"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 67107 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

#9871 Jun 28, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at least you've made it clear that you give more value to older hypotheses simply because they have undergone more tests. Explains your conservative nature in dealing with science and why you're stuck in the past.
I only care about what is logically the best explanation, regardless of how new it is. I'm not stuck in the past.
I place value in hypotheses that can predict the results of new tests. Simply 'explaining' what has already been seen allows too many 'just-so' stories. The key is being able to predict new observations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9872 Jun 28, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny. Talk about a "handbreak" of science. Theory A is better than theory B because theory A was created first.
No, it is a bette rttheory because it was able to predict the results of experiments that hadn't been done when it was proposed.
I'm sorry but you are completely off with your statement. Evidence needs to be analyzed objectively for each case. It is the medieval method of religiously clinging to theories that you present here. You've given the emperor some new clothes though, unfortunately the package is still the same.
Nope, a new hypothesis is given the chance to predict new observations also. if it does not, it fails.
If two theories (A and B) are logically sound and supported by the same evidence then they are equally valid until some observation falsifies one of them. I find it funny that people have this religious need to form camps to support some particular theory and dismiss some other.
No. If A has been able to predict new results and B has never done so, then A is the more substantiated idea. If B then is able to predict some new observations, it can rise is status.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9873 Jun 28, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it also says:
"... or naturally by fast electrons moving through magnetic fields"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radi...
So you effectively did not explain why this happens but only said that it happens. You have given it a name but you don't explain how it might occur.
Argon is used often in physics experiments to see the beam more clearly, but the beam is actually seen in a vacuum also. The greater the intensity of the beam (more electrons) the better it can be seen.
You don't have any explanation for why these "waves" of yours suddenly emit photons while moving in a vacuum?
Most CRTs have very poor vacuums, so you will see a lot of interactions between the electrons and remaining atoms in the 'vacuum'.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9874 Jun 28, 2012
Science cat wrote:
I was the very first person to say that science and medicine should use bacteria to heal people, as long as a year or more before science and medicine just announced last week, that they are proceeding in that direction.
As far as pets, I claimed long ago how smart they were long before any here. I will not give away what is needed and wanted by animals, because corporations control our fully corrupt gov and by extension, all the clueless morons like you Polly wanna cracker. They would steal what I know about pets, because congress made the patent laws so the corporations can steal from all but the other huge corporations.
Stay stupid, it shows how unamerican you are.
Ah! The village idiot returns.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9875 Jun 28, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Mike F
Princeton's Dicke, was working on an idea of 1940 astrofycisist George Gamov, who had calculated that the first light would reach the earth in microwave radiation. And that bell's device in Holmdell would be a good way to register it.
In the meantime Penzias and Wilson where trying the clear 'white diŽlectric matter' i.e. birdshit of the reciever disk, since that was annoying background noise was still interfering with their experiment.
At a certain point they walked up to Dicke and later published what they had found. Received the Nobel-price in 1978. Princeton got nothing even though they published too.
According to Dennis Overbye, in Lonely hearts of the cosmos, Neither Penzias nor Wilson really undrstood what they had discovered, untill they read about it in the New York Times.
Great stuff. Wiki covers it pretty well too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cos...

BTW, I'm keeping 'white dielectric matter' for future use.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9876 Jun 28, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be under the delusion that your believe is not only not foolish but maybe also correct.
Talking to yourself again, Lango?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9877 Jun 28, 2012
LoL wrote:
<quoted text>
What YOU have is a burning wish you could read. Or had ever had the chance to learn the underpinnings of the civilization you don't understand.
Like JUSTINIAN's work, in reworking the old Roman System of law again so it was better and
is still the same civil law system we use today.
No WE have proof you illiterate hick.
YOU have 'I HEARD.'
YOU have NOT been DOING your HOMEWORK in ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING, HISTORY, MATHEMATICS, ARCHEOLOGY, LANGUAGES, CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAW, MEDICINE, and that sort of thing because
YOU'VE
been
BUSY
DRIINKING.
But, fortunately, a few guys got together and spammed what are called different sets of history books in different countrys.
That way, nobody could bullshit.
And ATHEIST TRASH brought YOU the legacy of being in the group of the MOST DESPISED PEOPLE in the WORLD
A.N.Y.W.H.E.R.E.
through the ATHEIST UTOPIAN TRASH who set up the SOVIET and CHINISE ATHEISTIC COMMUNES of FAIRNESS and EVERYBODY-EQUALNESS.
You're a HICK
defending something that can be demolished so quick, that no one need CRACK a book:
JUST REMEMBER the TWENTIETH CENTURY and the ATHEISTS fighting with EVERYBODY
from the GERMANS
to the UNITED STATES
to AFGHANISTAN
to HUNGARY
to GERMANY AGAIN
to ENGLAND
then the CHINESE with their MURDER SQUADS called REVOLUTIONARY CELLS they SHIPPED ALL OVER
to start MURDERING the PEOPLE who WOUDN'T RENOUNCE GOD.
You're TRASH here to DEFEND TRASH.
And since this is the internet it means life's gonna suck for you.
Because you're OBVIOUSLY
way,
WAY out of your league to talk with people concerning cultures, and Gods, and PROOFS:
you're a hick.
So's Al Gore.
So's Dipstick Dawkins.
WTF was that?
defender

United States

#9878 Jun 28, 2012
Venusvixen57 wrote:
I love the topic! Science vs. Religion. But is there any real competition?
Every day I hope that more people awaken to the reality that there is no evidence for God. Whether that leads them to Atheism, Agnosticism, or both, hardly matters.

Some people choose to refuse the label. All their lives Atheists have been known to them as either devil worshippers or hopelessly depressed people who are angry all the time, or worse. So they don't believe the Bible anymore, but refuse to say they're Agnostic. They might not even feel "God" would write a book, or inspire men to do so. Still they avoid the label of "Atheist," and don't care what people call them. Sometimes it does feel like a religion, like some of our own are lost.

We can reach them with logic and reason. There is a portion of the population who are willing to take reality as it is, and not ignore the evidence in front of them. Reality presents a lot of information, and it would be an absolute shame to ignore any of it.
Logic and reason.... Big cosmic bang from nothing.. Nothing... Complex DNA arising from lifeless chemical soup... You call that evidence? Reality?.... Whales evolving from dogs and humans evolving from fish? Yeah let's hear all about your logic and reason...
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9879 Jun 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
And I am claiming that there is no way your model can give the observed spectrum. You need to produce a blackbody radiation that is consistent with the Planck curve to within one part in 100,000. I claim your rotation model cannot do that.
Well why do you think the BB model gives you the observed spectrum and why do you claim that the Rotation model does not?
polymath257 wrote:
If you disagree, please supply the *details* of your model, showing how it provides for blackbody radiation and the observed red shifts. At this point, you have given some vague ideas that appear to be self-contradictory (three axis rotation) and have supplied NOTHING that actually gives details.
The details are not done yet.

There is nothing self-contradictory in the Rotation model. You just managed to produce an argument from ignorance.
polymath257 wrote:
So, what is the *exact* description of the 'rotation model'? What is rotating? where is it in relation to us? what are its equations of motion?
An singularity which spews physical matter rotates because of the displacement of the stream(s). Because of this all matter in the universe have their angular momentum.

It is extremely difficult or impossible to detect the location of this singularity because of the gravitational effect which is stronger closer to the singularity. As we discussed before:
- gravitation is stronger closer to the singularity
- we are accelerating away from the singularity
- gravity slows down light

I don't have enough data to calculate the angular momentum of the singularity.
polymath257 wrote:
if there is acceleration, what force drive it? how does that rotation yield consistent red shifts in different directions? how does it yield a blackbody CMBR?
The rotation is dictated by the matter stream. We already covered red shift and you stated that my model does not differ from the standard model. CMBR is produced exactly as in the BB model but the dissipation is different.
polymath257 wrote:
You have dodged all of these questions repeatedly. Now, it is also true that this forum is not the best place to answer these questions, but you haven't even explained what 'three axis rotation' means, let alone how it could solve any of the above problems. Give detailed equations of motion.
I didn't dodge anything. As said we already covered red shift. I have explained three axis rotation many times. Go back to the discussion of gyroscopes and gyroscopic propulsion in this thread.

I cannot give equations yet. You'll have to wait :)

“‚ÄúYou must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9880 Jun 28, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_ex...
let's first try and understand all of this!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9881 Jun 28, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Well why do you think the BB model gives you the observed spectrum and why do you claim that the Rotation model does not?
The BB theory predicts a universe that is very close to a uniform temperature early on. When matter and photons decoupled, the photon spectrum would then be a blackbody spectrum Since then, it has cooled, but maintained that blackbody spectrum. Yours, on the other hand does NOT predict uniform temperatures, but instead predicts a range of temperatures and so cannot produce a blackbody spectrum.
The details are not done yet.
And I predict they never will be done.
There is nothing self-contradictory in the Rotation model. You just managed to produce an argument from ignorance.
You have never clarified what it means to be a 'three axis rotation'. As far as I can see, that is a contradictory concept since all rotations have exactly one axis.
An singularity which spews physical matter rotates because of the displacement of the stream(s). Because of this all matter in the universe have their angular momentum.
But that would give a non-uniform distribution of matter and energy, contradicting the observations.
It is extremely difficult or impossible to detect the location of this singularity because of the gravitational effect which is stronger closer to the singularity. As we discussed before:
- gravitation is stronger closer to the singularity
- we are accelerating away from the singularity
- gravity slows down light
None of which are supported by evidence.
I don't have enough data to calculate the angular momentum of the singularity.
Can you give a range of possibilities? What evidence do you need? Can evidence from the galaxies we see provide such evidence?
The rotation is dictated by the matter stream. We already covered red shift and you stated that my model does not differ from the standard model.
No, I quite clearly said you have no model. There simply aren't enough details to rise to the level of a model. You have some vague ideas, some of which are self-contradictory.
CMBR is produced exactly as in the BB model but the dissipation is different.
Your model predicts a uniform temperature across the universe?
I didn't dodge anything. As said we already covered red shift.
No, you did not. You *claimed* that you could get the observed properties of red shifts, but you never gave details to support your claim.
I have explained three axis rotation many times. Go back to the discussion of gyroscopes and gyroscopic propulsion in this thread.
Not sufficient to explain 'three axis rotation' as required in your model. Give details, not vague ideas or pointers to irrelevant material.
I cannot give equations yet. You'll have to wait :)
Until you can, you have nothing. That's how science works.

Here's a prediction of mine: you will never be able to supply details because your ideas are too vague and contradictory. Until you can give details, i.e. equations and dynamical laws, etc and show how those equations predict what you claim, you have nothing.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9882 Jun 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
So you would expect that electrons lose mass when they emit photons, right?
Yes, they can lose or gain some mass. Electrons must have some "satisfaction state" in which they don't want to emit or absorb photons. The further away the go from that energy state to either direction the more likely they are to emit or absorb photons to go back to that state.
polymath257 wrote:
How many photons can a single electron emit before it loses all of its mass?
In relation to what I mentioned above an electron will never lose all of its mass.
polymath257 wrote:
Why do we see no electrons with masses other than 511KeV?
The mass of a photon is so tiny that it hardly affects the mass of an electron. I don't know how many photons an electron could emit before it simply would not emit more.
polymath257 wrote:
Are photons of different frequency of different masses?
Yes.
polymath257 wrote:
How does the mass relate to frequency? intensity?
There may be different variations.
polymath257 wrote:
Are you claiming that protons, for example, would not emit photons? How about neutrons?
That is a good question. Perhaps they do emit photons. That would indicate that everything consists of photons (and perhaps something to keep them together). That sounds logical. Photons and some kind of "glue particles" that make up the charge.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9883 Jun 28, 2012
humble brother wrote:
I didn't dodge anything. As said we already covered red shift. I have explained three axis rotation many times. Go back to the discussion of gyroscopes and gyroscopic propulsion in this thread.
Just to be clear. A gyroscope has only one axis at a time. That axis changes over time in response to accelerations. In your model, why does the axis of rotation change? What, exactly, is the path of that axis over time? how does your 'spewing' give a uniform distribution of matter and energy as observed by us? Details, please.

Again, I predict you won't ever give details because it is impossible to consistently describe your intuitions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9884 Jun 28, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they can lose or gain some mass. Electrons must have some "satisfaction state" in which they don't want to emit or absorb photons. The further away the go from that energy state to either direction the more likely they are to emit or absorb photons to go back to that state.
Pure speculation. Any evidence?
In relation to what I mentioned above an electron will never lose all of its mass.
And I predict it never loses *any* of its mass.
The mass of a photon is so tiny that it hardly affects the mass of an electron. I don't know how many photons an electron could emit before it simply would not emit more.
Any evidence this *ever* happens?
Yes.
There may be different variations.
So once again, you have vague ideas and no details. Figures.
That is a good question. Perhaps they do emit photons. That would indicate that everything consists of photons (and perhaps something to keep them together). That sounds logical. Photons and some kind of "glue particles" that make up the charge.
Except, of course, that photons have no charge. Keep it coming. You comedic value is increasing again.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9885 Jun 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
The BB theory predicts a universe that is very close to a uniform temperature early on. When matter and photons decoupled, the photon spectrum would then be a blackbody spectrum Since then, it has cooled, but maintained that blackbody spectrum. Yours, on the other hand does NOT predict uniform temperatures, but instead predicts a range of temperatures and so cannot produce a blackbody spectrum.
Wrong. The Rotation model does predict uniform observed temperatures exactly in the same manner as red shift is observed uniformly. We discussed red shift in relation to this model so you should know how it goes.
polymath257 wrote:
You have never clarified what it means to be a 'three axis rotation'. As far as I can see, that is a contradictory concept since all rotations have exactly one axis.
All rotations do not have one single axis. You need three for a gyroscope. Relative to the Sun Earth DOES NOT rotate along just one axis around itself.

You can easily throw an object with just a spin (one axis), or a spin and a twist (two axes).
polymath257 wrote:
None of which are supported by evidence.
With that logic dark energy and expansion of space are not supported by evidence either then.
polymath257 wrote:
Can you give a range of possibilities? What evidence do you need? Can evidence from the galaxies we see provide such evidence?
The rotation could be approximated from the rate of acceleration of the expansion.
polymath257 wrote:
No, I quite clearly said you have no model. There simply aren't enough details to rise to the level of a model. You have some vague ideas, some of which are self-contradictory.
Again. Nothing I have presented here is self-contradictory. You seem to be just insisting it. I have many models of three axis rotation, it works.
polymath257 wrote:
Your model predicts a uniform temperature across the universe?
For the observer yes, exactly same as the red shift.
polymath257 wrote:
No, you did not. You *claimed* that you could get the observed properties of red shifts, but you never gave details to support your claim.
Well you happily stated that my model is like the standard model when it comes to red shift.
polymath257 wrote:
Not sufficient to explain 'three axis rotation' as required in your model. Give details, not vague ideas or pointers to irrelevant material.
If you understand how to perform rotation transformation using matrices then you also understand how you can model three axis rotation. Do you understand how to model three axis rotation of vertices using just three matrices?
polymath257 wrote:
Until you can, you have nothing. That's how science works.

Here's a prediction of mine: you will never be able to supply details because your ideas are too vague and contradictory. Until you can give details, i.e. equations and dynamical laws, etc and show how those equations predict what you claim, you have nothing.
We'll see about that :)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9886 Jun 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Just to be clear. A gyroscope has only one axis at a time. That axis changes over time in response to accelerations. In your model, why does the axis of rotation change? What, exactly, is the path of that axis over time? how does your 'spewing' give a uniform distribution of matter and energy as observed by us? Details, please.
Again, I predict you won't ever give details because it is impossible to consistently describe your intuitions.
I have given these detail already. It is like speaking to deaf ears.

- centrifugal force from one axis rotation causes a disk like expansion
- centrifugal forces from multiple axes rotation causes spherical expansion

Why does the axis change? Stick a rocket onto some lump offset from the center of mass, light the rocket and throw the lump in the air without adding rotation. The rocket will cause the lump to rotate along multiple axes spreading the "stream" quite evenly to all directions.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9887 Jun 28, 2012
Mystery solved Polymath, he believes in some variant of this bullsh*t. The clue is in the references.

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/big_ba...
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9888 Jun 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Pure speculation. Any evidence?
No, it is a hypothesis based on evidence. We observe the relationship between energy and matter. In science it is accepted that energy and matter are pretty much the same thing.

This hypothesis just expands that to say: "all energy is matter in movement". Potential energy is just electrons rotating around the nucleuses. As I have mentioned before, kinetic energy is just transferring potential energy from electrons to actual movement of the whole body. This is why according to this model atomic clocks slow down when traveling fast in space.
polymath257 wrote:
And I predict it never loses *any* of its mass.
And you also claim that photons don't have mass.
I claim that photons have mass and electrons may therefore also lose some of their mass.
polymath257 wrote:
Any evidence this *ever* happens?
The evidence is the energy-matter relationship. You seem to claim that energy can exist without matter. I claim it can not, energy is the movement of matter.
polymath257 wrote:
So once again, you have vague ideas and no details. Figures.
There's nothing vague about it. You claim that electrons have one constant mass and photons have no mass. I claim that they both can have variable masses. How could I give you more details about them? They're unobservable. It may be that one frequency means one specific mass, but I cannot be absolutely certain.
polymath257 wrote:
Except, of course, that photons have no charge. Keep it coming. You comedic value is increasing again.
What part of "glue particles that make up the charge" did you not understand?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#9889 Jun 28, 2012
I don't think that humble brother knows what rotation is.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#9890 Jun 28, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Mystery solved Polymath, he believes in some variant of this bullsh*t. The clue is in the references.
http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/big_ba...
Whoa! That open up a whole new level of goofy!

"...seven super-universes circle the central universe in a counter-clockwise rotation..."

Counter-clockwise in relation to what?

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Arctic Dolphin Arthur 80W Mod 1 hr vapecigs 1
News Pat Bates: Is innovation an economic growth tsu... 3 hr sure 1
News The Cheap Energy Revolution Is Here, and Coal W... 4 hr Solarman 1
Mini Body Large Display, Joyetech eVic Primo 5 hr Vapesourcing1 1
News Ivanka Trump advocates for women, girls in trip... 7 hr anonymous 42
News Local entrepreneurs cashing in on Nano Utica (Sep '14) 11 hr Upstate Toilet Town 14
NEW Arctic Dolphin Arthur 80W Stabilized Wood B... 20 hr ecigvape1205 2
More from around the web