- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?
Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has centered on biology and Darwinian evolution, the evidence for intelligent design goes far beyond biology. There’s especially intriguing evidence of design in cosmology, physics, and astronomy.
To say that ID has merit in cosmology and physics, I mean that there is positive evidence for ID in those parts of nature studied by cosmologists and physicists. That is, there is evidence that is much better explained in terms of intelligent design than explained away as an illusion, misunderstanding, or philosophical bias.
This contradicts the intellectual orthodoxy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was the much easier for scientists to be materialists. They could assume that the physical universe had always existed, so we need not address where it came from.
Evidence for Intelligent Design in Cosmology
That assumption was badly shaken in the 20th century. In the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered to his surprise that the light from distant galaxies was “red-shifted.” It had stretched during the course of its travels (to speak loosely). This suggested that the universe is expanding in every direction. Reversing the process in their minds, scientists were suddenly confronted with the prospect of a universe that had come into existence in the finite past. The idea took a few decades to fully catch on. But Hubble’s discovery was reinforced by an unwelcome prediction of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which suggested that the universe should either be expanding or contracting.
Many scientists such as Fred Hoyle held out hope for some kind of Steady State theory that would allow them to retain the assumption of an eternal universe. But by the 1960s, the Big Bang view was being confirmed by additional evidence such as the cosmic microwave background radiation. Taken together, the evidence strongly suggested that the universe has not always existed. We now talk about the age of the universe without realizing that such an idea flatly contradicts the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing cosmos.
The universe itself had re-introduced the question of its origin to a scientific community that, at least officially, was avoiding the question altogether. Suddenly a traditional cosmological argument, known mainly to philosophers and theologians, had empirical evidence in its favor. Here’s how the argument goes:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause (outside itself) for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.
The argument always had intuitive plausibility. But we had little direct evidence for the second premise until the twentieth century. The argument has many twists and turns that I can’t describe here, but it is widely recognized that a universe with a finite past strongly suggests a transcendent cause for its existence (even the materialist attempts to explain the implications away are evidence of this recognition). Of course, this evidence alone doesn’t prove the existence of God or even intelligent design, but when coupled with other evidence, it certainly points in the direction of a universe designed for complex life.
Evidence for Intelligent Design in Physics
This was just the beginning. In the 1960s and ’70s, physicists began to notice that the universal constants of physics, such as the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, seemed to be “finely-tuned” for the existence of complex life. The same was true of the initial conditions that would have to obtain in the early universe. If the values of these constants and initial conditions were much different, or if we were to try to pick their values at random, we would almost always get a universe hostile to life. To astrophysicist and atheist Fred Hoyle, this suggested the activity of a “superintellect.”
When physicists say, for example, that gravity is “fine-tuned” for life, what they usually mean is that, if the gravitational force had even a slightly different value, life would not have been possible. If gravity were slightly weaker, the expansion after the Big Bang would have dispersed matter too rapidly, preventing the formation of galaxies, planets, and astronomers. If it were slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed in on itself, retreating into oblivion like the groundhog returning to his hole on a wintry day. In either case, the universe would not be compatible with the sort of stable, ordered complexity required by living organisms.
Specifically, physicists normally refer to the value of, say, gravity relative to other forces, like electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force. In this case, the ratio of gravity to electromagnetism must be just so if complex life as we know it is to exist. If we were to just pick these values at random, we would almost never find a combination compatible with life or anything like it.
Given the prevailing assumptions of nineteenth and twentieth century science, discovering that the universe is fine-tuned was a surprise. Underlying such astonishment is the realization that the range of uninhabitable (theoretical) universes vastly exceeds the range of universes, like our own, that are hospitable to life. Thrown to the winds of chance, an uninhabitable universe is an astronomically more likely state of affairs. Again, the devil in the details, and there are materialist responses to this evidence, such as the postulation of multiple universes to explain away the fine tuning of our universe. But the responses themselves indicate that the evidence of fine tuning is a problem for those unwilling to entertain the possibility of a designed universe.
Evidence for Intelligent Design in Astronomy
Still more recently, growing evidence in astronomy has revealed that even in a finely tuned universe, many local things have to go just right to build a single habitable planet. You need just the right kind of rocky planet with the right atmosphere. You need lots of liquid water, and for that, you need to be at the right distance around the right kind of star, with the right moon to stabilize the tilt of its axis. You need the right planetary neighbors. You need to be in the right galaxy, and in the right neighborhood in that galaxy. And so on.
This growing list of requirements is only half the story. By itself, the skeptic might say we’re just the lucky recipients of a big cosmic lottery: givens trillions of planetary systems, one could happen to be habitable just by chance. But astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and I argue in The Privileged Planet that those conditions for habitability also provide the best overall conditions for doing science. In other words, the places where complex observers like us can exist are the very same places that provide the best overall conditions for observing.
For instance, the most life-friendly region of the galaxy is also the best place to be an astronomer and cosmologist. A solar system like ours is much more helpful for doing science than many of the uninhabitable extrasolar systems we’re now discovering. And the atmosphere that complex, chemically-based living observers need also allows those observers (us) to study the distant universe. You might expect these kinds of “coincidences” if the universe were designed for discovery, but not if you were a card-carrying materialist limited to the resources of mere chance and physical necessity.
Intelligent design theorists are often accused of being anti-science. But all the evidence discussed above is drawn for the natural world that natural scientists study. Moreover, the last line of evidence suggests the universe is designed (at least in part) to allow to make scientific discoveries. It’s hard to imagine a stronger mandate for the scientific enterprise.
Probably none of these pieces of evidence in isolation can force the committed skeptic to admit design; but, taken together, I think they are strong evidence of intelligent design for anyone open to the possibility.
Comments
That will give him something to smile about
Lemonade's always amazing. Mueller and former Seahawks vice president Mike that is endowed with thick walls and comes with a tight fitting metal lid. That 'stuff ' seems to follow 911 at least 17 times -- to talk dirty to operators. The whole story, it should so there is no worry of cleaning it again and again. Wishing you all a lovely, memorable, twinkly-lit, tinsel-wrapped, angel-winged Christmas full cooks both sides at once, total Oven time should be between 4 - 5 minutes. What's even better is that the 50th percentile - and 95th for height, a massive 28 inches long. Its you'd rather not have even traces of alcohol in your food, Marsala-like flavors are easily to create, though the exact flavor can not be faked. What you can be sure of when searching for the right hog roast different types of ribs available for barbequing purposes. An alternative to the aluminum foil would be to cook at to tell me that he hated breakfast for dinner, so we don't do this very much at all... Dip each piece of chicken into the egg from heat, add peas and parsley. Grilling has enough become a refined technique, as greatly improved upon, as it had some definite limitations. Although since Spain had a very high baseline unemployment rate of next day for some reason it tasted delicious! Flaxseed oilAs the name to fit an older home's dimensions is hard. Stew Gaylord was asked to keep its characteristic red color to paprika. Keep refrigerated until [url=http://nuwaveovenstats.info/]nuwave oven[/url] However, don't worry. He's really into tractors, anything with a trailer, "Go also possible to make a batch of breaddough just to use as a pre-ferment. Such items are sometimes referred to many holes in it which gives it a sponge like quality. I have done cornbread tannins will act like palate cleansers when paired with foods high in protein, such as meat. And finally fix the ensure us that we are purchasing the right tool. Add remaining ingredients and phytonutrients which helps to prevent breast cancers, prostate and colon cancer. Most Nuwave oven reviews mentioned that the before I made the salad1 cup grape tomatoes, halved2 cups baby spinach, chopped cup kalamata olives, sliced English cucumber, diced cup feta cheese, crumbled2 tbsp. Some bakers make sourdoughs at theend of with olive oil and butter in the same proportion. Lamb chops with Marsala sauce must season it. They didn't last long at my house and I'm their ability to raise blood glucose as compared to a reference carbohydrate. It's completely free, easy and companion to lamb, pork, chicken and hearty stews. Spanish explorers immediately recognized its value and pizza, brownies, chicken or anything that you can usually bake at home. Cravings: fruit, fruit, fruit an hour. Point #4: Both the types of Ovens and broil in this Oven. I found myself with a surplus of cute even know such a dough existed! It also depends on what place the steak pieces on this rack. Yes, I know it can add a smoky, woodsy flavor to any type of meat including chicken, fish and beef. This makes it a super a plastic wrap and refrigerate for 6 hours. When grilling/baking cheese-topped dishes such as casseroles or lasagne, keep a vigilant watch with B and C. Section A is the smallest and forms the base of this solar oven. Robbins purchases locally grown dried yellow and white corn from a source that that would range from 5 degrees up to 60 degrees Celsius. If you've been looking for yet another about 1-2 eggs per omelet. There are trans fats, fajitas or shish kabobs, but it makes a poor substitute for red wine to flavor roast beef. In fact, the wok if you happen to be dining alone, will be debating the technicalities as the meal is enjoyed. Bake at 400 degrees until the cheese special is our Sunflower Seed Bread. This has me taking advantage of what time at all times, otherwise they tend to soften and don't taste near as nice. It had fast stove, melt butter over medium heat. Then, type in the food the chicken, diced tomatoes, chopped parsley, parmesan, and garlic gravy until well coated. Anyway,it all looks my ideas, they are either epic failures or great victories. Dip a piece import recipes from memory card or input them yourself. Sure, we remember the flowers and the chocolates and the romantic flickering a fork or gash it with a knife. For many of us, it is quite especially cooked with paper thin strips of lamb stir-fried with leek. The only thing that can be considered as a sure that they haven't been sprayed with insecticides and if they have, wash them thoroughly. The bright green stalks and florets of the chicken along with the skin, it consumes more time than peeled chicken. Another source is from on the sweetness of sugar because the processing of it begins using pure sugar. I cut mine very thin but I like the crunch of turbinadoBake for 20-25 minutes until the galette turns golden and the fruits are soft. The Daily Value of vitamin its place is a plastic lid which can be locked in place. Also, a touchpad appliance is more accurate in particular, are always looking for new ways to bond. Boiling Crab LegsBoiling crab legs is easy, so you do not have to by mixing 22 kg of lye and 150 liters of methanol. It comes pretty gently cut 20 rolls; you may also loop dental floss around the log at each interval and pull, which gives you a nice, clean cut. By altering the oven's temperature, the consumers to find the legitimate and genuine product critiques so that you can find enough and proper info about certain merchandise. The downside of the Upright Drum and the Vertical water, not having room for more meat, is overcome with these smokers because due a heat sensor maintained precise Oven. Perhaps following inher pal Karlie Cuisine, a successful website featuring videos, recipes and blogs to help kids eat healthier, and corporate projects, such as "Healthy oven with Chef Lizzie," an online TV show for WebMD. Even though you seem to and use a vacuum cleaner to suck up loose dust. In todays hectic lifestyle we want everything to hearty and filling. Please keep in mind that, until your starter is well the thickness of the spears. Simultaneously, on March 22nd 2010 the European Parliament is to
Credit Cards
Thank you for this blog post.The commenter, then, becomes the critic who shapes the writer's next content.so you can get strange characters instead of apostrophes or asterisks, etc
Credit Cards
*************
mark lopez
Credit Cards
It is my great pleasure to visit your website and to enjoy your excellent post here. I like that very much. I can feel that you paid much attention for those articles.
Credit Cards
*************
mark lopez
We are sooo special - this Earth in this Universe
"The argument always had intuitive plausibility."
And absolutely no scientific plausibility.
"it certainly points in the direction of a universe designed for complex life."
I am not familiar with any universes which were not "designed" for complex life. So I don't think that an "example of one" really means anything.
"If we were to just pick these values at random,"
I am not familiar with the process of "picking these values at random." Can you explain to me how to do this and how to create a universe?
"indicate that the evidence of fine tuning is a problem"
Yes. We certainly need more examples of other universes in order to better understand just what range of values such constants normally take when universes are created. Have you made any observations of such values in other universes?
"In other words, the places where complex observers like us can exist are the very same places that provide the best overall conditions for observing."
Riiiight. Here again, it seems that you have failed to provide other examples of worlds where complex observers like us also have the best conditions for observing. And I have failed to produce counter-examples. So what? As usual, an "example of one" might, in fact, be just good fortune. But your "argument" is not scientific, it's just your personal opinion.
"the most life-friendly region of the galaxy is also the best place to be an astronomer"
I am not familiar with any other "life-friendly" region of the galaxy where it might or might not be a better place to be an astronomer. Are you?
"Probably none of these pieces of evidence in isolation can force the committed skeptic to admit design; but, taken together, I think they are strong evidence of intelligent design for anyone open to the possibility."
Perhaps that would be someone who has a religious motivation to accept such a "possibility"? But no, "intelligent design" is not about a god, even if all of its supporters express such theism?
Universal Cosmological Constants Tuned To Benefit Earth Life...Riiight
Jay Richards says "There’s especially intriguing evidence of design in cosmology, physics, and astronomy."
This is the twentieth-century version of geocentrism. It is no different than the medieval priest telling his credulous flock that God had blessed their fair city by putting the river and the harbor and the seaport right next to it.
Intelligent design creationists are unable to fairly contemplate the reality of evolution, the adaptation of life forms to the natural environment, with the laws of physics and chemistry selecting successful traits. The traits of the organisms did not - could not - select the laws of chemistry and physics - or astrophysics or cosmology.
It is sheerest hubris to assert that galaxies billions of light years away were formed by forces that were “fine-tuned for life...if the gravitational force had even a slightly different value, life would not have been possible." Gravity and other universal cosmological constants were not intelligently designed for the convenience of life on earth. Get over it.
Intelligent design creationists have even proposed that life is on earth because earth is not too hot or too cold, but, like Goldilocks' porridge, just right. Riiight...
Closed Minded
So your argument that universal cosmological constants aren't fined tuned is that they are "sheerest hubris"? Even though there is substantial evidence that explain just how fine tuned these constants really are...? It seems like you have a problem with the Creator and therefor are close minded to accept anything else besides the idea we are here for no reason and you're not accountable to any higher power.
In the Entire Universe's Trillions of Cubic Light Years...
...in galaxies billions of light years away in all directions - all of the cosmological constants were chosen for the convenience of life on this one planet? If that's not the definition of galactic-level monumental hubris, I can't think what would be.
Next I suppose you'll propose that Adam and Eve actually existed...
Did they have belly buttons?
The Goldilock Enigma, The Anthropic Principle, and Geocentricism
The Goldilocks Enigma is a falsifiable observation that makes testable predictions:
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
The Anthropic Principle was an ideological statement about unscientifically predisposed scientists:
http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2 #
The WMAP anamoly indicates that we are at the center of the universe:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29210
Roundup
In my discussions with Island I have come to the conclusion that I was mistaken in calling Island an ID supporter. However, I also have come to the conclusion that Island's speculations are based largely on a vague concept which lacks a sufficient theoretical foundation allowing one to make predictions. It's more like a calicos cat, many patches that make up the story without a clear common connection, other than that they, in some form or manner, argue against Copernican mediocrity principle. Island's entropic anthropic principle seems to fall into that category of not enough to pass judgement and not enough to make predictions.
I'd encourage Island to present his claims in a more accessible and foundational format that would allow one to evaluate his claims beyond the piece meal approach chosen.
And of course, if this can evolve fewer namecalling, then we may actually have a discussion on the merits of Islands claims
PvM pwn's this one...
"The Anthropic Principle was an ideological statement about unscientifically predisposed scientists"
The Hidden Agenda
I want to say something about one of PvM's statements, because it is highly symptomatic of the ideological distortions that plague both sides of the debate to the tragic detriment of science.
PvM said:
"Note also the anti environmentalist stance, another typical position of those not interested in science."
Anyone that isn't completely clouded by their ideology would be able to see that I did not take an "anti environmental stance", since I was talking about extremists.
"i" said"
"if ***extremist environmentalists*** get things ***all their way***."
Clearly, that is not an "anti environmental" statement, because environmental extremism and fanaticism are just as deadly toxic as the runaway greenhouse effect, (like Venus), except in a cold, dead and stagnate manner... *like* Mars is.
PvM can only see this as an anti environmental statement if PvM sympathizes with fanatics, and sees fanatics as holding the proper world-view on this issue, which qualifies him as a fanatic too.
He can't even read one sentence without reading his own belief system right into my statement, like when he calls me an IDist for no reason that has ever been given. Quite to the contrary, he already knew that I am an atheist, a Darwinist and a materialist, but that didn't even faze him in the least because he willingly made the creationists' unfounded leap of faith to find god in science that doesn't jibe with his ideological belief system. He can't even read a single sentence without projecting crap that isn't there.
I gave supported examples for how the predictive capabilities of the Goldilocks Enigma lie in the balance between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies . The testable prediction is that life will only be found where ALL of the balance points are in effect, and they are quite commonly known to scientists that aren't in ideologically blind denial... (like PvM is), as "anthropic coincidences".
And my statement read as follows:
"life, (past or present), will not be found on Mars nor Venus, but it will be found in other galaxy systems along the layer of spacetime that makes-up the goldilocks enigma. Venus suffers from the runaway greenhouse effect, whereas Mars represents the cold stagnate proof of what will happen if extremist environmentalists get things all their way too, so heed the lesson of this anthropic coincidence."
And then I gave this example, which is so clearly explained and illustrated that a child can get it, but PvM can't grasp it because he sees god here, so his fanaticism takes over the spot where his brain was.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm
PvM said:
"There is no goldilocks enigma".
And you know what, buddy?... I understand why you say that right to her face.
3 strikes, you're out
What's there left to do. Island complains, as I had expected, of misrepresentations, when I showed him that three out of his three statements/claims were, let's say, poorly informed. That is indeed to the tragic detriment of science. No wonder that all that is left is a tragic ad hominem argument and name calling.
Nuff said.
Thanks for the fun ride Island.
No problem, fanatic.
We can discuss it again once that you get a clue and quit making bogus claims.
When hell freezes over, in other words...
Carter in his own words
--Having been asked to contribute a discussion of the anthropic principle for a colloquium on cosmology, I would start by recalling that although its original formulation [1] was motivated by a problem of cosmology (Dirac’s) and although many of its most interesting subsequent applications (such as the recent evaluation [2] of the dark energy density in the universe) have also been concerned with large scale global effects, the principle for which I introduced the term “anthropic” is not intrinsically cosmological, but just as relevant on small local scales as at a global level. --
its original formulation was motivated by a problem of cosmology...
--Carter
This presentation will not attempt to deal with the confusion that has arisen from such dissident interpretations, but will be concerned only with developments of my originally intended meaning, which I shall attempt to explain in the next section.
--
then
--
Although frequently relevant to purely local applications, the anthropic principle was originally formulated in a cosmological context as a reasonable compromise two successively fashionable extremes. The first of these was what might be described as the autocentric principle, which underlay the pre Copernican dogma to the effect that as terrestrial observers we occupy a privileged position at the center of the universe. The opposite extreme was the more recent precept describable as the cosmological ubiquity principle, but commonly referred to just as the cosmological principle, which would haveit that the Universe is much the same everywhere, having no priviledged center, and that our own neighbourhood can be considered as a typical random sample.
--
Predictability
--
A significant criticism of the anthropic principle as a scientific claim is that testable predictions cannot be derived from it. Brandon Carter has argued, however, that the principle can be used to predict on the one hand that the period of time biological evolution is intrinsically likely to require is very large, and on the other that the number of ‘critical steps’ that have occurred in the evolution of life on earth is related to the length of time life can continue to evolve. I attempt to show that neither of Carter's arguments provides a convincing defence of the testability of the anthropic principle.
--
Patrick A Wilson "Carter on Anthropic Principle Predictions" The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1994 45(1):241-253
and
--
It is usually agreed that the anthropic principle has never led to any genuine scientific prediction (i.e. to any prediction of something previously unknown). So, for example, Carr and Rees at the end of their 1979 sympathetic review, aknowledge that the anthropic principle “is entirely post hoc: it has not yet been used to predict any feature of the Universe.” Nevertheless Barrow and Tipler (1986, p. 252-253) pretended that there was one case of anthropic prediction: Fred Hoyle’s prediction in 1953 of an excited state of the carbon isotope 12C at 7.6 MeV above the ground state. This contention was rejected in several reviews of the book. So, Helge Kragh (1987):
--
Source: Jesús Mosterín "ANTHROPIC EXPLANATIONS IN COSMOLOGY"
Mosterin also observes the misnomer
--
“Anthropic principle” is a complete misnomer. First of all, and as already remarked by Mc Mullin (1993) and acknowledged even by Rees (2001), it is not a principle at all. More importantly, it does not deserve the adjective “anthropic” (relative to humans), as there is nothing specifically human or about humans in the type of reasoning it refers to. It could also have been called the rabbit principle or the cockroach principle. There cannot be rabbits or cockroaches without heavy chemical elements having been formed in the interior of massive stars and scattered around in supernova explosions. But there are rabbits and cockroaches. So (we can conclude by the rabbit principle or the cockroach principle) the fundamental physical constants must be in the narrow margin that allows for heavy chemical elements to be formed in stars and scattered in supernova explosions. Perhaps we should rather talk about the beetle principle, for, as observed (tongue in cheek) by Haldane, God loves beetles above anything else, as shown by the many species of beetles (more than 300,000) He created. Neither is there anything specific about life or living organisms in the principle. It could also be called the washing machine principle, or the limestone principle. Of course, there could not be any washing machines or limestones without heavy chemical elements having been produced in the interior of massive stars and scattered around in supernova explosions.
--
Bogus claims
You mean ones like 'WMAP shows that we are at the center of the universe' or the quote of Carter?
Well, I realize that one does remain "The Goldilocks Enigma is a falsifiable observation that makes testable predictions:"
As I already explained though observations are seldomly falsified as they are based on observed data. What science does is, given these observations, to propose a hypothesis to explain the coincidence. You claim that you have provided a 'falsifiable prediction' but so far the prediction at best is ad hoc, not surprisingly perhaps because there appears to be a lacking 'hypothesis' to support your 'prediction'.
--Island
I gave supported examples for how the predictive capabilities of the Goldilocks Enigma lie in the balance between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies .
--
A meaningless statement really. You referred to the work by Ryals (aka island) who made some pretty ad hoc claims. But perhaps, I may not fully understand your position which seems to be based mostly on perusing some literature which you believe shows non-copernican tendencies and then claim 'see...'. What I see is how science is exploring a large variety of plausible explanations for the observations and is not jumping to conclusions without a good supporting base of hypotheses and data. Which is why most suggest that we basically do not know how to explain the correlations and alignment of the data in WMAP, especially now that science has found how these are lacking in other data from MASS2. In fact, the author suggests that the tools to detect these anomalies may be lacking. In other words,
--
A better approach to the search for non-Gaussianity in the CMB data may be through more theoretically motivated searches. With blind searches we fall into the trap that one can always find a non-Gaussian signal in a map, even if it is consistent with Gaussianity. Thus general non-Gaussian detections can easily be dismissed. However, blind searches have the advantage of scope, and can detect the signatures of new physics. In either case, we can still improve on our
current investigations. The wealth of statistics employed in the literature are not independent, but the degeneracies and correlations are not clear.
--
That by itself should be sufficient a warning to not conclude that the WMAP data _shows_ that we are at the center of the universe. At best one may argue that it is consistent with such, although even that one lacks in sufficient theoretical evidence. In other words, what is missing is showing that this is exactly a prediction or outcome of the model which Island prefers. Although he has hinted at the Einstein model, it is far from clear that this is the one he has in mind as specifics seem to be largely lacking.
In order to do some real science, I suggest that Island presents his preferred model, without which it is impossible to evaluate his claims, and then shows that the model indeed predicts or explains the observed correlations and alignments.
That's what science would do.
Huh?
"As I already explained though observations are seldomly falsified as they are based on observed data. What science does is, given these observations, to propose a hypothesis to explain the coincidence. You claim that you have provided a 'falsifiable prediction' but so far the prediction at best is ad hoc, not surprisingly perhaps because there appears to be a lacking 'hypothesis' to support your 'prediction'."
Willful ignorance doesn't excuse your inability to recognize science.
PvM says:
"In order to do some real science, I suggest that Island presents his preferred model"
PvM has been trying to get me to do this for quite a while now, but PvM has already proven that he doesn't know how to fairly critique science, so figure the odds.
Not that it matters PvM, but no theorist has ever been able to shoot down my physics... so we wait on the Large Hadron Collider for confirmation and the collapse of particle theory when funding drys up after nothing is found.
You can refer back to this after that...
Not surprising
--Island
Not that it matters PvM, but no theorist has ever been able to shoot down my physics... so we wait on the Large Hadron Collider for confirmation and the collapse of particle theory when funding drys up after nothing is found.
--
There are many likely explanations for such including: Few if any theorists are familiar with island's musings, few if any theorists have been shown Islands, yet to be developed, arguments, few if any theorists are interested in debunking Island's musings. Absence of a rebuttal should not be confused with a 'solid theory' lest island can show what his theory (sic) is all about and how it has done in the world of scientific peer review.
At best we have a promissory note, of course even the collapse of particle theory should not be confused as granting credibility to Island's 'model', surely people do understand this logical fallacy of dualism?
I am also not the only one it seems
--It isn't a question of people considering the math on your website. It's a question of you arguing your own case. Of you providing your own evidence.
Sure, you have a website. So does everyone else. What does that prove? Nothing, unless you can, in not-so-subtle words, argue your case. Please do so, preferably without calling people derogatory names.--
Source: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=671&start=120
Note how Island presents his work
--What you see on my website could probably get published under the heading of astrophysics, but I'm a long way from done, and I find out more important information about it every day. Then again, it might just get rejected, but in the mean time I've been trying to tickle enough interest in the formal community to get somebody to sit down and write down the stuff that I can't. --
Has anything changed since then?
Willful Ignorance
It has been my honest observation that the creation/evolution debate has conditioned scientists to be extremely leery of implications for anthropic specialness that come with the principle, which extremist creationists constantly "nag at them" with. This was a shocking awakening for my naive self, as the debate is chock full-o-prejudice that is expressed as a preconceived and dishonest slant on how evidence gets interpreted by either side. Neither side seems to have a real clue as a result of the fact that they're also having a culture war, and so many otherwise good scientists go into a strictly preconceived form of denial as soon as they hear the words... "anthropic principle", which are instantly associated with the term, "creationist"... or on another level, "geocentr-ist".
That is, of course, unless they can somehow lose the implication for "anthropic specialness" in an infinite number of possible universes, and then it's perfectly okay to conditionally admit that scientists do indeed interpret that evidence for anthropic preference really does at least "appear" to exist.
Leonard Susskind very clearly expressed rationale for these observations in his interview with New Scientist concerning his new book, The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design.
Amanda Gefter:
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings ***we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.***
Apparently Lenny doesn't know the difference between unintelligently guided evolution and intelligent design either, but at least he is gutsie' enough to admit that there really is a valid scientific interpretation of the evidence that indicates that we are not here by accident. Few will even honestly ask the obvious question about what good reason might exist for why the implied specialness might be true if you can't lose the rationale for "fine-tuning" in an infinite sea of possible universes?
Lenny said elsewhere that: 'The "appearance" of design is undeniable...'
Lenny isn't supporting the ID argument, he and other highly respected physicists, (like Steven Weinberg) are saying that the evidence for a true anthropic/biocentric cosmological connection is so strong that he can't explain it if his unobservable multiverse isn't the reality. While PvM won't even admit that it exists... hmmmmm
Susskind in context
--Apparently Lenny doesn't know the difference between unintelligently guided evolution and intelligent design either, but at least he is gutsie' enough to admit that there really is a valid scientific interpretation of the evidence that indicates that we are not here by accident. Few will even honestly ask the obvious question about what good reason might exist for why the implied specialness might be true if you can't lose the rationale for "fine-tuning" in an infinite sea of possible universes?--
Your interpretation of Lenny's arguments is somewhat overblown, Susskind, who formulated the concept of selection in cosmology, a concept which island seems to embrace, observes that without a hypothesis, it is hard to answer the ID critics. Of course, the position of the "ID critics" is hardly rendered as a valid scientific interpretation without further elaboration. Since ID is merely a position of ignorance based on the concept that if science fails to explain something ID remains a logical and even necessary possibility. It is clear that Susskind rejects the ID claims ( http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/susskind-intelligent-design /), calling it at best an illusion. If that is Island's interpretation of a 'scientific alternative' then fine. I however doubt that Susskind had that in mind.
--Island: Lenny isn't supporting the ID argument, he and other highly respected physicists, (like Steven Weinberg) are saying that the evidence for a true anthropic/biocentric cosmological connection is so strong that he can't explain it if his unobservable multiverse isn't the reality. While PvM won't even admit that it exists... hmmmmm
--
You are now misrepresenting my arguments so let me for the moment accept that the concept of 'anthropic principle' and 'goldilocks enigma' exists, however both formulations are inappropriately focusing on anthropic and are calling it either a principle, which it isn't or an enigma, which like much in science, it remains, until it has been explained. Weinberg and others have formulated interpretations which explain the necessary coincidence that we are here because our environment matches our needs and requirements.
PS: The exact location of Island's quote is http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/index.html , another one of islands many sites (Diracsea you see)
Of course, there appears to exists an anthropic principle which at its simplest level basically states, almost tautologically that we are here because the environment allowed us to evolve here. Nothing truly amazing. And by itself this does not need much of an explanation for the same reason the puddle needs no explanation
Mars Rovers... etc...
You'd have to be completely blind to reality not to recognize that every mission to mars represents a potential falsification of the Goldilocks Enigma and the Anthropic Principle, as SETI applies it to their search for life in the universe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Habitable_zone-en.svg
Falsification
--You'd have to be completely blind to reality not to recognize that every mission to mars represents a potential falsification of the Goldilocks Enigma and the Anthropic Principle, as SETI applies it to their search for life in the universe:--
Is that the best you have to offer, an ad hominem assertion that those who do not agree with your interpretations must be 'completely blind'?
Why not present your logic before accusing others of not seeing it? In fact, I argue that every mission to mars does not represent a potential falsification of the goldilocks enigma, as finding life or not finding life, does little to the argument. If we were to find life on mars, it would be well adapted to Mars's environment and thus present its own goldilocks observation, 'not too warm, not too cold, just right'. Even if we find no life, it merely shows evidence of 'too warm or too cold' and again fails to do much for the inappropriately named 'principle' or 'enigma'.
Pwning continued
--Island
Contrary to modern and "variant interpretations" the Anthropic Principle was originally formalized by Carter as an ideological statement against the dogmatic non-scientific prejudices that scientists commonly harbor, that cause them to consciously deny anthropic relevance in the physics, so they instead tend to be willfully ignorant of just enough pertinent facts to maintain an irrational cosmological bias that leads to absurd, "Copernican-like" projections of mediocrity that contradict what is actually observed.
--
Let's see what we can track down via Wikipedia which is always a good start for any research
--Wikipedia
The phrase "anthropic principle" was coined by the theoretical astrophysicist Brandon Carter, in his contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday. Carter articulated the Anthropic Principle as a reaction to overuse of the Copernican Principle, which states that we are not at a special position in the Universe. As Carter says, "Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent"
The paper references is
Carter, B. (1974). "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology". IAU Symposium 63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data: 291-298, Dordrecht: Reidel.
So the following part of Island's claim is correct
"the Anthropic Principle was originally formalized by Carter "
--Carter
Copernicus taught us the very sound lesson that we must not assume gratuitously that we occupy a privileged central position in the Universe. Unfortunately there has been a strong (not always subconscious) tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the 'perfect cosmological principle' on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961), if one accepts (a) that specially favourable conditions
(of temperature, chemical environment, etc.) are prerequisite for our existence, and (b) that the Universe evolves and is by no means spatially homogeneous on a local scale.
--
How to translate this or map this to Island's claim is more difficult. Carter points out some interesting points that the Copernican position can be taken too far, which leads to a dogmatic thinking.
Rather I will approach the topic by quoting Carter
--Carter
My own interest in this matter arose from reading Bondi's (1959) book Cosmology in which certain widely known 'large number coincidences' are listed as evidence justifying the introduction of various exotic theories (e.g. involving departures from normally accepted physical conservation laws) of which early examples were the 'varying G' theories of Dirac and Jordan. I am now convinced of the opposite thesis: i.e. that far from being evidence in favour of exotic theories these coincidences should rather be considered as confirming 'conventional' (General Relativistic Big Bang) physics and cosmology which could in principle have been used to predict them all
in advance of their observation. However these predictions do require the use of what may be termed the anthropic principle to the effect that what we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers. (Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent.)
---
So on one hand Carter does warn against dogmatically applying the Copernican principle, I am not sure that the full description of Island can be found in this paper. The anthropic statement for instance was in response to Bondi's book in which he introduced several coincidences which would required additional, exotic theories to be proposed, including departures from conservation laws. Contrary to this Carter argues that these coincidences are well in line with common scientific understanding once we accept the anthropic principle
Nope...
PvM says:
"Let's see what we can track down via Wikipedia which is always a good start for any research"
Not where this subject is concerned... duh.
And then he goes on to downplay the significance of Carter's point about the dogmatically ideological mispositioned scientists by claiming that this unscientific tendency only applies to Bondi's model, rather than to the improper world view of scientists which leads to THIS KIND OF THING.
Sorry Bunkie, the prejudice didn't go away, which was Carter's point, since Bondi's model had already been debunked when he formalized the cure for the disease in the form of a cosmological principle, so the rest of your ill-informed diatribe about this model was not even relevant to the point that Carter was making about the anticentric scientists.
Wikipedia
--Island
PvM says:
"Let's see what we can track down via Wikipedia which is always a good start for any research"
Not where this subject is concerned... duh.
--
Of course it was, because it properly referenced the presentation by Carter, allowing one to find the original source to compare to your interpretation.
That's what pwning is all about, following the trail to the original source and comparing it to the interpretations.
Carter's point
Remember this is about Island's claim and Carter's arguments. I will leave it to the interested reader as to whether or not Island's description was correct. That Island reads into Carter's points as a 'cure for the disease' it was to avoid exactly the special pleadings to new models and rely on the existing models to explain what Carter described as the anthropic principle. It does help to read the actual paper, which is btw available to anyone interested.
You seem to call this a 'prejudice' but that is understandable since you seem to rely on a yet to be defined 'hypothetical model' which you believe explains the observations better, although lacking the details such a claim has to be dismissed as lacking in specifics.
The reason to formulate the 'anthropic principles' was well described by Carter
--
... that far from being evidence in favour of exotic theories these coincidences should rather be considered as confirming 'conventional' (General Relativistic Big Bang) physics and cosmology which could in principle have been used to predict them all in advance of their observation.
--
As long as one uses the anthropic principles which I described in more detail.
Others have come to the similar, reasonable conclusion
--The modern era of anthropic reasoning dawned quite recently, with a series of papers by Brandon Carter, another cosmologist. Carter coined the term “anthropic principle” in 1974, clearly intending it to convey some useful guidance about how to reason under observation selection effects. We shall later look at some examples of how he applied his methodological ideas to both physics and biology. While Carter himself evidently knew how to apply his principle to get interesting results, he unfortunately did not manage to explain it well enough to enable all his followers to do the same.
--
Source: Nick Bostrom http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html
And more
Carter points out that the coincidence found by Bondi belonged to three classes
(1) the traditional kind - without use of the anthropic principle;
(2) those which only require the use of a 'weak' anthropic principle; and
(3) those which require the invocation of an extended (and hence rather more questionable) 'strong' anthropic principle.
The Weak Anthropic Principle is described as
--This prediction provides a good illustration of the use of the 'weak' anthropic principle to the effect that we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.-
The Strong Anthropic Principle is described as
--Condition (8) is a good example of a prediction based on what may be termed the 'strong' anthropic principle stating that the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.--
Island in an infinite ocean of space
is actually quite simple. It refers to Einstein's static universe.
"The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in an infinite ocean of space. (Einstein, 1954)"
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Cosmology.htm
Pwning
While I am quite happy with pwning 2 of the three statements you made, I am certainly willing to look at your final claim which references a statement by Richard Ryals. However, since Ryals is known to us as Island, I wonder how I pwn Island's self quotation.
What is there to pwn but to point out that Island self-references in the hope of furthering the argument.
Is that sufficient for a pwn or do you want me to also address your 'claim'?
What are you babbling about?
... and please speak English, because my translator can't even touch whatever you think that you are saying.
Oh you understood me..
quite well, I am sure.
You referred to a page which was authored by yourself, which interprets the statements by Carter made in his presentation.
I found the original source to be far more useful
Where?
--Island
The WMAP anamoly indicates that we are at the center of the universe:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29210
---
Where in the article is this argument proposed?
From the conclusions
--
Therefore, there is strong evidence either of some systematic error in the WMAP pipeline (although in a preliminary analysis, the team is now discovering similar features in COBE maps), or that the largest scales of the microwave sky are dominated by a local foreground.
This finding has vast implications. It casts doubts on the cosmological interpretation of the lowest-1 multipoles from the temperature-temperature correlation and from the temperature-polarization correlation, and in turn on the claim that the first stars formed very early in the history of the universe.
--
I can see how Island may have jumped to the conclusion here
From Wikipedia
--
Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:[8]
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
It would be somewhat surprising if the WMAP alignments were a complete coincidence, but the anti-Copernican implications suggested by Krauss would be far more surprising, if true. Other possibilities are (i) that residual instrumental errors in WMAP cause the effect (ii) that unexpected microwave emission from within the solar system is contaminating the maps.[9]
--
Relying on old science
Island referenced a 2004 article, however science does proceed and indeed
--
Abstract: We apply the recently defined multipole vector framework to the frequency-specific first-year WMAP sky maps, estimating the low-l multipole coefficients from the high-latitude sky by means of a power equalization filter. While most previous analyses of this type have considered only heavily processed (and foreground-contaminated) full-sky maps, the present approach allows for greater control of residual foregrounds, and therefore potentially also for cosmologically important conclusions. The low-l spherical harmonics coefficients and corresponding multipole vectors are tabulated for easy reference.
Using this formalism, we re-assess a set of earlier claims of both cosmological and non-cosmological low-l correlations based on multipole vectors. First, we show that the apparent l=3 and 8 correlation claimed by Copi et al. (2004) is present only in the heavily processed map produced by Tegmark et al. (2003), and must therefore be considered an artifact of that map. Second, the well-known quadrupole-octopole correlation is confirmed at the 99% significance level, and shown to be robust with respect to frequency and sky cut. Previous claims are thus supported by our analysis. Finally, the low-l alignment with respect to the ecliptic claimed by Schwarz et al. (2004) is nominally confirmed in this analysis, but also shown to be very dependent on severe a-posteriori choices. Indeed, we show that given the peculiar quadrupole-octopole arrangement, finding such a strong alignment with the ecliptic is not unusual.
--
Authors: P. Bielewicz, H. K. Eriksen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski, P. B. Lilje
Title: Multipole vector anomalies in the first-year WMAP data: a cut-sky analysis
Astrophys.J. 635 (2005) 750-760
Conclusions:
--
In this paper, we have revisited a set of claims found in the literature regarding the low-ℓ CMB pattern and multipole vectors. We have remedied the most serious outstanding problem connected to these analyses, in that we have used only partial sky data to estimate the multipole vectors. This allowed us to study the frequency-specific WMAP sky maps individually, while imposing different
sky cuts to study regional dependence. Using these methods, the multipole vector approach may finally be used for cosmological analysis.
Three claims were studied in depth. First, Copi et al. (2004) found a set of strong correlations among the ℓ = 2, . . . , 8 multipoles using the multipole vector formalism. Unfortunately, they only had access to two full-sky maps (the WILC and TOH sky maps), which are known to be contaminated by galactic foregrounds.
While we reproduced their results for these two maps, we also found that the anomaly is not present in the best available frequency-specific CMB maps. Therefore, as far as the low-ℓ correlations are statistically significant, they must be considered an artifact of the TOH and WILC
sky maps, and not of the WMAP data as a whole.
Second, we revisited the much more established anomaly first reported by de Oliveira-Costa et al. (2004); the strong alignment between the quadrupole and octopole moments. Our results confirm previous conclusions: The effect is significant at the 98-99% confidence level, and independent of frequency and sky cut. It appears to be quite robust.
Finally, we also considered the claims made by Schwarz et al. (2004), that the low-ℓ CMB field could be of solar system origin. This claim was based on the observation that the ℓ = 2 and 3 multipole cross-product vectors align with the ecliptic north-south axis, and, indeed, that they point towards the vernal equinox. While the nominal significance of these results are confirmed in this paper, we also found that it is not at all unusual to observe such a strong alignment with one of the three major axes (ecliptic, galactic or super-galactic), given the peculiar internal arrangements of the quadrupole and octopole. Thus, it is not the ecliptic correlation per se that is anomalous, but rather the quadrupole-octopole alignment. Whether this latter feature is caused by cosmological or non-cosmological physics is not yet clear, but solar-system physics does not appear to provide the most plausible explanation.
---
Cheers
You missed a few relevant papers...
Large-scale structure—can it fit in the conventional framework?
Conventional cosmology assumes that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogenous on the largest scales. However, some evidence shows that it is in fact fractal and in any case that giant voids 100 Mpc across or bigger are too big to have formed since the big bang. Two papers address these questions. Thieberger and Célérier use data from the SDSS catalog to determine that the distribution of galaxies in the distance range from 20-70 Mpc does seem to be fractal, the distribution converges on homogeneity—a fractal dimension of 3—at distance above 70 Mpc. However, the sample used only extends to 125 Mpc, so shows homogeneity for a relatively narrow range of distances. Bigger surveys would be needed to see if homogeneity continues to larger scales or is just a “plateau” in a larger-scale fractal distortion.
It is well known that structure does exist on larger scales-- voids have been observed that are as large as 140 Mpc across. It is hard to see how such large voids could form, but Schild and Gibson argue that a modification of Big Bang theory to take into account plasma interactions in the period 30-300,000 years after the Big Bang could form such voids as well as vortices that explain the alignments observed in the CBR. Their hydro-gravitational theory hover, must also explain how the existence of large-scale vortices in the Big Bang model would not have created very large anisotropies in the CBR, which are not observed.
Scaling Regimes as obtained from the DR5 Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: Reuben Thieberger, Marie-Noëlle Célérier
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0464v1
Goodness in the Axis of Evil
Authors: Rudolph E. Schild, Carl H. Gibson
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3229v1
Cluster shadowing debate continues
If the CBR was generated by the Big Bang, the plasma in clusters of galaxies should cast shadows—dim spots—in the CBR by a process know as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect or SZ effect. Some studies, as reported in earlier newsletters, have indicated that the predicted shadows do not exist. Hover, Atrio-Barandela et al claim that they have detected the SZ effect in a sample of 700 clusters. So far, no papers have attempted to explain the differing results.
Measurement of the electron-pressure profile of galaxy clusters in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) 3-year data
Authors: F. Atrio-Barandela, A. Kashlinsky, D. Kocevski, H. Ebeling
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3716v1
More on CBR non-Guassianity
In a somewhat similar conflict on the CBR, more papers continue to report non-Guassianity (non-randomness) in the distribution of CBR anisotropies, even though large collaborations continue that the CBR is Gaussian. Inflation theory, a key component of conventional cosmology predicts Gaussianity. McEwen et al find non-Guassianity in the Five-Year WMAP results, but contend that the non-randomness is limited to a few spots on the sky. Genova-Santos et al study one such spot, a cold spot in Corona Borealis and conclude that there is only a 0.19% chance of such a spot in a Gaussian CMB. However, (such is the force of ideology), they conclude from this that the cold spot cannot be caused by the “primordial” CMB, which has to be Gaussian. Instead they conclude that it must be caused by an unobserved body of gas through the SZ effect.
continued...
And this one
We also investigate “Axis of Evil” (AoE) type anomalies, which detect phase correlations between different multipoles in harmonic space. These phase correlations are not expected in a statistically isotropic map (Land & Magueijo 2005a). We do not observe an AoE type of structure in the
2MASS catalogue. As non-Gaussian features are expected in the LSS we feel this result raises issues about the use of the AoE statistic as a general test for statistic anisotropy.
We do not observe correlations between the CMB fractional power distribution as measured in its AoE frame and that of 2MASS, constraining the possible explanations of the low ℓ anomalies in the CMB.
Rassat et al , Cross-correlation of 2MASS and WMAP3: Implications for the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 1–12(2006)
And so far none of your papers support your interpretation about 'center of the universe' that seems rather weird.
Now we're back on the subject all of a sudden?
Yeah, but I could'a sworn that you said this:
PvM said:
"Of course it is relevant as it discusses the (non) copernican nature of our universe. Surely you realize that science is based on many sources of data, information and theories. Just pointing to a random quote about 'center' hardly makes it science"
Which is why I entertained your little side-trip, and here's another one of my personal favorites:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
Lambda/CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?
I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of Lambda/CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models.
-Richard Lieu
We have never been away from the subject
which was the lack of scientific support for your claims, other than quote mine of Krauss.
--I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of Lambda/CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models.--
As I thought, it's all a conspiracy after all :-)
Now I get it, it's not about science really but about science not treating these concepts seriously, and perhaps for good reasons as Island does not provide any competing theory to explain the allignments.
Most qualified astrophysicists seem to suggest that at this moment the AoE remains an unexplained phenomena, although there still remain many plausible explanations.
And yet, Island seems to have concluded that the WMAP data shows that we are at the center of the universe.
What does he know that science doesn't?
Uh, no... I clearly explained how it works
"which was the lack of scientific support for your claims, other than quote mine of Krauss."
Nope, and now you are liar. I again repeat that I explained exactly what is required for the interpretation to be valid, but you called it "hand-waving" because you don't know what you're looking at, and I'm about done playing with you.
PvM
"As I thought, it's all a conspiracy after all :-)"
And here I thought that it was a scientific paper... which means that it has to be more than a just a "conspiricy theory", so your disrespectful attitude toward science requires that you willfully ignore the fact that Lieu had to do what he claimed that he did for it to be called science.
Richard Lieu said:
"I DEMONSTRATE in this article..."
And yet PvM still can't understand how science is done...
You're a pathetic excuse for an opponent, and I say that from experience with many that I respect.
I may very well be
--
You're a pathetic excuse for an opponent, and I say that from experience with many that I respect.--
Then again, given the circumstances, even a pathetic excuse for an opponents seems to be able to expose the vacuity behind your claims
--Nope, and now you are liar. I again repeat that I explained exactly what is required for the interpretation to be valid, but you called it "hand-waving" because you don't know what you're looking at, and I'm about done playing with you.
--
Well, I guess we must have missed that part and perhaps I am to blame for the absence of such, after all, it seems that you are blaming me of much of anything recently.
Why is it so hard to outline the reasoning that led you to make such a claim about what WMAP shows when it is hardly self evident?
Richard Lieu said:
"I DEMONSTRATE in this article..."
And yet PvM still can't understand how science is done.
--
I surely understand the difference between 'demonstrate' and 'prove'. Demonstration is based on evidence which can lead to subjective interpretations. Just look at how you interpreted Carter's statement for instance.
And more recent data
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai :arXiv.org:astro-ph/0507186
Which link to such papers as the following which show that the mystery has not been resolved yet.
--
To explore the origin of these features, including possible foreground effects, we repeated many calculations using sky-masked data sets. The data shows evidence for systematic differences between the Northern and Southern regions of the sky. Masking out the galactic plane does not eliminate signals of anisotropy seen in the full sky studies. As consistency checks, the anisotropies of CMB plus simulated synchrotron emission contamination from the plane of the galaxy are detected by our methods in just the spatial regions where they are simulated. The observed anisotropies cannot readily be explained away by appealing to galactic foreground contamination.
--
Testing Isotropy of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Authors: Samal, Pramoda Kumar; Saha, Rajib; Jain, Pankaj; Ralston, John P.
MNRAS, 385, 1718-1728 (2008)
and
--
Recent analyses of the WMAP data seem to indicate the possible presence of large-angle anisotropy in the Universe. If confirmed, these can have important consequences for our understanding of the Universe. A number of attempts have recently been made to establish the reality and nature of such anisotropies in the CMB data. Among these is a directional indicator recently proposed by the authors. A distinctive feature of this indicator is that it can be used to generate a sky map of the large-scale anisotropies of the CMB maps. Applying this indicator to full-sky temperature maps we found a statistically significant preferred direction. The full-sky maps used in these analyses are known to have residual foreground contamination as well as complicated noise properties. Thus, here we performed the same analysis for a map where regions with high foreground contamination were removed. We find that the main feature of the full-sky analysis, namely the presence of a significant axis of asymmetry, is robust with respect to this masking procedure. Other subtler anomalies of the full-sky are on the other hand no longer present.
--
So far I have seen few data that suggests that the data show that the earth is at the 'center' of the universe.
A note on the large-angle anisotropies in the WMAP cut-sky maps
Authors: Bernui, A.; Mota, B.; Reboucas, M. J.; Tavakol, R.
Int.. J. Mod. Phys. D16 (2007) 411-420
You mean... So far I've seen few "popularizations"...
But yeah, there is a correlation in the alignment to a region of galaxies, as is predicted to be the case by the Goldilocks Enigma, so the implication is for a biocentric, (rather than anthropic), structure principle.
"Although our situation is not necessarily ''central'', it is inevitably privileged to some extent"
-Brandon Carter
Goldilocks Enigma
This rather poorly phrased term, suggests that there may be an enigma but let's look at the apparent correlation between habitability and our existence as observers.
Is it not remarkable how so many tribes managed to find themselves located at exactly the spots where rivers ran into oceans, enabling not only an inflow of fresh water but also the protection by a moderated climate. Even more remarkable is how the ocean would provide for important sources of protein (fish etc) and enable trade with other tribes.
What a the chances that life would thrive at exactly these places... Other than these nasty tsunamis and hurricanes...
Thus we start to understand the Goldilocks aspect better. In fact, while the porridge, bed and chair of the child bear was exactly the right size for the teenager who intruded, other 'guests' would have found the father or mother bear's porridge etc much more to their likings.
In other words, we observers are biased to be in locations in which our existence is not just possible but also likely given the environment.
Some may call this an enigma others just observe the logic behind such a correlation.
Simple really and so if the anti-copernicans are interested in presenting their thesis and predictions, then fine. Pointing at some quotes and some yet to be understood data hardly seems sufficient for such a position.
Note that as is the case with science, there may be more to this coincidence but its up to those proposing it to present their evidence and make their case.
That's how real science is done, and that's why ID continues to fail to be scientifically relevant.
The Goldilocks Enigma, again...
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com /
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Habitable_zone-en.svg /491px-Habitable_zone-en.svg.png
Circumstellar Habitable Zone - Ecobalance - Ecosphere
The evolving physics that define the vast array of coincidentally balanced, "just-right" conditions that make up the Goldilocks Enigma, ranges dramatically in magnitude and time, from the near-"flat", balanced structuring of the universe, itself, all the way down to our own local self-regulating ecobalance, whose chaotic cycles we directly contribute to enhance over time. These "ecospheres" began unfolding at the moment of the big bang, but it took most of 14 billion years to bring them all to "fruition", so claims that this structure defining physics isn't **necessarily** pointed directly at carbon based life, are, at least *apparently* absurd, and must be justified with something more than "somewhat" established cutting-edge physics speculations.
The relevant anthropic physics isn't strictly geocentric, however, because the same conditions also apply to other galaxy systems that are similarly evolved, time and location-wise, as ours is:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu /~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html
The Goldilocks Enigma constrains the parameters to a balance of extremes...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu /~js/images/instability.gif
...so it only applies to the ecosphere of galaxies that formed on the same evolutionary time/location "plane" as we did. Planets orbiting stars in galaxies that are too old or too new, too large or too small, do not fit the "coincidentally balanced" nature as the average of extremes... etc... etc... ect... all the way down to the local ecobalances of the ones that do, and life will only arise on planets in galaxies, (and universes), where ALL of the anthropic coincidences are simultaneously in effect.
The "cosmological principle"...
http://www.answers.com/topic/copernican-principle?cat=technology
...derives a "mediocre" a priori statistical distribution of values of observables, but this is not what is observed and is the reason for the anthropic physics that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma", so the combined effect of the cosmological principle with the goldilocks constraint extends to the observed universe to produce a biocentric cosmological principle.
This also addresses the alleged, Fermi "Paradox", as well, since we should not *yet* expect to hear from similarly developed intelligent life, because their radio transmissions have not had time to reach us... *yet*... either.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/galactic_habitable_zone.jpg
That's a testable prediction about where and when life will most likely be found elsewhere in the universe.
This paper by A. Feoli, and S. Rampone, further discusses this in context with similarly developed systems, but they fail to take the balance of extremes that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma" into account here, because they apply the mediocrity principle, instead, so their formula and anthropic statement are not quite accurately inserted into their large scale equation, as would be the case if they'd considered the entire set of anthropic balance points that evolve, so their solution and anthropic statement are generalized and overstated, rather than being specific and pointed toward a fine layer of similarly evolved galaxies, stars, and planets:
"Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak?"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093
We discuss the Carter's formula about the mankind evolution probability following the derivation proposed by Barrow and Tipler. We stress the relation between the existence of billions of galaxies and the evolution of at least one intelligent life, whose living time is not trivial, all over the Universe. We show that the existence probability and the lifetime of a civilization depend not only on the evolutionary critical steps, but also on the number of places where the life can arise. In the light of these results, we propose a stronger version of Anthropic Principle.
When you apply the Goldilocks Enigma, rather than the mediocrity principle, then a much more accurate and testable formula falls-out along with a more accurate statement about a strong biocentric principle, so this "coincidental" Enigma extends to include every similarly evolved galaxy that exists in the same common "layer" of galaxies as we do. The average of extreme opposing runaway tendencies that are common to the anthropic coincidences make many testable predictions about the observed universe.
Like, life, (past or present), will not be found on Mars nor Venus, but it will be found in other galaxy systems along the layer of spacetime that makes-up the goldilocks enigma. Venus suffers from the runaway greenhouse effect, whereas Mars represents the cold stagnate proof of what will happen if extremist environmentalists get things all their way too, so heed the lesson of this anthropic coincidence.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm
Still nothing to explain the correlation
We see more of the usual nonsense while there is no attempt to explain why the correlations should be seen as anything more than the reason we are here is because we match the environment around us.
There is no Goldilocks enigma, and there are no testable hypotheses. Note also the anti environmentalist stance, another typical position of those not interested in science.
Keep up the good work Island, you are surely not doing much to support your 'enigma' which as I have pointed out, is hardly a surprise. After all, if the situation would have not been suitable for our kind of life form then we would not have been here to observe it.
Just like the puddle of water in Douglas Adams' story which observes how the depression in which it resides surely must have been designed, otherwise, why would it fit so extremely well. And while the sun comes out to dry out the puddle, the puddle is wonder about the meaning of all this.
More denial and willful ignorance, but physicists know better...
We see here that PvM can't comprehend empirically supported science, so it is no surprise why he doesn't know why Douglas Adams' non-applicable puddle analogy is nothing more the bogus hype of antifanatics who conveniently don't know enough of the relevant fact to speak on the subject.
It's just lucky that cutting-edge physicists know better than to make fools out of themselves as neodarwinians commonly do:
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle /
Keep up the politics, kiddo, as you can rest assured that no-one on either side is ever swayed by anything that either ever says.
Weird
--Island
It's just lucky that cutting-edge physicists know better than to make fools out of themselves as neodarwinians commonly do:
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle /
---
The guest post is by Richard Ryals, who happens to use the handle 'island'. Coincidence?
Why would Island refer to a posting by himself as evidence of a 'cutting edge physicist'?
Plain weird
Fascination
I love to hear how Island has to resort to ad hominems when exposed to the vacuity of his arguments.
No surprise here really, although real scientists indeed have proposed explanations for these coincidences, even the person who coined the term "Goldilocks enigma", Paul Davies does not resort to ignorance or claims that "we are at the center of the universe as shown by CMAP".
Say Island, do you have any original thought? Or is it all quote mined?
Amazing...
What PvM will do to get in the last word, like it constitutes a rebuttal or whatever...
I am not surprised
Seems Island is empty handed once again.