Atheist Theory Debates

[michel]

I didn't believe in an afterlife, andI feared death a whole lot. I wish I could understand how people can't feardeath, butit just doesn't make sense to me.

QUOTE]
Believing or not believing in an afterlife would make no difference whatsoever to me, in deciding if I was scared of death.

assume atheists are right; when death occurs, you cease to exist - what is there to fear ?
assume believers in a God/Gods are right; when death occurs, you have to account yourself to God.

What possible reason would an atheist feel the need to fear death?

 

[linwood]

assume atheists are right; when death occurs, you cease to exist - what is there to fear ?
assume believers in a God/Gods are right; when death occurs, you have to account yourself to God.

What possible reason would an atheist feel the need to fear death?

Whoa!
Thanks for that Michel, I hadn`t thought about it on those terms before.

 

[Ryan2065]

No, again that is not what I said.
I specifically copy/pasted what Part of C&n`s argument I am in complete agreement for the implicit purpose of avoiding this strawman.

This is not a strawman... You stated that you were in complete agreement with C&N's understand of the big bang theory, not just any part, complete agreement. Then, about 5 or 6 lines underneath that you quoted the part of C&N's argument that you wanted me to respond to. If you wanted to be more clear you would have specifically stated you were only in agreement with that part of C&N's understanding, not in complete agreement.
Here is the origional statement incase you missed it (not sure how that would be seeing as you stated it.)

I think this is extremely unfair.
I have confidence in my understanding of Big Bang Theory and I`m in complete argreement with C&N`s understanding of it.

You have not rebutted his points.
You`ve merely pushed them aside because his is not the popular theory.

Please rebut his points
Here is the meat of his argument.

I quoted what you said before and after so we could see there was no misunderstanding.

Again No..No..No..Please please please can you stop putting words in my mouth?
I never asked for a "sample" of a singularity defined by the popular BB model I asked for evidence that any phenomenon known in nature meets the s[ecific requirements to be called a sngularity defined by the popular BB model.
As far as taking someones word for something I consider it a matter of trust.
I trust my wife more than any human I`ve met yet taking her word for creation would lead me to believing some deity is responsible for it all.

So basically you want scientists to show you the start of another universe that has a singularity? I don't know what you want here... Apparently you want scientists to observe a singularity in nature before you will believe that they exist? Is that what you are asking for? Cause let me assure you, that is quite impossible for todays science.

Please supply some evidence for this that has been evidenced in experimentation free of the effects of gravity (or any other external force)on the subject of the experiment.
If you can do this I will concede the entire argument that time is not physical and can indeed "start" and "stop"

Well to start... in order to get into an area that is free from gravity, one would have to go outside our universe...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A273854
Here is a link that talks about time dilation being proven. As any physics professor, they will all tell you it has been proven that time dilation is real and can happen. Also with your argument about space not being physical? Then why is it space bends around black holes due to their enormous gravity?

Please supply some evidence for this observation that has been evidenced in experimentation free of the effects of gravity (or any other external force)on the subject of the experiment.

Again, it is quite impossible to do any experiment "free from the effects of gravity."

No..I said there is not "physical" evidence for a singularity.

Do you have evidence that there was literally no space or time before the BB?
Do you have evidence of a singularity as defined in the BB theory ?

Please provide evidence that a singularity as defined by the popular BB model exists did exist or could exist.

I quoted the two times you asked me about singularity and used blue font (i assume this means that you really wanted answers) and i do not see the word physical in here at all... Sorry, but you only asked for evidence. There is no physical evidence for singularities... this is why they are a theory... hense the name.... theory

No mathmatically it is correct.
In reality nothing like the popular BB definition of a singularity has ever been evidenced and they very properties of such a singularity are impossible through observed properties of nature.

The problem with this is that the observed properties of nature change depending on the universe you are in. So these observed properties of nature can change.

Perhaps I have the wrong idea of what a "theory" is.
I take it a bit farther than most.
To me the BB theory does explain the available facts but parsimony simply shaves away so much that isn`t necessary(singularity, physical properties of space and time).
This expansion we are witnessing could have begun in so many different ways and at so many different rates with so many different forces we cannot be aware of playing a part in it it`s not helpful to publicly state we"know" what happened.
It confuses the layman and leads him to false beliefs whether intentionally or not it does this.
In my mind all we can really say is ..
*The physical universe we can view is expanding.
*There must have been some force to begin this expansion.

Technically we cannot say that the physical universe is expanding or that there is some force to being that expansion... The theory that the universe is expanding is the theory that is used to describe what a red shift is. When describing this to one of my friends, she asked me if the red shift could be caused by the waves going through some "filter" that we cannot see far away and that the universe really is not expanding... Also, to say that some force must have begun the expansion is false because there is always the possibility that the universe has been expanding forever and that no force ever started it. Theories are made for the scientific community, not for the layman. The scientific community knows that the big bang theory is just that, a theory and more than likely will change drastically as more information comes available to us. Scientists should not change what they call things just to better suite the layman.

I should have used the term "physical laws" which is what most people think of when hearing "Laws of Physics"
The "law" I`m referencing in regard to just one extraneous point of the popular BB model is the one that says you can`t fit a finite mount of matter into an infinitesimal point.

Im sorry, but the law of "you cannot fit a finite amount of matter into an infinitesimal point" was not found. Here is a list of the laws of physics, please find me the one that states this, or list its name.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/

And that is the crux of our disagreement as I`ve already mentioned.
You speak of whats possible mathematically and I speak of whats possible in reality.
they are not the same.
I believe C&N`s argument is based in physical reality, you are rebutting it with mathmatical equations.

Again, depending on what type of universe you are in the physical laws change. So to think that the physical laws are always the same no matter where you go is the wrong way to think of them. Space can bend, time can be slowed down. These are things no physics professor will disagree with, merely because we have observed both of these.

You`re not wrong.
Mathematically all these things you speak of are possible.
C&N`s not wrong none of these things you speak of ever have been or ever will be physically evidenced.

If someday we are able to create universes in the lab then it will be physically evidenced.

You did not say anything about the link i posted that described points of singularity in other universes... I wanted to know what you thought about this!

 

[linwood]

T
So basically you want scientists to show you the start of another universe that has a singularity? I don't know what you want here...

Odd because I`ve already defined what I want two or three times.

..Please provide evidence that a singularity as defined by the popular BB model exists did exist or could exist.

..I asked for evidence that any phenomenon known in nature meets the s[ecific requirements to be called a singularity defined by the popular BB model..

Well to start... in order to get into an area that is free from gravity, one would have to go outside our universe...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A273854

So your answer would be "no" I cannot supply evidence of the manipulation of time in an experimental environment that contains no forces that act upon the subject of the experiment.
Thank you.

Also with your argument about space not being physical? Then why is it space bends around black holes due to their enormous gravity?

Space does not "bend" around the gravitational forces of matter.
The velocity of photons moving through that space "bends" around the gravitational forces of matter.
Gravitational lensing.

Again, it is quite impossible to do any experiment "free from the effects of gravity."

I`m aware of that and fortunately experimentation regarding a vast circumference of science doesn`t rely upon this point.
Unfortunately the question of time is one that it does rely upon.
Gravitational effects at altitude on the exeriment subject are the reason for the "time dilation" you submit.
They can be accounted for but doing so only throws yet more uncertainty intot he equation.
Constants have been shown to be anything but "constant".

Sorry, but you only asked for evidence. There is no physical evidence for singularities...

My apologies I may not have made that clear in those sentences.
I do feel i`ve made it clear throughout this thread overall however.

However that is my point, "There is no physical evidence of singularites."
If there is no physical evidence for a phenomenon AND there is physical evidence against a phenomenon.
I will conclude it is extremely unlikely for that phenomena to "exist" in the physical world.

The problem with this is that the observed properties of nature change depending on the universe you are in.

You don`t know this, you simply assume this.
You cannot know this because we`ve never observed any other physical universe.
For the purpose of this discussion we haven`t even properly defined "universe" yet.

Technically we cannot say that the physical universe is expanding or that there is some force to being that expansion... The theory that the universe is expanding is the theory that is used to describe what a red shift is. When describing this to one of my friends, she asked me if the red shift could be caused by the waves going through some "filter" that we cannot see far away and that the universe really is not expanding...

And your friend has a perfectly valid point but that "filter" would have to be something very consistent across the universe.
On a completely different note, the concept of Redshift itself relies upon "time" not having physical propoerties.
If time has physical properties our measurements of redshift would be even far more questionable than they are.

Also, to say that some force must have begun the expansion is false because there is always the possibility that the universe has been expanding forever and that no force ever started it.

It could not have been expanding the way it is now forever because at some point all the matter in our universe would have to at the very least take up the same space at the same time.
Considering I`ve already stated there is no physical evidence of a singularity(and you`ve agreed) we cannot assume all this finite matter was once constricted upon itself in an infintesimal manner because that would be a singularity.
Therefore a beginning of expansion somehwere somehow.

Theories are made for the scientific community, not for the layman. The scientific community knows that the big bang theory is just that, a theory and more than likely will change drastically as more information comes available to us. Scientists should not change what they call things just to better suite the layman.

I never said they should.
What science shouldn`t do is present a hypothesis as theory when in comparison to established theories it clearly isn`t.
If science wants to be taken seriously it had better play it straight with the layman since it is the layman whop is ultimately responsible for it.
grants, education, interest, need.

The fact thats science feels it does not have to relate itself more clearly and sensibly to the layman is what led to Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania schools.
Sciece is damn well taking it seriously now though aren`t they?

Im sorry, but the law of "you cannot fit a finite amount of matter into an infinitesimal point" was not found. Here is a list of the laws of physics, please find me the one that states this, or list its name.

I`m sorry let me give it to you in it`s original form.
"You can`t fit ten pounds of crap in a 1 pound bag."
There..do you deny this?

You cannot take a finite amount of matter and compress it into an infinately dense particle, it cannot be an infinately dense particle because the matter it is made of is finite.

Space can bend, time can be slowed down. These are things no physics professor will disagree with, merely because we have observed both of these.

I believe what you think is evidence for the physical manipulation of time and space is nothing more than the effects of gravity on the test subject.
IE: Gravitational Lensing

You did not say anything about the link i posted that described points of singularity in other universes... I wanted to know what you thought about this!

I`ll have a look at it but the point of the lack of evidence for an actual physical sungularity has been made here...and agreed to.

 

[Scott1]

What possible reason would an atheist feel the need to fear death?

Amen Michel, I was the much talked about "atheist in a foxhole".... my belief that death would only be nothingness was the only thing that got me through combat.

 

[Ryan2065]

..I asked for evidence that any phenomenon known in nature meets the s[ecific requirements to be called a singularity defined by the popular BB model..

If you knew what you were asking you would know that this is quite impossible in our univerise... Hense me asking if you want scientists to observe this in other universes? Which is currently impossible.

So your answer would be "no" I cannot supply evidence of the manipulation of time in an experimental environment that contains no forces that act upon the subject of the experiment.
Thank you.

How about this, I can supply you with experiments done that most all physicists agree with the findings of. Or are you saying that you know more about physicists doing experiments in the field? If most physicists say that the gravity would not play a factor in the way the experiment was done... Why would you disagree with the findings? How about I find some silly reason to disagree with all of the findings you find?

Space does not "bend" around the gravitational forces of matter.
The velocity of photons moving through that space "bends" around the gravitational forces of matter.
Gravitational lensing.

Really, space does not bend? Well, here are all the experts in the field that disagree with you...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_031124.html

A spinning black hole drags space around with it and allows atoms to orbit nearer to the black hole than is possible for a non-spinning black hole,

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/newsroom/tv page/g00-072_space.html

Scientists have uncovered sets of oscillating X-ray signals from three neutron stars that may tell the story of the bending of the fabric of space-time around these objects, much like an AM radio signal carries the details of a science talk show buried within its set of radio waves.

Extreme Gravity -- Bending Time And Space - NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) has previously detected very rapid oscillations in the brightness of X-ray-emitting neutron stars, evidence of a curvature in space-time. Scientists are now seeing sidebands, another set of oscillations that provide even more detail about this world of extreme gravity. This is important new information needed to describe the environs of these fascinating objects.

Yea, guess the experts are wrong and we should take your view on this.

I`m aware of that and fortunately experimentation regarding a vast circumference of science doesn`t rely upon this point.
Unfortunately the question of time is one that it does rely upon.
Gravitational effects at altitude on the exeriment subject are the reason for the "time dilation" you submit.
They can be accounted for but doing so only throws yet more uncertainty intot he equation.
Constants have been shown to be anything but "constant".

Really, it is just gravitational effects at the altitude that i submitted? So gravity effects the atomic clocks? So why is it that this is being taught in college classes across america? Wow, you uncovered a flaw in the design that NO physicist has ever thought of. Yes, gravity has such an effect on atomic clocks (seeing as they don't use gravity AT ALL to tell time.) Please give a more informed statement... Namely if these experiments are so wrong and very easily critized, you can at least find one physicist who has disagreed with these findings... Please do provide a link to his work.

My apologies I may not have made that clear in those sentences.
I do feel i`ve made it clear throughout this thread overall however.

However that is my point, "There is no physical evidence of singularites."
If there is no physical evidence for a phenomenon AND there is physical evidence against a phenomenon.
I will conclude it is extremely unlikely for that phenomena to "exist" in the physical world.

Please list the physical evidence against singularities... I have already provided experiments that show that time and space are not constants. We have observed both of these... So what is this magical physical evidence against a singularity?

You don`t know this, you simply assume this.
You cannot know this because we`ve never observed any other physical universe.
For the purpose of this discussion we haven`t even properly defined "universe" yet.

Universe is just the observed space we live in. The boundaries we have. We have not observed other universes but we know that the laws we have are dependant on having everything constant, so it is safe to say that when speed is not constant, that the laws of nature would change. Do you also not believe that life can spontaniously generate? We have never seen life spontaniously generate, and have never seen the environment that makes life spontaniously generate... yet that is the current theory. Just because we have never seen it doesn't mean we cannot make a good guess at what it is.

It could not have been expanding the way it is now forever because at some point all the matter in our universe would have to at the very least take up the same space at the same time.
Considering I`ve already stated there is no physical evidence of a singularity(and you`ve agreed) we cannot assume all this finite matter was once constricted upon itself in an infintesimal manner because that would be a singularity.
Therefore a beginning of expansion somehwere somehow.

Sigh, argueing with ignorance is so hard... Again, we do not need PHYSICAL evidence to come up with a theory. If this were the case, according to you, there would be NO theories about the start of the universe in science. We have never observed the start of a universe, so of course we cannot have a theory about it... This is why it is so hard to argue with someone who has not done their homework on the current theories... Do you not think that if someone with apparently no background in physics could "shoot down" the theories that the current physicsts could also shoot them down?

I never said they should.
What science shouldn`t do is present a hypothesis as theory when in comparison to established theories it clearly isn`t.
If science wants to be taken seriously it had better play it straight with the layman since it is the layman whop is ultimately responsible for it.
grants, education, interest, need.

The fact thats science feels it does not have to relate itself more clearly and sensibly to the layman is what led to Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania schools.
Sciece is damn well taking it seriously now though aren`t they?

The thing is when science dumbs itself down for laymen we get people like you who say that even though I do not understand the math and science behind the theory, I am willing to shoot it down without learning any of the math and science.

I`m sorry let me give it to you in it`s original form.
"You can`t fit ten pounds of crap in a 1 pound bag."
There..do you deny this?

You cannot take a finite amount of matter and compress it into an infinately dense particle, it cannot be an infinately dense particle because the matter it is made of is finite.

Please do tell me what your background is in physics that you are prepared to disagree with the physicists who do say that it is not only possible to compress a finite amount of matter into an infinately dense particle, but that it breaks NO physics laws. Again, either give me the physics law that it goes against (the actual name) or back off because I am saying that it goes against no laws of physics.

I believe what you think is evidence for the physical manipulation of time and space is nothing more than the effects of gravity on the test subject.
IE: Gravitational Lensing

Nope, I gave you two articles that talk about space bending...

I`ll have a look at it but the point of the lack of evidence for an actual physical sungularity has been made here...and agreed to.

My point is that you do not need physical evidence for something to have a theory about it. There is no Physical evidence for the big bang yet you seem to like the theory (IE no one has ever observed a big bang before)

Please read up on the topic we are debating and quit thinking you know more than people who have studied this area for their whole lives. I give you the studies done by people who are experts in their field and you just shoot them down saying they made dumb mistakes... I am sorry, but I am willing to believe an expert in the field over someone who more than likely hasn't had more than an intro class to physics in college.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

+++MOD POST+++

Even though this is the debate section, let's remind ourselves that personal attacks are still not welcome. Please keep it civil, everyone.

 

[Ryan2065]

Even though this is the debate section, let's remind ourselves that personal attacks are still not welcome. Please keep it civil, everyone.

I am sorry but in order to actually debate this I must know where the information linwood presents comes from. From what I have heard from him he does seem to know a bit about the theories presented, but he doesn't seem to know alot. He is disregarding the experts that I present saying that they did the experiments wrong, so his background in Physics comes into direct question because if he is the only one who questions these experiments then he better have a good background in physics or his opinions on the matter should be disregarded (compared to an experts)

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I was not trying to single you out, Ryan. It was a general reminder to the entire group.

 

[Ryan2065]

I was not trying to single you out, Ryan. It was a general reminder to the entire group.

=) I know feathers, just wanted to make sure it wasn't about me!

 

[retrorich]

Faith is the basis of all you do. You have no religious faith, but you have faith every night when you go to bed that you will get up in the morning. If you didn't you would cower in fear every night. Every time you brush your teeth you have faith that the toothpaste will do its job. Everyone has faith, some just place it in other areas. Some place it in science, some in religion. Some in both. It takes faith to be any kind of human being. You are no different. That is the definition of an agnostic, not an atheist

In the context of this debate, "faith" is specifically taken to mean the belief in God, gods, goddesses or other supernatural beings/forces. (It has nothing to do with toothpaste. ) No such faith is required to be an atheist. In fact, one who has such faith is not an atheist.

You don't even know what you are. I suggest you reevaluate your affiliation.

What qualifies you to better know what I am than do I? I have stated MY definition of atheist, and based on that definition, I am an atheist and have been one for over 40 years. I assure you, Sir, I know what I am and who I am. Perhaps it would be best if you would stick to defining Christianity and allow atheists to define atheism.

Your Pyrrhonism is nothing new and nothing special. It is the mantra of all who avoid personal responsibility

How does my atheism constitute avoidance of personal responsibility?

and genuine regard for truth.

I do not consider theism to be truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Faith is the basis of all you do.

This is sophomoric nonsense based solely on diluting 'faith' to mean nothing more than 'belief'.

That is the definition of an agnostic, not an atheist. You don't even know what you are.

You seem incapable of understanding that atheism often arises as the consequence of agnosticism.

Your Pyrrhonism is nothing new and nothing special.

Neither is your confused pedantry.

 

[retrorich]

This is sophomoric nonsense based solely on diluting 'faith' to mean nothing more than 'belief'.

You seem incapable of understanding that atheism often arises as the consequence of agnosticism.

Neither is your confused pedantry.

Well said, Sir! Frubals to you.

 

[JerryL]

Gravitational effects at altitude on the exeriment subject are the reason for the "time dilation" you submit.

I missed which ones were submitted. Did he submit the Hafele and Keating experiment?

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."
J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)
​

All four of these clocks were brought to similar altituteds for similar periods of time. Two gained time (the one's heading west), and two lost time (the ones heading East) relative to a stationary clock.

 

[Ryan2065]

I missed which ones were submitted. Did he submit the Hafele and Keating experiment?

No, he dismissed the tests without even asking for the information about them saying that they were not done right (know he said this without even looking at any data at all about the experiment, just that the result differed from his belief)
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Jared Mixon/page1.htm
This is one link that is a summary about different experiments. They reference the 1975 experiment of Carol Allie of the University of Maryland involving two atomic clocks and this experiment has been repeated many times.
Or I can send you to this site...
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm

Observation: a) Clocks on planes high above the ground run faster than those on the ground. The effect is small since the Earth's mass is small, so atomic clocks must be used to detect the difference. b) The Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system must compensate for General Relativity effects or the positions it gives for locations would be significantly off.

Or this site...
http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit05_06/edit1-sep05.htm

Einstein's prediction of time dilation and length contraction was experimentally tested in the 1960's using subatomic particles. There exists a steady stream of subatomic particles called muons that come downward through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds approaching the speed of light. The muons are formed when cosmic rays slam into atoms high in the Earth's atmosphere. Muons are radioactive and act like clocks. Their rate of radioactive decay has been accurately measured.

Special detectors designed to sense muons traveling close to the speed of light were located at both the top of the 6,300 foot high Mount Washington in New Hampshire and at sea level. If Einstein is wrong the muons should self destruct and very few would survive to reach sea level. However, if Einstein's relativity theory regarding time dilation and length contraction is true, then many of these particles that are traveling at close to the speed of light (0.995c) would survive. The data was clear. The muons' lifetime confirmed that time dilation occurs, and in fact the results precisely fit Einstein's predictive equation. For the near-speed-of-light muons the height of Mount Washington is contracted -- the 6,300 foot mountain becomes only 700 feet high!

So yes... time dilation has been proven... For more accurate measurements of time dilation we must wait for the gravity probe b to be finished...
http://www.gravityprobeb.com/

The actual experiment is done (it was a 17 month experiment) and now they just got all the data.... will take them about a year to compile all this data...

 

[linwood]

If you knew what you were asking you would know that this is quite impossible in our univerise...

I know it`s impossible, thats my entire point.
It has been my entire point for three pages of posts.
I`ve been asking for physical evidence for the Singularity and you`ve been arguing with me over it now all of a sudden you get my point.
If it is impossible to evidence any physical phenomenon there is no reason to believe it exists or has existed or will exist until such evidence comes out, if ever.
Therefore the singularity in the BB model is nothing more than mathematical equation.
It is not reality, it`s not physical, it didn`t physically exist in this physical universe.

How about this, I can supply you with experiments done that most all physicists agree with the findings of. Or are you saying that you know more about physicists doing experiments in the field? If most physicists say that the gravity would not play a factor in the way the experiment was done... Why would you disagree with the findings?

Because they don`t concur with my own observations.
Because they`ve been wrong many times before.
Because they aren`t basing their calculations on empirical evidence.
Because they are extrapolating theory from physically unevidenced mathematical equations.
Because they`re speaking of mathematcal possibilities while i`m speaking of the real physical world.

All those reasons aside an appeal to authority is never very convincing.
If an Appeal to Authority meant anything to me I`d be a Christian by now.
Supply the evidence.

Really, space does not bend? Well, here are all the experts in the field that disagree with you...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_031124.html
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/newsroom/tv%20page/g00-072_space.html
Yea, guess the experts are wrong and we should take your view on this.

Again, an appeal to authority is hardly convincing, this one less so than the norm.
Your first link supplies no observable evidence of the manipulation of space it simply states it as fact.
Your second link has no content whatsoever but is merely a listing of videos that show the affects of a black holes gravity on photons and again simply states it as fact without supplying a shred of direct evidence of the manipulation of space.
Here`s an idea, instead of continuously citing other peoples work please cite the observations that have been made of space being manipulated or bent.
You will find ALL of these observations are taken by measuring the affect gravity has upon the velocity of photons.

Really, it is just gravitational effects at the altitude that i submitted? So gravity effects the atomic clocks? So why is it that this is being taught in college classes across america?

Yes, Gravity affects atomic clocks.
I don`t know why it`s being taught in college classes maybe you can tell me why the Tower of Babble is being taught in High School history classes?

Yes, gravity has such an effect on atomic clocks (seeing as they don't use gravity AT ALL to tell time.) Please give a more informed statement...

Gladly.

Yet again you miscontstrue my statement.
I never claimed Atomic Clocks "used" gravity.
I claimed Gravity has an effect on them.
Relativity predicts that "time" can be altered by gravity.
It`s my opinion that the "timepiece" is affected by gravity.
Hafele & Keating sent atomic clocks up around the world in jets more than 30 years ago.
The force of gravitational field the clock in the jet was subject to was less than the force of the gravitational field the clock on the ground was under.
You also have the force of velocity acting upon the clocks in the Jets, I`m not sure how that would affect them.
Finally you have the suspect accuracy of the timepieces themselves ..

Hafele-Keating experimentWhile the published outcome of the experiment points towards a very clear demonstration of relativity; the accuracy of the devices, the setup of the experiment and the methodology for determining the final outcome merits re-examination and perhaps another iteration of the experiment.
The raw data of the experiment has been examined by a number of individuals such as Dr. A G Kelly and found to vary in such extremes that the final published outcome had to be averaged in an extremely convoluted and biased way. An article published by the inventor of the atomic clock Louis Essen also discussed the inadequate accuracy of the experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment


In essence, the guy who invented the atomic clock doubts H&K`s accuracy under such conditions.
My opinion is that H&K "stroked" the numbers to allow their conclusions to align more correctly with what they set out to prove.


[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][size=-1]Dr. Domina Spencer[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][size=-1], a gifted mathematician from the University of Connecticut, received the raw data from on of the original scientists who performed the experiment. In a formal presentation in Flagstaff Arizona, at a SWARM/AAAS Meeting in June of 1996, she presented her analysis. She said (paraphrased), "that the data published for the Hafele-Keating experiment could have only be fabricated to show favorable evidence". No one has questioned this any further since the momentum of the experiment has become more legend than fact. (D. Spencer, Shama, & P. Mann: Analysis of the Hafele-Keating Experiment.)
[/size][/font]D. Spencer, U. Shama, & P. Mann Analysis of the Hafele-Keating Experiment.
http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/flag96.htm


[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][size=-1]There seems to be some question as to the authenticity of the H&K experiment.
I have not seen a qualified rebuttal of Spencers interpretation of the H&K experiments.
I`d think H&K themselves would have rebutted it considering she was trashing their work.
If you know of one I`d be interested.
[/size][/font]
Cont..

 

[linwood]

Please list the physical evidence against singularities...

I already have but at this point I have no need to repeat myself as you`ve already conceded the point.
Ryan2065 said...
There is no physical evidence for singularities...
Can we stop arguing a point we both agree on and attempt to find common ground in those areas where we disagree?

I have already provided experiments that show that time and space are not constants. We have observed both of these...

No, you haven`t.
You`ve submitted evidence that gravity affects the velocity of photons and matter.
Gravitational Lensing is not a "curving" of space
Space does not "curve" around Black Holes.
You provided no evidence for time dilation, JerryL did and I`ve rebutted it.
Provide evidence that my rebuttal is mistaken somehow and I`ll have a second look.

Universe is just the observed space we live in.

This isn`t distinct enough for me.
My definition of universe is "Observable matter and the space it`s contained in."
In essence the matter from our "Big Bang".
The difference will arise when we begin to observe more space than we do now.
Can we agree on this definition for "universe" considering what you`ve submitted and what I`ve submitted aren`t that far apart?

The boundaries we have. We have not observed other universes but we know that the laws we have are dependant on having everything constant, so it is safe to say that when speed is not constant, that the laws of nature would change.

I thought you just said...
I have already provided experiments that show that time and space are not constants. We have observed both of these...

Do you also not believe that life can spontaniously generate? We have never seen life spontaniously generate, and have never seen the environment that makes life spontaniously generate... yet that is the current theory. Just because we have never seen it doesn't mean we cannot make a good guess at what it is.

Exactly, we can make a guess and we must make a guess in order to explore the possibilities and I am all for that.
My only problem is that I don`t think we should be calling these "guesses" theories if we want the scientific term "theory" to have any substance.
As to the question about spontaneous generation.
I believe abiogenesis is possible as the chemical experiments and possible action of RNA seem to point to.
However, abiogeneisis even if evidenced to completion in a lab will never be able to state definitively that "This is how life happened".
It will however be more than enough for me personally to hold the belief that "This is how life probably happened"

Do you not think that if someone with apparently no background in physics could "shoot down" the theories that the current physicsts could also shoot them down?

I think I just did with that Hafele-Keating experiment.

Why are physists using the published data from the H&K experiment when the raw data says an entirely different thing?
It seems physists are basing their conclusions on false presumptions.
Who woulda thunk it?

The thing is when science dumbs itself down for laymen we get people like you who say that even though I do not understand the math and science behind the theory, I am willing to shoot it down without learning any of the math and science.

No, you make far too many assumptions as is evidenced by your dogmatic belief that Special Relativity is entire "fact" when it clearly is not.
I do not understand the math behind these theories yet I know what these theories tell me cannot be in the physical world in which I live.
Thats all I need.

I never said I know nothing of the science of these topics.
Stop assuming I have no knowledge of these topics as you are clearly wrong.
Stop appealing to authority and submit some evidence to rebut my statements.
Think for yourself for a change and tell me why you personally make the rationalizations you do instead of parroting what you`ve been told.

I have shown there is, never has been , and in all probability cannot be anything having the properties of the BB models singularity "IN THE REAL PHYSICAL WORLD".
That is what I set out to do.
You have conceded this point.

I have offered evidence that the H&K experiment was compromised by more than one factor and supplied qualified sources in doing so.
Rebut it if you can.
I have stated that what you call space bending is actually gravities affects on the velocity of photons.
This is fact.
Rebut it if you can.

You have supplied no evidence for time dilation (JerryL did, thank you Jerry).
You have supplied no evidence of the manipulation of space.
You`ve supplied no evidence for the physical existence of a singularity and in fact have conceded one cannot exist in reality.

Please stop ranting about my lack of qualifications and start evidencing some of your statements.

Also if you can do me a favor would you actual read what I`ve written and respond to my statements instead of what you assume my statements mean.
You`ve shown a great propenstity towards this habit, it`s irritating.

 

[linwood]

No, he dismissed the tests without even asking for the information about them saying that they were not done right (know he said this without even looking at any data at all about the experiment, just that the result differed from his belief)

Another false assumption.
I didn`t ask for the info because I had already seen it.
My belief is based upon the interpretation of the data by unbiased sources.
those sources say H&K were full of it.
It`s been refutted.
Please rebut it.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Jared%20Mixon/page1.htm
This is one link that is a summary about different experiments. They reference the 1975 experiment of Carol Allie of the University of Maryland involving two atomic clocks and this experiment has been repeated many times.
Or I can send you to this site...
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
Or this site...
http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit05_06/edit1-sep05.htm

Ahh..finally did you submit actual evidence?
I`ll have a look at them tomorrow.
Thanks.

 

[Ryan2065]

Damnit I spent 40 minutes writing a response to the ignorance in linwoods post and just lost it... hrm... Lets give the quick version then...

1. You say many times that singularities are impossible in our current universe but this would be the same thing as saying "Dinosaurs could never have existed because there are no current living breathing dinosaurs." And this just shows an ignorance to the math and science of how our universe works.

2. You dispute many of the scientist findings that I post by saying that they do not agree with what you found then you wonder why I want to know what your background is in physics and math.

3. You make the assumption that people to this day are referencing the H&K experiments when they talk about jet experiments and atomic clocks. Well news flash buddy, MANY people have re-done the H&K experiments with favorable results. Again, this shows a very ignorant view of the evidence for time dilation.

4. The evdience for the bending of space is quite hard to find for the simple reason that you would need a few years in college physics to understand it (well understand the math equations fully.) Would you like me to spend time finding these equations? Again, you say that you are appealing to authority and that scientists have been wrong before... Yes this is true, scientists have been wrong before. But please show me a case where ALL scientists have agreed on something and had that been wrong.

5. You stated that there is physical evdience AGAINST singularities, which is very different than saying that there is no evidence for singularities... Please give that evidnece.

6.

I thought you just said...
I have already provided experiments that show that time and space are not constants. We have observed both of these...

This statement here shows a very ignorant view of what we have been discussing.

7. Proof of more ignorance...

Why are physists using the published data from the H&K experiment when the raw data says an entirely different thing?
It seems physists are basing their conclusions on false presumptions.
Who woulda thunk it?

8.

No, you make far too many assumptions as is evidenced by your dogmatic belief that Special Relativity is entire "fact" when it clearly is not.

Here you say that I have some dogmatic belief that Special Relativity is fact, this I do not have. I know it is just a theory, and I know exactly what thoery means. I do not believe it is fact and I know the theory will more than likely change over the years as we get more data. To say that it did not happen and to say that it goes against the laws of physics is very ignorant and this is what I am debating you on.

9.

I have shown there is, never has been , and in all probability cannot be anything having the properties of the BB models singularity "IN THE REAL PHYSICAL WORLD".
That is what I set out to do.
You have conceded this point.

This is as much proof against singularities as saying "Dinosarus do not live now so they never could have lived."

I have stated that what you call space bending is actually gravities affects on the velocity of photons.
This is fact.

Please prove that what we see is actually how gravity affects photons and not how gravity affects space... If you do this you will recieve a nobel prize. Come on, how does a million dollars sound? I believe you are the one who has to prove that my data is wrong... And please do not just look at the picture and say that it is gravitys affect on photons... You are way too ignorant of what is going on in the picture to make that assumption. For one you do not know how fast the black hole is spinning, you do not know the wavelengths of the photons coming around the black hole, you do not know the angles that the photons are distorted... To just look at a picture and say that is gravitys effects on a photon is quite impossible without any more data. To make that assumption again shows your ignorance of the materials presented.

Please stop ranting about my lack of qualifications and start evidencing some of your statements.

It would take me hours to find the exact experiments and the exact findings of the experiments that prove time dilation and the bending of space. After I did that you would come up with some ignorant BS reason why they are wrong in 5 seconds and this would make me very angry. So until you start reading up on the material presented and get a more informed view, I will not spend the hours it takes to present the materials, I will present the scientists findings without the evidence because I believe you to be very ignorant of the math behind physics and I do not think it would do you any good.

Or are you saying that if I submitted a bunch of math equations that proved time dilation you would be able to follow them and agree with them? (because this is what it would amount to... Unless if you would disagree with the ways they collected their data which would require great knowledge of the insrunments used, which again, I do not believe you know anything about.)

Also if you can do me a favor would you actual read what I`ve written and respond to my statements instead of what you assume my statements mean.
You`ve shown a great propenstity towards this habit, it`s irritating.

Its quite irrating that I am spending time looking up all of this stuff for you and you are disregarding it saying that the scientists who have studied this stuff for years are all wrong and that you are right but then you post no experiments or findings that back up your claim.

 

[linwood]

1. You say many times that singularities are impossible in our current universe but this would be the same thing as saying "Dinosaurs could never have existed because there are no current living breathing dinosaurs."

Again, you misrepresent my words I can only conclude you are doing this purposely because you do it in every reply you make.
I did not confine my standard of evidence to a "current" singularity.
In fact I SPECIFICALLY asked ....
Please provide evidence that a singularity as defined by the popular BB model exists did exist or could exist.
Are you comparing a dinosaur to a singularity?
There is no comparison.
There is no observed evidence of a physical singularity ever existing.
There is a plethora of evidence of dinosaurs existing.
You have agreed their is no observed physical evidence of a singularity yet you still argue the point.
I have agreed a singularity exists quite easily within mathematical equations.
Math and reality are not the same.
I cannot hold a belief in something based upon revealed faith.

2. You dispute many of the scientist findings that I post by saying that they do not agree with what you found then you wonder why I want to know what your background is in physics and math.

I`ve told you my background and yet you do not confront the evidence I`ve listed you simply resort to ad hominum and appeals to authority.
Please confront the evidence.

3. You make the assumption that people to this day are referencing the H&K experiments when they talk about jet experiments and atomic clocks. Well news flash buddy, MANY people have re-done the H&K experiments with favorable results. Again, this shows a very ignorant view of the evidence for time dilation.

More appeals to authority.
Do you have a rebuttal to the critiques of H&K`s experiments I`ve posted or do you really find an appeal to faith to be a winning debate tactic?
Confront the evidence.
If you are saying H&K didn`t publish false data then support your asssertion.
I`ve supported my assertion that they did supply false data.

4. The evdience for the bending of space is quite hard to find for the simple reason that you would need a few years in college physics to understand it (well understand the math equations fully.) Would you like me to spend time finding these equations?

No because you still do not "get it" I don`t care about the math the math is dogma at this point.
I care about the real physical universe and observed phenomenon.
I`ve positted that gravitational lensing is not the bending of space but the effects of gravity upon the velocity of photons.
This should be relatively easy to rebut if I`m incorrect.
Why don`t you do so?
The best way to provide evidence for the manipulation of space would be to define the physical properties of space that a force could act upon.
Can you do this?

Again, you say that you are appealing to authority and that scientists have been wrong before... Yes this is true, scientists have been wrong before. But please show me a case where ALL scientists have agreed on something and had that been wrong.

They don`t all agree or I wouldn`t be able to provide you with the evidence that I have.

5. You stated that there is physical evdience AGAINST singularities, which is very different than saying that there is no evidence for singularities... Please give that evidnece.

I believe I have given that evidence but I`ll withdraw my statement.
For the purpose of this debate I`ll concede there is no physical evidence AGAINST a singularity.
I do this because the point is moot.
Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
You`ve already stated there is no physical evidence for the claim of a singularites existence.

8. Here you say that I have some dogmatic belief that Special Relativity is fact, this I do not have. I know it is just a theory, and I know exactly what thoery means. I do not believe it is fact and I know the theory will more than likely change over the years as we get more data. To say that it did not happen and to say that it goes against the laws of physics is very ignorant and this is what I am debating you on.

Again you twist my words.
I`ve never said Special relativity is against the laws of phyisics.
I`v stated that portions of the popular Big Bang model are not physically evidenced.