Video| Fine Tuning from the Top Scientists

[stu]

Present science!?...to you!?? don't make me laugh. What, so you can misread, misinterpret, misrepresent and misquote it like you always do.

The cosmological constant (vacuum energy), is a mathematical function, not a known or fixed value of the universe.

When Einstein included the term in General Relativity he set its value to zero.
Zero, 0 or removed altogether, now corresponds to what dark energy is anticipated to act like rather than the static universe Einstein understood. He may have been correct all along. Odds on he is right, but for a different reason.

The infinitesimally tiny zero+ 108 to around 130 decimal places, accounts for an expanding universe but is a value based upon incomplete information.

As I say, the things you write make it obvious you don't understand what you are talking about.

If you're still guessing Hawking's 'populating the landscape' is Multiverse, even though it isn't, and even though he doesn't even mention the word, and even though one of your own links told you it wasn't Multiverse, then there is many a Multiverse anyway, in the form of electrons.

Susskind says there is a Multiverse.... indeed. You said you agreed with Susskind. Shot yourself in the foot AGAIN.

Why don't you take those ridiculous Godgoggles off and go do some proper research and educate yourself for once.

 

[jem]

you misrepresent the state of science again to avoid admitting you misrepresented the cosmological constant.

show us how the cosmological constant could be zero in our universe.

susskind guts everything you say in that video.
he explains the cosmological constant at about 4 mins. could some knew complete theory explain this... yes.

but til then you are lying your ass off.

===

Susskind does not say there is a multiverse.
He says one explanation for the knife's edge fine tuning of the cosmological constant could be the multiverse.
(once again you confuse fact with speculation)

he explains the landscape and the multiverse and the megaverse are the same explanation - speculation.

In a similar way Hawking says top down cosmology could allow us to explain the fine tuning of our universe.

Quote from stu:

Present science!?...to you!?? don't make me laugh. What, so you can misread, misinterpret, misrepresent and misquote it like you always do.

The cosmological constant (vacuum energy), is a mathematical function, not a known or fixed value of the universe.

When Einstein included the term in General Relativity he set its value to zero.
Zero, 0 or removed altogether, now corresponds to what dark energy is anticipated to act like rather than the static universe Einstein understood. He may have been correct all along. Odds on he is right, but for a different reason.

The infinitesimally tiny zero+ 108 to around 130 decimal places, accounts for an expanding universe but is a value based upon incomplete information.

As I say, the things you write make it obvious you don't understand what you are talking about.

If you're still guessing Hawking's 'populating the landscape' is Multiverse, even though it isn't, and even though he doesn't even mention the word, and even though one of your own links told you it wasn't Multiverse, then there is many a Multiverse anyway, in the form of electrons.

Susskind says there is a Multiverse.... indeed. You said you agreed with Susskind. Shot yourself in the foot AGAIN.

Why don't you take those ridiculous Godgoggles off and go do some proper research and educate yourself for once.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
you misrepresent the state of science again to avoid admitting you misrepresented the cosmological constant.

show us how the cosmological constant could be zero in our universe.

susskind guts everything you say in that video.
he explains the cosmological constant at about 4 mins. could some knew complete theory explain this... yes.

but til then you are lying your ass off.

===

Susskind does not say there is a multiverse.
He says one explanation for the knife's edge fine tuning of the cosmological constant could be the multiverse.
(once again you confuse fact with speculation)

he explains the landscape and the multiverse and the megaverse are the same explanation - speculation.

In a similar way Hawking says top down cosmology could allow us to explain the fine tuning of our universe.

I said how the cosmological constant could be zero. Wake up.
Susskind explains the cosmological constant at a value allowing for an expanding universe. Dark energy could do away with the cosmological constant and its so called 'fine-tuning' all together.

It's obvious you don't understand what you are talking about. No need for you to keep confirming it.


Susskind does NOT say there IS fine tuning. He states only an appearance of fine tuning - speculative.
So like Multiverse then - speculative.

Shooting yourself in the foot like that so many times now, surely it has to hurt sooner or later.

Hawking has already explained there is no need for so called fine-tuning.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

 

[jem]

caught you lying your ass off again.

Quote from stu:

Susskind called the cosmological constant the worst prediction ever. Physicists have no consensus on an actual or exact calculation of it. It is given an apparent value only.
A value that, if it were slightly less, physicists say would be far more favorable to the formation of galaxies than is the case.

Your imaginary 'tuner' messed up. Any God worth its salt would have it smack on. A magic number that couldn't be any other way.

Because the cosmological constant is not necessarily at an optimal value, and doesn't apparently need be, the universe gets filled with void and black holes instead, and it turns out your "Tuner" didn't need to hit any 120 decimal places anyhow.

It could have settled for zero, the universe would be still be expanding but slower, and there would be many more galaxies, further increasing odds that life would form.

 

[jem]

more complete bullshit on the subject by stu.
he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory..

what an an ignorant lie.

Quote from stu:

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]

Quote from jem:
caught you lying your ass off again.

You not understanding the subject or being purposely ignorant about it, or both, is not me lying.

Quote from jem:
he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory..

Lol.
Look, I already suggested you go and educate yourself first, to stop making such a fool of yourself.

 

[jem]

How dare you... put my name next to your quotes..
that is the lowest scum troll trick I have seen.

i can not believe you wrote that I wrote this...

"he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory"

and then tried to act like I wrote it.

 

[pspr]

Quote from jem:

How dare you... put my name next to your quotes..
that is the lowest scum troll trick I have seen.

i can not believe you wrote that I wrote this...

"he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory"

and then tried to act like I wrote it.

stu has stooped to a new low and has violated the ET rules. Where's a mod when you need one?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
How dare you... put my name next to your quotes..
that is the lowest scum troll trick I have seen.

i can not believe you wrote that I wrote this...

"he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory"

and then tried to act like I wrote it.

That was a genuine mistake. It was not intentional.
Sometimes I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to the large number of bullshit claims you make and I posted that without checking as I usually do.

"what an an ignorant lie. " ..was the quote of yours I intended to point this, my response at .....

Lol.
Look, I already suggested you go and educate yourself first, to stop making such a fool of yourself.

....and I do that now.



The tiny positive 120 decimal point or whatever cosmological constant, grew around dark energy theory.

You say multiverse is speculative.
According to your trash claims, it must be dark energy theory is not speculative, and furthermore Susskind must be wrong, according to your nonsense, when he states what the cosmological constant appears -as in gives the impression- to be.


Basically making absurd remarks and ridiculous claims in support for a God Tuner, is not going to make a God Tuner any the less absurd and ridiculous.

It was funny watching Mr no substance pspr jump out of his cot though.

 

[jem]

again you are mixing theory and fact.

if you wish to say that you are denying the standard model and therefore do not accept that the some of the constants are tuned from 30 to 120 ish decimal places just say it.

stop bullshitting your ass off and just admit you deny current science.

just admit the standard model is very bad for your atheist random chance worldview.

Quote from stu:

That was a genuine mistake. It was not intentional.
Sometimes I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to the large number of bullshit claims you make and I posted that without checking as I usually do.

"what an an ignorant lie. " ..was the quote of yours I intended to point this, my response at .....

Lol.
Look, I already suggested you go and educate yourself first, to stop making such a fool of yourself.

....and I do that now.



The tiny positive 120 decimal point or whatever cosmological constant, grew around dark energy theory.

You say multiverse is speculative.
According to your trash claims, it must be dark energy theory is not speculative, and furthermore Susskind must be wrong, according to your nonsense, wrong when he states what the cosmological constant appears -as in gives the impression- to be.