Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 6:38�pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > On Apr 12, 5:15 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of > > > > > > atheists? > > > > > > Oh ho. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 9:11�pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > Scott Richter wrote: > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > >>Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. > >>Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? Quote
Guest Mike Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 11:15 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:38?pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 5:15 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of > > > > > > > atheists? > > > > > > > Oh ho. ?Sins of atheists you say? ?So you are a religious crank as > > > > > > well as an antirelativity crank. ?Why am I unsurprised to learn this? > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity. > > > > > Just asimplelittle problem for you, Mike. ?There is an observer > > > > > beside a railroad track. ?There is a train traveling on the railroad > > > > > track toward the observer. ?There is an observer on the train at the > > > > > middle of the train. ?When the observer on the train reaches the > > > > > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of > > > > > the train simultaneously, > > > > > In relativity you can't use the word "simultaneously" without > > > > specifying the frame of reference. ?If observers A and B have relative > > > > motion they will not agree about simultaneity of space-time points. > > > > Did you mean simultaneously for the observer stationary with respect > > > > to the track or simultaneously for the observer moving with the train? > > > > > > leaving marks on the front and rear of the > > > > > train and marks on the railroad track. ?How far apart are the marks on > > > > > the railroad track? > > > > > ? ? Einstein thought of this problem. ?It should be asimpletask for > > > > > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question. > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both > > > frames of reference. ?That is the only way the mathematics works. ?If > > > you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you > > > have to have a distance contraction. ?So how far apart are the marks > > > on the track? > > > Robert B. Winn > > > No, no, and NO!!!! ?In different frames or reference things are NOT > > dimultaneous. > > > Try to distinguish betweeen three separate questions. > > > 1) ?What does relativity actually say? > > > 2) ? Is relativity a logically consistent theory? > > > 3) ?Does the theory of relativity accurately describe nature? > > > These are logically distinct questions!! > > > So what the hell is your problem with distance contration?- Hide quoted text - > > It does not happen. The bolts of lightning are simultaneous in both > frames of reference, both observers see the flashes of lightning at a > time of .5L/c, where L is the length of the train, and the marks on > the track are the length of the train apart, the same as the marks on > the train. > > So in answer to your questions, > 1) The correct equations for relativity are the ones formerly in use, > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > When used with these two equations, x=wt, x'=wt', where w is the > velocity of light, transmission of light is correctly described. > 2) Yes, relativity is a logically consistent theory if the correct > equations are used.. > 3) The transmission of light is accurately described by the above > equations. > Robert B. Winn Not so. The correct equations are the Lorentz transformations. x' = (x-vt)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) y' = y z' = z t' = (t - (v/c^2)x)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) The transformation of light is most definitely NOT accurately described by the Galilei transformations that you have posted, but by the Lorentz transformatios. Quote
Guest DanielSan Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Scott Richter wrote: > rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > > >>Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. >>Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? Just a >>suggestion. > > > Here's a suggestion: why don't you go fuck yourself? Now, now. A lot of us atheists are more cordial. Here, try this: "Would you please go fuck yourself? Thanks." ;-) -- DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 ---------------------------------------------------- "In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 9:02�pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > On Apr 12, 11:15 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 6:38?pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 5:15 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 12, 10:06 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of > > > > > > > > atheists? > > > > > > > > Oh ho. ?Sins of atheists you say? ?So you are a religious crank as > > > > > > > well as an antirelativity crank. ?Why am I unsurprised to learn this? > > > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > > Well, here is another atheist who wants to talk about relativity. > > > > > > Just asimplelittle problem for you, Mike. ?There is an observer > > > > > > beside a railroad track. ?There is a train traveling on the railroad > > > > > > track toward the observer. ?There is an observer on the train at the > > > > > > middle of the train. ?When the observer on the train reaches the > > > > > > position of the observer on the ground, lightning strikes both ends of > > > > > > the train simultaneously, > > > > > > In relativity you can't use the word "simultaneously" without > > > > > specifying the frame of reference. ?If observers A and B have relative > > > > > motion they will not agree about simultaneity of space-time points. > > > > > Did you mean simultaneously for the observer stationary with respect > > > > > to the track or simultaneously for the observer moving with the train? > > > > > > > leaving marks on the front and rear of the > > > > > > train and marks on the railroad track. ?How far apart are the marks on > > > > > > the railroad track? > > > > > > ? ? Einstein thought of this problem. ?It should be asimpletask for > > > > > > someone as knowledgable as you to answer this question. > > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both > > > > frames of reference. ?That is the only way the mathematics works. ?If > > > > you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you > > > > have to have a distance contraction. ?So how far apart are the marks > > > > on the track? > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > No, no, and NO!!!! ?In different frames or reference things are NOT > > > dimultaneous. > > > > Try to distinguish betweeen three separate questions. > > > > 1) ?What does relativity actually say? > > > > 2) ? Is relativity a logically consistent theory? > > > > 3) ?Does the theory of relativity accurately describe nature? > > > > These are logically distinct questions!! > > > > So what the hell is your problem with distance contration?- Hide quoted text - > > > It does not happen. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 8:06�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1176426652.101999.304210@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2:35 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > >> > > > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 2:36�pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 12, 8:59 am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > >>What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of > > > > > >>atheists? > > > > > > > God did not send Jesus to die. God sent Jesus to overcome death which > > > > > > he did. There is a fundamental difference here. > > > > > > So are you claiming Jesus did NOT die? > > > > > > Are you claiming it was not God's will that Jesus died .. Jesus seemed to > > > > > think it was? > > > > > > If Jesus is God, why would he need to overcome death .. he is immortal ? > > > > > Because he knew there was no distance contraction. > > > > Ah, so now you're claiming Jesus was a student of relativity theory? > > > Interesting... > > > > I guess you can assign your imaginary friend any sort of nonsensical > > > attributes you please. > > > Well, I was just making fun of you atheists. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 12, 8:02�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1176387534.952826.289660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1175893536.357762.22000@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Apr 6, 11:36 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1175834114.259533.237680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Apr 3, 5:27 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> >> "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> said: > > >> >> >> There is an "argument from disbelief" as follows, that dispenses > >> >> >> with > >> >> >> certain gods, including notably the God of many believers. This is > >> >> >> not > >> >> >> to be confused with much weaker arguments from disbelief. > > >> >> > This argument from disbelief is flawed and disproves nothing. Let me > >> >> > show you: > > >> >> Here's a thought - Prove your god exists. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1176457413.976741.271460@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> Yet you believe in disproven Galilean transforms .. very foolish.- Hide >> quoted text - >> >Well, here. Let's see you disprove them. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > x'=wt', x=wt > >Just go ahead and show us the mathematics that disproves these >equations. You are a glutton for punishment, aren't you .. I've disproven them several times before .. very simple to do, its just simple school math. But in the hope that you might just go away in shame, here we go yet again: x' = x - vt substitute x' = wt', x = wt wt' = wt-vt substitute t' = t wt = wt-vt vt = 0 So the equations can only be true if v = 0 (ie its just one frame of reference) or only at the one instant when t = 0 So simple. And don't bother with the "you were using ether theory" nonsense ... there is no ether theory in use there by me. Now go away, there's a good boy. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1176457708.689033.142880@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Apr 12, 8:02?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > news:1176387534.952826.289660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1175893536.357762.22000@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Apr 6, 11:36 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1175834114.259533.237680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Apr 3, 5:27 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > >> >> >> "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> said: > > >> >> >> There is an "argument from disbelief" as follows, that dispenses > >> >> >> with > >> >> >> certain gods, including notably the God of many believers. This > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> not > >> >> >> to be confused with much weaker arguments from disbelief. > > >> >> > This argument from disbelief is flawed and disproves nothing. Let > >> >> > me > >> >> > show you: > > >> >> Here's a thought - Prove your god exists. And please back it up with > >> >> objective, verifiable evidence. Look up those words in a dictionary > >> >> if > >> >> you > >> >> don't know what they mean. > > >> > I guess you didn't like that I completely discredited your "theory". > > >> > Here's a thought: prove anything you know was true 1,000 years ago > >> > exists. And please back it up with objective, verifiable evidence. > >> > Oh, > >> > that's right -- you're in the same boat. > > >> No.. there is objective verifiable proof of other things .. and even of > >> things from around the time of Jesus. > > >> But no proof of God. No proof of the miraculous events in the Gospels. > > >> It really comes down to a matter of blind faith. > > >> > As it stands now there's more than enough evidence around you. > > >> Really .. where? > > > The people who have blind faith are the ones who believe in the > > distance contraction. > > The ones with blind faith are those that cannot accept the Galilean > transforms were disproven by the MMX experiments over a century ago .. and > who keep peddling the same disproven theories for ten years despite being > proven wrong over and over and over again. > > So show the proof. I have .. many times before .. and have just done so again. So go peddle your snake-oil equations to people who are even more ignorant than you (if that's possible). Those with any sense at all see them (and you) for what they are. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 2:52�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1176457413.976741.271460@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >> Yet you believe in disproven Galilean transforms .. very foolish.- Hide > >> quoted text - > > >Well, here. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 2:54�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1176457708.689033.142880@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 8:02?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > >news:1176387534.952826.289660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:1175893536.357762.22000@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Apr 6, 11:36 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> >> <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:1175834114.259533.237680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > On Apr 3, 5:27 pm, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> >> >> "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> said: > > > >> >> >> There is an "argument from disbelief" as follows, that dispenses > > >> >> >> with > > >> >> >> certain gods, including notably the God of many believers. This > > >> >> >> is > > >> >> >> not > > >> >> >> to be confused with much weaker arguments from disbelief. > > > >> >> > This argument from disbelief is flawed and disproves nothing. Let > > >> >> > me > > >> >> > show you: > > > >> >> Here's a thought - Prove your god exists. And please back it up with > > >> >> objective, verifiable evidence. Look up those words in a dictionary > > >> >> if > > >> >> you > > >> >> don't know what they mean. > > > >> > I guess you didn't like that I completely discredited your "theory". > > > >> > Here's a thought: prove anything you know was true 1,000 years ago > > >> > exists. And please back it up with objective, verifiable evidence. > > >> > Oh, > > >> > that's right -- you're in the same boat. > > > >> No.. there is objective verifiable proof of other things .. and even of > > >> things from around the time of Jesus. > > > >> But no proof of God. No proof of the miraculous events in the Gospels. > > > >> It really comes down to a matter of blind faith. > > > >> > As it stands now there's more than enough evidence around you. > > > >> Really .. where? > > > > The people who have blind faith are the ones who believe in the > > > distance contraction. > > > The ones with blind faith are those that cannot accept the Galilean > > transforms were disproven by the MMX experiments over a century ago .. and > > who keep peddling the same disproven theories for ten years despite being > > proven wrong over and over and over again. > > > So show the proof. > > I have .. many times before .. and have just done so again. > > So go peddle your snake-oil equations to people who are even more ignorant > than you (if that's possible). Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1176474044.154042.151290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >On Apr 13, 2:52?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1176457413.976741.271460@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Yet you believe in disproven Galilean transforms .. very foolish.- >> >> Hide >> >> quoted text - >> >> >Well, here. Let's see you disprove them. >> >> > x'=x-vt >> > y'=y >> > z'=z >> > t'=t >> >> > x'=wt', x=wt >> >> >Just go ahead and show us the mathematics that disproves these >> >equations. >> >> You are a glutton for punishment, aren't you .. I've disproven them >> several >> times before .. very simple to do, its just simple school math. But in >> the >> hope that you might just go away in shame, here we go yet again: >> >> x' = x - vt >> substitute x' = wt', x = wt >> wt' = wt-vt >> substitute t' = t >> wt = wt-vt >> vt = 0 >> >> So the equations can only be true if v = 0 (ie its just one frame of >> reference) or only at the one instant when t = 0 >> >> So simple. And don't bother with the "you were using ether theory" >> nonsense >> .. there is no ether theory in use there by me. >> >> Now go away, there's a good boy. > > Sorry, Jeckyl, that does not prove anything. You're right .. it dis-proves your equations > All this equation says > > wt'=wt-vt > is that it takes a photon in S' a time of t'= t(1-v/w) to reach that > value of x'. > But a time of t'=t has transpired in S' so t = t(1 - v/w) ie 1 = 1 - v/w; v/w = 0 v = 0 Again .. only true if the velocity of S' relative to S is zero (ie only when S and S' are the same FoR) You've again shown your equations to be self-contradictory > so the photon > is at x'=x. Only if v = 0 or when t = 0 > Notice that light is traveling at a speed of c in both > frames of reference. Yes .. I know that is it .. and it is THAT spped of c in both FoR that contradicts Galillean transforms .. as they CANNOT have something move with the same velocity in two different inertial FoR > Try again. I don't need to try again .. you simply cannot (or refuse to) see that your equations CANNOT work together. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1176474106.502730.82160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >On Apr 13, 2:54?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> So go peddle your snake-oil equations to people who are even more >> ignorant >> than you (if that's possible). Those with any sense at all see them (and >> you) for what they are.- Hide quoted text - > Snake oil? Where do you see a distance contraction in my equations? I see you using equations (Galilean transforms) that have been proven NOT to work for a century (they were proven wrong by MMX that also showed a constant speed of light, c) That is your snake oil. Special relativity, on the other hand, has been shown to be correct over and over and over again .. it has never been disproven. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 rbwinn wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:11?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > Scott Richter wrote: > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > >>Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. > > >>Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? ?Just a > > >>suggestion. > > > > > Here's a suggestion: why don't you go fuck yourself? > > > > Now, now. ?A lot of us atheists are more cordial. ?Here, try this: > > > > "Would you please go fuck yourself? ?Thanks." > > > > ;-) > > > > -- > > > > ? ? ? ? ? DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 ? ? ? ? ? > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > "In every country and every age, the priest had ? ? > > been hostile to Liberty." ? ? ? --Thomas Jefferson > > > > Persistence in profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to become weaker. Blah blah blah. No evidence, no acceptance. Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > > > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. > > > Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? Just a > > > suggestion. > > > > Here's a suggestion: why don't you go fuck yourself? > > You seem to be having some mental problems, Scott. I'm not the one who is so offended by profanity that anytime it is used you make an issue of it, trying to claim some sort of intellectual or moral superiority. If you are so disturbed by profanity, there are plenty of tightly controlled Christian web sites where you will never see a dirty word or an uncomfortable opinion. But here on Usenet we don't give a rat's ass about your delicate sensibilities. Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > > > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Why > > > > wouldn't a loving god demonstrate his existence and eliminate > > > > atheism? > > > > > According to the Bible that will happen when he returns the second > > > time. > > > > In other words, atheism will never be eliminated. > > > > Unfortunately, from what we know of history, the far more dangerous > > converse of atheism--superstitious belief systems--will never be > > eliminated either. > All people are going to become believers, otherwise, they would not > even be here. What the fuck are you babbling about now? > Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, etc. "Etc."? Are you so bored with your own religious bullshit you can't even finish your sentence? > Well, you are right about not being able to eliminate God. Eliminate God? You'd need a big fuckin' roll of toilet paper for that... > You are not going to be able to do it. Not without a few prunes... Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 7:32�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1176474106.502730.82160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > >On Apr 13, 2:54?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> So go peddle your snake-oil equations to people who are even more > >> ignorant > >> than you (if that's possible). Those with any sense at all see them (and > >> you) for what they are.- Hide quoted text - > > Snake oil? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 7:42�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 12, 9:11?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > > Scott Richter wrote: > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > >>Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. > > > >>Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? ?Just a > > > >>suggestion. > > > > > Here's a suggestion: why don't you go fuck yourself? > > > > Now, now. ?A lot of us atheists are more cordial. ?Here, try this: > > > > "Would you please go fuck yourself? ?Thanks." > > > > ;-) > > > > -- > > > > > > ? ? ? ? ? DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 ? ? ? ? ? > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > "In every country and every age, the priest had ? ? > > > been hostile to Liberty." ? ? ? --Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > Persistence in profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to become weaker. > > Blah blah blah. Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 7:55�am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. > > > > Why don't you try to say something without using profanity? Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 7:55�am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > What does this Bible story have to do with the question? Quote
Guest Dubh Ghall Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:20:19 -0400, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:q6yQh.29385$nV1.4452@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> >> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the >> actual existence of millions of atheists. >> > There are millions of deaf and blind people also, and atheists are deaf >and blind to the truth. There is no "god" of your definition, and we are all >agreed on that. > Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we KNOW love and have >SEEN love in Him who died in our stead on the cross of Calvary. There is no >more eloquent communication of God than that, and which is far more >convincing than mere words, though words seem to be what you are looking >for. > Your "god" is an invisible old man in the sky, who doesn't exist, ...a >mere straw man atheists love to trash uselessly and with wild abandon. -- The spelling Like any opinion stated here purely my own #162 BAAWA Knight. Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote: > > > Not too good. Jesus Christ has eternal life. > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to give > > them... > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person. That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about Jesus coming back! Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 8:54�am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > > > > Not too good. Quote
Guest Mike Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 On Apr 13, 5:16 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:02?pm, "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote: > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > > I can do it by saying the lightning strikes are simultaneous in both > > > > > frames of reference. ?That is the only way the mathematics works. ?If > > > > > you say they are not simultaneous in one frame of reference, then you > > > > > have to have a distance contraction. ?So how far apart are the marks > > > > > on the track? > > > > > Robert B. Winn > > > > > No, no, and NO!!!! ?In different frames or reference things are NOT > > > > dimultaneous. > > > > > Try to distinguish betweeen three separate questions. > > > > > 1) ?What does relativity actually say? > > > > > 2) ? Is relativity a logically consistent theory? > > > > > 3) ?Does the theory of relativity accurately describe nature? > > > > > These are logically distinct questions!! > > > > > So what the hell is your problem with distance contration?- Hide quoted text - > > > > It does not happen. ? The bolts of lightning are simultaneous in both > > > frames of reference, both observers see the flashes of lightning at a > > > time of .5L/c, where L is the length of the train, and the marks on > > > the track are the length of the train apart, the same as the marks on > > > the train. Once again, are you capable of distinguishing between the separate questions 1) What does SR say? 2) Is SR logically consistent? 3) Does SR accurately describe the physical world. Before we move on to questions 2 and 3 we might as well get some clarity about question 1. I repeat myself: If two observers have relative motion, then they do not agree about simultaneity of space-time points. That is what relativity says. > > > > So in answer to your questions, > > > 1) ?The correct equations for relativity are the ones formerly in use, > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?x'=x-vt > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?y'=y > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?z'=z > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?t'=t > > > ? When used with these two equations, x=wt, x'=wt', where w is the > > > velocity of light, transmission of light is correctly described. > > > 2) ?Yes, relativity is a logically consistent theory if the correct > > > equations are used.. > > > 3) ?The transmission of light is accurately described by the above > > > equations. > > > Robert B. Winn > > > Not so. ?The correct equations are the Lorentz transformations. > > ? ? ?x' = (x-vt)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) > > ? ? ?y' = y > > ? ? ?z' = z > > ? ? ?t' = (t - (v/c^2)x)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) > > The transformation of light is most definitely NOT accurately > > described by the Galilei transformations that you have posted, but by > > the Lorentz transformatios.- Hide quoted text - > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, and to your distance > contraction. Winn, if you accept constancy of light speed for all frames of reference and if you accept a principle of relativity then you are mathematically forced to accept the Lorentz transformations instead of the Galilei transformations. Theorem: If a linear transformation from unprimed coordinates (t,x,y,z) to primed coordinates (t',x',y',z') is such that both observers agree about which objects have speed c then the transformation is a Lorentz transformation. That is a fact of mathematics. Surely you know that tens of millions of mathematicians and scientists all over the world have studied SR and nobody has found a logical problem of any kind. The only remaining question is whether or not SR correctly describes nature. The experimental evidence is simply overwhelming. > Robert B. Winn 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.