fine tuning

[billwald]

Some claim that this universe had to be designed because if any of the components or physical relationships were changed then life on earth would not be possible. If this was true then God had to create this universe exactly as it is. In other words, God had to, was forced to choose the only possible design.

 

[CaptainMercy]

Some claim that this universe had to be designed because if any of the components or physical relationships were changed then life on earth would not be possible. If this was true then God had to create this universe exactly as it is. In other words, God had to, was forced to choose the only possible design.

It seems to me you are saying that someone greater than God stood over Him while He created the universe and made Him come up with the only and perfect setting for the universe. Am I reading you right? Is that your argument? I think that the big bang theory must lurk somewhere around hear. What I want to know is how anybody with a rational mind could even accept such a theory in the first place? It is so full of holes that I don't even give answer to such tommy rot.

 

[KerrMetric]

It seems to me you are saying that someone greater than God stood over Him while He created the universe and made Him come up with the only and perfect setting for the universe. Am I reading you right? Is that your argument? I think that the big bang theory must lurk somewhere around hear. What I want to know is how anybody with a rational mind could even accept such a theory in the first place? It is so full of holes that I don't even give answer to such tommy rot.

Are you sure? Why do I think you have no such hole?

 

[CaptainMercy]

Are you sure? Why do I think you have no such hole?

Huh? What kind of question is that? Are you saying that I have a hole in my head or something? What are you trying to say? Please be more specific.

 

[KerrMetric]

Huh? What kind of question is that? Are you saying that I have a hole in my head or something? What are you trying to say? Please be more specific.

You claimed the Big Bang Theory was full of holes. I doubt you have any such holes.

 

[CaptainMercy]

You claimed the Big Bang Theory was full of holes. I doubt you have any such holes.

I see that discussing this will be futile!

 

[KerrMetric]

I see that discussing this will be futile!

Pobably true. My guess is that your so called holes are in fact based upon your assumptions about what the Big Bang theory is, as opposed to what it really says.

 

[billwald]

Maybe this is the only possible universe that can contain/evolve life forms.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I see that discussing this will be futile!

It would be. You've already said that in your view all the world's astrophysicists are as thick as two short planks because the theory they virtually unanimously agree with is obviously 'tommy-rot'.

 

[shernren]

Of course GR is full of holes ... black holes!

 

[KerrMetric]

Of course GR is full of holes ... black holes!

And rotating, uncharged ones are described by the *TA DA* 'Kerr Metric'.

 

[shernren]

And rotating, uncharged ones are described by the *TA DA* 'Kerr Metric'.

So go on, describe them! I'm waiting!

 

[tweaker]

One of the physical properties the OP may be refering to is the Strong Nuclear Force. This is the fundamental force that hold quarks (and thus nuclei) together. The other fundamental forces are gravity, electromagnitism and the weak nuclear force.

The strong force is the strongest of the four fundamental forces but only works over short distances. Gravity is long distance, EM is middle distance. The fine tuning in question is the relative strength of these forces. If the strong nuclear force were much weaker, the EM forces would keep any protons from touching and there would be nothing but hydrogen in the universe. If the strong nuclear force were much stronger, the universe would consist of a single lump of material.

I'm sure God could have come up with another design for a universe in which free-willed beings can exist (I think the new heaven & earth will be of a fundamentally different design). But the one in which we live has well adjusted physical properties for us.

Though I am a bit of a physics enthusiast, I am not a physicist. I think everythin above is correct, but feel free to correct me.

 

[shernren]

As far as I can see that's correct, but the EM force isn't exactly middle-range, it is also extremely long ranged but because there are both attractive and repulsive EM forces they tend to cancel each other out over astronomical scales. This is one of the arguments against creation science's "variable nuclear decay" theories: if the force balance is really fine-tuned, then any adjustment of the forces needed to change decay rates will also blow up the universe as we know it.

 

[KerrMetric]

As far as I can see that's correct, but the EM force isn't exactly middle-range, it is also extremely long ranged but because there are both attractive and repulsive EM forces they tend to cancel each other out over astronomical scales. This is one of the arguments against creation science's "variable nuclear decay" theories: if the force balance is really fine-tuned, then any adjustment of the forces needed to change decay rates will also blow up the universe as we know it.

The EM force is infinite in range if you have a zero mass photon. Which has to be true for charge conservation to hold.