How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Hollie]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

There is nothing to suggest any gawdly "finely tuned" constant.

Are you still in a stupor? Do you have anything yet regarding your inability to present evidence for either one or more gawds or any evidence to connect those gawds to such "fine tuning".

 

[Boss]

The "quotes" you quote-mined are a staple of the fundie christian cabal and are taken out of a larger context where in no way do the quote'ees suggest "the gawds did it".

I haven't said who did it. The debate here is TWO parts. You are claiming that no one has ever scientifically suggested we have a finely tuned universe and that is a lie. Newton, Einstein and Hawking have all indicated our universe is inexplicably fine tuned. Their formulas are based on the accepted fact that there is an immutable and empirical physical constant known as the gravitational constant and signified in their formulas with the capital letter "G."

So the debate over whether we have a fine tuned universe is over. There is no question about it... Myself, Newton, Einstein and Hawking all know that the universe is finely tuned. You reject that.

I don't know who or what finely tuned it, that is a different question. Science can't answer that question, nor can if offer any substantive theory at this time. Whatever you believe is the truth is simply a matter of faith.

 

[Hollie]

...violate their own laws in order to *poof* life on the planet.

My position is, it does not matter what you believe... SOMETHING poofed life onto the planet.

As usual, you're wrong. All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your christian fundamentalist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gawds, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gawds had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

 

[Hollie]

The "quotes" you quote-mined are a staple of the fundie christian cabal and are taken out of a larger context where in no way do the quote'ees suggest "the gawds did it".

I haven't said who did it. The debate here is TWO parts. You are claiming that no one has ever scientifically suggested we have a finely tuned universe and that is a lie. Newton, Einstein and Hawking have all indicated our universe is inexplicably fine tuned. Their formulas are based on the accepted fact that there is an immutable and empirical physical constant known as the gravitational constant and signified in their formulas with the capital letter "G."

So the debate over whether we have a fine tuned universe is over. There is no question about it... Myself, Newton, Einstein and Hawking all know that the universe is finely tuned. You reject that.

I don't know who or what finely tuned it, that is a different question. Science can't answer that question, nor can if offer any substantive theory at this time. Whatever you believe is the truth is simply a matter of faith.

"The debate is over". Bossy has spoken!

Well sorry, but you have not debated anything. You have offered nothing but boilerplate ID'iot creationist nonsense for your gawdly, "finely tuned" universe.

And sorry, identify where Newton, Einstein or Hawking have made statements explicitly identifying your gawdly "fine tuning" nonsense.

 

[amrchaos]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little. But I seriously doubt you can--mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!

 

[amrchaos]

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work...

Again--- Not an argument I have to make work. This is an empirical physical constant, it is not up for debate. You can chose to ignore physics and not believe mathematics if you want. If that's the case. I don't need to win an argument with you.

No one is ignoring physics--you are ignoring what you are saying and keep making a claim that needs clarification.

1)Is your "precision" dependent on multiplication/division by large factors?

2)Or is your precision change in the decimal place much much smaller than normal statistical error?

If it is the first, then you are blowing up the model. But using large factors to demonstrate this is not "precision" in the mathematical sense. You would need to clarify what you mean by precision and finely tuned for this case.

If it is the second, then tell us how do you reach this assumption since no physical model/experiment has predicted the collapse of gravity under such a microscopic change?

 

[BreezeWood]

Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. .

.

other than the Garden Earth a jewel of eternal randomness, just what is the accomplishment of the "finely tuned universe" suppose to "Represent" - as per your concept of a non physical, spirit bound, only God ... an earthquake on Mars ?

 

[Boss]

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Show us your evidence.

 

[Boss]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little. But I seriously doubt you can--mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!

The precise value of the gravitational constant is known. It was accurately measured a century after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish.

So, there is no "mistaken value" for the gravitational constant. It is accurately measurable.

Even someone who is not great at science should understand, when you change the value of any parameter in a formula, a different result is produced. So when we change this gravitational constant value, same thing happens, a different result. This means things like the gravitational coupling constant is out of whack. If the mass of an electron remains the same, it's too big for a smaller G and too little for a larger one. Force of gravity is increased with a larger G and decreased with a smaller G.

 

[Hollie]

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Show us your evidence.

Life on the planet. There's your evidence.

If you had ever been outside of the Jerry Falwell madrassah and studied biology, you might have learned that.

 

[Hollie]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little. But I seriously doubt you can--mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!

The precise value of the gravitational constant is known. It was accurately measured a century after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish.

So, there is no "mistaken value" for the gravitational constant. It is accurately measurable.

Even someone who is not great at science should understand, when you change the value of any parameter in a formula, a different result is produced. So when we change this gravitational constant value, same thing happens, a different result. This means things like the gravitational coupling constant is out of whack. If the mass of an electron remains the same, it's too big for a smaller G and too little for a larger one. Force of gravity is increased with a larger G and decreased with a smaller G.

Nothing about gravity suggests your gawds magically created it.

Show us the magic.

 

[amrchaos]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little. But I seriously doubt you can--mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!

The precise value of the gravitational constant is known. It was accurately measured a century after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish.

So, there is no "mistaken value" for the gravitational constant. It is accurately measurable.

Even someone who is not great at science should understand, when you change the value of any parameter in a formula, a different result is produced. So when we change this gravitational constant value, same thing happens, a different result. This means things like the gravitational coupling constant is out of whack. If the mass of an electron remains the same, it's too big for a smaller G and too little for a larger one. Force of gravity is increased with a larger G and decreased with a smaller G.

Yes--you will get different results if you use different numbers

That was pointed out in the Rees comment!!

However, we are trying to nail down your concept of precision here.

When you say "fine tuning" are you making reference to the statistical concept of accuracy, or are you trying to use a different concept of precision?

When you say the off by .0000000002 and gravity fails, are you using that as a factor, or are you saying that if the 9th digit is off from the correct value of gravitational constant, then gravity fails.

I have asked these questions 3 times now. Why will you not answer them and clarify what you mean?

P.S. we already talked about the difficulty of measuring the gravitational constant. The fact that you are choosing the 6.67 *10-11 number suggests that you understand the concept of rounding off in its application. Hence, you are in agreement that if the 4th digit (the digit that would come after the 7 in this value) is not correct, gravity does not collapse, right?

 

[Taz]

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation.

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right?

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre!

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.

The people who made your computer actually do exist and we can visit them and touch them. Your god? Not so much. Total speculation. Or wishful thinking. There MAY be a Master with his plan, but such a thing or person has yet to be proven.

You were talking about the need for a god in order to have reincarnation. Now you are back to rejecting God based on lack of physical proof. Did you stop believing in reincarnation in the midst of your argument?

Reincarnation doesn't necessarily need a god to happen, not that I can tell anyways.

 

[BreezeWood]

Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. .

.

other than the Garden Earth a jewel of eternal randomness, just what is the accomplishment of the "finely tuned universe" suppose to "Represent" - as per your concept of a non physical, spirit bound, only God ... an earthquake on Mars ?

.
boss, is the fisher on the planet Mercury an act of God or a random event contrary to the finely tuned universe ?

* could the fisher occur because it is random without the presence of God ?

.

 

[Boss]

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Show us your evidence.

Life on the planet. There's your evidence.

So your argument is: Life originated as a natural occurring process because life exists on the planet?

circulus in probando

 

[Boss]

Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. .

.

other than the Garden Earth a jewel of eternal randomness, just what is the accomplishment of the "finely tuned universe" suppose to "Represent" - as per your concept of a non physical, spirit bound, only God ... an earthquake on Mars ?

.
boss, is the fisher on the planet Mercury an act of God or a random event contrary to the finely tuned universe ?

* could the fisher occur because it is random without the presence of God ?

.

Random events, even odd ones, are not contrary to a finely tuned universe. We have to be careful not to draw a false assumption that "fine tuned" somehow means pristine and perfect. Willie Nelson's guitar is finely tuned.

 

[Boss]

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation.

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right?

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre!

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.

The people who made your computer actually do exist and we can visit them and touch them. Your god? Not so much. Total speculation. Or wishful thinking. There MAY be a Master with his plan, but such a thing or person has yet to be proven.

You were talking about the need for a god in order to have reincarnation. Now you are back to rejecting God based on lack of physical proof. Did you stop believing in reincarnation in the midst of your argument?

Reincarnation doesn't necessarily need a god to happen, not that I can tell anyways.

Doesn't need a "God" per say, but it does require spirituality.

 

[Boss]

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little. But I seriously doubt you can--mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!

The precise value of the gravitational constant is known. It was accurately measured a century after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish.

So, there is no "mistaken value" for the gravitational constant. It is accurately measurable.

Even someone who is not great at science should understand, when you change the value of any parameter in a formula, a different result is produced. So when we change this gravitational constant value, same thing happens, a different result. This means things like the gravitational coupling constant is out of whack. If the mass of an electron remains the same, it's too big for a smaller G and too little for a larger one. Force of gravity is increased with a larger G and decreased with a smaller G.

Yes--you will get different results if you use different numbers

That was pointed out in the Rees comment!!

However, we are trying to nail down your concept of precision here.

When you say "fine tuning" are you making reference to the statistical concept of accuracy, or are you trying to use a different concept of precision?

When you say the off by .0000000002 and gravity fails, are you using that as a factor, or are you saying that if the 9th digit is off from the correct value of gravitational constant, then gravity fails.

I have asked these questions 3 times now. Why will you not answer them and clarify what you mean?

P.S. we already talked about the difficulty of measuring the gravitational constant. The fact that you are choosing the 6.67 *10-11 number suggests that you understand the concept of rounding off in its application. Hence, you are in agreement that if the 4th digit (the digit that would come after the 7 in this value) is not correct, gravity does not collapse, right?

I am not an astrologist or astrophysicist, I'm not even a great mathematician. You keep getting bogged down in how we measure things and construct formulas. If the gravitational constant were a different value, we could easily create the same kind of formulas to calculate things. That is not the issue.

If the constant of gravity is different then the effect of gravity is also different. This effects quarks, leptons, electrons... all kinds of things at the subatomic level which are not as they are because the gravitational constant told them to be. The constant of the mass of an electron is not that way because we invented a formula to measure it.

 

[amrchaos]

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

The value of the gravitational constant is not known around for 3% or .3%(a factor at most 1.03 or .97), however there is no, and I repeat NO model that suggests gravitation fails due to using an incorrect value of the gravitational constant.

Now you can prove me wrong by producing a model or experiment that does gravitation fails if the factor is by this little. But I seriously doubt you can--mainly because scientist knowingly use these 'mistaken' values without failure in their models!

The precise value of the gravitational constant is known. It was accurately measured a century after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish.

So, there is no "mistaken value" for the gravitational constant. It is accurately measurable.

Even someone who is not great at science should understand, when you change the value of any parameter in a formula, a different result is produced. So when we change this gravitational constant value, same thing happens, a different result. This means things like the gravitational coupling constant is out of whack. If the mass of an electron remains the same, it's too big for a smaller G and too little for a larger one. Force of gravity is increased with a larger G and decreased with a smaller G.

Yes--you will get different results if you use different numbers

That was pointed out in the Rees comment!!

However, we are trying to nail down your concept of precision here.

When you say "fine tuning" are you making reference to the statistical concept of accuracy, or are you trying to use a different concept of precision?

When you say the off by .0000000002 and gravity fails, are you using that as a factor, or are you saying that if the 9th digit is off from the correct value of gravitational constant, then gravity fails.

I have asked these questions 3 times now. Why will you not answer them and clarify what you mean?

P.S. we already talked about the difficulty of measuring the gravitational constant. The fact that you are choosing the 6.67 *10-11 number suggests that you understand the concept of rounding off in its application. Hence, you are in agreement that if the 4th digit (the digit that would come after the 7 in this value) is not correct, gravity does not collapse, right?

I am not an astrologist or astrophysicist, I'm not even a great mathematician. You keep getting bogged down in how we measure things and construct formulas. If the gravitational constant were a different value, we could easily create the same kind of formulas to calculate things. That is not the issue.

If the constant of gravity is different then the effect of gravity is also different. This effects quarks, leptons, electrons... all kinds of things at the subatomic level which are not as they are because the gravitational constant told them to be. The constant of the mass of an electron is not that way because we invented a formula to measure it.

Again, I will ask you
What is your concept of precision?

I am not asking you how a model works
I am not asking you to explain any of the quotes you' ve cited.

I am asking you what is your concept of precision when you talk about a "finely tuned" universe.

Hint: Depending on what you say, I might agree with you. But a presup wouldn't

 

[Hollie]

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Show us your evidence.

Life on the planet. There's your evidence.

So your argument is: Life originated as a natural occurring process because life exists on the planet?

circulus in probando

Do you have reading comprehension issues?