Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 8 Jul 2008 12:40 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 7, 3:37�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:db983fc6-d541-4907-ba1e-103490e27a51(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> It cannot be done. �I talk to scientists in sci.physics.relativity. >>> That is all I am ever going to do. >>> Robert B. Winn >> I have a sneaking suspicion that they never talk to you. >> Rather like your relationship with God. >> >> -- >> Steve O > > At one time when I was making mistakes, about half of the posts in > sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. Since I arrived at > equations that hold together, scientists do not post to me. <snicker> I don't think you get why nobody over there posts to you anymore...
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 8 Jul 2008 12:40 Stan-O wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:09:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> > wrote: > >>> I have a sneaking suspicion that they never talk to you. >>> Rather like your relationship with God. >>> >>> -- >>> Steve O >> At one time when I was making mistakes, about half of the posts in >> sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. Since I arrived at >> equations that hold together, scientists do not post to me. >> Robert B. Winn > > It looks to me like you might be in a few killfiles. > A few?
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 8 Jul 2008 12:41 rbwinn wrote: > > The planet Mercury was the first thing used as a proof of the theorry > of relativity, and its velocity is 30 miles per second. Oh, wow, you are ignorance personified. > At the > velocity of the planet Mercury, my own equations agree with the > Lorentz equations to about six decimal places.The Galilean > transformation equations with absolute time agree to just one or two. You don't have a clue what the issue with Mercury's orbit was huh? > Where the Lorentz equations fall apart is their need for a > distance contraction, which then causes the moving object to disappear > at the speed of light. That doesn't even make sense.
From: Linda Fox on 8 Jul 2008 13:42 On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:34:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> wrote: >Linda Fox wrote: >All my own. >Remember when you had to have use of english A level to get to Uni? > You wrote that in Use of English? (which wasn't an A-level per se, but a sort of add-on) boggle. I just had to write about why I wanted to go to university rather than music college, which wasn't even true. cheers Linda ff
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 8 Jul 2008 13:44
Smiler wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > The planet Mercury was the first thing used as a proof of the theorry > of relativity, and its velocity is 30 miles per second. At the > velocity of the planet Mercury, my own equations agree with the > Lorentz equations to about six decimal places.The Galilean > transformation equations with absolute time agree to just one or two. > Where the Lorentz equations fall apart is their need for a > distance contraction, which then causes the moving object to disappear > at the speed of light. > ---------------------------------------- > Duh! An object moving away from us at the speed of light would emit light > towards us at zero speed (+C -C = 0) > So it would *appear* to be invisible...disappeared...not there. We wouldn't > be able to see it. > I'm no physicist, but this seems obvious to me. Actually, no. Relativity is *far* from the obvious. The speed of light is a constant. It's weird stuff. Let's say you were zipping away from me at 99.99% of the speed of light. You aim a flashlight back at me and turn it on. I just plugged that into the equations. The speed of the light coming from your flashlight is 100% c for both of us. It's not possible to use the equations with the assumption of you moving at the speed of light as they blow up (you end up dividing by zero). 'Course, you can't get there from here. No matter how much nor how long you accelerate, you can never reach the speed of light. But no matter how big a fraction of c you're moving away from me, any light you emit in my direction is traveling at c. Even we're both moving away from each other at a healthy fraction of c, the light we emit is going to be moving at c when we (or anybody else) measures it. Winn the Witless talking about things moving at c is sheer silliness. Hell, what would you do with the time dilation? Time stops? (For that matter, does time pass for a photon? I've always wondered.) Goofiest thing I've run across is the actual physicist who commented elsewhere online that it's actually possible for some particle that was emitted around the time of the big bang (whatever point it was possible for particles to start moving) for which the entire history of the universe is a matter of minutes from the particle's frame of reference. ('Course this assumes it never encountered *anything* in billions of years of travel and has been moving at a high fraction of c the entire time. Not very likely but still *possible*.) Come to think, given that your mass increases as you approach the speed of light and the equations dump out infinities *at* the speed of light, I can only assume you'd take the universe out with you... |