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

[Quantum Windbag]

The FLoT is not limited to man.

But but but, you keep ignoring quantum physics, edthesickdick.

Why do you hate science, you puss?

I'm not ignoring Quantum Physics, I'm ignoring your stupidity regarding QP. You are too stupid to know the difference between QP and Quantum Field Physics. You are too stupid to know that virtual particles belong to QFP not QP.

The concept of virtual particles is a scheme in which interactions between real particles are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. IOW, they are temporary virtual states in going from an initial state to a final state. The actual transition is described in terms of a sequence of virtual states. These are like a bridge between the initial and final state. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Like real particles, virtual particles still obey the Conservation Laws.

I have tow words for you, Hawking radiation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even i know that their just different areas of mechanics that deal with specific fields on the Quantum level and this kind of shit is my Achilles heel. IIRC Quantum Field theory rather then dealing with the original Quantum mechanics brings newtons classic mechanics into Quantum mechanics to try and reconcile them.

Ed knows less about science than my cat. you can usually ignore him unless you want to make fun of him.

 

[edthecynic]

But but but, you keep ignoring quantum physics, edthesickdick.

Why do you hate science, you puss?

I'm not ignoring Quantum Physics, I'm ignoring your stupidity regarding QP. You are too stupid to know the difference between QP and Quantum Field Physics. You are too stupid to know that virtual particles belong to QFP not QP.

The concept of virtual particles is a scheme in which interactions between real particles are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. IOW, they are temporary virtual states in going from an initial state to a final state. The actual transition is described in terms of a sequence of virtual states. These are like a bridge between the initial and final state. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Like real particles, virtual particles still obey the Conservation Laws.

I have tow words for you, Hawking radiation.

Do you mean the radiation that comes from the MASS OF THE BLACK HOLE?
How is that creating energy from nothing????

Again the most condescending know-it-alls are always the most ignorant!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no source, we have been assured. It was simply "always there."

Oh how convenient.

What I find most babbling about the rejection of the Big Bang theory by fundamentalists like yourself is that you are actually rejecting a theory that supports your religious beliefs. In fact, the Big Bang theory was accepted by the Pope before it was generally accepted amongst physicists! (And hold-outs like Fred Hoyle were still alive into the 21st century). The Big Bang Theory says there IS a beginning to the Universe. In order to have a "moment of creation" there must be a beginning,no? Would you prefer the "steady state" theory were the Universe has always existed and always will in much the same state its in now?


Not only is the Big Bang theory consistent with a "moment of creation", it also predicts the Universe will have an "end" - that there will be an "end of time" - also perfectly consistent with the Bible. The exact nature of that "end of time" is not scientifically known yet, but all the possibilities sound rather apocalyptic. The universe could end in a big crunch, everything being sucked back in heating up and ending in a massive collapse of hot gas into a point - very apocalyptic. In this scenario the Earth's oceans would boil near the end! Or the Universe may continue to expand, growing cooler and cooler with time. Eventually - all that will be left to provide light and energy to any living thing will be red dwarfs - red - as in the sky will be red as blood to anyone living in such a star system at that time. Eventually all the usable energy is used, the universe cannot support life, and it expands "forever" - although at that point time itself will cease to have real meaning. It may also end in a big rip where everything is ripped apart into bits by inflation - extremely apocalypic.


So what's the deal fundies? Do you really think the Earth is only 6000 or so years old? If so, you're just a plain moron. There's plenty of evidence on Earth itself to disprove that, and not even in evolution, you can figure out the age of the Earth from dead rocks. So unless you're that crazy - the Big Bang is actually fully consistent with a God having created the Universe.

Myself - I'm content to just not know for now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Funny how dismiss something based on the date it was written. Does that make Einstein obsolete?

Its dismissed based on the fact that in 1993 they would not have had the data that indicates heat death is still possible. DUH.

The data doesn't actually back it up though, it just backs up an expanding universe. Believe it or not, those are two separate issues. Boltzmann has postulated that, in an expanding universe, heat death is impossible because the expanding universe will actually increase disorder, which would reverse entropy.

The math is actually pretty simple when you consider it from the standpoint of probability. Thermodynamics is one of those things that works on a small scale and falls apart on a cosmic scale.

• Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. Populare Schriften, Essay 3, address to a formal meeting of the Imperial Academy of Science, 29 May 1886, reprinted in Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical physics and philosophical problem, S. G. Brush (Trans.). Boston: Reidel. (Original work published 1886)
• Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. p. 20
• "Collier's Encyclopedia", Volume 19 Phyfe to Reni, Physics, by David Park, p. 15
• "Collier's Encyclopedia", Volume 22 Sylt to Uruguay, Thermodynamics, by Leo Peters, p. 275

And you've actually looked at all these sources yourself? Or did you just cut and paste them from a webpage that claims these sources support what you say? Because I'm not going to waste my time going to the library unless you've done the same.

EDIT - Aren't the first two sources the same damn book? (see bold) I love it when bloggers source the same thing multiple times to make themselves look more thoroughly researched. I'm guessing you didn't bother to check these out yourself at all, and I won't bother until you do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no source, we have been assured. It was simply "always there."

Actually, if Hawking is right, it wasn't always there, it just suddenly was.

What I get from Hawking is that it doesn't matter where it came from. Whether it came out of nothing or is the result of a previous "big crunch" or some aliens made it in a test tube - nothing that happened before its beginning could affect anything after its beginning thus it doesn't matter. It doesn't even make sense to consider "time" itself to have existed "before" the big bang.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Like who what?

Do you actually mean to "ask" if I might have a guy like Hawking himself in mind?

see bold

See bold and blue.

See your original statement:

Lots of otherwise perfectly respectable scientifically oriented, who adamantly oppose the notion of "God," seem to have a religious "faith" in "science" even when science, too, fails to answer the basic, fundamental, original question.

So now Hawking counts as more than once scientist? And not only more than one - but "lots" ? If you're going to make a claim using "lots" I would expect to at least see a list of three names.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah they said that about matter as well. I would love to hear an explanation how non-living matter became life.

HowStuffWorks "How Evolution Works"

Evolution is totally irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is no source, we have been assured. It was simply "always there."

Wrong, it has been proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule that energy cannot be created, meaning it has always existed, nor destroyed, meaning it will always exist. Until you come up with an experiment that proves otherwise, you are stuck with that REALITY.

Apparently you missed the OP. According to Hawing there was a point where time did not exist, which would mean that nothing actually existed because everything in this universe is a function of space-time. That would mean that energy had to have been created before we could prove it is impossible to create.

This isn't anything new - Hawking didn't come up with this idea - that time did not exist "before" the Big Bang is implicit in general relativity. Space didn't exist either.

Also, OohPoo actually posted a link showing that, under some circumstances, energy can be created.

Energy Is Not Conserved | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh how convenient.

What I find most babbling about the rejection of the Big Bang theory by fundamentalists like yourself is that you are actually rejecting a theory that supports your religious beliefs. In fact, the Big Bang theory was accepted by the Pope before it was generally accepted amongst physicists! (And hold-outs like Fred Hoyle were still alive into the 21st century). The Big Bang Theory says there IS a beginning to the Universe. In order to have a "moment of creation" there must be a beginning,no? Would you prefer the "steady state" theory were the Universe has always existed and always will in much the same state its in now?


Not only is the Big Bang theory consistent with a "moment of creation", it also predicts the Universe will have an "end" - that there will be an "end of time" - also perfectly consistent with the Bible. The exact nature of that "end of time" is not scientifically known yet, but all the possibilities sound rather apocalyptic. The universe could end in a big crunch, everything being sucked back in heating up and ending in a massive collapse of hot gas into a point - very apocalyptic. In this scenario the Earth's oceans would boil near the end! Or the Universe may continue to expand, growing cooler and cooler with time. Eventually - all that will be left to provide light and energy to any living thing will be red dwarfs - red - as in the sky will be red as blood to anyone living in such a star system at that time. Eventually all the usable energy is used, the universe cannot support life, and it expands "forever" - although at that point time itself will cease to have real meaning. It may also end in a big rip where everything is ripped apart into bits by inflation - extremely apocalypic.


So what's the deal fundies? Do you really think the Earth is only 6000 or so years old? If so, you're just a plain moron. There's plenty of evidence on Earth itself to disprove that, and not even in evolution, you can figure out the age of the Earth from dead rocks. So unless you're that crazy - the Big Bang is actually fully consistent with a God having created the Universe.

Myself - I'm content to just not know for now.

The big bang does point to a beginning which I do believe there was a beginning but I do not believe in the big bang theory. The pope means nothing to me. There is plenty of evidence refuting the big bang so how am I a moron ? Look I have said many times I don't know the age of the universe or the earth. I have said I believe it is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old, that hardly seems being sure of the age of the universe and earth. That is pure arrogance on the part of man to think he can answer the question.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is plenty of evidence refuting the big bang so how am I a moron ?

No, there isn't, the Big Bang is very well supported by the evidence, and yes, yes you are a moron.

I have said I believe it is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old, that hardly seems being sure of the age of the universe and earth

We know the Earth is much older than that from radio-isotope dating moron.

 

[Youwerecreated]

HowStuffWorks "How Evolution Works"

Evolution is totally irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

What was the energy source that converted non living matter to life ?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Evolution is totally irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

What was the energy source that converted non living matter to life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Only if you consider abiogensis to involve something being not alive one instance and then the next instant alive. Its very likely that there existed millions of years of "gray area" - where stuff was in a state that we might consider today to be a alive or not alive. In that case evolution most certainly played a role.

What was the energy source that converted non living matter to life ?

Go outside and spit on a rock,blow your nose on a rock,prick your finger and put blood on a rock and what would be the results during the day when the sun is shining. Then return to me and tell me you actually believe that the sun was resposible for the diffusion of cells.

And this is giving you the advantage of not having to form a cell because the cells are already fully formed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is plenty of evidence refuting the big bang so how am I a moron ?

No, there isn't, the Big Bang is very well supported by the evidence, and yes, yes you are a moron.

I have said I believe it is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old, that hardly seems being sure of the age of the universe and earth

We know the Earth is much older than that from radio-isotope dating moron.

HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"

BB top 30 problems

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What was the energy source that converted non living matter to life ?

Go outside and spit on a rock,blow your nose on a rock,prick your finger and put blood on a rock and what would be the results during the day when the sun is shining. Then return to me and tell me you actually believe that the sun was resposible for the diffusion of cells.

And this is giving you the advantage of not having to form a cell because the cells are already fully formed.

What a moronic argument. No one is arguing cells formed by spitting on a rock. You asked what the energy source was and I gave it to you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is plenty of evidence refuting the big bang so how am I a moron ?

No, there isn't, the Big Bang is very well supported by the evidence, and yes, yes you are a moron.

I have said I believe it is somewhere between 6,000 and 13,000 years old, that hardly seems being sure of the age of the universe and earth

We know the Earth is much older than that from radio-isotope dating moron.

HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"

BB top 30 problems

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

I had a suspicion you'd be entirely incapable of describing anything in your own words.

 

[daws101]

The fact that energy cannot be created does NOT beg the question "where did it come from." Since it can't be created it always existed. There is no "before it existed." There is no "prior to itself" because there is no "prior."

What you have confused is energy and time. You have them flip-flopped.

You see energy as having a beginning and an end, it doesn't!
You see time as eternal, it isn't!
Time has a beginning and an end, it is not eternal, in fact, time is not even constant, a change in motion will cause time to speed up or slow down. There was never a time before energy. Energy already existed before time began and energy will continue to exist in the same total quantity after time ends.

The fact that energy can't be created and therefore always existed is not a theory, it is a proven Law, the FLoT. It was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and therefore cannot be pontificated away as you have been doing. To claim energy must be created you need to prove it with a repeatable experiment!

It's okay to say that about energy but Christians get ridiculed when we replace it with GOD????

to be a god energy would have to some sentient component there is no evidence that it does.
using your line of reasoning, we should be worshiping electricity and calling it our lord.

 

[daws101]

What if it was,wouldn't science need to know this ? How bout if a day was much longer to God then our day's ?

ROTFL................a day much longer. Let's see.........the lying bible said Methuselah lived over 900 years. Using your logic that old son-of-a-***** would have been around 2000 years. The people who wrote the bible were probably confused about what a day was. They were still shitting on the ground, wiping on their hand, believed in ghosts and witches and thought the earth was flat. How goddamed stupid is that

The people you are referring to as ignorant and stupid built pyramids,temples,and coliseums. Your ignorance blossoms once again.

When you post, all is needed is to consider the source.

those same people are the ones that you claim could not have done what they did with out so called Divine intervention....again you have no valid evidence to bolster those claims
BTW the coliseum was built by romans long before the advent of their conversion to Christianity.
so their intervention must have come from the roman pantheon of gods..
next time you call someone ignorant .stop and look in a mirror first.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Go outside and spit on a rock,blow your nose on a rock,prick your finger and put blood on a rock and what would be the results during the day when the sun is shining. Then return to me and tell me you actually believe that the sun was resposible for the diffusion of cells.

And this is giving you the advantage of not having to form a cell because the cells are already fully formed.

What a moronic argument. No one is arguing cells formed by spitting on a rock. You asked what the energy source was and I gave it to you.

I was not asking that question. I asked you what would happen to these already developed cells if exposed to the sun. The moron is clearly yourself. If already developed cells could not diffuse from being in the sun how would the first cell have ever formed ?

But of course anyone who would reference Abiogenesis as an explanation for the origins of life already told me, you have a weak background in micro and molecular biology. It also told me that you already bought into a lie. Sorry just being honest.