Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.

 

[IsaacNewton]

First of all, I didnt link any articles. Secondly, the article linked in the OP (to which I assume you are referring, with your rabid, impotent anger causing your error) neither states nor implies any such thing. You literally pulled every word of that out of your ass.

Look, we get it: you have no idea what the article means to convey, and you dont know fact one about any of this. Instead of throwing a little fit, just pay attention. You just might learn something

Bulllllllshitttttt...

You are embarrassing yourself...no more responses for you ...

Look dickhead, you said you read it and it said it’s provable and now you’re trying not to look like the bullshit artist you are.

It's the science forum, you're looking for The Rubber Room or The Angry For No Reason forum.

I'm looking for people who don't spew bullshit on every Thread like you two do.

 

[Indeependent]

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.

And what makes you think no religion has held this belief for thousands of years already without the "great" Hawkings being around?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And what makes you think no religion has held this belief

I don't think that at all.

 

[K9Buck]

So how do you define "nothing"?Greg

`
Nothing is the absence of anything. Even a vacuum is something. Nothing means No time/space, No gravity, No electromagnetic or nuclear strong/weak force. It's impossible to even image "nothing."

Nonexistence.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

I didn't think that any serious physicist even called it the Big Bang anymore.

 

[evenflow1969]

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.

And what makes you think no religion has held this belief for thousands of years already without the "great" Hawkings being around?

I some time like to beleive that the universe is purley in my own mind and does not realy exist. That way when the rude idiot ass hole beside is being a real ass. I think to myhself that fucker was created by my own mind and it would do no good to brain him. Keeps me out jail and the ass hole alive.

 

[toobfreak]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

I didn't think that any serious physicist even called it the Big Bang anymore.

The term actually came from physicist Fred Hoyle who coined the term somewhat in mockery. Fred was a big believer in a static universe.

 

[toobfreak]

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.

And what makes you think no religion has held this belief for thousands of years already without the "great" Hawkings being around?

They have. You might try studying Vedic Science. Srimad Bhagavatam. Third Canto, Part Two. Calculation Of Time From The Atom. Written thousands of years before western science discovered it.

 

[toobfreak]

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.

So, Hawking is saying Fred Hoyle was right all along? If you travel back in time, you are traveling back through events. One thing happened before another. If you keep traveling back, there has to be a point where no events happened before the last one, but you cannot reach that point because space and energy has contracted to a point where you couldn't exist. So it is a useless thought experiment------ as you go back far enough, space and time change, and eventually even the physical laws change, so it is pointless to say that time and space never had a beginning, that is like saying YOU never had a beginning! Because if you go back far enough to your birth, before that you have your conception, before that you were an egg and a sperm, and before that you were a ham sandwich, and before that, you were some plants and sunlight, and before that you were atoms exploding in a star millions of light years away. So technically looking at it the Hawking way, you had no beginning either, no boundaries, only changed ones. Hawking's only real point is the one on his head just to sell another book.

 

[Indeependent]

Religious nuttery aside....

According to the ideas presented by Hawking, if you were able to travel back in time, you would never reach the beginning. Simlarly, in either the 'big rip' or 'big crunch' scenarios, you will never reach the end (going forward), either.

Therefore, the universe always has been and always will be, despite not being infinite. Boundless, yes. Infinite? No.

And what makes you think no religion has held this belief for thousands of years already without the "great" Hawkings being around?

They have. You might try studying Vedic Science. Srimad Bhagavatam. Third Canto, Part Two. Calculation Of Time From The Atom. Written thousands of years before western science discovered it.

Exactly my point.
Fart Moron In Diana always assumes that anyone who believes in God has some archaic view of the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there has to be a point where no events happened before the last one

Hawking is saying that point simply does not exist

 

[Indeependent]

there has to be a point where no events happened before the last one

Hawking is saying that point simply does not exist

His opinion and he’s incorrect.
You keep forgetting that math and physics weren’t invented 100 years ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His opinion and he’s incorrect.

By what argument is he incorrect? Before you answer, you should be made aware that the physics community generally agrees with this idea. Again, the news here (for the layman) is the use of imaginary time to resolve the dilemma.

So please, regale us with your expert arguments that refute Stephen Hawking.

Or, you could save youself the embarrassment and just be honest by admitting that the ONLY reason you disagree with Hawking is because the claim does not align with your religious superstitions.

You keep forgetting that math and physics weren’t invented 100 years ago.

Actually, quantum mechanics and the math used to understand it was, indeed, only discovered (physics is not "invented", ya goober) about 100 years ago.

 

[Indeependent]

His opinion and he’s incorrect.

By what argument is he incorrect? Before you answer, you should be made aware that the physics community generally agrees with this idea. Again, the news here (for the layman) is the use of imaginary time to resolve the dilemma.

So please, regale us with your expert arguments that refute Stephen Hawking.

Or, you could save youself the embarrassment and just be honest by admitting that the ONLY reason you disagree with Hawking is because the claim does not align with your religious superstitions.

You keep forgetting that math and physics weren’t invented 100 years ago.

Actually, quantum mechanics and the math used to understand it was, indeed, only discovered (physics is not "invented", ya goober) about 100 years ago.

I think it's great that the scientific community will accept and possibility that furthers the advancement of mankind.

"you should be made aware that the physics community generally agrees with this idea"
Wow! I'm shocked!
Can you imagine the shit that a Hawkings dissenter would take?

It's not against my religious beliefs at all because I have a long way to go before I totally understand the myriad interpretations of the Creation account.
On the other hand, I don't suck Stephen Hawking's penis every 3 months when he says something contradictory to what he said 5 years ago.
And yes, the man has changed his mind on a number of his theories a number of times.
He has the right to do this but I don't suck up to him.

 

[Indeependent]

And yes, the man has changed his mind on a number of his theories a number of times.

So what? What does that have to do with anything? Nothing at all...this is charlatan's rhetoric....tricks for the weak minded...

You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
He knows no one has the balls to tell him to fuck off.
By the way, the Aristotelians made his claim a few thousand years ago.
But what did those atheists know?

 

[Cellblock2429]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

/——/ And watch the Long Island Railroad use this as an excuse for running late.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
He knows no one has the balls to tell him to fuck off.

First of all, this is not only Hawking's idea, as he is joined by other physicists in his work.

Secondly, scientists deal in ideas, not cults of personality. If someone were to disagree, they would disagree with a statement and then present evidence against that statement, not against Stephen Hawking.

Of course, the Arostotelians never made the claim that the universe 'is unbounded and finite, therefore you could never reach the beginning, and this could be resolved using imaginary time'. Not ever.

 

[Indeependent]

You are correct, Mr. Hawkings "Make Money for my Nurse Aides" monthly theories these days are for weak minded.
He knows no one has the balls to tell him to fuck off.

First of all, this is not only Hawking's idea, as he is joined by other physicists in his work.

Secondly, scientists deal in ideas, not cults of personality. If someone were to disagree, they would disagree with a statement and then present evidence against that statement, not against Stephen Hawking.

Of course, the Arostotelians never made the claim that the universe 'is unbounded and finite, therefore you could never reach the beginning, and this could be resolved using imaginary time'. Not ever.

This is how is make real scientists laugh when it comes to Hawkings...
If he's so damn brilliant, how come he can't design a device that makes his voice sound like a voice.
You can't imagine how people laugh their asses off about that question.
In phony robot voice..."I'm Stephen Hawkings and I predict the world will implode in 700,000 years but I can't design a f*ing machine to make me sound like a human...now wipe my arse, I thing I just made a doody."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is how is make real scientists laugh when it comes to Hawkings...
If he's so damn brilliant, how come he can't design a device that makes his voice sound like a voice.

You're not making yourself sound very smart, here...