Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Steve O on 6 Aug 2008 05:22 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:7be0be8c-09fd-4d4f-a75b-75159bc75ae7(a)y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 5, 7:34�pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On Aug 5, 6:42 am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> >> rbwinn wrote: >> >>> On Aug 4, 9:39 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >> >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >>>> On Aug 4, 10:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On Aug 3, 9:31 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >> >>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Aug 2, 1:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 8:14 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>news:f012c137-ec7a-4f41-acf8-81a047bcb82d(a)8g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>>>>> Smiler, >> >>>>>>>>> I never go to alt.atheism. >> >>>>>>>> Idiot - you are never out of it. >> >>>>>>>> Every time you hit that send button with alt.atheism in your >> >>>>>>>> headers, you go >> >>>>>>>> there. >> >>>>>>>> All I am doing is responding to posts in >> >>>>>>>>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. >> >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >> >>>>>>>> And alt.atheism, cretin. >> >>>>>>> I don't care what is in the headers. I have already told you how >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>> avoid talking to me. Just take sci.physics and >> >>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity >> >>>>>>> out of the header. I never go to alt.atheism. >> >>>>>>> Robert b. Winn >> >>>>>> The issue is really that some of us really object to lies. And >> >>>>>> when >> >>>>>> we see lies, we feel the need to publicly denounce them to the >> >>>>>> same >> >>>>>> audience as they were originally disseminated to. >> >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>> If you object to lies, then you should stop posting lies in >> >>>>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. Lies are off topic in these >> >>>>> newsgroups. >> >>>>> Robert B. Winn >> >>>> I haven't posted any lies. You however, have demonstrably posted >> >>>> many >> >>>> lies >> >>> It did not happen. I was the person who said that Hezekiah's tunnel >> >>> exists, which was demonstrated to be true. >> >> And King's Cross Station exists. >> >> > Does the Bible say that King's Cross Station exists? >> >> No, because, when the Bible was written, the station was not built yet. >> � When the Bible was written, it didn't even REFERENCE the entire >> country that would later be known as England. >> > Well, then you cannot prove the Bible wrong by using King's Cross > Station. You would have to use something in the Bible. > Robert B. Winn D'ya THINK??? Lol! -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 6 Aug 2008 05:27 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:9bdcfe91-2a42-4b75-8582-4f87ed8bfac3(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... >> >> It also isn't evidence, no matter hard you try to make it evidence. >> >> >> -- >> >> > So you are saying that the Bible is like Hezekiah's tunnel, it does >> > not exist. >> >> Um. �No. > If the Bible exists, then it is evidence. Evidence of WHAT? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: Steve O on 6 Aug 2008 05:29 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:da870064-4360-4aaf-b06b-76235291b130(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > I have never hired a lawyer or been represented in court by a lawyer. > Citizens of the United States have the right to represent themselves > in court. > Robert B. Winn I have always been highly amused, sometimes even a little saddened by watching people with little or no legal training trying to defend themselves in court. You'd have to be insane to do something as stupid as that. Oh, wait a minute... -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack Exempt from purgatory by papal indulgence
From: hhyapster on 6 Aug 2008 05:35 On Aug 6, 2:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 6:53 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 3, 11:28 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:21 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > > > > > > > > in alt.atheism: > > > > > > > > > >On Aug 1, 3:35?pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> In article <e41a1737-acad-4cdc-ae31-4f6523f32...(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > >> rbwinn says... > > > > > > > > > >> >So what exactly is it > > > > > > > > >> >that you are trying to do? > > > > > > > > >> >Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > > > >> I could ask you the same question, Robert. All you are doing is rattling cages. > > > > > > > > >> You aren't actually accomplishing anything else. > > > > > > > > > >> Worse yet, you are still crossposting. You posted this to all of the following > > > > > > > > >> groups, whether you know it or not: > > > > > > > > >> sci.physics,cam.misc,alt.sci.physics,alt.atheism. > > > > > > > > > >> Crossposting is always irritating, so it is almost never the right thing to do. > > > > > > > > >> It certainly isn't right here. Pick one group and stick with it. Pick one where > > > > > > > > >> it is on topic. > > > > > > > > > >> Finally, make sure you know how to use your news client. Do you know how to coax > > > > > > > > >> it to display all the groups it is about to post to? Do you know how to turn OFF > > > > > > > > >> crossposting? > > > > > > > > > >Well, scientists were all done talking to me about the theory of > > > > > > > > >relativity two years ago when I finally figured out how the Galilean > > > > > > > > >transformation equations describe relativity of time If any > > > > > > > > >scientists decide they want to talk to me, I would certainly rather > > > > > > > > >talk to them than these atheists. > > > > > > > > > You already demonstrated to us how confused you are in that area. > > > > > > > > Please, don't bring it up again. Didn't you learn anything from those > > > > > > > > who critiqued your 'work'?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Anyone who took physics in high school should be able to follow these > > > > > equations. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > Yes, unless the equations do not make sense. > > > > I am telling you that your equation did not have any meaning and was > > > > insufficiently represented. > > > > Where did you take them from? > > > > You being a high school standard has no capability or ability to make > > > > up a physics formula of any useful form, except to show your stupidity > > > > or insanity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > These equations are in any high school physics text. > > > > x'=x-vt > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=t > > > > They are called the Galilean transformation equations and were used > > > to describe transmission of light until the Michelson-Morley > > > experiment proved that ether did not exist. Then Einstein and Lorentz > > > substituted the Lorentz equations, which require a distance > > > contraction and are therefore obviously wrong. > > > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > However, they do sow the speed of light to be c in both frames of > > > reference, which is what the Michelson-Morley experiment requires. > > > > To do the same thing with the Galilean transformation equations, you > > > have to use velocity of light instead of speed of light. > > > > w=velocity of light > > > x=wt > > > x'=wn' > > > > x'=x-vt > > > wn'=wt-vt > > > n'=t(1-v/w) > > > > n' is time on a cesium clock in the moving frame of reference. > > > > So tell me, hhyaps, do you know more now than you did before I > > > explained it to you? > > > Robert B. Winn > > > OK, rbwinn. > > When I mentioned that you only have high school standard and should > > not try to bring up equations, I meant you no harm except to tell you > > that what has presented by you make no sense. > > First, I just would focus on the first part of this post: > > x' = x - vt > > y' = y > > z' = z > > t' = t > > If you can be any scientific standing or understanding, you would not > > post these to try to argue. > > The first equation doesn't even have y and z in its formula and you > > are trying to show what? > > You have to present full derivatives of how the equation come about > > and explain the problem before going one step further. > > Do you know that when I said there is no head and no tail?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The equations represent coordinates on two sets of Cartesian > coordinates, frame of reference S and frame of reference s'. The > first equation x'=x-vt shows that S' is in motion relative to frame of > reference S such that the x' axis of S' is on the x axis of S and S' > is moving with velocity of v relative to S'. The coordinates > x',y',and z' in S' can be determined with the above equations from the > coordinates in S, x, y, and z. Time in S' is measured the same as > time in S. That is what t'=t means. People who have studied physics > are supposed to know all of this. > > Robert B. Winn Very interesting. Pls show the all the equations and make a sense out of them, put in your data or correction and we can then know what you are trying to explain. You have skipped the background and expect every one here to understand? I am a trained scientist though not in physics, and I cannot make out what you want to say.
From: hhyapster on 6 Aug 2008 05:37
On Aug 6, 2:39 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 7:52 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 9:22 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 11:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:34 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 05:02:25 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in > > > > > > <df36fbb3-4bc6-4217-93a7-eb8537d50...(a)s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > > >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 any kind of case. A lawyer can request that a Bible be entered as > > > > > > >evidence in any court case. Clarence Darrow had the Bible entered as > > > > > > >evidence in the famous "monkey trial". > > > > > > > When did you last check the rules of evidence?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > The last time I was in court. I attempted to introduce the > > > > > Constitution of the United States as evidence. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > Yes, the constitution was written in modern time and is not a story. > > > > The bible was written more than 2000 years ago and was a collection of > > > > tales meant to con the young into sleep. > > > > You do not know the significance of a constitution and a fictional > > > > story book.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I said I attempted to enter the Constitution as evidence. Judges in > > > America today do not allow the Constitution in their police state > > > courts. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Are you try to lie? > > Any one can introduce the Constitution as evidence, but this must be > > done by the lawyer. > > And you should know that the judges have much more knowledge in the > > Constitution than any one else? > > If he refuse your lawyer's request, he must have seen the > > irrelevance. > > And you lied again that the courts are police state court.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have never hired a lawyer or been represented in court by a lawyer. > Citizens of the United States have the right to represent themselves > in court. > Robert B. Winn Yes, but it did mean you are not a law graduate and you did not know about constitution, let alone the interpretation of it. And you refuse the right of the judge to throw out your request ? |