String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[Revoltingest]

Your answer is wrong. You asked me what the probability was that you could flip a coin and have it come up heads 20 times in a row. The answer I gave is correct. Your extended reasoning that you might flip 21 or 22 times does not change the underlying probability. Certainly if you flip a coin 1 million times you have a much better shot at hitting that 1 in 1,048,576 chance., but that does not change the underlying odds!

Your answer is correct only for the additional assumption you made, ie, there are only 20 flips.
I never said there wouldn't be more.
My posed problem allowed for other assumptions.
Hence, you're not right....you're not even wrong.

As for your criticism of my previous calculations, I specifically and explicitly put down my starting assumptions and made the calculation off of those. I suppose what you are trying to say is that if you let the perfectly-designed pool of nucleotides sit for awhile that it might have multiple chances to self-assemble and thus might overcome the overwhelming odds... eventually.
In reality, what would happen is that the nucleotides would break down, and the chance would be lost.

What I say is that you fail to account for all possible pathways & trials over eons.
Notice how you didn't address the number of trials, or the other possible chemical pathways to life?
Those would be absolutely necessary.
If your work were correct, it would be the discovery of the century....but it's telling that no one hearlds it as such.
The same is true for your disproving general relativity.

Tell me.....what did your professors in probabilistic systems analysis, biology, & theoretical physics say about your work?

 

[Revoltingest]

First of all, I've seen plenty of people here making argument from ignorance logical fallacies such as the one you posted above.

Believers & nons alike make illogical arguments regularly.
This proves only that people tend to be illogical.

Second, your opinion about Q.E.D. may be true in terms of proofs of mathematical theorems. However, in logical proofs, one typically places the premises first, and the conclusion at the end after a language clue such as therefore, hence, thus, etc. Q.E.D. in this case simply means that the proof has concluded so that people do not confuse any follow-up statements that may simply be matters of opinion as claims of something proved.

You might want to correct Wikipedia.
I checked, & it sides with me.

Finally, since the only person complaing about the use of Q.E.D. is you, I suppose I should conclude that you are the pendant in question but that you lack the courage to say it openly.

I've no problem admitting that I'm a pedant.
I regularly state here that I am.
Being new, you didn't get the joke.

On courage....
The internet gives everyone courage because there's nothing to lose.

Perhaps this is because your own posts are riddled with errors. A pendant might, for example, complain about the lack of a comma after the word therefore, the irregular capitalization of BTW, the confusion between you'd and you've, the misuse of the word proven, or the sentence that you started with the word but. Perhaps it's best that you kept quiet about the matter.

Those aren't errors....those are my revisions of the language.
But I do make errors...they're just not nearly as spectacular as thine.

 

[idav]

Nothing you have posted has said anything about why highly-redshifted quasars do not show time dilation, as predicted by GR.

Here take it from a scientist.
"Cause relativity is the foundation of modern physics along with the quantum theory" Michio Kaku

 

[Zosimus]

You don't have to explain to be how evidence works and how theories get debunked. Problem is GR has yet to be debunked and your article certainly didn't do that when the article had several explanation and you just chose the one you liked.

The article itself pointed out that most of the other explanations had already been discarded. Few physicists think that dark matter is entirely concentrated in black holes perfectly dropped to prevent scientists from measuring time dilation in distant quasars.

 

[idav]

The article itself pointed out that most of the other explanations had already been discarded. Few physicists think that dark matter is entirely concentrated in black holes perfectly dropped to prevent scientists from measuring time dilation in distant quasars.

Evidence of general relativity.

• The perihelion precession of Mercury, which was one of Einstein's litmus test for the theory (measured earlier, calculated by Einstein in 1915 and found in agreement with measurement—a postdiction)
• Deflection of light by the Sun (measured in 1919 by Eddington's expedition, argued as to the precision of his claims, but measured with much greater precision in the era of satellites and radar)
• Gravitational redshift of light (measured by Pound and Rebka in 1959)
• Other so-called "post-Newtonian parameters" measured in the solar system by various satellites (not their primary missions, e.g. the Cassini mission's measurement of the Shapiro delay)
• GPS, as mentioned in another answer, requires GR corrections
  
• Geodetic precession as measured by many satellites, perhaps most famously by GPB (and Lense-Thirring precession, but only a 10-20% measurement)
• Tests of the equivalence principle(s) by various lunar Laser ranging experiments, most precisely by the Apache Point Observatory LL Operation (APOLLO).
• Several compact binary systems testing the so-called "post-Keplerian parameters", most famously the Hulse-Taylor pulsar binary which led to the 1993 Nobel prize. This system (and others) exhibits an inspiral rate which is predicted by GR due to energy loss due to emission of gravitational radiation.[1]
• Many cosmological tests—most if not all results in cosmology require GR (or some theory that looks like GR in some region of parameter space). This includes, most famously, the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum, but also things like the galaxy power spectrum.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-experimental-evidence-for-general-relativity

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence of general relativity.

• The perihelion precession of Mercury, which was one of Einstein's litmus test for the theory (measured earlier, calculated by Einstein in 1915 and found in agreement with measurement—a postdiction)
• Deflection of light by the Sun (measured in 1919 by Eddington's expedition, argued as to the precision of his claims, but measured with much greater precision in the era of satellites and radar)
• Gravitational redshift of light (measured by Pound and Rebka in 1959)
• Other so-called "post-Newtonian parameters" measured in the solar system by various satellites (not their primary missions, e.g. the Cassini mission's measurement of the Shapiro delay)
• GPS, as mentioned in another answer, requires GR corrections
  
• Geodetic precession as measured by many satellites, perhaps most famously by GPB (and Lense-Thirring precession, but only a 10-20% measurement)
• Tests of the equivalence principle(s) by various lunar Laser ranging experiments, most precisely by the Apache Point Observatory LL Operation (APOLLO).
• Several compact binary systems testing the so-called "post-Keplerian parameters", most famously the Hulse-Taylor pulsar binary which led to the 1993 Nobel prize. This system (and others) exhibits an inspiral rate which is predicted by GR due to energy loss due to emission of gravitational radiation.[1]
• Many cosmological tests—most if not all results in cosmology require GR (or some theory that looks like GR in some region of parameter space). This includes, most famously, the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum, but also things like the galaxy power spectrum.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-experimental-evidence-for-general-relativity

He already disproved GR.
But by the logic of Hawking radiation proven not to exist because it hasn't been detected,
he also inadvertently laid the foundation to disprove the existence of God....who also
hasn't been detected. I assume he's now a fellow atheist. I'll teach him our handshake.

 

[Zosimus]

You might want to correct Wikipedia.
I checked, & it sides with me.

First of all, Wikipedia is not a source for anything. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and no original research prevent it from being authoritative.

Second, as for your claim that "Wikipedia sides with you" I presume that you refer to the phrase "The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof orphilosophical argument when the original proposition has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration." You will note that a small [1] appears right after that. This [1] is the alleged source of the statement. It refers to "Euclid's Elements translated from Greek by Thomas L. Heath." Since Euclid was a mathematician, even if Euclid did as you suggest, that does not in any way falsify my claim. At any rate, Euclid generally put Q.E.D. not at the end of his arguments but at the end of the porism.

I've no problem admitting that I'm a pedant.
I regularly state here that I am.
Being new, you didn't get the joke.

On courage....
The internet gives everyone courage because there's nothing to lose.

Those aren't errors....those are my revisions of the language.
But I do make errors...they're just not nearly as spectacular as thine.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[idav]

He already disproved GR.

Experiments that are repeatable can falsify theories because theories are falsifiable via experimentatin, but experiments only keep confirming GR.
If it isn't true that things can go faster than the speed of light and we can go backwards in time. That would be awesome but sounds more science fictional.

But by the logic of Hawking radiation proven not to exist because it hasn't been detected,
he also inadvertently laid the foundation to disprove the existence of God....who also
hasn't been detected. I assume he's now a fellow atheist. I'll teach him our handshake.

Yeah science didn't even need to see the black hole to know it existed but only experimentation and evidence can confirm such elusive features of the cosmos including things like hawking radiation, god and the black hole information paradox.

 

[Zosimus]

Here take it from a scientist.
"Cause relativity is the foundation of modern physics along with the quantum theory" Michio Kaku

Nothing that he said had to do with quasars.

Looking for time dilation with quasars has nothing to do with placing heat-sensitive sensors outside during lunchtime.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Evidence of general relativity.

• The perihelion precession of Mercury, which was one of Einstein's litmus test for the theory (measured earlier, calculated by Einstein in 1915 and found in agreement with measurement—a postdiction)
• Deflection of light by the Sun (measured in 1919 by Eddington's expedition, argued as to the precision of his claims, but measured with much greater precision in the era of satellites and radar)
• Gravitational redshift of light (measured by Pound and Rebka in 1959)
• Other so-called "post-Newtonian parameters" measured in the solar system by various satellites (not their primary missions, e.g. the Cassini mission's measurement of the Shapiro delay)
• GPS, as mentioned in another answer, requires GR corrections
  
• Geodetic precession as measured by many satellites, perhaps most famously by GPB (and Lense-Thirring precession, but only a 10-20% measurement)
• Tests of the equivalence principle(s) by various lunar Laser ranging experiments, most precisely by the Apache Point Observatory LL Operation (APOLLO).
• Several compact binary systems testing the so-called "post-Keplerian parameters", most famously the Hulse-Taylor pulsar binary which led to the 1993 Nobel prize. This system (and others) exhibits an inspiral rate which is predicted by GR due to energy loss due to emission of gravitational radiation.[1]
• Many cosmological tests—most if not all results in cosmology require GR (or some theory that looks like GR in some region of parameter space). This includes, most famously, the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum, but also things like the galaxy power spectrum.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-experimental-evidence-for-general-relativity

Or, Oh, there's a possible small problem with ONE set of observations of distant quasars, of which observational error has not been ruled out...so clearly, we must abandon the entire theory of relativity because of one (possible) anomaly!

Certainly, Newton's model was incorrect--but his mathematics was exact. Space programs around the world STILL use Newton's method of calculation for lunar and interplanetary missions because it's accurate enough--tens of kilometers at hundreds of millions of kilometers distance traveled.

But the Newtonian model of gravity as "attraction" was demolished by Einstein, whose insight describes gravity as the warping of space-time in the presence of mass. This has been shown (as per above) to be more accurate at larger masses, timescales and distances, and to effectively explain the motion of Mercury and other observations (bending of light around the sun, or distant galaxies and galaxy clusters) that Newton's version simply couldn't explain.

Whatever model of physics eventually replaces the currently separate quantum and relativistic theories (commonly called quantum gravity, also called the theory of everything) will have to explain everything QM and GR and SR already do, plus any anomalies observed in any of those fields (eg quasars, the fact that the Standard Model of "particle" physics cannot be complete by itself). Whether or not that model will still describe the large-scale behavior as due to the warping of space-time in the presence of mass, we don't yet know. It might. But no one will be arguing that GR is WRONG, they will recognize that it is incomplete as a description of reality, while the math MOSTLY describes what is observed.

 

[Zosimus]

Evidence of general relativity.

• The perihelion precession of Mercury, which was one of Einstein's litmus test for the theory (measured earlier, calculated by Einstein in 1915 and found in agreement with measurement—a postdiction)
• Deflection of light by the Sun (measured in 1919 by Eddington's expedition, argued as to the precision of his claims, but measured with much greater precision in the era of satellites and radar)
• Gravitational redshift of light (measured by Pound and Rebka in 1959)
• Other so-called "post-Newtonian parameters" measured in the solar system by various satellites (not their primary missions, e.g. the Cassini mission's measurement of the Shapiro delay)
• GPS, as mentioned in another answer, requires GR corrections
  
• Geodetic precession as measured by many satellites, perhaps most famously by GPB (and Lense-Thirring precession, but only a 10-20% measurement)
• Tests of the equivalence principle(s) by various lunar Laser ranging experiments, most precisely by the Apache Point Observatory LL Operation (APOLLO).
• Several compact binary systems testing the so-called "post-Keplerian parameters", most famously the Hulse-Taylor pulsar binary which led to the 1993 Nobel prize. This system (and others) exhibits an inspiral rate which is predicted by GR due to energy loss due to emission of gravitational radiation.[1]
• Many cosmological tests—most if not all results in cosmology require GR (or some theory that looks like GR in some region of parameter space). This includes, most famously, the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum, but also things like the galaxy power spectrum.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-experimental-evidence-for-general-relativity

First of all, quora is your source?!

Second, there is no such thing as evidence for anything. Attempts to find evidence for things requires logical fallacies.

Finally, I laughed when I saw that you mentioned the GPS-Relativity myth.

 

[idav]

Looking for time dilation with quasars has nothing to do with placing heat-sensitive sensors outside during lunchtime.

Giving that idea the benefit of the doubt, even if quasars ignore time dilation which is already a firm fact that it occurs, how does an exception debunk something that we know exists. It doesn't.

 

[Zosimus]

He already disproved GR.
But by the logic of Hawking radiation proven not to exist because it hasn't been detected,
he also inadvertently laid the foundation to disprove the existence of God....who also
hasn't been detected. I assume he's now a fellow atheist. I'll teach him our handshake.

I'm agnostic. Look to your left.

God is not a scientific theory. It is not open to empirical testing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm agnostic. Look to your left.
God is not a scientific theory. It is not open to empirical testing.

Oh, good....than you already know the secret handshake.

 

[Zosimus]

Experiments that are repeatable can falsify theories because theories are falsifiable via experimentatin, but experiments only keep confirming GR.
If it isn't true that things can go faster than the speed of light and we can go backwards in time. That would be awesome but sounds more science fictional.

This is an absurd thing to say. You're saying that if Einstein was wrong... then we can use Einstein's theory to predict what would happen if Einstein was wrong.

 

[idav]

But no one will be arguing that GR is WRONG, they will recognize that it is incomplete as a description of reality, while the math MOSTLY describes what is observed.

We are still waiting for the experiment that shows GR is "incomplete", and no, math is not that awesome. Math is like philosophy to science.

 

[idav]

This is an absurd thing to say. You're saying that if Einstein was wrong... then we can use Einstein's theory to predict what would happen if Einstein was wrong.

It isn't absurd, GR says there is a limit to speed of light which means we can't go backward in time. Saying things can go faster than light means GR is wrong but it doesn't suddenly mean time dilation doesn't exist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

We are still waiting for the experiment that shows GR is "incomplete", and no, math is not that awesome. Math is like philosophy to science.

My point was that GR, SR and QM are not compatible. The model that will eventually be developed will (or so physicists such as Hawking and Kaku predict) unify them under a common conceptual and mathematical framework. GR, QM etc., are incomplete because they cannot account for all observed phenomena (that is, each others' subject areas). The Grand Theory of Everything will be mathematical, and it will incorporate everything that is already known, one way or another.

 

[Zosimus]

Giving that idea the benefit of the doubt, even if quasars ignore time dilation which is already a firm fact that it occurs, how does an exception debunk something that we know exists. It doesn't.

It is often thrown about that Einstein has never been experimentally shown wrong. The experiment with quasar time dilation calls this idea into question.

 

[Zosimus]

My point was that GR, SR and QM are not compatible. The model that will eventually be developed will (or so physicists such as Hawking and Kaku predict) unify them under a common conceptual and mathematical framework. GR, QM etc., are incomplete because they cannot account for all observed phenomena (that is, each others' subject areas). The Grand Theory of Everything will be mathematical, and it will incorporate everything that is already known, one way or another.

I admire your faith but do not share it.