Richard Dawkins, Famed Atheist, Supports Free Bibles In Schools

Quite clear. You said they are natural . Then they are not supernatural.
The definition of natural is not supernatural.

Do you really not see how comical that is? seriously.

Imaginary supernatural set ups means stuff would not be natural. sheesh.
Supernatural is not science based.

You are wrong. There is an observed spatial variation in the fundamental fine-structure constant.

As for the rest you're merely repeating the same old things yet again when they have already been refuted many times .

 

more troll sophistry from Stu.

so far string theory has not been confirmed by the hadron collider
you keep desperately bringing up conjecture as if it proven.

why do you lie in just about every post?

If you dream up other universes and vacuaa - you start trying to change the constants.

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

While the fine-structure constant is known to approach 1/128 at interaction energies above 80 GeV,[11] physicists have pondered for many years whether the fine-structure constant is in fact constant, i.e., whether or not its value differs by location and over time. Specifically, a varying α has been proposed as a way of solving problems in cosmology and astrophysics.[12][13][14][15] More recently, theoretical interest in varying constants (not just &#945 has been motivated by string theory and other such proposals for going beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. The first experimental tests of this question examined the spectral lines of distant astronomical objects, and the products of radioactive decay in the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor. The findings were consistent with no change.[16][17][18][19][20][21]

 

I didn't mention string theory.
I haven't even talked of "other universes and vacuaa"


If your education is only ever going to be arrived at by clipping parts of text from places like wiki, then you'll just have to remain ignorant. The bit you did grab is connected with first experimental tests . You've again jumped to another of your erroneous conclusions.

Varying cosmological constants have been predicted since the 1930's. A varying fine-structure constant is consistent with present day observations. That is what was said.
It is not at all clear that constants are of fixed values. There is observation and scientific data which firmly suggests the contrary.



There is no "Creator" in any of this. Go argue with yourself against these two thing you came up with.

So natural self-selecting constants it is then. I have no argument with you on that.

A "Creator" is redundant. Question is why do you need one so badly.

 

A 10 second snippet appeared on Bloomberg today where scientists working on the Hadron Collider said ''God Particle has been found/discovered '' . . . . something like that. So. . . whats up with that?

 

What's up with that is..how do you handle all the mind numbing adverts on Bloomberg for 10 secs of information?

 

more ammunition for jem. he will hear the words science and found and god and he will be claiming that science has proven god exists.

 

exactly you made up your own bullshit model and left out the major components.

stu prefers to bullshit than to read science...
I will provide a few more paragraphs from the paper which make it plain as day stu is full of shit about what hawkings says.



But cosmology poses questions of a very different character. In our past there is an epoch of the early universe when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this early phase are all around us. The central problem in cosmology is to
understand why these remnants are what they are, and how the distinctive features
of our universe emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix that is the relevant observable for these predictions, since we live in the middle of this particular experiment. Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of the universe, and there is certainly no opportunity for observing multiple copies of the universe.
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency

- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape, based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13]. The measure on the landscape provided by no boundary initial conditions allows one to derive predictions for observations. This is done by evaluating probabilities
for alternative histories that obey a set of constraints at late times. The constraints provide information that is supplementary to the fundamental laws and act as a selection principle. In particular, they select the subclass of histories that contribute to the amplitude of interest. One then identifies alternatives within this subclass
that have probabilities near one. These include, in particular, predictions of future observations. The framework we propose is thus more like a top down approach to cosmology, where the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked.

We illustrate our framework in a model landscape that admits several distinct classes of inflationary histories for the universe. In this model, we predict several properties of the subclass of histories that are three-dimensional, expanding and approximately flat at late times. We also discuss in general terms the predictions of top down cosmology in more complicated models like the string landscape.
Finally we discuss in what respect the top down approach differs from other (bottom-up) approaches to cosmology in the string landscape, such as eternal in-flation or pre-big bang cosmology

 

Now they're calling it the Higgs Particle.

 

You're being weird Jem. You haven't a clue what Hawking is saying. You can only cut and paste it. Then you imagine it's to do with Multiverses, when it's about quantum field theory and he clearly says he doesn't even go along with the word Multiverse. Then you argue yourself into having natural meaning supernatural.

I'm not arguing against natural self selecting constants which you acknowledged. The whole of your nonesense falls apart right there.
Get a grip.

 

More Troll tricks... after being crushed by Hawkings paper you now try to pretend there is a different argument going on....
--------------

You mangled my argument just like you mangled hawkings paper.
and now you are mangling the whole thread up with troll b.s. tactics.

Of course. you are not arguing against "natural" self selecting constants. That is what you are arguing for. duh...

The main issue here is issue is whether those constants "naturally" come about because of infinite other universes (or potential different constants) or because there is a Tuner.

“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)