/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3537007
I think I just said that.

>>3537010
Dunno. I've done about the best I can. Maybe try wiki?

>>3537006
>Inform them, but don't push it down their throats. Those aforementioned friends of mine, while in strict opposition to certain facets of the atheist culture, do agree on certain parts. Let people decide; don't force it into their fucking brains. The more you enforce it, the more they'll oppose. Why can't you understand that?

I'm sorry that there's no polite way to say "Good sir. Have you considered the possibly that you've spent your entire life on a falsehood?".

You exaggerate how bad atheists are. We're not the ones claiming the other side is the devil, and that they're going to burn in hell, etc. etc. The other side is intelligent. Some are ignorant. Some are merely brainwashed as children. Some are in a trap where they can't dare risk coming out lest social ostracization.

>>3537001
As he said, they're the source of laws against early term abortion, against stem cell research, against a proper science education which teaches that your mind is an algorithmic material process.

>>3536993
When the Earth and the Sun go around their shared center of mass, they are in free fall. A body in orbit is in free fall. There are no forces acting on it.

>>3536984
In GR, gravity is not a constant nor force. Instead, the worldline, the line in 4d that represents your future "at rest", your worldline, happens to intersect with the chair's worldline and the Earth's worldline. Gravity warps spacetime so that worldlines are no longer Euclidean.

This is also the model of how gravity affects light, which has no (rest) mass. Light follows a straight line. Gravity bends space time so that two parallel straight lines can actually intersect, aka be not Euclidean.

>>3536981
Err, typo. I hope that they will try to prove that I am /wrong/ about beliefs which I cherish.

>>3536968
>I really don't comprehend why some of you specific atheists attempt to constantly change the views of others, or push this notion upon others. Even as an atheist, I don't push my views upon other individuals, nor do I attempt to preach some scientific "gospel" to them. It's their right to search, to acquire the necessary research and to ask questions; it is not, however, your right to push this shit down their throats.

These people vote. They sometimes vote for what I consider to be malicious and evil policies because of their false beliefs. If only I could convince them of material facts, then they would agree with me that certain policies are in fact evil.

In other words, I am a citizen of a democratic republic, whose entire functioning relies upon an informed populace, which itself largely relies upon the marketplace of ideas of freedom of speech. It does them no good to let them wallow in a falsehood. I hope that they will show the same consideration for me and attempt to prove that I am right about the most cherished beliefs which I hold.

>>3536966
As I say again, in the model of GR, gravity is not a force. You feel .. something .. in the chair because the chair is pushing against you. If you held an accelerometer in your hand, it would tell you that you are accelerating upwards at roughly 10 m / s^2.

>>3536952
I don't know what you're saying.

Also, this is basic GR. You are at rest in and only in free fall. Sitting in a chair is not free fall.

>>3536948
>this abstraction is confusing. why did einstein create this model?
In some sense, he didn't "create" it. One might say that this all was already known. Lorentz transforms and such. Einstein was the first to look at the equations and say "You know, what if these were actually legit in the logical extremes, like this space-time nonsense?". Thus GR.

Alternatively? Why did he do it? Because it's the simplest way he know how to formalize the model and accurately describe the real world.

>>3536945
No. If you're sitting in a chair, then you are not at rest in an inertial frame. You are accelerating (upwards). Only in free fall are you at rest (in an inertial frame).

>>3536931
Why do you think that you're accelerating when you're falling? Because it looks like everything else is staying still. According to the model of GR, actually everything is accelerating upwards, while you falling are actually at rest in an inertial frame.

>>3536920
You're not accelerating when you're falling. Everything else is accelerating up. No really. That's how one describes it in the model of General Relativity.

>>3536904
In General Relativity, "at rest" means at rest in an inertial frame. If you are accelerating, then you are not at rest. Gravity is not a force in this model; it is a bending of space time. When you "fall" towards the Earth, you are "at rest". When you are sitting in the chair, you have a force exerted on you by the chair accelerating you at about 10 m / s^2 upward.

>>3536887
That's assuming that the other person is arguing in good faith, or that I care enough to continue in good faith. Obviously communication has broken down from John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, and there's not much that can be done to salvage the conversation.

>>3536884
If you take a look at Dan Dennett's evolution of confusion youtube video, he actually has 6 atheist clergy who would disagree with you. At least one claims that Hitchen's book God Is Not Great was the tipping point for him to be an atheist.

Don't give up hope. They're not unreachable. It's my belief (or hope?) that most are simply ignorant of the facts. They do not understand how their beliefs are in contrast with reality and rationalism.

>>3536878
Meh. It's not that bad for the level of sophistication of /sci/.

>>3536859
Cubism? Cubism!
http://www.timecube.com/

>>3536852
What's the name of the fallacy of claiming your opponents used fallacy X when he did no such thing?

>>3536845
You must be new to /sci/. Enjoy your stay.

>>3536821
>pioneer anomaly
Oh boy here we go. In the off chance you're not trolling, that alone does just prove that gravity "changes" over long distances. It's more likely that there's been a minor glitch on the spacecraft, or that we're not modeling it accurately enough.

>>3536805
Did you ever wonder how we know radioactive dating works? Ever strike your fancy? We didn't just assume that it did based on some measurements taken today. We compared lots of samples Carbon 14 dating against one of the best dating tools we know of - dendrochronology. That's one of the fundamental evidence underpinnings of all radioactive dating.

It also has the added bonus of being much simpler to explain to lay people, and also much harder to refute with whackjob ideas.

>>3536799
Could you just turn on your /sci/ filter? It would be a better board without you.

>>3536786
>Understanding that money is just as preventative to development as to not having money is considered anarchist and communist?
Could you try saying that again in proper English please? I think you mean to use a different word besides "preventative".

I think you're trying to say that money is orthogonal to development, specifically scientific development. This is mistaken. Only someone grossly misinformed in matters of economics, such as an anarchist, or communist, etc., could make such an idiotic claim.