Cause of the Big Bang

[AlphaNumeric]

Walter, you've returned. How's the calculations on showing Hawking radiation can tunnel material external to the black hole into it's singularity coming? It's been more than a month and you've been completely silent on the matter.

The compression wave which moves through the star as it explodes does so at close to the speed of light. There's plenty of papers on 'neutron star kicks' which do numerical simulations which show the blast moves at tremendous speeds. Plenty of photons are then produced at the surface.

As for the index of space, are you denying that it contains dust and that dust interacts with light?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

20 minutes time delay in only 50,000 years seems like a tremendously large index of refraction for a near vacuum of outer space with only a few cold H molecules floating around that would retard light passing through a pure vacuum.

Do you have any calculations showing such a large retardation of 20 minutes for every 50,000 years of light travel? Any empirical evidence?

Of course, we know that the total delay of the photons, compared to the neutrinos, would come from both of those factors [not quite perfect vacuum; delay from the interior to the exterior of the star].

I'm simply suggesting that it appears that the 20 minute retardation might have a major component caused at the point of origin [SN], rather than due exclusively to the travel through space.

The neutrinos are primarily [almost exclusively?] prompt neutrinos from the SN explosion, arriving virtually simultaneously at 3 different neutrino detectors for the SN1987A burst, and for very short duration. While such a rapid 'detonation' causing such a huge burst of neutrinos would cause a rapid shock-wave exploding outward from the deep interior of the star, I've not seen the calculations which detail how long it would take for that shock-wave to reach the star's original surface and cause a visible signal.

I'm open to the possibility that it could take as short as 10 minutes, and that there is also a 10 minute retardation while travelling through space, giving the 20 minutes delay at the neutrino observatories.

However, let's have you put some calculations out there to show there is some substance to your extraordinary claim that the 20 minute retardation is due entirely to the index of refraction of the not-quite-pure vacuum of deep space, and none from the SN itself.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

These aren't my calculations and I wouldn't know the first thing about how to do the calculations. I am just passing on causes which I have read.

And just to prove I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, it would seem that the main delay is causes by a delayed photon output. The shock wave does move through the star very quickly, as displayed in Figure 2 and slide 17.

And it's funny how you completely ignored my comment on black holes. Remember, I don't have to provide numbers to back up my claims to a court, you do. I'm not trying to sue a multinationally funded almost complete project through irrelevent courts in Hawaii, you are. You're the one who has to put his physics where his claims are.

Unsurprisingly you go quiet whenever I challenge you do give the details. I have yet to see you do a single GR or QM calculation.

But if you'd rather continue this over in the proper thread, just say.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Thanks for looking up those results. My 'guesstimate' appears to have been quite accurate. You might try reading some of my posts from before you joined. I've commented on this previously.

I would find it interesting to see how much each of those two factors contributes to the retardation. If we observe some more SNs, say at 25,000 and 100,000 years [and of equal size stars and hence equal size internal retardations], we might actually be able to measure the contribution due to the interstellar medium retardation [but don't hold your breath waiting for the data].

For some reason you seem to believe that I'm required to do your work. It doesn't work like that. Consequently, I tend to ignore irrelevant requests; or ones in which I have previously provided answers.

Anyway, back to your comment: "Remember, I don't have to provide numbers to back up my claims to a court, you do."

Actually, I believe it will be the other way around. Something called the Precautionary Principle as adopted by the EU. However, we'll see.

Cheers,

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You might try reading some of my posts from before you joined.

I've seen enough of your posts to know you couldn't 'physics' your way out of a wet paper bag.

For some reason you seem to believe that I'm required to do your work.

I'm 103% sure you couldn't do my work.

Anyway, back to your comment: "Remember, I don't have to provide numbers to back up my claims to a court, you do."

Actually, I believe it will be the other way around.

But you should be able to back up your claims. Otherwise what are you basing them on? :shrug:

 

[RussT]

SMBH's physically Exist!

RussT. A singularity is like god. While it answers many awkward questions, it does not exist.

AlphaNumeric is knowledgeable like an internet site is knowledgeable. However, who wants to debate with an internet site?

AN is unable to speculate or extrapolate on a subject.

A singularity is like god. While it answers many awkward questions, it does not exist.

If you would have really understood ny posts to Alpha, I explained that the ONLY 'Singularity' that 'physically exists'; IE...is "Real" is the Ring Singularity in SMBH's! (I won't go into detail where I have shown that by extending 'space' "THROUGH" the Ring, that actually eliminates the "Singularity", which is the ONLY solution before 0 that exists.

ALL of you Anti-BBer's have spent so much time and mental effort railing "Against Singualrities", that you have Never even realized that the singularity that is Wrong,,,,,,,,,,,is the "Naked Singualrity".

OUR Space IS getting here "Through" the Torus Ring Singularities of 'The Other End of SMBH's!!!

 

[RussT]

So someone working out how to turn string theory into a working description of the universe isn't trying to address the distribution of matter, he's trying to just understand the behaviour of matter on even the simplest levels. Once that theory is working you then turn to the issue of galaxies. And people have done that with GR. We have very good models of galaxy and solar system formation.

Alpha. you have not even considered a single thing I have shown you!!! :shrug:

Mainstream does NOT have a clue as to how SMBH's are created!!!

ALL, of 'space' is STRINGS...Neutrino's, vibrating with the smallest energy unit in the universe...the CMB...........the Cosmic MicroWave Background Radiation.

Those Neutrinos are ALL traveling at "c", in every direction making up ALL of space expanding at "C" in every direction.

They are going right through you body right now in every/all dierctions...right through the earth...all of the empty space between every particle is "FILLED" with Neutrinos traveling at "c" in every direction.

About once a day and GRB goes BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM...That is Quantum Gravity....Neutrinos, with that tiny vibrating energy, but a HUGE amount of energy when you understand that there really are two Branes that have collided (The biggest particle acclerator in the universe), and you have the most massive explosions in the Universe since the Big Bang....YOU See....there was NO Big Bang,,,Mini Bangs do make New galaxies, just not quite the way that Hoyle envisioned

SO, Einstein was a little corect...E-R Bridges are 'Real" IE...Physically Exist....he did Not know about SMBH's in the core of galaxies.

And, Hoyle was a little correct,,,Mini Bangs do make New Galaxies.

There is one other famous astronomer that was a little correct...to finish out the rest of the story, BUT I will not go into that until this part is understood.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Alpha. you have not even considered a single thing I have shown you!!! :shrug:

Did you ignore where I responded to your post, bit by bit.

ALL, of 'space' is STRINGS...Neutrino's, vibrating with the smallest energy unit in the universe...the CMB...........the Cosmic MicroWave Background Radiation.

Strings and neutrinos are not the same thing. If you're working in string theory (which, for the record, I do) then you'd model the neutrino as a mode of oscillation on the string.

They are going right through you body right now in every/all dierctions...right through the earth...all of the empty space between every particle is "FILLED" with Neutrinos traveling at "c" in every direction.

And you ignored the evidence I posted about the neutrinos having mass. Their non-zero mass is a huge thing because the Standard Model has to be improved in order to explain it. If something has rest mass, it CANNOT move at c.

Either address the evidence or stop accusing me of ignoring bits of your post when you do the same!

And you also ignored my comment about the difference between strings and branes? Why is that? Can you tell me the difference? It's pretty much directly from the definition of branes. Don't you know what defines them?

You talk about me ignoring your posts but you ignored everything I said. I asked you direct questions, you ignored them. Your hypocrisy is approaching Kaneda's.

 

[EndLightEnd]

You both ignore each others posts because your both convinced the other person is wrong.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Considering there's experimental evidence for neutrino masses they cannot move at the speed of light.

Considering I research string theory, I know the difference between a brane and a string.

Considering I research string theory, I know neutrinos and strings are not synonymous.

Considering the CMB is photon based and neutrinos do not interact with photons, I know the CMB isn't neutrino based.

Considering I've been taught 'black holes' at Cambridge by someone who is a professor and had Hawking as his PhD supervisor, and the majority of our lecture course was on Kerr-Newman black holes and astrophysicists working in such things do often consider such black holes, the claim they don't is wrong.

But it's not like I have evidence to back up everything I just said or anything....

 

[kaneda]

RussT. A neutron star has an escape velocity of 2/3 light speed. At that density, neutrons still exist! When the neutrons break down because of more mass and presumably the protons also break down, I see no reason for elemental particles, like the electron and quark to break down under relatively not much more pressure.

I think any sized black hole has a solid sphere inside of it of these elemental particles. SMBH's spin at near light speed because the core spins at the same speed. A singularity, having no dimensions would not spin.

I never read your posts to AN as I never read his posts to you. I did not want to join in the argument as he is like debating with a text book. As he stalks me, I have to suffer it at times or like a creationist, he will think the lack of an answer means he is right.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Kaneda is too scared to discuss things. Time and again he has shown to be a liar and ignorant of the things he claims to know all about and which he says can be found easily online.

He, like Walter, never provides any calculations to back him up. And he believes I stalk him, when I post in only two threads in this forum and he posts in many more. But then he believes I'm ab out 15 posters on PhysOrg and a moderator and I banned him. Heaven forbid he broke the rules and the mods on PhysOrg banned him for it....

 

[kaneda]

You keep saying this but you also keep demonstrating you don't know what is on so many websites. If all the things I say are so easy to find, why can't you find them?

If I don't agree with you, it does not mean I do not know what you are talking about. Merely that I do not agree with you.

For instance, solutions to the FRW metric. You'll find them talked about in any course in cosmology and yet you don't know about them. Why is that?And your evidence for that is? The fact you don't know about topics you claim are all over the net and so I have to waste time correcting you on?

You start off with a uniform unbiased inflation, then an expansion the same. Plasma changes to non plasma matter. Flip a coin 2 trillion times and you will get exactly 1 trillion heads and 1 trillion tails. So with non-plasma matter, there is no bias here either, so we can assume the FLRW metric produces a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe. No stars, no clusters, just an ever expanding haze.

If you were able to understand relativity, we could have a more meaningful discussion but you don't want to try. Instead, if you don't understand it you say it's wrong and you'll be damned if you're going to change your mind.

If you were able to do anything but quote word for word what you have learned, we could have a discussion. It's like trying to debate with a text book. Or a creationist. Not a lot of difference since both think their book is infallibly true.

I can speculate and extrapolate, it's just I do that on topics which you could never understand. Come on, if you think you're right, go over to the Physics and Maths forum and let's have a discussion about my research. I've now finished writing my paper and I'm just waiting for two guys in Spain to finish their paper on the same topic (I generalised their result!) and then we'll publish together. Should be mid August. I'll remember to bring it to your attention.

Why should I go there when you come here to stalk me, to post on a subject you seem to know little about. An intelligent 12 year old with a search engine could post most of your answers, probably without all the childish insults. Show me something original. Anything that you have not copied from somewhere.

So we should denounce every single prediction made by science? Because 'prediction' means someone predicts something before it's seen. Einstein's prediction of the curvature of light rays was seen as crazy. By your logic, we should have told him to shut up and go back to his office. And yet a few years later, there was the evidence. Dirac predicted a doubling of the number of particles due to 'antimatter'. Crazy! Then a year later we saw the positron for the first time. Someone (I forget who) predicted a third family to the Standard Model to explain the symmetries in the 2 families we'd already seen. Then a few years later, we saw the bottom quark.

Science is the process of taking what we've seen, creating a model and predicting things we haven't seen. By definition, the things we haven't seen don't have evidence yet and by your logic, therefore are nonsense.
No, but just like we can see photons of a visible wavelength without seeing infra red, we can measure photons of 'temperature' 2.7K without having to see all the starlight photons (which are in the IR to UV range mostly).

A bit of rambling here. Any hidden purpose to it?

Don't you know anything about light?

Define "light". This is a science forum and not a kiddie's forum.

I'm still waiting for your quantitative calculations to support your claims. What's the matter, can't you do any physics?

And I'm still waiting for proof that strings exist to show me that you are not wasting your whole life by chasing a dream. :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:

If I can't do any physics but can show you wrong time after time, what does that make you? Besides a pompous braggart, that is.

 

[kaneda]

Kaneda is too scared to discuss things. Time and again he has shown to be a liar and ignorant of the things he claims to know all about and which he says can be found easily online.

He, like Walter, never provides any calculations to back him up. And he believes I stalk him, when I post in only two threads in this forum and he posts in many more. But then he believes I'm ab out 15 posters on PhysOrg and a moderator and I banned him. Heaven forbid he broke the rules and the mods on PhysOrg banned him for it....

Ranting again, loony toons. :shrug:

Grow up, loser! :shrug:

 

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. I just checked out the Physics and Math forum and there is some serious BS on it. I can't bring myself to post there. It would be like telling some little kids there is no Santa Claus.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If I don't agree with you, it does not mean I do not know what you are talking about. Merely that I do not agree with you.

And yet I have to keep correcting you on information. You've failed to understand gravity, inflation, nucleosynthesis, recombination and string theory. All of which you could find online easily, but you haven't.

If you were able to do anything but quote word for word what you have learned, we could have a discussion. It's like trying to debate with a text book. Or a creationist. Not a lot of difference since both think their book is infallibly true.

Wether I'm simply copying and pasting from a book/website or coming up with posts myself, the validity of the science is unchanged. Something you fail to grasp.

You start off with a uniform unbiased inflation, then an expansion the same. Plasma changes to non plasma matter. Flip a coin 2 trillion times and you will get exactly 1 trillion heads and 1 trillion tails. So with non-plasma matter, there is no bias here either, so we can assume the FLRW metric produces a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe. No stars, no clusters, just an ever expanding haze.

You aren't certain to get exactly a trillion heads and a trillion tails. And if you'd ever learnt about cosmology, you'd know one of the first things you learn how to model are perturbations to the uniform nature of the universe. You use the FRW metric to work out how perturbations, generated on a quantum scale before inflation, expand up to galaxy sized things upon inflation stopping.

Would you like me to go through it with you? It seems this is another thing you don't know about. See, it's not a case of you just not agreeing, you're ignorant of the basic things of mainstream cosmology. If you're not, answer question 4.

Why should I go there when you come here to stalk me, to post on a subject you seem to know little about. An intelligent 12 year old with a search engine could post most of your answers, probably without all the childish insults. Show me something original. Anything that you have not copied from somewhere.

If I'm stalking you, why are the majority of my posts elsewhere and why do I not reply to the majority of your posts in this forum?

And if the majority of what I say can be found with a search engine, why are you ignorant of it? You're basically admitting you don't bother to try and learn anything about the mainstream models.

And I'll show you something original in about a month, when my collaberators in Madrid finish 'English-ising' their paper and we can publish our papers together. I'm a PhD student. I'm paid to do original work.

Show me something original you've done.

A bit of rambling here. Any hidden purpose to it?

What about it didn't you understand? The 'rambling' is about how you cannot just denounce anything we have no evidence for. Any good theory predicts things we've not seen before. Relativity and quantum mechanics both did.

Define "light". This is a science forum and not a kiddie's forum.

So suddenly the use of the word 'light' is not precise enough? What else could it mean other than 'electromagnetic radiation'? You're the guy who thinks if you flip a coin 2 trillion times it's certain to be exactly half heads and half tails.

I keep challenging you to do the details of your claims. But you don't. So please stop being a hypocrite. I'm able to do the details of relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. I've proven that plenty of times. I've asked you to link me to a single post of yours where you do the details of any of those and you can't. Go on, prove me wrong.

And I'm still waiting for proof that strings exist to show me that you are not wasting your whole life by chasing a dream

So if you'd met Einstein in 1916 you'd have said to him "We've no evidence for either special or general relativity, you've wasted your life". Or to Dirac in 1932 "You've predicted 'antimatter'? You've just doubled the number of supposed particles in the universe. You're insane!".

You don't seem to understand how science has worked throughout history. After all, what is a 'prediction' but saying "I expect a never before seen thing to occur".

If I can't do any physics but can show you wrong time after time, what does that make you? Besides a pompous braggart, that is.

Except you've never done any physics and you've never shown me wrong. Notice how on PhysOrg and here everyone disagrees with you? Or maybe that's just a huge conspiracy!

AlphaNumeric. I just checked out the Physics and Math forum and there is some serious BS on it. I can't bring myself to post there. It would be like telling some little kids there is no Santa Claus.

I was right, you're too scared. You always claim to have all the answers but you'll never address direct questions.

If you know so much about all the problems in physics, why are you a no name crank living in France whose never done any physics or maths since high school and all you can do is call people who do do research and have proven they can do physics 'losers'? Like all the other cranks online, you are too scared to put your physics where your mouth is because you know you're wrong, deep down.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I've challenged people like Farsight to a £500 bet that he cannot get published in a reputable journal like JHEP if he submitted his work. He submitted his work to a journal and didn't take my bet. I wonder why? If you think you're right and I'm so obviously wrong, I'll challenge you to the same bet. We both send undated cheques to a trusted 3rd party (though since you think everyone is a sock puppet of mine you probably don't trust anyone) and you submit your 'thoughts' to a reputable journal. I'll happily format your work for you to make it met the criteria some journals have for submission (and send it back to you first so you can see I am not altering the words) and then we wait. If it's rejected, I get your cheque. If it's accepted and published, you get my cheque and you get to gloat here and PhysOrg about how I've been proven wrong by mainstream physicists.

Up for it or are you too chicken? I've got nothing to hide.

 

[kaneda]

And yet I have to keep correcting you on information. You've failed to understand gravity, inflation, nucleosynthesis, recombination and string theory. All of which you could find online easily, but you haven't.

You just keep blabbing the same nonsense and then get upset because I don't agree with your nonsense. Boring!

Wether I'm simply copying and pasting from a book/website or coming up with posts myself, the validity of the science is unchanged. Something you fail to grasp.
You aren't certain to get exactly a trillion heads and a trillion tails. And if you'd ever learnt about cosmology, you'd know one of the first things you learn how to model are perturbations to the uniform nature of the universe. You use the FRW metric to work out how perturbations, generated on a quantum scale before inflation, expand up to galaxy sized things upon inflation stopping.

You seem to forget that this is speculation and extrapolation. There is not a shred of hard evidence to back it up (a bit like strings). What perturbations? You're parroting the unsupported guesswork of others. It's laughable, saying this is science. You are as gullible as any creationist, and almost as smart.

Would you like me to go through it with you? It seems this is another thing you don't know about. See, it's not a case of you just not agreeing, you're ignorant of the basic things of mainstream cosmology. If you're not, answer question 4.
If I'm stalking you, why are the majority of my posts elsewhere and why do I not reply to the majority of your posts in this forum?

You are just using maths to show how many angels can fit on a the head of a pin. Meanwhile lets see some real world evidence to back up this mathsworld babble. You don't have any ready quotes to use word for word when I use speculation or extrapolation, so with nothing to parrot, you are helpless.

And if the majority of what I say can be found with a search engine, why are you ignorant of it? You're basically admitting you don't bother to try and learn anything about the mainstream models.

Again for the terminally stupid. Because I don't agree with something you go on about, that does not mean I am ignorant of it.

And I'll show you something original in about a month, when my collaberators in Madrid finish 'English-ising' their paper and we can publish our papers together. I'm a PhD student. I'm paid to do original work.

Jabbering again about you are a PhD student so must have a clue what you are talking about. If you are paid to do original work, how do you survive on just one penny a year?

Show me something original you've done.

All the stuff you denounce because there is no ready answer you can quote word for word from an intertnet site or text book.

What about it didn't you understand? The 'rambling' is about how you cannot just denounce anything we have no evidence for. Any good theory predicts things we've not seen before. Relativity and quantum mechanics both did.
So suddenly the use of the word 'light' is not precise enough? What else could it mean other than 'electromagnetic radiation'? You're the guy who thinks if you flip a coin 2 trillion times it's certain to be exactly half heads and half tails.

If you meant EMR, why didn't you use the correct expression?

With such a large sample, yes it would be exactly one trillion of each since inconsistencies would iron themselves out. Dig out a text book on probabilities and see if there is anything you can quote word for word from about it.

I keep challenging you to do the details of your claims. But you don't. So please stop being a hypocrite. I'm able to do the details of relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. I've proven that plenty of times. I've asked you to link me to a single post of yours where you do the details of any of those and you can't. Go on, prove me wrong.
So if you'd met Einstein in 1916 you'd have said to him "We've no evidence for either special or general relativity, you've wasted your life". Or to Dirac in 1932 "You've predicted 'antimatter'? You've just doubled the number of supposed particles in the universe. You're insane!".

You just quote word for word what you have been taught. You have proven you have a good memory but very little else it seems.

All you have proven is that you are pompous Mr I'm A PhD Student. I have shown you wrong a number of times and you just deny it, like any creationist. Denial is not a valid form of debate.

Einstein. Wasn't he the guy who couldn't work out the Double Slit experiment? It took me all of several seconds.

You are babbling again, going off on some side track delusion.

You don't seem to understand how science has worked throughout history. After all, what is a 'prediction' but saying "I expect a never before seen thing to occur".
Except you've never done any physics and you've never shown me wrong. Notice how on PhysOrg and here everyone disagrees with you? Or maybe that's just a huge conspiracy!
I was right, you're too scared. You always claim to have all the answers but you'll never address direct questions.

The delusions! The delusions! Stay out of the sun.

If you know so much about all the problems in physics, why are you a no name crank living in France whose never done any physics or maths since high school and all you can do is call people who do do research and have proven they can do physics 'losers'? Like all the other cranks online, you are too scared to put your physics where your mouth is because you know you're wrong, deep down.

More babbling. I don't think nutters should be allowed out in the community.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I've challenged people like Farsight to a £500 bet that he cannot get published in a reputable journal like JHEP if he submitted his work. He submitted his work to a journal and didn't take my bet. I wonder why? If you think you're right and I'm so obviously wrong, I'll challenge you to the same bet. We both send undated cheques to a trusted 3rd party (though since you think everyone is a sock puppet of mine you probably don't trust anyone) and you submit your 'thoughts' to a reputable journal. I'll happily format your work for you to make it met the criteria some journals have for submission (and send it back to you first so you can see I am not altering the words) and then we wait. If it's rejected, I get your cheque. If it's accepted and published, you get my cheque and you get to gloat here and PhysOrg about how I've been proven wrong by mainstream physicists.

I proved Kent Hovind wrong and he didn't pay up. Since you work on denial, I can't believe you'd pay up wither. You'd just deny it, while ranting about how you'd won. Still a loser.

Up for it or are you too chicken? I've got nothing to hide.

Still a loser. You're not in a school playground now. Your posts here are all the proof that anyone needs that you are a loser who is literally unable to think of anything new, Mr I'm A PhD Student.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You seem to forget that this is speculation and extrapolation. There is not a shred of hard evidence to back it up (a bit like strings). What perturbations? You're parroting the unsupported guesswork of others. It's laughable, saying this is science. You are as gullible as any creationist, and almost as smart.

Other than it accurately models things like the layout of the universe, the CMB and the ratio of elements in the universe.

You are just using maths to show how many angels can fit on a the head of a pin.

So you claim that mainstream models predict a uniform haze, I prove otherwise and rather than admit you're wrong you just decide it's irrelevant?

Again for the terminally stupid. Because I don't agree with something you go on about, that does not mean I am ignorant of it.

You aren't even reading what I'm saying, are you? Do you just copy and paste the same sentence each time? I'm proving you're ignorant of something, so it's not that I think you're ignorant, I know you're ignorant.

All the stuff you denounce because there is no ready answer you can quote word for word from an intertnet site or text book.

So you can't actually give a specific example then?

If you meant EMR, why didn't you use the correct expression?

So tell me, since you ignored it last time, when I say "light" in a discussion about the CMB, what else could I be referring to?

With such a large sample, yes it would be exactly one trillion of each since inconsistencies would iron themselves out. Dig out a text book on probabilities and see if there is anything you can quote word for word from about it.

What you are trying to refer to is 'the law of large numbers' which relates to probability by saying "As the number of samples goes to infinity, the proportion of results for a particular criteria, A, goes to P(A)". In other words, things occur with their given probability.

This doesn't mean that if you do a large, but finite, number of tests you're certain to get the exact proportion, it means that if you keep doing more and more tests, the proportion (say for coin tosses) will tend to 50/50.

Why a trillion? By your logic, the probabiliy of getting 1trillion-1 heads and 1trillion+1 tails is zero (otherwise 50/50 wouldn't be certain). Arte you really claiming that? If you know any probability you'll know how to work out the probability of getting such a result, and it's not zero (it's actually $$\phantom{a}^{2.10^{12}}_{10^{12}-1}C \; 2^{-2.10^{12}} $$).

I have shown you wrong a number of times and you just deny it,

And yet whenever I ask you to give an example or to back up your claims with quantative stuff, you fail.

And why is it noone believes you?

Einstein. Wasn't he the guy who couldn't work out the Double Slit experiment? It took me all of several seconds.

Pardon? What do you mean 'couldn't work out'? And let's see your workings. Einstein got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect.

More babbling. I don't think nutters should be allowed out in the community.

What's the matter, don't want to explain why you're a nobody living alone in France, not studying physics and maths, unable to do physics or maths and has to validate his existence by pretending to have all the answers on websites like this? Why aren't you publishing your 'work'?

I proved Kent Hovind wrong and he didn't pay up. Since you work on denial, I can't believe you'd pay up wither. You'd just deny it, while ranting about how you'd won. Still a loser..

Kent Hovind's claims are impossible to win. So you lie about having proven him wrong in a way which meets his criteria.

And I would pay up, hence the undated cheques. If you want we can both deposit money into a trusted 3rd person's account, so we know the money is there?

Still a loser. You're not in a school playground now. Your posts here are all the proof that anyone needs that you are a loser who is literally unable to think of anything new, Mr I'm A PhD Student.

I've proven I'm a PhD student. I guarantee I'll have a paper on www.arxiv.org in the next month or two. That's original research. Where's yours? Nowhere. Where's the evidence you can do relativity? Nowhere, you considering it 'counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin'.

Do you still claim I'm not a PhD student? I've got nothing to hide. I keep challenging you to discuss the details of work and you keep running away.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

What you are trying to refer to is 'the law of large numbers' which relates to probability by saying "As the number of samples goes to infinity, the proportion of results for a particular criteria, A, goes to P(A)". In other words, things occur with their given probability.

This doesn't mean that if you do a large, but finite, number of tests you're certain to get the exact proportion, it means that if you keep doing more and more tests, the proportion (say for coin tosses) will tend to 50/50.

Why a trillion? By your logic, the probabiliy of getting 1trillion-1 heads and 1trillion+1 tails is zero (otherwise 50/50 wouldn't be certain). Arte you really claiming that? If you know any probability you'll know how to work out the probability of getting such a result, and it's not zero (it's actually $$\phantom{a}^{2.10^{12}}_{10^{12}-1}C \; 2^{-2.10^{12}} $$).

This is correct.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Watch out Walter, if you agree with me in correcting Kaneda, he might accuse you of being a sock puppet of mine! And that I'm suing CERN (or whatever it is you're doing) under a false nam simply to lull him into a false sense of security when it comes to my sock puppet, 'Walter Wagner'.