Iggy

The placebo effect doesn't rely on being double blind. Take the argument you just gave me as an example. You discount that lying can work when it facilitates a placebo effect because sometimes the placebo effect doesn't involve lying (other times it does). If you critically examined your own point before you made it I would hope that you couldn't help but notice how flawed it is. Either you didn't notice, you thought I wouldn't notice, or you didn't care that it made no sense. I think, and I hope, that you didn't notice because you aren't willing to question your own arguments in favor of religious beliefs. I didn't lose my beliefs. I came to believe different things when I passed the age of wishful thinking and reached the age of intellectual honesty. I still have beliefs about religion -- they are just more honest and better informed.

If you created a simulated reality on a computer with artificially intelligent programs occupying it and you wanted to make yourself known to the simulated world how would you go about it? Are you saying that there is nothing you could do? You want to make yourself known to your creations, but the fact that the simulation exists is the only way you can think to do that? Or, are you saying that religion is the best God could do to make himself known -- revealing himself to a few members of an illiterate population cut off from the wider world in the form of a burning bush? If God is powerful enough to create the universe and wants to make himself known then of course he could. Those two assumptions don't match up at all with reality. --------------------------------------------------------------------- If I wanted to lie to a Judge in a court of law I might try to rationalize it to myself by saying, In drug studies, the placebo effect for example, commonly approaching 20% in some studies (and even up to 35% in others! ), is measurable and observable. The effect is often greater that the actual drug or treatment itself. The placebo effect proves that lying to patients heals them. Like Exodus 1 shows with Shiphrah and Puah... lying can be ok. Perjury in a court of law involves lying. So, is the placebo effect, and therefore lying, really wrong? Such a convoluted argument could be used to support almost anything. It's a rationalization. When I was very young, and religious, I felt guilty if I ever tried to see through my own arguments for God. I didn't realize how flimsy my own thoughts on the subject were until I allowed myself to question them. I bet that if you ever critically examined your own religious beliefs you would see how tenuous they are.

I'm not sure anyone really denies climate change -- unless you mean anthropogenic?

In January 1931 Einstein told the New York Times, "New observations by Hubble and Humanson... concerning the red-shift of light in distant nebulae make probable the assumption that the general structure of the Universe is not static" 100 years ago it was possible to conceive of methods to prove a static universe wrong. It is a testable hypothesis. Was it possible for someone living 100 or 200 years ago to conceive of a way to prove the existence of God wrong? Broken might be the wrong word, but something seems off about believing something is correct regardless of the truth. That is to say, no matter what we might learn tomorrow we will still believe God exists.

I believe the idea with science is to have theories predict observations. If the observations confirm the predictions then they support the theory that predicted them. If not, it is falsified. Redshift was predicted to follow Hubble's constant by Lemaitre's big bang model 2 years before Hubble made the observations. The cosmic microwave background was predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948 based on the big bang model (predicted to be blackbody) and not observed until 1965. The abundance of light elements was likewise predicted the '40s and subsequently observed. Since the observations were confirmed predictions they do support the model. The temperature of space that you mention didn't predict a blackbody spectrum. Eddington's Temperature of Space. It also didn't predict the radiation would be isotropic. Until and unless there is a better model that explains the observations and makes confirmed predictions of its own the big bang is the best and most supported cosmological model we have. I believe the only really scientific ways of disagreeing with it are to find a better theory or to find observations which falsify it.

part of south park's easter/passover special the other night... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxSGPEDX2lQ

Yes, Juanrga, I understand your argument. Your point is that diE is conserved in a closed system and Greiner's point is that U is not conserved in a closed system. Since your point doesn't contradict his point you're left objecting to his use of the word conserve -- it simply has to be used in relation to your quantity. Greiner is "confused" and "confounded" for describing a different quantity with that word. It isn't worth arguing. The particle count being conserved... it is a useful idealization when defining isolated, closed, and open systems. Most sources will explain the nature of the idealization explicitly. It will be quicker for me to find one than explain... Everyone knows that idealizations and useful approximations aren't pedantically true. Arguing that the people who author them are confused, rolling your eyes at them, and making little passive aggressive insults at them on that basis is bad form. I'm sure it's unfair for me to continue commenting on your argument style without an interest in debating the points you've raised so I really will step out now.

Yes, Juanrga. I know you maintain that the energy of a closed system varies. Greiner is talking about the energy of a closed system when he says, [in a closed system] the energy is no longer a conserved quantity. Rather, the actual energy of the system will fluctuate due to the energy exchange with the surroundings. He is talking about the internal energy being variable. You agree but you make this objection, Greiner isn't talking about diE. By analogy, if Greiner said "red and yellow make orange" it would be a nonsensical argument to reply "no, that is wrong, red and blue make purple! "

Juanrga, I mentioned that this was discussed previously in the thread. The point is that DH and Greiner are both most certainly correct. The energy of a closed system does change. When you say this, and this, you are objecting to a dissembled interpretation. DH and Greiner are saying that the internal energy of a closed system changes. With DH, Greiner, and Studiot alike, you've found some detail of what they've said -- misunderstood it -- and objected to the misunderstanding with a rather complicated argument. I don't undestand the relevance or usefulness of doing that. It is probably also irrelevant for me to keep pointing it out though, so I'll step out of the way.

I don't believe you have any reason to apologize, and I think someone should point out that disputing imprecise statements is the whole character of Juanrga's argument. From the blog: This is the part of Greiner's textbook being dissimulated, clearly Greiner is talking about the energy of the system... the internal energy. If there were any genuine confusion it would have been quickly cleared up by DH when he pointed it out. Like you say, Studiot, it isn't worth disputing simple, and quite possibly intentional, misunderstandings. Nobody gains anything from this.

Revisiting this, I'm not sure how I thought that answered your point. I wish I could more naturally communicate better. I should have said that one can derive, as a conclusion, that there is an invariant speed when the principle of relativity and time dilation are postulates. Since the only options possible when one assumes the principle of relativity and the isotropy of spacetime are Galilean and Lorentzian, and time dilation is only consistent with the latter, if we assume time dilation then an invariant speed is a consequence along with the Lorentz transforms and the rest of the relativistic effects. In other words, these should both work with a sort of equal admissibility, 1)principle of relativity + 2)homogeneity and isotropy of space and isotropy of time + 3)invariant speed = ---------------------- Lorentz transforms (including time dilation and length contraction) 1)principle of relativity + 2)homogeneity and isotropy of space and isotropy of time + 3)time dilation = ---------------------- Lorentz transforms (including invariant speed and length contraction) I really do have trouble communicating complicated thoughts, so I hope that makes more sense. But if he did use his clock light would still be traveling at c, right?

Information about the world consistent with the scientific method... that is to say, falsifiable information explaining reality.

I had a really cool science department in high school. In chemistry my sophomore year each class created and performed a chemistry based presentation -- like a magic show. Whichever class had the best presentation, judged by the assistant principle, won a field trip to play laser tag. Even though my class lost (we completely botched a MacGyver parody ) it was some of the work I enjoyed most in high school and got me very interested in chemistry. I think people put a lot of work into competitions, like science fair projects. Group competitions even more, and they teach social skills. Of course, funding for lab work is essential. An introduction to physics I would hope is mostly not taught at a desk.

Mad Men would make for a good tv marathon. Both seasons of Deadwood as well. I wonder what happened to Ian McShane.

Us atheists all sound the same That was me. I think iNow makes a good point in objecting to your comparison, but I would add that in free society the power of the government comes from the people. When that process is broken -- when power comes from a single unassailable source (a dictator) it is comparable to the idea that morality comes from God. In that case it is, of course, appropriate to rail against that government which Hitchens is well known for doing. You asked why he wouldn't put together his slavery argument against government in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After visiting North Korea, he did exactly that: I resent the idea that morals are a function of "race groups". Any implication that different races have different moralities should be directly confronted and hopefully by anyone who hears it. I absolutely hate Islamic fascism, and I have the utmost fondness and respect for Arabs as with any ethnic or racial group. Any confusion between the two is dangerous. [edit]... unless I've misunderstood you completely, which is always possible with me I'm afraid ...[/edit]

Since you're interested in his motivations... Had you said "God" or "a creator" rather than "anything" you would have been spot on. At 14:10 when asked "Sir, is it possible that the reason you rage so much against God is because you just want to live your own autonomous way, living any way that you want to, any lifestyle that you prefer without being accountable to your creator?" Hitch's answer is "I think that's highly probable, yes." I feel the same way. I would be perfectly happy to leave the godly alone if they could leave me alone. If they stopped trying to pass religious laws in a secular state, stopped trying to proselytize their myths, and stopped trying to terrorize people I would have nothing to say against their God. I suspect many feel that way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIyjmqUhuU Here is a similar exchange from a different radio interview expressing the same idea,

The dichotomy is not between scientists and theists. There are plenty of religious scientists. Laypeople are ordinarily perfectly capable of judging the quality of evidence as well. It isn't that they have "less demanding rules of evidence". Theists don't use rules of evidence to determine their belief. Their belief does not hinge on the probability that reported apparitions of the virgin Mary are accurate. You say "there is plenty of evidence for God" but christians would tell you that the evidence of God is faith -- something they may get from Hebrews 11:1. My point was that our culture (believers, non-believers, scientists, non-scientists alike) respect blind irrational faith in only one thing. In other aspects of life it would be widely considered frighteningly inappropriate.

I think religion in general makes people in general rather weird and quirky, but not broken necessarily. Like Freud said, it would be the difference between an illusion and a delusion. A poor girl thinking a rich handsome prince will whisk her away would be like the belief that Jesus is coming back -- an illusion. A poor woman thinking she is a rich princess would be a delusion -- a psychological problem. Only if a person's religious beliefs are a contradiction of what they know of reality would they be delusional, so a belief in God making a person broken would depend on the nature of the God. I'm personally more fascinated by the broken aspects of culture in regards to religion. This thread's most popular (+ed) post said that belief in God is the same as belief in the big bang. On a science site -- belief in an unfalsifiable theory with no evidence that explains nothing is no more assailable than belief in a falsifiable theory that does explain and is supported by all the relevant information. It must say something about our culture that religion is the only topic where that would happen -- the only issue where blind faith is venerated. Freud touched on that too, I like how Marx puts it too.. that religion is like a defense mechanism for the human condition, because people are broken. If being human weren't a short, unenlightened, weak condition that nobody survives then maybe we wouldn't need or have the "sigh of the oppressed creature" and the "heart of a heartless world".

I like the theory that Hinduism and some other religions first considered cows sacred because the mushrooms spontaneously generated in their dung are psychedelic. Priests or shamen thousands years ago first learning that cattle scat blooms with something that apparently opens the windows on the spirit world would be hard pressed not to proclaim some edict like "thou shalt revere the cow, man". Bill Hicks made it a news story, "Breaking News: Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration -- that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather." --

In the spirit of being variously understood and misunderstood, and perhaps to lighten the mood, I had to share my overwhelming sense of deja vu. The whole story is 5 or 10 minutes and worth the read.

My conclusion is that time and space have different properties.

I'm not sure what that means. Objects rotate in space-time between frames of reference. The rotation corresponds with a change in velocity. Think of a vertical world-line on a space-time diagram. If you show the same world line from a different reference frame it would be a tilted line. A rotated version of what it was before.

Yes. That is the most basic mathematical difference. There are others such as spatial distance being measured with a ruler and temporal distance being measured with a clock. If I give you 15 objects and ask you to subtract the number of oranges from the number of apples you simply have to treat oranges and apples differently. They work together (they are both things that can be grouped together into a set of 15) but they are different. The sign does not affect the orientation. Time has different properties from space.

Here is a white, then red, meteor flash, Being overcast might explain why you couldn't determine the light's source -- why it filled your field of vision. Or... if you prefer the conspiratorial, perhaps you drove through a beam of ionizing radiation.

I didn't use ... so I'm not sure what you mean by that. What you said, and what I quoted, is: The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. The metric treats space and time differently (specifically, they carry a different sign) while space and time are 'mixed' between frames. edit, In other words, "time can be observed as space by some other observer in some other FOR" can be true while "the t coordinate should be treated equally to the 3 others." is false. For example, in Minkowski space-time "time can be observed as space by some other observer in some other FOR" is true while "the t coordinate should be treated equally to the 3 others" is not true.