Revelation is starting to make some sense..

You're being moronic. All that nonsense has already been knocked down.

Your shit has been debunked. Regurgitating the same crap they way you do like a broken record is not a rebuttal.

It's easy. Deal with the evidence that exposed your bs or you could just stfu.
 
Stu -- You need to debunk your own bullshit.

as the economist just wrote...


"But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.""


Quote from jem:

Stu is now claiming he debunked the standard model of physics.
Why don't you tell us how you debunked the finding of the higgs boson without using constants tuned to 32 decimal places.

We can send your info into the economist and ask for a retraction and a nobel prize.


a. http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

"The constant gardener

One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."

b. hawking..

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

...

In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

c. carr...

“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)

d. penrose... in writing...

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/


penrose video...




Summary...

I have provided dozens of quotes and videos from other top scientists.

so given our current understanding it is widely and almost universally accepted that our universe appears fine tuned.

The question is what the explanation...
given what science understands now...

a. we really are incredibly fine tuned because there is a Tuner; or
b. perhaps there are almost infinite other universes... so our is not so special. (note this is pure speculation.)
c. we will someday find a reason why our constants are so tuned.... via a theory of everything...(although... then the question might still be... does it take a tuner.
d. there are a very small number of scientists who do not buy into the fine tunings..... but I will bet that with the finding of the higgs boson... there are even fewer.
More...
 
Quote from stu:

Relentlessly repeating pretentious false claims ideas and conclusions by distorting and misrepresenting stuff in science and the things scientists say just to try and prop up irrational personal religious belief, makes him pretty good at being what fc?? A total idiotard maybe.
More...

Yes, he is excellent at being incredibly obtuse, dogmatic, narrow-minded, delusional, ideologically blinded and just plain stupid
 
Quote from jem:
Stu -- You need to debunk your own bullshit.

as the economist just wrote...

"But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.""
More...
Jem -- you produce more than enough bullshit to debunk as it is.

... the "something important" missing is... more science... as the article goes on to say.

You're just trying to hide the god word behind "something important is missing". It's more bullshit.
 
Exactly you finely get it...

Right now science can not explain the cause or the reason for the incredible fine tunings.

It hopes for a theory of everything or almost infinite universes will explain why our universe appears so incredibly tuned.

You finely seem to understand.


Quote from stu:

Jem -- you produce more than enough bullshit to debunk as it is.

... the "something important" missing is... more science... as the article goes on to say.

You're just trying to hide the god word behind "something important is missing". It's more bullshit.
More...
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Yes, he is excellent at being incredibly obtuse, dogmatic, narrow-minded, delusional, ideologically blinded and just plain stupid
More...

Says the dope who does not realize that is beloved models of CO2 causing warming have now been invalidated by the fact we have had no statistical warming since 1996 and recent studies have shown temps are effected by the sun and the ocean circulations.
 
The fatuous non-argument you constantly repeat was "finely" understood ages ago before you trolled it out a thousand times.

There are no "incredible fine tunings". Making that false assumption from non existent and incomplete evidence doesn't make anything fine tuned or incredible except maybe the ignorance you display.

Right now science is discovering the reasons how certain physical constants get to be the values they are currently calculated to be.

What science does explain is that there is nothing else required but gravity itself and the laws of physics for those constants to arrive at their values. If anything does have to be tuned then gravity is responsible for it.

That has been a piece of unambiguous killer information you've constantly stayed in denial of just so you can come up with simplistic going nowhere assumptions like "incredible fine tuning".


Quote from jem:

Exactly you finely get it...

Right now science can not explain the cause or the reason for the incredible fine tunings.

It hopes for a theory of everything or almost infinite universes will explain why our universe appears so incredibly tuned.

You finely seem to understand.
More...
 
I quote scientists and respected publications
Stu says anything he feels.

Quote from jem:

Stu is now claiming he debunked the standard model of physics.
Why don't you tell us how you debunked the finding of the higgs boson without using constants tuned to 32 decimal places.

We can send your info into the economist and ask for a retraction and a nobel prize.


a. http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

"The constant gardener

One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."

b. hawking..

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

...

In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

c. carr...

“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)

d. penrose... in writing...

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/


penrose video...




Summary...

I have provided dozens of quotes and videos from other top scientists.

so given our current understanding it is widely and almost universally accepted that our universe appears fine tuned.

The question is what the explanation...
given what science understands now...

a. we really are incredibly fine tuned because there is a Tuner; or
b. perhaps there are almost infinite other universes... so our is not so special. (note this is pure speculation.)
c. we will someday find a reason why our constants are so tuned.... via a theory of everything...(although... then the question might still be... does it take a tuner.
d. there are a very small number of scientists who do not buy into the fine tunings..... but I will bet that with the finding of the higgs boson... there are even fewer.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

Exactly you finely get it...

Right now science can not explain the cause or the reason for the incredible fine tunings.

It hopes for a theory of everything or almost infinite universes will explain why our universe appears so incredibly tuned.

You finely seem to understand.
More...


finally . . . Jem.:p.
 
Quote from jem:
I quote scientists and respected publications
Stu says anything he feels.
More...

Here's a proper one for you then...
  • "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top