Anthropic Universe a Flawed Speculation

There was an article about something called the Anthropic
Universe is an old Newsweek magazine I found in my
Doctor's office. I didn't get a chance to really read it
before my number came up. I did glance over the
article and it seemed like so much BS. Where did this
notion come from?

J

J From the mind of the News Week author. Bert

"Jay Jackson" wrote in message
. ..

There was an article about something called the Anthropic
Universe is an old Newsweek magazine I found in my
Doctor's office. I didn't get a chance to really read it
before my number came up. I did glance over the
article and it seemed like so much BS. Where did this
notion come from?

I've done a little research on the net. Even if the four fundamental
constants do seem *fine tuned* for life. This is not the_only_
explanation of these facts. It does not mean that these values
were pre planned. They are simply coincidences. If there are
infinate numbers of other universes, then is certain that one
universe in a infinate number of universes would have just the
correct set of values for life to form. No need for a designer.
Our universe with these recarkable coincidence was certain to
exist.

J

"Jay Jackson" wrote in message
. .

There was an article about something called the Anthropic
Universe is an old Newsweek magazine I found in my
Doctor's office. I didn't get a chance to really read it
before my number came up. I did glance over the
article and it seemed like so much BS. Where did this
notion come from?

I've done a little research on the net. Even if the four fundamental
constants do seem *fine tuned* for life. This is not the_only_
explanation of these facts. It does not mean that these values
were pre planned. They are simply coincidences. If there are
infinite numbers of other universes, then is certain that one
universe in a infinite number of universes would have just the
correct set of values for life to form. No need for a designer.
Our universe with these remarkable coincidence was certain to
exist.

J

Jay Jackson wrote:

I've done a little research on the net. Even if the four fundamental
constants do seem *fine tuned* for life. This is not the_only_
explanation of these facts. It does not mean that these values
were pre planned. They are simply coincidences. If there are
infinite numbers of other universes, then is certain that one
universe in a infinite number of universes would have just the
correct set of values for life to form. No need for a designer.
Our universe with these remarkable coincidence was certain to
exist.


The notion of a designer is not a necessary corollary of the "strong"
or teleological anthropic principle, but usually seems to comes along
for the ride anyway. Some writers discuss a "weak anthropic
principle", which IMO is much more reasonable but at the same time
somewhat tautological: it says that it is only to be expected that we
should find the laws of nature favourable to the development of
sentient life, because if they were otherwise we wouldn't be here to
study them. When you've got a sample of only one (of however many
possible universes) it's not amenable to statistical analysis.

--
Odysseus

nightbat wrote

Odysseus wrote:

Jay Jackson wrote:

I've done a little research on the net. Even if the four fundamental
constants do seem *fine tuned* for life. This is not the_only_
explanation of these facts. It does not mean that these values
were pre planned. They are simply coincidences. If there are
infinite numbers of other universes, then is certain that one
universe in a infinite number of universes would have just the
correct set of values for life to form. No need for a designer.
Our universe with these remarkable coincidence was certain to
exist.


The notion of a designer is not a necessary corollary of the "strong"
or teleological anthropic principle, but usually seems to comes along
for the ride anyway. Some writers discuss a "weak anthropic
principle", which IMO is much more reasonable but at the same time
somewhat tautological: it says that it is only to be expected that we
should find the laws of nature favourable to the development of
sentient life, because if they were otherwise we wouldn't be here to
study them. When you've got a sample of only one (of however many
possible universes) it's not amenable to statistical analysis.

--
Odysseus

nightbat

How to resolve this apparent paradox, you need a correct model.
The nightbat " Continuing Universe Rule " doesn't affirm or deny
designer Deity or sci-fi rhetoric of multiverse, it expedient leaves it
to the observer per previous disclosed premise to further grasp it under
logical deducement. There is only one observable universe with nightbat
postulate providing many many " Black Comet " evolving galaxies
permitting the self governing Nature versus based anthropic principle
while allowing for sentient seminal life to form under our own
particular, viable, physical, referenceable, statistical, testable,
analyzable, galaxy one.

For some close insight into a Gforce quantum theory and oc's flow
premise

See:http://quantumaetherdynamics.com/

Try to remember to take an objective observers viewpoint. Be careful not
to get overwhelmed by the depth of site presentation. Nightbat does not
endorse nor condemn said particular referred link content. Referred link
is only for possible post topic interest only.



the nightbat

From Nightbat:

For some close insight into a Gforce
quantum theory and oc's flow premise
See:http://quantumaetherdynamics.com

The author displays an acute awareness of the reality of the spatial
medium. But sadly he reverts to using the archaic term 'aether', thereby
shooting himself in the foot, putting to sleep his credibility and
branding himself with the scarlet letter of crankhood.
Also he doesn't appear to stress the sub-Planck *energy
densty* of the medium and the 'dustbunny' status of matter by
comparison. And he doesn't seem particularly aware of the flowing-space
model of gravity. Otherwise it's a very cogent presentation. oc

Wao. Spoke too soon. A re-reading shows the guy *is* aware of the
flowing-space model of gravity, which he touches on briefly in his
'Predictions' chapter. Very cursory though. oc

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Wao. Spoke too soon. A re-reading shows the guy *is* aware of the
flowing-space model of gravity, which he touches on briefly in his
'Predictions' chapter. Very cursory though. oc

nightbat

Yes oc, and that it mentions it is important. Also it depicts
your friend Wolter's Toroidal vortex (donut) model by Jon Lomberg artist
at bottom of the page of this inner first site link. Including artist
depiction of bipolar emission of plasma jets at center of galaxy, in
second link.

See: http://quantumaetherdynamics.com/4.htm
Also see: http://www.jonlomberg.com/

I agree, a very well done presentation and close to my model but still
their lacking in very important distinguishing points as in yours.

Will writers Donald Goldsmith and Tobias Owen include nightbat's pointed
Halo bacteria in the third edition book on The Search for Life in The
Universe? Should they call I'll let you know oc, even though Bert likes
Botulism as his first life choice, my disclosed research Halo wins hands
down.


later oc,
the nightbat

From Nightbat:

Also it depicts your friend Wolter's
Toroidal vortex (donut) model by Jon
Lomberg artist at bottom of the page of
this inner first site link.

Yes, Lomberg's illustration depicts a big donut with a hole in the
middle, with what looks to be lumpings of superclusters interspersed
throughout the 'donut'.
To bring it more in line with Wolter's model, the central
'hole' does not penetrate clear thru, but converges down to a single
point. This point is spinning and bipolar, intaking thru its poles and
ejecting out its equator. Wolter called this central 'Engine' the Primal
Particle (PP), and it is the centerpiece of his Continuous BB (CBB)
model of the universe. The PP powers and sustains the toroidally-shaped
Process.
The toroid itself, like all rotating systems, has two
hemispheres, a common equator, and a polar axis (picture two frisbees
joined back to back with a BBQ skewer thru the poles). As the spinning
'Engine' erupts brand-new spacetime out its equator (with matter tagging
along for the ride), it expands into the two hemispheres, with the 'N'
hemisphere rolling upward, and the 'S' hemisphere rolling down..
eventually to be re-ingested back into one of the poles of the 'Engine'.
And get this- the sphere of our visible cosmos would be on the scale of
a marble embedded in a breakfast donut, somewhere in the periphery of
said donut (no telling whether we're in the 'N' or 'S' hemisphere
though). The concept of a 'singular BB' event is perfectly valid from
the standpoint _within our visible cosmos_ . But from the 'outside'
referance frame, the 'singular BB' is subsumed by the overarching,
continuous Process.. like the freon cycle in Zinni's fridge. Heh.
The central 'Engine' would account for the "missing
mass" of the universe, and would be ('way more than) sufficiently massve
to gravitationally close the universe.
Wolter deemed the aforementioned toroid to be the most
primal form in nature, from which all else 'fractalizes' and evolves. He
believed it to be the actual form of the macro-universe (coining the
term 'Megagalactic' to describe it). All in all, Lomberg et al. seem to
have made pretty good inroads to the same vision Wolter had. Plus, they
have 'credentialed' status behind them.
oc