You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
traders who are deeply religious
- Thread starter hermit_trader
- Start date
Yup, it does.Quote from Anti-Madder:
In the context of relativity Time is not a, "thing" that has properties. All matter expresses energy ultimately through it's encounters with photons (quantum units of light). Light travels at a constant speed (I won't cover the exceptions) so the faster matter is moving through the universe, the slower it's processes (aging, for instance) relative to slower moving matter because the speed entire body of matter is subtracted from the speed of the processes taking place within the matter. Moving at the speed of light means you would be frozen, "in time." That doesn't mean that------------------
The rest of your post prompted my wife to ask me what I was laughing about.
Youâre a good writer; you have talent.
I didnât really want to get into another discussion on physics, anyway.
Much, anyway. Teensy bit left, though. Here comes.
Tensor equations arenât necessary for this to work. All one needs must do is recognize the truthfulness of those questionsâ obvious answers that I asked earlier. Then, remove the spatial coordinates idea because itâs 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 wasnât necessary if one recognized the significance of comparing the rate of timeâs 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 âdaysâ 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, ârelative to a frame of reference.â 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 timeâs passage, which is where I came in.
I donât 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.
Quote from trainr:
So, I didnât do the math?
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
Quote from trainr:
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 âdaysâ 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 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
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.Quote from trainr:
Tell it to Thunderdog. He says we're supposed to be tolerant.
it is amazing and amusing to watch the mental contortions believers will go through to make the story fit the book.
Quote from trainr:
Yup, it does.
The rest of your post prompted my wife to ask me what I was laughing about.
Youâre a good writer; you have talent.
I didnât really want to get into another discussion on physics, anyway.
Much, anyway. Teensy bit left, though. Here comes.
Tensor equations arenât necessary for this to work. All one needs must do is recognize the truthfulness of those questionsâ obvious answers that I asked earlier. Then, remove the spatial coordinates idea because itâs 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 wasnât necessary if one recognized the significance of comparing the rate of timeâs 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 âdaysâ 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, ârelative to a frame of reference.â 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 timeâs passage, which is where I came in.
I donât 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. [/B]