Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

[SelfSim]

Thread note:

For the record, I am personally of the view that Michael knows full well that he is wrong on the issue of 'np' and 'n' being the same.

In his eagerness to be seen to be 'tweaking my nose' in basic algebra, he has inadvertantly demonstrated that, as a programmer, he doesn't have the modelling experience to see through a formula given to him, in order to 'get' the physical picture of what that formula is saying.

The whole point of the coin toss example was to explain, in the simplest way possible, the context of what the LIGO team means when it cites the sigma (5.1) parameter. It cannot, even in the slightest, be linked Michael's so-called 'cause'. LIGO never intended this, whereas Michael seems to think LIGO has linked it to 'celestial' causes (BH-BH mergers). This is simply not the case.

'Celestial causes' is all that remains on the table, once the measured evidence of local physical phenomena has been shown as providing no clues of possible 'causes' in the simultaneous reception of the measured GW signal.

The term 'possibility' to the human mind, is endless. It is the domain of belief and not necessarily the domain of Physics. The onus is on Michael to come up with a convincing argument that something else may be 'at cause'. Thus far, he has been shown that none of his fantasies/excuses can be 'at cause' in the physical domain, due to the lack of their always accompanying, (historically rock-sold reliable), measurables.

I have no qualms that Michael will now rave about the unfairness 'shifting the burden' .. Poor little Michael .. (my heart bleeds for his feelings) .. but that is now his reality.

 

[Michael]

No one is belittling your mathematical ability, your posts alone demonstrate you have no mathematical ability to speak of.

Nobody is doing it, except you did it *again* in your very first sentence. You folks are *entirely* fixated upon *people* because you cannot handle the *science*. It's so obvious that you have no rebuttal to any of the points in my paper, so off you go on a crusade against the messenger. How sad.

Ignoring the mathematical arguments presented by Selfsim by repeating the same irrelevant nonsense over and over again is a sure sign the discussion is beyond your level of comprehension.

Two sentences in a row.....

You still don’t get it that Selfsim is using textbook statistics and your failure to see this is yet another example of your ignorance.

Actually, I "got" it in the post where I told him that I'd let him slide.

Despite having being shown the formula σ = 0.5(np^0.5) is wrong you have simply changed the “np” for an “n”, then using statements to the effect “look how clever I am, I’m using one variable instead of two since np is the number of coin tosses”.
If a mathematician or scientist did this they would rightly be accused of cheating and being stupid in their interpretations of the changes.

Well, if you two were programmers, I'd accuse you of cheating or being ignorant too, so we're even.

I used the very same formula in the very first *correction* that I cited to him, but you go right ahead and ignore the facts. Since when did you folks *ever* care about the "facts"? If I made any error at all, it was using *his* variable rather than my own. All the rest of this nonsense is pure personal attack, and in fact the whole purpose of his homework assignment was to launch himself into a personal attack.

You have already been shown that making the substitution n=np is only valid if p=1, this also implies the expectation value u=n.

You have been shown over and over again that I only had *one* variable inside the square root function. I guarantee you that my formula would compile and run on any computer as it's written, whereas your claim would not.

I'll skip the redundant stuff, but this line was a *riot*:

Amongst other things you can’t count either, since the correct version of the sigma formula has only one variable n, since p is a constant and has a value of 0.5, hence σ = (np^2)^0.5= 0.5(n)^0.5

LOL! Not only did I count correctly, I used it correctly the *very first time* that I corrected Selfsim.

If you can't handle that science, you folks just continue to launch yourselves into personal attacks, over and over and over again, and that is in fact *all* that you personally have done in this thread.

Meanwhile *neither* of you will touch the LIGO confirmation bias problem with a 10 foot pole. Who do you think you're fooling?

Had I messed up the use of my own formula by putting a 3 inside the square root function rather than a 6, you might have a case. Since I put a 6 inside the square root function, all you can do is *pretend* that I A) didn't simplify the formula (which is damn obvious anyway) whereas Selfsim did not, and I B) corrected *his* error!

Only in your warped sense of reality could you simply *ignore* the *mistake* that Selfsim made, or my use of a *simplified* formula that works perfectly as written 100 percent of the time.

You go right ahead though and *run* from the science aspect of this debate however, because we all know that you simply have no rebuttal to any of the points I have made. Run, run, run......

 

[Michael]

Thread note:

For the record, I am personally of the view that Michael knows full well that he is wrong on the issue of 'np' and 'n' being the same.

I know full well that they are *exactly* the same to a computer programmer, and I know full well that I only put one variable inside the square root function in my first correction of your error, so we both know full well that both of you are simply in denial of the fact that I already simplified the formula.

We all know full well that none of you have a scientific rebuttal to any of the points I made so you will continue to attack people.

In his eagerness to be seen to be 'tweaking my nose' in basic algebra, he has inadvertantly demonstrated that, as a programmer, he doesn't have the modelling experience to see through a formula given to him, in order to 'get' the physical picture of what that formula is saying.

Pfft. Boloney. Whereas I already simplified the formula, you didn't. Whereas I used only one variable inside the square root function, you didn't care. As a programmer, I would have have put a mathematical operator between any two variables in a math function, because I know it wouldn't compile otherwise. I realize you might not put operators between variables, which is why I told you that I'd let it slide, but you can't.

The whole point of the coin toss example was to explain, in the simplest way possible, the context of what the LIGO team means when it cites the sigma (5.1) parameter. It cannot, even in the slightest, be linked Michael's so-called 'cause'. LIGO never intended this, whereas Michael seems to think LIGO has linked it to 'celestial' causes (BH-BH mergers). This is simply not the case.

The irony here is that I used LIGO's exact methology in your simplified coin flip example to demonstrate that "aliens" (like LIGO's black holes) communicated a "candidate signal" which cannot be produced by the statistical noise! Your homework assignment blew up in your face in two different ways. Not only did you fail your own test, your insistence that I show you how to manipulate the process by cherry picking the data also worked against you. Double fail.

'Celestial causes' is all that remains on the table, once the measured evidence of local physical phenomena has been shown as providing no clues of possible 'causes' in the simultaneous reception of the measured GW signal.

Sure, just like aliens remains on the table in my simplified example.

You're still in pure denial of the pure confirmation bias problem because there is no evidence of a celestial origin of this signal, or either of the other two signals.

The term 'possibility' to the human mind, is endless. It is the domain of belief and not necessarily the domain of Physics. The onus is on Michael to come up with a convincing argument that something else may be 'at cause'.

Utterly false. I'm simply an *atheist* with respect to *their* claim of discovery. I have nothing to demonstrate, they do. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

Thus far, he has been shown that none of his fantasies/excuses can be 'at cause' in the physical domain, due to the lack of their always accompanying, (historically rock-sold reliable), measurables.

Pfft. They didn't even give the peer reviewers an accurate account of veto events. Some "rock solid" science. Give me a break.

I have no qualms that Michael will now rave about the unfairness 'shifting the burden' .. Poor little Michael .. (my heart bleeds for his feelings) .. but that is now his reality.

I guess you knew I'd complain because you do ultimately realize that I'm not trying to claim a "discovery" of anything based on that signal. It could be *caused* by *anything* as far as I know.

 

[sjastro]

Nobody is doing it, except you did it *again* in your very first sentence. You folks are *entirely* fixated upon *people* because you cannot handle the *science*. It's so obvious that you have no rebuttal to any of the points in my paper, so off you go on a crusade against the messenger. How sad.



Two sentences in a row.....



Actually, I "got" it in the post where I told him that I'd let him slide.



Well, if you two were programmers, I'd accuse you of cheating or being ignorant too, so we're even.

I used the very same formula in the very first *correction* that I cited to him, but you go right ahead and ignore the facts. Since when did you folks *ever* care about the "facts"? If I made any error at all, it was using *his* variable rather than my own. All the rest of this nonsense is pure personal attack, and in fact the whole purpose of his homework assignment was to launch himself into a personal attack.



You have been shown over and over again that I only had *one* variable inside the square root function. I guarantee you that my formula would compile and run on any computer as it's written, whereas your claim would not.

I'll skip the redundant stuff, but this line was a *riot*:



LOL! Not only did I count correctly, I used it correctly the *very first time* that I corrected Selfsim.

If you can't handle that science, you folks just continue to launch yourselves into personal attacks, over and over and over again, and that is in fact *all* that you personally have done in this thread.

Meanwhile *neither* of you will touch the LIGO confirmation bias problem with a 10 foot pole. Who do you think you're fooling?

Had I messed up the use of my own formula by putting a 3 inside the square root function rather than a 6, you might have a case. Since I put a 6 inside the square root function, all you can do is *pretend* that I A) didn't simplify the formula (which is damn obvious anyway) whereas Selfsim did not, and I B) corrected *his* error!

Only in your warped sense of reality could you simply *ignore* the *mistake* that Selfsim made, or my use of a *simplified* formula that works perfectly as written 100 percent of the time.

You go right ahead though and *run* from the science aspect of this debate however, because we all know that you simply have no rebuttal to any of the points I have made. Run, run, run......

There you go again Michael playing the victim card.

My assessment of you is a conclusion based on the quality off your posts, not a personal attack.
Your response confirms again you are ignorant and the mathematics is clearly beyond your capacity of comprehension, a view that would be shared by any thinking individual who has an elementary knowledge of mathematics.
Your claim that a single programming statement that can be compiled and gives the correct answer is an indication of your mathematical abilities is so utterly ridiculous given it was derived for all the wrong reasons.

There is a very simple way to determine who is right Michael, create a program that calculates BOTH the expectation value and sigma using your condition np is the number of throws.
If you are true to form you will chicken out but the alternative is the satisfaction of having proven me wrong as well as overthrowing 300 years of mathematics, a feat deserving of the Fields Medal, the Nobel Prize version of mathematics.

 

[Michael]

I think it will be fascinating to see if the next LIGO gravitational wave claim includes a visual confirmation or it does not. If as the Nature article suggests, LIGO already has identified a half dozen more possible "candidate" signals to choose from, they'd surely put their best foot and best option forward in the next paper.

I'm pretty sure that they would have already dropped everything else that they were working on if they already had a candidate signal that enjoyed visual or neutrino support, but maybe a few of those six signals could have come after they'd already invested a lot of time on their paper from this month.

The really interesting paper is the next one. If they don't have a visual or neutrino confirmation in their next paper, that most likely makes me 9 for 9 in terms of being able to "successfully predict" with my paper that LIGO won't be able to visually confirm a signal that isn't necessarily celestial in origin. Whatever the outcome over time, I've definitely stuck my neck way out, and it's sitting right there on the chopping block just waiting for the next paper, or the next paper, or the the next paper, etc.

Meanwhile LIGO seems incapable of offering the public anything which can externally or visually *falsify* their claim. They won't risk anything as it relates to offering a means of falsification. At best they can only make some predictions which "might" (maybe eventually) support their claim but which can never be used to falsify their claim.

They're already 0 for 3 which makes me more reassured than I was last month. LIGO risks absolutely nothing by making dozens more of these same visually unsupported claims, and their flawed methodology allows them to make an infinite number of such claims at will.

Since I cannot demonstrate a negative, the only way that this debate can be settled in my favor is by having three or more detectors online. It might then be possible to demonstrate that blip transients can and do show up in just two detectors but not all three detectors at once, and they can generate chirp signals sometimes too.

It might also be possible to then finally falsify the claim of these signals being celestial in origin if they don't have anymore excuses about having to search a large area of the sky for the presumed celestial event.

Meanwhile, I'm just sitting out on a limb waiting to see what the next LIGO paper has to offer.

For the record, I support GR theory and the concept of gravitational waves. I'm actually pretty optimistic about the LIGO technology too, and it's ability to find gravitational waves. I'll even be *happy* to admit that LIGO has actually found evidence of gravitational waves the moment that I have real visual or neutrino evidence to support it. Until then, I simply lack belief in LIGO's claims of the 'discovery' of gravitational waves.

I do think that LIGO jumped the gun and they painted themselves into a corner. I don't think the detector in Europe will help LIGO, I think it's simply going to constrain them a bit, and impose more stringent limits on what they can 'get away with'.

 

[Michael]

There you go again Michael playing the victim card.

The card got put there the moment that Selfsim introduced his homework assignment into the thread, thereby taking the conversation *off the topic of LIGO's claim*, and putting it onto the *individual*. Stop playing the personal attack card, and I'll stop pointing it out.

My assessment of you is a conclusion based on the quality off your posts, not a personal attack.

Boloney. You haven't pointed out a single error in my paper.

Your response confirms again you are ignorant and the mathematics is clearly beyond your capacity of comprehension, a view that would be shared by any thinking individual who has an elementary knowledge of mathematics.

Anyone with an elementary knowledge of mathematics can see for themselves that I just simplified the formula and I used it *properly* the very first time I corrected Selfsim. They can see that there was only one variable inside the square root function, specifically the number of coin tosses. Anyone with any knowledge of programming knows that I was right all along too.

Your claim that a single programming statement that can be compiled and gives the correct answer is an indication of your mathematical abilities is so utterly ridiculous given it was derived for all the wrong reasons.

If you could demonstrate that my formula (with one variable) is wrong for any number of coin flips, you might have something. Since you can't, you're basically just playing the personal attack card over and over and over again.

There is a very simple way to determine who is right Michael, create a program that calculates BOTH the expectation value and sigma using your condition np is the number of throws.

Oh joy, more "assignments" to take the the conversation *off topic* again. Just so that you two don't get confused by the *single* variable name that I'm using, I'm going to use the term "FlipsOfTheCoin" to designate the *single* variable that I need:

ExpectationValue = 0.5*FlipsOfTheCoin
Sigma = 0.5(sqrt(FlipsOfTheCoin))

If you are true to form you will chicken out but the alternative is the satisfaction of having proven me wrong

Done.

as well as overthrowing 300 years of mathematics, a feat deserving of the Fields Medal, the Nobel Prize version of mathematics.

What the heck are you even talking about? I didn't overthrow anything by simplifying the formula, and I'm sure I'm not the first one in history to do so. Sheesh. You guys are just ridiculous. You have no scientific rebuttals to offer anyone so you can't do anything but attack the individual over and over and over again.

Are you *ever* going to stop playing the personal attack card?

 

[SelfSim]

Boloney. You haven't pointed out a single error in my paper.

Your entire paper is in error because you have failed to demonstrate an adequate basis for critiquing LIGO's method. You have convinced no-one.

Are you *ever* going to stop playing the personal attack card?

Are you rescinding your multiple and sustained attacks on the professional conduct of the LIGO team on the basis of your being wrong about LIGO's method?

 

[Michael]

Your entire paper is in error because you have failed to demonstrate an adequate basis for critiquing LIGO's method. You have convinced no-one.

Evidence of gravitational waves, or evidence of confirmation bias?

Your insistence that I use your coin flip analogy to make my case for sigma manipulation was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of the LIGO "discovery" claim. As I demonstrated *conclusively*, if the sigma isn't directly related to cause, and the statistical noise/data is "cherry picked", it's possible to show that a "candidate signal" isn't reproducible by statistical noise, so anything can be demonstrated from such a "methodology", particularly with their blatant confirmation bias problems.

Are you rescinding your multiple and sustained attacks on the professional conduct of the LIGO team on the basis of your being wrong about LIGO's method?

I attacked their "science", specifically their scientific claims and their methodology, I did not attack any specific individuals. Since I'm three for three, and LIGO is zero for three, why on Earth would I rescind any of my criticisms of their flawed methodology?

Like I said, the next claim should pretty much seal their fate. If there is no visual confirmation in any of their other half dozen "candidate signals", then it's pretty darn obvious that these signals are not celestial in origin.

I'd be *thrilled* to actually be able to "hold belief" in their so called "discovery" of gravitational waves, but it's nowhere near a real "discovery" without a visual or neutrino confirmation of their claims of this signal being related to a celestial source.

By the end of summer, when there three LIGO detectors online, it's going to get ugly for LIGO IMO. There really won't be any excuse for not 'seeing' these events, particularly for not seeing *any* of these events either in EM or neutrino observations.

It may also be possible to demonstrate conclusively that blip transients can sometimes be seen by two, but not necessarily all three detectors at once, and it may be possible to demonstrate that such blip transients "chirp" too.

 

[Michael]

I have a question for you two.

What would it take to get you to "lack belief" in LIGO's claims?

Suppose for a moment that once three detectors are online, that a similar chirp signal is seen by two of the three detectors, but not in the third? Would that observation cause you change your mind?

How about if they triangulate similar signals to a reasonably small region of the sky with three detectors, but they still can't find anything in the EM spectrum, nor see any neutrino changes?

What happens if I go 9 for 9, or 10 for 10 in terms of predicting that LIGO won't detect anything in the EM spectrum? Would that cause you to doubt their claims?

I'm really curious what it might take to get your to change your position.

I can tell you that my position would change the very first time they could directly corroborate a candidate signal with a specific cosmological event.

 

[sjastro]

Oh joy, more "assignments" to take the the conversation *off topic* again. Just so that you two don't get confused by the *single* variable name that I'm using, I'm going to use the term "FlipsOfTheCoin" to designate the *single* variable that I need:

ExpectationValue = 0.5*FlipsOfTheCoin
Sigma = 0.5(sqrt(FlipsOfTheCoin))

/facepalm.
All you have done is to reproduce the correct equations which are not subject to your condition n=np=0.5n. I asked you to write a program under your “single” variable condition involving n=0.5n.
You are either showing gross incompetence or deception by trying to change the goalposts.

Let me reiterate, your incorrect σ equation σ=0.5(n0.5^0.5) was made “right” by using the “substitution” n=0.5n, or using your own terminology FlipsOfTheCoin=0.5(FlipsOfTheCoin).
This condition is mathematically absurd because it can never be true for a non zero value. For example if the coin is tossed once, FlipsOfThe Coin= 0.5(FlipsOfTheCoin) is equivalent to 1=0.5 which is a consequence of your “single” variable condition.
Perhaps you would like to explain to us how one can actually perform half a toss of a coin?

Even if we ignored this inconvenient point and the condition FlipsOfTheCoin=0.5(FlipsOfTheCoin) is never true for a coin toss, this substitution is not even algebraically possible to give the correct equation.
σ=0.5(n0.5^0.5)
=0.5n(0.5)^0.5
=n(0.5)^0.5 using the substitution n=0.5n

Using your terminology σ= (FlipOfTheCoin)(0.5)^0.5 = 0.7071*(FlipOfTheCoin) which is clearly not the correct formula for σ.

Your algebraic skills are non existent given you seem to think there is nothing wrong in simply erasing the “n0.5 term” and substituting an “n term” to get the “right” equation.
Despite this I will be very generous in giving you another concession, by assuming this “substitution” gives the correct σ equation.
The problem now is you haven’t incorporated this “substitution” into the expectation value formula (u).
Do you understand both u and σ are functions of the same variable (FlipsOfTheCoin) and applying the “substitution” to the σ equation requires the same to the u equation? Evidently not.

Your u equation should therefore read.
ExpectationValue = FlipsOfTheCoin

Despite giving you three concessions by ignoring the fact that n=0.5n is impossible, the algebraic substitution for σ doesn’t work, and allowing the “substitution” which is not a substitution at all, results in butchering the u equation!!!!
The butchered u equation results in the absurd situation of the expectation value equalling the number of coin tosses in which case there is absolutely no uncertainty in the measurements.
Hence your σ formula can’t be right either as σ =0 will occur for any number of coin tosses!!!!!!

Your failure to see the consequences of your “single” variable condition serve to illustrate you are completely out of your depth and have no understanding of even simple mathematics.

 

[Michael]

/facepalm.
All you have done is to reproduce the correct equations which are not subject to your condition n=np=0.5n.

O-M-G! What the heck is wrong with you? I never claimed that np=.5n, you made that all up in your head. I told you right from the very start that I simply set the *single* variable I used to represent the number of flips of the coin as I used it the very first correction to Selfsim's error. I have *repeatedly* explained that I've only ever used *one* variable in my *simplified* sigma formula, specifically the number of flips of the coin. I could not possibly have explained myself any more clearly, or anymore thoroughly, or labeled the *one* variable anymore clearly! You're in pure denial of the facts, starting with the way I used that *one* variable in the original 'fix" of Selfsim's *botched* formula.

You're obviously just making up your own strawmen as you go, because the very first time I fixed SelfSim's mistake, I put the number of flips of the coin *inside* of the sqrt function, and I simplified the formula by putting the 0.5 *outside* of sqrt function! I didn't put a 3 inside of the sqrt formula, I put a *SIX* in that formula. Get real!

You're not the least bit interested in engaging in an *honest* scientific conversation about a *topic* of conversation, you're only interested in attacking *individuals*. You don't have any desire to accept my correct answers to your questions. You're not interested in discussing the topic because you're getting completely blown out of the water over the *topic*. You haven't even addressed a single point of my paper.

Your failure to see the consequences of your “single” variable condition serve to illustrate you are completely out of your depth and have no understanding of even simple mathematics.

Your failure to accept an honest answer and the correct answer just demonstrates that you can't handle the *topic* of this thread, therefore you can do nothing but attack *people*. Yawn. You're so predicable. You've got no scientific rebuttal to any point I made in the paper! Who do you think you're fooling. Your behavior is just pathetic.

 

[SelfSim]

... Your failure to see the consequences of your “single” variable condition serve to illustrate you are completely out of your depth and have no understanding of even simple mathematics.

I'm almost at a loss for words with his latest n=np garbage!

I think we're seeing evidence that Michael may well have achieved a 'Masters' from the Miles Mathis school of delusional mathematics!?

 

[Michael]

I'm almost at a loss for words with his latest n=np garbage!

Ditto. You're simply in denial of my very first correction to your error. The .5 is *outside* of the sqrt function, and the number of flips of the coin is *inside* the sqrt formula. How can you two possibly ignore that?

I think we're seeing evidence that Michael may well have achieved a 'Masters' from the Miles Mathis school of delusional mathematics!?

No, this whole thread just demonstrates that the two of you achieved a Masters from the school of sleazy personal attack debate tactics.

Neither of you can handle the *topic*, and you personally *botched* the math! Give me break. Denial isn't going to save you, nor is it going to fix any of LIGO's errors. It won't make an EM signal show up, and it won't change a thing.

It's simply amazing that you actually made *two* errors, both of which I had to correct, and yet you have the *gall* to accuse me of mathematical incompetence. We all know why you're doing this, and I pointed out exactly why you're doing this right after you posted your homework assignment, which you personally *failed* in spectacular fashion.

 

[SelfSim]

... You don't have any desire to accept my correct answers to your questions. You're not interested in discussing the topic because you're getting completely blown out of the water over the *topic*. You haven't even addressed a single point of my paper.
...
You've got no scientific rebuttal to any point I made in the paper! Who do you think you're fooling. Your behavior is just pathetic.

Until we can establish some common ground (ie: basic algebra and some semblance of common-man logic), there's clearly no point in discussing the errors in your ridiculous paper!

 

[SelfSim]

... No, this whole thread just demonstrates that the two of you achieved a Masters from the school of sleazy personal attack debate tactics.

Neither of you can handle the *topic*, and you personally *botched* the math! Give me break. Denial isn't going to save you, nor is it going to fix any of LIGO's errors. It won't make an EM signal show up, and it won't change a thing.

It's simply amazing that you actually made *two* errors, both of which I had to correct, and yet you have the *gall* to accuse me of mathematical incompetence. We all know why you're doing this, and I pointed out exactly why you're doing this right after you posted your homework assignment, which you personally *failed* in spectacular fashion.

You see Michael, the problem you have is that we have been quoting textbook math, and a formula that has been used for centuries. There is the 'weight' behind our words.

What you're doing comes from the depths of your mind alone ... and it carries zero 'weight' and no logic whatsoever. Simply put, you are dead-flat WRONG!

 

[Michael]

FYI, the real standard deviation (sigma) would be 0.5(sqrt(6)) which is in fact 1.2247+.

Is the .5 *inside* the sqrt function or is it located outside of it?

Is there a *6* (number of coin flips) inside the sqrt function or a 3 (6*.5)?

Get real! You botched the formula two different ways. You didn't simplify it, therefore you confused yourself and *messed it up*.

 

[Michael]

Until we can establish some common ground (ie: basic algebra and some semblance of common-man logic), there's clearly no point in discussing the errors in your ridiculous paper!

Pure dodge. You can't handle the science, therefore you've consistently misrepresented my statements, ignored my use of a *single* variable inside the sqrt function, and ignored the fact that I gave you the right answer the very first time.

On the other hand, you didn't simplify the sigma formula and you botched it too. You failed your own homework assignment in truly *epic* fashion. You destroyed yourself.

 

[SelfSim]

I mean, its not much wonder that everyone having any knowledge of Physics or math you encounter, discontinues conversation with you on such topics (ie: 'Thick Target', LIGO team, 'Jean Tate', 'Higgsy', Koberlein, Bridgman, etc, etc ...)

 

[sjastro]

O-M-G! What the heck is wrong with you? I never claimed that np=.5n, you made that all up in your head. I told you right from the very start that I simply set the *single* variable I used to represent the number of flips of the coin as I used it the very first correction to Selfsim's error. I have *repeatedly* explained that I've only ever used *one* variable in my *simplified* sigma formula, specifically the number of flips of the coin. I could not possibly have explained myself any more clearly, or anymore thoroughly, or labeled the *one* variable anymore clearly! You're in pure denial of the facts, starting with the way I used that *one* variable in the original 'fix" of Selfsim's *botched* formula.

You're obviously just making up your own strawmen as you go, because the very first time I fixed SelfSim's mistake, I put the number of flips of the coin *inside* of the sqrt function, and * simplified the formula and putting the 0.5 *outside* of sqrt function! I didn't put a 3 inside of the sqrt formula, I put a *SIX* in that formula. Get real!

You're not the least bit interested in engaging in an *honest* scientific conversation about a *topic* of conversation, you're only interested in attacking *individuals*. You don't have any desire to accept my correct answers to your questions. You're not interested in discussing the topic because you're getting completely blown out of the water over the *topic*. You haven't even addressed a single point of my paper.



Your failure to accept an honest answer and the correct answer just demonstrates that you can't handle the *topic* of this thread, therefore you can do nothing but attack *people*. Yawn. You're so predicable. You've got no scientific rebuttal to any point I made in the paper! Who do you think you're fooling. Your behavior is just pathetic.

Your post has degenerated into pure self delusion.
I've pointed out your errors.
The discussion is over.

 

[Michael]

You see Michael, the problem you have is that we have been quoting textbook math, and a formula that has been used for centuries. There is the 'weight' behind our words.

There might be weight behind your words if you'd actually used the formulas correctly and I had not simplified your formula for you correctly the very first time I corrected you. Had you not made *two* errors, your personal attack nonsense wouldn't sound so absurd and irrational and it wouldn't sound like pure denial on your part. As it stands, you're just grasping at straws, *and* you made two mathematical errors!

What you're doing comes from the depths of your mind alone ... and it carries zero 'weight' and no logic whatsoever. Simply put, you are dead-flat WRONG!

You've yet to show me how or where I was wrong on any point in that paper, and you won't even try. All you've even tried to do so far is to *attack the individual*. That's just typical irrational behavior when someone can't handle the scientific side of the debate!