"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 34735 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.

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12338 Aug 8, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
No, as usual, you merely failed to understand the explanation.
Well do you now understand that G is as falsifiable as the model?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#12339 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, that is true. And we are totally unable to measure the tiny differences.
Still, I would rather tell people the mathematically correct story than tell them the myth that things on Earth fall at the *exact* same acceleration rate.
Now we have even Mythbusters declaring on TV that this is not a myth but actually true. They probably didn't look into the mathematics at all. This kind of myths can cause people to form wrong mathematical solutions just because they believe the myth is true and don't see past it.
Kinda like religion.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12340 Aug 8, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
So, back to lesson one, from weeks ago, where this was explained.
Add the total mass.
Doubling the 6 kg increases total mass by
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000
Doubling the earth's mass increases the total mass by
1.999,999,999,999,999,999,999, 999
In other words, practically speaking, not at all, in the first case, double in the second. As was explained to you by me six weeks ago.
So to you mathematics is to be related to like city workers relate to their tasks?
As long as the thing is roughly in the same ball park?:D

Do you care if the equation you use is mathematically wrong within the model?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12341 Aug 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
Kinda like religion.
Yes. People should not stop to believe what someone says to be true.
People should find out for themselves and seek to understand.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12342 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed to understand the point.
Suppose a big celestial object is observed to pass very near Jupiter and Mars. This object passes the centers of both planets at the exact same distance. Now suppose both planets cause the exact same deviation to the path of the big celestial object.
This would falsify all current gravity models and also the gravitational constant G.
Polymath gives you a lot more credit than you deserve. Personally, I don't think you've got the brains to solve a one-body problem in three dimensions, much less a three-body problem.

Give it a try if you think you're up to it.

Given an arbitrary mass in an arbitrary three dimensional rectilinear coordinate system,(x,y,z), with initial position at time zero of (px0,py0,pz0) and initial velocity of (vx0,vy0,vz0), what are the position and velocity of the arbitrary mass at t = 1 ?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#12343 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. People should not stop to believe what someone says to be true.
People should find out for themselves and seek to understand.
You understand, of course, that that's not always possible.

I'd love to understand subatomic particles better, but I can't quite afford a particle accelerator.

And I don't think I could fit one in my back yard.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12344 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a deficiency. It does however show that people claiming G to be a "natural constant" are wrong.
Why would you say that? Perhaps you have a strange definition of the term 'natural constant'. It seems to me that G and c are prime examples of such.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12345 Aug 8, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Polymath gives you a lot more credit than you deserve. Personally, I don't think you've got the brains to solve a one-body problem in three dimensions, much less a three-body problem.
Give it a try if you think you're up to it.
Given an arbitrary mass in an arbitrary three dimensional rectilinear coordinate system,(x,y,z), with initial position at time zero of (px0,py0,pz0) and initial velocity of (vx0,vy0,vz0), what are the position and velocity of the arbitrary mass at t = 1 ?
Why do you always get lost into talking about people rather than addressing the logical question presented to you? I don't give a rats ass what you think of me.

The question is of the falsification of G in the hypothetical case of an object passing close to Jupiter and Mars.

Are you capable of answering that simple question or not?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12346 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So to you mathematics is to be related to like city workers relate to their tasks?
As long as the thing is roughly in the same ball park?:D
Do you care if the equation you use is mathematically wrong within the model?
Actually, you will frequently find that scientists use approximations like this to simplify the analysis of a situation. Especially in a case like this, where the error from the simplification is far less than measurement errors, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12347 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. People should not stop to believe what someone says to be true.
People should find out for themselves and seek to understand.
During your entire tenure in the forum you have declared only one directly observable reality. Do you remember what that was? I do.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12348 Aug 8, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
You understand, of course, that that's not always possible.
I'd love to understand subatomic particles better, but I can't quite afford a particle accelerator.
And I don't think I could fit one in my back yard.
And I hope you're not having faith in what someone says to you about subatomic particles.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12349 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Earlier you argued in favor of the myth that all things fall at the exact same rate on Earth when observed from Earth. I hope you now know that is false.
What matters in mathematics is the correct expression within the model.
All scientific statements should be read with 'to within the limits of our ability to measure' added on to the end. For all practical purposes, the two accelerations are equal and the likelihood we will be able to measure the difference anytime soon is small. So it is reasonable to call them equal.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12350 Aug 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Actually, you will frequently find that scientists use approximations like this to simplify the analysis of a situation. Especially in a case like this, where the error from the simplification is far less than measurement errors, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Sure, it is all good as long as they know that the calculation is not correct.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12351 Aug 8, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
During your entire tenure in the forum you have declared only one directly observable reality. Do you remember what that was? I do.
Yes, from the philosophical perspective one can only observe thoughts. The sensory input to the brain is just thoughts. Logically we could be just brains in vats, but that is something we can never observe.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12352 Aug 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
All scientific statements should be read with 'to within the limits of our ability to measure' added on to the end. For all practical purposes, the two accelerations are equal and the likelihood we will be able to measure the difference anytime soon is small. So it is reasonable to call them equal.
I am talking about mathematical correctness within the model and knowing what that is.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12353 Aug 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Why would you say that? Perhaps you have a strange definition of the term 'natural constant'. It seems to me that G and c are prime examples of such.
Natural science is falsifiable, nature itself is not.

G and c are hypothetical constants.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12354 Aug 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Why would you say that? Perhaps you have a strange definition of the term 'natural constant'. It seems to me that G and c are prime examples of such.
Lets talk more about the speed of light and how you think it can be a constant within relativity.

One beacon, one ship, 10 light seconds apart. They are in the same rest frame and have synchronized atomic clocks.

They perform an experiment so that at time T the beacon emits *just one* photon and at the exact same time the ship begins to accelerate to 0.9*c. It takes 5.0 seconds (beacon time) for the ship to reach that speed.

How much time will the observers in the ship observe to pass before they observe that single photon when it hits the ships sensor plate?

The observer knows that the photon is emitted 10 light seconds away at the exact time when they start to accelerate.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12355 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you always get lost into talking about people rather than addressing the logical question presented to you? I don't give a rats ass what you think of me.
The question is of the falsification of G in the hypothetical case of an object passing close to Jupiter and Mars.
Are you capable of answering that simple question or not?
You don't have the brains to solve a one body problem.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12356 Aug 8, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
You don't have the brains to solve a one body problem.
Are you capable of answering that simple question or not?
You're not even capable of answering this question, are you?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12357 Aug 8, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you capable of answering that simple question or not?
You're not even capable of answering this question, are you?
What do you want to hear? Your pile of cráp theories aren't piles of cráp? You won't hear it from me.

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
Transfer photos from iphone to pc 1 hr AnnieChow 1
How to recover deleted text messages from iphone? 2 hr AnnieChow 1
How to retrieve deleted text messages from Sams... 2 hr AnnieChow 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 3 hr Ozzmius 10,447
News SEO and content strategies (Aug '13) 3 hr FrankMills 6
News Weird machine enables a dog to pet its owner 8 hr Dr Wu 3
News Former astronaut scoffs at global warming (Feb '09) 13 hr Into The Night 2,393
More from around the web