You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from jem:
I was calling him sock puppet friend.
Stu likes to gather around his sock puppets to cheer him on.
FC may actually be from a different group of puppets.
It's what you would do. You don't even seem clear what a sockpuppet entails yet the only sock puppet here was caught red-handed being used by you.
So you think it's me ... figures. That's the kind of f'kd up logic an idiot like you would try to argue with.
Quote from jem:
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.
You are projecting again, accusing me of doing exactly what you've done.
You are lying again, connecting Susskind and Hawking to words they don't even use or suggest.
You are being dishonest again. There is no simple fact nor any facts nor any science whatsoever for that matter, that shows the universe 'is very fine tuned' or even fine tuned at all for life.
One can only guess hallucinating that way must, weird as it is, somehow help you get through the day.
That's the thing with you. If Scientific America told you the Earth was flat you would accept that if you believed it helped your fantasies..Quote from jem:
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...
It's impossible Susskind is the co founder of string theory as string theory was actually founded before he was even on the scene.
If there was a founder or founders they came in the form guys who first explained mathematically elementary particles not as point particles, but as extended one-dimensional objects off of Heisenberg. Veneziano discovered that in the 60's.
The early, most important, people establishing string theory, were doing so before Susskind's time and of course it could not therefore include him.
Susskind like many other physicists are important figures able to expand further on the pioneering work which they were not even around for. He sells books, is an influential, brilliant scientist and has clearly a very good publicist, who obviously promotes him as a co founder of string theory, when actually to anyone who cares to check properly, and not be led by the nose like you, can see he couldn't actually have been co founder...you goof..
But it really doesn't matter anyway. Everything he says undermines or destroys your silly "extremely fine tuned" concepts.
"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" Leonard Susskind
..says it all really.
No Stu... I cite to others to prove you are full of shit. When many others say you are full of shit... and I say you are full of shit...
you are full of shit.
he is a short version...
-Stu argues with dictionaries on the definition of atheism.
-He argues with Christians on the definition of being a Christian.
-He argues with historians on the historicity of Christ.
-Now he is reinventing string theory and arguing against scientific american and many others about Susskind being a co founder of String theory. .
- He completely lied about what Susskind had written and he lied about for 5 to 7 years til I produced videos.
- To this day he misrepresents what Hawking wrote about gravity...
- He lied about the fine tuning of the comological constant claiming it could be in a different range than it is. If I recall he declared in could be zero.
He lies on many other threads on et with other members
What a fricken troll you are Stu.
Projection is your troll tactic.
you are full of shit.
he is a short version...
-Stu argues with dictionaries on the definition of atheism.
-He argues with Christians on the definition of being a Christian.
-He argues with historians on the historicity of Christ.
-Now he is reinventing string theory and arguing against scientific american and many others about Susskind being a co founder of String theory. .
- He completely lied about what Susskind had written and he lied about for 5 to 7 years til I produced videos.
- To this day he misrepresents what Hawking wrote about gravity...
- He lied about the fine tuning of the comological constant claiming it could be in a different range than it is. If I recall he declared in could be zero.
He lies on many other threads on et with other members
What a fricken troll you are Stu.
Projection is your troll tactic.
Quote from stu:
That's the thing with you. If Scientific America told you the Earth was flat you would accept that if you believed it helped your fantasies..
It's impossible Susskind is the co founder of string theory as string theory was actually founded before he was even on the scene.
If there was a founder or founders they came in the form guys who first explained mathematically elementary particles not as point particles, but as extended one-dimensional objects off of Heisenberg. Veneziano discovered that in the 60's.
The early, most important, people establishing string theory, were doing so before Susskind's time and of course it could not therefore include him.
Susskind like many other physicists are important figures able to expand further on the pioneering work which they were not even around for. He sells books, is an influential, brilliant scientist and has clearly a very good publicist, who obviously promotes him as a co founder of string theory, when actually to anyone who cares to check properly, and not be led by the nose like you, can see he couldn't actually have been co founder...you goof..
But it really doesn't matter anyway. Everything he says undermines or destroys your silly "extremely fine tuned" concepts.
"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" Leonard Susskind
..says it all really.
Stu cites to the title of Susskind's book...
in which he explains the fine tunings by suggesting the multiverse.
for five to seven years here on ET stu argued that Susskind would never say the things he says on this video about the fine tunings and thatg God could be one of the reasons. Stu lied and lied and lied and lied for 5 to seven years... he made up all sorts of elaborate distortions about science to avoid this one basic fact.... the fine tuning of our universe is evidence of a Creator.
This is the video that proves Stu is a massive liar.
When Susskind speaks of the fine tuning of the comological constant and the possible solutions...
that completely refutes stus troll lies.
in which he explains the fine tunings by suggesting the multiverse.
for five to seven years here on ET stu argued that Susskind would never say the things he says on this video about the fine tunings and thatg God could be one of the reasons. Stu lied and lied and lied and lied for 5 to seven years... he made up all sorts of elaborate distortions about science to avoid this one basic fact.... the fine tuning of our universe is evidence of a Creator.
This is the video that proves Stu is a massive liar.
When Susskind speaks of the fine tuning of the comological constant and the possible solutions...
that completely refutes stus troll lies.
Quote from jem:
the reader... has to ask themselves... do you believe a troll name stu lying about science or..
the cofounder of string theory.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from jem:
No Stu... I cite to others to prove you are full of shit. When many others say you are full of shit... and I say you are full of shit...
you are full of shit.
he is a short version...
-Stu argues with dictionaries on the definition of atheism.
-He argues with Christians on the definition of being a Christian.
-He argues with historians on the historicity of Christ.
-Now he is reinventing string theory and arguing against scientific american and many others about Susskind being a co founder of String theory. .
- He completely lied about what Susskind had written and he lied about for 5 to 7 years til I produced videos.
- To this day he misrepresents what Hawking wrote about gravity...
- He lied about the fine tuning of the comological constant claiming it could be in a different range than it is. If I recall he declared in could be zero.
He lies on many other threads on et with other members
What a fricken troll you are Stu.
Projection is your troll tactic.
You are confusing me with yourself.
Here's a heads up.Quote from jem:
Stu cites to the title of Susskind's book...
in which he explains the fine tunings by suggesting the multiverse.
for five to seven years here on ET stu argued that Susskind would never say the things he says on this video about the fine tunings and thatg God could be one of the reasons. Stu lied and lied and lied and lied for 5 to seven years... he made up all sorts of elaborate distortions about science to avoid this one basic fact.... the fine tuning of our universe is evidence of a Creator.
This is the video that proves Stu is a massive liar.
When Susskind speaks of the fine tuning of the comological constant and the possible solutions...
that completely refutes stus troll lies.
When you lie as you do above about what I actually argue and what I actually say, that is not me lying. It's you.
1. this is one of your hundreds of lies stu...
Stu said;
"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... ."
After view the Susskind interview could Stu have lied more?
Really could he be a bigger liar.
2.
hey stu Prager was talking to you...
you see the sentence about closed minded atheists arguing nonsense. You are not only closed minded... you lie about what the scientists say so as to deny not only deny the evidence of a Tuner, you deny the tunings and you deny that many scientists observe the fine tunings.
You are three steps of lies backwards from today's science.
Stu said;
"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... ."
After view the Susskind interview could Stu have lied more?
Really could he be a bigger liar.
2.
hey stu Prager was talking to you...
you see the sentence about closed minded atheists arguing nonsense. You are not only closed minded... you lie about what the scientists say so as to deny not only deny the evidence of a Tuner, you deny the tunings and you deny that many scientists observe the fine tunings.
You are three steps of lies backwards from today's science.
Quote from jem:
Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate, along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants -- from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley and Columbia among other American and European universities -- included believers in God, agonistics and atheists.
But it was clear that the scientific consensus was that, at the very least, the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life. It appears that we live in a "Goldilocks Universe," in which both the arrangement of matter at the cosmic beginning and the values of various physical parameters -- such as the speed of light, the strength of gravitational attraction and the expansion rate of the universe - are just right. And unless one is frightened of the term, it also appears the universe is designed for biogenesis and human life.
Regarding fine-tuning, one could write a book just citing the arguments for it made by some of the most distinguished scientists in the world. Here is just a tiny sample found on the website of physicist Gerald Schroeder, holder of bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he later taught physics.
Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."
Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly."
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is "one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123." That is "a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros."
Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that "the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe."
Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life. Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science.
And now, many atheist scientists have inadvertently provided logical proof of this.
They have put forward the notion of a multiverse -- the idea that there are many, perhaps an infinite number of, other universes. This idea renders meaningless the fine-tuning and, of course, the design arguments.
After all, with an infinite number of universes, a universe with parameters friendly to intelligent life is more likely to arise somewhere by chance.
But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes. Nor could there be since contact with another universe is impossible.
Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe. The evidence in this universe for design -- or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by "enough time" -- is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes.
Honest atheists -- scientists and lay people -- must now acknowledge that science itself argues overwhelmingly for a Designing Intelligence. And honest believers must acknowledge that the existence of a Designing Intelligence is not necessarily the same as the existence of benevolent God.
To posit the existence of a Creator requires only reason. To posit the existence of a good God requires faith.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...race_the_multiverse_118852.html#ixzz2YUD591Nn
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
So? what don't you get about that? I'll ask again, what is your problem really?Quote from jem:
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.
As I say, you are confusing yourself with me.Quote from jem:
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.
No doubt the use of a mirror gave you the inspiration to write that.Quote from jem:
hey stu Prager was talking to you...
you see the sentence about closed minded atheists arguing nonsense. You are not only closed minded... you lie about what the scientists say so as to deny not only deny the evidence of a Tuner, you deny the tunings and you deny that many scientists observe the fine tunings.
You are three steps of lies backwards from today's science.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the universe is fine tuned for life or otherwise.
There is scientific evidence behind this.....
- "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
No amount of deceit from you will change the fact.