Present science!?...to you!?? don't make me laugh. What, so you can misread, misinterpret, misrepresent and misquote it like you always do. The cosmological constant (vacuum energy), is a mathematical function, not a known or fixed value of the universe. When Einstein included the term in General Relativity he set its value to zero. Zero, 0 or removed altogether, now corresponds to what dark energy is anticipated to act like rather than the static universe Einstein understood. He may have been correct all along. Odds on he is right, but for a different reason. The infinitesimally tiny zero+ 108 to around 130 decimal places, accounts for an expanding universe but is a value based upon incomplete information. As I say, the things you write make it obvious you don't understand what you are talking about. If you're still guessing Hawking's 'populating the landscape' is Multiverse, even though it isn't, and even though he doesn't even mention the word, and even though one of your own links told you it wasn't Multiverse, then there is many a Multiverse anyway, in the form of electrons. Susskind says there is a Multiverse.... indeed. You said you agreed with Susskind. Shot yourself in the foot AGAIN. Why don't you take those ridiculous Godgoggles off and go do some proper research and educate yourself for once.
you misrepresent the state of science again to avoid admitting you misrepresented the cosmological constant. show us how the cosmological constant could be zero in our universe. susskind guts everything you say in that video. he explains the cosmological constant at about 4 mins. could some knew complete theory explain this... yes. but til then you are lying your ass off. === Susskind does not say there is a multiverse. He says one explanation for the knife's edge fine tuning of the cosmological constant could be the multiverse. (once again you confuse fact with speculation) he explains the landscape and the multiverse and the megaverse are the same explanation - speculation. In a similar way Hawking says top down cosmology could allow us to explain the fine tuning of our universe.
I said how the cosmological constant could be zero. Wake up. Susskind explains the cosmological constant at a value allowing for an expanding universe. Dark energy could do away with the cosmological constant and its so called 'fine-tuning' all together. It's obvious you don't understand what you are talking about. No need for you to keep confirming it. Susskind does NOT say there IS fine tuning. He states only an appearance of fine tuning - speculative. So like Multiverse then - speculative. Shooting yourself in the foot like that so many times now, surely it has to hurt sooner or later. Hawking has already explained there is no need for so called fine-tuning. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
more complete bullshit on the subject by stu. he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory.. what an an ignorant lie.
You not understanding the subject or being purposely ignorant about it, or both, is not me lying. Lol. Look, I already suggested you go and educate yourself first, to stop making such a fool of yourself.
How dare you... put my name next to your quotes.. that is the lowest scum troll trick I have seen. i can not believe you wrote that I wrote this... "he arrives at the value for the constant via string theory" and then tried to act like I wrote it.
That was a genuine mistake. It was not intentional. Sometimes I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to the large number of bullshit claims you make and I posted that without checking as I usually do. "what an an ignorant lie. " ..was the quote of yours I intended to point this, my response at ..... Lol. Look, I already suggested you go and educate yourself first, to stop making such a fool of yourself. ....and I do that now. The tiny positive 120 decimal point or whatever cosmological constant, grew around dark energy theory. You say multiverse is speculative. According to your trash claims, it must be dark energy theory is not speculative, and furthermore Susskind must be wrong, according to your nonsense, when he states what the cosmological constant appears -as in gives the impression- to be. Basically making absurd remarks and ridiculous claims in support for a God Tuner, is not going to make a God Tuner any the less absurd and ridiculous. It was funny watching Mr no substance pspr jump out of his cot though.
again you are mixing theory and fact. if you wish to say that you are denying the standard model and therefore do not accept that the some of the constants are tuned from 30 to 120 ish decimal places just say it. stop bullshitting your ass off and just admit you deny current science. just admit the standard model is very bad for your atheist random chance worldview.