Strange

Dark energy is hypothesized as the reason for accelerating expansion. Expansion happens without it.

Huh? Pi is not zero or infinity, so the division is well-defined in that case.

So you didn't read those articles explaining that energy is NOT conserved? That is why we use mathematics; so much less ambiguous than words. Not when x = infinity or zero.

Not necessarily: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html We see photons from distant sources red-shifted, i.e. at lower energies. That energy hasn't "gone" anywhere. I has just disappeared. On the other hand, dark energy appears to be created as space expands. Among the reasons your initial post was confusing are: 1. You started out talking about an empty universe; but then you seem to be talking about a (our) universe full of mass and energy. So I am curious what you mean by the word "empty". 2. You seem to be using "singularity" in a rather non-standard way as well. So it might be helpful if you explained/defined what you mean by the term. (As it is, it sounds slightly Sherlockian, "This is a most singular case, Watson", rather than mathematical.) Is there an outside our universe? Isn't the universe "all there is" by definition? The value of +∞/-∞ is not -1, it is undefined. The value in the limit might be defined, depending how you derived this result. They are both described by the same Einstein Field Equations. You can, of course, always ask, "but why is the universe like that" but that is philosophy rather than science. I'm sorry if you find my attempts to help you clarify your ideas baseless and irrelevant. I do my best.

I don't understand the point of this question. Unless you have a specific problem to solve, what do you expect to gain from this piece of information? It won't help you understand anything more general.

To knock down the Pillar of Dogma, you need to swing the mighty Hammer of Evidence. Sadly, too many people are unable to lift the weight.

So who does cause the suffering of innocent people? And why is god helpless to do anything about it?

That is not my objection. The sim does not do what the video does. The video has two detectors which can make measurements of polarization angles 120 degrees apart. Your program does not do this. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video. Therefore you are not simulating a test of Bell's theorem. (The video uses entangled photons because, in the real world, you can only make one measurement on a photon. You can make two measurements on one photon in your simulation, if you wish. So there is no need to use entangled photons, or even a pair of photons.)

According to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color But the fact that some brown eyes appear to be black doesn't mean that there are not black eyes.

The difference (as I understand it) is the reason. Just insulting someone is not an ad hominem (argument). I don't think I made a personal attack on Theoretical but if I did, it wasn't an attempt to show his argument is wrong. I think he is misguided, foolish and ridiculously closed-minded and stubborn. But his arguments can be shown to be wrong based on logic and evidence, not because of his character.

BTW, I am not doing this to attack you for any reason. I just want to help you understand: a) What Bell's theorem is; and b) Why you are not simulating the experiment in the video (which is exactly the experiment I asked you to simulate). That is NOT what the experiment in the video does, though. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video. Why not just modify your program to do what the video does?

By the rules of the forum, you are the one who needs to provide evidence. The video uses pairs of randomly chosen measurements 120 degrees apart. Perhaps you can show the lines in your code where that happens? That would be good evidence that your code matches the video.

Where did the singularity come from? I thought you were talking about an empty universe. Something like this, perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model So it is just a number you made up. If there is energy, in what sense is this universe "empty"? Stationary relative to what? How can an empty universe be a body with mass? How can an empty universe be a singularity? It is almost as if you are just making this stuff up and throwing in some random buzzwords. If you define the speed of light to be 1 as well, yes. But so what. "Everything is 1". Wow, man.

I just watched the video you linked in your first post. It starts with the assumption of instantaneous communication and argues that Bell's Theorem shows that is happening. This is a valid interpretation: Bell's theorem says you have to give up either locality or hidden variables. The author of the video gives up locality. That is what Einstein was not happy about. So I remain slightly confused about what you think you have proved... And that is not what an ad hominem is, anyway. OK. Watching more of this video (it is painfully slow; I wish there were a transcript so I could read it in 30 seconds instead of having to sit through ten minutes ...) At 1:40, she notes that Alice and Bob can each measure the spin of the electrons in THREE DIFFERENT AXES 120 degrees apart - they randomly choose which angle to measure, and then compare the results. This is not what you program does but it IS exactly what I have been requesting you to do. You just come up with a series of excuses not to actually simulate the experiment that you reference. From 5:00 she describes what would happen in a hidden variables theory and shows why this would give different results. Ideally, you would also simulate this to demonstrate that your model is accurate (or, as you believe, to show it gets the same results). Note that what your program actually does, as several people have pointed out, is take a long-winded route to calculating the QM prediction (which is, as the video shows, incompatible with hidden variables).

Why? This is just a random assertion. You could equally well say that an empty universe has a potential value of -43.2. If it is an empty universe, it mass is, by definition, zero. No it isn't. Or, to put it another way: Citation Needed. Seems like a good point to stop.

No. There is a proof.

So, as well as not knowing what Bell's Theorem is, you don't know what ad hominem means either. Not too surprising. That is a shame, because if you were willing to study, you might learn something. Oh well. It is your own time you are wasting.

THERE ARE NO MATH ERRORS. I have said this several times. (Although, to be honest, I am taking your word for this. Which I am quite content to do, because the problem is not the maths.) I do. I have asked you several times to simulate an experiment where three different polarizations are tested for a single photon. I have even given you a link to a "no maths" but very detailed description of the experiment. Please let me know when you have the results. Note that I *think* your simulation potentially has an advantage here as you don't have to worry about entanglement - in a simulation you can measure the three polarizations on a single photon. We can't do this in reality and so we have to resort to entanglement to measure two at a time.

There is no "Bell's experiment". There are many different experiments that test Bell's theorem. Part of the problem seems to be that you have not taken a single, well-defined experiment and written a simulation of it. Instead you have used your rather confused understanding of a number of experiments based on vague descriptions (e.g. yootoob). As such, you have missed the important detail of actually simulating Bell's Theorem. However, you don't seem to care about accuracy. All you care about is bolstering your beliefs, even if it is by an inaccurate simulation. This is both dishonest and rather sad. I do. I have asked you several times to simulate an experiment where three different polarizations are tested. I have even given you a link to a "no maths" but very detailed description of the experiment. Please let me know when you have the results.

And without modelling Bell's Theorem. Let's try a different approach: you say "the experiment" so can you provide a reference to where this experiment is described (i.e. NOT a video) so we can see the conditions used, the calculations performed and the results obtained in "the experiment" and compare all of these with what your program does. Thank you.

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

You don't know that. It could have a beginning but no end. For example ... Pi has a beginning but no end.

There is no math error (as far as I know). That is not the problem. No it hasn't, for the reasons provided by many people, many times, over many pages. Let's try a different approach: you say "the experiment" so can you provide a reference to where this experiment is described (i.e. NOT a video) so we can see the conditions used, the calculations performed and the results obtained in "the experiment" and compare all of these with what your program does. Thank you. Because your program does not relate to any experiment testing Bell's theorem that I am aware of.

It is not my math. You posted it. As I say, I'm not sure what solution you are looking for. And I don't know why you have posted it in a question about the big bang. The CMB is calculated from the using the FLRW metric to extrapolate back to the earlu hot dense state of the universe. And applying well-understood physics to those conditions. (I don't know how you can describe something that anyone can measure as "so called".) My point is, if you have questions then you should ask them in the appropriate section. Many of the people who could give good asnwers regarding cosmology do not visit the Speculations forum. So if you posted questions in the right place, you might get better answers. And you wouldn't have to put up with me. There is zero evidence that the universe was created from nothing. It isn't science. It is a straw man argument. Stop going on about it. You can, of course, believe whatever you want. I don't care. But you insist the science is wrong because it disagrees with your beliefs (and you don't understand the science). That is irrational. If you had a scientific model of an eternal, unlimited universe then you could compare it against observation and see if it works or not. Neither do I. Genesis is a story about the creation of the universe. The big bang theory says nothing about the creation of the universe.

Why are you not willing to extend the simulation to do this? Afraid it might show that you are wrong after all your posturing?