You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
.....but no. I never stated it, the physicist never stated it...
you are such a juvenile troll. Someone wrote that in as the the title for the title box on youtube or something.
read the fucking material troll.
listen to the information.
you claimed top down cosmology did not require a multiverse because you were fooled by some link on wikipedia....
Now you come back to that ignorant statement.
-----
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
as anyone who comprehends science can read in the abstract at the very front of the paper...
Abstract
We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the
observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape,
and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model
landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe.
Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also
discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches
to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation.
you are such a juvenile troll. Someone wrote that in as the the title for the title box on youtube or something.
read the fucking material troll.
listen to the information.
you claimed top down cosmology did not require a multiverse because you were fooled by some link on wikipedia....
Now you come back to that ignorant statement.
-----
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
as anyone who comprehends science can read in the abstract at the very front of the paper...
Abstract
We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the
observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape,
and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model
landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe.
Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also
discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches
to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation.
Quote from stu:
"Physicists Prove God Existence"
1. It is stated in the title of the vid you puked up time after time.
You really don't even read, let alone understand what you post.
No you didn't. You have proved you delude yourself into believing you have . Different thing altogether.
Your own link states...."without invoking the existence of the Multiverse."
READ YOUR OWN LINKS you idiot.
You say they are speculating.
You can't have him or Susskind or any other of the scientists you try drag in as an authority in ANY way, other than one that is speculating.
They don't support your claim for or against your "Tuner" because, you have stated, they are only speculating.
That's a non-argument you have there.
You're really not up to this. You can't even understand the basic fundamental flaming obvious when it's in your face.
Alan Guth... speculates on alternate universes.
Stu... real scientists make you look like a moron.
Real scientists have no problem with speculation.
In fact it is fascinating.
The problem is when trolls like you mix speculation with fact.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ZtRfACbygY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Stu... real scientists make you look like a moron.
Real scientists have no problem with speculation.
In fact it is fascinating.
The problem is when trolls like you mix speculation with fact.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ZtRfACbygY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from stu:
"Physicists Prove God Existence"
You'd think, if you thought at all, just the title alone would raise some serious alarm bells in the -what an obvious utter load of bollocks- department.
Quote from jem:
1. No one has ever stated physicists prove God's existence.
I never stated it, the physicist never stated it...
you are such a juvenile troll. Someone wrote that in as the the title for the title box on youtube or something.
Quote from stu:
"Physicists Prove God Existence"
You'd think, if you thought at all, just the title alone would raise some serious alarm bells in the -what an obvious utter load of bollocks- department.
Go improve your comprehension.
OR in your own words
"read the fucking material troll.
listen to the information."
You can't even comprehend plain English where it's being used.. ".... the universe can and will create itself from nothing.... It is not necessary to invoke God.."...so you really shouldn't assume to understand that paper.Quote from jem:
you claimed top down cosmology did not require a multiverse because you were fooled by some link on wikipedia....
Now you come back to that ignorant statement.
-----
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
as anyone who comprehends science can read in the abstract at the very front of the paper...
Abstract
We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked. We study the
observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape,
and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model
landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe.
Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also
discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches
to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation.
There is no mention or requirement for a multiverse anywhere in top-down, therefore you think top-down requires a multiverse. Just about sums up your lack of intelligence .
Jem... you manage it all by yourselfQuote from jem:
Stu... real scientists make you look like a moron.
Scientists speculating about alternative universes based on math and conforming to the laws of physics, is NOT scientists speculating about your supernatural god tuner.Quote from jem:
Alan Guth... speculates on alternate universes.
Real scientists have no problem with speculation.
In fact it is fascinating.
The problem is when trolls like you mix speculation with fact.
That's YOU speculating about your supernatural god tuner. YOUR problem is you are constantly trying to mix fantasy with fact.
all lies all the time from the troll.
in reverse order...
--- . The question is what causes the fine tunings.
a. It does not even take a tiny bit of brain power to understand...
that a Tuner could be responsible - which is why I have presented you video clips of Hawkings and Rees explaining that fact to you.
b. or you can speculate there are almost infinite universes so a few of them would appeared tuned.
c. alternate universes are speculative. See Guth video above.
---. here is proof your are a lying troll.
"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
You see that troll - the string landscape (which is a multiverse) is a requirement of top down cosmology. The creator of top down cosmology says so.
in reverse order...
--- . The question is what causes the fine tunings.
a. It does not even take a tiny bit of brain power to understand...
that a Tuner could be responsible - which is why I have presented you video clips of Hawkings and Rees explaining that fact to you.
b. or you can speculate there are almost infinite universes so a few of them would appeared tuned.
c. alternate universes are speculative. See Guth video above.
---. here is proof your are a lying troll.
"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
You see that troll - the string landscape (which is a multiverse) is a requirement of top down cosmology. The creator of top down cosmology says so.
Quote from stu:
Go improve your comprehension.
OR in your own words
"read the fucking material troll.
listen to the information."
You can't even comprehend plain English where it's being used.. ".... the universe can and will create itself from nothing.... It is not necessary to invoke God.."...so you really shouldn't assume to understand that paper.
There is no mention or requirement for a multiverse anywhere in top-down, therefore you think top-down requires a multiverse. Just about sums up your lack of intelligence .
Jem... you manage it all by yourself
Scientists speculating about alternative universes based on math and conforming to the laws of physics, is NOT scientists speculating about your supernatural god tuner.
That's YOU speculating about your supernatural god tuner. YOUR problem is you are constantly trying to mix fantasy with fact.
Bullshit.Quote from jem:
all lies all the time from the troll.
in reverse order...
--- . The question is what causes the fine tunings.
a. It does not even take a tiny bit of brain power to understand...
that a Tuner could be responsible - which is why I have presented you video clips of Hawkings and Rees explaining that fact to you.
b. or you can speculate there are almost infinite universes so a few of them would appeared tuned.
c. alternate universes are speculative. See Guth video above.
---. here is proof your are a lying troll.
"We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
You see that troll - the string landscape (which is a multiverse) is a requirement of top down cosmology. The creator of top down cosmology says so.
You dream you've been explaining facts. In fact, you do no such thing.
Constantly repeat posting the same ignorant comments won't make you right. They are all debunked.
You obviously can't deal with the debunking so you just post the same ignorant comments again. You've only made yourself look pathetic.
Ignoring all those things you've been wrong about won't make you right either.
a. The scientific question is how come the values of the fundamental physical constants are what they are. It is not the wild and baseless assumptive question yours is, presupposing fine tunings. Nor is it the closed minded religious presumptuousness that goddidit.
b. With "infinite universes" (collectively called the megaverse or whatever), at least one universe will contain the required cosmological values anyway. There would be no need for any fine tuning. It is also feasible other kinds of life forms could exist where values are different than in this universe.
String landscape is not a multiverse. A multiverse is postulated when applying string theory as a means to underpin the anthropic principle. Multiverse is an extrapolation from string theory. In fact string theory itself does not posit multiverse. Multiverse relies on string theory not the other way round.
c. Scientifically based speculation. Non-scientifically based wild "Tuner" fantasies. Two entirely different things.
There is simply NO science that confirms cosmological values are subject to any fine tunings you silly.....
Quote from you:
"tiny bit of brain power
lying troll"
more specious arguments form the troll.
so here learn something.
watch the susskind video again.
here he explains landscape... then explains its the same as the multiverse at about 11 minutes.
he also explains the tuning of the cosmological constant.
Scientists make you look ignorant stu.
My argument is susskinds argument
your argument is strawman bullshit.
so here learn something.
watch the susskind video again.
here he explains landscape... then explains its the same as the multiverse at about 11 minutes.
he also explains the tuning of the cosmological constant.
Scientists make you look ignorant stu.
My argument is susskinds argument
your argument is strawman bullshit.
[/B][/QUOTE]Quote from jem:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from stu:
Bullshit.
You dream you've been explaining facts. In fact, you do no such thing.
Constantly repeat posting the same ignorant comments won't make you right. They are all debunked.
You obviously can't deal with the debunking so you just post the same ignorant comments again. You've only made yourself look pathetic.
Ignoring all those things you've been wrong about won't make you right either.
a. The scientific question is how come the values of the fundamental physical constants are what they are. It is not the wild and baseless assumptive question yours is, presupposing fine tunings. Nor is it the closed minded religious presumptuousness that goddidit.
b. With "infinite universes" (collectively called the megaverse or whatever), at least one universe will contain the required cosmological values anyway. There would be no need for any fine tuning. It is also feasible other kinds of life forms could exist where values are different than in this universe.
String landscape is not a multiverse. A multiverse is postulated when applying string theory as a means to underpin the anthropic principle. Multiverse is an extrapolation from string theory. In fact string theory itself does not posit multiverse. Multiverse relies on string theory not the other way round.
c. Scientifically based speculation. Non-scientifically based wild "Tuner" fantasies. Two entirely different things.
There is simply NO science that confirms cosmological values are subject to any fine tunings you silly.....
Quote from you:
"tiny bit of brain power
lying troll"
jem, stu has made you look like the insane fool that you are. How does that feel?
if you even understood the subject, it might be worth examining how you think stu made me look foolish.
do you realize how far he has refined his statements to still make strawmen. Stu has been reduced to arguing specious points about the definitions of string theory.
He has conceded just about every point I have ever made on the subject.
He used to say it was all done by random chance
He used to say no scientists say the constants appear fine tuned
He used to say susskind and others never said God was one of the possible explanations for fine tuning.
We have brought stu very close to truth.
His 1950s atheism is been crushed by science.
do you realize how far he has refined his statements to still make strawmen. Stu has been reduced to arguing specious points about the definitions of string theory.
He has conceded just about every point I have ever made on the subject.
He used to say it was all done by random chance
He used to say no scientists say the constants appear fine tuned
He used to say susskind and others never said God was one of the possible explanations for fine tuning.
We have brought stu very close to truth.
His 1950s atheism is been crushed by science.
Quote from futurecurrents:
jem, stu has made you look like the insane fool that you are. How does that feel?
Lol.
Susskind explains ONE universe where patches of space have different properties.
If your argument were Susskind's, then you must agree to ONE universe creating vast numbers of patches of space having different properties, so that at least one of those patches will allow life. Like Susskind then, you don't have a "Tuner". You don't need one Lol !
So what the hell are you going on about?
Be honest at least with yourself Jem. You don't even understand what Susskind is actually saying or explaining.
Your argument is not Susskind's argument. Susskind's is based on math and the laws of physics. Yours is based on sheer bullshit.
If you are being serious, you must be, no one could make your shit up, then you should get help. That kind of delusion could be bordering on an illness.
You think everyone is saying things they aren't .
Non of the scientists you keep trolling out are making any of the claims you say they are. Neither have I stated those things you claim.
Making things up in your head doesn't make them real.
Susskind explains ONE universe where patches of space have different properties.
If your argument were Susskind's, then you must agree to ONE universe creating vast numbers of patches of space having different properties, so that at least one of those patches will allow life. Like Susskind then, you don't have a "Tuner". You don't need one Lol !
So what the hell are you going on about?
Be honest at least with yourself Jem. You don't even understand what Susskind is actually saying or explaining.
Your argument is not Susskind's argument. Susskind's is based on math and the laws of physics. Yours is based on sheer bullshit.
If you are being serious, you must be, no one could make your shit up, then you should get help. That kind of delusion could be bordering on an illness.
You think everyone is saying things they aren't .
Non of the scientists you keep trolling out are making any of the claims you say they are. Neither have I stated those things you claim.
Making things up in your head doesn't make them real.