Ghideon Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Strange said: I would caution that trying to predict future behaviour based (purely) on past behaviour is fraught with all sorts of risks. If we don't fully understand the mechanisms and causes, then it may not be much better than trying to predict the weather based on what it was like yesterday. That's true. In the case with Betelgeuse we have some knowledge about the periods of the stars brightens. If this was the first dataset of a star I would sa that the light-blue fields are too narrow. I like your weather analogy; we can predict a few things about the expected average temperature next summer but not much about the weather tomorrow. But I can give some broad limits for tomorrows temperatures given todays weather. It is not physically probable/possible for the winter temperatures here to vary extremely much in the next 24h.
Strange Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: What do mean about data and guessing For example, imagine you look at Anna on the other side of the room and you think she is about 1.60m tall. That is a guess. (Or, perhaps, an estimate based on the size of things around them. If I asked you how tall my cousin Bob was, then that would have to be a complete guess.) On the other hand, we could get several people to measure how tall Anna is. We might get numbers like 1.72m, 1.71m, 1.69m, 1.71m, etc. From this data (ie. actual measurements) we can can calculate not just her height, but also the errors or accuracy of the measurements. 1
Ghideon Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: What do mean about data and guessing since science is more guessing that being sure? You might want to study the basics of statistics. There are many methods to investigate "how sure you can be" given a set of data. Why do you think it is guessing? Typical topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Strange said: For example, imagine you look at Anna on the other side of the room and you think she is about 1.60m tall. That is a guess. (Or, perhaps, an estimate based on the size of things around them. If I asked you how tall my cousin Bob was, then that would have to be a complete guess.) On the other hand, we could get several people to measure how tall Anna is. We might get numbers like 1.72m, 1.71m, 1.69m, 1.71m, etc. From this data (ie. actual measurements) we can can calculate not just her height, but also the errors or accuracy of the measurements. What’s different between betelguese and vacuum decay it’s all guessing with no real data? as you said it’s guess work Edited February 21, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975
Ghideon Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Strange said: We might get numbers like 1.72m, 1.71m, 1.69m, 1.71m, etc. From this data (ie. actual measurements) we can can calculate not just her height, but also the errors or accuracy of the measurements. Good example, it contains many concepts! Extending the analogy: If several different measurements of Annas height are performed, by various individuals and by various equipment, we will be more sure the numbers are correct and more sure that some bias can be ruled out. If measurements are done over time we may also learn wether Anna is getting taller or not. But it is not possible to tell that by doing many measurements on one single day. 2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: as you said it’s guess work Then you are missing the point. You are guessing when you try to say it Betelgeuse is dimming or brightening. We do not know yet given the available data.
Strange Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: What’s different between betelguese and vacuum decay it’s all guessing with no real data? The brightness of Betelgeuse is measured. Therefore not a guess. (Vacuum decay would be off topic so I am not going to discuss it other than to say the theory is based on measurements. Therefore not a guess.) 8 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: as you said it’s guess work No. I didn't say that.
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Strange said: The brightness of Betelgeuse is measured. Therefore not a guess. (Vacuum decay would be off topic so I am not going to discuss it other than to say the theory is based on measurements. Therefore not a guess.) No. I didn't say that. I don’t understand what you mean by measurements, so that means that everything we think we know about any science or physics is just a guess? we are not sure betelguese will not go supernova for a while still, and we are guessing our sun will not explode for millions of years and we are guess vacuum decay will not happen anytime soon. Because there is no data telling us otherwise Edited February 21, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975 -3
Strange Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: I don’t understand what you mean by measurements Try a dictionary. I will report this for trolling and suggest the thread is closed. 2
Ghideon Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: I don’t understand what you mean by measurements, so that means that everything we think we know about any science or physics is just a guess? we are guessing betelguese will not go supernova for a while still, and we are guessing our sun will not explode for millions of years and we are guess vacuum decay will not happen anytime soon. Can you elaborate why you believe that given what @Strange has explained above? What reasoning are you applying to draw the conclusion that we are guessing? Because there is no data telling us otherwise There is a lot of data telling us otherwise. Edited February 21, 2020 by Ghideon added last part, x-posted while Bmpbmp1975 was editing
swansont Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 22 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: What’s different between betelguese and vacuum decay it’s ! Moderator Note Please rein in your vacuum decay fetish. Pushing non-mainstream solutions into a discussion is against the rules. 15 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: so that means that everything we think we know about any science or physics is just a guess? we are not sure betelguese will not go supernova for a while still, and we are guessing our sun will not explode for millions of years and we are guess vacuum decay will not happen anytime soon. Because there is no data telling us otherwise ! Moderator Note If you don’t understand basic scientific concepts you need to address that ignorance. BEFORE you jump into discussions that require that knowledge.
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, swansont said: ! Moderator Note Please rein in your vacuum decay fetish. Pushing non-mainstream solutions into a discussion is against the rules. That is not what I was doing I was just trying to understand the comment Below. So if I understand right nothing what we think is right may actually be right. I don’t get where data changes it since we have data on Betelgeuse. one of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have. All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure. so we are basically guessing on all we think we know in science and physics Edited February 21, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975 -1
swansont Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: That is not what I was doing I was just trying to understand the comment Below. So if I understand right nothing what we think is right may actually be right. one of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have. All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure. ! Moderator Note 1. You are the only one bringing up vacuum decay. I am telling you to knock it off. 2. The concept of uncertainty can be discussed in a new thread, but is OT here
Strange Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: Sorry I am just confused about the I don’t know in science is normal that we rarely know something for sure. And I don’t get why as soon as I start asking questions on assumptions I got where I asked for explanations I am called a troll and my post locked. Look, there is a big difference between data, based on actual measurements, and guesses. For example, we can measure the distance to the Moon, just as easily as you can measure the size of a piece of paper. Similarly, we can measure the brightness of Betelgeuse. Because we can measure it, and gather data, it is NOT a guess. A "guess" would be that the moon is the size of a penny and only about a metre away. A "guess" would be that Betelgeuse is as bright as the moon, or the sun or a candle. But science does not use guesses. Science uses data based on measurements. Why is that so hard to understand. There is a huge difference between "science uses data based on measurements" and "science is just a guess". Only someone who is deliberately trying to start an argument would say something like that. [Edit: cross-posted with swansont's comment about this being off topic]
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, Strange said: Look, there is a big difference between data, based on actual measurements, and guesses. For example, we can measure the distance to the Moon, just as easily as you can measure the size of a piece of paper. Similarly, we can measure the brightness of Betelgeuse. Because we can measure it, and gather data, it is NOT a guess. A "guess" would be that the moon is the size of a penny and only about a metre away. A "guess" would be that Betelgeuse is as bright as the moon, or the sun or a candle. But science does not use guesses. Science uses data based on measurements. Why is that so hard to understand. There is a huge difference between "science uses data based on measurements" and "science is just a guess". Only someone who is deliberately trying to start an argument would say something like that. [Edit: cross-posted with swansont's comment about this being off topic] I am sorry just not understanding your comment about I don’t know being the common thing. Does that not apply to all science and physics then? One of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have. All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure.
Strange Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: I am sorry just not understanding your comment about I don’t know being the common thing. Does that not apply to all science and physics then? No. It doesn't apply to all science and physics. It is not even the "common thing". There are very many things that we know with a great deal of certainty (that is nearly all of science and physics). There are some things which we are not completely sure about. And there are some things that we are really unsure about. The important point is to understand that in those cases, it is OK to say "we don't know". That is not the same as saying "everything is a guess".
swansont Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: I am sorry just not understanding your comment about I don’t know being the common thing. Does that not apply to all science and physics then? One of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have. All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure. ! Moderator Note Strange cross-posted, and called themselves out for continuing off-topic after my modnote. You seem to have just ignored it START A NEW THREAD TO DISCUSS NEW TOPICS
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Strange said: No. It doesn't apply to all science and physics. It is not even the "common thing". There are very many things that we know with a great deal of certainty (that is nearly all of science and physics). There are some things which we are not completely sure about. And there are some things that we are really unsure about. The important point is to understand that in those cases, it is OK to say "we don't know". That is not the same as saying "everything is a guess". I get it thank you so I am having trouble judging Betelgeuse they seems to be so many articles claiming different status. What I am seeing is it has been dimming for months now and now the dimming stopped and seems to be working on brightening Edited February 21, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975
Ghideon Posted February 21, 2020 Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) (edit: missed mod-note about OT posts, sorry. Wiped that part) 23 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: so I am having trouble judging Betelgeuse they seems to be so many articles claiming different status. I think that since there is room for interpretations various writers will pick an aspect of Betelgeuse that fits the tone and angle of the material the writer is about to produce. Lots of articles is more about generating traffic than being statistically/scientifically correct. Headline "We do not yet know more about betelgeuse" day after day may look boring even if true. Stating "Betelgeuse dimming reaches record! Will we see a supernova this month?" or "Dimming seems to have stopped, will Betelgeuse not explode this moth?" may be more exiting and not completely false. But those headlines does not add much scientific knowledge. Personal note: I do not use such articles to learn much about a topic. But sometimes sensational articles hints about interesting topics that I want to read about or topics I did not know existed. Before this thread I did not know much about Betelguese. Now I know more, but not from sources as the (hypothetical) ones above. Edited February 21, 2020 by Ghideon x-post
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 22, 2020 Author Posted February 22, 2020 So I am told to start a new post if I want to talk about vacuum decay and probability I do and the post get closed with no reason. i do not understand what is the issue or being hidden
Ghideon Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 Just now, Bmpbmp1975 said: So I am told to start a new post if I want to talk about vacuum decay and probability I do and the post get closed with no reason. i do not understand what is the issue or being hidden It may be because we are on a discussion site. When the discussion is at a standstill and no progress seem possible the threads are sometimes closed. If you improve your ability to analyse members' answers and also to add content that actually contributes to the discussion of topic then more of the threads will remain open.
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 22, 2020 Author Posted February 22, 2020 Just now, Ghideon said: It may be because we are on a discussion site. When the discussion is at a standstill and no progress seem possible the threads are sometimes closed. If you improve your ability to analyse members' answers and also to add content that actually contributes to the discussion of topic then more of the threads will remain open. How was it at a standstill if I asked a question to a comment I didn’t understand
Ghideon Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) Here are a new forecast for Betelgeuse. Not much has changed. The statistics states, according to my interpretation, that the probability for brightening has increased slightly since yesterday. But it is still not conclusive. Source, again, is https://twitter.com/betelbot 12 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: How was it at a standstill if I asked a question to a comment I didn’t understand Because vacuum decay of the universe will occur long before we have moved this Betelgeuse discussion forward. You need to at least show some kind of attempt at analysing and understanding detailed answers from other members. This is off topic, please open another tread for discussing moderation. There is a separate section available. Edited February 22, 2020 by Ghideon spelling
Bmpbmp1975 Posted February 22, 2020 Author Posted February 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Here are a new forecast for Betelgeuse. Not much has changed. The statistics states, according to my interpretation, that the probability for brightening has increased slightly since yesterday. But it is still not conclusive. Source, again, is https://twitter.com/betelbot Because vacuum decay of the universe will occur long before we have moved this Betelgeuse discussion forward. You need to at least show some kind of attempt at analysing and understanding detailed answers from other members. This is off topic, please open another tread for discussing moderation. There is a separate section available. What? Because vacuum decay of the universe will occur long before we have moved this Betelgeuse discussion
Ghideon Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: so I am having trouble judging Betelgeuse they seems to be so many articles claiming different status. Here is a good example how forecasts and predictions change when new data arrives. Just for fun I compared Feb 5 and Feb 21. Note the difference; Feb 5 the magnitude was expected to drop to 2.0 within 100 days and then brighten. Feb 21 the data says Betelgeuse will brighten for the next 100 days. But also note that the dashed blue line from Feb 21is very close to be embedded at the top of the light blue area from Feb 5, at least the dashed line would not be completely off. That means that the prediction from Feb 5 did see the current evolution as a possibility, just not the most probable one given the data available back then. This means that different interpretations are possible and an honest answer is that we do not know yet, more data is needed. Also: New data just came in, was added since my latest post https://twitter.com/betelbot/status/1231218065091612672/photo/1 Edited February 22, 2020 by Ghideon picture format
Recommended Posts