The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

I didn't but apparently I've stumbled upon another question that you can't answer.

You said that a particular paper had STRONG statistical evidence.   I simply asked the honest, clear and unambiguous question:

"What makes the evidence in that paper STATISTICALLY strong?"

...and you of course....went mute. (You can consider this me asking this question a second time, I've asked the other question something like fourteen times).

The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation.  Beane and co's paper reveals that the pattern of this rule mirrors a computer simulation.  The energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live.  The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."  The answer was provided prior to you asking the question.  Maybe you should take some time to try and wrap your mind around this.  Or, maybe you can ask Beane and co's why this is strong statistical evidence, since this is what their paper is revealing.  Do you have a mind of your own?  Or, do you need someone to do your thinking for you?

Gravock

[d3x0r]

Be prepared to Blow Your Mind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMLPJqeW78Q

Hip-hop Universe!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZWBzhRhPr4

Cosmic Zoom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgfwCrKe_Fk

http://youtu.be/ISR4ebdGlOk?t=54s  not as good as they above...


flying around solar systems they have a drive that is FTL... so to go between two planets one can get to say 20c and that's still really really slow.... really gives one a feel for how big things are

[sarkeizen]

The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation.  Beane and co's paper reveals that the pattern of this rule mirrors a computer simulation.

Your statement appears to be from "Huffpo" which is not exactly Physical Review.   Secondly it appears to be refrencing MIT's Technology Review.  Which is considerably more reserved in it's judgement.  Just like oh...I don't know... the paper itself.

My question remains though.  How is anything you describe statistical, strong or statistically strong.   So far you haven't mentioned anything to that effect.  Can you even describe to me what kind of evidence would be statistically strong?

So this will be the third time I've asked this question...and you are stumped.

A bonus question might be:  Why is it, so EASY for me to stump you on a question about your own ideas?

[gravityblock]

Your statement appears to be from "Huffpo" which is not exactly Physical Review.   Secondly it appears to be refrencing MIT's Technology Review.  Which is considerably more reserved in it's judgement.  Just like oh...I don't know... the paper itself.

My question remains though.  How is anything you describe statistical, strong or statistically strong.   So far you haven't mentioned anything to that effect.  Can you even describe to me what kind of evidence would be statistically strong?

So this will be the third time I've asked this question...and you are stumped.

A bonus question might be:  Why is it, so EASY for me to stump you on a question about your own ideas?

Cry me a river!  You're just being difficult, for you have no rebuttals!  You will always find some reason which doesn't satisfy your questions.  Vladimir Putin has you pegged!  Through your false belief in your exceptionalism, it can only be you who is right.

Gravock

"Our Western partners headed by the United States prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destiny of the world, that it is only them who can be right."

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia in speech before the Federal Assembly, 18 March 2014.

[sarkeizen]

You're just being difficult

Isn't that an admission that I've stumped you with an exceptionally simple question?

As usual I'd like to know why you say what you say.  In this case I wonder why you consider something statistically strong.  I can find nothing statistical, strong or statistically strong about the paper you were referencing which you said quite clearly and without qualifiers presented evidence which was statistically strong.

Given that you refuse to provide any further information at all on seemingly incorrect statements you are making.  Aren't you just making an argument by assertion.? Is that ok for you but not ok for other people as you've implied?

You will always find some reason which doesn't satisfy your questions.

Dude.  You said "X is statistically strong".  As someone who understands statistics I'd just like to know which statistics you are referring to and what makes them strong?  How is that, in any universe an unreasonable question?  Are we just to take you at your word?  Seems like that's what you're asking.

So for the fourth time..."What is statistically strong about the information presented in that paper?"