Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: byungkyup on 18 Jul 2008 22:06 On Jul 18, 5:18 pm, 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. > > These are not the Lorentz equations. They are equations derived from > the Galilean transformation equations, the equations scientists Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were discussing "unconventional" physics. In that case (having looked at it a little more closely), here is the problem I see. You say: x=wt x'=wn' But I see absolutely no justification for this. First you adopt Galilean transformation, which is incompatible with constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames, and then to express a single point in two reference frames, you say x = wt and x' = wn' (why the prime, if you've already adopted a different letter, n, rather than t'?), rather than x' = w'n', where w' is, of course, w - v (v containing the sign). It is, on the face of it, self-contradictory. Could you provide a physical picture (a Gedankenexperiment, as it were) which these expressions are supposed to correspond to? > 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 Irrelevant. It is not the photons that are moving, it is the observer. The term "speed of light" is very misleading in this sense (and I do empathize with your confusion), because the constant value of "c" is a property of space-time. In a flat space, in the formalism of general relativity, this is expressed by the metric (I may be using unconventional letters here myself, it's been a while since I've done anything GR, oh, and the sign convention differs depending on whom you talk to ) dr^2 = (c dt)^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2). The presumption is, even if no photons actually existed (i.e. no electromagnetic fields anywhere at all), the properties derived in theories of relativity would hold. As for the "speed" part, we just tend to measure it with photons because it's the only massless particle we know. And as for the sign of the observer moving in different directions, it's expressly written into x' = x - vt, so the fact that you would end up with v^2/c^2 elsewhere is irrelevant. > 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. Er, I sincerely hope that you check these statements with a real scientist real soon. First, special relativity (and these modified Galilean transformations that you propose to replace it with) has nothing to do with orbit of Mercury. The theoretical prediction (or rather, explanation) for the orbit of Mercury is an evidence for GENERAL RELATIVITY (Newtonian gravity could not explain the precession of perihelion of Mercury, as 1/r potential gives rise to a closed orbit---only with corrections to that 1/r potential (e.g. with GR effects) one would predict anything like that), which must take into account the effects of gravity. Proposing to do the same (or similar) with anything like Galilean transformation (or even the Lorentz transformation!) is equivalent of proposing to put the shuttles in earth's orbit using nothing but airplane propellers---your tool is not powerful enough. Nonetheless, do you actually have detailed calculation of these effects that prove your claim? Remember the burden is on the challenger to prove his own claim, not on the incumbents to disprove the challenger's claim (as a mathematics professor said once, if he had to read what every crank puts up on, e.g., arXiv.org, he wouldn't have the time for anything else). Also, to replace the orthodoxy, it's not sufficient only to duplicate what the orthodoxy has shown and proven (after all, why take one over the other in that case?)---you must also explain/predict something that the existing theory hasn't.
From: hhyapster on 18 Jul 2008 22:27 On Jul 19, 12:13 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:44:42 -0700, ben_dolan_...(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) > wrote: > > >rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >> Well, flooding does seem possible. Ask some of the people in Cedar > >> Rapids if they believe floods are possible. > > >That's adorable! The child is using "analogy" to try to prove the > >Biblical flood really happened! That's just so damned cute! > > From many sources I've read over the years, there actually was a > humongous flooding of what is now the Mediterranean basin, after the > last ice age ended and this current interglacial warming got under > way. The Atlantic Ocean raised to the level that overflowed what is > now the Strait of Gibraltar. The Gibraltar dam washed out quickly and > the ocean rushed in. Many old archeological ruins, now under water, > are still available for study. > > I would speculate that the Noachian Flood was based upon the legends > that had their roots in this Mediterranean Basin flooding. After all, > that WAS the entire world to those people. > > But, in any case, the Noachian Flood should be regarded as a parable > and the embedded meaning sorted out, separate from the literal story. > > Gordon You do see the stupidity of ancient stories, good for you, Gordon.
From: Stan-O on 18 Jul 2008 22:50 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:01:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> - Show quoted text - > >Well, discuss your ideas with Mark, Matthew , Luke and John after the >resurrection. ....which means that you don't have an answer yourself.
From: Stan-O on 18 Jul 2008 23:01 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> It seems about as plausible. Now, about that flood?- Hide quoted text - >> > >Well, flooding does seem possible. Ask some of the people in Cedar >Rapids if they believe floods are possible. Did anyone in Cedar Rapids build an ark and end up halfway around the world?
From: BuddyThunder on 18 Jul 2008 23:03
Antares 531 wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Jul 18, 6:03 pm, The Loan Arranger <no...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>> rbwinn wrote: > (snip) >>> Someone I deeply respect once said, "The journey of a thousand miles >>> starts with a single step." I promise you, that step is not into an abyss. >>> >>> TLA >> Fine piece of advise. >> However, I doubt rbwinn will go for it. >> He first of all has no capability to understand, and secondly has a >> mental problem. >> He doesn't understand that a god is a human "invention" and that the >> Jesus/god thing never ever appear in this world. The Jesus he is >> worshiping was a past human, died +2000 years ago. >> > Objective is not spiritual and spiritual is not objective. Enough > said. What do you mean? |