You got the equation right, you just don't seem to understand it - based on the OP. It is for an hypothetical Perfect Gas that perfectly follows the three Gas Laws. No Gas in existence does this, so no Chemist can derive any variable in real practice of any sort from it. Likewise its constant does not exist in reality. It is therefore a very poor and frankly silly choice for a fine tuning argument. What it does do, is suggest how real gases should have acted if they were Perfect and with the addition of information such as the vapour point, molecular mass, Reynold's number and flow, etc., we may be able to derive values therefrom with some semblance to reality - even here though, our theory seldom fits how we actually measure gases act.
After looking it up, I see that R, the gas constant, is the product of two other constants. So, touché.
Check my profile. I often agree with people as per my given rates. You just seem to enjoy talking about things of which you seem to know very little, hence requiring correction.
I've seen where you dish out your likes. You hand them out like candy to people who disagree with me, and, considering that this is a Christian forum, that's a lot. You are a contrarian. You refused, tooth and nail, to agree to the correct definition of "atheism" despite being shown in excruciating detail that you are wrong. Frankly, I have very little respect for your intellectual honesty.
Don't worry about it. I am an Anaesthetist, and it is not by chance that surgeons call us Gas Monkeys.
These are the actual Gas Laws though, derived from extrapolation of experimental results to a vague principle - even if no gas actually follows it.
The ideal Gas Law is a fudge where these three laws were artificially thrown together and their constants equated - it is therefore not technically a 'scientific law' at all, but a method of application of the actual Laws.
Thank you.
Nope. You said we "painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant". We did nothing of the sort. We compared measurements to derive the principles of the three Perfect Gas Laws. We then invented a hypothetical gas that fits them perfectly and artificially invented a constant to place all three into one equation for a mole of the hypothetical gas. No experiment or measurement went into deriving the value of the constant - experiments were done for the principles of the Perfect Gas Laws, which don't correspond to the actual results of any measurement or experiment, but the constant simply follows a hypothetical combination of them and is determined therefore by convention.
Yes, I see that now.
Well, the masses of elementary particles such as the Hoyle number of Carbon; or the strengths of fundamental forces like electroweak or strong nuclear; for instance. Our standard model of particle physics and lambda CDM cosmological model has all kinds of fairly arbitrary values that had they been different , which math allows and often would rather have been expected, then the universe as we know it could not exist. I am not going to argue these much though, as there is a lacunae in my knowledge here, so this is my understanding taken on authority from what physicists I have read. As I said, I find Fine Tuning a bit of a catch-22 argument, so...
But again, as I said in the OP, there is the issue of Relativity vs quantum mechanics. We don't know how to mesh those together, so we cannot accurately model the Big Bang. A theory of quantum gravity is the Holy Grail of physics. Until we find it, it is premature for theists to trumpet fine tuning. I'd like to see more of them admit this. You, at least, don't blow the trumpet so kudos to you for that.
The values that we obtain by observation are the 'fine tuned' values that would give us that observation. These were utilised to create our physics in the first place, so it stands to reason that values used to derive something would be in accord with what was derived therefrom; and would be in accord with the required values for the observation to have occurred in the first place; and for the Observer to exist.
Are you referring to an absolute frame of reference?
Upvote
0