Search results

That's more to do with divine musing than fine tuning.

Susskind and just about every other scientist don't say is fine tuned. Religious nuts say is fine tuned. There is no science that shows the cosmological constant is fine tuned. No science or scientists from me? You've shown how that would be completely pointless. That's how bankrupt...

In good faith?You? pfft. You're the one deciding for yourself what is and isn't speculative based on whether it has the word god in it or not. Good faith my ass. Create a universe? Particles coming into existence from nothing is proven. Being no need for god to magically make things appear...

God is an explanation that isn't explained. In other words, basically useless as an explanation. As useless and unscientific as the 'who knows' explanation. Gravity is a 'Tuner' that is explained. Get over it.

Bollocks it is. God is an explanation that isn't explained. In other words, basically useless as an explanation. As useless and unscientific as the 'who knows' explanation. Gravity is the 'Tuner'. Gravity is why stars and planets form. It is an explanation and it is explained ...

Enough of my bullshit?? LOL. That's a good one! The answer to your childish simplistic contextomy is No. For one thing, top cosmologist Susskind never mentions the word 'Tuner'. For another it's obvious, an explanation without explanation is no explanation, whether it's according to a...

I only have to look back one post out of the countless ones to see where you don't say appearance of fine tuning. You're always trying to misrepresent . It's clearly the only way you know. On tape or not, an explanation given no explanation is not really an explanation, except that is, in...

Susskind doesn't say... the fine tuning. Susskind says... an appearance of fine tuning. So for 7 years you've been wrong about what Susskind says. Congratulations.

To be expected and true to form, you started with the insults. You're getting angry again most likely because you're beginning to get an inkling of why you are wrong. Populating the Landscape IS NOT multiverse. sheesh how many times. Intrinsic to string theory is 'landscape'...

Once again, because you don't understand Hawking but keep posting his stuff trying to give an appearance that you do , is not me misrepresenting or bullshitting. Attempting to, unwittingly or not, project your shit onto me doesn't work. You seem to be holding the uninformed assumption...

It's no good to keep reposting the same quotes as if you were making some point or other rather than just being more and more absurd, which you are. I asked you a long time ago what YOU meant by multiverse / alternate universes. One universe in which a cosmic natural selection occurs...

I wonder would you kindly hand Jem his head back for me. It's rolling all over the place again.

You're babbling. So? "Fine tuning" is speculation. You've tried to say it isn't to hide the batty idea that an imaginary magic man is twiddling knobs. That's what the whole of your nonsense boils down to. You take Hawking out of context to make ridiculous claims . Quoting all or...

You think taking Hawking out of context is a good way to read Hawking in context. sheesh. About the bottom-up model which he does not advocate, he says it either requires one to postulate the universe that is carefully fine-tuned by an outside agency OR requires one to invoke the notion of...

You can't even provide my exact quotes, nevermind Susskind's Penrose's and others. Scientists say appears fine tuned. You say IS fine tuned. Adding superlatives like extreme, spectacular, incredible doesn’t change that fact, nor that you are just being dishonest about the whole...

Right, so when you said a thousand times "That is extreme fine tuning." of the universe, you thought you were saying the universe appears to be fine tuned. Sure, that figures. pfft. Truth being, trying to slot your god into everything, you're a thousand times vague, imprecise , misleading...

Only 2 lies - one sentence. You're slipping. Yay.... capitulation. Glad I could help you eventually grasp the blindingly obvious. Still not sure you understand what you did though. Oh my, one thing you can do so well straight off the bat is that self analysis projection stuff.

Your understanding is Multiverse answers appearances of fine tuning. Well duh. Why the hell you started a thread to contradict yourself should be your next understanding.

What a stupid thing to say. Deny current science?lol......you don't even understand it enough to deny or accept. Nobody is saying the cosmological constants or physical constants ARE tuned except a bunch of usual God botherers. Furthermore, the Standard Model is found wanting when the...

That was a genuine mistake. It was not intentional. Sometimes I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to the large number of bullshit claims you make and I posted that without checking as I usually do. "what an an ignorant lie. " ..was the quote of yours I intended to point this, my...