Do you believe the discussion in Genesis 3 was between a naked lady and a loquacious rutabaga?<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faithbased 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.
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"
There are 31358 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 46,034 Albuquerque 
#12118
Aug 2, 2012

“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 46,034 Albuquerque 
#12119
Aug 2, 2012
Do you believe sola scriptura fundamentalists are the stupidest creatures on the face of the earth? 
Helsinki, Finland 
#12120
Aug 3, 2012
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. 
Helsinki, Finland 
#12121
Aug 3, 2012
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 24,454 Location hidden 
#12122
Aug 3, 2012
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 preconceptions. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,454 Location hidden 
#12123
Aug 3, 2012
This is the simplisitc, popular presentation, but is not accurate for all situations. using the Lorenz transformations *is*. 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. 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. Did you check the assumptions of WA? No, of course not. Correction: for the segment that is 1 meter long in the beacon's frame. 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.

“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,454 Location hidden 
#12124
Aug 3, 2012
the Lorenz transform are *always* the correct ones to use. 
Since: Jun 07 13,896 Location hidden 
#12125
Aug 3, 2012
This is quite simple the stupidest of piece of writing posing as science I've ever read 
Helsinki, Finland 
#12126
Aug 3, 2012
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. Two points at rest are not seconds apart from each other! They are some distance apart. 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 24,454 Location hidden 
#12127
Aug 3, 2012
*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. See above. 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'=(xv*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. 
Helsinki, Finland 
#12128
Aug 3, 2012
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? 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 19,920 Location hidden 
#12129
Aug 3, 2012
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 19,920 Location hidden 
#12130
Aug 3, 2012
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 19,920 Location hidden 
#12131
Aug 3, 2012
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... 
Since: Mar 12 19,920 Location hidden 
#12132
Aug 3, 2012
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. 
Helsinki, Finland 
#12133
Aug 3, 2012
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. 
“Seventh son” Since: Dec 10 37,532 Will Prevail 
#12134
Aug 3, 2012
Distance cubed per seconds squared , is acceleration. There has to be a rest mass , or it makes no sense. 
Helsinki, Finland 
#12135
Aug 3, 2012
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. 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 24,454 Location hidden 
#12136
Aug 3, 2012
In essence, yes. The first look is a spacetime distance of 2 seconds from the second look. 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. 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'=(xv*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. 
“Seventh son” Since: Dec 10 37,532 Will Prevail 
#12137
Aug 3, 2012
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". 
 
Add your comments below
Science / Technology Discussions
Title  Updated  Last By  Comments 

Amsterdam sex robot BROTHEL 'will help prevent ...  7 hr  CharlySimons  7 
Five Pacific islands vanish from sight as sea l...  12 hr  Into The Night  135 
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11)  12 hr  ChristineM  9,738 
Amy Schumer blasts critics, says she's 'strong'...  Sat  Three Psyche  5 
Hotcig DX75 75W Box Mod with Evolv's DNA75 chipset  Sat  perty  1 
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07)  Fri  Study hard  665 
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10)  Fri  SoE  10,374 
Find what you want!
Search Science / Technology Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC