"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 (Page 662)

Showing posts 13,221 - 13,240 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13573
Oct 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13578
Oct 17, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
"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).
Some kind of time dilation is observed. Einstein's time dilation has not been "proven".

How do you distinguish Einstein's time dilation from different rates of electron spins dictated by the Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity? Answer: You can not distinguish between the two.

As said above:
The relativistic model itself dictates that it will produce mostly failing predictions of time dilation. In the case of perfect symmetry the model fails totally, it can not produce a mathematical prediction of time dilation that would correspond with observable facts of reality.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13579
Oct 17, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, it predicts only one prediction. Who ever told you that it would produce two? I would like to see a quote and a link please.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13580
Oct 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
No, it predicts only one prediction. Who ever told you that it would produce two? I would like to see a quote and a link please.
In the twin paradox the ageing of the two twins is the predictions.

Both twins will calculate a prediction of the other twin aging more during the trip of the space twin. The observation of the facts reveals that only one of them aged more and thus one prediction is falsified.

In the case of perfect symmetry both predictions are falsified.

Is science to you something that allows failing of predictions and the the failures just always need to be explained with something magical?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13581
Oct 17, 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?
From which frame? In the frame of the ship, no. In the frame of the earth, yes. There is no absolute standard for time, so this answer depends on the frame n which the comparison is being done.
You are the one claiming that acceleration is what decides who will be aging less (i.e. who's clock ticked slower).
In a comparison between two ships that meet twice and only one accelerates, yes.
Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS.
Time dilation is an effect *between* two reference frames. This can be observed by comparing the results in two reference frames. This is done all the time when looking at decays of atomic particles, but it can also be measured using atomic clocks at ordinary speeds.
Exactly. And your claim is that the one who experiences acceleration will also experience slower rate of time.
How many times do I have to point out to you that there is no well-defined *rate of time*?
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
???
Please give the context within a single post. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the ship, the ship will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the earth, then the earth will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. But, the shuttle will also measure times on both the ship and the earth as running slower.

Another thing you seem to miss is the difference between time dilation in fly-bys and proper time in round trips. These are different, although connected concepts.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13582
Oct 17, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In the twin paradox the ageing of the two twins is the predictions.
Both twins will calculate a prediction of the other twin aging more during the trip of the space twin.
Not if one accelerates, which is required if they will meet up again.
The observation of the facts reveals that only one of them aged more and thus one prediction is falsified.
In the case of perfect symmetry both predictions are falsified.
The predictions are not what you think they are. For symmetric acceleration, the prediction is equal aging. More precisely, if there is a third observer for whom the twins are moving at the same velocity at any time, then the ages will be the same when they meet again.
Is science to you something that allows failing of predictions and the the failures just always need to be explained with something magical?
Your lack of understanding of a model does not constitute falsification of the model.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13583
Oct 17, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In the twin paradox the ageing of the two twins is the predictions.
Both twins will calculate a prediction of the other twin aging more during the trip of the space twin. The observation of the facts reveals that only one of them aged more and thus one prediction is falsified.
In the case of perfect symmetry both predictions are falsified.
Is science to you something that allows failing of predictions and the the failures just always need to be explained with something magical?
That is wrong. I have never seen the Twin Paradox put forth this way. Again, find a source or admit that you misunderstood it. Every version that I have seen has the Earth twin aging more than the space twin:
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of which makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

There, I provided a source and quote from that source. Only the twin at home ages faster. You misunderstood the Twin Paradox to start out with. You will not find a proper source that uses your strange convoluted "both twins age more" claim.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13584
Oct 17, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
From which frame? In the frame of the ship, no. In the frame of the earth, yes. There is no absolute standard for time, so this answer depends on the frame n which the comparison is being done.
This is about the observation of the REAL FACTS after the experiment. When they compare their clocks.

Stop confusing yourself with the illusion of time dilation which can never be observed and verified. A good example of this illusion of yours is the twin paradox. The stay-at-home twin will predict that the travelling twin ages more. Alas, his prediction is falsified.
polymath257 wrote:
Time dilation is an effect *between* two reference frames. This can be observed by comparing the results in two reference frames. This is done all the time when looking at decays of atomic particles, but it can also be measured using atomic clocks at ordinary speeds.
Time dilation of proper times can only be observed by two observers by sharing the same rest frame twice and one/both having accelerations between.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO OBSERVE TIME DILATION OF OBSERVED PROPER TIMES.
polymath257 wrote:
How many times do I have to point out to you that there is no well-defined *rate of time*?
Of course there is and you must have, otherwise you can make no predictions at all. Each object/observer has their own rate of time. Two observers can compare their times by joining into one single rest frame. Joining into two separate rest frames they can compare their average rates of time that occurred between those two frames when they were in separate rest frames.
polymath257 wrote:
Please give the context within a single post. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the ship, the ship will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the earth, then the earth will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. But, the shuttle will also measure times on both the ship and the earth as running slower.

Another thing you seem to miss is the difference between time dilation in fly-bys and proper time in round trips. These are different, although connected concepts.
How many times do I have to tell you that AN OBSERVER IN ONE FRAME CAN NOT MEASURE TIME FOR AN OBSERVER IN ANOTHER FRAME. They can predict their times and this is where the relativistic model fails miserably. The observers end up making contradicting predictions of times for each other and when the facts are observed one or both predictions are falsified.

I'll write a separate post about the experiment...
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13585
Oct 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
Please give the context within a single post. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the ship, the ship will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the earth, then the earth will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. But, the shuttle will also measure times on both the ship and the earth as running slower.
Again...

1. A ship accelerates from Earth to reach 0.5*c velocity. The established fact is that the PROPER TIME on the ship will begin ticking slower than on Earth due to the acceleration.

2. Then a shuttle accelerates out from the cargo hold of the ship towards Earth to reach 0.5*c velocity relative to the ship. The established fact is that the PROPER TIME on the shuttle will begin ticking slower than on the ship due to the acceleration.

3. The shuttle is now in the rest frame with Earth but apparently its time is ticking slower than on the ship and therefore much slower than on Earth.

There is no escape from this paradox for you, EXCEPT TO GENERATE ABSOLUTE TIME and in fact say that the PROPER TIME on the shuttle will begin to tick faster and on the ship even though it is the shuttle that accelerates.

The relativistic model fails miserably.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13586
Oct 17, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
Not if one accelerates, which is required if they will meet up again.
<quoted text>
The predictions are not what you think they are. For symmetric acceleration, the prediction is equal aging. More precisely, if there is a third observer for whom the twins are moving at the same velocity at any time, then the ages will be the same when they meet again.
<quoted text>
Your lack of understanding of a model does not constitute falsification of the model.
I find your religious ambiguity hilarious.

Only proper times (and their average rates between two space-time points) can be scientifically tested/verified.

Stop babbling about someone measuring time for someone else in a different frame. No one can measure time for other frames. You constantly confuse prediction and actual measurement.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13587
Oct 17, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
That is wrong. I have never seen the Twin Paradox put forth this way. Again, find a source or admit that you misunderstood it. Every version that I have seen has the Earth twin aging more than the space twin:<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There, I provided a source and quote from that source. Only the twin at home ages faster. You misunderstood the Twin Paradox to start out with. You will not find a proper source that uses your strange convoluted "both twins age more" claim.
You are very confused.

Does the stay-at-home twin predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.

Does the traveling brother predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.

Even hypothetically the model produces at least one prediction that fails miserably and is falsified when the facts are observed.

Is this something you can ever comprehend? Or will you just cling to your religious reasoning?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13588
Oct 17, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very confused.
Does the stay-at-home twin predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.
Does the traveling brother predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.
Even hypothetically the model produces at least one prediction that fails miserably and is falsified when the facts are observed.
Is this something you can ever comprehend? Or will you just cling to your religious reasoning?
Good morning, just stopped in to say 'Hi'.

Are you rehashing one of your old crank theories or pandering a totally new crank theory?

God bless you.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13589
Oct 17, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Good morning, just stopped in to say 'Hi'.
Are you rehashing one of your old crank theories or pandering a totally new crank theory?
God bless you.
Hi there old buddy! How have you been?

I can understand if you feel a bit depressed watching the walls caving in on you... You must understand that it is only for the better, reason and logic must destroy religious clinging to magic.

"God" is a three letter word to which people seem to assign multiple meanings. Which "god" are you talking about?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13590
Oct 17, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there old buddy! How have you been?
I can understand if you feel a bit depressed watching the walls caving in on you... You must understand that it is only for the better, reason and logic must destroy religious clinging to magic.
"God" is a three letter word to which people seem to assign multiple meanings. Which "god" are you talking about?
I'm talking about the God that has beautiful age appropriate chicks falling over each other to sit next to me at church.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 13,221 - 13,240 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••