Keep lying to yourself if it makes you happy. Speaking of proofs... tell us again how "goal" is "inappropriate parlance" and reexpressing a negative is "just too ridiculous for words!" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3362824#post3362824
Apparently you still imagine linking to your own epic fail, "reexpressing a negative" lol, will somehow magic your ignorance away Perhaps you might like to try and explain how you are able to "reexpress things" which aren't even in the mathematical problem or the resolution of it anyway. duh. Will you be presenting a link to where you obliviously tried to use a mathematical fallacy too? Go on it's worth a laff.
I post links, facts and proof and you post lies and STUpidity. Get professional help for your compulsive lying... this is YOUR epic fail: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3362824#post3362824
The only fact is, you post links that show your own ridiculous remarks and ignorant mistakes. With the usual ugly picture of yourself in a dunces cap complete with those nasty teeth. You seem to think that is making some kind of an argument, by dodging criticism of your errors, and constantly repeating them by a link. Perhaps you imagine it will magically correct them. Who knows, you pseudo-math, pseudo-science freaks would fool yourselves into anything when doing dumb for that religious belief.
No, the only fact is, you're a world class idiot and loser who will compulsively lie to hide it, even in the face of proof of your STUpidity.
you got that wrong, again. What is speculation is the multiverse... what is science is the tunings. -- "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the ****physical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
yes, you got that wrong again. Calculated values of the constants are the science. The appearance that they have been finely-tuned is merely pure speculation. Furthermore, scientifically, multiverses are hypothesized not merely speculated. It doesn't matter how many times you and Tradershits as defenders of the imaginary God Beastie keep regurgitating your own non-arguments like retards, it won't change the facts of the ways you are both wrong.
Good morning STUpid. If it wasn't for me and Jem making a fool of you here and your mommy changing your diaper at home, your life would be empty and meaningless, wouldn't it?
As far as purpose meaning to life goes I would say Jem need be even more concerned than he already should, now you've made yourself his pseudo-math&science bum buddy for religion.