Posted: Jul 27, 2010 3:48 am
by xrayzed
AMR wrote:
xrayzed: So you've refuted Stenger's argument? I seem to have missed this. Perhaps you could point me towards your refutation.

then xrayzed says: As for your "critique" of Stenger - I'm amazed that you . . . either fail to understand his points, overlook key points, or simply make unsubstantiated assertions. That was remarkably feeble.

Look xrayzed you're the one who threw down Stenger as your refutation of my line of reasoning, I give you a paragraph on him and you then proceed to bitch that I didn't give sufficient attention to this Stenger's "argument" (Stenger's paper contains several arguments, what specific "argument" are you referring to, did YOU even bother reading the paper you linked to?, I doubt it) so I wade through this guy's paper, most of which I agree with substantially, point out some of the more obvious flaws in this man's main arguments, and you're again bitching at me.

So tell me what points did I overlook specifically?

How about "pretty much all of it".

Your response was basically head-nodding to a few points, a bit of standard handwaving, considerable misreading, a touch of bitching about "straw men", plus a fair dollop of gibberish and non-sequiturs. About the only point where do try to deal with the actual content you fuck it up.

AMR wrote:
I have analyzed 100 universes in which the values of the four parameters were generated randomly from a range five orders of magnitude above to five orders of magnitude below their values in our universe, that is, over a total range of ten orders of magnitude (Stenger 1995, 2000). I have also examined the distribution of stellar lifetimes for these same 100 universes (Stenger 1995, 2000). While a few are low, most are probably high enough to allow time for stellar evolution and heavy element nucleosynthesis. Over half the universes have stars that live at least a billion years.

Curiously he doesn't name the parameters in this paper...

Wrong. He clearly mentions the parameters on the previous page.
I have made a modest attempt to obtain some feeling for what a universe with different constants would be like. Press and Lightman (1983) have shown that the physical properties of matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the lengths of the day and year, can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants (this analysis is slightly different from Carr and Rees [1979 ]). Two of these constants are the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions. The other two are the masses of the electron and proton.

And you accuse me of not reading the paper. Nice one. :lol: