"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 61382 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11694 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And this part you now talk about you can not give any logical explanation for.
There's also a fallacy in the explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Dop...
"Since the wavefront moves with velocity c and the observer escapes with velocity v, the time (as measured in the reference frame of the source) between crest arrivals at the observer is t=&#8907;/(c-v)"
That is an absolute fallacy and the whole set of equations is based on the fallacy that the observer can escape the wavefronts. The model dictates that the observer will observe the wavefronts move with velocity c regardless of the observer's velocity. So subtracting v from c in the equations is based on an absolute fallacy.
Given that the model obtains the same result by several different arguments and that the results actually agree with the observations, it seems that *you* are the one mistaken and working from fallacies. Perhaps you should learn how to work in more than one frame of reference at a time and learn what they actually mean.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#11695 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing is a difficult game in science because nothing can truly be known but only hypothesized about. The contents of the hypotheses are known though :)
From the philosophical perspective I accept that not much can be really known but there are some absolutes that are known by default such as the thoughts that one observes. Fundamentally even all sensory signals are just observed thoughts.
are you saying that we know what we are thinking, and our thoughts about what we think we are observing through various senses, but we are not in touch with some underlying Reality? how would any of those things be absolutes? what do you mean by absolutes that are known by default. give other examples please. how are you defining absolutes? are they the same as Reality? and is Reality ever known, or just some very constant appearances that have never been successfuly contradicted? induction never ends, does it? so a series that proves something could finally be interrupted by something that challenges that proof. we cannot wait to get final proof in many cases. so the preponderance of evidence should be sufficient, not for truth, but for action, if the most cautious action is taken. but what if someone advocates a bold action based on preponderance of evidence? say, regarding man-influenced global warming? or dangers from chemicals, or new drugs?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11696 Jul 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
The subtraction of v from c is NOT due to relative motion of the observer and the light. It is simply counting the number of wavefronts that the observer is moving through in the frame of the emitter.
And that is nonsense. You are now claiming that the observers speed affects the number of wavefronts it will observe during a specific time.

The amount of observed wavefronts is dictated by only these two factors:
- the speed of the wavefronts
- the wavelength

The observer's speed does not affect the number of encountered wavefronts except through time dilation/wavelength contraction. It is an absolute fallacy to subtract the speed of the observer from the speed of the wavefronts. This subtraction is directly from the standard doppler effect.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11697 Jul 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Given that the model obtains the same result by several different arguments and that the results actually agree with the observations, it seems that *you* are the one mistaken and working from fallacies. Perhaps you should learn how to work in more than one frame of reference at a time and learn what they actually mean.
Subtracting the observer's speed from the speed of the wavefronts has to be done in standard doppler effect but definitely not in the relativistic one.

By subtracting v from c you will have directly violated the constant speed of light law.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Level 1

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#11698 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is nonsense. You are now claiming that the observers speed affects the number of wavefronts it will observe during a specific time.
The amount of observed wavefronts is dictated by only these two factors:
- the speed of the wavefronts
- the wavelength
The observer's speed does not affect the number of encountered wavefronts except through time dilation/wavelength contraction. It is an absolute fallacy to subtract the speed of the observer from the speed of the wavefronts. This subtraction is directly from the standard doppler effect.
I see you have given up on gravity.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11699 Jul 24, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
are you saying that we know what we are thinking, and our thoughts about what we think we are observing through various senses, but we are not in touch with some underlying Reality? how would any of those things be absolutes?
what do you mean by absolutes that are known by default. give other examples please. how are you defining absolutes? are they the same as Reality?
For you it must be absolutely certain that you exist if you can observe thoughts. That is one absolute. You observe thoughts and you can not stop observing thoughts while being alive.

Logically it is possible that we are in some kind of simulation and the observed reality is not the absolute reality. However, you see that there is an observable universe and that is another absolute for you. It is absolutely certain that you observe some kind of universe. Whether this universe is the absolute reality or a simulated one becomes irrelevant for you. How ever the universe exists, you can only operate in the reality that you observe (simulated or not). That's another absolute which you can test by putting your hand in fire :) if it is a simulation it's then a pretty good one and you can not escape from it.
havent forgotten wrote:
and is Reality ever known, or just some very constant appearances that have never been successfuly contradicted?
For an observer there is no other reality than the one that is observed.
havent forgotten wrote:
induction never ends, does it? so a series that proves something could finally be interrupted by something that challenges that proof. we cannot wait to get final proof in many cases. so the preponderance of evidence should be sufficient, not for truth, but for action, if the most cautious action is taken. but what if someone advocates a bold action based on preponderance of evidence? say, regarding man-influenced global warming? or dangers from chemicals, or new drugs?
Most of my own actions are made to try and learn the truth about something. For example if I receive some information through hearsay and I would need to act on it, I must then first investigate further without taking any action.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11700 Jul 24, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
I see you have given up on gravity.
What the heck do you mean and why do you say that?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11701 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
"The absolute quantity of mass in 1kg is 1kg! Period."
That's absolutely hilarious, you're still going on with this stuff.
So how much exactly is 1kg absolutely?:D
What is actually in 1kg of platinum iridium in absolute terms?
1 kg is just an arbitrarily chosen lump, you don't know its absolute content.
Yes, its an arbitrarily chosen lump, just as I pointed out to you some time back. Its a lump with a quantity of mass, and mass itself is an actual quality of the observable universe.
What Cavendish measured was the conversion scaler required for the chose fixed measures. This conversion rate can be transferred into the masses themselves by multiplying all masses with the numerical value given by sqrt(G).
False, what he measured was the actual field strength which can easily be translated into ANY scalar corresponding to any system of measures.
You can easily get rid of G from the model but then you would just need to get used to different values as masses. It's like changing from one monetary system to another. At first it will feel uncomfortable because people are used to certain nice round numbers.
Mathematically the model works exactly the same if you throw away G from the equation and just scale all masses with sqrt(G).
False. Just like real currencies, you can convert from one measure to another but its meaningless unless at some point you show what the money represents. It might be 1 dollar or 20,000 rials that can buy 1 packet of chewing gum, but unless you have a connection to the real world (actual purchasing power), then none of the currency conversions mean anything. G, like the value of a packet of gum, is the LINK between the mathematical abstraction of the equations and actual values that apply to the world. This is why physics is not just pure maths, but maths applied to real quantities with real units.

Now stop babbling about how great your equations are and demonstrate how your equations can deliver the actual mass of the earth. Here is a hint for you: to be MEANINGFUL, the mass has to be in units on a scale that we can directly measure in terms of resistance to force, so the measure cannot be entirely arbitrary. Mass IS inertial mass which IS a real quality of the world, and which we can directly measure only at certain scales.

Stop babbling and prove me wrong.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#11702 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is nonsense. You are now claiming that the observers speed affects the number of wavefronts it will observe during a specific time.
The amount of observed wavefronts is dictated by only these two factors:
- the speed of the wavefronts
- the wavelength
The observer's speed does not affect the number of encountered wavefronts except through time dilation/wavelength contraction. It is an absolute fallacy to subtract the speed of the observer from the speed of the wavefronts. This subtraction is directly from the standard doppler effect.
Yeah if you go 10 mph , you will go 10 miles on 1 hour , if you go 100 mph you will go 100 miles in a hour.

So let me show you how you are so very wrong. By changing your sentence for relativity.

(((You are now claiming that the observers speed affects the number of miles it will observe during a specific time.)))

Does that make sense?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11703 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
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.
Well, once a kg is defined in terms related to the Planck constant, I would disagree. But for arguments sake, OK. So what?

By absolute, as I have now explained 10 times, I do not mean anything other than real, actual, a quality of the universe, in contrast with your original claim that "all mass is relative" and that "mass on the earth is different from mass on the moon".

The same real sized lump of matter will have the same inertial mass regardless of the units we choose to employ - the actual units are trivial, although the need for units of some sort representing the real qualities - mass, distance, and time, is not trivial, but fundamental.

You are basically refusing to concede the obvious because you cannot admit that you were dead wrong in the first place. You fail to understand that an error is forgivable but continuing to defend it makes you look like a damned fool.

It makes me laugh to see you spending days defending your equations but refusing to actually sit down and show a single worked example to back your silly claims. We all know why that is. Even you know you are talking crap.

Put up or shut up - a worked example, proving your case.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#11704 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.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24.....

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#11705 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
HB, you are still struggling with the most basic concepts in physics. You are confused between mass and methods of measuring mass. So confused that you consider mass as a philosophy.

Once again, mass is a measure of the quantity of matter. Clearly, matter is composed of something, and quantity of that something is a real property. On the most fundamental level you can see this as the count of atomic/subtomic particles constituting the object. However, we have chosen a different unit to express the quantity of matter. And you are finding it difficult to understand that concept.

When you say "science is a simulation inide a simulation" you are once again bringing solipsism into the discussion to prove your point. Why? Do you understand that we have to proceed with the basic assumption that reality exists? Then why are you repeatedly mentioning the solipsistic non-sense? You are clearly trying to fudge the issue.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#11706 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The clean object is still subject to decay in the standard model. Dirt in this case is irrelevant as it will always be removed.
What is the "decay uner standard model"? If the artifact used to represent a standard unit of mass has problems of its mass not being stable, then that is a technical issue - the solution is to measure the variation, and adopt procedures to ensure stabilty and/or ensure corrections are applied. It has nothing to do with the concept of mass. Already effort is under way to express this unit in terms of a more stable measurement.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#11707 Jul 24, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the "decay uner standard model"? If the artifact used to represent a standard unit of mass has problems of its mass not being stable, then that is a technical issue - the solution is to measure the variation, and adopt procedures to ensure stabilty and/or ensure corrections are applied. It has nothing to do with the concept of mass. Already effort is under way to express this unit in terms of a more stable measurement.
What doesn't understand here is the yard may change. But the yardstick never will change until it becomes a better yardstick.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11708 Jul 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Subtracting the observer's speed from the speed of the wavefronts has to be done in standard doppler effect but definitely not in the relativistic one.
By subtracting v from c you will have directly violated the constant speed of light law.
Wrong. The calculation is done in the frame of the emitter, not in the frame of the observer. In both frames, the speed of light is c.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11709 Jul 25, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Yes, its an arbitrarily chosen lump, just as I pointed out to you some time back. Its a lump with a quantity of mass, and mass itself is an actual quality of the observable universe.
Yes, again from the philosophical perspective which you seem to be stuck on the chosen lump is an absolute quantity of "mass".

Your problem still is that science and you don't know what that 1kg of "mass" consists of.

You don't know what's actually in it. You just have given it a name, and now you can use it for relative measurements.

You have a name for the lump, but don't know it's absolute quantity and consistency.
Chimney1 wrote:
False, what he measured was the actual field strength which can easily be translated into ANY scalar corresponding to any system of measures.
A gravitational field is an hypothesis. All we know is that "mass" is observed to be attracted to "mass" and a pulling force can be mathematically modeled between masses. No one, including you, knows that there is any field. No one knows how gravity works in reality.

In the Newtonian model the value of G can be scaled into all masses and then just different masses would need to be used. The model would work exactly the same, you'd just be using different values for all masses and never need to deal with the fixed value of G.
Chimney1 wrote:
False. Just like real currencies, you can convert from one measure to another but its meaningless unless at some point you show what the money represents. It might be 1 dollar or 20,000 rials that can buy 1 packet of chewing gum, but unless you have a connection to the real world (actual purchasing power), then none of the currency conversions mean anything. G, like the value of a packet of gum, is the LINK between the mathematical abstraction of the equations and actual values that apply to the world. This is why physics is not just pure maths, but maths applied to real quantities with real units.
Now stop babbling about how great your equations are and demonstrate how your equations can deliver the actual mass of the earth. Here is a hint for you: to be MEANINGFUL, the mass has to be in units on a scale that we can directly measure in terms of resistance to force, so the measure cannot be entirely arbitrary. Mass IS inertial mass which IS a real quality of the world, and which we can directly measure only at certain scales.
Stop babbling and prove me wrong.
One kilogram is a chosen measure used for relative measurements. That same measure can be used in any mathematical model, the calculated masses of other objects will just be different in that case.

Why don't you stop your babbling and tell me what is the absolute quantity of your absolute mass of 1 kg of platinum iridium?

All you have done is repeatedly proclaimed your circular argument "one kilogram is absolutely one kilogram". I do find that quite funny. The fact however remains that the only quantities you can ever measure are relative. You can never measure the absolute quantity of anything.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11710 Jul 25, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Yeah if you go 10 mph , you will go 10 miles on 1 hour , if you go 100 mph you will go 100 miles in a hour.
So let me show you how you are so very wrong. By changing your sentence for relativity.
(((You are now claiming that the observers speed affects the number of miles it will observe during a specific time.)))
Does that make sense?
Within your model only relative movement exists. Things that move relative to something but not relative to each other are at rest relative to each other. It should have been quite clear that I was talking about relative movement towards the direction of the light. There may be other objects on the sides that are passed while moving towards that light. I think that you probably understood what I meant but again found something to cling to.

So you can stop with your straw man arguments again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11711 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, again from the philosophical perspective which you seem to be stuck on the chosen lump is an absolute quantity of "mass".
Your problem still is that science and you don't know what that 1kg of "mass" consists of.
You don't know what's actually in it. You just have given it a name, and now you can use it for relative measurements.
You have a name for the lump, but don't know it's absolute quantity and consistency.
You are the one being excessively philosophical. My position is simple. Mass is a real quality of the physical world. You can harp on about what we don't know about it all you like. What we DO know about it is that it creates inertia (resistance to acceleration) and that it does this consistently, and that by quantifying the qualities involved - mass, distance, time, we can measure and understand these things about mass.
A gravitational field is an hypothesis. All we know is that "mass" is observed to be attracted to "mass" and a pulling force can be mathematically modeled between masses. No one, including you, knows that there is any field. No one knows how gravity works in reality.
No, but we can describe the observable way it works very accurately and make valid predictions using that hypothesis. No different from any other science. Mass is still an actual, not a relative thing.
Why don't you stop your babbling and tell me what is the absolute quantity of your absolute mass of 1 kg of platinum iridium?
I already did. Its 1 kg. Doofus. Its not circular, its a mere statement of fact. Time you realised that in physics, the rubber hits the road on observable facts, not an endless merry-go-round of defining one thing in terms of another the way pure mathematics can. Mass is one of those basic fundamentals. Its the base of the pyramid of reality. Don't you get that?

We can define "force" as a relation between these fundamental basic quantities - mass, distance, and time. But we cannot define mass, distance, and time any deeper because they are the fundamentals.

Now, without G, one of the important fundamentals of the gravity phenomenon cannot be quantified. Just as without some measure of actual spending power, you can warble on forever about the "relations between currencies" without EVER getting an inkling of what $100,000 or 10,000,000 yen or EU 80,000 will ever buy you. Could be a car, could be a packet of gum. Your relations are not grounded in any reality until you have that connection. That is where physics differs from pure maths.

So once again: enough babbling, show us your worked equations revealing the actual mass of the earth and the sun, without G. You cannot do it, can you.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11712 Jul 25, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Well, once a kg is defined in terms related to the Planck constant, I would disagree.
You can disagree all you want. You are still talking about hypothetical models and hypothetical constants. Nothing absolute of mass can be known. It's all hypothetical and falsifiable.
Chimney1 wrote:
But for arguments sake, OK. So what?
By absolute, as I have now explained 10 times, I do not mean anything other than real, actual, a quality of the universe, in contrast with your original claim that "all mass is relative" and that "mass on the earth is different from mass on the moon".
Again:
You can not measure "real, actual, a quality of the universe". All you have is chosen fixed lumps for relative measurements. No matter how tiny lump you take you still haven't got anything absolutely known.

The sad story with the tiny particles is that they're hypothetical and can not be observed directly. "The lump" can at least be directly observed and held in hand.

Philosophically if you take a lump of mass from Earth to the moon it is still the exact same thing, and you don't know what it actually is. In science however the relativity of that mass has changed and calculations with that mass will give you totally different values on the moon than on Earth.

So only your philosophy of mass remains when you take a lump of mass from Earth to the moon, all its relative effects will change.
Chimney1 wrote:
The same real sized lump of matter will have the same inertial mass regardless of the units we choose to employ - the actual units are trivial, although the need for units of some sort representing the real qualities - mass, distance, and time, is not trivial, but fundamental.
You are basically refusing to concede the obvious because you cannot admit that you were dead wrong in the first place. You fail to understand that an error is forgivable but continuing to defend it makes you look like a damned fool.
It makes me laugh to see you spending days defending your equations but refusing to actually sit down and show a single worked example to back your silly claims. We all know why that is. Even you know you are talking crap.
Put up or shut up - a worked example, proving your case.
I find it funny that you have drowned yourself in your philosophy of mass and you are even refusing to swim away from your mess.

Does it somehow pain you that you can never know what mass actually is on the fundamental level?

Science only mathematically simulates the effects of mass using relative calculations and it works for modeling the effects of gravity/mass.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11713 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, again from the philosophical perspective which you seem to be stuck on the chosen lump is an absolute quantity of "mass".
More generally, you seem to have a problem with understanding this fundamental fact about science: its base is empirical. Meaning, the collection of real world facts.

When we speak of "force", we are talking about calculated quantity as a relations of various UNITS of REAL quantities.

For example, F = ma = mass x distance / time / time.

The fundamentals are the directly observed and measured facts of the world. They are not reducible, they are real. This is something that mathematically inclined people often forget.

You cannot define "absolute distance" any more deeply than "the observed space between two points". Unlike "Force" which is a derivative, abstract quality, and is a composite or a relation in the end breaking down to the real, observable, measurable qualities of the universe. "Force" may be considered a hypothesis or a posited relation between various observable fundamentals. But they are absolute, real, the rock bottom of observation.

Mass is one of these.

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
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 min Regolith Based Li... 28,321
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min Horn Dog 220,673
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Subduction Zone 160,311
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Dogen 2,687
Curious dilemma about DNA 19 hr Subduction Zone 2
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
More from around the web