Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I am not angry at all.

You are a lying ass troll to imply that Hawking states gravity created the universe - as if it is a fact.
Its is a theory based on conjecture about a multiverse.

Of course you are angry. The amount of gratuitous insults you fling this way are testimony to your anger.
A lying ass troll?? Yeah right, you're not angry at all. LoL.

Stephen Hawking, the authority YOU are appealing to is telling YOU... the universe can and will create itself from nothing

He does Not say ...from a multiverse.
A multiverse would be something.


I asked you ages ago what you thought the word multiverse meant, when used in a scientific context. You couldn't answer.
Well this much you should be able to get. A multiverse is not NO-THING!

Throwing page after page of cut&paste you don't even understand at this , won't magic you out of the gaping flaw in basic reasoning you keep committing.

You show how you can't even understand YOUR own authority when he articulates in plain concise English.
It's laughable how you then think you understand other stuff he says.

But that's just because you imagine stuffing fatuous claims of god/designer into places they won't go.

 

[jem]

as if you don't throw insults.
you are such a troll.


Your assertion regarding gravity comes from ignorance.
And it does not make any sense.

If you had the brain power or the integrity you would click on the link to his paper. The paper which preceded the book. You would understand how he can make the claim gravity can form the universe... because in top down cosmology the constants of your universe... sort of select the history you are in.

If your line of universes survive it means your values for the constants work.

Quote from stu:

Of course you are angry. The amount of gratuitous insults you fling this way are testimony to your anger.
A lying ass troll?? Yeah right, you're not angry at all. LoL.

Stephen Hawking, the authority YOU are appealing to is telling YOU... the universe can and will create itself from nothing

He does Not say ...from a multiverse.
A multiverse would be something.


I asked you ages ago what you thought the word multiverse meant, when used in a scientific context. You couldn't answer.
Well this much you should be able to get. A multiverse is not NO-THING!

Throwing page after page of cut&paste you don't even understand at this , won't magic you out of the gaping flaw in basic reasoning you keep committing.

You show how you can't even understand YOUR own authority when he articulates in plain concise English.
It's laughable how you then think you understand other stuff he says.

But that's just because you imagine stuffing fatuous claims of god/designer into places they won't go.

 

[jem]

but stu used page 5 from troll playbook..
he made crap up about hawking to change the subject.

When this video really tells us the state of science today.

Some constants are amazingly fine tuned.

That tuning is evidence of a Tuner.

Or you can guess and have faith we will someday find we are part of a multiverse.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[pspr]

Quote from jem:

but stu used page 5 from troll playbook..
he made crap up about hawking to change the subject.

When this video really tells us the state of science today.

Some constants are amazingly fine tuned.

That tuning is evidence of a Tuner.

Or you can guess and have faith we will someday find we are part of a multiverse.


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

stuPID is in over his head in this thread. He doesn't understand science and poses the most ridiculous rebuttals. In fact, he doesn't post rebuttals, he just resorts to name calling and childish cries of, 'that's not true, whaaaaaa.'

He is very immature and has NEVER posted a reasonable argument.

Maybe he should get his head out of his ass or quit sucking his own dick and read something for a change.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

as if you don't throw insults.
you are such a troll.


Your assertion regarding gravity comes from ignorance.
And it does not make any sense.

If you had the brain power or the integrity you would click on the link to his paper. The paper which preceded the book. You would understand how he can make the claim gravity can form the universe... because in top down cosmology the constants of your universe... sort of select the history you are in.

If your line of universes survive it means your values for the constants work.

I merely throw your insults back.

I understand why you're angry and in denial of what was said by Stephen Hawking, the authority in science YOU chose. It's clearly because you can't handle its ramifications.

• Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason....

He doesn't say gravity can form the universe!! He states because of gravity... THEN if you read the paper you keep posting like a moronic robot, you'd see ( well a normal person would see), a quantum state of gravity.

So you have to understand what THAT state has to do with the spontaneous creation of the universe from NOTHING.... How a quantum state comes about from NOTHING. and because of that, the universe.

But nevertheless, after selecting Hawking as your authority in science, you are not now able to respond rationally to his perfectly clear statement ..no God required..

Trying to confuse yourself further in a separate paper before you can even acknowledge what he is saying in such clear terms, won't help you fit a god in where there isn't one..

You can't even bring yourself to accept you chose to use an authority in science that completely undermines that silly god/ designer closed mindset you have.

I wish you well though with any warm feeling you might get as pspr attempts to keep you warm by pissing down your legs every now and then.

 

[jem]

That you lie your ass off and deny facts is the most troll like
bullshit imaginable.

Here.... you will see that the idea that gravity did it... is speculation requiring a multiverse... (a multiverse... you can see in the susskind video... is current scientific conjecture)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

The central claim of the book is that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.[11]


The author writes:


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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12]
The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11]
The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain (see Anthropic Principle).[11] [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[jem]

nothing you write counters this.. video.
The finely tuned universe is evidence of a Tuner.

I know that kills you stu.
I know you are praying for a Multiverse.

Quote from jem:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z4E_bT4ecgk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
nothing you write counters this.. video.
The finely tuned universe is evidence of a Tuner.

I know that kills you stu.
I know you are praying for a Multiverse.

Lol. You know that do you. Well that goes to show how little you do know.


I don't need to write anything to counter the assertions you are making . Stephen Hawking, YOUR own authority in science countered what you are asserting.

Quote: " ...the universe can and will create itself from nothing. .... Quote: "It is not necessary to invoke God"

No "Tuner" required.

You've proved you're way out of your depth on this. It shows in the way you keep repeat posting the same old posts you've posted a thousand times, and in the way you can't rationally address what's being said to you.

Why you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper is anyone's guess.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Lol. You know that do you. Well that goes to show how little you do know.


I don't need to write anything to counter the assertions you are making . Stephen Hawking, YOUR own authority in science countered what you are asserting.

Quote: " ...the universe can and will create itself from nothing. .... Quote: "It is not necessary to invoke God"

No "Tuner" required.

You've proved you're way out of your depth on this. It shows in the way you keep repeat posting the same old posts you've posted a thousand times, and in the way you can't rationally address what's being said to you.

Why you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper is anyone's guess.

your comments are getting more and more desperate.

I present the same videos for two reasons.

1. you keep lying about the context of Hawkings statements.

and 2. the videos I have presented are the cutting edge.
Until new science comes up... why would you expect these scientists to change their minds.

Susskind is the the man who wrote the book and who cofounded string theory which is a major part of this multiverse speculation.




Note. regarding your silly comment implicitly taking Hawking out of context.

It is not necessary if you choose to have faith that someday we will find almost infinite other universes and Hawkings proposed top down cosmology.

But... if you use a classical framework... you see the fine tunings... and therefore...

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:



The paper which preceded the book.

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 &#64257;ne-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal in&#64258;ation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.