"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 48461 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

#13563 Oct 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
No. Can you tell us why or do you want to wait for polymath to attempt to try to explain it to you?
No? Are you sure?:D

There is no symmetry?

Relative to anything left (lets say the moon was left behind) in the initial rest frame Earth accelerated to 0.25*c and relative to that same thing the ship accelerated to 0.25*c to the opposite direction of Earth.

So, no symmetry? Is that your final answer?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13564 Oct 15, 2012
By now Polymath has probably realized that his horse is dead. I expect we will not see an answer from him.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13565 Oct 15, 2012
Perhaps I need to assist you a bit...

Lets say that instead of the ship returning to Earth, both Earth and the ship return to where the moon was left. They both travel back at 0.25*c.

When they're both back, do you think they still haven't aged exactly as much?:D

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13566 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And then the ship returns to Earth. Will the people on the ship have aged exactly as much as people on Earth?
It depends on how much the earth and the ship accelerate between the time the ship leaves and the time it returns.

If the ship and the earth accelerate the same amount, then they will age exactly as much.

If the earth does not accelerate and the ship does, then the ship will age less.

If the ship does not accelerate and the earth does, then the earth will age less.

Now, you have already said that the ship will accelerate, so the whole question is whether the earth will *also* accelerate between when the ship leaves and when it returns. If not, then the ship ages less. If the earth also accelerates, then the details of the acceleration are required to say which ages less.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13567 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
No? Are you sure?:D
There is no symmetry?
Relative to anything left (lets say the moon was left behind) in the initial rest frame Earth accelerated to 0.25*c and relative to that same thing the ship accelerated to 0.25*c to the opposite direction of Earth.
So, no symmetry? Is that your final answer?
In this, there is a symmetry and they will age the same.

Once again,

CASE I: for twins that are together at one time, move apart, and are together again at a later time,

1) if both accelerate the same amounts (even if in different directions), they will age the same.

2) if one accelerates and the other does not *during the time they are apart*, then the one that accelerates ages less.

3) if they both accelerate, then the details of the accelerations by both are required to know which ages less or if both age the same.

On the other hand,

CASE II: if we have twins that are in uniform motion, they will NOT meet each other twice and both will measure the other as aging less.

Remember this post, I will refer back to it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13568 Oct 15, 2012
humble brother wrote:
Perhaps I need to assist you a bit...
Lets say that instead of the ship returning to Earth, both Earth and the ship return to where the moon was left. They both travel back at 0.25*c.
When they're both back, do you think they still haven't aged exactly as much?:D
They cannot begin at the moon and end at the moon without one of them accelerating. In other words, they cannot *both* travel at a uniform speed of .25*c in a straight line the whole time.

The answer will depend on the acceleration felt by the earth and the ship during the time between when they meet. See the post above.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13569 Oct 16, 2012
It is funny how blind you are in this case.

Lets say that billions of years ago Earth accelerated to 0.25*c to direction-X and now is on that path. Your logic is that that acceleration is in the past and no longer matters.

A ship which is at rest on Earth accelerates to 0.5*c to direction that happens to be perfectly opposite to direction-X.

There is now 0.5*c relative movement between Earth and the ship. When the distance between them is one light week both the ship and Earth accelerate equally towards each other so that they end up in the same rest frame.

Then both the ship and Earth accelerate to 0.25*c towards each other to meet up (0.5*c relative movement). When they get close they both decelerate equally and stop so that they end up in the same rest frame again.

The simple question to you is:
Is the above situation symmetrical so that both have aged equally?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13570 Oct 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
It is funny how blind you are in this case.
Lets say that billions of years ago Earth accelerated to 0.25*c to direction-X and now is on that path. Your logic is that that acceleration is in the past and no longer matters.
Yes, exactly. When comparing the aging of the earth and the ship, the past acceleration of either one is irrelevant.
A ship which is at rest on Earth accelerates to 0.5*c to direction that happens to be perfectly opposite to direction-X.
There is now 0.5*c relative movement between Earth and the ship. When the distance between them is one light week both the ship and Earth accelerate equally towards each other so that they end up in the same rest frame.
One light week in which frame? The ships or the earth's? They will be different.
Then both the ship and Earth accelerate to 0.25*c towards each other to meet up (0.5*c relative movement).
Wrong. If both are moving at .25*c towards each other in the rest frame, then then their relative velocity will be .47*c.
When they get close they both decelerate equally and stop so that they end up in the same rest frame again.
The simple question to you is:
Is the above situation symmetrical so that both have aged equally?
No, the ship ages less because of that first acceleration when the earth did not.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13571 Oct 16, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, the ship ages less because of that first acceleration when the earth did not.
Ok, good. So the proper time on the ship will begin ticking slower than on Earth as a result of that acceleration away from Earth.

Now. Lets say there is a tiny shuttle inside that ship. If the shuttle accelerates away from the ship, will its proper time start ticking slower than the ship time?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13572 Oct 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, good. So the proper time on the ship will begin ticking slower than on Earth as a result of that acceleration away from Earth.
No, that is NOT what I said. The *total trip* for the ship you described will take less time for the ship than the total time it would take for the earth, each measured in their own frames.

You are talking about clocks ticking slower as if it were an absolute thing. It isn't. The only aspect that is absolute is the proper time over a path.

Another basic misunderstanding is that it is relative *velocity*, not acceleration, that produces the time differences. The acceleration shows up because velocities have to change if two objects meet each other more than once. The changing velocity (i.e, acceleration) produces a changing time dilation factor and therefor a different proper time for the whole path.
Now. Lets say there is a tiny shuttle inside that ship. If the shuttle accelerates away from the ship, will its proper time start ticking slower than the ship time?
With respect to what? The ship? yes. The earth? It depends on the relative motion of the ship and the earth. The shuttle? Obviously, it ticks that same. It is a question that depends on the reference frame.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13573 Oct 16, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
No, that is NOT what I said. The *total trip* for the ship you described will take less time for the ship than the total time it would take for the earth, each measured in their own frames.
You are talking about clocks ticking slower as if it were an absolute thing. It isn't. The only aspect that is absolute is the proper time over a path.
This gets funnier and funnier. You don't realize that you are the one clinging to absolute time with (a)symmetry?

During the trip did the clock on the ship slower than clocks on Earth? Yes or no?
polymath257 wrote:
Another basic misunderstanding is that it is relative *velocity*, not acceleration, that produces the time differences.
You are the one claiming that acceleration is what decides who will be aging less (i.e. who's clock ticked slower).

Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS.
polymath257 wrote:
The acceleration shows up because velocities have to change if two objects meet each other more than once. The changing velocity (i.e, acceleration) produces a changing time dilation factor and therefor a different proper time for the whole path.
Exactly. And your claim is that the one who experiences acceleration will also experience slower rate of time.
polymath257 wrote:
With respect to what? The ship? yes. The earth? It depends on the relative motion of the ship and the earth. The shuttle? Obviously, it ticks that same. It is a question that depends on the reference frame.
Lets say that the shuttle accelerates back towards Earth. We already know that the clock on the ship is ticking slower relative to Earth because the ship accelerated.

Now the shuttle *accelerated* from the ship. How will its clock tick relative to:
1. the ship
2. Earth
???

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13574 Oct 16, 2012
What is this nonsense about time dilation not being observed and measured? That was done long ago, today it is an everyday event. If you have a GPS the computer that calculates your position has to account for time dilation by the moving satellite, they are that accurate. If they did not correct for that there would be an ever increasing error in your location.

Instead of making ridiculous claims you might do a little Google searching. By the way, the accuracy of GPS has been high enough that they have had to correct for this for the last 15 years. This is not "breaking science":

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#13575 Oct 16, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This gets funnier and funnier. You don't realize that you are the one clinging to absolute time with (a)symmetry?
During the trip did the clock on the ship slower than clocks on Earth? Yes or no?
<quoted text>
You are the one claiming that acceleration is what decides who will be aging less (i.e. who's clock ticked slower).
Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS.
<quoted text>
Exactly. And your claim is that the one who experiences acceleration will also experience slower rate of time.
<quoted text>
Lets say that the shuttle accelerates back towards Earth. We already know that the clock on the ship is ticking slower relative to Earth because the ship accelerated.
Now the shuttle *accelerated* from the ship. How will its clock tick relative to:
1. the ship
2. Earth
???
"Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS."

You are quite confused between Theoretical Physics and Physics.

But much of Theoretical Physics is understood as being correct.

The effects have been proven,(insert comment here).

humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13577 Oct 17, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
What is this nonsense about time dilation not being observed and measured? That was done long ago, today it is an everyday event. If you have a GPS the computer that calculates your position has to account for time dilation by the moving satellite, they are that accurate. If they did not correct for that there would be an ever increasing error in your location.
Instead of making ridiculous claims you might do a little Google searching. By the way, the accuracy of GPS has been high enough that they have had to correct for this for the last 15 years. This is not "breaking science":
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
You fail to understand.

In the twin paradox the relativistic model produces two predictions of time dilation. When the observable facts are observed it is noticed that the relativistic model has produced one falsified prediction and one accurate prediction. This is still hypothetical but real within the model. The model itself dictates that it must produce at least one falsified prediction and at most one good prediction.

What about the symmetrical situation then. Lo' and behold, the relativistic model produces two predictions of time dilation which are both falsified by the observation of the actual observable facts.

The relativistic model is truly total nonsense. It can not produce good predictions of proper time dilation, most of the predictions will fail and falsify the model. This fact is dictated by the model itself.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13578 Oct 17, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
"Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS."
You are quite confused between Theoretical Physics and Physics.
But much of Theoretical Physics is understood as being correct.
The effects have been proven,(insert comment here).
Some kind of time dilation is observed. Einstein's time dilation has not been "proven".

How do you distinguish Einstein's time dilation from different rates of electron spins dictated by the Classical Theory of Nonlinear Universal Relativity? Answer: You can not distinguish between the two.

As said above:
The relativistic model itself dictates that it will produce mostly failing predictions of time dilation. In the case of perfect symmetry the model fails totally, it can not produce a mathematical prediction of time dilation that would correspond with observable facts of reality.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13579 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to understand.
In the twin paradox the relativistic model produces two predictions of time dilation. When the observable facts are observed it is noticed that the relativistic model has produced one falsified prediction and one accurate prediction. This is still hypothetical but real within the model. The model itself dictates that it must produce at least one falsified prediction and at most one good prediction.
What about the symmetrical situation then. Lo' and behold, the relativistic model produces two predictions of time dilation which are both falsified by the observation of the actual observable facts.
The relativistic model is truly total nonsense. It can not produce good predictions of proper time dilation, most of the predictions will fail and falsify the model. This fact is dictated by the model itself.
No, it predicts only one prediction. Who ever told you that it would produce two? I would like to see a quote and a link please.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#13580 Oct 17, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
No, it predicts only one prediction. Who ever told you that it would produce two? I would like to see a quote and a link please.
In the twin paradox the ageing of the two twins is the predictions.

Both twins will calculate a prediction of the other twin aging more during the trip of the space twin. The observation of the facts reveals that only one of them aged more and thus one prediction is falsified.

In the case of perfect symmetry both predictions are falsified.

Is science to you something that allows failing of predictions and the the failures just always need to be explained with something magical?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13581 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This gets funnier and funnier. You don't realize that you are the one clinging to absolute time with (a)symmetry?
During the trip did the clock on the ship slower than clocks on Earth? Yes or no?
From which frame? In the frame of the ship, no. In the frame of the earth, yes. There is no absolute standard for time, so this answer depends on the frame n which the comparison is being done.
You are the one claiming that acceleration is what decides who will be aging less (i.e. who's clock ticked slower).
In a comparison between two ships that meet twice and only one accelerates, yes.
Science only deals with observable/verifiable facts. Illusion of time dilation that can not be recorded is nonsense, NO OBSERVABLE/VERIFIABLE FACTS.
Time dilation is an effect *between* two reference frames. This can be observed by comparing the results in two reference frames. This is done all the time when looking at decays of atomic particles, but it can also be measured using atomic clocks at ordinary speeds.
Exactly. And your claim is that the one who experiences acceleration will also experience slower rate of time.
How many times do I have to point out to you that there is no well-defined *rate of time*?
Lets say that the shuttle accelerates back towards Earth. We already know that the clock on the ship is ticking slower relative to Earth because the ship accelerated.
Now the shuttle *accelerated* from the ship. How will its clock tick relative to:
1. the ship
2. Earth
???
Please give the context within a single post. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the ship, the ship will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. If the shuttle is moving with respect to the earth, then the earth will measure time on the shuttle as running slower. But, the shuttle will also measure times on both the ship and the earth as running slower.

Another thing you seem to miss is the difference between time dilation in fly-bys and proper time in round trips. These are different, although connected concepts.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13582 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In the twin paradox the ageing of the two twins is the predictions.
Both twins will calculate a prediction of the other twin aging more during the trip of the space twin.
Not if one accelerates, which is required if they will meet up again.
The observation of the facts reveals that only one of them aged more and thus one prediction is falsified.
In the case of perfect symmetry both predictions are falsified.
The predictions are not what you think they are. For symmetric acceleration, the prediction is equal aging. More precisely, if there is a third observer for whom the twins are moving at the same velocity at any time, then the ages will be the same when they meet again.
Is science to you something that allows failing of predictions and the the failures just always need to be explained with something magical?
Your lack of understanding of a model does not constitute falsification of the model.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13583 Oct 17, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
In the twin paradox the ageing of the two twins is the predictions.
Both twins will calculate a prediction of the other twin aging more during the trip of the space twin. The observation of the facts reveals that only one of them aged more and thus one prediction is falsified.
In the case of perfect symmetry both predictions are falsified.
Is science to you something that allows failing of predictions and the the failures just always need to be explained with something magical?
That is wrong. I have never seen the Twin Paradox put forth this way. Again, find a source or admit that you misunderstood it. Every version that I have seen has the Earth twin aging more than the space twin:
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of which makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

There, I provided a source and quote from that source. Only the twin at home ages faster. You misunderstood the Twin Paradox to start out with. You will not find a proper source that uses your strange convoluted "both twins age more" claim.

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 Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 26 min Amy 684
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 7 hr nanoanomaly 11,851
News Man who stabbed sheriff's dog shot by deputy in... 14 hr Logical 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sat Aura Mytha 179,707
Thank You Atm Ghost and Thank You Tuxedo Crew (Jun '15) Sat hack69 8
News Is President Elect Donald Trump Connected To Th... Sat WasteWater 92
News Jazz for Pups concert to be held Monday at NSU Dec 2 applesand 1
More from around the web