Fact is : my God can beat up your gawd.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.
Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Before criticizing others you need to go heal yourself first with the tone you present.
It doesn't surprise me you've made yourself your imaginary friend's bitch, but don't include me in your perversion. Not everyone folds like you have under a cheap threat.
Get back to me when you have anything of substance to say, pisspoor.
Well, so?
You keep posting the same fucking thing as if you had a point. You don't. Pretty much each time I told you why you don't, then you post the fucking thing again.
"you are such a troll" yourself.
Hawking describes wave function, by which he proposes all possible outcomes are capable of happening which the universe could evolve into.
One universe, all possible outcomes.
It's only you and a few other religious nuts wanting to say the word multiverse as if it would let your imaginary God into something or other.
Susskind is not Hawking.
- ..... "In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse." Stephen Hawking
Jem, you are just being an idiot, trying to make an idiot's argument.
first of all for our purposes... a universe with all possible histories would be the same as an a 10 to the 500 universe. I told you this before. Why are you trolling this crap again.
But you are wrong about top down cosmology anyway.
The point of Hawkings paper was to make the 10 to the 500 solutions to String Theory calculated by Polchinski a usable model.
Saying that the reason why our universe appeared tuned is because everything happens is a bad model. It leaves us unable to make predictions in our universe using classical physics... because we would not know which constants to use because they could always be different.
So Hawking proposed a multiverse within which the pocket universe had no boundry conditions.
Meaning that within the almost infinite universe mulitiverse... were universes with almost any history.
Those universes would be susceptible to calculation and prediction using the Feynman sum over histories.
In short he said the pocket universe at late times behaved as if they were the average history.
Its all very beautiful and speculative. its why I joked with you years ago... we sure are lucky our universe behaves liked the average of our histories.
How do I know this... I read the fricken paper...
Now... its not wrong of me to repost the paper.... because I am posting a link to the source. You are just restating your pulled out of your ass bullshit.
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.
But you are wrong about top down cosmology anyway.
The point of Hawkings paper was to make the 10 to the 500 solutions to String Theory calculated by Polchinski a usable model.
Saying that the reason why our universe appeared tuned is because everything happens is a bad model. It leaves us unable to make predictions in our universe using classical physics... because we would not know which constants to use because they could always be different.
So Hawking proposed a multiverse within which the pocket universe had no boundry conditions.
Meaning that within the almost infinite universe mulitiverse... were universes with almost any history.
Those universes would be susceptible to calculation and prediction using the Feynman sum over histories.
In short he said the pocket universe at late times behaved as if they were the average history.
Its all very beautiful and speculative. its why I joked with you years ago... we sure are lucky our universe behaves liked the average of our histories.
How do I know this... I read the fricken paper...
Now... its not wrong of me to repost the paper.... because I am posting a link to the source. You are just restating your pulled out of your ass bullshit.
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.
wtf yourself... you are being a moron.
i wonder how you could be such a moron as to deny that the constants are tuned to so many decimal points.
Now you come back an accept the math?
you are the constant troll. Denying science, denying math.
Denying the economist, denying what Hawking says.
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
i wonder how you could be such a moron as to deny that the constants are tuned to so many decimal points.
Now you come back an accept the math?
you are the constant troll. Denying science, denying math.
Denying the economist, denying what Hawking says.
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
What a load of utter horseshit. Where do you get that crap?
Hawking specifically does not include -the multiverse- or versions of -the multiverse- in top down.
In top down, Hawking proposes an initial condition for the universe as a quantum superimposition of all possible conditions. Theoretically possible for all the universe's properties to exist simultaneously but which only a very few contribute, similar thinking as in respect to Feynmanâs sum-over-paths quantum theory and electrons for example.
So the outcome of the universe is made inevitable as past conditions must lead to the present observed universe. An anthropic account without the multiverse.
You might as well say electrons are -the multiverse-. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
First you try to shoehorn God into top down. Having failed you seem to think if you can at least shoehorn a multiverse in so you can shout "speculation", that would be better than nothing.
Because you don't understand science and prefer only to read your own crap into it ,.... that is not me denying science.
It was not essential to know precise mathematical theoretical values for physical constants to propose Higgs as yet another of your ridiculous comments claims.
The problem Higgs would answer is to do with breaking symmetry, so that what would otherwise suggest massless elementary particles, confirms them to have mass in line with the Standard Model.
Trying to bluff your way out is only making your silly God nonsense worse.
I am not talking about proposing the higgs.. that was done in the 60s by Higgs.
I am talking about finding and confirming things like the location and the mass of the higgs. Which is why they were spending billions on a the LHC and why scientists were doing experiments.
The scientists wanted to confirm models.
They have confirmed the stand model and apparently not been able to confirm string theory. although I believe they are still running experiments.
----
you are such a fucking troll on this issue. go read some science.
Explain to yourself why the economist would say it took 20 constants or so measured out to about 32 places... if the standard model was not so finely tuned?
I tell you why they said it.
The standard model of physics is very finely tuned.
maybe now you understand why hawking tells you it looks like we are tuned.
I am talking about finding and confirming things like the location and the mass of the higgs. Which is why they were spending billions on a the LHC and why scientists were doing experiments.
The scientists wanted to confirm models.
They have confirmed the stand model and apparently not been able to confirm string theory. although I believe they are still running experiments.
----
you are such a fucking troll on this issue. go read some science.
Explain to yourself why the economist would say it took 20 constants or so measured out to about 32 places... if the standard model was not so finely tuned?
I tell you why they said it.
The standard model of physics is very finely tuned.
maybe now you understand why hawking tells you it looks like we are tuned.