of reality are correct

In other words, we must assume that we exist as we perceive ourselves to exist.

Do you have any objection to this?
If you disagree with any of these assumptions then we cannot use logic.

Your attempt at obfuscation is clearly apparent, and recognized as a feeble attempt to squirm out of the tight spot you are in.

So, assuming that reality as we perceive it exists, mass is an absolute property of matter which indicates the quantity of matter. The unit of mass is kilogram, which is defined as the international prototype of the kilogram (an artefact) kept in Paris.

On an absolute fundamental level mass is the quantity of matter. We could express it in terms of the number of subatomic particles, atoms or molecules present in an object. You can easily see how impractical that is; so we choose a unit that is more practical - we keep a cylinder made from a specific material with specific dimensions, and say that the mass of this artifact is the unit of mass.
Have you yet understood the difference between a property and the unit chosen to measure that property?

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Califon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11686
Jul 24, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The lump in Paris is also a victim of decay. In essence it is losing mass. So apparently your absolute is suffering from inflation.
Do you consider something that decays absolute?
Actually it gains weight due to absorption of atmospheric contamination on to the surface. This has been measured and they have procedures to clean it.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11687
Jul 24, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
No, the relativistic explanation does NOT say that the two observers will observe the same thing. That is *your* misunderstanding of what relativistic physics says. In part, it is your meager understanding of how time dilation and length contraction work.
<quoted text>
Yes, but the Doppler effect is the difference in frequency between that observed and that emitted at the source. There are *two* reference frames: that of the source and that of the observer. With only one frame, there is no Doppler effect, there is only light with a frequency in that frame.
Ok. Let's do this slowly.

The time experienced by the observer is of the essence in the case of the relativistic doppler effect of light. According to the relativistic model the faster you move the slower is your experienced rate of time. We also know that Lorentz contraction dictates that the faster you move the shorter observed distances parallel to the velocity vector become.

Now in fast speeds because of time dilation and Lorentz contraction the observed distances get shorter. This also means that the observed distance that light travels in a year is shorter.

Because observed distances get shorter and also one lightyear is shorter therefore also the wavelength of that light is compressed and thus also the frequency is increased. You agree with all of this?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11688
Jul 24, 2012
 
rpk58 wrote:
Aha - now you resort to solipsism to cover up your blunder in claiming that mass on Earth is different from mass on moon.
Do you remember a question that I asked you months ago - I asked you whether you consider this universe to be real. Your answer was that it is real.
There are three basic assumptions about reality that we must make, without which logic cannot really exist:
1. Reality exists
2. Reality is capable of being understood.
3. Our perceptions of reality are correct
In other words, we must assume that we exist as we perceive ourselves to exist.
Do you have any objection to this?
If you disagree with any of these assumptions then we cannot use logic.
Your attempt at obfuscation is clearly apparent, and recognized as a feeble attempt to squirm out of the tight spot you are in.
So, assuming that reality as we perceive it exists, mass is an absolute property of matter which indicates the quantity of matter. The unit of mass is kilogram, which is defined as the international prototype of the kilogram (an artefact) kept in Paris.
On an absolute fundamental level mass is the quantity of matter. We could express it in terms of the number of subatomic particles, atoms or molecules present in an object. You can easily see how impractical that is; so we choose a unit that is more practical - we keep a cylinder made from a specific material with specific dimensions, and say that the mass of this artifact is the unit of mass.
Have you yet understood the difference between a property and the unit chosen to measure that property?
Wrong wrong wrong.

You are again speaking of the philosophy of mass. I am talking about the scientific concept of mass. Mass in science is virtual, we do not know what mass is and what is its absolute quantity in any fixed chosen measure. All we have are falsifiable hypothetical models that may be absolutely different from the underlying absolute reality. These models work for approximating the effects of mass and that is all that is required by science.

In science mass is only a virtual concept and on the very most fundamental level we don't know if mass actually exists or is just simulated. Science does not care if the universe and mass are simulated, science works inside the simulation and uses hypothetical virtual concepts to model the simulation.

Science actually only tries to simulate the observed reality so if this all is just a simulation, then science is a simulation inside the simulation.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••