| 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 |
19 Apr 2006 10:50:17 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145404417.183338.191540@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
That is correct. That is how frames of reference work. If you say 50
and -50 you are talking about their velocities relative to a set of
coordinates corresponding to the track. If you say they are both going
50, you are talking about their speeds.
That's because speed is an absolute value of velocity. You can call it
what you want, but if you stand in the middle of two trucks closing at 50
miles per hour each, the velocity is not 0 and the absolute -reality- is
that you're going to get crushed.
The velocity of the road is 0. The way you figure the velocity of one
truck relative to the other is by subtracting one velocity from the
other. For instance, if one truck is going 50 and the other 40 in the
same direction, relative to the slower truck, the velocity of the
faster would be +10. Relative to the faster truck, the velocity of the
slower would be -10.
With regard to the two trucks approaching each other at 50 each, from
one truck, the velocity of the other would be 100. From the other, the
velocity of the other would be
-100.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 12:06:11 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145505017.653832.222290@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The velocity of the road is 0.
That's because the road is your X axis. The velocity of any axis is
expected to be zero.
With regard to the two trucks approaching each other at 50 each, from
one truck, the velocity of the other would be 100. From the other, the
velocity of the other would be -100.
First, "from the other, the other would be" is vague. Second, vehicle A is
going to strike vehicle B at 100 mph. Vehicle B is not going to strike
vehicle A at -100mph.
Velocity is simply distance over time. V = D / T. Distance is not
calculated as a negative value. It is always positive. There is no such
thing as a negative mile between two objects. Neither is time measured in
negatives, because you cannot presently go backward on that scale.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 05:00:59 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145505017.653832.222290@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The velocity of the road is 0.
That's because the road is your X axis. The velocity of any axis is
expected to be zero.
Well, that is true as far as it goes. The velocity of an entire set of
coordinates can be greater or less than zero relative to another set of
coordinates.
With regard to the two trucks approaching each other at 50 each, from
one truck, the velocity of the other would be 100. From the other, the
velocity of the other would be -100.
First, "from the other, the other would be" is vague. Second, vehicle A is
going to strike vehicle B at 100 mph. Vehicle B is not going to strike
vehicle A at -100mph.
It depends on how you define the frames of reference. For instance, if
there is a point on the road at which the trucks are going to collide,
then relative to the frame of reference of vehicle A, the point on the
road where the collision will take place is approaching the truck at 50
mph, the other truck is approaching at 100 mph. Considering this from
the frame of reference of the vehicle A, vehicle A is not moving. The
road and vehicle B are moving relative to vehicle A.
If you set up all three sets of coordinates the same way, then
from one vehicle, the road and the other vehicle will have a negative
velocity.
Velocity is simply distance over time. V = D / T. Distance is not
calculated as a negative value. It is always positive. There is no such
thing as a negative mile between two objects. Neither is time measured in
negatives, because you cannot presently go backward on that scale.
When dealing with Cartesian coordinates, velocity shows which way a
coordinate is approached by the moving system. If a baseball is thrown
from the origin to +100 feet, and it takes 4 seconds to get there, then
relative to the set of coordinates it has a velocity of 25 feet per
second. If it is thrown from +100 ft to the origin, then it has a
velocity of -25 ft/sec. relative to the set of coordinates. If it is
thrown some other direction than along the x axis, then the mathematics
gets a lot more complicated.
That is why for practical mathematics, velocity is almost always
thought of as positive. However, in relativity, using more than one
frame of reference, you have to keep velocities straight or you are not
going to understand what is going on.
There is such a thing as a negative mile on a set of Cartesian
coordinates, whether or not you would describe it that way normally.
In relativity, you can describe time as a negative. That does not mean
time goes backwards, as some scientists today believe. All it means is
that the coordinates shown describe what happened at an earlier time.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 06:25:16 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145570458.947793.133640@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
It depends on how you define the frames of reference. For instance, if
there is a point on the road at which the trucks are going to collide,
then relative to the frame of reference of vehicle A, the point on the
road where the collision will take place is approaching the truck at 50
mph, the other truck is approaching at 100 mph. Considering this from
the frame of reference of the vehicle A, vehicle A is not moving.
Right. When the wheels spin, the whole X-axis...the WORLD...rotates under
them. *snicker*
coordinates, whether or not you would describe it that way normally.
In relativity, you can describe time as a negative. That does not mean
time goes backwards, as some scientists today believe. All it means is
that the coordinates shown describe what happened at an earlier time.
Duh. For reference, check a calendar. It still doesn't validate your
equation.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 10:48:37 AM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145570458.947793.133640@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
It depends on how you define the frames of reference. For instance, if
there is a point on the road at which the trucks are going to collide,
then relative to the frame of reference of vehicle A, the point on the
road where the collision will take place is approaching the truck at 50
mph, the other truck is approaching at 100 mph. Considering this from
the frame of reference of the vehicle A, vehicle A is not moving.
Right. When the wheels spin, the whole X-axis...the WORLD...rotates under
them. *snicker*
Well, as you have perceived, as far as a calculation of energy,
something has been left out of the equations. But they are useful as a
means of calculating space and time. When I worked at a steel
fabrication shop about ten years ago, a Navajo welder and I used to
make up experiments to post on the internet in sci.physics.relativity.
Scientists were explaining frames of reference to us, so while we were
welding, we conducted experiments using cars driving into the company
parking lot. We would use the frame of reference of a moving car and
rotate the parking lot under the wheels. When the driver would turn
the steering wheel, the entire world would rotate under the car in a
different direction. It was great fun learning about science, but then
Milford saw the mistake we were making.
"Don't ever do this with an airplane," he said.
coordinates, whether or not you would describe it that way normally.
In relativity, you can describe time as a negative. That does not mean
time goes backwards, as some scientists today believe. All it means is
that the coordinates shown describe what happened at an earlier time.
Duh. For reference, check a calendar. It still doesn't validate your
equation.
Who would validate my equations? In my opinion the best approach to my
equations from your perspective would be to prove that they are wrong.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 12:10:30 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145634517.807972.193560@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Who would validate my equations?
SOMEBODY IN THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN' WORLD. ANYBODY. Start with ONE. If
nobody in the world will validate your equations, what does that suggest?
In my opinion the best approach to my equations from your perspective
would be to prove that they are wrong.
Nope. Your equation is a bunch of undefined variables. You didn't even
bother to document or mathematically demonstrate or quantify your work.
If I fart up a bunch of numbers and variables and post them to the internet,
it's not YOUR responsibility to prove me wrong. See, that's how the rest
of the world works. I fly airplanes; I stake my life on the equations
that I use. I stake my life on the mathematics and SCIENCE that keeps me
aloft. For some demonstrated jackass to come in and presume to challenge
ALL SCIENCE, well, that literally won't fly. Because SCIENCE proves itself
to me every time my wheels leave the earth and then every time the engine
stops and I'm back on the ground.
By the way, there's no praying for salvation in an airplane. Things get
icky up there, you better have a calculator, some instruments, and a real
fast grasp of glide ratios, landing distances, crosswind components and
electro-mechanical understanding or God isn't going to save your passeners.
Pilots learn that the idea "Well, it's not in my hands" is called
RESIGNATION, which is a dangerous behavior model, because in the end it's
the pilot who has to resolve the problem or come up with a plan damned
quick. No passenger ever wants to hear the pilot say "Well, everybody, I
don't know what to do so let's hope God saves us."
Nor would a test pilot stake his life on a design built by some half-***** who
presumes to know more about science than scientists.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 12:44:42 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145634517.807972.193560@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Who would validate my equations?
SOMEBODY IN THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN' WORLD. ANYBODY. Start with ONE. If
nobody in the world will validate your equations, what does that suggest?
In my opinion the best approach to my equations from your perspective
would be to prove that they are wrong.
Nope. Your equation is a bunch of undefined variables. You didn't even
bother to document or mathematically demonstrate or quantify your work.
If I fart up a bunch of numbers and variables and post them to the internet,
it's not YOUR responsibility to prove me wrong. See, that's how the rest
of the world works. I fly airplanes; I stake my life on the equations
that I use. I stake my life on the mathematics and SCIENCE that keeps me
aloft. For some demonstrated jackass to come in and presume to challenge
ALL SCIENCE, well, that literally won't fly. Because SCIENCE proves itself
to me every time my wheels leave the earth and then every time the engine
stops and I'm back on the ground.
By the way, there's no praying for salvation in an airplane. Things get
icky up there, you better have a calculator, some instruments, and a real
fast grasp of glide ratios, landing distances, crosswind components and
electro-mechanical understanding or God isn't going to save your passeners.
Pilots learn that the idea "Well, it's not in my hands" is called
RESIGNATION, which is a dangerous behavior model, because in the end it's
the pilot who has to resolve the problem or come up with a plan damned
quick. No passenger ever wants to hear the pilot say "Well, everybody, I
don't know what to do so let's hope God saves us."
Nor would a test pilot stake his life on a design built by some half-***** who
presumes to know more about science than scientists.
Well, my father was a pilot during World War II, and he told me that he
was flying a PBY 50 feet above the Pacific ocean when it was struck by
lightning. He said he could not see a thing for several minutes.
Contrary to all aviation training, he said he started to pray. Under
the circumstances he said it did not seem all that illogical. He said
he was prompted to take his hands and feet off of the controls of the
plane. When he started to see again, he was still flying 50 feet above
the Pacific Ocean. He did not say whether he had any passengers.
I knew a guy one time who helped design airplanes. He was a
patient in the psychiatric ward of a VA hospital. He had a mechanical
engineering degree, and had worked for Boeing at Renton, Washington.
He said his last job there was to calculate the weight of the
electrical wiring on the Boeing 747. Then he tried to kill his wife
and was hospitalized. He and I used to try to remember stuff like
Angstrom's number we had learned in school. I went back to vist at the
hospital later on and asked one of the nursing assistants where he was.
He said this guy was released from the hospital and within two weeks
was killed in an armed robbery attempt in Montana.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 04:11:14 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145641482.743203.316810@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Nor would a test pilot stake his life on a design built by some half-*****
who
presumes to know more about science than scientists.
Well, my father was a pilot during World War II, and he told me that he
was flying a PBY 50 feet above the Pacific ocean when it was struck by
lightning.
Your equation had nothing to do with that.
<When he started to see again, he was still flying 50 feet above the Pacific
Ocean.
Amazing thing about positive longitudinal stability on a trimmed airplane;
you can take your hands off the controls and, guess what?
It has a tendency to return to its present state.
God didn't design that into the Catalina. The aeronautical engineers and
scientists at Consolidated did.
He said his last job there was to calculate the weight of the electrical
wiring on the Boeing 747.
That's what scales are for. Another scientific phenomenon.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
22 Apr 2006 12:10:18 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145641482.743203.316810@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Nor would a test pilot stake his life on a design built by some half-*****
who
presumes to know more about science than scientists.
Well, my father was a pilot during World War II, and he told me that he
was flying a PBY 50 feet above the Pacific ocean when it was struck by
lightning.
Your equation had nothing to do with that.
<When he started to see again, he was still flying 50 feet above the Pacific
Ocean.
Amazing thing about positive longitudinal stability on a trimmed airplane;
you can take your hands off the controls and, guess what?
It has a tendency to return to its present state.
God didn't design that into the Catalina. The aeronautical engineers and
scientists at Consolidated did.
He said his last job there was to calculate the weight of the electrical
wiring on the Boeing 747.
That's what scales are for. Another scientific phenomenon.
Well, he said he had to figure it out with mathematics before they ever
built one.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
18 Apr 2006 02:20:14 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145334939.401963.131160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, depending on how you define the frames of reference of the two
photons, from one photon the other would be approaching at a velocity
of c, from the other the opposing photon would be approaching at a
velocity of -c.
That's like saying two trains are on a collision course. One is going 50
miles an hour, the other going -50.
And, because their net velocity is zero, they obviously will never collide.
Sheesh!
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 04:18:05 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do. Why
don't you study
Actually, you know, I took physics in college. You? Why don't -YOU-
study...
You are never going to be happy with anything I say.
Because I actually took Physics classes. You have demonstrated exactly no
reason why anybody should take your word over Isaac friggin' Newton.
That's just comical. It's ridiculous. It's weird.
I had a roomate like you. Too much Robert Heinlein. Caltrop theory and all
that.
In fact...is your name John?
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 12:08:32 AM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do. Why
don't you study
Actually, you know, I took physics in college. You? Why don't -YOU-
study...
You are never going to be happy with anything I say.
Because I actually took Physics classes. You have demonstrated exactly no
reason why anybody should take your word over Isaac friggin' Newton.
That's just comical. It's ridiculous. It's weird.
I had a roomate like you. Too much Robert Heinlein. Caltrop theory and all
that.
In fact...is your name John?
Did you pay as much attention to what was said in physics class as you
did to my signature?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 12:36:58 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145509712.419603.309910@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Did you pay as much attention to what was said in physics class as you did
to my signature?
What do you know about physics classes?
Ever been to one to pay attention to?
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 05:46:01 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145509712.419603.309910@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Did you pay as much attention to what was said in physics class as you did
to my signature?
What do you know about physics classes?
Ever been to one to pay attention to?
I went to college one year, during which I took a class in physics.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 12:43:54 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145573161.835501.52030@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Did you pay as much attention to what was said in physics class as you
did
to my signature?
What do you know about physics classes?
Ever been to one to pay attention to?
I went to college one year, during which I took a class in physics.
*clap clap clap*
Good for you, professor. I took an astronomy series so, by your
credential, I ought to be able to disprove Galileo.
I mean, the Church already tried that, but, that's par for the course, isn't
it?
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
22 Apr 2006 05:43:54 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145573161.835501.52030@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Did you pay as much attention to what was said in physics class as you
did
to my signature?
What do you know about physics classes?
Ever been to one to pay attention to?
I went to college one year, during which I took a class in physics.
*clap clap clap*
Good for you, professor. I took an astronomy series so, by your
credential, I ought to be able to disprove Galileo.
I mean, the Church already tried that, but, that's par for the course, isn't
it?
Well, you might be able to disprove Galilleo, but no one has done it
yet. Scientists of today claim to have proven Isaac Newton wrong, and
Newton derived his equations for gravitation by combining Keplers law
with Galilleo' principle. Of those two, Kepler's law seems to be more
subject to error.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Rouse" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
17 Apr 2006 03:26:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145279758.261108.290090@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, as I said, people who believe in absolute time are free to
accomplish many great things using the mathematics of Sir Isaac Newton.
You have a high school education and you're not a scientist.
You're not even qualified, let alone accomplished, enough to talk Isaan
Newton and expect to be taken seriously.
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do.
Why don't you study what he wrote if you want to find agreement with
what you say. I personally believe in relativity of time. You are
never going to be happy with anything I say.
You may believe in relativity of time, but you certainly don't understand it.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 01:07:30 AM |
|
|
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145279758.261108.290090@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, as I said, people who believe in absolute time are free to
accomplish many great things using the mathematics of Sir Isaac Newton.
You have a high school education and you're not a scientist.
You're not even qualified, let alone accomplished, enough to talk Isaan
Newton and expect to be taken seriously.
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do.
Why don't you study what he wrote if you want to find agreement with
what you say. I personally believe in relativity of time. You are
never going to be happy with anything I say.
You may believe in relativity of time, but you certainly don't understand it.
--
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 02:01:43 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145426850.671144.324200@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145279758.261108.290090@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, as I said, people who believe in absolute time are free to
accomplish many great things using the mathematics of Sir Isaac
Newton.
You have a high school education and you're not a scientist.
You're not even qualified, let alone accomplished, enough to talk
Isaan
Newton and expect to be taken seriously.
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do.
Why don't you study what he wrote if you want to find agreement with
what you say. I personally believe in relativity of time. You are
never going to be happy with anything I say.
You may believe in relativity of time, but you certainly don't
understand it.
--
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
I have a copy of "Relativity" right here. I just thumbed through it again--
something I haven't done in years-- and there's no mention of -c in it
anywhere. Unless I missed it.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 06:29:00 PM |
|
|
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145426850.671144.324200@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145279758.261108.290090@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, as I said, people who believe in absolute time are free to
accomplish many great things using the mathematics of Sir Isaac
Newton.
You have a high school education and you're not a scientist.
You're not even qualified, let alone accomplished, enough to talk
Isaan
Newton and expect to be taken seriously.
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do.
Why don't you study what he wrote if you want to find agreement with
what you say. I personally believe in relativity of time. You are
never going to be happy with anything I say.
You may believe in relativity of time, but you certainly don't
understand it.
--
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
I have a copy of "Relativity" right here. I just thumbed through it again--
something I haven't done in years-- and there's no mention of -c in it
anywhere. Unless I missed it.
Well, if you will look on pages 32 and 33 of Relativity, the Special
and General Theories, Einstein gives his description of transmission of
light, saying throughout specifically, "velocity of light". Scientists
of today say that he really meant speed of light. I do not believe it,
and if he did mean velocity of light, then his description is
incomplete, because the velocity of a photon going in the -x direction
is -c relative to both frames of reference.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 04:15:08 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145426850.671144.324200@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
Yeah, everybody. 'Cause scientists don't know anything about math.
Fortunately, uneducated welders do. They must read books or something.
(Published by scientists and mathematicians.)
The battle of Robert Winn versus the Educated World continues.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 06:31:51 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145426850.671144.324200@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
Yeah, everybody. 'Cause scientists don't know anything about math.
Fortunately, uneducated welders do. They must read books or something.
(Published by scientists and mathematicians.)
The battle of Robert Winn versus the Educated World continues.
The really exciting battle is the battle of Godless promoters of
homosexuality with Jesus Christ.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 12:16:11 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145489511.716030.108160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The battle of Robert Winn versus the Educated World continues.
The really exciting battle is the battle of Godless promoters of
homosexuality with Jesus Christ.
Really? Does it get you excited? Are, you, like, getting excited and
stuff thinking about "homosexuality with Jesus Christ?"
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
20 Apr 2006 05:43:45 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145489511.716030.108160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The battle of Robert Winn versus the Educated World continues.
The really exciting battle is the battle of Godless promoters of
homosexuality with Jesus Christ.
Really? Does it get you excited? Are, you, like, getting excited and
stuff thinking about "homosexuality with Jesus Christ?"
No, you are. You seem to have forgotten that Jesus Christ was without
sin.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
21 Apr 2006 12:17:10 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145573025.926979.67820@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No, you are. You seem to have forgotten that Jesus Christ was without
sin.
He didn't throw that first stone, did he?
Did he? Did he command everybody to let the one without sin throw the
first stone, and then throw it? He didn't exactly cut to the front of the
line.
Go away, Satan. You cannot be taught.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
22 Apr 2006 12:22:28 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145573025.926979.67820@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No, you are. You seem to have forgotten that Jesus Christ was without
sin.
He didn't throw that first stone, did he?
Did he? Did he command everybody to let the one without sin throw the
first stone, and then throw it? He didn't exactly cut to the front of the
line.
Go away, Satan. You cannot be taught.
Well, sorry, I do not want to be a homosexual. You will have to sell
your social agenda somewhere else.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
22 Apr 2006 11:57:20 PM |
|
|
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145573025.926979.67820@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No, you are. You seem to have forgotten that Jesus Christ was without
sin.
He didn't throw that first stone, did he?
Did he? Did he command everybody to let the one without sin throw the
first stone, and then throw it? He didn't exactly cut to the front of the
line.
Go away, Satan. You cannot be taught.
You are learning. Satan cannot be taught, but he has to leave every
time you say that.
See what a good influence I am having on you? Because of me, you get
to have these little periods of time when Satan is gone.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Rouse" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 01:19:47 AM |
|
|
In article <1145426850.671144.324200@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145279758.261108.290090@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, as I said, people who believe in absolute time are free to
accomplish many great things using the mathematics of Sir Isaac
Newton.
You have a high school education and you're not a scientist.
You're not even qualified, let alone accomplished, enough to talk Isaan
Newton and expect to be taken seriously.
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do.
Why don't you study what he wrote if you want to find agreement with
what you say. I personally believe in relativity of time. You are
never going to be happy with anything I say.
You may believe in relativity of time, but you certainly don't understand
it.
--
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
You don't understand the math, either.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
19 Apr 2006 06:19:30 PM |
|
|
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145426850.671144.324200@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Sam Rouse wrote:
In article <1145296003.540335.158860@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
gatt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145279758.261108.290090@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Well, as I said, people who believe in absolute time are free to
accomplish many great things using the mathematics of Sir Isaac
Newton.
You have a high school education and you're not a scientist.
You're not even qualified, let alone accomplished, enough to talk Isaan
Newton and expect to be taken seriously.
Isaac Newton based his equations on absolute time the same as you do.
Why don't you study what he wrote if you want to find agreement with
what you say. I personally believe in relativity of time. You are
never going to be happy with anything I say.
You may believe in relativity of time, but you certainly don't understand
it.
--
Well, I understand it well enough. The mathematics is the good part.
That is where you can really take scientists to task.
You don't understand the math, either.
Well, Sam, I am sure we are all waiting eagerly for you to show us how
math really works.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dominic Torrazzi" |
|
| Title: Re: You Have Got To Read This Wingnut Column |
15 Apr 2006 01:28:36 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145104964.224635.26880@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145079369.775485.216550@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dominic Torrazzi wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145036693.348138.281210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Don Homuth wrote:
On 14 Apr 2006 10:31:11 -0700, "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
... look at nuclear physicists, mathematicians, and
college professors. They all think that if an object moves, it
gets
physically shorter according to the Lorentz equations.
At relativistic velocities, it does, because it Must.
Otherwise, it couldn't exist at all!
A box of rocks
seems fairly intelligent compared to that.
Spoken with all the Adamant Ignorance that only an Xtian Fundy can
come up with.
But fwiw, the effect has been measured physically. It actually
does
happen.
Yeah, so who measured it? These educated people have the result
they
get because they do not understand that relative to a set of
Cartesian
coordinates, a photon has a velocity of -c if it is moving in
the -x
direction. If you use speed of light the way they do, c is always
positive. 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.
Let me guess. You are also of the notion that evolution is a religion
and
that the world was created in seven days by god only a few thousand
years
ago.
Well, here we have something amazing in science. Since 1905 scientists
insist that absolute time does not exist except in one theory of
science--the theory of evolution.
I don't know that any scientist has insisted on any such thing..
So how do you define time? What do
you mean when you say seven days? Are you talking about seven
rotations of the earth on its axis, or are you talking about a certain
number of transitions of a cesium isotope molecule the way scientists
define time today?
I'm thinking your young-earth creationist types would say seven days
means
seven rotations of the earth.. In fact, I've read their stuff, and they
do.
What do you mean when you say a few thousand years?
I think perception of time is relative, so if 73 billion
generations of dinosaurs live during one rotation of a planet, how much
time has elapsed? Is it one day or 983 billion years?
The theory of relativity had been around quite a while when the
Scopes trial took place. Why was it that Clarence Darrow never
mentioned it once during the trial?
Cause it wasn't relevant?
But it was relevant. It could explain why in the days of Joshua the
sun stood still in the sky.
No, it actually proves how ridiculous this is. Darrow even dealt with this
in the trial. Jennings-Bryants looked like an ***** for his reply.
The energy of the solar system was
affected by some source of energy during that time.
Really? Proof?
Now suppose that
something similar was in effect during the time dinosaurs were on the
earth.
Why? If it ddidn't happen then why suppose it?
They could all have lived and died during one rotation of the
earth.
Time is relative. The light itself contains the key to the number of
events that can take place.
Let me ask you the same question Darrow asked Bryant:
MR. DARROW--I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the
earth if it stood still suddenly?
MR. BRYAN--No.
MR. DARROW--Don't you know it would have been converted into a molten mass
of matter?
begin 666 dot_clear.gif
C1TE&.#=A`0`!`( ``/___P```"P``````0`!```"`D0!`#L`
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
