Is the absence of chaos among the inner planets, apart of fine tuning?

Homepage Forums Science Is the absence of chaos among the inner planets, apart of fine tuning?

This topic contains 19 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  TJ 1 year ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48170

    michael17
    Participant

    Is the absence of chaos among the inner planets, evidence of the posited fine tuning  of the universe (antropic principle)?

    https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/scientists-discover-secret-symmetries-that-protect-earth-from-the-chaos-of-space

    • This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    #48173

    jakelafort
    Participant

    michael17, is it evident to you how your world view colors your lens accordingly?

    Not that objectivity is possible for humans and yet any form of ideology/orthodoxy renders a flawed human an absolute trash receptacle. I don’t mean that in a bad way…it is just that…

    #48174

    michael17
    Participant

    michael17, is it evident to you how your world view colors your lens accordingly? Not that objectivity is possible for humans and yet any form of ideology/orthodoxy renders a flawed human an absolute trash receptacle. I don’t mean that in a bad way…it is just that

    Theories or ideologies can be flawed, but evidence is what it is. The question is what is the correct explanation?

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    #48176

    Unseen
    Participant

    What exactly do you mean by the lack of chaos among the inner planets (Mercury through Mars, I assume)?  Are you referring to chaos as defined in chaos theory where relatively small fluctuations can result in major consequences? Mercury’s orbit is often described as chaotic in a different sense of the word.

    #48178

    michael17
    Participant

    Is the absence of chaos among the inner planets, evidence of the posited fine tuning of the universe (antropic principle)? https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/scientists-discover-secret-symmetries-that-protect-earth-from-the-chaos-of-space

    The calculate Lyapunov time is only 5 million years before there is a collision because the orbit of the small inner planets are more subject to gravitational tugs and the chaotic effect overtime.

    #48179

    michael17
    Participant

    What exactly do you mean by the lack of chaos among the inner planets (Mercury through Mars, I assume)? Are you referring to chaos as defined in chaos theory where relatively small fluctuations can result in major consequences? Mercury’s orbit is often described as chaotic in a different sense of the word.

    The calculated Lyapunov time is only 5 million years before there is a collision because the orbit of the small inner planets are more subject to gravitational tugs and the chaotic effect overtime

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    #48181

    Unseen
    Participant

    In any case, there is no absence of chaos, is there? Or can you prove absence of chaos?

    #48182

    michael17
    Participant

    In any case, there is no absence of chaos, is there? Or can you prove absence of chaos?

    Chaos is suppose to be there, is the point, but there’s not. So who  or what is doing the restoration?

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    #48184

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Yeah, our science isn’t up to snuff yet, so bring in the gods! He sure has been diminished by science. From creating all in a week and mankind from mud (just like Promethius did, lol); now he just nudges planets here and there or maybe guides a football just a bit.

    #48185

    Unseen
    Participant

    In any case, there is no absence of chaos, is there? Or can you prove absence of chaos?

    Chaos is suppose to be there, is the point, but there’s not. So who or what is doing the restoration?

    There you go again, asserting there’s no chaos. Show us, then, that there is no chaos.

    #48186

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    ChatGPT gave me a great explanation of planetary orbital dynamics, including interactions, but got wishy-washy on what scientific consensus is on how well Lyapunov time calculations can explain very long time frames, or the future of planetary orbits. In the article you cited, I also didn’t see any strong support for, or strong arguments against it.

    My first guess regarding the motive of your question to us was to see if anyone here makes any unsupportable responses, or maybe someone here can actually be competently conversant about Lyapunov time. I’m certainly not! So I’m satisfied with a “we don’t know” answer, until more evidence is presented that there’s a controversy here on whether science is or isn’t capable of answering a significant mystery now, or in the future.

    And I would expect JWST to keep coming up with evidence that significantly reshapes scientific theories and “dogmas”, including the dynamics of planetary system behaviors on a spectrum (e.g.) of age in millions or billions of years. (Of course “dogmas” in science are more plastic and updatable in light of new observations and evidence than dogmas in religion.) The goal of science, even if a scientist believes that God made it happen, is still to understand how it happened, and/or under what circumstances. We are not out to disprove the existence of God or Creation, because that’s out of our bailiwick.

    My brain, not working as well as I’d like today, could not provide me with the name of the scientist and his proposal wrt science vs religion. So I put to ChatGPT an imperfectly worded query, and it came back with what I was looking for:

    ME
    what scientist spoke of science and religion as being separate while having different magistrates, or something like that?

    ChatGPT
    The scientist you’re referring to is likely Stephen Jay Gould, an influential paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. Gould proposed the concept of “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA) in an attempt to resolve the perceived conflict between science and religion.

    In this perspective, Gould suggested that science and religion should be viewed as two separate domains (or “magisteria”) with distinct areas of teaching authority – hence the term “non-overlapping.” According to Gould, science’s domain is the empirical realm, including the theory of evolution and all other aspects of the universe that we can observe and measure. On the other hand, religion’s domain is that of moral values and spiritual meaning.

    Gould argued that conflicts arise when either domain crosses over into the other’s territory. For example, a religious belief should not dictate a scientific fact, and likewise, science should not make claims on moral or spiritual matters.

    It’s worth noting that while NOMA has been influential, it’s also been the subject of much debate, and not all scientists or religious thinkers agree with Gould’s proposition.

    ——————

    Trying to query this through Google Search might have taken me a hella lot longer, innit?

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: some rewording/clarification on a couple of paragraphs. i won't do this again without a log entry like this
    #48189

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Michael17,

    Couldn’t a body from outside the Solar System of sufficient size and gravitational pull come in and mess with the orbits of any of the Planets or Dwarf Planets, whether Inner Solar System or Outer Solar System?

    Yeah, I know I’m throwing in a hypothetical, but is it any less possible than the notion of “fine tuning?” Couldn’t it actually be more possible, since we do already have Comets coming in and out of The Solar System?

    #48190

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Jake,

    Not that objectivity is possible for humans and yet any form of ideology/orthodoxy renders a flawed human an absolute trash receptacle. I don’t mean that in a bad way…it is just that…

    Objectivity is impossible? As Regis would always ask: “Is that your final answer?” 🙂

    #48192

    _Robert_
    Participant

    In this perspective, Gould suggested that science and religion should be viewed as two separate domains (or “magisteria”) with distinct areas of teaching authority – hence the term “non-overlapping.” According to Gould, science’s domain is the empirical realm, including the theory of evolution and all other aspects of the universe that we can observe and measure. On the other hand, religion’s domain is that of moral values and spiritual meaning.

    Gould is too generous to religion. Religion believes it has domain over morality, however zoology shows us the true source of morality which develops in higher animals without religion. And well just look to the “Holy Land” or the scriptures to find god-sanctioned hate and murder. Religion’s domain is lies, unbacked assertions and hate. The opposite of science and the spirit of obtaining true knowledge.

    #48198

    michael17
    Participant

    Michael17, Couldn’t a body from outside the Solar System of sufficient size and gravitational pull come in and mess with the orbits of any of the Planets or Dwarf Planets, whether Inner Solar System or Outer Solar System? Yeah, I know I’m throwing in a hypothetical, but is it any less possible than the notion of “fine tuning?” Couldn’t it actually be more possible, since we do already have Comets coming in and out of The Solar System?

    If with Lyapunov time scales, we are talking millions of years  for the chaos in the three and four body effect to cause a collision and to your point incidental fly-bys are at play as well, thus deepening the mystery over billions of years.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  michael17.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.