Is blind faith in science any better than blind faith in religion?

Did you even read that link? The article there basically calls your story bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The fact that you are comparing atomic clocks with digital watches just shows your ignorance on the subject. An atomic clock has about as much in common with a digital watch as a computer has with an abacus.

The real story however, is that atomic clocks in the GPS satellites in error EXACTLY as predicted in Einstein's equations for an object with their speed and distance from the Earth. Still not convinced?

When cosmic rays from space hit the air molecules in the upper atmosphere some 15-20 km above the surface of the Earth, they produce high speed Muons. Muons have been studied for years and we know that they have a lifespan of around 2.2 milliseconds. Since they are traveling near the speed of light, that means that they would only travel about 660 meters (.66 km) before they transform into something else. However, Muons are constantly blanketing the Earth at a rate of 1 cm-2 min-1 at ground level. This is impossible given their lifespan unless somehow time was slowed down for them, which is exactly what is happening since they are traveling near the speed of light.

Are you just trolling here?

What they don't say in the article is how many ice rings were found in the ice covering the plane. Scientists do not figure out the age of an ice core sample by measuring it, they count the rings because as ice accumulates, it compresses the ice crystals closer and closer together so the rings in the shallowest ice are the furthest apart while the rings in the deepest ice are closest together. Like these ice core samples below.

I don't know how Einstein's politics have anything to do with relativity. So, let's do this. Since you think that relativity is some kind of scam please tell me how an atomic bomb is able to seemingly break the 1st law of Thermodynamics by producing more energy in its explosion than is available in its chemical and potential energy. My bet is you can't do it without relativity.

 

What you have is blind faith in yourself that this pile of bullcrap you made up is somehow true; every "point" can be shown to be
vapid, and at the end, you will still believe yourself over every
study, scientist, or fact that could be brought out.

 

This is not an online story, I heard it from the woman who had the stomach pain as soon as they came back from Ukraine.

By the way, I remember that when she saw the doctor using his hands on the air over her head and face going down, her first thought was: "what the heck this man is doing?! I asked for a doctor not so for a shaman..."

After she felt her intestines making noise like crazy and the relief from pain, she ended like the rest of her group: stunned.

 

So "missing link" and "big bang" have never been uttered by scientists ?!

Good to know... for a minute there I though they were just guessing and presenting vague theory like everyone else.

 

The missing link is a very old scientific term that is not being used anymore. Scientifically its obsolete.
That's how science works. A theory is valid until someone comes along and disproves it.

The same goes for the Big Bang. We haven't been there, so we can't be 100% sure that it has happened like it is described. But the collected data supports it, and the theory will remain valid until someone has better data.

 

That is the make belief. The same relativists found out that accelerastion indeed affects the clock. Do you understands? Acceleration affects the clock.

In order to cover up their failure of acceleration affecting the imaginary time, they just accommodated the numbers to favor their theory, but the fact stays: clocks are affected by acceleration

Muons are the residual of such a collision of cosmic rays and the atoms in the atmosphere. The muoins will decay into electrons. Simple.Also the same happens with Pions, V Particles, Mesons, Kaons, etc. The chambers used show their fast decay. And what is your point after all?

About how "exactly relativity is with predictions: let me tell you for once and all, we live in an imperfect universe, nothing, read clearly, nothing repeats the same in identical way, do you understand? Look relativity prediction was so "exact" with Mercury's weird orbital obserevation, right? But relativity failed miserably with the orbit of the rest of planets. How good is a theory that works only with the orbit of one planet and fails with the orbit of the rest of planets? Where is your "exact" prediction with Jupiter, as an example? Lol.

Just answer the question, do you believe in black holes and why?

Oh, now you come with that excuse. Why such excuse weren't used before the finding of the airplane under 260 feet and hundreds of ice core layers? Just accept that such idea of one core layer per year is simple crap. Just accept it, you have no choice, seriously.

Itwas done without relativity. Einstein didn't participate, the main brain of e=mc^2. He was fired.

 

its impossible to have "blind" faith in science.

 

There is NOW evidence in genetic that two of the 24 ape chromosomes fused together in a mutation which created the first man or that missing link with only 23 chromosomes.

 

Okay, so let's get this straight. You ask me to provide you with tests that show clocks aren't affected by acceleration. You then lambaste me for providing you with such experiments. There isn't even an experiment that was being done in the paper; it was a summary of experiments that provided direct evidence of the predictions from Einstein's original paper. So, it's clear that you didn't even read the damn paper before you posted this nonsense. I see no praise of relativity, so kindly point out SPECIFICALLY a quote from the paper that you think is "praising" relativity. Let me guess, any scientific paper done that supports relativity is "praising" relativity, because obviously you could NEVER be wrong, right?

How about you read the bloody paper?

Point out specifically which section you're referring to.

Listen, jackass, you told me to provide you with the tests that dealt with clocks and acceleration. I did just that. What "opinion" do you want me to give?

What comment do you want me to give? Ask a question if you don't understand the paper, but I'm not going to sit here and pander to an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who doesn't even read the papers before calling them biased and who clearly did no research himself to look into the subject.

Except as I literally just told you, he wasn't the one that discarded the data.

The bolded just isn't true. It is true that Eddington only shot five stars at ONE site, and because of this he gave his measurement large error margins. However, there is no requirement for six stars, and I think you honestly just pulled that out of your ass.

And you chastise me for not providing commentary? At least I posted the actual bloody tests and not a pop science article to defend my claims. Oh wait, you did make a comment, what was it again?

Oh, yes, what a poignant argument. "See, here is a pop science article, therefore I am right, period!" What a doozy of a polemic! Do you think that saying "period" at the end of your sentence actually makes your argument stronger? Ah, yes, I wasn't sure about your position until you said "period", but now it's obvious you're right because you said so!

Here's the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.3907v2.pdf

And I'm familiar with Webb's work. He's made extraordinary claims and his results are at odds with other people who have replicated his work, including Chand and Rosenband. Furthermore, his significance levels are incredibly insignificant compared to his random and systemic errors. Furthermore, even if their claims are correct, it isn't evidence that c is changing since to test this c would have to be a unitless constant.

Oh, which rule is that?

Thousands upon thousands of experiments.

...You do understand that we can't see black holes, right? Your request is no different from asking me to take pictures of wind or pictures of the Universe beginning.

And once again, if you didn't want to to "copy and paste", you shouldn't have asked for me to provide you with the experiments. And, it's pretty damn hypocritical of you to chastise me for copy and pasting when that is exactly what you did with the Australian article.

 

Missing link is a misnomer by Creationists, so no, not really. As for the Big Bang, are you claiming there is no evidence for it?

 

I would say that if that nurse had any kind of supernatural power, they should have demonstrated it to the Randi Foundation and claimed the million dollars. I wonder why they haven't done that...

 

I think you're making a common mistake here regarding science as a "faith". It isn't and never has been. Every bit of science is open to falsification. That's the difference between science and religion. That includes evolution, which has withstood genuine scientific criticism since it was introduced. Religion never undergoes critical analysis. It begins with a premise and all things are supposedly proven by the premise, however that's an exercise in circular reasoning. You can't use a premise as proof of itself. And you can't use any theory as the basis for itself. All scientific findings are peer reviewed, and all theories must be falsifiable. If they aren't, it's because they are metaphysical and stand outside of natural science, like religion. Science deals with the natural world, not the metaphysical. That means that every theory must contain the possibility of being proven false. Religion doesn't share that property. All things are explained by the religion's doctrine, and since you can never prove the existence of God, it requires a suspension of disbelief.

Science is not about belief. It's always about demonstrable facts. Science applies deductive reasoning to come to it's findings. Whatever is held as accepted today, may be rejected tomorrow. You won't find that with any religion. Science is never wedded to anything. Also, Religion uses inductive reasoning, meaning that it always looks for things that will justify or support the belief rather than falsify it. It's like the guy that claims, "this proves my belief in that". Induction leads from the specific to the general. A general statement doesn't prove a theory. Deduction works the other way. It leads from the general to the specific. That is the scientific method. When science leads to a conclusion it adopts that conclusion but always conditionally. That conclusion may be disproven at sometime in the future and science is always open to that. Religion never is.

 

There's no irony here at all. The deniers of global warming or climate change are the same ideologues that denied the findings of Galileo. Those that threatened Galileo were from a religious view point. Those that deny global warming come from the same gene pool. To turn that on its head is totally absurd. The overwhelming view of the scientific community has agreed on this. Those that would deny it are those that have issues with science on every front since they view it as a threat to their ideology. The North Pole is no longer an ice cap. It's all water. There are no threats or blackmail. That's a totally ridiculous statement to make.

 

Your post says this: "Is blind faith in science any better than blind faith in religion?" You seem to be acknowledging a problem with "blind faith". Since there is no blind faith connected to a field that is always open to revision, you're left with the blind faith of religion as a problem. When was the last time that religion revised its beliefs?

 

Very well said, a very misunderstood by a lot of people. Science goes to great lengths to disprove theories. That's how we weed out false information from those things that are closer to the truth. Orthodoxy is always the enemy of knowledge.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't actually claim something as true. The do however show what things are untrue. There's a huge difference.

 

Really? Can you describe something besides the "Scientific Method" that is used by science. I'm curious as to what these other methods are. You say there are "loads". What are they?

 

I agree with your comment for the most part and we're pretty much on the same page, but I don't think the above statement is on the mark. Science doesn't attempt to prove something. It's about conjecture and refutation. It looks at theories and looks at how to disprove them. No theory is ever proven. It's like saying that "All Swans are White". That's an inductive conclusion. It takes the position that since every Swan you've seen is White, that proves that the next swan you see is going to be White which proves that all swans are white. Except that they aren't. They found black swans in Australia. That falsifies the theory. We know that it's a false assumption to think that a theory is proven. Science can never subject any theory to all the possible empirical tests that may be available to us, because we don't know what kind of knowledge we may have in the future to more effectively test the theory. So no theory is ever proven. However, a theory can be disproven. Einstein pointed out that all the tests by all the scientists that exist can never prove my theories are true. But it only takes one to disprove them.

 

Mechanisms exist in the science culture to increase one's confidence far beyond the 'blind faith' level. First, there is peer review of work before publication. Generally, this includes the free and full sharing of data sets. Second, experimental data is not considered truly reliable until independent researchers have successfully replicated the experiment and obtained corresponding results.

So, even though you and I may not be able to follow in any detail what the high-energy physicists are up to, we can see if people who can follow indeed concur, in the scientific press.

 

Has it occurred to you that these are people that have had experience with religion and found it irrational. Why would you think that they are the least equipped to criticize irrationality. Russell was one of the great logicians we've seen along with Alfred Tarski. There is nothing logical about religious belief. When asked what the basis of the belief is, one finds that the answer leads to infinite regress vs the dogma of the religion. Russell once asked a young student what supported the earth? She responded that the earth was held up by a giant elephant. He then asked what supported the Elephant, and she said a bigger elephant, and so it went...into infinite regress, one elephant standing on another. The only way out of that problem is through circular reasoning. Saying, I believe this because I believe it, using the belief as it's own justification. You can't use a theory as the basis for itself. That's circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.

If we believe that there is a basis to our religion, we are admitting that all things require a basis. But that begs the question, what is the basis for the basis as it cannot be it's own basis. That's the problem with foundationalist thinking. The foundation has no foundation. If one insists that all things require foundations, than we must accept that the foundation must rest upon another foundation. That leads to infinite regress vs the dogma, and something has to give. Either you see that problem as unsolvable and a gaping hole in the theory of the religion, and accept that the idea is flawed...or you accept the irrationality of your position, and go through life embracing irrationality.

 

Most people that rely only on science only understand said science on the surface. True scientists aren't so emotionally adamant about disproving God- they FIND God through a thorough study of science.

 

I'm quite sure that some do as you say and some do the opposite, and some do neither. Scientists are normal humans with the normal human range of opinions.

 

Actually, there are millions of missing links. Take for example, the following lineage:

Man - Ape

See, there's a hole. But then we filled that hole.

Man - Lucy - Ape

...Now there's two holes. So we filled in a little more, and now we have hundreds of holes! Because what you don't get is that every animal in the lineage is a "missing link". However, what we do have is a very, very extensive collection of fossils with clear indicators of descent, both morphological and genetic.

You just haven't looked.

Myth. The term "climate change" was used as early as 1956 and the two terms mean different, but related, things.

No, there is some circumstantial evidence, and a whole lot of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ("hide the decline" is still a rallying call for denialists, despite having been proven to be utterly meaningless for the actual science).

Citation (*)(*)(*)(*)ing needed.

Actually, if you look at the DSM definition of what constitutes a mental illness, homosexuality utterly fails to match the definition.

Translation: "I know nothing about paleontology (not even how to spell it right!), so I'm going to throw insane conjecture out there!"

Oh look, another myth. Back in the 70s, there were a few papers that stated it was likely that the earth was going to go into a cooling phase. These papers were largely based on the idea that aerosol output would remain stable - it didn't; it dropped considerably thanks to a concerted international effort to reduce pollution. So the problem wasn't even their models, it was that their predictions were contingent on an event in the future that simply did not happen. Oh, and there were still more than 6 papers predicting warming for every paper predicting cooling published in peer-reviewed journals.

It's not intended as an absolute truth. It's simply the best (and, indeed, only) way we have of reliably examining claims and evidence. But religion isn't any sort of absolute truth, because religion doesn't contain any mechanism for determining the truth value of a claim!

I have yet to see any evidence of threats and/or blackmail.

You know, 50 pages later, and this is the one response you give? Jesus christ, why did I even bother? It's not like you're ever going to respond, or like you'll ever have an answer, or like you'll ever admit to being wrong. Seriously, dude, you know nothing about science. You fundamentally fail to grasp why it is important, you have little to no understanding of the theories you would attempt to badmouth, and this whole thread is just a gigantic testament to your ignorance! Dude, come on, you can't do any better than this? Seriously?!

 

The link was given as part of support of an observed fact, that an airplane was found after 50 years in Greenland under hundreds of ice core layers., the opinions in favor or against the ways of accumulation, how to interpret them, etc. won't delete the fact: tens or hundreds of ice core layers can be accumulated in one year, and we have no control on this phenomena. The belief of a fixed one ice core layer per year is pure blind faith.

 

because nature itself is our everything (god itself).