I think the point he's making is that some of the theories are in their infancy and very conceptual or have no documented proofs yet, or thee are other theoretical possibilities; we can see and observe gravity but we can't see and observe the dissipation of the universe at the end of time to present it as fact.

^^^ what he said

Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on March 09, 2011, 10:03:31 AM
I think the point he's making is that some of the theories are in their infancy and very conceptual or have no documented proofs yet

No, no, no, no, no.

A theory that is in its infancy and has no documented evidence (proofs only exist in pure mathematics) is called a *hypothesis*, not a theory. These are well defined terms in science, lay use of the same words is irrelevant.

You're correct, but these arn't programmes aimed at scientists are they, they are aimed at the layperson and I suspect use of the word 'theory' in these contexts is in the hypothetical sense rather than the scientific sense.

No doubt I'm going to make myself look like a complete tool but there is one thing, yes just one, that is rubbing against me...

Surely the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics ?
Evolution describes the process by which life, a complex system, develops.
Entropy dictates that everything devolves towards it's simplest state.

So for life to evolve from a single celled organism wouldn't it have to break the 2nd law ?

I don't expect an answer but it does make me realise how much I don't understand

Quote from: Nimrod on March 09, 2011, 16:54:46 PM
No doubt I'm going to make myself look like a complete tool but there is one thing, yes just one, that is rubbing against me...

Surely the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics ?
Evolution describes the process by which life, a complex system, develops.
Entropy dictates that everything devolves towards it's simplest state.

So for life to evolve from a single celled organism wouldn't it have to break the 2nd law ?

I don't expect an answer but it does make me realise how much I don't understand

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, which describes what happens in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, there is constant energy exchange coming from the sun and being lost from the atmosphere. The Earth is one small part of an ultimately closed system (assuming the universe is a closed system into which energy cannot enter, nor can it escape). Localised complexity is absolutely not an issue.

For this same reason, we get localised effects in the universe like galaxies forming. The ultimate fate may be heat death, but that is a long, long time away, somewhere in the region of 10^1000 years. Considering we're currently at around 10^10 years since the big bang, the universe is still barely getting started on its journey to maximum entropy, so blobs of low entropy are to be expected.

I typed out all the 0s in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years and now I forgot what I was gonna say.


http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

edit; oh yeah, what if the universe was artifical..

Quote from: Pete on March 09, 2011, 18:47:04 PM
I typed out all the 0s in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years and now I forgot what I was gonna say.


http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

edit; oh yeah, what if the universe was artifical..

This was covered in some depth in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. I believe the conclusion was "who cares?"

Quote from: Goblin on March 09, 2011, 08:10:16 AM

Quote from: XEntity on March 09, 2011, 00:46:21 AM
I think however the things that came across as being facts, should have been highlighted as theories, as that would have been quick to do, and would perhaps give the viewer more of an idea what was still theoretical, and still not a known in science

You do know in science a theory isn't some kind of guess we came up with in the pub on a Friday night? A scientific theory is our best approximation of what explains the facts. To say "that's not a fact, it's just a theory" undermines the whole concept of the scientific method and makes you sound like a creationist whining that "evolution is just a theory". A theory has undergone comprehensive testing, verification and challenge and shown to stand up and explain the observed facts.

I think both you and Quix missed my point here entirely, I expect I'm actually rubbish at explaining what I mean (Which is fairly evident from my previous 2 posts). But I'm extremely clear on what a theory is, and have no misconception that somebody just came along and said "I think..." and I am by no means a creationist.

I'm not saying that you need a disclaimer either, I'm just saying that if you actually want a true understanding of something then knowing what is a fact and a theory gives a better grounding for your own knowledge. And if you end up basing one theory on another, where does it actually end!

Quote from: XEntity on March 09, 2011, 20:55:48 PM
I'm not saying that you need a disclaimer either, I'm just saying that if you actually want a true understanding of something then knowing what is a fact and a theory gives a better grounding for your own knowledge. And if you end up basing one theory on another, where does it actually end!

but by the scientific deffinition, just about everything is theory.

BTW, even if the Earth were a closed system (which it isn't as has already been observed), entropy and the 2nd law wouldn't preclude evolution. All the second law requires is that the total entropy of the system tends to increase, so you can have increasingly complex animals as long as they are burning sufficient energy to create a compensating increase in the entropy of their surroundings. The presence of the animals actually increases the rate of entropy increase.

Quote from: Mongoose on March 11, 2011, 11:34:31 AM

BTW, even if the Earth were a closed system (which it isn't as has already been observed), entropy and the 2nd law wouldn't preclude evolution. All the second law requires is that the total entropy of the system tends to increase, so you can have increasingly complex animals as long as they are burning sufficient energy to create a compensating increase in the entropy of their surroundings. The presence of the animals actually increases the rate of entropy increase.

I did wonder if this was would be the case. Obviously I was wrong about the Earth's closed system but doesn't this still apply given that the universe as a whole is considered a closed system ? Life is just one complex system in a sea of complex system that are aiding in the increase of entropy within the Universe ?

The more you read or watch about the structure of this universe and how it 'works' the more you think WTF? 

God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise, not only plays dice with the universe but the dice are loaded and keep changing the number of sides. Oh, they are also often thrown where we can't see them.

Quote from: Serious on March 12, 2011, 16:09:03 PM
God, if there is one, and nobody can prove otherwise

Going OT here, but that is such a stupid argument. Take something with, literally, no evidence to suggest it exists and then claim "you can't prove this thing I just made up doesn't exist". Equally, you can't prove there's not an intergalactic unicorn farting out stars, but that's no reason to start throwing around an idea that it actually exists.

gentlemen, since we all know where this road goes, shall we agree not to go down it this time?

episode 2 tonight at 9pm bbc hd (or bbc1 hd)