Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 11 Aug 2008 23:06 On Aug 12, 2:03 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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 No you retard. That equation is merely a definition of velocity. I'm going to stop trying to discuss physics with you now. Because your inability to understand even the equations you're posting is making it too hard to continue. Al
From: rbwinn on 11 Aug 2008 23:15 On Aug 11, 7:25�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 11, 9:39 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 12:22 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 3:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 5:47 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:8b87bb2b-d870-47c8-a646-110a073205bb(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups..com... > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > You keep using this expression, "So you are saying" ... then go on to say > > > > > something completely ridiculous and having no bearing at all on what the > > > > > person has actually said > > > > > Why is that? > > > > > Well, atheists say, There is no God, and then want to avoid all > > > > consequences of that statement. If you are claiming to be the most > > > > intelligent beings in existence, you cannot just say, We do not > > > > believe in God, so we are more intelligent than anyone else, but we > > > > are not responsible for anything we say. If you boys and girls are > > > > going to run the universe, you need to step up. OK, so you say you > > > > have a better plan than God's, let's see how well you do. > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > No, as an atheist, we say we don't believe in any god. It's not the > > > same as saying we believe there are no gods. > > > Apart from freeing the mind from shackles of stupidity, there are no > > > consequences. > > > If anyone claims to be the most intelligent being in existence, > > > they're likely deluded, and it's not a claim made from atheism. > > > Well, as usual, your mathematics is lacking in validity. �What you > > seem to be saying is that all beings are equal in intelligence. > > Robert B. Winn > > Some people are clearly seriously lacking in their mental capacity, so > no, that's not what I'm saying. > You really need to cultivate reading comprehension and logical > thinking. �They both seem not so much deficient, as absent. > Well, this fact exists. if there are two intelligences, one is more intelligent than the other. So explain how God does not exist. Robert B. Winn
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 12 Aug 2008 00:39 On Aug 12, 1:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 7:25 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 11, 9:39 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 12:22 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 3:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 10, 5:47 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:8b87bb2b-d870-47c8-a646-110a073205bb(a)c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > You keep using this expression, "So you are saying" ... then go on to say > > > > > > something completely ridiculous and having no bearing at all on what the > > > > > > person has actually said > > > > > > Why is that? > > > > > > Well, atheists say, There is no God, and then want to avoid all > > > > > consequences of that statement. If you are claiming to be the most > > > > > intelligent beings in existence, you cannot just say, We do not > > > > > believe in God, so we are more intelligent than anyone else, but we > > > > > are not responsible for anything we say. If you boys and girls are > > > > > going to run the universe, you need to step up. OK, so you say you > > > > > have a better plan than God's, let's see how well you do. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > No, as an atheist, we say we don't believe in any god. It's not the > > > > same as saying we believe there are no gods. > > > > Apart from freeing the mind from shackles of stupidity, there are no > > > > consequences. > > > > If anyone claims to be the most intelligent being in existence, > > > > they're likely deluded, and it's not a claim made from atheism. > > > > Well, as usual, your mathematics is lacking in validity. What you > > > seem to be saying is that all beings are equal in intelligence. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Some people are clearly seriously lacking in their mental capacity, so > > no, that's not what I'm saying. > > You really need to cultivate reading comprehension and logical > > thinking. They both seem not so much deficient, as absent. > > Well, this fact exists. if there are two intelligences, one is more > intelligent than the other. So explain how God does not exist. > Robert B. Winn It's not a fact because you haven't defined what you mean by intelligence. And even if you take an easy answer like IQ, it's entirely possible to have two people with the same IQ score. In my opinion there's all sorts of intelligences. There's certainly several different ways of putting numbers to it, that all come up with different answers. Al
From: rbwinn on 12 Aug 2008 00:45 On Aug 11, 7:29�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 11, 10:00 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 - > > > OK, so you really do not understand transmission of sound. �That will > > not affect your life much. �Most people go through life without even > > thinking about how sound is transmitted. �These are the equations that > > describe transmission of sound. > > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � x'=x-vt > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �y'=y > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �z'=z > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �t'=t > > > � � �They are called the Galilean transformation equations. > > � � � Now with regard to what you call a zero time difference. �When > > Galileo was alive, they had not yet imagined atoms, molecules, etc. > > They kept time by measuring the rotation of the earth,but only some > > scientists thought the earth was rotating. �So consider it this way. > > All the Galilean transformation equations are saying is that the earth > > rotates on its axis the same number of degrees in moving frame of > > reference S' as it does in frame of reference S. �So S' and S have a > > common measurement of time. > > � � � �But a cesuim atom in S' will have fewer transitions than a > > cesium atom in S, meaning that what scientists call scientific time or > > atomic time will be slower in S' than in S. �This explains why a > > cesium clock in a satellite in orbit around the earth is running > > slower than an identical cesium clock on earth. > > � � � But that does not affect the rotation of the earth. �The earth > > rotates the same number of degrees in S' as it does in S. > > Robert B. Winn > > No, those are NOT equations describing transmission of sound. � �For > one thing V varies with atmospheric temperature and several other > things. �So your "v" is massively simplistic. �Those equations are for > determining distance travelled by a particle mass in a pre- > relativistic universe. �For one thing there's no such thing as sound > travelling in one direction only. > > Al- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The v is not referring to speed of sound, Al. It is referring to the velocity of one frame of reference relative to the other. The transformation equations show how one set of coordinates transforms to the other set of coordinates. The way sound applies to this is that if sound is generated at point x, then it will travel a distance of (a)t in S where a is the velocity of sound. But the sound is not traveling with the same velocity in both frames of reference. Because the sound is traveling through the molecules of air in S with a velocity of a, its velocity in S' is a-v. The best way to demonstrate this is the way Einstein set up the problem to show transmission of light. S' is a set of coordinates in motion relative to set of coordinates S with a velocity of v such that the origin of S' coincides with the origin of S at t'=t=0. When the origins coincide, sound is emitted at the origins. In S, the sound travels a distance of x at a velocity of a in a time of t. x=at In S', the sound travels a distance of x', where x'=x-vt, in a time of t'=t, at a velocity of (a-v). x'=(a-v)t' Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 12 Aug 2008 01:17
On Aug 11, 7:58�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Aug 11, 10:49 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > Robert B. Winn > > You can believe anything you want. �I don't believe you really believe > in god and heaven, otherwise, why not do christian things until you > die from it? �Like fly to mecca and preach to the muslims there. > > Al I doubt that I will ever leave the United States again. Robert B. Winn |