God vs Science: Who Wins?

This isn't a proper division between science and religion.

Neither of the two have anything at all to say about the other.

Religion and science dont have similar root assumptions, don't have the same logic or methodology, don't have the same definition of evidence, don't attempt to answer the same questions, etc.

One can see this dramatically displayed in decision making. Throughout the entire world we have the same physics. And, we have the same rules for determining what is false. Religion has nothing remotely similar, with thousands or perhaps millions of religions and even then with irresolvable differences within the most concretely defined. There just isn't a way to make decisions.

Surely if there is a question where science and religion don't agree it is only because the question is improperly understood.

 

I strongly doubt that you have the religious type of faith in the efficay of a vaccine for COVID.

And, for the very reasons you state.

In religion, people bet their everlasting lives. NOBODY has that kind of faith in vaccines that EXIST, let alone those that don't.

 

yes atheists lay their bets on there is no God, theists bet there is, nothing new here.

You failed to produce any distinction such as faith v faith, how much faith or the reason you have it it entirely irrelevant , why do you continue to sling that same **** around out here?

 

You totally ignored what I said.

What I was pointing out is that there are very diffrent levels of faith.

YOU said you have faith in vaccines for COVID.

I said that's not the religious type of faith.

You demonstrated that there ARE vastly different definitions of the word.

 

Yes different levels meaning the amount of faith, big faith little faith, lots and lots of faith its all faith, its what I said way back in the begining, glad to see you agree. (now)

Faith applies the very same way to everything, which is why you have FAILED and continue to FAIL to make a distinction between FAITH v FAITH itself

​

 

OK, so you agree that faith in science is not the same as religious faith in god.

Faith in science is significatly limited compared to faith in god. And, faith in any scientific result is accepted as being fully falsifiable due to continued testing - dramatically different than religious faith in an everlasting god.

That was my whole point.

 

So, you obviously don’t believe space curves.... on what basis? Well there were a lot of people at the beginning of the last century that didn’t buy Einstein's math either, what changed? Why did he become the science rock star of the 20th century? What happened? Why are his theories still considered among the greatest discoveries of the 20th century?

 

LOL
Very simple, space is all around you, take 2 pliers one in each hand and post a pic of the 'space' after you bent it.

Einees cypherin fails for 'anything' faster than the speed of light.

 

FALSE your strawman, SSDD with you.
Consider having someone explain it to you.

 

I don’t have a large enough mass to warp the space I am in sufficient enough to be visually detected. Object as massive as stars do. That is an observable, measurable fact. But you have not educated yourself to understand Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity nor the event he predicted would show the evidence of his theory, something Arthur Eddington proved in his expedition to Africa in 1919. If you want to educate yourself, you can watch the following special done last year on the centennial of Eddington proving Einstein's precise prediction.

And, you haven’t seen how that effect has been used to explore distant stars and galaxies with the light lending effect.
https://astronomy.com/news/2019/10/gravitational-lensing-in-xrays
Prove Einstein wrong and win a Nobel prize. I wish you luck.
BTW, without Einstein’s Theories, the GPS in your phone wouldn’t be possible.

 

What? you need a gargantuan mass?
Prove einee wrong? what kind of bullshit is that? prove him right! Define space! What warpable material is space made of? Did einee grow wings and fly out there to find out? What exactly is space made of that you think it can be warped?
or or or is that just all in your imagination because someone merely gave you a representative model of field interactions?
I never said einee did not come up with answers using his math, that is your strawman. I said space cannot warp.
I said anyone that takes his model as physical reality is braindead, since you cannot warp 'space' because there is nothing to warp in space! Space has no remarkable physical characteristics that are warpable but do tell us what this composition of space is that you think warps! lol

I can warp space and I need very little to no mass to do it



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-electric-charges-and-m/

So you got anything more than einee weenie 'said so' and since his model works therefore its 'physical reality'?

Thats right up there with the slowing of time stupidity because people do not understand the physical characteristics of what they are dealing with.

If I can remember the guy ron something who busted that cookie wide open while working with syncing the gps I will post it.

I havent made up my mind which time is the coolest I like logarithmic but tractrix-time has a way kooler curve!

 

Oh yeh, Im a sponge for education when someone has something to teach me.

The great physicist was not the first to equate forms of mass to energy, nor did he definitively prove the relationship​

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/


BTW neither did einee weenie 'invent' special relativity which he admitted, for that we can look to Lorentz and Poincaré's work.

so feel free to educate me to your lil ole hearts content.

 

Uh-huh. A sponge., eh? It’s obvious you didn’t watch the video which would have shown aspects of how the Theory of Special relativity evolved. most scientific discoveries are not spontaneous products, but built on a long line of thinking, discoveries, and even failures of previous investigators; the video would illustrate that. But, you focused on trying to find error in Einstien’s reputation rather than the discussion, the warping of space.

I find it humorous you refer to the Scientific American article, accepting it as fact to fit a narrative you are attempting to piece together, rather than asking how the Theories that a good deal of modern physics are based on were evolved and why most scientists find ToSR and the, huge number of evidential observations, experiments, verified predictions and proofs compelling.

That Even Einstein’s E=MC2 popularized simplified formula was the product of not only of his extension of previous thinking regarding the relationship between energy and matter and of the deeper investigations after his 1905 paper, is well know to those that have studied the history of development in physics understanding, something written about extensively in such books as E=MC2: a Biography of the World’s Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis. Furthermore, that formula is a popularized over simplification for the masses.
For an easier explanation,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-einsteins-most-famous-equation/#31ed38bc71c0
And even, the youtube video below, which you will probably discount after adding the title to your narrative.

But back to the warping of space predicted by Special Relativity there is not only Arthur Eddington's famous 1919 confirmation of SR’s prediction, but over a century of experiments and observation that have continued to confirm the predictions as well.
A layperson’s explanation can be seen here...


As for educating you... only you can do that, all anyone can do is point you to the beginning strands, which from there will point to others, often with other foundations of knowledge that offer independent confirmation. And, since you, rejected a century of experimentation, observation, independent confirmations regarding Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity based on the article you shared to attempt to discredit the man, why not explore the history of scientific inquiry that converged to impact Einstein's thinking and his subsequent work.
There are a lot of unanswered questions in physics, for instance, while we can measure and understand the effects of gravity, we still don’t know exactly what gravity is and what causes it. This is a Nobel Prize waiting.
Want to fuel your anti science bias more, query using Google or YouTube, for Time Dilation. SR makes interesting predictions, again there exist many confirming observations and experiments over the past century. SR predicts, mass not only distorts space, but time as well; it’s a proven fact... find out why.
But, of course, you can continue to suggest what you do; it’s certainly your right, but would your God want you to not explore and attempt to understand his amazing creation? Was that his (or her) plan?

 

I find it humorous that you dismiss out of hand and go so far as to create a strawman argument to refute the FACTS when given to you.

Oh? Yes now SR has special psychic abilities and they looked into their SR ctystal ball and there was, maximillion warpage!

You have no evidence what so ever that space physically warps, only your cute little model, so puhlease already.

Why would I get a NP? Its clear they picked their insider since they didnt offer shared credit to poincare or lorentz, get serious.

Oh wow thats really a tough one!
https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~mav/p200/lttips.html



time does not dilate you cant build a decent clock that is capable of keeping accurate when in motion due to external sources.


General relativity says: that the orbiting clocks should tick about 45 millionths of a second faster than they would on Earth. The net effect is that the time on a satellite clock advances by about 38 microseconds per day. https://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Special Relativity predicts: that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Honk honk honk! Seems we have a leak in the space-time-continuum buck rogers!

 

Ron Hatch passed away on September 25, 2019, while serving his fifth term as a member of the National Space-Based PNT Advisory Board.

Ron Hatch was an expert in the use of GPS for precision farming, as well as other high precision applications. He became a private consultant after retiring from John Deere, where he was formerly the Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and a Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., a John Deere company. NavCom provides a commercially operated differential GPS augmentation service to the agriculture industry and other high accuracy users.

Throughout his more than 50 year career in satellite navigation systems with Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and companies such as Boeing and Magnavox, Hatch was noted for his innovative algorithm design for Satellite Navigation Systems. He consulted for a number of companies and government agencies developing dual-frequency carrier-phase algorithms for landing aircraft, multipath mitigation techniques, carrier phase measurements for real time differential navigation at the centimeter level, algorithms and specifications for Local Area Augmentation System, high-performance GPS and communication receivers, and Kinematic DGPS. In addition to the Hatch-Filter Technique, Hatch obtained numerous patents and wrote many technical papers involving innovative techniques for navigation and surveying using the TRANSIT and GPS navigation satellites. He also authored "Escape From Einstein" and published multiple papers in which he challenged current relativity theory.

In 1994, Hatch received the Johannes Kepler Award from the Institute of Navigation (ION) for sustained and significant contributions to satellite navigation. In 2000 he received the Thomas L. Thurlow Award and was elected a Fellow of the ION. He also served the ION as both the Chair of the Satellite Division and as President.



The GPS system along with other experimental evidence is used to refute the equivalence principle. The paper is divided into three major parts followed at the end by a short section which deals with a look at some as yet unexplained experimental data. The first major section looks at the equivalence principle in the light of "falling" electromagnetic radiation. In this first section the equivalence principle is defined and the arguments of Einstein, Feynman and Clifford Will are presented. Each of the arguments is refuted and the GPS evidence plays a significant role in that refutation. The section is closed with a strange quote from the "GPS Bible" regarding the equivalence principle. This quote is followed by a transitional argument to the next section using two clocks, fore and aft, in an accelerating rocket. The second major section deals with the relationship of the equivalence principle to infinitesimal Lorentz Transformations (ILTs). Goldstein, Meisner Thorne and Wheeler, Muller, and Ashby and Spilker are quoted in support of ILTs. Goy provides a valid alternative to the ILTs. The difference between ILTs and the "clock hypothesis" of Goy is explored. Evidence from multiple sources (including GPS) is cited in support of the clock hypothesis. This evidence contradicts ILTs. The section is closed with the suggestion for a fairly simple experiment which could remove any doubt as to the validity (or lack thereof) of the ILTs.

​

I remembered, the guys name is ron hatch.

 

I'm not a big fan of the idea that people can be blamed for their beliefs, but these links may be relevant to this thread:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52157824
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...e-caused-coronavirus-infections-a4403826.html

 

sad story, thanks.