Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest
    I cannot imagine why you would be continuing to try to post on what is primarily a scientific thread here with your personal mysticism.

    Okay, here is how *I* think, dear JW (again, peace to you!)... and I state the following with all humility and respect, truly:

    Dear jam (again, peace to you!) posted the thread some time ago. Other than dear Talesin (peace to you, as well!)... no one else posted, for quite some time. I saw the show... and rather than starting a new thread, posted my comments: I saw it, what I thought of it, what I thought of Dr. Hawking's theories... why... my questions... and my "theories". From that, virtually every other comment ON THE THREAD came about. Starting with an unsolicited insult. What had I done? Asked some questions? Stated my opinion about a show I saw? Others stated theirs; NO ONE was complimentary. NO ONE.

    Now, you say this is "primarily a scientific" thread. Perhaps so, but I think my initial response actually dove INTO the topic of the thread: the show in question. However, the more "scientific" on the board post on NON-scientific, even religious, threads ALL THE TIME. Should we now all go to our respective "corners"... with only the religious posting on religious threads, the spiritual on spiritual threads, and those with more scientific minds on scientific threads? Seriously?

    My thoughts as I leave this thread? Not only did the show make an impression on me... that the "science" world has many of the same flaws and the religious world (regardless of whether they deny it)... some HERE have the same flaws, as well. They "preach" open-mindedness... but only preach it; they don't actually practice it.

    Peace... and I'm out. Life if too short and I actually believe I would have had a much more productive... and civil... discussion with Dr. Hawking himself... versus wannabes who can attack on a personal level... but not even touch the valid questions raised. Red herrings all OVER this thread...

    A slave of Christ,

    SA, shaking her head, and very sadly because some folks show me, on a daily basis, that there really is "nothing new under the sun..."

  • poopsiecakes

    b-b-b-b-but Shelby, I said you won the crap TV challenge!!

  • talesin


    Yah, supercilious know-it-alls made the thread kinda lose its flavour ... but if I ever need to debate something, can I ask for your help?


    It was a thought-provoking OP that could have led to an interesting discussion, and I am rather shocked at some of the snide (for no reason) comments ... but I've been offline for a while, and have lost the callous of my thick, internet skin ...

    It's unfortunate that some folks who claim to be 'scientists', or at least well-read in science, tend to be sooo arrogant.

    I'm an atheist myself, for many years, but I do respect your intelligence. As for speaking to 'Him' (or 'Her', not sure if you put a gender on your deity), we do not know what life-forms exist out there in the universe -- maybe some 'one' or 'thing' is communicating with you. Who am I to judge? And who are those rude others, that think it's okay to mock you? pfffffffft!

    With love and respect,


  • talesin

    Not talkin' bout you, Poopsie! :D

  • AGuest

    You know I wasn't meaning you, dear Poosie-Girl (again, peace to you!). NEVER may that happen! You have never been ANYTHING but kind to and accommodating of me. Even with our differences in beliefs.

    Same with you, dear Talesin (peace to you, as well!). Thank you for YOUR kind words! I was actually a little taken aback at the... confrontations, if you will. I did really anticipate and look forward to a discussion on the questions the show raised for me. I didn't expect to be "right", necessarily... but I really thought the so-called "intelligent" would engage in intelligent discussion... and even explain whatever it was I might have been missing. Ooops, MY bad.

    Ah, well. Again, the greatest impression I leave with is that there really isn't that much difference between the two camps... at least as to how they present... and "guard"... their beliefs to the rest of us ignorant fools...

    Again, peace to you, both!

    A slave of Christ,


  • bohm


    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.

  • bohm

    james_wood: Our ideas about black holes and cosmology is readily being changed as more is learned about the fundamental physics. I think the discovery you are referring to has to do with information leaving the black hole vs. a black hole being nothing but a maximal entropy dump.

    Hawkins ideas on black holes HAVE been a very imporant contribution to modern cosmology, there is simply no avoiding that. I doubt anyone believe he is the brightest of his time, but the meme he is nothing but a medicore professor who became a celebrity due to his disease is in my oppinion *very* far from the truth.

    That his ideas had to undergo revisions does not take away from his accomplishments. To take Einstein, his general relativity had to undergo certain changes (the cosmological constant for instance) and his first formulations were simply dead wrong (which einstein knew).

    Einstein is also one of his fathers on quantum mechanics, but he continued to support local-variable theories which was strongly suspected to be wrong in his time and later verified to be wrong experimentally. He believed nobody would solve the field equations, but that was done in simple cases not long after they was proposed (the schwarzchild solution). I cant think of any area of research einstein pionered which has not been drastically expanded upon.

    If we look at modern (post 1950) physics the image is even stronger: brilliant ideas are proposed and revised and expanded. The standard model, string theory and renormalization are very good examples. It does not diminish the brilliance of the people who make the groundbreaking initial work, and i dont see why we should apply a special standards when judging dr. Hawkins.

  • VM44

    "then a man digging a hole with the displaced dirt making a hill that represents "positive" energy.."

    The man digging the hole is using energy to pile up the postivie energy while at the same time making a negative energy hole!

    So the sum of all the energies would NOT come to zero!

  • Caedes

    I doubt that anyone here is qualified to answer Aguest's questions but perhaps the following link will help.

    One of the questions was regarding protons popping in and out of existence, it sounds like the info in the show was correct, the static or 'real' protons do not blink in and out of existence. Thus the 'static' protons would remain static and real. According to quantum mechanics only virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence, they cannot come 'from' somewhere or 'go' somewhere in this universe since that would break the laws of conservation of energy. It is not a question of not having the right instruments, it is a problem of the fundamental physical laws of the universe.

    At least that is how I understand it and my understanding of physics is far from perfect.

    It is worth understanding that at the edges of scientific enquiry some theories will be changed or even dropped over time, none of that undermines empirical science as the best route to understanding the universe.

  • PSacramento
    PSac: general relativity is really all about describing what happends in different coordinate systems in the precense of the stress-energy tensor. So whenever one ask what "happends" in a black hole one has to make clear what coordinate system one is looking from and at.
    It is true that if one look at a coordinate system falling into a black hole from a coordinate system at some distance from the event horizon, one will see time "slow down" untill the falling coordinate system is redshifted infinitely much, however time still progress in the falling system as usual (assuming it is freely falling it will modulo tidal effects per assumption in general relativity not be effected at all!).
    Black holes are very odd things..

    Odd and incredibly facinating.

Share this