"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 58705 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13726 Oct 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And by all means, please do explain these details. Don't just throw it out as an opinions and then hide in a cave hoping no one would notice what you did.
Learn how do do Lorentz transformations and you will see. Until you learn the basics, there is nothing more to say.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13727 Oct 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that you want to run away now that you are being cornered.
Tell me, what is in your view the correct way to measure aging of the two twins of the twins paradox?
How do you measure?
I've already told you. You aren't listening or, apparently, even reading my replies. Go and learn the basics. When you have done that, we can discuss this again.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13728 Oct 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Learn how do do Lorentz transformations and you will see. Until you learn the basics, there is nothing more to say.
Oh yawn. Transformations are trivial.
polymath257 wrote:
I've already told you. You aren't listening or, apparently, even reading my replies. Go and learn the basics. When you have done that, we can discuss this again.
Why do you come here with opinions? Logic escapes you and you start spewing out opinions.

The only way for the twins to know how they aged relative to each other is for them to meet up and compare the observable facts. They will then compare their atomic clocks and see how many oscillations each of them had counted during the trip.

The relativistic claim is that the traveler's clock must show less oscillations for the duration of the trip.

There is no way for them to reasonably accurately measure the oscillations of the other brother's atomic clock during the trip.

Do you understand this?
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13729 Oct 24, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The only experiment you need to provide evidence for is the one that proves your god.
All your other posts are worthless lying Creationist drivel up until then.
25Oct12.....

......Its been over a year now and you still have NOT answered
,,,'Who Made Da Dirt"!!!!!!!!!!

Ps:.....Vot'sUP vit you, ya schidt-for-brains, anyveys.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#13730 Oct 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yawn. Transformations are trivial.
<quoted text>
Why do you come here with opinions? Logic escapes you and you start spewing out opinions.
The only way for the twins to know how they aged relative to each other is for them to meet up and compare the observable facts. They will then compare their atomic clocks and see how many oscillations each of them had counted during the trip.
The relativistic claim is that the traveler's clock must show less oscillations for the duration of the trip.
There is no way for them to reasonably accurately measure the oscillations of the other brother's atomic clock during the trip.
Do you understand this?

You are a lunatic that needs to accept human knowledge is what it is and it is......
"as good as it gets" You also haven't proven anything wrong with Einsteins theory , but you have proven you do not understand them.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13731 Oct 24, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
You are a lunatic that needs to accept human knowledge is what it is and it is......
"as good as it gets" You also haven't proven anything wrong with Einsteins theory , but you have proven you do not understand them.
So your argument against my logical argument is your OPINION?

It is quite clear that you have Faith in Einstein's model. When your understanding stops your Faith fills in.

The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between the accelerations.

Do you not agree with this?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13732 Oct 24, 2012
Rephrase the clumsy sentence:

The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between which the accelerations occur.

Do you not agree with this?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#13733 Oct 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument against my logical argument is your OPINION?
It is quite clear that you have Faith in Einstein's model. When your understanding stops your Faith fills in.
The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between the accelerations.
Do you not agree with this?

Acceleration causes time dilation , this has been proven in experiments. I agree with that. I also agree that Lorentz came up with a formula to calculate it.
You however are saying it isn't so , but are quite unable to show why. You have also shown you do not understand what time dilation is
but still claim it is wrong. Lets hear of the rotational model hb , we are in the mood for comedy/tragedy.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13734 Oct 24, 2012
humble brother wrote:
The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between which the accelerations occur.
Polymath, I was kind enough to present this in your beloved language. Do you agree with this?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13735 Oct 24, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Acceleration causes time dilation , this has been proven in experiments. I agree with that. I also agree that Lorentz came up with a formula to calculate it.
You however are saying it isn't so , but are quite unable to show why. You have also shown you do not understand what time dilation is
but still claim it is wrong. Lets hear of the rotational model hb , we are in the mood for comedy/tragedy.
What Lorentz came up with was a collection of formulas that have movable goal posts. That is very convenient in debates to keep moving those goal posts.

I am trying to show where the error is but Polymath's only intention seemed to be to escape from any possible nearest exit.

Do you understand how one observer can never *measure* the ageing of another observer (at considerable distance and/or in fast relative motion)?

Or do you claim to be able to *measure* the ageing of any object/observer?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13736 Oct 24, 2012
Oh no. I managed to scare them to bits again. This is so sad...

Well in case you manage to collect some strength and are brave enough to come back to this discussion I would like you to then answer the following simple question.

Here's the question:

In the twins paradox when the traveler returns and joins his brother they shake hands. During this handshake do the brothers exist in the neighboring spacetime points (separated only by a minuscule distance)? Or do the brothers exist in totally different spacetimes because much less time has passed for the traveler?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13737 Oct 24, 2012
Oh that ended up on a new page... The above is for Polymath and AuraMytha.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13738 Oct 25, 2012
HB: Please go and actually learn something about this subject. Even your questions show that you do not understand the subject.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13739 Oct 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
HB: Please go and actually learn something about this subject. Even your questions show that you do not understand the subject.
You are so boring when you are afraid... I'm sorry for you that you are not able to answer the simple question and you only are now able to utter opinions.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13740 Oct 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
HB: Please go and actually learn something about this subject. Even your questions show that you do not understand the subject.
Friend, I was once more kind enough towards you and translated the previous common layman's terms paradox into your beloved language.

Here it is, the problem that you can not solve:

Two observers (o1 and o2) share a rest frame. The observers are one light week away from each other. A ship is in the same rest frame right beside o1.

1. the ship accelerates towards o2 to 0.3*c relative speed

2. at spacetime point P1 (which is spatially in the center between observers o1 and o2) a shuttle departs from the cargo hold of the ship and accelerates back towards o1 to slightly above 0.6*c speed relative to the ship (slightly above 0.3*c relative to o1 and o2)

3. both observers o1 and o2 agree on the time when the departure of the shuttle occurred because it occurred right in the middle between them, their timestamped records confirm this

4. the shuttle arrives to o1 and the ship to o2 and they decelerate to stop near the observers

5. records from the observers show that both the ship and the shuttle arrived at their destination at the same time as observed by the observers in their rest frame

The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that those who experience most acceleration between two separate shared rest frames must have aged the least when all involed are joined together in the second shared rest frame.

Therefore the relativistic solution in this case must dictate that the shuttle that experienced the most acceleration must have aged less than the ship. This of course causes a logical contradiction within the relativistic model in this particular case.

Einstein's theory of relativity is shown to be false in relativistic terms.

You have no logical argument against this. Time to make another declaration of opinions???

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#13741 Oct 25, 2012
Some people suffer from maximum density.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13742 Oct 25, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Some people suffer from maximum density.
What is it with you people and your inability to produce logical arguments?

Do you have any logical argument to put to the table?
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#13743 Oct 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
What is it with you people and your inability to produce logical arguments?
Do you have any logical argument to put to the table?
Get your opinions peer-reviewed and published. THEN you can start making declarations about what is false.

That's what Einstein did to discredit Maxwell's 'Aether".

Put up or Shut up.
Logical enough argument for you?

BTW, your example is pretty much how GPS operates. The fact that GPS works kinda blows you out of the water.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13744 Oct 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Friend, I was once more kind enough towards you and translated the previous common layman's terms paradox into your beloved language.
Except that you failed.
Here it is, the problem that you can not solve:
Two observers (o1 and o2) share a rest frame. The observers are one light week away from each other. A ship is in the same rest frame right beside o1.
1. the ship accelerates towards o2 to 0.3*c relative speed
2. at spacetime point P1 (which is spatially in the center between observers o1 and o2) a shuttle departs from the cargo hold of the ship and accelerates back towards o1 to slightly above 0.6*c speed relative to the ship (slightly above 0.3*c relative to o1 and o2)
3. both observers o1 and o2 agree on the time when the departure of the shuttle occurred because it occurred right in the middle between them, their timestamped records confirm this
4. the shuttle arrives to o1 and the ship to o2 and they decelerate to stop near the observers
5. records from the observers show that both the ship and the shuttle arrived at their destination at the same time as observed by the observers in their rest frame
The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that those who experience most acceleration between two separate shared rest frames must have aged the least when all involed are joined together in the second shared rest frame.
Therefore the relativistic solution in this case must dictate that the shuttle that experienced the most acceleration must have aged less than the ship. This of course causes a logical contradiction within the relativistic model in this particular case.
They age the same.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13745 Oct 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
In the twins paradox when the traveler returns and joins his brother they shake hands. During this handshake do the brothers exist in the neighboring spacetime points (separated only by a minuscule distance)? Or do the brothers exist in totally different spacetimes because much less time has passed for the traveler?
LOL. You really don't know the basics, do you?

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, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min Parrot Killer 27,697
News Distrust of the non-religious runs deep in Amer... 1 hr Eagle 12 124
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Dogen 2,083
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 5 hr Hedonist Heretic 213
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 11 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,970
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 12 hr Amused 65
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 22 hr Eagle 12 3,976
More from around the web