Search results

Reality check time again. Susskind is not saying what you want him to.

... perhaps because he is of the sanctimonious opinion something called God and Jesus agrees with his ?

You're too angry pspr, spending all day every day trolling your life away on ET, starting thread after thread, post after post with nasty raging venom. Why not be more atheist, your feeling of well being could take a massive boost , you could be happy, feel alive, see what can happen...

When the only response you have is to keep repeating the same failed argument, were you a reasonable person Jem, it should be clear to you, you don't have an argument. Scientists do not say what you or the phony religiously biased cut & paste articles you keep posting say they do, however...

Voila It doesn't get much more elegant and natural than that. No need for fine tuning Fairy Farts or Pixie Poo or silly Tuners/creators/god. When you can understand that much Jem you might start to get a clue. I won't bank on it.

No one is saying at cern or elsewhere, or needs to say, or is required to say in any science, or in finding evidence of Higgs...that ANYTHING is fine tuned. There is NO science that says or needs to say the universe IS fine tuned. What is it exactly that you don't want to understand...

Rewriting the meaning?... sad thing is as you worm around, you really mustn't realize how much you're embarrassing yourself. Now another change of direction. I suggest you come to terms with the fact that all these wrong assumptions you are so attracted to only lead up the creek towards...

There's no pretence on my part and the evidence confirms the bullshit is all of your own making. This is what you posted just previously...."classical physics... the standard model... the only science that has been tested and proven... the bottom up approach..."Are you denying you posted it...

Lol. Yet another weird twist in your repertoire of sheer ignorance, dissembling and misinformation around cut & paste quotes you don't understand. The standard model is not 'the bottom up approach' you goof. The standard model is the explanation of how the fundamental particles of matter...

Simple. You're ignorant and wrong. They don't say "our universe is finely tuned for life". The question for scientists is, as it has always been, how are things the way they are.

.....from Prager, a right wing hack, who wears his religion on his sleeve, pontificates on old chestnut arguments in areas he has no qualifications, on subjects that have long ago been roundly debunked...so no surprise Jem posts it.

Stephen Hawking says "Because there is gravity....". He does not say "Because there is a multiverse...." You take that statement "Because there is gravity...." out of context by introducing a multiverse context into it, especially as the statement doesn't include 'a part' about multiverse...

So? what don't you get about that? I'll ask again, what is your problem really? As I say, you are confusing yourself with me. No doubt the use of a mirror gave you the inspiration to write that. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the universe is fine tuned for life or...

Here's a heads up. When you lie as you do above about what I actually argue and what I actually say, that is not me lying. It's you.

You are confusing me with yourself.

That's the thing with you. If Scientific America told you the Earth was flat you would accept that if you believed it helped your fantasies.. It's impossible Susskind is the co founder of string theory as string theory was actually founded before he was even on the scene. If there was a...

You are projecting again, accusing me of doing exactly what you've done. You are lying again, connecting Susskind and Hawking to words they don't even use or suggest. You are being dishonest again. There is no simple fact nor any facts nor any science whatsoever for that matter, that shows...

It's what you would do. You don't even seem clear what a sockpuppet entails yet the only sock puppet here was caught red-handed being used by you. So you think it's me ... figures. That's the kind of f'kd up logic an idiot like you would try to argue with.

You're just talking drivel as usual. Of course string theory began in the 1940's. Heisenberg was describing and developed the basis for and of string theory which physicists went on to develop versions and theories of well before Susskind. Then came super-string theory. Many notable...

Not <strike>who</strike> but what... mass...it's causeless... ha, not so crazy now eh? :)