Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium."
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The strong force has 2% of wiggle room on the high side.
In an infinite range, how is any number significant?
Ok, I'll go with that. Please show what happens to life if inside that 2% wiggle room.
I guess that is a good question to ask a mathematician or physicist.
The question was redundant, no number, no matter how small or high, can be relevant when it is part of infinity
So no number we ever use can be significant?
I was speaking in terms of physical manifestation, not concept.
So how do you suggest that one terms significant against non-significant in the case of the vast universe?
Ok, I'll go with that. Please show what happens to life if inside that 2% wiggle room.
The challenge I would like to give oncedeceived is to find a single constant involved in "fine tuning" that is required for life, but not required for the Face on Mars, or any other geologic feature that she chooses (e.g. Mt. Everest, El Capitan, Devil's Throat).
Like I said and you ignored was that these places are part of the universe and are included in the fine tuning.
It is the appearance of the face that is the issue.
Then you can't say that the universe is fine tuned for just life. For all we know, it was fine tuned for pretty nebulae and life is just an unexpected outcome.
Funny how it is not an issue when you want to use appearances.
I can't?
Then why do scientists say that?
Your humor escapes me...no that is not true, you don't know what funny is.
Not as an evidenced based conclusion. You can't demonstrate that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life.
When did you start caring what scientists say?
I find your inability to see your own double standards as humorous.
So you are claiming the scientists that make that claim are incorrect?
Oh, are you accusing me of misrepresenting scientist now?
You are projecting.
Can you find a scientist who states quite clearly that they have evidence for a universe specifically tuned just for life and nothing else?
I am accusing you of selectively quoting the bits that you think agree with you while ignoring all of the bits that disagree with you.
"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies
So you agree with Davies that the universe fixed itself?
Changing my claim once again.
I am not ignoring it.
Does Davies have any evidence that has objective data that a conclusion such as this can be made? IF so please present it because I've never seen any evidence that he has presented to support that conclusion. I have however seen data confirmed by others that support the fine tuning of the universe.
So unless I see evidence that he has data that can objectively be shown that the universe fixed itself then I disagree with his subjective conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?