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
note... the above to videos were from believers with science backgrounds.
That is who I would have been posting if I wanted to allow you to argue bias.
There are hundreds more on you tube.
Polkinghorne is a interesting guy. A top notch physicist and cleric. YOu might want to listen to him.
That is who I would have been posting if I wanted to allow you to argue bias.
There are hundreds more on you tube.
Polkinghorne is a interesting guy. A top notch physicist and cleric. YOu might want to listen to him.
No indeed. The fool that started this nonsense was Jem.Quote from pspr:
I'm not the fool who started this nonsense.
I was being polite. What you pointed out is foolish... something a fool would point out.Quote from pspr:
You are the idiot that started calling people fools just because I pointed out that jem kicks your ass in this thread.
And you have presented what exactly apart from a lesson in projecting your own obvious shortcomings and brown nosing your Godbuddy.Quote from pspr:
You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paperbag. You present no valid arguments. You present no data. You present no evidence. You don't even point out links to people who do have those things.
I've provided many if not all those things. You clearly haven't been paying attention. But the point is, as any fool can't see, as you are proving, the argument is really about Jem telling lies, distorting fact, misrepresenting the very stuff he repeatedly and compulsively posts.
It's about how for example he produces the OP video, makes a false claim about what is actually stated in it , then instead of honestly addressing the criticism raised at what he has done, just repeats the vid again and again and again with the name calling , while making the same false and untruthful claim over and over.
He uses the same tactic with text. Even changes the wording of things I say, lies about what I say, then tries to blame me for lying.
You miss all that how exactly.
I point out how and why the conclusions Jem leaps to are crap, and it is mainly because he is constantly and dishonestly misrepresenting the same information over and over.Quote from pspr:
All you do is point out what jem has already said and the information he has provided. I doubt you even read the information at his links because you sound like a fool every time you try to say something.
You probably haven't understood how Jem is all the things you are trying to call me.Quote from pspr:
You probably haven't even watched the video that is the OP of this tread.
Yeah well , that's what the likes of you and Jem do. With your head so far up your ass and his too, you can't see how his claims are so ludicrous and full of bull.Quote from pspr:
You just repeated show the fine people reading this forum that you are an obnoxious fool who is missing the answers of life. You'll never get it.
Don't get too carried away with yourself. "The fine people reading this forum" will just as likely find you the obnoxious fool.
And if you think not "missing the answers of life" is to indulge in the kind of make-believe world of willful vulgar ignorance you and Jem indulge in, then no thanks. That sounds like no kind of answer to anything and I'd rather not get it, and wouldn't want it even if I did.
It's already been established. The only way you can counter what I say, is to lie about what I say.Quote from jem:
Stu once said that Susskind was not really saying the universe appeared designed.
Are you now trying to break your own record of repeat posting videos with repeat posting outright lies.
The thing is you don't think. That's your problem, as well as of course as not wanting to think.Quote from jem:
I thought you said that our cosmological constant could be positive.
I said no one knows what the value of the cosmological constant is. Science hypothesizes a positive value to coincide with other observations and currently considers it to be a tiny fraction away from zero.
It is not likely to be negative in an expanding universe. It is not known to be the same throughout the universe. There are models for a universal value and models for differing values. New discoveries in dark energy/dark matter will start to answer the question. God won't.
You claiming it IS incredibly fine tuned - is bullshit .
Susskind says it appears to be - gives an impression of - being at a particular value. But it is not known. Never has been.
You don't want to allow arguing bias , so you posted Susskind , and you alter what he says !!Quote from jem:
note... the above to videos were from believers with science backgrounds.
That is who I would have been posting if I wanted to allow you to argue bias.
There are hundreds more on you tube.
Polkinghorne is a interesting guy. A top notch physicist and cleric. YOu might want to listen to him.
You don't want to allow arguing bias , so you posted Hawking , and you decided it is all 'pure speculation'.
You are no further on. Your ridiculous claims are still...ridiculous. But at least you've found some new videos to flood the place with and repeat post, without being able to honestly debate, discuss, or rationalize any of them of course. As has been the case all along with Susskind and others.
There are clerics with science backgrounds that suggest imaginary God might prefer a multiverse as the most elegant way to achieve this one.
But of course , although math and physics based - and here - religiously based also,, multiverse is merely "pure speculation" according to you.
WTF that makes imaginary God, with no math and no physics and no reasoning behind it, is something else you obviously haven't even comprehended.
Fine-tuning is not what you want it to be. An unknown value that should be zero to all intents and purposes, but which is a fraction off, is not what a rational person would say IS a fine tuned value. Scientists use the term fine-tuning in a way you are not.
You're no further than your OP. Have no more of an argument than you had then, which was none. Have made no point , except perhaps how much of a prick you can be.
No, it was you. Jem just posted a very interesting video that you have been trying unsuccessfully to refute for over 50 pages of posts.Quote from stu:
No indeed. The fool that started this nonsense was Jem.
Hardly. If you were polite you wouldn't still be posting your repeated BS in this thread. Your sense of fairness is out of whack. I suspect that is because your logic is flawed and your manner divisive.I was being polite. What you pointed out is foolish... something a fool would point out.
I think you are talking about brown nosing your fellow atheists. I merely pointed out after 50 pages of your nonsense that you were getting no where and jem was the only one presenting factual information that seemed correct. You on the other hand just repost the same old tired foolish denials. No doubt, you haven't even watched the video that started this thread.And you have presented what exactly apart from a lesson in projecting your own obvious shortcomings and brown nosing your Godbuddy.
Your shoe is on the wrong foot. You have shown us NOTHING to make your point. How could you? Jem is the only one posting factual information here with links and videos.I've provided many if not all those things. You clearly haven't been paying attention. But the point is, as any fool can't see, as you are proving, the argument is really about Jem telling lies, distorting fact, misrepresenting the very stuff he repeatedly and compulsively posts.
It's only false in your eyes. It's not even false in the eyes of the cosmologists in the video way back on page 1. I think everyone here can see what a trite fool you must be to make the posts you do. You have not refuted by one iota that the fine tuning of the universe requires a fine tuner. All you have are unproven theories that have absolutely NO evidence to back them up. NONE!It's about how for example he produces the OP video, makes a false claim about what is actually stated in it , then instead of honestly addressing the criticism raised at what he has done, just repeats the vid again and again and again with the name calling , while making the same false and untruthful claim over and over.
If you are trying to tell me that jem is the one lying and you are not all I can do is laugh at that statement. It is nonsense.He uses the same tactic with text. Even changes the wording of things I say, lies about what I say, then tries to blame me for lying.
Jem has only supported the statements made in the video. You have not presented anything that refutes what is said in the video. FOR OVER 50 PAGES NO LESS!!!I point out how and why the conclusions Jem leaps to are crap, and it is mainly because he is constantly and dishonestly misrepresenting the same information over and over.
You probably haven't understood how Jem is all the things you are trying to call me.
The common denominator between jem and I is the truth. We go where the facts take us. You on the other hand have an agenda and look for or make up facts that support you belief. You're doing it all wrong!Yeah well , that's what the likes of you and Jem do. With your head so far up your ass and his too, you can't see how his claims are so ludicrous and full of bull.
There you go again making your outlandishly offensive ad hominem attacks. You are right that the readers know who the fool is here. And, it isn't jem or myself.Don't get too carried away with yourself. "The fine people reading this forum" will just as likely find you the obnoxious fool.
Now you think YOU are the great thinker, pacifist and keeper of the book of knowledge. Sadly you are none of those things, stu. You are just a little pawn who has gone through life making mistake after mistake with your life and as a result have tainted the lives of those around you.And if you think not "missing the answers of life" is to indulge in the kind of make-believe world of willful vulgar ignorance you and Jem indulge in, then no thanks. That sounds like no kind of answer to anything and I'd rather not get it, and wouldn't want it even if I did.
I'm sorry for you stu. You have very little going for you and the numbers of outright silly posts you have made in this thread is a testament to that fact.
My advice to you is to stop making a fool of yourself by posting your repeated nonsense in this thread. Every post you make here is an insult to thinking men and women.
now you are a complete fucking asshole.
I do not alter what the scientists say. I post their fricken videos.
the rest of what you just wrote is bullshit.
you have no truthful answers so you lie your ass off.
now for your troll science.
what a lying db you are.
a, They call them constants because as far as science can tell they are the same throughtout our universe. Constants in other universe with other models are just that speculative models.
You are misrepresenting science for fact again.
b. Susskind you are misrepresenting Susskind again. he says appears because he hopes to find almost infinite other universes.
But, again you are trying to create a troll diversion. Even if it is just an appearance that the cosmological constant is tuned to 120 decimal places. That appearance of tunings... causes Susskind God is one of the possible explanations for that appearance of tuning.
c. there you go with your troll stupidity again. the speculation is the multiverse. The tuning to 120 decimals is not. Hawking tells you that if you apply classical physics you conclude either a Tuner/Creator or inflation in which you lose all ability to predict.
d. With respect to the fine tuning it is sort of speculation that we have a Tuner. I have told you that before. you have a choice faith in a Tuner or faith in a multiverse.
As scientist Bernard Carr says...
If there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008
First of all... in the only universe we know of
I do not alter what the scientists say. I post their fricken videos.
the rest of what you just wrote is bullshit.
you have no truthful answers so you lie your ass off.
now for your troll science.
what a lying db you are.
a, They call them constants because as far as science can tell they are the same throughtout our universe. Constants in other universe with other models are just that speculative models.
You are misrepresenting science for fact again.
b. Susskind you are misrepresenting Susskind again. he says appears because he hopes to find almost infinite other universes.
But, again you are trying to create a troll diversion. Even if it is just an appearance that the cosmological constant is tuned to 120 decimal places. That appearance of tunings... causes Susskind God is one of the possible explanations for that appearance of tuning.
c. there you go with your troll stupidity again. the speculation is the multiverse. The tuning to 120 decimals is not. Hawking tells you that if you apply classical physics you conclude either a Tuner/Creator or inflation in which you lose all ability to predict.
d. With respect to the fine tuning it is sort of speculation that we have a Tuner. I have told you that before. you have a choice faith in a Tuner or faith in a multiverse.
As scientist Bernard Carr says...
If there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008
First of all... in the only universe we know of
Quote from stu:
It's already been established. The only way you can counter what I say, is to lie about what I say.
Are you now trying to break your own record of repeat posting videos with repeat posting outright lies.
The thing is you don't think. That's your problem, as well as of course as not wanting to think.
I said no one knows what the value of the cosmological constant is. Science hypothesizes a positive value to coincide with other observations and currently considers it to be a tiny fraction away from zero.
It is not likely to be negative in an expanding universe. It is not known to be the same throughout the universe. There are models for a universal value and models for differing values. New discoveries in dark energy/dark matter will start to answer the question. God won't.
You claiming it IS incredibly fine tuned - is bullshit .
Susskind says it appears to be - gives an impression of - being at a particular value. But it is not known. Never has been.
You don't want to allow arguing bias , so you posted Susskind , and you alter what he says !!
You don't want to allow arguing bias , so you posted Hawking , and you decided it is all 'pure speculation'.
You are no further on. Your ridiculous claims are still...ridiculous. But at least you've found some new videos to flood the place with and repeat post, without being able to honestly debate, discuss, or rationalize any of them of course. As has been the case all along with Susskind and others.
There are clerics with science backgrounds that suggest imaginary God might prefer a multiverse as the most elegant way to achieve this one.
But of course , although math and physics based - and here - religiously based also,, multiverse is merely "pure speculation" according to you.
WTF that makes imaginary God, with no math and no physics and no reasoning behind it, is something else you obviously haven't even comprehended.
Fine-tuning is not what you want it to be. An unknown value that should be zero to all intents and purposes, but which is a fraction off, is not what a rational person would say IS a fine tuned value. Scientists use the term fine-tuning in a way you are not.
You're no further than your OP. Have no more of an argument than you had then, which was none. Have made no point , except perhaps how much of a prick you can be.
You are wrong. I do not refute the video.Quote from pspr:
Jem just posted a very interesting video that you have been trying unsuccessfully to refute for over 50 pages of posts.
I refute the ridiculous conclusions Jem jumps to after misquoting and misrepresenting that "very interesting video" he's posted like an idiot a million times.
Oh I was being polite alright.Quote from pspr:
Hardly. If you were polite you wouldn't still be posting your repeated BS in this thread. Your sense of fairness is out of whack. I suspect that is because your logic is flawed and your manner divisive.
But what BS? What flawed logic? What divisive manner?
You don't like that I'll refute and debunk Jem's BS, flawed logic and divisive manner, so you make some wild accusations about me. What for.... Hoping scatter gunned mud can stick somewhere?
While you brown nose Jem, you think I'm brown nosing.Quote from pspr:
I think you are talking about brown nosing your fellow atheists. I merely pointed out after 50 pages of your nonsense that you were getting no where and jem was the only one presenting factual information that seemed correct. You on the other hand just repost the same old tired foolish denials. No doubt, you haven't even watched the video that started this thread.
Jem reposts the same tired old videos to make the same tired old assertions and reposts the same tired old foolish denials and does not directly address the issues raised. Because I challenge him, you think I do all those things. Typical theist approach to reasoning.
Jem is posting the same tired old links and videos so as to misquote, misunderstand, draw false conclusions, and lie about them. He's making a point doing that?Quote from pspr:
your shoe is on the wrong foot. You have shown us NOTHING to make your point. How could you? Jem is the only one posting factual information here
with links and videos.
You think?.
What, making the point he's a lunatic?
Why do you need a video or links from me to understand Jem is doing little else but making wild assertions from misquoting misunderstanding and lying in this and other threads about what is actually being said in links/videos..... and even altering what I have stated.
What's false in my eyes is Jem's and now your, absurd nonsense. Listen to yourself...."...the fine tuning of the universe.." That's the thing with theists like yourself and Jem. You tend towards herd-think and don't really think at all.Quote from pspr:
It's only false in your eyes. It's not even false in the eyes of the cosmologists in the video way back on page 1. I think everyone here can see what a trite fool you must be to make the posts you do. You have not refuted by one iota that the fine tuning of the universe requires a fine tuner. All you have are unproven theories that have absolutely NO evidence to back them up. NONE!
From all those tired old links and videos, you'll take the phrase fine-tuning as a given , without question, which it is not, and is not made or confirmed to be a given in any of those links and videos. Then you deny any possible scientific explanation as mere speculation only because you want to attach an imaginary God which is far worse than mere speculation anyway. Pfft.
You refute yourselves really. I hardly need to produce more evidence.
My advice to you is to stop brown nosing your Godbuddy, stop trying to sound holier than thou and do a little critical thinking on the subject. Or better still, just clear off and be content with your obsessive compulsive thread starting disorder.Quote from pspr:
My advice to you.......
As angry and agressive in denial as ever. Well, it's only what one might expect a "man of God" to act like.Quote from jem:
now you are a complete fucking asshole.
I do not alter what the scientists say. I post their fricken videos.
the rest of what you just wrote is bullshit.
you have no truthful answers so you lie your ass off.
now for your troll science.
what a lying db you are.
But whatever. You are a liar.
Some information for you. When a scientist says in a video you keep posting, there is an appearance of fine tuning, and then you state he is saying "the universe is incredibly fine tuned".........that's you lying. You posting the video like a lunatic a million times does not remove your lies about it.
You even do the same with me and alter what I have said. Your own perverse form of unintentional flattery.
Quote from jem:
a, They call them constants because as far as science can tell they are the same throughtout our universe. Constants in other universe with other models are just that speculative models.
You are misrepresenting science for fact again.
Here, it seems yours and pspr's education is restricted to what you see on the internet.
You like to keep posting an economist link so this should suit you fine.....
- http://www.economist.com/node/16930866
A new piece of astrophysical research may, however, have uncovered a crucial piece of the puzzle. In a paper just submitted to Physical Review Letters, a team led by John Webb and Julian King from the University of New South Wales in Australia present evidence that the fine-structure constant may not actually be constant after all. Rather, it seems to vary from place to place within the universe. If their results hold up to the scrutiny, and can be replicated, they will have profound implicationsâfor they suggest that the universe stretches far beyond what telescopes can observe, and that the laws of physics vary within it. Instead of the whole universe being fine-tuned for life, then, humanity finds itself in a corner of space where, Goldilocks-like, the values of the fundamental constants happen to be just right for it.
When anyone says the universe is fine tuned, they are making a giant assumption. It's "pure speculation" as you would put it.
another....
- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inconstant-constants-jan-12
A Ruler You Can Trust
[...] Ever since the 1930s researchers have speculated that the constants may not be constant. String theory gives this idea a theoretical plausibility and makes it all the more important for observers to search for deviations from constancy.
So called Fine-tuning is just as speculative as you say multiverse is.
Dear me, now you're rambling again. He says appears because he is a physicist and as a physicist, he knows as every other physicist knows, there is no science to confirm the values of cosmological constants are actually fine tuned at all.Quote from jem:
b. Susskind you are misrepresenting Susskind again. he says appears because he hopes to find almost infinite other universes.
But, again you are trying to create a troll diversion. Even if it is just an appearance that the cosmological constant is tuned to 120 decimal places. That appearance of tunings... causes Susskind God is one of the possible explanations for that appearance of tuning.
Fine tuning is a phrase. I already said to you. It is an idiomatic expression. Everybody knows that, apart from certain dishonest religious types. Like you and pspr for instance.
So you're saying a cosmological value to 120 places based on incomplete information is not speculation, but a multiverse based on incomplete information is speculation. Yeah right, that works.. duh.Quote from jem:
c. there you go with your troll stupidity again. the speculation is the multiverse. The tuning to 120 decimals is not. Hawking tells you that if you apply classical physics you conclude either a Tuner/Creator or inflation in which you lose all ability to predict.
Hawking tells everyone ... "It is not necessary to invoke God....."
Quite obviously, you are not understanding Hawking.
By faith in a Tuner, you mean for no scientific reason, believing in an imaginary God that has no basis in scientific fact, no scientific evidence, no scientific value and fundamentally can actually be no explanation at all.Quote from jem:
d. With respect to the fine tuning it is sort of speculation that we have a Tuner. I have told you that before. you have a choice faith in a Tuner or faith in a multiverse.
As against scientific information, scientific fact, scientific evidence and knowledge gained from scientific discoveries.
And I told you before, 'faith or multiverse' is a false dilemma. There are many scientific models for a universe, any of which can be rejected or confirmed as and when scientific information, discovery and knowledge arrives
As far as your imaginary friend goes, nothing changes. It's just always imaginary.
That's why you've been dishonestly trying to latch it onto science for 50 pages . It won't work.
a. you... troll out you previously discussed concepts.
the fine structure constant is not the cosmological constant.
and so far they just checking into it.
b. If you do a search on jem and appears -- you will see pages and pages of instances which I state the the physicsts say the universe appears finely tuned. This is another troll argument you are making.
I do not care whether that say appears finely tuned or that our universe is finely tuned... as many of them have said.
this is just a troll point you are making.
c. Remember I am the one who agrees with what Susskind says in the video. You are the troll that can not stand that one of the possible causes of the fine tuning is God.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
the fine structure constant is not the cosmological constant.
and so far they just checking into it.
b. If you do a search on jem and appears -- you will see pages and pages of instances which I state the the physicsts say the universe appears finely tuned. This is another troll argument you are making.
I do not care whether that say appears finely tuned or that our universe is finely tuned... as many of them have said.
this is just a troll point you are making.
c. Remember I am the one who agrees with what Susskind says in the video. You are the troll that can not stand that one of the possible causes of the fine tuning is God.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>