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

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 67217 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.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13543 Oct 14, 2012
synchronicity / symmetry

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#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

#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

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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

#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

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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

#13554 Oct 15, 2012
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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13557 Oct 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Don't waste your time with this idiot. I assure you he will run around in circles.
The Dude

#13558 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste your time with this idiot. I assure you he will run around in circles.

:-)

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13559 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
Oh no... Lets try this even more simply.
Earth accelerates to speed 0.25*c towards direction-X
So it is now going .25*c in a certain direction with respect to the frame in which it started (frame 1).
with the ship-X on Earth, they are in the same rest frame.
So at this point, the ship is also moving at .25*c with respect to the frame in which the earth started. It is also at currently rest with respect to the earth (frame 2).
Then later ship-X accelerates to 0.5*c from Earth's rest frame towards direction opposite to direction-X.
OK, so now it is going .5*c with respect to frame 2. It also is going .286*c in frame 1 in the direction opposite the earth.
The relative velocity between Earth and ship-X is now 0.5*c.
Yes.
What will be the rate of ageing on ship-X compared to Earth?
The earth measures the ships clocks as running at 87% of 'normal'. The ship measures the earth's clocks as running at 87% of 'normal'.
If Earth had not first accelerated to 0.25*c, would that rate be different?
No. All that is relevant in this scenario is the relative velocities of the earth and the ship.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13560 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
With respect everything else in the universe. A ship with fuel in space can just accelerate towards any direction, they feel the acceleration.
Yes, but when you say a velocity of .5*c, you have to say in which reference frame that velocity is measured. In the frame that the ship was in before it accelerated?
What the heck are you talking about? We are all on Earth, at rest.
And yet, you were talking about the earth accelerating.
Who was left in the previous rest frame from which Earth accelerated???
Irrelevant. Are you measuring the new velocity of the earth with respect to the old frame?
That acceleration is in the past, we felt some acceleration on Earth but they now the old frame is lost in history.
So it is now irrelevant to any local measurements. it is irrelevant to how much time dilation there is between the earth and any ships nearby.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13561 Oct 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
The earth measures the ships clocks as running at 87% of 'normal'. The ship measures the earth's clocks as running at 87% of 'normal'.
And then the ship returns to Earth. Will the people on the ship have aged exactly as much as people on Earth?

Since: Sep 08

#13562 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And then the ship returns to Earth. Will the people on the ship have aged exactly as much as people on Earth?
No. Can you tell us why or do you want to wait for polymath to attempt to try to explain it to you?

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) 1 hr Science 28,657
Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 3,531
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? Tue superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Tue superwilly 462
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
Where have all the Atheists gone? Apr 18 Eagle 12 13

Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web