There are things that were at one time only suspected as real that have since been proven to be exactly that. Atoms were once considered as only fantasy until they were proven to exist. Given enough time, and the right tools, every dream of mankind may be proven to be real.I see that the inability to disprove unicorns is once again trumpeted by god's champions as proof of their position.
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"
There are 58667 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.
“Is that all you've got?” Since: Jun 10 36,810 Location hidden 
#13624
Oct 18, 2012

“There is no such thing” Since: May 08 14,278 as a reasonable person 
#13625
Oct 19, 2012
Everyone knows that dreams are real just like: concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, and the internet. Each and every one of those things can be measured physically in one form or another. 
Since: Jun 07 13,896 Location hidden 
#13626
Oct 19, 2012
Creationist posing as agnostic. 
Birkenhead, UK 
#13627
Oct 19, 2012
And teh Commies, TEH COMMIES ARE EVERYWHERE!!! 
Helsinki, Finland 
#13628
Oct 19, 2012
Still waiting on Polymath's response to post #13617.
While waiting we might as well dig into another one of this logical fallacies. I will formulate this as another simple question for him. The two mathematical time dilation models (GR and SR) produce testable quantitative results from observational input fed into the equations. The questions for Polymath here is: Are the results produced by combined relativistic mathematical time dilation model to be considered testable predictions of the model? If the quantitative results from the time dilation model are not actual predictions of model, what the heck are they? 
“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 46,648 Albuquerque 
#13629
Oct 19, 2012
Your comments are nothing but pseudoscientific claptrap so you have no reasonable expectation that anyone would respond at all. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#13630
Oct 19, 2012
Sorry, but I thought it was so ignorant of how scienc3e actually proceeds and *should* proceed that you might be able to figure it out for yourself. Yes, we get to do calculations based on our observations and use the results of those calculations to test our ideas. For example, we can measure, using our own devices, the location of another object and the events happening on that object. This allows us to determine the time dilation on a moving ship. The results of such a calculation are the predictions of the model. if the time dilation were different, the observations would be different and would thereby show the model to be wrong. Yes, of course they are. The model predicts the results of observations and calculations based on those observations. The general relativistic model subsumes the special relativistic model by including the effects of gravity. Why do you have the impression that they are NOT predictions of the model? The model makes very definite predictions about the results of observations and the calculations based on those observations. Those *are* the 'quantitative results' of the model. 
Helsinki, Finland 
#13631
Oct 19, 2012
When a quantitative prediction of a mathematical model is shown to be incorrect the model is falsified. As an example in the twin paradox the two brothers (only one accelerates) produce identical calculations from the quantitative model. Even theoretically it is certain that at least one of those quantitative predictions will fail miserably upon observation of the facts when the traveler returns. So you will always have at least one miserably failing prediction of the time dilation model. So what needs to be falsified in your view? Or is it just fine in "your science" when quantitative predictions fail miserably? 
Since: Jun 07 13,896 Location hidden 
#13632
Oct 19, 2012
Shut the f*ck up you ignorant piece of sh*t troll with no understanding of the burden of proof and no evidence of your claim that "god is possible". Go get your f*ck buddy nuggin and prove any of the horsesh*t that comes out of your keyboard. 
Macclesfield, UK 
#13633
Oct 19, 2012
No. Have a nice day. :) 
_BobLoblah_
Since: Apr 11 3,884 Location hidden 
#13634
Oct 19, 2012
20Oct12..... .....For the benefit of the General Public on TOPIX Forums, and especially the 'youth' of the WholeWideWorld.....would Skeptic and Dude explain what 'f*ck' means. Ps:.....Dis otta fall in line with the Terms and Conditions you agreed to 'before' you signed on the dotted line of joining onto TOPIX Forums. ....You are both schidtforbrains....and when it comes to 'skeptic'..BobLoblah believes dat there is more brains in a bottle of wadda. Forever and Ever BobLoblah 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#13635
Oct 19, 2012
No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model. 
“ad victoriam” Since: Dec 10 41,864 arte et marte 
#13636
Oct 19, 2012
These calculations have been shown in reality to be as predicted by several different methods also haven't they? I know when we talk of the twin paradox it is just a mind twister into understanding LR and SR , but real figures have been done on smaller scales that match the groundwork done by Lorentz and Einstein , so I don't understand what hb is arguing about. I posted this link hoping he would read it, ill do it again. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gpsrel... Also the Gravity B probe has shown GR to be correct also. So how can hb argue about it when real world tests have confirmed the theories? 
Helsinki, Finland 
#13637
Oct 20, 2012
So then, lets look at the good old twins paradox. Can you produce quantitative predictions as calculated by both twins that numerically agree on the aging of both twins? Choose which ever acceleration and velocity for the traveling twin that suits you best. Lets see if you can produce two simple predictions or if you in fact have been uttering nonsense here. I find your comments very funny. Just put your money where your mouth is and give me two simple quantitative predictions that agree on the aging of the twins. 
Helsinki, Finland 
#13638
Oct 21, 2012
Earth to Polymath, Earth to Polymath. Come in Polymath.
Can you produce agreeing quantitative predictions as calculated by the two twins? Or will you admit your defeat and declare the relativistic model FALSE? 
“ad victoriam” Since: Dec 10 41,864 arte et marte 
#13639
Oct 21, 2012
luna

Helsinki, Finland 
#13640
Oct 21, 2012
Here you go: http://www.luna.fi That's somewhat off topic though... Do you have any argument supporting the relativistic model how you could produce two identical ageing predictions as calculated by both twins in the twins paradox? I would very much like to hear an logical argument from you, or from *anyone*. Anyone? Otherwise it's looking very very grim for the relativistic model. Or do you just have blind faith in the relativistic model??? 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#13641
Oct 21, 2012
Sure. Take twin 1 and twin 2. Suppose that twin 1 stays at home, unaccelerated,
while twin 2 moves away at .8*c, goes to a station at a distance of 8 light years, turns around returns at .8*c. The total trip from the point of view of twin 1 is 10 years out, 10 years back, for a total of 20 years. The time dilation factor for a velocity of .8*c is sqrt(1.8^2)=.6 so twin 1 predicts that the trip out will be 6 years long for twin 2 and the same for the trip back, for a total aging of 12 years for twin 2. Twin 1 prediction: twin 1 ages 20 years, twin 2 ages 12 years. The story from the perspective of twin 2 is more complicated because twin 2 changes reference frames at the halfway point. We have to see how those two reference frames relate to each other. The first part of the trip is easy enough: twin 2 sees twin 1 moving away at .8*c and the station approaching at the same speed. But there is a length contraction factor of .6, so the station initially appears to be only 4.8 light years away, so it takes 4.8/.8 =6 years for the station and twin 2 to meet up. Similarly, twin 2 says the return trip will also take 6 years, for a total of 12 years. So far we have complete agreement between the two twins. The whole question reduces to how much twin 2 predicts that twin 1 will age during the trip. For notation, let (x,t) be the spacetime coordinates that ship 1 gives to an event, (x',t') the coordinates that twin 2 gives for the outward journey and (x'',t'') the coordinates for the inward journey. The complications come from the fact that the inward and outward journeys are in different frames. Now, at the beginning of the trip, (x,t)=(0,0)=(x',t') and at the midpoint,(x',t')=(0,6)=(x'',t' '). Also, the relative velocity between the (x',t') frame and the (x'',t'') frame is (.8+.8)/(1+.8^2)=40/41. The dilation factor between these two frames is sqrt(1(40/41)^2)=9/41. Now, the Lorentz transformation between the first two frames is given by x'=(x.8*t)/.6=5*x/3 4*t/3 t'=(t.8*x)/.6=5*t/34*x/3. And that between the primed frames is x''=(x'+(40/41)*(t'6))/(9/41) t''=((t'6)+(40/41)*x')/(9/41) I take into account that t'=t''=6 when turning around. Now, ship 1 has coordinates (0,t) when its clock reads t. This becomes (x',t')=((4/3)*t,(5/3)*t) for the outbound twin. Now, plug this into the x'' equation and set x''=0 to determine the t value when the two ships meet again. Well, x''=[(4/3)*t +(40/41)*[(5/3)*t6]]*(9/41). You can check that x''=0 when t=20, so twin 1 is predicted to age 20 years. So, again, we have agreement. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#13642
Oct 21, 2012
You are a troll and a fool when it comes to these matters. Go cry in your milk now. 
_BobLoblah_
Since: Apr 11 3,884 Location hidden 
#13643
Oct 21, 2012
22Oct12..... .....'tic' Ps:...thou arth. Forever and Ever BobLoblah 
 
Add your comments below
Atheism Discussions
Title  Updated  Last By  Comments 

Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12)  26 min  Hedonist Heretic  1,966 
Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of...  28 min  Messianic114  2,049 
Distrust of the nonreligious runs deep in Amer...  30 min  Hedonist Heretic  112 
Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09)  56 min  Regolith Based Li...  27,537 
Washington court rules against florist in gay w...  1 hr  Amused  65 
Atheist Humor (Aug '09)  8 hr  greymouser  198 
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12)  10 hr  Eagle 12  3,976 
Find what you want!
Search Atheism Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC