my head, it burns...
"Yet, it all really ISN'T over the average person's head. Indeed, God OR the origin of the universe is NOT rocket science - both are ELEMENTARY. And, if explained accurately and truthfully... even a child could grasp them"
First it is important to keep in mind that no scientist claim to know the ultimate theory of the origin of the universe. Presumably, that would make modern science quite incapable to draw solid conclusions on the degree ease one could teach it to a child.
However, and this is what i find quite amazing, you are able to predict that the origin of the universe not only has an explanation, it is "elementary", and you imediately jump to the conclusion that people who state that high-energy physics is a very tough subject is not trying to explain it accurately and truthfully. THAT Aguest, is quite judgement!
The amazing thing is that earlier, when asked why you did not apply the scientific method to your own visions, professed to be a layman -- apparently you are a layman when it comes to all elementary applications of the scientific method, but not so much you cannot draw the solid conclusion on high-energy physics which, presumably, is a lot harder (oh wait, am i being untruthfull now?).
I draw the conclusion that you want to profess to be layman to avoid questions you do not like, but still want to put yourself in a position to call the motives of physics at large in question, and delude yourself into believing watching 1 hour of shitty tv-show amount to jack shit simply because you listened carefully.
Then it gets worse:
I think the following is the height of arrogance:
But the "experts" in BOTH fields have us BELIEVING that both are just too beyond our little itty bitty brains. BOTH do this... and as I result I personally don't see much difference, truly.
Nice touch how you put "expert" in condescending quotation marks. Are scientists who have studied science for decades generally experts in matters of science or not?
Secondly scientists do not want to have you believe anything. Quite the contrary, science (that thing you profess ignorance about when it suited you earlier) attempt to gather and explain data by building theories. They dont try to tell you its above your head, they put their results in print for all to study, understand and call into question. But let me illustrate the point by quoting an "expert" (uh-ho!), specifically Edward Witten who is properly one of the greatest minds in physics ever. You can find a list of his publications here:
This is an abstract of "fivebranes and knots"
We develop an approach to Khovanov homology of knots via gauge theory (previ-
ous physics-based approches involved other descriptions of the relevant spaces of BPS
states). The starting point is a system of D3-branes ending on an NS5-brane with a
nonzero theta-angle. On the one hand, this system can be related to a Chern-Simons
gauge theory on the boundary of the D3-brane worldvolume; on the other hand, it
can be studied by standard techniques of S-duality and T -duality. Combining the two
approaches leads to a new and manifestly invariant description of the Jones polynomial
of knots, and its generalizations, and to a manifestly invariant description of Khovanov
homology, in terms of certain elliptic partial di?erential equations in four and ?ve
Perhaps its just me but that does not exactly read like any religious book that i ever came across, and unlike you i would find it quite hard to explain to a child. Witten is not trying to make you believe anything. He is stating certain results in mathematical physics and proove them, then discuss various implications and alternative ways to approach the problem. This is not an outlier which you can readily check by reading more papers from the link, or papers by other authors. But... I gave the benefit of the doubt and put MY questions out there, even to those here who "know." "C'mon, help me understand the "holes" I see in Dr. Hawkings' theories. Explain it to me, or at least tell me why what I presented is wrong." You know, sumthin'..."
Well one of the things you pointed out had to do with a statement to the effect of time stopping in or around a black hole. When i pointed out that statement needed clarification and was not meaningfull, your reply was nothing but insisting a statement to that effect was made during the program (no reason to grap a textbook on tensor algebra and get cracking on the elentaries of general relativity, after all, you did "listen careully" to the tv-show!) and that i should take it up with dr. Hawkins, who apparently would then browbeat me into submission or something.
Im sorry, but such a response does not exactly give me a lot of confidence you are actually willing to understand the physics we are discussing, or interested in anything but a discussion which is not centered on you validating your own world view (may you have peace!).
And a any rate, if you believe the answers are so simple they can be understood by a child, i am not competent to teach you one bit, nobody here is.