Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[jem]

nope...no back pedaling here.

I have given you the science.
I have provided you with videos.
You are trolling when you say there is no science showing the fine tunings.

Everytime I give you the science and the videos... you spew out bullshit.

just prented... I link to the videos and the arguments I made in this thread.

Start with the video in the original post.
Then the other Susskind video.


a. Guth told you in the video... alternate universes are a pure speculation that do not even work out in classical physics.

They require quantum tunneling which they don't even know would work.

And sort of a new concept of quantum gravity which is not worked out yet.

b. saying luck did it is obviously speculation.
c. saying we may someday find a answer is obviously speculation.

d. so when you have an incredibly finely tuned object, in absence of a proof to the contrary it is logical to posit there is a Tuner.

Quote from stu:

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.

 

[jem]

The constants of the universe we know are uniform.

Our scientists are not aware of area with other areas with different constants.

Arguing there are regions with other constants is essentially no different that what Susskind proposes with his Landscape idea. (at least not that I am seeing at the moment... maybe you can elaborate.)

---

I do not see how his bcd are different in substance. I accept his b,c,d. and I keep saying I agree with Susskind.

I just pointed out at times.... that bcd are speculation.
A point no real scientist would deny.

Quote from bigarrow:

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.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
The constants of the universe we know are uniform.

Our scientists are not aware of area with other areas with different constants.

Arguing there are regions with other constants is essentially no different that what Susskind proposes with his Landscape idea. (at least not that I am seeing at the moment... maybe you can elaborate.)

---

I do not see how his bcd are different in substance. I accept his b,c,d. and I keep saying I agree with Susskind.

I just pointed out at times.... that bcd are speculation.
A point no real scientist would deny.

Why did you leave a. out? If your authority Susskind is speculating, then he is speculating on all 4 explanations - only one of which he gives explanation for.

You can't see any difference in substance between a b c and d when the only one he gives explanation for and substance to, is arrived at by applying math, quantum mechanics and the laws of physics?
Really!?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Why did you leave a. out? If your authority Susskind is speculating, then he is speculating on all 4 explanations - only one of which he gives explanation for.

You can't see any difference in substance between a b c and d when the only one he gives explanation for and substance to, is arrived at by applying math, quantum mechanics and the laws of physics?
Really!?

You bring up your same boring points again.

First of all your first point is a ridiculous non sequitor.
It is certainly possible to mix speculations with other types of explanations.

2. Of course he pushes the multiverse explanation he wrote the book on the subject of explaining the fine tunings by guessing that each of the 10 to 500 "solutions" provided by string theory is an alternate bubble or universe.

3. regarding "a". You may call it speculation, it does not bother me.

The idea that something fine tuned could have a tuner in the absence of contrary facts is a deduction which seems stronger than a speculation the way I would use the term speculation. But I have no desire to argue deduction vs speculation with a troll.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
You bring up your same boring points again.

First of all your first point is a ridiculous non sequitor.
It is certainly possible to mix speculations with other types of explanations.

2. Of course he pushes the multiverse explanation he wrote the book on the subject of explaining the fine tunings by guessing that each of the 10 to 500 "solutions" provided by string theory is an alternate bubble or universe.

3. regarding "a". You may call it speculation, it does not bother me.

The idea that something fine tuned could have a tuner in the absence of contrary facts is a deduction which seems stronger than a speculation the way I would use the term speculation. But I have no desire to argue deduction vs speculation with a troll.

I bring up the same boring points because you keep trying to make them.

To argue someone is giving god and chance and luck as explanations, but who then doesn't explain any of them, is no type of argument at all.

To call on an authority as you've done, and then actually post a link to explain the false authority you've just made, is no type of argument except an utterly laughable and ridiculous one.

The idea that something IS fine tuned when there is no verification of fine tuning whatsoever , is nothing but wishful thinking.

To suggest hypothesis based upon math, quantum mechanics and the laws of physics is only the same kind of speculation as fantasized make-believe, is simply ignorant.

And yes, you are the troll who keeps ignoring the blinding obvious just to repeat the same boring points.

 

[jem]

stu you are the ultimate full of shit troll.
you want links... here they are...


Here my link that alternate universes are complete speculation.

Quote from jem:

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]

Quote from jem:

stu you are the ultimate full of shit troll.
you want links... here they are...


Here my link that alternate universes are complete speculation.

Complete speculation based on math and laws of physics is still not going to be the same thing as complete speculation based on wishful thinking and make-believe.
No matter how many times you boringly "ultimate full of shit troll" out the same old stuff.

 

[Ricter]

:wave:

+1 post count.

Edit: this post contains "meaningful content".

 

[jem]

Wait so now you are agreeing that alternate universes are speculation.

What was your previous point?

That you can be a full shit troll and still admit that Guth just proved you to be a full of shit troll.

Quote from stu:

Complete speculation based on math and laws of physics is still not going to be the same thing as complete speculation based on wishful thinking and make-believe.
No matter how many times you boringly "ultimate full of shit troll" out the same old stuff.

 

[jem]

its funny we have an atheist troll who proclaims to have debunked Susskind, and Rees and Hawking statements about the fine tuings of our constants.

I present video tapes with Susskind explaining the fine tuning and the possible explanation... and we have a troll pretending he debunks the statement yet never does.

By the way for those who like to see Noble Prize winner rip dawkins and Stu at the same time...

go to about 9 to 9.5 minutes on this tape.
and then let us know about the math behind the multiverse.
Which you would know if you watched the Guth video above.

Its pretty funny actually.

Real science destroys trolls.

Quote from jem:

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