Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

Jump to new
2020hindsight said:
we're up to post #141, and noone has yet posted an error that he has made. ;)
Click to expand...

This is why I tend to avoid these discussions (or should I say polemics?). In the god thread (yes, not the thread you're referring to) I posted maybe a dozen links from reviewers pointing out rubbish from Dawkins yet here we still have comments like the above. He's only convincing to his like-minded fundies. :horse:

Flame away.
 
ktrianta said:
2020,

Not my definition but Dawkins, so know we finally have agreement.

I agree with you that a lot of what Dawkins says is so spurious as to be almost nonsensical.

2020 just remember Dawkins is not infallible, although as the Taliban of Athiests, i guess he probably thinks that he is.

We are better than that, we use reason and logic.

Dawkins is so intolerant in his writings that it is not hard to see why the Gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, Hitler's gas chambers, the cultural revolution of MAO and so on were all made possible in our so called enlightened societies.
Click to expand...
kt
a lesson in being clear on what we are arguing about praps...

OK - I think I've misunderstood the term "perfect hand of bridge"
And I think you are right that it is four hands, each of one suit ( but nothing to do with which has spades etc. (As Plato said, unless we define our terms it is pointless to argue).

So,
a) I'll post this excerpt from some research I've done
b) I agree that the chances are 1 in 2.24E27 when "perfect hand" is defined in this manner

c) kt, do you think you could find his exact quote maybe.

PS This bloke is critical of Dawkins, but at this point in time is the best reference I can find to what Dawkins said...

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52
What Dawkins does is to get us to imagine (no less!) a "spectrum" of probabilities. At one end we have events like rolling a double six with a pair of dice, where the probability is 1 in 36. At or well toward the other end is the probability of four players at bridge each receiving a complete suit of cards, which he calculates to be 2,236,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1.

Between the double six and the perfect deal at bridge is a range of more or less improbable events that do sometimes happen.
Click to expand...
i.e. he uses the "perfect 4 suites hand" as extremely unlikely

Now: "Go back to our mental picture of a graduated scale of improbable events with its benchmark coincidences of bridge hands and dice throws. On this graduated scale of dealions and microdealions, mark the following three new points.

Probability of life arising on a planet (in, say, a billion years), if we assume that life arises at a rate of about once per solar system.

Probability of life arising on a planet if life arises at a rate of about once per galaxy.

Probability of life on a randomly selected planet if life arose only once in the universe."

The actual probability of life originating (in some such manner as hypothesized above) "probably lies somewhere between the extremes represented" for a planet at once per solar system and at once per universe.
Click to expand...

This critic concludes ( paraphrasing) "rough as guts calcs"
Maybe Dawkins wouldn't disagree.
Anyway be interesting to see if you are right in what you quoted.
(My search continues)
 
ahhh - lol
I find that others have had a similar conversation previously

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199601-02/0312.html

>DM>I think that you may have made an error in assuming that Dawkins
>was talking about the same "bridge" event on page 162 as he was on
>page 161.

SJ>Sorry Derek, but that won't wash. Most readers would regard "a
>perfect deal in bridge" (p161) as the same as "a perfect bridge
>hand" (p162).

DM>I don't see why? On page 161, Dawkins clearly describes "a perfect
>deal in bridge" as being "where each of the four players receives a
>complete suit of cards". On page 162, Dawkins writes, concerning his
>hypothetical long-lived aliens, "They will expect to be dealt a
>perfect bridge hand from time to time ..." For a person (or alien)
>to be dealt "a perfect bridge hand" it only requires that the cards
>*in their hand* be all of one suit. This is the common usage of the
>terms "deal" and "hand". I don't play bridge, but I have played
>enough euchre and 500 to know the difference between a deal and a
>hand.

It may be that by detailed analysis one could argue that the "perfect
deal in bridge" (p161) is different from the "perfect bridge hand"
(p162). But the average reader would not make that distinction,
especially since Dawkins introduces the idea of a "perfect bridge
hand" with no explanation.

SJ>If Dawkins has switched meanings between pages then it is just
>another example of his use of subtle "tricks of the advocate's trade"
>("The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, ppxiv).

DM>Is it? How do you know? Is it not more likely that he simply
>assumed that his readers would know the difference between a deal and
>a hand. If he is remiss, then it is because he did not explicitly
>state the probability of receiving a perfect hand in bridge (for the
>record, it is approximately 251,963,120,000 to 1), which would have
>made more evident the difference between a deal and a hand.
If he had said *anything* about "the difference between a deal and a
hand", it would have helped.
Click to expand...

PS I'm starting to wonder how important this is :eek:
 
BIG BWACULL said:
Heh heh what a crack up i just you tubed it quality is a bit how ya goin but heres the link t have a look, love the last comment "how we suppose to use it again" LOL
Click to expand...
ripper bb lol

kt
On the subject of errors
Here are some extracts from a russian cartoon - the bear and the hedgehog.
Is anyone gonna claim that the message is lost just because the cartoonist doesn't draw the bear consistently on the same side as the hedgehog. I mean there are major errors and there are minor errors. yes?
 

Attachments

  • hedgehog3.jpg
    hedgehog3.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 197
  • hedgehog1.jpg
    hedgehog1.jpg
    10.7 KB · Views: 180
Galileo Galilei Proven Right

On one of the Moon missions, NASA astronauts decided to prove Galileo Galilei right.

He reasoned that if there was no atmosphere, no dragging force then two objects of different mass falling from the same height would hit the ground at the same time.

The astronomer drops a hammer and a feather on the surface of the Moon.

---
It's Never too Late to Study:
http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com
Click to expand...
 
PS I notice this is claimed to be fake - could be who knows.
THe important thing is that it is what would happen.

Incidentally, when Galileo carried cannon balls and shot to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and dropped them, he proved Aristotle wrong.
However, few believed him regardless - because the cannonball still hit the ground marginally faster due to air resistance effects.

He complained..
"Aristotle would claim that the cannonball being ten times heavier would fall ten times faster - and that when it had hit the ground (eg 10 metres) the shot would be only one metre from the point of release.

Now, my theory has been shown to be 95% correct, and Aristotle's only 5% correct, but you still prefer to believe Aristotle. :eek: "

 
Wysiwyg said:
It`s time to grab Leela and K9 for another journey in the Tardis because come middle of next year (2008) we will be closer to understanding the Universe we live in.
Click to expand...

Well Wys, if you happen to be pottering around the French Swiss border next month, here is a date to throw in your calender.

Open Day at the LHC - Sunday 6 April 2008

Search for the Higgs particle and an explanation for inflation, possible extra dimensions.......exciting stuff.

http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/openday.html
 
The "Higgs" particle, Gluons and Quarks. The most elusive question today is- "who named these fundamental particles?"

Very interesting stuff, but so hard to understand..... :confused:
 
Yes thanks spooly for the reminder, the event will change perception yet again about the bulding blocks of the Universe (?multiverse?).The beginning of a new era in physics bringing changes in teachings at schools & universities.
Not a physics person myself just have the interest.An easy to understand explanation of particles is here on this toob shot.Is the Higgs element for real?We will know soon enough.

"The earliest efforts to manipulate nature"

 
Pat said:
"who named these fundamental particles?"
Click to expand...
Hmmm, that's supposed to say- "why are fundamental (Elemental by the above video) particles called gluons and quarks?"

Don't know what I was thinking... I was at work :eek:
 
Pat said:
Hmmm, that's supposed to say- "why are fundamental (Elemental by the above video) particles called gluons and quarks?"

Don't know what I was thinking... I was at work :eek:
Click to expand...
:topic
a "quark" by any other name would still spend its time sitting around combobularising I guess ;).
Sounds like the last noise a duck would make as it was swallowed by a snake.
Dow doing another up-quark as well. (wonder how long this blip will last - a bit longer than the last 400 point recovery ? maybe ? - who knows :rolleyes:

PS great video wys. New terms since I went to school. Still one new quark does not describe a new summer.
 
looks like those guys at NASA have solved our energy crisis. We just need to start retrofitting some super tankers with some booster rockets.

from article said:
Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.
Click to expand...

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html
 
Why for are there such things in existence.What "is" without observation.:rolleyes:
 
gee whiz those Abs were good designers
age-old logic works again ;)

PS wouldn't you love to know what the diameter of the arc was ;)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/21/2196406.htm?section=justin

Boomerang returns, even in space
Posted 18 minutes ago

In an unprecedented experiment, a Japanese astronaut has thrown a boomerang in space and confirmed it flies back, much like on Earth.

Astronaut Takao Doi "threw a boomerang and saw it come back" during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station (ISS), a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said.

Mr Doi threw the boomerang after a request from compatriot Yasuhiro Togai, a world boomerang champion.

"I was very surprised and moved to see that it flew the same way it does on Earth," the Mainichi Shimbun daily quoted the 53-year-old astronaut as telling his wife in a chat from space.

The space agency said a videotape of the experiment would likely be released later.

Doi travelled on US shuttle Endeavour on the March 11 blast-off and successfully delivered the first piece of a Japanese laboratory to the ISS.
Click to expand...
 
This is a wind up 20, it has to be! :confused:

Throw anything outwards in space and it aint coming back.
Interested in seeing the vid :cautious:

edit: found this pic of the funny looking things
 

Attachments

  • space_boomerang.jpg
    space_boomerang.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 103
spooly, lol - you're right of course -
were it April 1 it would be an easy one to call ;).

Even on the moon , you wouldn't think it would return lol:confused:
Feather & Hammer Drop on Moon


2020 said:
wouldn't you love to know what the diameter of the arc was!
Click to expand...
I mean, perhaps it's based on Einstein's theory that if you look in a telescope long enough you see the back of your head :confused:

PS then again - it could be something to do with radiation / solar winds etc - after all , derty's post was pretty hard to believe as well ;) - on the other hand, why wouldn't it just drift "downwind" ?? - what could possibly cause it to return ?

PS thanks derty - interesting
Ahh - you posted it elsewhere - I was thinking of the solid state fan, no moving parts - brilliant as they say in the Guinness ad. :bier:

PS Found it ..

derty-on-the-did-you-know-thread said:
A solid state fan has been invented!

It's got no moving parts and it blows air! It blows air and it's got NO moving parts!

We really are in the 21st Century.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/72400,silent-microchip-fan-has-no-moving-parts.aspx
http://www.thorrn.com/technology.html
Click to expand...
 
Top