Science Saturday Open Thread

 150 replies

Science Saturday now has a sponsor, yes a sponsor! 

My business partner Rory Rowland is a coaching and leadership consultant who has help managers get the most out of their employees for over two decades, and recently started a podcast to give this information for free to his listeners.

His podcast is called Coaching for Potential and the most recent episode is How to Be Heard When Your Employees Aren’t Listening. Check it out and help support the people who help keep Arrowhead Guys up and running.

When you write a science article for non-technical people, you have to choose your topics wisely. It has to be both interesting, and something that can be easily explained.

This week we’re going to tackle a topic that’s somewhat difficult, but is incredibly interesting; special relativity.

While special relativity was discovered by Albert Einstein in 1905, the idea of relativity has been a fundamental part of Physics for hundreds of years.

The idea is simple, certain measurements are only meaningful when you describe it relative to something else. Location is an example. Being 5 miles North by itself doesn’t make any sense, but being 5 miles North of Arrowhead Stadium does.

In this case “Arrowhead Stadium” is what’s called a reference point. Basically just the point from which you’re measuring from.

Our reference point.

Velocity is another measure that’s relative, although this is a bit more counterintuitive, but makes sense when you think about it. Right now I’m sitting in my office writing this and not moving. But I actually am moving, because I’m on Earth and the Earth is going around the Sun.

So it depends what your reference point is. If your reference is the Earth, I’m not moving. But if your reference is the Sun, I am.

Since velocity is relative, like location, it doesn’t make sense by itself. It only makes sense relative to something else.

Keep that in mind.

These cars are moving quickly relative to the Earth, but slowly relative to each other.

The 1800’s were a boon for Physics, at least for what’s now called classical Physics (which is refers to the ideas that existed before Einstein blew everything up). In particular the equations describing electricity and magnetism were being discovered.

But as they were discovering these equations a problem arose. They found that these equations used the speed of light as a variable (which is denoted by “c”). But according to relativity there is no “the” speed of light, it depends on your reference point (which is actually called a reference frame in special relativity).

Think about it, imagine you’re in space and there’s a particle of light (called a photon) in front of you headed away from you, and you’re following it at half the speed of light. The from your frame, the speed of light is half of what it would be for somebody else standing on the sidelines.

Top guy is standing still, bottom guy is moving at half the speed of light, photon is moving at speed of light.

An early idea was that there was an ether that filled the universe that provided a universal reference frame, but this idea had all sorts of problems.

But then Einstein came along and had an idea that’d be pretty stupid if it didn’t turn out to be right. Einstein said “What if these equations were right, and the speed of light is not relative, but the speed of everything else is?”

Think back to our two guys looking at that particle of light (a.k.a. the photon). One guy is standing still and says it’s moving away from him at 300,000 miles per second, and the other guy is also saying it’s moving away from him at 300,00 miles per second.

The second guy who’s moving is going to be 150,000 miles away from the first guy who’s standing still after one second, yet according to Einstein that photon will be 300,000 miles away from both of them at the same time.

That means that if Einstein wants the speed of light to be the same for everybody, then distances have to be relative. Two people who are moving at different speeds won’t agree on how far away stuff is from each other!

It’s crazy! It’s ridiculous! But it’s 100% correct.

But it doesn’t stop there. It turns out time is also relative. That means that if you go fast enough it’s possible to travel thousands of years into the future after just a couple years.

Brian May, the lead guitarist for Queen, has a PhD in Physics and actually wrote a song about this phenomenon.

One of the most underrated songs of all time.

You can see why the old way of thinking is called classical. This, combined with quantum mechanics (which Einstein also was a major contributor to) changed Physics forever. Everything that came before is just an approximation.

150
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
14 Comment threads
136 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
22 Comment authors
hmills110StramtoReidArrowheadRedlegal_kushWaywerdSon Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Science Saturday Open Thread – Arrowhead Guys

[…] did an entire article on this two weeks ago, so I won’t go into too much detail here. What always surprised me was […]

Science Saturday Open Thread – Arrowhead Guys

[…] Last week we talked about one of the main foundations of Modern Physics with Special Relativity. This week we’re going to talk about the other foundation, Quantum Mechanics. […]

hmills110
hmills110

Actually, special relativity is based on the ASSUMPTION that the speed of light is constant to all observers. Your use of the term “variable” is inappropriate, in pre-Einstein and post-Einstein physics.

zulu trader
zulu trader

my man mills. what took you so long to get here?

WaywerdSon
WaywerdSon

Great article! I love theoretical physics, just wish I understood even a little of the math behind it. One small error, not a huge deal but for the sake of accuracy, General and Special Relativity are both considered the last classical physics. Quantum mechanics takes over from that point forward and contradicts several key areas of classical physics, but experimentally, both systems are 100% real and proven to the extent we can prove things. Gravity is the big mystery left to solve and when they finally figure out how it works at the quantum level, that will probably be the end of relativity as a usable physical model of the universe

hmills110
hmills110

By definition, relativity is not classical physics. Think of it as Riemannian extension (curved space-time, but still smooth), with quantum mechanics being the next step, where the universe isn’t smooth or even continuous, but arrives in discrete quanta.

I’m still somewhat skeptical of quantum mechanics. It’s useful, but I think a lot of it is just a mathematical consequence of resorting to statistical models, when deterministic models can’t be applied to things too small to “see.” For instance, the bell curve is a mathematical model that seems to fit populations, GENERALLY, and is good for making generalizations and predictions, but just because a 300-mile-tall elephant is theoretically possible under the exp(-x^2) (bell curve), I guarantee you’ll never find one.

sydenham
sydenham

I just read this article from Tony therefore according to Leaf as he wrote below at 3:33PM I am an “us”. In fact I reread the article twice so Tony must have been really taking to me. In all seriousness, this article demands a post-structuralist critique, even further a full-on deconstruction. “Keep in mind” (para. 9) Tony asked us to “think about it” (para. 6 and again in para. 12). But if we “think back” (para. 15) to “the old way of thinking” (final paragraph) it becomes evident that there is an “ether” (para. 13) permeating this article. Tony himself defines this ether as “from”: “the point from which you’re measuring from” (para. 5). This from is counterintuitive: “from your frame” (para. 12) is half the speed of light from the sidelines (paraphrasing the remainder of para. 12). From up here in the bleachers the only conclusion to be drawn is that Tony has served us up a ripe piece of fromage.

pompano
pompano

can’t argue that.

sydenham
sydenham

Oh, I’m sure there’s a way if you really think about it. But I do enjoy Tony’s Science Saturday articles because they bring me out of my comfort zone and educate me.

hmills110
hmills110

Writing by laymen for laymen. What could go wrong?

MasterChief
MasterChief

A good example of velocity being relative is how we feel stationary sitting here reading AG. But we’re being flung around the globe at 1000 mph due to the Earth’s spin. Then travelling at 70,000 mph around the sun, that’s traveling 450,000 mph around the galaxy, etc.

If the Earth stopped spinning instantly, it would be very bad.

pompano
pompano

I don’t feel tardy.

ArrowheadRed
ArrowheadRed

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Want GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

zulu trader
zulu trader

Man it’s a slow Saturday — So, what does GOD and the Bible say about light?

the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.”

I’m thinking The Bible is saying that light is GOD, or GOD is light. So, what do you have to say about that?

does that mean that everything is relative to GOD?

Tarkus

“Let there be…” or something like that.

pompano
pompano

The correct answer is

Leaf
Leaf

comment image

upamtn

that’s only if one believes that whatever is in “the bible” is true … the issue is that “the bible” is subjective, not objective … it’s wide open to interpretation (and indeed, is rife with contradictions) … science, on the other hand, is testable and based on observations and measurements, not opinion

the very concept of “GOD” is based on a set of beliefs, not on science, and as such has no place in a true “scientific discussion” (IOW no frame of reference)

zulu trader
zulu trader

when did AG become a sight for true scientific discussion?!?!

LMAO

pompano
pompano

Tuesdays and Saturdays
CSN has decreed.

hmills110
hmills110

Yes. Science is silent on the existence and nature of God. Science only applies to theories for which experiments can be constructed to falsify (if false) . Existence of God is both unprovable AND unfalsifiable, and therefore beyond the realm of science.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

If we believe that the bible is correct AND god is light, and god is eternal…. then light is eternal. Therefore, god did not bring light into existence. And therefore the bible is incorrect when it says that god created light (let there be light). And if the bible is incorrect, then god doesn’t exist (the only evidence we have is the books that claim it’s true).

Conclusion: If the bible is correct, then god doesn’t exist because the bible is incorrect. AND If the bible is incorrect, then god doesn’t exist because the bible says he/she does.

zulu trader
zulu trader

oh bullshit

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Seems like pretty sound logic to me that ‘maybe god is light’ is highly unlikely.
god cannot be light, and be eternal unless light is eternal.
Since we already know that light came into being during the big bang….we know that light is not eternal.
so if god is light, god is not eternal. If god is not eternal, then he/she no longer fits the biblical description of god….. and cannot be the god of the bible.
Unless, of course, god is not light.

zulu trader
zulu trader

your talkin’ bout halogens — I’m talkin bout’ candlelight.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

then you are not talking about a light that everything is relative to….. which was your whole premise.

zulu trader
zulu trader

premise, shemise, GOD is light, the Bible tells me so — so there

pompano
pompano

The Bible does say a lot of things.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Hobbit’s have hairy feet and enjoy second breakfast and pipe weed.
The Lord of the Rings tells me so—-so it must be true.

zulu trader
zulu trader

maybe it is

Leaf
Leaf

comment image

Sudden
Sudden

Extraordinary pilpul.

Ephesians 4:6

“One God and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”

God is light because God is everything and everything in creation is an extension of the Creator Himself

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

comment image?w=474&ssl=1

We live on a flat earth covered by a crystal dome, that never moves. Space above is full of water, and the domes separates the waters of space from the waters of the earth. The sun and the moon are inside the dome. And the stars in the sky can, and have, and will (revelation) fall to land on the surface of the earth.

If you want quote the bible and pretend it’s true… I can quote the bible and show that it’s wrong about a whole lot of things.

Of course, in order to prove that everything in creation is an extension of the god…first you would need to show that god exists, second you would need to show that god created anything, yet alone everything. The use of the word “creation” itself is simply a way for religion to smuggle a creator into the argument. I would not call it ‘creation’. Things came into existence as some point. I don’t know that anything was created’

zulu trader
zulu trader

Amen and hallelujah.

Sudden
Sudden

Yes, the waters of space in the form of ice (because it’s cold AF) are separated from the waters of Earth by something called the atmosphere.

Spreading out the skies, kinda like how they universe is continually expanding from the big bang as hypothesized by one of those dumb Catholic priests so beneath your infinite skeptical wisdom? Also you must’ve missed that day where they covered similes in third grade.

When our sun (also a star) goes supernova and consumes the planet, or when we get blasted by a gamma ray burst or some other assorted star-borne disaster, maybe we can consider that a star falling to the Earth?

And ya it was pretty cool of God to set us on a 23 degree axial tilt and orbiting our star in the Goldilocks zone so that we could have seasons, wide biodiversity, and a habitable planet capable of sustaining organic life?

Come to think of it, it’s fucking nuts when you think about how much detailed astronomical knowledge is contained in documents written by people without the modern technological process that we’ve managed to create with the rationality we’ve been endowed by the Grace of God.

But I think the fedora of cutting off the blood flow to your head.
comment image?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Got it: Reinterpret any verse that doesn’t fit your narrative, but swear the absolute truth of the verses that fit the narrative you want to believe.

As to the 23 degree tilt and orbital pattern etc …. that’s just right back to the water in the pot hole.
Life, as we know it, evolved to fit the environment that it’s in. The environment was not ‘created’ specifically to support the life that would exist 4 billion years down the road.

A pot hole fills with water in the rain. The water becomes sentient and thinks to itself that the pot hole, the road, the planet, nay…the universe have all been amazingly designed so that the water in the pot hole can exist in the exact size and shape that it now inhabits.

It is through an insane level of ego and self importance that mankind has come to the conclusion that the universe was ‘created’ in such ‘impossible complexity’ that an intelligent and sentient being must have planned it all out. If you toss out the faulty premise that all of the multi-verse has led up to ‘us’ on purpose…. then the universe just is what it is. It was not ‘created’ for us. We have just adapted to what is.

Sudden
Sudden

I’m not exactly Christian in any meaningful or traditional sense. I’m maybe a bit too ecumenical to fit into any particular religious affiliation. I don’t think the world revolves around humanity or was created to be bestowed upon us. I don’t think so human life has intrinsic value simply for being human life. I don’t think the Bible is the divine word of God. I think it’s written by humans and susceptible to human frailty and, dare I say, our fallen nature.

There’s much I don’t know but I think it the most pernicious and arrogant form of human-centric narcissism to suggest that science disproves something higher, something immaterial, some substance beyond substance. But hey you go ahead and believe what you will, that’s fine. The world is a crazy place and we all have our ways of trying to make sense of it how we can.

But once you start shitting on someone else’s mechanism for making sense of the great unknown, well, then you’re just being a dick. And if you’re gonna be a dick, I’ll treat you like one

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

I disagree completely with your entire assessment.

I’m obviously not christian. I’m also not an anti-theist. I do not state that there are no gods. I am a simple atheist. I will believe it when I see evidence for it. The bible and also the koran are 2 of the the most despicable, inhumane, morally bankrupt books ever written. They were absolutely written by men, and are flawed in many many ways.

Every time we learn something that disagrees with the bible, fundamentalist bible believers find a new way to re-interpret one ore more passages in a different way….to justify continued belief in what they want to believe.

I’ve never suggested that science has disproved the existence of a god. I will however point out that science and logic have certainly shown that some definitions of god are, in fact, impossible.

It’s not ‘belief’ that I find destructive or offensive. It’s what people do while they falsely justify a belief based on something that can be shown to be false. Creationists that raise ignorant children while denying evolution and pretending young earth creation is fact (for one instance). Praying (alone) for a sick child that could actually be helped or cured by applying medical science. Teaching the idea of a flat earth, supported by their religious beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary. These people are having a negative effect (hurting) everyone around them, as well as themselves.

Pointing out obvious flaws in someone’s beliefs, to force them to confront the contradictions, is not “shitting on someone’s mechanism.” It doesn’t make me, or anyone else a dick. I do not stoop to personal attacks. I don’t (for instance) suggest that someone’s fedora is on too tight… and then change the tone of the personal insult to whatever generation applies…. I discuss and attack ideas, not people.

The only one here that hasn’t been capable of discussing ideas without being a dick (stooping to personal attacks) so far is you.

Sudden
Sudden

I’ll pray for you bro

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

It’s your time to waste. Do with it as you will.

hmills110
hmills110

I think you totally misunderstand the benighted state in which humans led mostly dirty, brutal and short lives, before these words were written. For multitudes, those words were a path to a better (if imperfect) understanding of the world and better (if imperfect) ways of managing ourselves.

You seem intent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would assert that Magna Carta was a HUGE step forward for our understanding of the proper role and scope of government. Just because it was a bunch of rich bastards fighting with King John doesn’t make it any less of a milestone in human liberty and the idea that the government is ANSWERABLE to the people.

The Bible seems all Bronze-Age or Medieval, because it was a product of its times. As such, it represented a major step forward for humanity, and continues to provide some ageless wisdom unless your a postmodernist denier of anything that’s not 100% social-justice warrior.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

The sun and moon are not inside the atmosphere.

The sky is inside the atmosphere, and doesn’t spread infinitely.

Light was created before the stars, which ins’t supported by…..anything….

The bible specifically separates the sun from the stars in the creation myths, but the sun is a star. And the bible uses the plural “stars” of heaven” not a single star. Further the bible also describes the throne of god sitting atop the firmament (a throne of sapphire stone)

I’ve never worn, or owned a fedora at any point in my life. And I’m not a millennial. I was born in the early 70’s.

Sudden
Sudden

I must be missing where in any of the quoted scripture or my response to your shitty edgelord Google image result it says the sun and the moon are within the atmosphere

And for fucks sake why are you obsessing over the “firmament”? Firmament just refers to the heavens or pretty much the whole universe and most translations outside KJV refer to it as the expanse but I’m not sure even that captures whatever the original Greek was referencing. My reference to the atmosphere wasn’t claiming that to be the firmament it was starting that sure enough, the atmosphere does separate the Earth from the heavens.

Cool, so you’re a gen X nihilist. Congratulations. You’re so much better than those codgy old boomers or needy millennials by virtue of your birth year.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”
(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV)

This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are “in” the firmament. Therefore, applying the rules of grammar and logic, those waters that are “above the firmament” must therefore be above the Sun, Moon and Stars. In other words, those particular waters are ABOVE the visible cosmos. For some this is a hard pill to swallow, but that is exactly what the Bible is saying.

Sudden
Sudden

Well, I don’t reckon any of us have ever seen beyond the firmament so who knows, maybe there’s a big beautiful waterfall. Or an entire other universe, teeming with water and fire and life and everything else you can imagine. I don’t really know if it’s there or not. And neither do you because by definition it is beyond our perception. So cool, maybe I’m a flat universer. Or maybe I reject the very notion of our dimensionally constrained perceptions bring capable of interpreting the very nature of realities beyond our reach

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

I agree, who knows?
There certainly isn’t even a tiny shred of evidence to support it.
So, I’m not going to hinge my world view on something with zero evidence or support.

zulu trader
zulu trader

Holmes — it’s called faith

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11: 1. Faith is the connecting power into the spiritual realm, which links us with God and makes Him become a tangible reality to the sense perceptions of a person. Faith is the basic ingredient to begin a relationship with God.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Faith is belief without evidence.
Essentially the same definition as gullibility

zulu trader
zulu trader

correctta-mundo. you get the prize.

faith;
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

gullible;
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

I, my friend, am not gullible. I was once more skeptical than you. there was nothing easy about it.

zulu trader
zulu trader

we are,essentially, discussing the Bible. I initially started this thread with a quote from the Bible. I will go out on a limb and guess that this is a book that you have never read cover to cover, yet you engage as if you are an expert on its contents and its context. You sure are expending A LOT OF ENERGY to dis’ something you don’t know shit about

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

That limb you’re going out on doesn’t exist.

I was once a christian. I spent a very short time in seminary, and then secular college taking every course on religion I could find. Religions of the world and what they believe, historical origins of religion, and specifically the origins of the bible and the koran. The subjects were fascinating. The judaeo-christian religions are the most interesting to me, although I did also spend researching hinduism and buddhism (theravada and mahayana) as well.

I’ve read the bible cover to cover a few times, and in pieces and parts more times than ive bothered to count. Hell, I was an alter boy in a catholic church for awhile in youth.

In short, … Nope, you’re wrong.

While I would not consider myself an ‘expert’ on the bible or religion, I’m far from the average ignorant christian that actually haven’t ever read the book.

zulu trader
zulu trader

that’s because it is not scientific, We’re talking about the spiritual realm. You keep wanting to apply logic and scientific process to something that is spiritual. Free your mind, brother. You are obviously looking for GOD. He is right here, in your heart. All you have to do is open your heart and soul — not your intellect

zulu trader
zulu trader

say you were an alter boy in the Catholic church? I call the Catholic church Iglesia de diablo, or church of the Devil. No wonder you are all fucked up in the head

zulu trader
zulu trader

It’s Sunday. I recommend a good Bible-oriented Church. Church of Christ is a non-nomination Church. They have no headquarters (Like Catholics, Protestants, Baptist and many others) and their service is the same in every Church. The worship service is based on the writings and description of worship services in the Bible, and the copy of 1st century Churches.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Given the significant amount of research I have done on the bible, suggesting the bible as a basis for belief in an unsupported idea is not very compelling to me. I know a lot about, when, where, how, and by who that book was put together.

I also know that the Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and many others ALSO believe that their worship is based in the bible. The difference is just in how each group (and thousands of other groups) CHOOSE (yes, its a choice) to interpret the exact same book.

Getting closer and closer to how uneducated peoples of the 1st century worshiped, based on their uneducated world view, has the opposite effect of convincing me that the interpretation of the bible they supported is true, or useful.

Although, I will say, a church that does not use money, power and the fear of it’s believers to force their view on others by trying to influence law and education of the masses does less harm to the world. Teaching their doctrine of the world as fact, without evidence…is still damaging to everyone involved, especially the children of it’s members that have the truth of the world hidden from them, while they are indoctrinated into yet another form of unsupported assertions.

zulu trader
zulu trader

I guess you don’t understand the difference between the spiritual realm and the logical scientific realm. You keep wanting to apply logic to a spiritual realm. You are so hell bent on displaying your hurt AND PAIN of living without a close personal relationship with GOD, that you can’t see beyond the forest. The Catholic church fucked you all up. I suggest you give up your intellect and logic and try again. Try to tune into that heavenly spirit. Going to Church and reading the Bible with an open mind and in faith, might re-align your spirit and bring you closer to the GOD that you so want in your life. Good luck and GOD bless you.

zulu trader
zulu trader

interchange the word “church” with synagogue or temple or mosque or teepee,etc. interchange Bible with Koran or Black Sea Scrolls or any other writings (Buddha, or any of those others — take your pick)

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

I guess you don’t understand that I don’t believe there is such a thing as a spiritual realm. There is NO evidence that god, spirits, daemons, devils, souls, ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns, pixies, elves, dwarves, dragons, etc… are real things that exist anywhere except in the imagination. They all have an exactly equal amount of evidence to support them. If I were irrational enough to believe in ONE of them, then I would have to believe in ALL of them.

From my perspective, everything you are saying is imaginary nonsense.

I suggest you give up on asserting that fantasy and myth are real things, and trying to live your life by the words of the most immoral and evil book ever written, because it’s just one of hundreds of myths that have been believed all across this world.

Also, I feel no hurt or pain from not having an imaginary relationship with an non-existent entity. In addition, the Catholic church didn’t do anything to me. I wasn’t abused. I didn’t suffer any mental or physical trauma. I just don’t see any good reason to believe what it teaches.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Does a god or do gods exist? – would be my first question, for which I would require testable evidence.

What is the specific definition of the god your church believes in? – would be my second question.

What evidence can be produced to suggest that your definition of that god is a or the correct one?- would be my third question.

Even if you were able to answer and sufficiently support your answers for those 3 questions…. that still leaves another question…

Is the god to which you subscribe worthy of worship?

If you believe in a god that supports slavery, genocide, eternal punishment for finite crime, sexism on the biblical level, punishing one person for the “crimes” of another (original sin), etc….. I would admit that I believe your god exists, because you have provided sufficient evidence, but I still would not worship that god, because that god is evil incarnate.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Define spiritual realm, define spiritual, define god, and define soul….
If we have compelling evidence that those things exist, I’ll gladly accept that they do, in fact, exist…and adjust my world view accordingly.

However, if we cannot produce compelling testable evidence that they do exist then all a ‘believer’ is doing is asserting they exist, defining them however they choose to define them (usually differently than anyone else defines them), and claiming that their unsupported definition of an unsupported assertion is correct…while someone else’s assertions and definitions are wrong.

An assertion, with no evidence, is completely useless. It cannot be (by definition) a pathway to truth. And if what I ‘believe with no evidence’ cannot be shown to be true I have no reason to continue believing it. If what you believe with no evidence (aka ‘on faith’) cannot be shown to be true, I have no reason or desire to adopt your beliefs. Although, I may want to research them to see if I can find any reason beyond your assertion to believe.

If, in that research, I find that your definition of god, spirit, soul, or spiritual realm is an impossibility… I do have reason to disbelieve it.

Which mind is not free, the one that seeks truth or the one that ignores all truth and evidence so that it can cling to the belief system of ancient, ignorant, illiterate people with zero testable evidence to back it up?

My mind IS free. It is the believer that has wrapped themselves head to toe in a security blanket that blinds the very senses that could discover truth.

Sudden
Sudden

This.

So much this.

I too walked in the world of doubt and hostility. The funny thing is now I’m more skeptical than ever, just that my skepticism is about our own pretentions of knowledge as humans.

As an aside, I’ve met many others who like me arrived here later in life through some observations or experiences. I sometimes dislike the zeal of the convert. And I don’t consider myself a convert. Ironically enough I do like the Islamic concept of the revert (my ecumenicalism is showing). I don’t consider myself a convert but a revert because I’m reverting to the beliefs and practices that my ancestors followed for over 1500 years. There was a wisdom they gained from that that brought about the world they built for me to inherit. It was prayer and contemplation in the churches that my ancestors worshipped in a thousand years ago that brought me to that revelation.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

faith does not necessarily refer to faith in a god.
I could have faith in my mothers words, or in humanity to do the right thing.
I could have faith in a devil or deamon as well.

Faith, is belief without evidence.
and to be gullible is to be easily persuaded (as in, with little to no evidence)

ArrowheadRed
ArrowheadRed

And for anyone stuck on a literal interpretation of the Creation story, the sun moon and stars aren’t created the first day. How can you have days with no sun?

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

A literal interpretation of the biblical creation story can be shown to be wrong almost every step of the way. (Even if we assume that each ‘day’ lasted 2 billion years’)

It’s simply wrong, and can be shown to be wrong.
Hell, if were talking about biblical creation myths, Genesis 1 doesn’t even tell the same creation story as Genesis 2. It disagrees with itself.

zulu trader
zulu trader

Texas, you’re just too smart and logical for me. I give.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

I’m picking up quite a bit of facetiousness, in that statement…but I could be wrong about that. It is text after all.. and I have no option but to read it in the voice that my mind creates. (Much the way a believer chooses to read their holy book) The bottom line is that I am a skeptic. I accept things based on evidence of the truth of them. If there is not sufficient evidence to convince me, I’m not going to believe them. You may have some personal experience that qualifies as sufficient evidence for you, but your personal experience cannot ever be evidence for me. If you believe, based on some personal experience…more power to you. Believe whatever you want to believe. However, the argument that FIRST I have to accept and live my life by some religion BEFORE I will ever see any evidence is an impossibility to me. If you tell me you have a pet dragon at home, I’m not going to believe you without evidence. No matter how many times you tell me about the majesty of your dragon, I’m not going to believe you without the evidence. That doesn’t make me smarter than you. It just means I disagree with you. I assume you are a wonderful person, with the best of intentions. I would be happy to call you a friend, or go out and have beers with you on the weekend. We could sit on the patio and watch the game on the big screen and root for the Chiefs together. Just because we don’t agree on the point of faith doesn’t mean I hold any animosity towards you. In fact, if you truly believe what you say you believe, and you DIDN’T try to convince me that it was true, I might be offended. The fact that you attempt to convince me just goes to show me that you care about the ‘soul’ that you think I have within me. Now, I don’t believe that it exists, but I don’t fault you for trying to save it when you do… Read more »

zulu trader
zulu trader

we would never have beers and watch a Chiefs game together — you don’t have GOD in your life

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

and that, in a nutshell, is the kind of poisoning of the mind that religion produces.

zulu trader
zulu trader

and to think of all the great people with religion who did great things over the centuries had poisoned minds this whole time

zulu trader
zulu trader

I was once a christian. I spent a very short time in seminary, and then secular college taking every course on religion I could find. Religions of the world and what they believe, historical origins of religion, and specifically the origins of the bible and the koran. The subjects were fascinating. The judaeo-christian religions are the most interesting to me, although I did also spend researching hinduism and buddhism (theravada and mahayana) as well.

If this isn’t a cry out for a relationship with GOD, I don’t know what is

zulu trader
zulu trader

I’ve read the bible cover to cover a few times, and in pieces and parts more times than ive bothered to count. Hell, I was an alter boy in a catholic church for awhile in youth.

whoa! Listen to yourself. I feel soooooo sorry for you. The pain must be deep seated. I am soooooo sorry. GOD bless you

zulu trader
zulu trader

and yes you sensed right, I was being facetious. only thing you got right in three days

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

All that is required is for you to produce any testable evidence for any of the multitude of assertions that you have made thus far.

There is a god.
There is a spirit.
There is a soul.
The christian god is the only god.
The christian god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and/or eternal.
The christian god ‘created’ everything.
There is a separate realm of only the spiritual, where logic does not apply.
The bible is the word of some god, or inspired by a god.
The bible is true.

Assertion after assertion after assertion…with zero evidence that any of these things are true. It’s almost like religion is just making up shit as it goes along, changing the story when it finds out things are wrong, and ignoring the parts of the story it doesn’t agree with.

You have not shown that you are right about ANYTHING, and logic disagrees with most of what you have asserted.

And then, when someone disagrees… you don’t provide any evidence.. instead you change the subject and make untrue and unsubstantiated claims (Catholicism has somehow damaged me; I must be in pain of the separation of god; and all other such nonsense)

You begin with a book of myths, follow it with dozens of assertions without evidence, and then justify your lack of evidence by claiming that someone that disagrees with you MUST disagree because they don’t have a relationship with the delusion you claim exists.

There are older religions than the Judaeo- Christians ones. Every form of argument you have presented can be presented right back to you about some other god or gods. And you have no way to know which religion, if any, are true.

You have chosen to believe whatever myth you have chosen to believe, based on indoctrination and gullibility..and have built walls of ignorance and hate around you to shield you from truth.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

So we’ve established that you don’t know a cry out for a relationship of a non-existent being it.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

It is possible to compartmentalize beliefs (at least for most people, maybe not for you).
There are scientists that are christians.
They just compartmentalize their religions beliefs, and separate them from their research. They do not apply skeptical thinking to their own religion, and they do not apply their religious beliefs to their research.

The poisoning of the mind I refer to is the religious person that judges other people based on weather they believe what you believe.
ie:
If you don’t believe what I believe, you must be evil and to be avoided.

If you don’t believe what I believe, you are a heathen and therefore can be enslaved without guilt (You know, like how the christain god tells the jews to take their slaves from the heathens around them, and that those slaves are the property of the jews and can be handed down as property).

If you don’t believe what I believe what I believe, I’m justified in murdering you if it will help further the spread of the one true religion (terrorist actions).

The list of this kind of mind poisoning goes on and on and on. If you’d like to see a few hundred examples of it…..just read the bible, and pay close attention to the words and 613 commandments of god.

There are good things in the bible. There are true things in the bible. But, overall, it is a mythical book of fables with the most evil and immoral character ever conceived….and the book calls that character god.

Most christians don’t actually believe the majority of the stuff in that book. They pick and choose to follow and believe those things that fit their morality, and toss the rest of the book (and religion) out as if it doesn’t exist.

The true evil that comes from that book are the ‘believers’ that try to ‘interpret, the most vile parts to justify them in their own mind.

You are better than the god in your book of myth. We all are. It’s just a shame you don’t believe it yourself.

hmills110
hmills110

Nor do you know for a fact that it isn’t the creation of some God of some sort. Nor do I. The only people operating on faith are the religious types and their atheist opposites. A pure scientist is agnostic.

zulu trader
zulu trader

can one be fanatically agnostic? Would he be some sort of terrorist?

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

Fanatically without knowledge?
Interesting concept.
I guess anyone could be a terrorist, depending on how you define terrorist. A terrorist you agree with is often called a freedom fighter, while the one you do not agree with is called a terrorist. (in the common vernacular)

But would someone that fanatically holds that they have no knowledge (separate from belief) of the existence of a supreme being be likely to resort to terrorism through an ideology of non-knowledge? I wouldn’t think that ideology would lead to violent acts.

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

I guess that I just don’t agree with your definition of Theistic/Atheistic.

Theism goes to belief. It is a scale from Theistic (belief that some god/gods exist) ………. Atheistic ( without belief that a god/gods exist)……….Anti-Theistic (Belief that no god/gods exist)

Gnostic/Agnostic go to knowledge: A Gnostic claims the knowledge of the existence (not belief, knowledge)…… an Agnostic does not claim the knowledge that a god/gods exist.

They are 2 different scales, answering 2 different questions. Agnostic is NOT the middle ground between theism and atheism. Atheism is the middle ground between Theism and Anti-theism.

A religion would ask you to hold an ACTIVE belief in god. An Atheist does not hold an active belief. An Anti-theist hold an ACTIVE belief that there are not gods.

I don’t KNOW there is a god. So I am agnostic.
I don’t BELIEVE there is a god because I have not seen any evidence of one. So, I am an atheist.
I don’t BELIEVE there are NO gods, because I have not seen any evidence for that proposition either. So, I am NOT an Anti-theist.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. If you claim a god exists….show the evidence.
If you claim NO gods exist…..show the evidence.

Until someone can do that, I don’t believe either one. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe.

A pure scientist is an Atheist. They don’t take a position until there is evidence for a position. They test various hypothesis to find evidence for one position or another.

And as far as I know, we’re ALL Agnostic. You can be an Agnostic Theist.
But since most religions ask their followers to believe on faith (without any evidence) … they cannot, by definition KNOW that a god exists. They can only believe it without evidence.

zulu trader
zulu trader

yeah, that’s what I was trying to say

StramtoReid
StramtoReid

Your logic is what’s wrong with religion, the religious believers believe that if they admit any part of the Bible isn’t true, people will believe there is no God. One day I would like Tony to write about things Science can’t figure out.

pompano
pompano

I believe sociolgy and psychology are sciences, but it’s true they haven’t got this bit “figured out”,
…yet.

hmills110
hmills110

In the “Let there be light” you see that God existed before there was light. Big doctrinal debates over “Creator” versus “Creature.” Folks were pretty upset about including Son and Holy Ghost in a trinity with the Creator, because both were creations of the creator, and therefore “creatures” rather than Creator. As with mathematics, all such discussions are no better than the assumptions that comprise their starting point.

To this point, Einstein asserted that the mathematics is certain, but its relationship to reality is always an open question. We can be “sure” of the math, because we know exactly what assumptions it’s built on. Whether or not those are reasonable assumptions (axioms) is something very few are aware of as existing as an open question and even fewer actually question.

zulu trader
zulu trader

you the man, hmills — but I’ve always said that

pompano
pompano

If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?

zulu trader
zulu trader

When you write a science article for non-technical people, you have to choose your topics wisely. It has to be both interesting, and something that can be easily explained.

Leaf
Leaf

It was his “nice” way of calling us stupid.

pompano
pompano

Who you callin’ “us”…

Leaf
Leaf

Everyone the other tony was taking to. So if you read the article, you’re an “us”

pompano
pompano

anus…. he he

Leaf
Leaf

comment image

zulu trader
zulu trader

he and anus in the same sentence is gay

Leaf
Leaf

comment image

pompano
pompano

Not always.

slackator
slackator

It was an arrogant way of saying youre stupid and I are very smart

Leaf
Leaf

comment image

vvet818
vvet818

Potential topic: multi-speed of light travel or folded space travel?

comment image

upamtn

meh … as far as anyone knows (currently) there’s only one “speed of light” … not sure about folded space, though space IS warped near large objects due to gravitational lensing

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

So, theoretically, if you could produce some sort of incredibly dense artificial point of gravity, space would warp around that gravity. That could allow you to ‘fold’ space and jump from one point to the other.

pompano
pompano

Joe Haldeman had a cool take on FTL. A bit in Foever War about a “jump” I still remember

Texas Chief
Texas Chief

If course, everything else would also warp around that point, so you would disrupt planetary orbits, universal orbits, etc…. The entire multiverse could be forever disrupted by even the temporary creation of a super massive gravitational point.

Leaf
Leaf

comment image

ArrowheadRed
ArrowheadRed
Severely Concussed
Severely Concussed

Your level of Science Saturday is above my comprehension. I will have to go back a few levels.

comment image

CHIEFSandSABRES

This show still comes on Saturday mornings.

tecmo_sb35
tecmo_sb35

Fun fact, Mahomes never throws full strength to honor the speed of light as we know it.

CHIEFSandSABRES

If Tyreek Hill is running at the speed of light, and Mahomes throws faster than the speed of light, do we even really see the ball in flight?

upamtn

sorry, but not even Mahomes can throw a ball faster than the speed of light … the kid’s good, but he ain’t THAT good

Straybrit
Straybrit

Or, more interestingly, if he does throw at an appreciable fraction of ‘c’ the time dilation means his hand will still be throwing the ball when Hill catches it.

Replacement neurons available over there ———————–>

Sudden
Sudden

Fun fact: Mahomes’ worst season is the second best statistical passing season of all time

CHIEFSandSABRES

This post is really cool. I had no clue about any of this, so thanks for helping me expand my knowledge a little more on this Saturday!