Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 19 Aug 2008 08:45 On Aug 19, 3:18�am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:80f9012b-b8cf-485b-9a67-99e6551b32e6(a)x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 18, 8:22 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, the cause of your problem is with V.A. psychiatrists. > >> They should be patient enough to try to cure your sickness or lock you > >> up indefinitely, instead they took the easy way out to allow you to > >> escape. > > > Actually, the first time I was in the V.A. hospital, I was a voluntary > > patient. �I signed myself into the hospital voluntarily at my parents' > > request. �I was supposed to be able to sign myself out any time.. �I > > ended up escaping because they were holding me prisoner and giving me > > drugs. > > Robert B. Winn > > They were trying to help you. > Your paranoia led you to believe they were harming you. > Well, I did get a little paranoid after they tied me to a bed for nine hours just because I laughed at a nursing assistant. While they had me restrained they gave me a drug called thorazine which made me feel as though I was smothering and caused me to lose control of my muscles. Yes, I did get a little paranoid. Since you are so educated about this, how was that supposed to be helping me? Robert B. Winn
From: rbwinn on 19 Aug 2008 16:05 On Aug 19, 11:38�am, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:41:28 UTC, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > On Aug 18, 12:11 pm, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:30:18 UTC, 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 > > > > Well, there are a couple of problems, neither having anything whatsoever > > > to do with atheism. > > > > First, and I greatly fear that someone will see this as nitpicking, though > > > it is impossible to understand Galileo's work without knowing this, is > > > that he didn't write equations. None. No algebra. He used the Eudoxian > > > theory of proportion instead, which was a splendid increase in power over > > > what people had a century a earlier when the standard translations of > > > Euclid had an awful error in the fifth book, which made the theory > > > gibberish; but it's horribly cumbersome to us, so people like to translate > > > the work into modern algebraic terms, as introduced by Descartes. Well and > > > good, but you don't know how he really thought till you've plowed through > > > some of the actual demonstrations. > > > > And of course, on a less pedantic level, his physical principles just > > > don't work in certain conditions that Galileo and Newton couldn't imagine. > > > But of course you know that already. > > > > What's really wonderful about this thread is that apparently Galileo has > > > graduated from being a heretic to be the source of holy religious dogma > > > about science. I'd be more delighted by this if I could avoid thinking > > > just how violently he'd hate such a development. And what's really > > > miserable: not seeing the invective he'd hurl at anybody who talked that > > > way, if he didn't happen to be in one of his benign moods. > > > > BTW I note that though I picked this up in alt.atheism, it seems to come > > > from sci.physics or somewhere. Why is it that sci. physics of all groups > > > is the one (well, along with the relativity subgroup) in which Galileo is > > > brought up invariably in the support of utter crackpottery? It deserves > > > some sort of prize. > > > Galileo's equations say what they say. �If scientists want to talk > > about frames of reference, Galileo's equations are the best ones to > > use. �Here is the problem with the Lorentz equations. �They require a > > length contraction in the direction of motion. �If a sattelite is put > > in orbit around the earth, then a clock in the sattelite is running > > slower than an identical clock on earth. �In the Lorentz equations, > > the speed of the sattelite is the same measured from the sattelite as > > measured with a clock on the ground. �Since the clock in the sattelite > > is slower, that means that the circumfrence of the orbit of the > > sattelite is less as measured from the sattelite than measured from > > the ground. �But an altimeter in the sattelite reads the same as the > > altitude measured from the ground. �That makes pi a variable, not a > > constant 3.14. > > Well, no, it doesn't, but let it pass. I still would like to know how the > equations into which Galileo's work has been translated by later writers > using methods he didn't use and didn't know of -- how, I say, they let us > compute such useful matters as how to time the impulses used to accelerate > a particle to speeds that approach 300 km/sec. A purely arbitrary number > (as well as approximate), of course, thought up by some atheist Jewish > fantasy in Einstein's deranged mind, and plagiarized anyway. But there you > are: compute the timings using Galileo's ideas, and the machine won't > work. > > > � � �Atheists may say, pi should be a variable. �But are they going to > > be able to enforce it? > > Robert B. Winn > > BTW, have you ever drawn a circle on the surface of a globe (a line of > latitude will do nicely)? -- tracing it as the locus of points equally > distant from a given point, as we know from Euclid. Good luck computing > the circumference by using pi. > > But I know as well as you do that I'm wasting my time here. It's an > effect, I think, of a certain derangement of the sensibilities caused by > encounter with the idea that some scientific ideas are atheistic, while > others accord with God's eternal revealed truth, especially when the > prophet of the latter is supposed to be Galileo. > > -- The circumfrence of any circle is 2pi r, including your latitude line. Robert B. Winn
From: Alex W. on 19 Aug 2008 19:50 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote in message news:50b7042a-59cf-4295-a15f-29378d602245(a)d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Aug 19, 4:29?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > > news:6d17c97a-baeb-474b-9498-51e73cf17c5c(a)v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 18, 7:59?pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Oh, > yes. > > There are plenty of people waiting to discuss with him > > for > > more than > > 2000 years but he keep hiding. > > When is he supposed to come? > > Please give a very specific date. A billion years from > > now? > > Sorry you don't believe the Bible. ?The Bible says no man > knoweth the > day and hour, but the Father only. > > ========== > > Which is rather equivalent to saying "the cheque is in the > mail" .... > > You know, most people have the sense to realise that if > someone doesn't turn up for some time, he isn't going to > show at all ... Well, since we have the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it does not matter when he returns. =========== Actually, we don't. Do google the Q Gospel.
From: Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) on 19 Aug 2008 21:23 On Aug 19, 10:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > On Aug 18, 9:52 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > > > > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2:12 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 18, 7:53 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> What do you mean by atheists never do much? > > > > Do you know that we save time by not attending church to pray to > > > > nonsense, in order to do work, care for our family, do research, etc? > > > > I read a book by an atheist named Nearing who bought a farm in New > > > Hampshire or somewhere, and he and his wife became farmers. But they > > > found out that they needed a day of rest because they got too tired if > > > they did not take one day in seven off. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > One day in eight worked for the Romans quite well. About 20%-40% of > > days off on any schedule works best as far as work efficiency goes. > > And that 7 day thing isn't christian or even jewish, belonging to > > civilisations at least as old as Babylon and Sumeria, but due to being > > shared by Hindu peoples probably originating in some old sanskrit or > > older community. And, it's not universal. Many societies have > > different week lengths, from 3 to 8 days. It's mostly dependant on > > how often makes a good frequency of market days. It's only in these > > times where anglo-saxon culture has dominated other societies that the > > 7 day week has propogated around the globe. > > > Al > > Well, the Romans have had less lasting influence than the Jews on > society even though they crushed the Jews with their military might. > The Jews were just more productive people. > Robert B. Winn There's a whole bunch of arguments both ways there, but I think you'll find most anthropologists would argue against that. Both groups have been influential, but the Jewish people have been mostly outsiders, whereas the romans set the scene and the bench-mark for Europe for over a thousand years. But... It's a moot point, as the influence of the culture isn't in question. Al
From: Smiler on 19 Aug 2008 22:12
rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 19, 2:57?am, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:bd058683-9b76-474d-88f2-dabcc1e7e19a(a)w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On Aug 18, 7:53 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> What do you mean by atheists never do much? >>>> Do you know that we save time by not attending church to pray to >>>> nonsense, in order to do work, care for our family, do research, >>>> etc? >> >>> I read a book by an atheist named Nearing who bought a farm in New >>> Hampshire or somewhere, and he and his wife became farmers. ?But >>> they found out that they needed a day of rest because they got too >>> tired if they did not take one day in seven off. >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> At least they were making good use of that day off rather than >> sitting in some old building, mumbling to no one. >> > Well, as I recall, How old are you, skippy, that you can recall Roman times? > they would sit around and do things like playing > musical instruments and talking about the New World Order, sort of an > imitation of what Christians do in church, singing hymns and > discussing the scriptures. But they didn't pray (= talk to themselves) to invisible, improbable, impossible, non-existent sky fairies like christians do. Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 |