Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 19 Jul 2008 02:25 On Jul 18, 7:06�pm, byungk...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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. Well, the reason was that scientists reported the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment to be that a cesium clock in either frame of reference would show the speed of light to be c. The equations that show this would be x=ct and x'=cn' instead of x=ct and x'=ct' used by Einstein because t' is defined t'=t in the Galilean transformation equations. So a clock running slower that t'=t in the moving frame of reference has to be represented by a different variable n'. It does not have to be n', that was just the one I used. However, this only describes the position of a photon traveling along the x axis in the positive direction. A photon traveling along the x axis in the negative direction has a velocity of -c, not c, so to describe the coordinates of a photon traveling either direction, we have to use w=velocity of light. > Could you provide a physical picture (a Gedankenexperiment, as it > were) which these expressions are supposed to correspond to? The best example of how this works is Einstein's example of the two strikes of lightning. Lightning strikes the front and rear of a moving train, leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and marks on the railroad track. The distance between themarks on the train is the length of the train, and the distance between the marks on the track is the length of the train, proving there is no relativityof simultaneity or distance contraction. As the Galilean transformation equations show, x'=x-vt. t'=t A cesium clock on the train shows a time of n' for light from the lightning at the rear of the train where n'=t(1-v/c) x'=cn' A cesium clock on the train shows a time of n' for lightning at the front of the train where n'=t(1-v/(-c) = t(1+v/c) x'=(-c)n' > > 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 observer on the train is not moving in his own frame of reference. > 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. The equations x=wt and x=wn' show the positions of photons, as Einstein said he was doing with x=ct, x'=ct'. > > � � 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. There are no real scientists who want to discuss these equations. > 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. The speed of the planet Mercury is 30 miles per second. At that speed, the Lorentz equations show that a cesium clock on Mercury would be slower than a cesium clock that is not moving. The equations for time n' give the same result to several decimal places at that velocity. > Nonetheless, do you actually have detailed calculation of these > effects that prove your claim? Detailed enough. w=x/t=x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma = x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz > 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. I predict that the length contraction does not exist. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 19 Jul 2008 02:28 On Jul 18, 7:50�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:01:32 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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. Your accusation pertains to the writers of the gospels, not to me. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 19 Jul 2008 02:29 On Jul 18, 8:01�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(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? Well, no, they did not have 600 years warning the way Noah did. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 19 Jul 2008 02:37 On Jul 18, 8:16�pm, Stan-O <bndsna...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:31:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > wrote: > > >> The Supreme Court follows the Constitution of the United States of > >> America, the federal law of the land. > > >> What were you saying again? > > >> -- > >During my lifetime the Supreme Court has not made even one decision > >that did not promote atheism. �It does not matter if they all claim to > >be religious. �Actions speak louder than words. > > Wrong! They voted to leave the phrase, "under god" in the Pledge of > Allegiance a few years back. That was to convince gullible people like you that they are Christians. Robert B. Winn
From: Smiler on 18 Jul 2008 19:46
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:3f9d9d2a-9439-4932-8304-89ab5916ef3c(a)a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com... On Jul 18, 12:18 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 17, 12:55 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Jul 15, 11:57 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 14, 11:23 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 14, 5:12?pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:44f19f98-4d96-4419-a87a-d6bdbd73f31b(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> Their idea is that if Hezekiah's tunnel exists, then Harry > >>>>>>>>>>> Potter has > >>>>>>>>>>> to be true because the train station in London is mentioned in > >>>>>>>>>>> Harry > >>>>>>>>>>> Potter. > >>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Since we know therefore that harry potter isn't true, > >>>>>>>>>> the fact > >>>>>>>>>> of hezekiahs tunnel means the bible is obviously false. Since > >>>>>>>>>> we have > >>>>>>>>>> true facts referred to in works of complete fiction. > >>>>>>>>>> By your reasoning at least. > >>>>>>>>> Well, you have it exactly as atheists have been telling me it > >>>>>>>>> is. > >>>>>>>>> Don't ask me what it is supposed to mean. > >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>>>>>> Here is an example of rbwinn's logic. > >>>>>>>> Sheep are mentioned in the bible > >>>>>>>> Sheep exist today > >>>>>>>> The bible is accurate and there is a God > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Steve O > >>>>>>> Well, no, Steve O. Here is an example. Atheists were claiming that > >>>>>>> nothing existed on earth today that could prove anything in the > >>>>>>> Bible. > >>>>>> And yet you've been unable to produce these mythical posts. Well, > >>>>>> you do > >>>>>> seem to like myths... > >>>>>>> So I said, What about Hezekiah's tunnel? These atheists had > >>>>>>> never heard of Hezekiah's tunnel. So after they looked it up, they > >>>>>>> said, The fact that a tunnel exists no more proves the Bible to be > >>>>>>> true than Harry Potter leaving from the train station in London to > >>>>>>> go > >>>>>>> to wizard's school. > >>>>>> In a slightly mangled sense, yes that was me. I'd never heard of > >>>>>> Hezekiah's tunnel. Now I have. I still can't see how it supports > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> existence of any gods. Assuming it's the same tunnel (which hasn't > >>>>>> been > >>>>>> established AFAIK), so what? People sometimes write things about > >>>>>> stuff. > >>>>>> Does that automatically render it true? > >>>>>>> I really believe that it certainly does prove certain verses in > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> Old Testament to be true which describe the digging of Hezekiah's > >>>>>>> tunnel. Otherwise, atheists need to explain why there is a tunnel > >>>>>>> exactly where the Bible in three books of the Old Testament says a > >>>>>>> tunnel was dug as a conduit for water. > >>>>>> I might point out that the physical evidence doesn't accord well > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> the account of the tunnel's construction. Even if you're right, > >>>>>> it's > >>>>>> simply shows that a tunnel was built, not that gods exist. > >>>>>> If you want to infer more than is logical from this, go for it! But > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> maintain a degree of intellectual honesty, I cannot follow.- Hide > >>>>>> quoted text - > >>>>> Well, obviously, you have not studied the history of that time. > >>>>> Robert B. Winn > >>>> I haven't much, and yet I still know that. Additionally, the Bible > >>>> contains some history, but doesn't qualify as a whole. It's far too > >>>> unreliable.- Hide quoted text - > >>> Well, I understan why atheists would want to believe Sennacherib's > >>> account of the Assyrian invasion of Judea over the Biblical account, > >>> but, obviously, Sennacherib was lying. Chaldean historians agree with > >>> the Biblical account. Sennacherib lost his entire army at Jerusalem. > >> Obviously. Ummmm..... why again? Why would either of them have to be > >> the > >> "gospel truth"?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Sennacherib had to lie about the loss of his army because he had been > > left in a precarious position, as events soon proved when he was > > murdered by two of his own sons. > > The Bible had to lie to promote the idea of an almighty god. That's my > point, both sides have motive for lying. Why would you believe either > one of the accounts? > > What really took place maybe very different from either one.- Hide quoted > text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, the important factor was what happened to the Assyrian army. The Jews said an angel of God went through the camp of the Assyrians and killed 186,000 of them. They certainly seem to have ended up dead some way. Chaldean historians said they died of plague. ================================== The plague existed (and there may still be some of the bacteria in some laboratory, somewhere). Gods and angels don't exist, except in your deluded mind, Skippy. Get over it. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |