This "our visible universe is the centre of the universe" thinking has got to stop;).
duhhhhh... no, what has to stop is the dogmatic anticentrist mentality that you have, and then we might actually have a chance to figure this mess out.
Try reading the article... when all else fails... because the last couple of paragraphs explain that this is what the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE INDICATES... and what we think about that, is irrelevant.
The interesting part is not that it exists, but that if you apply the theory empty space has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than the visible universe. Still, you can take the same theory and apply it to a hydrogen atom and get a number that is validated by experiment to nine decimal points. So the big question is, how do you use the same theory (relativity and quantum mechanics) to make a great prediciton about hydrogen atoms and a terrible prediction about vaccuum energy?
Err, no, they aren't. Assume there are many universes that differ in fundamental constants. Or assume that there is only one universe, but fundamental constants can change locally.
THIS IS YOUR REBUTTAL?!?!!! Assume this, maybe that?
Give me a freaking break.
The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
Evidence that we're not here by accident can only mean that there is some natural physical need for us to be here... without making an unfounded leap of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
This "our visible universe is the centre of the universe" thinking has got to stop ;).
duhhhhh... no, what has to stop is the dogmatic anticentrist mentality that you have, and then we might actually have a chance to figure this mess out.
Try reading the article... when all else fails... because the last couple of paragraphs explain that this is what the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE INDICATES... and what we think about that, is irrelevant.
OR...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/
It always amazes me how the ones that don't have a clue think that they've got it all figured out.
The above poster gives the classic example for why you should not pretend that reading popularized arguments teaches you a damned thing about the actual physics. http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2006/05/ant hropic-dogma.html
www.anthropic-principle.ORG
Err, no, they aren't. Assume there are many universes that differ in fundamental constants. Or assume that there is only one universe, but fundamental constants can change locally.
THIS IS YOUR REBUTTAL?!?!!! Assume this, maybe that?
Give me a freaking break.
The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
Evidence that we're not here by accident can only mean that there is some natural physical need for us to be here... without making an unfounded leap of faith.
*geez*