Critique of Intelligent Design

[Boerseun]

This ID-debate has been going on now for a while.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to that hoary old chestnut:

If some 'Intelligence' created the universe, where did that so-called 'Intelligence' come from?

I know - it's an old, old question. But ID offers no answers. ID, as a matter of fact, brings very little to the table of physics in general, apart from saying 'Someone with a brain did it'. What is the extent of ID's contribution?

Prediction #1:

See this post being ignored by the ID camp...

[goku]

This ID-debate has been going on now for a while.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to that hoary old chestnut:

If some 'Intelligence' created the universe, where did that so-called 'Intelligence' come from?

I know - it's an old, old question. But ID offers no answers. ID, as a matter of fact, brings very little to the table of physics in general, apart from saying 'Someone with a brain did it'. What is the extent of ID's contribution?

Prediction #1:

See this post being ignored by the ID camp...

God, didn't come from anywhere he has always been and shall always be.

contribution? not sure what you mean.

[Southtown]

If some 'Intelligence' created the universe, where did that so-called 'Intelligence' come from?

That question can be equated with “before you spout evolution, explain abiogenesis”. It is irrelevant to the data and qualifies as an argument from ignorance. Prediction falsified.

[Southtown]

Prediction falsified.

I take that back. I'm not an ID'er. I'm a flat-out YE Creationist, per hydroplate theory, and as of yet I don't know anything should be taught in schools exept evidence, ALL the evidence, regardless of the implications.

[damocles]

Originally Posted by damocles

 

So far we have experimental verification of cooling.

Same for binding the electromagnetic influence with the weak nuclear influence in the lab.

Information distribution seems to behave according to quantization with a certian discreteness whatever the system we look at in this universe.

There is CMBR.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Originally posted by Southtown.

What cooling verification is that? What implications would come with binding EM/weak forces? Quantization referring to redshift? Wouldn't that make it an atomic effect rather than velocity?

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Damocles answering;

 

 

You misunderstand. In order for the binding forces(electro-magnetic influence and weak nuclear influence to unify as the electro-weak in this universe across the volume of it as a homogenous force you have to have energy densities much greater than we have now. It has to be much hotter and the event intervals much more densely compressed. The predictions of W and Z bosons iexistence, ndicated that the electro-weak force was an actuality at some time in this universe, so the conditions for hotter and smaller is necessary to explain the possibility.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Originally posted by Southtown

 

 

About CMBR... Scientific American, in an August '05 article named "Is the Universe Out of Tune?", cite a few quandries regarding new satellite data.

 

-----------------------------

 

1. The angular power spectrum, or total intesities, of the CMB's modal fluctuations observed by the WMAP satellite confirm COBE satellite's findings of a low-power deficiency. Multipoles C2 (quadropole) and C3 (octopole) are "considerably lower than the predictions [inflationary lambda cold dark matter model]" with regard to their amplitudes as compared to other multipoles.

 

 

2. The angular temperature correlation, or measure of temperature differences at given angles, flat-line or "zero out" above 60 degrees, contrary to theory. SA says the discrepencies stem from the failure of either observation equipment, data analysis, or inflationary theory.

 

 

Quote from article:

 

 

__... Experimentally, we find that C(θ for our universe is nearly zero at angles greater than about 60 degrees, which means that the fluctuation in directions separated by more than 60 degrees are completely uncorrelated. This result is another sign that the low notes of the universe that inflation promised are missing.

__This lack of large-angle correlations was first revealed by COBE, and WMAP has now confirmed it. The smallness of C(θ at large angles means not only that C2 and C3 are small but that the ration of the values of the first few total intensities—up to at least C4—are also unusual. The absence of large-angle power is in striking disagreement with all[/i] generic inflationary models. [emphasis in original] Additionally, the two low-power multipoles, C2 and C3, should exhibit erratic alignment of temperature differences if they were fluke data. The two are exactly aligned, however.

 

 

Quote from article:

 

 

__"... The generic inflationary model predicts that each of these modes should be completely indepentent—one would not expect any alignments. And now comes the shocker that wasn't very hyped. Disecting the universe into all possible hemispheres and again measuring variations in temperature, researchers at the University of Oslo have uncovered an "ecliptic" signal in the CMB. The hemisphere with the largest difference shares its equator with the Earth's orbit. This contradicts the assumption that observed microwaves are truly "background" in origin. Also, following up with more contradictions to inflation, these variations were erratic among the hemispheres, as opposed to an even randomness."

 

 

Quote from article:

 

 

"They [Hans Kristian Erikson of UiO and coworkers] divided the sky into all possible pairs of hemispheres and looked at the relative intensity of the fluctuation on the opposite halves of the sky. What they found contradicted the standard inflationary cosmology—the hemispheres often had very different amounts of power. But what was most surprising was that the pair of hemispheres that were the most different were the ones lying above and below the eliptic, the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun. This result was the first sign that the CMB fluctuations, which were supposed to be cosmological in origin, with some contamination by emission in our own galaxy, have a solar system signal in them—that is, a type of observational artifact. http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse....C017&sc=I100322"

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

Now some flat earthers may argue that this isn't so.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Originally Posted by Southtown

I understand your rightful frustration, but this is anti-productive

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Answer by Damocles;

 

 

After reading the new data about CMBR I am not disturbed in the slightest about the gross details in the cosmological inflation model. I expected non-homogeneity in CMBR. Nothing made sense to me as to saying that CMBR should be uniformly distributed. I always wondered why we wouldn't find signal clumping of some sort. So this is interesting and very preliminary. Lets see where it leads before we junk the iinflation model shall we?

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxz

 

 

Quote:

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

Entropy. Learn it along with everything else.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Originally Posted By Southtown;

Like the decaying speed of light? Wouldn't that cause a "quantized" redshift?

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physic...dshift-z-5.html

http://www.setterfield.org/recent.h...iftandexpansion

http://members.aol.com/arpgalaxy/

 

In concluding, I'm simply not convinced as easily as the establishment and it's fledglings.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Answer by Damocles.

 

 

The decaying speed of light is difficult to prove. You are trying to measure the ruler if you understand what I mean. That is why so much of the speculation and the conjecture about the decaying speed of light is so much crap. Gross measurement of orbital period and atomic clocks is very iffy. It depends on orbital period of objects being uniform across the system whereas there is good reason to believe that orbital period is subject to gravitational forces that introduce local poorly understood variation in the orbital period. That is to say; orbital periods decay but not with uniform interval over time; depending on the relative influence of the various masses within the system.

 

As to the quantized red shift?

 

It probably exists. But is it the primary cause for the "apparent"spectrum shift of blue light to the red end of the spectrum? No. It is more of a filter effect that obstructs than shifts the light frequencies.

 

Setterfield is a lone boy out in the wilderness crying wolf. I find him interesting but unconvincing.

 

http://www.heliognosis.com/rd02.html shows supposedly proportional fluctuation of the Casimir effect with direct inputs of electric charge to the corresponding plates.

 

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf supposedly explains the possible red shift as a function of an increase in ZPE srtength over time.

 

Both studies show though that if there was an increase in ZPE(a stronger observed Casimir effect) we should see local space getting hotter. I pointed out in the above thread where you addressed Setterfield that we do not measure or observe this locally or non-locally happening.

 

To prove conclusively that light has a decrreasing velocity(increasing event interval component), you need another ruler that is independent of light that sets an interval increment standard that is itself not subject to variation.

 

That scientist who tried to match decay rates to orbital periods was on the correct vector by trying to use gravity as an independent ruler to measure the possible decay in the velocity of light. but he was observing the gravitational ruler third hand, comparing it to decay rates and then using light to gauge the two. Do you not see that there is something screwy there?

 

Direct measure of gravity wave amplitude as we do with light should give us another good ruler against which to measure our cosmological models. If the rulers agree, then Setterfield and company are WRONG. If the rulers disagree, then Setterfield and company are still wrong, but so is our gross assumptions in the current inflation model.. We will have to go back to the drawing board.

 

Just as a side note, Southtown. I agree with you that there is something wrong in physics as we think we understand it. It is in confounded gravity though where we will find the answers. That oddball force is where you should look for answers. Not light.

 

Best wishes;

[Southtown]

You misunderstand. In order for the binding forces(electro-magnetic influence and weak nuclear influence to unify as the electro-weak in this universe across the volume of it as a homogenous force you have to have energy densities much greater than we have now. It has to be much hotter and the event intervals much more densely compressed. The predictions of W and Z bosons iexistence, ndicated that the electro-weak force was an actuality at some time in this universe, so the conditions for hotter and smaller is necessary to explain the possibility.

Sorry, thought you were saying current models were all but proven fact.

 

After reading the new data about CMBR I am not disturbed in the slightest about the gross details in the cosmological inflation model. I expected non-homogeneity in CMBR. Nothing made sense to me as to saying that CMBR should be uniformly distributed. I always wondered why we wouldn't find signal clumping of some sort. So this is interesting and very preliminary. Lets see where it leads before we junk the iinflation model shall we?

I see your point, but the odds of two lower modes having much stronger signal variance when their equators match the plane of our solar system are 1 in 10,000. This was the tidbit that I was getting at. Either the CMB is totally misunderstood, or we currently reside at or near ground zero of the big bang.

 

The decaying speed of light is difficult to prove. You are trying to measure the ruler if you understand what I mean. That is why so much of the speculation and the conjecture about the decaying speed of light is so much crap. Gross measurement of orbital period and atomic clocks is very iffy. It depends on orbital period of objects being uniform across the system whereas there is good reason to believe that orbital period is subject to gravitational forces that introduce local poorly understood variation in the orbital period. That is to say; orbital periods decay but not with uniform interval over time; depending on the relative influence of the various masses within the system.

Now with atomic clocks and our ability to observe the stars' position with such precision, it should only be a matter of time until we notice an agreement or not, and if not we'll also know which is decreasing with respect to the other. An orbit would seem to be increasing in frequency without decreasing in distance if light (and atomic clocks). Also of note would be the accuracy of radio-metric dating if such discrepancies are observed.

 

As to the quantized red shift?

 

It probably exists. But is it the primary cause for the "apparent"spectrum shift of blue light to the red end of the spectrum? No. It is more of a filter effect that obstructs than shifts the light frequencies.

Halton Arp was of a different opinion that redshift was more of a "age of matter" than an alteration of a lightbeam. Also, I linked to coldcreation's thread about redshift because his/her claim is that redshift is caused by gravitational distortion compounding with distance. All of these redshift possibilities (Hubble effect, c-decay, galaxy ejection, gravity lensing) should be considered. A compounding of more than one effect is likely, but the current model only acknowledges one of them.

 

Setterfield is a lone boy out in the wilderness crying wolf. I find him interesting but unconvincing.

 

http://www.heliognosis.com/rd02.html shows supposedly proportional fluctuation of the Casimir effect with direct inputs of electric charge to the corresponding plates.

 

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf supposedly explains the possible red shift as a function of an increase in ZPE srtength over time.

 

Both studies show though that if there was an increase in ZPE(a stronger observed Casimir effect) we should see local space getting hotter. I pointed out in the above thread where you addressed Setterfield that we do not measure or observe this locally or non-locally happening.

But, to what ratio? If we can barely notice a change in c relative to orbital periods, how will we notice a temperature change on a micro scale?

 

To prove conclusively that light has a decrreasing velocity(increasing event interval component), you need another ruler that is independent of light that sets an interval increment standard that is itself not subject to variation.

 

That scientist who tried to match decay rates to orbital periods was on the correct vector by trying to use gravity as an independent ruler to measure the possible decay in the velocity of light. but he was observing the gravitational ruler third hand, comparing it to decay rates and then using light to gauge the two. Do you not see that there is something screwy there?

Not to clear on why that's screwy... what do you mean by "third hand?" I agree that most are less than scrupulous. Unfortunately most creationists are also that way.

 

Direct measure of gravity wave amplitude as we do with light should give us another good ruler against which to measure our cosmological models. If the rulers agree, then Setterfield and company are WRONG. If the rulers disagree, then Setterfield and company are still wrong, but so is our gross assumptions in the current inflation model.. We will have to go back to the drawing board.

 

Just as a side note, Southtown. I agree with you that there is something wrong in physics as we think we understand it. It is in confounded gravity though where we will find the answers. That oddball force is where you should look for answers. Not light.

 

Best wishes;

You're right there. But, wish in one hand... :)

[Buffy]

...After reading the new data about CMBR I am not disturbed in the slightest about the gross details in the cosmological inflation model. I expected non-homogeneity in CMBR. Nothing made sense to me as to saying that CMBR should be uniformly distributed. I always wondered why we wouldn't find signal clumping of some sort. So this is interesting and very preliminary. Lets see where it leads before we junk the iinflation model shall we?

I see your point, but the odds of two lower modes having much stronger signal variance when their equators match the plane of our solar system are 1 in 10,000. This was the tidbit that I was getting at. Either the CMB is totally misunderstood, or we currently reside at or near ground zero of the big bang.

Um, I think you're misunderstanding a couple of basic principles of cosmology theory: Isomophism in the cosmological sense refers to the unverse being obervably the same everywhere, thus, whereever you are it does look like "we currently reside at or near ground zero of the big bang". This is of course counterintuitive if you restrict yourself to 3-dimensional thinking, but cosmology is based on more... Homogeneity is the density over "large scales" being roughly the same. We see the clumping over "small scales" going back to the CMB. What's "large" and "small" here is open to interesting debates!

 

I read the SciAm article, and its clear that the data points both to additional non-cosmological sources of microwaves that alter the results that have not been corrected for as well as some tweaking--not throwing out, although anything's possible--inflationary theory, but I did not see any conclusion that said that the *actual* distribution will turn out to be aligned with our own equator (Ptolemy might like to think so, but he's been dead for 2500 years....)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Um, I think you're misunderstanding a couple of basic principles of cosmology theory: Isomophism in the cosmological sense refers to the unverse being obervably the same everywhere, thus, whereever you are it does look like "we currently reside at or near ground zero of the big bang".

I was referring to the equatorial rotation. Either there's a local signal, or the background radiation carries our signal, at odds of 1 in 10,000.

 

This is of course counterintuitive if you restrict yourself to 3-dimensional thinking, but cosmology is based on more... Homogeneity is the density over "large scales" being roughly the same. We see the clumping over "small scales" going back to the CMB. What's "large" and "small" here is open to interesting debates!

Right but unxpected associations are like winning the lottery and are usually cause for investigation or caution.

 

I read the SciAm article, and its clear that the data points both to additional non-cosmological sources of microwaves that alter the results that have not been corrected for as well as some tweaking--not throwing out, although anything's possible--inflationary theory,

Well, I'm not convinced as easily as you are, frankly.

 

but I did not see any conclusion that said that the *actual* distribution will turn out to be aligned with our own equator (Ptolemy might like to think so, but he's been dead for 2500 years....)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Are you sure you read it all?

“

This result was the first sign that the CMB fluctuations, which were supposed to be cosmological in origin, with some contamination by emission in our own galaxy,

have a solar system signal in them

—that is, a type of observational artifact. ”

—

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=F7292B8D-2B35-221B-6723C09A2A2EF7A5&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F7587709-2B35-221B-60C864EC3B7EC017&sc=I100322

[Buffy]

Right but unxpected associations are like winning the lottery and are usually cause for investigation or caution.

Sure, but all that's shown by this study is that we have to look further. Its not throwing it out, although:

Well, I'm not convinced as easily as you are, frankly.

I guess I'm a lot more conservative than you are! :)

Are you sure you read it all?

“

This result was the first sign that the CMB fluctuations, which were supposed to be cosmological in origin, with some contamination by emission in our own galaxy,

have a solar system signal in them

—that is, a type of observational artifact.”

So what if they have solar system-caused signals? Just because the early data did not show any reason to correct for the solar system-caused signals does not make it reasonable to throw out the whole theory... We need more data to correct for it because we can measure much more finely. The data does indicate that "out-of-tuneness" is there and *that's* really interesting for looking at modifications to inflation, but the equitorial anomaly in the data is just missed correction...unless you're arguing that its caused by a designer (are we back on topic then? :) )...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[damocles]

By Buffy;

 

Um, I think you're misunderstanding a couple of basic principles of cosmology theory: Isomophism in the cosmological sense refers to the unverse being obervably the same everywhere, thus, whereever you are it does look like "we currently reside at or near ground zero of the big bang". This is of course counterintuitive if you restrict yourself to 3-dimensional thinking, but cosmology is based on more... Homogeneity is the density over "large scales" being roughly the same. We see the clumping over "small scales" going back to the CMB. What's "large" and "small" here is open to interesting debates!

 

I understand homogeneity well enough(I thinK). To what I referred in local signal clumping is that we should see CMBR everywhere but local conditions(to us) could show signal bias possibly directly proportional in direction to the mass clumping distribution in the Universe at large. It is light after all, and I would expect gravity to play its(small) part.

 

To Southtown,

 

By screwy, I did not mean that the scientist who did the work was practicing fraud in any sense. What I meant was that his attempt to measure light using atomic clocks and orbital periods as time checks against each other ultimately rested on his ability to use light to check each benchmark(radioactive decay and orbital period) against the other.

 

I still think there is something screwy in physics and that gravity is the key. I'll keep wishing with my left hand while I try for the brass ring with my right one(Laughter0.

 

Best wishes;

[Southtown]

Here's another image from the SciAm article. It will help for some to visualize the predicament. It also states in the caption why foreground noise is not considered a possible cause for alignment. In case you can't read the caption it reads:

“MICROWAVE SKY is measured in the K-band (23 gigahertz,

top

), the W-band (94 gigahertz,

bottom

) and three other bands (

not shown

) but the WMAP satellite. The entire sphere of the sky is projected onto the oval shape, like a map of the earth. The horizontal red band is radiation from the Milky Way. Such "foreground" radiation changes with wave band, allowing it to be identified and subtracted from the data, whereas the cosmic microwave background does not.” —

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=F7292B8D-2B35-221B-6723C09A2A2EF7A5&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F7587709-2B35-221B-60C864EC3B7EC017&sc=I100322

http://www.mostuff.net/images/sa_sky.jpg

[Southtown]

...unless you're arguing that its caused by a designer (are we back on topic then? :) )...

Well, ya. That's where I have to perpetually speculate. But I won't mind your laughing at me.

[Southtown]

What I meant was that his attempt to measure light using atomic clocks and orbital periods as time checks against each other ultimately rested on his ability to use light to check each benchmark(radioactive decay and orbital period) against the other.

What's wrong with that exactly? I thought that light was the supposed variable in the experiment(s), and orbital periods were the supposed constants?

 

P.S. Another falsifiable prediction I heard from Dr. Walt Brown (hydroplate theory) was that, if there was a decreasing speed of light, then time would appear to pass increasingly slower the farther out we look. And then I came acrosss this interesting post from coldcreation... Any comments?

[damocles]

What's wrong with that exactly? I thought that light was the supposed variable in the experiment(s), and orbital periods were the supposed constants?

 

P.S. Another falsifiable prediction I heard from Dr. Walt Brown (hydroplate theory) was that, if there was a decreasing speed of light, then time would appear to pass increasingly slower the farther out we look. And then I came acrosss this interesting post from coldcreation... Any comments?

 

We used the constant light velocity assumption over the interval to benchmark radiactive decay and orbital period decay as relative constants over the interval. How can you now use measurements that you established using light in the first as stable benchmarks to prove the variability of light? More importantly how can you now assume constant rates of decay among the three measurements if the measurements cannot be guaranteed as being not variant by a constant over the variable(light)?

 

 

University of Illinois darkmatter distribution study.

 

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/sims.html

Darkmatter distribution simulation.

 

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/galaxies/universe.html

 

I would like to see these modelled distributions mapped to the CMBR temperatue map to to see if there is a matching distribution?

 

Best wishes;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best wishes;

[Southtown]

We used the constant light velocity assumption over the interval to benchmark radiactive decay and orbital period decay as relative constants over the interval.

I see, thanx. I was under the impression that orbits were measured geometrically.

 

Cool pictures. =)

[damocles]

I see, thanx. I was under the impression that orbits were measured geometrically.

 

Cool pictures. =)

 

Geometry.........

 

Light was used to measure the distances and the angles?

[questor]

your discussions have been interesting and elucidating, although over a few heads (mine included). are we to assume that entropy exists as a determinant in the universe? if so, is not the universe on the way out at some point? also will orbits (around atoms and the sun ) change their character because of no additional impetus? if this is true, the delicate balance of the universe as we know it will either fail, or be replenished by the intelligent designer?