Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 14 Aug 2008 19:42 On Aug 14, 11:11 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:11:01 -0700 (PDT), foolsrushin > > > > <dolomi...(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 Oh looksee! Comic book string theory. Just what I always wanted in a physics newsgroup. Al
From: Smiler on 14 Aug 2008 22:14 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:3aeae939-433a-478b-8732-9681a0cf8dd7(a)k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... 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 ============================ You don't. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Yap on 14 Aug 2008 23:01 On Aug 14, 9:11 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:11:01 -0700 (PDT), foolsrushin > > > > <dolomi...(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 Gordon, You wishfully wanted to come up with an environment that your jesus was capable to walk on water? Without resorting to an imaginary condition, it would be enough to just tell every one here your god give that ability to Jesus. Of course, you don't think there is a god, so therefore the super string membrane theory...theory, you say? What theory? You can bullshit in front of every one here, please be advised.
From: foolsrushin. on 14 Aug 2008 23:56 On 15 Aug, 04:01, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 14, 9:11 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:11:01 -0700 (PDT), foolsrushin > > <dolomi...(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 > Gordon, > You wishfully wanted to come up with an environment that your jesus > was capable to walk on water? > Without resorting to an imaginary condition, it would be enough to > just tell every one here your god give that ability to Jesus. > Of course, you don't think there is a god, so therefore the super > string membrane theory...theory, you say? What theory? > You can bullshit in front of every one here, please be advised. Rubbish! Heaviside and others truncated physics, if we are to believe Hoagland and Bara, both open to reasonable discussion, in love with life, humour and wit - as is Gordie! http://www.enterprisemission.com/ is an update for 'Dark Mission: the Secret History of NASA'. Read it! IBM: THINK! Get the book, too! Gordie is one of the most clear-minded, thoughtful and open-minded posters in wreck.org.mensa, and unlike me, is never rude to anybody, and only asks for considered dialogue. In this respect, we are similar! -- foolsrushin.
From: rbwinn on 15 Aug 2008 04:40
On Aug 14, 11:14�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 15, 11:33 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Well, are you saying that people who were killed by the tsunami could > > not go to heaven? > > Robert B. Winn > > So, now you admit your god is a murderer? > Killing so many innocent people at one go? What crime had they > committed? > May be you are projecting that while god created human, he could also > take away their lives whenever he pleased? > > If so, please tell us that you speak on behalf of all loons, all > preachers/pastors and your pope. Of course, I understand you speak on > behalf of your god, but since you are not certified by him and we know > there can be no authorization, the next choice is if you are indeed > given the status of spokesman for the Christians.- Hide quoted text - > Well, God could certainly have prevented the tsunami, but evidently no one asked Him to do it. Robert B. Winn |