50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Slam NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change

[Trader666]

No, you're the liar by default because you ran away from talking about it here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3498266#post3498266

and now you're trying to turn the tables to hide YOUR lie like the zero integrity POS you are.

AGAIN, if you really did read it, explain Hawking's reasoning for his claim that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. Come on liar.

Quote from Brass:

I bet you don't even have the book, let alone that you read it. What's the first and last word on page 129 of the paperback version of the book? Respond immediately, or be a liar by default.

The clock is ticking.

 

[Brass]

Quote from jem:

So you read the book huh brass... lets see if you understood it. Penrose said M theory is a collection of theories.

1. What does hawking says about gravity and the production of universes.
How does that happen according to Hawking.

Please address... the top down theory of cosmology and if there is observational evidence for it and how many scientists in the community support such speculation.

In absence of proof of top down, what else is there?

Then let us know if you think Penrose was correct in his criticism.

I'm not a scientist and I never pretended to be one, like you and Turder666. I just know what I read. Hawking qualified M-Theory. Penrose spoke as though Hawking did not do so in his book. That was my point. That's the straw man argument. As for the science itself, who am I to take on either of these guys? And for that matter, who are you or Turder666?

 

[Brass]

Quote from Trader666:

No, you're the liar by default because you ran away from talking about it here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3498266#post3498266

and now you're trying to turn the tables like the zero integrity POS you are.

AGAIN, if you really did read it, explain Hawking's reasoning for his claim that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. Come on liar.

Tick tock. First and last word on page 129. What are they? Is reading that hard, or do you just not have the book but pretend and lie that you do? And if you actually read the book, what more could I possibly add?

 

[Brass]

Tick tock.

 

[Trader666]

Tick tock. I asked you first. FOR THE THIRD TIME, explain Hawking's reasoning for his claim that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. Come on liar.

Quote from Brass:

Tick tock. First and last word on page 129. What are they? Is reading that hard, or do you just not have the book but pretend and lie that you do? And if you actually read the book, what more could I possibly add?

 

[Brass]

Quote from Trader666:

...liar.

The book was written for the layman. Even so, I had considerable difficulty trudging through it, trying to grasp the abstract reasoning. I won't even pretend to have a firm grasp of his concepts. Meanwhile, you can't even read two words on page 129 of the very book you repeatedly claim to have. Tick tock. Time's up:

Keep digging, I can still see you.

 

[Trader666]

How pathetic, I have the (hardcover) book in front of me. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. But you can't because you're full of shit.

FOR THE FOURTH TIME, explain Hawking's reasoning for his claim that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. Come on liar.

Quote from Brass:

I am hardly one to clarify Hawking. The book was written for the layman. You want me to add value to that? Meanwhile, you can't even read two words on page 129 of the very book you repeatedly claim to have. Tick tock. Time's up:

 

[Brass]

Quote from Trader666:

How pathetic, I have the (hardcover) book in front of me. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. But you can't because you're full of shit.

FOR THE FOURTH TIME, explain Hawking's reasoning for his claim that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. Come on liar.

You're full of crap. You don't have the book and you didn't read it. You lie. If you read it, you would wonder why Penrose was commenting on matters that Hawking already qualified. As for spontaneously from nothing, I don't recall "nothing." Perhaps very small, though, since the universe seems to be expanding because the galaxies and so on are going in the opposite direction, the more distant ones at a quicker pace thereby suggesting expansion. Then I suppose it is a matter of extrapolating backwards. That was my understanding.

What's your understanding of the first and last words on page 129?

 

[Eight]

One little secret: climate scientists are working with computer models of the earth and it's atmosphere.. Computer models! That's it.. How are traders doing with computer models of markets? Not that great really, right?

There are no consequences to "science" when wrong. In fact, they own and rigidly control the venue for the debate, that really insulates them from being wrong. Dissent is not tolerated!

 

[Brass]

Quote from Eight:

One little secret: climate scientists are working with computer models of the earth and it's atmosphere.. Computer models! That's it.. How are traders doing with computer models of markets? Not that great really, right?

There are no consequences to "science" when wrong. In fact, they own and rigidly control the venue for the debate, that really insulates them from being wrong. Dissent is not tolerated!

You're comparing the hard sciences with trading? That's rich.