Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: byungkyup on 18 Jul 2008 19:10 On Jul 18, 10:58 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > n'=t(1-v/w) > > n' is time on a cesium clock in a moving frame of reference, t is time > on a cesium clock in a frame of reference at rest. BTW, you made a mistake on your formula. v and w need to be squared, and whole (1 - v^2/w^2) needs to be square-rooted (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation, note the formula). I won't make a big deal out of the fact that you used an ... unconventional letter for speed of light. It's usually c. As far as mathematics goes, special relativity has nothing special about it---if you accept Einstein's two postulates, in particular, the one that says that speed of light is the same in all inertial frames (so c does not change between x and x'), the rest is high school algebra, at least up to the formula for time-dilation (assuming you found the Lorentz transformation which satisfies the postulate about c). What you would instead need to do is show experimentally (which is not proof, although if thoroughly checked enough, it could be considered a counter-example) that this relationship does not hold, which would imply that Einstein's postulate, as simple as it was, was not correct. And I believe some guys did take an atomic clock around the world on an airplane, and the deviation of the clock on the plane (compared to the one left on ground) matched the theoretical prediction, within the experimental error). So, unless you just want to repeat the same old experiments, you probably should wait until we can build starships (or at least a probe which can travel far at some high velocity and carry enough fuel to reverse its direction and come back to us).
From: Antares 531 on 18 Jul 2008 19:25 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:14:41 +0100, "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > >"Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >news:6ea404F63ha8U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "The Loan Arranger" <noone(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >> news:5d-dnbl8Ndd98eLVRVnyvgA(a)bt.com... (snip) >> >> Being natives of Palestine, it seems unlikely that Mark or Matthew had >> been full citizens. >> > >Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not the writers of the gospels attributed >to them. >The gospels were written long after the supposed disciples would have been >dead. > >Smiler, >The godless one >a.a.# 2279 > Here's a site that has a different opinion on this. I really don't know who is right. http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm Gordon
From: A.R on 18 Jul 2008 19:30 On May 26, 7:20 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote: > No. I don't think so. > > "I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just > details." Albert Einstein > > Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 I FEEL LIKE ACCEPT N TRUST HIM,,,,,,, N FELT, MAY BE UNIVERSE OR ENERGY,,, BUT SOME THING BEYOND WORDS N VIBRATIONS OF AIR {TRAVELS +SOUND}
From: Alex W. on 18 Jul 2008 19:32 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)Joe.King.com> wrote in message news:G39gk.26052$GO7.5701(a)newsfe12.ams2... > > "Alex W." <ingilt(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6ea404F63ha8U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "The Loan Arranger" <noone(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >> news:5d-dnbl8Ndd98eLVRVnyvgA(a)bt.com... >>> Smiler wrote: >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message >>>> > The only writer of the new Testament who was a Roman citizen was >>>> > Paul. >>>> ================================ >>>> All the writers were Roman citizens. >>> >>> I'm sorry to say, Smiler, Robbie's probably right for once. Roman >>> Citizenship was distinct from being a citizen of a country under Roman >>> jurisdiction, and was very hard to earn. >>> >>> What I'm unsure about is whether he was a full Roman Citizen, or whether >>> he held the Latin Right, which was a kind of halfway-house between >>> non-citizenship and being a full Citizen. Ordinary people in a >>> subjugated country probably wouldn't really appreciate the difference, >>> or could be blinded to it. It wasn't uncommon for LR holders to claim to >>> their peers to be RCs, to enhance their standing, but they definitely >>> wouldn't try that to an official, at least not if they valued their life >>> or position. >> >> http://www.jgames.co.uk/title/Roman_citizenship >> >> Luke may or may not have been a Roman citizen; there is even speculation >> that he had been a slave, in which case he certainly would not have been >> a full citizen. >> >> Being natives of Palestine, it seems unlikely that Mark or Matthew had >> been full citizens. >> > > Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not the writers of the gospels > attributed to them. > The gospels were written long after the supposed disciples would have been > dead. > Granted, but even so, the apostles named do not appear to have been Roman citizens. This whole thing started as an obscure millenarian cult among the Jews, and very few of them held citizenship.
From: rbwinn on 18 Jul 2008 20:18
On Jul 18, 4:10�pm, byungk...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 18, 10:58�am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � n'=t(1-v/w) > > > n' is time on a cesium clock in a moving frame of reference, t is time > > on a cesium clock in a frame of reference at rest. > > BTW, you made a mistake on your formula. v and w need to be squared, > and whole (1 - v^2/w^2) needs to be square-rooted (http:// > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation, note the formula). I won't make a > big deal out of the fact that you used an ... unconventional letter > for speed of light. It's usually c. > > As far as mathematics goes, special relativity has nothing special > about it---if you accept Einstein's two postulates, in particular, the > one that says that speed of light is the same in all inertial frames > (so c does not change between x and x'), the rest is high school > algebra, at least up to the formula for time-dilation (assuming you > found the Lorentz transformation which satisfies the postulate about > c). > > What you would instead need to do is show experimentally (which is not > proof, although if thoroughly checked enough, it could be considered a > counter-example) that this relationship does not hold, which would > imply that Einstein's postulate, as simple as it was, was not correct. > And I believe some guys did take an atomic clock around the world on > an airplane, and the deviation of the clock on the plane (compared to > the one left on ground) matched the theoretical prediction, within the > experimental error). > > So, unless you just want to repeat the same old experiments, you > probably should wait until we can build starships (or at least a probe > which can travel far at some high velocity and carry enough fuel to > reverse its direction and come back to us). These are not the Lorentz equations. They are equations derived from the Galilean transformation equations, the equations scientists discarded when Einstein began using the Lorentz equation to describe transmission of light. Velocity of light is w, not c, because the velocity of a photon traveling on the x axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates in the negative direction is -c, not c. The Lorentz equations ignore this fact by leaving the equations in an unreduced form so that c is always squared in those equations. (-c)(-c)=c^2 Scientists do not like these equations because they cannot disprove them, and they give answers almost identical to Lorentz equation answers with regard to anything that can be measured directly, such as the orbit of Mercury, which was the first proof used to show that the times given by the Lorentz equations agreed with scientific measurements better than Newton's equations for gravitation. Robert B. Winn |