Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
That's nice and it's just as explanatory as "God did it".

geez what an intellectual moron.
More...

Don't put yourself down that way. Try looking at it more simply.

Gravity - real falling.
God - fanciful pretending.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Stu didn't win shit.
He & you want to so desperately rule out the possibility of "God" it's kinda funny.
More...
They are the sort of people who you might meet in person and as they talk you keep saying, uh hu, uh hu, uh hu. Until you walk off and mumble to yourself, idiot. :D
 
That is the point of the fine tunings.

Its unbelievable that gravity does not crunch the universe or anti gravity shoots it apart so fast that planets stars and life formed up just correctly.

And those are just some of the fine tunings.

So yes... its 32 decimal places to find the higgs boson.
----
But the cosmological constant is tuned to over 100 decimal places.

If you do not understand how finely tuned that is...
listen to susskind.

If you do not understand the argument then... you are an ignorant troll.


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












Quote from stu:

Only 32 decimal places!? Why not 64? Or 2 trillion places of pi? Why not a precise - infinity of places. What , it only requires 32!.
If the numbers were integers only, you'd be going.. woo..no decimal places... must be fine tuned...must be a tuner.

There is no science to say the numbers are remarkable. I've said time after time but you can't grasp it, the term 'fine tuning', is not what you are asserting it is.

That much is confirmed in the economist article you just re-posted again obviously without reading it. It states fine tuning is jargon/slang (argot). Is there a reason why you keep posting stuff that destroys your own nonsense.

Fine tuning:
A term being used by physicists for incomplete science.
A term being used by you for an unscientific and imaginary god tuner.

There is no science to say the numbers are remarkable just because you want to obsessively balance a bunch silly claims on the term. They've fallen off anyway. You have already been debunked.
More...
 
You don't have an argument. There is no argument to understand.
You've already stated, YOUR authority is dealing in pure speculation. Then any idea of a fine tuning argument = pure speculation.


There is in fact no science that confirms any cosmological values are exceptional and no science to confirm any cosmological or fundamental physical constant values are tuned, finely or are otherwise.
However there is science that suggests there's no need for any of your so called fine tuning in the first place.
 
I stated alternate universes are speculation.
And they are for everyone, except delusional trolls like you.



Quote from stu:

You don't have an argument. There is no argument to understand.
You've already stated, YOUR authority is dealing in pure speculation. Then any idea of a fine tuning argument = pure speculation.


There is in fact no science that confirms any cosmological values are exceptional and no science to confirm any cosmological or fundamental physical constant values are tuned, finely or are otherwise.
However there is science that suggests there's no need for any of your so called fine tuning in the first place.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

That is the point of the fine tunings.

Its unbelievable that gravity does not crunch the universe or anti gravity shoots it apart so fast that planets stars and life formed up just correctly.

And those are just some of the fine tunings.

So yes... its 32 decimal places to find the higgs boson.
----
But the cosmological constant is tuned to over 100 decimal places.

If you do not understand how finely tuned that is...
listen to susskind.

If you do not understand the argument then... you are an ignorant troll.


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

Jem I watched the video you posted. When he describes the creation of universe he uses the word "seems" over and over. Unless I missed it he did not say god created the universe, which I believe is your argument. God was listed as one of four explanations.
 
I am just giving you the science.
The science which states... we have incredible fine tunings.

What are the possible explanations.
Well...
They could be evidence of
a. God
b. explained by almost infinite other universes which were not so well tuned and we just got luck.
c. impossible to accept luck..
d. some future explanation that if it does not involve a tuner would probably still seem to lucky.


That is all I am saying.
I agree with susskind.
Stu can't handle that we have fine tunings.
Nor can he handle those tunings may be evidence of a Tuner.

Quote from bigarrow:

Jem I watched the video you posted. When he describes the creation of universe he uses the word "seems" over and over. Unless I missed it he did not say god created the universe, which I believe is your argument. God was listed as one of four explanations.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

I am just giving you the science.
The science which states... we have incredible fine tunings.

What are the possible explanations.
Well...
They could be evidence of
a. God
b. explained by almost infinite other universes which were not so well tuned and we just got luck.
c. impossible to accept luck..
d. some future explanation that if it does not involve a tuner would probably still seem to lucky.


That is all I am saying.
I agree with susskind.
Stu can't handle that we have fine tunings.
Nor can he handle those tunings may be evidence of a Tuner.
More...

His explantion of b, c and d are different than yours. Yours are slanted to support your conclusion.
His conclusion is he doesn't know, no where in the video or others of his I've listened to say he believes there is a god. But I've only watched a few so I may of missed his come to Jesus video.

And you forgot to mention another explantion of his that just some parts of the universe might be acceptable for life and of course we would be in one of those parts of the universe. Which of course makes sense. He hardly makes the strong god argument that you do. But it was an interesting video to watch, so thanks for that.
 
Quote from jem:
I stated alternate universes are speculation.
More...
You stated Quote : "multiverse is pure speculation and string theory is just a collection of ideas."
Are you now trying to back peddle to say Susskind's string theory is not just a collection of ideas? Make your mind up.

So which one from a b c d are you saying is Susskind's explanation not based upon pure speculation or just a collection of ideas?
Remember, there is only one which is based upon math, quantum mechanics and the laws of physics and so cannot sensibly be described as pure speculation or just a collection of ideas anyway.

Clue
It isn't a.


Show the science that states the fundamental physical constants or the cosmological constant are "incredible fine tunings".
Clue
There isn't any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top