J
Jeff Whittaker
Guest
On 15 Mar 2007 04:11:07 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
>> >> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> > On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Richo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
>> >> >> >>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
>> >> >> >> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone agrees with
>> >> >> >> you. For instance:
>>
>> >> >> >> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
>> >> >> >> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
>>
>> >> >> > Evidence does not work on atheists.
>>
>> >> >> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, Bob.
>> >> >> >> They only acknowledge evidence
>> >> >> > which they believe supports their philosophy.
>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO.
>>
>> >> >I am not stupid.
>>
>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out.
>> >> > 7 = velocity of light
>> >> > 8=wt
>> >> > 8'=wt'
>> >> > 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2)
>>
>> >> > w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x-
>> >> >vt)/(t-vt/w)
>>
>> >> > f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first
>> >> >atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else
>> >> >would you like to discuss?
>> >> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is
>> >> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are
>> >> trying to prove.
>>
>> >> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2
>>
>> >> Assume a=b
>> >> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab
>> >> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation:
>> >> a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2
>> >> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2
>> >> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation:
>> >> 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab
>> >> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab
>> >> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab
>> >> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1
>>
>> >> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm not
>> >> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more
>> >> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me
>> >> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the
>> >> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post
>> >> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations
>> >except the term for velocity of light. took that from Poincaire's
>> >equations. o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to
>> >the equations I posted?
>> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am
>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what
>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing
>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are
>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to
>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of
>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your
>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>I already told you what the equations show. They show that Einstein
>was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show
>that light is transmitted at a constant velocity. Then Einstein
>immediately used c=186,000 miles per second for velocity of light,
>completely ignoring the fact that if light is proceeding in the -x
>direction relative to a set of Cartesian coordinates such as he said
>he was using, the velocity of a photon going in that direction would
>be -186,000 miles per second relative to the Cartesian coordinates,
>not +186,000 miles per second.
>This eliminates the distance contraction that scientists use to
>explain their interpretation of transmission of light.
>The fact that you cannot understand what I just said does not affect
>it in any way. The same is true of anything said in the Bible. The
>ignorance of one person does not affect God and his works.
>Robert B. Winn
Does somebody that knows a more about physics and relativity want to
take this? I don't know enough about the details to argue effectively.
The only thing I can say at this point is that suddenly slapping a
negative sign on a velocity shouldn't change anything as far as the
equations are concerned...it's just the same velocity in the opposite
direction. So instead of our observer seeing things going from left to
right, he is instead seeing them go from right to left.
>On Mar 14, 10:00?pm, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2007 20:09:37 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 14, 8:22?am, Jeff Whittaker <j...@northnet.org> wrote:
>> >> On 13 Mar 2007 17:46:23 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 13, 3:56?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> > On Mar 13, 11:22?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Richo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
>> >> >> >>> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
>> >> >> >> That may be the doctrine in your religion, but not everyone agrees with
>> >> >> >> you. For instance:
>>
>> >> >> >> "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
>> >> >> >> evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
>>
>> >> >> > Evidence does not work on atheists.
>>
>> >> >> I am atheist and evidence works on me. So what you say is false, Bob.
>> >> >> >> They only acknowledge evidence
>> >> >> > which they believe supports their philosophy.
>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >> Don't be stupid, Bob. That's the theist MO.
>>
>> >> >I am not stupid.
>>
>> theists only acknowledge evidence that they believe
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >supports their philosophy. %ll, let's check you out.
>> >> > 7 = velocity of light
>> >> > 8=wt
>> >> > 8'=wt'
>> >> > 'amma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/w^2)
>>
>> >> > w = x/t = x'/t' = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x-
>> >> >vt)/(t-vt/w)
>>
>> >> > f you acknowledge these equations, you will be the first
>> >> >atheist to do so. % can go to other subjects if you like. (at else
>> >> >would you like to discuss?
>> >> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> Well, Bobby, usually when one presents a series of equations, it is
>> >> usually nice to define what all the variables are and what you are
>> >> trying to prove.
>>
>> >> See, I can use crappy math to prove that 1=2
>>
>> >> Assume a=b
>> >> Multiply both sides by a: a a=a b => a^2=ab
>> >> Add the same amount (a^2) to both sides of the equation:
>> >> a^2 + a^2=ab + a^2
>> >> Simplify: 2a^2=ab + a^2
>> >> Subtract the same amount (2ab) from both sides of the equation:
>> >> 2a^2 - 2ab=ab + a^2 - 2ab
>> >> Simplify: 2a^2 - 2ab=a^2 - ab
>> >> Factor left side: 2(a^2 - ab)=a^2 - ab
>> >> Cancel (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives: 2=1
>>
>> >> However, my 'proof' fails cause it divides by zero at the end. I'm not
>> >> enitely sure what your formula is trying to 'prove', but without more
>> >> information, it's just a string of nonsense that doesn't tell me
>> >> anything. And apparently you are just cutting and pasting it from the
>> >> same retarded source each time because every time I've seen you post
>> >> it, it's always indented by the exact same, irritating amount.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >Einstein and Lorentz already defined all the terms in the equations
>> >except the term for velocity of light. took that from Poincaire's
>> >equations. o how do you claim your equations and comments apply to
>> >the equations I posted?
>> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> I am not claiming my equations apply to the ones you posted. What I am
>> claiming is that equations with insufficent information as to what
>> they pertain to and bad assumptions about what a step might be doing
>> (ie dividing by zero), proves absolutely nothing. Explain what you are
>> trying to show with your equations and then someone might listen to
>> you. No, wait, you are an incoherent babling butt-munch. Instead of
>> trying to explain anything you will quote a random bit of your
>> scripture thinking that will explain everything.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>I already told you what the equations show. They show that Einstein
>was correct in his original statement that the Lorentz equations show
>that light is transmitted at a constant velocity. Then Einstein
>immediately used c=186,000 miles per second for velocity of light,
>completely ignoring the fact that if light is proceeding in the -x
>direction relative to a set of Cartesian coordinates such as he said
>he was using, the velocity of a photon going in that direction would
>be -186,000 miles per second relative to the Cartesian coordinates,
>not +186,000 miles per second.
>This eliminates the distance contraction that scientists use to
>explain their interpretation of transmission of light.
>The fact that you cannot understand what I just said does not affect
>it in any way. The same is true of anything said in the Bible. The
>ignorance of one person does not affect God and his works.
>Robert B. Winn
Does somebody that knows a more about physics and relativity want to
take this? I don't know enough about the details to argue effectively.
The only thing I can say at this point is that suddenly slapping a
negative sign on a velocity shouldn't change anything as far as the
equations are concerned...it's just the same velocity in the opposite
direction. So instead of our observer seeing things going from left to
right, he is instead seeing them go from right to left.
