Guest Spirit of Truth Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:TxJVh.11623$XU4.1592@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message > news:1176729543.856883.19750@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 15, 11:12?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:39:36 -0700, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott > > > > > > Richter) wrote: > > > >rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> I have asked a few third graders what the answer is, and they all > seem to > > > >> agree with me, not with Einstein. > > ><snip>> > Has there been any new abstract ideas in physics to emerge in the > last 70 years regarding natures foundations, comparable to the > discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, > Heisenberg, Bohr, Schr Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:oKZVh.402$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) 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. 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 > 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 > 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? What 'calculations' are you talking about? What do you mean by 'at rest condition' .. at rest relative to what? > 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 > 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? > 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 tim changes depending which direction you are actually lookging? Really this makes no sense at all. You would need to explain this much better than you have. > Simultaneity is thus also regained for all observers by this fact. Really? > 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. > Now, 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? > The time dilations are 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. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Apr 19, 8:14 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 8:14?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Is that right? Did you catch my derivation of the Lorentz equations? > > > > Yes, very amusing.- Hide quoted text - > > > Which part did you find the most amusing? Your response. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Apr 19, 8:59 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 8:47?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 9:45?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 4:35?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:51?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I feel no need to explain myself to God. ?If God is genuinely > > > > > > > > > > all-knowing, then he already knows why I made the "choice" I made. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, how is it that you claim I enter into this some way? ?As I said > > > > > > > > > before, discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth. > > > > > > > > > > What objective, verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your > > > > > > > > imagination can interact with reality? > > > > > > > > > Well, I have the train in Einstein's description which is not affected > > > > > > > by the attempts of college graduates to reduce its length by witchcraft. > > > > > > > > That's nice, but isn't responsive. ?Now answer the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your own ideas about what is responsive. > > > > > > Still non responsive. ?Why do you refuse to answer? ?What objective, > > > > verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your imagination can > > > > interact with reality?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Well, the problem with your question is that anyone who tries to > > > answer it is admitting to having figments. > > > > It isn't my problem you have no objective, verifiable evidence that > > your figments are anything other than figments. If you've got some, > > present it; if not, admit it. You claim it is possible to converse > > with a figment of your imagination, and repeatedly instruct us to do > > so. You'll have to do MUCH better than you have so far. > > > > > I would prefer to converse with someone who is not trying to convince themself of something. > > > > You would prefer to converse with someone who shares your delusions, > > since that's the much safer course.- Hide quoted text - > > > Well, atheists do not communicate that I have ever seen. Then you must be imagining the posts to which you're responding. > Do you have any objective verifiable evidence of an atheist communicating? Yes. These posts to which you respond so proudly stupidly. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Apr 19, 8:55 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 8:43?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is thesimpleevidence of no God? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian > > > > > > > > > > > > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false; > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of > > > > > > > > > > > > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong, > > > > > > > > > > > > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of > > > > > > > > > > > > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove > > > > > > > > > > > > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE, > > > > > > > > > > > > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of > > > > > > > > > > > > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my > > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to > > > > > > > > > > > > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to > > > > > > > > > > > > accept the assertion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million > > > > > > > > > > > > dollars, so I'm expecting a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any > > > > > > > > > > > > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in > > > > > > > > > > > court. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > It is done every day. > > > > > > > > > > Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable > > > > > > > > evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years. > > > > > > > > I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable > > > > > > evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more > > > > > > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of > > > > > > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the > > > > > > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left > > > > > > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train > > > > > > > > > apart. > > > > > > > > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be > > > > > > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving > > > > > > > at the speed of light would be zero. > > > > > > > > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's > > > > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to exist. > > > > > > Which people?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The ones who say that photons are particles. > > > > Thanks for that detailed non-response.- Hide quoted text - > > > You are free to believe photons are particles. I do not believe they are. You are free to disagree with reality. That does not mean reality will conform to your delusions. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Apr 19, 8:19 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 8:42?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 9:55?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > Your opinions about religion are of no interest to me. > > > > > > > > Of course they are; why else would you be hanging around in > > > > > > alt.atheism? ?It certainly isn't to support any of your assertions, > > > > > > since you've studiously avoided even pretending to do that. > > > > > > > > > I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ when the time comes. > > > > > > > > Yes, you think many logically contradictory things, don't you? > > > > > > > > > Your argument is really with him. > > > > > > > > No, in fact it's with you and your unsupported assertions. ?You have > > > > > > yet to explain how anyone can communicate in any way with figments of > > > > > > your imagination.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > Now, I do not think it is fair to Jeckyl to call him a figment of my imagination. > > > > > > Trouble following your own comments? ?Not my problem, but I'll > > > > demonstrate some atheist compassion and point out that your "your > > > > argument is really with him" statement refers to your immediately > > > > previous statement "I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ > > > > when the time comes." ?You then fail to explain, again, how anyone can > > > > communicate with the figment of your imagination you refer to as > > > > "Jesus Christ," with whom you claim there is an argument that should > > > > be discussed. ?Not that anyone is surprised; you routinely dodge > > > > questions you don't like. ?It appears to be a requirement of your > > > > religion. > > > > > > > I admit it is difficult to communicate with anyone who > > > > > has been indoctrinated with the false teachings being ?taught in colleges. > > > > > > How dishonestly xian of you. ?Which "false teachings" would those be, > > > > and how did you determine they were "false"?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Well, I was just showing Jeckyl some of the false things being taught about relativity. > > > > You don't find it at all telling that you're the only person on the > > planet making that assertion? Do you claim to be the world's most > > misunderstood physicist?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > No, I am not the only person on the planet who claims that special > relativity is wrong. I am the only one I know of who has the > mathematics to prove it. Sure you are. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 Pastor Frank wrote: > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message > news:1176754640.284653.49350@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Sippuddin wrote: > >> Jeckyl wrote: > >> > > >> > ... nor do we > >> > have any proof of his existence or non-existense. > >> > >> > >> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'. > > > A truism! For we all agree, that no "god" of atheist definition exists. > Atheists makes sure of that, by giving the word the most ludicrous > definition possible. Lying for Jesus is approved by God. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 > rbwinn wrote: >> No, I am not the only person on the planet who claims that special >> relativity is wrong. I am the only one I know of who has the >> mathematics to prove it. Perhaps you should do it then .. because NOTHING you have shown in the base decade has proved special relativity wrong. NOT ONE THING. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 On Apr 20, 7:24�am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 19, 8:14 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Apr 17, 8:14?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Is that right? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 On Apr 20, 7:32�am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 19, 8:59 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Apr 17, 8:47?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 16, 9:45?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 4:35?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:51?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I feel no need to explain myself to God. ?If God is genuinely > > > > > > > > > > > all-knowing, then he already knows why I made the "choice" I made. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, how is it that you claim I enter into this some way? ?As I said > > > > > > > > > > before, discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth. > > > > > > > > > > What objective, verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your > > > > > > > > > imagination can interact with reality? > > > > > > > > > Well, I have the train in Einstein's description which is not affected > > > > > > > > by the attempts of college graduates to reduce its length by witchcraft. > > > > > > > > That's nice, but isn't responsive. ?Now answer the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your own ideas about what is responsive. > > > > > > Still non responsive. ?Why do you refuse to answer? ?What objective, > > > > > verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your imagination can > > > > > interact with reality?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > Well, the problem with your question is that anyone who tries to > > > > answer it is admitting to having figments. > > > > It isn't my problem you have no objective, verifiable evidence that > > > your figments are anything other than figments. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 On Apr 20, 7:33�am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 19, 8:55 am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > On Apr 17, 8:43?am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is thesimpleevidence of no God? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian > > > > > > > > > > > > > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false; > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of > > > > > > > > > > > > > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of > > > > > > > > > > > > > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove > > > > > > > > > > > > > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE, > > > > > > > > > > > > > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of > > > > > > > > > > > > > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my > > > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to > > > > > > > > > > > > > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to > > > > > > > > > > > > > accept the assertion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million > > > > > > > > > > > > > dollars, so I'm expecting a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any > > > > > > > > > > > > > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in > > > > > > > > > > > > court. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > It is done every day. > > > > > > > > > > Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable > > > > > > > > > evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years. > > > > > > > > I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable > > > > > > > evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more > > > > > > > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of > > > > > > > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the > > > > > > > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left > > > > > > > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train > > > > > > > > > > apart. > > > > > > > > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be > > > > > > > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving > > > > > > > > at the speed of light would be zero. > > > > > > > > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's > > > > > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to exist. > > > > > > Which people?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The ones who say that photons are particles. > > > > Thanks for that detailed non-response.- Hide quoted text - > > > You are free to believe photons are particles. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 On Apr 20, 8:33�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > rbwinn wrote: > >> No, I am not the only person on the planet who claims that special > >> relativity is wrong. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1177197333.451231.79970@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Apr 20, 8:33?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >Well, of course you are welcome to your own opinion, Jeckyl. Its not opinion .. it is fact, recorded in the Usenet, that you HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED the special relativity is wrong. You've presented Galilean transforms, and that the speed of light is constant in all FoR .. but you've not proven special relativity is wrong. AT BEST all you've shown is that SR correctly does not give the same incorrect results as Galilean transforms, which is to be expected as Galilean Transforms have been disproven from when the constant speed of light in all FoR was shown correct. If you can truly show SR to be wrong, then do so. We'll all be applauding you (as noone has been able to do this yet) and would start looking for alternatives that work and do not have whatever the error is that you think you've found. So far .. diddly squat. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 On Apr 21, 4:52�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1177197333.451231.79970@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 20, 8:33?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >Well, of course you are welcome to your own opinion, Jeckyl. > > Its not opinion .. it is fact, recorded in the Usenet, that you HAVE NOT > DEMONSTRATED the special relativity is wrong. > > You've presented Galilean transforms, and that the speed of light is > constant in all FoR .. but you've not proven special relativity is wrong. > > AT BEST all you've shown is that SR correctly does not give the same > incorrect results as Galilean transforms, which is to be expected as > Galilean Transforms have been disproven from when the constant speed of > light in all FoR was shown correct. > > If you can truly show SR to be wrong, then do so. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1177204889.566492.326110@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Apr 21, 4:52?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> If you can truly show SR to be wrong, then do so. We'll all be applauding >> you (as noone has been able to do this yet) and would start looking for >> alternatives that work and do not have whatever the error is that you >> think >> you've found. >> >> So far .. diddly squat. >Well, I am sorry you feel that way, Jeckyl. Its not a feeling .. its fact. > Didn't you look at the equations I gave you? Why are you trying to look like an iditio .. You know that I did .. that is how I was able to prove them wrong again. Just as they have been for the last decade. They have been proven wrong for as long as we have known the speed of light was a constant in all frames of reference. You're either just too ignorant to see it .. or too arrogant and deceitful to admit it. Which is it? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 On Apr 21, 8:25?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1177204889.566492.326110@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 21, 4:52?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> If you can truly show SR to be wrong, then do so. We'll all be applauding > >> you (as noone has been able to do this yet) and would start looking for > >> alternatives that work and do not have whatever the error is that you > >> think > >> you've found. > > >> So far .. diddly squat. > >Well, I am sorry you feel that way, Jeckyl. > > Its not a feeling .. its fact. > > > Didn't you look at the equations I gave you? > > Why are you trying to look like an iditio .. You know that I did .. that is > how I was able to prove them wrong again. > > Just as they have been for the last decade. > > They have been proven wrong for as long as we have known the speed of light > was a constant in all frames of reference. > > You're either just too ignorant to see it .. or too arrogant and deceitful > to admit it. > > Which is it? I just have light going at a speed of c in all frames of reference. Sorry you do not like it doing that. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1177214601.052081.251190@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 21, 8:25?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1177204889.566492.326110@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 21, 4:52?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> If you can truly show SR to be wrong, then do so. We'll all be >> >> applauding >> >> you (as noone has been able to do this yet) and would start looking >> >> for >> >> alternatives that work and do not have whatever the error is that you >> >> think >> >> you've found. >> >> >> So far .. diddly squat. >> >Well, I am sorry you feel that way, Jeckyl. >> >> Its not a feeling .. its fact. >> >> > Didn't you look at the equations I gave you? >> >> Why are you trying to look like an iditio .. You know that I did .. that >> is >> how I was able to prove them wrong again. >> >> Just as they have been for the last decade. >> >> They have been proven wrong for as long as we have known the speed of >> light >> was a constant in all frames of reference. >> >>> You're either just too ignorant to see it .. or too arrogant and >>> deceitful >>> to admit it. >>> >>> Which is it? > > I just have light going at a speed of c in all frames of reference. No .. you have that AND you have galillean transofrms > Sorry you do not like it doing that. 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. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:42:43 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote: >"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:oAPRh.1206$qB4.326@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> Like all typical Christians Pastor Dave relies on his imagination and >> ancient myths and fables to prove the existence of his god. >> >> And you counter with tons of factual objective verifiable evidence to >> support your claims. >> >Atheist always address these challenges to believers. What about >those people sitting on the fence? I.e. the undecided. How do you >convince these people who have yet to make up their mind as to >whether or not god(s) exist. Theism/atheism isn't about whether gods exist, it's about belief in a god. If you don't have such belief you're an atheist, one lacking such belief. If you don't know whether you believe in a god or not you're mentally incompetent, not knowing what you think. > How do you falsify the concept of God? That would be the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden". The burden of proof is on the existentially positive claim. Those not accepting the claim are under no obligation to prove the claim false - they aren't claiming that it's false, they're claiming that they don't accept it. (Proving the non-existence of an unlimited god can only be done by an unlimited god - IOW, the conditions necessary for the proof negate the proof - which is why asking for such proof is ludicrous.) Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 On Apr 21, 9:33�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1177214601.052081.251190@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 8:25?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1177204889.566492.326110@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > >> On Apr 21, 4:52?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >> If you can truly show SR to be wrong, then do so. We'll all be > >> >> applauding > >> >> you (as noone has been able to do this yet) and would start looking > >> >> for > >> >> alternatives that work and do not have whatever the error is that you > >> >> think > >> >> you've found. > > >> >> So far .. diddly squat. > >> >Well, I am sorry you feel that way, Jeckyl. > > >> Its not a feeling .. its fact. > > >> > Didn't you look at the equations I gave you? > > >> Why are you trying to look like an iditio .. You know that I did .. that > >> is > >> how I was able to prove them wrong again. > > >> Just as they have been for the last decade. > > >> They have been proven wrong for as long as we have known the speed of > >> light > >> was a constant in all frames of reference. > > >>> You're either just too ignorant to see it .. or too arrogant and > >>> deceitful > >>> to admit it. > > >>> Which is it? > > > I just have light going at a speed of c in all frames of reference. > > No .. you have that AND you have galillean transofrms > > > Sorry you do not like it doing that. > > I am very happy for it doing that .. and by doing that it makes the Galilean > transform fail. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@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. Quote
ilikewhatyousay Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 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! Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 "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). Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 "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. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.