Posted on 11/21/2012 8:24:21 PM PST by lasereye
I've read some of Sean Carroll's stuff, and it smells to me more like the multiverse is a philosophic construct pulled together as a hasty defense against the weak anthropic principle (which, when coupled with the big bang, is suddenly NOT intractably at metaphysical odds with Genesis: which, although a far cry from being Biblical literalism, is nonetheless philosophically unbearable).
ASU's resident militant atheist Larry Krausse -- who bears an odd resemblance to Alan Colmes -- has pretty much admitted as much.
The math simply doesn't impress me, on two grounds. First, recall the Ptolemaic vs. Copernican view of the cosmos, and the mathematical sophistication of epicycles and the like: mathematical constructs can be quite complex, and yet quite wrong. And the second follows from this, and was voiced by the late Richard Feynman:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
In certain areas of cosmology, as in certain areas of string theory (or, for that matter, evolutionary theory or economics) there is a paucity of data, or a lack of technology for acquiring the data -- with the result that there are no means for distinguishing between models, or for discarding or refining existing models experimentally. When that happens, one is left with assigning truth gladiatorially based on the reputation or churlishness of each theory's champions, or relying on authority: which is not in fact the practice of science.
Science works not because of the intellect or sophistication or superiority of its proponents, but simply because of empiricism.
And if there are no experiments which have been performed which bear an "if and only if" relationship to the multiverse model, then such models are not science, but merely speculation or science fiction (fairly good in that role), or metaphysics or atheology (and piss-poor at that).
Cheers!
A Möbius strip universe? Maybe that would be why history never repeats, but it rhymes?
Infinite surfaces of spheres kind of reminds me of Calabi-Yau manifolds; but what is a closed-space saddle (I am aware of saddle points from the hyperdimensional description of the "minimum energy path" on the generalized reaction coordinate for the motion of the nuclei on the Born-Oppenheimer potential energy surface in chemical reactions, but not as a general construct for the universe. Please tell me more!)
Incidentally, you might enjoy reading Lisa Randall's Warped Passages : they partition of the Universe into Branes, and the existence of three "macroscopic" dimensions, appears to offer a cogent explanation of "why" gravity's inverse square term appears to be (...well, at least to sixteen or so decimal places, but who's counting?) exactly to the second power...
Cheers!
Uranus must not be a tree, then.
It's amazing what they can do with ScienceTM nowadays! ;-)
Cheers!
Well, imagine that. If the rings were older than the planet, that *would* be a dead giveaway for a Creator, wouldn't it?
...or a least a giant cosmic game of marbles. What would the odds be of getting the planet to roll along and fit exactly in those rings by chance?
It's amazing what they can do with ScienceTM nowadays! ;-)
Cheers!
Or, to put simplistically, it’s just freefalling within the gravitational field.
Yes, andd that is why the concept of the Multiverse is likely a conjecture among many conjectures. It might be arguedd the conjecture is one step above a speculation, two steps above a fantasy, and one stepp below an hypothesis. In any event, it is a reasoned argument with enough basis in evidence to investigate to what extent it can lead the investigators to something which truly can qualify as an hypothesis.
“evolutionary theory[...]there is a paucity of data, or a lack of technology for acquiring the data[....]
On that point I would have to disagree and agree in parts. With respect to the evidence of evolutionary development as a result of accumulated changes to the genetic code, I would have to conclude the experimental and observational evidence is overwhelming to the point of being far beyond any reasonable doubt. With respect to the experimental and observational evidence for the transition from inorganic matter to organic life, I would have to agree such evidence is necessarily incomplete until such time as the artificial transition can be observed by experiment or perhaps extraterrestrial lifeforms are discovered lacking a commonality with the genetic code found in the lifeforms on the Earth. Since the lack of the evidence of the transition from inorganic matter to organic life is due to a lack of the technological capability to conduct the required experiments, I would argue the available evidence is sufficient to overwhelmingly hold the evidence for evolutioin of life is supported by the genetics until technology can confirm or deny the yet to be accomplished experiments.
I recall how I argued some fifty years ago for the existence of extrasolar planets in other stellar systems and between stellar systems in interstellar space with the putdown that they did not and could not exist because there was no experimental prrof of their existence. Now some fifty years later there is direct evidence of extrasolar planets in other stellar systems, and the existence of extrasolar planets in the interstellar space betweens these other stellar systems is now the subject of active research and probable confirmation. I suspect the same future confirmation is true for experimental evidence of inorganic matter transitioning to organic lifeforms. Our own genetic codes in the Earth’s lifeforms persuade me that the discovery of the scientific origins of life from inorganic matter is just a matter of time and effort.
I would further argue that it is likely to be inevitable for other radically different forms of life to have developed based upon fluorine or other elements besides carbon.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution (changes in allele frequency within a population over time), except when it is (e.g. to ask Rubio the age of the Earth).
Look up "Haldane's paradox" but there are many similar conundrums.
Going to carve Turkey & watch James Bond now.
Cheers!
Haldane’s statistics and mathematics are based upon a plethora of false assumptions about the effects of the alleles upon the populations. The dinosaurs were exquisitely adapted for their environments, until ctastrophic impactors and resultant environmental catastrophes abruptly changed the rules and required radically different aleles for the survival of the individual lifeforms. Haldane and his models fail to properly account for such circumstances.
Abiogenesis I must conjecture is the root of evolution, and I strongly infer is an inherent proprty of this Universe and its chemistry. I suspect abiogenesis has occurred countless billions of times among the hundeds of billions of galaxies within our view.
That is nonsense, because the influence of gravity is present and significant throughout theUniverse, and especially within the Solar system and the Milky Way Galaxy. Zero gravity is so named not because there is no or little gravity, but is so-caled because the balance between the gravitational accelerations and other inertial forces are balanced to result in a freefall and net zero gravity equivalent as if there were zero gravity.
Sorry I missed your point.
It’s a sad state of affairs, when people need anonymous web forums.
Exaclty but don’t try telling that to the Young Earth Creationists. They’d probably try to date the age of my bathtub based on the rings.
His paradox points out that if the mechanism of evolution is that *if* natural selection works by favoring a new mutation over the "old, unimproved" species (unimproved from the point of view of a specific beneficial mutation), then the mechanism runs into problems when you have different favorable mutations arising concurrently: I think that treatment is incomplete, but raises the proper question, one of sensitivity analysis (and by extension, the time-dependence of mutation rates vs. the time-dependent rate of environmental change) which I have not seen talked about in surfing the web. Whether it is treated rigorously within the literature I do not know, as it is not my field.
Cheers!
No offense, but are you a female???
“It’s a sad state of affairs, when people need anonymous web forums.”
You sure did miss my point because I told you straight up I don’t need any of this.
I have no problem with non-anonymous living. I come here to FR for an eclectic view of the news, some fun and some edification on occasion.
Spend most all of my life in the real world doing real stuff under my real identity.
Gonna go check how the cows are dealing with my haysaver large bale feeder I just finished fabbing and deployed today. Later FRiend.
I wasn’t talking about you, it was a statement...chill
The rings on Saturn change so rapidly that they must have formed quite recently, on the order of millennia and they've generally been thought to be the oldest of the planet rings.
The age and fate of Saturn’s rings
As the article says, Saturn's rings were long assumed to be about 4.6 billion years old. Yet a new ring, the 'C' ring, has apparently come into existence since telescope observations of Saturn's rings began. This must be due to dissipation of the 'B' ring.
Thus one of the three prominent rings of Saturn has evidently developed since the early 1800s. The inner edge of the C ring is approaching the planet, and Napier and Clube calculated the rate of approach as 100 km per year.
The history of C ring observations implies rapid ring spreading and dissipation. The inner edge of the B ring is now 91,975 km from the center of Saturn and the inner edge of the C ring is at 74,658 km.44 Thus the width of the C ring is 17,317 km, or about 15,000 km, a width which developed since about 1850. This implies an infall of ring particles in agreement with the computation of Napier and Clube.
I should say the ‘C’ ring is due to SPREADING of the ‘B’ ring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.