Search results

BTW they spotted 29 candidates spectroscopically and 1 via radio signals, but there's a million galaxies in that patch of sky...

Well duh, what did you think the gravitational wave signal was? Because the network of physical environment sensors is vastly sensitive enough to detect such an event, and geomagnetic effects on the h(t) signal at the time were eight orders of magnitude too small...they measured!! But I'm...

LOL, how did I know that you would decide that LIGO's detection was somehow wrong. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Needless to say, you are completely wrong. It's kind of like a spam email filter that filters out certain messages. You have to train it, to some extent, in the beginning. An email is either...

I could easily, but I'm not going to, because I'm not stupid, and I do enjoy discussions taking place anonymously. That's my right. He is famous for many reasons, not all of which are him being right about everything, which he's not been. He is a genius though, no question, but...

Did I say that? No, I did not.

Which is why it's great that that's not the number once you factor in quantum mechanics, especially as regards LQC. It's also not the number in most inflationary models anyway, since the parameter space is different (obviously). That depends on the number to some extent, but no. If it were...

This is like talking to a parrot. Read this again: The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. Penrose's statistical...

No. It's definitely not neither on some scales and definitely neither on others. It's a question of whether if something is for all practical purposes indistuinguishable from something else, whether it is that. This is a subtle question. If you have two objects that to all measurement processes...

Let's stop there. Your "argument" has already failed at this point. The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. You cannot...

What is "ordinary distance"?

That's because GR defines things in terms of fields.

Well, Penrose doesn't think what you think about Orch-OR and little of his idea means what you pretended you think it means (eg...."soul") so, yes, he might be right, but no, that wouldn't make you right. However I see little evidence that he is right, and I see a lot of woo from the Deepak...

The constant depends entirely on the unit system chosen (in this case usually m, kg and s), so actually, no, that's not true, and if you change the Planck constant, you can still have a universe; it's simply that another constant would need to change. There are numerous potential parameter...

Incorrect. The fallacy only applies in a logical argument. I was not inferring he was wrong because people don't believe he is right, I was simply saying that not many people think he is, from my professional experience in the field of advanced physics, which is reasonably large, certainly...

The texas sharpshooter fallacy was correctly brought up to answer this, but the other answer - as I've told you before - is not many people think Penrose is right about this. Calculating probabilities of what "might" be or have been, is based on making certain assumptions, as you correctly...

Only to a charlatan would "debating" by copying other people's paragraphs that aren't entirely relevant be a form of debate. My reply to that other point is I have no idea why you want me to demonstrate non-constancy of a constant. You brought that up - I have literally no idea what you're...

Jimfit's "answer" here verbatim stolen from Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist What a funny kind of Christian you are JimFit, one who believes wholeheartedly in presenting other...

And Stenger wrote a lengthy rebuttal, which Barnes didn't reply to (I believe). http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359v1.pdf Stenger's essential (correct) point - the universe is not anywhere near as fine-tuned as theists pretend - nowhere near - and Barnes fails to disprove that assertion. Alas...

Uh...ok. Let's say this real slowly... It is only fine tuned if it IS fine tuned and gauging that depends on how you formulate the calculation for how probably or otherwise it is. The method used that you brought up is shaky at best, and there are numerous other ways to think about the...

Let's clarify a couple of things. One, "JimFit" may have legit credentials (as what, exactly?) but HE replied to YOUR post with a post about Lawrence Krauss. That post was simply copy-pasted from another website. In most forums of public discourse, copying someone else's words unattributed is...