Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Davian]

The scientists think they have.

In your own words, how would they falsify "fine tuning"?

 

[selfinflikted]

The term is the scientific term given to the phenomena that the values of the constants of the universe are tuned to the exact precise values that allow life to exist on earth.

Yes, I understand that. But still does not negate the implications of the word.

ok. It is hard to tell sometimes when all you have are words on here.

Indeed. But you know me, half the stuff that comes out of my "mouth" here is just silly shenanigans.

 

[Smidlee]

In your own words, how would they falsify "fine tuning"?

Since fine-tuning deals with the universe then of course it can't be tested in the lab. Thus fine-tuning , Big Bang, Inflation can only be tested in computer simulations which make it's science very weak. This fact leads to articles like this: Our universe is impossible and we shouldn't exist, Higgs-boson scientist says : SCIENCE : Tech Times

Here we have something that can be tested, the higgs boson, up against our computer models of the universe. Obviously their models are wrong. They will probably have to call on the tooth fairy yet again to straighten out the math. They've already called on the tooth fairy three times, inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

I do agree the universe appears fine-tuned but I believe this has more to do with the universe is created by information (God spoke it into existence) not that laws (matter and energy alone) by themselves could create the universe and life .

 

[Davian]

Since fine-tuning deals with the universe then of course it can't be tested in the lab.

She needs to explain how 'fine tuning' is falsifiable, lab or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In your own words, how would they falsify "fine tuning"?

When testing other values of the constants, they would allow life within them. There would be a vast number of values available for life to exist and differing the values would not make life impossible.

 

[Davian]

When testing other values of the constants, they would allow life within them. There would be a vast number of values available for life to exist and differing the values would not make life impossible.

Where would this testing be done? In a universe with different values?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I understand that. But still does not negate the implications of the word.

So do you think that the scientists that named it did so knowing those implications?

Indeed. But you know me, half the stuff that comes out of my "mouth" here is just silly shenanigans.

Yep, one of the reasons you are one of my favs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where would this testing be done? In a universe with different values?

You seem to be under the false assumption that science is limited to laboratory experimentation to do science. Do we need another earth to determine what might have happened early in the earth's atmosphere?

Here are some of the ways that astrophysicists do their science:

Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Example:

The most precise measurement of α comes from the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, or g−2 ("g minus 2"), of the electron.[2] To make this measurement, two ingredients are needed:
1) A precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, and2) A precise theoretical calculation of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment in terms of α. As of February 2007, the best measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron was made by Gabrielse et al.[3] using a single electron caught in a Penning trap. The difference between the electron's cyclotron frequency and its spin precession frequency in a magnetic field is proportional to g−2. An extremely high precision measurement of the quantized energies of the cyclotron orbits, or Landau levels, of the electron, compared to the quantized energies of the electron's two possible spin orientations, gives a value for the electron's spin g-factor:
g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76), a precision of better than one part in a trillion. (The digits in parentheses indicate the uncertainty in the last listed digits of the measurement.)
The current state-of-the-art theoretical calculation of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron includes QED diagrams with up to four loops. Combining this with the experimental measurement of g yields the most precise value of α:[4]
α−1 = 137.035 999 070 (98), a precision of better than a part in a billion. This uncertainty is ten times smaller than the nearest rival method involving atom-recoil measurements.
A value of α can also be extracted from the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon. The g-factor of the muon is extracted using the same physical principle as for the electron above – namely, that the difference between the cyclotron frequency and the spin precession frequency in a magnetic field is proportional to g−2. The most precise measurement comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory's muon g−2 experiment,[5] in which polarized muons are stored in a cyclotron and their spin orientation is measured by the direction of their decay electrons. As of February 2007, the current world average muon g-factor measurement is,[6]
g/2 = 1.001 165 920 8 (6), a precision of better than one part in a billion. The difference between the g-factors of the muon and the electron is due to their difference in mass. Because of the muon's larger mass, contributions to the theoretical calculation of its anomalous magnetic dipole moment from Standard Model weak interactions and from contributions involving hadrons are important at the current level of precision, whereas these effects are not important for the electron. The muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment is also sensitive to contributions from new physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry. For this reason, the muon's anomalous magnetic moment is normally used as a probe for new physics beyond the Standard Model rather than as a test of QED.[7]

 

[JayFern]

When testing other values of the constants, they would allow life within them. There would be a vast number of values available for life to exist and differing the values would not make life impossible.

How many dancing lessons did you take to get as good as you are?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How many dancing lessons did you take to get as good as you are?

Excuse me?

 

[Davian]

When testing other values of the constants, they would allow life within them. There would be a vast number of values available for life to exist and differing the values would not make life impossible.

Where would this testing be done? In a universe with different values?

You seem to be under the false assumption that science is limited to laboratory experimentation to do science. Do we need another earth to determine what might have happened early in the earth's atmosphere?
<snip irrelevant text>

Yes, the constants are constant. Bait and switch. Stick with tuning for now.

Again: where would the testing of a universe with other values be done?

 

[Davian]

How many dancing lessons did you take to get as good as you are?

She is not that good. I can see her poor footwork.

 

[EternalDragon]

Since fine-tuning deals with the universe then of course it can't be tested in the lab. Thus fine-tuning , Big Bang, Inflation can only be tested in computer simulations which make it's science very weak. This fact leads to articles like this: Our universe is impossible and we shouldn't exist, Higgs-boson scientist says : SCIENCE : Tech Times

Here we have something that can be tested, the higgs boson, up against our computer models of the universe. Obviously their models are wrong. They will probably have to call on the tooth fairy yet again to straighten out the math. They've already called on the tooth fairy three times, inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

I do agree the universe appears fine-tuned but I believe this has more to do with the universe is created by information (God spoke it into existence) not that laws (matter and energy alone) by themselves could create the universe and life .

Awesome. Thanks for posting that article. Of course, there are those here who will just ignore it.

 

[Davian]

Since fine-tuning deals with the universe then of course it can't be tested in the lab. Thus fine-tuning , Big Bang, Inflation can only be tested in computer simulations which make it's science very weak. This fact leads to articles like this: Our universe is impossible and we shouldn't exist, Higgs-boson scientist says : SCIENCE : Tech Times

Here we have something that can be tested, the higgs boson, up against our computer models of the universe. Obviously their models are wrong. They will probably have to call on the tooth fairy yet again to straighten out the math. They've already called on the tooth fairy three times, inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

I do agree the universe appears fine-tuned but I believe this has more to do with the universe is created by information (God spoke it into existence) not that laws (matter and energy alone) by themselves could create the universe and life .

Can you produce this "God" that "spoke it into existence", whatever that means?

 

[HitchSlap]

Awesome. Thanks for posting that article. Of course, there are those here who will just ignore it.

"Researchers in the BICEP2 collaboration reported possible noise in their data, as the fluctuations they saw could have also been the result of cosmic dust clouding the images. The collaboration admitted that their results might be misleading. If so, Hogan's predictions and the resulting confusion is nothing to lose sweat over. If the BICEP2's observations were accurate though, physicists will have to find some new form of particle physics to explain, well, us."

 

[Smidlee]

Can you produce this "God" that "spoke it into existence", whatever that means?

I see if I can set up an appointment for you to meet Him.

Awesome. Thanks for posting that article. Of course, there are those here who will just ignore it.

The point is we can't test "the universe" in the lab like we can for example the Higgs boson. It's common to read articles where scientist finds things in the universe (even solar system) that's not suppose to be there. It's just means it doesn't match what their computer models predicted. Mercury wasn't suppose to have any sulfur but it has more sulfur than the other rocky planets.

In reality it makes no difference what they find out they will use any fudge factor needed to make their models work. Mercury didn't fit their model so now they claimed it formed farther away from the sun than it's current orbit. (just as HitchSlap quoted they were already prepared to add another fudge factor if BICAP2 report stood.)

 

[Davian]

I see if I can set up an appointment for you to meet Him.

Cool. Do you talk to him? Do you hear voices?

 

[Smidlee]

Cool. Do you talk to him? Do you hear voices?

You are communicating with me yet I don't hear your voice.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, the constants are constant. Bait and switch. Stick with tuning for now.

Again: where would the testing of a universe with other values be done?

What do you mean yes, the constants are constant? That makes no sense with what I wrote.

 

[Oncedeceived]

She is not that good. I can see her poor footwork.

You don't even understand the steps.