Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 33 of 148 (579440)
09-04-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mignat
09-03-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Hhhm, no he did what so many do.
quote:
What tests did Hawking do to check what he says is true? All the science documentaries I watch tell us about the practical tests they do. They reproduce it in real life. Check the documentaries. They talk about controlled test. What control did Hawking use?
you know what would be awesome? If, to prove the theory that there is no god, somebody actually went and built a machine that created a universe.
...and then claimed there was no god.
divide by zero! oh shi-
Edited by greyseal, : fixed a quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mignat, posted 09-03-2010 2:14 PM mignat has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 100 of 148 (580305)
09-08-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Bolder-dash
09-08-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
bolder-dash writes:
He simply stated a fact,...
A fact? A fact??? What he stated is about as far from a fact as language allows.
well here we have two problems - one is that you don't understand Hawking's math. I don't either, but calling it "sophomore salad" won't make the equations no longer make sense to somebody with enough training and understanding to read them.
So you can wave your ignorance of advanced math as it pertains to space-time geometry around if you want, but don't expect a cookie.
So yes, it's a fact that the equations Hawking has put together do not require god, and do seem to do a good job explaining everything.
On the other hand, it's still not "proof" of non-existence (proving a negative being exceedingly difficult at the best of times) but it is proof (as long as he is correct) on non-requirement.
Now, if you wish to claim god did it anyway you can go ahead, but it won't change the facts.
You can dispute the facts, but you'll need a college degree and then some to get anywhere - not because they won't listen to people without one, but because people without one don't know the hell what they're talking about.
I know which path you'll take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-08-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 101 of 148 (580309)
09-08-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shalamabobbi
09-08-2010 3:13 PM


Re: eternal universe
shalamabobbi writes:
the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal.
We know that stars require fuel, lighter elements capable of fusing into heavier elements, in order to burn.
There is no new supply of lighter elements.
ergo..
I think it's been posited that now it's here, it's eternal - the language we have can't deal with a point "before" time or "outside" of space, however we can postulate that what we see was a lot smaller, hotter and denser at some known time in the past.
It gets difficult to discuss, because at T0 the universe is already infinite, expanding and here.
On the other hand, there's talk of island universes budding off out of some eternal quantum foam, such that we would find it extremely difficult to traverse from "here" to "there". to us, my understanding is it would look like an infinitely small, dense pocket of space-time from which nothing could escape...i.e a black hole.
And the other side would look like an infinitely small pocket of dense space-time which would suddenly explode into, well, everything...i.e a white hole.
neat idea, so I have plans on escaping the heat-death of the universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-08-2010 3:13 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 140 of 148 (580670)
09-10-2010 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
09-10-2010 1:46 PM


Re: NYT Pans Hawking's Book
what's wrong with it? I suspect a certain "not invented here" pooh-poohing from certain US quarters, but I haven't read either the first book nor this new one (which was roundly denounced before anyone had even read it by certain factions).
"the god delusion" for example by Dawkins was a very easy read, very informative and straightforward.
Hawking on the other hand discusses math, which is confusing at higher levels at the best of times...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by caffeine, posted 09-13-2010 5:04 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024