Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




The Chain
Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
Becoming Abigail

Becoming Abigail

By Chris Abani

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Stephen Hawking Says Creation Was Godless, Inevitable

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 2, 2010
NASA, ESA, Hubble, R. Sahai (JPL)

In his new book, the famed physicist dismisses the notion, sometimes peddled by scientists, that a deity was involved with the big bang: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. ... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

BBC:

Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: “That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions—the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass—far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.”

He adds: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By samosamo, September 12, 2010 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

****************


Here’s a link to my favorite page and beside the point that the
picture is underground, it does have relations to the
‘fundamental constants’ of nature over cosmological ‘time’:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 12, 2010 at 6:50 am Link to this comment

Pompous Asses and Other Bigots Unite!

DaveZx3, you have demonstrated a Near-Leefeller-Sense-of-Humor,
he is superlatively concise in his inciseful insights.  Though yours was
a wickedly good story.  Yup, pompous assness is something that
cannot be hidden (the more one tries to hide the fact, the more one
is one, it is an inverse ratio, these days more popularly called a zero-
sum game).  I had a great laugh, even if you did not intend for She to
laugh.  She did anyway.  (I know some hate it when I speak of m’self
in the third person, too bad.  But I am quick to say that does not qualify
me for PAness (as I do not include myself with that obviously venerable
group, venerated by its members).  Maybe She is HerPIAness but
definitely not a participant in PAness because that is way too close to
the 7th planet from the sun).

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 12, 2010 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Dave,

I hope that “Pompous Ass” wine is sweet. It would be a bitter blow if it was sour and gave your heartburn.

Thanks for the laugh!

From one pompous ass to another, in the midst of many!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 12, 2010 at 3:10 am Link to this comment

Hey Dave, you should not concern yourself about the pompous part, because I know you really do not know it all.  I recall a while back, when you did not know the difference between a duck and a goose!

What duck?

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 12, 2010 at 2:21 am Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, September 11 at 7:25 pm

Dave why should you be any different than the rest of us? You, too, can be a pompous ass!
=============================================================

ITW,

I can take being called pompous, and I can take being called an ass, but to be called a pompous ass is a little over the top, in my opinion. 

This is such a blow to my ego.  Especially since I mentioned this to my wife, and she agreed that I was a pompous ass. 

I know those idiots I work with think I am a pompous ass, but what do they know?

And my mother has hinted something close to that on more than a few occasions, but that’s because I was the oldest son, so I always got the short end of the stick.

Besides, is it my fault that I am always right about everything?  It’s not easy being right.  There should be more empathy, or is it sympathy?

Anyway, my psychiatrist, who also thinks I am a pompous ass, is the one who started me participating on Truthdig.  He/she thought it would help to deflate my ego by being exposed to a liberal viewpoint.  I say he/she because he is the she side of a he/he relationship.  As a homophobic, I have to be given some credit for listening to this guy/girl.

So, on my next visit, I am going to tell he/she that the TruthDig idea was a bad one, and it’s not working.  I been on here for more than a year, and am still as much of a pompous ass as I have ever been, according to my wife anyway.

I am so distressed, I am taking a ride down 114 to Rock Stream to get three or four bottles of Pompous Ass wine.  If I am lucky, I will be on time for the KMA party, and Sir Jackson, hopefully, will provide some commiseration in my time of distress. 

If anyone needs a link to my source, here it is:  http://www.pompousasswinery.com/

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 11, 2010 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

Thank you ITW and NG.  I will check out those telescopes.  Where I
live it is usually a light-free sky at night (cept when there is a moon
of course).  But I mean light from cities.  It is crisp and clear most of
the time.  You guys are “top drawer.”

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 11, 2010 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

Only 30 billion terrestrial years left? Bummer! I guess no 100 billion year tearing apart of what is left of the thin gruel of Baryonic matter we are made of by Dark matter then by then? Or it will just happen sooner?

Ah yes, the anti-science Biblical crowd. Use science, or science-like works to prove that the Bible is right and “secular science” is wrong and covering it up. Its a conspiracy! The same exact tactics are used to naysay GCC & Evolution. So it is no surprise to see it here following the same pattern.

Creationism: 1,800,000

Evolution:74,700,000

So that means that Evolution wins? No DaveZx3 numerical superiority doesn’t automatically mean it has any more credibility. Facts should rule not how many dissidents or supporters have access to the web.

I’m not an expert in anything so whatever I say is suspect. But so should anyone’s else who isn’t consistently correct.

Evolution vs Creationism: 1,270,000

So how is this exercise working for you DaveZx3?

Please continue.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 11, 2010 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Dave why should you be any different than the rest of us? You, too, can be a pompous ass!

She, check out Meade or Celestron scopes.  Meade sells refurbished scopes in the $250 and the AWESOME ETX 90mm is about $500—that self-aligns by GPS.  Of course you can spend thousands or tens of thousands….

Celestron has a 4” compact scope that competes with the ETX for the same price—$500 new.  They are both easy to move, set up and use, and are real scopes.  They also have have an 8” Dobsonian for the same price. I don’t know if they have refurbs.  You can go to eBay for used versions of these scopes or for Orion scopes, too.
Celestron even has a 76mm Dobsonian for $50 bucks! You don’t have to make your own! (and, yes, Pyrex is the basic material for mirrors due to its strength and excellent resistance to temp-based changes.)

But if you are going the binoc route there are some excellent books for that too!

You can watch the universe fly apart from your own back yard!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

Don’t know Dave, you really seem the adventurer kind of guy,..... me on the other hand,  I would never Google any kind of big, small or in between….. bangs no matter how hard it may not seem and for Googling “black holes” though also not so hard, (in fact Googling anyting seems easy?)  should only be attempted by the Pope and a special group of clergy’s, especially if they happens to be Republicans!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 11, 2010 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Your humor, Leefeller, is cosmic.  Does that have anything to do
with the Great Unyum?  Oops, did I say Unyum?  There’s got to be
some blue corn chips in there somewhere.  Now if they are blue,
according to the spectroscope, then they must be moving towards
me, but if they are red (like when they have jalapeno hot barbecue
seasoning, they are moving away, cause I don’t really like hot sauce)
and they are skedaddling away from these here parts.

”all moving in different directions”  - DaveZx3

Just like all the known and unknown religions?

If was so easy, DaveZx3, uh…your sarcastic comment, ” Gee, that was
real hard.”
what took you so long to post it?  Now we can see if it
has any merit.  I can see why you avoid posting references.  You don’t
like any challenges. Now here is a google site:  Evidence FOR the Big
Bang.  Since the address is is sooo big, I’ve Tiny URL’d it for you for
your convenience.  http://tinyurl.com/27pax6s
BTW:  2,940,000 results
About 5 million less than those against…however, hard to tell how
many are personal opinion and religionists who don’t want to believe in
the big bang are listed, like:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=scholarly_articles_existence_of_God
Or
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=434412

Now let me tell you, dear heart, when you get to page 55 of the
AGAINST Big Bang google list, you will find arguments FOR the Big
Bang.  Most comical.  I assure you I will not check out the 7,859,945
sites!  I hypothesized a statistical average and decided that the 7 million
plus are chock full of ridiculousness.

Now lets go over to the FOR the Big Bang group to see on its page 55
of the 2 million plus the results.  The Creationists show up there!  More
than comical, it’s hysterical hahahaha….an infinite number of haha’s

P.S. You all do know that if a posted website is too long for the page
format of TD (it is not all bolded in red) that you have to copy and
paste the whole thing into your browser in order to access it don’t you? 
That is just a FYI rhetorical question.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 11, 2010 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

This may have already posted, sorry if it had.

For all the helpless people out there who need references.  I typed “evidence against the big bang” into google and came up with 7,950,000 hits, of which the first page had some very, very serious articles.

Gee, that was real hard.

Here is the link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+against+big+bang&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPEA_en

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 11, 2010 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

For all the helpless people out there who need references.  I typed “evidence against the big bang” into google and came up with 7,950,000 hits, of which the first page had some very, very serious articles.

Gee, that was real hard.

Here is the link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+against+big+bang&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPEA_en

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 11, 2010 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Well I think I am beginning to see what this cosmology stuff is all about seems as clear as mud, religion and politics,  so many different opinions, ideas, theories, premises or principles (facts?) as there are black holes out there, (anyone count them)  all moving in different directions or an other?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 11, 2010 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

While I am not an expert on anything, nor claim to be, there seems to be more then enough experts out there to go around!

My bother Clyde is dating this gal who happens to be a space astrologist named “Star” not sure but “space” and “star”  should trump “world” class, well unless one is Catholic?  It seems Clyde is becoming one of those Cosmologists kind of experts on his own, sort of like ITW.  Clyde may be doing this just to impress Star and her sister plus their astrologist girl friends, anyway I know some people who know other people who know something about space and stars who claim to be experts, also I know a friend of my uncle Otto, who is a bartender named Mortimer and like my uncle Mortimer is also a former professional wrestler .....  whenever some people make fun of his name,...... Mortimer seems to enjoy helping them see the stars!

Evidently the only thing about space which I am an expert on (only because I wrote an extensive report in the third grade) is the 7th planet from the sun,..... which may make me even more of an expert then Dave sYz!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 11, 2010 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

You accuse me when you said, “You seem to be of the opinion that
ideas cannot be original.”
  Why do you prevaricate so much Dave? 
Did I ever say that?  NO!  You are such a self-centered BSer.  Yes,
you are obligated to give authentic evidence when you pretend you
“know” something and expect others to simply accept what you say is
gospel.

If as you also say, So, really, I do it for my own benefit.“ then
maybe you ought not to criticize anyone for their offerings, especially
those who do offer references for what they are posting.  I have offered
plenty of references in my posts, and expansion of the universe is one
of them, or maybe you are dyslexic and suffer ADS and can’t read for
very long.  Or maybe you don’t know what http:// means. Or maybe
you ought to take a permanent hike.  Your choice of course.  Yeah, I
will ignore your future posts unless there is some remark or personal
attack on me or about what I say!

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 11, 2010 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, September 11 at 9:15 am

“And gee DaveZx3, you act so pompous and think
you can say what you want and we must simply take your word for it.”
=============================================================

Yeah, I noticed that in myself. 

But personal stuff aside, as it must be, because who I am, or what I am, or whether I am a real person, or not, or whether I come across as a pompous ass, or not, is absolutely not the issue.

The issue is the idea itself.  An idea has validity or it does not have validity, based on its own merit, not the personality of the person whose head it grows in.  And whether a water-boy or astronaut, many have had very good ideas about stuff. 

You seem to be of the opinion that ideas cannot be original.  That all things need to originate from a book or a wiki article, which must be cited as evidence that the idea has some validity. 
 
This is an opinion forum, not a science forum.  I am not obligated to tell you where my opinions or ideas come from, as though I am applying for grant money or something.  Maybe the ideas just spontaneously create themselves in my head.  If the universe can do it, why can’t my ideas.

I have found that “you can observe a lot by watching” to quote one of my favorite Yogi-isms.  I travel alot to observe things, which I credit with many of my ideas about how everything works, and my work has helped me understand a lot regarding physics.  Other than that I feel no obligation to cite anything about my sources or ideas,

Everyone is free to investigate for themselves, which is much better than taking anyone’s word for anything anyway.

Regarding my own credentials, I have none.  I am a working class kind of guy who managed to get a BSEE by the age of 32.  I never amounted to much, really, but made a decent living, and am now, with my wife of 42 years, very comfortably retired, traveling at will, due to having put my son through Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. 

I am not even sure why I bother to post on this forum.  I never post anything anywhere else.  I just got hooked up here, and I think I use it more to clear my head and organize my own thinking rather than to inform anyone of anything. 

To post an opinion, I find that I have to think out my position on it, to firm it up in my own head as to how I “see” it. 

So I have to admit, this is a totally selfish endeavor and has nothing to do with informing or converting you or anybody else to anything at all.  I find that it is extremely rare that anyone ever actually reads and comprehends anything anyway. 

So, really, I do it for my own benefit.  And I did preface my “ten times more evidence” remark as being my opinion based on looking at hundreds of deep space photographs, which are probably all on line somewhere. 

I think you also will find a lot online about the evidence against big bang and universe expansion.  It has been growing for over 30 years.  Of course the scientific elite don’t take too kindly to alternate opinions, so many with alternate views shut up and think in private. 

But I really can understand your irritation with my pompous style, so in the future, I would recommend that you either ignore anything I write or do not take it seriously, because it is only my opinion based on my observations, and other sources, which I am probably not going to cite. 

Hope that makes you feel better.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 11, 2010 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

Good morning to you too ITW.  I always enjoy conversing with you. 
You keep your hubris mostly under control, as do most of us!  I
should like to know what you think is my cosmology?  Then, what
is yours and why you disagree with mine such as it is?  Even if
it is garnered from Astronomy Mag.  Having another whole different
career, and having had a long time now ex-marriage to a physicist,
and I’ve been a kitchen stool wannabe jr. cosmologist for years, not
quite making the grade yet, but as a pre-wannabe, I’m getting there,
LOL.  And I have been a member of Amateur Astronomers Association
for about 10 years. 

I totally love the PDF doc. at
http://www.capjournal.org/issues/01/18_22.pdf
because on page 4, there is a small section entitled, “She is an
Astronomer”!!!  Yayyyy for She. Hahahaha…I love it love it love it.  I
would be better at it if I had a telescope, but I have not afforded one,
yet.  I just have used my pathetic binoculars.  I just read and read and
read books and articles and look at what ever journal pictures there are,
even sometimes videos and animations are sooo much more entertain-
ing than any of the drivel and dross offered on entertainment TV.

Yikes!  I hope to build my own telescope as there are instructions at the
AAA of NY web page.  It starts off by saying pyrex for the lens is
“relatively” cheap, just my range!  But still was not affordable since
there are tools needed for grinding!  Then one needs dental plaster (50
lbs.) and lots of other stuff is needed, plus the room to do it.  I can
afford the cardboard, haha and probably the epoxy.  So this project
will have to wait.  Maybe the kids will give their mom one and I won’t
have to build it.  Sigh. haha I’m all full of laughs (not excrement,
Davey) this a.m.  It’s better to keep the mirth and do away with the
cranky.  If, for instance, there were any bona fide cosmologists actually
posting on TD (now that is a big laugh), it might be exciting.  But since
no one here has any such expert status, it is all in fun, no one having a
corner on the truth.  And anyone taking themselves too seriously, is full
of you know what (it would go into my scatology file folder).  Our
opinions, just like the real McCoys are in the realm of probability,
uh…you know quantum X.  Ours more so than the experts’. Which is
why references are required.

BTW: There is a beautiful free article at
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/116/3/1009
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe
and a Cosmological Constant

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 11, 2010 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

I’m not a cosmologist but I’ve followed Astronomy Magazine for years and you’d think if someone came up with a valid falsifable hypothesis that red-shift was totally misunderstood, that AM would have some article on it.  After all, they’ve listed ALL kinds of challenges to “accepted” knowledge, and pointed out the fundamental issue of String Theory—It’s not falsifable, ie, testable.

They HAVE printed that the estimated end of the universe will take 10 to the 200th power years to happen (as we are now at the order of magnitude of 10 to the 10th power, and 10 to the 11th is ten times longer—or 100 billion year) so that’s an inconceivably long time.

So, while I don’t buy She’s cosmology, She is right that you haven’t ANY sources, not even Astronomy or Sky and Telescope, just your brother’s pal (whoever they are).

You knowledge of fiber optics and light transmission making you an expert on cosmology is like a furniture maker claiming that because he works with wood, he’s an expert on the biology of trees….

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 11, 2010 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

Good morning…And gee DaveZx3, you act so pompous and think
you can say what you want and we must simply take your word for
it.  That is the authoritarian personality.  True, I assume nothing
about your friends, which is why when unnamed they are not
acceptable as resources.  Even if they knew your brother.  You can
say anything about an alleged friend second removed and it is
questionable whether or not it is true. 

Now if I were a world-class cosmologist or physicist I would be sitting
down with a cup of Double Bergamot Earl Grey tea with Stephen
Hawking discussing these matters.  I would be writing books and
having a grand old time at lecture halls.  So don’t be such the
patronizing thug. It is you who is acting like an ass.  I have already
admitted to not being omniscient and give sources for what I’ve posted. 
But you pretend you are and only give your pronouncements!  Of course
I’m learning, I’m always learning, I’m not arrogant about being all
knowing.  I don’t make claims about my credentials, I give sources.

It is you who assumes that everyone who posts on TD knows what you
think you know. You act like a big conceited BS artist.  “The evidence”
you say that “they, et al” have amassed might be the case but you have
not given us one shred of it.  If there is ten times “more” evidence
against an expanding universe you have not given us even one time the
evidence.  You are a blowhard.  Just cite an article or a book or one
physicist.  Naw, you are the browbeater.  A “knower” who cannot cite
anything outside of his own head.  What are your credentials?  You
claim to be a fiber optic, long-haul communications engineer, but why
should anybody believe you?  You could claim to be an astronaut, but
maybe you are a water boy. 

You give a description of particles that anybody who took a biology or
chemistry class would know, i.e., Elements of Biology, George William
Hunter; or how about Intro to Chemistry by Mark Bishop?  Or how
about, Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson? Give us a break, Dave.  I
can give you a dozen you have not given one!  Bishop uses the analogy
of a vibrating guitar string to illustrate the wave character of an electron
and the infinite variety of possible waveforms an electron, or a guitar
vibration can have, there are only certain waveforms that are possible.
And so forth and so on.  And I suppose you’ve heard of Hubble’s Law
of expansion?  That the universe is expanding uniformly?  Maybe you
need a tutorial?  Try http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm
dated 2002?  Is that recent enough?  If not, try Space Magazine.

And do tell us, Dave, does a fiber optic, long haul communications
engineer know about fractal dust grains?  By the way did you know the
universe has about 30 billion years left? At least?  And that the universe
expansion is accelerating?  Begorrah, Einstein is resurrected!  Maybe he
is a god?

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 10, 2010 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

She,

The doppler effect was taught in physics 101.  It is not necessary for anyone to remind me of the extreme basics of the principle.  I am not your student, thank God. 

When someone is discussing stuff at a high level, it seems you quickly google the key words, and then come back with some overly simplistic statements, defining the basics of the thing being discussed.  Almost as though you are educating yourself in this process.

If someone is discussing the cause of light wavelength shifts, the rational person would assume they understand the light spectrum.  If a conversation is over your head, admit it.  You can’t fool people, by reading a quick wiki article, to create an impression that you have some expertise in a given area. 

As you are a teacher, I suppose you are used to being the only one in the room that knows the subject.  That doesn’t apply here.  You don’t know who you are talking to, so you must try to participate in a way that elevates the conversation with personal thoughts and experiences.  Any idiot can read and quote outdated and politicized wiki articles, or books written by virtually anyone with the time and inclination to spout his views. 

Also, you assume too much regarding my friends. 
The friend I speak of is a world-class physicist, whom my brother, also a University of Arizona graduate in astronomy, worked with for a time developing methods of deep space photography, the Arizona desert being a magnet for the sky photographers.

The evidence that they, and many, many others, have amassed, through photography of deep space, proves that a red shift is absolutely not indicative of distance from the observer, and generally has nothing to do with doppler, but other factors.

The photographic record is at odds with the doppler effect, with systems with high red shifts eclipsing systems with very low red shifts, or slight blue shifts.  Some relatively close (photographically speaking) quasars have red shifts which would place them at the boundaries of the universe.  Yet in the photo, they appear close by being in front of other systems.

It seems to me that there is up to ten times more evidence against an expanding universe than the small evidence for an expanding universe. 

But science has become as political as everthing else, so you can pick and choose your reality from the cafeteria of scientific diversity. 

Having worked as a fiber optic, long haul communications engineer, I understand the many ways that light can be manipulated to transfer intelligence through various mediums.  Such mechanisms as the EDFA (lightwave amplifier) are so amazing, yet simple, it is easy to understand that light, itself, is an amazingly complex creation which is difficult to comprehend in its process.  It represents the value of unity within the binary system we call the universe.  It is the “ONE”

Every electron has the capacity to emit light through a process by which they store external energy, permitting them to ride the upper valence levels of their normal stations or orbits.  But this “activation” does not persist indefinitely, and when they become deactivated, they fall back to their customary valence level and lose or emit the energy which they had stored.  It is emitted as a flash of light, referred to as a photon, at random wavelength.  The photon is not a particle, per se, but pure energy which has been transferred from the primary energy field through application (intelligent modulation) by the secondary energy field.

As a one time event, the photon acts like a particle which oscillates at a random wavelength.  White light, which is a quantum packet of photons, acts like noise on an optical oscilloscope because of this randomness.  But when viewed on a spectrum analyzer, you can see the various wavelengths across the spectrum.

Like any other system, light requires a binary energy source, (power and intelligence)

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 10, 2010 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

okie dokie ITW.  I have a hardcopy file folder of scat that is hysterical.

I want to recommend a book, Night-Gaunt, that I think you in
particular would enjoy, and also for anybody else who might take
pleasure in this kind of thinking:  ”Achilles in the Quantum Universe:
The Definitive History of Infinity“
by Richard Morris.  It is a most
entertaining yet challenging informative book of its type. I’ll print
items in the Table of Contents (the book doesn’t seem to be available at
GoogleBooks or Look Inside at Amazon but Amazon has some
inexpensive newish used copies).
The Paradoxical Nature of Infinity
Infinite Time
Infinite Worlds
The Infinitely Small
Atomic Catastrophe
Electrons Have Infinite Mass
The Was a Young Lady Named Bright (more than the limerick I posted a
bit earlier
Singularities
Is the Universe Finite, Infinite, or Imaginary?
Infinite Worlds
And finally
Infinity (the symbol)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 10, 2010 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, September 10 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

I hope Sheeeet did not mean She.  I ain’t no stnkin’ creationist!
********************

Nope, not at all.  I’d say a lot of things, but never that.  It should been “Sheeeiiiitttt!”

But space-time limits came up.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 10, 2010 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

We are all still learning. If it will eventually collapse and “re-bang” has a nice cyclic feel befitting many of the occult systems around. The chakra wheel etc. The Hopi and their successive worlds. Each one is destroyed to be replaced by a clean green one. Nice except for the destruction part.

DaveZx3 certainly has an iconoclastic background of knowledge. Some people just can’t be conventional. Good, it would be so boring & limiting.

I’m hoping Nemisis2010 will get back to me on my questions on the “Hitchens…mortality” site. He’s been quiet after I asked my questions.

Hope I can contribute something soon here. I shall research. Thanx <b>

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

Glad to see, Night-Gaunt, we agree on most cosmology.  I was
feeling kind of lonely out there by m’self. 

Since it is an expanding universe, it is logical that there would be
some blue shift as well as red shift cosmic objects. 

The theory that has the most cosmology adherents is the one where
the universe will collapse in on itself into a singularity to a dense
enough point that it will big bang again.  Cyclic, and, if like we now
have some cosmic evidential history, when some of the stars burn out,
collapse in on themselves creating black holes, the entire universe could
collapse in a similar manner.  It is eternally self-perpetuating, a coming
and going sort of thing.  And as Hawking also theorizes, it is spherical
(ala bubble theory) like its progeny stars and needs no outside source
to “create” it.  It makes some sense.  At least it is consistent and the
beauty in science is consistency.  Of course, QM gives string theory
some credibility.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 10, 2010 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

As a matter of fact, there are a small group of galaxies which blue shift, including Andromeda.  According to Doppler, that would mean they are swimming upstream.

Actually means that they are moving in our direction and we should collide with the Andromeda galaxy in maybe 50 billion years. [Other galaxies have been seen colliding, the Doppler shift is always relative to our own movement as a galaxy.]

Remember DaveZx3 we are speaking in relative terms since we are on a rotating galaxy, orbiting a star while it rotates on its axis all moving through space/time. 50 million years from now everything would have moved to a new alignment. To bad we can’t go up and down the time stream and get snapshots of the Doppler environment out there. See how much is in the red, and the rest in blue. If the numbers changed. It would be helpful I think but we can’t do that at this time. So where do we go? Science, mathematics and observation. Just as always. Use of technology to widen our field of vision too will aid us in learning more. I need to learn more on this subject. I am sorely lacking in knowledge at this point.

Report this

By samosamo, September 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

****************


I don’t incur that a god of sorts or kind ‘created’ the universe.
And it is part of what I mean when we humans, with our
supposed intelligence appeared long after any beginnings of the
cosmos we inhabit, are not going to learn everything about
everything. If extinction is inevitable then we most likely won’t
last either but the cosmos will still be here long after humans
are gone just like the earth will still be here until the sun uses its
fuel and becomes extinct.

The beginning and the end are two unknown points, if there was
a beginning and that there will be an end to the cosmos. Both of
small concern considering the life spans of life on earth.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

I hope Sheeeet did not mean She.  I ain’t no stnkin’ creationist!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 10, 2010 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

I’ve just run out of space and time….

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

As a matter of fact, there are a small group of galaxies which blue
shift, including Andromeda.  According to doppler, that would mean
they are swimming upstream.

Only if the observer is upstream.  Blue Shift means the source is
moving towards the observer which means the wavelength is
decreased.  Verification in science is an imperative, and hearsay from
friends falls into personal opinion baggage.  No reason to just believe
anybody even principals with big sticks. 

I actually have a whipping paddle from teaching public school, I had
never used it!  I just want you to know!  It was given to me by a former
principal friend.  Yeah, they do make friends. 

There are three reasons why the visible light from moving objects in the
universe shifts to the red end of the spectrum:: the Doppler effect,
either in the cosmos or even here on earth, but which you claim is not
the case for distant galaxies.  Carl Sagan years ago hosted a fantastic
series on PBS, yup, called Cosmos.  He explained Doppler and Red Shift
phenomenon; or a second explanatoin is that it could be due to the
expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources
ordinarily more than a few million light years away, presents a range of
spectral redshift that corresponds to the rate of increase of their
distance from Earth, the usual location of observation, although space
stations could be a non-terrestrial location; and third, due to
gravitational redshifts as observed in electromagnetic radiation and the
movement from gravitational fields which is a an effect based on
general relativity and involves time dilation within a gravitational well. 
Now if it isn’t as you say due to Doppler, to which of the latter two are
you partial.  And what are the references support your preference
(please don’t quote friends even if they are physicists unless they are
published)?  Doppler still could be used as a measure. Seems like
science always revisits old theories.  Just like Leefeller revisited the
principal’s office over and over.

Due to the influence of black holes, and effects from a BigBang
cosmological explanation, Red Shift requires general relativity to be
used to calculate the movement.  Special relativity could be used but
only when spacetime is one dimensional (Minkowki spacetime)
coalescing into single element of time as the setting.  Reading the Wiki
article would be better for those interested in the phenomenon.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

Oh Sheeeet!

I’ve stumbled into the equivalent of creationists….bringing back the “Steady State Universe” concept.

What’s next? Teaming up with the “Cave men riding dinosaurs” crew?

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 10, 2010 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, September 10 at 11:36 am

“DaveZx3:  Do you have any references?  This critique hasn’t hit Wikipedia yet.”

A friend of mine from Phoenix, a scientist/photographer who graduated from the University of Arizona in the mid 70’s was either a student and/or colleague of a guy named Bill Tifft, who did a lot of the related work in the early 70’s.  My friend is my source for the science, as he has kept up with it all since that time. 

If you were to google “redshift quantization” you would probably get thousands of hits, pro and con, because that is the issue which is causing all the stir.

Believe me, the science is irrefutable.  Redshift from distant galaxies is not due to doppler, and therefore is not a product of an expanding universe. 

As a matter of fact, there are a small group of galaxies which blue shift, including Andromeda.  According to doppler, that would mean they are swimming upstream.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 10, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

“Far as I’ve read when particles approach a black hole some physicists
think the particles exceed the speed of light.”

Geeze Shester, surprisingly I believe, I believe .....especially as the contentious self righteous Cosmo wizards flex their quantum micro certainty of the uncertainty theory! Though some may believe in the absoluteness of their theories to proclaim them principals. ........ Now I know principles,  for when growing up I spent time in parallel universes, called the principles office!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 10, 2010 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

I’m wrong—here’s the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

The issue seems to be religiously ideologized.  Originally, many scientists objected to the Big Bang theory because they thought it had an excessive resemblance to the Judaeo-Christian creation myth.  However, Young Earth creationists don’t like the Big Bang theory because it postulates a creation event which took place billions of years ago, instead of 6000 years (or whatever they believe in).  So they find or make up evidence which goes against it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 10, 2010 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Having been part of a neo-Platonist study group for about forty
years, I know lots of brilliant minds who think they are Platonists. 
While I thoroughly appreciate many of Plato’s insights, I would not
call myself a Platonist, leaning more towards the more scientific
endowed Harry Stotle’s ideas, but even there I do not embrace all he
said dogmatically.  I guess brilliance is relative (LOL).  Since I do have
very high appreciation for Bertrand Russell and Richard Feynman who
are without a doubt in the lineage of Aristotle, I’d say the scientific is
the perspective I prefer for an approach to explanations of “everything.”

Nice explanation of one of the views, DaveZx3.  There are others of
equal strength.

Max Tegmark is a very fascinating chap.  A pop cosmologist who shows
a funny bone.  No reason why a theorist of parallel universes ought not
to do the Las Vegas schtick.  Lots of laughs.  I’ve read a few of his talks
and watched a couple videos and interviews.  The British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science has a plethora of articles about multiverses and
quantum mechanics, i.e.,
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/4/655.abstract  and
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/2/159.extract
also Chicago Journals-Philosophy of Science has an interesting article
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/377422?
journalCode=phos
Remarks on the Direction of Time in Quantum Mechanics by Meir
Hemmo

When it became available on the ‘Net, I downloaded a copy of Everett’s
dissertation of many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics he
actually inferred using basic mathematics of QM.

While I tend to go along with the theory as intriguing, I wonder what
effect on our universe and what we know of it would be to know there
are “abstact” multiverses other than felt presences in lab experiments. 
Is that too pragmatic?  Let’s say that time, the way change is tracked, is
an illusion, even in the universe in which we find ourselves, does it
really matter?  What if change does not happen, that everything is
Parmenidean or Buddhist oneness?  How would that really affect the
human life on this planet in this universe under that illusionary
circumstance that in our reality we experience it as a Heraclitan many
and as forward directional time?

It would seem plausible that within the parameters of QM, each and
everything has a “time” of its own, hence an infinite number of times
exist.

I can see Leefeller reaching for that tequila right now.

The thing is that although quantum mechanics predicts an unlimited
number of parallel universes, there is no prediction other than fantasy
inference (hypothesis) at this point that any of the universes other than
ours has any life in it that would match the evolution that happened on
earth, with a similar perfect set of circumstances in the Solar System.
Yup, it stands to reason that if the same type of particles showed up,
most likely (high probability) there would evolve many similar universes
or just as likely there are infinitely as many worlds just like ours. 
Daniel Dennett seems to argue from the chemical/biological insight of
how particles bond though he puts it in different words.  Particles
actually accidentally combine as they roam around the universe when
their natural features meet up with another or others that fit their
configuration, sort of the way only a special key will fit into a certain
lock and open it.  All else (meaning the universe, or multiverses if that
is preferred, follows from those events of all atomic, subatomic particle
habits.

Hey ITW, you don’t have to be sarcastic about the sharpness of my
intelligence.  I admit to not being omniscient or perfect. I actually have
lots of faults.  Whoa…

Far as I’ve read when particles approach a black hole some physicists
think the particles exceed the speed of light.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 10, 2010 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3:  Do you have any references?  This critique hasn’t hit Wikipedia yet.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 10, 2010 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

Red shift is not due to the Hubble effect.  Galaxies are not all speeding away from us (the observer).  The universe is not expanding, and there was never a big bang.  This is as dead a theory as the sun revolves around the earth. 

Because intensive study has proven that red shift measurements continously group around the value 72 km per second and its negative harmonics, irregardless of luminosity, it is has become totally clear to the most intelligent minds that this phenomenon cannot possibly be related to Doppler, but rather most probably the energy levels of the atoms themselves within a system.

Scientists mistakenly attributed the same value for every galaxy with regards to the random (white) light produced by the galaxy. 

Erbium doped fiber amplifiers show how “pumping up” the atoms in a couple of meters of fiber optic cable with a high powered laser, emitting random wavelength (white) light, and then introducing or shining a secondary light source indo the end of the glass cable, causes the resulting light coming from the other end of the cable to be a mirror image of the this secondary light source (signal), but it absorbs the energy of the “pumped up” atoms and comes out the other end at a much higher amplitutde, amplified at the same wavelength as the secondary light input.

In simple terms, a little piece of glass caable doped with erbium can turn white light into red light, or any other spectrum for that matter, without any spectral dividing of wavelengths, ie: all the light turns red that goes through this system.

A small piece of lithium niobate charged to approx 5 volts can change the phase of light 180 degrees, so light traveling through alternate paths in a system partially doped with lithium niobate can experience actual cancelling of light, ie: one half of a light source takes one path and the other half takes the lithium niobate doped path, and when they meet up again, they are canceled completely.  Gone, disappeared. 

It is increasingly clear that light speeds, wavelengths, amplitudes and phases are all intricately effected by the environment they travel through.  So, different star systems emit different wavelengths of light by virtue of their makeup and atomic energy levels. 

Some are more red than others, but it is quantum in nature, as it does seem to group up around certain measurements.

But the old theory that light is red shifted based on distance or speed, is dead among the best thinkers, and it was always dead among the really best thinkers, because its proposition was virtually impossible to begin with if you understand doppler.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 9, 2010 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

So Samosamo:
You know all about that yet have a problem with the “Big Bang”? As a concept or the current mathematical model for.  If the former, well, that’s Flat-Earthing.  If the latter, then that’s good.

She,
You are usually sharper.  Light travels in a vacuum at an absolute speed. It is fundamental to Relativity, which, incidentally works. In a non-vacuum, or under other conditions it can be slowed down to astonishingly slow speeds.  Wasn’t there a Nobel awarded a few years ago to woman who led a team that achieved the LOWEST speed for light ever established?

There IS a phenomenon where objects APPEAR to be traveling in excess of light speed but it has been shown to be an optical illusion, so to speak.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 9, 2010 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

Though I find all this talk of vacuums, and suction pumps exciting, I know nothing about quantum anything or curvy lights, or any of the other discussion as it has been posted, but I do find a fascination of this topic for some masochist reason?

So if one does not believe in the existence of god is called an Atheist,  what is one called who does not believe in the Hawking theory?

For some reason it seems a surprise to be hearing nothing but crickets with all the thousands of believers out there?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 9, 2010 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

I was speaking about Gödel’s religious beliefs, not his mathematics.  I don’t think I want to get into a discussion of his mathematics on Truthdig.

Such were the prejudices of my youth that I was astonished to learn that a guy as smart as Gödel was a Platonist.  It gave me pause.  I finally came to a Buddhist approach: there could be many levels of illusion.  Why not a Platonic one?  And since then I have read Tegmark’s article, where he puts the idea to work creating universes, lots and lots of them.  God as fecund, or at least hard-working.

Report this

By samosamo, September 9, 2010 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

****************

 

By Inherit The Wind, September 9 at 3:37 pm

Thanks. I am glad you accept that I have my own ability and
right to think as I might and ask the questions that I asked that
from what I interpreted, confused or irritated you because of
some of the outlandish things I asked which was not my
intention. If those questions confused others, well, maybe they
should look into it closer.

Some of those questions are obviously unanswerable and with
hawking and other positing things like the universe creates itself
maybe there is something to the string theory and the 10 or 11
dimensions that goes with it.

I ‘know’ more than ‘believe’ black holes exist and from one
author on the subject, fulvio melia, who in his book ‘The Black
hole at the center of our galaxy’ states the expansion of the
universe such that it is can be measured a bit more precisely by
the black holes moving in ‘lock step with each other’ which
seems a logical indicator. But as Edwin Hubble found last century
that all the galaxies are moving at an accelerated pace from each
other, it doesn’t seem easy to just leave the big bang out of the
idea of the beginning.

And I take the idea of time being measured down to an
attosecond (a billionth of a billionth of a second) as fined tuned
as it gets next to the barrier of the planck number which
scientist deem the smallest time measured so far.

Picosecond(millionth of a billionth) which is where the fastest
transistors operate or how long the bottom quark lasts in high
energy accelerators.

Femtoseconds(thousandth of a billionth) which measures in 10
to 100s a single vibration of an atom in a molecule.

All of that is dealing with the quirkiness of quantum mechanics
that has lots to do with what drives our great technologies such
that they are and combining relativity and quantum mechanics
may or may no be far away.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Wellllll…you are “probably” right ITW.  Just some small problems,
i.e., conditions at the big bang may not have conformed to what
we can calculate on the stuff we know now.  What if light did travel
faster than 186,282 mi/sec, say 187,984?  Or how about a tad
slower 185,907/mi/sec?  Would those seemingly negligible differ-
ences have translated into a completely different universe?  And we
are talking about the speed of light in a vacuum.  Is the universe a
vacuum?  I’ve read where space can travel faster than light.  Seems
right since for light to travel that means it moves and if it moves then
it moves in space at a temporally defined speed.  So time and space
both must travel faster than that which must traverse and use them. 
Right?

All of the observable universe is filled with vast numbers of photons,
the so-called cosmic background radiation, and quite likely a
correspondingly large number of neutrinos. This is somewhat
antithetical to the notion of a perfect universe vacuum.  And a planet
such as the earth has a local non-vacuum condition else no living thing
would exist. They would suffer hypoxia if exposed to a vacuum such as
proposed for the universe. But then no life would have evolved in any
case.  It is been debatable since antiquity whether a vacuum could exist
at all. Plato, our favorite reference, it seems found it inconceivable.
Aristotle thought it impossible, and the Muslim physicist and
philosopher, Al-Farabi’s experiments had him conclude a perfect
vacuum was incoherent. Nevertheless, Muslim physicist Ibn al-Haytham
used geometry to demonstrate that it was possible in a three-
dimensional void, as did other Muslim clerics Ab? Rayh?n al-B?r?n?
theorized no observable evidence “rules out the possibility, and Al-
Jazari invented the suction pump.  Other examples exist.  Just a little bit
more to suffer here…the medieval Catholic Church’s dogma preached a
vacuum was heretical, Descartes argued against it, as did Reformation
scholars Casati and Buridan.  Horror vacui is also a theory of the fear of
empty spaces in art history.  Many design elements of the South Pacific
cultures as well as Muslim patterns suggest this concept.  Barometers
and pumps and scientists from Galileo all the way to 1865 and
Hermann Sprengel testify to the existence of “vacuum.”  After a theory
of free gasses in the early 20th century counterargued against a
vacuum in outer space, that would affect the speed of light, it’s velocity,
would only be measurable within a vacuum environment, we come up
to Michelson-Morely experiments that were not able to detect any
change in the speed of light in outspace.  Einstein, our Albert, comes
along and decides that physical objects are not really located in space
but has a spatial extent, hence delivering the notion of empty space as
meaningless. Space is an abstraction of relationships, but his GTR
suggests a gravitational field, which he himself said, can be regarded as
an “aether,” with properties that vary from one place to another.  Now
after a few other theories, QM comes into the picture and sort of
complicates the situation.  Because it requires indeterminacy (our old
friend probability), questions of emptiness of space even between
particles comes up.

A whole new definition of vacuum then is generated by quantum
mechanics as the state with the lowest energy, or a state with no
particles.  But…in practical terms, an ideal vacuum will not remain
empty.  For, dear hearts, the container or edge of the universe has
particles that would pollute the so-called perfect vacuum that also
carry momentum, giving radiation pressure. It is said that cosmic
microwaves fills the apparent voids seen in the universe. Duh!  Final
analysis, no vacuum to the universe.  However, that does not mean no
vacuums exists.  For that we would have to turn to string theory, which
someone else might take on.

We too dance with the stars!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

However you must understand that there is no known limitation of the speed of the fabric of space in how fast it moves. Which it is still moving now. Something unusual yes?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 9, 2010 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

Samosamo,
You can believe that Black Holes don’t exist and you can believe the Earth is flat.  You can even believe that General Relativity and the Quantum theory are wrong and are phonies. But, as is usually stated about politics, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Einstein’s inability to accept the Uncertainty Principle is well-known, but later in life he was forced to accept it, as Hoyle was forced to accept the Big Bang over the Steady-State.

I’m not bothered by the concept that the center of the Universe where the Big Bang happened is right here on my desk and simultaneously out there where the Quasars live.  Some of this is clearly relativistic.  If you have NO way of perceiving anything before the Big Bang, that it’s the ULTIMATE event horizon, then there’s no way to “measure” where the Big Bang happened.  Since everything in the universe, matter and energy, came out of that bang some obvious determinations can be made, like this:

One nano-second after the Big Bang the universe was no more than 60 cm across (roughly 2 feet).  Why? Because light travels about 30cm in a nano-second and, since nothing can travel faster than light, the maximum distance anything could travel in a nanosecond was 30cm in any direction, making a maximum of 60cm between the farthest traveling matter or energy.

This isn’t a belief, it’s a calculation based on known stuff.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 9, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

And depends on if one considers Gödel a god? If Plato was not a
god could an altar attendant be one? 

Brilliant as he was, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems were not
immune to the kind of limitations proved of other mathematical
theories and Ernst Zermelo described a crucial gap in his argument
as well a Paul Finsler, using a paradox constructed an expression
that was false but unprovable within a specified and unique
framework about which Godel claimed was flawed, but to no avail.
His theorems apply only to theories that are effectively generated as
recursively enumerable theories, that is, they have application to a set
of natural numbers algorithmically that terminates after a designated
end period and correctly decides if any given number belongs to the
set.  Consistency is decided if all true statements about natural
numbers are taken as axioms for a theory.  Then complete extension
of Peano arithmetic, generally called true arithmetic, that defines
commonly understood arithmetic that includes addition, multiplication,
and the concept of equal, less-than, greater-than symbols < >, and an
unchangeable symbol for zero, 0, describes non-logical symbols (i.e.,
predicates or individual constants of a formal language that can stand
for various expressions.  None of Gödel’s theorems hold because Peano
is undecidable hence is not recursively enumerable, that is, it is
basically incomplete.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 9, 2010 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

Symbolically, yes.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 9, 2010 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

That’s an interesting story about Pauli.  However, it’s the early Einstein who created General Relativity so my guess about the religious crisis may be on the mark.

Notice Einstein spent his declining years hanging out with the Platonist Gödel.  If you can’t have determinism with God in control at least you can have the Higher Realm.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 9, 2010 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

I.
A very humorous famous limerick about the speed of light…
(the speed of light is often used to calculate problems associated
with time)

There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was far faster than light
She set out one day, in a relative way
And returned on the previous night

FYI:In the category of time, there are 82 kinds of units of time.

The problem is taking the Compact Disk as the reality.  It is another
instance of the Cartesian duality problem.  One would have to ask
how the data was put onto the CD and from where did that come
from?

DaveZx3’s comment is classic and relies on Zeno’s arrow paradox
that states that since an arrow in flight is not seen to move during
any single instant, it cannot possibly moving at all.  It is not an
uncommon view.  It depends on the instant of time theory or a kind
of freeze-motion idea (his freeze-frame of a film) that the arrow is
“strobed” at each instant and is seemingly stationary, so how can it
move in a succession of stationary events?  The problem arises in
thinking because at any one moment that an observation can be
made, if that moment is discrete, it is not moving, which really is
true.  But it is trivial since if a thing is not moving, it cannot be seen
to be moving.  It is only if one watches the movement as a thing moves
from place to place that change can be detected, but if one is paying
attention to that observation of change (time passed), one does not
simultaneously pay attention to any particular location, so it is quite
true that location and speed are not observable simultaneously.  One
of them, speed or location has to be thrown to probability and
guestimated.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 9, 2010 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

II.
Even though at first Einstein objected to the interpretation of
quantum mechanics, and many stuck to that view of his position
which they said implied he was deterministically a believer in a
determining God, but even more realistic, mainly because that
position adhered to their own views that Einstein’s would agree
with them, however, an important quantum thinker did not agree
that Einstein was a determinist.  Quantum mechanics has greatly to
do with probability.  Einstein did not reject probabilistic techniques
or quantum theory.  Wolfgang Pauli, his close friend and theoretical
physicist, one of the early developers of quantum physics, contradicts
the view of several that he was a determinist, and did not believe that a
God was responsible for the universe and hence all our actions are pre-
determined supernaturally.  Pauli argues that the infamous God and not
playing dice quote was “early” Einsteinian, and his later in life
statements.  This does not affect or contradict Einstein’s belief that QM
was incomplete.  He is quoted in P.A. Schilpp’s Albert Einstein,
Philosopher-Scientist, as concluding: “While we have thus shown that
the wave function does not provide a complete description of the
physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a
description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.” 
So he does not throw out the baby with the bath water.

One of the very major mistakes that is made by those who think about
the element of time is that models of the real world being observed at a
micro scale, which in reality cannot not easily be reconciled with the
way objects are observed to behave on the macro scale of everyday life. 
Part of the problem stems from using the language of mathematics as
ordinary language.  Mathematicians often speak of “spaces” with more
than three dimensions.  They also make use of the idea of space as
having an infinite number of dimensions.  But it ought not to be
imagined that there is any really relationship between abstract
“mathematical” spaces and the three-dimensional space we inhabit in
everyday life.  Mathematical constructs are merely a way of imagining
numerically how things work because to quantify, or assigning a
numerical value, makes it easier to work with the astronomical (pun
intended) extension of what it is they are contemplating.  It is like the
language of logic that uses p’s and q’s and x’s, y’s and z’s.  If thens, if
and only if’s, etc., using symbols to represent large concepts.  Easier to
manipulate.  We actually use symbols to see in our minds what we
sense through our physical senses. 

Are we still having fun?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 8, 2010 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment

While fretting over split Tequila, the Great Unyun slurred somewhat incoherently:

“With all the faiths in the world and each one being absolutely right ....... What for,... does this guy.. come off… Like Hawking reality?.....  ..........”

After a bit of time,... Raising her Unyun voice she yelled asking; .... “For….The Yins or Yangs of it?”

Report this

By samosamo, September 8, 2010 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment

****************


itw, you sure are a class act. Bet you really impress all those
hanging on your every word as the word of god. And there you
go again making your own facts from your own admitted
theories, OPINIONS and conjectures which is what this article
is about.

Guess it would be too much to ask you to take a trip to the
center of the our galaxy so you could prove the existence of a
black hole.

So here is to ‘going for each others throat’. Let’s see how long
you and I can wow the people commenting here some more
who have to contend with your feud about something you
dislike about just another person you like to hate. Well, let’s
see just how long you want to keep going.

Look forward to your next WRONG assumption you will have
about me and how desperately your hubris can’t make
yourself admit something you know as fact or law when it is
theory. I’d say you and I will be the only 2 left commenting in
this article in about 2 days.

Report this

By samosamo, September 8, 2010 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

****************


itw, you sure are a class act. Bet you really impress all those
hanging on your every word as the word of god. And there you
go again making your own facts from your own admitted
theories, OPINIONS and conjectures which is what this article is
about.

Guess it would be too much to ask you to take a trip to the
center of the our galaxy so you could prove the existence of a
black hole.

So here is to ‘going for each others throat’. Let’s see how long
you and I can wow the people commenting here some more who
have to contend with your feud about something you dislike
about just another person you like to hate. Well, let’s see just
how long you want to keep going.

Look forward to your next WRONG assumption you will have
about me and how desperately your hubris can’t make yourself
admit something you know as fact or law when it is theory. I’d
say you and I will be the only 2 left commenting in this article in
about 2 days.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 8, 2010 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

Einstein was a determinist.  His religious viewpoint found any cosmic disorder to be repugnant; as he said ‘I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe.’  I think part of the motivation for constructing the theory of General Relativity was to rescue causality (and thus determinism) from the fact that the universe has no single fixed frame of reference and thus no universal clock—before and after may depend on point of view.  Therefore, Einstein could not accept Quantum Mechanics and the arrow of time had to be reversible; time had to be like a sort of fourth spatial dimension, in which we are all eternally frozen from a higher point of view.

However, QM went right ahead and proved to be experimentally valid.  So Einstein seems to have been wrong on that one.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,

One of Einstein’s most famous quotes was “time is an illusion”, though I think that was a paraphrase of his actual words.  If you google that, you will come up with over one hundred thousand hits.  Take your pick, or read “Relativity”.  . 

Einstein and great physicists after him, including Hawking, have more or less agreed that time is a direction in space, and not a linear flow of events as we experience it. If you consider that space is three dimensional, the x axis, y axis and z axis,  then time would be the fourth dimension.  Thus the term space/time.  The three dimensions of space plus the fourth dimension of time.  This does not infer that space and time are identical.  Just that space and time are dimensional, and are different planes in space/time. 

Now if time is a dimension or direction in space, it means that all so-called events exist at once, simultaneously, but we can’t perceive it all at once, just one plane or frame at a time. 

Think of a movie film, which is the story of the life of someone.  It exists all at once on the movie reel, yet you cannot perceive it all at once.  You have to put in into a projector and show one frame at a time.  When you are viewing the individual frames one at a time, they blur together and appear to be a continous flow of events, but it is just a visual illusion.  It already existed on the reel as a complete story, beginning to end, and then you excperienced it, but not all at once, only one frame at a time. 

As three dimensional, temporal beings, we are limited in how we perceive our so-called reality.

Now if you think of the movie as an interactive CD, like a WI game or something, you can undersand a loose interpretation of Richard Feynaman’s “Sum over histories” theory.  All possible results are contained on the CD, and your course of action determines what outcome you will see.  IE: you hit a bad golf shot, it goes in the water, but if you hit a good one, it goes in the hole, and every other possibility is also programmed onto the CD.

So, as Hawking says, “the universe has no beginning or end, it just is”  He is starting to see it as just an image on some cosmological video game. Of course he also says that the universe created itself, so he is a little schizo sometimes and does not always seem consistent.

I see the universe as a great interactive video game, with all possibilities programmed in.  But video games don’t program themselves, and there must be some intelligence behind anything that could program such an extravaganza. 

Face it, given the present technology of video games, I can play golf at the Masters Golf Course at Augusta, GA, without even leaving my lving room.  Of course it is not exactly real, but you can hear the birds cheeping and the leaves rustle and you get rewarded for good shots. 

But if the game keeps improving, I predict that my experience playing that game will be absolutely no different from the real experience of playing Augusta.  We will eventually understand that everything is already virtual, and there is no reality as we understand it.  For time is not the only illusion, but matter itself.  There is no universe, per se. 

My son is a captain for Continental airlines, and he tells me about the training he goes through in the flight simulators.  He says it is absolutely real.  After a few minutes, you have absolutely no idea that you are not actually flying a plane. 

So the point is, there may be little difference between reality and virtual reality if you can’t perceive the difference.  How do you know what you are perceiving?  And how can you prove it?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

Also for the longest time (many centuries) it was known that earth was at least hemispherical by how as ships come or leave they sink or rise from the horizon. As they traveled and found the earth to be much larger and that the same effect happened anywhere suggested a spherical shape.* That wouldn’t happen on a flat earth.

There are also problems for those who claim the earth is the center of the system and that the sun orbits the earth. It just doesn’t stand up to what is known and proven by celestial observation.

Shenonymous go for it! Some of us just may learn something.

*Technically it is an oblate spheriod. Being flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator due to our rotation.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

”The mathematics of cosmology proves the universe is flying apart,
which means, flying apart from being together.”
– Indeed, but since
there is no center, there is no there there from which it is flying apart. 
It is flying apart in all directions from and within the same curvature
singularity.  Isn’t it interesting that the center of the universe is at every
point that can be a point?  But if this theory is wrong, do say where the
center is.  Merci beaucoup.  Are we having fun yet?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 8, 2010 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Samosamo:

You are like the guy who says he knows ALL the reasons why scientists claim the Earth is round but that doesn’t actually prove ANYTHING!

Actually, it does. Try using classic celestial navigation mathematics on a flat earth. It doesn’t work and you’ll know because you’ll find yourself in Osaka when you want to be in Istanbul.

The fundamental mathematics (actually Trig) that celestial navigation is based on begins by assuming the Earth is a spheroid.  The fact that using these techniques allowed navigators to pilot their ships accurately before the age of GPS (and before that LORAN) definitively proves the Earth is round.

Just as well, the mathematics of cosmology prove the universe is flying apart, which means, flying apart from being together. 

That this doesn’t penetrate your brain and has you calling me names, and then pressing “Report This” is simply an hilarious study in outrage and hypocrisy.

Report this

By samosamo, September 8, 2010 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

****************


So to move on, scientists are trying to see if the ‘fine structure
constant’ is changing because of the expansion or movement
of the universe and will if it changes would that change be
detrimental or have significant affects to the universe and the
energy and matter in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 8, 2010 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately DaveZx3 you are wrong.  Space and time may not be
sensed through the physical senses but organisms do sense time and
space.  They might be one but you sense space and time separately. 
And they each have definitions if you would take the “time” to read
them which are given “space” in dictionaries as well as encyclopedias. 
Also many many books are written that took time to write and the
space of paper on which to print them.  So if you can separate time
and space so that it is cogently coherent, I think we all would
appreciate it, especially Stephen Hawking.

Perhaps we can turn this forum into a debate of what time and space
are?  For I have a theory I would love to take the time for which to use
up the space of this forum.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 8, 2010 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3 time is no delusion, though the eternal now may be it is only due to our lack of being able to perceive up and down the time stream. Now if you can I would like to know. Unless you can tell me so I think your ideas are nothing more than that. I don’t know in what the full context Einstein was speaking about time/space not being linear. Can you direct me to a link? Note space & time are one.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 8, 2010 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

It is very difficult for you to understand the notion that there is no linear time at all.

Albert Einstein concluded that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. 

He said, “the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” and, “It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

Temporal man cannot perceive in other than three dimensions, no more than Sagan’s fictional flatlanders could perceive in more than two dimensions.  For this reason, hummans only experiences reality one frame at a time, as a linear string of events.  But not everyone. 

In addition to finding the source of gravity and the other forces, it would help you to see reality better if you had a better understanding of the concept of the delusion called time, and where that delusion originates from.

You really need to spend more time in meditation and less time reading and quoting the words of deluded men.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 8, 2010 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

It is very difficult for many to understand the notion that there was
no time before time.  The concept of pervasive infinity appears to not
be very well understood either.  Furthermore, if there was no time
before time, there would be no need for a god.  Uh oh…The foregoing
is especially difficult to fathom for many who have y chromosomes, so
I’ve noticed.

Read Hawking instead of trying to second guess what he said.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 8, 2010 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

“Hawking says the law of gravity determines that the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists; it was not serendipitous because the big bang provided all the elements and all they had to do was bump into each other and bond.”

=======================================================================================
I am sure Hawking did not say, “the law of gravity determines that the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”  That statement is an oxymoron, and it is not befitting a world-class physicist.  The balance of the statement above adds insult to injury.

Is it not just a little weird to say that a law of physics could preexist the matter which it relies on for its existence?  For what is the law of gravity without matter to define it? 

Now if matter did preexist as an infinitely compressed singularity at the initial state of the universe, and it was held compressed by virtue of gravity, and then exploded by virtue of gravity, sending the particles which would form the universe hurtling outwards, then the universe was still not created from “nothing”.  It was created by a preexisting force and preexisting matter (singularity)  So, the real question is how did all that preexisting stuff get there?  Is anybody ever going to answer that question? .

As a side note, I no longer accept the theory of the big-bang, because red shift measurements, which were the primary evidence for a big-bang,  actually show significant evidence that they are caused by something other than galaxies moving away from each other.  I had always been suspicious of red shift as evidence that galaxies were moving away, as red shift is the product of relative speed,  not distance.  Red shift always was said to show that galaxies farther away were always moving relatively faster and showing the most red shift.  In reality, it is impossible that everything farther away is moving away at a faster relative speed.  Now, it is being admitted that red shift measurements are actually showing a quantum quality in that the measurments group around certain values, and this has nothing to do with speed or distance.  The prospects of big-bang are not looking good for the future.  And another one bites the dust.  But don’t worry, you can still talk about it for a long, long time, as theories this deeply imbeded die very, very slowly.

Until science can determine the cause or source of the force called gravity, or any of the nuclear forces, for that matter,  they will never understand the origin of the universe.  They will consistently be making dumb-ass statements like,  “the law of gravity determines that the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

Reminds me of a saying I heard somewhere, ” “professing to be wise, they became fools”

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 8, 2010 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

There is a vast difference between belief and informed speculation which in the end means nothing much unless somewhere down the line actual data and observation backs it up.

Interesting videos. I shall delve deeper and get back on it.

Report this

By samosamo, September 8, 2010 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

****************


Here’s the link to the whole 1 hr 40 min video of the previous
mentioned video.

http://fora.tv/2010/08/02/Martin_Rees_Lifes_Future_in_the_Cos
mos#fullprogram

Report this

By samosamo, September 8, 2010 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

****************


Here is a link to a FORA.tv video on an interesting subject and it
shows there are more informed people out there than just
hawking with their ideas, theories, conjectures and ‘maybes’ on
the universe. And I say again, no one has absolute knowledge of
how the universe works or why it is. Such is belief and that
astrology(not the current ‘read my fortune today stuff) and
astrotheology from the ancient times is a basis of that belief.

If anyones KNOWS FACTUALLY different, lets go out in the
universe and see.

http://fora.tv/2010/08/02/Martin_Rees_Lifes_Future_in_the_Cos
mos#How_Big_Is_Our_Universe_And_Other_Cosmic_Quandaries

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 8, 2010 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

I recommend reading Hawking’s own words, especially the UC Davis
Conference lecture especially about gravity and how a universe can
be spontaneously self-generating needing no deity, god or otherwise
supernatural
agent’s action.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 8, 2010 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

A:

[Hawking’s statements about God are dumb.]

Shenonymous, September 7 at 4:20 am:

Hardly dumb.  What X is has nothing really to do with a god.
...
Hawking says the law of gravity determines that the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists; it was not serendipitous because the big bang provided all the elements and all they had to do was bump into each other and bond just as we learn in biology and chemistry, about the way elements unite when their atoms are interactive. 
...

I’m going by what I see reported, which is always risky, but if Hawking says the ‘law of gravity’ disproves the idea of ‘God’ then he was making an extremely dumb statement.  Even a child would immediately see that the next question is, ‘All right, who set up this “law of gravity”?’

Maybe Hawking is being misreported—most reporters seem to be fairly dumb about almost everything and they often get things wrong because they simply have no idea about what is being said or what is happening, lacking any sort of framework, historical, scientific, or cultural, to locate their stories or make other sense of them.  I’ve seen other statements attributed to Hawking of a similar degree of naivete, however.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 7, 2010 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

I hardly think cosmologists confess anything.  Admitting that science
is always open ended is quite a different thing from confessing. 
Confessing seems to imply a sin of some sort, or a crime.  Which I
think cosmology has done neither one.  But some who are ignorant
and/or relgionists do.  Yes, there are several theories in cosmology,
which I have already listed as inflationary or big bang with a couple of
variations such as collision (ekpyrotic) and so forth, and I think a few
other posters have also. Then, by comparison, on the other hand,
Religious Tolerance.org reports there are 19 major world religions
which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and
many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been
identified in the world.  And although they are all Muslim, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches I counted
over 60 distinct and different Islamist groups, not unlike the numerous
sects that can be found in Christianity.  Hinduism has about 15
different sects all of which regard Siva (Shiva) as Supreme Brahman.  So
the fact that there are a number of theories, competing theories of
beliefs, that fact does not say one nullifies each and every other one. 
Although when it comes to religion, only one of them could be true if
any are.  And each one makes the claim to be The Truth.  Hawking,
himself, non-dogmatically proposes a third type of top-down theory of
the universe:  a backward search on the basis of a no boundary
proposal, instead of the standard theorizing from the original moment
and beginning from there to generate a cogent theory for what we see
now. It is an interesting theory to cosmologically entertain.

It always amazes me that while intelligent talk can be going on, how
infantile bickering can simultaneously be going on among a few
buffoons.  Yup, it takes all kinds to make up the world.  Even an
electronic one.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

Well I must admit, I have been hitting the report this button on my own posts, because I thought it meant how great I found the post to be?  .....Sort of like when Chris Hedges family members always show up reporting by writing a post, of how great they feel his articles are!

Report this

By samosamo, September 7, 2010 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

****************


inherit a half-a-brain

Just like your brain, pressing ‘report this’ is just as empty which
for you is a blessing since arrogance and stupid assumptions for
your purposes of some kind of retribution or whatever floats
through the oil shrouded fog of a brain you have. You still have
yet to say anything scientific or cosmological that I haven’t
already known or read but keep trying maybe you’ll get lucky
and really show your ‘brilliance of everything’.

And going to the expense of saying again, cosmologists are in
agreement the most of what they try to figure IS theory based on
the few actual laws of physics which your brain jumps into a
loop that continuously denies this. Why don’t you go to
wikipeedonu for more of your unassailable, undeniable and
down right ‘facts’ you hide behind.

How is your job on the texass board of education, directing what
the kids in the country need to be studying, coming along?

Don’t forget to say your 50 prayers before bedtime tonight.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 7, 2010 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

samosamo, September 7 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

****************


By Leefeller, September 7 at 12:22

Well, by cosmologist’s(not a make-up professional) own
confessing, most of it is theoretical which is slightly less that absolute ( not in the vodka variety) law and this Hawking even labels his stuff as theoretical, though I don’t doubt based on
what is considered law
(nothing to do with congress or
legislatures).

***********************

Go right on pressing that “Report This” button but you continue to reveal your ignorance.

You mistake “Theoretical” for “Hypothetical” and they are not even vaguely similar, but that’s usual for the “creationist” crowd—to attack science using its language—but using it incorrectly.

A “Theory” is why you have a computer in front of you to bang out your ignorance—the Quantum Theory.  Yeah, that’s right. It’s just a “theory” about how semi-conductors work but that theory put the microprocessor in your PC.  Newtonian Physics is “just a theory” but it works well enough to send a probe past the planetoid Pluto.  The Theory of Relativity is “Just a theory” but it explains and accurately predicts how light bends.

ALL scientific concepts and explanations of the natural universe are theories, because ONE fact that they can’t explain disproves them and requires them to either be re-formulated or abandoned.

The father of the “Big Bang” (the term, not the idea) was an eminent cosmologist named Fred Hoyle.  He was disparaging it at the time and it blew up in his face (Kinda like the English wit who, disparaging the colonists, wrote “Yankee Doodle” about them).  Hoyle was a vivid and articulate advocate of the “Steady State” Theory of the Universe.  He was forced, by the evidence, to admit late in life that the “Steady State” couldn’t be true.  Hoyle wrote two magnificent pieces of sci-fi as a sideline: “The Black Cloud” and “October the 1st is Too Late”. Both are worth reading.  The chapter titled “Close Reasoning” should be required reading for EVERY high school science student.

While not attacking Hoyle, Sagan’s monumental work on close reasoning and rationality, “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” stands as towering beacon against magic and superstition.

So, Samosamo, go ahead and press that Report This button. It won’t make you any less ignorant, but it might make you feel better.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 7, 2010 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Yes hypotheses based upon observation and complex mathematical models.

Much of Einstein‘s ideas were proven only later through such observation.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Night Gaunt

Crying is a very important part of the Great Unyun Saturday Night Ceremonial process, besides dancing on a table with a lampshade on ones head,...... the crying usually happens just following the spilling of Tequila when things start to become quite loud and the police show up!!

Report this

By samosamo, September 7, 2010 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

****************


By Leefeller, September 7 at 12:22

Well, by cosmologist’s(not a make-up professional) own
confessing, most of it is theoretical which is slightly less that
absolute( not in the vodka variety) law and this Hawking even
labels his stuff as theoretical, though I don’t doubt based on
what is considered law(nothing to do with congress or
legislatures).

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 7, 2010 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

I have trouble with the Great Unyn because I cry ever time I am in her presence. Give me the Great and Powerful Pasta, Noodle Extraordinaire instead!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 7, 2010 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Finding the word God on a titile seems to bring our the restlessness in many of the Natives!  Having read all the posts here,  I find so many of them refined and appealingly Intellectual, I hesitate to post here, for I know absolutely nothing about black holes or quantumleaks, unless the Titanc’s problem was springing a quantumleak?  As a professional and master plumber, only because I had cards printed;...... I know the differences between a pipe wrench and a monkey wrench, .....the subltle flavor differences of a good smooth Tequila and the not the not so smooth bite of bathtub Tequlia, (far as I know,  there is no bad Tequilas) and I have my own Deity of choice who is not a god or goddess or a Wowee Yowee,  but a Deity who knows the differences between good from not so good and even naughty from nice, but more importantly when it comes to Tequila, The Great Unyun knows copious amounts of Tequila, may cause a deity such as the Great Unyun to succumb to being naughty from nice!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 7, 2010 at 12:20 am Link to this comment

1 of 2
Hardly dumb.  What X is has nothing really to do with a god. 

And if the earth sucks, to where does it suck? 

We have our own inimitable way of understanding…everything. In this
new book, The Grand Design, Hawking re-theorizes his
earlier view of a god’s instrumentation of the universe when learning
that a planet was discovered orbiting a star other than the Sun.  He
said that it demonstrates an inevitability out of chaos would naturally
result in the universe we see today:  By accidentally colliding into one
another, that is, by coincidence, just as Darwin’s theory of how the
beginning of organic life out of the genetic material that was previously
molecules of what all “stuff” is made of and the chance encounter of
organic particles that attract one another is the history of humankind, is
also the history of the universe.  It is all consistent. 

Hawking says the law of gravity determines that the universe can and
will create itself from nothing.  Spontaneous creation is the reason
there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists; it was
not serendipitous because the big bang provided all the elements and
all they had to do was bump into each other and bond just as we learn
in biology and chemistry, about the way elements unite when their
atoms are interactive. 

When the universe’s origins is studied, it has to be studied from now to
its beginning, working backwards.  In what he calls top-down
cosmology, Hawking is saying the universe looks increasingly like a
quantum phenomenon, wherein a multitude of histories diverge, veer
apart.  Space and time hum out, so to speak, so that there really isn’t a
time before the big bang.  In other words, precisely because, as
classically said, it cannot be said there is something north of the North
Pole.  Gravity, keeps the cosmos in balance and “because,” Hawking
explains, “gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be
locally stable but globally unstable.  On the scale of the entire universe,
the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative
gravitationally energy, so there is no restriction on the creation of
whole universes.”

The usual approach in physics to describe the universe and its origin,
Hawking described as building from the bottom up. That is, one
assumes some initial state for a system, and evolves it forward in time
with particular physics equations (Hamiltonian’s and Schroedinger’s). 
This approach is appropriate experiments such as particle scattering, in
a controlled lab where one can prepare an initial state and measure a
final state.

The bottom up approach is more of a problem in cosmology however,
because it is not known what the initial state of the universe was, and
we certainly can’t try out different initial state to see what kinds of
universe they produce.  Why some physicists cling to the particle
physics tradition is their need for laboratory predictions.  Also the
problem of the universe’s four-dimensional character hinders the string
theory model that tries to reconcile quantum theory with general
relativity.  When trying to explain the universe from the bottom up,
physicists take two paths, the inflationary models or pre-big-bang
theories.  No need to explain either of these here as they are easily
found in a google search except to say that inflationary theorists
eventually get themselves jammed up and cannot explain why the
universe is the way it is.  Hawking theorizes fatal flaws in inflationary
theories and has to do with the conservation of energy.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 7, 2010 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

2 of 2
Alternately, big bangs are the other theoretical bottom up models.
These include cyclic or universe collisions of three-dimensional
worlds (called branes) in a fourth dimension called space(time).  A
big-bang, for the benefit of those who do not know what it means,
is really misnamed as it does not mean the universe exploded from
a single point and will eternally keep expanding.  It is an expansion
or stretching of space.  It is not that things are flying out from a point.
Rather, all things are moving away from each other. The usual
illustration is that it is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people
sitting on it.  Hawking maintains that these models also do not answer
the question of why the universe is the way it is.  They merely shift the
problem, about which can also be read in his paper.

More can be read in his 2003 paper, Cosmology from the Top Down,
presented at the Davis Inflation Meeting, UC Davis, California.

His top-down theory involves all possible histories and relies on the
symmetry between time and space formulation of Richard Feynman.  For
Feynman’s Path Integral, see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9302097 and
download the PDF. 

Regardless of his statement of once knowing the nature of the universe
we would know the mind of god, he also proposed in that same book
A Brief History of Time, a scientific approach to ending the cause
question.  He envisaged a quantum universe where space-time would
be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would
have no beginning or end.  He said, “The quantum theory of gravity has
opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to
space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of
science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would
have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions
for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained
and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created
nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?”

Counter to criticizing religionists, rabbis and Christian clergy, there is
scientific explanation of why and how we are here, science can also
explain why it is we ought to be concerned with how we should live,
reasons for ethics and morals.  Postulating a “purpose” of the universe
is pointless since there is no center to the universe.

Report this

By samosamo, September 6, 2010 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment

****************


By Inherit The Wind,

You know, YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT because assuming I don’t
know or believe something that meets your approval just goes to
show how arrogant and worthless you are.

Any more mention, comment to me here at truthdig gets an
automatic REPORT THIS because your hostile attitude especially
on what you consider to be the expert and the final word is pure
balderdash. Your expertise is as shaky as anyone else’s yet what
you propound and what is, what I already KNOW, is nothing
more than some evangelical punditry.  So go preach to some
other person that may want to know why the sun shines.

You turned what was an interesting article into something that is
suppose to meet with your supposed approval but creates
argumentation that on a subject that you make offensive. So in
the inestimable words of someone long past BUGGER OFF!!!.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

No Samo, it is not “opinion”, it is fact as it is currently known.  That you are unfamiliar with it does not render it “opinion”, merely demonstrates your ignorance.  Black Holes exist.  Their ability to exist was proven in 1919 by measuring the deflection of starlight during the total solar eclipse that year.  The stars’ position deviated exactly as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity predicted it would.  Gravity bends light—this is not in dispute.  Everything else follows from it about black holes, singularities, “the Center of The Universe”, etc, all flow from it.

As for the Descent of Man, if you choose to believe in Adam and Eve, in denial and contradiction of DNA evidence that is sound enough to convict or acquit a person of capital crimes, that establishes without question paternity, maternity and other familial relationships (including that it WAS the Tsar buried in Yekaterinburg) I cannot help that.

I don’t believe in the pretty poetry of Genesis any more than I believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia (DNA proves she was NOT Anastasia, or a Rumanov).

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 6, 2010 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3—You’re imposing local, very limited observations of local phenomena on a totality we can’t even begin to define.  It’s faith any way you go.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

Intelligence involves activities such as abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning,  planning, and problem solving, and I would have to say that I see virtually all of these activities in the creation and maintenance of DNA. 

The primary function of DNA is data storage.  It provides the code on which all life is based, insuring accurate replication and mismatch repair.  DNA is a biological management system, complete with quality control, a communications capabiity,  problem solving and self repair.

How would you explain why an unintelligent, random system would bother to create a DNA code, which is primarily involved in providing for events which are to happen in the future.  Providing for positive future outcomes is a sign of intelligence.  Why is randomness concerned with future stability?  How are complex systems such as DNA constructed without some conscious thought as to erxactly what is being created? 

Don’t both answering these questions.  I already know what you are going to say.  The universe created itself without giving it a thought.  It just somehow all came together.  Now that is what I call faith.

Report this

By samosamo, September 6, 2010 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

****************


So, inherit the wind, those are your opinions which is just what
all of our knowledge is about the cosmos, but on some you
seem so sure of that it makes me wonder where you got your
evidence.

I just asked some questions about some curious and arrogant
things humans ‘believe’ about the cosmos and I thank you for
your input of your beliefs, most of which I have rather similar
ideas. Only I don’t think humans will last through the next ice
age but I only think it because none of us will be here when the
next ice period melts.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

Explain how humans will live forever in this universe?
***************

Huh?  The universe is 13.5 billion years old.  Life has been on Earth for about 3 billion years. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The first recognizable hominid appeared 3.5 million years ago.  The first recognizable Homo Sapiens happened within the last million years.  What makes you think we’ll be here more than a couple of million years more anyway?

******
Explain how matter is packed into a black hole singularity.
************

A Black Hole is not a Singularity.  But a Singularity is a special case of a Black Hole.

A Black Hole is where there’s enough matter to generate sufficient gravity to prevent light escaping, and, therefore, anything else.  Generally, the matter loses the ability to retain atomic structure and the particles are forced together.  A sun can compressed to a structure 1/2 mile across.

But as the gravity pressure increases as more matter is accreted to the Black Hole, even the bonds of matter for particles (of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.) cannot withstand and, these too, collapse until the gravity is SO great that no matter or energy is capable of standing against it.  The matter condenses until there is a point in space, with no length, width, or height, but still has the same excessive mass.  That’s a Singularity.

Oh, and Black Holes don’t last forever.  They erode by “Hawking Radiation” which has to do with particle pairing and stuff I don’t grasp fully.

Just tell everybody where every piece of matter is in the universe in relation to the center of the universe or precisely where the big bang occurred.
*******

Everywhere is “the center”. Take a deflated balloon, draw dots on it, and blow it up. Watch them separate Now you understand the expansion of the universe.

******
Is it possible to increase the speed light when photons are sent between 2 opposite spinning black holes or does light falling into a black hole increase in speed which why it cannot leave a
black hole.

******

NOTHING exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, not even the gravity waves between the 2 Black Holes pulling on that light.  This is fact that led Einstein to postulate that time is no longer a constant.

However, light CAN travel slower than the maximum.  A team of scientists a few years ago got a beam of light to travel at a measurably slow speed.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 6, 2010 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

What evidence do you have for your position that there is no superior intelligence who plans and governs the universe?DaveZx3

We’ve already gone through this, you must prove a positive, I don’t have to prove a negative. Truly elementary.

First of all I don’t see any planning in the universe I just see forces at work. You see intelligence because you are intelligent and expect to see it that way even though there is nothing solid to back it up. Anthropomorphism is the word. What humans see in themselves they also see in other things. DNA doesn’t show planning. It is just 4 simple proteins that are used in many multiples to over billions of years have worked upon itself surviving the forces of change and augmented to produce not just life but changes in response for such life to survive. [99% of which is extinct.] What really is the difference between the chemical actions within a cell and without?

I have my own life experiences too so we could compare if that is of any relevance beyond ourselves. Is one more valid than the other? We are all the sum of our experiences. If we had different ones in our life we could be different people. (If the multiple universes holds up there would be—trillions with more being branched off all the time. How many gods would that be then? One for each universe?)

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 6, 2010 at 12:20 am Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, September 5 at 2:03 pm

“The universe we live in is a complex interrelated system of forces at work, without an intelligence! Imagine, it all works, mostly in harmony, but there are always imbalances happening and compensatory forces in reaction to return to balance”.

“the “laws” are just observations that show what appear to be consistent behavior of the universe. Not to be confused with the legal constructs created by humans. {You get less problems from anthropomorphism confusion that way.]”
========================================================================

You talk about a complex interrelated system of forces at work, without an intelligence.  But one very important component of intelligence, by its very definition,  is “planning”. 

You also talk of the laws of physics as just observations that show what appear to be consistent behavior, (which I would not disagree with).  But, consistent behavior is a primary goal and product of planning.
Intelligent minds plan for the purpose of exerting some control over future outcomes.  Planning is not associated with randomness and chaos.  And I use the word “chaos” in the sense of a general state of complete disorder, as opposed to a state of order, where all systems behave with the boundaries of their design, though exhibiting what appears to be chaos when they enter the extremities of their natural bell curve.  Systems, such as the DNA codes, show planning for the purpose of insuring reasonably consistent outcomes.  DNA codes prove that nature or God made a conscious decision to insure future outcomes regarding the regulation of reproduction of the species.  This is attributable to intelligence because it is only intelligence which is conscious of the future.

Chaos and randomness care nothing at all about future outcomes.  Only intelligence has a stake in the future.  Without intelligence at work, there would be no requirement for consistent behavior, and there would be no requirement for “compensatory forces in reaction, to return to balance”, as you put it.  For the concept of a compensatory force to even exist, there would first have to be an intelligent function of “judgement” to recognize an out of balance condition, and the intelligent function of “planning” to make sure a compensatory force is available to rectify such imbalance.  Everything that you are talking about involves intelligent functions, yet you have the audacity to say there is no intelligence at work. 

What component of the creation insists on balance, and why and how did it get there?  What component of the creation is conscious enough of its existence that it attempts to balance to maintain its existence? 

God says that he is known by his works.  Meaning the planning, organization and balance we see in nature are evidence of a great mind at work.  The intricate systems and laws of the universe are the evidence of a superior intelligence.  That is not to say that there is not what appears to be a small element of chaos and randomness evident in the universe, as no system is without its deviations from statistical norms.  The boundaries of acceptable behavior within a system are a design factor unto themselves.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 6, 2010 at 12:18 am Link to this comment

Part II  

All this evidence of intelligence, coupled with the evidence of my own life experiences, make the existence of the Creator a certainty to me.  And I do not see my position as a blind faith position at all.  As a matter of fact, I think it takes more blind faith, if not sheer lunacy, to insist that everything came into existence and is governed without the benefit of intelligence. 

If you landed on the moon, and in the middle of a chaotic landscape, you saw a perfect cube, exact in every dimension, would you attribute it to chaos?  Or would you attribute it to intelligence, even though there was no other evidence of that intelligence in view?  Reason and logic attributes the cube to intelligence out of an understanding of the laws of probability.  There is virtually no chance that chaos would create a perfect cube, because chaos has no stake in the intelligent concept of “perfect”.  When you see attempts to “balance” as you see in nature, you are witnessing an intelligence at work, because chaos and randomness have no stake in balance either. 

What evidence do you have for your position that there is no superior intelligence who plans and governs the universe?  It seems to me that your only evidence is the fact that you do not personally “see” God, and so you invent a story that all who do “see” God, do so with blind faith.  It is true that faith is all that one can initially have, but there is also the promise of manifestation to those with faith.  So faith is not the sole eternal element with which we accept our creator.  True,  “faith is the evidence of things unseen”,  but it is never insinuated that “unseen” will be an eternal condition and that faith will not be superseded by hard evidence.

I know you and I have hashed this all around before.  My position has not changed, and never can, because contrary to what you seem to think, there is absolutely no element of blind faith at work with regards to how I came to my conclusions.  As I have said, there are thousands of solid reasons to come to the conclusion that a superior intelligence created the universe.  Evidence of the intellgent function of planning is just one of them.  But thanks anyway for pointing out the difference between the laws of physics and the laws of men.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 5, 2010 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

Super novas are real beautiful unless it is your solar system that is getting blasted. A meteor coming into the atmosphere so fast it is radiating in the ultra violet just before it impacts with such force the planet’s rotation is permanently altered and the atmosphere is flooded with debris killing off nearly everything in its smothering folds and layers. Gorgeous.

The universe we live in is a complex interrelated system of forces at work, without an intelligence! Imagine, it all works, mostly in harmony, but there are always imbalances happening and compensatory forces in reaction to return to balance.

DaveZx3 the “laws” are just observations that show what appear to be consistent behavior of the universe. Not to be confused with the legal constructs created by humans. {You get less problems from anthropomorphism confusion that way.]

You can find as much chaos and order in the universe depending on how you look at it and how much. We still have much to learn and will continue to.

Atheists are free to believe whatever they want.  But it is rather arrogant and a little bigoted to declare that anyone who believes in the creator is somehow scientifically challenged or deluded.  There are hundreds if not thousands of extremely good reasons, scientific and otherwise, to believe in God.  The man or woman who understands and loves God is a man or woman of true wisdom.

Atheist don’t “believe” they accept evidence and it is peculiar you say that science shows there is a/or many gods even though only 40% of scientists believe. It is easy enough once your mind is turned toward such an idea then your interpretation of it follows. Even when there are other explanations & evidence you will use the deity as the reason, especially one that can do so much. As for arrogant, I suppose that little humans brave enough to go against common thought would be called such. In any species in order to stay flexible to changing environments must have some outliers. Its all part of evolution. That last part you wrote was terribly arrogant and self serving about loving this particular god. Wisdom eh? The height of arrogance! What about all those other gods? Do you believe in them too or are you an Atheist in this matter? How do you know which or all or some are the ones you should be loving and worshiping sight unseen? Scientifically and rationially challenged, yes I would say.

Religionists like your self DaveZx3 have the preternatual certainty without evidence, just blind faith. However the Atheist only has the certainty of available evidence that is seen and recorded and observed. No god(s) in evidence, alternate explanations of lesser complexity and burden of probability suffice and fit the conditions and observation.

Report this

By samosamo, September 5, 2010 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

****************


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

It’s hard for me to find a deity being beautiful, evidenced by
what is happening on this planet right here and now with the
unfettered STILL exploding human population and the conflicts
ongoing just about everywhere, except maybe in the ‘gated
communities’ I imagine.

But I do find beauty in the the sky, day or night, and that is a
marvel to behold when it can be seen.

The above link is one of the better ‘technological’ sources of
what can be seen from earth through our scientific search into
the ‘what is and how it happens’. There is an archives list of all
previous astronomy pictures of the day. I tend to call it the
cosmological picture of the day because it does include very
interesting pictures on earth.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 5, 2010 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

That’s the great thing about religion—you can profess and believe anything you want.  After all, evidence and reason are merely aspects of this world.  Who knows what lies beyond?

“That there is something, and not nothing: this is the greatest and most impenetrable mystery.”  But maybe it’s really quite simple.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 5, 2010 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, September 4 at 9:49 pm

“It could turn out that, if we really knew all the laws of physics—if that’s possible—we would say that the universe we observe could create itself.”

=====================================================================
There are a lot of if’s and could’s in that statement. 

I will continue to hang my hat on the idea that an orderly creation, complete with the set of laws which govern it, demand an intelligent input.  Especially given the abundant evidence which my life has provided me of the existence of that intelligence.

Other than that, I think I have made all my points, and I won’t bother regurgitating them over and over again, especially while on vacation, with so many better things to do.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 4, 2010 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, September 4 at 11:42 am:

“The two propositions seems almost identical to me.  Any logical objection one had to matter creating itself (or always being here) would apply equally to this creator you’ve postulated”

DaveZx3, September 4 at 3:20 pm:

The two propositions seem almost identical to you because you cannot conceive of the idea of anything but the physical universe, governed by its physical laws.

Within the scope of the laws of physics of this universe, there is no provision for any form of matter or energy to spontaneously generate out of nothing.  If I am missing one of the laws of physics which provides for this occurence, please let me know. ...

Well, one of the things you’re missing here is that we almost certainly don’t know all the laws of physics.  In fact, we may know only a very small part of the laws of physics.  It could turn out that, if we really knew all the laws of physics—if that’s possible—we would say that the universe we observe could create itself.

We have two propositions: one is that the universe creates itself, and the other is that a creator, or more generally, other stuff creates the universe—this stuff.  In other words, we can locate our ignorance in this stuff or in other stuff.  Since we already know we are somewhat ignorant about this stuff, we don’t need other stuff yet.

However, suppose we want to go with other stuff for aesthetic reasons.  (For instance, it might comport better with the Big Bang theory than this stuff acting by itself.)  While this settles some problems it raises others of greater magnitude.  For instance, we know nothing of other stuff, except that it can impinge on this stuff in some way so as to get it started.  Also, it must be self-creating, a property which we have denied to this stuff, or else we have to have other other stuff to create other stuff, and so on.  This is assuming we hold fast to the rule against self-creation.  (If we relax the rule against self-creation for other stuff, then it seems logical to relax for this stuff as well.)  Or, we could postulate that other stuff has always existed, but in that case we could postulate the same about this stuff as well.

In general, it seems to me that thinking about both this stuff and other stuff is extra work, when this stuff will do; but your mileage may vary.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 4, 2010 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, September 4 at 11:42 am

“The two propositions seems almost identical to me.  Any logical objection one had to matter creating itself (or always being here) would apply equally to this creator you’ve postulated”

==========================================================================
The two propositions seem almost identical to you because you cannot conceive of the idea of anything but the physical universe, governed by its physical laws. 

Within the scope of the laws of physics of this universe, there is no provision for any form of matter or energy to spontaneously generate out of nothing.  If I am missing one of the laws of physics which provides for this occurence, please let me know. 

The second proposition was the idea of a non-temporal creator existing in a realm, other than the physical space/time we call our universe.  You can make no judgement on the laws governing this realm because you have absolutely no knowledge of it. 

However, many respectable physicists understand the concept of multi-dimensional universes or multiverses, but there is no way to know what type of laws govern them.  Our universe could be a fish tank in the living room of a being which we cannot even perceive. 

Nature, itself, shows us that there are creatures on this Earth alone, who are so small, insignificant and lacking virtually any intellectual capacity, that they could not perceive your existence even if you held them in your hand.

But the arrogance of man is that he thinks he has reached the pinnacle of evolution.  He thinks he can make judgements about things he knows absolutely nothing about.  He declares what can and cannot exist in spaces he cannot comprehend. 

So I have to state again, that it is much, much less radical to think that a creator exists “somewhere” than it is to think that matter could spontaneously create and order itself, including DNA coding, within this universe.

Atheists are free to believe whatever they want.  But it is rather arrogant and a little bigoted to declare that anyone who believes in the creator is somehow scientifically challenged or deluded.  There are hundreds if not thousands of extremely good reasons, scientific and otherwise, to believe in God.  The man or woman who understands and loves God is a man or woman of true wisdom.

Report this

By samosamo, September 4, 2010 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

****************


Points well taken, which to me just shows that humans haven’t
come close to ciphering out much less come close in asking all
the questions that have some kind of answers that all people
agree upon with each other, and those cosmologists tell us so.
And unlike a ‘mona lisa’ painting, the author of this universe left
nothing but this universe as a signature that possibly denotes an
author.

As with the denoted expansion of ‘space/time’, one would think
the center of this universe could be traced back but without
knowing the absolute final expanding edge of this expansion, it
will take a lot more sensitive equipment to even come close to
finding that edge, IF the whole universe is expanding and not
running through space time like a massive deluge turning and
spinning at all different places and directions. Making the size
impossible to determine, without that specialized equipment, OR
just how small it gets either because we just have the planck
number(10 to the minus 43rd) as reference to how far back
humans ‘know’ what the ‘new’ universe was like.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 4, 2010 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

DaveZx3, September 4 at 5:43 am:

... The idea of a creator existing in a realm separate from our universe is much less radical than the idea of matter spontaneously creating and organizing itself. ... 

The two propositions seems almost identical to me.  Any logical objection one had to matter creating itself (or always being here) would apply equally to this creator you’ve postulated.

Report this

By DaveZx3, September 4, 2010 at 1:43 am Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, September 3 at 6:50 pm

“The same could be said for a deity (or more) who is outside of space/time, super intelligent and can create something from nothing any easier? No, the former is logical more likely to be in this problem. Good try though.”

What do you mean “good try though”???  What are we doing, shooting darts here.  You need to counter with reason, logic and science.

The idea of a creator existing in a realm separate from our universe is much less radical than the idea of matter spontaneously creating and organizing itself. 

In the ongoing effort to deny a creator, people come up with outlandish theories, one more improbable than the next. 

The idea that everything started with a “big bang” was chic for a while, but it is losing steam with current revelations about the problems with diminishing light speed measurements and quantum red shift issues.  It is becoming increasingly evident that the universe is not expanding, as a big bang would suggest. 

Are there some posters here expecting to argue that the universe has existed eternally, with no beginning and no end, and no design?  Sub-atomic particles just spontaneously generated themselves and had the intelligence to know how to organize to create everything in existence?  That would take faith in sub-ataomic particles, wouldn’t it? 

The temporal universe is all that science can comprehend, and as such, the possibility that our universe is merely a subset of a much larger process of multiverses or dimensions, which may not be temporal in nature, is taken off of the table, not to be considered in the debate of where or how matter/energy/life originated. 

So you are left with this “chicken or egg” idiocy.
Floundering around with totally incomplete thought processes, using 2010 political correctness to be the main factor as to how something totally beyond your comprehension could have come into existence.

The idea that individual freedom and rights are endowed by the creator is a primary principle of American constitutionalism.  It is a stumbling block to any political entity which would attempt to control the masses.  The concept of God and the freedom of the sovereign individual must be destroyed for certain political ideologies to gain the ascendance which they have been working for.

So, if you are part of that political ideology, I can understand your constant efforts to debate against the existence of God.  But you have to come up with better points.  Because so far, all I hear is some pretty weak efforts, such as “if there is a God, prove it” 

When I look at the physical universe, I have no reason to doubt that there was intelligent design involved in it.  Perfect design is witness to the talent of the designer.

Report this

By "G"utless "W"itless Hitler, September 3, 2010 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

I still think Hawking will get into Heaven, it just won’t be ADA compliant.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

You’re asking the wrong person those questions, it should be a physicist, not me. Where are you coming from with these strange questions?

However some of your questions are impossible to answer and if they could would you believe it?

However I can say that we are not the center of the universe. In fact we and all the galaxies, et al are moving away from it. They can read the microwave back ground left over from the “bang.”

Explain how humans will live forever in this universe?

We will not be living forever. At least not in our stage of development. [What prompted that question?]

Explain how matter is packed into a black hole singularity.

Very tightly, the distance between the nucleus and the electron orbits is much closer but not enough to start a cascade effect and change the black hole’s composition. [If there is one going on it isn’t enough to affect the compression.]

Just tell everybody where every piece of matter is in the universe in relation to the center of the universe or precisely where the big bang occurred.

We can’t even see all the galaxies in an ever expanding universe. (Maybe mathematically.) What is the void on the other side of that which is the galactic barrier as it continues to grow in size, but not in mass? “Precisely” eh? Where did you get these questions and you are a bit presumptuous to demand preciseness in this.

Is it possible to increase the speed light when photons are sent between 2 opposite spinning black holes or does light falling into a black hole increase in speed which why it cannot leave a
black hole.

Wouldn’t that violate Special Relativity? Light goes the same speed whether you are moving to it or away from it. Gravity is stronger than the speed of light.

What happened before the Planck number which is before 10 to the -43rd of the big bang, or what is ‘space’ composed of smaller than that number?

Don’t know of any off hand, just quantum “foam” at 10 to the -33 power.

Does any of this help? You really need to peruse sites and books on the more complex and detailed astrophysics to come close to your answers.

Report this

By samosamo, September 3, 2010 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

****************


By Night-Gaunt, September 3 at 6:50 pm

I don’t know, but I’ll let you have a crack at it.

Just tell everybody where every piece of matter is in the universe
in relation to the center of the universe or precisely where the
big bang occurred.

Or, explain and prove a TOE.

What happened before the planck number which is before 10 to
the -43rd of the big bang, or what is ‘space’ composed of
smaller than that number.

Explain how humans will live forever in this universe.

Explain how matter is packed into a black hole singularity.

Is it possible to increase the speed light when photons are sent
between 2 opposite spinning black holes or does light falling
into a black hole increase in speed which why it cannot leave a
black hole.

Almost like religion, the cosmos is very capricious, but you can
at least see the light from some of the cosmos.

Report this

By Maani, September 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Aaron:

“By-the-way the area of non is where your god continues to exist and cannot exist outside of non. To prove your god exists violates the directive to believe without proof. So if you should prove god exists then poof! NO GOD.”

Not necessarily.  “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”  Carl Sagan.

Peace.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook