Big Numbers

[allsmiles]

No. If you had a paper where a student wrote a paragraph on how God created fossils just to trick mankind, would you spend much time pointing out a dangling participle and ignore the premise of the paragraph? If you did spend time on the participle, people would understand that you don't see the thesis of the paragraph as a serious problem.

The fact that I have to point this out is damning to your argument. I'm sure you realized it, but instead of being a man and saying, "This thread makes me look petty. Nevermind." You defend it.


Me chill out? I'm not really hot. I'm still regarding my exchange with you as one-liner status. This is the first indication that you realize you are being petty. You should edit your OP and start it with "I know this is nitpicking, but Enyart’s slip-ups with numbers at the very time he is trying to show that atheists have problems with numbers was amusing."

Here, I'll stick my neck out and answer for Bob: "Oh. Thanks for correcting those numbers. My point still stands."


Yes, Bob is wrong on Io as was I. He'd appreciate the correction as I did. Io's heat is still a problem for an old age solar system, so correcting that point doesn't help your ultimate point. It helps our view, actually.

you do need to chill out.

the irony is amusing.

BE tries to explain how atheists make blunders with big numbers.

in the process BE makes blunders with big numbers.

:chuckle:

laugh, it's funny.

wait... hold still... there's something on your nose, it's brown...

there, i got it

 

[Johnny]

That's like me mockingly claiming preachers misquote the Bible all the time and then proceeding to misquote the Bible. You guys would jump all over me.

But alas, thou must defend your Almighty Bob Enyart.

If you did spend time on the participle, people would understand that you don't see the thesis of the paragraph as a serious problem.

Bob hasn't presented an argument though. Just his opinion.

 

[Yorzhik]

BE tries to explain how atheists make blunders with big numbers.

No, that wasn't what Bob was explaining.

 

[allsmiles]

No, that wasn't what Bob was explaining.

What if there’s 10 to the 85 particles? What would that mean? What if it’s not 10 to the 80 particles, what if it’s 10 to the 85 particles? What’s the difference in size, of the universe? This question is for a public school teacher out there. Any public school teachers, what if … And I just got a home-schooler in the audience who yelled “huge difference”. Yeah, 10 to the 80th versus 10 to the 85th would mean the universe is ten thousand times bigger than they thought it was. If it’s 10 to the 85th. Ten thousand times bigger. Not two times bigger. Not 5 times bigger. Imagine that. 5 times bigger, for the whole universe – that would be big, wouldn’t it? You think you know how big the universe is? It’s really five times bigger. And then it turns out there’s 10 to the 85 particles in the universe, so it’s ten thousand times bigger.

this is Bob's quote from the OP.

he wasn't talking about discrepancies in big numbers?

 

[sentientsynth]

I guess Bob would say his public school was showing. Bob made a few common mistakes among people who don't study this stuff everyday.

Like with expanding 10 to the nth. If it's 10 to the 3rd, then it's 10 x 10 x 10, which, of course is 1000. But the common error is that if 10 is raised to the nth power, then people will think that product will have n integers, such that 10^5 will have only 5 integers (10,000), when it actually has 6 (100,000).

It's a common mistake, really. As is saying something like "square inch" instead of "cubic inch." [By the way, since matter exists in two dimensions as well as three, "particles per square inch" may be inaccurate, but not entirely wrong. Something akin to a Gaussian surface. I'm sure you know about them, ThePhy. But, hey, why split hairs, right?]

Bob gets a little carried away sometimes, but we'll grant him a little grace. You can't be right all the time.

SS

 

[Yorzhik]

this is Bob's quote from the OP.

he wasn't talking about discrepancies in big numbers?

No.

 

[Yorzhik]

I specifically stated in my OP that the overall point Bob was making was probably correct.

Okay.