Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 10 Apr 2010 08:43 On Apr 10, 8:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:81f44361-9ada-403e-b5be-ce3d7e1ff035(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 10, 7:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:ed7380f7-2880-4eef-baff-a5b781717b67(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 10, 6:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:6415b4c3-f1d4-4a20-87bf-54c2a2b4f31b(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 09:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:a5efd3b8-2a31-4935-828b-234bb8569461(a)w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:44, "Peter Webb" > >> >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:da85279f-24ef-481b-93d0-287ce74db45d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 04:49, "Peter Webb" > >> >> >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> I have some sympathy for your problem. I have no sympathy for > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> fact > >> >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> instead of trying to understand how the Universe actually > >> >> >> >> >> works, > >> >> >> >> >> your > >> >> >> >> >> position is that SR is wrong and/or Inertial, PD and I am > >> >> >> >> >> wrong > >> >> >> >> >> because > >> >> >> >> >> we > >> >> >> >> >> agree with SR and SR is wrong. > > >> >> >> >> > I do wish you'd stop framing the issue as "you're either with > >> >> >> >> > us > >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> > against us". There is obviously some validity to SR - and I've > >> >> >> >> > said > >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> > a million times. For us to argue about what explanation > >> >> >> >> > underlies > >> >> >> >> > SR, > >> >> >> >> > or how to interpret it, is not to say SR is "wrong". > > >> >> >> >> But you do say SR is wrong, all the time, because you argue with > >> >> >> >> its > >> >> >> >> predictions. > > >> >> >> >> Lets see, for the record, whether you believe SR is wrong. > > >> >> >> >> Here are two specific predictions of SR. Tell me if you think > >> >> >> >> they > >> >> >> >> are > >> >> >> >> correct: > > >> >> >> >> 1. Two twins - one travels to a start 1 light year away at 0.9c, > >> >> >> >> turns > >> >> >> >> around and returns at 0.9c. The travelling twin ages less than > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> stay > >> >> >> >> at > >> >> >> >> home because of relativistic time dilation. True of False? > > >> >> >> > True, because there is a "real" slowdown of the astronaut twin.. > > >> >> >> If by 'slow down' you mean 'aged less' as per the question asked.. > > >> >> >> Why do you have to continually introduce other terms like '"real" > >> >> >> slowdown'? > > >> >> > In order to distinguish from the speeding and slowing that are the > >> >> > result of "optical illusions", > > >> >> Which YOU brought into the discussion on the pair of clocks example.. > >> >> Why > >> >> even mention them if you don't want to be confused by them? Next > >> >> thing > >> >> you'll be asking about the rate at which an observer hears the clock > >> >> ticking. > > >> > There are *formally* real and imaginary components > >> > which the theory manages nicely. > > >> Now you're using the mathematical notions of 'real' and 'imaginary'. > >> We've > >> bene having enough trouble with STE using the term' real' for other > >> things > >> already .. you'll just confuse him more > > >> > But if they > >> > are managed wrong, a hijacker can pick his > >> > inertial frame such that bullets don't work > >> > aginst him. The extra rigour was demonstrated > >> > relevant by Noether and Hilbert. > > >> He can pick being at rest in a frame in which he is moving away from the > >> gun > >> at the same speed that the bullet leaves the gun :) > > > Has he volunteered to put on a hijacker costume > > and try it in the sights of a real air marshal? :-)) > > > I have doubts because he correctly described > > the motion of a penny dropped on the runway > > and a penny dropped inside the aeroplane. > > >> >> It would help if you focused on the actual SR effects before getting > >> >> into > >> >> the 'visual' illusions / artefacts. (note that they apply to EMR in > >> >> general > >> >> and any signal sent at the speed of light). > > >> > What *effects* are you referring to? > > >> > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > >> > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > >> > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > >> > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > >> > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > >> > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > >> > an imaginary magnitude > > >> > sqrt(-1) > > >> > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > >> > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > >> > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > >> > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > >> > the three space co-ordinates. >> > >> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > >> > Sue... > > >> The effects of relative motion of frames of reference on the measured > >> lengths and durations and only clock synchronization. > > > Oh The false effects of adding the speeds of > > light-bullets? > > No. No light bullets invovled > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory > > We're not discussing that, we're discussing SR. That is one of SRs best supporting experiments and it appears in words and maths in both 1905 and 1920. Even if you are using modern derivation it appears in the Lorentz transformation. You read that only yesterday so I hope PD is not sharing his medicine with you. :-) > > > There are no *effects* in modern treatment. > > Yes .. there are. You being ignorant of them doesn't change that. > > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > > same in all inertial frames. >> > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > True but irrelevant to the point being discussed. > > >> BTW: You links will do even less good than usual, as STE refuses to > >> consider > >> anything mathematical. Minkowski geometry will be WAY beyond what he can > >> cope with. > > > He seems to understand the problem with emitter > > theory > > No .. he doesn't. He's not even mentioned it in my discussions with him. It is not difficult to follow if you can ignore Henri and Androcles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > > because He wants to work with sound waves. > > That is half the battle. I think the other half > > may be a few "teachers" reluctant to turn loose > > of the Lorentz ether that supports their favourite > > parlour-tricks. ;-) > > First you incorrectly claim I'm talking emitter theory, and then incorrectly > imply that I am using an ether. I'm doing neither. If you say c+v or c-v then you are talking emitter theory. When you move the erroneous result to an imaginary axis then you are talking SR 1920. (Mindowski) > > > Anyway... Ya cant extrapolate from sound to > > EM and ya cant extrapolate from particle > > accelerators to poles and barns > > (absent four-vector calculus). > > > The absurdities that some seem hell bent to > > demonstrate are not going to motivate that > > sort of intense study. Ste is quite good > > at spotting contradictions so rigour rules > > in my book. > > He's not found any yet. Then simply show him how to express his agreement with fewer posts. :-)) Sue...
From: Sue... on 10 Apr 2010 09:34 On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative > >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points at the > >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are > >> >> > synchronised. > > >> >> It changes > > >> > Will you quantify this change? > > >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. > > > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. > > >> You also say you > >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here > > > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, > > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc." > > or something of that kind. > > I already said all that > > > > >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as ticking > >> >> slower. > >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the > >> >> relatively > >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the > >> >> direction > >> >> of > >> >> the relative motion. > > >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation delays. > > >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", that > >> > caused me confusion. > > >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on what > >> is > >> actually going on. > > > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical illusion. > > No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then > optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion in > the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc > > > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer > > here? > > You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them > > >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, > > >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about additonal > >> optical illusions. > > > No, > > Yes .. you were. ================= > > > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not > > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are > > "illusions". > > And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same that i > already described in detail before In view of Noether's work with GR and the *process* we agreed was valid for marking time You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane might fly relative to another aeroplane on some course that would weaken an air marshal's bullet. That would violate PoR. The statement also also seems inconsistent with Einstein's formal statement. http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html I know the practice is frowned on in many schools but may I suggest you study material before teaching it. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation Sue... > > >> > based on > >> > the relative speed between the clocks? (and not based on the direction > >> > of relative movement?) > > >> Yes. I've already said that. > > > So what is the extent of the slowing, and on what variables does it > > depend? (We can speak in quantitative terms on this point.) > > It depends on the speed. The greater the speed, the larger the effect (see > the gamma factor). That affects the measured clock ticking rate and the > measure length of a moving object. There is also the effect on > simultaneity. > > Its all given by the Lorentz transforms.
From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:21 On Apr 9, 5:46 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 9, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 5:01 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 2:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a > > > > > > > > > > measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of another > > > > > > > > > > measurement. > > > > > > > > > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is > > > > > > > > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at > > > > > > > > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical difference of > > > > > > > > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > > > > > > > > But that is not what happens. > > > > > > > > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > > > > > > > > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > > > > > > > > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > > > > > > > > 45 kmh west. > > > > > > > > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > > > > > > > > car. > > > > > > > > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > > > > > > > > velocities is a LIE. > > > > > > > > << The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC > > > > > > > are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles > > > > > > > typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light > > > > > > > in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass > > > > > > > energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV > > > > > > > (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >> > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider > > > > > > > Yes, and the energy adds. The velocities don't. You DO know the > > > > > > difference, don't you? > > > > > > No, I suppose not. > > > > > > Wouldn't a calculation from the relative velocities > > > > > demonstrate your point better than an insult? > > > > > > Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, > > > > > sentiment, or distrust of established fact. > > > >http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > > > > A couple of your fellow Lorentz ether theorists > > > > > seem to be having the same problem so perhaps > > > > > it is worth looking into. > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > That's fine. > > > > > For starters, your quote above is incorrect and needs to be updated.. > > > > See your own wiki link for the correction. The energy is 100 GeV per > > > > *nucleon*, not per *nucleus*. > > > > Thank you. I just flagged it for update. > > > > > A gold nucleus has an atomic mass of 196.96655 amu, and an amu is > > > > 931.494028 MeV. > > > > So the gold nucleus rest energy is 183.473165 GeV. > > > > Therefore a gold nucleus with energy 100 GeV/nucleon corresponds a > > > > relativistic gamma factor of 107.354. > > > > From this, the speed of the nucleon can be calculated from beta^2 = 1 > > > > - 1/gamma^2, from which we find that beta = 0.999957, in agreement > > > > with the number that's in the wiki article. > > > > > For two particles closing each at beta in the lab, the relative > > > > velocity is given by > > > > beta_rel = 2beta/(1+beta^2) = 99.999999906% of c. > > > > That corrects for *our* observation, not > > > the particle's observation. > > > No, that's not correct. The *relative* velocity is the velocity of one > > particle as seen by the other. This is not the velocities of the > > particles as seen in the lab, which has already been pointed out is > > 99.9957% of c. > > > > Colliers would be no better than single > > > beams otherwise. > > > Relative velocity is not the figure of merit, and not the reason to > > build colliders vs fixed target machines. Center of mass energy is. > > And I showed you how to do that calculation, and I also gave you a > > reference that shows you the formulas you should use, including > > applications in both cases. Please read them. Note that in a fixed > > target experiment, one of the p's (say, p2) is zero, and so the vector > > sum of the momentum is not zero, and so the center of mass energy is > > reduced, compared to a collider experiment where |p1+p2| = 0. > > > > > The center of mass energy squared is given by the relation > > > > (E1+E2)^2 - |p1+p2|^2, where the first sum is a scalar sum and the > > > > second is the scalar magnitude of a vector sum. Here, since p2 = -p1, > > > > the vector sum trivially adds to zero, and so leaves only the first > > > > term, which is (100 GeV + 100 GeV)^2 = (200 GeV)^2. Hence the center > > > > of mass energy is 200 GeV, while the relative velocity between the two > > > > is 99.999999906% of c. > > > > That is calculated, not measured. > > ================ > > > No, it is measured. It is measured by virtue of the fact that the > > measured cross sections and decay distributions are identical in cases > > where the relative velocity of the particles in a collider environment > > is identical to the relative velocity of the particles in a different > > fixed target environment. Relativistic kinematics has been > > experimentally tested and confirmed through *measurement*. It is not > > just hypothetical stuff. > > <<Results 1 - 10 of about 170 for > "measured cross sections" "decay distributions" > velocity.>> (c) Google Can't find what I suggested? Too reliant on your dim abilities to do a web search? > > The B.S. meter is getting into the red zone and > you are doing a miserable job of selling > a collider to the tax payers. Is it because > you would rather sell them a time-machine? > > <<Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. > Instead of bothering to consult reference works > or investigating directly, its advocates simply > spout bogus "facts" where needed >>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > Sue... > > > > > > I hear the > > > Alpine mountaineer that volunteer to ride > > > the ion with a police radar had to cancel due > > > to illness in his dairy. > > > > > All of these calculational formulas are found in public archives, > > > > which you should take care to bookmark, read, and learn how to use, > > > > since it is plain that you don't know what you're doing when you look > > > > at a wiki article and incorrectly quote it, let alone derive incorrect > > > > conclusions from it. If you need help, let me point you to > > http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-kinematics.pdf > > > > > > > > Oh! The nukeular-option. Jackson. > > > That is not from Jackson, though it borrows from it. It is a > > compendium compiled by the PDG group. It is standard relativistic > > kinematics. If you want another source that gives a second opinion > > about relativistic kinematics, I'm happy to suggest a number of books. > > The one by Don Perkins is a good start, as is the one by Ferbel and > > Das. > > > > I don't argue much with him. > > > > Still the collision formula from a lab frame > > > doesn't help parlour tricks like pole and barn > > > > Replace the CW ion with a pole. Replace the CCW > > > ion with a barn and they get the same gamma. > > > > If they were not seen to fit at rest. > > > They will not be seen to fit in the > > > RHIC or LHC lab frame. > > Sue... > > > > > > Sue... > >
From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:22 On Apr 9, 6:26 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Apr, 22:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:31 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But that is not what happens. > > > > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > > > > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > > > > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > > > > 45 kmh west. > > > > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > > > > car. > > > > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > > > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > > > > velocities is a LIE. > > > > i would expect the combined speed to be a real 45kmh, yes, although > > > it's quite possible that none of them will any longer agree on the > > > definition of "hour" or "kilometer". > > > Oh, no, they agree on the definition of hour and kilometer, alright. > > Something that is measured locally to be a km will still be measured > > locally to be a km. And a standard process that locally takes an hr > > will still locally take an hour. > > Indeed, the question is whether their respective measures of "an hour" > are truly identical. Yes, they are, as they both respect the NIST standard for time. Would you care to check that out? > After all, if I slow the clock down by half, but > also work half as fast, then something that previously took "an hour" > still takes "an hour" by the new, slower, definition of "an hour".
From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:24
On Apr 9, 6:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Apr, 22:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:37 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 9 Apr, 16:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > It ought to be of scientific interest that there are lots of things > > > > > > that cannot be verified by experiment but inferred from other > > > > > > measurements? No, I don't think so. > > > > > > But I do think so. It's a bit like how I infer the moon exists even > > > > > when I'm not observing it, even though by definition I can't be sure > > > > > what is happening when I'm not observing. > > > > > But there ARE ways of confirming the moon's presence, even when you're > > > > not observing the moon. For example, you could predict what would > > > > happen to the orbits of other celestial bodies if the moon disappeared > > > > when you were not looking at it. > > > > But then you are drawing inferences without direct observation. Which > > > is precisely what I said we should do, and *must* do. > > > No, I'm making a direct test on a direct and distinguishing > > implication of a hypothesis. That is, the trajectories of other bodies > > would be measurably *different* under the hypothesis that the moon > > disappeared between direct observations, compared to what they would > > be under the hypothesis that the moon did not disappear. This > > measurable *difference* is what constitutes the test between the > > hypotheses. > > But it isn't a difference. I just said that, if the rest of your > existing theory about the heavens is also wrong, then the moon could > disappear despite there being no effect on the trajectories of other > planets. > > Of course, this is an entirely contrived scenario, but the point I'm > making is that almost any meaningful "measurement" involves > presupposing some theoretical framework. The test you devised above > rests on presupposing a correct model of the heavens (and gravity) in > general. And of course, if we continue to ask what evidence each > theory rests upon, then eventually you either come back round in a > circle (because the theories are interlocked on the assumption of each > other's truth), or you get down to more basic assumptions that lack > any test of their truth. Often the final justification is simply that > the body of theory "works" - which of course can once have been said > even for since-discredited theories. > > Which is not to say all this is a bad thing, but it is a death blow > for anyone who claims that they rely entirely on measurement, and not > loose inferences or fundamental axioms. > > > > > Then when you did look again and saw > > > > that the moon had at least reappeared, you could test the hypothesis > > > > that it had disappeared in between. > > > > There is always the option of saying that the heavens don't work in > > > the way we thought they did, and so the moon *did* in fact disappear, > > > but we weren't measuring any of the variables that would have been > > > affected by its absence. > > > Which is similar to the notion that the Earth is really 6600 years old > > as indicated in the Bible, but God has arranged things to *fool* us > > into thinking that it is really 4.3 billion years old. > > Indeed, it is a very similar argument. And one that cannot be > logically refuted, except by disqualifying it as an explanation that > invokes the supernatural. > > > There is always > > this loose, hand-waving out: "Maybe we only *think* there are laws of > > physics, but there aren't laws at all and we're just given the > > appearance that there are," or "I choose to believe that the laws that > > you've deduced are all wrong, and that there are some other laws that > > are at work instead. I haven't got the foggiest idea what they are, > > but they surely will be easier for me to accept than the ones you've > > found so far." > > Indeed. If the odds of history are anything to go by, it is always > best to bet against the truth of any current scientific theory. Thanks, this tells me just about everything I need to know. > > > > > > > > > That would apply to angels and demons. No, thank you. > > > > > > As I've said before, I think science would do better to simply assert > > > > > it's naturalistic ideology, rather than pretending that the > > > > > demarcation between science and religion lies in the method. > > > > > There are those that believe that angels are real and therefore > > > > natural creatures, under the presumption that anything that is real in > > > > the universe is also natural. So you'd have to be a little clearer > > > > about that which belongs to "naturalistic ideology" and that which > > > > does not. > > > > As I've said, there is ultimately no way to exclude religious concepts > > > with science, except by excluding them a priori. > > > In which case, there is no distinction WHATSOEVER in your mind between > > science and religion, or for that matter any belief system including > > morals, customs, common opinions, fads and fancies. That is because > > there is no such thing as "naturalistic ideology" other than a > > completely subjective and capricious assignment on an item by item > > basis: "This is natural. This, too, is natural. This, however, is not, > > and neither is that over there." And in fact, you can make no > > distinction whatsoever between the study of the natural universe and > > head-scratching over whether a round belly on a woman is to be > > considered beautiful. Since you can make no defensible distinction > > between these two, or in fact, any two contentions of any variety > > whatsoever, I'm curious why you have an interest in science, other > > than as another example of mental diddling. > > I'm interested in science because I'm interested in the natural world, Which "natural world" is only demarcated by your arbitrary and capricious labels. > and how things work, and I'm reasonably certain that there is an > understandable explanation. However, as I've said, I think it is > pointless to try and demarcate science from religion. |