Stu the fraud in action... check out this specious argument... Stu said... "String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory." his argument sounds good, like a person with the balls to make such a declaration must understand the science.... but... the reality is... stu's statement is dead ass wrong. Susskind coined the term Landscape to describe the results from string theory. Landscape and multiverse are virtually the same speculation. 2. quote in new york times... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html 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.
String theory landscape is referring to the false vacuums or vacua in string theory. It is not part of M-Theory or Multiverse/Megaverse, nor are either of those two a necessary part of string theory landscape. String theory landscape has been used to go on to make various proposals, one of which is to apply the highly controversial anthropic principle, which Susskind explains. If all you're ever going to do is get your "education" from clipping bits of text which sound to you as if they fit your pre-conclusions when you don't even understand the subject, and then form aggressive and ignorant arguments from doing so, you'll just remain as ill-informed and lowbrow as any other creationist/ID'er.
its stu against one of the founders of string theory. you really wish to continue to manifest your ignorance. Explain what are the properties of the false vacuums or vacua. Please refer to a credible scientist or dictionary for your answer.
Nevermind stu... the first entry on google shows you to be an ignorant liar. Once again we see the false vacua are exactly the same as the alternate universes in the the mega verse. You have been incredibly wrong for 7 years stu. Over these 7 years I have been able to produce more and more quotes showing you to be wrong. you are now looking like a babbling fool. you should stop... and learn. String theory landscape From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory.[1] The "landscape" includes so many possible configurations that some physicists[who?] think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500.[1] The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,[2] being a version of the subset sum problem.
You are ridiculous. You have to learn the science. Not what a dictionary, lol, or one particular scientist credible or not, may remark. Science isn't church where you do what the guy in the big dress tells you. That's what you do, and it's why you are so ill-informed. What's worse is you then make groundless assertions and draw false conclusions from bits of an editorial, or tiny fractions of text you don't read properly or understand, or from truncated edited vids that you can misconstrue to insist they say things about science that they don't and couldn't anyway. Oh and be more civil if you expect people to give information you obviously don't have. That's pretty much what I said! It's primary proposition is relevant to - perhaps infinite - regions of false vacua in the (singular) universe. Stephen Hawking does not like to call those false vacua "universes". It's very clear to see why not. Poor jem you're very confused and all because you want this stuff to to mean Goddidit or just could have, when it really doesn't. You can't understand this being so determined that whatever you do see is going to give equal credence to proposals which have evidence based on science, to creator/tuner/ID myths based on fantasizing .
The comedy continues. every scientist in the world cites to sources... but stu is against such practice. Stu thinks citing to sources is a liability. Which it is for trolls. Hey stu... learn the science. Come back and show us what a vacua is (cite to an authority) come back an show us was an alternate universe is. (cite to an authority) Then perhaps you will realize what a fool you are.
..whenever you post. You want me to show you what a vacua is. Why - what difference would it make? Of course none. Any facts or information which does not fit your ridiculous claim for a "Tuner" is rejected denied and interpreted to mean something it doesn't. You do that all the time. Science won't help you make any rational argument for an intelligent designer/tuner/god, as you have more than adequately demonstrated. You seem to think talking like an idiot will.
Stu said... "String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory." He makes up crap about vacua and now he refuses to support his ridiculous statement. I will tell you why. He has been trolling on this subject for 7 years.. and he is now completely stuck in his own web of deceit.
ironic coming from you... You have been making ignorant but specious arguments for year and you think that entitles you to feel superior.