sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.So?
Not really. Besides, you didn't submit a peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates that the universe has been in any way "tuned."
No I'm not--you're just not answering it. YOU'RE the one who is dismissing my reference to the WAP because I didn't meet your apparent requirement of submitting a peer reviewed scientific paper.
So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.
No I am not ignoring the answer because there is no answer, that was my last point. If you asked a physicist the question why is the universe the way it is, they could not give you a specific answer. They might say "well I happen to like this theory, and this is why," but still could not give you a specific answer. If you asked more the one physicist the same question, you would probably get more than one of those answers.
If I were to turn in a research paper for a class using references from a .info site (whether or not it is biased) I would automatically get an F. Even if the paper was the best written paper that professor had ever read. The only legitiment online sources are those form .org or .edu. At least that is what I was taught for science classes not too long ago. The reason I choose NPR as a source is because they are a biased source, yet they still recognize the problem of fine tuning, just like any legitiment physicist out there.
So, let me ask a similar question to you. Please send me proof of multiverse, string, or both theories from a peer-reviewed source. Your not going to find one because it is not out there.
So I ask you again to please link to that peer-reviewed scientific paper that validated the reality of your imaginary superfriend. Thanks.
I will ask you again, did you read the article? It dismisses your article, so Its not just me. Like I said before, you are asking the wrong questions and then using those wrong questions to make vaccuous statements. What you seem to fail to understand is if you applied the same logic your using to any of the other theories in the article I posted, you would be dismissing all of theoretical physics.