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

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

There are 40691 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.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11956 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
It is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of the nonlinear nature of relative mass in the new model.
Actually its perfectly clear that your incoherent drivel is tripping you up. Whatever it is you are trying to define, its certainly not mass.
One kilogram is a name given to a lump of a chosen size. Then mathematically it is possible to call two of those lumps two kilograms.
Yes, and if we are adding 5kg to 3kg, we get 8kg.

5x + 3x = 8x WOW!

However, you still CANNOT add 5 kg to 3 seconds.
Like 5x + 3y, they are irreducible beyond that composite statement.

And in a statement of equalities - an equation - the units must equate, as I said. If there is an expression of time on one side, there must be an expression of time on the other.
The unit of mass in the new model is m³/s². Mass in the new model should be called "mass effect" rather than just "mass".
Now you accept that its NOT mass you are talking about but a new derivative quality, a function of mass and time. And now "mass effect" = mass cubed over time squared. Mass is still mass, then, the same old mass, an actual, non relative quantity just like it always was, over there on the right hand side of your "mass effect" equation, the actual quantity you have decided to cube in inventing your new, utterly useless thingamejig called "mass effect".

No way around it. To fix your equation, you have to add back in exactly the same units that comprise G: d^3 * m^-1 * t^-2

Then we just change your (M + m)^2 back to Mm, and hey presto, its Newton again and it actually works.

You doofus!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11957 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The confusion is all in your mind.
<quoted text>
You say here that the photons from the beacon can move faster than the speed c relative to the observer ship. So the relative speed c can then be exceeded by photons after all? So it is not a constant?
No, I did NOT say that. The c+v is in the beacon's frame, not the observer's frame. The distance between the wavefront of light and the observer moving away in the beacon's frame increases at a rate of c+v, but that is not a velocity of any object nor a relative velocity in any frame.
You are saying that the front beacon sees light move faster than c relative to the observer ship and therefore the number of encountered wavefronts is increased.
The beacon sees the distance between the wavefront and the observer increase at a rate of c+v. But that is NOT a velocity in any frame. In particular, it is NOT the relative velocity between ligth and the observer *in the observer's frame*.
Does the observer ship see light coming from front faster than the constant c? Answer: NO they do not.
Right. In the observer's frame, the speed of light is always c.
Once more: we know that within the model observers in different rest frames disagree on measurements. So why do you bring measurements that the two frames disagree with into one calculation?
They disagree on distances, velocities, time durations, energies, momenta, and a great number of other things. But they agree on things like rest mass, proper time of an event (time experienced by someone in the frame of the event), and phase of a wave. So a count of the number of wavefronts passing the observer is independent of the reference frame. The Doppler effect compares two frames: that of the beacon and that of the observer. So of course we have to look at the system in both frames and compare them!
You have drowned yourself in fallacies in your paradox. You know that the two frames disagree with the measurements and still you bring them together to calculate.
They agree on number of wavefronts passing the observer.
You only can say within the model that from the beacon it seems that light seemingly travels faster than the constant c relative to the ship
No, the c+v is NOT the velocity of anything in any frame.
And yet you have counted the encountered wavefronts for a faster than light relative speed. That's exactly what you are using in your calculations to count the wavefronts:
- faster than constant light speed for the front: c+v
- slower than constant light speed for the back: c-v
Because you change the speed like that you get different counts of wavefronts.
The speed doesn't change. We are merely calculating the distance between the wavefront and the observer in the beacon's frame. The count is the same in both frames; the speed of light is the same in both frames; so the frequency differs between the frames.
Are you lying through your teeth to try and confuse other people here???
No, I am attempting to show you where you are making your mistakes so, perhaps, you will learn something. Clearly that isn't happening. Let's focus on the c+v. Is it the speed of light in any reference frame? Is it the speed of anything in any reference frame? What, exactly, does it represent?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11958 Jul 30, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually its perfectly clear that your incoherent drivel is tripping you up. Whatever it is you are trying to define, its certainly not mass.
<quoted text>
Yes, and if we are adding 5kg to 3kg, we get 8kg.
5x + 3x = 8x WOW!
However, you still CANNOT add 5 kg to 3 seconds.
Like 5x + 3y, they are irreducible beyond that composite statement.
And in a statement of equalities - an equation - the units must equate, as I said. If there is an expression of time on one side, there must be an expression of time on the other.
<quoted text>
Now you accept that its NOT mass you are talking about but a new derivative quality, a function of mass and time. And now "mass effect" = mass cubed over time squared. Mass is still mass, then, the same old mass, an actual, non relative quantity just like it always was, over there on the right hand side of your "mass effect" equation, the actual quantity you have decided to cube in inventing your new, utterly useless thingamejig called "mass effect".
No way around it. To fix your equation, you have to add back in exactly the same units that comprise G: d^3 * m^-1 * t^-2
Then we just change your (M + m)^2 back to Mm, and hey presto, its Newton again and it actually works.
You doofus!
I have lost count of how many times I've said to you that the mass in the current gravity models is not compatible with the mass in the new model. I clearly said to you that the new concept is nonlinear.

Do you at all read what you respond to??? You are constantly trying to put your primitive linear concept of mass over the new model and then start whining like a little baby when it does not work.

OF COURSE THE NEWTONIAN GRAVITY MASS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEW CONCEPT.

Suddenly you act all surprised now? You should have understood this a long time ago but I can see that you were too busy with your fingers in your ears going "la-la-laa". You don't understand a word you read if its outside your existing belief system, do you..

I won't explain this to you anymore, if you still keep whining about the models not being compatible then I'll just leave you whining like a baby.

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11959 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, the c+v is NOT the velocity of anything in any frame.
c+v is the relative speed from which you calculate how many wavefronts the observer supposedly encounters during a specific time period t.

All of you babbling above is pure nonsense. This is what you are doing:

1. From the beacon's frame you pick the relative speed v=(Vo + c) between the observer and the wavefronts. You pick this speed to calculate in the observer's frame even though the observer disagrees with this speed.

2. You then use this speed inside the observer's frame and using the observer's time you magically calculate a new frequency for the light in the observer's frame.

You just pick and choose measurements from different frames and mix them together in a soup.
polymath257 wrote:
Let's focus on the c+v. Is it the speed of light in any reference frame? Is it the speed of anything in any reference frame? What, exactly, does it represent?
c+v is exactly what would be used to calculate standard doppler effect for light dismissing the relative speed limits. In your case it is a combination of measured values that the observers do not agree on. Your case is a logical fallacy and you choose to ignore it.

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11960 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
c+v is the relative speed from which you calculate how many wavefronts the observer supposedly encounters during a specific time period t.
All of you babbling above is pure nonsense. This is what you are doing:
1. From the beacon's frame you pick the relative speed v=(Vo + c) between the observer and the wavefronts. You pick this speed to calculate in the observer's frame even though the observer disagrees with this speed.
2. You then use this speed inside the observer's frame and using the observer's time you magically calculate a new frequency for the light in the observer's frame.
You just pick and choose measurements from different frames and mix them together in a soup.
<quoted text>
c+v is exactly what would be used to calculate standard doppler effect for light dismissing the relative speed limits. In your case it is a combination of measured values that the observers do not agree on. Your case is a logical fallacy and you choose to ignore it.
OK, let's try it another way. Suppose I send a light signal off to the right and the observer goes off to the left at .5*c in the beacon's frame. After one second, how far apart are the light signal and the observer in the beacon's frame?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11961 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
c+v is the relative speed from which you calculate how many wavefronts the observer supposedly encounters during a specific time period t.
All of you babbling above is pure nonsense. This is what you are doing:
1. From the beacon's frame you pick the relative speed v=(Vo + c) between the observer and the wavefronts. You pick this speed to calculate in the observer's frame even though the observer disagrees with this speed.
No, I am calculating in the beacon's frame. I am finding the number of wavefronts that pass the observer.
2. You then use this speed inside the observer's frame and using the observer's time you magically calculate a new frequency for the light in the observer's frame.
No, I use the number of wavefronts that pass the observer to calculate the frequency.
You just pick and choose measurements from different frames and mix them together in a soup.
You clearly don't understand the calculation and are not even trying to do so.
c+v is exactly what would be used to calculate standard doppler effect for light dismissing the relative speed limits.
Why is this used? Because it tells the distance between the wavefront and the observer so we can find how many wavefronts have passed the observer.
In your case it is a combination of measured values that the observers do not agree on. Your case is a logical fallacy and you choose to ignore it.
The number of wavefronts that pass the observer is not dependent on the frame.

At this point, we have two methods for finding the frequency in the observer's frame given the frequency in the beacon's frame:

1) Use the equation describing the light wave as a function of time and distance in the beacon's frame and use a Lorenz transform to find its description in the observer's frame.

2) Count wavefronts passing the observer in the beacons frame and take into account time dilation when figuring the frequency in the observer's frame.

Both methods give the same result. Both methods give results that agree with experiments. Both results keep the two frames separated and are based on a relativistic model.

YOU seem to be the only one that doesn't understand what is being said. Whether this is purposeful or not I cannot say, but clearly you do not want to learn what is wrong with your understanding of this argument.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11962 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
OK, let's try it another way. Suppose I send a light signal off to the right and the observer goes off to the left at .5*c in the beacon's frame. After one second, how far apart are the light signal and the observer in the beacon's frame?
This is where the model says they disagree. In the beacon's frame the beam has made it one light second away and the ship a half light second to the other way.

In the ship's frame a lot less time has passed and that beam hasn't got nearly as far.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11963 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where the model says they disagree. In the beacon's frame the beam has made it one light second away and the ship a half light second to the other way.
So how far apart are they in the beacon's frame?
In the ship's frame a lot less time has passed and that beam hasn't got nearly as far.
To be dealt with later...answer the above question first.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11964 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
So how far apart are they in the beacon's frame?
1.5 light seconds.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11965 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
1.5 light seconds.
Good.

Now, suppose that, in the beacon's frame, the observer starts 2 light seconds away and is moving towards the beacon at .5*c. One wavefront of the light signal from the beacon is passing at this point. The observer is moving towards the beacon. After one second in the beacon's frame, how far apart are the observer and that wavefront in the beacon's frame?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11966 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Good.
Now, suppose that, in the beacon's frame, the observer starts 2 light seconds away and is moving towards the beacon at .5*c. One wavefront of the light signal from the beacon is passing at this point. The observer is moving towards the beacon. After one second in the beacon's frame, how far apart are the observer and that wavefront in the beacon's frame?
So the ship is two light seconds away from the beacon and moving at relative 0.5*c towards the beacon when the beacon calculates wavefront #1 to hit the ship.

One second after this for the observer the first wave "seems" to be 1.5 light second away past the ship.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11967 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
One second after this for the observer the first wave "seems" to be 1.5 light second away past the ship.
And by observer here I mean the observer in the beacon :)

So in the beacon's frame the ship appears to be 1.5 light seconds away from the first wavefront.
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#11968 Jul 30, 2012
31Jul12.....

.....a word to da wise for True members of TOPIX Forums.

Members whose monikers are in BLUE are Real members.

Wannabeeee members whose monikers are in BLACK are NOT Real members.

Ps:....Real members should NOT waste dime responding to BLACK monikers.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11969 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So the ship is two light seconds away from the beacon and moving at relative 0.5*c towards the beacon when the beacon calculates wavefront #1 to hit the ship.
One second after this for the observer the first wave "seems" to be 1.5 light second away past the ship.
You are hedging. Why do you use the word 'seems'? In the frame of the beacon, how far away are the observer and the wavefront?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11970 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
You are hedging. Why do you use the word 'seems'? In the frame of the beacon, how far away are the observer and the wavefront?
No I'm not hedging :)

The beacon does not observe the light that the ship observes from the beacon. The light emitted by the beacon is not observed by the beacon. So the beacon can only calculate where the emitted wavefronts are traveling.

As long as you understand this philosophy we can say that in the beacon's frame the first wavefront and the ship have departed 1.5 light seconds in 1.0 seconds beacon time.

Carry on.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11971 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm not hedging :)
The beacon does not observe the light that the ship observes from the beacon. The light emitted by the beacon is not observed by the beacon. So the beacon can only calculate where the emitted wavefronts are traveling.
As long as you understand this philosophy we can say that in the beacon's frame the first wavefront and the ship have departed 1.5 light seconds in 1.0 seconds beacon time.
Carry on.
OK, now suppose that the light from the beacon has a wavelength of .1 light second (I know, this is huge, but it is for easy calculation). Two questions:

1) what is the frequency of this light?

2) How many wavelengths of that light passed the observer in that one second? Remember, the observer and the beginning of the wave are 1.5 light seconds separated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11972 Jul 30, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm not hedging :)
The beacon does not observe the light that the ship observes from the beacon. The light emitted by the beacon is not observed by the beacon. So the beacon can only calculate where the emitted wavefronts are traveling.
Not true. We can have other stations at rest with respect to the wavefront at various distances that report when the wavefront passes. Since they are at rest, they have the same time as the beacon. We can bring all the information together at a later date if you wish.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11973 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, now suppose that the light from the beacon has a wavelength of .1 light second (I know, this is huge, but it is for easy calculation).
I should add that this is the wavelength in the frame of the beacon (and the other stations at rest with respect to the beacon).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11974 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. We can have other stations at rest with respect to the wavefront at various distances that report when the wavefront passes. Since they are at rest, they have the same time as the beacon. We can bring all the information together at a later date if you wish.
Sorry, at rest with respect to the *beacon*, not the wavefront (which is impossible).
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#11975 Jul 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Not true. We can have other stations at rest with respect to the wavefront at various distances that report when the wavefront passes. Since they are at rest, they have the same time as the beacon. We can bring all the information together at a later date if you wish.
Sure. This could be done. Communication between these observers would have some inconvenient delays but they could have synchronized atomic clocks and attach a timestamp for each observed wavefront so they could compare observations.

#### 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.

### Science / Technology Discussions

Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 1 hr spud 304
How to retrieve deleted texts on iphone 4s 3 hr AnnieChow 1
How to transfer video from ipad to computer ? 3 hr AnnieChow 1
If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 3 hr North Mountain 168
Eleaf ASTER TC Smart Box Mod- Single Battery Bu... 5 hr perty 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 22 hr SoE 10,595
Check Out Our Stock of IJOY Limitless Lux 215W ... Wed perty 1

#### Science / Technology News

More Science / Technology News from Topix »

More from around the web