0.0073

Oscillator said:
I reported you on the one where you lifted a HUGE chunk from behind a paywall. But this one wasn't as egregious. I get it, though, you think theft is OK but you are on guard against "liars".

Selective morality I'd say. But it figures because you don't seem to really understand much of what you talk about.
Click to expand...

You were crying little school girl about my cosmology post, so it at least fits your M O. that you would have cried like a baby to the mods about this thread, and then lied your fat ass off about doing so.
 
BidenPresident said:
I do not agree with you. But you always refuse discussion.
Click to expand...

The last question on my mind is whether or not bible thumpers or militant atheists get annoyed by legitimate scientific questions that I am interested.

Holy Rollers don't even understand fine tuning, and never post about it. The best they can come up with is the Creation Science Museum
 
Cypress said:
You were crying little school girl about my cosmology post, so it at least fits your M O. that you would have cried like a baby to the mods about this thread, and then lied your fat ass off about doing so.
Click to expand...

Funny how you think theft is OK. It makes all your howling about "liars" somewhat meaningless. If you think stealing someone else's intellectual property is "cool" then I guess your howling about any other moral issue is equally immoral.
 
One thing I think fine tuning proves is that we don't live in a massive computer simulation.
The designers of such a simulation would probably use math based on integers and other rational numbers. I personally can't see why they would embed a bunch of wierd irrational numbers into the principles driving the simulation.
 
Cypress said:
One thing I think fine tuning proves is that we don't live in a massive computer simulation.
Click to expand...

Oh gawd. Why do you believe that, Dr. Science?

The designers of such a simulation would probably use math based on integers and other rational numbers
Click to expand...

So Pi wouldn't exist in a simulation?

. I personally can't see why they would embed a bunch of wierd irrational numbers into the principles driving the simulation.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the proton weighs as much as it does??? Woah! Duuuuuuuude. So deeeeeeeeep. Philosophization! Deeeeeeeeeeeeep. Cypress is so deep and brilliant.
 
Cypress said:
Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do?

Over the last hundred years, we’ve measured the properties of protons and electrons in great detail. All of those calculations start with how strongly protons and electrons attract each other. The strength of that attraction can be summed up in one number: the fine structure constant. We can measure the fine structure constant to extremely high precision; it’s about 0.0073 (or 1/137).

But nothing in our physical theories explains why the fine structure constant has that particular value. It seems like an arbitrary dial that got set when our universe came into being.

But it turns out that 0.0073 is not just any number. Calculations have shown that if the force of attraction between protons and electrons were stronger or weaker by just a few percent, stars wouldn’t be able to form the complex atoms like carbon that make life possible. Change the fine structure constant by a little more and stars couldn’t exist at all.

Something set the fine structure constant for our universe to this arbitrary-seeming value, and it happens to be exactly the value that we need it to be for complex matter to exist. That seems a bit odd.

When a coincidence gets too , you start to look for an explanation. If your neighbor wins the lottery, you have a lucky neighbor. If your neighbor wins the lottery five times in a row, you start to get suspicious.

Mathematically, the perfectly chosen fine structure constant looks like life and complex matter won quite a few lotteries in a row.

There are a number of other examples of constants like this. Two that are particularly relevant to the early universe are the number of visible dimensions (which determines whether stable orbits are possible) and the density of dark energy (which determined when the universe started to accelerate)—both of which seem to have just the right values they need to have. Make either one a little different and the universe would have no solar systems in it.



- source credit: course guidebook, The Big Bang and the Early Universe, Gary Felder, professor of physics, Smith College
Click to expand...

It's like this because that's how the creator of the uin erse designed it.
 
BidenPresident said:
I do not agree with you. But you always refuse discussion.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you actually wrote this^^^^^^^^^^^. It's almost as if you're s brainless who doesn't seem to realize everyone here can see how you behave. This is precisely why I shit on you every chance I get.
 
Yakuda said:
It's like this because that's how the creator of the uin erse designed it.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why they are tuned to the values they have.

Some unknown organizing principle beyond physics is one guess.

Another guess is that the physical constants aren't really constant, and they can vary in the parts of the universe we can't see. We happen to be in a part of the universe they are tuned for complex matter and structure.

Another possibility is we will never understand the answer, even if someone told us, because our limited souped up chimpanzee brains don't have the cognition to grasp it.
 
Oscillator said:
Oh gawd. Why do you believe that, Dr. Science?



So Pi wouldn't exist in a simulation?



Why do you think the proton weighs as much as it does???

Woah! Duuuuuuuude.

So deeeeeeeeep.

Philosophization!

Deeeeeeeeeeeeep. Cypress is so deep and brilliant.
Click to expand...
Have you seen your shrink this month.

Ask him what compels you to follow me around, read everything I write, and secretly cry like a little girl to the mods about me.

No one is putting a gun to your head to read my thread and think about the topic.


Lots of cosmologists and astronomers think this is a legitimate scientific question to think about. If you don't like the question find another thread of mine to cry to the mods about.
 
Cypress said:
Have you seen your shrink this month.

Ask him what compels you to follow me around, read everything I write, and secretly cry like a little girl to the mods about me.

No one is putting a gun to your head to read my thread and think about the topic.


Lots of cosmologists and astronomers think this is a legitimate scientific question to think about. If you don't like the question find another thread of mine to cry to the mods about.
Click to expand...

If you can't defend your positions then don't blame other people.

Why don't you stop posting on here. That would be WONDERFUL. You should just fuck right off with your fake-ass pseudo intellectual schtick. You are a fuckin' loser who thinks everyone is obsessed with him. You really are the one who needs help.
 
Oscilator said:
If you can't defend your positions then don't blame other people.

:cuss:Why don't you stop posting on here. :cuss:

That would be WONDERFUL.

:cuss:You should just fuck right off :cuss:with your fake-ass pseudo intellectual schtick.

You are a fuckin' loser who thinks everyone is obsessed with him. You really are the one who needs help.
:blowup::blowup::blowup:
Click to expand...


Nice rant. I hope you have your shrink on speed dial.

I accept your tacit confession you did secretly cry to the mods about this thread, and lied when you denied it.
 
Cypress said:
One thing I think fine tuning proves is that we don't live in a massive computer simulation.
The designers of such a simulation would probably use math based on integers and other rational numbers. I personally can't see why they would embed a bunch of wierd irrational numbers into the principles driving the simulation.
Click to expand...

I'm not a computer programmer, but it doesn't seem Pi is a value used in programming. Nobody knows what the real value of Pi is since it's an irrational number.

I really can't grasp either why 0.0072973525693 would be neccessary in programming a virtual world.
 
Cypress said:
I have no idea why they are tuned to the values they have.

Some unknown organizing principle beyond physics is one guess.

Another guess is that the physical constants aren't really constant, and they can vary in the parts of the universe we can't see. We happen to be in a part of the universe they are tuned for complex matter and structure.

Another possibility is we will never understand the answer, even if someone told us, because our limited souped up chimpanzee brains don't have the cognition to grasp it.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how far people will go to avoid the obvious.
 
Yakuda said:
It's amazing how far people will go to avoid the obvious.
Click to expand...

0.0072973525693 is a really weird number for a supernatural sentient supreme being to settle on.


Human history is littered with ideas that were thought to be obvious at one time: the sun rotates around the Earth, time and space are uniform and static, humans and animals were created in the shape and form they have now.

The real answer is that we don't know why the physical constants are tuned for complex matter and organized structure. I stay open minded to all thoughtful possibilities.
 
Cypress said:
0.0072973525693 is a really weird number for a supernatural sentient supreme being to settle on.


Human history is littered with ideas that were thought to be obvious at one time: the sun rotates around the Earth, time and space are uniform and static, humans and animals were created in the shape and form they have now.

The real answer is that we don't know why the physical constants are tuned for complex matter and organized structure. I stay open minded to all thoughtful possibilities.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it doesn't make sense to you?

Oh course we know why but some can't accept it. It was designed that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top