traders who are deeply religious

truth can not be self evident if it does not fit the evidence. that is called superstition.

 

... because of the specific lapse in logic shown in my previous post where? All I'm hearing is presupposition; the presupposition that because you don't like it, it therefore isn't.

Since you obviously have such a strong grasp on the subject, feel free to chime in with an answer to the following questions:
1. What is the temp of quark decoupling?
2. What is the CBR temp (I gave this away in a previous post)?
3. What is the probable time dilation between 1 and 2?

 

No. however, per your worldview of causality, yes. you are applying the wrong tools to understand truth---- try mixing in some participation with your causuality.

best wishes,

surfer

 

Why not just admit that you are a disingenuous context whore who will contort and manipulate anything and everything beyond all recognition to suit your purpose? And while you're at it, you may wish to come to terms with the fact that you are also an attention seeking missile. The truth will set you free.

 

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts with an open mind you would see that I generally respond in like kind. Your posts are fairly empty and receive equivalent responses, though occasionally, like now, I'll take a little time to let others know that you're not worth the effort.

If you ever post substantively I'll respond in like manner.

In the meantime, I'll keep you and your buddies on "general ignore."

 

It would appear that we have come to terms, Larry. And if I may respond in..."like kind," I would say that, while you may characterize my posts as fairly empty, I would be remiss if I did not admit that your posts are fairly full of it.

 

Well, Horhay, that makes as much sense as the rest of your posts.

 

Quick correction. The early time frame is quark confinement, not quark decoupling. Scratch any reference to the latter.

 

Question 1 should be, "What is the temp of quark confinement?"

 

Ok, trainr. So if you multiply a given mass by the square of the speed of light, you could say that you, "did the math" that equates energy and mass. But what you really did was perform simple multiplication. Einstein did the math that led to that astounding formula so the rest of us can drop our numbers into his equation and then all we have to do is perform grammar school arithmetic to find the result.

I never considered that you were boasting that you were able to perform multiplication and division. Which college teaches that?

It was just my misunderstanding of what sort of accomplishments bring you pride. So, now that I understand, I want you to know that I believe you did real good on your arithmetic.

Uncle Matter