"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 48864 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.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Banbury, UK

#13500 Oct 2, 2012
Cosmic evolution is a boon. Certainly since the cosmic god the father worm crawled into space and swallowed up the solar system.
Using our planet for worming. If we hang around long enough were all going to turn Zombie around here anyway.
To Hell with it am gonna buy the biggest and mean ass kicking Nerf for sale and then i am going to join an anti-zombie league, then i am going to have me a bloodbath.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Banbury, UK

#13501 Oct 2, 2012
PARADEIGMA PART I & II ARE COMPLETE AND ARE READY FOR YOU TO READ.
#1K.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Banbury, UK

#13502 Oct 2, 2012
Joan Collins has just bought a seven dick operation. One dick short of Beyonce.
What is happening to the world, and why are all these gay lasbian bitch asses giving their women such a hard time.

Keep it fresh but i demand an answer to this topix.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#13503 Oct 2, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?... I'm here Huckleberry... And that's just my game....
So who are you ? Superfundietard or something?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Banbury, UK

#13505 Oct 5, 2012
Both Science and Religion can be homogenous as both become somehow fused together in experience.
Where Science and Religion are left to fight it out most horribly is not so much over theology where scripture can be reinterpreted to suit Science, but in everyday experience. Where Religion will always have the upper hand is i think encapsulated in the song 'i believe' relevant here are the lyrics 'every time i see a new born baby cry, or touch a leaf or see the sky then i know why, i believe'. Well people are going to be familiar with all of this, its like talking in a subliminal code your emotional feelings and most treasured experiences. Very few of us on the other hand, get the chance to experience Science happen around us whether in a laboratory or in our daily lives. So yes on theology Science is way ahead of Religion, the mere fact that the Religion stands still, and doesn't change all that much has condemned it to a deep failure to compete and keep up with Science on experience.
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13506 Oct 7, 2012
08Oct12.....

.....Looks like dis Topic has run its course and is about to be buried.

Of course, its ALL because BobLoblah put in da effort to anniliate the hateful, hypocritical, hAtheists.

Ps:....BobLoblah slays annudder dragon.

BobLoblah Rules.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#13508 Oct 11, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>The explanation is valid and sh*ts on your assumption that we need to know everything before we are certain of anything.

You have absolutely no valid evidence of your gods and we have lots of evidence of your lies. Go away defeated one.
Go away Skippy

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#13509 Oct 11, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>That's a good excuse for not providing any proof of god.
Skippy

Do think you will find proof for The existence of God right hear on this thread, here and now?

Wake the FU(K UP!

We don't what you Skippy! so we will not give you the secrete password Skippy! Now go away Skippy!

What a Dolt! Go Gad some where else.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13510 Oct 12, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Skippy
Do think you will find proof for The existence of God right hear on this thread, here and now?
Wake the FU(K UP!
We don't what you Skippy! so we will not give you the secrete password Skippy! Now go away Skippy!
What a Dolt! Go Gad some where else.
Evidence, or f*ck off its that simple proven creationist liar.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13511 Oct 12, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You have shown?:D
Well if you have shown, then you can easily answer a very simple question:
Does Einstein's theory of relativity allow close to the speed of light relative movement without *actual* time dilation of proper times between the two frames in relative movement?
This is a simple yes/no question. I suspect that you can not answer a simple question :)
What do you mean by 'actual' time dilation? In the scenario of your video, the symmetry between the ships is maintained. That is as expected under relativity.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#13512 Oct 12, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Skippy
Do think you will find proof for The existence of God right hear on this thread, here and now?
Well, the world has been waiting for THOUSANDS of years and it hasn't been presented yet, so now's as good a time as any ...

Go for it.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13513 Oct 12, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
What do you mean by 'actual' time dilation? In the scenario of your video, the symmetry between the ships is maintained. That is as expected under relativity.
Actual time dilation is observed between GPS satellite clocks and clock on Earth's surface. Real observations show us that the proper times of these clocks actually have different rates due to the natural effect causing time "dilation".

So, can we get a yes from you to the question:
Does Einstein's theory of relativity allow close to the speed of light relative movement between two frames without any time dilation of proper times observed in these two frames?

Just utter the word "yes", we both know that you have no option but to let it rip.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13514 Oct 12, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Actual time dilation is observed between GPS satellite clocks and clock on Earth's surface. Real observations show us that the proper times of these clocks actually have different rates due to the natural effect causing time "dilation".
So, can we get a yes from you to the question:
Does Einstein's theory of relativity allow close to the speed of light relative movement between two frames without any time dilation of proper times observed in these two frames?
Just utter the word "yes", we both know that you have no option but to let it rip.
For uniform motion, the answer is no.

For non-uniform motion, it is possible that effects cancel out over time.

In your scenario, there is a symmetry between the two ships; each records the same data for their own distance from the station and also the same time dilated results for the distance of the other ship from the station.

Because of symmetry, the dilation effects will cancel for the two ships once they reach the station again. But during the trips, there will be time dilation. The huge accelerations involved in turning around produce the effects needed to give the same results when they meet again.

There are two comments abut your video:
1. This is a trivial thing, but shows your lack of care. When you say the ships travel for one week, you did not say in which reference frame. A week in the station's frame is different than for the moving ships. In your video, you show results for one week in the frames of the moving ships.

2. you seem to think that the recordings of positions and times by the two ships and having them agree disproves relativity. It doesn't. Symmetry guarantees it and relativity predicts it.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13515 Oct 12, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
For uniform motion, the answer is no.
For non-uniform motion, it is possible that effects cancel out over time.
In your scenario, there is a symmetry between the two ships; each records the same data for their own distance from the station and also the same time dilated results for the distance of the other ship from the station.
Because of symmetry, the dilation effects will cancel for the two ships once they reach the station again. But during the trips, there will be time dilation. The huge accelerations involved in turning around produce the effects needed to give the same results when they meet again.
There are two comments abut your video:
1. This is a trivial thing, but shows your lack of care. When you say the ships travel for one week, you did not say in which reference frame. A week in the station's frame is different than for the moving ships. In your video, you show results for one week in the frames of the moving ships.
2. you seem to think that the recordings of positions and times by the two ships and having them agree disproves relativity. It doesn't. Symmetry guarantees it and relativity predicts it.
The ships can only measure their own time, so it is obvious that they travel a week by their own measurement.

Ok. Things are about to get extremely difficult for you.

Two ships travel at uniform velocity 0.9*c (to opposite directions) relative to two markers they have left in space. The gravitational environment is totally uniform. Both ships log their proper times inside the ship when they pass beside each marker they had left.

My claim now is that using the relativistic model you are totally and absolutely unable to calculate what should be the time dilation of proper times between the two ships during their passage between the two markers. You can not calculate the time dilation, you have no prediction whatsoever.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13516 Oct 12, 2012
In other words, the relativistic model has collapsed, it can not produce predictions of time dilation.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13517 Oct 12, 2012
Any logical arguments against the falsification of the relativistic model? Anyone?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13518 Oct 12, 2012
We've gone over this many times. If you do the Lorentz transformations (which include both time dilation and length contraction but generalize to ALL situations, and are the basis of relativity), then all your 'paradoxes' resolve.

The problem is that you don't even know what the concepts *mean*(such as time dilation) in this context.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13520 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
We've gone over this many times. If you do the Lorentz transformations (which include both time dilation and length contraction but generalize to ALL situations, and are the basis of relativity), then all your 'paradoxes' resolve.
The problem is that you don't even know what the concepts *mean*(such as time dilation) in this context.
That's funny. Why don't you predict the time dilation of proper times between the two ships in the above case?

The fact is: the relativistic model can not predict the dilation, it collapses. YOU HAVE NO PREDICTION.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13521 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny. Why don't you predict the time dilation of proper times between the two ships in the above case?
The fact is: the relativistic model can not predict the dilation, it collapses. YOU HAVE NO PREDICTION.
Time dilation means that when two events are at the same location and at different times in one frame, then they will be at different locations and the time between the events will be dilated in a different frame.

If events happen in different locations and times in one frame, you have to use the Lorentz transformations to determine the locations and times in a different frame. There is not a single dilation factor for events at different locations.

In your situation, where both ships move at .9*c in opposite directions with respect to a *third* reference frame, the relative speed between the two ships is about .99447*c, which gives a time dilation factor of .105. In other words, if two events happen at the same location and at different times in one frame, the time difference in the other frame will be about 10% as much.

Here's the problem: if the markers are 1 light week apart in the frame of one ship, they will be about .105 week apart in the other frame. So you cannot say the markers are 1 light week apart in *both* frames. Alternatively, you can make the markers 1 light week apart in the *central* frame. In this case, it will be closer than 1 light week in both of the ship frames (about .45 of a light-week).

Here's what will happen in this case: both ships will measure the same amount of time to go between in markers (about half a week). Suppose the central frame sees the ships pass their first marker at the same time. Then, from the frame of *either* ship, they pass their first marker and much later, the other passes *their* first marker. The passing is NOT at the same time in the frames of the two ships. Each sees the *other* ship as moving between the two markers in about .05 week.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13522 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The ships can only measure their own time, so it is obvious that they travel a week by their own measurement.
The markers cannot be 1 light week apart in the frames of *both* ships. You have to pick *one* frame where they are 1 light week apart. They will be a different distance in every other frame.

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
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 12 min IB DaMann 94
bigger fish to fry (Jul '11) 2 hr Suspicious Packag... 2
What are the best arguments against religion? 2 hr Richardfs 8
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 hr Richardfs 5,721
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Brian_G 23,592
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 13 hr Mintz4004 21,889
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web