• Sections
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

# "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 61334 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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13523 Oct 13, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think the scientific method is a myth.
I also think it's kind of silly for scientists to insist that there is a natural explanation for all phenomina known and unknown and always will be that way past, present, and future. Then they turn around and insist that they only believe in things for which there is rigorous scientific proof. Where's the rigorous scientific proof for metaphysical naturalism?
Haha, turn off that mythical PC because you fail at science. All philosophers why tal about metaphysics are lying douchebags who couldnt understand their way out of a paper bag.

science hasn't failed you, you intellectual laziness has.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13524 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
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.
You made a short story long. Any scientific theory needs to make a prediction and that needs to agree with the real observed fact.

Here are the common two situations of observable time dilation:
1. the good old twin paradox (hypothetical) where the accelerating twin supposedly ages less, if two twins accelerate an equal amount then both twins age equally

2. the GPS satellite clocks are observed to tick slower than clocks on Earth

It is already clear that in order to predict any time dilation of proper times you need to know what is the (a)symmetry between the two frames from which the rates of time are being compared.

How do you determine the possible asymmetry between any two frames?
You can not, therefore you can not predict any real world time dilation either.

Let say that the frame in which the twins are (Earth) has accelerated to some direction billions of years ago, and now is no longer accelerating (apart from the centripetal acceleration). Now when one twin leaves from Earth his travel direction will affect the actual asymmetry between the two brothers. They don't know the past initial acceleration of Earth. You can not predict the time dilation because you don't know how to find the asymmetry.

The relativistic model can not produce predictions of time dilation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13525 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You made a short story long. Any scientific theory needs to make a prediction and that needs to agree with the real observed fact.
Yes, which relativity does.
Here are the common two situations of observable time dilation:
1. the good old twin paradox (hypothetical) where the accelerating twin supposedly ages less, if two twins accelerate an equal amount then both twins age equally
Many, many assumptions here. It is not just the amount of acceleration involved. It is the detailed description of their velocities with respect to whatever frame you are interested in.
2. the GPS satellite clocks are observed to tick slower than clocks on Earth
They are observed to click slower than clocks on earth *by the measurements on the earth*. The earth's clocks would be observed to run slower by measurements on the GPS satellites.
It is already clear that in order to predict any time dilation of proper times you need to know what is the (a)symmetry between the two frames from which the rates of time are being compared.
There is time dilation both ways.
How do you determine the possible asymmetry between any two frames?
Not relevant. The classical twin paradox comes because both twins have to start and stop at the same place. This forces at least one twin to accelerate (i.e. feel a force due to acceleration). if the twins do not start and stop at the same place, both will see the other as aging slower.
Let say that the frame in which the twins are (Earth) has accelerated to some direction billions of years ago, and now is no longer accelerating (apart from the centripetal acceleration). Now when one twin leaves from Earth his travel direction will affect the actual asymmetry between the two brothers. They don't know the past initial acceleration of Earth. You can not predict the time dilation because you don't know how to find the asymmetry.
Huh? Not relevant *at all*.
The relativistic model can not produce predictions of time dilation.
This is false and, in fact, the predictions agree with observation. Your lack of understanding is the problem.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13526 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You made a short story long. Any scientific theory needs to make a prediction and that needs to agree with the real observed fact.
I made a story correct. YOU leave off important details that are required to answer the questions you ask.

I clearly stated the amount of time dilation between the two ship frames. It is a factor of .105 and goes both ways. BOTH ships measure the clocks on the other ship as going slower. THAT is time dilation.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13527 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, which relativity does.
<quoted text>
Many, many assumptions here. It is not just the amount of acceleration involved. It is the detailed description of their velocities with respect to whatever frame you are interested in.
<quoted text>
They are observed to click slower than clocks on earth *by the measurements on the earth*. The earth's clocks would be observed to run slower by measurements on the GPS satellites.
<quoted text>
There is time dilation both ways.
<quoted text>
Not relevant. The classical twin paradox comes because both twins have to start and stop at the same place. This forces at least one twin to accelerate (i.e. feel a force due to acceleration). if the twins do not start and stop at the same place, both will see the other as aging slower.
<quoted text>
Huh? Not relevant *at all*.
<quoted text>
This is false and, in fact, the predictions agree with observation. Your lack of understanding is the problem.
I find it funny how you squirm... Ok. Lets first talk about time dilation of proper times, i.e. different rates of aging.

Lets setup two different scenarios:

1. a space ship accelerates from Earth to travel at 0.5*c towards direction X. After one minute of travel from that ship two smaller ships (A and B) accelerate to 0.5*c, one ship towards direction X and the other to the opposite direction (back towards where the big ship came from).

2. Two small ships (same ones as in the previous scenario) accelerate to 0.5*c from Earth towards opposite directions.

The big question for you is:
Can you produce predictions of rates of aging relative to people on Earth for the two small ships in both scenarios?

My claim is that using the relativistic model you can not produce predictions of rates of aging. The reason for you inability to predict is the collapse of the relativistic model.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13528 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it funny how you squirm... Ok. Lets first talk about time dilation of proper times, i.e. different rates of aging.
Lets setup two different scenarios:
1. a space ship accelerates from Earth to travel at 0.5*c towards direction X. After one minute of travel from that ship two smaller ships (A and B) accelerate to 0.5*c, one ship towards direction X and the other to the opposite direction (back towards where the big ship came from).
To be clear, ship 1 is moving at .5*c relative to the frame of the earth. Ships A and B are moving at .5*c relative to the frame of ship 1 and in opposite directions with ship A moving in the same direction as ship 1 and ship B moving in the opposite direction. Is this correct?

If so, then ship B is at rest relative to the earth and will be in the same frame as the earth--no time dilation here.

The time dilation factor between ship 1 and the earth will be .87. The earth will measure the clocks on ship 1 as moving .87 as fast as theirs. Ship 1 will measure the clocks on the earth as moving .87 as fast as theirs. Ship A will be moving at .8*c relative to the earth and will have a time dilation of .6. So ship A will measure the earth's clocks as .6 as fast. The earth will see ship A's clocks moving at .6 as fast.
2. Two small ships (same ones as in the previous scenario) accelerate to 0.5*c from Earth towards opposite directions.
In this scenario, both ships will have a time dilation relative to the earth of .87. The earth will measure clocks on both ships as moving .87 as fast. Both ships will measure clocks on the earth as moving .87 as fast.

Finally, the two ships in this scenario are moving .8*c with respect to each other and see each other's clocks as moving .6 as fast as their own.
The big question for you is:
Can you produce predictions of rates of aging relative to people on Earth for the two small ships in both scenarios?
Yes, and with respect to each other all ways.
My claim is that using the relativistic model you can not produce predictions of rates of aging. The reason for you inability to predict is the collapse of the relativistic model.
I just did. Do you want details of how I got those numbers?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13529 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
To be clear, ship 1 is moving at .5*c relative to the frame of the earth. Ships A and B are moving at .5*c relative to the frame of ship 1 and in opposite directions with ship A moving in the same direction as ship 1 and ship B moving in the opposite direction. Is this correct?
If so, then ship B is at rest relative to the earth and will be in the same frame as the earth--no time dilation here.
Yes, ships A and B accelerate from ship 1 relative to ship 1.

You have a problem. In the rest frame of ship 1 time is passing at 0.87 of the rate of time on Earth. Ship B will accelerate away from ship 1 so their time will start ticking slower than on ship 1. How is it now possible that you think their time will start ticking faster and become the same rate as on Earth? Did you use ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13530 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, ships A and B accelerate from ship 1 relative to ship 1.
You have a problem. In the rest frame of ship 1 time is passing at 0.87 of the rate of time on Earth. Ship B will accelerate away from ship 1 so their time will start ticking slower than on ship 1. How is it now possible that you think their time will start ticking faster and become the same rate as on Earth? Did you use ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION?
Your difficulty is that you think there is some absolute rate of time and that clocks either fast or slow compared to that absolute. That is simply not the case.

Yes, ship1 measures ship B's clocks as moving slower than ship1's. But the earth measures them as moving at the same rate as the earth's. The time dilation factor depends on the relative speeds, not on comparison to some absolute.

I did not use acceleration at all. I simply used the relative velocities. For uniform motion, that is all that is required.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13531 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Your difficulty is that you think there is some absolute rate of time and that clocks either fast or slow compared to that absolute. That is simply not the case.
Yes, ship1 measures ship B's clocks as moving slower than ship1's. But the earth measures them as moving at the same rate as the earth's. The time dilation factor depends on the relative speeds, not on comparison to some absolute.
I did not use acceleration at all. I simply used the relative velocities. For uniform motion, that is all that is required.
The difficulty is all yours, you have used absolute time in your reasoning. Ship 1 and ship B are in a single rest frame, forget everything around them it's just ships 1 and B. You have now declared that acceleration of ship B away from ship 1 does not cause the proper time on ship B to start ticking slower than the proper time in the rest frame where it accelerated (ship 1's frame). This acceleration apparently causes a totally opposite effect and the time on the ship will start ticking faster after the acceleration.

You constantly fall into the fallacy of ship 1 measuring ship B's clock to tick slower and vice versa. THE SHIPS CAN NOT MEASURE THE PROPER TIME ON THE OTHER SHIP, PERIOD. They can record logs of their own proper time and those logs can be the observable facts to be reviewed later.

I am talking about *real* dilation of proper times and not your illusion of doppler effected light causing seemingly different rates of time.

The fact is that for predicting any kind of different aging on the ships you are now using an *absolute* frame relative to which some acceleration causes slower rate of time and some faster rate of time.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13532 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
The difficulty is all yours, you have used absolute time in your reasoning. Ship 1 and ship B are in a single rest frame, forget everything around them it's just ships 1 and B. You have now declared that acceleration of ship B away from ship 1 does not cause the proper time on ship B to start ticking slower than the proper time in the rest frame where it accelerated (ship 1's frame). This acceleration apparently causes a totally opposite effect and the time on the ship will start ticking faster after the acceleration.
We can extend this situation to the good old twin paradox. The claim is that the twin on the space ship ends up aging more (his proper time is the one ticking slower). How would you be able to make this claim? What if Earth had already accelerated to the opposite direction with regard to the path of the traveling twin?

Earth has accelerated in the universe and you have no idea how much. Therefore you can not predict the aging difference of the two twins. The relativistic model collapses totally.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13533 Oct 13, 2012
Sorry the claim is that the twin on ship ages less as his proper time ticks slower due to the acceleration.

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#13534 Oct 13, 2012
We are arguing how many seconds pass in my time compared to to your seconds in your time. On spaceships that do not exist at speeds impossible to achieve. As compared to a third reference frame that we just totally made up.
Whoopee!

You could argue about real world velocities and it would have some meaningful consequence.

Like how it is calculated to slingshot a spacecraft around Jupiter to get it to Pluto or something.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13535 Oct 13, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
We are arguing how many seconds pass in my time compared to to your seconds in your time. On spaceships that do not exist at speeds impossible to achieve. As compared to a third reference frame that we just totally made up.
Whoopee!
You could argue about real world velocities and it would have some meaningful consequence.
Like how it is calculated to slingshot a spacecraft around Jupiter to get it to Pluto or something.
The fact is that the relativistic model can not produce a prediction of the rates of proper times.

Some day those velocities may be achieved and the tests can then be carried out. You problem is that you can not produce predictions of ageing because the model collapses.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13536 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ship 1 and ship B are in a single rest frame, forget everything around them it's just ships 1 and B.
OK, this shows you don't know what it means to be a rest frame. Ship 1 and ship B are moving with respect to each other, so definitely do NOT have the same rest frame!
You have now declared that acceleration of ship B away from ship 1 does not cause the proper time on ship B to start ticking slower than the proper time in the rest frame where it accelerated (ship 1's frame).
The difference is caused by the relative velocity NOT the acceleration (although acceleration can affect it also).
This acceleration apparently causes a totally opposite effect and the time on the ship will start ticking faster after the acceleration.
You constantly fall into the fallacy of ship 1 measuring ship B's clock to tick slower and vice versa. THE SHIPS CAN NOT MEASURE THE PROPER TIME ON THE OTHER SHIP, PERIOD.
The difference in how the clocks measure time *is* the time dilation.

In addition to not understanding what a rest frame is, you also seem not to understand the concept of proper time. The proper time is path dependent: it is how much time elapses for someone (or something) that moves over that path in space-time. It is analogous to the length of a path, but not identical.

And yes, ships can watch the clocks of the other ships and thereby know how the time dilations.
They can record logs of their own proper time and those logs can be the observable facts to be reviewed later.
To do a real comparison, you need to record not only times of events, but locations.
I am talking about *real* dilation of proper times and not your illusion of doppler effected light causing seemingly different rates of time.
The fact is that for predicting any kind of different aging on the ships you are now using an *absolute* frame relative to which some acceleration causes slower rate of time and some faster rate of time.
Exactly wrong. I am not using an absolute time. Both time and distance are relative to the frame of the observer. In going from the description in one frame to that in another, you use a Lorentz transformation.

All of this can be discussed with no accelerations at all and doing so simplifies the discussion (which you clearly need).
My horse isn't even injured. And you don't have a horse at all.

Once again,
And event is something that has both a location in space-time. In other words, each observer will say an event happens at a definite place and at a definite time.

Two events can be at different locations and/or different times. An observer will measure the two events to be some distance apart and with some time interval between them. Different observers measuring the same event will disagree about both the time interval and the distance between the events.

Suppose two ships, A and B are moving with respect to each other (in other words, are not at rest and so do not have a common rest frame). Both measure time with clocks that are at rest for them. But, A's clock is moving with respect to B and B's clock is moving with respect to A. So two clicks of A's clock will be at the same location for A, but at different times for A. Those same two clicks will be at both different locations and at different times for B. Time dilation is the fact that B measures A's clocks as running slower than B's clocks. But, by symmetry, A will measure B's clocks as running slower than A's clocks. In this situation, the time dilation factor is the same both ways.

But, this time dilation factor only holds for events at the same location in the measured frames. If two events happen at different locations and different times in both frames, then the two observers may even disagree about which event happened first as well as the time between them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13537 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
We can extend this situation to the good old twin paradox. The claim is that the twin on the space ship ends up aging more (his proper time is the one ticking slower).
If neither twin accelerates, they *both* see the other as aging slower. Since they will only meet once, this is no problem. The twin paradox happens when at least one has to accelerate so that they can meet twice. The degree of acceleration will then break the symmetry (or not) and determine which twin is younger (or not). Acceleration is not relative, but velocity is.
How would you be able to make this claim? What if Earth had already accelerated to the opposite direction with regard to the path of the traveling twin?
The earth is irrelevant here. The only relevant issue with whether the twins meet twice and the pattern of acceleration of the two twins.
Earth has accelerated in the universe and you have no idea how much. Therefore you can not predict the aging difference of the two twins. The relativistic model collapses totally.
Huh??? What relevance do you think the acceleration history of the earth has in this? What is relevant is the acceleration history of the two twins on their journey. Since they meet twice, at least one has to accelerate. You *do* know what it means to accelerate, right? As in a *change* of velocity? As in, not uniform motion?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13538 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that the relativistic model can not produce a prediction of the rates of proper times.
of course it can. It does and the results correspond to actual measurements.
Some day those velocities may be achieved and the tests can then be carried out. You problem is that you can not produce predictions of ageing because the model collapses.
Funny that we can calculate how long an unstable particle will take to decay given its velocity relative to us. Funny that the predictions agree with the results from using atomic clocks on aircraft, on satellites, etc. Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#13539 Oct 13, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that the relativistic model can not produce a prediction of the rates of proper times.
Some day those velocities may be achieved and the tests can then be carried out. You problem is that you can not produce predictions of ageing because the model collapses.
No they don't actually they are all theoretical based on Lorentz transformations , there is nothing that has proven them wrong because they are theoretical.
But since relativity has been confirmed by the ,

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

It's a pretty good indicator that the Lorentz transformation is correct.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13540 Oct 14, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
OK, this shows you don't know what it means to be a rest frame. Ship 1 and ship B are moving with respect to each other, so definitely do NOT have the same rest frame!
...
Talk about twisting straw man arguments!

When the small ship B prior to its acceleration is in the cargo hold of ship 1, are these two ships 1 and B in the same rest frame? Answer: YES THEY ARE.

The rest of your post went totally past the point. Are you deliberately trying to confuse other people here?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13541 Oct 14, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If neither twin accelerates, they *both* see the other as aging slower. Since they will only meet once, this is no problem. The twin paradox happens when at least one has to accelerate so that they can meet twice. The degree of acceleration will then break the symmetry (or not) and determine which twin is younger (or not). Acceleration is not relative, but velocity is.
<quoted text>
The earth is irrelevant here. The only relevant issue with whether the twins meet twice and the pattern of acceleration of the two twins.
<quoted text>
Huh??? What relevance do you think the acceleration history of the earth has in this? What is relevant is the acceleration history of the two twins on their journey. Since they meet twice, at least one has to accelerate. You *do* know what it means to accelerate, right? As in a *change* of velocity? As in, not uniform motion?
Do you understand that the previous acceleration of Earth in space dictates the (a)synchronicity of the scenario???

1. When one twin accelerates away from the Earth twin you claim that the accelerating twin ages less because asynchronicity.

2. When two twins accelerate away from Earth to opposite directions you claim that they age an equal amount because of synchronicity.

If Earth had accelerated towards some direction your reasoning falls apart totally. Has Earth never accelerated???
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13542 Oct 14, 2012
It is funny that you think that acceleration history plays no role in the Earth-twin situation but suddenly the acceleration history plays a role in the ship 1 - ship B situation.

Hypocrite much?:)

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Dogen 28,318
Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 58 min Eagle 12 2,684
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mar 14 superwilly 258,490

#### Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web