Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[Liability]

I don't care for the conclusion he has made here, it doesn't really conclude much.

I don't see why it's out of the realm of possibility that our universe was born out of a star exploding in a universe that out-dates what we know of as the universe...perhaps the older universe contains celestial objects that would make our biggest stars look like small potatoes.

Seeing as how we have no way of attaining what the edge of our own universe is, how can we possibly know what's beyond it? Perhaps we're a bubble of a universe within other bubbles.

To be fair, at least Hawking tries to figure it out, the religious folks here that don't like his findings can only resort to insults. It's not like his theory is any more or less hard to swallow/unprovable than yours.

You don't know enough about physics to form a valid opinion of his research.

One need not be a physicist to validly criticize the assertion that "physics" proves the non-existence of God or that physics is even capable of "proving" any such thing.

Until and unless "physics" can answer the question of where the stuff that comprised the original material for the Big Bang came from (in addition to addressing why the laws of physics get magically suspended at that instant), then what Hawking said is nothing more than his own uninformed guesswork.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As opposed to your face?

I knew that post would rattle you because it really does expose the baselessness of your superiority complex.

In reality, you, Dummmmbell, are not only nothing special now, you senile fuckwit, but in your entire meaningless existence, you never were anything special.

Science does not answer all questions. In fact, quite regularly, good science opens doors to lots of new questions. And because we ARE ultimately mere human beings, some of the questions may never be answerable by us -- no matter how much stock we put in science and no matter how advanced our knowledge gets or our skills progress.

But the fundamental question of the origin of the universe is simply not answerable by science, at this point. And if you (like a rather retarded lemming) point to Hawking and say "well Hawking says . . . " your appeal to authority is still destined to fail since --

Hawking doesn't know, either.

Listen dimwit....I worked for the same company for forty one years, the last 25 I was the operations manager in one of the largest mainframe computer centers in the SE United States. I retired 19 years ago and live in a 4 br brick rancher on a one and one half acre lot, 220 ft. lake frontage, a dock, a well pump in the lake for irrigation two storage buildings, pontoon boat etc. I know I've hit a nerve when some ignoramous throws a bunch of bull shit in the game. You go ahead and believe that 2000 year old fairy tale if you choose but it just proves that you don't know shit from shinola.

Are you even aware that you just made his point for him?

Of course he isnt.

 

[NeoTemplar]

He concluded, "You can't get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed."

Semantics, its like me saying because God Exists beyond space-time and it does not exist within a black hole its proof that something can exist without time therefore Atheists cannot say God does not exist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He concluded, "You can't get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed."

Semantics, its like me saying because God Exists beyond space-time and it does not exist within a black hole its proof that something can exist without time therefore Atheists cannot say God does not exist.

True, the case of the black hole itself would disprove the notion that something cannot be outside of time as that within the black hole has no time flow, according to Hawking.

 

[Ariux]

Didn't Hawking also say that any aliens we encounter would wipe us out?

He said it could be a disaster, like Columbus discovering America.

But, Hawking has batshit for brains. It's only in Liberal mythology that the arrival of Columbus was bad for the Indians.

 

[edthecynic]

B.S. ?


Do black holes really exist?
22:16 18 June 2007 by Stephen Battersby
Do black holes really exist? - space - 18 June 2007 - New Scientist

Your screed is a little outdated, yes?

Chandra X-ray Observatory - Learn About Black Holes

So what do you think of the Theory of Quantum Gravity ?

I think it would be quite nice to have one, but it would be nicer if you didn't try to change the subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your screed is a little outdated, yes?

Chandra X-ray Observatory - Learn About Black Holes

So what do you think of the Theory of Quantum Gravity ?

I think it would be quite nice to have one, but it would be nicer if you didn't try to change the subject.

There is one but it don't support the idea of black holes.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/415421/black-holes-cannot-exist-in-latest-theory-of/

 

[edthecynic]

So what do you think of the Theory of Quantum Gravity ?

I think it would be quite nice to have one, but it would be nicer if you didn't try to change the subject.

There is one but it don't support the idea of black holes.

Black Holes Cannot Exist in Latest Theory of Quantum Gravity - Technology Review

There is no workable Quantum Theory of Gravity today, especially that outdated crap.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think it would be quite nice to have one, but it would be nicer if you didn't try to change the subject.

There is one but it don't support the idea of black holes.

Black Holes Cannot Exist in Latest Theory of Quantum Gravity - Technology Review

There is no workable Quantum Theory of Gravity today, especially that outdated crap.

I guess there never will be unless views are changed concerning black holes.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I don't care for the conclusion he has made here, it doesn't really conclude much.

I don't see why it's out of the realm of possibility that our universe was born out of a star exploding in a universe that out-dates what we know of as the universe...perhaps the older universe contains celestial objects that would make our biggest stars look like small potatoes.

Seeing as how we have no way of attaining what the edge of our own universe is, how can we possibly know what's beyond it? Perhaps we're a bubble of a universe within other bubbles.

To be fair, at least Hawking tries to figure it out, the religious folks here that don't like his findings can only resort to insults. It's not like his theory is any more or less hard to swallow/unprovable than yours.

You don't know enough about physics to form a valid opinion of his research.

One need not be a physicist to validly criticize the assertion that "physics" proves the non-existence of God or that physics is even capable of "proving" any such thing.

Until and unless "physics" can answer the question of where the stuff that comprised the original material for the Big Bang came from (in addition to addressing why the laws of physics get magically suspended at that instant), then what Hawking said is nothing more than his own uninformed guesswork.

Until you can verify and prove that The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago. Two naked teens and a snake in garden determined the fate of the whole human race. There was a flood in which the water level reached a hight of 29.000 ft and evaporated in a few weeks. Big fish puked up live men. Walls came tumbling at the sound of a trumpet. A virgin gave birth to the god of the universe wno was also himself and a holy ghost. A man was able to walk on water. People were healed of leprosy by laying hands on them. Water was turned into fine wine. 5000 hungry men plus women and children who also ate were fed with two fish and five loaves then 12 baskets of leftovers were collected. A man was hung on a cross and bled like a hog only to show up two days later fit as a fiddle. etc. etc.

Keep your ignorant theories about all religions to yourself. One is as bad as the rest because they were all devised by primitives who were almost as screwed up and brainwashed as you are.

 

[edthecynic]

There is one but it don't support the idea of black holes.

Black Holes Cannot Exist in Latest Theory of Quantum Gravity - Technology Review

There is no workable Quantum Theory of Gravity today, especially that outdated crap.

I guess there never will be unless views are changed concerning black holes.

Unlike religion, science seeks to understand the unknown, rather than dogmatically taking one side to the exclusion of all others. In science we test our theories to learn the truth.

How to Take a Picture of a Black Hole | Popular Science

For something that might not even exist, black holes do a whole lot of work for modern physics. These regions of compact mass--so dense that not even light can escape their gravitational fields--are a major underpinning of general relativity, and inform much of what we think we understand about how galaxies work. It’s a lot to ask of a phenomenon that we've never actually seen.

Then again seeing a black hole is, by definition, a difficult idea to execute. The absence of reflected light makes black holes invisible, and the fact that the really interesting supermassive ones hide obscured at the center of galaxies compounds the problem. You would need to build a telescope the size of planet Earth to capture an image of a black hole. And that’s exactly what Sheperd Doeleman, assistant director of MIT’s Haystack Observatory, and his colleagues at the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) are trying to do.

The EHT is an international project aimed at taking the first picture of a black hole, specifically of Sagittarius A*, the site of the black hole that is believed to be lurking at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. Einstein’s theory of general relativity says it is there, and other observations of nearby galactic structures strongly hint at its existence as well. Einstein even told us what it should look like. But actually seeing it for the first time will tell us all kinds of things about the very nature of spacetime itself, and it will also tell us if relativity is breaking down at the core of our universe. Essentially, capturing an image of a black hole is a test of general relativity itself--a test of modern physics as we know it.

“Black holes are still theoretical constructs, they’re kind of like the unicorns of the cosmological world,” Doeleman says. “There’s very good evidence they exist, and our best test case is at the center of our galaxy where it’s fairly certain there’s a 4-million-solar-mass black hole lurking. But we haven’t seen it yet. To ask whether Einstein is right, you have to go to the most extreme environment in the universe, which is the boundary of the black hole.”

 

[Ariux]

Until you can verify and prove that The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago.

It's easier to prove that Earth is 6000 years old than to prove the Big Bang.

If the Earth is the center of the universe, as it appears to be, then gravitational time dilation would account for the red-shifted starlight and for how the light from distant stars got to Earth in only thousands of years in the Earth time frame.

But, you don't want to be believe my eyes. You want me to believe your mythology that the universe has no center and that I'm only seeing an illusion.

 

[edthecynic]

Until you can verify and prove that The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago.

It's easier to prove that Earth is 6000 years old than to prove the Big Bang.

If the Earth is the center of the universe, as it appears to be, then gravitational time dilation would account for the red-shifted starlight and for how the light from distant stars got to Earth in only thousands of years in the Earth time frame.

But, you don't want to be believe my eyes. You want me to believe your mythology that the universe has no center and that I'm only seeing an illusion.

In science, observation is never a proof. You are limited by distance in what you can see from Earth, so the Earth would APPEAR to be the center of the OBSERVABLE universe ONLY.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Until you can verify and prove that The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago.

It's easier to prove that Earth is 6000 years old than to prove the Big Bang.

If the Earth is the center of the universe, as it appears to be, then gravitational time dilation would account for the red-shifted starlight and for how the light from distant stars got to Earth in only thousands of years in the Earth time frame.

But, you don't want to be believe my eyes. You want me to believe your mythology that the universe has no center and that I'm only seeing an illusion.

ROTFLMAO!!!

You don't know the differece between a scientific theory and pure, ancient, foolish mythology. Don't feel bad....I've been around for 77 years and Christians are the most naive or brainwashed people I've ever met.

Until you can verify and prove that The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago. Two naked teens and a snake in garden determined the fate of the whole human race. There was a flood in which the water level reached a height of 29.000 ft and evaporated in a few weeks. Big fish puked up live men. Walls came tumbling at the sound of a trumpet. A virgin gave birth to the god of the universe wno was also himself and a holy ghost. A man was able to walk on water. People were healed of leprosy by laying hands on them. Water was turned into fine wine. 5000 hungry men plus women and children who also ate were fed with two fish and five loaves then 12 baskets of leftovers were collected. A man was hung on a cross and bled like a hog only to show up two days later fit as a fiddle. etc. etc. go suck an orange.

How's bout that trilogy bullshit. That's like Wall St. folks trying to explain derivitives. They don't have a clue about those foot long algorhythms and won't admit it but they just hedge their selections......no pun intended.

 

[tigerbob]

Why would anyone even try to prove that the Earth was created in 6 days by a super being? It's a matter of faith isn't it? If you have it, then why bother to try and prove it? If you don't then no amount of "proof" will make a difference.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Why would anyone even try to prove that the Earth was created in 6 days by a super being? It's a matter of faith isn't it? If you have it, then why bother to try and prove it? If you don't then no amount of "proof" will make a difference.

Yeah right.....while you people are accepting a 2000 year old fairy tale Einstein and Fermi were taking theories and constructing an atomic bomb. You are so damn naive that it should be a crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't care for the conclusion he has made here, it doesn't really conclude much.

I don't see why it's out of the realm of possibility that our universe was born out of a star exploding in a universe that out-dates what we know of as the universe...perhaps the older universe contains celestial objects that would make our biggest stars look like small potatoes.

Seeing as how we have no way of attaining what the edge of our own universe is, how can we possibly know what's beyond it? Perhaps we're a bubble of a universe within other bubbles.

To be fair, at least Hawking tries to figure it out, the religious folks here that don't like his findings can only resort to insults. It's not like his theory is any more or less hard to swallow/unprovable than yours.

You don't know enough about physics to form a valid opinion of his research.

One need not be a physicist to validly criticize the assertion that "physics" proves the non-existence of God or that physics is even capable of "proving" any such thing.

Until and unless "physics" can answer the question of where the stuff that comprised the original material for the Big Bang came from (in addition to addressing why the laws of physics get magically suspended at that instant), then what Hawking said is nothing more than his own uninformed guesswork.

I agree that Hawking shouldn't allow his personal bias against God to create a state of existence that disproves his version of God, but we should stick to pointing out how absurd it is to classify God as part of the space-time continuum, not try to argue the math and physics. I can barely follow him when he talks about stuff I actually understand, I refuse to criticize his math when I don't understand it.

Christians should not come across as anti science simply because we don't like some of the things scientists say. We should try to embrace it, and use it to better understand God. If Hawking's math holds up it will eventually bring us closer to God, not further away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He concluded, "You can't get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed."

Semantics, its like me saying because God Exists beyond space-time and it does not exist within a black hole its proof that something can exist without time therefore Atheists cannot say God does not exist.

Hawking tends to take his theories to some weird places sometimes. If his math is right, and I have no way of knowing if it is or not, all it really proves is that we do not understand causality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't Hawking also say that any aliens we encounter would wipe us out?

He said it could be a disaster, like Columbus discovering America.

But, Hawking has batshit for brains. It's only in Liberal mythology that the arrival of Columbus was bad for the Indians.

That is how some people are trying to clear up what he said so he doesn't look delusional. He actually thinks the aliens would drop in, plunder all our natural resources, and leave. Those resources would include all the oxygen on the planet. I am pretty sure that would be a lot more of a disaster than Columbus visited on the Indians.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it would be quite nice to have one, but it would be nicer if you didn't try to change the subject.

There is one but it don't support the idea of black holes.

Black Holes Cannot Exist in Latest Theory of Quantum Gravity - Technology Review

There is no workable Quantum Theory of Gravity today, especially that outdated crap.

There is no accepted theory of gravity, quite a few of the existing theories are workable.