Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 08:56 On Aug 11, 4:48�am, Masked Avenger <cootey...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 10, 8:51 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On Aug 11, 9:58 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > >>> On Aug 10, 8:19 am, "Stanford" <s...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote > >>>>> Well, you atheists claim to be able to make an exact copy of a human > >>>>> from human cells. > >>>> Wrong again, atheism is not a claim of any sort, > >>>> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." > >>> So you are saying that all of the people in medical science who are > >>> involved in cloning are devoutly religious. > >>> Robert B. Winn > >> No, you are seeming to suggest that to be an atheist, one must be > >> involved in human cloning experiments. As far as I'm aware (apart > >> from some practice runs) I'm not involved in artificial human cloning. > >> Suggesting that all atheists are involved in cloning is more logically > >> flawed than suggesting all christians are pedophiles. > > >> Al > > > Well, I would not think so. �How many atheists are opposed to > > cloning? �All Christians are supposed to be opposed to pedophelia. > > Robert B. Winn > > tell that to the Catholics ...... > OK. Robert B. Winn
From: DanielSan on 11 Aug 2008 09:11 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 11, 5:30�am, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 10, 6:15 pm, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>> So you atheists do not think you are hypocrites and you have something >>> to offer humanity? >> Oh, we DEFINITELY have something to offer humanity: �Humility. >> > Well, let's see how humble you are. Regarding...? -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: Ben Dolan on 11 Aug 2008 11:22 rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > Well, as usual, your mathematics is lacking in validity. The mathematics are nothing more complicated than counting. Atheists believe in one fewer god than you. It really is that simple, perhaps even simple enough for you to grasp. > What you seem to be saying is that all beings are equal in intelligence. Where would you come up with such a silly idea, child?
From: Ben Dolan on 11 Aug 2008 11:22 rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > What views would those be? You do not believe anything. We believe you're an idiot and a fool. And we have ample evidence to back that up...
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 12:03
On Aug 11, 12:42�am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 11, 4:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 7:29 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 9, 12:19 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7 Aug, 21:21, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 8, 12:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 Aug, 18:17, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 11:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No wonder no scientist wish to engage you. > > > > > > > > > You don't explain well and you don't understand (no capability) > > > > > > > > > anything at all. > > > > > > > > > But I admire you guts to bring the formula out in the public to be > > > > > > > > > humiliated.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Well, here are the equations, hhyaps. > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > So just go ahead and show the mistake you have found. As soon > > > > > > > > as I arrived at these equations, scientists quit talking to me. At > > > > > > > > one time when I was using the wrong equations, about half of the posts > > > > > > > > in sci.physics.relativity were directed at me. So since you are a > > > > > > > > scientist who says these equations are wrong, just go ahead and show > > > > > > > > what is wrong with them. > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > > The error is in checking with reality, what it thinks. Physics isn't > > > > > > > algebra. > > > > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Physics isn't algebra? Well, tell us what physics is, Al. > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > Physics is science as it relates to matter, motion and energy. > > > > > Science isn't maths. It often uses maths. But the maths is in > > > > > service to the science, not the other way around. You can derive any > > > > > of a a multitude of different equations that are mathematically > > > > > correct. But until you test them vs reality, they're just maths. Not > > > > > science. See String Theory. > > > > > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Well, as the math applied to describing transmission of light, until > > > > 1887 scientists used the Galilean transformation equations. > > > > x='x-vt > > > > y'=y > > > > z'=z > > > > t'=t > > > > And no longer used except as a rough approximation. > > > > > These are the equations that are still used to describe transmission > > > > of sound. > > > > Due to sound waves travelling significantly slower than light, the > > > errors encountered by using the simple equation is negligible. It > > > doesn't change it from being wrong. Just that the errors are small > > > enough to be ignorable. > > > Well, no, the equations are not wrong for sound. �Sound is transmitted > > by air molecules hitting against each other. �So air is a medium which > > is at rest relative to one of the frames of reference ahd which is > > moving relative to the other. > > If sound waves happened to be travelling at speeds in excess of (say) > 10% of C, then they would be obviously wrong. > But, as it is they're so mildly wrong it doesn't make any difference. > > > Until 1887 scientists believed the same thing to be true with regard > > to light. �They thought there was a medium called ether through which > > light was being transmitted. �So your statement would be true with > > regard to transmission of light for frames of reference moving at > > slower velocities. �For lower velocities, the errors are small enough > > to be ignorable. �For a velocity such as the orbit of Mercury, 30 > > miles per second, the error is noticible. > > Robert B. Winn > > The error is noticeable whether the wave/particle moving is light or > not. �It's just rare to find things other than light travelling at > relativistic speeds. > But it doesn't really matter which equation you start with if you're > going to assign a zero time difference. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The speed of sound in air is 1087 feet per second. This speed can be increased by raising the temperature of the air or slowed by lowering the temperature of the air. But with regard to a description of transmission of sound in air, the Galilean transformation equations are an exact description if the exact velocity of the sound is known. Set of coordinates S represents the frame of reference of the air through which the sound is being transmitted. Set of coordinates S' represents something moving relative to the air through which the sound is being transmitted. If x, y, z, and t are the space and time coordinates for an event in S, then x',y',z', and t' are the space and time coordinates for the same event in S'. If time in S' is t'=t, then a clock in S' reads the same as a clock in S. That is what the equations say. If something is going faster thn sound, then sound cannot catch up with it anyway. Sound has to be transmitted with the molecules. Robert B. Winn |