Is the bible a fairy tale?

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 130)

Showing posts 2,581 - 2,600 of3,444
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2666
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No you idiot, what we knew about aerodynamics wings and muscles says a bumble can't fly. Normal bird like motion cannot generate enough lift , because muscles are limited to specific speeds. But what we didn't know about the bumble is how it used it's wings and muscles.
It should also be pointed out that the fact that *one model* was unable to calculate the lift produced by a bee's wings did not mean that model was thrown out for everything else. The model assumed a flat, rigid, unmovable wing. That isn't how a bee's wings work. But that model works perfectly well for aircraft wings.

So this is a small case where the theory was NOT 'thrown out' because the observations didn't support it. Instead, the assumptions of the model were modified to better model the actual situation.

This is relevant for other situations also. For example, string theory has many adjustable parameters: the mass of the least massive supersymmetric particle, for example. Many of those parameters are constrained by observations we have already made, but often they are still allowed to have rather broad ranges. So, the predictions made from *one* set of parameters can differ from the predictions made from a *different* set of parameters. Now, if observations show the first set is wrong or unlikely, that does not disprove the whole theory--the second set could still be allowed.

So, when TAT likes to quote that any defect in a theory requires it to be thrown out or modified, he doesn't seem to get that modifications can be as simple as different parameter values. To get to the place that a theory has to actually be thrown out, we need a prediction that holds for ALL allowed parameter values and that is contradicted by observation. This does happen, but is has not happened for string theory.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2667
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has NEVER proven that nothing can turn into everything
No, it has not proven it. But it has shown how it could be possible.
First off there is no NOTHING'S that science can use sense Space and Time are always there. So go ahead and tell me again how the BB can be tested.
By matching the predictions of the background radiation to the observations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2668
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
If this is all true, particles that collided at energies beyond this graviton-leaking energy cutoff would get so close together that gravity would take over, and they would merge to form a tiny black hole. The black holes would instantly decay, so there would be no danger of Earth being swallowed whole, and the decay would be visible as jets of particles. But the researchers have so far seen no jets.
And what was the prior likelihood that we would get beyond the energies required for this phenomenon to show up? What was known about this energy? Are the results we found consistent with what we know about this energy? What does the lack of jets tell us about this energy?

The point? This is quite far from being a knock-out blow to string theory. At worst it shows that the energies required for some effects are higher than what we can currently produce.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2669
Jun 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I should point out that the 'bees can't fly' story is an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp
What it does show is that a bee with a flat, rigid, motionless wing could not fly.
Never the less the point is valid by using simple calculation of wing area and muscle rates the bee can't fly. That is where this story stems from, and it took observation and explanation to explain it. I never made the claim science proved a bee can't fly, as in your legend .

I skipped to how science investigation explained how it can.

The same is true for the hummingbird , by wing area and known muscle rates , on paper can't fly and hover.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-03...

Also the distance a flea can jump is impossible by ordinary legs, but investigation showed how it is able.

This is the point I was making.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2670
Jun 13, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Never the less the point is valid by using simple calculation of wing area and muscle rates the bee can't fly. That is where this story stems from, and it took observation and explanation to explain it. I never made the claim science proved a bee can't fly, as in your legend .
I skipped to how science investigation explained how it can.
The same is true for the hummingbird , by wing area and known muscle rates , on paper can't fly and hover.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-03...
Also the distance a flea can jump is impossible by ordinary legs, but investigation showed how it is able.
This is the point I was making.
I understand that. But I would guess that the details are lost on some of the people in the forum. ;)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2671
Jun 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It should also be pointed out that the fact that *one model* was unable to calculate the lift produced by a bee's wings did not mean that model was thrown out for everything else. The model assumed a flat, rigid, unmovable wing. That isn't how a bee's wings work. But that model works perfectly well for aircraft wings.
So this is a small case where the theory was NOT 'thrown out' because the observations didn't support it. Instead, the assumptions of the model were modified to better model the actual situation.
This is relevant for other situations also. For example, string theory has many adjustable parameters: the mass of the least massive supersymmetric particle, for example. Many of those parameters are constrained by observations we have already made, but often they are still allowed to have rather broad ranges. So, the predictions made from *one* set of parameters can differ from the predictions made from a *different* set of parameters. Now, if observations show the first set is wrong or unlikely, that does not disprove the whole theory--the second set could still be allowed.
So, when TAT likes to quote that any defect in a theory requires it to be thrown out or modified, he doesn't seem to get that modifications can be as simple as different parameter values. To get to the place that a theory has to actually be thrown out, we need a prediction that holds for ALL allowed parameter values and that is contradicted by observation. This does happen, but is has not happened for string theory.

Not sure how you jump from the bee to string theory, I haven't said anything about that. I know it failed the first test but one test doesn't mean anything, except the test failed.
How many tests failed to produce the Higgs Boson?
If we believed a thousand tests before the one, it would be a failed hypothesis also right?
What you are saying about string theory is exactly what I was saying about GR and BH's, except the only difference is the
tests that confirm GR are many, the one or two it fails won't scrap the theory, but requires more explanation.

With string theory more on par with the Higgs with more failures than successful tests, but persistent testing finally produced a positive result. The same may be true for strings or supersymmetric strings. The same thing applies though , that it won't all be worked out on paper, because science requires these
physical tests, and that was my whole point.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2672
Jun 13, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure how you jump from the bee to string theory, I haven't said anything about that. I know it failed the first test but one test doesn't mean anything, except the test failed.
How many tests failed to produce the Higgs Boson?
If we believed a thousand tests before the one, it would be a failed hypothesis also right?
The tests that 'failed' to find the Higg's were more accurately tests that showed its mass was not in the ranges we tested. The problem was that the operative theory did not constrain the Higg's mass very well, so a fairly large range of masses was consistent with the theory. The observations narrowed the range over time until we were able to check in the right place and then we found it.
What you are saying about string theory is exactly what I was saying about GR and BH's, except the only difference is the
tests that confirm GR are many, the one or two it fails won't scrap the theory, but requires more explanation.
With string theory more on par with the Higgs with more failures than successful tests, but persistent testing finally produced a positive result. The same may be true for strings or supersymmetric strings. The same thing applies though , that it won't all be worked out on paper, because science requires these
physical tests, and that was my whole point.
Exactly. The math alone doesn't tell us how the real world actually works. The theories and ideas have to be tested by actual observations. This can be complicated when the theory has a wide range of parameter values consistent with it (for example, the masses of the planets are not determined by Newton's laws) or when we have to simplify the assumptions in order to do the calculations. A 'failure' in these cases may simply mean we are in the wrong region of parameter space or that our simplifying assumptions were wrong. Unfortunately, we often cannot do the calculations unless there are such simplifying assumptions.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2673
Jun 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I should point out that the 'bees can't fly' story is an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp
What it does show is that a bee with a flat, rigid, motionless wing could not fly.
Of course, if you apply helicopter simulations to bees? They are reasonably worked out helicopters-- not as efficient as an engineered one, but what else from a directed-random process? It's good enough for the bees...

;)
Start Over

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2674
Jun 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
A 'failure' in these cases may simply mean we are in the wrong region of parameter space or that our simplifying assumptions were wrong. Unfortunately, we often cannot do the calculations unless there are such simplifying assumptions.
Instead of simplifying assumptions, wouldn't it be more productive to drop the assumptions and start over with a clean slate? It seems logical that if you're working with the wrong parameters it would be more productive to back up and start over. Would this approach work?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2675
Jun 13, 2013
 
Start Over wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of simplifying assumptions, wouldn't it be more productive to drop the assumptions and start over with a clean slate? It seems logical that if you're working with the wrong parameters it would be more productive to back up and start over. Would this approach work?
Yes in fact we do...
Every single time. Do you have new figures to serve as a base lines?
Or will we calculate the same things again? BTW you will have to explain what substantiates any "new" figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Start Over

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2676
Jun 13, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes in fact we do...
Every single time. Do you have new figures to serve as a base lines?
Or will we calculate the same things again? BTW you will have to explain what substantiates any "new" figures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Well the reason I asked is to determine if starting over is the correct approach to any field or discipline in which prior assumptions don't pan out. I would think this is only logical in all areas of study. Right?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2677
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Start Over wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the reason I asked is to determine if starting over is the correct approach to any field or discipline in which prior assumptions don't pan out. I would think this is only logical in all areas of study. Right?
We call that divorce,

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2678
Jun 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize that before the LHC started, the vast majority of string theorists predicted that no black holes would be found this way, right? That the conditions required under string theory for this to happen we understood *before* hand to be very unlikely in the LHC?

http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/safety...

"According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects."

Notice that the theories that predict micro black holes were classified as *speculative*. Typically, in contexts like this, this means nobody really thinks it will happen.
You do realize that Einstein’s relativity fails on black holes.

*speculative* science, really? How neat.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2679
Jun 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that's *one* scenario where you could get information from the event horizon. The other is to be lucky and actually watch something falling into a known black hole. That seems like an easier way, although the quality of the data might not be as good.
We've already seen stars fall into the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Did you miss that nova program!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2680
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, it has not proven it. But it has shown how it could be possible.

[QUOTE]First off there is no NOTHING'S that science can use sense Space and Time are always there. So go ahead and tell me again how the BB can be tested."

By matching the predictions of the background radiation to the observations.
"But it has shown how it could be possible." Please fill me in on how it is scientific possible for nothing to create everything.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2681
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And what was the prior likelihood that we would get beyond the energies required for this phenomenon to show up? What was known about this energy? Are the results we found consistent with what we know about this energy? What does the lack of jets tell us about this energy?

The point? This is quite far from being a knock-out blow to string theory. At worst it shows that the energies required for some effects are higher than what we can currently produce.
46 years of zippo out of string theory.
Hang in there it's bound to produce something useful.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2682
Jun 13, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Never the less the point is valid by using simple calculation of wing area and muscle rates the bee can't fly. That is where this story stems from, and it took observation and explanation to explain it. I never made the claim science proved a bee can't fly, as in your legend .

I skipped to how science investigation explained how it can.

The same is true for the hummingbird , by wing area and known muscle rates , on paper can't fly and hover.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-03...

Also the distance a flea can jump is impossible by ordinary legs, but investigation showed how it is able.

This is the point I was making.
Pencil sharpeners make better points.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2683
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure how you jump from the bee to string theory, I haven't said anything about that. I know it failed the first test but one test doesn't mean anything, except the test failed.
How many tests failed to produce the Higgs Boson?
If we believed a thousand tests before the one, it would be a failed hypothesis also right?
What you are saying about string theory is exactly what I was saying about GR and BH's, except the only difference is the
tests that confirm GR are many, the one or two it fails won't scrap the theory, but requires more explanation.

With string theory more on par with the Higgs with more failures than successful tests, but persistent testing finally produced a positive result. The same may be true for strings or supersymmetric strings. The same thing applies though , that it won't all be worked out on paper, because science requires these
physical tests, and that was my whole point.
"I know it failed the first test but one test doesn't mean anything, except the test failed."

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2684
Jun 13, 2013
 
Start Over wrote:
<quoted text>Well the reason I asked is to determine if starting over is the correct approach to any field or discipline in which prior assumptions don't pan out. I would think this is only logical in all areas of study. Right?
Think of all the wasted careers, all the money sunk into a wrong guess. Science could never admit they hit a dead end and string theory was a wrong road.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2685
Jun 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
46 years of zippo out of string theory.
Hang in there it's bound to produce something useful.
And over 2000 years of zippo out of your ugly religion.

Hang in there-- maybe by random chance, something USEFUL will come from it....

... doubtful, though.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,581 - 2,600 of3,444
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••