"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

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

Birkenhead, UK

#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.
Ah. He was your teacher!

:-)

“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

Everett, WA

#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?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13563 Oct 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
No. Can you tell us why or do you want to wait for polymath to attempt to try to explain it to you?
No? Are you sure?:D

There is no symmetry?

Relative to anything left (lets say the moon was left behind) in the initial rest frame Earth accelerated to 0.25*c and relative to that same thing the ship accelerated to 0.25*c to the opposite direction of Earth.

So, no symmetry? Is that your final answer?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13564 Oct 15, 2012
By now Polymath has probably realized that his horse is dead. I expect we will not see an answer from him.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13565 Oct 15, 2012
Perhaps I need to assist you a bit...

Lets say that instead of the ship returning to Earth, both Earth and the ship return to where the moon was left. They both travel back at 0.25*c.

When they're both back, do you think they still haven't aged exactly as much?:D

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13566 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?
It depends on how much the earth and the ship accelerate between the time the ship leaves and the time it returns.

If the ship and the earth accelerate the same amount, then they will age exactly as much.

If the earth does not accelerate and the ship does, then the ship will age less.

If the ship does not accelerate and the earth does, then the earth will age less.

Now, you have already said that the ship will accelerate, so the whole question is whether the earth will *also* accelerate between when the ship leaves and when it returns. If not, then the ship ages less. If the earth also accelerates, then the details of the acceleration are required to say which ages less.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13567 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
No? Are you sure?:D
There is no symmetry?
Relative to anything left (lets say the moon was left behind) in the initial rest frame Earth accelerated to 0.25*c and relative to that same thing the ship accelerated to 0.25*c to the opposite direction of Earth.
So, no symmetry? Is that your final answer?
In this, there is a symmetry and they will age the same.

Once again,

CASE I: for twins that are together at one time, move apart, and are together again at a later time,

1) if both accelerate the same amounts (even if in different directions), they will age the same.

2) if one accelerates and the other does not *during the time they are apart*, then the one that accelerates ages less.

3) if they both accelerate, then the details of the accelerations by both are required to know which ages less or if both age the same.

On the other hand,

CASE II: if we have twins that are in uniform motion, they will NOT meet each other twice and both will measure the other as aging less.

Remember this post, I will refer back to it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13568 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
Perhaps I need to assist you a bit...
Lets say that instead of the ship returning to Earth, both Earth and the ship return to where the moon was left. They both travel back at 0.25*c.
When they're both back, do you think they still haven't aged exactly as much?:D
They cannot begin at the moon and end at the moon without one of them accelerating. In other words, they cannot *both* travel at a uniform speed of .25*c in a straight line the whole time.

The answer will depend on the acceleration felt by the earth and the ship during the time between when they meet. See the post above.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13569 Oct 16, 2012
It is funny how blind you are in this case.

Lets say that billions of years ago Earth accelerated to 0.25*c to direction-X and now is on that path. Your logic is that that acceleration is in the past and no longer matters.

A ship which is at rest on Earth accelerates to 0.5*c to direction that happens to be perfectly opposite to direction-X.

There is now 0.5*c relative movement between Earth and the ship. When the distance between them is one light week both the ship and Earth accelerate equally towards each other so that they end up in the same rest frame.

Then both the ship and Earth accelerate to 0.25*c towards each other to meet up (0.5*c relative movement). When they get close they both decelerate equally and stop so that they end up in the same rest frame again.

The simple question to you is:
Is the above situation symmetrical so that both have aged equally?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13570 Oct 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
It is funny how blind you are in this case.
Lets say that billions of years ago Earth accelerated to 0.25*c to direction-X and now is on that path. Your logic is that that acceleration is in the past and no longer matters.
Yes, exactly. When comparing the aging of the earth and the ship, the past acceleration of either one is irrelevant.
A ship which is at rest on Earth accelerates to 0.5*c to direction that happens to be perfectly opposite to direction-X.
There is now 0.5*c relative movement between Earth and the ship. When the distance between them is one light week both the ship and Earth accelerate equally towards each other so that they end up in the same rest frame.
One light week in which frame? The ships or the earth's? They will be different.
Then both the ship and Earth accelerate to 0.25*c towards each other to meet up (0.5*c relative movement).
Wrong. If both are moving at .25*c towards each other in the rest frame, then then their relative velocity will be .47*c.
When they get close they both decelerate equally and stop so that they end up in the same rest frame again.
The simple question to you is:
Is the above situation symmetrical so that both have aged equally?
No, the ship ages less because of that first acceleration when the earth did not.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13571 Oct 16, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, the ship ages less because of that first acceleration when the earth did not.
Ok, good. So the proper time on the ship will begin ticking slower than on Earth as a result of that acceleration away from Earth.

Now. Lets say there is a tiny shuttle inside that ship. If the shuttle accelerates away from the ship, will its proper time start ticking slower than the ship time?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13572 Oct 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, good. So the proper time on the ship will begin ticking slower than on Earth as a result of that acceleration away from Earth.
No, that is NOT what I said. The *total trip* for the ship you described will take less time for the ship than the total time it would take for the earth, each measured in their own frames.

You are talking about clocks ticking slower as if it were an absolute thing. It isn't. The only aspect that is absolute is the proper time over a path.

Another basic misunderstanding is that it is relative *velocity*, not acceleration, that produces the time differences. The acceleration shows up because velocities have to change if two objects meet each other more than once. The changing velocity (i.e, acceleration) produces a changing time dilation factor and therefor a different proper time for the whole path.
Now. Lets say there is a tiny shuttle inside that ship. If the shuttle accelerates away from the ship, will its proper time start ticking slower than the ship time?
With respect to what? The ship? yes. The earth? It depends on the relative motion of the ship and the earth. The shuttle? Obviously, it ticks that same. It is a question that depends on the reference frame.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13573 Oct 16, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, that is NOT what I said. The *total trip* for the ship you described will take less time for the ship than the total time it would take for the earth, each measured in their own frames.
You are talking about clocks ticking slower as if it were an absolute thing. It isn't. The only aspect that is absolute is the proper time over a path.
This gets funnier and funnier. You don't realize that you are the one clinging to absolute time with (a)symmetry?

During the trip did the clock on the ship slower than clocks on Earth? Yes or no?
polymath257 wrote:
Another basic misunderstanding is that it is relative *velocity*, not acceleration, that produces the time differences.
You are the one claiming that acceleration is what decides who will be aging less (i.e. who's clock ticked slower).

Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS.
polymath257 wrote:
The acceleration shows up because velocities have to change if two objects meet each other more than once. The changing velocity (i.e, acceleration) produces a changing time dilation factor and therefor a different proper time for the whole path.
Exactly. And your claim is that the one who experiences acceleration will also experience slower rate of time.
polymath257 wrote:
With respect to what? The ship? yes. The earth? It depends on the relative motion of the ship and the earth. The shuttle? Obviously, it ticks that same. It is a question that depends on the reference frame.
Lets say that the shuttle accelerates back towards Earth. We already know that the clock on the ship is ticking slower relative to Earth because the ship accelerated.

Now the shuttle *accelerated* from the ship. How will its clock tick relative to:
1. the ship
2. Earth
???

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13574 Oct 16, 2012
What is this nonsense about time dilation not being observed and measured? That was done long ago, today it is an everyday event. If you have a GPS the computer that calculates your position has to account for time dilation by the moving satellite, they are that accurate. If they did not correct for that there would be an ever increasing error in your location.

Instead of making ridiculous claims you might do a little Google searching. By the way, the accuracy of GPS has been high enough that they have had to correct for this for the last 15 years. This is not "breaking science":

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13575 Oct 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This gets funnier and funnier. You don't realize that you are the one clinging to absolute time with (a)symmetry?
During the trip did the clock on the ship slower than clocks on Earth? Yes or no?
<quoted text>
You are the one claiming that acceleration is what decides who will be aging less (i.e. who's clock ticked slower).
Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS.
<quoted text>
Exactly. And your claim is that the one who experiences acceleration will also experience slower rate of time.
<quoted text>
Lets say that the shuttle accelerates back towards Earth. We already know that the clock on the ship is ticking slower relative to Earth because the ship accelerated.
Now the shuttle *accelerated* from the ship. How will its clock tick relative to:
1. the ship
2. Earth
???
"Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS."

You are quite confused between Theoretical Physics and Physics.

But much of Theoretical Physics is understood as being correct.

The effects have been proven,(insert comment here).

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13577 Oct 17, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
What is this nonsense about time dilation not being observed and measured? That was done long ago, today it is an everyday event. If you have a GPS the computer that calculates your position has to account for time dilation by the moving satellite, they are that accurate. If they did not correct for that there would be an ever increasing error in your location.
Instead of making ridiculous claims you might do a little Google searching. By the way, the accuracy of GPS has been high enough that they have had to correct for this for the last 15 years. This is not "breaking science":
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
You fail to understand.

In the twin paradox the relativistic model produces two predictions of time dilation. When the observable facts are observed it is noticed that the relativistic model has produced one falsified prediction and one accurate prediction. This is still hypothetical but real within the model. The model itself dictates that it must produce at least one falsified prediction and at most one good prediction.

What about the symmetrical situation then. Lo' and behold, the relativistic model produces two predictions of time dilation which are both falsified by the observation of the actual observable facts.

The relativistic model is truly total nonsense. It can not produce good predictions of proper time dilation, most of the predictions will fail and falsify the model. This fact is dictated by the model itself.

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
Our world came from nothing? 13 min Patrick 512
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 16 min Thinking 32
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min ChristineM 228,006
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 23 min CunningLinguist 22,525
Girl's Christmas letter to atheist dictator sho... 3 hr Mikko 1
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 4 hr Chimney1 358
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 15 hr cancer suxs 5
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••