To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: How Do They Get These Calculations?01
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3

Seriousquestions2013
I've been trying to research the fine-tuning argument, it goes basically as so..

["The Fine-Tuning argument is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we are simply an accident."]

I think it's a really good argument to use against atheist, however I don't get how they calculate the odds.

For example I've heard the Cosmological Constant is fine-tuned to 1:10^120. Meaning if it were to change 1 in 10(120 zeros) the universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars.

But I can't find how they calculate that. Some other constants they say are really fine-tuned are the following.

Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe 1:10^59

Can you help me find out how they calculate these odds so I can use it in debates with atheist.

Thank you God bless!
Ed Wood
I get that you believe in god.

You cannot prove the existence of the god of your faith. If you were succesful you would deny everyone else the power of faith thereby condemning them to eternal damnation so please stop lest you succeed. For all ha e sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.

As far as odds go the odds are 1in 1 if the odds were anythin but 1 in 1 we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Have a nice day brother
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 5 2013, 08:37 PM)
I get that you believe in god.

You cannot prove the existence of the god of your faith. If you were succesful you would deny everyone else the power of faith thereby condemning them to eternal damnation so please stop lest you succeed. For all ha e sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.

As far as odds go the odds are 1in 1 if the odds were anythin but 1 in 1 we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Have a nice day brother

I'm afraid I find this unsatisfying.

Imagine you are getting ready to be executed, there are 100 rifles aimed at you and they say FIRE! Then all the bullets miss and you say "Well of course all the bullets missed otherwise I wouldn't be here to notice I'm still alive!"

It's so wrong to think that way, a logically approach would be to find out why these constants are so fine-tuned.

But First I need to find out how they get these calculations!

Also There are two views among Christians about hell. On one side you can stack quite a few Scriptures that talk about the wicked perishing in hell, they die, they’re consumed, and they are no more. Then there are some Scriptures that I feel are more nebulous, where it talks about Satan being tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire. When you put all these Scriptures side by side, it seems like the bulk of evidence is on the side that the wicked are not immortalized in hell.

However I could be seriously wrong about this, I'm not a scholar.


Robittybob1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
"Fine-tuned Universe"

I would say it all depends on how fine tuned you want to be.
There seem to be many articles found on a google search of the words fine-tuned universe.
What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

I thought it a bit odd that you would approach a bunch of atheists for help to refine arguments against their beliefs. So you asked for it!

I am Christian but I have no feelings as to if the Universe is fine-tuned or not.

Watch a few of the "Catastrophe documentaries" and you won't be feeling like this place is fine tuned but just that by share luck something has survived!

It feels more like God started the engine of the Universe with the timing completely out. Life is firing on about 2 out of the six cylinders at the most. With petrol in the tank when its supposed to be diesel. If that is fine tuning, I'll be dammed!
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 5 2013, 09:49 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
"Fine-tuned Universe"

I would say it all depends on how fine tuned you want to be.
There seem to be many articles found on a google search of the words fine-tuned universe.
What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

I thought it a bit odd that you would approach a bunch of atheists for help to refine arguments against their beliefs. So you asked for it!

I am Christian but I have no feelings as to if the Universe is fine-tuned or not.

What a few of the "Catastrophe documentaries" and you won't be feeling like this place is fine tuned but just that by share luck something has survived!

It feels more like God started the engine with the timing completely out, life is firing on about 2 out of the six cylinders at the most. With petrol in the tank when its supposed to be diesel. If that is fine tuning, I'll be dammed!

Couldn't you have just told me how they calculate the odds...

Here are my thoughts on your comment.

2 Peter 3:7, 2 Peter 3:10, 2 Peter 3:12, Matt 24:7, Matt 24:21, Matt 24:22, Matt 24:29, Luke 17:29, Mark 13:25, Rev 6:13. Saying how horrible things are right now, doesn’t change the precision of the fine-tuning. (I just need to find out how they calculate the precision to know if it's accurate!)

Also I found a great video on youtube that addresses your statement.

Watch “God's Hand Was NOT Forced” by InspiringPhilosophy
waitedavid137
Gods don't exist. The bible isn't true, and no tuning is in the universe whatsoever. Answer your question?
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 5 2013, 11:01 PM)
Gods don't exist. The bible isn't true, and no tuning is in the universe whatsoever. Answer your question?

No all of your statements were very vague and without evidence.

The question is how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

Ex: Strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry

if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

How do they calculate how much larger and smaller it could be?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 5 2013, 09:53 PM)
Couldn't you have just told me how they calculate the odds...

No - because I haven't got the time, and you can read as well as I can.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 5 2013, 11:38 PM)
No - because I haven't got the time, and you can read as well as I can.

Maybe if you gave me an article that tells me how they calculate the odds than I would read it. The articles you gave me don't.
Ed Wood
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 5 2013, 11:07 PM)
No all of your statements were very vague and without evidence.

The question is how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

Ex: Strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry

if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

How do they calculate how much larger and smaller it could be?

I think therefore I am.

0+0=1 literally

LOL
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 6 2013, 12:01 AM)
I think therefore I am.

0+0=1 literally

LOL

*sigh* off topic post.

Can someone please just tell me how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 5 2013, 09:53 PM)
Also I found a great video on youtube that addresses your statement.
Watch “God's Hand Was NOT Forced” by InspiringPhilosophy

How does that address my statements?
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 6 2013, 12:24 AM)
How does that address my statements?

you said "It feels more like God started the engine with the timing completely out, life is firing on about 2 out of the six cylinders at the most. With petrol in the tank when its supposed to be diesel. If that is fine tuning, I'll be dammed!"

He addresses that your thinking of him as the engineer when in all reality he could be the artist or the gourmet chef. You make to many assumptions.

Robittybob1
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 6 2013, 12:30 AM)
you said "It feels more like God started the engine with the timing completely out, life is firing on about 2 out of the six cylinders at the most. With petrol in the tank when its supposed to be diesel. If that is fine tuning, I'll be dammed!"

He addresses that your thinking of him as the engineer when in all reality he could be the artist or the gourmet chef. You make to many assumptions.

A gourmet chef serving up roasted dinosaurs.

Or an artist pressing the bones of the Pterodactyl between two rock layers ...
All much the same in my book.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 6 2013, 12:42 AM)
A gourmet chef serving up roasted dinosaurs.

Or an artist pressing the bones of the Pterodactyl between two rock layers ...
All much the same in my book.

Tell me when you're ready to explain how physics calculate the odds. If you can't than just stop commenting.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 5 2013, 11:07 PM)
No all of your statements were very vague and without evidence.

The question is how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

Ex: Strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry

if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

How do they calculate how much larger and smaller it could be?

life is common < were you been . The building blocks are everywhere . How old do you think the earth is ? answer your honest opinion < I want to see how Jesus freak you are . Providing you are .

Quiz time < The Great House of Mica is made out of ________

fill in the blank

It is the same as sea of glass in your christian bible .

More to riddle < People who live in _______ houses should not throw stones


fill in the blank
it is the same as sea of glass


Jesus is not the savoir. He is the antichrist.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 6 2013, 12:48 AM)
How old do you think the earth is ?

If you want an honest answer to your question, go to youtube and watch this video..

Watch “(Christianity vs. Evolution)?” by InspiringPhilosophy

Now can we please stay on topic... I'm trying to figure out how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

If you can't answer this question or don't have anything meaningful to add to the conversation, PLEASE don't comment.
caillan
Every day that passes reinforces two things in my view of the world.
This forum attracts nutters like few others, and religiosity is a disease of the nutters. blink.gif
brucep
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 5 2013, 08:08 PM)
I've been trying to research the fine-tuning argument, it goes basically as so..

["The Fine-Tuning argument is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we are simply an accident."]

I think it's a really good argument to use against atheist, however I don't get how they calculate the odds.

For example I've heard the Cosmological Constant is fine-tuned to 1:10^120. Meaning if it were to change 1 in 10(120 zeros) the universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars.

But I can't find how they calculate that. Some other constants they say are really fine-tuned are the following.

Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe 1:10^59

Can you help me find out how they calculate these odds so I can use it in debates with atheist.

Thank you God bless!

That's what you think. Your opinion is 'enveloped' by your confusion about the difference between religious arguments and scientific arguments. You can't create a scientific argument against atheism. Just like you can't create a scientific argument for religion.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (brucep+May 6 2013, 01:14 AM)
That's what you think. Your opinion is 'enveloped' by your confusion about the difference between religious arguments and scientific arguments. You can't create a scientific argument against atheism. Just like you can't create a scientific argument for religion.

Why can't someone just tell me how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life??
brucep
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 6 2013, 01:21 AM)
Why can't someone just tell me how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life??

You've got to be kidding. Why come to a crank ridden public science forum to ask that question? Those calculations are trivial. Ask Google how scientists do these calculations.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (brucep+May 6 2013, 01:37 AM)
You've got to be kidding. Why come to a crank ridden public science forum to ask that question? Those calculations are trivial. Ask Google how scientists do these calculations.

I've tried googling it, all I get are the calculations themselves, not how they get them.
Ed Wood
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 6 2013, 12:08 AM)
*sigh* off topic post.

Can someone please just tell me how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life?

There are lots of constants can you ne more specific?

Or I could just tell you 42.


How lazy or reeetarded are you?
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 6 2013, 02:51 AM)
There are lots of constants can you ne more specific?

Or I could just tell you 42.


How lazy or reeetarded are you?

Lets start with the Gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry

if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

How do they determine what the acceptable ranges are?

I've been told it is fine-tuned to 1:10^40 but how do they determine it?
Robittybob1
All I can say on the topic is that the planet Mercury was fine-tuned for life at the odds of a billion to one. Whereas Earth and Mars were right down at zero tuning.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842

The Life on Mercury thread, rules!

Nevertheless the conditions changed with the passage of time and the fine-tuning coughed and spluttered and allowed living organisms to spread from Mercury to other parts of the Solar System, Earth included.
AlexG
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 5 2013, 10:28 PM)
All I can say on the topic is that the planet Mercury was fine-tuned for life at the odds of a billion to one. Whereas Earth and Mars were right down at zero tuning.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842

The Life on Mercury thread, rules!

Nevertheless the conditions changed with the passage of time and the fine-tuning coughed and spluttered and allowed living organisms to spread from Mercury to other parts of the Solar System, Earth included.

Robby, keep your nonsensical sh!t in the shitcan provided for it.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (AlexG+May 6 2013, 04:22 AM)
Robby, keep your nonsensical sh!t in the shitcan provided for it.

Shut your grubby mouth you fascist pig. LE is so much better at this than moi.
Lady Elizabeth
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 6 2013, 04:46 AM)
LE is so much better at this than moi.

"than you" - imbecile! laugh.gif
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+May 6 2013, 05:32 AM)
"than you" - imbecile! laugh.gif

No NO No No! I was trying to imitate vous not that sicko Alex.

How do they calculate those odds? Think of a number and now think of another. Make the first to the power of the second. You're done.
Seriousquestions2013
Still looking for an answer to this question. Forum is still open to answers on how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life!

If you don't have anything to say related to this topic please don't post your comment. Thank you.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 6 2013, 12:55 AM)
If you want an honest answer to your question, go to youtube and watch this video..

Watch “(Christianity vs. Evolution)?” by InspiringPhilosophy

Now can we please stay on topic... I'm trying to figure out how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

If you can't answer this question or don't have anything meaningful to add to the conversation, PLEASE don't comment.

(-1x1)+1=0
it is the square root generator . The -1 is the fall of Satan if you like the fantasy version .
It is what reproduction is all about

It is important for the -1 to be first for as they say the first will be last and the last will be firsts .
After the first generator of -1 it is a relationship of exactly that so the replacement is always a new zero in the middle position like this
(0x2)+1=1 which is the same as 1x1=1

(1x3)+1=4
(2x4)=1=9
(3x5)+1=16

see that . Life

You can't stop me from posting. You are a troll . You know who the all powerful Oz is ?
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 6 2013, 01:44 AM)
I've tried googling it, all I get are the calculations themselves, not how they get them.

nxn-1 is how they get them
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 7 2013, 01:20 AM)
You can't stop me from posting. You are a troll

How am I trolling? I pmed a physics teacher on youtube about this question and he told me to go to a physforum and ask the question here because he was unsure how they calculated the odds.

If you don't have anything meaningful to say please don't comment.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 01:26 AM)
How am I trolling? I pmed a physics teacher on youtube about this question and he told me to go to a physforum and ask the question here because he was unsure how they calculated the odds.

If you don't have anything meaningful to say please don't comment.

Stop saying that . I gave it to you idiot nxn-1 is equal potential plane and creates symmetry of a perturbation by creation of more dark energy then positive . It stems from the -1 and in the negative polarity it creates 2 more - quanta then then + .

You know anything about hole theory . Didn't think so . You know anything about dielectric boundaries? Didn't think so . Did you know you have a dielectric boundary also ? Didn't think so . Did you know you also have an electromagnetic boundary that is separate from your dielectric boundary? Didn't think so . So why you flapping your gums then ? What snake oil are you selling ?
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 7 2013, 01:33 AM)
Stop saying that . I gave it to you idiot nxn-1

how does this determine the acceptable ranges for the universal constants to be able to change and still allow for the creation of life???
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 01:39 AM)
how does this determine the acceptable ranges for the universal constants to be able to change and still allow for the creation of life???

by attraction . -1 is still one from zero and is the creation of 2 ones . The -1 is a hole and the 1 is the penetration of that dielectric boundary of the hole represented by -1 which produces 1. Think of a pyramid and -1 is at the outer boundary of the pyramid that starts attraction or the coupling of time by incremental stepping up of bases
Mekigal
You know what a manifold is ?
Are you a Jesus freak who thinks the world is 5,000 to 6,000 years old .

You know what that Scientist told you is the stock response when they want to brush off nonsense. So they send you top a nonsense site like this one . You might try Sciforum with James as the main mod. He is Christian sympathetic closet Christian him self so just saying < He will bend the rules of empirical evidence for you or at least not ban you for being a fool .

Come clean Jesus freak and admit you are trolling for Jesus
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 7 2013, 01:47 AM)
by attraction . -1 is still one from zero and is the creation of 2 ones . The -1 is a hole and the 1 is the penetration of that dielectric boundary of the hole represented by -1 which produces 1. Think of a pyramid and -1 is at the outer boundary of the pyramid that starts attraction or the coupling of time by incremental stepping up of bases

You've got to be trolling... You make no sense... do you know any articles or videos explaining how they calculate the amount the constants could change and still allow life?
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 7 2013, 01:52 AM)
Are you a Jesus freak who thinks the world is 5,000 to 6,000 years old .



Watch “(Christianity vs. Evolution)?” by InspiringPhilosophy
AlexG
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 6 2013, 08:26 PM)
I pmed a physics teacher on youtube about this question and he told me to go to a physforum and ask the question here because he was unsure how they calculated the odds.


That's a good idea, except the only thing physics about this forum is the name.

This is where you want to ask.

http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 01:55 AM)
You've got to be trolling... You make no sense... do you know any articles or videos explaining how they calculate the amount the constants could change and still allow life?

See you sentence makes no sense . Re word it if you even understand what you are saying . I just gave you the formula for all reproduction be it animated or inanimate .
Tiling < you ever heard of that . I think you should become a mason for a while before you go taking about creation like you own it . You don't and Jesus was a fool just like you and you delusional state of fairy worship of a dead man who ruins the lives of the living by you drinking his blood like the vampire that you are blood sucker troll .

Us here at this site ? We are better then Jesus and you are a slimy low life lower then Jesus by your denial of the big bang that happened roughly 13.75 billion years ago .
Can your mind event imagine a billion is the question in my mind much less understand how mathematicians derived constants .

See you are like a penguin and your wings just don't work so you can't fly high like a bird in paradise. Jesus the vampire leader did that to you so I don't blame you for your inadequacies of scientific now how .

O.K. easy question < Who is God ?
saxonblue
I admire your ability to sneak in a reference to God on a physics forum. blink.gif

By all means, believe in God. No probs with that. But base it on faith rather than science. The latter never ends well.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 7 2013, 04:30 AM)
big bang that happened roughly 13.75 billion years ago .

I believe in the big bang...
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 03:54 AM)
Watch “(Christianity vs. Evolution)?” by InspiringPhilosophy

You didn't answer the question . What is the matter with you . I asked you a question and you slap me aside like I am not relevant . Is that a god believers way of doing business . I think you should apologies to me and save your self from a trip to hell.

Answer the question . You know my friend Raphael the Frankster he calculated the constant of the earths gravity independently by parabolic coordinates of prime and it was more accurate then you can find on google . He also understands tiling .

Ask your self why is there even odd relationships in a triangle ? Tiling constant of that object is why .
Hence we come full circle to what a trinity is . It is triangulation it is based on the sum of its angels adding up to 180 degrees and it can only be exactly that . It is a rigid forum special to a trinity
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 04:34 AM)
I believe in the big bang...

that is a step in the right direction . But why do you ?
azo
What are the odds of the person holding the winning lottery ticket and winning the lottery? 100%. Odds have nothing to do with is there a God. Ed wood explained that to you in the beginning. What error is associated with the odds? Still does not prove or disprove the existence of God. If you question your faith see your preacher. Science and faith are mutually incompatible. I personally do not have a God detector and you will not help your cause looking for one here. DaVinci, Newton and Einstein are on high here. That is the highest we can observe. If God will join us I am sure he or she would have a seat at the head of the table in science. Until then ad due.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 5 2013, 04:07 PM)
No all of your statements were very vague and without evidence....

Yeah a lunatic like yourself would say that.
Mekigal
QUOTE (azo+May 7 2013, 01:48 PM)
What are the odds of the person holding the winning lottery ticket and winning the lottery? 100%. Odds have nothing to do with is there a God. Ed wood explained that to you in the beginning. What error is associated with the odds? Still does not prove or disprove the existence of God. If you question your faith see your preacher. Science and faith are mutually incompatible. I personally do not have a God detector and you will not help your cause looking for one here. DaVinci, Newton and Einstein are on high here. That is the highest we can observe. If God will join us I am sure he or she would have a seat at the head of the table in science. Until then ad due.

what

Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (azo+May 7 2013, 01:48 PM)
What are the odds of the person holding the winning lottery ticket and winning the lottery? 100%.


*sigh* Watch “Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments” by InspiringPhilosophy
Seriousquestions2013
Still looking for an answer guys.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 8 2013, 12:38 AM)
*sigh* Watch “Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments” by InspiringPhilosophy

That YT mentions the cosmological constant as being extremely fine-tuned. Trouble is when I look it up there is a real big debate about the cosmological constant. It doesn't seem to be defined so how can you say the cosmological constant is fine tuned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of . As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[14]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics. Structural Quantum Gravity is an approach of Quantum Gravity that predicts Einsteins field equations with cosmological constant as the classical limit of the action of Structural Quantum Gravity.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 07:35 PM)
Still looking for an answer guys.

You were already told the answer. Gods don't exist. The Bible isn't true. And there is no tuning that went into the universe.
We merely exist in that sliver of the (multi)universe when and where the physics is right so that we would come to be naturally.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 8 2013, 04:09 AM)
You were already told the answer. Gods don't exist. The Bible isn't true. And there is no tuning that went into the universe.
We merely exist in that sliver of the (multi)universe when and where the physics is right so that we would come to be naturally.

Imagine you’re at a poker game and the dealer keeps dealing himself four aces and a wild card for 20 turns, and you get up to shoot the guy, but he says, “have you considered the following? Possibly there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of possible poker hands, there is a universe in which that possibility is realized; we just happen to find ourselves in one where someone like me always deals himself only aces and wild cards without ever cheating. YOU CAN’T PROVE I’M CHEATING! So tell me if you were at the game would you sit back down and keep playing?

Please tell me you wouldn't keep playing sad.gif*
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 8 2013, 04:08 AM)
That YT mentions the cosmological constant as being extremely fine-tuned.

maybe you need to type in "cosmological constant fine-tuned" than
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 09:14 PM)
Imagine you’re at a poker game and the dealer keeps dealing himself four aces and a wild card for 20 turns...

Lunatic stop making up your own little reality and pay attention to what I told you. The (multi)universe doesn't deal this hand every time. It deals this hand this one time. We exist in that one hand for which the physics is right that we must come to be naturally. There was NO tuning.
caillan
David, if you don't get it already, this troll is trying to pull one of the latest fundie pseudo-arguments to support the maxim that they "live by faith, not by reason."
God, where is my emesis basin when I need it? dry.gif Maybe this will be simple enough for him, but I doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFI66E12sU
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 8 2013, 04:18 AM)
Lunatic stop making up your own little reality and pay attention to what I told you. The (multi)universe doesn't deal this hand every time. It deals this hand this one time. We exist in that one hand for which the physics is right that we must come to be naturally. There was NO tuning.

In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? - John 14:2

So yes I believe in the multiverse "theory"
Mekigal
Enough already < You know what the red x is . Your an idiot is what that means .

Who is the Lord of Agriculture idiot . If you cant answer that you know nothing about biblical end times .

Explain the red X . You know what that is . No because you have no clue .

Jesus is dead and gone for good . What say you about that ?
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 8 2013, 04:47 AM)
In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? - John 14:2

So yes I believe in the multiverse "theory"

See you are playing with the assumption of Mary . You know what that is < Google it fool then ask your self why the Pope quite on the 28 of February. Yeah Mary missed her period after her Father raped her in the night . Pope quite because of the assumption of Mary.

Actually I told him to quite . Did you know that . I gave him an ultimatum . He quite or I would destroy the earth. So his choice was to quite. You had no idea that went down did you ?
azo
The faster you guys get to your fathers house the better for society. We live against nature with religion. We can be moral without religious beliefs. There are to many vengeful Gods out there. Destroy those that are non believers so we can be secure in our belief. Just go away.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 7 2013, 09:47 PM)
In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? - John 14:2

So yes I believe in the multiverse "theory"

That reference was an astrology metaphor nut case, and astrology isn't true.
Tesla2
I will hiit YOU I will use HAMER


DO YOU SEE PAIN or DO YOU FEEL PAIN ?


PAIN RESPECT TO WHAT ?


do You like to know ? please evaluate kinetic energy Respect to stationary Point (s. )
in the universe


what is point (s ) ??

You are moving = You were in past in point (s) this is natural
that after short time You will be in S2 ....S 3

Power of light ( lumens per Steradian = Lumens per area = HOW MUCH PAIN YOU WILL FEEL

DOPPLER RED/BLUE no INSIDE YOUR OWN COORDINATION SYSTEM WE HAVE
LUMEN PER AREA SHIFT

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O3CSl75aYXM/UYYV...A/s1600/mm2.JPG


HAMMER AND PAIN

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ufMRP8MllFs/UXtp...s1600/train.JPG


WIDOWLESS ROCKET PROBLEM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RP-anGNzGyo/UW19...1600/02fuko.JPG

WHY ABOVE PROBLEM IS IMPORTANT FOR EINSTEIN

BELOW WORDS YOU CAN FIND RIGHT NOW IN ALL BOOKS PHYSICS !!!

" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments
(it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).

In pursuing these ideas Galileo used the scientific method (Sec. 1.2.1): he derived consequences of this hypothesis and determined whether they agree with the predictions.

This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
Seriousquestions2013
Still looking for an educated, unbiased answer.
Ed Wood
Why are you looking for a serious answer to a ridiculous question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant


Most constants are measured and refined through experiment.

Can you source the question?


I see you have quoted something in your original post with no source?

QUOTE
"The Fine-Tuning argument is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination. The odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we are simply an accident."


You can certainly do that but it makes you look either pompous because you are quoting yourself or reetarded because you are pulling quotes out of your arse.


Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 8 2013, 10:51 PM)
Still looking for an educated, unbiased answer.

(-1X1)+1=0

What is the matter with you ? Did you fall on your head ?
You don't answer any questions . You have not made any arguments either .

You are one of those crazy people born with out a sense of reason right ?



waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 8 2013, 03:51 PM)
Still looking for an educated, unbiased answer.

You already got it. You just chose to reject it for your emotional needs.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 9 2013, 02:20 AM)
the question?

I don't actually know how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

I simply want to know how they "know" if (insert constant) was off by (however much they say) the universe wouldn't be able to support life.
Ed Wood
" I want" is not a question.

Who are they?
Who are the ones that say?
What are they saying?
Why are they saying the things that they say.

If you want an answer to the last question you must ask the first two questions first you can't just jump to the third one as the answers to the first 2 are very relevent.

If you can't provide the source of the first 2 then the answer to the third is just heresay and the only answers to you can recieve for the last will be suppositions based on assumptions and heresay.

I know it sounds like I'm trying to make things difficult but if you want good answers you must ask good questions.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 9 2013, 04:09 AM)
I don't actually know how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

I simply want to know how they "know" if (insert constant) was off by (however much they say) the universe wouldn't be able to support life.

life is more durable then you think . Let me ask you this < Is A.I. alive ?

You can freeze a fly and resurrect it . Did you know that ?
You can freeze some fish and resurrect them too. Did you know that ?

The system built into for you to think your species is special above all other species . It is a human condition of attributes bestowed on you by the Sumerians long before Biblical times . There was a Sumerian King that started documentation by the written word and a new paradigm in story telling was born and that lead to biblical times and a new dream state of expanded thought processes in group thoughts , Added to social behavior of the human species


Is an animal other then the human animal intelligent ? Ask your self that ?

If you say they are not ? Then you can look square at your bias for human animals and start to understand the implications of your god image value over all else in the universe . It is just a hop skip and a jump to see how your beliefs step on earth an discard the house that gives you your life as a gift of the earths environment.

You are a robber baron all the way if you think like that . Your disrespect for your environment by lofty goals of the after life cloud your judgement in the here and now . Who is your master and that will tell you where your priorities are . My master is the house that supports Me and gives me life
niels
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 9 2013, 04:28 PM)
My master is the house that supports Me and gives me life

I conquer, Cosmos is a good master

farewell to individual Gods
caillan
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 9 2013, 04:09 AM)
I don't actually know how the calculations are performed that determine what the acceptable ranges are for the various universal constants to allow the creation of life.

I simply want to know how they "know" if (insert constant) was off by (however much they say) the universe wouldn't be able to support life.

Why? Isn't your faith enough for you?
If not, set it aside and learn why instead of fishing for a fundie argument on a forum known for crazies. dry.gif
AlexG
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 8 2013, 05:51 PM)
Still looking for an educated, unbiased answer.

The answer to your question, specifically the effect of the gravitational constant on stellar nucleosynthesis can be found here:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...articlesu7.html
Mekigal
chain of command
Seriousquestions2013
Here are some videos on this topic...

Watch “The Teleological Argument (What is really says)” by InspiringPhilosophy

Watch “Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments” by InspiringPhilosophy

Watch “God's Hand Was NOT Forced” by InspiringPhilosophy


In all the debates I've seen between atheist and Christians about fine-tuning, the atheist never questions the numbers the Christian gives.

I'm just trying to figure out how they measure/calculate how much it could change and still allow for the creation of life.

A simple answer, just tell me how they are coming up with the numbers.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 9 2013, 05:55 PM)
...

InspiringPhilosophy is not a valid reference, nor even relavent. You were already told the answer. There is NO tuning that went into the universe. And yet you keep asking over and over how much tuning went into it. Thats a pretty think skull you've got there. There is no scientific evidence for any amount of tuning whatsoever. The answer is zero. The truth is all these illogical "arguments" you rest on have nothing to do with numbers which you don't have. You believed as a child because you were brainwashed to by your parents. You preserved your belief as an adult because of your emotional need, not because there is any rational to these arguments, and thats why you're insane. How do you calculate tuning? You don't because there was no tuning. Get over it.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 10 2013, 03:46 AM)
How do you calculate tuning? You don't because there was no tuning. Get over it.

Okay so your telling me that when Christians and atheist have there debates, atheist purposely let them get by with these numbers???

Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37 (meaning if it was off 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40 (meaning if it was off 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55 (meaning if it was off 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

Mass Density of Universe 1:10^59 (meaning if it was off 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

If larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

Cosmological Constant 1:10^120 (meaning if it was off just 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

I have NEVER seen any atheist deny these numbers in the debates I've seen. All I'm asking is for someone to tell me how they get these.
waitedavid137
I'm telling you that
1
when your religious nutter frends tell you that "if something were off by...then..." numbers that they typically just pulled the "off by" numbers out their *** and that
2
its not a surprise at all whatsoever that we living organisms find ourselves in that small sliver of the universe of the particular universe in the multiverse where the circumstances no matter how rare in the multiverse happen to be just right to lead to our abiogenesis and evolution. There is no miracle in this.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 10 2013, 04:19 AM)
its not a surprise at all whatsoever that we living organisms find ourselves in that small sliver of the universe of the particular universe in the multiverse where the circumstances no matter how rare in the multiverse happen to be just right to lead to our abiogenesis and evolution. There is no miracle in this.

But the constants effect the whole universe, not just a part of it.

Also string theory tells us there "could" be a multiverse. Nothing more than a could...

No empirical proof or scientific mathematically consistent theories.

and even if there is a multiverse, us Christians will be like "told you so" because there are many bible verses which point to a mutliverse.


Now back on topic. Out of all the debates I've watched between Christians and atheist, I've never heard an atheist deny the numbers.
All I'm trying to get is how physics calculate the numbers.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 04:09 AM)
Okay so your telling me that when Christians and atheist have there debates, atheist purposely let them get by with these numbers???

Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37 (meaning if it was off 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40 (meaning if it was off 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55 (meaning if it was off 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

Mass Density of Universe 1:10^59 (meaning if it was off 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

If larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

Cosmological Constant 1:10^120 (meaning if it was off just 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)

if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

I have NEVER seen any atheist deny these numbers in the debates I've seen. All I'm asking is for someone to tell me how they get these.

what are you talking about . That is not math that is fantasy . There are no odds . Were do you get this notion there is a 1 to what ever ratio of event structure happening . Your an idiot . Did you make that up or was it some other fool ?
Repetition and then breakage of the repetition is how life was built . Don't understand anything . The house that Jack built ? Ever hear of that ?

You are out dated in your Jesus love . He came back already in the !860s anyway < You just didn't know his new name cause you have no idea what the House of God represents . The Fantasy of sinking Pharaoh into the red sea < You ever hear of that idiot . How about " The Bull sacrifice" ??? Besides the lamb of God there is the Bull of god . Yeah the Bull sacrifice < Explain fool . Then move on to the significance in the sinking of pharaoh and what that truly means . A fuking Muslim has a better understanding then a fukking christian on that matter .

The Hopi have you all hands down though . One of the only true spiritualist left in the world . yeah there is plenty that follow there lead of mother protection as a means of sustainability in a species run amuck .

O.K. is the devil your friend ? That is an easy enough question for you . Can you answer that question . Does scripture tell you that the devil is your friend ?
You are a very bad Christian if you can't bring your self to answer that honestly right here and now

Mekigal
See it couldn't be off any amount approaching 1 . It could be exactly what it is by path opportunity .

You can't cross the line to the negative but one path .

123456789
246813579
369369369
483726159
516273849
639639639
753186429
876543219
999999999

you ever seen that ? It is your dictate to live
Mekigal
You don't understand the constant of 1. The idea comes from the Stoics . You know who they are . Smarter then Jesus . They were people that lived around his time . One is discrete yet it don't have to be . The constant of one universe as a unit . And in that unit the results are this . You look at life backwards from reality and that is why think the other way around . It is a result of one unit of our universe and the results of that quanta is what we get .


Why do you like Jesus so much ? He was a bad example of a human being ? I don't get why you follow his suffering model of human shame and discard?

Then there is the woman shut up you have no right to speak because you are a woman ??? How do you reconcile that in your pea brain that refuses to evolve like the rest of us that realize women have a right to be heard. That human dignity should be afforded everyone and not just protestant white males .

Are you a racist ?
Ed Wood
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 04:09 AM)
Okay so your telling me that when Christians and atheist have there debates, atheist purposely let them get by with these numbers???


Still no source. Which means the source is your or someone else's arse. <-----again since you have provided no source I cannot check their math and neither can you.


Constants are what they are. The odds that they would end up as what they are is 1 in 1. the odds have to be 1 in 1 or we would not be having this conversation.

Anyone who suggests that they could have been anything but what they are is talking out of their arse.

If you don't like the answer change the question.

I place the blame for this stupidity squarely on the shoulders of Quantum Mechanics or at least pop sciences description of quantum mechanics. Abuse of statistics leads directly to this kind of bulllshiite.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 9 2013, 09:28 PM)
But the constants effect the whole universe, not just a part of it....

NO. They do not effect the other branes for which the constants are different. You just got this one hand this one time. There's nothing miraculous in the numbers. They just yield a universe for which only a tiny sliver of it is habitable and only for a tiny sliver of its duration. Nothing special or surprising is going on here. Certainly nothing favorable to life given that fact. In fact if you want to see just how undesigned this universe is, just look up. Look at that mess of a moon. Look at all those haphazard collisions that took place. Look at the mess of galaxy configurations, how many of them actually collide with each other destroying all class 1 and 0 (like our own) civilizations utterly including how ours will with Andromeda. Look at how gamma ray bursts randomly strike galaxies entirely sterilizing every class in an instant. There is no planning. With such a small sliver and duration of habitability, there can be no tuning. There is nothing to your ridiculous claims that there is, and that's why you can't find any real source with actual tuning number crunching other than just crack pot religionist claims.
Lets imaging you're a magic mana loaves and fishes poofing man in the sky that wanted to make a universe favorable to life. How would you do it? This is how I would. I'd have a universe of all atmosphere expanding forever with air mana and loaves poofing in here or there where life would fly around and breed everywhere throughout forever without extinction living on magic made bread and living immortal. But what we have is a universe where only a sliver of it is habitable for a sliver of its durration in which everything will cool out and die. Almost completely inhospitable to life as imaginable.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 04:28 AM)
But the constants effect the whole universe, not just a part of it.

Also string theory tells us there "could" be a multiverse. Nothing more than a could...

No empirical proof or scientific mathematically consistent theories.

and even if there is a multiverse, us Christians will be like "told you so" because there are many bible verses which point to a mutliverse.


Now back on topic. Out of all the debates I've watched between Christians and atheist, I've never heard an atheist deny the numbers.
All I'm trying to get is how physics calculate the numbers.

Let the Red Heifer come and atone for the golden Calf. You know what that means delusional Christian .

Jesus was a devil . Did you know that . He was not the Christ , but rather just another blood sucking vampire and his followers symbolically drink his blood and eat his flesh . You see a problem with that ? Drinking blood is a sin by tradition .

There was a German /Disguised as a Roman who was the Christ at Jesus time of living . His stories of valor were not made up either but true events of beating back the oppressive Roman empire like Jesus would have done if he was truly the Christ like the Ancient German was . He is the reason so many German kids are named Harmon or an equivalent spelling .

What does it say in the old testament after all < He will be cast into Harmon . You are biblical stupid so you don't understand that , but Germans do because they live with the Christ as an image of victory over oppressive governments not of there own ruler-ship, but of an invading army .

Your version of Christianity is a continued effort to oppress people by its decree of favoritism and cronyism bias by your god imagery of blood thirsty rule over the whole universe. A mirror of Catholic/Roman dictatorship with a bad devil dead man at the helm < A fake Messiah called Jesus the Vampire . A lot of us persecuted for our Stoic belief systems with is based in reality instead of fiction think of his full name as " Evil Jesus "
Consider the rampage of the Trinity sect that burned The library of Alexandria down to ground and what treasures lost to humanity as a whole from such barbaric acts by devote "Evil Jesus" worshipers
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 10 2013, 12:01 PM)
Still no source.

It wont let me paste irls

just google search "Fine-tuned Universe"

The only objection to it is there is a multiverse which we have no proof of...

funny how atheist can't believe in God, but when it comes to a multiverse different rules apply.

If anyone knows how they know how much these constants can change before life becomes impossible please let me know.
Mekigal
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 10:19 PM)
It wont let me paste irls

just google search "Fine-tuned Universe"

The only objection to it is there is a multiverse which we have no proof of...

funny how atheist can't believe in God, but when it comes to a multiverse different rules apply.

If anyone knows how they know how much these constants can change before life becomes impossible please let me know.

what are you talking about , no body said they didn't believe in god . What they said is there is no empirical evidence of a God . That is 2 different subjects . Some will and some won't . Everybody likes a good fairy tale . Die hard was one of my favorites . Who was that guy that played the last boyscout again ?

You have not answered any of my questions sinner . Anyone that ask of you ? what happened there ? Digging deep into the pit of hell there sport .

Was Satan sent by God ? Answer that ? Is Satan Gods best angel ?
Seriousquestions2013
Strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

Weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

Gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry

if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

Electromagnetic force constant

if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support

if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

Ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

if smaller: same as above

Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: same as above

Expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxies would form

if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
Entropy level of the universe

if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

Mass density of the universe

if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

Velocity of light

if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support

if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

Age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

Initial uniformity of radiation

if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed

if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

Average distance between galaxies

if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

Density of galaxy cluster

if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit

if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

Average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun

if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields

if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

Decay rate of protons

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life

if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life

if smaller: same as above

Decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass

if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements

if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation

if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

Polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

Supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

White dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry

if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production

if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass

if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form

if smaller: no galaxies would form

number of effective dimensions in the early universe

if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible

if smaller: same result

Number of effective dimensions in the present universe

if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

if larger: same result

Mass of the neutrino

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples

if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly

if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

Size of the relativistic dilation factor

if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly

if larger: same result

Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

Cosmological constant

if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


[All I want to know is how do they determine how much these constants can change before life becomes impossible??]
Mekigal
oh your are a what ifer whiffer.
. If your daddy was a homosexual would you still love him .
If your Mommy like big black ones filling here hole would you still love her and reserve a spot in heaven for her.

How do you jump to God Exists with all that useless rampage.

Consider this if it is a million to one and you have a lottery < for the winner it is one to one .

That is not evidence of a Creator that hung Jesus on a Cross and let him die friend , or a God that came down to earth and raped a young virgin out of wedlock for that matter .

What church do you go to? Are you a white supremest who thinks back people have the mark of Cain on them and deserve to be slave class working for white people . Is that how you think ? What about fellow Christians that live in Mexico , Do you think you should shut the door on them and not let them in your White supremacy click hiding behind a religious dogma that is exclusionary

What if the sky was green
Mekigal
I can tell you don't know what a Magnetar is . It is a real star like object and there is like one hundred maybe more in the Milky Way Galaxy. A teaspoon would weight 100s of tons . It is not very friendly object The electromagnetic force is so strong it makes things non metal behave like they are by dialectic properties.

There are many objects that defy your so called constant rules of engagement . Still objects being found that don't fit what you think are constants .

For one thing lets talk gravity < Is Gravity even around the earth ? No it is not it has a topography so there is no real constant as it is in constant flux based on many factors.

You are just wanging out dumb down version meant for popular consumption of the masses .
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 11 2013, 12:04 AM)
That is not evidence of a Creator that hung Jesus on a Cross and let him die friend



No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." - John 10:18
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 06:08 PM)
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." - John 10:18

Majic flying sky zombies don't exist. The bible isn't a valid reference. Neither is a website of unfounded physits quotes you listed. And claiming that the statement that there is a multiverse is your only objection and that its unfounded makes you a liar. It wasn't your only objection and you already conceeded that there is a multiverse. You lied that a bible reference was even referring to that. The fact is that the universe is the opposite of condusive to life as you claimed. It only supports life in a small sliver of it for a small sliver of its durration and then everything cools out and dies. All the random crap from craters on the moon to galaxy sterilizing gamma ray bursts indicates that there is no design. There just is no miracle in the numbers that you claim. Thats why there is no tunning calculations at the invalid religionist web site pretending to list physics facts that you're quoting.
NymphaeaAlba
Calculating God, eh? Just Google it, Noah.

Cosmological Constant

Have you read John. D. Barrow's work? He’s well known for hanging onto the Templeton Foundation’s teat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Good luck with that...rolleyes.gif
Seriousquestions2013
I've been asking this question at school alot and one of my teachers said she would call a retired math/physics teacher that might know about this. It turns out he did know alot about this and he said he would show me how they get the numbers they get and how they know if it was off just slightly life would be impossible.

However this isn't until Tuesday night so if anyone already knows how the measurements/calculations are made feel free to fill me in.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 09:04 PM)
I've been asking this question at school alot and one of my teachers said she would call a retired math/physics teacher that might know about this. It turns out he did know alot about this and he said he would show me how they get the numbers they get and how they know if it was off just slightly life would be impossible.

However this isn't until Tuesday night so if anyone already knows how the measurements/calculations are made feel free to fill me in.

Its not tuned so get over it. Its not even sustainable for life. Its all doomed. So much for your stance.
Seriousquestions2013
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 11 2013, 04:13 AM)
Its not tuned so get over it. Its not even sustainable for life. Its all doomed. So much for your stance.

2 Peter 3:10, 2 Peter 3:12, Matt 24:7, Matt 24:21, Matt 24:22, Matt 24:29, Luke 17:29, Mark 13:25, Rev 6:13. Saying how horrible things are right now, doesn’t change the precision of the fine-tuning.
NymphaeaAlba
Read up, little one.

“Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.”
AlexG
Just another religious wacko.
Mekigal
you are feeling the bravery of the lost soul Jesus . He is in hell . Did you know that . It says so in the new testament. It says in order for him to get to heaven he has to go to hell . We are not letting him out either . That is why you Christians can't get a leg up but flail around like beginners at a butt kicking contest .

Is Satan your Friend 666 ??? Answer the question sinner


I hope we didn't scare him off to fast . His biblical quotes are looking like he is scared
Mekigal
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+May 11 2013, 03:49 AM)
Calculating God, eh? Just Google it, Noah.

Cosmological Constant

Have you read John. D. Barrow's work? He’s well known for hanging onto the Templeton Foundation’s teat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Good luck with that...rolleyes.gif

see that is the thing . There is 2.7 K of heat . Is there any place colder then that any where ? I don't know .
Ed Wood
QUOTE (Seriousquestions2013+May 10 2013, 10:19 PM)
funny how atheist can't believe in God, but when it comes to a multiverse different rules apply.


There is an Irony there.

However, I would suggest that you can't lump all the physics atheists into the same category. Some buy that multiverse thing some don't.


I will preface this with I am not an atheist and this just my OPINION as such I could totally be wrong.

I will now offend some atheists.

The truly intellectually honest atheist can not buy into the various multiverse theories because of a true total and complete lack of faith and reliance on the science requires that there be proof.

There is a caveat to that WMAP evidence counts at least in my mind it may not for some of the more hard core atheists who have a higher standard of proof.

The less intellectually honest will accept a multiverse theory with only the mathematical evidence. Usually these are string theorists not physicists. IMHO there is a fine line between string theory and numerology. Don't get me wrong here I am not calling them liars I am just saying it takes a certain amount of faith to buy into anything with just math and you can't be a true atheist if you have faith even if it is in math. In a sense math has become their deity.






PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.