Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Stu are you that dumb? Or are you that bad of troll.
He explains how the cosmological constant is on a knifes edge in the video. to 120 decimal places.
a. In the past, I presented you with quotes where Susskind he said that our universe looks spectacularly designed.
b. In the past I have given you links to Nobel Prize winner Stephen Weinberg calling it incredible fine tuning....
http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm
c. I have given you Penrose on video...
at about 4 minutes... and note... you know I have given you a link to the physics behind this statement... it is in his book. I gave you the link.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Stu... you foolish troll... you need to educate yourself... as this experience needs to be edifying for you.
IF you had half a brain you would allow science to disabuse you of your 1950s random chance world view.
from the New York Times...quoting the same quote... I gave you in the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html?_r=0
"His research, he declares, "touches not only on current paradigm shifts in physics and cosmology, but also on the profound cultural questions that are rocking our social and political landscape: can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?""
....
"Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life."
IF you had half a brain you would allow science to disabuse you of your 1950s random chance world view.
from the New York Times...quoting the same quote... I gave you in the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html?_r=0
"His research, he declares, "touches not only on current paradigm shifts in physics and cosmology, but also on the profound cultural questions that are rocking our social and political landscape: can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?""
....
"Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life."
LOL. Just responding in kind to your foolish post.Quote from stu:
"Lost the argument, eh? I still don't understand why people like you care what others think. Unless....you are afraid that there may really NOT be a God."
It's really too bad you don't have an original thought in your head. No wonder jem kicks you lyin' ass day in and day out. I sort of feel sorry for you looking so foolish in front of all the people who visit P&R just to read the posts.
â¦then you were responding to yourself. It's your quote, except for the word 'not' , you thick head.
You can keep peeing yourself and on Jem all you like for the warm feeling you seem to enjoy. It doesn't change the fact you havenât added a shred of substance but sound increasingly uncomfortable, as you and Jem just get more piss stained.
The cosmological constant is unknown. If you understood anything about the subject you'd understand that much.
Susskind is being no more precise than Albert Einstein who entered the factor (Lambada) in his gravitational equation for the cosmological constant. Einstein had the constant at implied zero. Susskind has it at an infinitesimally higher positive. A tiny fraction off of zero.
Susskind states he is not being precise. He says so. He forewords all with it appears or there is an appearance...
No one knows yet what the value is. Susskind arrives at it via string theory, which you stated is nothing but speculation. So then is the suggested cosmological constant at 120 decimal places from zero speculative , being derived from speculative string theory.
The evidence in this thread and others portrays you as an idiot and a liar.
You can't see the blindingly obvious but prefer to exist in ignorance, relying on out of context sound bites, so you can keep jumping to bullshit conclusions via the same old vids and blocks of text.
Stu you have turned into a comedy act.
Try a link to real science instead of troll bullshit.
You see susskind explaining the tuning to 120 decimal places on video and it does not enter your brain?
Where do you dream up your lies?
>>>>
...
"These hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implies that the cosmological constant (and the zero-point mass density) must be slightly nonzero. This "dark energy," which is the unknown force accelerating the universe, also appears to be just what is needed to fill the 70% "missing mass" of the universe, namely the mass needed to explain the observed fact that space is very nearly flat (i.e., locally it appears to be almost perfectly rectilinear) [Panek2011]. But this means that physicists are left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit. This is an even stranger paradox! Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago [Susskind2005, pg. 80-82]."
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000,
but instead:
1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."
http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm
Try a link to real science instead of troll bullshit.
You see susskind explaining the tuning to 120 decimal places on video and it does not enter your brain?
Where do you dream up your lies?
>>>>
...
"These hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implies that the cosmological constant (and the zero-point mass density) must be slightly nonzero. This "dark energy," which is the unknown force accelerating the universe, also appears to be just what is needed to fill the 70% "missing mass" of the universe, namely the mass needed to explain the observed fact that space is very nearly flat (i.e., locally it appears to be almost perfectly rectilinear) [Panek2011]. But this means that physicists are left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit. This is an even stranger paradox! Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago [Susskind2005, pg. 80-82]."
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000,
but instead:
1000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."
http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm
Is that all you can do is repeat what I say like a parrot?
How stupid do you have to be to just go on like that? Are you 4 years old or have that mental capacity? It sure seems so.
Just because I see jem rip you a new one every time you open your mouth you just repeat what ever I say. Why don't you just say nothing? Then nobody would realize how immature and juvenile you are not to mention your lack of understanding.