Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!

[Mousetrap]

...

Advice ... don't listen to hacks and quacks.  And yes, the actual story of how these ideas developed, is "saving of appearances" and opponents

I think Ron Hatch can not be classified as a Quack.
I met him a few years ago when my company needed GPS locators on our farming equipment, and I was astounded at his personal practical experiments.

He actually informed fellow NASA scientists to drop any formulations of SR and GR in Space and Time due to the incorrect implementation thereof.
This guy can make a tractor run on a barren land, plowing with numerous others, without leaving the line with more than 15 mm over 20 Km.
I think he should be listened to.

[Hakurei Reimu]

.HR, I always find references to experiments done that proves SR.

Mousie, you seem not to understand that if SR is "proved," then the basic assumptions and the conclusions that naturally follow from those assumptions also follow.

However, once I started questioning just one claim, (The claim that an observer inside a space ship will see his flashing light touch the Back and front of the space ship at the same time, travelling from the center), I realized that this is an assumption, and not fact.

It is not an "assumption," it is a conclusion directly following from the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in all frames. If you contest the former, then you need to find some experiment that gives you different answers depending on the speed of the aparatus. If you contest the latter, then you need to find some circumstance where light will be measured going at any other speed but c in a vacuum. If you have neither, you don't have a leg to stand on to challenge the above claim.

I knew that even though we are travelling through space, the one thing that will be observed as a point in space, will be a flash of light.
You, or the whole universe, can travel at whatever speed, the exact point where light was flashed, will be its source of measurement for it's velocity.

I can measure the velocity of the light just fine using my own instruments. And that's the point. My instruments are physical aparatuses, using the laws of physics to deduce things like the velocity of light. If they measure the speed of light to be c, then it makes those measurements based on the application of physical law and data â€" the light is really traveling at c.

Therefore, you can travel in a space ship, at half the speed of light, you will not measure light at c, but at 0.5c.

If that were true, then Michelson and Morley would have detected the velocity of Earth as it orbited the sun at least one point along its orbit. They didn't, even though their equipment was precise enough to detect such a difference. That destroys your claim.

what will be observed is that the space ship traveled with the light from the lights origin, and light will measure c only from that point.

Who observes this? You're pretending with the clause "what will be observed" is that there's some absolute determination of the light's speed. Such things are always measured by instruments â€"physical objectsâ€" which have their own frame of motion. So "what will be observed" is nonsense unless it is understood who or what is making the observation.

Now, to come up with non falsification tests on experiments such as "we tested it by atomic clocks on flights around the world, is simply a parrot speech with zero credibility.

You pretend that this was the only "proof" I gave you. You only have to look up "Tests of Special relativity" on Wikipedia to come up with a slew of experiments and families of experiments that demonstrate, measure and verify every major prediction of Einstein, and so far, Einstein has passed all tests.

I for one gave you also at least one other proof of time dilation in particular, that of the fact that a particular family of subatomic particles created in our atmosphere were surviving longer than they should. You have yet to answer that.

You seem to think that the H-K experiment is the only test of time dilation. We have a whole list of them, from accelerating subatomic particles and watching for doppler shift that is not that of classical doppler shift, from noting that unstable muons created in the atmosphere survive far longer than they should without time dilation, to the simple observation that the Standard Model would fall into complete shambles without SR and all of its implications (including time dilation and length contraction) at its core.

I will give you a small bit of facts I already studied and collected.

Look at Dr. Borchardt on SR proven by around the world flights

Please note on the sloppy scientific work, and the assumptions made by SR scientists.

Luckily there are scientists who do scrutinize claims made by ones that want to become famous in being the first to prove SR true.

Bullshit. The Standard Model is currently the most accurately scrutinized and measured model of particle physics and it has as its core assumption the veracity of SR and all the time and space wierdness coming along with it. The amount the phase of a particle advances as it goes from point to point is based on the concept in SR called the interval, and from there everything in relativity follows. Knowing how particles propagate through the system is a key calculation in the Standard Model, and if this is wrong, then no prediction of the Standard Model would play out.

If the core of our model is wrong, then we are unreasonably lucky as the Standard Model has not only passed all tests that it should fail if SR is wrong in its implications, such as time dilation, but also the fact that we've based our entire technology base on it. The continued well-functioning of computers and other devices that owe their very existence to the veriacity of the Standard Model is continued testiment to the correctness of SR.

The original Hafele and Keating experiment is more demonstration than it is serious experiment. Your source points out that the drifts are all over the place, but like he himself said, they can be corrected for. And when we extrapolate those drifts, we find that at the end of the flights there are unexplained jumps in where the clocks should be at given classical physics. Now, yes, not all showed the same offset or any at all, but that's why there were three of them. After all, the drift reveals that those clocks can be at times unreliable due to random reasons.

Your Dr. Borchardt charges that "of my 320 publications, only one was repeated by others in any detail." In the case of Hafele and Keating, we know that this is incorrect. The University of Maryland reproduced it more preciesely through the period of Sept 1975 thru Jan 1976, and this time (unlike H-K) results were available real-time, where the shift due to relativistic effects could be watched by those on board the plane and on the ground. The upshot is that this experiment was in line with predictions of SR and GR to 1.6%. The H-K experiment was repeated in 1996 with more accurate atomic clocks by the National Physics Laboratory, on a round trip from London to Washington, D.C. to London, giving a time gain of 39±2 ns (39.8 ns predicted), and again in 2010 with a round-the-world flight that gave a measurement of 230±20 ns (246±3 ns predicted). So, I can confidently mark this claim busted; H-K was replicated and vindicated. Even if the original was crude and poor, it was probative enough to be replicated more carefully.

As to other experiments, I similarly charge that your Dr. Borchardt has his head up his ass. An experiment doesn't have to be "repeated in detail" to be replicated. Indeed, such precise replications are of limited worth, as mere repeats are prone to the same systematic errors as the original, a fact that limits their usefulness. Testing the same phenomenon using a different method is much preferred, because they would have different systematic errors, and the Anna Karenina principle would ensure that errors would be all over the place in different directions. It is unlikely that a phenomenon detected by multiple, disparate methods is nonexistent.

I think Ron Hatch can not be classified as a Quack.
I met him a few years ago when my company needed GPS locators on our farming equipment, and I was astounded at his personal practical experiments.

So what if you were impressed? As far as I can determine, Ron Hatch has no presence at all in his impact factor. That means none of his papers has had very many citations â€" which is a sign more that he really doesn't have anything interesting to say, rather than he is some kind of persecuted scientist with the truth on his side.

He actually informed fellow NASA scientists to drop any formulations of SR and GR in Space and Time due to the incorrect implementation thereof.

So? I'm certain that Hatch did inform NASA. That doesn't mean that he'd been heeded. To my knowledge, none of the implementations have been changed on his account.

See, the drift of the GPS satellites is something you can measure. It's an 'experiment' of sorts that has been in the running for well over forty years. If the effects of SR and GR weren't real, then it would have been plainly obvious by now.

This guy can make a tractor run on a barren land, plowing with numerous others, without leaving the line with more than 15 mm over 20 Km.
I think he should be listened to.

Pfft. Even if I were to believe that (how did he figure out that it was only 15 mm, and how did he figure out he really plowed 20 km?), that figure is only one part in just over a million. That's child's play. If he were to calculate the g-factor of the electron to one part in 2.6e-13 (a lot harder to do) without appealing to SR, then he'd be talking.

I also notice a definite lack of calculations on your part. For instance, the relativistic doppler effect necessitates time dilation.

Let's go back to our rocket example. Instead of an almost-c supership, let's consider a half-c semisupership. Of course, it takes two seconds Earth-Moon time to travel this distance. Naively, we suppose that if we place a strobe light that flashes every half-second and set it to strobe the first time upon launch, then this strobe will flash five times along the trip, once at launch, three times en route, and once as it arrives. The frequency of the flashes is f = 2 Hz.

The Doppler effect for light is verified by experiments to be

   f′/f = sqrt(c-v/c+v)

where f is the frequency at the source, f′ is the frequency observed, and v is the relative velocity of the source away from the observer.

First, the Moon's perspective. Since our rocket has velocity of v = -½c (approaching at half-c), we have f′/f = sqrt(c+½c/c-½c) = sqrt(1+½/1-½) = √3 = 1.732050808. So, at half the speed of light, the frequency has increased by a factor of √3 = 1.732050808, and it seems like that rather than time slowing down on the rocket, time has sped up instead. And so Einstein's notion of time dilation is faâ€"

Not so fast. This is just the frequency the incoming flashes are arriving at our observer on the Moon. If there were no time dilation, then we'd expect the rocket to emit a total of five flashes over the course of its two second trip, the first being just as it launches from the Earth, and the last being just as it arrives on the Moon. Since it takes light one second to get from Earth to the Moon, this first flash arrives at 12:00:01, one second after the rocket launches. Of course, the fifth and last flash would have to arrive just as the rocket arrives on the Moon, at 12:00:02. So, all of the flashes have to arrive within that 1 second window between the first flash and the last flash. But this is half the time that the rocket took to emit those same five flashes, so were we to observe five flashes between 12:00:01 and 12:00:02 as we expect from the classical case, f′/f = 2 > √3.

So, although the flashes are coming in faster than the two per second of the strobe as expected, they are not coming in quite fast enough for classical physics to explain. Indeed, the rocket only gets off four flashes before it arrives. But if the rocket only emitted four flashes in a time when it should have emitted five, then its strobe must have been flashing slower than... expected.

Oh dear.

Let's consider the duration between the first and second flashes, the one emitted at launch and the one immediately following. This first flash was emitted at x = 0 at time t = 0 in our familiar S, the Earth-Moon frame. This flash was detected on the moon at x = 1 ls at time t = 1 s in S, on the Moon. Its successor flash was recieved 1/f′ = 1/(f√3) = (1 s)/(2√3) = 0.2886751346 second later, or at t = 1.2886751346 s. The world line of this flash of light is described by x = c(t - 1/f′). The rocket's world line is described by x = ½ct. Equating the two and solving for t, we get

   Â½ct = c(t - 1/f′)
      â‡"
   t = 2/f′ = (1 s)/√3
     = 0.5773502692 s > 0.5 s

So the shipboard strobe emits its second flash about 0.07735 s later than it should have if its clocks are ticking at the same speed as they were in S. But of course, we set the strobe to flash at 0.5 second intervals, so when the shipboard clock reads 12:00:00.5, it emits a flash of light. So, at the same time the S clocks read 12:00:00.5773502692, the shipboard clock reads 12:00:00.5. According to the Earth-Moon frame, S, the shipboard clock is running slower than the Earth-Moon clocks by a factor of 1.154700538, and if we equate this to 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and solve for v we get... v = (0.5)c! Of course, this is the time dilation that SR predicts.

While the strobe does indeed appear to speed up from the Moon's point of view, it does not speed up enough to compensate for a mere apparent time dilation you think is the true picture. Instead, locates the actual event (coordinates in space and time) whence the flash was emitted in that frame of reference, and it emitted the flash late as if it had been slowed down. The ship emitted its second flash 0.07735 s late, even though we set it up to be emitted at precisely 0.5 s into the flight.

[trdsf]

Mousie, I haven't taken you off ignore, but it's pretty clear what you're trying to say, via Hakurei's replies, and I am morally obliged by my commitment to truth and reality to respond, even if I couldn't conceivably care less how or whether you reply.

It really is so simple that even you can grasp it: the whole point of Einsteinian relativity is that no matter where you are and how you are moving, you always observe the speed of light to be constant, and it is always measured as 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum without any regard to how the observer is moving.  If your spaceship is moving at 299,792,457 meters per second, you will still measure light to be moving at 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.  No one nowhere at no time has ever observed anything other than that.  That's all there is to it.  No, you don't have any evidence to the contrary, and neither does anyone else.

If anyone ever does come up with something that doesn't fit Einstein's predictions, it's going to be well attested, confirmable, and probably out of one of the big institutes like CERN or Fermilab.  I don't care what Ron Hatch has to say, regardless of what he's done with GPS (which, by the bye, depends fundamentally on Special and General Relativity in order to work) -- Newton believed in alchemy, that didn't make alchemy correct.  This is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.  Although given your regular misuse of the strawman fallacy, I have little hope that you understand that.

[Mousetrap]

on September 02, 2018, 10:23:15 AM
I think Ron Hatch can not be classified as a Quack.
I met him a few years ago when my company needed GPS locators on our farming equipment, and I was astounded at his personal practical experiments.

So what if you were impressed? As far as I can determine, Ron Hatch has no presence at all in his impact factor. That means none of his papers has had very many citations â€" which is a sign more that he really doesn't have anything interesting to say, rather than he is some kind of persecuted scientist with the truth on his side.

Persecuted?
Not at all.
He does not care what the rest of the world does.
one of his patents are a GPS receiver with added calculations removing GR and SR.
He's making money on the accuracy of his inventions.
Furthermore,
Why do you think someone is wrong if they actually disprove Einsteins' theory when they have workable and operational evidence?
You go on the premise that supporters of Special and General relativity should judge someone who produced evidence that it is wrong.

It is as if you ask Pelosi and Waters to decide if Trump is correct in his economical reforms.
Pal, I suggest you get out of your brainwashed comfort zone, and question what others are telling you.
Or, at least go and find out for yourself.
Those peers who you run to to tell you what the truth is, will never agree with anything about erroneous Relativistic calculations.
Why?
Because, it will change a big part of scientific BS where they can get billions to build more accelerators.
Money!!!
Grants!!!

He actually informed fellow NASA scientists to drop any formulations of SR and GR in Space and Time due to the incorrect implementation thereof.

So? I'm certain that Hatch did inform NASA. That doesn't mean that he'd been heeded. To my knowledge, none of the implementations have been changed on his account.

Yeh! Go and ask Pelosi and Waters.

Money!!!
Grants!!!

See, the drift of the GPS satellites is something you can measure. It's an 'experiment' of sorts that has been in the running for well over forty years. If the effects of SR and GR weren't real, then it would have been plainly obvious by now.

No one spoke about drifts HR.

[Mousetrap]

If anyone ever does come up with something that doesn't fit Einstein's predictions, it's going to be well attested, confirmable, and probably out of one of the big institutes like CERN or Fermilab.  I don't care what Ron Hatch has to say, regardless of what he's done with GPS (which, by the bye, depends fundamentally on Special and General Relativity in order to work) -- Newton believed in alchemy, that didn't make alchemy correct.  This is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.  Although given your regular misuse of the strawman fallacy, I have little hope that you understand that.

And so did Hatch.
He came up with attested, confirmed, and unfortunately not out of one of the big institutes like CERN or Fermilab, experiments, but with his GPS systems.

But what do you think the scientists at Cern and Fermilab is doing when they learn their future funding will be jeopardized and they have to go back to the drawing board to get another explanation on the origins of Matter, space and Time.

They will have to work on trucks and tractors.
And that sounds too much like work to them.
:)

[Mousetrap]

Mousie, ... -- Newton believed in alchemy, that didn't make alchemy correct.  This is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.  Although given your regular misuse of the strawman fallacy, I have little hope that you understand that.

Wow, this is a hugely destorted view of Newton and alchemy.
Newton did believe in alchemy, ONLY UNTIL HE DISPROVED IT AND FOUND EVIDENCE THAT ALCHEMY IS A WASTE OF TIME!!!!

If Newton would be able to check Einstein's relativity claims of Time dilation, and Length contraction, he will remove this alchemy also.

I love it that you would build a Straw man, the Newton alchemist one, and then tell me I did it.

[aitm]

 

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Ezekial 23:19-20

See, now THAT is biblical dilation and length contraction all in one. But then the babble with all its god "science" is full of such wonderful head scratchers. I mean.....why do we allow handicapped..mentally and physical into churches when daddy god forbides it.....or the poor guy what lost his nuts to cancer or a hungry hooker. Meh.......lets ignore the nonsense of the babbling babble and use science to prove that this idiot actually exists. Boo-yah.

[Hydra009]

I love it that you would build a Straw man, the Newton alchemist one, and then tell me I did it.

Newspaper headline when Mousie was born:  scientists create first analogy-proof human.

[Hydra009]

But what do you think the scientists at Cern and Fermilab is doing when they learn their future funding will be jeopardized and they have to go back to the drawing board to get another explanation on the origins of Matter, space and Time.

They will have to work on trucks and tractors.
And that sounds too much like work to them.
:)

Soo...the researachers at CERN and Fermilab are concealing the truth that special relativity is bogus because otherwise they'd have to do automotive repair?  That's the narrative you're going with?

Do you even reality, bro?

[Baruch]

It is how the story is told, and how it is analogized to non-physics subjects ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-AiqCp7Vlc

An otherwise good documentary, ruined by materialist atheism.  Fact is, atoms aren't atomic, because nuclei and elementary particles, which are then reduced to quantum fields, which are then attempted to be reduced to superstrings.  A good documentary sticks to the experiments, and doesn't preach.  Materialism, is a simplifying abstraction made by humans or other sentients.  Plato will claim that this is absolute truth, found by secular prophets.  Except it isn't absolute, there are multiple definitions of truth in English.  And I am just as skeptical of secular prophets as I am of the theistic kind.

Just how mass-energy relates to space-time, is still controversial.  And the idea that space-time isn't continuous, but is itself quantized (as opposed to mass-energy) is also controversial.  Which is why the relationship between the two pragmatic metaphors ... space-time and mass-energy ... is still partially understood.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Persecuted?
Not at all.
He does not care what the rest of the world does.
one of his patents are a GPS receiver with added calculations removing GR and SR.

Dude, the receiver doesn't use either. The assumptions of GR and SR are built into the satellites' atomic clocks â€" they are built to tick slower than they would on the ground to compensate for both the effects of gravitational redshift and time dilation from the satellite's orbital speed. On balance, the speedup from being higher in the Earth's gravity well is the bigger effect than the slowdown from the satellite's orbital speed. There's nothing to remove.

He's making money on the accuracy of his inventions.
Furthermore,
Why do you think someone is wrong if they actually disprove Einsteins' theory when they have workable and operational evidence?

Because that's exactly the place you find yourself. Our theories of how the universe works is based on Einstein's relativity as its cornerstone. Quantum field theory couldn't work without it, and QFT is the best description of particles moving under the electromagnetic force bar none. QFT is what enables you to build all those fancy new electronic gadgets you buy in the store, and at the core of it is the assumption of special relativity. People are making money off of SR, too.

Only your hero doesn't require specific knowledge of GR and SR to make his devices work. In fact, the only thing he would need is differential GPS in order to get results that good, and while his implementation may be really nifty to produce figures that good, it's not a new trick.

You go on the premise that supporters of Special and General relativity should judge someone who produced evidence that it is wrong.

What evidence? You haven't presented any "evidence." You've produced a claim that some dude is making money off a device that supposedly "adds" calculations to remove GR and SR when the whole system is already compensated such that ground-based devices don't need either to produce their answers. Don't pretend you know this stuff better than me.

It is as if you ask Pelosi and Waters to decide if Trump is correct in his economical reforms.
Pal, I suggest you get out of your brainwashed comfort zone, and question what others are telling you.

You first. You're the one who seems to take the words of the bible, the words of men, over the very universe your god supposedly created. You need to start listen to what the universe is telling you, not what the bible is telling you.

And you are hilarious when you talk about brainwashing and comfort zones, when you haven't shown me a single calculation of your own to prove that what I'm saying is wrong, using your own understanding and knowledge, and instead appealing to people who are clearly cranks. It's as if you don't want to really learn about special relativity in fear that it will break your little fantasy of yours.

For every paper your boys produce against relativity, I guarantee you that ten thousand other papers have been published that use relativity as one of its core assumptions, and get their predictions right. This is unreasonable success for a theory that is supposedly wrong.

Or, at least go and find out for yourself.

You have so far produced such a poor case for your side that I sincerely don't believe that "finding out for myself" is worth a single second of my time. It's also symptomatic of someone who doesn't really understand what they're talking about. You rely on others' understanding rather than your own. You might as well have the word "sucker" tattooed on your forehead.

Those peers who you run to to tell you what the truth is, will never agree with anything about erroneous Relativistic calculations.
Why?
Because, it will change a big part of scientific BS where they can get billions to build more accelerators.
Money!!!
Grants!!!

Those accelerators couldn't even WORK without relativity, you moron. You don't get to TeV-level energies without noticing that your particles do not travel at many times the speed of light (which they would under classical mechanics). That's going to make a big difference in the timing of your circuits. Without mass-energy equivalence, another relativistic prediction, you wouldn't get the shower and an entire bestiary of particles which all have rest masses of more than the particles originally smashed together.

How does your classical mechanics explain that?

I'll give you the short answer: it can't.

And an accelerator's budget is peanuts compared to the fruits of QFT, which gives you stuff like computers and microelectronics. Do you not think that microelectronics are a multi-billion dollar industry? Naw, QFT produces money.

Classical physics was abandoned grudgingly by the scientific community. There were many resisters â€"hell, by your account, there still areâ€" but none of them could find purchase because evidence kept mounting that when dealing with high velocities, only Einstein gets it right. And it's not as if the full edifice was Einstein's alone. Einstein himself built on the work of Poincare. Schwartzchild first described the gravitational field of a spherical body. Physicists take the theories and make it their own.

Yeh! Go and ask Pelosi and Waters.

Money!!!
Grants!!!

Yes, NASA tends to give grants to shit that works, not to crazy twits who go against the mainstream counteracting well-established principles like relativity.

Let me give you a hint on how science progresses and how big changes like quantum mechanics and relativity occur. Usually, old paradigms get replaced with something completely new and never seen before. New paradigms never get replaced by what had worked before but had fallen out of favor due to new evidence. If there is going to be a successor to Einstein, it's not going to look like anything you've ever seen before. Classical physics was dropped precisely because it doesn't give you the right answers for the very fast, the very small, or in very strong gravity fields. It still doesn't. The replacement for SR and Gr and QM are going to be wierder than all of them.

No one spoke about drifts HR.

Oh? Does not a clock that is running faster than another clock drift out of synch with that clock? That's what we're talking about. That is the continuous experiment. If GR and SR were wrong, then the GPS satellites' atomic clocks would drift out of synch with Earth time. The workings of GPS depend on those clocks being extremely accurate.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I like it how Mousie doesn't seem to know how grants work. The money for a grant doesn't go to the scientist. It goes towards the experiment. In a grant, you have to provide an accounting of where the money goes. Unless there is an item that says "stipend," which would be kept to reasonable levels, none of the money goes to the scientist. It all goes towards lab equipment, materials, etc. The money outlaid for the accelerators went mostly towards building the accelerators. Most of the remainder goes towards running the accelerators. Most of the grants used for the accelerators goes towards paying for time on the accelerators. When the grant runs out of money, what you're left with is shiny new lab equipment, a series of papers, and maybe a pittance stipend.

Ask any scientist who has actually had a grand proposal granted, and he'll tell you you don't make any real money on grants.

[Hydra009]

But...but grants are such a convenient propagandists' stump.  It lets cranks cast doubt on the scientific consensus by claiming that their conclusions are driven by money.

NASA scientists are paid to say that the Earth is a sphere.
Climate scientists are paid to say that global warming is real.
Physicists are paid to say that special relativity is real.

You can cast doubt on anything by saying the magic word:  grants!

[Mousetrap]

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Ezekial 23:19-20

See, now THAT is biblical dilation and length contraction all in one. But then the babble with all its god "science" is full of such wonderful head scratchers. I mean.....why do we allow handicapped..mentally and physical into churches when daddy god forbides it.....or the poor guy what lost his nuts to cancer or a hungry hooker. Meh.......lets ignore the nonsense of the babbling babble and use science to prove that this idiot actually exists. Boo-yah.

And your post displays your ignorance on what the Bible says.
You see, this is why I will never become atheist again.

You had to go to your Atheist websites (Annotated Bible for instance) to get hold of something from the Bible which you think is vulgar and I should be ashamed of.

Well, lets see how you fare with this strategy.

The verses that you refer to is YHWH telling Judah exactly what the 10 tribes of Israel did.
They whored after the religions of Moloch and Ba'aal.
These religions are sex cults, if you dont know, and it was customary for these worshipers to burn their eldest child in fire as a human sacrifice to Moloch.
Furthermore, once a year the women worshipers had to engage in temple prostitution for a full day. No matter if she was married or not.
They were sexually used by the male crowds in huge sex orgies.

Now, from your pompous hypocrite mind, do you have a better way of describing this scenario than what YHWH did when he warned Judah that He will also sent Judah into captivity for doing the exact thing?

And guess what!
YHWH did exactly what He promised.
You should see the archaeological evidence showing how Shalmanezzer and Nebuchadnezzar took these cities in Israel and Judah. The people were impaled in their thousands, beheaded, flayed alive, and the reminants were taken away as slaves.

I expect God to be a truthful being, that calls a spade a spade, and not some watered down sexual lustful fairy you would like him to be.

Now, lets see what Atheism holds dear about sex and values of morality.
Nietzsche and Bertrant Russel was clear about the following.
There is no difference between animal and man.
in Atheism, the strongest are the winner. Women are there as possessions for men to ensure that the race survives.
Sex should be free of religious views where marriage does not exist and adultery is natural.
If a lion clears his territory of rivals, and he kills off cubs not his, collects all the females, this is nature.

If a man walk down the street and gets rid of all his male neighbors, take the wives, kills of the offspring of the rivals, he is also doing what is natural.
Why should he not do this?
This will ensure that the human race gets the strongest and cleverest genes to ensure its survival.
This was exactly what Hitler wanted to practice after the studies he made on Nietzsche.
Go and find out what the Nazis did to children born with syndromes.
Pure Atheistic practices pal!

no child born with defects will be allowed to live, such weaknesses should die!

CS Lewis, upon thinking about this, realized that this was the reason that God exists.
Sin!
if we as a human mind with a conciseness, knows such behavior is wrong, what prohibits us to live that way anyhow.
If a world is filled with actions to allow the fittest to survive, why not live atheism to the fullest?

Lewis realized that just by realizing something is immoral and wrong, we have FREE CHOICE!

Free choice can only be ascribed to a Creator allowing such, for if it is up to men, nothing can be wrong.

Anyhow, you did not read the Bible, and you did not know what the hell YHWH was telling you.
Now you know!

[Mousetrap]

Soo...the researachers at CERN and Fermilab are concealing the truth that special relativity is bogus because otherwise they'd have to do automotive repair?  That's the narrative you're going with?

Do you even reality, bro?

And you continue to hang onto scientists which you prefer.
And ignore those they dont.
Do you even know who Ron Hatch is?
have any scientist at NASA and CERN looked at what he does?
No?
Why?
Perhaps we are back in the dark ages where the scientists of the world wanted to burn Copernicus for the true events in nature, and not because what they believed was true.