10

# stephan Crothers destroys the concept of black holes

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:58 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Actually you DID write it.

Quote:

Now if we add these changes , and if there is plenty of time, the change will become higher then 1, an impossibility.
You, see, we have to multiply these changes. P(1) x P(2) etc etc
and with each Pt) the changes are diminshed because we multiply numbers smaller then one! Hence, the more years the less the change!

We need only substitute the lottery in your equation and we see you are arguing that the more people that play the lottery the less likely it is that someone will win.
If you add the likelihood of winning for each player in the lottery it will become larger than 1. That can't happen so you are saying we have to multiply instead. When we do that the chances of someone winning are diminished when more people play.

So do you admit your mathematical statement is bollox or do you think no one has won the lottery because the more people that play the less likely it is for someone to win?

2
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 11:00 am
By the way, if we do the statistics correctly in calculating the odds of someone winning the lottery, it will approach but never equal 1. If we applied the same statistics to evolution it again would approach but never equal 1. The more years allowed for evolution the closer it will get to 1.
Quehoniaomath

1
Mon 10 Nov, 2014 02:17 am
Quote:
By the way, if we do the statistics correctly in calculating the odds of someone winning the lottery, it will approach but never equal 1. If we applied the same statistics to evolution it again would approach but never equal 1. The more years allowed for evolution the closer it will get to 1.

what nonsense again!!
You don't even think about it!

evolution is not a lottery mate!

Quehoniaomath

1
Mon 10 Nov, 2014 02:21 am
Anyway:

Gerard 't Hooft head of something about dumb and wrong physics in some insignificant place (Holland) on some very idiotic university somewhere tries to destroy Stephen, He is a Nobel Laureate (which menas he can't think!), and has lack of creativity and insight. So, yes, very good candidate for his post!
But he ('t Hooft) is quit a liar!

Quote:
-- Stephen Crothers wrote:

Dear Dr. Lo,

This result is of course no surprise to the thinking international scientific community. Physical Review D has long been recognised as a rag for the publication of nothing but that which supports the Standard Model, despite how asinine the arguments it publishes. The Gate-keepers of the Standard Model deliberately suppress anything that brings their Model into question. That is how science is done by the Standard Modellers. Free scientific discussion is outlawed by the Standard Modellers, not just in their "journals" but also in their electronic archives and their conferences. They will not admit any paper into their rounds that raises legitimate questions as to their theories, by which they make, I might add, much money now, one way or another. I recall that 't Hooft actually issued a warning (I too have retained 't Hooft's email as evidence thereof, if he ever attempts to deny it) to E. Weinberg (Editor, Physical Review D) some time ago, against publishing anything you xxxx. So it does not matter what your papers contain, Physical Review D will not publish any of them, if for no other reason then deference to ''t Hooft.

Yours faithfully,
Steve Crothers.

Read the lies on the rest of the page.

0 Replies

Quehoniaomath

1
Mon 10 Nov, 2014 02:49 pm
yummie

gungasnake

1
Mon 10 Nov, 2014 11:27 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
This is really good stuff. Crothers is as good an expert as there is on this sort of topic and he is saying that black holes and the "Big Bang(TM)" idea are a bunch of bullshit, just like evolution. That's the basic reality of the thing.
Quehoniaomath

1
Tue 11 Nov, 2014 01:27 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
This is really good stuff. Crothers is as good an expert as there is on this sort of topic and he is saying that black holes and the "Big Bang(TM)" idea are a bunch of bullshit, just like evolution. That's the basic reality of the thing.

Yeah, and ones you really get into this, and understand we are lied to on a daily basis by universities and what have you, you can find out, that not only evolution, black holes and evolution are bullshit, you can find out that te rest is bullshit too:relativity, quantum mechanics, history (especially), politics, mathematics, rest of physics, psychology, medicine (based on a very flawed idea what a human is!!), and so on and so forth.
The problem however that the scale we are lied on is so big they won't believe you or me.
0 Replies

1
Tue 11 Nov, 2014 02:33 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
The odds of a particular event happening are calculated the same way whether you are calculating winning the lottery or a sequence of DNA.
Quehoniaomath

1
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 06:04 am
Quote:
The odds of a particular event happening are calculated the same way whether you are calculating winning the lottery or a sequence of DNA.

that is the thing my lady! I am NOT only talking about one particular event.
but you are getting boring and repetetive, so -> ignore by bye.

1
Thu 13 Nov, 2014 10:53 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Really? Then what MULTIPLE event are you talking about?

The odds of a DNA sequence being a DNA sequence if one section changes is 1 out of 1.
0 Replies

gungasnake

1
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 10:20 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Glad to see I'm not the only person to have figured that one out...
Quehoniaomath

1
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 10:31 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Glad to see I'm not the only person to have figured that one out...

Oh well, I can even tell you the rabbithole goes even much deeper than that!!!!!
0 Replies

Quehoniaomath

1
Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:24 pm
double yummie!

0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek