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

[michael17Participant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

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?

The scientific  explanation could be as simple as: It ‘s due to dark matter,  even that would be suspected of fine tuning.

[michael17Participant]

Unseen wrote:

michael17 wrote:

Unseen wrote:

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.

The authors assertion of no chaos, is probably  extreme and should be changed to: no eventful chaos as predicted by the Lyapunov time

[PopeBeanieModerator]

michael17 wrote:

The scientific  explanation could be as simple as: It ‘s due to dark matter,  even that would be suspected of fine tuning.

Yeah I thought of that too… which is why my attention went to JWST as the instrument to more precisely measure orbital dynamics in other planetary systems.

I think probably the notion of “fine tuning” will last longer when considering how universal constants in our universe in a multiverse seem so fine tuned to enabling our existence. Observing long term orbital dynamics over millions or billions of years with JWST should make it easier to draw conclusions, sooner, and my money’s on reasonable scientific explanations here, perhaps even in our lifetimes.

I like that you’re willing to put your ideas out there honestly, even when you and I will strongly tend to support the validity of one magisteria over the other.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@michael17 – Could you let me know where and how religion, as a means of discovery, overlaps with each of the follow please;

Botany, Geology, Ecology, Oceanography and Microbiology.

[TJParticipant]

The evidence is that “chaos” is present in all parts of the solar system,  including inner planetary etc…

…and, of course, what we observe,  is what is LEFT after everything that was less stable…is gone.

This is part of entropy…anything left to happen, happens, with the most likely to happen tending to happen before whatever is less likely.

The moon for example,  is spiraling away from earth… and, earth’s axial tilt is moving, and so forth, we have a wobble,  and, this sort of thing is happening all over the solar system,  and galaxies, etc.

🙂

It’s not really “fine tuning”, unless you define fine tuning as whatever worked being what’s left, for now.

🙂

 

[Author]

Posts