Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: foolsrushin on 13 Aug 2008 01:11 On 13 Aug, 04:28, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 12, 6:46 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> On Aug 11, 7:39 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 > >> Well, it's the first time that I will agree with your doubt. > >> We don't agree that your level of intelligence is anywhere near ours, > >> at all.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, I hope I am not that dense. > > Nope. You're denser. > > -- > **************************************************** > * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * > *--------------------------------------------------* > * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * > * can't eat it? * > **************************************************** Does God need to prove He exists? As a student, I joined the Free Thinker's Society. Even then, though I was invited in by some very bright people, I discovered that the members were locked in an interminable battle where I was expected to take sides, and nobody knew the difference between an ostensive defiinition, erm, and an an operational definition. Wouldn't surprise me if they go on until they expire! Some people get trapped reactively, often very bright, in a battle between two religions: Atheism and Christianity or whatever, and there is nothing to be done about it! A first cousin on my mother's side , a Priest, and an old and good friend, a Rabbi ( both brilliant, we all three recently shared a good and decent dinner, scintillating and very funny! ), concluded, 'This has nothing to do with religion, John, which has more to do with how you live than what you believe at any particular moment! Those people need to get a life, then sort out their beliefs, whatever they may turn out to be!' -- foolsrushin.
From: DanielSan on 13 Aug 2008 06:10 foolsrushin wrote: > On 13 Aug, 04:28, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Aug 12, 6:46 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Aug 11, 7:39 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 >>>> Well, it's the first time that I will agree with your doubt. >>>> We don't agree that your level of intelligence is anywhere near ours, >>>> at all.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, I hope I am not that dense. >> Nope. You're denser. >> > > Does God need to prove He exists? He's purportedly done so in the past to other people. > > As a student, I joined the Free Thinker's Society. Even then, though I > was invited in by some very bright people, I discovered that the > members were locked in an interminable battle where I was expected to > take sides, and nobody knew the difference between an ostensive > defiinition, erm, and an an operational definition. Wouldn't surprise > me if they go on until they expire! > > Some people get trapped reactively, often very bright, in a battle > between two religions: Atheism and Christianity or whatever, and there > is nothing to be done about it! Atheism isn't a religion. > A first cousin on my mother's side , > a Priest, and an old and good friend, a Rabbi > ( both brilliant, we all three recently shared a good and decent > dinner, scintillating and very funny! ), concluded, 'This has nothing > to do with religion, John, which has more to do with how you live than > what you believe at any particular moment! Those people need to get a > life, then sort out their beliefs, whatever they may turn out to be!' The only problem with that is this: http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff50/xebeche_tzu/addiscartoon.jpg -- **************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * * can't eat it? * ****************************************************
From: Yap on 13 Aug 2008 23:00 On Aug 12, 11:06 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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 Al, Stop talking to him in the equation. He doesn't understand anything and cannot put forward a correct valid and meaningful equation. If he could think properly, he wouldn't have been put into V.A. Hospital twice and escaped. Plus, he is only educated to the high school level.
From: Yap on 13 Aug 2008 23:33 On Aug 13, 1:11 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 13 Aug, 04:28, DanielSan <daniel...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Aug 12, 6:46 pm, hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Aug 11, 7:39 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 > > >> Well, it's the first time that I will agree with your doubt. > > >> We don't agree that your level of intelligence is anywhere near ours, > > >> at all.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > Well, I hope I am not that dense. > > > Nope. You're denser. > > > -- > > **************************************************** > > * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * > > *--------------------------------------------------* > > * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He * > > * can't eat it? * > > **************************************************** > > Does God need to prove He exists? Of course, the god must prove he exist, appear to exist and useful to human as well. Otherwise, the claim to make people worshiping him is not valid and waste of time. And if he is not useful to human, he can exist but is not relevant to mankind at all. Do you see these points? > > As a student, I joined the Free Thinker's Society. Even then, though I > was invited in by some very bright people, I discovered that the > members were locked in an interminable battle where I was expected to > take sides, and nobody knew the difference between an ostensive > defiinition, erm, and an an operational definition. Wouldn't surprise > me if they go on until they expire! > > Some people get trapped reactively, often very bright, in a battle > between two religions: Atheism and Christianity or whatever, and there > is nothing to be done about it! A first cousin on my mother's side , > a Priest, and an old and good friend, a Rabbi > ( both brilliant, we all three recently shared a good and decent > dinner, scintillating and very funny! ), concluded, 'This has nothing > to do with religion, John, which has more to do with how you live than > what you believe at any particular moment! Those people need to get a > life, then sort out their beliefs, whatever they may turn out to be!' > -- > foolsrushin.
From: rbwinn on 13 Aug 2008 23:40
On Aug 13, 8:00�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 11:06 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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 > > Al, > Stop talking to him in the equation. > He doesn't understand anything and cannot put forward a correct valid > and meaningful equation. > If he could think properly, he wouldn't have been put into V.A. > Hospital twice and escaped. > Plus, he is only educated to the high school level.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think if you keep coaching Al, he can almost be like a real scientist. Robert B. Winn |