"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 19759 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.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#13679 Oct 22, 2012
Hi guys, Just thought I'd drop in to see how things are going. I see Bumble still doesn't know what the hey he's talking about. I guess some things never change!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#13680 Oct 22, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
Hi guys, Just thought I'd drop in to see how things are going. I see Bumble still doesn't know what the hey he's talking about. I guess some things never change!
Hey Aussie, how's the weather down under??
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13681 Oct 23, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so what you actually mean is for the shuttle to return to Earth it has to go there. Sorry guy to get to Earths rest frame it has to go to Earth. You are confused about wth you are talking about.
This is not much different than the Apollo mission to the moon and back. Just say one part of the Saturn 5 kept going and one part returned. the 3 clocks will have different ET's for the duration
of of the mission. GR and SR have been confirmed in real world experiments, the LR or Lorentz equations (as poly has tried to show you) are the way to calculate it. You just love to deny science, but have no legs to stand on. I tried to get you to read how they have been confirmed in real world velocities by experiment
but you still persist. Here once again read how Einstein and Lorentz has been verified.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-rel...
Well, if gravitational time dilation gets you confused we can swap Earth to a space station that does not cause measurable gravitational time dilation.

I tried to get you to explain how do you distinguish between the following two from results of those experiments:
1. actual rate of time changes
2. acceleration only causes slowdown of quanta (not time itself)

Q: Can you distinguish between the two?
A: NO

So you are hopelessly out of an argument.

Q: Ageing of an object 10 light years away is observed on Earth. There is an event caused by the object and a flash of light is emitted. Was that flash of light observed as it occurred?

A: No it took 10 years from the actual event for light to travel to Earth. There was a delay of ten years in the observation.

Q: Did that object age during the 10 years that light was traveling to Earth?

A: Of course it did. Earth's observations of that object are simply behind the actual events.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13682 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
First, the earth can watch processes on the ship and vice versa. That can show that each sees time for the other moving slower.
Yes of course they can watch the ship. You still don't seem to understand that they can not *measure* the proper time occurring in any other frame. They can only predict it.

You constantly fall into fallacies of confusing predictions of proper time to measurements of proper time.

Simple question:
While light travels from the ship to Earth, does the ship age during that time???

Answer:
Of course it does age. Therefore their actual proper time can never be observed from other frames.
polymath257 wrote:
If we can only compare ages when they have returned, your question about the ship, shuttle and earth is meaningless.
Not at all true. Lets look at the standard twins paradox. Say that their home is a space station so there is no gravitational complications.

Bro-1 stays at home, so we have these acceleration events for bro-2:
1. bro-2 accelerates away from Home
2. bro-2 accelerates towards Home to enter the same rest frame again with Home (no relative velocity, only some distance apart)
3. bro-2 accelerates towards Home to return
4. bro-2 accelerates away from Home to avoid collision with it, enters the rest frame of Home

Inspection of events:
1. acceleration causes bro-2's rate of ageing to slow down relative to bro-1
2. acceleration causes bro-2's rate of ageing to speed up relative to bro-1, result: same rate
3. acceleration causes bro-2's rate of ageing to slow down relative to bro-1
4. acceleration causes bro-2's rate of ageing to speed up relative to bro-1m result: same rate

You are very welcome to try and present a different inspection with different conclusions of actual rates of ageing, if you can produce something that is not logically false.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13683 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Do you want me to run some more scenarios?
Just answer to the above post and explain how the *relative rate of ageing* of bro-2 changes during different parts of his trip.

My claim is that you will fail miserably.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13684 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Just answer to the above post and explain how the *relative rate of ageing* of bro-2 changes during different parts of his trip.
My claim is that you will fail miserably.
Once again, it is a nonsensical question. Here is an analogy:
draw a straight line between two points and also draw a curved line between the two points. Explain how the 'relative rate of arc length' changes during the different parts of the line.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13685 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Once again, it is a nonsensical question. Here is an analogy:
draw a straight line between two points and also draw a curved line between the two points. Explain how the 'relative rate of arc length' changes during the different parts of the line.
That's pure nonsense. Let me clarify this for you to a very simplistic level:

The twins paradox:
1. your claim is that the ageing of the traveling twin relative to the stay-at-home brother is slowed down

2. the twin returns home and is then again ageing at the same rate as his brother

YOU make the claim that his ageing slows down.
YOU must also explain:
how and when does his ageing speed up again to match his brother's rate?

YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, you fail miserably.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#13686 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pure nonsense. Let me clarify this for you to a very simplistic level:
The twins paradox:
1. your claim is that the ageing of the traveling twin relative to the stay-at-home brother is slowed down
2. the twin returns home and is then again ageing at the same rate as his brother
YOU make the claim that his ageing slows down.
YOU must also explain:
how and when does his ageing speed up again to match his brother's rate?
YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, you fail miserably.


Wow you still don't get it.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#13687 Oct 23, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow you still don't get it.
It takes a special kind of stupid to be the Bumble...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13688 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pure nonsense. Let me clarify this for you to a very simplistic level:
I am going to attempt to show you what your problem is by playing with the analogy with arc length of a curve.
The twins paradox:
1. your claim is that the ageing of the traveling twin relative to the stay-at-home brother is slowed down
You claim the length of a curved line is faster than that for a straight line.
2. the twin returns home and is then again ageing at the same rate as his brother
When the curved line merges with the straight line, the rates of length are the same.
YOU make the claim that his ageing slows down.
You make the claim that length speeds up.
YOU must also explain:
how and when does his ageing speed up again to match his brother's rate?
YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, you fail miserably.
When does the length of the curved line slow down to become the same as that for the straight line?
Hopefully, you can see that the very way you phrase this is wrong for arc length of a curved line: it doesn't slow down or speed up. There isn't a rate of length. And yet, the total length of a curved line is more than that for the straight line between the points.
The analogy is quite good. The main difference is that straight line (uniform motion) gives the *maximum* proper time and curved paths give smaller proper times. But talking about a 'rate of proper time' is nonsense in exactly the same way that talking about a rate of length is nonsense for a curve. I can talk about how the arc length changes as the coordinates change just like I can talk about how proper time changes as the spacetime coordinates change. But there is no 'rate of proper time'.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13689 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am going to attempt to show you what your problem is by playing with the analogy with arc length of a curve.
<quoted text>
You claim the length of a curved line is faster than that for a straight line.
<quoted text>
When the curved line merges with the straight line, the rates of length are the same.
<quoted text>
You make the claim that length speeds up.
<quoted text>
When does the length of the curved line slow down to become the same as that for the straight line?
Hopefully, you can see that the very way you phrase this is wrong for arc length of a curved line: it doesn't slow down or speed up. There isn't a rate of length. And yet, the total length of a curved line is more than that for the straight line between the points.
The analogy is quite good. The main difference is that straight line (uniform motion) gives the *maximum* proper time and curved paths give smaller proper times. But talking about a 'rate of proper time' is nonsense in exactly the same way that talking about a rate of length is nonsense for a curve. I can talk about how the arc length changes as the coordinates change just like I can talk about how proper time changes as the spacetime coordinates change. But there is no 'rate of proper time'.
Why do you try to hide in caves and under rocks?

Stop babbling. Your situation is this:
1. you claim that the traveler begins to age slower relative to Earth
2. the traveler returns to Earth's rest frame and his ageing returns to normal Earth ageing rate (his ageing rate speeds up)

Do these things occur for the traveler, YES or NO???
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13690 Oct 23, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Wow you still don't get it.
Your ignorance amazes me.

Q: Does the traveler's ageing slow relative to Earth's ageing rate?
A: Yes, the traveler begins to age slower relative to Earth

Q: The traveler returns to Earth, must his ageing rate speed up during his return?
A: YES, the traveler's ageing rate MUST speed up to the same rate that is affecting Earth.

Please, by all means make the claim that the traveler does not begin to age less, or that the ageing of the traveler does not speed up to match that of Earth's upon return to the same rest frame. I dare you to make these claims.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13691 Oct 23, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes a special kind of stupid to be the Bumble...
24Oct12.....

.....You mean like a schidt-for-brains like you, huh!!!

Ps:....BobLoblah believes dat you are really a 'brownNose'.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13692 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
1. you claim that the traveler begins to age slower relative to Earth
Wrong. I do not claim this. I claim that each measures time for the other as moving slower. I also claim that the proper time *for the whole trip* is lower for the traveler.
2. the traveler returns to Earth's rest frame and his ageing returns to normal Earth ageing rate (his ageing rate speeds up)
Do these things occur for the traveler, YES or NO???
Not in the way you seem to think, no.

Again, does a curved path have a 'faster length rate'? No. It simply has a length. Similarly, a traveler does not have a 'slower rate of proper time', they simply have a proper time for the path they take. At the return to earth the 'aging rate' does not 'return to normal'.

The closest thing there is to an 'aging rate' is the time dilation between coordinate time for the earth and proper time for the traveler. That certainly exists and can be used to determine the proper time over the path. BUT, there is a similar time dilation between coordinate time for the traveler and proper time for the earth. That also can be used to determine the change of proper time for the earth. the big problem is that the traveler changes frames (accelerates), which means the coordinate system is not an inertial one and that changes the calculation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13693 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance amazes me.
Q: Does the traveler's ageing slow relative to Earth's ageing rate?
A: Yes, the traveler begins to age slower relative to Earth
And vice versa. The earth also ages slower than the traveler. The difference is in the *total* proper time for the two paths (that of the earth and that of the traveler). This is analogous to the arc lengths of a straight path and a curved one.
Q: The traveler returns to Earth, must his ageing rate speed up during his return?
A: YES, the traveler's ageing rate MUST speed up to the same rate that is affecting Earth.
No. That is not at all what happens. There simply isn't a 'rate of proper time'. it is a meaningless phrase.
Please, by all means make the claim that the traveler does not begin to age less, or that the ageing of the traveler does not speed up to match that of Earth's upon return to the same rest frame. I dare you to make these claims.
There is no absolute standard to compare aging more or less. There is only relative velocities and accelerations. Simple changes in the paths will reverse who you think is 'running faster' or 'running slower'.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13694 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Wrong. I do not claim this. I claim that each measures time for the other as moving slower. I also claim that the proper time *for the whole trip* is lower for the traveler.
<quoted text>
Not in the way you seem to think, no.
Again, does a curved path have a 'faster length rate'? No. It simply has a length. Similarly, a traveler does not have a 'slower rate of proper time', they simply have a proper time for the path they take. At the return to earth the 'aging rate' does not 'return to normal'.
The closest thing there is to an 'aging rate' is the time dilation between coordinate time for the earth and proper time for the traveler. That certainly exists and can be used to determine the proper time over the path. BUT, there is a similar time dilation between coordinate time for the traveler and proper time for the earth. That also can be used to determine the change of proper time for the earth. the big problem is that the traveler changes frames (accelerates), which means the coordinate system is not an inertial one and that changes the calculation.
Stop with the babbling of nonsense. Lets talk about OBSERVABLE FACTS. Do you understand the meaning of the term *observable facts*?

These are the *observable facts* in the theoretical case of the twins paradox:
1. the twins are together on Earth, their rate of ageing is the same
2. the traveling twin takes his trip and return back
3. the brothers observe that the traveler had aged less

These are the observable facts. Once you observe such facts, do you not conclude that the proper time of the traveler had slowed down for the duration of the trip?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13695 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
There is no absolute standard to compare aging more or less.
There is the absolute standard of the twin who stayed at home, his ageing is the standard measure.

You claim that absolutely the traveler must have aged less when they meet again. You have created your own absolute standard for the twins.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13696 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop with the babbling of nonsense. Lets talk about OBSERVABLE FACTS. Do you understand the meaning of the term *observable facts*?
Yes, things that can be observed.
These are the *observable facts* in the theoretical case of the twins paradox:
1. the twins are together on Earth, their rate of ageing is the same
2. the traveling twin takes his trip and return back
3. the brothers observe that the traveler had aged less
These are the observable facts. Once you observe such facts, do you not conclude that the proper time of the traveler had slowed down for the duration of the trip?
No, that is an incorrect conclusion.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13697 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, that is an incorrect conclusion.
Really?:)

Rate-1 is the average rate of proper time as experienced/observed by the stay-at-home brother.

Rate-2 is the average rate of proper time as experienced/observed by the traveling brother.

Are you now trying to say that for the trip rate-2 is not lower than rate-1?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13698 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?:)
Rate-1 is the average rate of proper time as experienced/observed by the stay-at-home brother.
Rate-2 is the average rate of proper time as experienced/observed by the traveling brother.
Are you now trying to say that for the trip rate-2 is not lower than rate-1?
The mistake is thinking that there is a well-defined rate to begin with.

Again, by the analogy, would you say that rate of length goes faster for the curved path? No, of course not.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Anon 243,200
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 min NoahLovesU 9,262
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 2 hr superwilly 22
John 3:16 2 hr superwilly 35
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 3 hr NoahLovesU 6,179
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 23 hr ChristineM 2,283
Atheists have morals too! Tue Amused 4
More from around the web