The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 533
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The formulation ofGödel'sfirst, orweak,incompleteness theorem: "Any formal system of axioms contains unresolved propositions ".
But Gödel did not stop there, formulating and provingthe second, orstrong,Gödel's incompleteness theorem: "The logical completeness (or incompleteness) of any system of axioms cannot be proved within this system. To prove or disprove it, additional axioms are required (system reinforcement)".
The formulation ofGödel'sfirst, orweak,incompleteness theorem: "Any formal system of axioms contains unresolved propositions ".
But Gödel did not stop there, formulating and provingthe second, orstrong,Gödel's incompleteness theorem: "The logical completeness (or incompleteness) of any system of axioms cannot be proved within this system. To prove or disprove it requires additional axioms (system reinforcement)".
Strong thing about the logic of proof. The world can be said to be a little bit turned upside down. Gödel's biography is a tantrum, of course...
In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin declared: "There is nothing new in physics any more, everything that could be discovered has already been discovered. What remains is more and more precise measurement of the old". Within three decades physics proved him seriously wrong: quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity were discovered and revolutionised science. Today no physicist would dare to claim that we know everything about the universe. On the contrary, each new discovery seems to open a Pandora's Box of even deeper questions about physics.
A model is only a model that can only account for known patterns. The results of the simulation do not go beyond the limits given by the model. Moreover, the results are conditioned by the model.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem: "The logical completeness (or incompleteness) of any system of axioms cannot be proved within that system. To prove or disprove it requires additional axioms (system amplification)".
I think it's time to end the philosophising.
We were talking about mutations and speciation and you stuck to the figure of 13 billion. ok, let it be 1 billion or 1000000, it doesn't change anything.
I was talking about mutations and speciation, and you stuck to the number 13 billion. ok, let it be 1 billion or 1000000, it doesn't change anything.
No, I'm not talking about a specific 13 billion, but that this conclusion is based on a false premise, the "Big Bang" model.
Whether or not it makes a difference is also a big question. You can visualise this different time span, itssignificance, as different concentration of ink if you put a drop of ink in a 100 millilitre glass or in a 100 litre barrel.
A powerful thing in the logic of evidence. It turned the world upside down a bit. The biography of Gödel is a bit of a bummer...
You could say, not a little, but a lot. ;)
No, I'm not talking about the specific 13 billion, but that this conclusion is based on a false premise, the "Big Bang" model.
+
Firstly, the evidence for BW is not redshift but microwave relic radiation. It is what won the Nobel Prize.
Secondly, the space-time curvature does not cause the red shift. The red shift is generated when an object moves away - the Doppler effect. Stars inside our galaxy don't have redshift but space distortion does. Red shift is observed in stars in other galaxies
No, I am not talking about the specific 13 billion, but that this conclusion is based on a false premise, the Big Bang model.
Whether or not it changes is also a big question. You can visualise this different time length, itssignificance, as different concentration of ink if you put a drop of ink in a 100 millilitre glass or in a 100 litre barrel.
ok, forget 13 billion years.
can you accept that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? what i said earlier also holds true for the Milky Way alone, given that there are at least 50% sun-like stars, if memory serves me correctly. lets also assume that the Sun is a third generation star, given its metallicity.
I will not discuss further, because you have not grasped the main message in my message, which comes right after the clip.
OK, forget 13 billion years.
can you accept at least that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? everything i said before is also true for the Milky Way alone, given that the Sun is at least 50% similar to the Sun, if memory serves me correctly. we also take into account that the Sun is a third generation star, given its metallicity.
I will not discuss further, because you have not grasped the main message in my message, which comes immediately after the clip.
Based on the accepted concept, yes, right.
But if you consider that the accepted concept does not reflect a lot of currently incomprehensible facts, then no, not true.
I get it all. But you haven't grasped further.
Firstly, the evidence for BW is not redshift but microwave relic radiation. That's what the Nobel Prize was given for.
Of course not.
Relict radiation is proof of the Hot Early Universe theory, but not of the Big Bang theory, although it was predicted by the Big Bang theory. The two theories should not be conflated, although many do. Let me remind you that the first relic radiation, according to official science, appeared in the Universe after 380 thousand years after the Big Bang.
Our earth has also been hot for a few billion years, but that doesn't say it exploded from an infinitesimal point.
Secondly, space-time warping does not cause redshift. The red shift is generated when an object moves away - the Doppler effect.
That the red shift of distant galaxies is caused by the Doppler effect is, in my opinion, the main error of the big bang theory. Not only the speed of acceleration can be the cause of the red shift.
The stars inside our galaxy do not have redshift, but the distortion of space does. Red shift can be observed in stars in other galaxies
This is obvious, because the distortion is very minor.
It is like trying to prove on a perfectly flat floor (with a radius of curvature equal to the radius of our Earth) in your room that the Earth is spherical, trying to stand a triangle with a side of 3 meters and calculate the sum of the three angles that it is greater than 180 degrees. This will not work, for there are no such instruments of such precision (one trillionth of a degree), for the sum of the angles of such a triangle will be equal to 180.000000000001 degrees.
Even if you try to build a triangle with side of 10 million light years (the diameter of our Galaxy is about 100 thousand light years), the sum of angles in such triangle, taking into account the curvature of our Universe will be about 180.00001 degrees (assuming that the radius of our Universe is 20 billion light years).
https://rechneronline.de/pi/spherical-triangle.php
But I do not want to discuss this subject any more, for in our time it is useless to talk about it. It is like arguing that the Earth is not flat but spherical, 1000 years ago, when there were no normal instruments or quality observations.
I am absolutely certain that the curvature of space leads to redshift, but I can't prove it yet.