Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

Physicists speak of "The appearance of fine tuning". Some physicists argue
that small changes in the certain values of fundamental particles and forces would render a universe completely unlike the one we see and there fore incapable of sustaining life. Ergo, a Creator is responsible for our "finely tuned universe". However, this of course is speculative and not at all subject to testing, at least not at the present moment. We can't change the fundamental values and see what type of universe that would reveal. Perhaps a universe capable of intelligent life could exist under many variations of the values of the fundamental particles and forces . But Jem takes the initial argument at face value. Why? Because it supports his predisposition toward belief in god.

It's simply another argument for the existence and primacy of God designed to seduce the current audience. Every culture and time in history has had a unprovable creation and Creator mythology championed by its ardent acolytes, and now contemporary America does as well.

God "fine tuned" the universe so we could emerge. God must really be great.
 
try quoting Susskind in context. you are such a troll.
I gave you the video... you saw him explained it is tuned to 120 decimal place... if it were different the universe would crunch or fly apart.

now you think you know physics better than susskind or hawking.
Have the guts to cite to things in context.

This is the internet... there is a function called a hyperlink.
you copy the url and paste it here.



Quote from stu:

Susskind called the cosmological constant the worst prediction ever. Physicists have no consensus on an actual or exact calculation of it. It is given an apparent value only.
A value that, if it were slightly less, physicists say would be far more favorable to the formation of galaxies than is the case.

Your imaginary 'tuner' messed up. Any God worth its salt would have it smack on. A magic number that couldn't be any other way.

Because the cosmological constant is not necessarily at an optimal value, and doesn't apparently need be, the universe gets filled with void and black holes instead, and it turns out your "Tuner" didn't need to hit any 120 decimal places anyhow.

It could have settled for zero, the universe would be still be expanding but slower, and there would be many more galaxies, further increasing odds that life would form.
More...
 
you are completely wrong.
most of the guys I am quoting are saying ergo there must be a infinite other universes. The men I am quoting are mostly professed atheists and are not making the God argument... there must be a Tuner... But, they admit one explanation for the tunings could be a Tuner.


physics works on math.
physicists make models.
Its how they make predictions.
Its how they expand our understanding of the universe.
you are living in the 1950s world of random chance atheism.
That simplistic mind set does not work.

At the moment the math says our constants are incredibly tuned. .

For instance

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.

One way to look beyond the Standard Model is to question the Higgs's status as an elementary particle. According to an idea called technicolour, if it were instead made up of all-new kinds of quark held together by a new interaction, akin to but distinct from the strong force, the need for fine-tuning disappears.


Quote from VVV1234:

Physicists speak of "The appearance of fine tuning". Some physicists argue
that small changes in the certain values of fundamental particles and forces would render a universe completely unlike the one we see and there fore incapable of sustaining life. Ergo, a Creator is responsible for our "finely tuned universe". However, this of course is speculative and not at all subject to testing, at least not at the present moment. We can't change the fundamental values and see what type of universe that would reveal. Perhaps a universe capable of intelligent life could exist under many variations of the values of the fundamental particles and forces . But Jem takes the initial argument at face value. Why? Because it supports his predisposition toward belief in god.

It's simply another argument for the existence and primacy of God designed to seduce the current audience. Every culture and time in history has had a unprovable creation and Creator mythology championed by its ardent acolytes, and now contemporary America does as well.

God "fine tuned" the universe so we could emerge. God must really be great.
More...
 
I'm saying you and those who consider the appearance of fine tuning to be evidence of God are fraudulent proselytizers.

Now go back to your prosaic meaningless existence, your asswipeness
 
Quote from VVV1234:

I'm saying you and those who consider the appearance of fine tuning to be evidence of God are fraudulent proselytizers.

Now go back to your prosaic meaningless existence, your asswipeness
More...
Lost the argument, eh? I still don't understand why people like you care what others think. Unless....you are afraid that there may really be a God. :)
 
Quote from jem:
try quoting Susskind in context. you are such a troll.
I gave you the video... you saw him explained it is tuned to 120 decimal place... if it were different the universe would crunch or fly apart.

now you think you know physics better than susskind or hawking.
Have the guts to cite to things in context.

This is the internet... there is a function called a hyperlink.
you copy the url and paste it here.
More...
The person not quoting Susskind or Hawking in context is you. You've not even quoted me truthfully let alone in context, preferring to lie about what is actually being said. It's clear that a fog of untruthful ignorance is the context in which you prefer to push your silly make-believe God ideas.

Cosmologists suggest a slightly negative cosmological constant would best suit star/galaxy formation. In that case your imaginary God Tuner has messed up.
Go hyperlink yourself then you can make another bunch of fatuous dishonest and self-contradictory claims.
 
I am quoting him out of context.
How the hell is that possible.
Here is his video again in case you have
never listened to the whole thing.
He provides the context.

You are the person here lying about what science says and refusing to present citations or links.

You even argue about about irrelevant points and refuse to provide links. I would like to read about how negative the cosmological constant could go without destroying or crunching our universe.

I suspect you are still lying your ass off and speaking of hypothetical universes with a different mixture of mass and constants.

But we will never know because you are so full of shit we can not be sure when you are lying or telling the truth.

No wonder you argue the troll bullshit that you do.
You do not comprehend the science.
Your brain seems to confuse science speculation with fact.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from jem:

He provides the context.
More...
Well of course Susskind provides the context you dope.

Then you take what he says out of context and even change what he actually does say.
So when he says " ..appears fine-tuned", you blurt "... is incredibly fine-tuned".

I must say, you acting like an idiot as another idiot cheers you on, isn’t a particularly edifying spectacle.
 
Quote from stu:

Well of course Susskind provides the context you dope.

Then you take what he says out of context and even change what he actually does say.
So when he says " ..appears fine-tuned", you blurt "... is incredibly fine-tuned".

I must say, you acting like an idiot as another idiot cheers you on, isn’t a particularly edifying spectacle.
More...
The only stupid asshole here is yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top