Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
you get caught in some many lies... you then misrepresent what you cited just a few pages ago.
so in the bizarro world of stu... a few pages ago which stated string theory was an outgrowth from and idea began in the 40s... becomes string theory startedin the 40s. To get around the lie he recently made about Susskind.
All this to distract from the fact... Stu lies about the cosmological constant and the tuning of our universe.
Stu... you are science scum... you have the integrity of Obama's press secretary.
and
you take hawking out of context and completely distort what he wrote...
what you wrote is within the context of almost infinite universes and top down cosmology.
both... unproven exercises in faith.
So good for you stu... you have faith in unproven unseen other universes.... to combat the fine tuning of our universe.
so in the bizarro world of stu... a few pages ago which stated string theory was an outgrowth from and idea began in the 40s... becomes string theory startedin the 40s. To get around the lie he recently made about Susskind.
All this to distract from the fact... Stu lies about the cosmological constant and the tuning of our universe.
Stu... you are science scum... you have the integrity of Obama's press secretary.
and
you take hawking out of context and completely distort what he wrote...
what you wrote is within the context of almost infinite universes and top down cosmology.
both... unproven exercises in faith.
So good for you stu... you have faith in unproven unseen other universes.... to combat the fine tuning of our universe.
You're just talking drivel as usual.
Of course string theory began in the 1940's. Heisenberg was describing and developed the basis for and of string theory which physicists went on to develop versions and theories of well before Susskind.
Then came super-string theory.
Many notable physicist came before Susskind in earlier crucial developments of superstring theory. Susskind made important contributions some 30 or 40 years after Heisenberg and those earlier pioneers, adding the 'string landscape' catchy descriptive, popularizing the string landscape as it is often attributed to his name, but nevertheless, his area remains essentially a non-scientific proposition.
That in itself is not what string theory is, so saying he is a co founder is based more on urban myth than being factually correct. He has greatly popularized superstring theory and gets a lot of credit for the whole thing. Almost like saying Richard Dawkins is a co founder of evolution. You jerk.
Faith does not have any math, laws of physics or quantum mechanics to support its theories as science does.
Sheer fantasy supports the kind of faith you're so adversly susceptible to and the type of fine-tuning you mean just combats itself.
you are so full of distortions.
conflating his book from a few years ago... with the work he did in the 70s.
all your lies and distortions to get away from the simple fact that our universe is extemely finely tuned.
you can go off on your troll distortions....
but for years you also lied about what Susskind wrote
Just like you are lying about what Hawking meant.
But you can't lie about the core subject any longer.
Some of our constants are very finely tuned for life.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
conflating his book from a few years ago... with the work he did in the 70s.
all your lies and distortions to get away from the simple fact that our universe is extemely finely tuned.
you can go off on your troll distortions....
but for years you also lied about what Susskind wrote
Just like you are lying about what Hawking meant.
But you can't lie about the core subject any longer.
Some of our constants are very finely tuned for life.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
By the way for any of you who think the troll was telling the truth... compare what he wrote with what Scientific American wrote in a link I presented a few pages ago...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics
Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawkingâs conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the âlandscapeâ of string theory. It spoiled physicistsâ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics
Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawkingâs conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the âlandscapeâ of string theory. It spoiled physicistsâ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.
+1 Especially about him talking drivel as usual. Drivel is a good word to describe his babble.