More like shooting in the dark

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

v_for_vendetta

Guest
How do Astronomers come to the conclusion with all those Equations, I mean they could all be wrong for all we know like, I.E. Black holes suppress star formation or the big rip or all the end of teh universe scenario. The equations for those could be wrong
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I'm not sure they come to conclusions but if so. They do so based on the best available evidence which includes mathematics. If equations prove to be wrong, the scientific community will develop new theories in accordance with new data and evidence.<br /><br />Its the best we have since much of what is being researched is beyond our ability to travel to for direct observation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
It's less likely the equations are wrong. Equations are easy to scrutize for errors. It's more likely the observation or assumption that the equation was written for is wrong. <br /><br />Edit: added 'assumption' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
mathematics is really symbolic logic, a tool for determining "if a then b, if b then c, therefore, if a then c" and many more complicated situations.<br /><br />As derek points out, it's far easier to identify errors in the math, than in any other presentation of the material. I.e. you could try to talk it through, but that's far more imprecise and subjective that you'll have problems pointing out the errors.<br /><br />The danger with math lies in using the wrong equations or mathematical system. This can occur for several reasons, such as a poor understanding of the math involved, or erroneous beliefs about the material you're investigating.<br /><br />The first reason is one scientists are (usually) trained for. My profs are always saying that I must understand the equations, their uses, limitations, and applications. For example, I must know when newtonian equations will give me a good answer, or when I must switch to relativity.<br /><br /><br />The second reason really equates to "bad data in, bad data out." This is the reason for peer reviewed journals. You have several different people look at your work, and scrutinize all aspects of it before it's even published. Once published you have all interested parties in the scientific community going over it with a fine toothed comb. Not only will this help catch math errors, but it'll attack the underlying assumptions and observations involved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
V_For_Vendetta - Concerning the Big rip, the above posters note that wrong assumptions can lead to wrong conclusions even if the math is correct.<br /><br />One assumption often made is that our universe is a closed system, not acted upon by outside forces and certainly not acted on by an intelligent Creator.<br /><br />Personally, I beleive our universe was created by intelligent design - input of forms of energy fine tuned intelligently to very close mathematically to omega=1, the critical point between eternal expansion and eventual collapse.<br /><br />The expansion is stated simply as follows:<br /><br />Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze,..." <br /><br />Many scientists believe this stretching out of our universe began by chance, but other scientists believe in intelligent design since so many details about the properties and laws of our universe are fine tuned to favor not only star formation but also life.<br /><br />Rather than simply a big bang and big rip, our universe testifies to a very complex and mathematically beautiful set of laws and properties.<br /><br />To me it does not logically follow that our universe will ever actually end. Too many unlikely assumptions have led some to conclude this.<br /><br />The most obvious, to me, assumption is that ours is the only universe (hence the prefix uni) rather than there being a plural numbers of universes (as in the plural heavens in Genesis 1:1, etc.),<br /><br />And, also, assuming our universe never will interact with another universe but rather is, always was and always will be a closed system thermodynamically<br /><br />Still, those mathematical calculations and equations are very valuable.<br /><br />For example, e=mc^2 tells us the immense amount of plural forms of energy (as in Isaiah 40:26) needed to form (create) our universe, and also how fast the expansion had to be fine
 
S

Saiph

Guest
gahhh!!!!!!!!! it's Isiah 40:22 again! The biblical catch all for cosmology!<br /><br />RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br />good to see you back newtonian, btw, interesting way to slip in the quote as something other than evidence. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
V

v_for_vendetta

Guest
What I am saying is that most of the sciences are accurate because they are up close to it I'm saying that physics and astronomy are shooting in the dark because first Physics is going on about invisible forces that we can't see nor fell all the time and astronomy because everything is super faraway and they can't get too close too it cause they bite
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Vendetta - Agreed. Questions? I love questions.<br /><br />Saiph - Thank you - how are you and your studies?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
crazyeddie - wrong, as Saiph well knows.<br /><br />Why not try responding to some of my scientific input - e.g. HCN's reactions with water, and further up towards proteins? <br /><br />Or my point on this rhread on current popular big rip models which ignore both the observed blue shifting locally and the fact that our galaxy is on a river in space along with thousands of other galaxies heading towards a great attractor (variation - plural - see older posts by Leovinus on attractors).<br /><br />If you do not like reference to Biblical models of expansion, like the stretching fine gauze model of Isaiah 40:22 - why not post why you don't like said models or simply ignore the source of the model and comment on its validity independently?
 
B

badspeller

Guest
As far as the original question goes, the answer is: It could all be bunk! It could all be blatantly wrong!<br /><br />But that said......<br /><br />These predictions are based on theories that have accurately predicted in the past. An example would be Black Holes. Realitivity predicted that black holes 'should' exist. Said theory also predicted that we would not be able to see these holes, but we could see their effects on things around them and that these effects would look like (insert describtion here.)<br /><br />Well, this was absurd and went against conventional thinking, but years later we found places in space that matched what the theory said 'should' be there. Because what was theorized was actually found, we use it as a basis for other predictions.<br /><br />So even though what you asked could be true, it could all be a farse, these theories are not just random guess work. <br /><br />
 
B

badspeller

Guest
*chuckle* Well, I know that I can't crunch the numbers but I can tell you this. If you have a 1 in a million chance of winning, playing 1 million times does not mean you're going to win at all. On the other hand, you might win several times. Is that what you're wanting?
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Being born physically challenged I'd rather believe the whole universe is one giant crap shoot rather than a product of intelligent design. In the first scenario my condition was just a matter of odds but in the second someone chose to make me this way and if that's the case he's got a sick sense of humor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Answer this question...Let's say you play the exact same numbers in the lotto everyday for 1 million straight days. Let's say the odds are 1 in a million of winning the lotto on any drawing. <br /><br />What would be your odds of eventually winning the lotto given that you play the 1 million times. Seriously, answer this question.</font><br /><br />The odds of losing are 999,999 to 1 million<br /><br />The odds of losing 1 million times in a row are<br /><br />(.999999)^(10^6) which is 0.36787925723164509428579812527037<br /><br />Therefore you have a 63.2% chance of winning after playing 1 million times.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Nitpick:<br /><br />You have a 63.2% chance of winning once if you play it 1 million times.<br /><br />But playing once *after* playing 1 million times, you still have the same chance of winning on the next game as if it were your first game. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Nitpick: <br /><br />You have a 63.2% chance of winning once if you play it 1 million times. <br /><br />But playing once *after* playing 1 million times, you still have the same chance of winning on the next game as if it were your first game.</font><br /><br />Yes, but say if I roll a dice, and odds say that there is a 1 out of 6 chance that I will get a six (for each try), the odds of not getting a six after a billion tries is definitely not 1 out of 6 - they are far lower than that, like (5/6)^1,000,000,000 =P Otherwise, 1/6th of dice rollers would never get a six during a lifetime of rolling dice.... <br /><br />That is actually evidence in favor of evolution.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I was nitpicking your terminology, not the arithmetic. You meant that they had that chance over the course of 1 million attempts -- but of course on the very next attempt (taken by itself) the chance is exactly the same as on any other attempt viewed individually.<br /><br />Sorry, my sense of humor is a bit fractured today. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Unless you have a really great hat! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
blass - Odds 1 in a million, then in one million tries you have good odds of winning, though not on specifically the millionth try.<br /><br />The problem with your example is that only one step is necessary to win.<br /><br />With our universe, and with life, many steps are necessary - so the calculation becomes much more complex.<br /><br />Also, one in a million is no where near how fine tuned our universe is.<br /><br />Alas, my time is short, so here is a cut and paste from our literature which sums up a few basic ways our universe is fine tuned:<br /><br />"Fine-Tuning<br /><br />The four fundamental forces come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved.<br /><br />Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. We already mentioned one force, gravity. Another is the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. ‘Would that be serious?’ some might wonder. Yes, because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life. Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.<br /><br />And consider the cosmic scale: A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not.<br /><br />Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some physicists f
 
N

newtonian

Guest
blass - I am not a creationist - but you and I are not strangers, so you already knew that.<br /><br />Like Isaac Newton, I believe in God, creation, science and the Bible. <br /><br />Since you have introduced the creation vs. evolution debate into this thread, I will mention the probabilities for the origin of life.<br /><br />There are admittedly varying estimates. For example, some oft quoted ones involve simply choosing (selecting chiral amino acids, specifically L-amino acids.<br /><br />The quoted probabilities are actually way off in favor of intelligent design, because other limiting factors are not introduced into the math.<br /><br />For one very obvious example: isomers.<br /><br />Are you sure you want to pursue this tangent?<br /><br />I will be glad to if you want to really determine the probabilities instead of simply attacking some estimates by some creationists.<br /><br />I would encourage you to consider product proportions in various environments in various origin of life simulation experiments. <br /><br />Much good work has been done by good scientists in this field for decades.<br /><br />Note that chemistry product proportions are in harmony with predicted probabilities for the products.<br /><br />Note also that no chiral protein has been produced in this way, and that both isomers and chirality end up as predicted by probability.<br /><br />You might think a very improbably set of chemical reaction products could result in protein synthesis attempts.<br /><br />However, this is not the case because of the law of large numbers.<br /><br />Do you know why the law of large numbers determines chemical reaction products in these experiments and limits deviation from the predicted probability?<br /><br />Most debates I have noted ignore the law of large numbers - despite the fact that chemical evolutionists appeal to very long periods of time as if this helps their case.<br /><br />Time, however, is against them, since this simply makes the numbers larger and the law of la
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts