Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

yeah yeah, whatever.

There are only two that matter. You have a really hard time with logic.

I think you should go argue something much simpler that you might be able to understand. Like how do the Keeber Elf bake all those cookies. That's about your speed.

Every time you reply to jem on this subject you just show how ignorant you are. There are many like yourself who are completely blind. You should argue with them since facts don't matter to you.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

I think jem's battle is more with himself really.

Either that is the stupidest comment on this board OR you are the stupidest person on this board to keep arguing a point you claim to have already won.

Unfortunately for you it is the former.

 

[jem]

In help our ongoing study of an atheist's break with reality why don't you quote susskind.... at about 6:15 to 6: 30 on this tape.

"Susskind says... basically there are three explanations. (for the knifes edge tuings)
The host says number one
Susskind says God."
Then the host says number 2 and they actually discuss 4 possible explanations.

Quote from jem:

how could you lie your ass off like that.

all you have to do is watch the video.
Just about everything you say is completly contrary to science and what Susskind is saying. Listen at 5mins 40 seconds and puke on yourself.


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

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:
There are only two that matter. You have a really hard time with logic.

I think you should go argue something much simpler that you might be able to understand. Like how do the Keeber Elf bake all those cookies. That's about your speed.

Every time you reply to jem on this subject you just show how ignorant you are. There are many like yourself who are completely blind. You should argue with them since facts don't matter to you.

Three explanations, God-chance-don't know, are equally explanied. That is..not at all.

There is only one explanation that is given any explanation at all and it's science based. Megaverse.
You have a very difficult time being rational.

With your head so far up jem's ass now it's just getting.... well.... totally gross.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

In help our ongoing study of an atheist's break with reality why don't you quote susskind.... at about 6:15 to 6: 30 on this tape.

"Susskind says... basically there are three explanations. (for the knifes edge tuings)
The host says number one
Susskind says God."
Then the host says number 2 and they actually discuss 4 possible explanations.

No they actually discuss and explain one explanation. It's not 'God', it's not 'chance', it's not 'don't know'.

It's no good accusing me of breaking with reality when you already have.

I have quoted Susskind. That's when you usually ignore or start with your lying or name calling or go off into fantasy land.

Those are the only four explanations you have.

 

[VVV1234]

Yes, Susskind says, 'God" and then laughs sarcastically.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

Three explanations, God-chance-don't know, are equally explanied. That is..not at all.

There is only one explanation that is given any explanation at all and it's science based. Megaverse.
You have a very difficult time being rational.

With your head so far up jem's ass now it's just getting.... well.... totally gross.

Why do you insist upon being so stuPID? At the fine tuning number you can rule out chance and you can rule out, luck dumb ass.

You are just a moron troll with shit for brains. Keep posting, I like to see you embarrassing yourself here. StuPID.

 

[jem]

wow... another break with reality...

so when Hawking says this.. in a major paper in which he tries to make the multiverse argument more scientific he was not being serious... also?



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


...

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.

Quote from VVV1234:

Yes, Susskind says, 'God" and then laughs sarcastically.

 

[jem]

Here is an interesting blog which explains that with the LHC failing to provide any support for the mulitiverse speculation...
atheism might be trending down and out....

Note... warning... this is not hard science... it is a review of what is happening...


http://santitafarella.wordpress.com...ble-does-that-mean-atheism-is-in-trouble-too/



"In 2008, cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University of London, told a science journalist for Discover the following:

If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse."

....



"And, as for Scientific American’s recent coverage of the multiverse hypothesis, Woit is critical:

One might be tempted to criticize Scientific American for keeping this alive, but they just reflect the fact that this pseudo-science continues to have significant influence at the highest levels of the physics establishment.

The multiverse is pseudo-science. Really?

Based on what Bernard Carr said in 2008, and what Woit reports of the goings-on at the String 2011 Conference and in Scientific American, should this alert us to the possibility that atheism itself might be quietly trending in the direction of Monty Python’s dead parrot?"

 

[jem]

String Theory... and this mulitverse speculation... dying a death of a 1000 cuts...

here is more on this...

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/string-theory-in-deep-trouble.html



In this case, physicists were looking for a particular particle called the "strange B meson" (Bs) to break into two more particles, called mu particles (&#956;+ and &#956;-). These strange B mesons usually only live for roughly just less than one trillionth of a second before breaking apart (called decaying). Here's where the Standard Model (SM) vs. Supersymmetry (SUSY) argument comes in.

If the SM is correct, about once in every 280 million times the Bs decays, the two &#956; particles should be detected. The number found by the LHC? Roughly once every 310 million times, with some uncertainty. Very close agreement, especially for such a rare and hard to detect decay.

So what does this say about string theory? If supersymmetry is correct, then this decay should occur far more often. In fact, by establishing this number, nearly all reasonable string theory models have failed in a testable prediction. (Unfortunately this prediction is so technical that it would require its own entire essay to explain.)

SUSY supporters had put forth a number for this prediction. Then, as noted by Peter Woit, they changed it when experimental data ruled them out. Then they were shown wrong and changed it again. Now the third prediction has proven wrong. Soon, we will reach a point where further changes in prediction will leave SUSY, and by extension string theory, practically unobservable to us, thus moving them out of the realm of science. String theory is truly being backed into a corner.

Being a popular and respected field, theoretical SUSY and string research will continue on. If more news like this keeps coming out, however, funding may begin to wane in the coming years. Perhaps this will spawn a fresh theory, both more testable and more accountable.