Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: rbwinn on 21 Aug 2008 09:15 On Aug 20, 11:39�pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You have no basic understanding of subjects like history, psychology, > philosophy and science. > Your high school standard does not give you enough knowledge to talk > about relativity of time, with respect to the happening in this world. > You are also trying to equate events in the past to present in order > to defend your Jesus/god thing. > There is no correlation here. > Events happened in the past, unless real and true, had no influence on > things in present day. > Jesus and the invented term "god" have no meaning in our world now. > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > On Aug 20, 7:16 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Steve, > > > Your message make a lot of sense. > > > We tend to be clear in our mind whether or not a particular situation > > > is correct or reasonable. > > > But, all the loons in the world behave the same way, they take bible > > > for granted and even if they are suspicious of a particular event, > > > they will not raise any question. > > > Those events described in the bible were not the same as scientific > > > theories or mathematical equations which were based on values and > > > facts. > > > They were presented in the supernatural sense but lackedthe ability to > > > withstand simple scrutiny or reasoning. > > > For all the power attributed to god, he was not projected to exercise > > > his capability to benefit human. What good would the god be? > > > Sad, sad..... > > > Well, here in sci.physics.relativity we talk about relativity of > > time. �You atheists and other absolute time disciples look at the time > > of today, compare it to what happened yesterday and from that conclude > > that nothing different could have ever happened in the history of the > > earth. > > People who consider the subject more deeply are aware that time is > > relative, and is not only affected by velocity, as the equations of > > modern scientists show. �So using your ideas based on absolute time, > > you followers of European philosophy conclude that what occured today > > must have occurred in every day of the earth's history, and no other > > explanation is possible. > > � � � Time measures the number of events that take place in an > > interval. �If the interval is one rotation of the earth, who is to say > > that eleven billion years of dinosaurs counted by transitions of a > > cesium isotope molecule under present conditions could not have > > occurred in one rotation of the earth? > > � � � �You absolute time atheists are all thrilled about relativity of > > time except when it does not suit your purposes. > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, let's just wait a few years and see how you atheists do since you control everything now. The prophecy is that you will not be able to hold it together and that wars will spread over the entire earth. So let's see what happens. Robert B. Winn
From: Smiler on 21 Aug 2008 21:57 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 20, 7:41?pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Some important points: >> 1). You know revelations are nonsense and had never been correct. >> 2). Why would a temple be so difficult to build? >> >> > There is a Muslim mosque called the Dome of the Rock located on the > temple site. Are there any other sorts of Mosque? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 21 Aug 2008 22:08 rbwinn wrote: > On Aug 20, 9:58?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Aug 21, 1:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 20, 7:30 pm, Yap <hhyaps...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Well, I >>> studied post graduate in British university at Manchester city >>>> previously. >>>> There were no European propaganda but most people did not bother to >>>> talk in Christianity, due to the fact that the tales were so >>>> obviously invented. >>>> British loons in most cases got cornered when being questioned >>>> about the inability of their god to do reasonable things. >>>> They evaded and switched subjects, like you did. >> >>> I don't evade and switch subjects. ?The subject is relativity of >>> time. ?That is what we discuss here in sci.physics.relativity. >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> No. ?The discussion was started by a Mitch who began discussing the >> subject line in typical retarded fashion. ?And your first comment was >> not in any way connected to relativity. >> How many times do you need to be corrected on this lie? >> >> Al > > So, Al, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss relativity > of time here in sci.physics.relativity? How are you going to enforce > your edict? So, skippy, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss atheism here in alt.atheism without interference from religious loonies like you? How are you going to enforce your edict? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: Smiler on 21 Aug 2008 22:09 Yap wrote: > Yes, quite possibly right. > I think his reasoning brain cells may have been fried. > Only his reasoning ones? Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279
From: rbwinn on 21 Aug 2008 22:16
On Aug 21, 6:54�pm, "Dan Drake" <d...(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:05:34 UTC, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > > 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 > > Yup. If you insist on measuring it in an arbitrary dimension which does > not exist in observations made on the surface of the sphere. Oddly enough, > the same principles -- oberving in a dimensional system outside the one > you're standing in -- are just what makes relativity work. Obviously, if > you insist on measuring in a system in which all the lines are bent, you > don't find the proper value of pi, whether you're measuring circles (loci > of points equidistant from a given point) _on_ a sphere or measuring paths > __ bent space-time. But of course you know that already. > > BTW your simple explanation of how to operate a particle accelerator with > Newtonian -- oooo, sorry, Galilean -- mechanics has, for some reason, > failed to make an appearance. > Well, where is this other dimension you talk about. We have the three dimensions of plane geometry, x, y, and z. As they apply to a sphere, if your latitude circle is defined by a plane intersecting the sphere, then the point where a line through the sphere running from the north pole of the sphere to the south pole intersects the plane is the center of the circle. The radius of the circle will be 3.14159..... Pretending that it is something else is just an attempt to confuse. I do not wonder that scientists who get trillions of dollars from the United States government to do research with particle accellerators do not admit the fact that the Galilean transformation equations can explain relativity of time. What would you do as an atheist interested in getting government money if someone had a simpler explanation of what you are doing to scam money from the government? Anyway, your objections to the Galilean transformation equations are just social issues. Why is it that you don't show some mathematics? Robert B. Winn |