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
you are a fools troll.
and since you typically lie in every sentence I will address the first two.
Susskind tells you the landscape of universes is the same as a multiverse at about 11 minutes into the video.... but he did not like the name because it reminds him of a multiplex and he likes one theatre.
Secondly, yes... if there is a landscape of universes it would argue against fine tuning. How many times do I have to tall you the fine tuning of our universe could be explained... but..
Watch the video... Susskind explains that:
Tuner or a Multiverse... could explain our very finely tuned universe.
Plus I just showed you Guth explaining alternate universes are conjecture.
and since you typically lie in every sentence I will address the first two.
Susskind tells you the landscape of universes is the same as a multiverse at about 11 minutes into the video.... but he did not like the name because it reminds him of a multiplex and he likes one theatre.
Secondly, yes... if there is a landscape of universes it would argue against fine tuning. How many times do I have to tall you the fine tuning of our universe could be explained... but..
Watch the video... Susskind explains that:
Tuner or a Multiverse... could explain our very finely tuned universe.
Plus I just showed you Guth explaining alternate universes are conjecture.
Quote from stu:
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.
Jem , because you are delusional and can't normally comprehend English in text or vid-speech when what it says clashes with your closed minded religious pre-conclusions, that's not me lying.
That's just you, at the very least, with a severe comprehension disorder.
The words fine tuning cannot mean what you want them to in any scientific terms no matter how many quote mines you pretend say differently.
Already said, Susskind states at about 11 minutes into the video ONE universe creating vast numbers of patches of space having different properties, so that at least one of those patches will allow life. He likes one theatre - like he likes one universe!!
You see, you even make the point - one universe, but can't even understand what you're saying yourself.
How many times do I have to tell you. There is no "the fine tuning of our universe" . Pre-supposing the universe is fine tuned, will not make it fine tuned.
If whatever it is you are imagining as multiverse is conjecture, and what Guth, Susskind, Hawking say is conjecture, then it is conjecture extrapolated from mathematical equations and science based on the laws of physics.
Then the god which you are imagining as "Tuner" it is worse than conjecture. It's just baseless make-believe extrapolated from your personal fantasies.
Your epic fail is trying to feign a connection between the two.
That's just you, at the very least, with a severe comprehension disorder.
The words fine tuning cannot mean what you want them to in any scientific terms no matter how many quote mines you pretend say differently.
Already said, Susskind states at about 11 minutes into the video ONE universe creating vast numbers of patches of space having different properties, so that at least one of those patches will allow life. He likes one theatre - like he likes one universe!!
You see, you even make the point - one universe, but can't even understand what you're saying yourself.
How many times do I have to tell you. There is no "the fine tuning of our universe" . Pre-supposing the universe is fine tuned, will not make it fine tuned.
If whatever it is you are imagining as multiverse is conjecture, and what Guth, Susskind, Hawking say is conjecture, then it is conjecture extrapolated from mathematical equations and science based on the laws of physics.
Then the god which you are imagining as "Tuner" it is worse than conjecture. It's just baseless make-believe extrapolated from your personal fantasies.
Your epic fail is trying to feign a connection between the two.
Watch Stu get caught lying here.
Stu said this in a previous thread.
"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"."
------------------------------------
So you see Stu takes a piece of scientific speculation by Hawking that Gravity created the universe in top down cosmology.....
and pretends Gravity made our universe is is reponsible for the fine tunings.
Now you are creating other lies.
In fact that is all you do is lie stu.
So I will let the scientists speak for themselves, again.
Stu said this in a previous thread.
"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"."
------------------------------------
So you see Stu takes a piece of scientific speculation by Hawking that Gravity created the universe in top down cosmology.....
and pretends Gravity made our universe is is reponsible for the fine tunings.
Now you are creating other lies.
In fact that is all you do is lie stu.
So I will let the scientists speak for themselves, again.
I use plain the plain meaning of the words...
this is what I mean.
see the video below.
hey troll let me know when you find another region of our universe with different constants.
you are now a quack.
different regions of one massive universe is the same as the multiverse.
Finally you are the one getting all nuts about God.
I am fine with the science.
Tuner or faith in unseen untested alternate histories or alternate universes is your call.
I am sure you enjoy being a man of faith.
this is what I mean.
see the video below.
hey troll let me know when you find another region of our universe with different constants.
you are now a quack.
different regions of one massive universe is the same as the multiverse.
Finally you are the one getting all nuts about God.
I am fine with the science.
Tuner or faith in unseen untested alternate histories or alternate universes is your call.
I am sure you enjoy being a man of faith.
Quote from stu:
Jem , because you are delusional and can't normally comprehend English in text or vid-speech when what it says clashes with your closed minded religious pre-conclusions, that's not me lying.
That's just you, at the very least, with a severe comprehension disorder.
The words fine tuning cannot mean what you want them to in any scientific terms no matter how many quote mines you pretend say differently.
Already said, Susskind states at about 11 minutes into the video ONE universe creating vast numbers of patches of space having different properties, so that at least one of those patches will allow life. He likes one theatre - like he likes one universe!!
You see, you even make the point - one universe, but can't even understand what you're saying yourself.
How many times do I have to tell you. There is no "the fine tuning of our universe" . Pre-supposing the universe is fine tuned, will not make it fine tuned.
If whatever it is you are imagining as multiverse is conjecture, and what Guth, Susskind, Hawking say is conjecture, then it is conjecture extrapolated from mathematical equations and science based on the laws of physics.
Then the god which you are imagining as "Tuner" it is worse than conjecture. It's just baseless make-believe extrapolated from your personal fantasies.
Your epic fail is trying to feign a connection between the two.
Trying to fit a so called a magical tuner where non-magical gravity is, doesn't stack.
All you've done is make false choices, false appeals to authority, and rely on denial and delusion about what's being stated, trying to make it stack.
Your authorities, Susskind, Hawking et al, and what you call 'the science', are not supporting your silly claim.
I've explained why and how you are wrong. You could deal with those points directly, instead of relying on fallacies and repeat posting like a lunatic all the time.
All you've done is make false choices, false appeals to authority, and rely on denial and delusion about what's being stated, trying to make it stack.
Your authorities, Susskind, Hawking et al, and what you call 'the science', are not supporting your silly claim.
I've explained why and how you are wrong. You could deal with those points directly, instead of relying on fallacies and repeat posting like a lunatic all the time.
1. I claim what Suskind claims in the video.
There are constants which appear finely tuned.
One explanation is God or another could be the conjectured multiverse.
Pretty simple.
Its just kills your brain that the tuning of the constants could be evidence of a Tuner.
There are constants which appear finely tuned.
One explanation is God or another could be the conjectured multiverse.
Pretty simple.
Its just kills your brain that the tuning of the constants could be evidence of a Tuner.
Quote from jem:
[B
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> [/B]
It's not his brain that it kills , but his ego.Quote from jem:
1. I claim what Suskind claims in the video.
There are constants which appear finely tuned.
One explanation is God or another could be the conjectured multiverse.
Pretty simple.
Its just kills your brain that the tuning of the constants could be evidence of a Tuner.