• Sections
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

# "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 46470 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.

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:

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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

#13686 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pure nonsense. Let me clarify this for you to a very simplistic level:
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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

#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...

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“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.
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'.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
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???

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

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

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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
_BobLoblah_

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

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“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>
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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13699 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*?
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?
Let me give you another situation:

Suppose we have a ship and a shuttle. The ship accelerates quickly to a relativistic speed with respect to the shuttle. After a while, the shuttle then accelerates after the ship and catches up with it. Then the ship accelerates so that it is at rest with respect to the shuttle. The shuttle ages less than the ship. How do you explain that?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13700 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
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.
Do different observers have relative rates of proper time? Yes or no?

Or do you no longer measure time by its rate?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#13701 Oct 23, 2012
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>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
1 - I didn't say it so I have no need to explain it.

2 - You may notice I have not signed in to post.

3 - Apparently
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>schidt-for-brains
is acceptable to you but
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>f*ck
is not, which I find ironic.

4 - As for this:
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>when it comes to 'skeptic'..BobLoblah believes dat there is more brains in a bottle of wadda.
even you creationists have the right to be right once a day.

Have a nice day.

:-)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13702 Oct 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Let me give you another situation:
Sure.
polymath257 wrote:
Suppose we have a ship and a shuttle. The ship accelerates quickly to a relativistic speed with respect to the shuttle. After a while, the shuttle then accelerates after the ship and catches up with it. Then the ship accelerates so that it is at rest with respect to the shuttle.
Ok.
polymath257 wrote:
The shuttle ages less than the ship.
False. Parameters can be generated for the scale to tip to either way.
polymath257 wrote:
How do you explain that?
As an incomplete and fallacious example.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13703 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
<quoted text>
Ok.
<quoted text>
False. Parameters can be generated for the scale to tip to either way.
<quoted text>
As an incomplete and fallacious example.
Nope, as I described it, the shuttle ages less than the ship.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13704 Oct 23, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Do different observers have relative rates of proper time? Yes or no?
Not in any reasonable sense of those terms, no. Once again, if there are two observers moving past each other at relativistic speeds, both will see the clocks of the other as moving slower than their own.
Or do you no longer measure time by its rate?
Time is measured by watching something change. If that clock is on a ship moving past at relativistic speeds, I will measure it to run slower than my local clock. But, it is also the case that someone on the ship will see *my* clock as running slower than their local clock.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Brian_G 22,220
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 257,362
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Demon Finder 21,695
Proof of God Within & Beyond Science is Released 7 hr hpcaban 4
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 8 hr Demon Finder 10,945
.com | Not buying into nonsense rhetoric about ... (Mar '16) 21 hr Eagle 12 50
Will I destroy world's atheism? Tue Eagle 12 6

#### Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web