It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Credible Scientists Devise Mathematic Theory Leading to Panspermia - Pockets of Life Prevail

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Something can exist, I believe, which rather than violating the principle, means that we have to redefine that principle. Theory is so called, because it is constructed according to known values. As knowledge expands, as understanding changes, theory adapts, or is thrown out in favour of a better, more complete theory. That is the thing which defines the scientific approach, as opposed to an approach which is codified, and then remains unchanged despite evidence against its validity.

That is what makes the scientific and logical approach to things, the superior amongst all modes of thinking.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Don't worry I am just thinking.

Think Plato and idealism. Mathematics is the basis of reality.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



Is 2 + 2 = 5 possible in any reality?

I don't know.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



I don't know.


LOL I am sorry I laughed hard at that. You funny man.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien
No need to apologize.
Did you get my point?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Oh I understand that.

The OP is all about mathematics. Does mathematics lead to life? Is science over mathematics or under it? See the mathematics is what explain everything.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien
No.

The OP is about the use of statistical analysis to demonstrate and/or falsify a hypothesis. It is not about explaining anything.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Did you get my point?


Yes sorry and yes I need to apologize.

I am just trying to say that the mathematics is the very foundation that build science and explaining reality and the universe. Think General Relativity.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The OP is about a new mathematical theory that shows that it lead to panspermia or anything that bring on new life.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The OP is about the use of statistical analysis to demonstrate and/or falsify a hypothesis. It is not about explaining anything.


Yes got it.

I was just thinking in general. Mathematics is under everything and explains everything.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



The OP is about a new mathematical theory that shows that it lead to panspermia or anything that bring on new life.

No, it isn't.
It is about using statistical analysis to look for patterns in the distribution of life which may indicate that life spreads from star system to star system.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Well we have the data from Kepler. That is testable isn't it? We have discovered many planets.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes. Many.
And, as yet, we have no way of knowing if any of them bear life. Even those which would seem to be the most promising. But we will get better at it. Eventually we may be able to carry out the analyses suggested.

That means that the hypothesis is testable. Which beats the hell out of string "theory."

edit on 9/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Eventually we may be able to carry out the analyses suggested.


High five.

Yes.

I know it's not the OP but I will stand by what I said.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Well, no.

Mathematics do not lead to life. Two plus two does not equal bouncing babies all over the place, otherwise maths classes would be an awful lot noisier than I remember them. Personally I have no talent with numbers.

What I do know is that mathematical models also change, when new values are inserted as they are discovered. You can have a very neatly worked out theory, with lots of pretty symmetry and synergy happening, but the moment a new value has to be added because it has been perceived in the universe for the first time, that model also has to change, and you know its worth by whether or not that model stands up as well with the new data added to it, as it did before. If not, it cannot be a complete or accurate mathematical model, and needs to be either scrapped, or amended, as ones searches and explorations bring new things to light.

I think rather than figuring out which is greater, science or mathematics, one should view those things as two halves of a whole, merely parts in a greater machine of understanding. These, along with a human thirst for understanding, a desire to explore, to discover, to see the previously unseen, and know the unknown, all together, are what add up to a rounded and complete view of what we know of the universe, of existence. Absent any one of these things, we would know nothing like as much as we do!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



That means that the hypothesis is testable. Which beats the hell out of string "theory."


Are you Sheldon?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No.
He's not crazy. His mother had him tested.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No.
He's not crazy. His mother had him tested.


Dammit stop making me laugh.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit



What I do know is that mathematical models also change


No they don't. Do pi change? Models? You are speaking about science.



I think rather than figuring out which is greater, science or mathematics


And yet science need mathematics to explain.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

What I mean is, that in so far as a model which describes the universe in mathematical formula is based on known values, and extrapolates from those values to suggest things about the areas we cannot, or have not looked into yet, new information being discovered which was not suggested by that theoretical model of the universe, has to either be incorporated into that model later on, or the model has to be entirely revised to fit around the NEW known value. This is precisely why, for the purposes of thinking about the universe, mathematics and science are the same thing.

We are ants, trying to understand planets, or less than that, when we think about the scale and breadth, and complexity of the universe.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join