Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yap on 14 Aug 2008 00:22 On Aug 14, 11:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > 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 No. We are both not clear about what you have written. I am just telling you that your formula make no sense. The formula did not include the variables and not all variables are included and you did not explain. We can't start and argue with an invalid formula. We may as well argue on the validity or more to the point, the "usefulness to mankind"/"cruelty to human" of your god.
From: rbwinn on 14 Aug 2008 01:30 On Aug 13, 9:22�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 14, 11:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > No. > We are both not clear about what you have written. > I am just telling you that your formula make no sense. > The formula did not include the variables and not all variables are > included and you did not explain. > We can't start and argue with an invalid formula. > We may as well argue on the validity or more to the point, the > "usefulness to mankind"/"cruelty to human" of your god.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Galileo thought his equations were pretty good equations. What do you atheists find wrong with them? Robert B. Winn
From: Yap on 14 Aug 2008 03:09 On Aug 14, 1:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 9:22 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 14, 11:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > No. > > We are both not clear about what you have written. > > I am just telling you that your formula make no sense. > > The formula did not include the variables and not all variables are > > included and you did not explain. > > We can't start and argue with an invalid formula. > > We may as well argue on the validity or more to the point, the > > "usefulness to mankind"/"cruelty to human" of your god.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Galileo thought his equations were pretty good equations. What do you > atheists find wrong with them? > Robert B. Winn Then you have to talk to him since he come up with it. This is a more valid answer than your normal "Talk to jesus". When Galileo form an equation and published it, it was meant for all mankind. But, your bible said your god only chose Isrealites....well, you are lucky since you are one....but not at the right place and the right time.
From: Alex W. on 14 Aug 2008 05:57 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:f5e3d552-6a9d-4a99-88d3-fe58a10c1225(a)k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... Moses was told to take the Israelites back to the land of Caanan. ============= Catchy tune, but hardly relevant outside a pop quiz.....
From: Antares 531 on 14 Aug 2008 09:11
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:11:01 -0700 (PDT), foolsrushin <dolomite8(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 16 Jul, 00:33, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "The Natural Philosopher" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in messagenews:1216105791.16115.0(a)proxy02.news.clara.net... >> > BuddyThunder wrote: >> (snip) >> >> You mean wishful thinking, wish-fulfilment phantasies? �I'd say that it is >> actually easier to conceive of something that CANNOT exist (by virtue of >> contravening laws of physics, for instance) than to construct an imaginary >> something that COULD exist but definitely doesn't. �It's ever so much harder >> if you have to respect the laws of the universe. > >Except in a very narrow sense, I am not a paranormalist. The laws of >physics seem, however, to be contravened by hundreds of incidents, >only explicable if matter were impenetrable and gravity could be >switched off. There is no explanation, apart from calling them liars >or incompetent observers, when experienced pilots report objects which >fall outside the definition of an 'UFO': for example, a weather >balloon or camera-lenses artifacts. > It MAY be possible to explain these things without switching gravity off, etc. If one considers the extra dimensions posited by Super String - Membrane Theory, these paranormal events could be explained as happening in one of those other space/dimension sets that had somehow become vaguely perceivable to us. Think of this as our universe has spatial dimensions X, Y & Z and another space set (multiverse) has spatial dimensions W, X &Y. This other universe shares two dimensions with our own perceivable universe. Normally, their W dimension is rolled up to less than a Planck length, from our perspective. We can conceptualize this by thinking of an infinite series of planes of that universe laying congruent with the W-X planes of our universe. The other universe planes are less than a Planck length in thickness, therefore we are unable to detect them by any known means. We are walking through these W-X planes of that next universe all the time but just don't perceive them at all. Think of a large book with pages so thin that they could not be perceived by any means we have available. One could walk right through that book, without ever knowing of its existence. If by some quirk or coordinated means by someone in that next universe, suppose their W dimension is expanded a bit beyond the Planck length. It would then become vaguely discernable to us, and might provide explanations for things like Jesus' walking on water, being taken up, etc. Gordon |