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

[Quantum Windbag]

Fallacious appeal to authority

Umm, what?

You asked me how I know what Hawking said, and I point out I know because he said it, and you claim that is an appeal to authority?

I guess I owe rdean an apology.

LOL! No, sorry, but any student of cosmology knows that Einstein's GR admits three possible solutions - expanding, contracting, or steady state. Just look up the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. [/quote]

Why? Did they prove that Einstein's math was wrong when he added the cosmological constant?

Didn't think so.

That's not entirely true. Alan Guth used the cosmological constant to successfully predict the distribution of the microwave background radiation. its a very useful theory for the early Universe. Problem it is doesn't jive with the more recent Universe unless it changes with time.

The fact that they have to add a fudge factor to make the equations work with the observed universe as it exists today contradicts my statement that they have to add a fudge factor to make the equations work with the observed universe how?

 

[whitehall]

Hawkings is a smart guy and he has plenty of time to think (and be bitter about his condidtion?) . He is entitled to his opinion but it's just theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do those links show otherwise? If you can't explain it yourself what are we even talking to each other for?







You can't. YOu just had the opportunity to articulate arguments and you once again deferred to links.

By theory all the matter in the universe was condensed in to a little dot where it spun until it exploded in the explosion the universe was created and everything in it.

Questions for this theory are.

Where did all the matter come from ?

Dunno. Any ideas?


Dunno. Any ideas?



Mass


It was spinning? The Universe has net angular momentum?

In an enviornment absent of friction you have a dot of energy spinning so fast it exploded . If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being propelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

It exploded due to gas pressure, not rotational force.

This means that all planets created from this explosion would have to spin the same direction this dot was spinning,but venus and uranus spin the opposite direction how can this be ?

They were hit by asteroids that set them spinning in the wrong direction.

Do you have any arguments to make, or just questions.

I am not gonna attempt to put it into better words then this.

If The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics,why do some still fall for it? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/2009/11/creation-bang-2-stars/

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Fallacious appeal to authority

Umm, what?

You asked me how I know what Hawking said,

No, I asked you how you knew what his math said. You haven't even looked at his math.

LOL! No, sorry, but any student of cosmology knows that Einstein's GR admits three possible solutions - expanding, contracting, or steady state. Just look up the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

Why? Did they prove that Einstein's math was wrong when he added the cosmological constant?

Didn't think so.

No. They showed that GR admits three possible solutions for the space-time geometry of the universe. You claim it only admits one. You're wrong.

The fact that they have to add a fudge factor to make the equations work with the observed universe as it exists today contradicts my statement that they have to add a fudge factor to make the equations work with the observed universe how?

The so-called 'fudge' factor was introduced BEFORE observation of the distribution of the microwave background radiation. When your 'fudge factor' reliably predicts observation BEFORE its made its no longer a 'fudge factor', its tested theory.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By theory all the matter in the universe was condensed in to a little dot where it spun until it exploded in the explosion the universe was created and everything in it.

Questions for this theory are.

Where did all the matter come from ?

Dunno. Any ideas?


Dunno. Any ideas?



Mass


It was spinning? The Universe has net angular momentum?



It exploded due to gas pressure, not rotational force.

This means that all planets created from this explosion would have to spin the same direction this dot was spinning,but venus and uranus spin the opposite direction how can this be ?

They were hit by asteroids that set them spinning in the wrong direction.

Do you have any arguments to make, or just questions.

I am not gonna attempt to put it into better words then this.

That's because you can't put it in any words. We've been going back and forth for pages now and you've yet to actually phrase an argument in your own words. Sorry but your'e not actually participating in a debate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By theory all the matter in the universe was condensed in to a little dot where it spun until it exploded in the explosion the universe was created and everything in it.

Questions for this theory are.

Where did all the matter come from ?

Dunno. Any ideas?


Dunno. Any ideas?



Mass


It was spinning? The Universe has net angular momentum?



It exploded due to gas pressure, not rotational force.

This means that all planets created from this explosion would have to spin the same direction this dot was spinning,but venus and uranus spin the opposite direction how can this be ?

They were hit by asteroids that set them spinning in the wrong direction.

Do you have any arguments to make, or just questions.

This theory makes no sense at all like many other theories out there.

Gas pressure caused the explosion ? to ignite the gases you would need friction which causes heat. But wait there was no friction.

You don't need to ignite gas for it to have pressure.

You think this theory is viable ?

The theory that gas pressure causes gas to expand?

WTF?

I'm not teaching you basic physics.

It violates the first law of thermodynamics. But yet you fall for it.

You wouldn't know the 1st law of thermodynamics if it raped you up the ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I asked you how you knew what his math said. You haven't even looked at his math.

I actually have looked at it, I just haven't bothered to double check it. He has lots of people that actually do that for him, and I am unlikely to find a mistake that gets through that vetting process. I also know that, never once has he ever claimed his math showed one thing when it actually showed something else. Since my claim is that he says his math shows that there is not time for God, I see no reason to double check his math to see if it actually shows that. Especially since I think that, even if his math is right, it doesn't actually apply to God unless Hawking has some insight into God that makes him know that God is tied to time.

That still does not change the fact that I know what his math says because he says that, and that that is not an appeal to authority.

No. They showed that GR admits three possible solutions for the space-time geometry of the universe. You claim it only admits one. You're wrong.

Wrong about what? My statement had nothing to do with the FLWR metric, my statement was that Einstein added the cosmological constant because, without it, his math showed that the universe would have collapsed unless it was a lot younger than it actually is.

By the way, the FLWR metric actually allows for six solutions, not just three.

The so-called 'fudge' factor was introduced BEFORE observation of the distribution of the microwave background radiation. When your 'fudge factor' reliably predicts observation BEFORE its made its no longer a 'fudge factor', its tested theory.

Umm, what? The cosmological constant was discredited until we discovered that the rate of expansion is accelerating in 1998, cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1965.

Want to try again?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dunno. Any ideas?


Dunno. Any ideas?



Mass


It was spinning? The Universe has net angular momentum?



It exploded due to gas pressure, not rotational force.




They were hit by asteroids that set them spinning in the wrong direction.

Do you have any arguments to make, or just questions.

This theory makes no sense at all like many other theories out there.

Gas pressure caused the explosion ? to ignite the gases you would need friction which causes heat. But wait there was no friction.

You don't need to ignite gas for it to have pressure.

You think this theory is viable ?

The theory that gas pressure causes gas to expand?

WTF?

I'm not teaching you basic physics.

It violates the first law of thermodynamics. But yet you fall for it.

You wouldn't know the 1st law of thermodynamics if it raped you up the ass.

Your theory still makes no sense. I do admit I do not have a strong back ground in Physics but however I have a strong back ground in micro and molecular biology. Care to take a stab at it ? you attempted with the theory of abiogenesis. I think quantum is giving you all you can handle in physics. But you did not really attempt to answer but a few of the questions I presented to you. And yet you act like what you learned is a fact. Totally ignored links that presents the arguments and you just ignore them maybe you to don't know enough to debate the subject.

 

[daws101]

Dunno. Any ideas?


Dunno. Any ideas?



Mass


It was spinning? The Universe has net angular momentum?



It exploded due to gas pressure, not rotational force.




They were hit by asteroids that set them spinning in the wrong direction.

Do you have any arguments to make, or just questions.

I am not gonna attempt to put it into better words then this.

That's because you can't put it in any words. We've been going back and forth for pages now and you've yet to actually phrase an argument in your own words. Sorry but your'e not actually participating in a debate.

ywc does not debate he proselytizes.

 

[daws101]

This theory makes no sense at all like many other theories out there.

Gas pressure caused the explosion ? to ignite the gases you would need friction which causes heat. But wait there was no friction.

You don't need to ignite gas for it to have pressure.


The theory that gas pressure causes gas to expand?

WTF?

I'm not teaching you basic physics.

It violates the first law of thermodynamics. But yet you fall for it.

You wouldn't know the 1st law of thermodynamics if it raped you up the ass.

Your theory still makes no sense. I do admit I do not have a strong back ground in Physics but however I have a strong back ground in micro and molecular biology. Care to take a stab at it ? you attempted with the theory of abiogenesis. I think quantum is giving you all you can handle in physics. But you did not really attempt to answer but a few of the questions I presented to you. And yet you act like what you learned is a fact. Totally ignored links that presents the arguments and you just ignore them maybe you to don't know enough to debate the subject.

THIS STATEMENT:" I have a strong back ground in micro and molecular biology.YWC"
IS A LIE.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes it is.

Well, since YOU were the one who posted the bible quote that started the biblical discussion, I will take that as an admission that you believe I have the better argument but as a Christian you are not honest enough to admit it outright.
Thank you.

You can take anything any way you want, being the delusional nitwit you always are.
However, I am not the one who brought up the bible or biblical quotes nor the first one to reference God.

And, even a tool like you SHOULD be able to take note of the fact that I said "mostly" off topic.

YOU then proceeded to attempt to hijack the entire thread with a simple (related) but off-shoot comment.

But you are the one too stupid to know that my reply was to YWC, who did post the verse that claimed only that which came from heaven can ascend to heaven.

 

[Liability]

Well, since YOU were the one who posted the bible quote that started the biblical discussion, I will take that as an admission that you believe I have the better argument but as a Christian you are not honest enough to admit it outright.
Thank you.

You can take anything any way you want, being the delusional nitwit you always are.
However, I am not the one who brought up the bible or biblical quotes nor the first one to reference God.

And, even a tool like you SHOULD be able to take note of the fact that I said "mostly" off topic.

YOU then proceeded to attempt to hijack the entire thread with a simple (related) but off-shoot comment.

But you are the one too stupid to know that my reply was to YWC, who did post the verse that claimed only that which came from heaven can ascend to heaven.

Meh. I missed the nested quote.

The balance of my reply stands.

The topic YOU want to DWELL on is the Bible. But the actual topic is still whether or not Hawking "proved" anything along the lines of what he claims he "proved."

And the fact is: Hawking did not prove any such thing.

 

[Cammmpbell]

You can take anything any way you want, being the delusional nitwit you always are.
However, I am not the one who brought up the bible or biblical quotes nor the first one to reference God.

And, even a tool like you SHOULD be able to take note of the fact that I said "mostly" off topic.

YOU then proceeded to attempt to hijack the entire thread with a simple (related) but off-shoot comment.

But you are the one too stupid to know that my reply was to YWC, who did post the verse that claimed only that which came from heaven can ascend to heaven.

Meh. I missed the nested quote.

The balance of my reply stands.

The topic YOU want to DWELL on is the Bible. But the actual topic is still whether or not Hawking "proved" anything along the lines of what he claims he "proved."

And the fact is: Hawking did not prove any such thing.

The facts are that Brainwashed Christians have their heads so far up their asses that fresh air or new ideas never get there.

 

[daws101]

but you are the one too stupid to know that my reply was to ywc, who did post the verse that claimed only that which came from heaven can ascend to heaven.

meh. I missed the nested quote.

The balance of my reply stands.

The topic you want to dwell on is the bible. But the actual topic is still whether or not hawking "proved" anything along the lines of what he claims he "proved."

and the fact is: Hawking did not prove any such thing.

the facts are that brainwashed christians have their heads so far up their asses that fresh air or new ideas never get there.

true but way ot!

 

[daveman]

But you are the one too stupid to know that my reply was to YWC, who did post the verse that claimed only that which came from heaven can ascend to heaven.

Meh. I missed the nested quote.

The balance of my reply stands.

The topic YOU want to DWELL on is the Bible. But the actual topic is still whether or not Hawking "proved" anything along the lines of what he claims he "proved."

And the fact is: Hawking did not prove any such thing.

The facts are that Brainwashed Christians have their heads so far up their asses that fresh air or new ideas never get there.

 

[Liability]

But you are the one too stupid to know that my reply was to YWC, who did post the verse that claimed only that which came from heaven can ascend to heaven.

Meh. I missed the nested quote.

The balance of my reply stands.

The topic YOU want to DWELL on is the Bible. But the actual topic is still whether or not Hawking "proved" anything along the lines of what he claims he "proved."

And the fact is: Hawking did not prove any such thing.

The facts are that Brainwashed Christians have their heads so far up their asses that fresh air or new ideas never get there.

Dummmbell: What you just said there was not a "fact," you fucking senile dimwit motherfucker. It was just your submoron idiotic useless and erroneous opinion.

Your head is so full of shit that it might as well BE your asshole.

 

[Liability]

meh. I missed the nested quote.

The balance of my reply stands.

The topic you want to dwell on is the bible. But the actual topic is still whether or not hawking "proved" anything along the lines of what he claims he "proved."

and the fact is: Hawking did not prove any such thing.

the facts are that brainwashed christians have their heads so far up their asses that fresh air or new ideas never get there.

true but way ot!

Wrong. FALSE and way OT.

Glad to help straighten out your skewed irrational perspective.

 

[daws101]

the facts are that brainwashed christians have their heads so far up their asses that fresh air or new ideas never get there.

true but way ot!

Wrong. FALSE and way OT.

Glad to help straighten out your skewed irrational perspective.

really? I always though their was a huge difference between "brainwashed christians" and people who are Christian.

 

[Youwerecreated]

true but way ot!

Wrong. FALSE and way OT.

Glad to help straighten out your skewed irrational perspective.

really? I always though their was a huge difference between "brainwashed christians" and people who are Christian.

Once a dumbass always dumbass.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am not gonna attempt to put it into better words then this.

That's because you can't put it in any words. We've been going back and forth for pages now and you've yet to actually phrase an argument in your own words. Sorry but your'e not actually participating in a debate.

ywc does not debate he proselytizes.

Wrong again.