Nice comeback.....but no. Math based scientific hypotheses conforming to the laws of physics, is just not, non-math based non-scientific imaginary abstract unnecessary fine tuners, not conforming to the laws of physics. Only a failure of human reasoning will say it is.
I never stated it, the physicist never stated it... you are such a juvenile troll. Someone wrote that in as the the title for the title box on youtube or something. read the fucking material troll. listen to the information. you claimed top down cosmology did not require a multiverse because you were fooled by some link on wikipedia.... Now you come back to that ignorant statement. ----- http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf as anyone who comprehends science can read in the abstract at the very front of the paper... Abstract 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. We study the observational consequences of no boundary initial conditions on the landscape, and outline a scheme to test the theory. This is illustrated in a simple model landscape that admits several alternative inflationary histories for the universe. Only a few of the possible vacua in the landscape will be populated. We also discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, like eternal inflation.
Alan Guth... speculates on alternate universes. Stu... real scientists make you look like a moron. Real scientists have no problem with speculation. In fact it is fascinating. The problem is when trolls like you mix speculation with fact. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ZtRfACbygY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Go improve your comprehension. OR in your own words "read the fucking material troll. listen to the information." You can't even comprehend plain English where it's being used.. ".... the universe can and will create itself from nothing.... It is not necessary to invoke God.."...so you really shouldn't assume to understand that paper. There is no mention or requirement for a multiverse anywhere in top-down, therefore you think top-down requires a multiverse. Just about sums up your lack of intelligence . Jem... you manage it all by yourself Scientists speculating about alternative universes based on math and conforming to the laws of physics, is NOT scientists speculating about your supernatural god tuner. That's YOU speculating about your supernatural god tuner. YOUR problem is you are constantly trying to mix fantasy with fact.
all lies all the time from the troll. in reverse order... --- . The question is what causes the fine tunings. a. It does not even take a tiny bit of brain power to understand... that a Tuner could be responsible - which is why I have presented you video clips of Hawkings and Rees explaining that fact to you. b. or you can speculate there are almost infinite universes so a few of them would appeared tuned. c. alternate universes are speculative. See Guth video above. ---. here is proof your are a lying troll. "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 see that troll - the string landscape (which is a multiverse) is a requirement of top down cosmology. The creator of top down cosmology says so.
Bullshit. You dream you've been explaining facts. In fact, you do no such thing. Constantly repeat posting the same ignorant comments won't make you right. They are all debunked. You obviously can't deal with the debunking so you just post the same ignorant comments again. You've only made yourself look pathetic. Ignoring all those things you've been wrong about won't make you right either. a. The scientific question is how come the values of the fundamental physical constants are what they are. It is not the wild and baseless assumptive question yours is, presupposing fine tunings. Nor is it the closed minded religious presumptuousness that goddidit. b. With "infinite universes" (collectively called the megaverse or whatever), at least one universe will contain the required cosmological values anyway. There would be no need for any fine tuning. It is also feasible other kinds of life forms could exist where values are different than in this universe. String landscape is not a multiverse. A multiverse is postulated when applying string theory as a means to underpin the anthropic principle. Multiverse is an extrapolation from string theory. In fact string theory itself does not posit multiverse. Multiverse relies on string theory not the other way round. c. Scientifically based speculation. Non-scientifically based wild "Tuner" fantasies. Two entirely different things. There is simply NO science that confirms cosmological values are subject to any fine tunings you silly..... Quote from you: "tiny bit of brain power lying troll"
more specious arguments form the troll. so here learn something. watch the susskind video again. here he explains landscape... then explains its the same as the multiverse at about 11 minutes. he also explains the tuning of the cosmological constant. Scientists make you look ignorant stu. My argument is susskinds argument your argument is strawman bullshit. [/B][/QUOTE]
if you even understood the subject, it might be worth examining how you think stu made me look foolish. do you realize how far he has refined his statements to still make strawmen. Stu has been reduced to arguing specious points about the definitions of string theory. He has conceded just about every point I have ever made on the subject. He used to say it was all done by random chance He used to say no scientists say the constants appear fine tuned He used to say susskind and others never said God was one of the possible explanations for fine tuning. We have brought stu very close to truth. His 1950s atheism is been crushed by science.
Lol. Susskind explains ONE universe where patches of space have different properties. If your argument were Susskind's, then you must agree to ONE universe creating vast numbers of patches of space having different properties, so that at least one of those patches will allow life. Like Susskind then, you don't have a "Tuner". You don't need one Lol ! So what the hell are you going on about? Be honest at least with yourself Jem. You don't even understand what Susskind is actually saying or explaining. Your argument is not Susskind's argument. Susskind's is based on math and the laws of physics. Yours is based on sheer bullshit. If you are being serious, you must be, no one could make your shit up, then you should get help. That kind of delusion could be bordering on an illness. You think everyone is saying things they aren't . Non of the scientists you keep trolling out are making any of the claims you say they are. Neither have I stated those things you claim. Making things up in your head doesn't make them real.