Cause of the Big Bang

That's perfectly in line with the law of large numbers. In the infinite limit, the probabilitles go to 50/50 but in any finite limit there'll, over many different setups, still be variation.

You still haven't told me at what point it becomes exact. 100,000 tests? A million? A billion? When?

Simply saying "I don't believe it" and repeating your question doesn't make my answer wrong.

You haven't seen my work so that is a completely unsupported attempt at an insult.

Yet, in seconds, I found papers which discuss the evidence. I thought you said you could find such things yourself? So why haven't you?

How many times do you plan to repeat that when I admit I've not said anything you cannot find online because you don't understand that material? I have to keep explaining things students know because you keep making false claims about it.

Can you prove it's the same everywhere? There are no corners in a torus or a Calabi Yau. Don't you know any geometry?

And the hole doesn't mean there's a gap, it means that depending on which direction you move, you loop back to different places. Think about moving along the surface of a torus, as if you were a person on a planet sized object like that.

Do you need me to explain this to you?

So I offer to discuss new work I've done and then you refuse and complain I refuse? How can you possibly think noone else will not see through the flaw in your logic? I offer to discuss work noone else has done and you don't want to?

You claim I am incapable of thinking of anything new, despite me saying "Do you want to discuss my new results". You refuse. So why do you blame me?

It doesn't matter whether strings exist or not, I have described a mathematical system and given a new result noone else has done. Even if strings don't exist, it has applications for mathematicians. Infact, Euler rang me up 2 days ago, he's doing a maths PhD at Cambridge, and it turned out his work can make use of mine. He had a problem which I had solved!

I am capable of thinking of something new. I am wanting to discuss it with you. Do you accept? If you don't, you cannot complain I am incapable of thinking up something new because you're unwilling to discuss it, probably out of fear you won't understand it and you'll be proven wrong. If you have nothing to hide, accept my offer. I have nothing to hide.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just found this

Paul has been picketing accelerators for more than a decade! And despite his worries about Fermilab, we're still here. And as this thread shows, he just changed, without skipping a beat, from Fermilab to the LHC. So despite the official Fermilab magazine saying he doesn't have a leg to stand on, in 1998, he claims he was nominated for a Nobel Prize that year. By who? For what? He's literally being laughed at by the people who are asked for nominations by the Nobel Prize comity!

Come on Walter, even you have to admit that Paul is a liar. None of his papers are anything to do with doing physics, he's unpublished in the area of physics, he's claiming he's found out three times he's been nominated for a Nobel Prize in an area he's unpublished and where the nominations are secret and he's a joke to the theoretical physics community.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would Walter Wagner know about any of this since he's also unpublished in nuclear physics - the area he claims to be an expert in. Why does Walter Wagner continue to ignore my question on two separate threads now? Wagner is not a nuclear physicist any more than I am a jellyfish. Simple as that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe Paul's stance is that each time we cross a new energy threshold, we take a new risk. So, it is a non-sequitur to assert that since we passed the previous risk without it materializing, we are free to continue at ever higher energy thresholds.

I'm surprised you just now learned about Paul's picketing. That is well and widely known, as he's posted about it in this thread.

And, as I said, I believe he's telling the truth about his nominations. I do not necessarily agree with the party who nominated him, but that is irrelevant as to whether or not he's lying, or being truthful. I'm sure we all know of some persons, at least in other areas, who were awarded Nobels that makes a lot of us wonder 'you got to be kidding'. Climate warming Nobels come to mind. And, simply being nominated is a far cry from being awarded one. I believe you need PROOF that someone is lying, not just your interpretation of circumstantial evidence, before making accusations against someone's character. It is a reflection on your own character, you know.

On another topic, do you know your evolutionary relationship to a jellyfish?

The word "threshold" has an interesting origin. Do you know it?

 

Walter, he is limited to his own devices. That's like him knowing a complex chemistry-related evolution, which he does not.

 

So can I put on my CV that I'm nominated for the Nobel Prizes in Peace, Literature and Physics then? I'm sure I can get someone to write to the Nobel people for me. Heck, I could just make a fake email account and nominate myself.

After all, Paul doesn't say who nominated him and since it's all private, noone can prove me wrong!

 

Alphanumeric, you are a math-head. Not a coneptual math-head.

 

You do realise that I am not Alphanumeric don't you? The evolutionary route between me and a jellyfish is irrelevant, the point is I am not a jellyfish even if my ancestors in the distant past were. It's funny that you should mention lying when you continually lie about being a nuclear physicist. To quote you, that says a lot about your character. You have no right to talk about the LHC because you don't understand it, just as I can't discuss many areas of biology because I'm not a biologist.

 

Why don't you try it and find out. Ideal pasttime for someone who needs to get a life.

Right, so why do you say it to me?

I have seen your asinine posts for years. Is your work somehow different?

Delusional ramblings. What's new?

The are millions of images of the universe. Perhaps you can point to one where it is not the same as elsewhere, in the sense of a spatial distortion caused by what we are talking about.

We are aware of gravitational lensing. I think a distortion like a hole in the structure of the universe would be noticed.

More babbling.

Leopard. Spots.

Castles on clouds. You rang yourself?

You claim to have some maths that will help more maths. How boring.

You spend all this time on various forums. You spend time on your PhD studies and on teaching. I wish I had 48 hours in a day.

 

Walter L. Wagner. 1000 flips produces 520 heads so if consistent, 10,000 flips would produce 5,200 heads but it only produced 5,096 heads, so a fall of 104.

 

So I find evidence and you cannot retort it.

The nature of the universe as a whole isn't known yet. It's an open question but since we are considering closed topologies too, there's more to consider than just a 4-sphere. Inflation doesn't need the universe to be closed either.

Why didn't you address what I said? I offer to discuss original work. You won't discuss it. Then you complain there's no discussion of my work. Which is your fault.

You still haven't provided evidence I am Euler.

What do you think mathematicians spend their time coming up with?

The maths of 'fields' and 'variational principles' and 'calculus' people like Newton and Lagrange came up with are now used in all of physics. Without them we'd not have things like supersonic planes, computers, satellites, telecommunications, lasers etc. So doing maths for mathematicians is hardly 'boring'.

I've given you a break down of a typical day for me. I don't need 48 hours to get 4 hours of work done a day. You never actually addressed my daily breakdown and said "You cannot possibly spend that amount of time doing that", you just said "No time for anything social?" when I pointed out I had 6~13 hours a day free after work and requirements like sleeping, eating and ****ing.

Noone claimed it would be 5200 heads if you did 10 times as many, that isn't what the law of large numbers says. At least try to understand it. It says that as the number of samples goes to infinity, the percentage of heads to tails goes to 50/50. To use your 520 after 1000, that's 52/48. As you increase, the expected test mean will tend to 50/50. Tends to, where it equals the limit at n->infinity.

It's covered in the binomial distribution where p=q=1/2 (since the probability of a heads or tails is equal). In the n->infinity limit with p and q fixed, you get a normal distribution of results. Which means that when you repeat a set of n samples lots of times you find you get a varying set of end results. Sometimes it'll be 50/50, other times 51/49. You might even get 100/0, but that's very unlikely. But you get, by the Central Limit Theorem, that the results, if repeated a lot, follow a normal distribution because any large statistical system will tend to that. Infact, look at the picture in the CLT link, it's about heads and tails of coin tosses. Doing 1000 tosses multiple times, gives you a different result a lot of the time and you end up with a spread which looks like a normal distribution.

So there's two lots of 'big processes' going on here. You have n coin tosses per test and then you repeat that a lot of times, say m. When m is big and n small you find that you get results which are all over the place. If you only toss a coin 2 times, you'll get cases of 2 heads and 0 tails 1/4 of the time. But as n gets big, 0 tails and n heads becomes increasingly unlikely, while a more even mix becomes more likely. But when you repeat your n tests a lot, you'll still get occasional examples where your n tests don't turn out to be 50/50, they can literally be anything from 0/100 to 100/0. But as n increases, they'll clump more about 50/50, but you'll never 'turn off' the non 50/50 results in some of your m trials until you do infinitely many coin tosses. You're basically saying it's impossible to throw a lot of heads in a row.

But since I'm pointing you at probability results which are taught to 17 year olds here in the UK and which anyone with a grasp of statistics can understand, I'm sure you'll just ignore what I'm saying as 'babble', despite it being a lengthy, source supported, explanation of how stats works which can be backed up by any statistician, stats book or even a Vegas casino. Not that you'll check, because you aren't interested in evidence, just telling everyone you are right and they are wrong, despite you showing no working understanding of any of the topics you whine about.

If you see all these problems in physics and maths, why are you whining online? Why aren't you writing papers and getting them published? Surely your results in probabilities would be of interest to mathematicians and statisticians? Why are you just proclaiming to have all the answers here and not actually getting it out to the wider community? Even Walter, who isn't actually a nuclear physicist has got off his backside and made his voice heard, even if I don't agree with what he says. He's challenging the people who matter. You're not even representing a challenge to people like me and I'm happy to admit I'm an insignificant speck in the physics community.

 

520 heads in 1,000 flips of a coin is consistent with the 50/50 odds that arise if the coin is fair. That deviation of 20 excess heads is not statistically significant; it represents a 1.26 sigma deviation from the mean. Do several experiments of 1,000 coin tosses and you will see 20 excess heads or more about 10% of the time.

On the other hand, 5,200 heads in 10,000 flips is much less consistent with 50/50 odds even though the heads/tails ratio remains at 52/48. The 200 excess heads in 10,000 tosses now represents a 4 sigma deviation from the mean. With another ten-fold increase in the number of flips, obtaining a 52/48 heads/tails ratio is nearly impossible because obtaining 2% more heads than expected is a 12 sigma event with 100,000 tosses. 1.26 sigma events happen all the time, 4 sigma events happen occasionally, 12 sigma events, hardly ever.

The law of large numbers is quite valid; it is the lifeblood of the insurance industry and Las Vegas.

 

This is absolutely hilarious!!!

So, WHO can enlightnen all of us on....

Why Heads is always winning the battle.

 

Somebody do this 10,000 times:

http://www.random.org/coins/

 

Denial is not proof I am wrong.

Inflation is unproven psuedoscience. Areas of space expanding is no better than saying goddidit. You still have not explained how something a trillion times the necessary density for a black hole can expand.

You have yet to produce anything new in any post you make, so another delusion.

As I showed at the time, you slipped up and posted as Euler instead of ANother when you meant to insult me, and to give me negative feedback. You never explained why Euler did not give you positive feedback either.

Maths is only useful when it has a real world application.

All that studying and teaching for a PhD is done in four hours. Need I say more. I did not include sex as half a minute is not worth mentioning.

Wiki gave figures that showed 1,000 flips gave 52% heads and that 10,000 flips gave less than 51% heads, so going towards even as the numbers get larger. As I said, maths is only good where it can be proved in the real world. Ever larger numbers will even out chances as this shows. Anything else is just blathering.

Again using your hero Walter to back up what you say. How you must admire him to trust him so.

 

Denial about discussing my work doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Same goes for inflation evidence or strings.

There you go, denial.

And yet more denial! Don't you remember me explaining to you how the material expands fast enough that the components aren't in casual contact with one another and so cannot gravitationally interact? Or are you going to deny I told you? Or are you just going to deny it's right without giving a detailed retort?

And yet you deny my offer to discuss my work? Why?
another delusion.

Euler has given me positive feedback. And where did I supposedly slip up? I seem to remember you thinking that Euler giving you a neg feedback without posting for a week meant he and I are the same person. It's as if you deny that it's possible for people to read your posts without replying?!

Find me an area of maths which doesn't have an ultimate application to physics.

4 hours a day. That's 1/6 of my life or about 1/4 of my conscious day. 2 solid months of work a year. About 1500 hours of work a year. Most people spend 8 hours a day at work, including lunch and breaks and time not spent actually working. The amount of productive work people do is comparable to my level of work per day. And I work weekends and through most holidays, most people don't. And some days I will end up working for many more hours. For instance, Sunday I worked for about 12 hours. I had trouble sleeping because I still had equations running through my head.

As usual, you deny everything I said, not realising that what I've said agrees with Wikipedia. I even gave multiple Wiki links demonstrating it. The fact is Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. You claim that at 2,000,000,000,000 tests it'll be certain to be exactly 50/50. Where does Wikipedia say that. Wikipedia says that it tends to 50/50 so at 2,000,000,000 it'll be very likely to be close to 50/50, closer than at 10,000 tests, which is even closer than 1,000 tests, but it'll not be certain to be exactly 50/50.

Do you understand the links I provided? All you did is deny what I said as 'blathering'. You didn't even discuss is. I'm willing to discuss it with you. I want to discuss it with you because I have nothing to hide.

I like how you interpret the fact noone agrees with you as evidence everyone is wrong, even more so than just the usual people disagreeing with you.

If you're so sure, let's discuss the paragraph you called 'blathering'. If it's 'blathering' you should be able to dissect and retort it easily. Let's go.

 

Once again, this is absolutely hilarious!!!

This is the same meaningless mathematical nonesense that stems from trying to find the 'Limit' at r=0 for the spherical universe EFE solution of T=0 in Schwarzschild for the 'inside solution' of an expanding "Naked Singularity".

There is NO solution there! Why, because speculating that the universe could 'collapse down to r=0/T=0 was NEVER a valid 'gravitational collapse' to begin with!!!

Singularities have NEVER been able to exist outside of a black hole in the first place!!!

The Cosmic Censorship theorum is precisely correct.

The ONLY reason, let me repeat that....the ONLY reason mainstream cosmologists did NOT continue with that whole line of correct reasoning, was because to do so was going to "Falsify" their beloved Big Bang 'expanding or contracting' "Horizons", and they would not know what to do on "Monday Morning".

As one of the most learned posters on BAUT put it....

Now, the answer for quantum gravity, or more correctly, the particle that gives elctrons/protons their mass, can be found 'Before r=0', However, that has absolutely nothing to do with T=0 or T=10^-43....that 'just-so-story' never existed.

The answer before r=0, for how and where, the particle that gives electrons/protons their mass, comes to our universe, and gives us our "Space", can ONLY be found in SMBH's....that IS, the "Ring Singularities", where 'Space' is coming 'through those Torus Rings!

In other words, there is NO r=0 solution, and there is no "Point Solution", because there are NO non-rotating SMBH's, so the only "Real" solution is "Space Coming Through Torus Rings" in the depths of SMBH's. Once you extend SPACE through those rings, that eliminates Cosmic Singularities!

Now, I do not expect amateurs to fully understand this, though it should make sense, BUT I do expect any so called Pro's to understand 'How the 'singularity' was just eliminated!!!

 

I'd like to get a handle on how toroidal regions that are non-existent singularities, or non-singular something-or-others, create "space", presumably space that has energy in our universe...?

You're saying solutions to Kerr or Sch'ld BH singularities, via GR, give a "real" solution, that predicts the creation of spacetime? It's a theory that attempts to explain quantum gravity, a semi-classical result, or what?

 

We've gotten so smart that we have found that space wasn't always just there, it is created by co-moving coordinates. Don't bother talking about what was there where space is now because there was no there until the coordinates made it.

I'm just saying, we are too smart to buy into the idea that space is infinite and has always been there, way too smart for that.

Where is the smilie for :super-smart

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When time (the primordial unit) came into existence, (so did space itself).