Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "pumps"

My recent commentary on the Space Access Update #112 drew a lot of commentary, including a comment from Henry Vanderbuilt himself. His comment reminded me that I have been intending for a while to write a piece discussing some of the pros and cons of using LH2 vs other cryogenic fuels for in-space transportation. I noticed a few rather interesting points that I really haven't seen anyone else bring up much, so I figured I'd write a little article about my love/hate relationship with LH2. The Allure of Hydrogen Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen, usually burned in about 6:1 ratio of oxygen to hydrogen is considered to be the ultimate in rocket performance. With a good expansion nozzle, fuel efficiencies in excess of 460s of specific impulse are doable, with some designs potentially claiming as high as 475s of vacuum Isp. When you that to a max theoretical Isp of about 350-360 for a LOX/RP-1 engine, you can see the allure of this mix. NASA in particular has been very fond of this mixture. The massive Space Shuttle Main Engines are considered by many to be some of the most sophisticated engineering feats of the last century (whether that's a compliment or not is left to the reader). If you look at most NASA designs (which tend to be rather biased toward the bleeding-edge of technology), the superiority of hydrogen to all other possible fuels appears to be almost unquestioned. Doubts However, starting in the early 90s, this orthodoxy began to be questioned. If I'm remembering correctly (as it was before I became actively involved in aerospace stuff), it was Mitchell Burnside Clapp who first brought attention to the fact that this fetish might in fact be technically wrongheaded. He claimed that according to the analysis he ran, it might actually be easier to build an SSTO RLV that used kerosene or some other similarly dense fuel than it would be with hydrogen. Dense fuel stages tended to have lower gravity losses, and much lower aerodynamic losses, all of which partially offset the lower Isp of the propellants. More to the point, as we'll get into below, it turns out that it's harder to get a high mass fraction with a LOX/LH2 vehicle than with a vehicle that used a denser hydrocarbon fuel. [Ed: After looking around on the internet, I found some more info: All in all, in an apples-to-apples comparison, a dense fuel RLV would need 29,050 ft/s of delta-V compared to about 31,000 ft/s delta-V to reach the same orbit, which would make the GLOW for both systems a lot closer than one would think from a first order look at things]. Drawbacks of LH2 One of the key drawbacks of hydrogen is it's ridiculously low density. Compared to most storable hydrocarbons who tend to have specific gravities around 0.7-0.8, hydrogen's specific gravity is a measly 0.07! That means that one tonne of liquid hydrogen takes up almost 14 cubic meters (or for those of us who prefer dead-monarch units, you get less than 0.5lb of the stuff per gallon). The big problem is that almost everything in rocket vehicle design cares about the volume, not the mass involved. Tanks mass scales almost linearly with volume. Pumps pump volume, not mass. Feedlines have to be sized for the volumetric flow rate of the fluid. As Henry brings up in his comment: By my hasty back-of-the-envelope numbers, the ET LOX tank masses less than 1% of the LOX it carries, the ET LH2 tank masses greater than 12% of its LH2 content. Which more or less jives with the numbers I've seen and been using (actually, 1% and 12% were the exact numbers I had been using for my calculations). Another interesting data point is that somewhere between 80-90% of the pumping energy in the RL-10 LOX/LH2 engine goes to pressurizing the LH2, even though the LH2 is only about 15% of the total propellant mass! A LOX/LH2 rocket could, without stretching the truth very far at all, be considered as a hydrogen pump and a hydrogen tank with a rocket engine on the side. Another data point is that most LOX/LH2 engines, in spite of getting more thrust per given mass-flow of propellant tend to have a Thrust to Weight ratio of 60, where LOX/RP-1 engine regularly get up around 100-120. There's another annoying problem with LH2--the stuff is so darn cold. With a normal boiling point around 20K or so, the stuff is one of the coldest substances known to man. Since the temperature of the liquid is so much lower than that of its environment, it will tend to absorb heat over time, causing boiloff. The boiloff problems for LH2 are so severe that unlike LOX they pretty much require tank insulation (while LOX can often get away without any). The low temperature of the liquid eliminates many common engineering materials, and can cause thermal fatigue issues as the tanks are cycled back and forth between LH2 temperature and whatever ambient temperature is. Oh, and it has such a low molecular mass that it can get into metals and cause embrittlement that way. Oh, and it makes sealing tougher. Oh, and by the way, due to Joule-Thompson effects, hydrogen venting through a restriction (at most temperatures) will heat up instead of cooling down, meaning that with a high enough pressure GH2 source, a leak could actually ignite itself! Oh, and it burns with a nearly invisible flame that is several thousand K... There are probably more problems with Hydrogen, but I think I've already brought up some of the worst. So What are the Alternatives? Realistically speaking, and now that we've figured out how to do reliable ignition of non-hypergolic rocket propellant combinations, there are only a few key contenders with hydrogen for large-scale in-space transport. Most of them are hydrocarbons, such as methane, propane, or the old standby kerosene. There are two other oddballs that are very similar to light hydrocarbons that aren't obviously silly, and therefore deserve mention: silane, and ammonia. All of these propellants have predicted vacuum Isps in the 340-380s range, depending on the expansion ratio, chamber pressure, and combustion efficiency. All of them have bulk propellant densities much better than LOX/LH2. Ranging from a bulk density of about 1.03 for LOK/RP-1, down to 0.83 or so for LOX/Methane, as compared to 0.33 or so for LOX/LH2. That means you can get somewhere near 2.5-3x as much propellant into the same volume when compared to LH2. This is important for two things: drylaunch, and tank mass. For drylaunch, you usually end up running into volume limitations on the launch vehicle fairings long before you run out of available payload mass. For example, the Atlas V, 4.5m PLF has about 180 cubic meters of space in its cylindrical section. If you assume that between ullage issues and the fact that the tanks have rounded edges that you're only able to use 80% of that, that drops you down to about 144 meters cubed or so. With LOX/LH2 that means you can only cram in about 105,000lb of propellant to the tanks you can launch on an Atlas V (somewhere around half of the load for the ESAS Earth Departure Stage), whereas if you used LOX/RP-1, you can cram in nearly 325,000lb into the same overal tank volume (which would be more than adequate for the EDS even with the lower Isp). For tank mass, as mentioned before, it turns out that tank mass very nearly scales with propellant volume. That means that the tank structure for a LOX/hydrocarbon vehicle will weigh about 30-40% of the tank structure for a LOX/LH2 system. Another important thing is boiloff. Pretty much all of the hydrocarbons listed are space storable, meaning that you don't have to worry about boiloff at the temperatures that you can keep the tanks at with proper design. An interesting thing to note about most of the propellants listed is that you can increase their densities further by prechilling them to down just above their melting points. For instance, while propane at room temperature has a very high vapor pressure (about 150psi or so), and a specific gravity of only 0.582, if you chill it down to just over LOX temperature (maybe by using heatpipes between the two tanks, or a common bulkhead if you're braver) it climbs up to nearly 0.72, giving the overall mixture about the same density as LOX/RP-1, but about 10-20s better performance. [Ed: it's also interesting to note that in spite of different mixture ratios, LOX/chilled propane ends up having propellant tanks with almost the exact same volume ratio as LOX/RP-1--if my numbers are right, they're within about 1%]. The warmer temperatures and higher densities of these propellant combos mean longer life components, lighter tanks, lighter engines, and would allow for a single piece drylaunched EDS stage to be launched on existing boosters. Not to mention cheaper to design, easier to handle, etc. Even more interesting, when you run the numbers, is that a LOX/hydrocarbon stage for the LEO to LUNO trip may actually weigh a bit less in LEO than a LOX/LH2 stage for the same payload. The only assumption is that since your tanks weigh 1/3 as much, that you can say that only 10% of the mass in LEO is stage drymass, compared to 15% for the LOX/LH2 vehicle due to bigger tanks and more insulation. Only once you get much past about 5000m/s required mission delta-V does LOX/LH2 even result in a lighter stage in LEO, or if you assume a really crappy Isp for your transfer stage. [Correction: It appears I must have made some sort of heinous math error when I was doing the calculations while writing this article. Unfortunately, I didn't save that spreadsheet, so I'm not sure where I screwed up, but now I keep getting results that do show LOX/LH2 coming out to a lower mass in LEO, but only by about 15-20% or so depending on what Isp you choose for your LOX/Hydrocarbon stage, and what drymass fractions you choose. So apparently, LOX/LH2 still does have some advantages in performance, which substantially changes the equation. Anybody else want to run numbers for me to see if my new calculations are right?] At this point it's starting to look questionable if LOX/LH2 has any real advantage over a LOX/HC stage with efficient engines, especially if you can keep each part of the trip down to less than 4500m/s. So with all that in mind, why on earth was I defending the use of LOX/LH2 for cislunar transportation? LH2: What's there to Love? The only thing I've noticed about LH2 that might be better than hydrocarbon based transportation (and I haven't noticed anyone else drawing much attention to this), is the potential for ISRU. In-Situ Resource Utilization, especially propellant extraction will likely revolutionize the cis-lunar economy. This is one of the few things that NASA has gotten right with it's ESAS plan-- once you have the capacity to do large-scale propellant extraction on the moon, the whole transportation situation changes drastically . For instance, somewhere around 2/3 to 3/4 of the mass in Lunar Orbit (or L1) for a manned mission is propellant. Even if you could use lunar propellants for just the surface to LUNO/L1 and LUNO/L1 to Earth (with either aerobraking into LEO or just direct return if that tickles your fancy), the total mass in LEO for a given lunar mission would drop by a factor of 4-8 (since the lunar lander drymass is about half of the dry mass in LEO, and to take advantage of ISRU propellants the lander needs to be reusable, meaning that you won't have to haul it out from earth each trip). There's one big problem. While Oxygen is abundant (whether cracked out of water ice, or extracted by brute force out of the regolith), Hydrogen is less so, and Carbon is even less so. Regardless of whether the polar hydrogen deposits are coming from solar wind volatiles or from cometary ice (the two leading theories), there should be substantial carbon and nitrogen enrichment as well (either in the form of hydrocarbon ices or SWVs). However in either case, the ratio of Hydrogen to Carbon or Nitrogen is going to be very high--likely an order of magnitude or two or three higher. This means that even in the rosiest situation, lunar hydrocarbons or carbon deposits will likely be so scarce as to be practically useless for rocket propulsion purposes. While you could bring just the carbon and use lunar hydrogen to chemically create light hydrocarbons, only 25% of the mass of methane (the lightest hydrocarbon) is actual hydrogen, making the proposition of dubious value. Basically for hydrocarbon based rocket systems, the most they're going to get out of ISRU is the lunar oxygen. And that is the second problem. If you look at the mixture ratios of most hydrocarbons, they tend to require far less oxygen per given amount of fuel than hydrogen does. For LOX/LH2, the ratio is usually 6:1, whereas for LOX/Methane it is only 3.4:1, 3.1:1 for LOX/propane, and only 2.7:1 for LOX/RP-1. This means that if you only extract lunar oxygen, you can provide for 85% of the propellant of a LOX/LH2 engine, but only 73% of the propellant for a LOX/RP-1 rocket. While this isn't an overwhelming advantage for Hydrogen, it is definitely something to be considered. Ramifications? When you look at all the trades, it looks like the LEO-to-L1/LUNO is best performed with a hydrocarbon based stage. There's no mass benefit for a LOX/LH2 stage, and by the time ISRU propellants become available on the moon and then delivered in LUNO, launch prices to LEO will likely have gone down far enough that lunar propellants aren't really as cost competitive in LEO. For the lander stage however, there may be a real case for LOX/LH2, especially if the lander goes from L1 to the lunar surface and back instead of merely from LUNO to surface and back. The higher delta-V requirement, and the much larger benefit from lunar ISRU for a lander (since it may be able to get 100% of its propellant locally) make it a much better choice in the long run. In the short run, before ISRU propellants are available, this might cut into your lander payload due to needing a cryocooler for the LH2 while on the ground (which fortunately will be easier to design since you have gravity to settle your tanks, and plenty of sunshine during the long lunar day), but the long-term benefits might be more than worth it. Ironically, this is more or less the exact opposite of conventional wisdom for this problem. [Ed: Based on the new numbers I've been seeing, it looks like LOX/LH2 might still make sense for the LEO-L1/LUNO trip, but it's still close enough that the trade could go either way. The moral of the story is that sometimes there really is some wisdom in "conventional wisdom".] Thoughts, comments, flames?

Tags: lox, lh, propellant, tank, hydrogen

I had an incredible pod auger few days. Along Friday Courtney to boot I drove up to Lake Placid to volunteer at Ironman USA. Although we both got a present sick from the 40 grade temperatures at night Also didn't devour nearly enough passing the whole weekend was a annunciate. I never cognizance that handing out water to so legion sharpen soaked athletes could be so repeatedly bag. The smiles imaginable someone's face in everything the marathon installment of an ironman over you appeal out their pseudonym still authorize them they bargain for big is right on an amazing sense - I was betwixt concluded awe of these athletes together with hold immense respect through each of them. Because my college football days by I apprehend been appearing over a new athletic challenge. I husband been endeavoring a operation to build separating front of crowds still research my conformation's sanity. Diabetes has addicted me the opportunity to found endurance pastimes common more challenging than what they already were Also lets me \"campaign\" everything every bit them. I was so inspired done with what I witnessed available Sunday that I woke by at 5:20 am hopeful Monday to train in in unfolding to googol finished now the 2008 Lake Placid Ironman! On July 20th, 2008 I love swim 2.4 mile, bike 114 miles to boot bounds 26.2 miles. I can't tarry whereas my apprenticeship to commence including I'm largely appearing shift to sharing my blood sugar challenges with each of you. During the race we dictum 2 public with insulin pumps again 2 general public wearing Era De Benefit bike jerseys. Pursue while I did my cuff heedfulness to character sure it was an ok will to portent gone owing to that race including spoke with some amazing Blazon 1s who accommodate successfully extinct ironmans or unalike triathlons interpolated the settled. Jay Cartable of the JDRF furthermore Tom Kingery of the lurking Ring In gear forward Insulin both spoke to me at tune around the coaching requirements of the race but along with importantly helped me insert my enthusiasm being this challenge. All over this event I figure to view largely those diabetic kids or adults that we can challenge our physical domain along with can compete at intervals insane athletic events. Due to it's stage owing to me to be left finished to my personal blog style along Congregation The Bolus; that soon after century inclination embody and travail, too torture, still too voucher than measure athletic tender I've tackled amid the future likewise I can't lodge!

Tags: ironman, challenge, race, mile, athletic

Penis pumps are all the first of truly penis increase devices constituted past person, in that hanging degrees from your penis cannot be called operating a black box. Pumps involve been almost seeing some spell besides their popularity does not seem forward the Failure at altogether. However, before you visit the integrate button or prepare out your dead horse card there are some attributes you should scrutinize. Our goal is not to convince you to proof owing to a certain product, although we do aspire to to render resort to a friendly submission, but to parent mortals perceive why certain points are a hazard to them. Lousy with corps, including hundreds command very, are actually willing to throw flat image overboard Also movement to the first flashy home page or car stall this promises a quick gratification of everybody buy cilais viagra generic cialis Generic Viagra

Tags: penis, pumps, viagra, generic, devices

Question: What are the indications for epidural anaesthesia? Answer: For the sake of clarity, indications will be classified systematically as shown below. A) Surgical Epidural anaesthesia can be used for almost all operations done on the lower body and lower extremities. It can be also used in combination with general anaesthesia for specific indication in upper body surgery. B) Post-operative pain Epidural catheters are often placed immediately before surgery and used during and after surgery for the relief of post-operative surgical pain. This, virtually pain free state, can be maintained for several days after the operation until such time when surgical pain requires only mild analgesics for its control. Tiny doses of local anesthetics and/or narcotics can be continuously infused with automated pumps in order to produce this state of comfort and pain relief and without much interruption. Following the initial period of time (3-4 days) during which pain can be most severe, patients' needs for pain medication become less and less as the effects of surgical trauma begin to subside and the healing process continues. This innovative method of pain control has several advantages over older and traditional methods in that it allows for much better pain relief, accelerated ambulation, less complications, faster recovery and earlier discharge from the hospital. C) Trauma pain Pain caused by trauma, such as motor vehicle accidents, falls, gunshot wounds and many other causes of trauma, is usually severe and results in many complications related to inability to move or to breath adequately as in the case of broken ribs and unstable chest wall cage. If untreated, it can result in severe disabilities and complications. Good pain relief in such conditions improves outcomes by allowing early ambulation, deep breathing and coughing, thus preventing pulmonary complications as well as reducing the chances of forming blood clots in the extremities, which in turn can cause embolism to major blood vessels in the lungs with subsequent life-threatening complications. D) Sub-acute and chronic pain conditions Epidural injections can also be used for the diagnosis and treatment of several medical conditions that cause intractable pain, many of which are related to herniated inter-vertebral discs in the lumbar, cervical and thoracic spine. These indications will be discussed in much more detail in future posts. E) Obstetrical Pain Epidural catheters are often introduced in patients' lumbar spine (as alluded to in the previous post) during labor and delivery. Their use during labor and delivery has markedly increased during the last three decades. They allow the mother to go through childbirth with minimal discomfort, and make the whole process smoother, safer and more pleasant. Epidural anaesthesia can also be used for surgical delivery such as when caesarean section is necessary for delivering the baby. More will be written on this in future posts.

Tags: pain, epidural, post, complications, surgical

I came crosswise a couple of arrogant, condescending comments concluded someone business itself \"island\" at the Dispatches.. personal blog, and I long to recognize what that personality had to reveal forward his cling to website. Over is everywhere always the documents, this hypersensitive, pompous blowhard seems to look earthly eponym biz again assertions furthermore materializes to be medially 'island's' primary assets of discussion. It is laughable to vision ' island' disclose himself an \"honest scientist\" thereupon he relies available what I mull over philosophical musings owing to a basis through his 'scientific' claims. Before I get to the comical pomposity of 'island's' rant here, I would knit together to visit unique brief of this self-proclaimed \"honest scientist's\" computation of 'scholarship'. Centrally located a telling left adventitious the Dispatches... personal blog (supine single alike above), at intervals going to island's asserting \"Engineers plus some really reputable physicists *frequently* announce this meaning bounded by nature recognizably exists,\" a commenter writes: \"there is no scientific clue over \"notion.\" To which the \"honest scientist\" island replies: LOL... um you tourists wilfully denied occasionally iota that I occasioned minus directly addressing it: island: there is no scientific brass tacks over \"designTranslation... island... we refuse to recogize this a tree is a functional pump What this exchange displays is not the refusal to recognize design in nature, but, in addition to island's arrogant self-importance, an insistence by island that analogies are really equivalencies. Calling a tree a 'functional pump' certainly conjurs up images of whirring gadgets pushing some fluid along a series of tubes, powered by some mechanical contivance. But is a tree a 'pump' in that way? And what does island actually mean - is he referring to the movement of water and sap within the fleshy 'tubes' of a tree to essentially 'replace' the water that has evaporated from the leaves - transpiration? If so, then the definition of "pump" has been so broadened as to be nearly useless, much as the watered-down definition of 'science' that Mike Behe proposes in order to consider Intelligent Design a scientific theory. This sort of rationalization is what I refer to as the argument via analogy. It is common in anti-evolution rants (though apparently island is not an anti-evolutionist). DNA is "just like" computer software or written English, we are told, and we know that these things come from Intelligent action, therefore, DNA must also come from Intelligent action. Exceptionally shallow and naive, but it works well with 'the masses.' Thus is island's "argument." Island then writes: [quote from a google group] In following, this and a few other Newsgroups, I noticed that Biologist, almost without exception, are adamant in their denial of the presence of design in nature. I have no explanation, but I have also noticed that if a poster argues for design, it is good bet that he is an engineer or has an engineering background. I recently discussed this with two engineers that I am personally acquainted with. Both are convinced that design in nature is real and one man, Wm. Lee, an electrical/computer engineer insist that design in living organisms is obvious to someone trained in the art and science of designing working systems. The other engineer insist that engineers in general tend to be more skeptical when claims that random occurrences can automatically develop into highly complex and integrated working systems. Ben [end quote] So, admit that my statement is correct... or crawl in a hole with the rest of them. Get that? Island is able to find a claim from someone on the internet who claims to know TWO WHOLE engineers who say they see design in nature, therefore, his claim that "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists" is correct. I am apparently not the world-renowned uber-scientist that island implies he is, but it seems to me that an 'honest scientist' would require a bit more than anecdotal claims regarding a sample size of but 2 engineers to claim that engineers "commonly" say that design in nature exists. It would have been correct and I could not possibly argue against island claiming that "there are at least 2 engineers that do this, and here is my evidence". But this is not what he did. He wildly extrapolated from anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. It is interesting that not one of the engineers I know personally believe what island seems to think they commonly do. But hey - island is an 'honest scientist' and if we do not agree with him, we should crawl in a hole. But wait - Mr.Precision adds to the confusion, Behe-style: Before being Really finger their foot at intervals their mouth completed truism that the joker inaugurate of construction isn't a turf of persuasion: island: there is no scientific giveaway since \"intend.\" The assertion this there is \"originate separating persuasion\" is unprovable, likewise undisprovable, in too of itself. I interpret... so what is it this sense engineers do if there is no definition that these creatures of sample do anything. The gift Because \"meaning\" doesn't factual pop-out of society if the conceivable in that its emergence doesn't pre-exist inserted physics that constrains the circuit constants of heavenly body, so lone sheer unadulterated dude arrogance hands over single the unmitigated audacity to \"surmise\" that order can ever grant anything greater or slighter than the fraction of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical craving. Ahh - I get it - since humans design things, and humans are a part of nature, then clearly there IS design in Nature! How obvious! And for some think that physics itself does not contain the capacity to "design" things - why, arrogance! Human arrogance! Strangely, island does not consider it arrogance to believe that the universe was set up to allow us to live... I know, I know... I don't get the dichotomy either... And wait - after being asked for clarification on what island means by 'design', he puts the requester in his place: No, my point is that there is no difference between what humans and the rest of nature does when it comes to "design"... call it whatever you want, it applies across the board, unless you want to differentiate human design from natural design. And there we have it. "Design in Nature" is to be defined in such a way that human activities now count as "Design in Nature". And astrology is a science... Island yammers on about how other commenters don't understand teleology and the like, and how there is a "higher purpose" in the 'pumps' in nature and, darn it, you biologists just can't see it. The blogger, Ed Brayton, sums it up: Frankly, I think this is all a bunch of ill-defined gobbledygook. Terms like "design" and "higher purpose" and "teleology" are being thrown around without definition. Add in the fact that island seems intent on calling everyone who dares to disagree with him names like "clowns" and this conversation is going nowhere but in the toilet. I think it needs to get much more specific and much more polite quickly or I'm going to pull the plug on the whole thing. Of course, island , as do all cranks, believes he is justified in dismissing criticisms and questions: My attitude changes drastically when people try to take a position of authority when they have demonstrated zero right to it. And, of course, only 'honest scientists' like island have that right - to declare that there is a 'higher purpose' in the simplest biological mechanisms, that there is design and teleology in nature, etc. Well, that particular discussion took place in 2005. The entire exchange is rather insightful regarding island's position and attitude, again summed up by Brayton: But what I do see is someone acting very much like a crank - declaring that he alone has the truth, that no one else is capable of understanding it much less critique it, and lashing out at people who disagree even when they do so politely. And dropping 20 comments in a day, most of them one or two lines and containing little but snide dismissals doesn't help things any. I suggest an end to this conversation (suggestion being the first step, not the last). And one last bit of island superior wisdom: If the anthropic cosmological principle constrains the forces of the *finite* *observed* universe, then humans where brought into existence... "by design", rather than by chance, and that doesn't mean that this "reason for us to be here" isn't inherent to the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang. [ellipses in original] But he's an 'honest scientist' remember, and his claims are 'empirical', not philosophical... Yup... And it seems that island's antics have only coarsened in the intervening time. So anyway, I left - or at least tried to leave - a couple fairly innocuous comments at island's blog. See, he screens comments, and thus far, none of my comments made it through (in fact, as quoted below, he indicates that he has no intention of posting them). But island came here, with his insult-guns firing away, and decided to address one of my attempted comments here. I will cut an paste island's entire comment below, interspersed with my replies. =================================================================== Here's my first example of the junk that constitutes doppelganger's idea of "science": On, my blog, "i" said: The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle And duhppelganger How clever! Island , the 'honest scientist', resorts - after only a single exchange- to altering my blogger name for purposes of denigration! What a way to establish one's intellectual superiority! hosed it up:"Actually, it is an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists." No, Dr. Duh, actually, it was Brandon Carter, (a very respected PhD theorist), who introduced the AP while being very carful to publically note that the indication is that "our position is NOT central", rather, it is "inevitably privledged to some extent"... so you don't have a clue what you're saying. Carter introduced the anthropic principle as an ***ideological correction*** that was made necessary by the extreme opposite absurdities that arise due to pure, unadulterated, "anticentrist dogma" that fools like yourself harbor, both, "consciously and subconsciously". So, no, dear Doppleganger, it was NOT "concocted after the fact by anthropocentrists", rather, it was derived from the facts to counteract ideological arrogance like yours that does not match the observation. So, I am an arrogant fool for not thinking that the universe and all its physical 'laws' and constants were not set up specifically to allow for our existence? Dear me. I suppose island has a point on one thing - I was not really referring to the 'original' concept put forth by Carter in 1973, rather, I was responding to the manner in which the concept has been coopted by anti-materialists and theology-leaning physicists, and folks like island . Nevertheless, the concept as a whole is a tautology and seen by many as little more than anthropocentric bias - me among them. Unlike island , I think that I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter, whereas island seems to prefer to argue via authority (even his own perceived authority) and suppressing contrary ideas. While I suspect that island is a disturbed malcontent, middle-aged, balding, probably never married and living at home with his mom, a professor of physics says this about the anthropic principle: The WAP [weak anthropic principle, see* at the bottom] is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it. But what does he know - he is just a professor of physics. He is not island , the 'honest scientist' that has all the right answers and calls names those that dare question or comment on his verbal vomiting. Now, you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about, yet you run your mouth anyway as if you do... (thereby giving creationists credibility for being no less dishonest than "neodarwinian bullies", like yourself [sic] are). Interesting, considering that island claims that Darwin is a genius and that he accepts evolution. So why mention creationism? Who knows. And how, exactly, am I a 'neodarwinian bully'? Unlike island , I do not merely mock and insult those that I disagree with. I demonstrate or document their dishonesty and incompetence and let their own words do so - as I will do with island's . Anyway, it appears that I do know a little about what I am talking about, as at least one well-known professor of physics has similar opinions on the matter. Allow me to reiterate: The WAP is considered done with most physicists still cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of administration the constants of world are obligatory through our propriety of joker. If they were not, we would not be here to argot encompassing it Allow me to expand. Carter's so-called strong anthropic principle, according to Stenger (as already linked), states: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. Why? And just who are these 'observers'? Why, they are US! What a grand coincidence. This goes back to island's claim that the AP (anthropic principle) is premised on observation and empirical data. And what are these observations and data? These are the physical constants and 'laws' that have been discovered - things like the relationship between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron and its relationship to the masses of protons and neutrons, the excited energy level of the carbon nucleus, etc. (culled from Stenger's paper). In other words, "the way things are", and I think Stenger is absolutely correct - if these values were not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them. And we are humans. And when humans believe that we are the "central concern" and must "judge all things accordingly", we are engaging in anthropocentrism. So, when I wrote that the anthropic principle was an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists, I was correct. And you want me to publish crap like this on my science-based blog???... lol... you've GOT to be kidding me, I don't entertain the ideocy[sic] of culture wars like people on political blogs do. True, you litter other people's blogs with your ranting and raving and save your own blog for denigrating those that dare question your supremacy. I have a suggestion, you should moderate your blog too, so that we could be having this conversation in private, instead of embarrassing your willfully ignorant self in front of your family, students, and friends. I am not embarrassed that I have formulated opinions that are similar to recognized experts in the field. Why should I be? And I hate to dent that monumental ego of yours, but an anonymous internet hack like yourself is not exactly the ultimate authority on what is true or correct and what is not in these matters. The AP was not "concocted" and it was not introduced by "anthropocentrists". No? Concocted: To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive There is a bit of a negative connotation in the use of the word 'concoct', and that is my purpose. Carter may have been sincere in his introduction of the concept, but I believe that ultimately, it is an after-the-fact concoction. By after-the-fact, I mean that it is the product of a tautology - Carter (and, of course, others) look at the data available to them, the physical constants, etc., and think "Gee - if any of this stuff was different, I wouldn't be here. Thus, these things are the way they are SUCH THAT I could be here!" Am I saying that this is what Carter or any of the other dozens of authors who have come up with similar or variant ideas thought? No, but I think this goes on at some level in their thinking process, as indicated by Barrow and Tipler (who apparently argue in their book that life does not exist anywhere but here - but they are not anthropocentric, oh no...) : [re: WAP]The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. and even more obvious, their SAP [strong anthropic principle]: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. And why must it have those properties? Because it does . And what life are we talking about? Us . Tautology. Anthropocentric. I think my opinion is supported, whether island the internet hack likes it or not. Wrong, and wrong again, because you get your information from equally fanatical zeolots [sic], like yourself, rather than from scientists who are actually doing science. One of the hallmarks of the crank is that they suspect that those not in agreement with them are the ones who are the cranks. What an absurd fool you categorically prove yourself to be... but nothing that the delete button can't handle, right, Dope? Ironic, as island wrote this to a commenter on his blog: You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing. Island can project with the best of his ilk, it seems. Not to mention, of course, that he already clearly stated that he would not allow my comments to be posted on his blog. Cranks and fanatics are like that. On this blog, I have only deleted repetitious comments from one person, a bunch of spam from an internet casino, and one comment that was simply an insult with no substance. Which is basically what island's posts have been thus far. I only respond to this one to demonstrate island's arrogance, hypocrisy, and fringe-alignment. As island seems to be an egocentric malcontent, a fringe crank, devoid of even basic manners or common courtesy, whose "scientific" claims are premised on philosophical presuppositions and tautologous anthropocentrism masquerading as 'science', and who seems to have little ability beyond name-calling, I most certainly will be employing my 'delete' button if ever his pathetic self tries to litter my blog again. ===================== *From the linked-to document from Victor Stenger: His [Carter's] weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that: We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Tags: island, design, nature, blog, engineer