"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

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

Comments
13,181 - 13,200 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?:)
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13543
Oct 14, 2012
 
synchronicity / symmetry

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13544
Oct 14, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, when they are *not* moving with respect to each other, they have the same rest frame. When they *are* moving with respect to each other, they have different rest frames. Once ship B is moving with respect to ship 1, they have different rest frames.

Once again, you show that you do not understand the terminology of the subject.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13545
Oct 14, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that the previous acceleration of Earth in space dictates the (a)synchronicity of the scenario???
This is false.
1. When one twin accelerates away from the Earth twin you claim that the accelerating twin ages less because asynchronicity.
it is NOT accelerating relative to the earth that is the relevant factor. It is simply acceleration.
2. When two twins accelerate away from Earth to opposite directions you claim that they age an equal amount because of synchronicity.
No, I am NOT claiming that. Once again, you seem to think there is an absolute standard.

Second, you are focusing on acceleration, which tends to confuse the issue here.

Suppose we eliminate acceleration for the scenario for the moment. Each twin is moving at uniform speed in opposite directions, passing the earth at the same time. Each measures the clocks (and every other physical process) of the other as running slower than their own. The earth sees the clocks on both ships as moving slower than its own and both ships see the earths clocks as running slower than their own.
If Earth had accelerated towards some direction your reasoning falls apart totally. Has Earth never accelerated???
Acceleration of the earth is irrelevant here. Acceleration of the ships is.

Let's eliminate the earth entirely. Suppose two twins in spaceships are moving in opposite direction and pass each other. Each measures the clocks of the other as moving slower than their own. Suppose they are exactly the same age at the moment they pass each other. Both will see the other as aging slower than themselves. But since they never meet up again, there is no paradox: it is simply the results of their own measurements of the other.

The only time a paradox can arise is if they happen to meet again after their initial passing. For this to happen, though, at least one twin, and possibly both, will have to accelerate. If only one accelerates and the other does not, the accelerating one is the twin that ages less. If both accelerate equal amounts, then they will have the same age when they meet again. If the detailed history of their acceleration is different, which twin ages is more complicated to decide, but can be done knowing the detailed history of both.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13546
Oct 14, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
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?:)
The acceleration of the earth would only affect the results for accelerations during the time the twin was gone. Past acceleration is irrelevant. If the earth is unaccelerated during the twin's trip, and if the twin returns to the earth, then the twin will be accelerated and will age less. If both the earth and the twin accelerate the same amount, then they will age the same amount.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13547
Oct 14, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
Yes, when they are *not* moving with respect to each other, they have the same rest frame. When they *are* moving with respect to each other, they have different rest frames. Once ship B is moving with respect to ship 1, they have different rest frames.
Once again, you show that you do not understand the terminology of the subject.
It is all trivial. You just want to straw man. I said they are in the same rest frame from which the other ship accelerates.

So stop whining.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13548
Oct 14, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
This is false.
<quoted text>
it is NOT accelerating relative to the earth that is the relevant factor. It is simply acceleration.
<quoted text>
No, I am NOT claiming that. Once again, you seem to think there is an absolute standard.
Second, you are focusing on acceleration, which tends to confuse the issue here.
Suppose we eliminate acceleration for the scenario for the moment. Each twin is moving at uniform speed in opposite directions, passing the earth at the same time. Each measures the clocks (and every other physical process) of the other as running slower than their own. The earth sees the clocks on both ships as moving slower than its own and both ships see the earths clocks as running slower than their own.
<quoted text>
Acceleration of the earth is irrelevant here. Acceleration of the ships is.
Let's eliminate the earth entirely. Suppose two twins in spaceships are moving in opposite direction and pass each other. Each measures the clocks of the other as moving slower than their own. Suppose they are exactly the same age at the moment they pass each other. Both will see the other as aging slower than themselves. But since they never meet up again, there is no paradox: it is simply the results of their own measurements of the other.
The only time a paradox can arise is if they happen to meet again after their initial passing. For this to happen, though, at least one twin, and possibly both, will have to accelerate. If only one accelerates and the other does not, the accelerating one is the twin that ages less. If both accelerate equal amounts, then they will have the same age when they meet again. If the detailed history of their acceleration is different, which twin ages is more complicated to decide, but can be done knowing the detailed history of both.
This is just hilarious. There are two identical ship B instances in the two scenarios. The base from which one ship B accelerates away is the Earth, in the other scenario the base from which the ship B accelerates away is the bigger ship 1.

Two ship-B ships accelerate. And how do you calculate the time dilation of proper times?

Answer: you take into account the acceleration history of one base (ship 1) but neglect the acceleration history of the other base (Earth).

That is insanely funny. You mix and match previous accelerations into the equation in any way you please, as long as you get what you want. Superbly hilarious.

So would you like to try to give an explanation for why you account for one acceleration history but neglect the other? Well, we already know that you are hopelessly unable to answer that :)
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13549
Oct 14, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
The acceleration of the earth would only affect the results for accelerations during the time the twin was gone. Past acceleration is irrelevant. If the earth is unaccelerated during the twin's trip, and if the twin returns to the earth, then the twin will be accelerated and will age less. If both the earth and the twin accelerate the same amount, then they will age the same amount.
Past acceleration is irrelevant.. Except for ship-1 :D
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13550
Oct 14, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
Past acceleration is irrelevant.
...
If both the earth and the twin accelerate the same amount, then they will age the same amount.
So... Past acceleration is irrelevant...

Earth accelerates to 0.25*c to direction-X. This is now in the past and we are all in the rest frame of Earth. Then ship-X accelerates to from Earth 0.5*c to the direction opposite of direction-X.

Is the past acceleration irrelevant for determining rates of ageing on Earth and ship-X? If the past acceleration is irrelevant then your accounting for ship-1 past acceleration previously is FALSE.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13551
Oct 14, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
It is all trivial. You just want to straw man. I said they are in the same rest frame from which the other ship accelerates.
So stop whining.
No, you said they were in the same rest frame when they were moving. That is wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13552
Oct 14, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So... Past acceleration is irrelevant...
Earth accelerates to 0.25*c to direction-X.
With respect to what? Again, you give a velocity without a reference for it.
This is now in the past and we are all in the rest frame of Earth.
There are two 'rest frames' here: the one before the earth accelerated and the one after. Which do you mean?
Then ship-X accelerates to from Earth 0.5*c to the direction opposite of direction-X.
Unclear what you mean here. So the ship is going away from the earth and is at rest in the original frame?
Is the past acceleration irrelevant for determining rates of ageing on Earth and ship-X?
Yes.
If the past acceleration is irrelevant then your accounting for ship-1 past acceleration previously is FALSE.
Why do you say that? Exactly what do you think is false in what I said?
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13553
Oct 15, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
No, you said they were in the same rest frame when they were moving. That is wrong.
Like I said, you like to take obvious trivial things and twist them into a straw man. I said that ship B accelerates from the ship 1 frame, until it accelerated they were in the same frame. That much is trivial.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13554
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you like to take obvious trivial things and twist them into a straw man. I said that ship B accelerates from the ship 1 frame, until it accelerated they were in the same frame. That much is trivial.
It is fairly obvious that you do not know what a "frame of reference" is. It is nonsensical to say that an object is not in a frame of reference. Everything in the universe is in each and every frame of reference.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13555
Oct 15, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
With respect to what? Again, you give a velocity without a reference for it.
With respect everything else in the universe. A ship with fuel in space can just accelerate towards any direction, they feel the acceleration.
polymath257 wrote:
There are two 'rest frames' here: the one before the earth accelerated and the one after. Which do you mean?
What the heck are you talking about? We are all on Earth, at rest. Who was left in the previous rest frame from which Earth accelerated???

That acceleration is in the past, we felt some acceleration on Earth but they now the old frame is lost in history.
polymath257 wrote:
Unclear what you mean here. So the ship is going away from the earth and is at rest in the original frame?
It is quite simple and trivial. The ship was at rest on Earth when Earth accelerated. Before the ship accelerates it is in the same rest frame with Earth. Then the ship accelerates towards direction opposite of Earth's initial acceleration.
polymath257 wrote:
Yes.
<quoted text>
Why do you say that? Exactly what do you think is false in what I said?
Oh no... Lets try this even more simply.

Earth accelerates to speed 0.25*c towards direction-X with the ship-X on Earth, they are in the same rest frame. Then later ship-X accelerates to 0.5*c from Earth's rest frame towards direction opposite to direction-X. The relative velocity between Earth and ship-X is now 0.5*c.

What will be the rate of ageing on ship-X compared to Earth?

If Earth had not first accelerated to 0.25*c, would that rate be different?
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13556
Oct 15, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
It is fairly obvious that you do not know what a "frame of reference" is. It is nonsensical to say that an object is not in a frame of reference. Everything in the universe is in each and every frame of reference.
Yawn. How can you be this lost?

They are not at rest in each and every frame of reference.

Do you understand what it means for two observes to be at rest in the same frame of reference?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••