Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Ben Dolan on 4 Aug 2008 11:20 <hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > w=velocity of light > > x=wt > > x'=wn' > > > > x'=x-vt > > wn' = wt -vt > > n'=t(1-v/w) > > > > 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 > > > > Robert B. Winn > > What are these nonsense? > If you want to put forward any formula, be very clear about every step > and what do they mean. > There is no head and no tail to the above, and certainly nothing in > between. > Do you see any physicist respond to you? The child has been flogging these for years now, all the physicists have long since gotten their laughs and moved on. It is a clear indication of Bobby's profound mental illness that he keeps reposting these over and over even when there's no one left who will respond to him. Trust me, his "formulas" have long since been discredited as fallacious nonsense. I wrote about this a month or so ago. Apparently there are quite a few deranged individuals who have latched on to physics (specifically, claiming to disprove established results) and they bombard physicists with their wild theories and twisted formulae. There was a very good segment on This American Life recently featuring one of these guys. It is an interesting phenomenon--not of physics but of mental illness.
From: Alex W. on 4 Aug 2008 12:43 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:12cee822-56d1-443e-a35f-942ba19102c7(a)56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... On Aug 3, 8:57?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:30 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 8:54 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> > >>>> wrote > >>>> in alt.atheism: > >>>>> On Aug 2, 7:23?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as: > >>>>>>>> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child. > >>>>>>>> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the > >>>>>>>> writer of > >>>>>>>> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people > >>>>>>>> today > >>>>>>>> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child". > >>>>>>> Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so > >>>>>>> feeble > >>>>>>> minded that he would have believed there was something other than > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> child in the womb of a pregnant woman. ? Nothing he wrote would > >>>>>>> indicate that he was feeble minded. > >>>>>> No, I'm not saying that at all. > >>>>> Well, you absolutely are. You regard me as so stupid that you think > >>>>> you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in > >>>>> her > >>>>> womb. Why would you treat Luke any different? > >>>> Once again, you misrepresent the discussion.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> The discussion was whether a pregnant woman has a child in her womb. > >>> You claimed she did not. > >> There is a fetus in the womb from 9 weeks from conception to birth. > >> Prior to 9 weeks, there isn't even a fetus. > > >> Did you parents ever teach you about the birds and the bees? (Hint: It > >> has nothing to do with avians or insects.) > > > I was taught from the time I was born that a pregnant woman has a > > child inside her. > > Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you were taught wrong. > > -- Well, that is about the most feeble-minded response I have ever seen. ========== You don't read your own posts, do you?
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 18:33 On Aug 3, 8:56�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >> in alt.atheism: > > >>> On Aug 3, 8:12?am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 2, 8:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >>>>>> in alt.atheism: > >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>> Discuss it with John after the resurrection. > >>>>>>>> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there? > >>>>>>> Well, actually there is. The apostles were witnesses of the > >>>>>>> resurrected Christ on two separate occasions. > >>>>>> No evidence backs up your claim. > >>>>> Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one. > >>>> I have a Bible. ?There's no evidence in there to back up your claim. > >>> John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the > >>> week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for > >>> fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto > >>> them, Peace be unto you. > >>> John 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of > >>> coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. > >>> 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now > >>> caught. > >>> 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great > >>> fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so > >>> many, yet was not the net broken. > >>> 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the disciples durst > >>> ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. > >>> 13 Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish > >>> likewise. > >>> 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his > >>> disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. > >> The Bible still is not evidence. I asked for evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > The Bible is accepted as evidence in court. � > > For what kinds of cases? > For all kinds of cases. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as evidence in the monkey trial. Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 18:35 On Aug 3, 8:57�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 3, 4:30 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On Aug 3, 8:54 am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >>>> in alt.atheism: > >>>>> On Aug 2, 7:23?pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>> The word in question is "egkuos". This word can be defined as: > >>>>>>>> swelling inside, i.e. pregnant -- great with child. > >>>>>>>> You are using "great with child" and assuming that's what the writer of > >>>>>>>> Luke meant. Not sure how you get that, actually. Most people today > >>>>>>>> would use the word "pregnant", not the phrase "great with child".. > >>>>>>> Well, what you are saying is that you believe that Luke was so feeble > >>>>>>> minded that he would have believed there was something other than a > >>>>>>> child in the womb of a pregnant woman. ? Nothing he wrote would > >>>>>>> indicate that he was feeble minded. > >>>>>> No, I'm not saying that at all. > >>>>> Well, you absolutely are. You regard me as so stupid that you think > >>>>> you can convince me that a pregnant woman does not have a child in her > >>>>> womb. Why would you treat Luke any different? > >>>> Once again, you misrepresent the discussion.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> The discussion was whether a pregnant woman has a child in her womb. > >>> You claimed she did not. > >> There is a fetus in the womb from 9 weeks from conception to birth. > >> Prior to 9 weeks, there isn't even a fetus. > > >> Did you parents ever teach you about the birds and the bees? (Hint: It > >> has nothing to do with avians or insects.) > > > I was taught from the time I was born that a pregnant woman has a > > child inside her. > > Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you were taught wrong. > > -- You are saying that my mother was lying to me about my younger brothers and sisters? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 4 Aug 2008 18:46
On Aug 3, 10:19�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 2, 11:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:34 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > >news:20f1e376-9a97-48d1-9da4-f7cf581dcafc(a)w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Aug 1, 4:39?am, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Jul 31, 1:11?pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > ============================ > > > > > > All Christs are false, even the first one. > > > > > > Well, I think that the best person to tell your idea would be Jesus > > > > > Christ. ?Why don't you take some time to tell him what you think when > > > > > he returns to judge the earth? > > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Do you know that your mental illness is getting worse? > > > > You have no way to explain when asked, then you avoid like a scared > > > > dog losing its fight and ran with tail in between ?the legs.- Hide quoted > > > > text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > How did you come to this conclusion? > > > ================================== > > > We can all tell that you're as mad as a hatter and as thick as a housebrick > > > without us having any qualifications in psychiatry. > > > The evidence is in all your posts. > > > ======================================== > > > > Were you aware that trying to > > > practice psychiatry without a license is a felony? > > > ================================== > > > Show where is he PRACTISING psychiatry, skippy. > > > Any time that you declare a person insane you are practicing > > psychiatry. �What the law requires you to do is to go to a court and > > submit a petition requesting the institutionalization of a person > > believed to be insane. > > Robert B. Winn > > Nope. �Telling someone they are crazy is not practicing psychiatry > anymore than noticing someone has flat feet is practicing podiatry. > Some people exhibit obvious enough symptoms for a layperson to provide > a rough diagnosis. > The purpose of certifying psychiatry is to restrict those who offer > services to others as such, and to control prescribing of drugs to > those with suitable training. > To institutionalise a person (in my country, not sure about yours) you > need both a medical practitioner and a justice of the peace, a > magistrate, or a judge. > Psychiatrists as medical practitioners, still need the assistance of > at least a JP. > In no way are psychiatrists required by law to institutionalise > everyone they find to be insane. �And in fact they would be required > to sign their name to a statement that they believe the person is a > danger to themselves or others. �Not, so much that they are mentally > ill. > > I'm wondering what your obsession with institutionalisation is about. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > If you want to say I am insane, you should be willing to show the courage of your convictions. I am just encouraging you to say something you really mean. Robert B. Winn |