How do laws of physics as we know them somehow lend themselves to an off-the-peg universe, rather than to a unique Tailor-made universe?
Hopefully the answers you received mentioned that we have insufficient evidence to choose between these two possibilities. The evidence we have does not allow us to exclude either one.
I'm wondering if you haven't misunderstand what people have been trying to tell you. They aren't saying the evidence indicates many universes. They're simply pointing out that it's one of the possibilities consistent with the evidence we have at this time and that it would be wrong to exclude it. Legitimate arguments can be mustered for either alternative, and there's no evidence at this time indicating either one is wrong.
But if we were being parochial when we thought there was only one planet, and then only one solar system, and then only one galaxy, and then only one universe, are we perhaps still being parocahial in thinking that there may be only one multiverse?
--Percy
There is certainly a possibility for many universes out there somewhere with similar earths containing life as we know it, but showing scientifically these similar earths exist is the 64 trillion dollar question. We do know our earth exists, and it seems to have a large number of very unique qualities necessary for life as we know it. This paticular reviewer/author seems to exclude a Tailor-made universe in favor of an off-the-peg universe based on the laws of physics as we know it. This I reject as I hope you do.
On another issue that I have been greatly critized for, I would ask those who believe "tilt only causes the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere," show us how this is true if the earth did not also orbit around the sun?
Ok John you can google "what if earth had no tilt. That would be same as not orbiting, as far as the lack of change in the amount of energy reaching any point on earth. The only change then would be from the distance to sun, which is what I believe you are after. You can see the effects at ecology.com/features/tilting earth. There are a few other answers out there too but none support what you say.
There is certainly a possibility for many universes out there somewhere with similar earths containing life as we know it, but showing scientifically these similar earths exist is the 64 trillion dollar question.
We do know our earth exists, and it seems to have a large number of very unique qualities necessary for life as we know it.
Life as we know it adapted to this planet and all of it's unique characteristics, so it not that surprising that life as we know it fits so well on a planet that life adapted to live on.
On another issue that I have been greatly critized for, I would ask those who believe "tilt only causes the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere," show us how this is true if the earth did not also orbit around the sun?
The Earth's tilt is responsible for all of the seasons in all hemispheres. What we have been saying is that the change in energy per unit area (e.g. watts per meter squared) due to tilt far outweighs changes in energy per unit area due to the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. If the eccentricity of Earth's orbit were responsible for the seasons then it should be summer right now in both the northern and southern hemisphere because we come closest to the Sun this time of year.
This paticular reviewer/author seems to exclude a Tailor-made universe in favor of an off-the-peg universe based on the laws of physics as we know it. This I reject as I hope you do.
I reject what has been falsified. If "this particular reviewer/author" argued that the laws of physics say conclusively that there's a multiverse, then he's wrong. But I don't think he's saying that. I think he's explaining why he thinks current theory makes that the most likely possibility.
On another issue that I have been greatly critized for, I would ask those who believe "tilt only causes the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere," show us how this is true if the earth did not also orbit around the sun?
You're not only putting words in people's mouths, you're trying to pretend you made a reasonable argument when you didn't. You did not claim that the Earth's orbit causes its tilt to change orientation with respect to the sun. What you actually said in Message 258 was this:
John 10:10 in Message 258 writes:
The earth is in the "just right" eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons.
And of course people have been responding to the argument you actually made, not the one you're pretending you made.
This paticular reviewer/author seems to exclude a Tailor-made universe in favor of an off-the-peg universe based on the laws of physics as we know it. This I reject as I hope you do.
I reject what has been falsified. If "this particular reviewer/author" argued that the laws of physics say conclusively that there's a multiverse, then he's wrong. But I don't think he's saying that. I think he's explaining why he thinks current theory makes that the most likely possibility.
On another issue that I have been greatly critized for, I would ask those who believe "tilt only causes the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere," show us how this is true if the earth did not also orbit around the sun?
You're not only putting words in people's mouths, you're trying to pretend you made a reasonable argument when you didn't. You did not claim that the Earth's orbit causes its tilt to change orientation with respect to the sun. What you actually said in Message 258 was this:
John 10:10 in Message 258 writes:
The earth is in the "just right" eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons.
And of course people have been responding to the argument you actually made, not the one you're pretending you made.
--Percy
The specific words of this reviewer/author were "the best interpretation of the laws of physics as we understand them is that we live in an off-the-peg universe." Maybe you think they were not excluding a Tailor-made universe, but they certainly were by not offering ANY reasons why the laws of physics should work differently depending on whether our universe is Tailor-made or off-the-peg.
Yes, I said "The earth is in the just right eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons. Did you and others miss the word "enables?" Show us how the earth would have seasons if it did not orbit (eliptical or not) around a just right sun at a just right distance?
Yes, I said "The earth is in the just right eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons. Did you and others miss the word "enables?" Show us how the earth would have seasons if it did not orbit (eliptical or not) around a just right sun at a just right distance?
Mars has seasons, so the just right orbit stuff is nonsense. The size and eccentricity of Mars' orbit are not the same as those of earth's orbit.
quote:Every planet in the solar system has seasons. Most have four like the Earth -- called Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall -- but that's where the similarities end. Extraterrestrial seasons are hardly noticeable on some planets (Venus), mindbogglingly extreme on others (Uranus) and in some cases simply impossible to define (Mercury).
Further, the just right sun stuff is also more stupid rhethoric. Surely you are not saying that an orbit around a type of star different from sol cannot produce seasons.
The fact that the earth orbits the sun is a given. Are you trying to say that solar systems are rare in this universe?
Finally, you don't even mention the earth's tilt.
Stripped of the just rights that aren't just right, your statement at best says that we have seasons as the earth orbits the sun. Big whoop. I'm willing to believe that you actually knew that the earth's tilt was responsible, and I've posted to that effect in this thread. But let's not pretend that you actually stated that in your original post.
The specific words of this reviewer/author were "the best interpretation of the laws of physics as we understand them is that we live in an off-the-peg universe." Maybe you think they were not excluding a Tailor-made universe, but they certainly were by not offering ANY reasons why the laws of physics should work differently depending on whether our universe is Tailor-made or off-the-peg.
Just for reference, John Gribbin's review of Brian Greene's book The Hidden Reality can be found here: Welcome to the Multiverse
You are correct, Gribbin was not excluding a tailor-made universe, but whether there's such a thing as the multiverse is not a settled issue within science. The laws of physics permit a multiverse - there's nothing in the laws of physics to rule out a multiverse, and in fact a multiverse falls out of the solutions to the equations of string theory. As Sherlock Holmes said (yes, I know, he's fictional, but no one's perfect), "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." The multiverse has certainly not been eliminated as impossible, and so it remains a possibility.
But we don't yet even know whether string theory is correct. The Large Hadron Collider in Europe is conducting experiments that if they fall one way would rule out many forms of string theory, and if they fall another way leave the door open to string theory, but it seems likely that it could be a good long time before we know for sure whether string theory is an accurate representation of reality. So in the meantime if you prefer to reject the possibility of the multiverse then there's nothing in physics at this time to say you're wrong, but neither can you claim that rejecting it is correct. We don't yet know either way.
Yes, I said "The earth is in the just right eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons. Did you and others miss the word "enables?" Show us how the earth would have seasons if it did not orbit (eliptical or not) around a just right sun at a just right distance?
It's difficult to know how to answer this.
Should I just note that you're following in the footsteps of Buzsaw in making incorrect statements that you then spend the rest of the thread trying to explain how they were actually correct?
Or since the important part of what you said was about "the just right elliptical orbit," should I simply point out that all orbits, elliptical or otherwise at any distance, enable tilt to produce seasons, and so there is nothing special about Earth's elliptical orbit for producing seasons?
Or maybe I should ask what should have been asked in the first place: Is there something special about the seasons that makes them *essential* for life?
Or should I point out the advantages of just admitting error and moving on?
This paticular reviewer/author seems to exclude a Tailor-made universe in favor of an off-the-peg universe based on the laws of physics as we know it.
How would an off the peg universe look like compared to a tailor made universe. Is it even possible for any of the physical laws to be any different. Do you have an off the peg real universe to compare our "tailor made one" or are you just assuming that our universe is tailor made because we happened to be here, and a noter race of beings in a noter off the peg universe to us is claiming that their universe is tailor made.
you are like a child living in a place where there is only one rock u pick up the rock and say this rock is tailor made to crush nuts, it is perfectly desighned to crush nuts that is why god made this rock where this rock any different it would not crush nuts.
On another issue that I have been greatly critized for, I would ask those who believe "tilt only causes the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere," show us how this is true if the earth did not also orbit around the sun?
Firstly the tilt of the earth causes SEASONS ON THE WHOLE FRIGGIN PLANET
Secondly you claimed that the elliptical orbit alone causes the seasons do to the earth getting closer and farther from the sun. Not remotely true.
Thirdly every palanet we find has an orbit around its star.
Fourthly the seasones are caused because the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun determins the angle of the suns rays in a given aerea. the more directly and at less of an angle the suns rays fall on a given aerea the warmer it gets and you have summer, the grater the angle is the colder it gets and you have winter.
The tilt also has effects on daytime in winter the sun falls at such an angle that it has less time to be in your vive point so the days are shorter and nights are longer. The further north OR SOUTH you go from the equator the grater this effect is visible if you go really fare up north or SOUTH you get to an area where the sun shines for 6 months and it is night for the other 6 months. At those areas the sun is barely over the horizon for those 6 months and instead of setting it goes round and round slightly above the horizon line, so the suns rays do not fall directly on the surface and in turn not as much heat is given off by the sun causing those places to be cold as hell.
Do you understand now the elliptical orbit has no effect on our seasons any type of orbit would do as long the earth has a tilt. All we need of our orbit is to bring us to the other side of the sun / <--- lets say this is the earths tilt O < lets say this is the sun you can see that the earth is always tilted the same way / O / the difference is that on the other side of the sun the same direction of tilt brings the other pole at a different angle to the suns rays.
the same thing could be achieved by a stationary earth rotating only on its tilted axis and the sun going around it. Or the earth only rotating on its tilted axis and wabbeling. tough we do not see this kinds of things in our universe we see planets having orbits we see planets tilted or wabbeling and we see planets in Goldilocks zones
Yes, I said "The earth is in the just right eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons. Did you and others miss the word "enables?" Show us how the earth would have seasons if it did not orbit (eliptical or not) around a just right sun at a just right distance?
Because tilt is the reason for the season. Even if the Earth did not orbit the sun, but would remain at exactly the same place in regard to it, the tilt would still produce seasons. It would take 27.000 of our current years for a cycle of spring, summer, fall and winter to complete (because of the wobble in Earth's axis), but there would be seasons.
Is it even possible for any of the physical laws to be any different.
Excellent question. Nobody knows. We don't even know how many of the fundamental constants are independent. Perhaps a universe like ours are inevitable given the mass of a proton.
quote:Thirdly every palanet we find has an orbit around its star.
Well, the definition of planet includes an orbit, so in some sense your statement is a tautology. Also, we detect planets due to interaction with their stars (transits and gravity induced motion of the star) we're going to detect masses orbiting stars. We cannot easily find rogue wandering rocks outside of our solar system.
Excellent question. Nobody knows. We don't even know how many of the fundamental constants are independent. Perhaps a universe like ours are inevitable given the mass of a proton.
Exactly my point, until we find a different universe and see how physical laws work there we cannot know if ours are unique, common, uncommon, or the only possible.
Well, the definition of planet includes an orbit, so in some sense your statement is a tautology. Also, we detect planets due to interaction with their stars (transits and gravity induced motion of the star) we're going to detect masses orbiting stars. We cannot easily find rogue wandering rocks outside of our solar system.
Well i do know that the possibility of rouge planets exists planets that where thrown out of their orbits to wander the vastness of space alone though we dont need to worry his little head whit that he cant even comprehend why we have seasons.
You cant have something come from nothing. If at one time, something was highly compressed and static, it is basically illogical to assume that it would change without prompting.
1. Which universe are you talking about - a finite or infinite one? If the latter, the question is a moot one. The matter and everything was always existing.
2. Your question can only refer to a finite universe, else it makes no sense - because it says once the universe did not exist. Further, it agrees that at one time matter did not exist - else why ask such a question?
3. The answer is quite simple. An external force which is not limited to the universe must have done-it. We have no scientific or logical alternatives here.
4. Matter and space is being newly created everywhere and at all times: the universe is expanding.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
™ Version 4.2
(1)