• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

DOC said:
I'm "done" talking with you unless you talk about the topic and not me personally. The evidence is in post 233. And I see you've been a member over 2 years with 34 posts.
Click to expand...
And pointing out someone's post count is on topic?
 
paximperium said:
Well keep posting. Don't let someone like DOC prevent you from contributing to a thread because he sure as hell doesn't contribute anything just volume. He "wins" an argument by pure repetition until everyone else gets bored and leave.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of discontinuing my activity by any means. I have not only enjoyed discussing many separate topics here, but there is so much education and wisdom to be shared that I have learned a great deal as well.

Oh... wait... that was the wrong response... I think what I meant to say was:

BOO! Get away from here! I'm a scary troll! I've been in the shadows for several years just waiting of someone deserving of my trollitude! Boowhahahaha!
 
To all participants - please keep to the topic of the thread and avoid the personalisations.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
My apologies to the admins for participating in taking this so far off topic... back onto the topic at hand:

DOC, I think many of us have been asking for clarification on what the "pea" theory has in connection to Atheism. What is it about that particular scientific idea that directs it into any particular group of people?

And, I would really like you to answer the question regarding the topic as asked by joobz several times, please.

Thank you.
 
DOC, we would like to get back to the topic at hand, but we cannot get back to the discussion if you do not address the questions directed towards you.

Please, there are many aspects of this theory we can discuss in regards to the question you posted, but the discussion will continue to go nowhere unless the questions asked are addressed.

Could you please clarify your view on how this theory is related to the existence of a supreme being?
 
DOC said:
Maybe later in their life when they have the time to dwell on it, it probably will baffle some like it baffled and irritated Einstein.
Click to expand...

Oh noes, the thread got Einsteined, again. :rolleyes:

What exactly was it that baffled and irritated Einstein?
 
joobz said:
Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact. What occurs is as you add heat (increase the enthalpy of the water), the kinetic energy of each individual molecule exceeds the cohesive intermolecular forces resulting in the escape of the water molecule from the liquid state to the gas state. The tendency of the escape to occur is determined by the water's fugacity.
We all can stand to learn.
Click to expand...

You're right. And I appreciate the correction.
If you turn the heat up even higher, the water molecule will break up. Of course, by then, it's a steam molecule. :)

Shows how easy it can be to use the wrong language to explain things you understand. If I'd used "H2O" instead of "water", you'd have had no leg to stand on.... :)

bokonon said:
I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant, but it's not what I said.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
are not in any way similar, Mrshadyvale. It sounds trollish to me especially coming from someone with 32 posts.
Click to expand...

I can still give you the benefit of the doubt.

If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them.
Click to expand...

Which science books have you read?
And how many recommendations would you need to check Simon Singh's book out of the library (or accept a free copy)?

Seriously,
if the first chapter doesn't get you hooked, I'll let you off for not reading the rest.
 
FireGarden said:
Seriously,
if the first chapter doesn't get you hooked, I'll let you off for not reading the rest.
Click to expand...

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
2 Billion people might say the same thing about the "Sermon on the Mount".
Click to expand...

I've read the Sermon on the Mount. And many other religious texts.

Which science books have you read? Which web articles? Which documentaries have you watched?
 
Scrutinised by whom? You DOC? Singh is popularising a theory that has more evidence than any other theory in the history of human knowledge.

It's a tremendous book and very (perhaps too much) respectful of religion.
 
RandFan said:
Not blind faith. I understand the scientific method, logic, reason, experimentation, publishing, peer review, replication and the predictive power of theory. I understand that theoretical physicists make prediction and then test them and other scientists try to tear those theories apart.
Click to expand...

My belief in QM and relativity is more along the lines of trust. I'm not convinced it's true, because I don't understand it. But I have seen plenty of evidence to convince me that the theory holds water.

In the same sense, I have faith in Newton's laws -- even though I know for a fact that they are wrong. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. And a bridge doesn't have to be indestructible for me to trust it with my weight.
 
On the OP, because the thread has become reasonably catty and I'm not really interested:

What's the alternative?

If we take as a given that the universe is expanding (which may or may not be true, but all signs point to yes; I've also read that the rate of expansion is accelerating, though how you'd measure this is beyond me), then it follows that if we track backwards through the history of time that the universe will shrink. Extrapolating from this, it follows that the totality of the universe was once in one location.

I have an extremely shoddy grasp of cosmology, but it seems that if a then b, correct?
 
DOC said:
Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.
Click to expand...

In my case, it's because they're books, so quite extensive. It's not like quoting part of an article, small quotes lose out on all the context.

Also, I'm lazy*

*Except when conducting extensive polls of what atheists think. How are you doing in that regard, Doc?
 
However, DOC brings up a point about 'cause and effect'. It seems several people here believe he is confused about this being a vital part of science, and I think it would be helpful for both DOC and other layman if this could be expanded on.

If something violates 'cause and effect', is this a miracle?
 
DOC said:
Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.
Click to expand...

If you believe the last, then call our bluff. Scrutinise the book. Tear it apart.

Here is an excerpt:
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780007162208/Big_Bang/excerpt.aspx

The first part of the chapter discusses many creation myths and explains why a scientific theory is different to such myths.

From page 9:
"Every genuine scientific theory must make a prediction about the universe that can be observed or measured."

Singh then goes on to explain how Eratosthenes measure the circumference of the Earth -- though he modernises some of the maths. Depending on whether Eratosthenes meant the Olympic stade or the Egyptian stade, he was accurate to 15% or 2% (Eratosthenes worked in Alexandria, Egypt).

After that comes the size of the moon and the sun and their distance from the Earth. Philosophers had already worked out how to measure that, they only lacked the size of the Earth. Singh explains how.

On the assumption that the sun is a long way away, the size of the Earth's shadow is much the same as the size of the Earth. From the time the first edge of the moon crosses into the Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse, to the time the opposite edge of the moon crosses into the same shadow: 50 minutes.

Time for the first edge of the moon to cross from one side of the Earth's shadow to the other: 200 minutes. This implies that the Earth is about 4 times as wide as the moon. (Assuming constant speed)

Distance to the moon?
The method is based on similar triangles.

That takes us to page 15, the first chapter ending on page 80. The diagrams will help understand.

Alternatively, use google. Or ask questions in the science forum.
 
Last edited:
Mark Felt said:
On the OP, because the thread has become reasonably catty and I'm not really interested:

What's the alternative?

If we take as a given that the universe is expanding (which may or may not be true, but all signs point to yes; I've also read that the rate of expansion is accelerating, though how you'd measure this is beyond me), then it follows that if we track backwards through the history of time that the universe will shrink. Extrapolating from this, it follows that the totality of the universe was once in one location.
Click to expand...

It used to be thought that all the matter could wizz past each other.
 
joobz said:
DOC, that's my rewording of the definitions provided in those sources.
If it is wrong, I would be happy to correct myself. Wollery is the most qualified to make that analysis.

Now, you've avoided this question of mine 3 times.
Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

and this question of mine 2 times.
how do you feel about the question:
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?
Click to expand...

Zero volume, finite mass, infinite density. (a 10SM singularity has indeed a very finite mass, for instance =)).

As for DOCs "Where do you get the definition from", well. Start by crack open a basic math book and check for singularity. Basically (and I quote from memory here so pedantic mathematicians, please don't kill me), a point where a function is not defined (1/x has a singularity at x=0).

As I recall the story being told, when Schwarzschild derived his solution to a specific case of the field equations he found that under certain conditions masses would undergo gravitational collapse, and further that under these conditions the collapse wouldn't stop and that a (mathematical) singularity formed as the volume occupied by the collapsing mass reached 0.

badly mangled from memory but the essence should be correct. If not I blame too much work, too little play, and not enough coffee... :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom