How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Hollie]

So we now have two atheists on record, completely rejecting modern physics in order to support their "religious" belief. Denying that we have a gravitational constant so finely tuned we can develop a formula for calculating it accurately and have been doing so for over a century. Relegated to nit-picking tiny irrelevant details and pretending this somehow refutes my argument.

The more physical science refuses to give them answers they want, the more they will categorically reject science. This should suffice as all the evidence anyone needs that these two are on a mission and it's not a science mission.

You're rattling on with the "finely tuned" nonsense that is a staple at your fundamentalist Christian Ministries. As your arguments have been exposed as nothing more than propaganda you gather from the ICR, you're getting more and more hysterical.

 

[Boss]

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do. It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.

We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables. The question of life is moot if there is not the fine tuned constant to allow the formation of atoms, chemistry, carbon, stars and planets. Nothing resembling life of any kind we know of could exist in a universe with no stars and planets.

Now people are wanting to try and argue that if the constants were not at their precise settings, who knows what alternate kind of universe we may have... but this is just blind stupidity trying to cling to disbelief. The Earth revolves around the Sun because the gravitational constant is precise. If you change that, the Earth no longer revolves around the Sun, does something greater happen instead? Is that the argument?

 

[Hollie]

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do. It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.

We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables. The question of life is moot if there is not the fine tuned constant to allow the formation of atoms, chemistry, carbon, stars and planets. Nothing resembling life of any kind we know of could exist in a universe with no stars and planets.

Now people are wanting to try and argue that if the constants were not at their precise settings, who knows what alternate kind of universe we may have... but this is just blind stupidity trying to cling to disbelief. The Earth revolves around the Sun because the gravitational constant is precise. If you change that, the Earth no longer revolves around the Sun, does something greater happen instead? Is that the argument?

"The gawds did it". That what the ICR tells you and that's all you need to know.

 

[Boss]

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.

Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective. The argument is, if a fine tuned universe did not exist, there is no material universe as we know it. If things were different, they would not exist.

Granted, there are some constants which could be variated by 10, maybe 20% and theoretically it wouldn't upset the apple cart too much in the grand scheme of things. But there are at least a dozen other constants/ratios/weights... which have to be precise to an astonishing degree, or the things which comprise our material reality simply can't exist.

This is a real problem for science to explain. The latest theory is what I like to call their very own "flying spaghetti monster" theory. That's where, some place beyond our cosmos is a giant universe making machine, churning out all kinds of random universes and this explains how we were fortunate to get one in tune. Multiverse is a great theory, but it's no more 'confirmed science' than God.

 

[Hollie]

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.

Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective. The argument is, if a fine tuned universe did not exist, there is no material universe as we know it. If things were different, they would not exist.

Granted, there are some constants which could be variated by 10, maybe 20% and theoretically it wouldn't upset the apple cart too much in the grand scheme of things. But there are at least a dozen other constants/ratios/weights... which have to be precise to an astonishing degree, or the things which comprise our material reality simply can't exist.

This is a real problem for science to explain. The latest theory is what I like to call their very own "flying spaghetti monster" theory. That's where, some place beyond our cosmos is a giant universe making machine, churning out all kinds of random universes and this explains how we were fortunate to get one in tune. Multiverse is a great theory, but it's no more 'confirmed science' than God.

It's hilarious reading the babbling of the ICR groupie, lecturing about the "science" he gets from christian fundamentalists.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do. It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.

We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables. The question of life is moot if there is not the fine tuned constant to allow the formation of atoms, chemistry, carbon, stars and planets. Nothing resembling life of any kind we know of could exist in a universe with no stars and planets.

Now people are wanting to try and argue that if the constants were not at their precise settings, who knows what alternate kind of universe we may have... but this is just blind stupidity trying to cling to disbelief. The Earth revolves around the Sun because the gravitational constant is precise. If you change that, the Earth no longer revolves around the Sun, does something greater happen instead? Is that the argument?

"We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables."

Stop

There are physical constants we do not have precise measurements for. That does not make them variables!! It means that different experiments to measure these physical constants have came up with slightly different values.

For instance, the gravitational constant arises from assuming that gravitational attraction is follows an inverse square and is related to the two masses. Newton made this assumption and realized there has to exist a small multiple to his original model to explain the small amount of force exhibited.

When Newton tried calculating the Gravitational constant the first time, he was off by a factor--he repeated the experiment several more times and took an average!!

 

[Boss]

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do. It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.

We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables. The question of life is moot if there is not the fine tuned constant to allow the formation of atoms, chemistry, carbon, stars and planets. Nothing resembling life of any kind we know of could exist in a universe with no stars and planets.

Now people are wanting to try and argue that if the constants were not at their precise settings, who knows what alternate kind of universe we may have... but this is just blind stupidity trying to cling to disbelief. The Earth revolves around the Sun because the gravitational constant is precise. If you change that, the Earth no longer revolves around the Sun, does something greater happen instead? Is that the argument?

"We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables."

Stop

There are physical constants we do not have precise measurements for. That does not make them variables!! It means that different experiments to measure these physical constants have came up with slightly different values.

For instance, the gravitational constant arises from assuming that gravitational attraction is follows an inverse square and is related to the two masses. Newton made this assumption and realized there has to exist a small multiple to his original model to explain the small amount of force exhibited.

When Newton tried calculating the Gravitational constant the first time, he was off by a factor--he repeated the experiment several more times and took an average!!

Earlier, I posted the formula in physics for the gravitational constant. Now, either the formula is correct or it isn't, math doesn't produce uncertain results. Measuring something several times or several ways and averaging your results was very common before we could measure more accurately. This is how pi was figured out. I'm sure there wasn't a formula for determining the gravitational constant before Newton invented Calculus and figured out how to measure it accurately.

But we're still playing "dodge the point" here, because regardless of whether we are certain we can accurately measure the constant, if it's a constant the value is constant. It doesn't change... it can't change or reality doesn't exist and physics does't work.

 

[edthecynic]

Earlier, I posted the formula in physics for the gravitational constant. Now, either the formula is correct or it isn't, math doesn't produce uncertain results.

You are soooooo scientifically STUPID, you don't even know what you C&P.

You posted the formula for the "law of universal gravitation," which contained the "gravitational constant" "G"
Then you dishonestly posted G without its uncertainty value.

According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them:

The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant.

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.

 

[edthecynic]

But we're still playing "dodge the point" here, because regardless of whether we are certain we can accurately measure the constant, if it's a constant the value is constant. It doesn't change... it can't change or reality doesn't exist and physics does't work.

Except they were able to calculate "reality" existing with a less accurate gravitational "constant" in the past before we got the more accurate approximation we have now, so there is obviously a gravitational constant range where our reality can exist and physics works.

 

[Boss]

Except they were able to calculate "reality" existing with a less accurate gravitational "constant" in the past before we got the more accurate approximation we have now, so there is obviously a gravitational constant range where our reality can exist and physics works.

Our ability or inability to measure things has no effects on physics. There has never been a "less accurate gravitational constant" it has always been the same. A constant, by definition, does not range in value. To make such a statement is illiterate.

 

[edthecynic]

There has never been a "less accurate gravitational constant" it has always been the same.A constant, by definition, does not range in value. To make such a statement is illiterate.

Only to someone completely scientificaly illiterate!

The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive. This led to the 2010 CODATA value by NIST having 20% increased uncertainty than in 2006.

In the January 2007 issue of Science, Fixler et al. described a new measurement of the gravitational constant by atom interferometry, reporting a value of G = 6.693(34) × 10−11 m3s2/kg. An improved cold atom measurement by Rosi et al. was published in 2014 of G= 6.67191(99) × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do. It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.

We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables. The question of life is moot if there is not the fine tuned constant to allow the formation of atoms, chemistry, carbon, stars and planets. Nothing resembling life of any kind we know of could exist in a universe with no stars and planets.

Now people are wanting to try and argue that if the constants were not at their precise settings, who knows what alternate kind of universe we may have... but this is just blind stupidity trying to cling to disbelief. The Earth revolves around the Sun because the gravitational constant is precise. If you change that, the Earth no longer revolves around the Sun, does something greater happen instead? Is that the argument?

"We DO have precise measurements or they wouldn't be constant, they would be unknown variables."

Stop

There are physical constants we do not have precise measurements for. That does not make them variables!! It means that different experiments to measure these physical constants have came up with slightly different values.

For instance, the gravitational constant arises from assuming that gravitational attraction is follows an inverse square and is related to the two masses. Newton made this assumption and realized there has to exist a small multiple to his original model to explain the small amount of force exhibited.

When Newton tried calculating the Gravitational constant the first time, he was off by a factor--he repeated the experiment several more times and took an average!!

Earlier, I posted the formula in physics for the gravitational constant. Now, either the formula is correct or it isn't, math doesn't produce uncertain results. Measuring something several times or several ways and averaging your results was very common before we could measure more accurately. This is how pi was figured out. I'm sure there wasn't a formula for determining the gravitational constant before Newton invented Calculus and figured out how to measure it accurately.

But we're still playing "dodge the point" here, because regardless of whether we are certain we can accurately measure the constant, if it's a constant the value is constant. It doesn't change... it can't change or reality doesn't exist and physics does't work.

But experimentation in the natural science can produce slightly different results. The math here to determine the value of a constant is statistics.

Also, you say measure accurately, But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.

Remember, you were making arguments for the impossibility of this universe if the constants were off by 10^(-9) when the gravitational constant, as measured today with better instruments, isn't that accurate.

This isn't one of your better arguments, Boss.

 

[Boss]

Only to someone completely scientificaly illiterate!

No sir! Illiterate people try to argue that a 'constant' can vary.
They are scientifically illiterate by default.

 

[Boss]

G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces...

You began this argument claiming gravity was the strongest force.

"Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!" - EdtheIlliterate (post #1054)

Published values of G have varied rather broadly.

This is a misleading statement which is causing your retard brain to short out. The value of G is never-changing, it is constant. ...If the gravitational constant actually varied or fluctuated, nothing in physics would work. Whether or not we have developed an accurate way to measure, or whether or not we published that, has no effect on the true value of the gravitational constant.

 

[Boss]

But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.

You don't need to be able to measure exact value to know a value is constant. IF a plastic cup can only hold 16 oz. of water, it makes no difference whether we are able to measure ounces accurately, the amount the cup will hold doesn't change.

Let's take our analogy to a higher level to represent the universe and uncertainty principle. We have a pool in the back yard... the value of water in ounces that pool can hold is constant. We understand this from the start, the pool can't gain or lose capacity. When it comes down to defining an actual set number of ounces the pool can hold, it is difficult to measure because of other variables which are not constant, floating around while we're trying to measure a result. Air pressure on the surface of the water is fluctuating in different parts of the pool, we see the water on the surface making ripples and waves... Some of the water we've measured has evaporated since we began the measuring, the temperature fluctuates and water molecules expand and contract, sediments in the air and impurities are constantly displacing molecules of water in the pool.... SO we can't ever know the exact precise number of ounces the pool will hold, but that constant value exists and we know that it does in spite of variable uncertainty. We even have a formula to determine a fairly accurate constant value. A standard 25m x 50m Olympic pool holds 660,000 US gal. Times 128 ounces per gallon, equals 84,480,000 ounces. Our formula results in an approximate value. We cannot measure the value any more accurately because of other floating variables happening as we try to measure. This does not change the true precise capacity of the pool.

Now, to put the final touch on this analogy, imagine if our pool could not have the capacity of one drop of water, more or less, or it can't physically exist?

 

[amrchaos]

But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.

You don't need to be able to measure exact value to know a value is constant. IF a plastic cup can only hold 16 oz. of water, it makes no difference whether we are able to measure ounces accurately, the amount the cup will hold doesn't change.

Let's take our analogy to a higher level to represent the universe and uncertainty principle. We have a pool in the back yard... the value of water in ounces that pool can hold is constant. We understand this from the start, the pool can't gain or lose capacity. When it comes down to defining an actual set number of ounces the pool can hold, it is difficult to measure because of other variables which are not constant, floating around while we're trying to measure a result. Air pressure on the surface of the water is fluctuating in different parts of the pool, we see the water on the surface making ripples and waves... Some of the water we've measured has evaporated since we began the measuring, the temperature fluctuates and water molecules expand and contract, sediments in the air and impurities are constantly displacing molecules of water in the pool.... SO we can't ever know the exact precise number of ounces the pool will hold, but that constant value exists and we know that it does in spite of variable uncertainty. We even have a formula to determine a fairly accurate constant value. A standard 25m x 50m Olympic pool holds 660,000 US gal. Times 128 ounces per gallon, equals 84,480,000 ounces. Our formula results in an approximate value. We cannot measure the value any more accurately because of other floating variables happening as we try to measure. This does not change the true precise capacity of the pool.

Now, to put the final touch on this analogy, imagine if our pool could not have the capacity of one drop of water, more or less, or it can't physically exist?

Actually, we do not need to take the discussion from here.

No one is arguing that the gravitational constant is not constant. We all agree that it is a constant!!

However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.

Hence, some of the statements made for the fine tuned universe is not provable--in fact highly questionable, since we can still model this universe to an acceptable degree without our models suggesting the universe should explode/implode on the spot.

Admit it Boss--this is not even one of your original arguments.

 

[Hollie]

But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.

You don't need to be able to measure exact value to know a value is constant. IF a plastic cup can only hold 16 oz. of water, it makes no difference whether we are able to measure ounces accurately, the amount the cup will hold doesn't change.

Let's take our analogy to a higher level to represent the universe and uncertainty principle. We have a pool in the back yard... the value of water in ounces that pool can hold is constant. We understand this from the start, the pool can't gain or lose capacity. When it comes down to defining an actual set number of ounces the pool can hold, it is difficult to measure because of other variables which are not constant, floating around while we're trying to measure a result. Air pressure on the surface of the water is fluctuating in different parts of the pool, we see the water on the surface making ripples and waves... Some of the water we've measured has evaporated since we began the measuring, the temperature fluctuates and water molecules expand and contract, sediments in the air and impurities are constantly displacing molecules of water in the pool.... SO we can't ever know the exact precise number of ounces the pool will hold, but that constant value exists and we know that it does in spite of variable uncertainty. We even have a formula to determine a fairly accurate constant value. A standard 25m x 50m Olympic pool holds 660,000 US gal. Times 128 ounces per gallon, equals 84,480,000 ounces. Our formula results in an approximate value. We cannot measure the value any more accurately because of other floating variables happening as we try to measure. This does not change the true precise capacity of the pool.

Now, to put the final touch on this analogy, imagine if our pool could not have the capacity of one drop of water, more or less, or it can't physically exist?

That was another atrocious waste of your time. The fact remains that we still need to get you supernaturalists/spirit realm'ists/advocates of ID'iot creationism to show that your hypothesis for various gawds are testable and propose some means by which we could either accept or reject them. I mean, Shirley proponents of mainstream, testable scientific theory shouldn’t be the ones who have the burden of proof of coming up with ways to test for one or more of the thousands of asserted gawds , right? The people who are proposing "the gawds did it" model should be the ones presenting the tests for their gawds. So, it remains for the ID'iot creationists: what specific tests would confirm or falsify ID'iot creationism as pwoof of one or more gawds? As soon as you can answer this question, we can begin.

 

[Boss]

when the gravitational constant, as measured today with better instruments, isn't that accurate.

If there is not a gravitational constant, then gravity fails to work predictably. Planets can't maintain orbits around Suns. Electrons can't maintain orbits around protons/nucleus. It doesn't matter if we have developed the science to measure it accurately, it has to be an empirical physical constant.

We call it Big G!

 

[Boss]

However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.

Wrong! My argument has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to measure something accurately. I don't know why you want to make YOUR argument into MINE now?

If the true value of the gravitational constant (whatever it is) had been greater or less than it is, nothing material exists. This constant is to within .000000000000000000000002 of what it must be, for anything remotely similar to our comprehension of a universe to exist. I'd say that is finely tuned.

 

[Hollie]

However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.

Wrong! My argument has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to measure something accurately. I don't know why you want to make YOUR argument into MINE now?

If the true value of the gravitational constant (whatever it is) had been greater or less than it is, nothing material exists. This constant is to within .000000000000000000000002 of what it must be, for anything remotely similar to our comprehension of a universe to exist. I'd say that is finely tuned.

You would say that is finely tuned because that's what your sponsors at the ICR say.

Oh, and if today was Sunday, it wouldn't be Saturday. But of course, that's what we call stating the obvious. That's kinda' like your claim that if the universe was different, it would be different.

None of your "gawds fine tuning the universe" nonsense separates it from just more ICR babbling.