Sorry. I have a nephew Greg with whom I am in constant correspondence.
>>Newton's theory of gravitation is a deterministic theory and as such can
>>make short term predictions with the aid of computers. The men we sent to
>>the moon did land on the moon, didn't they?
>>
>
>This is irrelevant as I didn't talk about the moon. I spoke about complex
>systems like the gravitational field of the galaxy. Why you think a
>discussion of the relatively simple (albeit still insolvable 3-body
>problem) is a response to a point about the gravitational field of the
>galaxy with several billion suns I don't know.
Physics is mathematical model building. The model has to be simple enough to
solve but complicated enough to answer the questions posed. Models in
cosmology treat all the galaxies as spread out into a uniform mass density.
The model may be terrible for the questions you want to ask but is perfectly
good to study the dynamical evolution of the whole universe! Remember that a
mathematical model is like a map of a city. The map is not the city, but it
certainly is useful to get you from one place to anther.
>>>>Darwin had an important concept, but hardly a theory. There is enough
>wiggle
>>>>room and stretch in it, that no matter what observations one brings to
>it, an
>>>>evolutionist can assert, 'It's consistent with the Darwin's theory.'"
>>>
>>>I think one could say that Newton had an important concept, but hardly a
>>>theory. There is enough wiggle room and stretch in it, that no matter what
>>>observations one brings to it, a committed gravitationalist can assert
>>>"It's consistent with the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) theory."
>>>
>>>glenn
>>
>>There is no wiggle room in Newtonian theory. In fact, it was shown to make
>>wrong predication for the perihelion precession of Mercury. Einstein's
>>theory gave the correct value for the motions of the perihelia.
>
>You totally misunderstood the point of my post. I wasn't saying that GR
>didn't work or even that Newtonian theory didn't work. I was pointing out
>that the requirement that evolution yield EXACT predictions is inconsistent
>with the FACT that GR can't give an exact prediction to the orbit of the
>sun around the galaxy. It can only give approximations because the actual
>mass distribution is too complex and so are the interactions of a
>biological system. Shoot, physics can't predict the weather next week,
>much less a year from now. If we say nothing is a science that can't give
>accurate predictions, then physics is clearly NOT a science. And if we
>should reject evolutin for its lack of exact predictions, then if we are
>consistent, shouldn't we reject physics?
>glenn
Mathematical models always yield exact numerical results. Mathematical
dynamical models yield exact solutions albeit for short periods of time if
there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Do not confuse models
with the real thing! Science is model building. Evolutionary theory uses no
math. Physics does!!!
Moorad