SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give them...
> >
> > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about Jesus coming back!
>
> Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people who keep their word.

You're talking about fictional characters again?

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176477827.557654.54630@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 13, 7:32?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176474106.502730.82160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >On Apr 13, 2:54?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> So go peddle your snake-oil equations to people who are even more
>> >> ignorant
>> >> than you (if that's possible). Those with any sense at all see them
>> >> (and
>> >> you) for what they are.- Hide quoted text -
>> > Snake oil? Where do you see a distance contraction in my equations?
>>
>> I see you using equations (Galilean transforms) that have been proven NOT
>> to
>> work for a century (they were proven wrong by MMX that also showed a
>> constant speed of light, c)
>>
>> That is your snake oil.
>>
>> Special relativity, on the other hand, has been shown to be correct over
>> and
>> over and over again .. it has never been disproven.
>
>Well, I just disproved it as far as trains go.

LIAR. All you did was disagree with it .. you proved nothing at all, and
your results are self-contradictory.

> Here is something you might have missed Jeckyl.
> x=wt, x'=wt'

LIAR. You know full well that I use those to show that Galillean transforms
fail. Indeed they arethe REASON that the transforms fail

> There two equations prove

They don't prove anything .. they are only mathematical statements of that
premise

> that light is traveling at a speed of c in my equations also.

I didn't say it wasn't .. but it is BECAUSE light travels at 'c' in both
inertial FoR that your equations (the combination of Galilean transforms and
constant speed of light) don't work.

You just don't get it due to either ignorance or stubbornness.

 

[Al Klein]

On 13 Apr 2007 10:51:55 -0700, "Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote:

>Theorem: If a linear transformation from unprimed coordinates
>(t,x,y,z) to primed coordinates (t',x',y',z') is such that both
>observers agree about which objects have speed c then the
>transformation is a Lorentz transformation.
>
>That is a fact of mathematics.

But that contradicts the Robert Winn theory, so it's wrong.
>
> Surely you know that tens of millions of mathematicians and
>scientists all over the world have studied SR and nobody has found a
>logical problem of any kind.

Because they aren't as smart as Robert Winn. Haven't you read his
analysis of Einstein's error?

 

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:54:59 -0700, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott
Richter) wrote:

>rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>> >
>> > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give
>> > them...
>>
>> We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
>> returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
>That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
>Jesus coming back!

He actually believes that Sunday school crap about Jesus and God
existing.

 

[Al Klein]

On 13 Apr 2007 11:03:59 -0700, "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:

>
>rbwinn wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>> >
>> > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give them...
>> >
>> > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
>> > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>> >
>> > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about Jesus coming back!
>>
>> Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people who keep their word.
>
>You're talking about fictional characters again?

Specifically the one who promised to be back around 2,000 years ago.
He's a little late. But Winn's too stupid to understand that. He's
so stupid he really believes he knows more about special relativity
than Einstein did.

 

[Mike]

On Apr 13, 10:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 10:51:55 -0700, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> >Theorem: If a linear transformation from unprimed coordinates
> >(t,x,y,z) to primed coordinates (t',x',y',z') is such that both
> >observers agree about which objects have speed c then the
> >transformation is a Lorentz transformation.
>
> >That is a fact of mathematics.
>
> But that contradicts the Robert Winn theory, so it's wrong.
>
>
>
> > Surely you know that tens of millions of mathematicians and
> >scientists all over the world have studied SR and nobody has found a
> >logical problem of any kind.
>
> Because they aren't as smart as Robert Winn. Haven't you read his
> analysis of Einstein's error?

No. I have not reads Winn's analysis of Einstein's error. I assume
it's hilarious!

 

[Al Klein]

On 13 Apr 2007 19:50:25 -0700, "Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 10:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2007 10:51:55 -0700, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Theorem: If a linear transformation from unprimed coordinates
>> >(t,x,y,z) to primed coordinates (t',x',y',z') is such that both
>> >observers agree about which objects have speed c then the
>> >transformation is a Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> >That is a fact of mathematics.
>>
>> But that contradicts the Robert Winn theory, so it's wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Surely you know that tens of millions of mathematicians and
>> >scientists all over the world have studied SR and nobody has found a
>> >logical problem of any kind.
>>
>> Because they aren't as smart as Robert Winn. Haven't you read his
>> analysis of Einstein's error?
>
>No. I have not reads Winn's analysis of Einstein's error. I assume
>it's hilarious!

"Mathematics supports my equations, not Einstein's. Speed is nothing
more than the magnitude of velocity. Velocity has both magnitude and
direction. Einstein set the problem up, not me. He worked it wrong,
causing the ignorance that exists in the scientific world on this
subject today. I worked the problem correctly, causing the outcry and
persecution presently taking place.
All I need to do to show my equations correct is use them to
describe a photon traveling along the x axis in the -x direction.
When you have found a physicist or mathematician who says he can prove
the equations worng [sic], come back and tell me about it. "

"v is the velocity of K' relative to K. K is a set of Cartesian
coordinates at rest, and K' is a set of Cartesian coordinates in
motion relative to K with the x' axis of K' falling along the x-axis
of K. In other words, Einstein says that K' is moving in the +x
direction relative to K. The equation allows K' to move either
direction. If K' were moving in the -x direction instead of as
Einstein specified, the velocity of K' relative to K would be
negative.
If we consider the equation from the other frame of reference,
with K' at rest and K in motion, then v'= -v, or the velocity of K
relative to K' as measured from K' is the negative of the velocity of
K' relative to K as measured from K.
If you keep the velocities straight, there is no need for a
distance contraction such as scientists now use. Scientists of today
need a distance contraction because they use speed of light instead of
velocity of light. Einstein at first set out to use velocity of
light, but did not have the correct equations for velocity of light."

Actually sounds as if he knows what he's talking about, if you don't
read it.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 13, 10:51�am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 5:16 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 9:02?pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both
> > > > > > frames of reference. ?That is the only way the mathematics works. ?If
> > > > > > you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you
> > > > > > have to have a distance contraction. ?So how far apart are the marks
> > > > > > on the track?
> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > No, no, and NO!!!! ?In different frames or reference things are NOT
> > > > > dimultaneous.
>
> > > > > Try to distinguish betweeen three separate questions.
>
> > > > > 1) ?What does relativity actually say?
>
> > > > > 2) ? Is relativity a logically consistent theory?
>
> > > > > 3) ?Does the theory of relativity accurately describe nature?
>
> > > > > These are logically distinct questions!!
>
> > > > > So what the hell is your problem with distance contration?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > It does not happen. ? The bolts of lightning are simultaneous in both
> > > > frames of reference, both observers see the flashes of lightning at a
> > > > time of .5L/c, where L is the length of the train, and the marks on
> > > > the track are the length of the train apart, the same as the marks on
> > > > the train.
>
> Once again, are you capable of distinguishing between the separate
> questions 1)

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 13, 11:03?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give them...
>
> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about Jesus coming back!
>
> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people who keep their word.
>
> You're talking about fictional characters again?

No, Jeckyl, there are actually people who keep their word. The fact
that you are not one of them is irrelevant.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 13, 5:20�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176477827.557654.54630@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 7:32?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176474106.502730.82160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >On Apr 13, 2:54?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> So go peddle your snake-oil equations to people who are even more
> >> >> ignorant
> >> >> than you (if that's possible). Those with any sense at all see them
> >> >> (and
> >> >> you) for what they are.- Hide quoted text -
> >> > Snake oil? Where do you see a distance contraction in my equations?
>
> >> I see you using equations (Galilean transforms) that have been proven NOT
> >> to
> >> work for a century (they were proven wrong by MMX that also showed a
> >> constant speed of light, c)
>
> >> That is your snake oil.
>
> >> Special relativity, on the other hand, has been shown to be correct over
> >> and
> >> over and over again .. it has never been disproven.
>
> >Well, I just disproved it as far as trains go.
>
> LIAR. All you did was disagree with it .. you proved nothing at all, and
> your results are self-contradictory.
>
> > Here is something you might have missed Jeckyl.
> > x=wt, x'=wt'
>
> LIAR.

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> > >
> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
give them...
> > >
> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> > >
> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
Jesus coming back!
> >
> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
who keep their word.
>
> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
I saw this in alt religion.
Where is the simple evidence of no God?
I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>

>

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176596439.874108.184140@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 5:20?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1176477827.557654.54630@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >On Apr 13, 7:32?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Special relativity, on the other hand, has been shown to be correct
> >> over
> >> and
> >> over and over again .. it has never been disproven.
> >Well, I just disproved it as far as trains go.
>
> LIAR. All you did was disagree with it .. you proved nothing at all, and
> your results are self-contradictory.
>
> > Here is something you might have missed Jeckyl.
> > x=wt, x'=wt'
>
> LIAR. You know full well that I use those to show that Galillean
> transforms
> fail. Indeed they arethe REASON that the transforms fail
>
> > There two equations prove
>
> They don't prove anything .. they are only mathematical statements of that
> premise
>
> > that light is traveling at a speed of c in my equations also.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't .. but it is BECAUSE light travels at 'c' in both
> inertial FoR that your equations (the combination of Galilean transforms
> and
> constant speed of light) don't work.
>
> You just don't get it due to either ignorance or stubbornness.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> Well, the equations, the way I use them, are mathematically consistent

LIAR. They are not .. and I've shown you time and time against that they
are not. Its very basic algebra to disprove it .. a shcool boy could
understand it.

> and agree with the lightning and train problem as I explained it.

Because your equations are incorrect, they agree with your incorrect
'solution' of the problem. And as soon as you analyse your further claims
regarding observers on the train and track seeing the flashes of the
lightning, your 'solution' falls apart because it is self-contradictory. It
DOES NOT WORK. And no amount of hand waving can change that.

> The marks on the track are the length of the train apart.

No .. they aren't.

> Sorry if that upsets you and your friends.
> It is just the way it is.

No.. its not. And I'm NOT AT ALL sorry if that upsets you. Actually .. it
probably doesn't upset you as you are too PLAIN STUPID to understand it ..
and have demonstrated that stupidity over and over and over again.

 

[Tuco Ramirez]

On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the actual
> existence of millions of atheists.
>
> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the
> atheists and send them to his Hell.
>
> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate
> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its
> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the
> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.

What if he is neither "mean and intolerant" or "caring and loving"?

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 14, 6:16�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176596439.874108.184140@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 5:20?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:1176477827.557654.54630@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > >On Apr 13, 7:32?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> Special relativity, on the other hand, has been shown to be correct
> > >> over
> > >> and
> > >> over and over again .. it has never been disproven.
> > >Well, I just disproved it as far as trains go.
>
> > LIAR. All you did was disagree with it .. you proved nothing at all, and
> > your results are self-contradictory.
>
> > > Here is something you might have missed Jeckyl.
> > > x=wt, x'=wt'
>
> > LIAR. You know full well that I use those to show that Galillean
> > transforms
> > fail. Indeed they arethe REASON that the transforms fail
>
> > > There two equations prove
>
> > They don't prove anything .. they are only mathematical statements of that
> > premise
>
> > > that light is traveling at a speed of c in my equations also.
>
> > I didn't say it wasn't .. but it is BECAUSE light travels at 'c' in both
> > inertial FoR that your equations (the combination of Galilean transforms
> > and
> > constant speed of light) don't work.
>
> > You just don't get it due to either ignorance or stubbornness.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > Well, the equations, the way I use them, are mathematically consistent
>
> LIAR.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176601593.218953.308420@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> > Sorry if that upsets you and your friends.
>> > It is just the way it is.
>>
>> No.. its not. And I'm NOT AT ALL sorry if that upsets you. Actually .. it
>> probably doesn't upset you as you are too PLAIN STUPID to understand it
>> ..
>> and have demonstrated that stupidity over and over and over again.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>Well, if you are NOT AT ALL upset, then everything is wonderful.

Yes .. all fine with the world. It is not fine with you. Go learn some
physics, and some maths.

> You and your friends and all of the scientists and mathematicians
> in the world just go ahead and believe that if lightning strikes both
> ends of a train at the time the two observers are opposite one another,
> the marks left on the railroad track are not the length of the train
> apart.

Thanks . I am happy to believe the truth. You, on the otherhand, seem
happier with lies.

> I can certainly see why Harry Potter books are so popular.

Yes .. liars like you tend to enjoy works of fiction

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 14, 6:59�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176601593.218953.308420@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Sorry if that upsets you and your friends.
> >> > It is just the way it is.
>
> >> No.. its not. And I'm NOT AT ALL sorry if that upsets you. Actually .. it
> >> probably doesn't upset you as you are too PLAIN STUPID to understand it
> >> ..
> >> and have demonstrated that stupidity over and over and over again.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >Well, if you are NOT AT ALL upset, then everything is wonderful.
>
> Yes .. all fine with the world.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176610026.070043.154360@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 14, 6:59?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Yes .. liars like you tend to enjoy works of fiction
> I am not the one who believes wizards can shrink trains.

There is no shrinking of trains .. and no wizards involved. Except perhaps
in your warped imagination where reality takes second place to your
continual lies. I wonder what Jesus would say about your continual lies ?

 

[Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian]

H. Wm. Esque:

> Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> I have yet to see the proof of this claim.

No god _at all?_ Can't be shown. That deity (or deities) might be hiding
from us, and a decent deity should have the power to conceal itself
successfully from a bunch of nosy humans.

No abrahamic gawd? That's so ****ing easy that it boggles my mind that some
didn't get it even today. After all, that gawd concept fails the
fundamental test of self-consistency.

You're a literalist, aren't you? (Others don't tend to go ballistic about
this topic at all)

So, which of the claims in your scripture is _wrong?_

Omnipotence
Omniscience
Omnibenevolence

Try to use your brain for a moment: An omniscient gawd would have known what
its creations would do... you know, in that garden, about that tree.
An omnipotent gawd would have lotsa ways to prevent this from happening.
An omnibenevolent gawd _WOULD_ have prevented it.

Come on morontheist, admit your defeat. Which of your babblical claims is
wrong?

--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...

My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

 

[John Baker]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
<HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>> > >
>> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
>give them...
>> > >
>> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
>> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>> > >
>> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
>Jesus coming back!
>> >
>> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
>who keep their word.
>>
>> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>>
>I saw this in alt religion.
>Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>I have yet to see the proof of this claim.


The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
evidence that the thing in question does exist.

So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.

Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.

I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.



>>
>
>>
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 14, 9:14�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176610026.070043.154360@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Apr 14, 6:59?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > Yes .. liars like you tend to enjoy works of fiction
> > I am not the one who believes wizards can shrink trains.
>
> There is no shrinking of trains .. and no wizards involved.