"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 13,514

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

Full Story

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13389 Sep 2, 2012
Energy state of masses is one of them.
"invisible mass , now that would be dark matter."
Clearly a self contradiction here humble , better tuck your fundies in.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13390 Sep 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
There is enough evidence , to convince a great many physicists , cosmologists and astronomers etc. that Einstein is correct, but I forget at times even though you do remind us when science dispels your fantasy and your fundies are showing that you don't think in abstract . But you do believe in your fantasy.
Stop babbling and present the name of even one scientist who claims that black holes are not hypothetical.

So, do you have a name???
Aura Mytha wrote:
Energy state of masses is one of them.
"invisible mass , now that would be dark matter."
Clearly a self contradiction here humble , better tuck your fundies in.
And your religious babbling continues I see.

The Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity is only a mathematical model to model the observed behavior of the universe. The model is falsifiable and I do not claim that it is the way the universe must work. It does work to model the solar system and agrees perfectly with the Newtonian model there.

Where the Newtonian model fails to model the observed universe in the scale of galaxies and requires unobservable myths, the new model performs flawlessly with only *real observations* as input.

The gravitational acceleration model a=GM/r requires *unobservable stuff* to be added. The gravitational acceleration model a=(M/m+M)/r works with just what is observed.

Occam's razor dictates that a=GM/r must be thrown away.
Religion dictates that you must cling to a=GM/r.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#13391 Sep 2, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
There are absolutely no observations of black holes. All you have are images created by artists.
There's more art to black holes than there is science.
Is there any real scientist who actually claims that black holes are not hypothetical?
<quoted text>
Tracks of stars does not a black hole make.
The definition of a black hole is very precise. Extreme orbital characteristics can be explained with other means than mythical black holes. Energy state of masses is one of them.
Do you see little green men?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13392 Sep 2, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop babbling and present the name of even one scientist who claims that black holes are not hypothetical.
So, do you have a name???
<quoted text>
And your religious babbling continues I see.
The Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity is only a mathematical model to model the observed behavior of the universe. The model is falsifiable and I do not claim that it is the way the universe must work. It does work to model the solar system and agrees perfectly with the Newtonian model there.
Where the Newtonian model fails to model the observed universe in the scale of galaxies and requires unobservable myths, the new model performs flawlessly with only *real observations* as input.
The gravitational acceleration model a=GM/r requires *unobservable stuff* to be added. The gravitational acceleration model a=(M/m+M)/r works with just what is observed.
Occam's razor dictates that a=GM/r must be thrown away.
Religion dictates that you must cling to a=GM/r.
Penrose Hawking ,Bekenstein , Susskind , Dyson ,Kaku all contend their existence sand btw the word is theoretical anyway, but besides being a prediction of general relativity the evidence is very strong ...so that BH's not not just theoretical anymore they have been directly observed. Not only the motion of stars being accelerated by them . but the observation by Hubble of them eating stars and the huge gamma ray bursts are all evidence of them.

Bear in mind there are multiple observations in several bands of the spectrum beyond visible light. But I suppose you will call that magical religious stuff.

X ray telescope

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/new...

Optical

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/rele...

Radio telescope



Infrared telescope

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/3...

All these methods have detected them. But somehow this is all beyond your reasoning. You have pushed into not only insanity but stupidity now my friend. The question is not IF these monsters exist, but rather what causes them and why. This is what I have provided you an answer to. But you perfer to wave your hand and say you have done something you cannot show , and cannot back up .

On the other hand I am showing you what the cutting edge of cosmologists and astrophysicists as well as astronomy and the worlds leading space pioneers at NASA have to say about them.
Take off your dunce cap and listen son.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13393 Sep 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Penrose Hawking ,Bekenstein , Susskind , Dyson ,Kaku all contend their existence sand btw the word is theoretical anyway,
Now give a quote where it says that any one of these people claim that they have direct observations of "black holes" instead of babbling about evidence supporting the "black hole" hypothesis.

You babble and babble and pile up hypotheses on top of hypotheses. That means that what you have is HYPOTHETICAL.
Aura Mytha wrote:
but besides being a prediction of general relativity the evidence is very strong ...so that BH's not not just theoretical anymore they have been directly observed. Not only the motion of stars being accelerated by them . but the observation by Hubble of them eating stars and the huge gamma ray bursts are all evidence of them.
Bear in mind there are multiple observations in several bands of the spectrum beyond visible light. But I suppose you will call that magical religious stuff.
X ray telescope
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/new...
Optical
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/rele...
Radio telescope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =bOjCrVQusYIXX
Infrared telescope
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/3...
All these methods have detected them. But somehow this is all beyond your reasoning. You have pushed into not only insanity but stupidity now my friend. The question is not IF these monsters exist, but rather what causes them and why. This is what I have provided you an answer to. But you perfer to wave your hand and say you have done something you cannot show , and cannot back up .
On the other hand I am showing you what the cutting edge of cosmologists and astrophysicists as well as astronomy and the worlds leading space pioneers at NASA have to say about them.
Take off your dunce cap and listen son.
All hypothetical. You seem to like quoting blogs :D

Your problem is that black holes can not be observed. You have a circular argument:
1. the gravity model does not work without black holes
2. black holes exist because gravitational behavior of galaxies says so

This is a funny quote from one of your links:
"Even more odd, these new black holes were found in the cores of glittering, "beehive" swarms of stars called globular star clusters, which orbit our Milky Way and other galaxies."

They observe glittering swarms of stars that falsify the gravity model -> therefore unobservable magical black holes :)

Give up already. You are a highly religious person clinging to the dark-myth-god.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13394 Sep 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
In short we don't think you have solved anything, but you have proven yourself to be quite a strange character.
Now explain to us how primordial supermassive black holes appeared before the matter contained by them formed. Which means gravity existed before the spin mass energy you claim fuels it.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/09/...
It is even now thought some of these monsters may be older than the universe itself. Which is evidence that gravity is simply a resistance in space/time to the expansion of matter/energy.
It is my assertion that gravity is matter space and time trying to return to the state of infinite density. These monsters of collapsing matter/energy space/time are returning what their gravity captures back to the state of zero point and infinite density.
This is the clincher Humble , dark energy is the cause of space/time and is the sole driving force of expansion and time.
It's not a magical solution , it's a revolution in thinking of what exactly is driving this universe in two directions and stretching it in space/time directions.
Take a long hard look at these next links humble , and see if you can explain it.
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-theory-black-hol...
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423910/s...
Expansion is infinite progression with time/space matter/energy, gravity is infinite regression in space/time matter energy.
We know what causes this regression.
Now explain what caused and causes the progression from infinite density. I can...it's dark energy.
03Sep12.....

.....and GOD caused it ALL.

Ps:...and den sum.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13395 Sep 2, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Now give a quote where it says that any one of these people claim that they have direct observations of "black holes" instead of babbling about evidence supporting the "black hole" hypothesis.
You babble and babble and pile up hypotheses on top of hypotheses. That means that what you have is HYPOTHETICAL.
<quoted text>
All hypothetical. You seem to like quoting blogs :D
Your problem is that black holes can not be observed. You have a circular argument:
1. the gravity model does not work without black holes
2. black holes exist because gravitational behavior of galaxies says so
This is a funny quote from one of your links:
"Even more odd, these new black holes were found in the cores of glittering, "beehive" swarms of stars called globular star clusters, which orbit our Milky Way and other galaxies."
They observe glittering swarms of stars that falsify the gravity model -> therefore unobservable magical black holes :)
Give up already. You are a highly religious person clinging to the dark-myth-god.

You're an idiot, and that's a fact.
Oh look here comes blob to your rescue. You should twirl around good now making gravity out of the blob spinning around in your new model and all. There is no religious inclination to these observations dimwit , BH's have been observed by their effects and physical phenomenon there nothing magical or religious about that fact. But you have surely exposed yourself now.

The curious thing here humble is BH's were discovered long long after the effects of gravity were pegged by Newton. We have learned tons about them since their existence has been confirmed.
The fact that they are still mysterious does not change what we know , but it does present us with new science to learn.

The pitiful thing with you is , that if you had made any sort of dynamic discovery it sure isn't making science headlines around the world with posts here. It serves only to amuse a half lunatic and religious crowd and a scant few scientists. Other than that
your bold claims are presented with nothing but childish boasts and nothing that shows you have done anything but la la la.

Have a nice argument with yourself from now on you are hardly worth the discussion , your total rejection of all known science is very telling ,in the fact that in order to accept what you say you have to totally trash everything that is learned from 500 years of study of the universe.

I don't think anyone ever tried that before not since Newton gave us real values to work with. But these no longer mean anything because you have changed the course of scientific history from posts here in topix. That's just well there's not even words to describe that type arrogant and blatant stupidity.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13396 Sep 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
You're an idiot, and that's a fact.
Oh look here comes blob to your rescue. You should twirl around good now making gravity out of the blob spinning around in your new model and all. There is no religious inclination to these observations dimwit , BH's have been observed by their effects and physical phenomenon there nothing magical or religious about that fact. But you have surely exposed yourself now.
The curious thing here humble is BH's were discovered long long after the effects of gravity were pegged by Newton. We have learned tons about them since their existence has been confirmed.
The fact that they are still mysterious does not change what we know , but it does present us with new science to learn.
The pitiful thing with you is , that if you had made any sort of dynamic discovery it sure isn't making science headlines around the world with posts here. It serves only to amuse a half lunatic and religious crowd and a scant few scientists. Other than that
your bold claims are presented with nothing but childish boasts and nothing that shows you have done anything but la la la.
Have a nice argument with yourself from now on you are hardly worth the discussion , your total rejection of all known science is very telling ,in the fact that in order to accept what you say you have to totally trash everything that is learned from 500 years of study of the universe.
I don't think anyone ever tried that before not since Newton gave us real values to work with. But these no longer mean anything because you have changed the course of scientific history from posts here in topix. That's just well there's not even words to describe that type arrogant and blatant stupidity.
Stop whining. Science must be based on observable facts.

Answer this question honestly with one word:
Can these observable scientific facts be falsifiable in your view? Yes or no?

Show us all that you are not religious and give us a direct one word answer. My bet is on you not being able to, prove me wrong!
leMango

Naperville, IL

#13397 Sep 2, 2012
humble brother wrote:
Ah... I feel good :)
Three days worth of work adapting my environment and simulating orbits via different gravitational mechanics.
Good news. F=(M+m)/d is victorious!!!!!!!
This is insanely awesome!!!:)
I ran simulations spanning across ~1000 Earth years mainly inspecting the orbit of Halley's comet. The new model requires elliptical orbiters to have constant energy state to match observations so within the model Halley's comet has the same energy state as Earth and all the other planets.
The hilarious outcome of the simulations:
F=(M+m)/d produces orbital paths almost to the letter the same as F=GMm/r.
The models agree!!!!:D
Man I have had a good time doing this work... And I need to do some more now that I'm having so much fun.
I will be releasing source code that can be used to compare the orbital paths produced by the Newtonian model and the new nonlinear model.
I'd be very interested to see that source code. When are you going to be releasing it?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13398 Sep 2, 2012
leMango wrote:
I'd be very interested to see that source code. When are you going to be releasing it?
Reasonably soon I think, not immediately though. I will also not be releasing the whole 3D graphics engine, I will clean it down to simple OpenGL rendering of spheres without shaders and I will remove all code unused by the trivial example. The goal is to keep the focus on the gravity part which definitely is not much code at all.

I've been developing my graphics/simulation environment on Macbook Air so the release will include a ready to run Xcode project with the simplified source code for simple gravity experiments. I've actually had a lot of fun simply trying some extreme gravitational situations and seeing the celestial objects perform extremely weird maneuvers :)

If you are only interested in the gravity part then there's not much to it. I can share that right away. Hopefully the code remains reasonably readable on this forum:

// m = M/(vd - M)
// a =(M/m + M)/ d
Vertex OpenGLScene::GravityNonlinear( Object* oa, Object* ob)
{
float& M = oa->energy_state;
float& m = ob->energy_state;
if (m == 0.0f || M == 0.0f) return Vertex();

Vertex dv = ob->g_pos - oa->g_pos;
float d2 = dv.Length2();
float a =(M*M/m + M)/ d2;
dv.Normalize2(a, d2); // normalize and scale with a

return dv;
}

// F = ma = GMm / r
// a = GM / r
#define G 0.0000000000667428f
Vertex OpenGLScene::GravityNewton(Obj ect* oa, Object* ob)
{
float& M = oa->mass;
float& m = ob->mass;
if (m == 0.0f || M == 0.0f) return Vertex();

Vertex dv = ob->g_pos - oa->g_pos;
float r2 = dv.Length2();
float a = G*M/r2;
dv.Normalize2(a, r2); // normalize and scale with a

return dv;
}

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13399 Sep 2, 2012
Release some hogwash after all your a hog , and its a wash.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13400 Sep 3, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Release some hogwash after all your a hog , and its a wash.
That's the spirit. Show everyone here how religious you are.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13402 Sep 4, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Release some hogwash after all your a hog , and its a wash.
05Sep12.....

.....You are full of schidt to the eyeballs.

Ps:.....BobLoblah 'Really & Truly' believes dat when it comes to you, there's more brains in a bottle of wadda.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#13403 Sep 4, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>05Sep12.....
.....You are full of schidt to the eyeballs.
Ps:.....BobLoblah 'Really & Truly' believes dat when it comes to you, there's more brains in a bottle of wadda.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
I still haven't seen your answer to my question below. Since you ignored it the last SEVENTEEN times http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... , I will ask you a EIGHTEENTH time:

[1] Would you recommend that the mother of adolescent boys join the Catholic church, let her sons become altar boys, and allow them to spend unsupervised time with Catholic priests?

Go ahead and say what you believe. Say, "Yes, bring your boys to the nearest Catholic church and leave them alone with a priest." I'd love a chance to reply to that. It's not like your every avoidance of this post doesn't already scream volumes.

Now I'm going to add a second question:

[2] If your church is a known international pedophilic sex syndicate, and you give it money, doesn't that make you en enabler of sexual crimes against children, like somebody who purchases kiddie porn? Aren't you actually underwriting it?

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#13404 Sep 4, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No sir , black holes are not hypothetical.
They are well known and it has been established the fact of their existence. The tracks of stars have been documented to orbit around invisible gravity sources. Do you think there are poles in space stars just decide to race around?
Don't you get it? Black holes are...well...BLACK, see. Therefore we cannot "observe them" in Humblebro logic. Therefore we should regard them as merely hypothetical. Perhaps even myths, just like dark matter must be a myth because we cannot "see" it.

The man is mad, and continuing to argue with pure madmen is madness itself. Though sometimes good for a laugh.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13405 Sep 4, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I still haven't seen your answer to my question below. Since you ignored it the last SEVENTEEN times http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... , I will ask you a EIGHTEENTH time:
[1] Would you recommend that the mother of adolescent boys join the Catholic church, let her sons become altar boys, and allow them to spend unsupervised time with Catholic priests?
Go ahead and say what you believe. Say, "Yes, bring your boys to the nearest Catholic church and leave them alone with a priest." I'd love a chance to reply to that. It's not like your every avoidance of this post doesn't already scream volumes.
Now I'm going to add a second question:
[2] If your church is a known international pedophilic sex syndicate, and you give it money, doesn't that make you en enabler of sexual crimes against children, like somebody who purchases kiddie porn? Aren't you actually underwriting it?
05Sep12.....

......Every dime you pay some form of 'tax', and when it gets distributed by your government, included in the distribution are those who are on da 'dole' which includes many paedophiles as well. Are you Not an enabler of sexual crimes against children???like somebody who purchases kiddie porn???Aren't you actually underwriting it???.....

....or are you already on da 'dole' and cornHoling youngsters because of your paedolphia!!!

Ps:.....You remain fulla schidt to the eyeballs.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#13406 Sep 4, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>05Sep12.....
......Every dime you pay some form of 'tax', and when it gets distributed by your government, included in the distribution are those who are on da 'dole' which includes many paedophiles as well. Are you Not an enabler of sexual crimes against children???like somebody who purchases kiddie porn???Aren't you actually underwriting it???.....
....or are you already on da 'dole' and cornHoling youngsters because of your paedolphia!!!
Ps:.....You remain fulla schidt to the eyeballs.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
Fascinating.

Now answer the questions:

I still haven't seen your answer to my questions below. Since you ignored it the last nineTEEN times http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... , I will ask you a TWENTIETH time:

[1] Would you recommend that the mother of adolescent boys join the Catholic church, let her sons become altar boys, and allow them to spend unsupervised time with Catholic priests?

[2] If your church is a known international pedophilic sex syndicate, and you give it money, doesn't that make you en enabler of sexual crimes against children, like somebody who purchases kiddie porn? Aren't you actually underwriting it?

And it's a pleasure doing business with you. I've keelhauled your disgusting religion twenty times now waiting for an answer.
Martin Williams

Atlanta, GA

#13407 Sep 4, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>05Sep12.....
......Every dime you pay some form of 'tax', and when it gets distributed by your government, included in the distribution are those who are on da 'dole' which includes many paedophiles as well. Are you Not an enabler of sexual crimes against children???like somebody who purchases kiddie porn???Aren't you actually underwriting it???.....
....or are you already on da 'dole' and cornHoling youngsters because of your paedolphia!!!
Ps:.....You remain fulla schidt to the eyeballs.
Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
Please answer IANS' questions.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13408 Sep 4, 2012
Martin Williams wrote:
<quoted text>
Please answer IANS' questions.
05Sep12.....

.....and just vhy is your moniker in 'Black'!!!!!!!!!

Ps:.....Have you been banned so often dat you just cannot keep up with making accounts to keep you into Topix Forums as a REAL member?????

You, too, are full of schidt to the eyeballs.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#13409 Sep 4, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
.Every dime you pay some form of 'tax', and when it gets distributed by your government, included in the distribution are those who are on da 'dole' which includes many paedophiles as well. Are you Not an enabler of sexual crimes against children???like somebody who purchases kiddie porn???Aren't you actually underwriting it???
Yes, I would be underwriting any atrocities committed or facilitated by my tax dollars.

Do you think choosing to give dollars to pedophile priests is the same as paying taxes that will be taken by force if not paid?

And what would you tell a mother who asked you if it's safe to leave her three boys alone with Catholic priests for extended and unsupervised periods?

You're ashamed of your church, aren't you? Good for you. It's the only sign of decency you've ever demonstrated on these threads, so I commend that.

You should be ashamed of that church, and mad at it, too. Look at what it's done to all of those boys. And look at what it's done to you here. You didn't screw those kids, so why should you have to take the heat, huh? Why should you have to repeatedly field these embarrassing questions just because you're Catholic? Where are the priests?

They take your money every week. You should think about that.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 27 min Dak-Original 21,917
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr KiMare 227,301
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 6 hr Patrick 37
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 8 hr Patrick 4,083
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 9 hr Patrick 176
What Bums Me Out Most About Being an Atheist 9 hr californio 88
The Ultimate Evidence of God 11 hr susanblange 119
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••