Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?
- From Jay W Richards PhD
By Jay W. Richards, Ph.D. - The Acton Institute
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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...
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 8:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- island September 19, 2008 12:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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]
--
- PvM
September 19, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- PvM
September 19, 2008 9:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- PvM
September 19, 2008 9:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- island September 20, 2008 2:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In other words
the WMAP data does not indicate we are at the center of the universe, nor does the goldilock 'enigma' really predict such. At best the WMAP data shows a correlation which we do not yet understand and although Island believes it supports his case, he really has not done his homework here.
ID at its best. Misunderstand data, add to this wide speculations with no supporting theory followed by a quote mine.
Let us know when you have something more concrete, or until you find some popularization as the WMAP page to which you referred made no claims about the center of the universe. In fact even Krauss stated that there were various plausible explanations for the observations.
- PvM
September 20, 2008 9:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brandon Carter also wrote
"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"
And even that formulation has been taken apart by Rudolf Haller in his book "Non-Existence and Predication"
Understanding is the first step towards formulating a workable hypothesis and 'popularization' thereof.
- PvM
September 20, 2008 9:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A test of the copernican principle
Science of course has tested the principle, even though for a long time it stood as an assumption. And the data do not show a support for the belief of a non-copernican Universe under most circumstances, although there may sill remain scenarios in which a non-copernican Universe would be possible.
http://www.physorg.com/news130673436.html
--
“I think the scientific community would not be too unhappy with the idea of a large under-dense region – it is not hard to think of ideas of how they might come to be, even in the context of a hot big bang model. What is hard to understand is why we would be so close to the center of one. No doubt someone would come up with an ‘anthropic’ argument for it – but I've thought a bit about that, and don't really think there is a salable anthropic explanation. (By the way, I don't think there is a salable intelligent design reason, either.) In the end, we might have to live with the Walter Cronkite explanation ‘... and that's the way it is .... ’”
--
- PvM
September 20, 2008 9:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- PvM
September 20, 2008 10:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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...
- island September 21, 2008 3:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- PvM
September 21, 2008 4:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- island September 21, 2008 4:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM pwn's this one...
"The Anthropic Principle was an ideological statement about unscientifically predisposed scientists"
- island September 21, 2008 5:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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'?
- PvM
September 21, 2008 7:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What are you babbling about?
... and please speak English, because my translator can't even touch whatever you think that you are saying.
- island September 22, 2008 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- PvM
September 22, 2008 10:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- PvM
September 21, 2008 7:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.--
- PvM
September 21, 2008 7:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- PvM
September 21, 2008 9:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- island September 22, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
- PvM
September 22, 2008 10:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- PvM
September 22, 2008 11:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- island September 22, 2008 2:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- PvM
September 22, 2008 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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...
- island September 22, 2008 9:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
- PvM
September 22, 2008 9:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
--
- PvM
September 22, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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
September 22, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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?
- onein6billion
September 25, 2008 7:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.