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

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

There are 69956 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

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#13585 Oct 17, 2012
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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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>
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

#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

Helsinki, Finland

#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

#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.

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#13591 Oct 17, 2012
KittenKoder

Canberra, Australia

#13592 Oct 17, 2012
This shows that there is a God, the only original creator
http://www.ucg.org/god-science/prove-there-go...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13593 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
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.
If the stay-at-home twin does not accelerate, then they will predict the traveling twin to age *less*, not more.
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.
Remember this when you ask about whether clocks are ticking slower or faster.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO OBSERVE TIME DILATION OF OBSERVED PROPER TIMES.
Not true, of course. Simply look at the clock of the other ship. measure how fast it ticks compared to yours.
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.
This is not the only way to compare frames! Simply *look* at what is happening to the other ship. Watch their clock and determine how fast it is clicking. Take into account the speed of light if you wish.
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.
The phrase 'rates of time between two frames when they were in separate rest frames' is non-sensical and shows your lack of understanding of the terms used.
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.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong. Simply *look* at the clocks in the other frame. Look at processes going on in the other ship and measure them with *your* devices.
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...
Again, you don't understand what the theory actually predicts.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13594 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
*sigh* No. The acceleration in this case (because they are not meeting up again), is irrelevant. Only the relative velocity is relevant. And both will measure the clocks of the other as going slower. There is no absolute standard by which proper time goes faster or slower.
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.
Once again, the acceleration here is not relevant because we are not talking about meeting more than once. So the only way to compare is by measuring the rates of things on the earth, ship, and shuttle. In this situation, the relative speed of the shuttle with respect to the ship is .5*c, so both see the clocks of the other as running slower. BUT, the relative speed of the shuttle and the earth is zero, so the shuttle and the earth see their clocks as running the same rate. However, the clocks will no longer be synchronized because of the time when the shuttle was moving along with the rocket. The clock on the shuttle will be behind that of the earth (while now running at the same rate).
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.
And this is an incorrect conclusion. Once again, there is no standard for time where one is ticking faster or slower. There is only comparison between measured time values between events.
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.
A more interesting variant is obtained as follows:

Ship 1 moves away from the earth at .5*c. After a while, a shuttle leaves the ship and starts to move away at .5*c in the opposite direction from the ship. After a while longer the ship accelerates (decelerates) to be at rest with respect to the earth. Now all three (earth, shuttle, ship) are at rest with respect to each other. Which has aged less? Answer: the ship has aged the least, the shuttle has aged more and the earth the most.

Since: Sep 08

#13595 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?
No, you have it wrong. Did you check out the link that I gave that said the stay at home will age more? I have never seen you version of the twin paradox. Like I said, find a site that supports your claim, link it and quote it. Otherwise we all will know that you did not have a clue what the Twin Paradox was.

Since: Sep 08

#13596 Oct 17, 2012
Another link describing the Twins Paradox for hb where again the traveling twin is much younger:

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html

Since: Sep 08

#13597 Oct 17, 2012
And one more with illustrations, maybe this will explain it to hb:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/...

Again, the traveling twin stays younger.

Since: Sep 08

#13598 Oct 17, 2012
Actually, I like the last one best. Because it shows how to get the wrong answer that hb did and why that is the wrong answer. So one more time:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/...
Joe observes that Jane's on-board clocks (including her biological one), which run at Jane's proper time, run slowly on both outbound and return leg. He therefore concludes that she will be younger than he will be when she returns. On the outward leg, Jane observes Joe's clock to run slowly, and she observes that it ticks slowly on the return run. So will Jane conclude that Joe will have aged less? And if she does, who is correct? According to the proponents of the paradox, there is a symmetry between the two observers, so, just plugging in the equations of relativity, each will predict that the other is younger. This cannot be simultaneously true for both so, if the argument is correct, relativity is wrong.
The naive interpretation--the reason why the situation is called a paradox--is to assume that the situation is competely symmetrical. If that were the case, Jane's diagram would simply be a mirror image of Joe's. But Special Relativity applies only to the relations between inertial frames of reference. In this regard, the situations of the twins are definitely not symmetrical. Joe is in one inertial frame throughout.(We discuss the partial symmetry below.)
Jane certainly knows that she has not been in the same inertial frame for the whole trip: in order to stop the outward journey and to commence the return, she had to turn the ship around and fire the engines hard and long. During that time she knew that she was not in an inertial frame
n the second of Jane's inertial frames (the homeward trip), she receives a lot of anniversary messages from Joe. If she pretends that she has been in this same frame of reference all along (the dashed line extrapolation of her returning world line), i.e. if she assumes that she has been travelling towards Earth at constant v for six of her years, she would conclude that Joe had been sending them for eight of his years (follow the dashed lines). Now this is a strange assumption
Let's now assume that Jane is not naive, that she knows about relativity, that she remembers the acceleration, that she remembers being with Joe at the beginning of the trip and that she uses this knowledge in analysing her version of the space time diagrams. First, once she has left the Earth, accelerated and is travelling without acceleration towards her destination, she can apply Special Relativity. She observes that the distance between the Earth and her destination has shrunk.(See Relativistic time dilation, simultaneity and length contraction for an explanation.) It has shrunk by the factor 1/&#947; =(1 &#8722; v2/c2)1/2 = 0.75, so she now only has to travel for three of her years to get there. Similarly, in her return trip (another inertial frame so she can use Special Relativity again) the distance is also shorter, so she only has to travel for three years to get there. So Jane's space time diagrams are those shown at right.(We repeat the diagram.
It it better to go to the site and look for yourself. It has drawings and even a simple animation to help you understand this concept.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13599 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very confused.
Well,*someone* is confused, but it is not who you think it is.

I will assume that the stay-at-home twin in the following stays in the same reference frame the whole time (i.e, is not accelerating). That means his brother changes reference frames during the trip (i.e, accelerates).
Does the stay-at-home twin predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.
Wrong. The stay-at home twin will predict his brother will age *less*. This is due to time dilation the whole time.
Does the traveling brother predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.
This is correct. The traveling twin changes reference frames half-way through the trip and that, together with the lack of simultaneity, means he predicts the stay-at-home twin will age more.
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?
No, you simply don't understand what the theory actually predicts. In particular, you have the prediction made by the stay-at-home twin wrong.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#13600 Oct 17, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
This shows that there is a God, the only original creator
http://www.ucg.org/god-science/prove-there-go...

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13601 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
If the stay-at-home twin does not accelerate, then they will predict the traveling twin to age *less*, not more.
<quoted text>
Remember this when you ask about whether clocks are ticking slower or faster.
<quoted text>
Not true, of course. Simply look at the clock of the other ship. measure how fast it ticks compared to yours.
<quoted text>
This is not the only way to compare frames! Simply *look* at what is happening to the other ship. Watch their clock and determine how fast it is clicking. Take into account the speed of light if you wish.
<quoted text>
The phrase 'rates of time between two frames when they were in separate rest frames' is non-sensical and shows your lack of understanding of the terms used.
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong. Simply *look* at the clocks in the other frame. Look at processes going on in the other ship and measure them with *your* devices.
<quoted text>
Again, you don't understand what the theory actually predicts.
What nonsense from you again..

- both ships have atomic clocks inside the ship
- the ships are very far apart
- the observers in one ship can not see inside the other ship at all

You are inside one ship, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THE ATOMIC CLOCK OF THE OTHER SHIP?

Another thing:
In the case of the twin paradox, you keep babbling about both twins considering the other twin will age more. Now you say that the prediction is that specifically one twin will accelerate more.

What do you mean by both twins considering the other will age more??? Is it not a prediction? It certainly is not an observation because the twins are in different frames so they can not observe each others rates of time, only their own.

So why do you say that both twins will think the other is aging more??? Is it just nonsensical babbling from you?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13602 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
If the stay-at-home twin does not accelerate, then they will predict the traveling twin to age *less*, not more.
Ok, less then. ARE YOU NOW SAYING THAT IT IS A PREDICTION THAT FAILS?

IS IT A PREDICTION OR NOT??????
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13603 Oct 18, 2012

Now you are saying that one twin predicts the other will age more and one predicts the other will age less.

So what is the nonsense about both twins thinking the other will age more? Is it just that, nonsense?

#### 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) 4 hr 15th Dalai Lama 30,111
Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 5 hr orlando 434
Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) 9 hr Roy 12,673
Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr yehoshooah adam 3,779
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 17 hr superwilly 579
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Tue Eagle 12 258,469
The rise of militant atheism (Sep '09) May 21 online reality bu... 9,236

#### Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web