• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Aug 22, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. D.A. Wright

    D.A. Wright Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ Supporter

    664
    +303
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    They also say not to complain about others' posting.
     
  2. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,739
    Atheist
    So don't do that.
     
  3. D.A. Wright

    D.A. Wright Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ Supporter

    664
    +303
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    US-Others
    Thanks for reminding me to continue to not do that. lol
     
  4. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,739
    Atheist
    You're most welcome ;)
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,182
    Christian
    That's certainly true, particularly as it relates to astronomy. It's not a field of science that's likely to have a direct impact on one's life for the most part.

    Thanks for sharing.
     
  6. SLP

    SLP Senior Member

    +543
    Atheist
    Not necessarily.
    You could have just said that you have nothing better.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,182
    Christian
    Hmmm. So even if a model is at odds with various observations, that's not a valid reason in your opinion to withhold belief in that model?

    Actually almost any steady-state model would be "better" IMO since they don't necessarily predict an evolutionary process that would be at odds with current higher redshift observations. Furthermore, tired light/plasma redshift explanations for redshift don't violate any known conservation of energy laws, and plasma redshift has been documented to occur in the lab, so I have every reason to believe it would occur in space.

    In sort, I believe that there are already better options to choose from.
     
  8. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +2,010
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others

    Apologize for posting in the wrong thread, but the other one is closed for review...surprise, surprise.

    I went back and looked at your "correction" of the math in that other thread...the only reason your "simplified" equation worked is because it was a coin toss, and obviously the square root of p^2 is just p, so one can just pull out the .5 from the parentheses. This happened to match your arbitrary placing of the successful probability outside the parentheses--or from under the root sign if you wish. (only because the probability of success and failure are equal in a coinflip)

    If you all had been talking about rolling a die, your equation would not have worked. What "constant" would you have placed outside the parentheses in that situation?

    My guess is you just googled the sigma for (specifically) a coin toss, and wrote down a simplified version where previous operations had already been performed for you...or something, I dunno.

    Then you tried to say that Selfism got his equation wrong by changing what "np" represented. He clearly stated that n=number of flips, and p=probability of flipping heads (or tails). His equation was not wrong, you arbitrarily changed his variables, and expected him to follow your wacky syntax.

    When, in math, are two letters ever the representation of one variable? I don't care what you use in programming, in math it isn't done because it causes confusion...clearly.

    The ONLY thing you corrected was a clear typo. I find it truly astounding that you would actually refer to that example...your equation is only true if the probability of success and failure are equal. If the probability of success is ANY VALUE other than .5, your equation does not work.

    I would really like to know the answer to this question:

    Using your formula:

    .5(np)^.5 Where "np" equals number of flips.

    How would it be different if it were the roll of a die (6-sided)? Using the same format: constant(variable rolls)^(raised to a power)?

    As a followup, how did you determine that constant?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2019
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,182
    Christian
    Well, the constant outside of the sqrt function wouldn't have worked out to a nice round number like 1/2 in that instance, but the same basic principle applies.

    Actually I just happened to remember that particular formula from high school.

    Ya, my great "sin" was not really reading his whole post, not bothering to actually look up the formula on Google, and just noticing that his formulas didn't match each other on both sides of the = sign.

    Admittedly, in this case, yes it certainly did, but as a programmer I never use single letter variables. The one exception is the letter i which I tend to use for doing iterations, which is a bad habit from originally learning basic as my first programming language.

    True, and I also simplified the formula.

    That same constant wouldn't work in every instance perhaps, but the formula could still be simplified by removing the probability constants from the sqrt function.

    Well, let’s see. In that case:

    Mean = NumberOfRolls/6

    Sigma = Sqrt(NumberOfRolls * 1/6 * 5/6) = sqrt(NumberOfRolls * 5/36)

    That would work out to sqrt(5)/6 * sqrt(NumberOfRolls)

    Which roughly translates to .3727(sqrt(NumberOfRolls))

    The constant outside of the sqrt function is essentially sqrt(Probability * (1 - Probability)) or alternatively you could say it's equal to the sqrt(SidesOfDie-1/SidesOfDie^2). If the number of sides of the die were 7, it would be sqrt(6/49) or roughly .3499. If the number of sides were 9, it would by sqrt(8/81) or roughly .3143. The constant changes slightly, but the concept is exactly the same.

    And God help me if I made any typos...... :)
     
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,182
    Christian
    And for the record.....

    I *never* questioned the mathematical aspects of LIGO's "sigma" calculation in the first place, so this exercise is ultimately pointless. I simply pointed out that the 5+ sigma calculation they cited is utterly unrelated to any particular "cause". In short, it means absolutely nothing with respect to determining the actual cause of the signal.

    What I find to be quite fascinating in retrospect is that the O3 LIGO/Virgo run has produced over 30 signals to date, with far better isolation in terms of location, but AFAIK, not a single one them has been verified by any external piece of equipment, and none of them has resulted in an additional example of multimessenger astronomy. Why is that? How can all these supposedly powerful energy release events in space all be invisible to every other piece of gear in space and on planet Earth? That seems rather suspicious to me.
     
  11. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +2,010
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    The problem is that even after he corrected his typo, you still insisted he was wrong.

    And you gave no indication how you came up with the .5 outside the radical. Then, when you left the p under the radical, he sees it as "n times p" not one variable.

    And his formula DID match on both sides of the equal sign, based on how he defined the variables. But you saw it as off because you weren't reading it as n times p, like he was.

    Surely you can see why there was confusion?
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,182
    Christian
    The *second* time (after he fixed the typo) they did match.

    Yes I certainly do see why there was confusion, and part of it was in fact my own confusion because as I already admitted, I didn't bother to even read his entire post. I just read his math formulas, or I would have understood that he was using two variables and he made just one mistake on one side of the = sign. If you read the thread again, a few posts later I admitted that it depended on whether he was using one or two variables and he was probably right after he fixed the *one* error/typo. Had I bothered to actually look up the sigma calculation on Google, or bothered to read his previous paragraph I would have immediately recognized that he was using two variables, and he made just one typo in his original post.

    The problem is that although I did in fact try to understand exactly what he did, he (and another individual) did everything they possibly could to avoid accepting the fact that I used a *single* variable rather than two, and I *simplified* the formula. The strawman nonsense continues to this day in fact.

    As you can see from my answers to your questions, I do in fact understand the relevant concepts and the relevant math. As I also mentioned in the original thread, and in the thread that was closed, the whole conversation was an irrelevant distraction because at no time did I question the math related to the sigma calculation, just the fact that the sigma figure had no relevancy as it relates to the actual "cause" of the signal. Likewise I don't question the mathematical expressions of "space expansion" in GR theory, just the fact that they violate the conservation laws of energy.

    The "do my math homework assignment on command" routine is "standard operating procedure" every single time that the mainstream gets questioned about their *qualitative* problems, and/or their procedural problems as with the original LIGO paper. It's a intentional attempt to deflect the conversation away from the *topics* and onto the individual. That's exactly why I refuse to "bark math on command" on message boards, particularly when it's blatantly obvious that it's an intentional attempt to defect the conversation away from the actual topic, and focus on the individual.
     
  13. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +2,010
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I can only comment on the math...the rest of it is only a passing interest and over my head, as I've mentioned before.

    That said, I think they've made a bigger deal of it than they should have (the math) in this particular case, but your methodology was also really bad. It could have been cleared up much more quickly.
     
  14. tampasteve

    tampasteve Steadfast Lutheran Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +2,805
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    MOD HAT ON
    This thread is closed permanently for goading and getting personal between several members. Further, please do not open new threads with the intent of starting a thread that has been closed. If you wish to do so please start a ticket in the Support Center to discuss it with Staff.

    MOD HAT OFF
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...