"we" lol. "some" lol One says is - but actually says isn't, by his theory. You're obviously missing something. Purposefully no doubt. Still that backpedaling now will be the nearest a dishonest liar like you will ever get to admitting your deceit. The rest of that bullshit you've posted falls over almost by itself but has been addressed and totally ignored by you enough times by now to make it thoroughly boring. Suffice it to say scientists at CERN are not relying on the universe being fine tuned. They use the numbers the math leads them to. There is no need to fantasize about whether or not they are so called fine tuned to find Higgs. You read too much from all your cut&paste edjukation. It boils down to this. There is no science that shows the universe is fine tuned, period.
lets try this again... stu you lying troll.... you are the one lying here. it is fine tuned... see the words... see the physicist stating there is broad agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellisobserves "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[3]
and in another article... we see fine tuning accepted by hawking... and the multiverse his speculation as the reason. you are such a lying troll stu... how many ways and times can you be shown to be lying... and yet you still do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Carter chose to focus on a tautological aspect of his ideas, which has resulted in much confusion. In fact, anthropic reasoning interests scientists because of something that is only implicit in the above formal definitions, namely that we should give serious consideration to there being other universes with different values of the "fundamental parameters" — that is, the dimensionless physical constants and initial conditions for the Big Bang. Carter and others have argued that life as we know it would not be possible in most such universes. In other words, the universe we are in is fine tuned to permit life. Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions".[30] If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction thereof will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder.
Yes, we know jerm. The scientists say that the universe is fine tuned and there is no science showing AGW is true. What's it like in your fantasy world? Constructed with semantics, half truths and intellectually corrupt and deceptive ideas. Inflating and twisting small phrases into significance beyond their intent. Again I ask. Are you just trolling and who are trying to kid?
the difference is the fine tuning of the standard model of physics... has been tested and validated... by among other things... CERN finding the higgs boson. a truly incredible feat. whereas not a single scientist has shown that man made co2 causes warming... what they have found is that co2 trails the warming and cooling of the ocean. see... the difference... its called science vs agw speculation or baloney.
lets read this again... so you and stu can stop lying your asses off... this is it in a nutshell... you fricken science denying troll morons... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions".[30] If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction thereof will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder.
And yet jerm, counter to what you maintain, science does NOT say that the universe is fine tuned and science says that there is tons of evidence showing that AGW is happening. So essentially you are not arguing with science in mind at all. Essentially you are lying.
For fucks sakes Jem give it a rest. There is no science confirming any fine tuning. You cannot get your god tuner into science.
Stu... here are hawking and weinberg showing you to be an sick and twisted science liar... note the part about the incredible fine tuning. http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/ In his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as “remarkable.” “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.” Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of Life” was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples: 1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues: One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—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: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.