"The theory that our universe is contained inside a bubble, and that multiple alternative universes exist inside their own bubbles -- making up the 'multiverse' -- is, for the first time, being tested by physicists." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm
stu that was a weak first effort from you. I did not say 2.2 equals 3. I provided an article which showed the finding of Higgs Boson shows that the standard model of the universe can be used to predict where the Higgs Boson would show up... and that therefore many of the constants of the universe are tuned to 20 or more decimal places. Does your atheist brain comprehend how mind bending that is. Does it understand that scientists have models which show that when you change the constants a relatively small amount the universe ceases to exist.
I see you've lured one of the cock roaches out of a crack in the floor. Can you step on him before he scurries back into his hiding place?
They're coming closer to that Jem. There's a wonderful experiment a phycisist ran on a single sub atomic particle. I will post a refernce to it. No matter where you stand on the issue, this was a fascinating experiment. So far no has tested for and found even 1 God. If I am incorrect, present your positive proof. The "God" particle and fine tuning simply allows you to draw an inference. It does not consitute proof. It's a pointless argument. We both know where each stands. I'll thank you for posting, and look forward to new posts.
Answer: 1) Try the corner of Vine and 12th. If nothing found, take a few hits of acid and look again. 2) See answer no. 1.
we have not found 1 God we have not found 1 multiple universe... but we have found 1 creation / universe which appears very finely tuned. I have never said we have proof of a Creator. I have been saying that if there is only one universe, scientists have been suggesting we have evidence of Creator. I find that inference enough for now. If science finds an natural explanation for the fine tuning... no worries for me we will back to where we were in the 60s and 70s when all our teachers were telling us we got here by random chance and the market is efficient. .
controversial claims (2) from an article in a religious! website (+2)... to make a flawed conclusion...."the standard model of the universe can be used to predict where the Higgs Boson would show up... and that therefore many of the constants of the universe are tuned to 20 or more decimal places. " (=3). Higgs is predicted in the Standard Model. Nothing to do with constants' 20 decimal places or more, but confirmation of how particles get mass.
your comprehension is flawed. and once again we see proof you will bullshit about science with out any concern for the truth. that statement came from the Economist... next you need to stretch your brain a bit (hint read the paragraph heading and understand the Economist's sophisticated humor.) 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 have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world." http://www.economist.com/node/21558248
So the apparent failure of the Market Efficiency theory bolsters the fine tuning argument? Or is your point that our knowledge and theories of the world change over time and new ideas supplant certain earlier ones. If so, perhaps fine turning will face a similar fate.