I have given you dozens of quotes saying the uinverse appears tuned... google it. but no where no how no way does hawking say what you said he stated a few days ago. his statements are qualified with a huge if.... if there is a multiverse.
Changed your tune. Now it only appears fine tuned. Stephen Hawkings doesn't even give credence to the word Multiverse. He doesn't use it as an explanation. Now you've learned how the word is does not mean the same as appears , you will next need to stop seeing words that are not being used at all.
you lie on both accounts. ... this is the first sentence - intro to Hawkings paper on the subject. "We put forward a framework for cosmology that combines the string landscape with no boundary initial conditions. In this framework, amplitudes for alternative histories for the universe are calculated with final boundary conditions only. This leads to a top down approach to cosmology, in which the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked" http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
You've been deceitful in saying "...top scientists say the constants are tuned..." . They don't say that, so you say I'm lying. At least you're maintaining the creationist standard of dimwittery. Where does Stephen Hawkins use the word Multiverse in any of that opening or in the whole document? He doesn't. String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory. You want to misunderstand what scientists like Stephen Hawking says, you want to be ignorant on it all, just to imagine a tuner/designer/god can fit where it doesn't. Beggars belief.
Now I see you are not just a troll liar... you just posted the dumbest post on I have seen in ET in about 5 years. You have the type of scentific confidence that can only come from dense ignorance. Not only are you wrong when you wrote... "String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory." You could not be more wrong... they are virtually the same thing... and the string landscape was coined by Susskind... You have been ignorant of this basic fact for 7 years? --- --- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10500, give or take a few trillion. Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse." Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours. Furthermore, it is inevitable that we would find ourselves in a universe well suited to life, since life can arise only in those types of universes. This circular-sounding argument - that the universe we inhabit is fine-tuned for human biology because otherwise we would not be here to see it - is known as the Anthropic Principle and is reviled by many cosmologists as a piece of vacuous sophistry. But if ours is just one of a near-infinite variety of universes, the Anthropic Principle starts to sound more reasonable, akin to saying that we find ourselves on Earth rather than on Jupiter because Earth has the mild temperatures and liquid water needed for our kind of life.
String theory is not M-Theory. M-Theory is an add-on, an expansion, an extension, an extra to string theory. The text you copied even smirkingly refers to a rechristening of string theory for which the founder of M can't explain. That would include most others too like Stephen Hawking for instance, seeing how you like to keep mentioning science so much. Don't you even read the stuff . You haven't a clue about any of this and it really shows. Childish name calling and trolling copied text won't make you right, but it is at least sticking with something you do know about.
this is the ignorance you wrote... you won't be changing the subject to some new argument. you said the string landscape does not include a multiverse proposition. at its core your ignorance of this subject explains why you have been misrepresenting science the last 7 years. No wonder you did not understand the multiverse and the landscape are conjecture... you do not even know what they are.
The creationist approach of accusing me of doing what you are doing, is old and doesn't work anyway. Making false claims like this "you said the string landscape does not include a multiverse" I didn't and this "...top scientists say the constants are tuned..." they didn't ..constantly altering what you read to what you want to read and making sham statements is simply you, not understanding much about anything at all.
after creating the dumbest quote in scientific history Stu will go to the troll playbook and try and change the subject or change the definition of simple language.... he had one this dozens of times in the past. 1. quote form stu.. "String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory." 2. quote from scientist... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Producing false claims and then making no sense is apparently the highest level of religious argument available.