Skip to main content

So I was pondering one of our local frequent poster's comment on the anthropic principal. This principal posits that the universe seems to be finely tuned for human life. It further posits that if the early universe had one single extra atom or was just a teency bit cooler/hotter/larger/smaller/more antimatter/less antimatter etc... that life (heck, even matter itself) would not form.

That got me to thinking about my each of our incredibly unique place in this universe. What did it take for someone like me to be sitting here giving you good people grief about all this heady stuff? So many things were stacked against me being here. Why me?

Matter was created, galaxies formed, stars exploded creating the heavy elements that eventually comprised my atoms. Then life had to begin on this particular planet in this galaxy in this forgotten part of the universe. No matter what your religion tells you, I think we can all agree that life on this planet had a beginning. After that, a billion trillion circumstances had to happen in exactly the right order for me to be sitting here today.

If the very first RNA replication had generated 3 instead of 2 copies of itself, I would not be here

If my shrew-like ancestor had been eaten by a small dinosaur 64 millions years ago, I would not be here.

If a tree that grew 10 million years ago had not sprouted the branch in exactly the right spot to be in reach of my ape-like ancestor as she fell from the canopy of the fruit tree I would not be here.

Millions of generations later, a neanderthal survived a brutal ice-age winter and was able to mate with a homo-erectus that eventually produced the homo sapien that produced my great great grandfather who survived a one of the bloodiest civil wars in in modern history, was captured by the enemy, sent to federal prison camp, falsely accused of desertion by his Confederacy, came back home and fathered my grandfather who eventually gave rise to my father who just happened to fall in love with my mother.

The chain if events leading up to the formation of my mother was equally insanely improbable.

Of all those billions of possible combinations of sperm and egg - each producing a vastly different "me" than the me that I see in the mirror - one single sperm and one single egg combined to make the unique individual that you all have the displeasure of getting to know.

Your and my genetic lineage can be traced back 3.5 billion years ago. The chain of events leading up to me (and you and you and you, of course) actually started 13.5 billion years ago. Perhaps even longer ago than that if one accept the premise of the Big Squeeze theories.

Yet despite all those hundreds of trillions of sextillions of improbabilities, here I am. Right here. Right now. In this pivotal, fortunate era.

Think about it.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by Ironic Pentameter:
Yet despite all those hundreds of trillions of sextillions of improbabilities, here I am. Right here. Right now. In this pivotal, fortunate era. Think about it.


YES! ISN'T GOD AWESOME? AND TO THINK THAT IT ALL STARTED WITH ADAM AND EVE. TRULY AMAZING!


IDIOT
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by Ironic Pentameter:
Yet despite all those hundreds of trillions of sextillions of improbabilities, here I am. Right here. Right now. In this pivotal, fortunate era. Think about it.


YES! ISN'T GOD AWESOME? AND TO THINK THAT IT ALL STARTED WITH ADAM AND EVE. TRULY AMAZING!


So, Bill. Who came first - Adam or Eve?
Crustyone,


I'm no engineer. Well, not exactly.

However, in your word problem, 100 X -2= -200.

-200 plus the given 100 = -100. The machine B would require 100 hp to operate.

This is very different from saying that one positive number is vastly greater than another positive number. Saying that the strong nuclear force is much greater than gravity is still comparing two positive numbers.

No doubt I will be corrected on this. LOL.


DF
Deep:

I'm awarding you the Bill Gray Obtuseness Medal, today. Razzer I guess I earned it yesterday.

My problem with people that say something is "four times less than" something else, arises from the physical impossibility of it happening, except in special circumstances.

If I begin with a pie, and I eat some of that pie, there is no physical way for me to end up with 101% less pie than I began with.

I can't be 2 times weaker than someone else, to do so would put me into a negative weakness state - impossible. Scientists - and anyone that regularly deals with numbers - are supposed to know this.

And just because I can't let it go - you mis-solved my word problem. You switched the output of the machine with the input. Both machines require the same input to operate; 1 gallon of petrol, let's say. Now, how can machine B produce negative horsepower? It can't.
More Crustymath.

The video said the Strong Nuclear Force is a thousand billion billion (or something like that) times stronger than gravity.

So. Establish the strumpf of the Strong Nuclear Force at a thousand billion billion g's.

Gravity is one g. They're still both positive numbers, and yes, one g is about a thousand billion billion times weaker than the SNF.

DF
The formula for gravitional attraction is

F=(Gm1m2)/(r^2)

G is the universal gravitational constant (I'll bet that one could generate some debate between religious and atheist physicists!)
m1 and m2 are the masses of the two particles
r is the distance between their centers

The formula for attraction between electromagnetic particles is similar.

And, Crusty, saying "two times less" is generally considered to mean "half as much". But when someone tells me "two times less" I generally ask them what the heck do you mean?

And scientists still don't understand gravity; they can only measure it.
quote:
I can't be 2 times weaker than someone else, to do so would put me into a negative weakness state - impossible.


Sure ya can. My house is two times smaller than Deep's mansion. If Deep's is 10,000 square feet, then mine is only 5,000. That's because 5000 TIMES 2 equals 10,000.

Thus, gravitational attraction is (for example) a billions time weaker than electromagnetic repulsion. That means that electromagnetic repulsion times 1 billion equals gravitational attraction.

But, you are right Crusty, something cannot me "100% less" than something else - well, it can but it would be called "zero.". Something CAN be 101% less than something else.

Jesus, the things we find to argue about are just amazing sometimes. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
More Crustymath.

The video said the Strong Nuclear Force is a thousand billion billion (or something like that) times stronger than gravity.



More Fat[head] hearing. Eeker Razzer

He says "a thousand billion billion billion billion times weaker". His formula on the related slide reads:

"~10^39 times weaker than the EM force".
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:

And, Crusty, saying "two times less" is generally considered to mean "half as much". But when someone tells me "two times less" I generally ask them what the heck do you mean?



I ask the same thing, because anyone who believes that something can be "two times less" was sitting in the D- row in algebra.
quote:
Originally posted by Ironic Pentameter:
quote:
I can't be 2 times weaker than someone else, to do so would put me into a negative weakness state - impossible.


Sure ya can. My house is two times smaller than Deep's mansion. If Deep's is 10,000 square feet, then mine is only 5,000. That's because 5000 TIMES 2 equals 10,000.

Thus, gravitational attraction is (for example) a billions time weaker than electromagnetic repulsion. That means that electromagnetic repulsion times 1 billion equals gravitational attraction.

But, you are right Crusty, something cannot me "100% less" than something else - well, it can but it would be called "zero.". Something CAN be 101% less than something else.

Jesus, the things we find to argue about are just amazing sometimes. Wink


I'm really working here to get y'all off the D- row of my algebra class.

Your house can't be two times smaller than Deep's. It can be half as large (50% as large), it can be 100% smaller (1 times smaller - where it doesn't exist), but it can't be less than nothing (101% smaller) - at least not in the physical universe {okay, I concede that in Alabama this may be the case}. Half as large = 50% smaller, not 2 times smaller.
Crusty's right.

Assume the Mansion Deep is 10,000 sq. ft. And further, assume it's "small".

Twice as small would be to multiply it by -2.

10,000 X -2 = -20,000. To be twice as small, it would have to be a hole in the ground of 20,000 sq ft times the average height of my house.

We haven't even discussed the second derivative of the volume of my cat, Whale Meat. Nor his likely multi-dimensional nature.

Shall I even bring up the quantum unlikelihood of my electricity bill? I though not.


DF
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
Your house can't be two times smaller than Deep's


Aiight. Let me axe you this: Can Deep's house be two time larger than mine?

Your answer: "Of course, you studly genius, you."

My retort: "Well then if Deep's crib can be two time LARGER then that means mine is the opposite of that -- or two times SMALLER!"
quote:
Originally posted by Ironic Pentameter:
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
Your house can't be two times smaller than Deep's


Aiight. Let me axe you this: Can Deep's house be two time larger than mine?

Your answer: "Of course, you studly genius, you."

My retort: "Well then if Deep's crib can be two time LARGER then that means mine is the opposite of that -- or two times SMALLER!"


Only in Alabama, cause I ain't got nairn.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×