"Can science prove God does not exist?"

[Upchurch]

I don't follow this at all. Why would the mass be different?

Relativistic effects

 

[Leif Roar]

Except that, as has been shown on this board many times, omnipotense is internally inconsistant. The fact that the sub-table blue walrus god is omnipotent makes it inconsistant and, thus, logically impossible. There really isn't even a need to check under the table for this one.

Only if you assume that "a thing can not both be logically true and logically false at the same time" is a fundamental condition underlying both the universe and the hypothetical blue walrus. I don't see why that axiom should be a given. If there is an omnipotent entity that axiom is clearly false, but so what?

Of course, we already know about statements that are logically undefined, and thus tests the limits of that axiom. "This statement is false" and all that.

Anyway, for the discussion about Occam's razor, we can avoid the whole thing by just changing "omnipotent" to "powerful enough to mess with everybody's mind."

 

[Thanz]

Relativistic effects

I obviously don't know enough about physics to carry on this conversation, as I still don't know what you are talking about.

In my own world of high school physics, I always thought that mass was a measure of how much "stuff" an object is made of. This may be a horrible oversimplification, it may be flat out wrong. But in my high school physics world, the mass of the rocket does not change no matter who is looking at it.

 

[Upchurch]

At the same time doesn't have any meaning.

As long as the rocket's speed is constant over an interval of time, one could easily calculate trocket for a specific tplanet, thus marking a single moment for each observer to measure the mass of the rocket from each point of view.

 

[Upchurch]

In my own world of high school physics, I always thought that mass was a measure of how much "stuff" an object is made of. This may be a horrible oversimplification, it may be flat out wrong. But in my high school physics world, the mass of the rocket does not change no matter who is looking at it.

It is, in fact, different depending on who you ask.

A quick and simplified way to think about it is using the famous E = mc^2. From the planet point of view, the rocket has more energy (because it is in motion) than it does from the rocket's point of view (because the people in the rocket see themselves as standing still and the planet moving past them), right?

Since m = E/c^2, as energy increases, mass increases. Therefore, from the planet measures the rocket as having more mass than the rocket itself measures it as having.

Note: this is way simplified and I dropped the relativistic gamma to try to keep it uncomplicated. For a more technical, but brief, explination look here and here

 

[Thanz]

A quick and simplified way to think about it is using the famous E = mc^2. From the planet point of view, the rocket has more energy (because it is in motion) than it does from the rocket's point of view (because the people in the rocket see themselves as standing still and the planet moving past them), right?

I would have thought this is wrong. The people in the rocket know that the rocket is moving. The rocket is either moving or it isn't, and the calculations you present just show that one of the calculations is going to be wrong. Objectively speaking, the rocket is moving at x speed. That will determine its mass, not whether or not we see it moving. Isn't mass an objective quality of something, rather than a subjective quality of something?

 

[hammegk]

Upchurch said:
If God is there and effects the physical world, that effect is detectable.

Can anyone else see the circularity inherent in that statement?


Also, Uppie, I look forward to your discussion of the objectiveness and/or subjectiveness of "mass".

When you finish that discussion, try the same for "energy".

 

[Upchurch]

A goof-up lost my longer, more detailed (and better written) reply. Please pardon this quick redo.

I would have thought this is wrong. The people in the rocket know that the rocket is moving.

It isn't, but don't take my word for it. Look up Special Relativity online. The Twin Paradox, especially, exemplifies this.

Think of this way, have you ever been riding in the car and watched the parked cars? Doesn't it look exactly they are passing you instead? As long as there is no acceleration involved, it is as equally valid to say that the planet is passing the rocket as it is to say the rocket is passing the planet.

The rocket is either moving or it isn't, and the calculations you present just show that one of the calculations is going to be wrong.

As I've said, the rocket is moving and it isn't depending on which POV you consider. Both calculations are correct and both the person on the planet and the person on the rocket can calculate what the other would measure.

Objectively speaking, the rocket is moving at x speed. That will determine its mass, not whether or not we see it moving. Isn't mass an objective quality of something, rather than a subjective quality of something?

The mass is not subjective in the sense that it is arbitrary. There is a very definite pattern that the mass increases based on the relative speed of each observer. On the other hand, the mass is not objective in the sense that everyone will see, from their own perspective, the exact same mass as everyone else.

 

[Upchurch]

Can anyone else see the circularity inherent in that statement?

Oh, please. Back this claim. Entertain ...I mean, enlighten us.

I look forward to your discussion of the objectiveness and/or subjectiveness of "mass".

You'll find it above. Enjoy.

When you finish that discussion, try the same for "energy".

Easy, re-read the "mass" discussion and replace "mass" with "energy" (plus or minus a scalling factor correction). They are, in fact, the same thing.

edited to add:
Or are you just trolling?

 

[Flatworm]

The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false.

I stopped reading after this. Apparently the idea that a proposition can be undecidable never entered his head. Utter garbage.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

At the same time doesn't have any meaning.

Upchurch
As long as the rocket's speed is constant over an interval of time, one could easily calculate trocket for a specific tplanet, thus marking a single moment for each observer to measure the mass of the rocket from each point of view.

No, I don't have a great deal of understanding of relativity, but it seems to me you're wrong. You're projecting your now to the rocket.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I obviously don't know enough about physics to carry on this conversation, as I still don't know what you are talking about.

In my own world of high school physics, I always thought that mass was a measure of how much "stuff" an object is made of. This may be a horrible oversimplification, it may be flat out wrong. But in my high school physics world, the mass of the rocket does not change no matter who is looking at it.

This idea of mass being how much stuff there is was just a metaphysical picture of what mass meant. Mass is just a term in our mathematical equations describing reality.

 

[Pyrian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Can science prove God does not exist?"

Interesting Ian:
Such a definition could not reasonably be labelled as God. How about my definition?

Which is what?

 

[Upchurch]

No, I don't have a great deal of understanding of relativity, but it seems to me you're wrong. You're projecting your now to the rocket.

Allow me to rephrase than in a more mathematically specific and technically correct way.

For a given dtplanet, there can be calculated a dtrocket over which the mass of the rocket is measured, where dt is a differential (or period) of time. The relation of dtplanet to dtrocket can be shown by the expression:

dtplanet = dtrocket / (relativistic gamma)

Better?