Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[OohPooPahDoo]

2. Math?

Not necessary here, as I proved in the tutorial that I gave you in post #9!
If you can't explain an idea simply, then you don't really understand it.
That would be you.

Math is not neccessary for physics?

LOL!

4. Worse, you will never be any more than a montebank, a poser, because you don't have the strength of character to admit that you were wrong.

You lack the mathematical skill to describe accurately what you think I was wrong about. I've asked you numerous times to show me what is wrong with the math - but you refuse.

5. Two suggestions for your future, develop honesty in your character, and try not to hide behind the oh-so-diaphanous "Knowledge-only-I-have".....especially when it is painfully obvious that you have no such knowledge.

?? I just told you that math is free to all to learn. If math is something you don't know its because you choose not to know it. Its not my fault you refuse to learn it and would like to pretend you can understand general relativity without it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

PoliticalChick seems to be absent. I suspect she's off learning tensor calculus, general relativity, and quantum physics, so she can actually understand where the multiverse theory actually comes from.


LOL! (that's right, I laughed at my own joke, what of it?)

You are a dope.
Still tryin' to get over the spanking I see....

Any who read the tread knows which of us understands the 'multiverse nonsense' and the provenance of same: a 'clutching-at-straws' attempt to ignore the fact that our universe is finely tuned to accommodate life....

.....lending support to theology rather than cosmology.

? OK, sure thing.

 

[amrchaos]

2. Math?

Not necessary here, as I proved in the tutorial that I gave you in post #9!
If you can't explain an idea simply, then you don't really understand it.
That would be you.

Math is not neccessary for physics?

LOL!

4. Worse, you will never be any more than a montebank, a poser, because you don't have the strength of character to admit that you were wrong.

You lack the mathematical skill to describe accurately what you think I was wrong about. I've asked you numerous times to show me what is wrong with the math - but you refuse.

5. Two suggestions for your future, develop honesty in your character, and try not to hide behind the oh-so-diaphanous "Knowledge-only-I-have".....especially when it is painfully obvious that you have no such knowledge.

?? I just told you that math is free to all to learn. If math is something you don't know its because you choose not to know it. Its not my fault you refuse to learn it and would like to pretend you can understand general relativity without it.

In some cases, you can do Physics without mathematics. Understand, all that is needed to do physics is a model of the phenomenon you are observing. It is not necessary for the model to include math. What is needed is to include some understood description of how the elements and forces in the model interact.


Also, most theoreticians in physics tend to generalize the interactions in a physical system long before they write an equation down. IF they do not think it would make sense, they most likely abandon the idea. If they think they maybe onto something, they then create a process of transferring idea to paper using their preferred method of communication. Sometimes the model is highly mathematical, sometimes it is a declaration of a few statements.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In some cases, you can do Physics without mathematics.

Not in this case.

Understand, all that is needed to do physics is a model of the phenomenon you are observing. It is not necessary for the model to include math. What is needed is to include some understood description of how the elements and forces in the model interact.

I never learned any of these theories of physcis that can be laid down without math. Can you name one?

Also, most theoreticians in physics tend to generalize the interactions in a physical system long before they write an equation down.

I'm a theoretical physicists - and I disagree.

IF they do not think it would make sense, they most likely abandon the idea.

How do we know if it would make sense without looking at the math first?

If they think they maybe onto something, they then create a process of transferring idea to paper using their preferred method of communication. Sometimes the model is highly mathematical, sometimes it is a declaration of a few statements.

Can you show me one of these models that is a 'declaration of a few statements' ?

 

[TrinityPower]

Design flaws would come from traits passed on from generation to generation no ?

So you're saying the birth canal in women was once different and better in Eve than it is today and that women never died in childbirth because of that particular design flaw?

Face it if you believe in the creation myth then you have to admit that your perfect god created some pretty poorly designed people

And if you believe we are created in god's image then he too must not be perfect.

God promised pain in child birth and sometimes unfortunately women die during child birth,heck some people pass on while on the toilet you want to blame God for that to ?

God created man to have free will and choice. The consequences that happen because of those choices after they were warned of them only leave what happens as a result in the hands of the individual. God will not be mocked nor will his word return to him void. Everyone blames bad things that happen to them on god and think god is out to get them and that is the deception but many do not see that...because they were deceived.u

 

[Foxfyre]

It is true that you do not have to use math to engage in physics. When we recently took a huge apple tree down in the back yard, it required considerable calculations of physics to keep the big branches and finally the trunk from falling into the fence or worse, the house. But I can't remember any numbers coming into that equation.

And it is true that you need math, sometimes advanced math, to do physics in other applications.

You need neither to use our God given intellect, power to reason, ability to understand probabilities or cause and effect, etc. when observing the world around us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. Math?

Not necessary here, as I proved in the tutorial that I gave you in post #9!
If you can't explain an idea simply, then you don't really understand it.
That would be you.

Math is not neccessary for physics?

LOL!

4. Worse, you will never be any more than a montebank, a poser, because you don't have the strength of character to admit that you were wrong.

You lack the mathematical skill to describe accurately what you think I was wrong about. I've asked you numerous times to show me what is wrong with the math - but you refuse.

5. Two suggestions for your future, develop honesty in your character, and try not to hide behind the oh-so-diaphanous "Knowledge-only-I-have".....especially when it is painfully obvious that you have no such knowledge.

?? I just told you that math is free to all to learn. If math is something you don't know its because you choose not to know it. Its not my fault you refuse to learn it and would like to pretend you can understand general relativity without it.

1. It doesn't work.
You keep bending the truth, obfuscating to hide the facts...

...but you've been exposed. You are a fraud.

No, math is not require to understand the multiverse theory.

You are a dishonest twit who is attempting to hide behind an alleged expertise
that you do not possess.


2. OK...let's rip you a new one again:
This is very simple...and hard for you to squirm out from under:

"In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”


Am I correct, or not?

Yes...or no?


You're sunk, aren't you, Ooopsy-Dunce?
No matter how large a font you use, you are a proven liar.

 

[TrinityPower]

If the big bang scattered all the elements through space would not the universe be filled with life ?

Our world is just about perfect for life, but change the orbit by 3 degrees and we are under 3 miles of ice.

Correct the tilt of the Earth to a vertical axis and there are no seasons.

Reduce the radiance of the Sun by about 2 % and we die as a species.

This planet is "Just right" for life and it needn't deviate much from this ideal to be Hellish by our standards.

Thank you for making an argument for design or another one of those miracles you believe in absent of a designer.

In the beginning god said light be! In the midst of darkness. His word creates therefore light continues to be and create so yes we are finding evidence of multi universes to infinity. Are there people on other planets? Probably not. God created everything for his creation and we were meant as children of god to finish the worlds in the same manner...with the power and glory god made us in his likeness but Adam turned his back on that and handed the power to the serpent. Therefore things came to a standstill in regard to that. I believe worm holes are in place but transport thru them were shut down when Adam fell. They were to be mans space freeway so to speak but after Adam chose fear instead of faith they were closed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

2. Math?

Not necessary here, as I proved in the tutorial that I gave you in post #9!
If you can't explain an idea simply, then you don't really understand it.
That would be you.

Math is not neccessary for physics?

LOL!


You lack the mathematical skill to describe accurately what you think I was wrong about. I've asked you numerous times to show me what is wrong with the math - but you refuse.

5. Two suggestions for your future, develop honesty in your character, and try not to hide behind the oh-so-diaphanous "Knowledge-only-I-have".....especially when it is painfully obvious that you have no such knowledge.

?? I just told you that math is free to all to learn. If math is something you don't know its because you choose not to know it. Its not my fault you refuse to learn it and would like to pretend you can understand general relativity without it.

1. It doesn't work.

Can you be a bit more specific?

"In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”


Am I correct, or not?

Yes...or no?


You're sunk, aren't you, Ooopsy-Dunce?
No matter how large a font you use, you are a proven liar.

Sorry - but where is mention of the cosmological constant? I've never seen the mulitiverse theory laid out without it.

 

[amrchaos]

In some cases, you can do Physics without mathematics.

Not in this case.

Understand, all that is needed to do physics is a model of the phenomenon you are observing. It is not necessary for the model to include math. What is needed is to include some understood description of how the elements and forces in the model interact.

I never learned any of these theories of physcis that can be laid down without math. Can you name one?


I'm a theoretical physicists - and I disagree.

IF they do not think it would make sense, they most likely abandon the idea.

How do we know if it would make sense without looking at the math first?

If they think they maybe onto something, they then create a process of transferring idea to paper using their preferred method of communication. Sometimes the model is highly mathematical, sometimes it is a declaration of a few statements.

Can you show me one of these models that is a 'declaration of a few statements' ?

The Law of gravity was discovered by Issac Newton in which he described the inverse square of the gravitational force. However, gravity was understood by scientist and engineers long before Issac Newton. The fact that material bodies attract was well understood for several millenium, the mathematical equation that describe how was only discovered in the past couple of centuaries.

Another case is in terms of the postulate of relativity, in which the general description of a physical system is laid down before an actual equation is written.

Of course, one could say that math is used if one wish to quote the velocity of light as c(simple algebra) but stating that is irrelevant to the postulate. One could just talk about the velocity of light without referencing algebra or the actual measurement of the speed
light.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way Oohpoopahdoo

Are you really a Theoretical physicists?

Which subject matter did you defend your dissertation in? I would ask for your curriculum vitae, but that maybe revealing too much information--so which scools and Univeristy did you attend?

 

[TrinityPower]

I have always found it interesting that many people take a stance of either science or religion when it was never intended to be opposing. They compliment each other but most can not see the connection let alone accept them both together. I see the moon and say wow isn't god awesome only he can reach that high. Science point of view does not take that but instead ponders its substance and how it got there instead of accepting that it is and appreciate the magnifacent thing it is and be thankful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Math is not neccessary for physics?

LOL!


You lack the mathematical skill to describe accurately what you think I was wrong about. I've asked you numerous times to show me what is wrong with the math - but you refuse.


?? I just told you that math is free to all to learn. If math is something you don't know its because you choose not to know it. Its not my fault you refuse to learn it and would like to pretend you can understand general relativity without it.

1. It doesn't work.

Can you be a bit more specific?

"In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”


Am I correct, or not?

Yes...or no?


You're sunk, aren't you, Ooopsy-Dunce?
No matter how large a font you use, you are a proven liar.

Sorry - but where is mention of the cosmological constant? I've never seen the mulitiverse theory laid out without it.

You're done, fraud.


This, from post #187:

“ The multiverse is a universe of universes. What we think of as the cosmos becomes, in this theoretical framework, just one of many pocket universes each with their own form of the laws of physics. “ One Universe Too Many? One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR


Here it is again.

"In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”


Am I correct, or not?

 

[Foxfyre]

You try to prove something to me using advanced math, and you will be spinning your wheels. I am good with basic math, geometry, simple algebra, etc., but the complicated mathematical equations are lost on somebody like me.

But I can say unequivocably that on a cloudless summer day, when the sun comes up, the air, soil, and other surfaces will warm. Some will become hot to the touch. That is a simple concept, a simple statement, based on nothing more than the human ability to observe and understand consequences. You don't even have to know that there is such a thing as math or physics to observe and understand it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have always found it interesting that many people take a stance of either science or religion when it was never intended to be opposing. They compliment each other but most can not see the connection let alone accept them both together. I see the moon and say wow isn't god awesome only he can reach that high. Science point of view does not take that but instead ponders its substance and how it got there instead of accepting that it is and appreciate the magnifacent thing it is and be thankful.

1. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia). And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

2. Then there was the stand-up comic who said “When those starving Ethiopians heard that astronomers discovered another planet, you should have heard the cheering!” Puts the two dimensions into perspective, does it not? It is precisely their religious perspective that allows many to endure life.

3. But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.

That line covers the 'multiverse' idea.

The above taken largely from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion."

 

[TrinityPower]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of thing

 

[TrinityPower]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for evidence of things not seen. Without faith nothing is believed there unseen therefore without faith science of finding something not yet discovered is dead to start.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have always found it interesting that many people take a stance of either science or religion when it was never intended to be opposing. They compliment each other but most can not see the connection let alone accept them both together. I see the moon and say wow isn't god awesome only he can reach that high. Science point of view does not take that but instead ponders its substance and how it got there instead of accepting that it is and appreciate the magnifacent thing it is and be thankful.

1. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia). And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

2. Then there was the stand-up comic who said “When those starving Ethiopians heard that astronomers discovered another planet, you should have heard the cheering!” Puts the two dimensions into perspective, does it not? It is precisely their religious perspective that allows many to endure life.

3. But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.

That line covers the 'multiverse' idea.

The above taken largely from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion."

I have never bought into the "God created the heaven and Earth in six literal 24-hour days" metaphor nor do I think the ancient theologians who wrote that meant for it to be taken literally either. I believe the first Chapter of Genesis is purely a metaphorical theological statement to explain that all that has ever been, is, or will be comes from God.

I have the most respect for scientists who do not reject that concept or at least the concept embrace by Spinoza and Einstein that the universe is composed of a cosmic intelligence that is guiding much of the process. To them, and to me, there is no other plausible explanation for much of what we observe in our world.

Nor do I think for a minute that all that exists in the universe is limited to what we puny humans are capable of observing.

Whether the Creator be God or the universe itself, it would still be the author of science. You do not have to dismiss one concept in order to embrace the other. And given the massive advances in science that we have witnessed in our lifetimes alone, to think that we have more than a tiny fraction of what there is still left to know pretty much about everything is the height of naivete.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. It doesn't work.

Can you be a bit more specific?

"In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”


Am I correct, or not?

Yes...or no?


You're sunk, aren't you, Ooopsy-Dunce?
No matter how large a font you use, you are a proven liar.

Sorry - but where is mention of the cosmological constant? I've never seen the mulitiverse theory laid out without it.

You're done, fraud.


This, from post #187:

“ The multiverse is a universe of universes. What we think of as the cosmos becomes, in this theoretical framework, just one of many pocket universes each with their own form of the laws of physics. “ One Universe Too Many? One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR


Here it is again.

"In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”


Am I correct, or not?

Yes - you are correctly quoting someone else. Well done!

 

[geauxtohell]

What about all the imprecisions in nature? Are they evidence of a "dumb" designer?

Here is one example: autoimmune pathologies.

Here is another: cancer.

Ready?

Discuss!