Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

Correction.

Trolling is the bullshit you are doing Stu.
You make statements which contradict science and you do not provide links.


This video contradicts everything you lie about.
Our universe appears fine tuned.
One explanation is God.
I stated Susskind speculates about infinite other universes.
why don't you have some balls and prove your statements.

This is my proof.
Its not trolling until you contradict it.




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Stu... are you having a break with reality?
This is what your wrote...
You wrote the very words you are now denying you wrote.

You lie your ass off... all the time.

You do not even remember that you were trying to change the plain meaning of the quote... by arguing that you really meant there is plenty of bullshit in what stu writes.

But... I will post your exact quote below...


http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...cience+showing+life+from+non+life#post3270666


I say this ....."There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
 
Quote from jem:
Correction.

Trolling is the bullshit you are doing Stu.
You make statements which contradict science and you do not provide links.

This video contradicts everything you lie about.
Our universe appears fine tuned.
One explanation is God.
I stated Susskind speculates about infinite other universes.
why don't you have some balls and prove your statements.

This is my proof.
Its not trolling until you contradict it.
More...
I don't need contradict anything you say. You do a good enough job of it yourself.

Already said a dozen times. If you are relying on Susskind as your authority and you then say he is speculating, then he is speculating. And logically, you've made a false appeal to authority.

If he is speculating about infinite universes, which the math he uses and the laws of physics do not contravene, , then he is certainly speculating about fine-tuning, considering there's only what's being called an appearance of it and no math or physics to support the assertion.

The reason you can't grasp any of this will be because you're in a state of utter denial. Even basic common sense has deserted you.
 
Quote from jem:

Stu... are you having a break with reality?
This is what your wrote...
You wrote the very words you are now denying you wrote.

You lie your ass off... all the time.

You do not even remember that you were trying to change the plain meaning of the quote... by arguing that you really meant there is plenty of bullshit in what stu writes.

But... I will post your exact quote below...


http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...cience+showing+life+from+non+life#post3270666
More...

I changed your fucking wrong quote of my quote.
YOUR WRONG quote you prick, hardly in English which grunted..... "there was plenty of science saying showing life evolved from non life."

This quote, which IS my quote..... "I said there is plenty of science showing how life can evolve from non life...."
And this, also my quote.... "there is plenty of science showing life from non life."

There's little or no difference in their meaning, nor in the fact they are both true statements.

This all just illustrates how totally messed up you get trying to push your ridiculous claims to absurd lengths.
You've made yourself look a big enough idiot and liar already. There's really no need to keep trying.
 
a. you deceitful troll..

you wrote this just a 2 or 3 pages ago.

I caught your lying ass you are attempting to change the argument.





Quote from stu:

http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...how+life+can+evolve+from+non+life#post3300639

  • 'The statement is and always was "there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life"
    Because on just about every occasion you can't even write it without changing it, doesn't make the statement itself untrue, it just makes you appear either dishonest or unintelligent or both.'

In a way I'm kinda flattered now, as you change my words and meaning as much as you do all your 'great minds of science'.
Though when it all boils down, you're still a liar.
More...
 
Your typical specious troll argument.

Just because a scientist speculates about a multiverse does not mean he is speculating about the cosmological constant being tuned to 120 decimal places according to our current science.


Quote from stu:

I don't need contradict anything you say. You do a good enough job of it yourself.

Already said a dozen times. If you are relying on Susskind as your authority and you then say he is speculating, then he is speculating. And logically, you've made a false appeal to authority.

If he is speculating about infinite universes, which the math he uses and the laws of physics do not contravene, , then he is certainly speculating about fine-tuning, considering there's only what's being called an appearance of it and no math or physics to support the assertion.

The reason you can't grasp any of this will be because you're in a state of utter denial. Even basic common sense has deserted you.
More...
 
Quote from jem:
a. you deceitful troll..
you wrote this just a 2 or 3 pages ago.
I caught your lying ass you are attempting to change the argument.
More...
You caught yourself.
In your own lie.
The evidence proves it.
 
Quote from jem:
Just because a scientist speculates about a multiverse does not mean he is speculating about the cosmological constant being tuned to 120 decimal places according to our current science.
More...
Susskind called the cosmological constant the worst prediction ever. Physicists have no consensus on an actual or exact calculation of it. It is given an apparent value only.
A value that, if it were slightly less, physicists say would be far more favorable to the formation of galaxies than is the case.

Your imaginary 'tuner' messed up. Any God worth its salt would have it smack on. A magic number that couldn't be any other way.

Because the cosmological constant is not necessarily at an optimal value, and doesn't apparently need be, the universe gets filled with void and black holes instead, and it turns out your "Tuner" didn't need to hit any 120 decimal places anyhow.

It could have settled for zero, the universe would be still be expanding but slower, and there would be many more galaxies, further increasing odds that life would form.
 
Quote from VVV1234:

Jem,

"God is Great"

- Al Queda
More...

you must be some sort of person who is afraid to understand science. So instead you post a strawman.

So here is one of the smartest guys on the planet.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and if you wish to see the science behind use the et search function.
I have posted it.

and here is Hawking...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

which discusses the fine tuning of our universe and how it can be explained.
...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top