"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 (Page 670)

Showing posts 13,381 - 13,400 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13735
Oct 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13736
Oct 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13739
Oct 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13740
Oct 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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???

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13741
Oct 25, 2012
 
Some people suffer from maximum density.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13746
Oct 25, 2012
 
hb=MD^2
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13747
Oct 25, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
They age the same.
So in essence you have accounted for the previous acceleration for the shuttle and subtracted that from the reverse acceleration.

You have broken your own rule. Now you have two rules apparently:
1. the history of accelerations does not matter
2. the history of accelerations does matter

So which is it? You can not have it both ways even though you like shifting goal posts so much.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13748
Oct 25, 2012
 
Frisbee wrote:
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.
The Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity is currently in the works. It requires no dark-magic from the dark-myth-god.
Frisbee wrote:
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.
Your argument falls flat on this:
The GPS satellites *accelerated* away from Earth. How come their atomic clocks are ticking faster and not slower?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13749
Oct 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity is currently in the works. It requires no dark-magic from the dark-myth-god.
<quoted text>
Your argument falls flat on this:
The GPS satellites *accelerated* away from Earth. How come their atomic clocks are ticking faster and not slower?
Acceleration only dilates time substantially at very high velocities , it only deals in nano seconds at human capable speeds atm. However they are measurable. Gravity is an equal factor in real world time dilation , hence a satellites dilation due to gravity is less farther away from Earth's center, but its velocity adds dilation so the two are subtracted to maintain it's accuracy.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/As...
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13750
Oct 25, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
Your argument falls flat on this:
The GPS satellites *accelerated* away from Earth. How come their atomic clocks are ticking faster and not slower?
Satellites don't accelerate away from Earth. If they did, they would break orbit. Satellites are actually FALLING tangentially to the surface.

But I digress. You aren't the first to be confused, you won't be the last.
First. Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
humble brother wrote:
The Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity is currently in the works.
Feel free to let us know the day it is published and peer-reviewed. The Scientific Method is NOT complete until you communicate your results and they stand up to scrutiny. Until that day, you have an UNTESTED, UNPROVEN, THEORY. You have a LOT of work to do before you can start running your mouth.

You also might want to change your name. Claiming that you're smarter than Albert Einstein and the thousands of other scientists who have verified his work, especially when you've got NO ACTUAL WORK to back your opinions up, isn't "Humble". It's supremely Arrogant.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13752
Oct 26, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Acceleration only dilates time substantially at very high velocities , it only deals in nano seconds at human capable speeds atm. However they are measurable. Gravity is an equal factor in real world time dilation , hence a satellites dilation due to gravity is less farther away from Earth's center, but its velocity adds dilation so the two are subtracted to maintain it's accuracy.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/As...
Thus rendering void the argument of this Frisbee character:

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

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13753
Oct 26, 2012
 
Frisbee wrote:
Satellites don't accelerate away from Earth. If they did, they would break orbit. Satellites are actually FALLING tangentially to the surface.

But I digress. You aren't the first to be confused, you won't be the last.
First. Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Well you made a glorious display of your own confusion there. Congratulations!

The GPS satellites were built on Earth. That means they once were on Earth and then accelerated away from Earth. Have you always believed that the GPS satellites appeared in their orbits by the means of magic?

As AuraMytha already pointed, there is significant gravitational time dilation difference between the surface of Earth and the satellites. This is why the satellite clocks are ticking faster.
Frisbee wrote:
Feel free to let us know the day it is published and peer-reviewed. The Scientific Method is NOT complete until you communicate your results and they stand up to scrutiny. Until that day, you have an UNTESTED, UNPROVEN, THEORY. You have a LOT of work to do before you can start running your mouth.
To summarize this for you:
You are waiting for someone else from the scientific community to tell you what to believe as you are incapable of your own rational selective thought processes. In other words you are a sheep waiting for the next order.
Frisbee wrote:
You also might want to change your name. Claiming that you're smarter than Albert Einstein and the thousands of other scientists who have verified his work, especially when you've got NO ACTUAL WORK to back your opinions up, isn't "Humble". It's supremely Arrogant.
I have not made any such claims. I am simply explaining to you simple logic. Your problem is that you religiously cling to some beliefs while not being able to produce your own rational thinking. You look to others to tell you what to believe.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 13,381 - 13,400 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••