/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10941517
Maybe if you start making mathematical arguments I will be more interested in trying to discern the contradiction you're suggesting.

>>10941532
>it easily should have made my whole career
hey, whose read Higgs' paper lately, pic related? Yes! That's the whole thing there in the pic. You know that name "Higgs" that's been getting named dropped 100 times a day for decades? It comes from this page and a half here. That's how careers are made. You can see that Higgs did the quantification which I deliberately avoided. However, to support the notion of my lost career that shoulda woulda and coulda, let me explain the steps I would take to quantify.

(1) Get the Dark Energy original data.
(2) Copy by manual data entry a few dozen numbers into MS Excel.
(3) Use MS Excel "plot series" and "fit curve" to get the E(t) implied
(4) Propose implied E(t) as real E(t)
(5) Demonstrate that source in 0-space acts uniformly over all of 3-space
(6) Use the Doppler formula to compute the expected red shift on the various surfaces of constant proper time
(7) Do an integral over all of space or something to show that something does explode by adding the 0-space
(8) Delete everything else from the paper except dark energy.