Delta1212

 

No, it isn't. It's easy to suspect bias, but technically impossible to be certain about it.

 

 

 

Good analysis. Can you list the peak numbers? The graph doesn't define them. He mentioned something about numbers ending in 5 coming up more often.

I made a couple of notes on the train yesterday and also thought that something looked a bit wonky, but didn't want to comment yet because I hadn't done anything more than back of the envelope math without an envelope and so didn't feel robustly confident in that conclusion.

 

For the 96 draws on record, this was the number of times each number was drawn in first position:

 

0 - 11

1 - 13

2 - 12

3 - 9

4 - 11

5 - 11

6 - 7

7 - 5

8 - 6

9 - 11

 

And the number of times that each number was drawn in the second position:

 

0 - 10

1 - 9

2 - 14

3 - 6

4 - 11

5 - 8

6 - 5

7 - 11

8 - 10

9 - 12

 

And the total number each was drawn all together:

 

0 - 21

1 - 22

2 - 26

3 - 15

4 - 22

5 - 19

6 - 13

7 - 16

8 - 16

9 - 23

 

 

Additionally, there were 22 numbers that were drawn twice, 5 numbers drawn three times and the number 22 was drawn four times. This leaves 33 numbers that were drawn a single time and 39 numbers that were never drawn.

 

Was going to look into how many repeats you would expect with 96 draws out of a sample of 100 with replacement but forgot by the time I got home.

If there is statistical evidence that the draw is not getting random results that may be circumstantial evidence of fraud or faulty methodology - which may be legally actionable against the operators of the lottery. Unless some kind of insider knowledge is involved those who won under those arrangements should be immune from legal action.The statistical evidence will not be proof by itself, rather, it would be cause to investigate and small numbers of small draws may not be a large enough number to apply statistics to unless the fraud or fault is major.

 

The only proven method of winning with genuine "fair" lotteries that I am aware of is with accumulating jackpot type lotteries that end up with prize money exceeding the costs of all the tickets, by attempting to buy them all (or as close to all as possible). I'm not sure but I think rules often work to prevent that happening, by preventing mass purchases at the scales that needs and by allocations to over the counter type sales that would can't easily be bought in bulk. I have heard of syndicates set up to take advantage of large jackpots in jurisdictions with rules that enable it.

The problem, of course, is that often with jackpots that large, you get multiple winners and wind up having to split the pot, and that can very easily take it from profit to major loss unless the jackpot is worth the ticket value several times over.

 

 

 

I agree that the concept of "dark energy" seems to resolve

the maths - but that's because it was designed to. Not because

it was seen to do so.

 

I prefer to think there is something we don't know

about gravity - or the amount of black holes or their behaviour.

Inventing 2 new things before breakfast is fun - but I find

it somewhat suspicious.

 

There seems to be a growing trend of scepticism about dark matter

and dark energy in general. I don't think it's just me.

 

As an asside:

When it comes to dark energy maybe I've missed the explanation

of the "opposite reaction" - what is it pushing against?

Why can't we detect that either? has that even been looked for?

 

Too many questions that have the "impossible to detect" answer for my

liking. (Again - from a laymans perspective)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds pretty definite - thanks for the suggestion I'll check it out.

 

 

 

 

Looking at that I don't see any reason why it should apply.

It seems to reference perfect spheres. I don't think

the universe is a perfect sphere - in fact I seem to remember

something about saddle shapes but don't quote me on that.

 

I think my notion holds up still.

 

 

Following up on Strange's comment: If expansion were caused by gravity from some mass beyond the observable universe, that mass must completely surround our universe as, as Strange said, expansion is isotopic. However, if the universe were uniformly surrounded by mass in this way, you run into the problem described by She'll theorem, where the gravity from the mass on one side of our universe winds up canceling out the gravity from the mass on the other side.

 

So, you wind up with two possible scenarios: An even distribution of mass outside of our universe, in which case the gravity cancels out and it cannot be the cause of expansion.

 

Or an uneven distribution, in which case it can exert a gravitational pull on matter within our observable universe, but biased in a particular direction, in which case it cannot be responsible for the isotopic expansion we observe in our universe.

I believe that the computer system used to pick the numbers is flawed. Getting 100% true randomness from a computer is extremely hard, and I dare say impossible. Every tiny manifestation of a pattern can be exploited.

I'm not sure quite why it's biased, but the distribution of numbers is way to clustered to be truly random. I mean, one to ten coincidences is probably just a coincidence. But when the numbers follow a pattern based off of the said coincidences, I come to believe it's a pattern.

Now maybe I'm flawed, and this lottery actually is random.

In which case, it's safe to say one day my method will simply come crashing down around me.

But at this point I've made a massive surplus, that will take weeks to lose. And I'll stop to reconsider the method long before I lose all the money I made. Besides, i haven't saved 100% of the money, so no matter what I've made a profit already off of what should be a non profitable source.

 

Also, I would like to point out something with the fallacy described above. More of a question.

 

If I have 3 dice. There are 216 possible combinations.

Of all those combinations, there are only 6 that are 3 consecutive numbers.(lets pick 5) 1/216 chance to get 5 three times consecutively.

While, a combination containing 2 of the same number and then a random number (lets pick 3) would have a chance 3 times higher. Because there are 3 combinations that will result in two (2s) and one (3). 2-2-3, 2-3-2, 3-2-2.

Meaning the chances of getting 2-2-3, in any order, is three times higher then the chances to get 3 in a row.

Meaning, 1/72 chance.

The odds of rolling 3 then 3 then 3 are exactly the same as the odds of rolling 3 then 3 then 2. So even though rolling two 3s and a 2 in some combination is more likely at the beginning than rolling three 3s, once you start rolling and excluding possibilities, the odds change. If you roll a 2 on your first throw, you don't maintain the original odds of getting three 3s (which drop to 0) and neither do you retain the original odds of rolling three 3s if you at first roll a 3.

 

Once you get to the final draw, the odds of getting the exact pattern of previous numbers that you got is exactly the same for all numbers. You have exactly the same chances of rolling 33333333 as rolling 45826478. Which means that, once you've rolled up to that point, your odds of getting 333333333 and 458264783 are exactly the same.

 

Also, keep in mind the Birthday Paradox, when talking about numbers repeating. Despite there being 365 possible birthdays, you only need 23 people in a room to get a 50% of at least two people in the group sharing a birthday, and the odds increase to over 99% chance of someone charging a birthday at only 70 people.

 

With 100 possible number instead of 365, a series of 22 draws gives you a 92% chance that at least one number will repeat even if there is no bias.

 

There may very well be bias in this lottery, but you still need to learn to distinguish what is and is not an actual sign of bias. We as humans have a tendency to see patterns that aren't there because we improperly weight the importance of certain things when it comes to calculating probabilities and it can make it look like there are patterns or expected results that are not actually present. Something that seems like a very strong indication of a pattern can easily just be noise or even precosely the expected outcome of a random system, so it's important to learn how to distinguish between real signs of a pattern and ghosts cooked up in the wiring of your brain.

 

Otherwise you may stumble across a situation where there really is a pattern and go chasing it down the wrong rabbit hole because you don't know what the actual pattern you're exploiting really is.

Computer generated random I believe.

So it's not perfectly random.

Considering 22 was picked 5 times in the last 100 drawings.

How many numbers are there available to be picked, and how many numbers per ticket?

I genuinely have no idea why that was so entertaining.

Specifically in lions, I believe it induces the mother to become fertile again, so male lions will kill the cubs of vanquished rivals in order to replace them with their own.

 

In that respect, infanticidal behavior certainly provides a reproductive advantage.

A thought that ties in with my idea on all this from my first post.........It is a known fact that more primitive societies don't have anywhere near the suicide rate us first world countries do.

 

Given this.....It stands to reason that people's with less evolved and complex minds and living in simpler conditions such as Cro Magnon, or any ancestral bipedal humanoid primates, would also not trend to commit suicide as often as do we modern homo sapien sapiens.

You think people living in non-industrial societies have less complex minds?

It can be fairly difficult, even today , to find out if someone's death was accidental, homicide or suicide.

Just look for the suicide stele.

I'd go with paid staffer. It includes both full-time and part-time workers, but excludes contractors, temps, and freelancers.

Note also that not all employees work "in the office." That's a misconception that ignores the reality of many of today's jobs.

Yes, I should clarify that I was noting that in opposition to a freelancer or contractor who works in the office, as that is the area where things get fuzzier in casual speech. An employee can obviously work somewhere other than the office (I'm working from home tomorrow, myself), but someone who is paid on a freelance or contracted basis and does not work at the same location as the full employees is the situation where they are most obviously not an employee.

 

It may be a bit fuzzier for companies that have no office space at all and where everyone who works for the company works off-site full time, but those situations are comparatively rarer still.

 

 

And while, yes, "contractor" is more commonly used to mean someone doing construction, in the context of employment there is no ambiguity and nobody is going to be confused by it. Just like how "car" is most commonly used to refer to an automobile but if you're on a train you can still tell someone which car you are in without worrying that they are going to think you drove your vehicle onto the train or something equally silly.

 

 

Also, I'd say I associate "freelancer" with someone who does work usually on a project basis, and the work tends to be fairly solitary. As in, they will do the whole project, or a fairly self-contained portion of a larger project, themselves. A contractor, by contrast, would be used to do normal office work or work in a more collaborative or team-based environment, potentially working with full employees doing the same or similar work.

 

The work that most commonly fits the bill for freelancer in that case would be artists or newspaper writers, but there are other jobs where you could do it. Really any kind of writing at all, programming, web design, video work, private investigator or really any of a number of semi-solitary professions.

 

If you can work for a different company from one project to the next, doing pretty much the same work and without considering it to be a change of jobs, I would consider that a freelancer. A contractor would be more strongly associated with a specific organization for the job they are doing in my mind.

In the UK, I think the distinction between "employee" and "contractor" is very clear.

I agree up to a point, but casually "employee" is often used to refer to anyone employed by a company, which may include some people who are technically contractors. If it's someone who is working off-site the distinction is a little clearer and I wouldn't ever refer to those people as employees, but there are situations where the distinction is mostly down to how they are paid, what benefits they are so and the expectations of long-term employment, whereas their day to day duties are not any different from a regular employee's.

 

I've known people who switched between contractor and employee with no difference being made to their work other than how their paychecks were processed, and it's entirely possible to work with someone in a company and not know whether they are technically a contractor or full employee.

 

It's the existence of this group of contractors that I think makes the term "employee" a little fuzzier than it otherwise would be, and I'm not sure that it makes as strong of a distinction with contractor in such a situation as it would for someone who, for instance, is doing work for multiple companies at a time or comes and goes on a purely project oriented basis.

There may be other forms of matter, but there are not other elements. Elements are specific things. They are atoms with specific proton counts. By definition, you cannot fit any more elements between the ones we already know about.

The discussion is about the contribution of the BH gravitational field, not of the spaceship acceleration.

Since several of you seem not to understand the concept, I can give a rigorous proof that a rod falling radially into a BH gets stretched due to the gravitational field of the BH.

 

That is precisely what I said.

 

 

(Proper) acceleration is absolute, meaning that it isn't relative to the gravitating body.

Right, but there is a difference between "being on a space ship" and "being on a spaceship with a prop acceleration away from the black hole", the latter of which, as swansont pointed out, was not stipulated until your last post.

"Permanent employee" might even be better for making the contrast.

 

I would probably phrase your statement as something more like "I want to work for you and would be happy to do so as either a full employee or as a contractor on a freelance basis."

 

Emphasizing the dichotomy really requires additional words beyond just "employee."

The ship as a 200g acceleration wrt to some frame of reference, in the absence of any gravitating body.

According to the Equivalence Principle, a body inside the spaceship is subjected to a hravitational acceleration of 200g.

You now add in a gravitating body that generates a gravitational field of 800g. The Equivalence Principle tells you that the effective acceleration exerted on the ship is now 1000g.

Only if the ship is accelerating away from the gravitating body with the equivalent of 200g. And in an 800g gravitational field, that requires... a 1000g acceleration.

The "resisting slightly" is what determines the amount of "pancaking".

 

Yes, I did. This is why the language of physics is math.

Yes, but would not the resistance depend on the thrust of the ship, in which case you'd get the same pancaking effect regardless of whether there is a black hole involved or not?

But the tax break he arranged for the company is still there, right? So it's not a total loss!

 

 

Once within the eH.

In which case, yes, all directions lead to the singularity, so if you speed up, no matter what direction you accelerate in, you are accelerating towards the singularity and will reach it sooner.

Another curious thing is that if you free fall towards the singularity you will get there very quickly. If you try and avoid that, for example, by using your rocket engines to go in a different direction, you will actually get to the singularity sooner. (Don't ask me to explain why that is, but I was told it is the case by someone who can do the math.)

On which side of the event horizon?

Of course they had language... even if it was grunts, erggs and urggs. It then evolved into the many languages we have worldwide.

Well, the range of vocal sounds humans can make would not have been any different at the point in time that the wheel was invented than it is now, and considering the number of physical adaptations that we have to allow precise and varied vocal control, plus the propensity to build a working language out of the merest scraps even as children, I'd say that it's probable that language has evolved well passed the stage of stereotypical caveman grunts by the time Anatomically Modern Humans appeared on the scene, which was well before the appearance of the wheel.

The Stone Age primitive men didn't have any language. Yet they invented fire and wheels. This shows our brain doesn't require language to innovate.

Einstein knew English. Yet he thought so many ideas. His language helped him to think so much. This shows that the language I'm presently using is fine for my brain.

Why do you think people didn't have any language when they invented the wheel?

Yes, you're right. Not sure what it was exactly that I was thinking when I read that now.

Allow me to nitpick : the force of bullet hitting the container is significantly larger than the force of the recoil (asuming sufficiently strong and stiff container), because it happens in a shorter time. It is the impulse that is equal and opposite.

 

Of course, the conclusion doesn't change.

Don't you have that backwards?

 

 

It is not "correct". It is just a stylistic choice. There are examples where including the last comma introduces ambiguity.

Yes, by now everyone knows what happens when you invite the strippers, JFK and Stalin, but it is far less often mentioned what happens when you invite the stripper, JFK, and Stalin.

It's not a matter of whether or not it is correct. There is no standardized system of comma usage in the English language but rather multiple competing style guides. Some use the comma, some do not. The debate is over whether it is clearer, and therefore better, to use the comma or whether it is unnecessary.