So if anything that I do not believe is by your perception a religion?<quoted text>
You believe there is no God but you have no proof. Therefore Atheism is a Faith based religion.
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"
Jan 22, 2012  Posted by: roboblogger  Full story: Examiner.com
It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.
Comments (Page 590)
“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ” Since: Dec 09 3,943 Wichita. Ks. 

You will get your chance. 

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ” Since: Dec 09 3,943 Wichita. Ks. 
No, I do not have faith in that. I just do not believe in that. 
The new Religion founded by Skeptic "I'll believe NASA" NASA the almighty! 

“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 42,756 Albuquerque 
Is I don't give a flying f**k what you think a faith based religion? 
“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 42,756 Albuquerque 
I believe in the Papua New Guinean Mud God Pikkiwok. I know He exists because I saw the shrunken heads at the Museum of Natural History. Proof positive. 
“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 42,756 Albuquerque 
Easter Bunny Magic Pumpkin Little Red Riding Hood Merlin Loki Gandalf Fred Phelps Tinkerbell Mister Ed Cold fusion Rumpelstiltskin Beer Pantagruel Global warming Romulus and Remus Willy Wonka Batgirl Pinocchio With all those religions you're practicing, where do you find the time to not believe in atheism, homosexuality, science, and Catholicism? 
“ecrasez l'infame” Since: May 08 10,224 
And yet in your post just before this one you said that atheism was, and I quote "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." You further clarified that "Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." And now you say that the "absence of belief" is a belief. You really need to work on your critical thinking skills. I hope you don't go to school in Texas. 
“ecrasez l'infame” Since: May 08 10,224 
So the polytheistic gods Shiva, Vishnu, & Brahama are real? 
“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 42,756 Albuquerque 
Do you believe the discussion in Genesis 3 was between a naked lady and a loquacious rutabaga? 
“Wear white at night.” Since: Jun 09 42,756 Albuquerque 
Do you believe sola scriptura fundamentalists are the stupidest creatures on the face of the earth? 
Vanda, Finland 
Judged: 1 1 1 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. 
Vanda, Finland 
Judged: 1 1 1 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 21,116 Location hidden 
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 21,116 Location hidden 
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 21,116 Location hidden 
the Lorenz transform are *always* the correct ones to use. 
Since: Jun 07 13,896 Location hidden 
This is quite simple the stupidest of piece of writing posing as science I've ever read 
Vanda, Finland 
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 21,116 Location hidden 
*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. 
Vanda, Finland 
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? 
Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required) 

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.
23 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now
Topic  Updated  Last By  Comments 

Is Time An Illusion? (May '10)  57 min  shinningelectr0n  5,052 
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08)  2 hr  SoE  26,942 
Attention, Passengers: Please Stand at Your Seats  2 hr  Husker D  2 
Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions  3 hr  dog poo  144 
NASA launches carbon satellite after 2009 failure  3 hr  Sheri23  4 
Two new SETI programs will listen for aliens  4 hr  Curiosityforever  6 
New Nylon Strengthening Agent  4 hr  PAMAM  3 