"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
13,241 - 13,260 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#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/γ =(1 − 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

Birkenhead, 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...
Your sin of stealing someone else's moniker is almost as bad as the sheer kitten-hate propaganda stemming from your linky.
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
You change your views.

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?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13604 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
*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.
There you go with your FALLACY again. How do you measure the atomic clock of an observer millions of miles away from you??? HOW?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13605 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
The acceleration in this case (because they are not meeting up again), is irrelevant.
This is hilarious actually. You are saying that General Relativity does not apply but Special Relativity only because they don't "meet up". The funniest thing ever.

We didn't meet up with the GPS satellites, why do we need to take into account the GR time dilation with respect to the satellites???

You are hopelessly lost :)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13606 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
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.
Logic dictates that between two clocks having different rates in different reference frames one clock will be ticking faster and one slower. This is a pure and simple fact and can be verified by bringing the clocks into the same rest frame before and after the experiment. So this is also an observable and verifiable fact.

Are you now trying to say that it is possible for BOTH clocks to tick slower (or faster) and that could become an observable and verifiable fact? YES or NO?

If your answer is "no", then your comment above is pure nonsense.
If your answer is "yes", then your comment is again pure nonsense.

So already we know that your comment is pure nonsense :)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13607 Oct 18, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
With a telescope, perhaps?
In the case of the twin paradox, you keep babbling about both twins considering the other twin will age more.
Age *less*.
Now you say that the prediction is that specifically one twin will accelerate more.
If two twins are together, separate, and then are together again, then at least one will accelerate.
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.
Of *course* they can observe the other twin and the things happening in their ship!
So why do you say that both twins will think the other is aging more??? Is it just nonsensical babbling from you?
For uniform motion, both twins measure things for the other twin moving slower: so both see the other twin as again *less*.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13608 Oct 18, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic dictates that between two clocks having different rates in different reference frames one clock will be ticking faster and one slower. This is a pure and simple fact and can be verified by bringing the clocks into the same rest frame before and after the experiment. So this is also an observable and verifiable fact.
And this is exactly what is wrong. Both see the clocks (and all other physical processes) of the other as running slower. You cannot bring them back to the same rest frame without acceleration, which destroys the uniform motion.
Are you now trying to say that it is possible for BOTH clocks to tick slower (or faster) and that could become an observable and verifiable fact? YES or NO?
YES. Each measures the clocks of the other as moving slower. Finally you get to one of the essential parts of special relativity.
If your answer is "no", then your comment above is pure nonsense.
If your answer is "yes", then your comment is again pure nonsense.
So already we know that your comment is pure nonsense :)
Again, the fact that you don't understand doesn't make it non-sense. Special relativity has several counter-intuitive aspects:

1. time dilation: when two observers are moving with respect to each other, each sees the clocks of the other as moving slower.

2. length contraction: when two observers are moving with respect to each other, each sees lengths of the other contracted in the direction of motion.

3. violation of simultaneity: when two observers are moving with respect to each other, then events which are measured to be simultaneous by one will *not* be simultaneous for the other.

These all happen for *uniform* motion, where the velocity does not change.

For *accelerated* motion, you have to add up the effects of all the pieces of uniform motion (technically, you integrate the effect). The point is that accelerated motion *requires* a change in reference frame: accelerated frames are NOT inertial.

Now, if you have two twins that are together, then separate, then are together again, at least one has to accelerate, which means they change their inertial frame. because of the lack of simultaneity between the inertial frames, the accelerated twin will age less. BOTH twins agree on this point.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13609 Oct 18, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This is hilarious actually. You are saying that General Relativity does not apply but Special Relativity only because they don't "meet up". The funniest thing ever.
No, general relativity applies, but it gives the same results as special relativity in these cases.
We didn't meet up with the GPS satellites, why do we need to take into account the GR time dilation with respect to the satellites???
You are hopelessly lost :)
I might point out that this is an example of measuring what is going on in a moving frame. Just the type of thing you said is impossible. There are two effects for the GPS satellites: a velocity effect which slows down time and a gravity effect which speeds it up with respect to us here on the earth. The two effects don't quite cancel and the net effect is that we see time for the GPS satellite as going slower (the velocity effect is more than the gravity effect here).

But, if someone were on the GPS satellite,*they* would see time on the earth as going slower also and have to take *that* effect into consideration. But the satellites are getting time signals from earth. But this *is* an effect that must be considered for communication satellites.

Again, time dilation *both ways* is a measurable phenomenon.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13610 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
With a telescope, perhaps?
Ok. Lets destroy your logical fallacies one by one. I'll start with this one.

You think you can measure the proper time (and its rate) of some other observer far away in some other rest frame by pointing a telescope at that observer and his atomic clock.

How did you plan to accomplish that exactly?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13611 Oct 18, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Lets destroy your logical fallacies one by one. I'll start with this one.
You think you can measure the proper time (and its rate) of some other observer far away in some other rest frame by pointing a telescope at that observer and his atomic clock.
How did you plan to accomplish that exactly?
He did not say that was the proper time. All he said is what the person in one ship would see if he had a strong enough telescope to see into the other ship.

By the way, did you check out the last website that I linked where they explain the mistake that you made? You are using an oversimplified and wrong method to understand the Twins Paradox.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13612 Oct 18, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
He did not say that was the proper time. All he said is what the person in one ship would see if he had a strong enough telescope to see into the other ship.
The observers in the ships use atomic clocks to measure their proper time. Polymath made a direct claim that observers could measure the time being observed by other observers in different frames.

It is very clear that any observer can measure time only for himself.*No one* can measure the time as observed by some other observer in a different frame.

Polymath has uttered a clear logical fallacy. Now he just needs to admit that. I would not be surprised if Polymath does not show up to defend his position.
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way, did you check out the last website that I linked where they explain the mistake that you made? You are using an oversimplified and wrong method to understand the Twins Paradox.
You misunderstood the point. It does not matter. We'll get to that later again.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Oxford, UK

#13613 Oct 18, 2012
Did you know that in hyperspace time is like cryogenically frozen?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13614 Oct 18, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The observers in the ships use atomic clocks to measure their proper time. Polymath made a direct claim that observers could measure the time being observed by other observers in different frames.
It is very clear that any observer can measure time only for himself.*No one* can measure the time as observed by some other observer in a different frame.
Use the telescope to look at the readout of the atomic clock. Take into account the time of flight of the light. it really isn't that difficult. Or, if you want, have the ship send out a timing signal at regular intervals. The other twin can record when the signals are received and how far the ship is. These are simple measurements and the adjustment for the time that it takes for the light to travel is trivial.

Sp we can know what time it is in *our* frame when the clocks tick in a moving frame: simply look and see when the clocks tick. Make adjustments for the time it takes for the light to travel and see how long it is in *our* frame between clicks of the moving clock.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13615 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Use the telescope to look at the readout of the atomic clock. Take into account the time of flight of the light. it really isn't that difficult. Or, if you want, have the ship send out a timing signal at regular intervals. The other twin can record when the signals are received and how far the ship is. These are simple measurements and the adjustment for the time that it takes for the light to travel is trivial.
And now you have agreed with me that the same observation of the atomic clock (and proper time) can not be made in two different frames.

Observation requires visual information carried by light and already the delay alone caused by the travel time of light to the other observer from the clock contaminates the observation of the distant observer. They can not make the same *observation* of the proper time of one observer.
polymath257 wrote:
Sp we can know what time it is in *our* frame when the clocks tick in a moving frame: simply look and see when the clocks tick. Make adjustments for the time it takes for the light to travel and see how long it is in *our* frame between clicks of the moving clock.
Your fallacy here is that the adjustments are hypothetical. You are not talking about an observation of the same facts that are observed by the other observer.

The key here is *observation*, you can not confuse your falsifiable calculations with observation of proper time. Ageing deals with the observation of proper time. You constantly fall into your realm of illusions.

Do you understand now that one observer can not confirm what is the actual rate of proper time being observed by another observer in a different rest frame?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13616 Oct 18, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you have agreed with me that the same observation of the atomic clock (and proper time) can not be made in two different frames.
Observation requires visual information carried by light and already the delay alone caused by the travel time of light to the other observer from the clock contaminates the observation of the distant observer. They can not make the same *observation* of the proper time of one observer.
We do it all the time. it isn't even a difficult thing to do.
Your fallacy here is that the adjustments are hypothetical. You are not talking about an observation of the same facts that are observed by the other observer.
Garbage.
The key here is *observation*, you can not confuse your falsifiable calculations with observation of proper time. Ageing deals with the observation of proper time. You constantly fall into your realm of illusions.
Do you understand now that one observer can not confirm what is the actual rate of proper time being observed by another observer in a different rest frame?
Garbage again. it is done all the time by actual measurement of what is going on in the other frame. Those measurements agree with what special and general relativity predict. Your silliness is not an obstacle.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13617 Oct 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
We do it all the time. it isn't even a difficult thing to do.
I'm sure you do, religious communities have many procedures they uphold that do not conform to rational logic.
polymath257 wrote:
Garbage.
That's what you have? An assertion with no logical reasoning to back up your assertion?

Mighty religious of you.
polymath257 wrote:
Garbage again. it is done all the time by actual measurement of what is going on in the other frame. Those measurements agree with what special and general relativity predict. Your silliness is not an obstacle.
Is your claim now that the mathematical model of time dilation is not hypothetical/theoretical?

You have brought to the table the calculation of proper time in some other rest frame by using the mathematical model of time dilation. You have two options to call that calculation:

1. theoretical
or
2. observation

So again, is the mathematical model an falsifiable theoretical scientific model (i.e. not an observation)??? Yes or no?

Please, try to put some logic and reason in your comments instead of some religious assertions.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
The Ultimate Evidence of God 32 min Ben_Masada 57
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 47 min Patrick 52
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 51 min Patrick 1
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 55 min Patrick 173
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 57 min Patrick 14
Our world came from nothing? 59 min Patrick 425
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 59 min River Tam 226,359
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••