Search results

Constantly puking the same video up, making ill-informed comment from it and then not addressing any of the faults and errors you've made but just repeating the vid again, is proof you are acting like an idiot. Nothing else.

The only response you have when your argument has been debunked is to repeat the debunked argument. That's moronic.

I am totally devastated you didn't realize. ok, over it.

Penrose's work/proposal supports a different model. A cyclic universe not a multiverse. He is arguing a competing hypothesis. If you weren't concentrating on name calling so much you might get a clue. "10 to the 10 to the 123" is not representing a probability in math. How many times until...

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thine own ass.

The video is truncated obviously to give the wrong impression. Penrose's work and what he is saying on the subject proposes a cyclic universe, explaining any questions of fine tuning. Susskind's book is sub titled "String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design". "(that is correct...

I heard they don't sell that well.

Nearly right. You troll one truncated video like a demented bot and repeatedly confuse what is actually being said in one paper with something made up. You misrepresent scientists and science trying to infer a religious message that doesn't belong. Otherwise.... it's fair to say, you couldn't...

lol.. I mean seriously, ..Lol! It doesn't look like it. You apparently prefer to draw false inferences to reach incorrect conclusions from misrepresenting physicists and cosmologists . Start at 1+1=2 not 3 which you're always ending up at.

Whereas if you had been arguing many scientists state the universe appears fine tuned but isn't because.... you would not have been lying your ass off.

Speculative as they are, megaverse/multiverse/pocket universes/string theory, are not ruled out by fundamental physics and cosmology. That's because it is science. Some imaginary spirit supernatural tuner designer can't even get ruled in. That's because it is not science. You can make...

Next time maybe stay away from the mini bar.

One minute you're swooning over Stephen Hawking who says one thing. The next wetting yourself over The New York Times that says another. You're the one running headless around here.

Lol it's always funny watching you go into repeat / rant / rage mode whenever you've just painted yourself into a corner. Which is pretty much all the time. It's about intelligent design, otherwise what is your imaginary tuner going to be.

1. Tuner... reasonable speculation if you see tuning. If you see tuning, you see an assumed appearance based on too little information.. 2. Luck - all agree it is ridiculous given what we know now. Gravity then as Hawking states, not luck. 3. Multiverse... pure speculation...no...

So when you said string theory/multiverse/megaverse was "speculative pseudo science" you must have been misrepresenting yourself then if you would now "agree with Hawking".. ..as of course, he doesn't deal in "pseudo science", speculative or otherwise.

Not intelligent design, no intelligent tuner. Not God then. Leaves Gravity, just like Stephen Hawking said.

... and then all those same top scientists explain why it wouldn't be . Just as the earth appears flat.... and here's why it isn't. You don't have an argument.

One of the most famous scientists as you refer to him, says not. Stephen Hawking states the multiverse is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. So you're talking bollocks again aren't you. Brainlessly repeating yourself won't make you right. Address the points that...

Lol. Do you even listen to these religious interview vids ? Intro: Leonard Susskind Author, The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. There's his clue right there for #1 on the list. He explained only #3 / megaverse. The one which he said had...