| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dominic Torrazzi" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2006 05:43:24 PM |
| Object: |
You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
If you need any evidence that the theocrats don't understand science,
statistics, or logic - have a read.
You bet your life
Posted: April 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
When Judas Iscariot agreed to deliver Jesus to the chief priests on Maundy
Thursday some 2,000 years ago, he was betting that Jesus was not who He
claimed to be - the son of God. Judas' payoff was 30 pieces of silver.
However, that betrayal cost Judas his life. History has shown this wager was
against impossible odds.
Today, many are going against the odds and making that same wager.
Just what are the odds that Jesus was God's son?
Although, we will not know with absolute certainty until we die and are
confronted by our Maker, overwhelming statistical probability is considered
proof by the scientific community. For example, DNA evidence is often the
proof needed to get a crime conviction, even though the probability of a
match may be 1 in a quintillion (1 with 18 zeros after it) or one in 10 to
the 29th power if using a full profile.
Consider the proof in the Bible that Jesus was who He said He was.
The Hebrew Scriptures pointed the way to the promised Messiah and went into
great detail about His birth, life and death through prophecy. These
prophecies were made many years before Jesus' birth and the Dead Sea Scrolls
confirm that they remained unchanged.
Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim compiled a list of 456 identifying
characteristics of the Messiah from these prophecies that were fulfilled by
Jesus.
Dr. Peter Stoner, professor emeritus of science at Westmont College,
calculated the probability of one man fulfilling just the major prophecies
with the help of 12 different classes of 600 college students. Then, he took
more conservative figures to the Committee of the American Scientific
Affiliation and had them verified using the data supplied in the Bible.
Stoner looked at these eight prophecies:
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
A messenger was sent to prepare the way (Malachi 3:1).
Made a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as a king riding on a lowly donkey
(Zechariah 9:9).
Betrayed by a friend that resulted in wounds in the hands (Zechariah 13:6).
Price of betrayal was 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12).
The blood money was used to buy a potter's field (Zechariah 11:13).
Offered no defense at his trial (Isaiah 53:7).
His hands and feet were pierced (Psalm 22:16).
The estimate of one man fulfilling all eight of these prophecies was a
staggering 10 to the 17th power, a number with 17 zeroes after it.
In another calculation, he used 48 prophecies and came up with a probability
of 10 to the 157th power, an impossible figure to achieve without Divine
intervention.
Exactly what do these numbers mean?
Stoner gave us this example. Ten to the 17th power would be the number of
silver dollars needed to cover the entire state of Texas, two feet deep.
To help us visualize 10 to the 157th power, Stoner chose one of the smallest
known objects, the electron. An electron is so small that it would take 2.5
x 1,000,000,000,000,000 of them laid side by side to make a line, single
file, one inch long.
Space, according to some estimates, extends in all directions to a distance
of 6 million light-years. Dr. Stoner asked us to imagine a solid ball of
electrons the size of space. Now fit that space-size ball of electrons, into
a ball of electrons 10 to the 157th power. How big of a dent would our
space-size ball make? It would make a hole so small that it would not be
noticeable.
Remember, that number 10 to the 157th power represents the probability of
one man fulfilling just 48 of these prophesies and there were 456 that Dr.
Stoner and his mathematicians could have used.
Let us go back to the odds that one man could have fulfilled just those
first eight prophecies. Imagine that one of the silver dollars covering the
state of Texas, two feet thick, was marked in red fingernail polish. You are
given the task of walking throughout Texas, reaching down and selecting the
right one on the first try. Suppose your very life was on the line. Could
you do it?
Would you bet your life on that?
Of course you would not, but that is, in effect, what you are doing when
you, like Judas, decide to reject the tremendous amount of evidence that
Jesus Christ was the son of God and the only way to the Father.
Christ willingly laid down His life to pay the price for our sins in order
to give us the gift of eternal life. It is a free gift - yours to accept or
reject.
.
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
16 Apr 2006 06:31:44 AM |
|
|
No.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 11:18:26 AM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145187104.211017.244370@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No.
Robert B. Winn
Yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 02:21:51 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104149.501294.296190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
I think it's 186,000 miles per second, isn't it?
Just the other way.
It's been oh gosh, a really long time since physics class.
Curt
Well, see, you missed your true calling in life. You could have been a
nuclear physicist. They get the same answer you do. Actually,
according to mathematics, the velocity of a photon traveling as I
described is -186,000 miles per second relative to the set of Cartesian
coordinates. If you respond to this post, then we will know why you
did not become a nuclear physicist. A true scientist would not
respond.
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
I'm curious how a real scientist such as yourself would answer this, in
light of your dismissal of Lorentz.
I am not a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education. My
personal belief is that light travels at all velocities,
Wrong, unless you're not in a vacuum. And even then, lots of luck
finding a medium where light has been slowed down to say, 1km/h.
but reacts
with the elements in this part of the universe at a rate of c=186,000
miles per second.
What is this supposed to mean, dumbfuck?
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
Yes they are.
What Hubble observed was an effect of
relativity. Light traveling from a far distant galaxy travels further
than the actual distance between the galaxy and earth because it is
deflected on the way by gravitation. This means it takes a longer time
to get here than
x/c=t.
Um...totally wrong, idiot.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are
spread out over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Also completely wrong.
You're talking about gravitational redshift, which is dependent upon
the mass of the galaxy. If that's the case, redshift would be
proportional to mass, not the distance.
Distance has absoutely nothing to do with redshift, directly.
Similarly, light from our
sun has a lower frequency when it reaches the far distant galaxy.
An observer on earth measures the speed of the light from the far
distant galaxy the same as the speed of light from a near star. It
just has a lower frequency. If x' is the distance traveled by a photon
considering its deflection by gravitation, then x'/c=t' where t' is a
longer time than t.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 09:32:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104149.501294.296190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
I think it's 186,000 miles per second, isn't it?
Just the other way.
It's been oh gosh, a really long time since physics class.
Curt
Well, see, you missed your true calling in life. You could have been a
nuclear physicist. They get the same answer you do. Actually,
according to mathematics, the velocity of a photon traveling as I
described is -186,000 miles per second relative to the set of Cartesian
coordinates. If you respond to this post, then we will know why you
did not become a nuclear physicist. A true scientist would not
respond.
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
I'm curious how a real scientist such as yourself would answer this, in
light of your dismissal of Lorentz.
I am not a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education. My
personal belief is that light travels at all velocities,
Wrong, unless you're not in a vacuum. And even then, lots of luck
finding a medium where light has been slowed down to say, 1km/h.
I think light travels at all velocities even in a vacuum.
but reacts
with the elements in this part of the universe at a rate of c=186,000
miles per second.
What is this supposed to mean, dumbfuck?
It means that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong
statement.
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
Yes they are.
What Hubble observed was an effect of
relativity. Light traveling from a far distant galaxy travels further
than the actual distance between the galaxy and earth because it is
deflected on the way by gravitation. This means it takes a longer time
to get here than
x/c=t.
Um...totally wrong, idiot.
You forgot to include your proof of what you say.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are
spread out over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Also completely wrong.
We are eagerly waiting to see the mathematics that proves you right.
The mathematics that proves me right is these two little equations
which Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations. x=ct, x'=ct'
If x is the actual distance from a far distant galaxy to earth, and
x' is the distance traveled by a photon from the far distant galaxy to
earth, then x' is a longer distance than x because of deflection by
gravitation. If x' is a longer distance than x, then t' is a longer
time than t, meaning that the frequency of the light will be lower.
You're talking about gravitational redshift, which is dependent upon
the mass of the galaxy. If that's the case, redshift would be
proportional to mass, not the distance.
The mass of the galaxy has little effect on a photon once the photon
leaves the galaxy, although it does lower the frequency initiallywhile
the photon is in the galaxy. What does affect the photon once it
leaves the galaxy are particles of dust, other galaxies, and stars, all
of which have gravitation that change the path of the photon.
Distance has absoutely nothing to do with redshift, directly.
The greater the distance traveled by a photon after being deflected by
gravitation, the greater the amount of redshift.
Similarly, light from our
sun has a lower frequency when it reaches the far distant galaxy.
An observer on earth measures the speed of the light from the far
distant galaxy the same as the speed of light from a near star. It
just has a lower frequency. If x' is the distance traveled by a photon
considering its deflection by gravitation, then x'/c=t' where t' is a
longer time than t.
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 12:56:03 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145629920.723684.100850@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Also completely wrong.
We are eagerly waiting to see the mathematics that proves you right.
No, "we" are eagerly waiting for you to provide a secondary source to prove
YOU right.
You keep dodging that. So don't challenge his math and say that you're
waiting for something.
The mathematics that proves me right is these two little equations
which Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations. x=ct, x'=ct'
Okay. But you have no credibility. Find somebody with credibility to vouch
for you.
The greater the distance traveled by a photon after being deflected by
gravitation, the greater the amount of redshift.
Only in gravitation (einsteinian) redshift.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "grandwazoo" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
22 Apr 2006 02:00:53 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
sbm2004@telus.net wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104149.501294.296190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
I think it's 186,000 miles per second, isn't it?
Just the other way.
It's been oh gosh, a really long time since physics class.
Curt
Well, see, you missed your true calling in life. You could have been a
nuclear physicist. They get the same answer you do. Actually,
according to mathematics, the velocity of a photon traveling as I
described is -186,000 miles per second relative to the set of Cartesian
coordinates. If you respond to this post, then we will know why you
did not become a nuclear physicist. A true scientist would not
respond.
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
I'm curious how a real scientist such as yourself would answer this, in
light of your dismissal of Lorentz.
I am not a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education. My
personal belief is that light travels at all velocities,
Wrong, unless you're not in a vacuum. And even then, lots of luck
finding a medium where light has been slowed down to say, 1km/h.
I think light travels at all velocities even in a vacuum.
but reacts
with the elements in this part of the universe at a rate of c=186,000
miles per second.
What is this supposed to mean, dumbfuck?
It means that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong
statement.
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
Yes they are.
What Hubble observed was an effect of
relativity. Light traveling from a far distant galaxy travels further
than the actual distance between the galaxy and earth because it is
deflected on the way by gravitation. This means it takes a longer time
to get here than
x/c=t.
Um...totally wrong, idiot.
You forgot to include your proof of what you say.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are
spread out over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Also completely wrong.
We are eagerly waiting to see the mathematics that proves you right.
The mathematics that proves me right is these two little equations
which Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations. x=ct, x'=ct'
If x is the actual distance from a far distant galaxy to earth, and
x' is the distance traveled by a photon from the far distant galaxy to
earth, then x' is a longer distance than x because of deflection by
gravitation. If x' is a longer distance than x, then t' is a longer
time than t, meaning that the frequency of the light will be lower.
You're talking about gravitational redshift, which is dependent upon
the mass of the galaxy. If that's the case, redshift would be
proportional to mass, not the distance.
The mass of the galaxy has little effect on a photon once the photon
leaves the galaxy, although it does lower the frequency initiallywhile
the photon is in the galaxy. What does affect the photon once it
leaves the galaxy are particles of dust, other galaxies, and stars, all
of which have gravitation that change the path of the photon.
What is the mass of a photon? Gravity acts upon mass. The photon would
be affected by space/time being acted upon by nearby mass. The
gravitational attraction of a photon is negligible.
Distance has absoutely nothing to do with redshift, directly.
The greater the distance traveled by a photon after being deflected by
gravitation, the greater the amount of redshift.
Similarly, light from our
sun has a lower frequency when it reaches the far distant galaxy.
An observer on earth measures the speed of the light from the far
distant galaxy the same as the speed of light from a near star. It
just has a lower frequency. If x' is the distance traveled by a photon
considering its deflection by gravitation, then x'/c=t' where t' is a
longer time than t.
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
22 Apr 2006 06:57:10 AM |
|
|
grandwazoo wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
sbm2004@telus.net wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104149.501294.296190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
I think it's 186,000 miles per second, isn't it?
Just the other way.
It's been oh gosh, a really long time since physics class.
Curt
Well, see, you missed your true calling in life. You could have been a
nuclear physicist. They get the same answer you do. Actually,
according to mathematics, the velocity of a photon traveling as I
described is -186,000 miles per second relative to the set of Cartesian
coordinates. If you respond to this post, then we will know why you
did not become a nuclear physicist. A true scientist would not
respond.
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
I'm curious how a real scientist such as yourself would answer this, in
light of your dismissal of Lorentz.
I am not a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education. My
personal belief is that light travels at all velocities,
Wrong, unless you're not in a vacuum. And even then, lots of luck
finding a medium where light has been slowed down to say, 1km/h.
I think light travels at all velocities even in a vacuum.
but reacts
with the elements in this part of the universe at a rate of c=186,000
miles per second.
What is this supposed to mean, dumbfuck?
It means that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong
statement.
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
Yes they are.
What Hubble observed was an effect of
relativity. Light traveling from a far distant galaxy travels further
than the actual distance between the galaxy and earth because it is
deflected on the way by gravitation. This means it takes a longer time
to get here than
x/c=t.
Um...totally wrong, idiot.
You forgot to include your proof of what you say.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are
spread out over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Also completely wrong.
We are eagerly waiting to see the mathematics that proves you right.
The mathematics that proves me right is these two little equations
which Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations. x=ct, x'=ct'
If x is the actual distance from a far distant galaxy to earth, and
x' is the distance traveled by a photon from the far distant galaxy to
earth, then x' is a longer distance than x because of deflection by
gravitation. If x' is a longer distance than x, then t' is a longer
time than t, meaning that the frequency of the light will be lower.
You're talking about gravitational redshift, which is dependent upon
the mass of the galaxy. If that's the case, redshift would be
proportional to mass, not the distance.
The mass of the galaxy has little effect on a photon once the photon
leaves the galaxy, although it does lower the frequency initiallywhile
the photon is in the galaxy. What does affect the photon once it
leaves the galaxy are particles of dust, other galaxies, and stars, all
of which have gravitation that change the path of the photon.
What is the mass of a photon? Gravity acts upon mass. The photon would
be affected by space/time being acted upon by nearby mass. The
gravitational attraction of a photon is negligible.
Well, gravitation has enough effect on a photons that it can be
measured. Eddington did this in an experiment during an eclipse, which
was accepted as proof that the theory of relativity was true.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "grandwazoo" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
23 Apr 2006 04:02:54 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
grandwazoo wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
sbm2004@telus.net wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104149.501294.296190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
I think it's 186,000 miles per second, isn't it?
Just the other way.
It's been oh gosh, a really long time since physics class.
Curt
Well, see, you missed your true calling in life. You could have been a
nuclear physicist. They get the same answer you do. Actually,
according to mathematics, the velocity of a photon traveling as I
described is -186,000 miles per second relative to the set of Cartesian
coordinates. If you respond to this post, then we will know why you
did not become a nuclear physicist. A true scientist would not
respond.
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
I'm curious how a real scientist such as yourself would answer this, in
light of your dismissal of Lorentz.
I am not a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education. My
personal belief is that light travels at all velocities,
Wrong, unless you're not in a vacuum. And even then, lots of luck
finding a medium where light has been slowed down to say, 1km/h.
I think light travels at all velocities even in a vacuum.
but reacts
with the elements in this part of the universe at a rate of c=186,000
miles per second.
What is this supposed to mean, dumbfuck?
It means that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong
statement.
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
Yes they are.
What Hubble observed was an effect of
relativity. Light traveling from a far distant galaxy travels further
than the actual distance between the galaxy and earth because it is
deflected on the way by gravitation. This means it takes a longer time
to get here than
x/c=t.
Um...totally wrong, idiot.
You forgot to include your proof of what you say.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are
spread out over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Also completely wrong.
We are eagerly waiting to see the mathematics that proves you right.
The mathematics that proves me right is these two little equations
which Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations. x=ct, x'=ct'
If x is the actual distance from a far distant galaxy to earth, and
x' is the distance traveled by a photon from the far distant galaxy to
earth, then x' is a longer distance than x because of deflection by
gravitation. If x' is a longer distance than x, then t' is a longer
time than t, meaning that the frequency of the light will be lower.
You're talking about gravitational redshift, which is dependent upon
the mass of the galaxy. If that's the case, redshift would be
proportional to mass, not the distance.
The mass of the galaxy has little effect on a photon once the photon
leaves the galaxy, although it does lower the frequency initiallywhile
the photon is in the galaxy. What does affect the photon once it
leaves the galaxy are particles of dust, other galaxies, and stars, all
of which have gravitation that change the path of the photon.
What is the mass of a photon? Gravity acts upon mass. The photon would
be affected by space/time being acted upon by nearby mass. The
gravitational attraction of a photon is negligible.
Well, gravitation has enough effect on a photons that it can be
measured. Eddington did this in an experiment during an eclipse, which
was accepted as proof that the theory of relativity was true.
Robert B. Winn
It is the space/time warp due to the affects of gravity. Photons travel
through space curvature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
23 Apr 2006 08:53:35 AM |
|
|
grandwazoo wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
grandwazoo wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
sbm2004@telus.net wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104149.501294.296190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
I think it's 186,000 miles per second, isn't it?
Just the other way.
It's been oh gosh, a really long time since physics class.
Curt
Well, see, you missed your true calling in life. You could have been a
nuclear physicist. They get the same answer you do. Actually,
according to mathematics, the velocity of a photon traveling as I
described is -186,000 miles per second relative to the set of Cartesian
coordinates. If you respond to this post, then we will know why you
did not become a nuclear physicist. A true scientist would not
respond.
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
I'm curious how a real scientist such as yourself would answer this, in
light of your dismissal of Lorentz.
I am not a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education. My
personal belief is that light travels at all velocities,
Wrong, unless you're not in a vacuum. And even then, lots of luck
finding a medium where light has been slowed down to say, 1km/h.
I think light travels at all velocities even in a vacuum.
but reacts
with the elements in this part of the universe at a rate of c=186,000
miles per second.
What is this supposed to mean, dumbfuck?
It means that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong
statement.
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
Yes they are.
What Hubble observed was an effect of
relativity. Light traveling from a far distant galaxy travels further
than the actual distance between the galaxy and earth because it is
deflected on the way by gravitation. This means it takes a longer time
to get here than
x/c=t.
Um...totally wrong, idiot.
You forgot to include your proof of what you say.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are
spread out over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Also completely wrong.
We are eagerly waiting to see the mathematics that proves you right.
The mathematics that proves me right is these two little equations
which Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations. x=ct, x'=ct'
If x is the actual distance from a far distant galaxy to earth, and
x' is the distance traveled by a photon from the far distant galaxy to
earth, then x' is a longer distance than x because of deflection by
gravitation. If x' is a longer distance than x, then t' is a longer
time than t, meaning that the frequency of the light will be lower.
You're talking about gravitational redshift, which is dependent upon
the mass of the galaxy. If that's the case, redshift would be
proportional to mass, not the distance.
The mass of the galaxy has little effect on a photon once the photon
leaves the galaxy, although it does lower the frequency initiallywhile
the photon is in the galaxy. What does affect the photon once it
leaves the galaxy are particles of dust, other galaxies, and stars, all
of which have gravitation that change the path of the photon.
What is the mass of a photon? Gravity acts upon mass. The photon would
be affected by space/time being acted upon by nearby mass. The
gravitational attraction of a photon is negligible.
Well, gravitation has enough effect on a photons that it can be
measured. Eddington did this in an experiment during an eclipse, which
was accepted as proof that the theory of relativity was true.
Robert B. Winn
It is the space/time warp due to the affects of gravity. Photons travel
through space curvature.
So you are saying that the photons are traveling in a straight line,
and space is curved, and I am saying that photons are traveling in
curved lines because of gravitation.
Robert B. winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 12:52:11 PM |
|
|
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
What Hubble observed was an effect of relativity.
What I enjoy is listening to him reinterpret and contradict the science
beliefs of those who actually put Hubble into space, using -their- gathered
data, and, yet, he has nothing whatsoever to show anybody himself, nor can
he accept the challenge to find somebody to lend credence to his theories.
That's highly amusing. The guy discredits the science world that brought
him Hubble by telling us what Hubble observed.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are spread out
over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Lightwaves do not change frequency as they travel across distance in a
vacuum. This numbskull doesn't even know what redshift is, but he's
attempting to describe it. It's only visible to the telescopic observers,
but of course, he's contradicting those observers.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 02:28:08 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
I would assume that you are asking about the red-shift. No, the
galaxies are not moving apart.
What Hubble observed was an effect of relativity.
What I enjoy is listening to him reinterpret and contradict the science
beliefs of those who actually put Hubble into space, using -their- gathered
data, and, yet, he has nothing whatsoever to show anybody himself, nor can
he accept the challenge to find somebody to lend credence to his theories.
That's highly amusing. The guy discredits the science world that brought
him Hubble by telling us what Hubble observed.
Because the light waves emitted at the far distant galaxy are spread out
over a longer distance and take a longer time, their
frequency is lower when they reach earth.
Lightwaves do not change frequency as they travel across distance in a
vacuum. This numbskull doesn't even know what redshift is, but he's
attempting to describe it. It's only visible to the telescopic observers,
but of course, he's contradicting those observers.
The "tired light" theory has been rather throughly discredited.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
15 Apr 2006 12:44:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:43:10 -0700, "Dominic Torrazzi"
<DTorrazzi@home4.com> wrote:
Has the speed of light slowed down since the creation?
Some theories wandering around Out There suggest it has both sped up
and slowed down, at different times.
It's connnected with the accelerating universal expansion discussion,
if memory serves.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Rouse" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
15 Apr 2006 03:35:51 AM |
|
|
In article <1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
Robert B. Winn
Chris rarely visits usenet over the weekend, so I'll barge in here. The answer
is c. It's c in any direction. It's even c relative to anything else that's
moving in any direction. It works because time is distorted proportional to
velocity. That effect has been proven by measurement.
I'm dying to hear your counter-argument that proves physicists are nitwits.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
15 Apr 2006 07:34:00 AM |
|
|
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
Robert B. Winn
Chris rarely visits usenet over the weekend, so I'll barge in here. The answer
is c. It's c in any direction. It's even c relative to anything else that's
moving in any direction. It works because time is distorted proportional to
velocity. That effect has been proven by measurement.
I'm dying to hear your counter-argument that proves physicists are nitwits.
--
The velocity of a photon traveling as I described is -186,000 miles per
second or -c relative to the set of coordinates according to
mathematics. You could have become a nuclear physicist. They all get
the same answer you do.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Rouse" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
15 Apr 2006 02:41:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1145104440.049774.317280@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
Robert B. Winn
Chris rarely visits usenet over the weekend, so I'll barge in here. The
answer
is c. It's c in any direction. It's even c relative to anything else
that's
moving in any direction. It works because time is distorted proportional
to
velocity. That effect has been proven by measurement.
I'm dying to hear your counter-argument that proves physicists are nitwits.
--
The velocity of a photon traveling as I described is -186,000 miles per
second or -c relative to the set of coordinates according to
mathematics.
Both meaningless and incorrect.
You could have become a nuclear physicist. They all get
the same answer you do.
So, you managed to get thru geometry in high school, and now think you know more
than advanced physicists? Is this something else that Jesus whispered in your
ear?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
16 Apr 2006 06:33:20 AM |
|
|
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145104440.049774.317280@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145078586.303248.269830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<Consequently, they believe that physical objects have to
shrink in the direction of motion. It is one of the most nitwit
ideas
ever thought of, and all educated people believe it.
That's why we should dispense with education and let the uneducated
explain
science for us.
Specifically, Christians. Ask Galileo.
OK, as a representative of educated non-Christians, could you explain
what the velocity of a photon traveling in the -x direction along the x
axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates is relative to the set of
coordinates if the velocity of a photon traveling in the +x direction
is c, where c = 186,000 miles per second?
Robert B. Winn
Chris rarely visits usenet over the weekend, so I'll barge in here. The
answer
is c. It's c in any direction. It's even c relative to anything else
that's
moving in any direction. It works because time is distorted proportional
to
velocity. That effect has been proven by measurement.
I'm dying to hear your counter-argument that proves physicists are nitwits.
--
The velocity of a photon traveling as I described is -186,000 miles per
second or -c relative to the set of coordinates according to
mathematics.
Both meaningless and incorrect.
You could have become a nuclear physicist. They all get
the same answer you do.
So, you managed to get thru geometry in high school, and now think you know more
than advanced physicists? Is this something else that Jesus whispered in your
ear?
--
No, it is something I determined using high school algebra.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 11:49:37 AM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145187200.720662.215100@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, you managed to get thru geometry in high school, and now think you
know more
than advanced physicists? Is this something else that Jesus whispered in
your
ear?
--
No, it is something I determined using high school algebra.
Ah. See, we a guy with a high school algebra text is more qualified to
understand astrophysics than guys like Albert Einstein.
Apparently because he believes in God. ( THIS IS WHY PEOPLE RIDICULE
RELIGIOUS LOONS! )
Problem is, Einstein believed in God too. So he was both equally
religiously-qualified and radically more scientifically bona fide.
Accomplish something with your high school algebra before summarily
discrediting measured, international scientific doctrine on the internet and
expecting to be taken as anything other than foolish.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 12:33:54 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145187200.720662.215100@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, you managed to get thru geometry in high school, and now think you
know more
than advanced physicists? Is this something else that Jesus whispered in
your
ear?
--
No, it is something I determined using high school algebra.
Ah. See, we a guy with a high school algebra text is more qualified to
understand astrophysics than guys like Albert Einstein.
Apparently because he believes in God. ( THIS IS WHY PEOPLE RIDICULE
RELIGIOUS LOONS! )
Problem is, Einstein believed in God too. So he was both equally
religiously-qualified and radically more scientifically bona fide.
Accomplish something with your high school algebra before summarily
discrediting measured, international scientific doctrine on the internet and
expecting to be taken as anything other than foolish.
Take it however you want, but first answer this question: What is the
velocity of a photon traveling along the x axis of a set of Cartesian
coordinates in the -x direction relative to the set of coordinates?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 01:47:28 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145295233.951316.174640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145187200.720662.215100@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, you managed to get thru geometry in high school, and now think
you
know more
than advanced physicists? Is this something else that Jesus
whispered in
your
ear?
--
No, it is something I determined using high school algebra.
Ah. See, we a guy with a high school algebra text is more qualified to
understand astrophysics than guys like Albert Einstein.
Apparently because he believes in God. ( THIS IS WHY PEOPLE
RIDICULE
RELIGIOUS LOONS! )
Problem is, Einstein believed in God too. So he was both equally
religiously-qualified and radically more scientifically bona fide.
Accomplish something with your high school algebra before summarily
discrediting measured, international scientific doctrine on the internet
and
expecting to be taken as anything other than foolish.
Take it however you want, but first answer this question: What is the
velocity of a photon traveling along the x axis of a set of Cartesian
coordinates in the -x direction relative to the set of coordinates?
The question already having been answered fully, would you enlighten us
where you're going with the concept?
Curt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 01:13:45 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145295233.951316.174640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Take it however you want, but first answer this question: What is the
velocity of a photon traveling along the x axis of a set of Cartesian
coordinates in the -x direction relative to the set of coordinates?
Nobody's interested in doing your math for you so you can try to make some
point. I have bigger problems. Do your own math, make your own point, let
people with actual scientific or mathematical accomplishment review your
results and, if you're correct, you'll have proven or disproven a theory.
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 11:01:23 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145295233.951316.174640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Take it however you want, but first answer this question: What is the
velocity of a photon traveling along the x axis of a set of Cartesian
coordinates in the -x direction relative to the set of coordinates?
Nobody's interested in doing your math for you so you can try to make some
point. I have bigger problems. Do your own math, make your own point, let
people with actual scientific or mathematical accomplishment review your
results and, if you're correct, you'll have proven or disproven a theory.
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
So what is ADF? Sorry, anyone can work the problem I gave. I called
the bluff of science, and they do not talk to me any more. You are
next. It was nice talking to you.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 12:09:54 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145332883.836736.244930@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
. I calledthe bluff of science, and they do not talk to me any more. You
are
next. It was nice talking to you.
HAAAAAA HAAAAAA! SCIENCE IS A BLUFF. ASK THE WELDER!
-C
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 11:34:52 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145295233.951316.174640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Take it however you want, but first answer this question: What is the
velocity of a photon traveling along the x axis of a set of Cartesian
coordinates in the -x direction relative to the set of coordinates?
Nobody's interested in doing your math for you so you can try to make some
point. I have bigger problems. Do your own math, make your own point, let
people with actual scientific or mathematical accomplishment review your
results and, if you're correct, you'll have proven or disproven a theory.
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
So what is ADF? Sorry, anyone can work the problem I gave. I called
the bluff of science, and they do not talk to me any more. You are
next. It was nice talking to you.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 12:09:13 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145332965.199510.327210@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want
to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
So what is ADF? Sorry, anyone can work the problem I gave.
Science is about whether anyone can work the problem. Just because
somebody's reluctant to compute pi out to some infinite value doesn't mean
it isn't real.
ADF is an automatic direction finder.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 12:04:41 AM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145295233.951316.174640@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Take it however you want, but first answer this question: What is the
velocity of a photon traveling along the x axis of a set of Cartesian
coordinates in the -x direction relative to the set of coordinates?
Nobody's interested in doing your math for you so you can try to make some
point. I have bigger problems. Do your own math, make your own point, let
people with actual scientific or mathematical accomplishment review your
results and, if you're correct, you'll have proven or disproven a theory.
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
So what is ADF? What do you mean when you say magnetic heading is 180?
What do you mean when you say magnetic bearing is 237? What? You
don't want to tell me? Well, clearly you are not an honest person.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 04:08:44 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145333264.688766.35380@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want
to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
So what is ADF? What do you mean when you say magnetic heading is 180?
What do you mean when you say magnetic bearing is 237? What? You
don't want to tell me?
You didn't ask. You throw out random formulas, I throw out random
formulas. The thing about MY formula with relation to X and Y axis and
velocity is, it's actually used, useful and proven.
Magnetic Heading + Relative Bearing = Magnetic Bearing To the ADF. The
ADF, for our purposes is a fixed point. If you're travelling magnetic
north, ie 0 and your bearing relative to the fixed point is 270, your
magnetic bearing to the point is 270.
Well, clearly you are not an honest person.
Don't assume I didn't want to tell you and I won't assume you're a
smacktard. There's a formula for figuring out space and time relationships
that happens to actually WORK.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 05:21:37 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145333264.688766.35380@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Until then, I can ask: What is relative bearing to ADF if magnetic
heading is 180 and the magnetic bearing is 237. What? You don't want
to
figure it out? Clearly, then, I'm right.
So what is ADF? What do you mean when you say magnetic heading is 180?
What do you mean when you say magnetic bearing is 237? What? You
don't want to tell me?
You didn't ask. You throw out random formulas, I throw out random
formulas. The thing about MY formula with relation to X and Y axis and
velocity is, it's actually used, useful and proven.
Magnetic Heading + Relative Bearing = Magnetic Bearing To the ADF. The
ADF, for our purposes is a fixed point. If you're travelling magnetic
north, ie 0 and your bearing relative to the fixed point is 270, your
magnetic bearing to the point is 270.
Well, clearly you are not an honest person.
Don't assume I didn't want to tell you and I won't assume you're a
smacktard. There's a formula for figuring out space and time relationships
that happens to actually WORK.
Well, your ADF idea was just an attempt to change the subject. My
father knew all about ADF because he flew Admiral Halsey around during
World War II in an airplane. I never was much impressed with
airplanes. As far as figuring out space and time relationships, the
stuff that physicists are doing today does not WORK because they cannot
even agree with each other, and are continually coming up with ideas
for the universe to die. The universe is not going to die because
Jesus Christ is going to return to this earth and all people who ever
lived here are going to be resurrected.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 06:31:56 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145398897.214604.243230@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So what is ADF? What do you mean when you say magnetic heading is 180?
What do you mean when you say magnetic bearing is 237? What? You
don't want to tell me?
Well, clearly you are not an honest person.
Don't assume I didn't want to tell you and I won't assume you're a
smacktard. There's a formula for figuring out space and time
relationships
that happens to actually WORK.
Well, your ADF idea was just an attempt to change the subject.
Nope. You threw out an equation, I threw out an equation. Mine is a proven
means for resolving motion and rate along an X axis.
Your dog doesn't hunt. Mine hunts every time I fly an instrument course.
My father knew all about ADF because he flew Admiral Halsey around during
World War II in an airplane.
In that case, he likely used RDF, not ADF.
I never was much impressed with airplanes.
My life depends on them and the equations I use to operate them. Your
formulas are unpublished, unproven and meaningless, just like:
The universe is not going to die because Jesus Christ is going to return to
this earth and all people who ever
lived here are going to be resurrected...
Your doomsday cult fanatacism is growing thin and, after 2,000 years of
howling that the end-times were here, it's still as unproven as your
crackpot equation.
Here it comes, guys. Ready? I'll spare him the effort of his utterly
predictable reply: "Tell it to Jesus when...."
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 06:47:35 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145398897.214604.243230@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So what is ADF? What do you mean when you say magnetic heading is 180?
What do you mean when you say magnetic bearing is 237? What? You
don't want to tell me?
Well, clearly you are not an honest person.
Don't assume I didn't want to tell you and I won't assume you're a
smacktard. There's a formula for figuring out space and time
relationships
that happens to actually WORK.
Well, your ADF idea was just an attempt to change the subject.
Nope. You threw out an equation, I threw out an equation. Mine is a proven
means for resolving motion and rate along an X axis.
Your dog doesn't hunt. Mine hunts every time I fly an instrum | | | | | | | | | | | | |
