"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 48824 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

Location hidden

#13624 Oct 18, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
I see that the inability to disprove unicorns is once again trumpeted by god's champions as proof of their position.
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.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#13625 Oct 19, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>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.
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

Location hidden

#13626 Oct 19, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Creationist posing as agnostic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#13627 Oct 19, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationist posing as agnostic.
And teh Commies, TEH COMMIES ARE EVERYWHERE!!!
humble brother

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

Albuquerque

#13629 Oct 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
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?
Your comments are nothing but pseudoscientific claptrap so you have no reasonable expectation that anyone would respond at all.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13630 Oct 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
Still waiting on Polymath's response to post #13617.
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.
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?
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.
If the quantitative results from the time dilation model are not actual predictions of model, what the heck are they?
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.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13631 Oct 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
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

Location hidden

#13632 Oct 19, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And teh Commies, TEH COMMIES ARE EVERYWHERE!!!
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.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#13633 Oct 19, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Shut the f*ck up you ignorant piece of sh*t troll


No.

Have a nice day.

:-)
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13634 Oct 19, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Have a nice day.
:-)
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 schidt-for-brains....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

Location hidden

#13635 Oct 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less.
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?
Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#13636 Oct 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less.
<quoted text>
Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model.
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/gps-rel...

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?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13637 Oct 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less.
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.
polymath257 wrote:
Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model.
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.
humble brother

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?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#13639 Oct 21, 2012
luna
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13640 Oct 21, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
luna
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

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 half-way 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/3-4*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)*t-6]]*(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

Location hidden

#13642 Oct 21, 2012
humble brother wrote:
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?
You are a troll and a fool when it comes to these matters. Go cry in your milk now.
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13643 Oct 21, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
luna
22Oct12.....

.....'tic'

Ps:...thou arth.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

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
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 3 hr Eagle 12 5
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Thinking 21,886
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 hr Into The Night 5,711
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 6 hr Scaritual 78
News In defense of faith 9 hr IB DaMann 7
What are the best arguments against religion? Wed Igor Trip 2
More from around the web