Evolution VS. Creationism

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

Prove " higher physical need"

It should therefore also be noted that:

Ya, I didn't think you COULD!

[note: I'm cutting this poster off at the first false statement now, for the sake of my own sanity]

Actually it is obviously because of your inability to support your claims. Once more you go back to the tired old

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

which you have failed completely to show actually applies to the discussion.

 

PROVE the universe is a CLOSED SYSTEM, which is REQUIRED before the 2nd Law can apply!

Your prejudice makes you fully unqualified to make any statements about the subject, due to what can only be explained by way of willful ignorance.

So educate us all!

 

PROVE the universe is a CLOSED SYSTEM, which is REQUIRED before the 2nd Law can apply!

 

Prove " higher physical need"

 

Not with your continued mindless ramblings, but with verifyable FACTS!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

That's because I coined the term after arguing with willfully ignorant evolutionists that refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that an expanding entropic universe expresses a clearly defined purpose...

Well if you were ever able to actually PROVE your empty claims, you would not need to ARGUE with us.

I should have also pointed out that real scientist/physicists do not dispute the plausibility of any of my proposition,

Great then you should not be having so much trouble coming up with even ONE. Yet all we hear is about an error even Einstein admitted he intentionally fudged on!

LOL@HeWhoDoesn'tKnow that Einstein's static universe was closed... and yes, this is clearly defined in Ned Wright's site...

I see. So now you are claiming that "Einstein's static universe" is valid!

 

How incredibly ignorant. If Einstein were still alive perhaps you could convince HIM that he needs to go back to supporting the error he admitted to making.

I'm done with this clown

Yes, if the best PROOF you have to support your fallacious claims is a thoroughly disproven error on Einstein's part... we're all done with your absurd attempts.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Island,

 

I for one would like to give your proposals a fair chance, but I must warn you that your cocky attitude may get you banned by any one of 4 moderators before we get to that point.

 

And contrary to what Island claims. I started out merely asking for PROOF for his claims. PROOF that the 2nd law applies, which would REQUIRE that the Universe be a closed system.

 

Instead we get any but proof. Instead we get complaining that we won't just accept what he himself admitted was nothing but teleology.

[island]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

I don't know enough physics, nor enough about the scientific process to dispute anything that island says, so I'll just continue to make a fool out of myself, while pretending that I have.

 

 

PROOF that the 2nd law applies, which would REQUIRE that the Universe be a closed system.

 

LOL... I gotta submit this one to the crackpot index... ;-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

I don't know enough physics, nor enough about the scientific process to dispute anything that island says, so I'll just continue to make a fool out of myself, while pretending that I have.

Nice quote, but not from ME! Nice LIE!

Originally posted by: island

PROOF that the 2nd law applies, which would REQUIRE that the Universe be a closed system.

LOL... I gotta submit this one to the crackpot index... ;-)

 

"It is not known whether the universe as a whole is a closed system now at present"

Grant Hallman, Ph.D., Universtiy of Toronto

 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae332.cfm

 

"The size of the universe as a function of time. In the case of a closed universe there is enough matter that gravity halts the expansion and the universe recollapses (and perhaps bounces to repeat the process). In an open universe there is not enough matter to halt the expansion and the universe expands forever, becoming more and more dilute as time passes." (Note, this is from Berkeley, one of those OTHER crackpot groups I guess?)

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/hubble.html

 

Current understanding of the state of the universe.

 

"It is based on the finding that all galaxies are moving away from each other. Application of general relativity to cosmology, along with the detection of redshifted light coming from galaxies outside the Milky Way Galaxy, led to the realization in the 1920s that all galaxies are receding (see Edwin Hubble). It is unknown whether the universe will expand indefinitely (open universe) or eventually collapse (closed universe) into an extremely dense, congested state, as it began"

"Expanding Universe." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2004. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

25 Aug. 2004 <http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=389397>.

 

And add Encyclopædia Britannica to the crackpots!

 

Add to this that we now know the universe rate of expansion is INCREASING.

 

 

"Future of the Universe

 

One of two possibilities

 

1) Open Universe

 

2) Closed Universe"

 

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/geology/Geo_Lectures/Beginnings.html

[island]

LostTrack wrote:

PROOF that the 2nd law applies, which would REQUIRE that the Universe be a closed system.

 

Dude... get a grip:

 

1) The second law doesn't require that the universe be closed... so you're dead wrong on the trail that you've wandered off on...

 

2) The total energy of the universe being constant, the entropy of the universe always increases in an expanding universe, while the arrow of time always points forward... and, therefore...

 

 

LT wrote:

Add to this that we now know the universe rate of expansion is INCREASING

 

 

 

... entropy increases exponentially in an accelerating expanding universe... and so you've now also proven that the 2nd law applies in our current mainstream model, while cutting off your nose to spite my face... heheh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But first LT misled UncleM because what he actually asked me to do, was...

 

Please PROVE that the universe is a CLOSED system

 

 

... which I did, even without "new-light", (not new physics) Einsteins model still "proves" that the universe is closed, it's just flawed.

 

 

... but it doesn't even take a rocket scientist to understand how reaching into the vacuum and pulling a out a "chunk" of vacuum energy to make a real massive particle would increase the SUCK of the vacuum by way of the hole that gets left in the vacuum...

 

... and so that the vacuum expansion rate is simply proportional to pair production, while the antigravitational effect gets counterbalance by the increase in mass energy and gravity that results, so the vacuum doesn't run away.

 

Whether the model is actually right, wrong or otherwise, does not matter, (although I have a lot of supporting evidence that says that it is an accurate representation of nature), because it DOES also plausibly prove that the universes is closed just like every other necessarily flawed theory. But it also proves it by way of existing theory, which serves as another means of support.

 

Rarefaction is really basic stuff, so claiming that it's convoluted doesn't even hold water with undergraduates who can surely understand the physics. This does repair Dr. Einstein's model. and a closed universe will NOT recollapse under these conditions as tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum increases as negative pressure increases, as the vacuum expands.

 

Add that to stuff that you don't understand, and trying to find someway around the fact that you NOW have both feet in your mouth since you don't even know what you asked, and then you trailed off on your own unrelated tangent while disproving your own self...

 

Although this is amusing, I gave you way too much credit.

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah... it wasn't a "lie"... it was a literal interpretation... LOL

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: island

... but it doesn't even take a rocket scientist to understand how reaching into the vacuum and pulling a our a "chunk" of it to make a real particle would increase the SUCK of the vacuum by way of the hole that gets left in the vacuum...

... and so that the vacuum expansion rate is simply proportional to pair production, while the antigravitational effect gets counterbalance by the increase in mass energy and gravity that results, so the vacuum doesn't run away.

Rarefaction is really basic stuff, but this does repair the model and a closed universe will NOT recollapse under these conditions as tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum increases as negative pressure increases, as the vacuum expands.

Island, I am not a physicist, so would you please explain the above statements to me in relatively easy to understand terms? I think I understand what the overall point of your assertion is,..... but much of this looks like unheard of physics. I am unaware of pulling out a chunk of vacuum to create a real particle,.... please supply some sources or references for this. A hole in a vacuum is something I would also like to learn more about. The same for the second and third paragraphs please. I do not reject what you propose,.... quite the contrary, I find it interesting,... however I would like to see some evidence to support your claims.

 

Thanks.

[island]

Uncle Martin

 

Okay, I will do that to the best of my ability, but PLEASE do me a huge favor and go to this page while I'm TRYING to simply. The first few paragraphs explain the whole story about how this all happened as it was recorded of about a year of picking up bits and pieces of it.

 

I had no desire for this to end up having anydamnedthing to do with the Anthropic Principle, and I swear, if it wasn't necessary, I would pretend the the damned thing didn' exist!

 

http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/Contents.html

 

Please, with a open mind, and understand that the physics moderated reasearch group does not allow unsubstantiated speculation, and every post is pre-screened by a physicist from places like MIT and CalTech... Some fairly reputable physicist hang out there and if you want the real thing, that's the place to go...

 

ESPECIALLY when it comes to "constructive" criticism... ;-)

[island]

Einsten's model had a matter density of 1.5 that of the vacuum, which was half the density of matter.

 

When you do the math, this balances everything out.

 

This is from Ned Wright's site:

 

Now Einstein wanted a static model, which means that g = 0, but he also wanted to have some matter, so rho > 0, and thus he needed P < 0. In fact, by setting rho(vacuum) = 0.5*rho(matter)

 

he had a total density of 1.5*rho(matter)

 

 

 

Okay:

 

G=0 with no matter...

 

Imagine an even distribution of energy over perfectly balanced spacetime, via the rubber sheet analogy, except stick a fork into it and twist it until this energy overlays by one layer.

 

This increses matter density, as the rubber sheet, (the vacuum), pulls back, creating negative energy and pressure. If there is no boundary, (container walls), then the vacuum will expand as a result of particle pair production, but it will not run-away because this effect is immediately off-set by the increase in gravity that you get when you make a positive mass particle from the negative energy of the vacuum.

 

Remember, this is only an analogy, since negative pressure represents the antigravity effect in Einstein's model... not a rubber sheet. In QM, it's a representation for the superposition of plane waves, except in this case, individual waves do not represent the background denstiy. That's the difference between this and Dirac's Hole Theory, and that's the key to all of this... CRAP!

 

Get it?...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah... I have to go to bed... so I'll ignore FT in the morning.

[Uncle Martin]

I got started on the site you linked,.... but it will more than likely be this weekend before I have had time to read and digest it all,.... let alone reply. My absence is not an indication of lack of interest,.... be patient. My plate is a bit FULL at present.

[Freethinker]

A short story. Many here may think I jump a little to strongly on some posters. Obviously some do not like my being rigid when demanding proof and asking for facts. Some go as far as to question even my being in a position to do so. Frankly, at times so do I. How many of you will admit that of yourselves? In fact I even at times feel I need to step out of it completely and get an outside review from a credible source. This topic is particle physics, QM, Relativity... and yes I am a popular science reader trying to understand all this stuff myself. Being here is helping me do that.

 

But I do have well established references to call on. And this was a point at which I thought, "Could I be that far off? Could there actually be something to this Island? Is my reaction that this is bogus my ignorance, as Island claims...

Originally posted by: island

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

I don't know enough physics, nor enough about the scientific process to dispute anything that island says, so I'll just continue to make a fool out of myself, while pretending that I have.

 

PROOF that the 2nd law applies, which would REQUIRE that the Universe be a closed system.

 

LOL... I gotta submit this one to the crackpot index... ;-)

Am I a crack pot? So I copied the entire first post on this thread from Island and forwarded it to a friend. I did not include anything to indicate what my reaction was to it. Just a request for some of his time to read and respond even surface level.

 

And he did respond!

 

Let me first provide his credentials.

 

A.B., 1954, Columbia University, with highest honors in

mathematics and physics

 

A.M., 1957, Columbia University (Physics)

Ph.D., 1960, Columbia University (Physics)

 

Honors: Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi

Honorable mention, William Llowell Putnam Mathematical

Competition

Westinghouse Science Talent Search ~1950

 

Experience: Postdoctoral appointment, Radiation Laboratory

University of California, Berkeley, 1959-61

 

Research Associate, Department of Physics

Brown University, 1961-62

 

Research Assistant Professor, Department of Physics

Brown University, 1962-66

 

Associate Professor, University of xxxxx,

xxxx, 1966-present.

 

widely known for his early (1963) paper in which the earliest generalization of Dirac's magnetic monopole to other gauge fields (Yang-Mills, gravity), appears. This and a subsequent paper are among the first to describe the geometrical nature of Yang-Mills theory -- a theory built from a connection on a fiber bundle. Motivating much of (HIS) work is the task of interpreting quantum mechanics, and it has led him to several roughly distinct lines of resarch. One, in some ways parallel to current work on decoherence, is a study of the entropy of an n-dimensional subsystem of a pure state. A second involves the Everett multi-world interpretation. (HE) independently conceived a similar viewpoint, and a more recent version can be found in his condensed book, "Schrödinger's Cat" (International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 1979). (HIS) strikingly original suggestion of an experiment based on the Necker cube may well be the forerunner of experimental attempts to detect a quantum component of consciousness. A third line of research involves an attack on superselection rules; an assault in progress couples quantum mechanics based on real and complex Hilbert spaces, to chip at the invisibility of a phase factor.

 

Professor () has also been working on the extension of statistical mechanics to noncommuting observables. Thi

[Freethinker]

OK, the first part of his response:

 

>Subject: A discussion

 

>Xxxx

>

>Hi, hope you don't mind an interuption. A busman holiday as they

say. The following was posted in a discussion group I am involved

with. I was wondering if you would mind giving me your professional

opinion on it? Nothing detailed. I don't mean to add work to your

load.

 

>Thanks

>(ME)

 

I've speed-read it and, Yick! The pompousness compounded with the

misspellings is repulsive. Very hard to get at the meaning of

something written so badly---hard to take seriously sentences composed

of ill-formed and ill-chosen words. But I'll try to give it a go...

 

(More to follow)

[Freethinker]

I'll do this in sections cause it gets long. When we get together for discussions it's like that. Great discussions, but they could go on forever! So much to know! Anyway...

 

>I think that maybe what wisdumn was so ineptly trying to ask was, how

does the purposeful evolutionry process arise if there is no purpose

evolutionary

in a universe that's ruled by chaos and random chance.

 

(HIS ANSWER)

"Physical states follow a precise law of motion. Within the pure

states, parts of the states are mixed states. Small parts of big

states are very mixed. I.e., chaotic. Thus, the precision of lawful

motion itself fits perfectly with the chaos.

Now there is no vestige of purpose in the precise law of motion;

instead of purpose there is conservation of energy. ``Purpose'' has

to do with some thought-out plan, like trying to get a particular

candidate elected---it is a human thing. And it is easier to connect

physical law with ``purpose'' when we have lots of chaos.

An example might explain. A ordinary room full of air is very

chaotic, the molecules run and bang about in a thoroughly disordered

way. But viewed in everyday terms, we see just a uniform pressure.

But build a partition across that room, and pump all the air to

the right of the partition into the left side. Now there is high

pressure on the left, zero pressure, vacuum, on the right.

Now open a hole in the partition.

Because there are no air molecules on the right, there can be no

flow of air from right to left. But lots of molecules on the left,

which happen to be moving to the right at the moment, will stream to

the right.

So there is a rush of air from left to right. And this is

evidently a manifestation of the chaotic situation, not a matter of

purpose.

Yet if we are trying to control gases with pumps and pipes, we

set up such situations. Instead of bemoaning the chaos, we use it.

So I trust I've explained, by example, how purpose can come out

of chaos."

 

Yes, I think he has... Now more...

[Freethinker]

>The classical counter-answer to that loaded question is that there

are an infinite number of possible universes, and so one of them had

to be like ours, incuding humans and the evolutionary process, but

that requires a leap in complexity beyond our observable universe,

which is a violation of Free-Thinker's usage of some kindofa grand

scale application of Ockhams razor to derive his own version of the

preferred theory... which is pretty cool.

 

(His Answer)

"I don't see this as much of an answer to anything. Indeed, it betrays

a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is unavoidable, it will be

found in any universe if you wish to deal with many universes, not

only in ``our'' universe. Example: The flow of gas from left to

right will be found to happen in a box of gas with partition set up as

previously described, in all of the many universes. And that flow is

an evolutionary development in the behavior of the gas that was not

obviously inherent in the motion of any particular molecule, at the

time the hole in the partition was first formed."

 

 

>A common definition for the preferred theory is the most accurate

reflection of nature, in the least number of possible steps. The

preferred theory can only be more complex if it is more accurate than

another similar reflection.

 

(His answer)

"Too weak to be worth fighting. And folks who like to squeak that way

would write Nature, capitalized, like, God. That is, our atheist here

is sounding off like a priest."

 

>Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle

theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a

fairly accurate representation of nature, then it would require an

unfounded leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature

to presume that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed

toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the

entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the

moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the

PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.

 

(his answer)

"It is wrong to call the Big Bang a theory. Indeed, no theoretician

thought of it, before Slipher and then Hubble, observational

astronomers, observed it. The sentense shows that the writer knows

that (where he uses the word ``observation''), hence the writer is

showing a poor choice of words when he chooses the word, ``theory''."

[Freethinker]

>An increase in complexity equates to an increase in the potential for

disorder, and this effect gets compounded in an expanding universe

that has an increasing cosmological "constant", which serves to

further isolate the forces in the effort toward grand scale

equilibrium.

 

(his answer)

"silence"

 

 

>Per FreeThinker's accurate represenation it requires an unfounded

philosophical leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of

nature to assume that there is no purpose in a universe that clearly

expresses a predominant expansive tendency. And it requires a

completely unsubstantiated leap in complexity in order to contrive an

argument for human life as a function of purely random chance that

will get you around this most fundamental physical reality of our

universe.

 

(his answer)

"just gross ignorance. Hasn't read Darwin."

 

>It also requires an unfounded faith-like philosophical leap in

arrogance to presume that humans wouldn't be required players in the

game that the rest of the universe has played since the Big Bang

instilled the entropic tendency into everything in it at the moment of

creation of THIS particular universe.

 

(his answer)

"No Big Bang required for entropy. Clausius finally chose the word

``entropy'' for his slowly formulated wisdom in the area of

thermodynamics, around 1865, long before the Mount Palomar telescopes

were built. Entropy measures the randomness of heat; it is a triumph

of the 1800's---due to Rudolph Clausius---to get ``heat'' split up

into entropy and energy. (I caution against an error I see these

words may generate: you do not need heat to have entropy, entropy is

a general measure of disorder.)

So the sentence projects the silly thought that physicists had to

discover the Big Bang in order to catch on to the idea of heat!"

[Freethinker]

>In other words, the burden of proof is not on me to show why straying

from this most fundamental nature of nature is justified, because this

is inherently the most natural default position in a universe that has

had a predominant expansive tendency since its time began.

 

(his answer)

"Again, overemphasis on the expansion."

 

>By definition, that makes it the most naturally preferred theory

 

(his answer)

"repeat: Bang ain't a theory. an observation"

 

 

>To answer the question:

>Evolution is about entropic efficiency and entropic favoritism is the

mechanism.

(him)

"``entropic efficiency'' and ``entropic favoritism'' are unpleasant

coinages. I do think that this gent is trying, perhaps, to say what

I've said, but he needs to read Mark Twain's literary criticism of

Fenimore Cooper. Badly."

 

>Now, let's see if willfull ignorance exists on both sides of this

debate, e.g. Extreme evolutionists worship their god, "Chaos" with

just as much fanatical prejudice against a purposeful as "believers",

even if it's purely natural.

 

(him)

"The bad English and feeble physics are so equally strewn through the

various sentences that I find it hard to pick out two sides. But as

I've said often, I find it hard to believe in ``believers'', that is,

in folks who truly take Mickey Mouse, or God, or Peter Pan, seriously.

For me, confessed ``believers'' are faking, are deeply ashamed of

carrying on that way, and are jealous of the honest people who openly

reject the nonsense."

 

Interstingly, his wife, also a freind, forwarded her comments to him, to me as well. Said he should have written something more "interesting"! :-) That he should have continued to build on the room/air model or such.

 

But I think like me originally, he saw it wasn't there and the best thing to do is show some early problems and then the rest is just more of the same.

[island]

Again, cutting WHOMEVER off at their first false statement, or in this case, their willfully ignorant effort to avoid attaching contextual meaning to the terminology.

 

That doesn't mean that I can't eat the rest of it alive, tho!...

 

 

``Purpose'' has

to do with some thought-out plan, like trying to get a particular

candidate elected---it is a human thing.

 

*says the politically motivated Kennedy worshiping liberal tree-huggin whale-kissin gay-lovin fanatical enviromentalist atheist activist chaosionist relativist democrat?*... not to be confused with their equally fanatical conservative counterpart.

 

False.

 

My usage of "purpose" is analogous TERMINOLOGY for an object seeking equilbrium, equilibrium being the intended destination or to the apparent final goal of the effort to satisfy the NEED/FINAL CAUSE, which is also analogous for the "EXPRESSED INCLINATION TO ACHIEVE EQUILIBRIUM".

 

IN THIS CONTEXT... Some common scientific usages:

 

The purpose of a seed is to produce offspring.

The purpose of sex is to produce offspring.

The purpose of the survival instinct is survival.

 

There is a biologist out there somewhere that has proven that the purpose of the evolution of plant photosynthesis and other organic process' is entropic efficiency.

 

Microbiologists have recently proven that this is evident in the AGGREGATIVE selection process, as well and and there is a brand spanking new usage of evolutionary theory to devise "NATURAL STREAMLINING" of race cars, of all things.

 

It is observationally proven that the purpose of evolution is to increase entropic efficiency and I'll defend that notion "face-to-face" before anyone that you care to bring on, but I'll be damned if I'll entertain your lame appeals to higher authority because you are incapabable of doing it yoursef.

 

 

PROOF that the 2nd law applies, which would REQUIRE that the Universe be a closed system.

 

Dude, get a grip... the second law doesn't require that the universe be a closed system... and you still don't know what you're talking about... LOL

 

 

 

FYI: It can be successfully argued that the term "Chaos" is PRACTICAL terminology for subtle determination. Practallity having to do with the fact that we can't always determine what the subtle causes are, so "instead of bemoaning it"... we use the IDEALIZATION to solve problems by attaching random probabilites, so don't presume that I buy into lame idea of Chaosionists, that an IDEALIZATION can actually exist. How pathetic is that... ?... PRACTICALLITY DEFINES ENTROPIC EFFICIENCY!@

 

Anthropic Bias and Observational Selection Effects:

http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/AnthropicBias.html

 

Also related... The Zeno "Hoax"

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=665cf2c0.0310010431.1c00526e%40posting.google.com

 

Also... It's been my experience that the fact that the author of the rebuttal is attempting to nitpick terminolgy as if this somehow makes everything wrong is a RED FLAG kindofa thing that's covering pre-conceived prejudice.

 

For example:

Georges Lemaitre proposed Big Bang Theory in 1927 using the second law of thermodynamics to prove that the expansion of the universe was an increase in the disorder of the system which originated from a singularity of neutrons. Lemaitre published this theory in the journal, Nature, in 1931.

 

At least get SOMETHING right...

 

... course... admitting that would surely put a damper on the rest of the limping argument, now, wouldn't it?... heheh

 

 

Google hits for Big Bang Theory:

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 546,000

 

350 thousand of them attached to EDU sites... LOL@Better find something REAL to nitpick