Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

Well you've certainly shown often enough on this board how you can lose your head and still not understand much at all.

No matter how much "witnessing" you do lol, fact is, gravity not god, fuck face.

You say one thing, stuPID, and then contradict yourself. First you don't have an argument with the video but when the options mentioned are explained you go off another tangent like the lying fool you are.

You should just get the hell out of here and quit making a fool of yourself. You have got to be one of the biggest trolls, fools and liars to ever post on ET.

Why don't you tell us all about your science background, stuPID? You can't because you don't have a clue how science works. You're just a motherfucking idiot.

Later, bastard.

 

[jem]

wow you are a binary arguing troll.
you have been reduced to making illogical arguments.

Hawking does not say Top down cosmology is fact. It is speculation designed to make the multiverse idea scientific in that in top down cosmology you would be able to make predictions based on the Feyman sum over histories.

There is no proof of a single other universe. You saw the Guth video on this thread.

So why could I not agree?
Its like saying there could be an alternate universe in Star Trek.
Why not? Why would I rule out almost infinite other universes?

I doubt it will turn out they are real. But, I can be opened minded to it.

That is the difference between me and a closed minded 1950s thinking atheist like you.

Quote from stu:

You are a liar because of lies like the one you make right there. Get it ?


Bottom-up or top-down, you don't know what the hell it is you're agreeing with. You clearly don't realize what Hawking is agreeing with.




The calculation which gives a value, which you've said is 'incredibly fine tuned', is a calculation arrived at from calculations you say are nothing more than speculation.

As an eccentric theist, the pretty dumb arguments you make just like that one, will be par for the course.

 

[jem]

Stu... were these calculations real?
How did science predict where they would find the Higgs?
Were they guessing? or did they use models with incredibly precise constants.

Quote from jem:

So Stu if the tunings of the constants are not real.. how the heck did they find the Higgs. Was it just luck.

http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

The constant gardener

One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:
You say one thing, stuPID, and then contradict yourself. First you don't have an argument with the video but when the options mentioned are explained you go off another tangent like the lying fool you are.

You should just get the hell out of here and quit making a fool of yourself. You have got to be one of the biggest trolls, fools and liars to ever post on ET.

Why don't you tell us all about your science background, stuPID? You can't because you don't have a clue how science works. You're just a motherfucking idiot.

Later, bastard.

Quote from pspr:
I'm not angry. I don't get angry at foolish little morons posting insults on the Internet instead of saying somehing helpful about the thread topic.

LOL
You scored 2 from 2.

It can't be healthy reacting that way, just because your God got poked a bit with a stick. cheer up.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

wow you are a binary arguing troll.
you have been reduced to making illogical arguments.

Hawking does not say Top down cosmology is fact. It is speculation designed to make the multiverse idea scientific in that in top down cosmology you would be able to make predictions based on the Feyman sum over histories.

There is no proof of a single other universe. You saw the Guth video on this thread.

So why could I not agree?
Its like saying there could be an alternate universe in Star Trek.
Why not? Why would I rule out almost infinite other universes?

I doubt it will turn out they are real. But, I can be opened minded to it.

That is the difference between me and a closed minded 1950s thinking atheist like you.

For the umpteenth time, Hawking's top down does not invoke a multiverse. You don't understand top-down, Hawking, or what it is you are agreeing with.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu... were these calculations real?
How did science predict where they would find the Higgs?
Were they guessing? or did they use models with incredibly precise constants.

What are you talking about - "How did science predict where they would find the Higgs?"

Higgs was predicted by theorizing that tiny fractions of a second after big bang, some of the radiation energy would form the Higgs field.
In the Standard Model all particles then get all their mass from the Higgs mechanism.

How incredible precise or constant do you assume your "incredibly precise constants" would be without Higgs, without any mass.

You're always trying to look the wrong way down the telescope trying to make out the word God in the blur.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

LOL
You scored 2 from 2.

It can't be healthy reacting that way, just because your God got poked a bit with a stick. cheer up.

Just commenting in the same tone you present. If you say it can't be healthy then you had better see a doctor.

Nothing wrong with God. He's not mine. Like you, I'm his. You really shouldn't be saying you are poking anyone with a stick, let alone your creator. You could get yourself into some trouble. (not that you aren't already)

I see you conveniently avoided talking about your scientific background to be discussing science. But, we knew you have no training nor intellect for the subject matter.

You should just quit embarrassing yourself, stuPID.

 

[jem]

They had to know what and where to look in the LHC.

They use math for that...

not your brainless bullshit.

Quote from stu:

What are you talking about - "How did science predict where they would find the Higgs?"

Higgs was predicted by theorizing that tiny fractions of a second after big bang, some of the radiation energy would form the Higgs field.
In the Standard Model all particles then get all their mass from the Higgs mechanism.

How incredible precise or constant do you assume your "incredibly precise constants" would be without Higgs, without any mass.

You're always trying to look the wrong way down the telescope trying to make out the word God in the blur.

 

[jem]

1. you are such a troll how... many times do I have show you what Hawking says at the very beginning of the paper.

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

We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for
alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the
histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked.



2. And before you try your next line of bullshit (which you have lied about repeatedly). Susskinds name for the the 10 to the 500 solutions to string theory is the String Landscape which is an almost infinite amount of universes... also known as a multiverse.

Quote from stu:

For the umpteenth time, Hawking's top down does not invoke a multiverse. You don't understand top-down, Hawking, or what it is you are agreeing with.

 

[VVV1234]

Quote from pspr:

There sure are a lot of schizophrenics testifying in courts of law then. You should go put a stop to that.

Oh, and you should go look up the definition of schizophrenia.

Any sane and intelligent believer would quickly arrive at the conclusion that he himself is God. Why? Because after a while, he finds out that he is simply talking to himself when praying.