joigus

I completely went on a tangent there. Thank you.

I think it's particularly unfortunate that some scientific issues --especially when matters are not completely settled yet, and more dispassionate investigation/discussion is needed-- spill over into general societal contexts. More so when certain models/hypotheses, etc. hit on economic interests. The bigger the economic interests, the worse it is for the unbiased character of the discussion. We've seen many examples of this. The issue of climate change is a good example. The food industry provides another. And more recently, the COVID crisis.

I thought of saying "you have a helpful connection between the two equations." I don't know what got into me.

"Same" problem as first lake, but with time-depending input. Now take a look at the terms I've highlighted in Studiot's answer. You have a constraint.

In the current cosmological model, stars do not create space. It's vacuum energy that does this job. Stars accrete from clouds of previously existing matter.

I learn so much with you guys.

From a not-totally-selfish POV, thanks for appreciating the humour in my comment, @HallsofIvy

Apparently not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereotopology

I hate to be the party pooper here, but, Cones have infinite curvature at the tip, did you know that? That would be a problem, I surmise. You seem to have heard or read about Coleman-DeLucia vacuum decay, but that's nothing to do with cones. In general you need smooth energy diagrams to be able to make any sensible prediction. Which brings me to my next questions: What predictions does you model make? What retrodictions does your double big-bang achieve that are not already fit within the current standard cosmological model? Try to be the hardest critic of your theory. Does it work? Does it make sense? Does it add anything significant? Is it natural and simple? Read @MigL's very nice summary --although I hate his spelling of "Euclidean"-- and ask yourself: Do I understand these concepts? Why are they important? Are there already observations supporting DeSitter universe? Etc.

(My emphasis.) You are like what sometimes people ignore? What does that mean? Can you keep attention to what you're saying from one line to the next, please?

And how would that go? I usually think what I think. I do not sort out what I'm going to think in advance.

Is she any closer to proving RH? Maybe rogue is the way to go... You know... Just to keep on topic by the skin of our teeth.

In the UK, not necessarily.

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.

My struggle with grammar...

(My emphasis) Your audience? I'd rather you used, according to the Forum's rules.

I just want to add one thing. Sometimes imperfect proofs have the seeds of a really watertight proof in them, once necessary auxiliary investigations are made. As to the RH, there is a general feeling of pessimism, though:

Criticism by Luboš Motl that you may find interesting. He's highly suspicious that there may be flaws in the proof, although he certainly praises Kubalalika for their creativity: https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html If I have understood correctly, for some auxiliary hypothesis to work, the RH itself must be true, so it's kind of a begging-the-question type of objection. We will have to wait and see some serious peer review by mathematicians.

Can you please point to the contradiction? As I can't see it.

Beautiful. Thank you.

You're most welcome. Physics is the realm of common-sense wonder. Welcome to the forums.

A simulation is worth a thousand words:

\[\left(183.5\pm.5\right)\textrm{ cm}\] May I also insist on what they've told you before?: Talk to her. Make her smile. Don't mention height. Be sincere. Forget about pick-up lines. Whatever it is that's good in you, make it shine.

(My emphasis.) Merely? How did Newton and Galileo manage to get anything done?

It must have been sheer luck. Let's say I was just talking from hearlore. But you've made noises in the innermost recesses of my linguistic and mathematical mind and awaken the creatures that live in the gallery of my mathematical and linguistic monsters. Maybe another thread is in order.