|
Reasoned Faith
|
 |
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:48:34 PM » |
|
This is split out of the Posts on Specification and Design. I don't think the results will change much relative to the 10^150 universal limit. Where did that number came from?
It is the upper bound of all the macro-events that could ever have occured in this universe. It is the number of atoms in the universe times the number of atomic collisions per second times the number of seconds this universe is old. It places a reasonable upper bound on what chance can explain. Do you know that the number of atoms in the universe is constant, or can matter and energy interchange? Can you also calculate the total energy of the universe? Because if matter and energy can interchange, you would need to know the total sum of all the energy in the universe, not just how many atoms exist right now. True enough. The number of atoms is not constant. The number is the mass equivalent, it is estimated by gravitational measurements and therefore includes energy (Relativity theory has been confirmed on this point, unconstrained energy does indeed have inertia). Furthermore the difference/error is in the noise since the number of elements in the periodic table is small so any error is less than three orders of magnitude. Well, my knowledge of physics is a little rusty, but that does sound a bit more plausible than just knowing how many atoms there are. I'm curious about this number. I'm going to use the following quote, it's a very concise definition. It is the upper bound of all the macro-events that could ever have occured in this universe. It is the number of atoms in the universe times the number of atomic collisions per second times the number of seconds this universe is old. It places a reasonable upper bound on what chance can explain. We have Total mass equivalent (kg) * Total time (sec) * Number of atomic collisions/sec ( unitless/seconds ?) = 10^150 (units?, something times grams or just grams?) Specifically, I'm curious about how the the values put in for the variables were obtained. I'm also unsure of units for collisions a second, I'm assuming unitless/sec?. Same with the number of atoms, I'm assuming this is a mass measurement in kg? I'm also curious what the confidence interval is if the number is based on probability theory. I suppose it would have been more clear to say molecular equivalent rather than mass equivalent. The formula is the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles) * 1/2 (colisions/particles) * Plank's constant (collisions/sec) * estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far. (Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor) I separated it for clarity. The uncertainty bars are somewhat high for the number of particles in the universe and the age of the universe. there are several websites that provide the confidence intervals for these values. I leave that as an exercise for you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2007, 07:23:36 PM » |
|
wow, RF you really have Faith in this stuff, don't you? It's too bad its meaningless, and has been shown to be false. But that won't stop the Creationsits from believing - it never does. btw, RF, how many bits is god made of? How likely is the sudden formation of a fully perfect non-being? Or is this when you reach for your blinders and start the special pleading; "you can't talk about the supernatural! Only I can! Only I know what is possible in the other dimension!"    |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 07:59:36 PM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2007, 09:53:46 PM » |
|
I suppose it would have been more clear to say molecular equivalent rather than mass equivalent.
The formula is the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles) * 1/2 (colisions/particles) * Plank's constant (collisions/sec) * estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far.
(Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor) I separated it for clarity.
The uncertainty bars are somewhat high for the number of particles in the universe and the age of the universe. there are several websites that provide the confidence intervals for these values. I leave that as an exercise for you.
Well, TBH, I don't find "it's out there, go look it up" to be very convincing. I'm not the one claiming an upper limit to the macro-events (or whatever the 10^150 is), so it would be a bit daft for me to assume it was my job to search for justification of a claim you put forward. "Somewhat high" is a designation I'm unfamiliar with in the field of statistics or probability theory. There are a few issues I'd like to address in that equation: The formula is:
the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles). What do you mean by particles (surely not subatomic particles)? What do you mean molecular equivalent? Molecular equivalent measured in particles? The number of atoms would be reported in atoms, if in fact the number of atoms is what is being estimated. * 1/2 (colisions/particles) Whoa, whoa, stop right there. The 1/2 isn't what concerns me so much at this point, it's arbitrarily throwing the extra collisions/particles in there that's the problem. We need to get the units straight on this before we can start thinking about quantity. You can't just go throwing units into the equation all willy nilly. What's the explanation for this? * Plank's constant (collisions/sec)The Planck constant has units of joules * seconds, not collisions/seconds. It is used in describing subatomic phenomena. A joule in base units is (m*m*kg/(s*s)). * estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far.
(Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor) I separated it for clarity.Corrected for the erroneous additions of collisions/seconds and 'particles', the units in this equation would be: atoms*joules*sec*sec Substituting base units for joules would yield: atoms*m*m*kg distance squared ( that's area) times mass times a quantity of atoms. area * mass * a quantity of atomsWhat exactly does this unit describe? It sounds nonsensical to me. The units are just the tip of the iceberg on this one. The issue of why these variables are used (are they valid in describing what you are trying to describe?), and how the values used for the variables were determined. Come to think of it, you haven't even stated what the values are yet, or explained how you're accounting for matter-energy interchange. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 10:10:30 PM by illy »
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2007, 05:06:58 AM » |
|
I suppose it would have been more clear to say molecular equivalent rather than mass equivalent.
The formula is the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles) * 1/2 (collisions/particles) * Plank's constant (collisions/sec) * estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far.
(Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor) I separated it for clarity.
The uncertainty bars are somewhat high for the number of particles in the universe and the age of the universe. there are several websites that provide the confidence intervals for these values. I leave that as an exercise for you.
Well, TBH, I don't find "it's out there, go look it up" to be very convincing. I'm not the one claiming an upper limit to the macro-events (or whatever the 10^150 is), so it would be a bit daft for me to assume it was my job to search for justification of a claim you put forward. "Somewhat high" is a designation I'm unfamiliar with in the field of statistics or probability theory. I have no interest in justifying it to you. Probability limits are not a novel concept and in my mind don't need to be defended. Are you now claiming that this estimate of a universal upper bound is incorrect? Once you claim it is incorrect then I may feel the need to defend it. There are a few issues I'd like to address in that equation:
The formula is:
the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles).
What do you mean by particles (surely not subatomic particles)? Since evolution is a macro event we must only consider macro events in the formulation. Atoms are the smallest particles that contribute to the kind of macro events involve in chemical interactions. What do you mean molecular equivalent? Molecular equivalent measured in particles? The number of atoms would be reported in atoms, if in fact the number of atoms is what is being estimated. Measures of gravitational strength includes energy which is then reduced to the molecualar equivalent. It is possible that estimates of the number of atoms in the universe are overstated by inclusion of unconstrained energy (radiation is an example). * 1/2 (colisions/particles)
Whoa, whoa, stop right there.
The 1/2 isn't what concerns me so much at this point, it's arbitrarily throwing the extra collisions/particles in there that's the problem. We need to get the units straight on this before we can start thinking about quantity.
You can't just go throwing units into the equation all willy nilly.
What's the explanation for this? Each collision involves two (or more) particles. * Plank's constant (collisions/sec)The Planck constant has units of joules * seconds, not collisions/seconds. It is used in describing subatomic phenomena. A joule in base units is (m*m*kg/(s*s)). Plank coined more than one constant. Forgive me for being imprecise. Let's call it Plank time instead. [ i]* estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far.
(Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor) I separated it for clarity.[/i]
Corrected for the erroneous additions of collisions/seconds and 'particles', the units in this equation would be:
atoms*joules*sec*sec
Substituting base units for joules would yield:
atoms*m*m*kg
distance squared ( that's area) times mass times a quantity of atoms.
area * mass * a quantity of atoms
What exactly does this unit describe?
It sounds nonsensical to me. Yes your formulation is nonsensical. I was unclear about Plank time an you substituted in the wrong value and units. The units are just the tip of the iceberg on this one. The issue of why these variables are used (are they valid in describing what you are trying to describe?), and how the values used for the variables were determined. Come to think of it, you haven't even stated what the values are yet, or explained how you're accounting for matter-energy interchange.
Please unequivocally claim I am wrong with this estimate and I will be happy to explain it further. Otherwise I will presume you are simply attempting to confuse the issue. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 05:10:03 AM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,101
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2007, 05:21:31 AM » |
|
Please unequivocally claim I am wrong with this estimate and I will be happy to explain it further. Otherwise I will presume you are simply attempting to confuse the issue.
I am simply an observer in this discussion, but why would you assume that he was attempting to confuse the issue? Is that because you would or are doing the same? I do not see the point in automatically assuming your debate partner is debating not in good faith... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about? |
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2007, 05:45:49 AM » |
|
Please unequivocally claim I am wrong with this estimate and I will be happy to explain it further. Otherwise I will presume you are simply attempting to confuse the issue.
I am simply an observer in this discussion, but why would you assume that he was attempting to confuse the issue? Is that because you would or are doing the same? I do not see the point in automatically assuming your debate partner is debating not in good faith... I base it off of past history of this poster. He seems to have a nasty habit of this when he disagrees. Also I base it on the nature of his questions and statements. His questions appear to be leading questions. They do not appear to be questions seeking clarification. Also he seems to presume that when he does not understand, it is because I have made a fundamental error. He could just as easily phrase it to come ac cross as not following the statement. I do not know if I am correct about this, but if illy is concerned about his opponent's opinion of him, he may wish to alter his approach. If not, that is certainly his prerogative. As for my approach to illy, clearly you seem to find fault with it. I have noted it. Thank-you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2007, 10:08:58 AM » |
|
You put forth a claim that there is a universal probability limit of 10^150. You need to back your claim up if you expect it to be taken seriously. Here is the Planck constant:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constantnotice it's measured in J*s, not collisions/second Here is the formula for Planck Time  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_timenotice it's units are in seconds, not collisions/second. You can't just randomly name scientific concepts and think that calling out their names validates your claim, that's not how it works. Show me the equation. I'm not going to spend my time trying to prove your point. Don't break it down into semantics and word games. This is math. Define your equation, define your variables (units and values) and justify why they're valid. Otherwise this 10^150 is nothing more than a number you're fond of. If I'm the one making nonsense out of things here, by all means, shut my nonsense down with mathematical fact. Keep putting up nonsensical equations, and nonsense is what your going to find when they're evaluated. As the old saying goes, GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out). My last reply was well reasoned and civil. The only thing nasty here is your attempted abuse of mathematics. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2007, 11:39:01 AM » |
|
I do not know if I am correct about this, but if illy is concerned about his opponent's opinion of him, he may wish to alter his approach. If not, that is certainly his prerogative. It is not I, but basic algebra that is your opponent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2007, 11:51:57 AM » |
|
I do not know if I am correct about this, but if illy is concerned about his opponent's opinion of him, he may wish to alter his approach. If not, that is certainly his prerogative. It is not I, but basic algebra that is your opponent. Ah, RF's nemesis! :lol: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2007, 01:58:26 PM » |
|
I do not know if I am correct about this, but if illy is concerned about his opponent's opinion of him, he may wish to alter his approach. If not, that is certainly his prerogative. It is not I, but basic algebra that is your opponent. No it is not. The inverse of the formula for Planck Time is collisions or events per second. illy you are beginning to embarrass yourself. You're hanging yourself. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 02:00:15 PM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,101
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2007, 03:16:10 PM » |
|
No it is not. The inverse of the formula for Planck Time is collisions or events per second. illy you are beginning to embarrass yourself. You're hanging yourself.
I saw where you said Planck's Constant, then said Plank Time. I missed where we were supposed to be using it's inverse. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about?
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2007, 03:53:07 PM » |
|
I do not know if I am correct about this, but if illy is concerned about his opponent's opinion of him, he may wish to alter his approach. If not, that is certainly his prerogative. It is not I, but basic algebra that is your opponent. No it is not. The inverse of the formula for Planck Time is collisions or events per second. illy you are beginning to embarrass yourself. You're hanging yourself. That's preposterous. For the inverse of the Planck time constant to be reported in collisions/seconds, Plank time would need to be expressed in seconds/collisions. It is not. Honestly, I think you need to work on your basic algebra before you start taking on subjects like physics and probability. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 03:59:46 PM by illy »
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2007, 04:02:15 PM » |
|
No it is not. The inverse of the formula for Planck Time is collisions or events per second. illy you are beginning to embarrass yourself. You're hanging yourself.
I saw where you said Planck's Constant, then said Plank Time. I missed where we were supposed to be using it's inverse. Did you find my original explanation and formula confusing? Were you not able to look at the units and reason out that the form I used was the inverse? I am sorry, I guess I assume too much. preposterous illy? What does planck time measure if not events/collisions/potential interactions or however else you wish to describe it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,101
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2007, 04:13:36 PM » |
|
Did you find my original explanation and formula confusing? Were you not able to look at the units and reason out that the form I used was the inverse? I am sorry, I guess I assume too much.
preposterous illy? What does planck time measure if not events/collisions/potential interactions or however else you wish to describe it?
In general I find most of what you post confusing and convoluted. The formula specified seconds. Are you changing this? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about?
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2007, 04:15:04 PM » |
|
No it is not. The inverse of the formula for Planck Time is collisions or events per second. illy you are beginning to embarrass yourself. You're hanging yourself.
I saw where you said Planck's Constant, then said Plank Time. I missed where we were supposed to be using it's inverse. Did you find my original explanation and formula confusing? Were you not able to look at the units and reason out that the form I used was the inverse? I am sorry, I guess I assume too much. preposterous illy? What does planck time measure if not events/collisions/potential interactions or however else you wish to describe it? Here it is again in case you missed it. Planck time is a unit of time, measured in seconds. 'Collisions' are not a unit used to express Planck time. So, do you have the "right" equation to post, or is this whole thing bunk? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
