|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 27, 2018 2:19:06 GMT
I would need to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. Sorry, I simply don't have that much faith. Whether you're religious or not, you need to believe that things either existed "spontaneously" with nothing prior to them, or that something always existed. Both are counterintuitive. Re your other points, they stem from naivete and ignorance. For example, science doesn't at all posit that the world is random. And you're consistently making the error of thinking that antecedent states can't cause consequent states with different properties. Under such a view, you'd not be able to explain such simple things as how clouds form, how food becomes bodily tissue, blood, etc., and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2018 14:32:43 GMT
... The real question with "faith" is: are some things less uncertain than others? ... [science] has proved its claims numerous times. ... when has religion ever proved ANY of its extraordinary claims? ... "science is clearly the best religion." [1] Saying "faith in science is no more likely to be true or false than religion" is is just blatantly false. [2] Again, religion has never prove ANY of its extraordinary claims [3] controlled double-blind tests done with medications and treatments. You're doing a very good job of explaining why people have so much faith in science. However that is the same explanation for them having too much faith in science. It ceases to be science when people have too much faith in it. You're lumping things together without a good reason. "We know how to make plastics now" is not a reason to believe we can cure cancer. Those things are not connected well at all. I suspect fresher foods might have some small if perhaps not measurable improvement in health and success against cancer, but that doesn't justify health care costs. [1] Why is it blatantly false? I gave you a possible reason faith in science is more likely to be unjustified. You countered with how strong faith in science is. [2] "Science" has never disproved anything in established religion. [3] You failed to address my argument about cancer cure and death rates. I'm not sure how to break this to you, but people lie. They cheat. People of faith are not special in that way. They do not lie and cheat more than anyone else does. Some "Christians" might be an exception. You shouldn't believe they do. They are not "stupid" because they don't "understand evolution."
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 27, 2018 14:47:00 GMT
[2] "Science" has never disproved anything in established religion. Like the age of the Earth? How old some Christian scholars thought it was again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 14:50:33 GMT
[2] "Science" has never disproved anything in established religion. Like the age of the Earth? How old some Christian scholars thought it was again? Not to mention the whole Adam and Eve creation story.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 27, 2018 15:39:13 GMT
....I would fly in a sky of diamond-encrusted starfish!!!
?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2018 15:50:10 GMT
[2] "Science" has never disproved anything in established religion. Like the age of the Earth? How old some Christian scholars thought it was again? What difference do the claims of " some Christian scholars" have to do with anything? No one has answered why the it's the clocks on the GPS satellites that run slower rather than the clocks on the ground running slower. It strains the meaning of "relative," does it not? Can someone help me with that?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 27, 2018 16:13:33 GMT
Like the age of the Earth? How old some Christian scholars thought it was again? What difference do the claims of " some Christian scholars" have to do with anything? No one has answered why the it's the clocks on the GPS satellites that run slower rather than the clocks on the ground running slower. It strains the meaning of "relative," does it not? Can someone help me with that? Time dilation
👍
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2018 16:24:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 20:51:43 GMT
Am I really the only person who can see that doesn't make sense? Pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2018 22:38:39 GMT
Am I really the only person who can see that doesn't make sense? Pretty much. Are you going to explain time dilation or are you ashamed of how silly you would sound if you tried? Would you rather I explained it? I've had success explaining things in the past. If clock B is moving with respect to the frame of reference with clock A, clock B runs slower than clock A. (According to Prog's link) In the frame of reference with clock B it isn't moving, clock A is, so A runs slower than B. (Ibid) Check point 1: How am I doing so far? Any mistakes? Suppose a space station with people on it is close to the GPS satellite with clock B. The space station is moving in the same direction at the same speed so that when people on the space station look out the their window at the satellite it appears to be motionless with respect to them. In order that the clocks register time the same way, together that is, people on Earth add to the the time on clock B and the people on the space station add to the time on clock A. Check point 2: Are you still with me (Am I still with you)? Do you agree so far? You have two wind up toys with identical springs so that when they are in the same frame of reference they wind down in the same amount of time and ring a bell at the end of their antics. You put one on Earth and one on the space station. Now they are in different frames of reference. They are wound up at the "same time." Check point 3: Have you any problem with this story so far? How are my English grammar and vocabulary? Now, which wind up toy rings its bell first? Or do they ring at the same time? I'm not going to help you any more than I have to write your answer to the question. I want to see what you can do without my help. Okay, I'll help a tiny bit more. The bells will ring at the same time but the sound will not reach the other frame of reference till later in each case. Each observer hears the bell nearest him first. Check point 4: Is that a good explanation of time dilation? The correct answer is no it isn't. Do you know why it isn't? I'll tell you later. First I'll give you some time to write your own explanations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 23:18:24 GMT
Are you going to explain time dilation or are you ashamed of how silly you would sound if you tried? The phrase "pearls before swine" springs to mind. My observations of you in the past indicate that you're not really capable of understanding... well, anything, really. Really? I can't imagine when that might be. I've never seen you explain anything in a way that indicated that you understood it. Correct. Sure. Sure. From whose point of view? Oh, what the hell. From B's point of view, A's bell rings first. From A's point of view, B's bell rings first. But what you need to factor in is the time it takes for the light from A to reach B and vice versa. Incidentally, if you really want to think about this you're going to have to factor in the time dilation effects of gravity as well as motion. For a satellite in orbit those are usually larger than the motion effect. Which is why clocks in orbit, as seen from the ground, appear to be going faster, not slower. It amuses me that you believe anything you say constitutes any kind of "help" to anybody. Or that you're in a position to offer help. How is the sound of the bells travelling through space, exactly? Oh whatever, let's assume there's a space atmosphere. Yes. Because it was written by somebody who doesn't understand the subject, but thinks he does.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 28, 2018 0:18:37 GMT
Are you going to explain time dilation or are you ashamed of how silly you would sound if you tried? Would you rather I explained it? I've had success explaining things in the past. If clock B is moving with respect to the frame of reference with clock A, clock B runs slower than clock A. (According to Prog's link) In the frame of reference with clock B it isn't moving, clock A is, so A runs slower than B. (Ibid) Check point 1: How am I doing so far? Any mistakes? Yes. I suggest you read (or reread) the section of the article about reciprocity and its discussion of inertial and non-inertial frames.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 0:55:37 GMT
1. Oh, what the hell. From B's point of view, A's bell rings first. From A's point of view, B's bell rings first. 2. But what you need to factor in is the time it takes for the light from A to reach B and vice versa. 3. you're going to have to factor in the time dilation effects of gravity as well as motion. 4. How is the sound of the bells travelling through space, exactly? Oh whatever, let's assume there's a space atmosphere. 1. Then you agree those old stories about avoiding aging for a chunk of the future by getting aboard a fast moving space ship are absurd? 2. You might need to, I already have. That is Newtonian physics. I'll have more to say about it presently. 3. One thing at a time. We can combine the effects later. 4. Good one, even if there were air in space thick as on Earth the sound would be lost to background noise long before it reached the other observer. Or lets say the light of the jiggling bells, that would fit your explanation and also Newton's (hello again) by the way. 5. A more important reason why the time delay of sound or light either one does not explain or prove relativity is that it is perfectly Newtonian physics. The GPS system could work just fine without relativity using the speed and time of light (or any EM radiation) to equate to a distance. Distance equals rate multiplied by time was known long before Newton. (Newton did not know the speed of light, but we do.) If two identical church bells are a mile apart and sound at the "same time" then each observer will hear the near bell first then a little over 4 seconds later hear the far bell. That does not involve any relativity. Neither does any similar situation involving light at any distance however great. Let's take a better look at this expression "same time." You know from the quotation marks it needs special consideration. Let's mark time by when a bag of sand with a small hole in it runs out of sand. We already know that if one of the observers is far away then that observer will not know the exact time we intended to mark because of the time involved in the information traveling to him. Again no relativity is involved. What we need then is some "omniscient" point of view that is able to "know" time is marked the instant it is. While we certainly do not have that, there are ways to mimic it. Relativity, or at least your presentation of it, denies that it is even possible! The more important reason your explanation fails is that there is a formula for relativity and a formula for distance equals rate multiplied by time. Drum roll, they are not the same formula.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 1:10:53 GMT
1. Oh, what the hell. From B's point of view, A's bell rings first. From A's point of view, B's bell rings first. 2. But what you need to factor in is the time it takes for the light from A to reach B and vice versa. 3. you're going to have to factor in the time dilation effects of gravity as well as motion. 4. How is the sound of the bells travelling through space, exactly? Oh whatever, let's assume there's a space atmosphere. 1. Then you agree those old stories about avoiding aging for a chunk of the future by getting aboard a fast moving space ship are absurd? No. Nothing you have said has suggested this. No, you actually didn't in your example. Uh huh. No, actually it wouldn't. Look, I know you think you've "explained" something or "proved" something. But you haven't. Nothing you've said suggests that relativity is wrong, only that your understanding of it is. Here's the actual fact : Scientists and engineers used the principles of relativity when they built the GPS system. And the proof that relativity really is true and accurate is that the GPS system works. Now you can argue against that as much as you like. But your arguments mean nothing against the above fact. You may as well stand in front of a lightbulb arguing that it can't work because there's no such thing as electricity. No matter how much you argue, the fact is that the lightbulb does work. Indeed. But that is not the effect that is at work in your bells, or in GPS satellites. Exactly. There is no such omniscient point of view. There is no one correct measure of time. Yeah, the thing is... that's why your explanation fails, not mine. As predicted, all you've managed is to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 28, 2018 1:19:12 GMT
Nobody ever accomplished anything by arguing with Arlon. While your typical crazy person lives in a world where up is down and red is blue, Arlon lives in a world where up is unicycle and red is cheeseburger.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 1:31:22 GMT
I suggest you read (or reread) the section of the article about reciprocity and its discussion of inertial and non-inertial frames. Okay, I read it. It "explained" the twin paradox this way, " one of twins must accelerate while the other remains inertial ." The GPS satellites are not "accelerating" in the sense of firing fuel to attain a higher "speed" or higher orbit. They are in level orbit. Although an orbit does require "acceleration" in a sense (change of direction not speed), objects in orbit are in orbit about each other. From the point of view of Earth the satellite is orbiting Earth. From the point of view of the satellite the Earth is orbiting the satellite. The "acceleration" is the same. That's why the satellite does not need to fire any fuel to stay on track. (That and there is no friction to slow it down. Actually there is a trace of friction that is so small it doesn't matter for quite a long time. So eventually the satellite would have to fire fuel to counter the effects of friction. It's complicated.) So did you just "prove" the satellites have no time dilation due to velocity? Or was that just your source? Remember this please. Any two objects in space in "orbit" are actually each moving about the center of mass of their combined masses. You might find interesting reading on the Lagrange Point.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 1:59:19 GMT
There is no such omniscient point of view. There is no one correct measure of time.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 28, 2018 2:53:14 GMT
... The real question with "faith" is: are some things less uncertain than others? ... [science] has proved its claims numerous times. ... when has religion ever proved ANY of its extraordinary claims? ... "science is clearly the best religion." [1] Saying "faith in science is no more likely to be true or false than religion" is is just blatantly false. [2] Again, religion has never prove ANY of its extraordinary claims [3] controlled double-blind tests done with medications and treatments. You're doing a very good job of explaining why people have so much faith in science. However that is the same explanation for them having too much faith in science. It ceases to be science when people have too much faith in it. You're lumping things together without a good reason. "We know how to make plastics now" is not a reason to believe we can cure cancer. Those things are not connected well at all. I suspect fresher foods might have some small if perhaps not measurable improvement in health and success against cancer, but that doesn't justify health care costs. [1] Why is it blatantly false? I gave you a possible reason faith in science is more likely to be unjustified. You countered with how strong faith in science is. [2] "Science" has never disproved anything in established religion. [3] You failed to address my argument about cancer cure and death rates. I'm not sure how to break this to you, but people lie. They cheat. People of faith are not special in that way. They do not lie and cheat more than anyone else does. Some "Christians" might be an exception. You shouldn't believe they do. They are not "stupid" because they don't "understand evolution." Your "too much faith in science" seems to be code for "faith in science I don't (want to) believe is true." You certainly haven't demonstrated how anyone has "too much" faith in science ("too much" relative to what?). Science doesn't cease to be science when someone has faith in it; science ceases to be science when it doesn't follow the scientific method, and it's other scientists who scrutinize whether any theory/experiment/etc. follows the method and proves its hypothesis. People having "faith" that they're telling the truth doesn't matter one iota as to whether what they're doing is science. [1] It's blatantly false because religion has never proved a single claim, while science has proven many; how can they be "equally likely to be right/wrong" then the former has never been proven right ONCE? I must've missed your "possible reason faith in science is more likely to be unjustified," so please reiterate it. [2] Yes it has. I'd also add that stuff like a global flood and Exodus are as good as proven wrong given that the evidence we'd expect to see if they did happen in geology an archaeology don't exist. So logic pretty much disproves them: (if X, then Y; Not Y, therefore not X). [3] I've addressed that before and proved you wrong. You just ignore the references and cook up lame excuses to explain them away. Sure they do, but what does this have to do with "too much faith in science?" Because to believe that something like Relativity isn't true you'd have to believe that every physicist and every satellite engineer on Earth is lying, and even if you did believe that, you'd have to come up with some reason as to why. I know you say that you "don't disbelieve in Relativity," but just use it as an example of people having "too much faith in science," but the above reason is why; there's no reason to think that every scientist/engineer is lying about it. It's far more rational to think they're all telling the truth because they've all tested it and come to the same conclusion. Occam's Razor, you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 3:10:28 GMT
There is no such omniscient point of view. There is no one correct measure of time. Ah, so your position is faith based. Little wonder. Hint for you Arlon : Faith is not a path to truth. Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 28, 2018 3:26:51 GMT
Ah, so your position is faith based. Little wonder. Hint for you Arlon : Faith is not a path to truth. Not at all. I think he's suggesting that your position ("There is no such omniscient point of view. There is no one correct measure of time.") is faith based. That's Arlon's whole shtick; to try to convince people that "faith in science" is the the equivalent of "faith in religion." He's basically argued that since none of us have the ability to directly test Relativity ourselves, we're just taking what science says about it on "faith." I've been trying to explain to him how these "faiths" are not remotely comparable.
|
|