"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 33873 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.

Mugwump

Northampton, UK

#11450 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Claed above should be,--"claimed".
Yeah, that's the error you should focus on
Psychology

United States

#11451 Jul 21, 2012
This is my hypothesis, where axis planetary spin rate, coupled by orbital spin rate, are a necessity for gravity and atmosphere. 

There can be no gravity and no atmosphere without axis and orbital spin.

In my latest research, scientists claim that Venus has 90% of earths gravity, but Venus spin rate was waaay down from that of earth, so I did more research and found that in keplers 2nd law, it says,---

Copy and paste follows!

Since the distance between the Sun's center and the planet's center (d) changes, the gravitational force between them does too. Comparing the expressions for gravitational force with the general force law (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion), one can see that acceleration of M1(let's say the Sun) is G M2 / d2, and that of M2(the planet) is G M1 / d2. That is, the acceleration of a planet in its orbit around the Sun depends upon the mass of the Sun and the inverse square of the planet's distance from the Sun. As the planet moves further away in its orbit around the Sun, the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the planet decreases. If the force exerted on the planet decreases, the planet's acceleration, proportional to Msun/d2, must also decrease, resulting in a lower orbital speed. We won't worry about how orbital acceleration is converted into orbital speed in this class.

Now since I have claimed that spin rate is not only on axis, but orbital as well,-as I showed with the moon,--- spin rate still applies to my claims.

When I was reading venus's bio, it stated the spin rate was very slow, but science claimed that since Venus was 90% the size and mass of earth, without mentioning keplers law, sciences claim that size equals gravity.
So that's how Venus with a very slow axis spin, but a very fast orbital rate, keep gravity high and my hypothesis on spin rate as still correct.

Here is what this site claims about Venus's versus earths gravity,---while it says nothing of keplers law.

Venus is the virtual twin of Earth in many ways. Similar size, mass and density. But what is the gravity on Venus? According to our friends over at NASA, the answer is 8.87 m/s2. To translate that a little more, it is about 90% of the gravity here on Earth. A person who measures 100 kg when they leave home would tip the scales on the Venusian surface at 90 kg.

The surface gravity of Venus is not the only characteristic of the planet that nearly mirrors Earth. Venus has 86% of the volume that Earth has along with 82% of the mass. The planet’s density is nearly identical at 5.243 g/cm3.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14245/what-is-th...

I think since science has never considered spin rate, meaning axis spin and rotational spin in dealing with gravity and atmosphere, as science has always claimed that mass was all that accounted for gravity, they may have measured the gravity as correct, but science could not then add in keplers law or they would have had to explain what they could not.

Jim Ryan 
Psychology

United States

#11452 Jul 21, 2012
This is my hypothesis, where axis planetary spin rate, coupled by orbital spin rate, are a necessity for gravity and atmosphere. 

There can be no gravity and no atmosphere without axis and orbital spin.

Look to earths moon for confirmation of spin rate creating gravity and atmosphere, as the moon has such a small amount of spin, gravity and atmosphere, versus my research on Venus .

In my latest research, scientists claim that Venus has 90% of earths gravity, but Venus spin rate was waaay down from that of earth, so I did more research and found that in keplers 2nd law, it says,---

Copy and paste follows!

Since the distance between the Sun's center and the planet's center (d) changes, the gravitational force between them does too. Comparing the expressions for gravitational force with the general force law (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion), one can see that acceleration of M1(let's say the Sun) is G M2 / d2, and that of M2(the planet) is G M1 / d2. That is, the acceleration of a planet in its orbit around the Sun depends upon the mass of the Sun and the inverse square of the planet's distance from the Sun. As the planet moves further away in its orbit around the Sun, the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the planet decreases. If the force exerted on the planet decreases, the planet's acceleration, proportional to Msun/d2, must also decrease, resulting in a lower orbital speed. We won't worry about how orbital acceleration is converted into orbital speed in this class. Just think of accelerating a bowling ball down the bowling alley - a ball undergoing a greater acceleration from rest (in your hands) attains a higher speed moving down the lane. That's all you need to understand, and you already knew that. 

Now since I have claimed that spin rate is not only on axis, but orbital as well,-as I showed with the moon,--- spin rate still applies to my claims.

When I was reading venus's bio, it stated the spin rate was very slow, but science claimed that since Venus was 90% the size and mass of earth, without mentioning keplers law, sciences claim that size equals gravity.
So that's how Venus with a very slow axis spin, but a very fast orbital rate, keep gravity high and my hypothesis on spin rate as still correct.

Here is what this site claims about Venus's versus earths gravity,---while it says nothing of keplers law.

Venus is the virtual twin of Earth in many ways. Similar size, mass and density. But what is the gravity on Venus? According to our friends over at NASA, the answer is 8.87 m/s2. To translate that a little more, it is about 90% of the gravity here on Earth. A person who measures 100 kg when they leave home would tip the scales on the Venusian surface at 90 kg.

The surface gravity of Venus is not the only characteristic of the planet that nearly mirrors Earth. Venus has 86% of the volume that Earth has along with 82% of the mass. The planet’s density is nearly identical at 5.243 g/cm3.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14245/what-is-th...

I think since science has never considered spin rate, meaning axis spin and rotational spin in dealing with gravity and atmosphere, as science has always claimed that mass was all that accounted for gravity, they may have measured the gravity as correct, but science could not then add in keplers law or they would have had to explain what they could not.

Jim Ryan 
Mugwump

Northampton, UK

#11453 Jul 21, 2012
A hypothesis has to stand up against scrutiny, the person forwarding the hypothesis has to be able to defend it against scrutiny.

Otherwise the hypothesis fails because

It is contradicted by evidence

And/or

The person making the claim refuses to engage in a discussion of the rebuttals
Psychology

United States

#11454 Jul 21, 2012
If any person has evidence contradicting what I claim, let them make their claims.
Psychology

United States

#11455 Jul 21, 2012
If anyone has valid rebuttle, let them be heard.
Psychology

United States

#11456 Jul 21, 2012
Let common sense be each persons guide and I promise they will be heard and I will answer anyone.

My claims stand before all. Are you a man or woman of integrity?

Let's find out.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#11457 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If any person has evidence contradicting what I claim, let them make their claims.

We don't know enough about "special fhizuks" to refute you Jimbob.
Psychology

United States

#11458 Jul 21, 2012
If I cannot see intelligent rebuttal, as the likes of aura Mytha shows, I will put a challenge to the board. If anyone can show just cause, I would enjoy answering.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#11459 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Let common sense be each persons guide and I promise they will be heard and I will answer anyone.
My claims stand before all. Are you a man or woman of integrity?
Let's find out.
Well if you actually had something to refute instead pure BS.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#11460 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If I cannot see intelligent rebuttal, as the likes of aura Mytha shows, I will put a challenge to the board. If anyone can show just cause, I would enjoy answering.
We already told you gravity is related to mass , not size or weight though they do tend to correlate mostly they do not have to.

The ridiculous claims you make are something we would expect from a grade school child. As your delusions to make appeal from authority
are indeed comical but immensely inane and not vernacular to science. But you may carry on , we find your inadequacy amusing and quite the comic relief.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#11461 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If I cannot see intelligent rebuttal, as the likes of aura Mytha shows, I will put a challenge to the board. If anyone can show just cause, I would enjoy answering.
I don't read your stuff but the consensus has intelligence as your weakest attribute, nonsensical claptrap as your strongest. I'm a gregarious sort of guy so I'll go along with the consensus.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11462 Jul 21, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you need the equations that need G to calculate G. The logic behind why G is required mathematically is circular.
The term magic variable comes from computer programing terms. That kind of variables are something that are added just to create a dirty fix for something.
No, your problem is that you fail to understand that no matter what mathematical equations one posits to describe gravity, it will have a real and measurable actual field strength based on mass and distance.

There must be an ACTUAL strength of the gravity force. G must have SOME value. Its not just a kludge to make the equations work, its a fundamental feature of the universe. You cannot build a mathematical model that works, which is not pinned in some way to a measurable, discoverable quantity in the real world. That is G.

Sure, you can calculate that "A has 4 times more mass than B" without it, but you can never estimate what those masses actually are. Mass is also an absolute that exists in the real world, and its been measured calculated very accurately down to the particle level - something else you fail to understand.

Lets face it, when we started this discussion, you did not even know the difference between mass and weight. Making the rest of your babblings superfluous.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#11463 Jul 21, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If anyone has valid rebuttle, let them be heard.
Ok, here goes:

Evidence. Please.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11464 Jul 22, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I cannot see intelligent rebuttal
That is right; you cannot see intelligent rebuttal.

Because you only understand stupid.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11465 Jul 22, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
Which standard model?
The fact that you have to ask makes things look rather grim for you in this case. The standard model in particle physics, do you understand it in its totality?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11466 Jul 22, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
Instead of just making stuff up and trying to dazzle us with your stupidity, try reading a real text book on Physics.
Is this all you got? Fighting against mathematical equations with silly opinions. Have you ever tried making an actual logical argument instead of making childish attacks against other people?

Which of the following is stupid in your view?
- presenting actual mathematical equations to model natural phenomena
or
- shouting out opinions about people you don't know

You have a need to steer away from the argued logical matters and express your emotionally based opinions of the people you don't agree with don't you?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11467 Jul 22, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
Have you heard about a watt balance?
Would you like to make an actual argument to go with that?
As such that question is just nonsense.
rpk58 wrote:
"Mass is a virtual concept" means what? That mass is virtual?
You don't make any sense.
What if we can measure mass only indirectly?
Mass is a virtual concept in any of our falsifiable models. We can not know what mass is, we can only approximately model some hypothetical structures of masses and their behavior.

Do you understand that if you want to measure any property of some mass, you will have to perform that measurement relative to some chosen fixed measure? Measurements are always relative.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#11468 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you have to ask makes things look rather grim for you in this case. The standard model in particle physics, do you understand it in its totality?
I had to ask the question because with you, you could be talking about anything.

As for QM I can't remember who said "anybody who says they understand QM doesn't" which means it's totally beyond you as you have zero understanding of classical Physics.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#11469 Jul 22, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this all you got? Fighting against mathematical equations with silly opinions. Have you ever tried making an actual logical argument instead of making childish attacks against other people?
Which of the following is stupid in your view?
- presenting actual mathematical equations to model natural phenomena
or
- shouting out opinions about people you don't know
You have a need to steer away from the argued logical matters and express your emotionally based opinions of the people you don't agree with don't you?
Well seeing how you have not presented anything remotely logical you have no ground to stand on.

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
News High Desert residents struggle with wind turbin... (Mar '10) 6 hr solarderek 23
News Former astronaut scoffs at global warming (Feb '09) 7 hr Into The Night 2,374
News Schwarzenegger seeks $95M for green research (Dec '06) 11 hr Follow The Money 5
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 13 hr SoE 10,436
JET_errFileAccessDenied 14 hr henriksen 2
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 15 hr Don Barros Serrano 179,706
How to recover Photo Video file from SD Card Me... (May '13) Thu AnnieChow 3
More from around the web