@CaffeinatedThinking No, you're just too fucking stupid to recognize evidence when it's staring you in the face. Learn what dark energy is. Learn what the "cosmological constant" is. Look at the theories and implications surrounding their existence. Look up what would happen if the force of gravity was greater, or less, or if the mass of the universe were decreased or increased by even the smallest measurable amount. Then maybe you'll grasp what three PhD's from Stanford and MIT are saying.
@CaffeinatedThinking Calling me stupid is not an arguement. I'm not the one who has applied the traits of intellligence will or purpose to an external agent. They are there whether you like it or not.
@CaffeinatedThinking Actually, it does. It means that an external agent is responsible for the universe that we know. But it's meaningless to argue. You're going to look for evidence and interpret it in a way that supports what you believe to be true. Unless you can disprove dark energy (which is the dominant presence in the universe) you have nothing to argue. And unless you have a PhD in theoretical physics, quantum physics, or cosmology, you aren't qualified to argue anyways.
@CaffeinatedThinking "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" by L. Dyson, M. Kleban, L. Susskind. It's in section 6 of their paper. Their final conclusion is that because of these "Disturbing Implications" that there must not be a cosmological constant. This has been proven incorrect.
Three non-theirstic astro-phyicists, Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind, from Standford and MIT determined this: Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle. An external agent, [external to space and time] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own. Science keeps pointing towards God.
The paper seems available here arxiv org abs hep-th 0208013 punctuate in the appropriate places. I dont seem to be able to post a link
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking No, you're just too fucking stupid to recognize evidence when it's staring you in the face. Learn what dark energy is. Learn what the "cosmological constant" is. Look at the theories and implications surrounding their existence. Look up what would happen if the force of gravity was greater, or less, or if the mass of the universe were decreased or increased by even the smallest measurable amount. Then maybe you'll grasp what three PhD's from Stanford and MIT are saying.
MustangsCanTurnToo 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking I've presented you evidence, you've presented nothing but insults.
MustangsCanTurnToo 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Calling me stupid is not an arguement. I'm not the one who has applied the traits of intellligence will or purpose to an external agent. They are there whether you like it or not.
MustangsCanTurnToo 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Actually, it does. It means that an external agent is responsible for the universe that we know. But it's meaningless to argue. You're going to look for evidence and interpret it in a way that supports what you believe to be true. Unless you can disprove dark energy (which is the dominant presence in the universe) you have nothing to argue. And unless you have a PhD in theoretical physics, quantum physics, or cosmology, you aren't qualified to argue anyways.
MustangsCanTurnToo 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" by L. Dyson, M. Kleban, L. Susskind. It's in section 6 of their paper. Their final conclusion is that because of these "Disturbing Implications" that there must not be a cosmological constant. This has been proven incorrect.
MustangsCanTurnToo 1 year ago
Three non-theirstic astro-phyicists, Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind, from Standford and MIT determined this: Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle. An external agent, [external to space and time] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own. Science keeps pointing towards God.
MustangsCanTurnToo 1 year ago