mooeypoo

rigney, you can say whatever you want about your own believe, and call it whatever makes you comfortable. Your explanations, though, don't quite fit "I don't know", though. Case in point: That's not agnosticism, that's fallacy of incredulity. You might not know a mechanism, but you know for close-to-a-fact that it exists, not just by personal belief and philosophy, but with repetitive observational evidence. That's not being agnostic at gravity. That's just not understanding how it works (which is perfectly fine, because we have evidence it exists, unlike deities) and as an extension, how science works. Your continued comparison is also a bit contradictory One of the reasons that I've been arguing that you hold the right to call yourself whatever you want in terms of belief is because belief is personal. Science isn't. You insist on making these comparisons, as if science requires the same sort of belief -- but it doesn't not because of the conclusions but because of the methodology. Here's the crux of the difference between belief and science: Science is aspiring for the objective and uses empiricism to reach it. Evidence are scrutinized on purpose. Ideas are only being accepted after they have been brutally criticized. Belief is exactly the other way arond. It's personal, it is "taboo" to criticize, it doesn't require evidence, and scrutiny is rejected. The difference is methodology, rigney, not conclusion. That said, there's another problem with your "I don't know" assertion: You seem you actually DO know, or at least have an idea. From your text, you seem to only "not know" about the final conclusion, but you START with the assumption that there likely ARE deities (or is one), and then say "but I don't know". That's not "just" agnosticism. That, as doG pointed out, is Theism. It can be Agnostic Theism, that's just fine, but you do have theistic flavour to your text here. You are not starting on a completely neutral footing and deciding you don't know. You start with an assumption there probably is a god and end with not knowing. Agnosticism exists. You don't quite seem to hold that particular stance, though, according to how you phrase your posts and your counter claims to others. ~mooey

I'll just have to take you to tour of special NYC clubs. You'll be very popular.

But it's possible that there are more options than just "theism" and "atheism", isn't it? Also, I do want to make the point that we should probably consider the "pop definition" of atheism versus what "atheism" is supposed to mean. I agree with you that it is, technically, "non theism". Hence, it's an either-or definition. There's "theism" and if you don't have that, you're an "atheist". That's all well and nice, but that's no longer the way society views this term, which is partially why groups like "Secular humanism" were born, and partially why philosophical definitions like "agnostic atheist" were made. I know we all want to go by dictionary, and that's perfectly fine, but society changes definitions. For instance, the word "Faggot" used to mean "archaic unit of measurement for bundles of sticks". No one insists that word should be used widely nowadays, though, since it took a different meaning. So does the word Atheist. It used to be "just" "non theist", but I think it doesn't quite say that anymore. Nowadays it's more "anti theist". Should it be? Probably not, but it does raise this connotation, which explains why many people stay away from it nowadays even if they *are* non-theists, and why groups are created with different terminology ("Secularists" , "Humanists" , "Agnostic Atheists", etc) to set the definition to a more "precise" meaning rather than the one society seems to make it. I personally don't like calling myself an Atheist even if I am, because when I do, people misunderstand what I *actually do* see myself as. Should this be this way? No. Do I wish everyone would read the dictionary? Yes. Do they? No. So I am a cultural jew, or an agnostic atheist, and I am a secular humanist. That describes my own personal belief system and moral cultural grounding a lot better than Atheist. My point is that I agree with your abstract concept, but I disagree on practicalities. Belief is personal, and if someone claims that "I don't know" doesn't fit atheism, and doesn't fit theism, we should consider it might be something in between, instead of insisting to recruit them to our way of viewing that term. ~mooey

doG, get off it, we're having a discussion, and you may not have liked the other people's points, but we did raise them. Answering an answer is still making a point. I'm not going to rewrite my point aiming it at rigney just to satisfy good organizational discussion. Also, lack of answer is not admission of defeat. It's just a lack of answer. "I don't know" doesn't equal "not existing". It just equals "I don'tknow." That said, I think the honest thing to do is to try and consider such claim within oneself to see if you REALLY don't know, or if you have a hint of something you suspect, or a direction. I think most people do have that, and can make some conclusions on their own even if they believe the answer is "unknowable" or "unknown". However, you can't force someone to be an "either or" when they're telling you that they're not. </answered> Do I get a cookie? ~mooey

It wasn't "explained to you", it was raised as a point. We're all still allowed to raise points in a debate, aren't we?

But doG, rigney said Meaning, "I am not sure a god/gods exist". That's about knowledge too, isn't it? I am not sure -- I don't know. I do see your point, and I agree. My definition of myself is that of a secular humanist, agnostic atheist, so I do get it. I believe the question of a God never answers anything, so it's irrelevant. So, I guess, in some meaning, I believe "we can't ever know". But in my eyes, this is the same as saying we can't ever know if there are invisible pink unicorns that don't interact with anything. So what if there are? That said, the point of agnosticism is that we don't know... and... it strikes me that this is what rigney said. If 'theists' believe in a deity, and 'atheists' do not believe in a deity, there are people that are mid-way in between, that don't know if a deity exists at all (or don't care). What would you call those? So the whole "either or" insistence is too forceful, I think. There is a middle ground. ~mooey

Actually, isn't that's where "Agnosticism" fit in?

That's why many atheists are not just 'atheists'. I am a Skeptical Humanist, for instance. Atheist by reality: I just don't believe in a deity, can't really help it without proper evidence which seem to be nonexistent. And Skeptical Humanist is my choice of cultural ethical belief system. It's not a belief system like a religion is. It's not a belief system that is rigid -- it changes and grows and adapts. But it is the closes to a 'belief system'. It encompases my way of thinking, my ethical beliefs, and my cultural connection. Atheism is just the "non belief in a deity". There *are* other things out there that give you moral structure, philosophy and culture other than religion. ~mooey

Physics explains reality quite well without the need for any sort of deity. The belief, then, becomes a personal choice. How does the existence of some deity explain reality any better than what our current scientific evidence say, exactly?

Reality is not something you can negotiate. Atheism or not, whatever way you see evidence around you is the way you will end up living. For that matter, I see no advantage whatsoever in being religious, especially when it seems many religious beliefs require quite a number of mental gymnastics to account for physical evidence. This question can go both ways.

This article was just published in PhysicsToday. I thought it is relevant to the discussion: http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i2/p47_s1?bypassSSO=1

To which people told you that your information you have is lacking and untrue, and you should compensate for that by reading the actual physics book. And this assertion was supported, according to your own admission, by another forum. The point is, questionposter, that in stead of insisting that "that's logical", just take a step back and listen to what people who actually studied this subject are telling you. You would've wasted a lot less of your time and learned a lot more if you had gone to the resources you were given. Last I check, books don't bite. You should read them again.

Are you serious? Go over the first 2 pages, multiple people took quite great care to explain to you. You were "refered to a book" when it became clear that your insistence on disagreeing with the theories that were explained is due to a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. They don't owe you anything, they took their time to explain and clarify. I think you can be a little more fair and respectful to the multiple people who took the time to answer you in the beginning of this thread, questionposter. Good to see we passed peer review.

Alright, enough. This has been going in crooked circles all the way down to thread oblivion. ! Moderator Note Thread closed.

Okay, now you're not even reading. That's quite offensive.

First, you clearly need to re-read the posts. Second, he's not the only one who points out your misunderstanding. 99% of the people in this thread tell you that, flat out. There may be a pattern here. Third, the reason you don't see quite the "solution" to your problem is because DrRocket and others referred you to external sources -- which you clearly refuse to read, check up on, or cooperate with. There's a reason people study physics for *at least* 4 years in a BSc and even then are in need of a graduate degree more often than not. These concepts are often non intuitive and difficult to master. You can't possibly expect people to teach them to you on a forum thread in two seconds. That seems to be your expectation, though, and this is what people here are disagreeing with. You make a claim that shows you have a basic misunderstanding of the material, and people ask you to check the basics before they can continue. You refuse, stop cooperating, and call anyone who disagree with you dishonest. Who's dishonest here, questionposter? Multiple professional Physicists are all telling you that you have a basic misunderstanding. You refuse to even *try* to accept even the slightest tiniest possibility that even a single one of them might have a point, and...... we're dishonest? C'mon now. You're in a science forum, not a mythos-anything-goes-ranting forum where you make your own rules and your own reality. Quite honestly, put up or shut up. It's time you either support your claims with evidence that make sense in science, or get off your horse and learn some humility. Going out to learn about concept you might have been misunderstanding should be a GOOD thing. It's progress, it's growth, it's learning. You are so stuck in firmly rejecting everyone, you will end up being alone in your misguided belief with everyone else laughing. You don't seriously think this will pass anything truly scientific anywhere in the scientific community if you can't pass a simple science forum with a few Physics PhDs, do you? Stop arguing ego, and go do some reading. that's because you're talking Physics-gibberish, and you need to learn the basics. No one here has the means and the time to teach them to you, and the book is available. Stomping your feet on the ground will not make you right. It will just make you being wrong much louder. Eh? Guilty of what? Everyone's telling you the same thing. So am I. What are we guilty of? That wasn't off topic, it was an example meant to show you how you sound. You're saying "X is wrong" without a shred of evidence, while not understanding what X means, says, or has in its favor, and then you have the audacity to claim that we need to disprove you. If this is how you think science is done, my friend, you're in the wrong place. ~mooey

He is. You're just not doing your part. Look, this is getting from "mildly disturbing" to "severely annoying". Beyond the fact that you insist on telling everyone what you think is true when it's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, you also refuse to participate in an honest discussion and actually follow up on people's points. This isn't just bad taste, this is against forum rules. Are you here to learn and participate in mutual discussion, or are you here to lecture? If it's the latter, you should find another place. Ain't working much for you. ~mooey

"Gravity is flat out wrong. There's actually an invisible unicorm dancing polka above your head and makes sure you don't float away." Prove me wrong, or I'm right. Does this seriously sound logical to you? (While you're at it, go read the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It makes a very similar point in a very "convincing" manner. Prove *it* wrong, why don't you?) You're making an assertion here. First, the assertion is something *you* need to prove, not us. Thats your job. That's not a discussion, by the way, that's the definition of how science works. Arguing about it won't change the fact that no one will ever accept your assertion just because it "can't" be proven wrong. Second, people did prove you wrong, multiple times, you just insist on not listening. I suggest you take a breath, remember that science is not about ego, and go read about the topics you insist on saying are wrong. There's nothing to lose on your part -- you're either going to see your error and fix it, or you'll be able to adjust your ideas and, at the very least, speak the same language as physicists. You basically want physicists to change theories without a shred of proof, while it's clear you misunderstand basic principles, just because you're too lazy to check the proper information behind the current theories. That's not how science works.

We're not supposed to prove you wrong, you're supposed to prove yourself right. That's how science works.

What's the alternative, questionposter? You say you don't understand it, and you were refered to a book that has the answer in it, laid out much better and in much more detail than anyone on a web forum can offer you. Instead of trying to understand where you might have a misunderstanding with the actual physics, you keep arguing against it out of personal incredulity. Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make the concept wrong. You can't expect people on a forum to explain a whole book or concept of physics in 2 seconds to make something "click". And you can't really expect people to do the work for you when the problem is you not understanding. Go read the book, research a little bit, and come back to us with specific questions if you still have a problem understanding the concept. At least then we can understand where to start explaining things. ~mooey

Which is the whole problem in this thread. You need to stop shooting from the hip, and start following the proper rules of a discussion in this forum. Please try to avoid going to the personal claims, they're irrelevant. If you think someone's done you wrong, use the report button. Other than that, I think you would do best to stop forcing your own definitions on other people, and start listening to the claims they're giving you. You won't convince anyone by repeating yourself or by ignoring points that were made, or by just guessing. ~mooey

There's no formula, it's a method. Integrals usually have a few methods you can use that will work. In this case, I'd check to see a method called "Integration by Parts" See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integration_by_parts http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntegrationbyParts.html

Did you go over integration techniques already in class? What techniques do you know? Lay them out, and we'll help you pick the right one.

So technically speaking and overall/generally, there should not be a massive difference between Astronomy grad progam (Masters or PhD) or an Astrophysics one? I can get into positions either way, or is the "Astronomy" grad program really does have this "reputation" of being "less" physics? I'm worried about that because it's a notion I've been getting from some of my professors and from readings I've been doing in forums online. It's less about the "reputation" as it is about what that reputation might do to a potential future in the field... Does this make sense? Thanks for the replies! ~mooey

Equations don't just appear in a void. They're not things that scientists just "thought of" and wrote down, and everyone else follows. Equations are derived; they are made out of something else, in a clear method, and before people can accept them the scientific community checks the method again and again in a process called "peer review". In this process, scientists literally try to "butcher" the equation - to find flaws in it, to make it fail - because if they succeed, the equation is not good enough, and if they fail, the equation is strong enough to be useful. The same has happened with the Lorentz transformation. It's not very intuitive to understand where the squared numbers came from, but there is a reason for them. You can see it clearly in a derivation of the formula. Here are a few links with derivations of the Lorentz transformation: Lorentz transformations: Einstein’s derivation simplified: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702157.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076 http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lorentztrans.html I think it might help you see how the math was properly done to reach those formulas, including the proper use (and derivation) of units and the transformation between different units. This, too, might help you see why everyone is getting confused by your unit-less numbers and the wrong conversion of units: http://oakroadsystems.com/math/convert.htm - it's a very good guide and explanation to how conversion of units is done, why, and what units are for. ~mooey