Lord Antares

It doesn't work that way. Somehow everyone seems to think that this is the case, but instead it's the opposite. You are the one who is supposed to make a case and provide tangible evidence. Coincidentally, many of those people also claim that they are onto something big. I hope you realize why it can't ''just be proven wrong by scrutiny''. If you make a speculation upon speculation and stack them up to make a largely incoherent post, there is nothing to talk about. If I speculate that there is microscopic goblin cruising somewhere around the solar system and ask you to ''prove it wrong'', you can't. By your logic, it must be correct then. Actual physics needs to contain mathematics and predictions, something more tangible than what you have provided. Sorry, but I don't need to read the whole post, I can see it's based upon unsupported assertions and claims which may have no basis in reality. Don't take this as an offense. If you take something away from this, I am happy.

It isn't one man's experience and never has been. Proof is exactly what you said it should be in the next sentence: it must be able to be experienced and verified by each person individually. Is there anything in particular you doubt is not supported by adequate evidence, but is accepted as mainstream by science? Admittedly, I didn't read the rest of the post (formatting helps a lot), but I skimmed through it and I don't see anything related to physics. If this is a speculation of yours, it needed to be posted in the speculations section but it also needed to be accompanied by lots of evidence and mathematics. Seeing how there isn't any of that, I predict that it will be closed at some point or another. Is there anything tangible you can offer?

Well, some of the claims are philosophical (i.e. they just seek to describe stuff and not make empirical claims) and some are empirical. Neither look to be of use for science either way.

Yes, your interpretation is flawed. Exactly because this is a science site, you cannot make unsupported claims. The rules of this forum state that you can ask a question you don't know the answer to. This question may or may not clash with the mainstream, but you are forgiven simply because you didn't know the answer to the question. If you are making a claim outside of mainstream science, which is what you are doing, you are required to support it with evidence and mathematics and you are required to answer the other members' questions. If you fail to meet those requirements, the thread gets closed. This seems to be largely philosophy, rather than science. These kinds of vague, philosophical statements cannot be accepted as science, you must understand that. There are professional scientists on this page. They know what level of rigor and detail is required for a theory to be accepted. I'm sure there are more liberal sites on the internet on which you can post anything you want, but this is not one of them. This makes no sense, even for philosophy. Why not just say ''0% chance'', instead of ''1 in infinity''. And it has nothing to do with light and dark.

Do you even know what ''paradox'' means? I am not seeing any paradox since post 1.

It's because none of this makes any sense. It is philosophy at best. Since you are posting this in physics (and it was best put in speculations), you need to have some evidence or mathematical model of what you are talking about. Otherwise, it's just word salad. Science does not accept vague, unsupported definitions and therefore, any reasonable scientist must dismiss this skeptically. Because there is no empirical data, it is not a nice way to describe things by default. Do you have any predictions or evidence that this would be useful?

But you claimed infinity. You are changing scenarios now and one has nothing to do with the other.

But this has nothing to do with what you said. Not being able to admit when one is wrong as a means to always being right is the only way you could fit infinity into it. I don't know what this talk of morals or acceptance is. It certainly isn't a paradox.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with a paradox. It isn't a paradox. Also, You mean not being able to admit when you're wrong, right? Otherwise it makes no sense.

No, it isn't. It's easy to suspect bias, but technically impossible to be certain about it. Good analysis. Can you list the peak numbers? The graph doesn't define them. He mentioned something about numbers ending in 5 coming up more often.

This! I wish more people understood this. The resulting finding would not be called dark energy, but something else entirely, depending on what it is. Same goes for dark matter. It's the same as saying ''we don't know what's causing this''.

Have you tried other audio jack headphones? To me, it seems most likely that those particular headphones don't work. Plug them into your phone and try.

No. Not rigged. Biased. That means the numbers are fair but the draw is not random. Only in this case is the system very effective. He says he has won 10 of 11 of the ones he has played. I suppose he could keep doing it - reducing the suspicious that it was just dumb luck.

I thought you admitted that you were mistaken in the mathematics of this. I thought you understood that the odds are always the same, no matter what gets picked and when. @John - We are considering the possibility that this a flawed and stupid lottery system, as it is small and local. The only way this would work is if the numbers weren't random, but somehow biased. Then this method would be sound. We agreed upon this; you should read the rest of the thread if you haven't.

And how much will building a factory on the moon cost?

Yes, 100 billion was my estimate as well. I find it unlikely that you have that kind of money lying around the house... You might have undershot the estimates a tad bit.

Really? Money will be a small factor in building a habitable rocket which you will fly to the moon?

It shouldn't. They are not mafia. If you bet on sports event and win, they are required to pay up, regardless of whether they might think you lucked out or used a system of sorts. All chances of using a system is their fault, as I said. If they were smart, their numbers would be random. That's it. Don't be concerned over this.

Yes, IF the draws are unbiased. That's why we are saying that by them having (what appear to be) biased draws, they are creating a possible system of prediciton. You should be patted on the back for realizing how to abuse this system, rather than being scolded. The fault is theirs, so you may abuse the system until they realize something is wrong with it. Also, I think you are lucky. Not because you are lucking out with the draws, but because there is such a flawed lottery in your viccinity

No, probability doesn't work that way. It only works if their system is biased. It appears that it is. Therefore, your system can be applied. But I want you to understand (maybe you do) that this doesn't apply to mathematical probability or any kind of unbiased system. It doesn't work for actual, legitimate big lotteries either.

Yes, you are wrong. If some numbers consistently get picked or avoided leading to a very disproportionately low probability, their numbers are most likely not random, which is a flaw. In a fair (i.e. random) game, this does not make sense. If you flip heads 4000 times in a row with a coin, it still does not make more sense to bet on heads than tails, provided that the flip is not being manipulated. Your conclusion might have been lucky because they are being biased with their numbers, but it this were actual mathematics, you wouldn't be right one bit.

There is no hoping, there is a 100% chance that I'm right. You have done something legal. Therefore, they cannot sue you, right? Since lotteries are supposed to be completely random, a system is impossible. Therefore, anyone who wins is attributed to have done so by pure luck. If they are deviating from randomness by introducing patterns, it's their own fault. The worst thing they can do is remove their pattern and start being sensible by making their numbers random.

Yes.

Aha, ok. So they might be convinced that you are using a system, but this is still not illegal. They cannot do anything legal against you as you are doing nothing against the rules. Furthermore, if they are having a constant deviaton from randomness, it suggests that THEY are cheating for some reason or another, which is another reason why they can't do anything against you. I think it's unlikely (like lottery odds unlikely ) that they wouldn't spot such an obvious flaw in their system, which leads me to think it's intentional.

No, you don't need a lawyer. I don't even see how you would think you do. First of all, the fault is theirs if there is a flaw in their system. Secondly, and more importantly, how on earth would they know it wasn't just luck? You say: This was a small lottery with a possible win of thousands. It's not even really lucky. Do the people who win ~200 million on the eurojackpot need to plea the case that they are just lucky? Of course they don't, it's considered to be the default case. How on earth would they even prove that it wasn't just luck? Don't worry and enjoy your money. It's 100% safe.