I was calling him sock puppet friend. Stu likes to gather around his sock puppets to cheer him on. FC may actually be from a different group of puppets.
It's what you would do. You don't even seem clear what a sockpuppet entails yet the only sock puppet here was caught red-handed being used by you. So you think it's me ... figures. That's the kind of f'kd up logic an idiot like you would try to argue with.
You are projecting again, accusing me of doing exactly what you've done. You are lying again, connecting Susskind and Hawking to words they don't even use or suggest. You are being dishonest again. There is no simple fact nor any facts nor any science whatsoever for that matter, that shows the universe 'is very fine tuned' or even fine tuned at all for life. One can only guess hallucinating that way must, weird as it is, somehow help you get through the day.
That's the thing with you. If Scientific America told you the Earth was flat you would accept that if you believed it helped your fantasies.. It's impossible Susskind is the co founder of string theory as string theory was actually founded before he was even on the scene. If there was a founder or founders they came in the form guys who first explained mathematically elementary particles not as point particles, but as extended one-dimensional objects off of Heisenberg. Veneziano discovered that in the 60's. The early, most important, people establishing string theory, were doing so before Susskind's time and of course it could not therefore include him. Susskind like many other physicists are important figures able to expand further on the pioneering work which they were not even around for. He sells books, is an influential, brilliant scientist and has clearly a very good publicist, who obviously promotes him as a co founder of string theory, when actually to anyone who cares to check properly, and not be led by the nose like you, can see he couldn't actually have been co founder...you goof.. But it really doesn't matter anyway. Everything he says undermines or destroys your silly "extremely fine tuned" concepts. "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" Leonard Susskind ..says it all really.
No Stu... I cite to others to prove you are full of shit. When many others say you are full of shit... and I say you are full of shit... you are full of shit. he is a short version... -Stu argues with dictionaries on the definition of atheism. -He argues with Christians on the definition of being a Christian. -He argues with historians on the historicity of Christ. -Now he is reinventing string theory and arguing against scientific american and many others about Susskind being a co founder of String theory. . - He completely lied about what Susskind had written and he lied about for 5 to 7 years til I produced videos. - To this day he misrepresents what Hawking wrote about gravity... - He lied about the fine tuning of the comological constant claiming it could be in a different range than it is. If I recall he declared in could be zero. He lies on many other threads on et with other members What a fricken troll you are Stu. Projection is your troll tactic.
Stu cites to the title of Susskind's book... in which he explains the fine tunings by suggesting the multiverse. for five to seven years here on ET stu argued that Susskind would never say the things he says on this video about the fine tunings and thatg God could be one of the reasons. Stu lied and lied and lied and lied for 5 to seven years... he made up all sorts of elaborate distortions about science to avoid this one basic fact.... the fine tuning of our universe is evidence of a Creator. This is the video that proves Stu is a massive liar. When Susskind speaks of the fine tuning of the comological constant and the possible solutions... that completely refutes stus troll lies.
Here's a heads up. When you lie as you do above about what I actually argue and what I actually say, that is not me lying. It's you.
1. this is one of your hundreds of lies stu... Stu said; "The cosmological constant is unknown. If you understood anything about the subject you'd understand that much. Susskind is being no more precise than Albert Einstein who entered the factor (Lambada) in his gravitational equation for the cosmological constant. Einstein had the constant at implied zero. Susskind has it at an infinitesimally higher positive. A tiny fraction off of zero. Susskind states he is not being precise. He says so. He forewords all with it appears or there is an appearance... No one knows yet what the value is. Susskind arrives at it via string theory, which you stated is nothing but speculation. So then is the suggested cosmological constant at 120 decimal places from zero speculative , being derived from speculative string theory... ." After view the Susskind interview could Stu have lied more? Really could he be a bigger liar. 2. hey stu Prager was talking to you... you see the sentence about closed minded atheists arguing nonsense. You are not only closed minded... you lie about what the scientists say so as to deny not only deny the evidence of a Tuner, you deny the tunings and you deny that many scientists observe the fine tunings. You are three steps of lies backwards from today's science.
So? what don't you get about that? I'll ask again, what is your problem really? As I say, you are confusing yourself with me. No doubt the use of a mirror gave you the inspiration to write that. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the universe is fine tuned for life or otherwise. There is scientific evidence behind this..... "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." No amount of deceit from you will change the fact.