KurtGodel77
-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KurtGodel77
-
-
Point well taken, although our D was more than adequate against every team we played other than New England. So I guess NE is the only good team we played? The late nineties D worked as a base defense with no frills, but never came close to generating the amount of turnovers to be considered a great D. I'll take some risk/reward over that strategy personally.
I seem to remember Jacksonville making clutch plays against our defense in the opener. So did the Jets in our first game against them after our offense handed the team the lead late in the game. The Steelers had that back-breaking nine-minute drive against us that ended the Bills' playoff hopes. The defense allowed 21 points to Miami in the first quarter when we played them the second time, and Miami didn't even have a good offense. Add in the two New England games, and that's six performances in which our defensive performance was seriously flawed.
-
Considering that McNabb had 3 INTs, plus had terrible clock management at the end of the game, saying that he played better than Brady is going a little far. There were a lot of other players who played better than either Brady or McNabb.
-
We could franchise Jennings and use him as part of a package to send to San Diego--though I don't know whether San Diego needs a left tackle. I'd also be willing to add Clements to the package considering that he may become a free agent in a year anyway. Those two players plus our 2006 first round pick should be enough to get Brees.
The problem is that Brees may not have the same success in Buffalo that he had in San Diego due to a weak arm. With the swirling winds of the Ralph, you really have to have a strong arm to get the ball where it needs to go.
-
Not Planck time - that's a somewhat arbitrary and largely unproven quantization of time itself. Neat idea, but I don't know if it's ever seen any use, practical or theoretical.
What I'm talking about is that very early in the universe, you have a density that requires relativity to describe, but a distance scale that requires quantum physics. That is, before a certain point the universe operated by a quantized theory of gravity coupled to QCD (that's the Grand Unified Theory theoretical physics chases). In other words...there's no current theory to describe the relativistic effects of time dialation in the early universe, because there's no quantized theory of gravity, so there's a peroid of time that Schroeder's postulation can not account for. Unless he's doing some sort of goofy half-assed renormalization to prove that that fragment of time does not, in fact, exist...which is hardly valid anyway, and if it were he'd already have been to Stockholm for it.
And that belies the fact that simply because relativity says that observations of time and mass are frame-of-reference dependent, it does NOT mean that all frames-of-reference are valid. Sure, I can create a frame of reference where 15 billion years contracts into six days...but it would probably (almost certainly) be a load of BS (e.g. a particle accellerates from the Big Bang at 99.99999999999999999999994% the speed of light...but I don't know how or why you establish an electron travelling within one hundredth-septillion the speed of light as God's and the Bible's frame of reference.)
But hey...Schroeder's the greatest physicist ever, Ilya Ehrenberg was the Soviet Propaganda Minister and one of FDR's stooges along with Stalin, the wide proliferation of the IBM PC architecture was caused by MS-DOS, and Kurt Warner is the greatest qb ever. So what the hell do I know about anything?
Your point about the quantized theory of gravity is at least worth finding more about. However, I've heard physicists talk about the first 1/100th of a second of the Big Bang and so forth; as being the time when things were MOST quantum. Given the speed at which the universe expanded, I suspect that unless you have some reverse time dilation at work; the whole quantum phase of the universe would add little to its overall age. But it's an interesting thought.
-
To you, anything which contradicts your conventional wisdom is, by definition, stupid. That would be fine if there was some sense to your conventional wisdom; but as far as I can tell it's as much propaganda as anything.
In the original series of posts which prompted our disagreement, I pointed out that FDR's first major foreign policy act was to recognize the Soviet Union. The Soviets were engaged in murdering 7 million Ukrainians at the time. FDR continued his pro-Soviet stance throughout his administration. FDR had several opportunities to de-Nazify Germany without having German soil come under Soviet control. FDR could have offered a fair peace to a de-Nazified Germany, thus encouraging the German generals to take the risk of overthrowing Hitler. Instead, FDR demanded unconditional surrender from any German government; and the surrender had to be to all the Allies--including the Soviet Union. FDR clearly refused to envision, pursue, or even accept any future that did not involve Soviet occupation of large sections of Germany. The inevitable result of this extremist pro-Soviet stance was the mass murder the Soviet government inflicted on the German people.
Your response to all this was to draw into question whether Ilya Ehrenburg did or did not have the title of official propaganda minister. Some sources indicate he had this title; you claim to have found a reliable source that indicates he did not. Even assuming your claim is correct, it is a technicality. The basic point of my argument remains unchallenged: the Soviets engaged in mass murder, and FDR helped them do it. Add that to the mass murder that FDR was directly responsible for at Dresden; and you have a liberal Democrat record on mass murder which is the most lamentable disgrace in the history of this once-great nation.
-
NOBODY understood your proofs, because you offered no proofs. At least you need to offer a link or something.
-
There's only one way to find out if Losman is the answer, and that's to play him. Given that he couldn't throw the ball in practice for most of the season due to that broken leg, he may not be ready yet.
So instead of throwing him to the wolves, we need a stopgap QB who eats up defenses with wolf-like ferocity. A player who has led his team to a Super Bowl win on the strength of his arm, his intelligence, and his iron will to win. A player who got a QB rating ten points higher than Drew's despite being surrounded by inferior offensive talent.
-
This should be ammended to read: "The rest of the league is built on "me-first" guys. The Pats are built of players of a totally different caliber."
There's no need to fish for obscure answers here folks, as elequently presented as they may be. We simply need better production from our offense in order to become the team we all hope to be... (specifically the QB and O-line). Our defense is as good as it has ever been, and as close to dominant as any realistic fan could ever hope for. We excelled in points given up, yards, turnovers, sacks, yards per play, etc etc. Our Special teams is now near the top of the league as well. Let's keep it simple here. We need better production from offense in order to improve on 9-7.
Given a choice, I'd take our late '90s defense over the defense we have now. IIRC, the late '90s defense finished 3rd in the league in points allowed; significantly better than our current defense. Moreover, that defense looked like an elite defense against the best teams in the league. It always seemed you could count on them in a pressure situation: you'd want more than anything to put the outcome in the hands of the defense if the game was on the line.
Our present defense is the opposite: it's break but don't bend. It will throw a ton of pressure at you with blitzes. Inferior offenses get overwhelmed; making our defense's stats look good. But the better offenses pick up the blitzes and make us pay. I saw a statistic one time that showed that playoff teams were much more likely to convert a third down when the defense blitzed than when it didn't. The fact that these teams were apparently good at picking up the blitz probably is a reason why they're in the playoffs in the first place. Considering how heavily our present defense relies on blitzing, I can see why it looks a lot better against mediocre offenses than it does against efficient offenses like New England's.
-
In the middle of this past season, there was an incident that shows a key difference between the bills and the pats. Sam Adams threw a fit when he was taken out of a game (one that they won). Afterwards, Jerry Gray spoke with Adams and effectively decided to placate him in the future. The consequence? adams played most of the snaps for the remainder of the year. Tied to this, Fletcher, Spikes, etc. persistently and proudly proclaim that they're every down, every game players who should never come off the field. And they don't. Of course, they (and adams) are good players. But let's compare them with the Pats.
Against the Steelers, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, and Jarvis Green played virtually the whole game. Roman Phifer was nowhere to be seen (he only played a couple of snaps). Why? Because the Steelers are a running team, and these were the defensive players who could best stop them. Two weeks later, against Philly, Warren played two snaps all game; Wilfork played one (or two - I'm not completely sure). Why? Because Philly is a passing team, and they decided that the best way to stop them was with 2 linemen and 5 linebackers most of the game. The same pattern has been evident for a number of seasons for the Pats. They get great production out of their young players from year one onward, and they expect it from them. It's gotten to the point where when a 5th round draft choice, Dexter Reid, can come in in the middle of the Super Bowl (replacing Eugene Wilson) at safety and play fairly poorly, the word you hear is "he may well not make it - just compare him to Randall Gay, Dan Klecko, Dan Koppen, Brandon Gorin, Jarvis Green. Guys who produced immediately."
Phil Simms earlier this year said that he visits camps and teams all year long and one constant for every team save one is players complaining about not getting enough playing time. The exception? Of course, it's the Pats. He said that it's amazing: the players never complain about not playing enough snaps, and that they understand and like the system as Belichick has set it up.
Let's swing back to the Bills, especially their front seven on defense. What kind of production have we seen since 01, when a bunch of rookies were thrown into the fire because of a dearth of talent? Anderson, Edwards, Bannon, Crowell -- they almost never play. The second rounders at DE obviously get playing time, but even then Kelsay didn't really contribute much at all as a rookie.
The upshot of all of this: when the Bills defense has faced good teams over the past two years, they've almost invariably failed when it comes to crunch time: the Pats in particular, who have sliced and diced the Bills three games running; Indy last year (who had a crushing drive at the end of the game; Philly last year; KC last year; the Jets this year [recall that Pennington tore a shoulder muscle in the first quarter of the second game]; Pitt; etc.). There haven't been many fresh legs or alternative tactics vis a vis the front seven in any of these games. As for the Bills defensive record this year, of course they're one of the better units, but recall that they padded their record this year playing the NFC West and a gift of 15 total yards from a horrible Browns team, but next year won't be so kind. If they're going to take one page out of the Pats book, I would suggest trying to figuring out how to maximize the unique skills of each player (starter and non, young and vet) and applying them in the appropriate situation. Tied to this, they should be telling guys like Sam Adams to shut the hell up and get with the program.
This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on these boards.
-
Not only that, did you guys see what he did to the Colts? Bruschi is a guy who loves winning.
-
This is my point- that 24 hours (at center of BB) = 15 million (earth) years based on redshift constants is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but when you use the right numbers, the age of the universe, by HIS dubious method, comes out to 72 billion years. If you consider non-Planck time, it's on the order of 10^30. I'm not arguing that the universe is 72 billion years old (or older). I'm just saying that if you are willing to follow his arbitrary physics, you don't even get his numbers. Schroeder is a fraud.
Sorry- 130 stuck in my head for a different reason. Adam fathered Seth at 130. LOL. I'm sure Schroeder has an explanation for that one too, as well as the flood, the different stories RE the birth of Jesus, and the holes in the firmament.
Don't get me wrong. I like the Bible. But it aint science, and this pseudoscience thing that shucksters like Schroeder sell is disgusting.
You and Schroeder clearly disagree about physics. There are two ways of deciding who is right: credentials/qualifications, or looking at the actual equations in enough depth that I fully understand both your lines of reasoning. Schroeder has you beat in the first department, and you haven't shown enough work/reasoning to beat him in the second department.
-
Please tell me you don't teach physics anywhere. This "explanation" is as much a leap of faith as saying that Jesus is the son of god. Schroeder's assertion boils down to this.
1) The univese is 15 billion years old.
2) Genisis says the world was created in 6 24 periods.
3) 6 24 periods for someone at the center of the BBang correspond to 15 billion years.
Who said what? Huh? That's some wacky ipse dixit logic.
Now help me out on this question, which just might cause a problem. The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... does that mean Adam lived for 130*365*15/6 earth years? Never mind- that's all just Biblical time shifting, right? Pre-Adam, we go off this center of the Big Bang watch...post, we go off an earth watch. There's no scientific proof for this- or against it. If God chose to use two watches, he did... but there's no proving one or the other. The 6 24 periods=15billion years is TOTALLY arbitrary, cealrly forced logic to reach his conclusion.
If that's the case, how do you explain that humans are 40K years old, but according to Bible, no mare than 6,000. Stick to Earth years.
Never mind. I know you can't do it, and neither can he. He also can't explain away the fact that using his calculations, if he choses the right numbers for the redshift factor, the universe is 72 billions years old.... or as much as 10^30 years old. This guy is a fraud, and not worthy of serious discourse among scientists.
It seems you missed a few points I made; but at least you seem willing to discuss actual issues instead of using blanket, unsupported declarations and name calling.
To address the points you've raised: the usual meaning of the word "day" is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis one time. This CANNOT be the meaning of the word "day" for the six days of Creation, because the Earth didn't exist at the beginning of the six day Creation period. Therefore, Shroeder argues, the word "day" means a period of 24 hours when applied to Creation. The question is, 24 hours from whose perspective--ours or someone physically present at the Big Bang?
As for the figure of the universe being 15 billion years old; I've seen that in websites about general science. The 15 billion year figure appears more widely accepted than the 72 billion year figure, let alone the 10^30 figure. Calling Schroeder a fraud for accepting mainstream Big Bang science--which is what you appear to be doing--is going a little far.
"The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... " This is inaccurate. The Bible states that Adam lived for hundreds of years.
-
As I said, I have no particular need or desire to refute you point-by-point, as your idiocy is at a much more fundamental level.
And then, if I do...you just call them "technicalities".
The biggest problem with Schroeder's theory is so glaringly obvious that it should speak for itself, anyway...for anyone who's actually bright enough to think about it, at least.All you ever do is call me or my ideas idiotic, while never providing a single reason why they are so. Because your posts contain no new information, reading them is not a good use of time for the people on these boards.
-
I never said that I fully understood the mechanism by which the patriarchs were kept alive as long as they were. I agree that, based on what we know about science today, the probability of a substance that could keep them alive to age 900 seems low. If, tomorrow, scientists discovered something that could keep people alive that long, I'd obviously have to rethink that probablistic estimite.
-
And likewise...I'd like to know by what expertise, actual or borrowed, you credit Shroeder with that much knowledge and skill. Once again, you ask people to take your drivel at face value while deflecting any criticism with "Prove it"...a standard you can't even hold yourself to.
And no, I won't do a point-by-point refutation of your crap (though one easily could - I can come up with three problems with Shroeder's theory, or more accurately your "understanding" of it, without putting effort into it). I'm perfectly content refuting your BS methodology by which you seem to reach any of your conclusions on any topic.
This is exactly what I've come to expect from you: plenty of tough talk, nothing to back it up with. If you COULD do a point-by-point refutation of things I've written, why don't you? Or am I supposed to be stupid enough to simply accept your claim at face value?
As for Schroeder, I believe I've already addressed the issue of his qualifications by pointing out he's a former MIT physics professor. The types of calculations necessary to support his theory--such as calculating the speed of the universe's expansion using red shift, calculating the relativistic effect that said expansion would have on the passage of time, etc.--seem well within the ability of any qualified physics professor, let alone one from MIT.
You complain that I don't prove things. What more do you want? For our history discussion I cited several sources, including Shirer, Toland, and Laffin. For this discussion about religion and science, I've cited a former MIT physics professor. You, on the other hand, have made so many sweeping statements that you've become an honorary member of the Street Sweepers' Union, yet the only time you cited a source to support anything was when you were arguing about a technicality.
-
I could accept everything you just said but this... Are you saying that Abraham manipulated the process of mitosis to make himself live longer???? Your thought process is as radical as the atheists you are trying to discredit.
Besides, the books that are in the Bible were manipulated by the political process of the church accepting some and discrediting others. The whole history of Christianity is flawed from the fact that the church is a political entity.
I'm not drawing any conclusions about what did or did not happen. Different animals age at different rates. A rat will die of old age within a matter of a few years, while a parrot can live 50 years or more. This is because the DNA in the parrot's cells has a greater resistance to attacks from harmful compounds. If you could increase your cells' resistance to harmful compounds enough, or if you could eliminate enough oxidants/toxins from your system, you too could live 900 years. Such a dramatic improvement is clearly impossible given the current constraints of science; but you can make smaller achievements. Any food with an antioxidant in it will slow the aging process somewhat. I've heard that experiments are underway with a substance that apparently creates a dramatic slowdown--about three fold--in the aging process for very small organisms. The next phase of the testing will be on animals. Given all this, it is at least possible that Adam and the other patriarchs had access to some food or other substance similar in nature to modern known antioxidants, but far more powerful. I'm not saying this did happen, just that it's possible.
You are correct to point out that the selection process of which books would appear in the Bible was political, and probably flawed. In fact--and I know I'm going to make some of the people who have agreed with me unhappy--there are three different religions present in the New Testament.
- Paulist Phariseeism
- Gnosticism
- Jacobitism
Hillel, when asked to summarize the Law while standing on one foot, replied, "that which is hateful to you, do it not unto your neighbor." Paul's summary of the Law was similar, "love your neighbor as yourself." (see Romans 13). In both cases, the Law was summarized without reference to loving or obeying God; indicating that Paul had not changed as much as widely believed from the teachings of his Pharisee teachers. Paul indicated that he'd deviated from the written law because of the liberation of Jesus; the Pharisees deviated from the written law because it was overridden by the oral law--which later became the Talmud. I'm not saying that Paul and the Pharisees were identical--they weren't--just that Paul represents the Christian branch of the Pharisee faith. Paulist works include his own writings, the book of Acts, and some of the minor non-Pauline epistles.
Gnosticism was a form of mysticism. One came to God neither by James's works nor Paul's faith, but by a difficult to define mystical experience. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the father except through me," John 14:6. The Gospel of John variously describes the process of becoming one with Jesus as believing in him, eating his flesh and blood, being children of the light, and being born again. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you will not live," John 6:53. "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," John 3:3.
Jacobitism--for the lack of a better word--was the Christian group led by James. Its presence in the New Testament is represented by the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of James, and the book of Revelation. "Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him," James 1:12. Not only is loving God said to be the key to salvation, but Paul's alternative--faith alone--is specifically rejected. "You believe that there is one God: you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble. . . . but faith without works is dead," James 2:19-20. The law of Moses is to be upheld: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, until all is fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach others so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 5:18-20.
So anyone seriously considering becoming a Christian needs to carefully consider which of these three general schools to belong to--Paulism, Gnosticism, or Jacobitism--and then select the New Testament books consistent with that school. The reason that examples of all three schools are included in the New Testament is because each of these three sects had numerous followers when Constantine ordered the Biblical council convened. The Catholic Church has traditionally adopted an embrace and extent approach to the people it dealt with--giving them enough of whatever they were used to so that the conversion to Catholicism wasn't as dramatic a change.
-
Last night, I saw signs of weakness on the Patriots' part. I saw a lot of missed tackles, penalties, and drives that went three and out. Had they played like that against Pittsburgh, they probably would have lost.
Let's hope that next year, they finally start buying into all the people around them telling them how great they are. Let's hope that they lose their sense of hunger and urgency, and that the loss of Crennel and Weis proves difficult to adjust to. All they need is one bad year--at least by their standards--and the Bills' position as the only team ever to play in more than two Super Bowls in a row will be safe.
-
Speaking of humor, I've always found it amusing that Belichick refuses to express any emotion on gameday other than a scowl. Even when he won that major challenge--the one that allowed the Patriots to keep the ball after it was ruled his knee was down--Belichick didn't even crack the slightest hint of a smile.
-
Not to start up a completely different rant, as usual the truth certainly lies somewhere inbetween both of your arguments. First off, the same old testament was written by men living in stone houses that thought the world was the center of the universe and was flat. Time is relative which is why Abraham lived to be 900 year old. I guess it was a good diet!! Also, when was the first complete Bible for those able to read published?? 1500's.... How many times have the stories of creationism been changed to suit the people telling the stories? The Genesis story has nothing to do with how the world was created. It was written by men who did not even know the basic principles of physics..
However, I do not believe that Science solves all the problems of the world or answers many questions. Usually, it creates more questions than answers and as a scientist myself I agree with that. Most of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen believe in one God or another. It helps us to bridge the answers that science just can't reach.
Just one favor Kurt....Please do not put Schoeder out there as a real scientific source. Most of his arguements are laughed at in the scientific world like Von Daniken's belief that aliens created the pyramids!!!
Go Bills!!!!
I'd be interested to know the names of the scientists who "laughed at" Shroeder. I mean, the guy's a former MIT physics professor, so you'll need to name some names if you want to destroy his credibility about physics. It wouldn't exactly shock me if some of those who laughed the hardest were, coincidentally, working to promote atheism.
As for the rest of your post; the Bible took its present (Catholic) form in the 300s when Constantine forced Christian leaders to come to an agreement about which books were scriptural. The book of Genesis is much older than that agreement, of course; large chunks of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls area, meaning that it predates Jesus by centuries at least. It is quite possible that Genesis is much older than any extant manuscripts, and that the oldest manuscripts have been destroyed by chance and by time.
As for some of the patriarchs in the Old Testament living to be hundreds of years old, a company named Geron is (or at least was) working to replicate the feat. The process of aging is caused by the gradual breakdown of your cells' DNA. This breakdown can be eliminated by causing the telomeres at the end of the DNA strings to regenerate. Cancer cells have such regeneration; which is why no tumor will ever die of old age. If you could control telomeres, you could make the cancer die of old age, while at the same time causing your normal cells not to age.
-
I've got your back too, bro. I'm by no means a religious person (I'm agnostic), but it's annoying to read all the pseudo-intellectuals come out from the dark whenever a religion vs. science topic comes up. Most of these guys who posted to bash your religious beliefs don't even know the first thing about science, which is even funnier. They just want to feel better about their miserable lives, so they decide to slam a guy who has found religion and who seems to otherwise be at peace with life.
Thanks for writing this.
-
lol. I was actually rooting for the Patriots. I figure that it's time for the rest of the league to see what we have to deal with twice each year.
I really, really, really hope the Patriots don't make it to the Super Bowl next year though. Only one team has made it to more than two Super Bowls in a row, and I'd just as soon things stayed that way.
-
I appreciate the support, Pete. Actually Tom doesn't bother me, because he's hardly the first person I've encountered who only knows how to express disagreement by attacking the intelligence of the person he's disagreeing with. It's a cheap and easy tactic when you really think about it.
-
I have the feeling that most of the people on these boards were . . . aware of your dislike for me before reading your post. Considering that you haven't actually managed to refute any of the points I've made in our recent discussions--despite your pitiful attempts to do so--I can see why you'd dislike me. If I were you, I'd be jealous of me too.
-
You don't believe in the death penalty?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
My point--in case you didn't understand it--was that unless time worked differently for the quantum period than it has for the normal space period, the quantum period of the universe would account for little of the universe's age. This would be true even if you ignored the relativistic effect created by the universe's nearly light speed expansion. Basically what you are doing is assuming that, because there is no theory of time in a quantum state, the arrival of any such theory at a future point will disprove Shroeder's analysis.
The book jacket for The Science of God states that Schroeder is a former MIT physics professor. I suggest you read the book before announcing to the world that Shroeder is a fraud.