island

There's a more natural biocentric model which notes that a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe should necessitate a connection to the human evolutionary process. It would be silly to think otherwise, given that both are true, in other words, so the prediction is self-evident given these combined circumstances. Meaning that there is a mechanism that enables a predominantly entropic universe to leap/bang to higher orders of entropic efficiency, just like we humans did when we lept from apes to harnes fire, and beyond... So the fact that this is true for us serves as support for the validity of the hypothesis as a theory. Instead of expansion/recollapse, multiverse, or, uh... "babyverses", the universe simply convolves traits or characteristics inherently forward by the exact same mechanism that we do, just as one really should expect from a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe. In this context, the theory of evolution becomes the theory of everything when the anthropic principle explains *why* the forces cannot be unified... no many how times it tries for absoute supersymmetry. It's all about the inherently imbalanced journey, "alfie", not arriving anywhere... when the second law of thermodynamics is *never* violated.

And the kicker to this is that we have no stabiltiy mechanism for explaining the low entropy configuration of our universe from any realistic model of turbulance generated structuring that we can come up with. Anthropic/Biocentric preference is the only explanation that doesn't fall in the realm of mathematically supported conjecture.

Not so much, no... when you include the part that you cut where the anthropic coincidences are balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies... because each additional coincidence exponentially compounds the implication that the mimimal entropy configuration is not a factor of luck... barring infinities, fairies, goblins, multiverses, and god. Considering the *actual* number of similarly ecobalanced anthropic coincidences... 6, 60, 600... 6000... ? ~ Try energy-conservation as the good reason why the expanding universe is near perfectly flat... per the least action principle. Figure out how and why we might be key players in the process as a cumulatively effective biocentric mechanism, which is what you get when the anthropic principle is correctly applied to other galaxies with planets that evolved at approximately the same time in the history of the universe. That's the kind of causality-responsible physics that derives the configuration of our universe from *real* first principles, not mathematically idealized fairy-tails. Cumulatively... not so special... like Brandon Carter told everyone that didn't listen: "our situation is not necessarily central, but it is inevitably privileged to some extent".

He should have noted that there is a cumulative runaway effect that rapidly compounds and accelerates. There is no happy medium. Either you have this universal configuration, or an expanding universe acclerates exponentially by orders of magnitude as it blows itself apart... period. Recollapse is subject to the same cumulative runaway effect, as is global warming and the runaway greehouse effect, as this is counterbalanced by the long term tendency toward glaciation that is predicted by milankovitch models. (How many is that now, seven or seventy?) I wonder what the odds are that 6(?!?) DEPENDENT or independent constants would all end up similarly eco-balanced near-exactly between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies. Almost like there is no chance at all, huh? And I guarantee you that it follows the least action principle, and not a freaking multiverse of possibilities... *duh* FYI: I am now into my fourth year exclusively studying the anthropic principle and I seem to have an attitude, then it is because I am thoroughly disgusted with the mentality of the mainstream, not anybody in this forum. The reason for my disgust is a mindset that automatically assumes that an anthropic principle is born of geocentric arrogance, when Brandon Carter himself was very careful to state why this is NOT even the case! He also clearly stated that the principle was put forth for the exact reason that STILL plauges honesty: At the conference in Cracow, in 1973, Brandon Carter said that the AP respresents "a line of thought"[ "against exaggerated subservience to the Copernican Cosmological Principle"] Carter was SO ON THE MONEY when he called this anti-centrist approach,"dogma", (which in its most extreme form led to the perfect cosmological principle". Modern anticentrists are no different, and Carter's observation clearly indicates that they are STILL chasing the same "random" extreme... to the same exact dead-end!

The AP is rapidly growing in popularity among string theorists, and this is the reason for the equally rapid appearance of competing theories. No, there are good reasons why "life as we know it" is the only form of life that is expected. They don't like it because they are too arrogant to even consider that they should look for a good reason why we ARE the mechanism, so they pretend like the AP isn't an indication that we ARE THE MECHANISM, and this is how they justify looking elsewere... ... speaking of circular reasoned non-scientific lameness.

"Sorry, I thought it was for Johnny5, (since You adressed him in that post)." I was talking about Ned Wright's website. I mean... you seem to want to understand physics without actually studying or learning enough physics to understand the answers when you get them. ~ Einstein will be happy to know that you give him unlikely plausibility... "He removed the cosmological constant himself, (with relief I heard)." Which made sense until they found out that the vacuum has particle potential and a negative pressure, or more popularly... "dark energy". ~ "I will be satisfied if I am able to understand only small parts of my interests." Then I'll be satisfied giving you half-assed answers... ~ "It should have been it instead of i, which I have corrected now. What I meant was that I can't understand how the mass-energy and vacuum energy nearly can balance at different distances and different mass." In Einstein's static cosmological model... if energy density of the total matter in the universe is greater than zero, then the energy density of the vacuum is proportionally less than zero, so they balance. What's that got to do with distance? ~ "This is really a problem for me, even after reading Your link." Then you probably haven't studied enough about it to discuss it. ~ "in a very complicated way that seems impossible for me...," Yeah?... Did you read what I wrote about Einstein's vacuum in Ned's jar? Do you know how to look up rarefaction via condensation?... cuz it doesn't get much easier than that anywhere! Not to mention the vast multitude of other ways that I've explained it since I've been posting to this forum. In other words... ALL of the information that you need has been given if you REALLY want to learn anything about it, so the ball is in your park, kiddo, because I'm about done going in circles. ~ "I don't mean that You are wrong or that I am trying to prove otherwise. I simply means that I can't fully understand You and some of the parts I can sounds impossible to me." LOL... then you don't understand them either... ~ "BTW I have a math question here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=147778#post147778 Maybe You can help me out, since Martin may have forgotten it ?" I'll give you a hint that should make it easy for you to get an idea, but different theories project different rates and outcomes that I have no desire to get into, so take this only as a base for studying the various different plausibilities given differening circumstances, because that's where cutting-edge theory lives: The "apparent" expansion rate increases by about 162,000 miles per hour for every 3.26 million light-years farther out into space that you go. Now, do some homework for a change, because I'm not doin it for you anymore...

... and you didn't bother to study the link that I so adamantly referred... Einstein's static model is probably the simplist cosmological model in existence, once you get a grip on a couple of things: In Einstein's model, G=0 when there is no matter... this is absolutely flat space-time, which doesn't exist, except as an idealization: But matter exists, and rho(matter)>0 ... so the density of the vacuum is less than zero, rho(vacuum)<0 The flexible rubber sheet analogy works very well here, if you stick a fork into Einstein's perfectly flat space-time and twist it into a knot, then you will achieve positive matter density after just one layer has been overlaid, so that rho>0 over this isolated region. But the rubber sheet pulls back!... as density falls below G=0, so negative pressure very obviously increases as a result. Spyman also said that Einstein's ideas were half-baked: Possible but unlikely. Einstein will be happy to know that you give him unlikely plausibility... LOL... *oye!* spyman: Makes Your view cind of incomplete... ...or I'm just not willing to speculate about crap that is no better than a crackpot theory without some real physics behind it... of which... you have yet to produce any of. I wll say this much tho... the vacuum gets rarefied by particle creation so... permittivity and permeability must necessarily fall below mu_0 epsilon_0 between massive clusters if this is the case. Do the math. spyman: I can't understand how i can nearly balance with both different bodies and at different distances. The distance for balance must be different if the mass of the bodies is different and the unbalance must increase when the distance grows. I have no clue what you're talking about. spyman asked: Perpetuum mobile ? Not only will it keep on going, it will also amplify itself and produce matter ? ... as tension grows between the vacuum and ordinary matter until the forces are compromised and we have another big bang, yes, the only valid perpetual motion machine in existence occurs only on a grand scale, and only because negative vacuum energy is utilized to reverse the normally destructive consequences of the second law of thermodynamics at this extreme level of application: http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-01/msg0066400.html

I just read back over everything, and I don't see what there is to discuss if we're in agreement??? If you're still claiming that I can't rationalize what I said, then you'd better go back and take note that I left some very hard proof behind that you've neglected to bring along.

Then there's no argument, and of course you have to include the total time until now, because that's about when the principle first came into effect to manifest life, as far as we know.

Vacuum energy' date=' vacuum have gravity which pushes bodies apart, [/i'] The vacuum has negative pressure, so the gravity of the vacuum produces an antigravity effect that causes geodesics to diverge. the speed due to the push is not exceeding light but the creation of new vacuum causes that, As I said... I'm at a loss here, other than what SR says about it. important is that the push cancels out the normal grip of gravity between the bodies, The antigravity effect cancels with the total gravity of matter, so that mass-energy and vacuum energy nearly balance. energy don't have to be conserved since new energy is inserted from the vacuum Energy condensed from Einsteins static vacuum is replaced by a proportional increase in negative pressure, and so negative energy increases as well. This effect is only "virtual" without a high-energy photon interaction to make the condensed "island" of positive matter density into a real particle pair. Just an FYI to anyone that might be interested, but this is supposed to explain why observed antiparticles have positive mass, since condensed vaccum energy has postive mass density and pressure, whereas, it also explains the matter antimatter asymmetry, because the energy of the vacuum is less dense than matter is until you condense enough of it to achieve positive matter density and pressure.

Dude... do you have the first clue what the context is?... I didn' think so Speaking of context, there was a BIG hint right in the context of the first part of the sentence that you cut... because you're so sure that you already have all the answers: quote me: The physics principle that I gave indicates that this is not correct, becuase all life formed at approximately the same time in the evolution of our universe, for that reason... /quote *eyeroll*

The physics principle that I gave indicates that this is not correct, becuase all life formed at approximately the same time in the evolution of our universe, for that reason, so ET's technology is likely to be no more advanced than ours, and radio signals have been enroute for about as long as ours have as restricted by the speed of light. This means that everybody's radio signals will start reaching everybody else at "approximately" the same time, and while nobody will be in contact with everybody, everybody will be in contact with somebody... so first contact is predicted to be one hell of a lot bigger than anybody ever expected. *key erie music*... The Awakening

Yes!' date=' Einstein's static universe. Almost. It's just, h/mc, where h is the planck constant and m is the mass of the particle. The compton wavelength for an electron is about 10^-12 meters. Great post! Check out "antimatter" and particle pair creation... I was also going to refer this article as it pertains to the anthropic principle... but I wrote it... http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-01/msg0066400.html

He was a very respected physicist, like Paul Dirac, and he was the first to discover an Anthropic coincidence within Diracs Large Numbers Hypothesis. Fred Hoyel was actually the first to call it that, but he may have had a hidden super-natural agenda. In 1957, Robert Dicke noted that carbon based life can only exist in our universe when the Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis is true. Human existence is possible because the constants of the universe, and for planet Earth, lie almost exactly between the spectrum of potential, within certain highly restricted ranges. Dike's observation means that Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis is somehow true even though his cosmological model was flawed, but per the above "new" physics, Dirac's hypothesis is valid within the framework of Einstein's static model if the energy of the observed antiparticle exists in a negative energy state, (by way of negative vacuum pressure), until enough vacuum energy is condensed over an isolated region of space to achieve positive matter density. This application exposes the causal mechanism for the Anthropic Principle, thereby giving the Strong Anthropic Principle real physical meaning, while removing the weakness that gets it labled as a tautology or a truism. It stands to good reason that repairing Dirac's cosmological model would also repair his large numbers hypothesis, thereby sheding new light on the anthropic principle, and Dirac, (who was known as 'the purist soul in physics', for his "self-honesty"), would expect no less from us, than we should take a hard look at what the math is telling us. Dirac noted that the number of baryons, (protons plus neutrons), in the universe is equal to the square of the gravitational constant, as well as the square of the age of the universe, (both expressed as dimensionless numbers). From this, Rober Dicke realized that a even a slight change in either of these relationships life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow range of values of the gravitational constant.

It always cracks me up to see people make the irrational leap of faith beyond the physics and into the realm of the supernatural, without good reason... or any reason, for that matter... Increases in complexity and order necessarily produce an increase in the potential for disorder in an expanding universe. This effect gets compounded as negative vacuum pressure increases in an expanding universe. That "natural imbalance" creates an entropic debt that can only be satisfied by way of emergent properties that enable the system to pay back the debt or die: Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf I know it's hard to reach that little clicker button, so... http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990 Scientists explain the meaning of life (and we don't matter much) A new theory states that it is entropy which drives evolution to higher levels of complexity -- for the sole purpose of disseminating energy gradients By Arne Jernelov Most religions embrace and promote certain notions about the meaning of life, offering the faithful reasons why we and all other organisms exist. Indeed, perhaps the fundamental definition of religious faith is the belief that life serves a (divine) purpose. Science, however, has always given a resounding "no" to the question "Does life have a higher meaning?" At least until now. In a series of lectures and in a forthcoming book, science writers Eric Schneider and Dorion Sagan argue that even from a scientific perspective, life does serve a purpose, and thus does have a meaning that transcends the self. They arrived at this conclusion when trying to reconcile a contradiction that has long puzzled those who study both biology and physics. Living organisms obviously embody arrangements of matter into complex structures. They transform chemicals and, in an orderly fashion, transport and store them in purposeful ways. Above the level of individual organisms, they form societies and ecosystems. All of us are familiar with these fundamental biological notions, and we are all part of these processes. Order seems to be the name of the biological game, and evolution leads to more complex organisms and more organized structures. This is, of course, at odds with one of the fundamental principles of physics: the second law of thermodynamics, which holds that entropy -- the degradation of all matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity -- increases as a result of each and every process. The more the world develops the more disorder there will be. Physics even accepts the idea that entropy defines the direction of time. In the end everything will be broken down and randomly distributed. How do Schneider and Sagan reconcile the contradiction between what appears true of life -- that it organizes matter into increasingly complex creatures and structures -- and the notion that disorder should increase and order should be lost? Equally important, how can science see any meaning of life in the reconciliation of that apparent contradiction? The bottom line is that the second law of thermodynamics rules and that the existence of life helps increase entropy. In other words, life promotes disorder. Some might think that this could be true only if the logical end of evolution and intelligent life were to be a nuclear explosion that pulverized Earth. But that is not what Schneider and Sagan mean. Instead, they make a distinction between matter and energy and say that matter organized in structures disseminates energy gradients faster than randomly distributed matter. As one example, they consider a phenomenon of which beer drinkers have long been aware. If you want to empty a bottle of water (or beer) and turn it upside down, the water will come out in uneven glugs. If you spin the bottle and create an eddy inside it, the water will flow out much faster and more smoothly. The eddy in the bottle is a structure in the water. Water running down is matter losing its potential energy. The structure speeds up the dissemination of the energy gradient. Similarly, on a hot day, the air in a forest is cooler than over adjacent bare lands, thanks to evaporation and transpiration in the trees. The energy gradient, in this case that of heat, is disseminated more effectively by the structure of the forest and the life within it. The more complex the structure the more effective is the energy dissemination. Populations are better in this respect than single individuals; ecosystems even more so, and most effective of all -- so far -- are human high-tech societies. Thus, goes the argument, the second law of thermodynamics is not contrary to the existence of life; rather, it is the cause of life. That law drives evolution to higher levels of complexity and to more sophisticated societies and technologies for the sole purpose of disseminating energy gradients. So life, at long last, has a higher meaning in the eyes of science -- even if serving the second law of thermodynamics is not exactly what the religiously faithful had in mind. Arne Jernelov is professor of environmental biochemistry, an honorary scholar and former director of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and a UN expert on environmental catastrophes.