Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?
I think what we are arguing here is semantics. When I say they lie within a certain narrow range that is life permitting you deny there is any such range based on the possibility they had to be as they are. I reject that argument on the grounds it isn't a fact they had to be (for some unknown mysterious reason) as they are. By the same token I reject the argument they could be different than what they are because that is not a fact either. Nonetheless it is a fact as Martin Rees points out in his book Just Six Numbers there are many characteristics of the universe necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to form without which our type of life would be extremely improbable (if not impossible). Its not an established fact those characteristics had to be as they are, nor can we say they can be different but we can say they have to be extremely close to the value they are just for planets and stars to form alone never mind life.
According to Martin Rees if the force of gravity was 10exp30 instead of 10exp36 it would have a significant impact on the formation of planets, stars and galaxies inspite of how narrow a difference those two figures are. Whether it could be different or couldn't be we don't know, regardless we do know the narrow value the force of gravity must lie within for planets and stars to form or at least to form in a configuration suitable for life to occur.
I know in response your going to deny this has any significance. I don't care if it has any significance to you or not, or whether you think it qualifies as evidence or whether you find it persuasive. The only people whose opinion matters are those undecided who might be listening because those are the only people who would be objective. If this were a formal debate, I'd lay out several more constants and how there exacting value allows life to exist.
To the best of my knowledge correct me it I am wrong the majority of scientists claim the universe (as it is now) came into existence about 13 and a half billion years ago.
I think this would just be another boring semantical argument whether a singularity can be classified as the universe. None of the laws of physics we are familiar with pertain to it. It's not the same as steam turning into water. Secondly I don't think its an established fact the universe expanded from a singularity, it is a good theory with evidence behind it.
That's all the gibberish I have time to respond to at the moment.
Quote:Yes. There is no evidence of any such range.
I think what we are arguing here is semantics. When I say they lie within a certain narrow range that is life permitting you deny there is any such range based on the possibility they had to be as they are. I reject that argument on the grounds it isn't a fact they had to be (for some unknown mysterious reason) as they are. By the same token I reject the argument they could be different than what they are because that is not a fact either. Nonetheless it is a fact as Martin Rees points out in his book Just Six Numbers there are many characteristics of the universe necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to form without which our type of life would be extremely improbable (if not impossible). Its not an established fact those characteristics had to be as they are, nor can we say they can be different but we can say they have to be extremely close to the value they are just for planets and stars to form alone never mind life.
According to Martin Rees if the force of gravity was 10exp30 instead of 10exp36 it would have a significant impact on the formation of planets, stars and galaxies inspite of how narrow a difference those two figures are. Whether it could be different or couldn't be we don't know, regardless we do know the narrow value the force of gravity must lie within for planets and stars to form or at least to form in a configuration suitable for life to occur.
I know in response your going to deny this has any significance. I don't care if it has any significance to you or not, or whether you think it qualifies as evidence or whether you find it persuasive. The only people whose opinion matters are those undecided who might be listening because those are the only people who would be objective. If this were a formal debate, I'd lay out several more constants and how there exacting value allows life to exist.
To the best of my knowledge correct me it I am wrong the majority of scientists claim the universe (as it is now) came into existence about 13 and a half billion years ago.
Quote:You are wrong. All the scientists actually say is that the universe started expanding from a singularity 13.5 billion years ago. It has not stayed the same since then, therefore, it did not come into existence as it is now 13.5 billion years ago and there is no evidence to suggest that it did not exist at any point of time.
I think this would just be another boring semantical argument whether a singularity can be classified as the universe. None of the laws of physics we are familiar with pertain to it. It's not the same as steam turning into water. Secondly I don't think its an established fact the universe expanded from a singularity, it is a good theory with evidence behind it.
That's all the gibberish I have time to respond to at the moment.
