"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
13,281 - 13,300 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13639
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

luna
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13643
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
luna
22Oct12.....

.....'tic'

Ps:...thou arth.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13644
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

22Oct12.....

.....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

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13645
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

The Cartesian problem is i think central to this forums question. Science being a matter of reason and religion being a matter of faith. And that neither the twain shall meet.
But is the answer to the problem that simple. Anyhow can't faith be both applicable to science as it is to religion. Take for example that the world is round and not flat. Surely there is no reasonable and therefore logical way to discern the objective truth from mere sense perception alone. And that scientists would be well advised, to understand that they themselves too take an awful lot on matters of faith. What about Quantum Mechanics. How many of us would except and understand the arguments for Quantum Mechanics without ever testing such a faith logically in the laboratory in the undertaking of Particle physics.
Then there's reason or logic being applied to religion, there are numerous examples here i could mention but just to argue that although i can see a Cartesian model making sense in both science and religion there are as i have said contradictory methods of approach (to both science and religion) where the Cartesian method is devoid of practicality.


“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13646
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

None disputes the fact that science is foundered upon a systematic approach of reasonable necessities. Or that somehow in some way faith could be surgically removed from religion in some kind of laboratory experiment. Nevertheless, sometimes the science is a far cry from logic as religion can be from faith. In fact both have trials of necessity that would would confuse if not contradict the practicalities of both logic and faith in science and religion respectively.

Moreover, logical science and science based on sound first principles of faith are sometimes not all that different, and are sometimes alike. The fact is where science meets technology scientist probably no the least about the technical side of its operations. Not least of all its practical applications.

Faith can penetrate science as a whole remember cosmology and the study of all those blurred images taken in our real time but capturing time and image and happenings of things perhaps a trillion years ago in the past.

Science before i can remember began with predicate and antitheses as the first ranked solutions to problems of logic that would necessitate into good and sound science. Long before science was merely built up into a methodology of observational sense perception.

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13647
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Yes science was sincere, but it has been a science much neglected. Antitheses is making a comeback through Antimatter, and in area of gravity. In fact the graviton was found recently be CERN no two years ago by the antitheses scientific method.

But then faith is a much neglected area of religion. Take conversion who in there right mind in the twenty first century is going to convert from scientist to the religious in one single throw of Einstein's dice. Which will illustrate here just how effective taking a antithetical approach can be. Would you dare give the dice to Einstein and shut God out completely. Or would you allow science a chance to be applied within the confines of you faith.

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13648
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Real time. If two people were a part any vast distance greater than a planetary distance then real time kicks in.

Light travels not to the eye first donkeys like sound travels to the ear dummies, but visa versa.

Our eyes and our ears are very powerful objects, too powerful for sound waves or light particles travelling light years away to make any differential impact whatsoever.

Eyes do nano. Eyes do neutrinos.
If i was to stare at a midday sun, then it would not be the suns heat that would make me look away but the suns energy that would be chemically reacted in my eyes.

Neutrinos absolve light particles and turn them into heat radiation.
Its not the suns heat that tans my skin. Its its light. The greater the light, greater the chemical reaction in the body by those neutrinos.

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13649
Oct 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It is then on faith that light takes a year to travel to my eye so that the light is one light year distance away right. wrong. Neutrinos have to traverse the distance between my eye and the source of light. Like a moth to the flame it happens a lightening speed but this speed is then magnified by the strength of the lens. When this occurs the eye starts to see the light. Like a stream of neutrinos between object and eye the eye sees. then a little later on message in the brain look away as light has been streamed back to eye for further chemical reaction. It is only as this point in time that one looks away and breaks the stream. Therefore deadens the chemical reaction in the eye.
a
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13650
Oct 22, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
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.
Here comes the fun part:
Do you notice how you used absolute time there in your calculations?

Let me put it this way:
Twins 1 and 2 are in the same rest frame. Do you think that acceleration away from that rest frame *always* means that observed proper time will begin ticking slower for that who accelerates???

What if I claim that within the relativistic model sometimes the traveling twin must age more? Would you agree? Or do you insist that the traveling twin must always age less?

Do you still have an answer?
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13651
Oct 22, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
You are a troll and a fool when it comes to these matters. Go cry in your milk now.
Listen mitch... I will teach you something now if you manage not to cling to your religion but let logical reason guide you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13652
Oct 22, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Here comes the fun part:
Do you notice how you used absolute time there in your calculations?
No. In fact, it is quite clear that each part of the trip experiences time differently. I gave you what you claimed could not be given: a description from both twin's point of view that predicts the aging of both twins. Furthermore, the predictions of the two twins agree.
Let me put it this way:
Twins 1 and 2 are in the same rest frame. Do you think that acceleration away from that rest frame *always* means that observed proper time will begin ticking slower for that who accelerates???
If one twin accelerates and the other twin does not, then when they meet up again, the accelerated twin has aged less.
What if I claim that within the relativistic model sometimes the traveling twin must age more? Would you agree? Or do you insist that the traveling twin must always age less?
Do you still have an answer?
Do the calculations. The Lorentz transformations are fundamental and show how both length contraction and time dilation come about. But they also take care of the situations that are not located at the same place or at the same time in some frame.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13653
Oct 22, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen mitch... I will teach you something now if you manage not to cling to your religion but let logical reason guide you.
You don't know enough to teach a monkey how to eat a banana. In particular, you have shown, repeatedly, that you misunderstand the terminology of special relativity, don't understand how to use it to make predictions, and are generally incompetent in the basics of the subject, let alone any subtleties.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13654
Oct 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
If one twin accelerates and the other twin does not, then when they meet up again, the accelerated twin has aged less.

Do the calculations. The Lorentz transformations are fundamental and show how both length contraction and time dilation come about. But they also take care of the situations that are not located at the same place or at the same time in some frame.
I find it funny when you revert to religious ambiguity and are too afraid to give a clear and direct answer.

Your claim is that the accelerating twin will always begin to experience a slower rate of time relative to the stay-at-home brother.

Now, is it possible that in some situation the accelerating twin's proper time will in fact start ticking faster relative to the stay-at-home brother ? Yes or no?(premise: no other large sources of gravity except Earth)

Simple question and you're not able to give a direct simple answer?
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13655
Oct 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Polymath is too afraid to answer these questions because he knows where I am leading him.

So we know Polymath will refuse to answer the simple questions, therefore I will just explain what I was leading him into.

1. three brothers are on Earth in the same rest frame
2. two of the brothers hop on a ship and accelerate to 0.5*c away form Earth (as Polymath has admitted, according to Einstein's relativity their proper time must always begin to tick slower than time on Earth)
3. the two brother on the ship still share the same rest frame
4. one brother on the ship hops into a shuttle and accelerates to 0.5*c towards Earth
5. the shuttle has entered into Earth's rest frame and is stationary relative to Earth, therefore the shuttle must now observe the same proper as observed on Earth
6. acceleration of the ship caused the ship's proper time rate to slow down
7. acceleration of the shuttle caused the shuttle's proper time rate to speed up
8. Einstein's theory of relativity is shown to be false
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13656
Oct 22, 2012
 
5. proper = proper time

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13657
Oct 22, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it funny when you revert to religious ambiguity and are too afraid to give a clear and direct answer.
I gave you the answer: do the Lorentz transformations and calculate the result.
Your claim is that the accelerating twin will always begin to experience a slower rate of time relative to the stay-at-home brother.
No, my claim is that an accelerated twin will have aged less when they meet again. During travel both twins will measure time for the other running slower.
Now, is it possible that in some situation the accelerating twin's proper time will in fact start ticking faster relative to the stay-at-home brother ? Yes or no?(premise: no other large sources of gravity except Earth)
The question makes no sense. there is no absolute 'ticking faster' or 'ticking slower'. if you want to compare aging, you have to bring the twins together. In that case, the twin that accelerated will have aged less.
Simple question and you're not able to give a direct simple answer?
Your very question shows you don't know what proper time *means*.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••