Is there an order in the Universe?

[stu]

Quote from jem:

This is my last post with you on the subject.

Once again -- I give you a quote from the guy who invented string theory. I request that you go on the internet and see for yourself the state of science. I have no need to give your more quotes, one is sufficient to prove my point because you have come back with nothing.

Instead you choose to argue like a little kid without any backup.


I already know there are some scientists who refute what Susskind says. They feel he has made errors. if you had half a brain you would have crafted a strong argument. But you know that I know if you actually did the work, you would see that most physicists now understand that the arguments against the anthropic principle are speculative. Just like it says in the Wikipedia article on the anthropic principle I cited for you

"...most physicists now understand that the arguments against the anthropic principle are speculative"

The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.

You want me to craft a strong argument about speculative arguments on a speculative subject? For what reason exactly? So you can present your marvelous idea that don't know = Goddunit?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

stu, the "non idiot" engages in lively exchange:

The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.
The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.

Quote from stu:

"...most physicists now understand that the arguments against the anthropic principle are speculative"

The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot.

You want me to craft a strong argument about speculative arguments on a speculative subject? For what reason exactly? So you can present your marvelous idea that don't know = Goddunit?

 

[jem]

Stu you are living in the past and your lack of education on this issue is not understandable.

That the universe we live in is unbelieveable lucky based on current phyisics . (strongly arguing for design.) The best minds in physics are suggesting a way around the obvious conclusion of design is to specualte that we live in a multiverse.

I am surprised you are being so closed to scientific fact on this issue. Your faith in atheism must be very strong. The reason why you should craft and argument is because all your informed science buddies already have, their argument is that we must live in a multiverse because we do not wish to fairly conclude the universe is designed.

Stu it is all over the net open your eyes revise your faith. Become enlightened you might be set free.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

That the universe we live in is unbelieveable lucky based on current phyisics .

What physics? Anthropic principle includes that as one of its speculations and your Susskind quote does not give anything much extra to what Einstein commented anyway. It's not a question of "luck" when something that can occur does occur.

Quote from jem:

....(strongly arguing for design.) The best minds in physics are suggesting a way around the obvious conclusion of design is to specualte that we live in a multiverse.

Exactly, another speculation and it's included in the anthropic principle. The best minds in physics also argue against multiverse.

Quote from jem:

The reason why you should craft and argument is because all your informed science buddies already have, their argument is that we must live in a multiverse because we do not wish to fairly conclude the universe is designed.

That is completely false. Go on the webbynet and see for yourself, if that is what you rely on for your 'facts'. The quote you showed does not confirm that either.

You may not have noticed , you've made that up yourself. Science does not give a shit about whether the universe is designed or not. What true science wants to know is, what actually is, not whether it is fair or not.

Also were the universe 'designed' anyway, there is no reason why it should not be designed by natural conditions only. So you are getting nowhere with your argument no matter how hard you try to tell science and physicists what it is they must conclude.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:



That the universe we live in is unbelieveable lucky based on current phyisics . (strongly arguing for design.)

why does the theist argument always boil down to "i dont understand how xxx happened so it had to be God that did it"?
theists throughout history have had to retreat as scientific knowledge advanced and answered most of the goddidit questions. their only safehaven at this point is to keep retreating to whatever point scientific knowledge ends and proclaim "see goddidthis". it is a wise strategy though because you can never pin them down and they are able to at least hang onto some remnants of their superstition.

 

[2cents]

the "anthropic principle" is the epitome of stupidity that sometimes can afflict otherwise great scientific minds... what a total bore really...

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2006/280.html
Earth-Like Planets May Be More Common Than Once Thought, Says CU-Boulder-Penn State Study
Sept. 7, 2006

More than one-third of the giant planet systems recently detected outside Earth's solar system may harbor Earth-like planets, many covered in deep oceans with potential for life, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University.

The study focuses on a type of planetary system unlike our solar system that contains gas giants known as "Hot Jupiters" orbiting extremely close to their parent stars -- even closer than Mercury to our sun, said CU-Boulder researcher Sean Raymond. Such gas giants are believed to have migrated inward toward their parent stars as the planetary systems were forming, disrupting the space environment and triggering the formation of ocean-covered, Earth-like planets in a "habitable zone" conducive to the evolution of life, according to the new study.

"Exotic Earths: Forming Habitable Worlds with Giant Planet Migration" was published in the Sept. 8 issue of Science and authored by Raymond, Avi Mandell of both Penn State and Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Steinn Sigurdsson of Penn State.

The study indicates Hot Jupiters push and pull proto-planetary disk material during their journeys, flinging rocky debris outward where it is likely to coalesce into Earth-like planets, said Raymond. At the same time, turbulent forces from the dense surrounding gas slow down the orbits of small, icy bodies in the outer reaches of the disk, causing them to spiral inward and deliver water to the fledgling planets. Such planets may eventually host oceans several miles deep, according to the study.

"These gas giants cause quite a ruckus," said Raymond of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. "We now think there is a new class of ocean-covered, and possibly habitable, planets in solar systems unlike our own."

Scientists had previously assumed that as Hot Jupiters plowed through proto-planetary material on their inward migrations toward parent stars, all the surrounding material would be "vacuumed up" or ejected from the system, he said. "The new models indicate these early ideas were probably wrong," said Raymond.

The research team ran exhaustive simulations lasting more than eight months each on more than a dozen desktop computers, starting with proto-planetary disks containing more than 1,000 moon-sized, rocky and icy bodies. The initial conditions for each computer model were based on current theories of how planets form in our own solar system and simulated about 200 million years of planetary evolution.

The team concluded that about one of every three known planetary systems could have evolved as-yet-undetected Earth-like planets in so-called habitable zones like the one Earth is in, he said. A whopping 40 percent of the 200 or so known planets around other stars are Hot Jupiters, although the percentage probably will decrease as more distant planets are discovered, said Raymond.

In addition to Earth-like planets that form in habitable zones outside Hot Jupiters, the simulations showed some rocky planets known as "Hot Earths" often form inside the orbits of Hot Jupiters, said Raymond. A Hot Earth, with a radius twice that of our own Earth, was discovered in 2005 in a nearby star system orbiting just 2 million miles from its parent star by a team led by University of California, Berkeley, planetary scientist Geoffrey Marcy.

The new simulations showed both Hot Earths and Earth-like planets in habitable zones formed with large amounts of water, up to 100 times the water present on Earth today, he said. The models indicate such water-rich planets would probably contain a lower percentage of iron - which may be important for the evolution and possible oxygenation of evolving atmospheres - than Earth, he said.

According to the team's simulations, Hot Earths can form astoundingly fast, in just 100,000 years or so. Earth-like planets in habitable zones form much more slowly, taking up to 200 million years, said Raymond. Geologists believe Earth took about 30 million years to 50 million years to fully form.

"I think there are definitely habitable planets out there," said Raymond. "But any life on these planets could be very different from ours. There are a lot of evolutionary steps in between the formation of such planets in other systems and the presence of life forms looking back at us."

The new research effort may allow planet hunters to determine "rough limits" indicating where to search for habitable planets in known systems of giant planets, according to the team, whose research was funded by NASA's Astrobiology Institute headquartered at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.

"Upcoming space missions such as NASA's Kepler and Terrestrial Planet finder and ESA's COROT and Darwin will discover and eventually characterize Earth-like planets around other stars," wrote the authors in Science. ""We predict that a significant fraction of systems with close-in giant planets will be found to have a Hot Earth or potentially habitable, water-rich planets on stable orbits in the Habitable Zone. "

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from vhehn:

why does the theist argument always boil down to "i dont understand how xxx happened so it had to be God that did it"?
theists throughout history have had to retreat as scientific knowledge advanced and answered most of the goddidit questions. their only safehaven at this point is to keep retreating to whatever point scientific knowledge ends and proclaim "see goddidthis". it is a wise strategy though because you can never pin them down and they are able to at least hang onto some remnants of their superstition.

this can also be argued the other way....you cant prove that it wasn't intelligent design who created the universe and that is was by chance...as a matter of fact the odds are so against it happened by chance that intelligent design is the only other option...we can go back and forth as we always do here on ET...but the truth is..no one can prove shit...so why argue as though you can? just accept the world the way you see it and have the open mind to at least accept other points of views. peace

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Ain't gonna happen, the resident atheists will never even entertain the possibility of God. Hell, they are so afraid of the concept of God, that they are terrified to even spell God with a capital "G" they always spell God with a lower case "g." Oh, they can spell any other proper name with an upper case letter, but God? No way, that would be giving the "God" they say doesn't exist power of existence. Too funny actually...

The atheists have their solid case erected on the foundation of the rules they have set up to make their case, they will never discuss the rules of the game they play as faulty to begin with (a product of the limited and flawed mind of man). Sort of like a paranoid schizophrenic can never be proven wrong...as it is, you know, all in their head anyway...

Quote from ElCubano:

this can also be argued the other way....you cant prove that it wasn't intelligent design who created the universe and that is was by chance...as a matter of fact the odds are so against it happened by chance that intelligent design is the only other option...we can go back and forth as we always do here on ET...but the truth is..no one can prove shit...so why argue as though you can? just accept the world the way you see it and have the open mind to at least accept other points of views. peace

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ElCubano:

this can also be argued the other way....you cant prove that it wasn't intelligent design who created the universe and that is was by chance...as a matter of fact the odds are so against it happened by chance that intelligent design is the only other option...we can go back and forth as we always do here on ET...but the truth is..no one can prove shit...so why argue as though you can? just accept the world the way you see it and have the open mind to at least accept other points of views. peace

you make my point nicely. when you say"as a matter of fact the odds are so against it happened by chance that intelligent design is the only other option" you are saying. "i dont understand how xxx could have happened so it had to be god". that is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Sort of like a paranoid schizophrenic can never be proven wrong...as it is, you know, all in their head anyway...

i suppose you consider this solid proof? "as a matter of fact the odds are so against it happened by chance that intelligent design is the only other option"