traders who are deeply religious

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hermit_trader, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. Speaking of the soupnazi... how many nazi's did the church help to escape after the war?... Jesus would be proud
     
    #461     Feb 13, 2006
  2. trainr

    trainr

    Yup, it does.

    The rest of your post prompted my wife to ask me what I was laughing about.

    You’re a good writer; you have talent.

    I didn’t really want to get into another discussion on physics, anyway.

    Much, anyway. Teensy bit left, though. Here comes.

    Tensor equations aren’t necessary for this to work. All one needs must do is recognize the truthfulness of those questions’ obvious answers that I asked earlier. Then, remove the spatial coordinates idea because it’s not a discussion of locations but of periods of time. There is a frame of reference that refers to the period of the Big Bang, best analyzed as a time rather than place. I debated this with another PhD elsewhere, and he wanted me to produce the math for spatial coordinates, but I think he eventually agreed that wasn’t necessary if one recognized the significance of comparing the rate of time’s passage relative to quark decoupling and the current CBR temperatures.

    Which is to restate my earlier point: ~ 6 days equals ~ 14 billion years, depending on your frame of reference between 2 frames; the first is the time of the Big Bang, the second is earth-current time. While it may be a coincidence, it agrees with the Genesis time periods completely, including the “days” of creation, wherein various things appear on earth. The reverse-time rule seems to line up with what modern science declares as the time for each of these appearances.

    And, I was referring to relative in the complete sense of the word, although Einstein expressed it initially in its most simple form, “relative to a frame of reference.” You can extend that thought fairly easily because the relativity of a frame of reference is based on the absolute speed of light and the relative rate of time’s passage, which is where I came in.

    I don’t know if this short note makes sense in light of the complexity underlying it, but all I have time for today.

    I really enjoyed your response.

    Good job.
     
    #462     Feb 13, 2006
  3. And, No, you did not. You did no such thing.

    You did not do the math required to calculate this. To achieve the result you claim to have attained requires a knowledge of physics as well as the mathematical skill to "legally" perform a large array of biased tweaks within the equations. The whole exercise, if done without a preconceived conclusion would be pointless because the variables are so numerous that any result would have no value. Mankind does not know enough about the universe to construct a good enough equation to be worth computing. So to do it with a pre-conceived conclusion is the only reason to undertake it.

    I'm not sensing that you're the guy who constructed such an equation. You don't even know it's a parlor trick. How could you have devised it. You're the sucker, not the slick magician.

    attempting anti-engagement
     
    #463     Feb 13, 2006
  4. Well I hate to break it to all of you but time is an illusion... and if there indeed be a god he is outside of time/illusion... and it is preposterous to think it took an infinitely powerful being six days to do anything.... no matter what your frame of time reference be
     
    #464     Feb 13, 2006
  5. trainr

    trainr

    Tell it to Thunderdog. He says we're supposed to be tolerant.
     
    #465     Feb 13, 2006
  6. trainr

    trainr

    Read my last post.

    You made a number of assumptions that turned out to be wrong. And then demolished your straw-men.
     
    #466     Feb 13, 2006

  7. And a few years ago the estimate of the age of the universe was 18-20 billion years... and in a few years it will be something else.... and no doubt you'll refudge the math then too
     
    #467     Feb 13, 2006
  8. Talk about being context deficient! I refer to tolerance of differing views (see my post), and trainr reads into it a tolerance of genocide. I think that trainr views the winner of this debate as the last man posting. If so, let's declare him the winner. Please let him have the last post so that we can put this thread out of its misery. Go for it, trainr.
     
    #468     Feb 13, 2006
  9. trainr

    trainr

    Isn't genocide a view that you should tolerate? Where exactly do you draw the tolerance line? I'm confused.
     
    #469     Feb 13, 2006
  10. it is amazing and amusing to watch the mental contortions believers will go through to make the story fit the book.


     
    #470     Feb 13, 2006