"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 20 comments on the Jan 22, 2012, Examiner.com story 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.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11729 Jul 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Wrong. To talk about a Doppler *shift*, we need to compare what two different observers will measure. The shift is the difference of the frequencies.
Let's see about that.
polymath257 wrote:
Yes, actually. The observer can measure the frequency of the light. She does not know the frequency of the light from the emitter, so cannot know the Doppler shift between the emitter and her. However, she *can* find the shift between *her* two frames: one approaching and one receding.
<quoted text>
The Doppler shift is a difference of frequency between two different frames. If nothing about the frame of the emitter is known (for example, the frequency of the light in the emitter's frame), then no shift between that frame and the observer can be known.
Ok. Now you have managed to clarify your position to the point that the frequency difference comes from the changed relative speed of the observer's two reference frames. The emitters reference frame is unknown. So what you have for calculating the frequency change in the observe's frames is:
- in both frames the speed of the wavefronts relative to the observer is the same which is c
- in the first reference frame the observer has accelerated to velocity v1
- in the second reference frame the observer has accelerated to v2

Let's look at the calculations of your model again:
"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 = lambda /(c-v)"

According to your argument above the frequency difference comes from the velocity difference in the two reference frames of the observer (v1 and v2), so the subtraction should be v2-v1 or v1-v2. Why is there a velocity of the observer subtracted from the velocity of the wavefronts which is constant to the observer ALWAYS?

The equation violates the constant speed of light law.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11730 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that all of science is falsifiable and may really actually be false?
Do you accept that you will never get to know the natural universe's true actual building blocks?
Philosophical twaddle. Falsifiability is how we know we are on the 'right track' when it comes to knowledge of the real world. We cannot simply deduce physics from logic alone. That is why knowledge is ultimately empirical, which means we have empirical definitions of physical quantities like mass, charge, length, time, etc.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11731 Jul 25, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Nope. There is a self evident, observable, real quantity called inertial mass, and it is absolute.
Relative measurements are all we can use in science. Only relative concept of mass exist. Nothing truly absolute about mass can be known or measured.

You have your own funny circular philosophical concept of "mass is absolutely mass". Your concept is absolutely useless for you. You have no equations for it, you have nothing except that silly statement.

I find it hilarious that you keep repeating it like a religious fundamentalist :)
The church of absolute mass ;)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11732 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Relative measurements are all we can use in science. Only relative concept of mass exist. Nothing truly absolute about mass can be known or measured.
You have your own funny circular philosophical concept of "mass is absolutely mass". Your concept is absolutely useless for you. You have no equations for it, you have nothing except that silly statement.
I find it hilarious that you keep repeating it like a religious fundamentalist :)
The church of absolute mass ;)
As far as I can see, you and Chimney are using different definitions of the word 'absolute'. I guess absoluteness isn't absolute.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11733 Jul 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
As far as I can see, you and Chimney are using different definitions of the word 'absolute'. I guess absoluteness isn't absolute.
I tried to ask Chimney if he thinks absolutes can decay.

According to the definition of "absolute", it is something that does not change at all:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute

So why does Chimney use the word "absolute" for something that is not actually absolute?

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Robesonia, PA

#11734 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
As a child a small 5 kilogram free weight has felt very heavy to you if you tried to lift it. When you grew older and older that same lump of metal began to feel lighter and lighter to you. By now you should realize that even that feeling that you have of weight is not absolute but varies.
It's all relative.
This is weird. Have you finally lost your mind?
You are saying that the fact that your muscular strength grows as you grow up from childhood to adulthood somehow proves your point that mass is relative?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11735 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried to ask Chimney if he thinks absolutes can decay.
According to the definition of "absolute", it is something that does not change at all:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute
So why does Chimney use the word "absolute" for something that is not actually absolute?
It looks to me that definition 7 works for Chimney quite well. Also, none of the definitions mention lack of change.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11736 Jul 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
It looks to me that definition 7 works for Chimney quite well. Also, none of the definitions mention lack of change.
Except that the definition fails in the case that there is no absolute measure for anything.

Chimney tried to argue that "the lump" in Paris is absolute, and we know that according to the standard model it is not absolute but constantly decaying extremely slowly i.e. changing.

Unfortunately Chimney is arguing against the very model he supports.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11737 Jul 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Also, none of the definitions mention lack of change.
11.(Mathematics) Maths
a.(of a constant) never changing in value

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11738 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Relative measurements are all we can use in science. Only relative concept of mass exist. Nothing truly absolute about mass can be known or measured.
You have your own funny circular philosophical concept of "mass is absolutely mass". Your concept is absolutely useless for you. You have no equations for it, you have nothing except that silly statement.
I find it hilarious that you keep repeating it like a religious fundamentalist :)
The church of absolute mass ;)
Enough of your meaningless warbling.

Now, use your equations to tell us the actual mass of the earth and sun. We already discovered them using G, a measure which found the actual amount of force generated by an actual amount of mass, a quality of the real world that Newton understood, unlike you, had to actually exist for gravity to work.

Now you have to show us how you will do it without G.

Come on, enough lame excuses. Demonstrate, you endlessly prevaricating fool.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11739 Jul 25, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
This is weird. Have you finally lost your mind?
You are saying that the fact that your muscular strength grows as you grow up from childhood to adulthood somehow proves your point that mass is relative?
The scientific concept of measurable mass is always relative.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11740 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that the definition fails in the case that there is no absolute measure for anything.
No, the *definition* applies to what Chimney is doing. YOU don't like that definition because it doesn't do what you want. In other words, you are using a different definition than Chimney.
Chimney tried to argue that "the lump" in Paris is absolute, and we know that according to the standard model it is not absolute but constantly decaying extremely slowly i.e. changing.
No, according to definition 7 of the link you gave, that lump in Paris *is* absolute.
Unfortunately Chimney is arguing against the very model he supports.
Perhaps you do not understand the model? That seems to be the case in several models you are arguing against.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11741 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried to ask Chimney if he thinks absolutes can decay.
According to the definition of "absolute", it is something that does not change at all:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute
So why does Chimney use the word "absolute" for something that is not actually absolute?
From YOUR OWN SOURCE:

7. Physics
a. Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
b. Relating to absolute temperature.

hahahahaha!

You really should read things properly HB.

Now, put up or shut up.

Your worked equations showing how you derive the ABSOLUTE mass of the earth and sun without G.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11742 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
11.(Mathematics) Maths
a.(of a constant) never changing in value
Physics is not mathematics. You are using the wrong definition.

7. Physics
a. Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
b. Relating to absolute temperature.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11743 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
11.(Mathematics) Maths
a.(of a constant) never changing in value
DUH.

You missed the one for physics, number 7 above.

7. Physics
a. Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
b. Relating to absolute temperature.

In case you were not aware of it, when we are discussing Newton's gravity, G, mass, etc, we are talking about physics. I would forgive you if you are a mathematician, for taking my meaning the wrong way...EXCEPT for the minor detail that I explained EXACTLY what I meant 20 times.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11744 Jul 25, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Enough of your meaningless warbling.
Now, use your equations to tell us the actual mass of the earth and sun. We already discovered them using G, a measure which found the actual amount of force generated by an actual amount of mass, a quality of the real world that Newton understood, unlike you, had to actually exist for gravity to work.
Now you have to show us how you will do it without G.
Come on, enough lame excuses. Demonstrate, you endlessly prevaricating fool.
You haven't "discovered" anything. You have calculated masses that work within the gravitational model you are using. If you used a different mathematical model you would have to use different values for masses of the celestial objects.

You are still refusing to understand that all you have for values of masses are relative calculations according to the falsifiable mathematical model. In essence your *calculated* masses are falsifiable.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11745 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific concept of measurable mass is always relative.
And still the arrogant stupidity continues.

Now, show us how you derived the actual mass of the earth and sun from your equation without using G.

...sound of crickets chirping.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11746 Jul 25, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
From YOUR OWN SOURCE:
7. Physics
a. Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
b. Relating to absolute temperature.
hahahahaha!
You really should read things properly HB.
Now, put up or shut up.
Your worked equations showing how you derive the ABSOLUTE mass of the earth and sun without G.
Yawn.

You still have no absolute unchanging fundamental units. Your beloved lump in Paris is still decaying according to the standard model.

Would you like to redefine your "absolute" as something that DOES change?
If you want to do that, then we're good here.

So can your absolutes change/decay? Yes or no?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11747 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't "discovered" anything. You have calculated masses that work within the gravitational model you are using. If you used a different mathematical model you would have to use different values for masses of the celestial objects.
You are still refusing to understand that all you have for values of masses are relative calculations according to the falsifiable mathematical model. In essence your *calculated* masses are falsifiable.
Why do you always use the term falsifiable like it is a bad thing?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11748 Jul 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
What resistance to acceleration? Your model dictates that mass by itself does not resist gravitational acceleration. Your model dictates that all free falling masses in a gravity field will accelerate at the same pace.
Mass resists gravitational acceleration. That is why gravity must be a force. And as the force acts on every piece of mass, there will be twice as much force on "two pieces" as "one piece" of mass.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min Chimney1 141,287
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min ACTUALLY 160,888
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 24 min Bumper Sticker Boy 13,670
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr Dogen 1,352
No Place For ID? 7 hr GTID62 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri hpcaban 178,585
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web