Strange

No. It isn't. Certainly not as much as just making stuff up.

Why? What evidence is there for that? That seems the wrong way round. We need a source energy to explain dark energy. You could ask if Hawking radiation could be this source of energy (it isn't). But to ask if the opposite of Hawking radiation could be the source of energy, seems odd. That does raise an interesting question as to whether white holes have the equivalent of Hawking radiation, and what it would be. Would it mean they absorb an amount of radiation inversely proportional to their mass? To answer this, one would need to use the same sort of advanced mathematics to model the quantum effects near the white hole's event horizon. You have ignored all the reasons why it seems implausible for a white hole to describe out universe, so I guess there is no point in repeating them to answer this question. Your threads get very annoying after a while. They always follow this pattern: Interested: Could black holes/white holes/extra dimensions explain X? Forum Members: No for the following reasons <lots of detailed explanations> I: OK. But could X be explained by black holes/white holes/extra dimensions? FM: No. See previous answers. I: OK ... I: Could black holes/white holes/extra dimensions explain X? FM: <collective facepalm>

It is obvious but not really supported by your meaningless calculations. A simple sine formula tells you this and correctly shows where the greatest acceleration is.

Not a big deal. We can only measure expansion by observing galaxies. Except it appears we can. The movement of celestial bodies is not random and can be accounted for (if relevant) in our calculations. You are talking about EXPANSION not inflation. You have not addressed any of the other errors either. So lets try again, with just one question: When you refer to "expansion at c" do you just mean that there are two points that are sufficiently far apart that they are moving apart at c? If so, we know this, it is the Hubble distance. It is not a particularly interesting observation. There are also points that are moving apart at 2c, 3c, 4c, ...

Although I think the gun thing might be faked. I can't see how that would be affected.

No. You have made up some meangless math of your own. Your results have no physical meaning or validity.

But the person you re quoting to support your argument says you are wrong. How about that? Apart from the fact that your are misusing Penrose's statements to derive a bogus probability, and then leaping from that (via an argument from incredulity) to the conclusion that a god did it ... there is no evidence for a "creation" and therefore no need for a "creator". Mathematics is not evidence for the Big Bang model; it is the Big Bang model. There is a large body of empirical evidence for the Big Bang model. That is why it is generally accepted. Except you are apparently unaware of the nature of the Big Bang model and the evidence for it. So I think "very much" might be a slight exaggeration. Many of them are. And they see no conflict between their faith and the reality of the world around them. Which is why I am puzzled when people who don't understand the science insist it must be wrong because their faith tells them so. Ironic that you are the one refusing to discuss it and yet you accuse others of not being open minded.

"What are drinking?"

What is "Einstein’s gravity constant of space"? I have never heard of it. Where di this expression come from and what is it supposed to mean? If you had a real particle of Planck mass (roughly a grain of salt) and you could convert it to energy, then the energy would be real. What makes you think there are particles of this mass in space? How many of them? Energy, like mass, is a cause of gravity. Gravity only attracts.

1. It is NOT "inflation". How many more times. 2. It is "c" NOT "C". 1. There is no evidence that the universe is spherical. That would imply it had a boundary and our cosmological models rule that out. 2. It is not "inflation", it is expansion. 3. I don't see how it is possible for something to expand with a constant speed. It make no sense, just in terms of arithmetic. 4. It is "c" not "C". We can see galaxies receding with speeds greater than c. (We can, in principle, see galaxies receding with speeds up to nearly 3c.) If we look in the other direction, we see galaxies receding with speeds greater than c. Therefore, we see galaxies that are moving apart at more than 2c. Once again, you are wrong. 1. It is not "inflation", it is expansion. 2. On the scales where expansion occurs, the gravitational attraction between them is negligible.

Indeed. His explanation is that the universe is cyclic and so there is no start or creation of the universe to worry about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology Do you realise how stupid this logic is? It is like saying: "I saw something that I couldn't identify. Therefore it was an alien spaceship."

You have a different description of the expansion of the universe: you say it expands at c and that nothing is moving away from us faster than c. Both of these contradict current cosmology and the evidence. Evidence and mathematical models are what leads science. You model (such as it is) is contradicted in several ways by the evidence. It is therefore wrong.

I don't understand what that means. I don't understand, in terms of simple geometry, how you can describe something as expanding at a fixed speed. Unless you are talking about points a particular distance apart. And yet we can see galaxies that are receding at more than c. We can also see galaxies receding at less than c. So it makes no sense to say that expansion is happening at c. The speed depends on the distance because expansion is a scaling effect. This is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology or physics. This is not "inflation" it is expansion. Inflation is something completely different. Supernovae receding with increasing speeds at greater distance is not (necessarily) acceleration; it is just expansion. Acceleration means that the rate of expansion is increasing.

True. Although there are more cases of batteries "spontaneously" overheating and catching fire than a container full of fuel, which is relatively stable. On the other hand, the liquid fuel could be more dangerous simply because it is liquid and could carry the fire a longer distance.

There is a massive amount of energy stored in a vehicle like that. A short circuit or failure of the battery management system could result in a massive fire that would be quite hard to control.

I don't know. I suspect you can't but it doesn't matter because you think you can and it can never be proved that you can't!

Or can you ...

Or can you? Is the question about free will vs determinism? In which case, maybe you can't control the future: whatever decision you make (to have a drink or not have drink) may have been predetermined. Even the fact that you change your mind after reading this, to prove that you can, was also predetermined. ... ... As was the fact you have just changed it back again

It doesn't mean it must be "nothing", it probably just means it is "something else"; i.e. not something in the known family of particles. The problem is we have no good evidence for anything beyond the standard model, yet.

I mentioned a few in my opening post. One is that most people do the experiment once, with only one sample treated each way. So you have no way of identifying the probability of the result occurring by chance. You might say, "ah, but lots of people have done it and got the same result". Except they haven't, necessarily. I only looked at a small number of reports, but they were not consistent. You would have to have rather flexible criteria for deciding that they all came to the same conclusion. Plus there is reporting bias. If someone did it and got uninteresting results (e.g. all samples did exactly the same thing) they might consider this boring and not worth talking about (unless they were a sceptic out to debunk things - but most of the reports I saw were people who generally expected it to work). This is why it is so important to set out the criteria to be used for judging the results before the experiment. Otherwise it is too easy to subtly adjust how you characterise the results to slightly skew them one way or the other. (Note: I am not suggesting people would do this deliberately [although some might] but just that subtle, unconscious biases can come into play - and we know this from scientific studies!) This is also why blinded experiments are so important. So, for example, you prepare all the samples and then later, randomly assign them to the different treatment groups. Similarly, you don't let the person analysing each sample know how it was treated. They just have an ID number for the sample. It is only later that you correlate those IDs with the treatments. Another issue is that we don't know how well-controlled the conditions were. In some cases, the sizes of the samples were clearly different (you can see that in the photos of the link I posted, another person explicitly noted this as a potential problem). Is the proportion of rice and water the same in all samples. Are they at the same temperature and lighting conditions. Related to that, there is the possibility of more (or different types of) contamination when someone shouts at a sample than when they whisper to it gently. And so on and so on... (I guess this is why your user name is Theoretical rather than Experimental ) All good points. And way outside my area of expertise! Noooooooo!

That seems a relatively minor issue to me. As long as you examine all samples after the same time, I would expect consistent results. Ideally, perhaps, one would check the state of all samples everyday and record the changes over time as well as what the changes are. That way you could detect if the words/emotions directed at the samples changed what was happening or simply delayed a certain type of change. There are many, far more serious issues that mean I can't take any of the experiments I have seen seriously.

Yes. You are right. As the OP says, I was thinking of permutations, not probabilities...

The 30 days was based on the original experiment. An alternative would be to stop as soon as the first sign of mould is spotted on any of the samples. The trouble is that might mean there isn't anything to evaluate on the other sample. Well, I would place more trust in the results of an experiment performed as outlined above then in the obviously flawed, informal approaches I have seen on the web. And, really, that was the point of this thread: to discuss the design of an experiment, what possible biases need to be accounted for and eliminated, etc., rather than speculate about what the results might be. But if the results were not "good" then one could repeat it with some variations to see if the result changes. But in all cases one would have to stick to the sort of robust, double-blinded approach.

The problem only arises when one jumps from "no evidence" to "therefore my preferred explanation must be right". One example is people seeing an unidentified object and assuming "therefore aliens". Or going from "we don't currently know all about abiogenesis" to "therefore aliens (or god, or simulation or whatever)" Tour doesn't appear to do this, but I suspect he is trying to sow enough doubt in people's minds that they will do it without him explicitly suggesting it.

Is this homework? (There is a section of the forum for that, and special rules.) I think the approach I would take is: What is the probability of there being exactly one 1? Well, it can be in any position, so it is 1 in 11. What is the probability of there being exactly two 1s? Well, the first can be in any position, so it is 1 in 11; the second can be in any of the remaining positions so it is 1 in 10. So, total probability is (I think!) 1/11 x 1/10. And so on ...