"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 40496 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.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12118 Aug 2, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
Do you believe the discussion in Genesis 3 was between a naked lady and a loquacious rutabaga?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12119 Aug 2, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
Do you believe sola scriptura fundamentalists are the stupidest creatures on the face of the earth?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12120 Aug 3, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Truthfully, doign the transforms is more than I feel like doing at this point. Your biggest mistake is thinking that 1 second in one frame is *always*.87 seconds in another and 1.15 seconds in another. That is wrong. If you look at the transormation
t'=(t-(v/c)*(x/c))/S
*both* time t and distance x are relevant for the t' duration. If x=0. then t'=t/S, but if x=v*t, then t'=t*S. If x is something different than both of those, then t' will be something else again.
In the light signals, the x is relevant.
You are in error. I presented the case to you EXACTLY as the relativistic model predicts:
In relativistic movement time progresses slower in the observer's rest frame:

Relative speed: 0.5 * c
Time seen by a "stationary" observer: 1.0 seconds
Time in the "moving" rest frame: 0.87 seconds
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/... *FS-_**RelativisticTimeDilatio nFormula.to-.*RelativisticTime DilationFormula.t-.*Relativist icTimeDilationFormula.v--& f2=1.0+s&f=RelativisticTim eDilationFormula.t_1.0+s&f 3=0.5+c&f=RelativisticTime DilationFormula.v_0.5+c

Moving length: 1.0 meters
Length in the rest frame: 1.15 meters
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/... *FS-_**RelativisticLengthContr actionFormula.lo-.*Relativisti cLengthContractionFormula.l-.* RelativisticLengthContractionF ormula.v--&f2=1.0+m&f= RelativisticLengthContractionF ormula.l_1.0+m&f3=0.5+c &f=RelativisticLengthContr actionFormula.v_0.5+c

When an observer moves towards the beacon he is at rest and it is the beacon that is "moving" towards the observer. When the speed in that case is 0.5*c, one second in the beacon ALWAYS corresponds to 0.87 seconds for the observer. Relativity dictates that time ticks always slower for the observer, the same applies for an observer in the beacon. For him 1.0 s in the ship frame corresponds to 0.87 seconds.

You are confused with your transformation. Feed the values to WolframAlpha an you will ALWAYS be given the result that I provided above.

Your argument is already destroyed.

1. We know that in the beacon frame the observer measures 1.5 and 2.0 million light waves for the two different 1.0 meter light segments.
2. We know that for the observer in the ship 1.0 meters in the beacon corresponds to 1.15 meters in ship.
3. We know that also in the ship there must be the same exact amount of light waves inside each light segment, which are now 1.15 meters long.
4. We know the constant speed of light within the model

This is what the relativistic model clearly predicts.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12121 Aug 3, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
This is the mistake. Distances in one frame are relevant for finding durations in another.
Now you're arguing against the relativistic model and even yourself. Those are the numbers given by the equations that you proclaim. The numbers do not change unless the input data changes. You're dead in the water.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12122 Aug 3, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A law is a law! Please give your definition of a law of logic!
Run forest run
Logic consists of the propositional and quantifier calculus. So, such concepts as logical 'and', logical 'or', logical 'implication', logical 'negation', and the logical quantifiers:'for every' and 'there exists'. Logic can be extended to include basic concepts of equality.

Logic is not concerned with mathematics like arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, differential equations, etc, although these subject areas use logic heavily. They also have additional assumptions about the properties of numbers, etc.

Logic has *nothing* to do with such concepts as time, space, composition, or causality. These concepts have to be dealt with empirically; they need to be tested to see if reality corresp[onds with our pre-conceptions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12123 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in error. I presented the case to you EXACTLY as the relativistic model predicts:
In relativistic movement time progresses slower in the observer's rest frame:
This is the simplisitc, popular presentation, but is not accurate for all situations. using the Lorenz transformations *is*.
When an observer moves towards the beacon he is at rest and it is the beacon that is "moving" towards the observer. When the speed in that case is 0.5*c, one second in the beacon ALWAYS corresponds to 0.87 seconds for the observer.
Correction: two points that are at rest and 1 second apart in the beacon frame will ALWAYS be 1.15 seconds apart in the observer frame. Two points that are moving with the observer and 1 second apart in the beacon frame will be .87 seconds apart in the observer frame.
Relativity dictates that time ticks always slower for the observer, the same applies for an observer in the beacon. For him 1.0 s in the ship frame corresponds to 0.87 seconds.
A great deal of care is required here. Remember I commented that the time dilation is done under certain assumptions? Well, here they are. If two points are at rest and 1 second apart in the observer's frame, they will be 1.15 seconds apart in the beacon frame (yes, there is symmetry here). If two points are 'moving' with the beacon and are 1 second apart in the observer's frame, they are 1.15 seconds apart in the beacon frame.
You are confused with your transformation. Feed the values to WolframAlpha an you will ALWAYS be given the result that I provided above.
Did you check the assumptions of WA? No, of course not.
Your argument is already destroyed.
1. We know that in the beacon frame the observer measures 1.5 and 2.0 million light waves for the two different 1.0 meter light segments.
Correction: for the segment that is 1 meter long in the beacon's frame.
2. We know that for the observer in the ship 1.0 meters in the beacon corresponds to 1.15 meters in ship.
Wrong. There is also a mix of different times when transforming distances. To measure the length in the observer's frame, we have to find points at the same time in the observer's frame. When this is done, the length is contracted to give .87 meters.
3. We know that also in the ship there must be the same exact amount of light waves inside each light segment, which are now 1.15 meters long.
Wrong. The length, I believe, is .87 meters.
4. We know the constant speed of light within the model
This is what the relativistic model clearly predicts.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12124 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're arguing against the relativistic model and even yourself. Those are the numbers given by the equations that you proclaim. The numbers do not change unless the input data changes. You're dead in the water.
the Lorenz transform are *always* the correct ones to use.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#12125 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in error. I presented the case to you EXACTLY as the relativistic model predicts:
In relativistic movement time progresses slower in the observer's rest frame:
Relative speed: 0.5 * c
Time seen by a "stationary" observer: 1.0 seconds
Time in the "moving" rest frame: 0.87 seconds
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/... *FS-_**RelativisticTimeDilatio nFormula.to-.*RelativisticTime DilationFormula.t-.*Relativist icTimeDilationFormula.v--& f2=1.0+s&f=RelativisticTim eDilationFormula.t_1.0+s&f 3=0.5+c&f=RelativisticTime DilationFormula.v_0.5+c
Moving length: 1.0 meters
Length in the rest frame: 1.15 meters
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/... *FS-_**RelativisticLengthContr actionFormula.lo-.*Relativisti cLengthContractionFormula.l-.* RelativisticLengthContractionF ormula.v--&f2=1.0+m&f= RelativisticLengthContractionF ormula.l_1.0+m&f3=0.5+c &f=RelativisticLengthContr actionFormula.v_0.5+c
When an observer moves towards the beacon he is at rest and it is the beacon that is "moving" towards the observer. When the speed in that case is 0.5*c, one second in the beacon ALWAYS corresponds to 0.87 seconds for the observer. Relativity dictates that time ticks always slower for the observer, the same applies for an observer in the beacon. For him 1.0 s in the ship frame corresponds to 0.87 seconds.
You are confused with your transformation. Feed the values to WolframAlpha an you will ALWAYS be given the result that I provided above.
Your argument is already destroyed.
1. We know that in the beacon frame the observer measures 1.5 and 2.0 million light waves for the two different 1.0 meter light segments.
2. We know that for the observer in the ship 1.0 meters in the beacon corresponds to 1.15 meters in ship.
3. We know that also in the ship there must be the same exact amount of light waves inside each light segment, which are now 1.15 meters long.
4. We know the constant speed of light within the model
This is what the relativistic model clearly predicts.
This is quite simple the stupidest of piece of writing posing as science I've ever read
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12126 Aug 3, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Correction: two points that are at rest and 1 second apart in the beacon frame will ALWAYS be 1.15 seconds apart in the observer frame. Two points that are moving with the observer and 1 second apart in the beacon frame will be .87 seconds apart in the observer frame.
What is this nonsense?

Two points at rest relative to each other are not moving relative to each other. They are not "any seconds" apart. What parts them is distance and not time.
polymath257 wrote:
A great deal of care is required here. Remember I commented that the time dilation is done under certain assumptions? Well, here they are. If two points are at rest and 1 second apart in the observer's frame, they will be 1.15 seconds apart in the beacon frame (yes, there is symmetry here). If two points are 'moving' with the beacon and are 1 second apart in the observer's frame, they are 1.15 seconds apart in the beacon frame.
Two points at rest are not seconds apart from each other! They are some distance apart.
polymath257 wrote:
Wrong. There is also a mix of different times when transforming distances. To measure the length in the observer's frame, we have to find points at the same time in the observer's frame. When this is done, the length is contracted to give .87 meters.

Wrong. The length, I believe, is .87 meters.
That is contradictory to what Wolfram Alpha says but sure, lets assume now that the observer observes 0.87 meters for the 1.0 meters that the beacon emits.

The observer in the ship will observe this contracted 0.87 meters for 1.0 beacon meters exactly the same if he is moving away from OR towards the beacon at 0.5*c. Yes?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12127 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
What is this nonsense?
Two points at rest relative to each other are not moving relative to each other. They are not "any seconds" apart. What parts them is distance and not time.
*sigh* Do I really have to spell this out for you? Take something that is not moving. Look at it twice: 2 seconds apart. That is two stationary points 2 seconds apart.
Two points at rest are not seconds apart from each other! They are some distance apart.
See above.
That is contradictory to what Wolfram Alpha says but sure, lets assume now that the observer observes 0.87 meters for the 1.0 meters that the beacon emits.
The observer in the ship will observe this contracted 0.87 meters for 1.0 beacon meters exactly the same if he is moving away from OR towards the beacon at 0.5*c. Yes?
Do you really want me to go through the details? Again?

Is it ok, for the ease of calculation, to replace 1 meter by .03 light second? All distances below are in light seconds and all times in seconds. So c=1 in this system of units (you should like that!).

OK. beacon frame:
first phase starts at (0,0) with 1 million pulses per .03 light second. This lasts .03 seconds. It ends at (0,.03).

The start of the first phase moves out from the beacon via x=c*t=t.
The end of the first phase moves out from the beacon via x=c*(t-.03)=t-.03

second phase starts at (0,.03) with 1.5 million pulses per meter. This lasts .03 seconds. So this ends at (0,.06).

The start of the second phase moves out from the beacon via x=t-.03.
The end of the second phase moves out from the beacon at x=t-.06.

Let's assume for the start that the observer is at (1,0) and moving at .5*c towards the beacon. So the positioin of the observer in the beacon's frame is x=1-.5*t.

In the beacon's frame, the observer starts seeing the first phase when 1-.5*t=t, so when t=1/1.5 =2/3 seconds. The x value for this is x=1-.5*t = 2/3. Again in the beacon's frame, the observer passes the end of the first phase when 1-.5*t=t-.03, so when t=1.03/1.5 seconds=2/3+.02 seconds. The x value for this is x=2/3 -.01. This is also when the start of the second phase begins. The end of the second phase passes the observer when t=1.06/1.5=2/3 +.04 seconds. The x value of this is 2/3 -.02.

Now we change to the observer frame (x',t'):
x'=(x+v*t)/S
t'=(t+(v/c)*(x/c))/S

For the motion of the observer: plug these into x=1-.5*t where v=.5. This gives
x'=1/S
t'=t*S+.5/S

Hence, the observer is at rest in the observer's frame (no surprise!) and there is a time dilation with t' smaller than t except for a constant addition of .5/S.

Next, the first phase starts when x=t, so
x'=t*1.5/S,
t'=t*1.5/S

In other words, the description of the motion of the light in the observer's frame is x'=t', so it moves at the speed of light. The observer starts to pass this phase when x'=1/S, so when t'=1/S.

The first phase ends when x=t-.03, so
x'=1.5*t/S -.03/S
t'=1.5*t/S-.015/S

In other words, x'=t'-.015/S. Again, the observer passes the end of this phase when x'=1/S, so when t'=1/S+.015/S.

So, from the observer's frame, the first phase lasts .015/S seconds and has 1 million pulses in it. Compare this to the beacon's frame where it has 1 million pulses in .03 seconds.

I can go through the second phase if you really want, but what will happen is that the observer will pass 1.5 million pulses in .015/S seconds. In the beacon's frame, it was 1.5 million pulses in .03 seconds.

So, in the observer's frame, the frequency of the pulses is higher than in the beacon's frame, as expected for a Doppler shift.

If, instead, the observer was going the other direction, we would have x=1+.5*t for the motion of the observer and
x'=(x-v*t)/S
t'=(t-(v/c)*(x/c))/S
for the transformation.

The end result is that the phases last .045/S seconds and the frequency is lower than in the beacon's frame. Again, as expected for a Doppler shift.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12128 Aug 3, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
*sigh* Do I really have to spell this out for you? Take something that is not moving. Look at it twice: 2 seconds apart. That is two stationary points 2 seconds apart.
<quoted text>
See above.
Again. What is this nonsense? Look at it twice? What are you babbling about?
So you pause for two seconds after looking once and then look again and they are now two seconds apart?:D

Are you trying to say that they are two light seconds apart or what?
polymath257 wrote:
Do you really want me to go through the details? Again?
Is it ok, for the ease of calculation, to replace 1 meter by .03 light second? All distances below are in light seconds and all times in seconds. So c=1 in this system of units (you should like that!).
OK. beacon frame:
first phase starts at (0,0) with 1 million pulses per .03 light second. This lasts .03 seconds. It ends at (0,.03).
The start of the first phase moves out from the beacon via x=c*t=t.
The end of the first phase moves out from the beacon via x=c*(t-.03)=t-.03
second phase starts at (0,.03) with 1.5 million pulses per meter. This lasts .03 seconds. So this ends at (0,.06).
The start of the second phase moves out from the beacon via x=t-.03.
The end of the second phase moves out from the beacon at x=t-.06.
Let's assume for the start that the observer is at (1,0) and moving at .5*c towards the beacon. So the positioin of the observer in the beacon's frame is x=1-.5*t.
In the beacon's frame, the observer starts seeing the first phase when 1-.5*t=t, so when t=1/1.5 =2/3 seconds. The x value for this is x=1-.5*t = 2/3. Again in the beacon's frame, the observer passes the end of the first phase when 1-.5*t=t-.03, so when t=1.03/1.5 seconds=2/3+.02 seconds. The x value for this is x=2/3 -.01. This is also when the start of the second phase begins. The end of the second phase passes the observer when t=1.06/1.5=2/3 +.04 seconds. The x value of this is 2/3 -.02.
Now we change to the observer frame (x',t'):
x'=(x+v*t)/S
t'=(t+(v/c)*(x/c))/S
For the motion of the observer: plug these into x=1-.5*t where v=.5. This gives
x'=1/S
t'=t*S+.5/S
Hence, the observer is at rest in the observer's frame (no surprise!) and there is a time dilation with t' smaller than t except for a constant addition of .5/S.
Next, the first phase starts when x=t, so
x'=t*1.5/S,
t'=t*1.5/S
In other words, the description of the motion of the light in the observer's frame is x'=t', so it moves at the speed of light. The observer starts to pass this phase when x'=1/S, so when t'=1/S.
The first phase ends when x=t-.03, so
x'=1.5*t/S -.03/S
t'=1.5*t/S-.015/S
In other words, x'=t'-.015/S. Again, the observer passes the end of this phase when x'=1/S, so when t'=1/S+.015/S.
So, from the observer's frame, the first phase lasts .015/S seconds and has 1 million pulses in it. Compare this to the beacon's frame where it has 1 million pulses in .03 seconds.
I can go through the second phase if you really want, but what will happen is that the observer will pass 1.5 million pulses in .015/S seconds. In the beacon's frame, it was 1.5 million pulses in .03 seconds.
So, in the observer's frame, the frequency of the pulses is higher than in the beacon's frame, as expected for a Doppler shift.
If, instead, the observer was going the other direction, we would have x=1+.5*t for the motion of the observer and
x'=(x-v*t)/S
t'=(t-(v/c)*(x/c))/S
for the transformation.
The end result is that the phases last .045/S seconds and the frequency is lower than in the beacon's frame. Again, as expected for a Doppler shift.
Stop babbling.

You stated that an observer moving towards the beacon at 0.5*c will observe 1.0 beacon meters as 0.85 meters in his own rest frame due to Lorentz contraction.

Now. At this speed the observer will ALWAYS observer the 1.0 beacon meters as 0.85 meters in his rest frame, regardless of the direction (moving closer or apart). Do you agree? Yes or no?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#12129 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In the new model mass is an expression of distance cubed per seconds squared.
Can you get that simple point?
Do you understand the purpose mathematical models?
Can you get the even simpler point?

Mass is not an expression of distance cubed per seconds squared.

Call the resultant of that expression what you like, but its not mass and therefore cannot be thrown into other physics expressions such as F = ma or W = mad

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#12130 Aug 3, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
When I googled God I got this.
"God usually refers to the single deity in monotheism or the monist deity in polytheism.[1] God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."
When I googled Xyzzy I got this:
"Xyzzy is a magic word from the Colossal Cave Adventure computer game.
In computing, the word is sometimes used as a metasyntactic variable or as a video game cheat code, the canonical "magic word". In mathematics, the word is used as a mnemonic for the cross product.[1]"
fool hearted boasting - "All possible Gods are disproven"
Please enlighten us by listing real proof right here and now.
I did not say all possible gods are disproven.

That is Skeptic's view, not mine.

I said, there is no evidence for any god nor any logical necessity for one, and therefore no reason to believe one (or more) exists.

I will add though, that God as represented in the Bible is definitely an illogical construction of primitive humans and does not stand up to any rational scrutiny. That version of God certainly is disproven.

So I go as far as to say, I do not believe in any god but the God of the Bible is absurd and impossible.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#12131 Aug 3, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, guilty as charged.
It looks like someone, probably our friend Skip, doesn't get binary, at least his slapping on of the negative judge-it icons would seem to indicate that. Regardless, whoever it was is only demonstrating their own ignorance, which in context is pretty funny really.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#12132 Aug 3, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"You carry on believing and all possible Gods are disproven"
You can't possible be claiming that The existence of God has been disproven?
I see the problem. In my note to Skeptic, I wrote "You carry on believing and all possible Gods are disproven", which was a typo.

I meant: "You carry on believing THAT all possible Gods are disproven" My mistake, though either version in the original context is not something you would like.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12133 Aug 3, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Can you get the even simpler point?
Mass is not an expression of distance cubed per seconds squared.
Call the resultant of that expression what you like, but its not mass and therefore cannot be thrown into other physics expressions such as F = ma or W = mad
Can you get the simplest point that within the new model mass is exactly an expression of distance cubed per seconds squared?

I know it pains you. That's what the model is an you can not talk philosophy against it.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#12134 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you get the simplest point that within the new model mass is exactly an expression of distance cubed per seconds squared?
I know it pains you. That's what the model is an you can not talk philosophy against it.
Distance cubed per seconds squared , is acceleration.

There has to be a rest mass , or it makes no sense.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12135 Aug 3, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Distance cubed per seconds squared , is acceleration.
To be exact it is "volumetric acceleration" within the new gravity model which is the natural phenomenon or "mass effect" caused by solid structures. We observe more massive objects cause bigger effects.
Aura Mytha wrote:
There has to be a rest mass , or it makes no sense.
Of course objects do have some absolute structure to them. We just can not know what it is. We can only model the phenomenon and effects of the absolute structures of objects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12136 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. What is this nonsense? Look at it twice? What are you babbling about?
So you pause for two seconds after looking once and then look again and they are now two seconds apart?:D
In essence, yes. The first look is a spacetime distance of 2 seconds from the second look.
Are you trying to say that they are two light seconds apart or what?
No, that is a distance, not a time.

Points in spacetime have both a space part and a time part. I am talking about two points that have the same location, but are two seconds apart.
Stop babbling.
You stated that an observer moving towards the beacon at 0.5*c will observe 1.0 beacon meters as 0.85 meters in his own rest frame due to Lorentz contraction.
Now. At this speed the observer will ALWAYS observer the 1.0 beacon meters as 0.85 meters in his rest frame, regardless of the direction (moving closer or apart). Do you agree? Yes or no?
No.

Let me do it this way. Take two spacetime points in the beacon's frame. One has (x,t)=(0,0) and the other has (x,t)=(1,0) where we measure x in light seconds for convenience. So the two points are 1 light second apart in the beacon's frame. For v=.5*c moving away, we have
x'=(x-v*t)/S
t'=(t-(v/c)*(x/c))/S

so (x',t')=(0,0) for the first point and (x',t')=(1/S,-.5/S) for the second, so the distance apart is 1/S=1.15 light seconds in the observer's frame.

Next, consider two points (x,t)=(0,0) and (x,t)=(1,2) in the beacon's frame. These are still 1 light second apart spatially, but are 2 seconds apart temporally, all in the beacon's frame. Now, we have (x',t')=(0,0) for the first point (again) and (x',t')=(0, 1.5/S). Now the two points are in the same location (no spatial distance apart), but have a temporal distance of 1.5/S seconds.

So, both situations are 1 light second apart in the beacon's frame, but are different distances apart in the observer's frame. The point: you have to consider not only spatial distances, but temporal ones also. This is true when transforming either distances or times into another frame.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#12137 Aug 3, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
To be exact it is "volumetric acceleration" within the new gravity model which is the natural phenomenon or "mass effect" caused by solid structures. We observe more massive objects cause bigger effects.
<quoted text>
Of course objects do have some absolute structure to them. We just can not know what it is. We can only model the phenomenon and effects of the absolute structures of objects.
There is a explanation of mass effect , but it doesn't conflict with relativity and is compatible with the known kg quantity of mass.

It shows mass and gravity to be properties of space/time itself.

m = f(x,y,z,t)

It states that volumes with mass curves space/time creating a pressure that equals "mass effect".


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 Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 2 hr spud 135
News Junk food-loving fathers raise their future dau... 5 hr Here is what I 2
Consumer Electronics Will Dominate the Biometri... 5 hr iritechinc 1
The bearing 6 hr Andybaby 1
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 7 hr North Mountain 155
Wearing diapers makes people incotinent BEWARE (Dec '10) 16 hr Brenda 22
News Obama to address convention of disabled veterans (Aug '13) 22 hr Forgotten Americans 18
More from around the web