SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[ilikewhatyousay]

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.

I understand what you say about direct communication of his existence - however, you could argue that God didn't want people to know of his existence and that, in fact, we were created purely to live our lives, that God didn't want any religions, that God didn't want people to spend their entire life worshiping him.

Then again, the whole prospect of God could just be a load of rubbish.
Oh the swings and roundabouts!

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 21, 11:01�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177219877.942023.141040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Apr 21, 9:33?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> I am very happy for it doing that .. and by doing that it makes the
> >> Galilean
> >> transform fail. Which make you wrong. And I am PARTICULAR happy to show
> >> someone who is as deceitful as you to be the Son of Satan that you are.
> >> Burn like the witches you believe in.
>
> >Well, I think it is just wonderful to see you accepting and preaching
> >ideas from the Bible.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177251532.163524.38630@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 11:01?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177219877.942023.141040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Apr 21, 9:33?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> I am very happy for it doing that .. and by doing that it makes the
> >> Galilean
> >> transform fail. Which make you wrong. And I am PARTICULAR happy to show
> >> someone who is as deceitful as you to be the Son of Satan that you are.
> >> Burn like the witches you believe in.
>
> >Well, I think it is just wonderful to see you accepting and preaching
> >ideas from the Bible. What are your fellow college graduates going to
> >think about it?
>
> I'm just using terms you would understand, to get an idea of the sort of
> revulsion I feel toward someone as dishonest and deceitful as you have
> shown
> yourself to be.
>
> But, I am always willing to forgive if you repent of your sins and try to
> deal honestly with others, and come to me like a child who is willing to
> learn. That is why I continue to post to you .. in the hope that I might
> help you see the truth and embrace it, and then no longer feel the need to
> lie and deceive to try to convince others. When you embrace the truth, you
> no longer need lies.

> Well, the reason I post to you is because you seem to have more
> endurance than most atheists.



> When I first posted my idea about
> velocity of light on sci.physics.relativity, there was dead silence
> even though before that scientists had spent more than ten years
> lecturing me.

Maybe they had given up on you as a lost cause .. I'm hoping not to

> As soon as they discovered they did not have an answer,
> they were done talking to me. You are a little different. I would
> have to say that in the beginning you had some valid objections, which
> I have since remedied with the use of n' and b'.

Not really .. you've still got you two different things called x' .. so you
really have to fix that before proceeding.

Other than that, its still exactly the same thing (galilean transforms and
constant speed of light) which still are self-contradictory .. changing some
letters around doesn't make it work.

> You still think you
> have a valid objection with the two objects moving in opposite
> directions.

No .. you changed equations to get rid of that one

> What you neglect is that there is more to reality than
> the Galillean transformation equations.

Indeed.. they just don't work when there is a constant speed of light .. you
have to get rid of them in place of something that is very close to
Galillean at low speeds, but acutally works correctly when speeds get closer
to c. As long as you hold on to Galilean transforms, you will continue to
be proven wrong

> If you can accellerate a particle to a speed greater
> than the speed of light, then that would be the time
> to consider your problem with the two objects.

Are you saying the speed of light is not a maximum .. and that it is
possible for things to go faster than c. But for some unknown reason light
(photons) cannot manage this?

> Until then, it is just a red herring.

What are you saying is a red herring? I've shown you that Galilean
transforms are not consistent with the idea of having a maximum possible
speed. That, combined with it not being possible for something to have the
same speed when seen from different frames of reference make the Galilean
transform fail.

I really don't see how you can continue on using them in that case .. unless
you're saying something fundamentally different to how reality is observed
to work.

BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe
you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 22, 8:43�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177251532.163524.38630@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 11:01?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1177219877.942023.141040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On Apr 21, 9:33?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> I am very happy for it doing that .. and by doing that it makes the
> > >> Galilean
> > >> transform fail. Which make you wrong. And I am PARTICULAR happy to show
> > >> someone who is as deceitful as you to be the Son of Satan that you are.
> > >> Burn like the witches you believe in.
>
> > >Well, I think it is just wonderful to see you accepting and preaching
> > >ideas from the Bible. What are your fellow college graduates going to
> > >think about it?
>
> > I'm just using terms you would understand, to get an idea of the sort of
> > revulsion I feel toward someone as dishonest and deceitful as you have
> > shown
> > yourself to be.
>
> > But, I am always willing to forgive if you repent of your sins and try to
> > deal honestly with others, and come to me like a child who is willing to
> > learn. That is why I continue to post to you .. in the hope that I might
> > help you see the truth and embrace it, and then no longer feel the need to
> > lie and deceive to try to convince others. When you embrace the truth, you
> > no longer need lies.
> > Well, the reason I post to you is because you seem to have more
> > endurance than most atheists.
>
>
>
> > When I first posted my idea about
> > velocity of light on sci.physics.relativity, there was dead silence
> > even though before that scientists had spent more than ten years
> > lecturing me.
>
> Maybe they had given up on you as a lost cause .. I'm hoping not to
>
> > As soon as they discovered they did not have an answer,
> > they were done talking to me.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe
>> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text -
>
> I didn't get a train problem. Post it again and I will be happy to
> answer it.

OK ..thanks for that .. as I said .. I do still hold hope for you

> Train problems are my best accomplishment.



Here you go....

As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them) ..
here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual..

We have a train of rest length L
Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station there
if you like)
The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks
Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and moves
with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction.

Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on.
At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a photon from
the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really good
brakes).

When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x' = 0)
the light turns on.

Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector at the
front of the train.

Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately for
the FoR of the train S'

ie
1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the front of
the train
1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time
2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the front of
the train
2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 22, 9:16�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe
> >> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I didn't get a train problem.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177285310.442916.140220@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 9:16?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe
> >> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I didn't get a train problem. Post it again and I will be happy to
> > answer it.
>
> OK ..thanks for that .. as I said .. I do still hold hope for you
>
> > Train problems are my best accomplishment.
>
>
>
> Here you go....
>
> As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them) ..
> here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual..
>
> We have a train of rest length L
> Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station there
> if you like)
> The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks
> Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and moves
> with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction.
>
> Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on.
> At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a photon
> from
> the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really good
> brakes).
>
> When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x' = 0)
> the light turns on.
>
> Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector at
> the
> front of the train.
>
> Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately for
> the FoR of the train S'
>
> ie
> 1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the front
> of
> the train
> 1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time
> 2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the front of
> the train
> 2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time
>
> Shouldn't be too hard to do.

>Your station is the origin of S, the rear of the train is the origin
>of S'. The front of the train is b'. You did not specify where
>observer O was so we will put him at x where x=.5L.
>
>1a) Neither observer sees a photon strike the front of the train.

But it does get there. And the front of the train exists in both frames of
reference, and thestation, and the light source, and the detector all exists
regardless of the frame of reference

> What an observer can do is calculate when the brakes of the train
> engage. That happens when t'=L/c.

Ok .. that is what I'd expect so far

But you did not answer 1b .. so WRONG (on incomplete) on that one.

>2a) The observer by the track can compute exactly when the brakes
> engage by the equation t'=L/c.

WRONG .. I asked you to do it in S. At what time in S does the photon reach
the front of the train. The train exists regardless of the FoR .. it is at
a given position at a given time. And the photon exists in S. So when does
it arrive at the front of the train from the FoR of S.

> 2b) The train has gone a distance of vt when the brakes engage.

WRONG .. You've not said what t is.

Well.. you got one answer correct .. one missing .. two incorrect

Try again

 

[jientho@aol.com]

On Apr 17, 1:23 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> jien...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:51 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> >>> ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>
> >> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof).
>
> > That's a Fallacy of Petitio Principii from Septic.
>
> Petitio Principii is the fallacy of begging the question,

You beg the question of whether a statement of possession of evidence
is a claim.

<snip Fallacy of Red Herring from Septic>

Jeff

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 22, 5:22�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177285310.442916.140220@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 22, 9:16?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe
> > >> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > I didn't get a train problem. Post it again and I will be happy to
> > > answer it.
>
> > OK ..thanks for that .. as I said .. I do still hold hope for you
>
> > > Train problems are my best accomplishment.
>
> >
>
> > Here you go....
>
> > As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them) ...
> > here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual..
>
> > We have a train of rest length L
> > Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station there
> > if you like)
> > The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks
> > Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and moves
> > with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction.
>
> > Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on.
> > At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a photon
> > from
> > the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really good
> > brakes).
>
> > When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x' = 0)
> > the light turns on.
>
> > Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector at
> > the
> > front of the train.
>
> > Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately for
> > the FoR of the train S'
>
> > ie
> > 1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the front
> > of
> > the train
> > 1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time
> > 2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the front of
> > the train
> > 2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time
>
> > Shouldn't be too hard to do.
> >Your station is the origin of S, the rear of the train is the origin
> >of S'.

 

[Jeckyl]

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177300538.765535.15550@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 22, 5:22?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177285310.442916.140220@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 22, 9:16?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> > Here you go....
>>>
>>> > As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them)
>>> > ..
>>> > here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual..
>>>
>>> > We have a train of rest length L
>>> > Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station
>>> > there
>>> > if you like)
>>> > The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks
>>> > Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and
>>> > moves
>>> > with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction.
>>>
>>> > Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on.
>>> > At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a
>>> > photon
>>> > from
>>> > the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really
>>> > good
>>> > brakes).
>>>
>>> > When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x'
>>> > = 0)
>>> > the light turns on.
>>>
>>> > Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector
>>> > at
>>> > the
>>> > front of the train.
>>>
>>> > Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately
>>> > for
>>> > the FoR of the train S'
>>>
>>> > ie
>>> > 1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the
>>> > front
>>> > of
>>> > the train
>>> > 1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time
>>> > 2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the
>>> > front of
>>> > the train
>>> > 2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time
>>>
>>> > Shouldn't be too hard to do.
>>
>> >Your station is the origin of S, the rear of the train is the origin
>> >of S'. The front of the train is b'. You did not specify where
>> >observer O

I have no observer O .. so there is no need to "put" him anywhere

>> > was so we will put him at x where x=.5L.

If you like .. it doesn't matter .. he doesn't enter into the problem.

>>> >1a) Neither observer sees a photon strike the front of the train.
>>>
>>> But it does get there. And the front of the train exists in both frames
>>> of
>>> reference, and thestation, and the light source, and the detector all
>>> exists
>>> regardless of the frame of reference
>>>
>> > What an observer can do is calculate when the brakes of the train
>> > engage. That happens when t'=L/c.
>>
>> Ok .. that is what I'd expect so far
>>
>> But you did not answer 1b .. so WRONG (on incomplete) on that one.

Still no answer from you for 1b

>> >2a) The observer by the track can compute exactly when the brakes
>> > engage by the equation t'=L/c.
>>
>> WRONG .. I asked you to do it in S. At what time in S does the photon
>> reach
>> the front of the train. The train exists regardless of the FoR .. it is
>> at
>> a given position at a given time. And the photon exists in S. So when
>> does
>> it arrive at the front of the train from the FoR of S.
>>
>> > 2b) The train has gone a distance of vt when the brakes engage.
>>
>> WRONG .. You've not said what t is.
>>
>> Well.. you got one answer correct .. one missing .. two incorrect
>>
>> Try again- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>No, my answers were correct.

No .. they were not. 1b was missing, 2a was given in the wrong FoR, 2b was
incomplete.

> This is real light, not observer controlled light.

WTF is "observer controlled light" .. and what is this observer you
invented?

> Neither observer can see any photons.

There aren't any observers .. you made them up.

> That is all in the imaginations of scientists.
> t is time. t=t' t'=L/c.

You're avoiding the questions .. so I guess I'll have to ask them again ..
and I'll make it a little simpler for you

AS described above, we still have have two frames of reference S and S' ..
we have a train of length L and a station and a track with the train moving
at v relative to the station along the track .. and we have photon(s)
emitted from the back of the train when it coincides with the station, with
the photon moving in the same direction as the train toward the front of the
train.

There is no observer there .. no need to invent one .. and I've even gotten
rid of the light detector in case that confused you.

1a) at what time t' does a photon arrive at the front of the train from the
back of the train in the FoR S'

1b) at what position is the station relative to the train at that time in
the FoR S'

2a) at what time t does a photon arrive at the front of the train from the
back of the train in the FoR S

2b) at what position is the train relative to the station at that time in
the FoR S

Please show your working if you can, and do not leave out answers.

I look forward to you having a solution that shows how your combination of
Galilean transforms and constant speed of light will work.

 

[Spirit of Truth]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:132gtf5cnndpbfb@corp.supernews.com...
> "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> newsKZVh.402$ns5.20@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>> I have long been concerned with Einstein's ''Time dilation"
>> and "Lack of simultaneity".
>>
>> After a lot of help and much enquiry into these matters from
>> many many works I have deduced the following:
>
> I think your 'help' has not been helpful and you've been misguided.
>
>> Time dilation is synonymous with speed of process change
>> e.g. aging at a slower rate and is not a slowing down of "Time"
>> in a so-called time dimension. After all, if something went
>> slower in classical-sense time it would disappear out of
>> our now flowing existence!
>
> There is no change in the speed of process though. If you are in a
> spaceship, travelling along at a reasonable percentage of the speed of
> light (as see nfrom earth, say), you do not age any faster or slower,
> clocks don't tick slower, things don't get compressed or crushed, things
> that happen at the same time happen at the same time. Basically, you
> can't really tell you're moving (except you might notice subtel changes in
> the position of stars)

The change is from the viewpoint of the non-local observer.
>
> That's the problem .. people mistakenly think that spaceships (or trains
> or whatever) get crushed.
>
> You seem to have been grossly misled about special relativity.
>
>> Lack of simultaneity is incorrect. There no length contraction
>> contrary to such ideas in relativity (both SR and GR), and
>> it's counterpart the Ether length contraction concept.
>
> Unless you have all three effects of length contraction, time dilation,
> and lack of simultaneity, then things do end up crushed etc. They aren't
> really three separate things .. they are just three observed results from
> the one thing.

Spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear contracted because
of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer viewing the locally
concerned distance.
..

>
> With time dilation only you will get contradictory results
>
>> The actual answer is as follows:
>
> You mean your theory follows .. I doubt it will be the answer .. but lets
> see
>
>> Time dilation is spherical....
>>
>> Time dilation is spherical, greatest in the direction of motion, least in
>> the transverse direction, and opposite in the reverse direction to the
>> motion, where change is speeded up.
>
> That's not spherical

What other word would you call it?


>> There is no length contraction nor lack of simultaneity....
>> Relativity does not demand length contraction.
>
> Actually it demands all three things. You can't have onewithout the other
> two

As above, spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear
contracted because of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer
viewing the locally concerned distance.

>> To be actually RELATIVE
>> to such a thing as Einstein's relativity, calculations such as M-M's have
>> to
>> EQUAL the AT REST condition NOT a length contraction to equal the
>> transverse return distance.
>
> Could you explain that statement more clearly ..
> What does "relative to such a thing as Einsteins relativity" mean?

Observer's are always at rest.

> What 'calculations' are you talking about?

M-M experiment.

> What do you mean by 'at rest condition' .. at rest relative to what?

In that it would be from the viewpoint of an outside observer 'at rest'
viewing all the motions taking place.


>> It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions
>> as the AT REST observation of the traveling c.
>
> But the apparatus is at rest (certainly close enough for the duration of
> the experiment) in the frame of reference of the laboratory. So thats all
> fine

You are not looking at the experiment nor the math which they were using.

>> The Time element has to be brought back to 2L / C return connected
>> with the direction of motion, the transverse direction, and the reverse
>> to direction of motion.
>
> What do you mean by "The Time element"?
> What does "brought back" mean?
> What does "return connected" mean?

It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions
as the AT REST observation of the traveling c.

>> Related to the above, the gamma equation only functions in the transverse
>> direction as you will see below.
>> Orienting to first the direction of motion Time is dilated as follows:
>> Rest Time divided by 1-V/C.
>> Then, Transverse to the direction of motion:
>> Rest Time divided by SqRt 1-Vsq/Csq [= t x gamma (y)].
>> Then opposite to direction of motion:
>> Rest Time divided by 1+V/C.
> Are you saying time changes depending which direction you are actually
> looking?
> Really this makes no sense at all.

Of course it does. It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap
closure in all directions as the AT REST observation of the traveling c.

> You would need to explain this much better than you have.
>
>> Simultaneity is thus also regained for all observers by this fact.
>
> Really?

Yes.

>> The false concept of lack of simultaneity which leads inevitably to the
>> block-time/ frozen river of time concept (The Fabric Of The Cosmos
>> by Brian Greene) which falsely concludes that THE actual past and
>> future exist at all times and thus there would be no free will is thus
>> debunked by Simultaneous Relativity [SR - new definition].
> Special relativity dosen't say that is the case anyway.

Actually does when one fully understands the math.and concepts.

>>You may ask how time in a moving system can have different
>> time dilations.
> I was just going to do that
>
>> The answer is that it is each particle that has the
>> dilation depending on it's various motions in the moving system.
> What moving system?

Like Earth, or a spaceship.

from: Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

>simply based on c being c for all observers
>
> I would hope that still applied .. but you've not shown how it does
>
>> AND the simple trajectory differences that each lightwave/particle
>> has for the observer of the moving system compared to the
>> observer at rest.
>
> where is 'rest' ?
>
>> Do the math, it finally works.
>
> that whole theory, from what you've shown is absolute nonsense. There is
> no math to do .. there's not enough information about what the terms mean.
>
> if you want it to be considered seriously, you'll need to explain it MUCH
> better than you have.
>
>

 

[Jeckyl]

"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:4cYWh.854$Ea5.150@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:132gtf5cnndpbfb@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> newsKZVh.402$ns5.20@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> There is no change in the speed of process though. If you are in a
>> spaceship, travelling along at a reasonable percentage of the speed of
>> light (as see nfrom earth, say), you do not age any faster or slower,
>> clocks don't tick slower, things don't get compressed or crushed, things
>> that happen at the same time happen at the same time. Basically, you
>> can't really tell you're moving (except you might notice subtel changes
>> in the position of stars)
>
> The change is from the viewpoint of the non-local observer.

Yes .. its observed change .. but from the FoR of where the process is
happening, there is no change

> Spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear contracted because
> of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer viewing the locally
> concerned distance.

Can you provide some more equations .. and how the work together in your
theory .. there is a lot of talk about it .. but not much actual definition
and forumla
.
>>> Time dilation is spherical, greatest in the direction of motion, least
>>> in
>>> the transverse direction, and opposite in the reverse direction to the
>>> motion, where change is speeded up.
>> That's not spherical
> What other word would you call it?

Well .. as you've only said what happen in four directions, and not
combination of them, its hard to tell

Also if it were spherical, that would imply some similarity in dilation at a
given radius, and you're saying the exact opposite of that.

>>> There is no length contraction nor lack of simultaneity....
>>> Relativity does not demand length contraction.
>> Actually it demands all three things. You can't have onewithout the other
>> two
> As above, spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear
> contracted because of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer
> viewing the locally concerned distance.

We need some formulas to show how that is derived

>>> To be actually RELATIVE
>>> to such a thing as Einstein's relativity, calculations such as M-M's
>>> have to
>>> EQUAL the AT REST condition NOT a length contraction to equal the
>>> transverse return distance.
>> Could you explain that statement more clearly ..
>> What does "relative to such a thing as Einsteins relativity" mean?
> Observer's are always at rest.

O...kay ... but you didn't talk about observers, you said "relative to
einseins relativity"

>> What 'calculations' are you talking about?
> M-M experiment.

That's an experiement .. what calculations?

>> What do you mean by 'at rest condition' .. at rest relative to what?
> In that it would be from the viewpoint of an outside observer 'at rest'
> viewing all the motions taking place.
>>> It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions
>>> as the AT REST observation of the traveling c.
>> But the apparatus is at rest (certainly close enough for the duration of
>> the experiment) in the frame of reference of the laboratory. So thats
>> all fine
> You are not looking at the experiment nor the math which they were using.

Then please explain how it was different

>>> The Time element has to be brought back to 2L / C return connected
>>> with the direction of motion, the transverse direction, and the reverse
>>> to direction of motion.
>> What do you mean by "The Time element"?
>> What does "brought back" mean?
>> What does "return connected" mean?
> It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions
> as the AT REST observation of the traveling c.

I'm still not following what you're trying to say here .. are you making
claims about a problem in how the epxeriement was set up, or about what your
theory predicts, or what special relativity predicts or ....

Really though .. I'd rather see what your theory entails that descriptions
about MMX experiements. We can look at applications of it after we
understand it more.

>>> Related to the above, the gamma equation only functions in the
>>> transverse
>>> direction as you will see below.
>>> Orienting to first the direction of motion Time is dilated as follows:
>>> Rest Time divided by 1-V/C.
>>> Then, Transverse to the direction of motion:
>>> Rest Time divided by SqRt 1-Vsq/Csq [= t x gamma (y)].
>>> Then opposite to direction of motion:
>>> Rest Time divided by 1+V/C.
>> Are you saying time changes depending which direction you are actually
>> looking?
>> Really this makes no sense at all.
>
> Of course it does. It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap
> closure in all directions as the AT REST observation of the traveling c.

Please .. provide formulas with defintions of what you mean

The above do not define what motion they are talking about and what frame of
reference etc etc .. very vague

>> You would need to explain this much better than you have.
>>> Simultaneity is thus also regained for all observers by this fact.
>> Really?
> Yes.

Can you please show how this works.

>>> The false concept of lack of simultaneity which leads inevitably to the
>>> block-time/ frozen river of time concept (The Fabric Of The Cosmos
>>> by Brian Greene) which falsely concludes that THE actual past and
>>> future exist at all times and thus there would be no free will is thus
>>> debunked by Simultaneous Relativity [SR - new definition].
>> Special relativity dosen't say that is the case anyway.
> Actually does when one fully understands the math.and concepts.

I do understand the math and the concepts

>>>You may ask how time in a moving system can have different
>>> time dilations.
>> I was just going to do that
>>> The answer is that it is each particle that has the
>>> dilation depending on it's various motions in the moving system.
>> What moving system?
> Like Earth, or a spaceship.

OK .. so can you please provide this theory with better definitions the
define what objects and frames of reference and directions and velocities
and distance are being used.

Then maybe we can begin to understand it.

 

[Prime Minister of the Kingdom of G]

Jacob, the firstborn son of Stalin, a son of a Jewish bitch

 

[UnderdogFL]

On Apr 5, 5:53 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "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 about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of atheists?
>
> In what way is justice served by punishing an innocent? Why can't an
> omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god grant forgiveness without
> all the rigamarole? Atheists don't require innocents to die for
> someone else's crime; why are they more reasonable and just than an
> all powerful, all loving god?

There are no innocents.

 

[UnderdogFL]

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.

If God were to judge the athiests then no one would be left out.

 

[Pastor Frank]

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.
>
God did come for atheists in particular, for He came for the lost,
sinners, the sick and the weary and burdened. He came in the flesh of one
Yeshua, later known a Jesus the Christ, and unbelievers promptly nailed Him
to a cross. What would do you think atheists would do to anyone claiming to
be God, the Son of God or even just a messenger from God?
But then Atheists are looking for evidence of God in the form of a
miracle, don't they? I.e. a giant talking face in the sky saying: I am God
and I want you to do as I tell you, or I'm going to fry your sorry ass in
hell for all eternity, ...or something of that nature. LOL
Presumably thereafter atheists all over the world will become theists,
as the fall all over themselves being sly, obsequious, sycophants to a God
they hate.

Pastor Frank

Jesus in Mt:11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill M]

Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely on
religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death.

"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:bis1j39l3etaes11mua9pvflj0sge9sdj6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:09:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> > 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"?
>>>> >
>>>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ
>>>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we
>>>> killed
>>>> Him for it.
>>>
>>> In a popular fairy tale, you mean.
>>>
>> That's an assertion needing evidence.
>
> Quite the opposite.
>
> There is no objective evidence, what so ever, and that makes it a
> faery tale.
> Reality is supported by objective evidence.
>
>

 

[Dubh Ghall]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:09:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:

>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> > 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"?
>>> >
>>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ
>>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we killed
>>> Him for it.
>>
>> In a popular fairy tale, you mean.
>>
> That's an assertion needing evidence.

Quite the opposite.

There is no objective evidence, what so ever, and that makes it a
faery tale.
Reality is supported by objective evidence.

 

[Bill M]

"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
>
>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely
>> on
>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death.
>
> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and
> never supply it.

You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied frequently.

I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.

There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods
actually exist.

Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,
Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and
punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young
and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions
of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?


Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of
starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate
into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious
affiliation?



God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's
'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and
animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be
eaten by other animals?



Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,
jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes,
stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully
kill and eat other animals to survive?



World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.

World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
millions maimed for life.

The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and
children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally
INNOCENT children!

There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
totally innocent children.

The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.



Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
malnutrition.

These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of
all religious persuasions.



Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
systems including flying through the air.

Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and
food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has

DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.


Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does
he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,
siblings and friends? (Or this god?)



There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE
VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god
beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant
men.



If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the
welfare of the creatures on Earth.



The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!

There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods.
Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic
than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy



Evidence of gods;



There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any
sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.



There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to any
sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.



Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does
he never authenticate his very existence?



There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods,
Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of man.

 

[Andrew]

On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:

> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely on
> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death.

So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence
and never do.

>
> "Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
> news:bis1j39l3etaes11mua9pvflj0sge9sdj6@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:09:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> 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"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ
>>>>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we
>>>>> killed
>>>>> Him for it.
>>>>
>>>> In a popular fairy tale, you mean.
>>>>
>>> That's an assertion needing evidence.
>>
>> Quite the opposite.
>>
>> There is no objective evidence, what so ever, and that makes it a
>> faery tale.
>> Reality is supported by objective evidence.