|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Big Bang seems wrong, computers to blame
Quote:
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling. |
|
||||
|
It does seem unfair.
Quote:
Solar system models aren't so easy either. If these aren't so easy, no reason to be hard on BBT number crunching. ![]()
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |
|
||||
|
Do the weather models predict your rain chances accurately a week from now?
They have trouble getting it right for tomorrow ![]()
__________________
Howling from the Shadows It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername Apollo: The History and the Hoax Enter the World of Athran |
|
||||
|
Quote:
But does that mean "wrong"? I think in the context of a theory it's not. It's a step. If I want to measure the thickness of my brake pad, my ruler is not "Wrong" (although it's not the right tool) It's just not accurate enough. But; It still gets me somewhere... I measure it at 3mm when it's actually 2.9mm. Am I wrong? It depends on why I need the measure. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
They will ignore the wonderful concordance discovered for BBT and ignore the difficulty involved in producing a computer model for the entire universe. They do, however, know about the weather and our limitations to model it. ![]()
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Yes, good point. If they don't get past the title, then some will claim it must be "wrong" based on advance computer calculations.
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |
|
||||
|
This whole issue speaks to what is the purpose of a simulation. Observations generate the need for a theory to explain them. The theory comes along, and simulations try to check the full ramifications of the theory. When the simulations are difficult, it is not at all uncommon for the simulations to fail to completely link the theory to the observations. Sometimes it means the theory is missing a key element, other times it means the simulations are not reliable. Supernova simulations were carried out for a very long time before they could actually get stars to supernova, and still have problems with it, but no one says that the theory that massive stars go supernova is "wrong". It just means that there must be some aspect of what is happening that is not properly accounted for in the simulations, either because of numerical problems or due to improper simplifying assumptions. It's not unusual.
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Cheers. |
|
||||
|
Well, there was that couch gag on "The Simpson's" a couple of seasons ago. The camera pulls back to reveal that the universe is just a strand of DNA in one of the few hairs on the head of a giant Homer in another universe.
One of my favorite couch gags, but I don't believe it became a leading theory. |