quote:
Just because you have not looked for positions that do not support a universe maker does not mean those positions do not exist. Just because you have not studied hard enough, does not mean that these hypothoses and theories do not exist. There are many hypothoses and theories based upon scientific premises and they are not fiction. You being unaware of these ideas does not mean that they do not exist. It just means that you can make the incorrect statement that you have made.
Not only did I study it, but I also never opened mouth wide and said AAH. Be assured all of your blondly accepted assertions will be shown as ludicrous.
quote:
Stephen Hawking on the origin of the universe
(Source : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404))
You forgot about Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose. Somewhat greater than Hawkings - and they all support a universe source! The likes of Hawkings and Dawkins do not support a finite universe - guess why!
quote:
If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was what happened before the beginning?
There is no 'IF' here. Before the universe existed the universe never existed - including all the universe's components. A finite cannot cntain an infinite. Which part is confusing?
quote:
What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing Hell for people who asked such questions?
The question has no alignment with its inclusion as a responsa. If we do not know what your dentist did before removing your tooth - does it mean your dentist never existed? The madness continues:
quote:
The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began?
Knock-knock! Time is a post universe phenomenon. It would be ubsurd and a violation of the universe's finite factor in anything contained in this universe existed before the universe existed. The madness continues:
quote:
He called that the thesis.
Why not an unsubstantiated conjuring without any scientific basis?
quote:
On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the antithesis.
I call it madness; see above re time. The thesis totally abandons the finite factor again.
quote:
Both the thesis and the antithesis depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background. This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today.
Then pray tell why are stars accounted as 15B years - how many stars existed 250 B years ago - and why not if time is infinite!? The madness:
quote:
However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe.
So matter and energy are also infinite - how many objects did these infinite phenomenons produce in their infinite time period: list one? What about pineapples?
quote:
They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back.
Why then have you been touting time? Duh!
quote:
Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence, to look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence.
Its not philosophical but one of math and physics. There is no need to go back to earlier times; the universe is dated as approx 13.7 B years. Finite! Yes/no?
quote:
A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.
Fine. In a finite model, we cannot depict anything in this universe existing before this universe: yes/no? In an infinite universe we would most certainly be able to depict at least something which existed before - e.g. background radiation; different colors; square pinepples; etc. But no luck! Yes/no?
quote:
In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting point. The situation changed radically however, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the hundred inch telescope on Mount Wilson, in the 1920s.
Correct, but against Apion: a changing universe proves only a finite one. Only something not subject to change can be infinite. The madness will continue!
quote:
Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies.
No impact. BTW, Galaxies are homonogised and expand in equal direction and velocity. But still no impact here.
quote:
By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time.
You are chopping off your own foot. The universe is changing, proving it is finite.
quote:
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun.
The singularity factor is incorrect. No actions can occur with an indivisible and irreducible lone item. This is the premise introduced in Genesis and is scientifically irrefutable. The madness does not stop:
quote:
The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity.
Correction. Laws would not have yet emerged, rather than break down. You are observing the universe retrospectively. Gravity yet did not exust because no laws of gravity existed, nor any mass bodies which gravity is derived of.
.
quote:
Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun.
And everything we see relates to that which is evolved, referring to time, and measuring only a 13.7B period. Conclusion: finite.
quote:
There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul.
Who!!!??? Wow - did the Pope really write Genesis?
quote:
The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe.
There you go again! It yet never kick started.
quote:
It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.
Its been said Einstein is toppled by QM, but this is not correct. Einstein based his equations by inserting and allowing an 'X' factor, namely there is a componenet of unknown factors, but which do not effect the whole premise.
quote:
He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low, which is bad news for mice.
History is proof of finite. Once there was no history!
quote:
The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state. But how did the histories start? This is the Origin question in another guise. Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science?
Science is a faculty which explains observable and testable laws. Once there were no laws - and no stars, energy, light, time or space. You have to show us trillion billion year stars incumbent in a finite universe to impress! You cannot. Need a more powerful telescope, perhaps?
quote:
I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off.
Them thar Helenists' flatulent earth was KO'd by Genesis - yet you harken to them in prostration mode!?
quote:
Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point, at least so I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole. The same laws of Nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning; that it would be a place where the normal laws broke down. The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science. The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.
The reverse applies. Not time or space existed before the universe. Infinite stuff cannot be measured.
quote:
The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size.
No sir! It means there were many small bubbles in the one big bubble called the universe. I don't say AAH! to what is clearly slight of hand casino science.Its like saying the surface of a circle is infinite - it is not: the circle ends when the same ground is covered again! Otherwise everything is infinite, including a 2 meter rope: just make a U-turn at the end!
quote:
They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.
Your explanation does not validate multi-universes. MV only pushes the goal post further back.
quote:
The irregularities in the early universe will mean that some regions will have slightly higher density than others.
This infers external input of a purposeful and impacting kind and negates internal random impact! Try to sing out of tune purposefully.
quote:
God really does play dice.
QM has proven to be definitive, not as first thought.
quote:
We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe.
How? If we discovered anything more than 15B years then I missed it. Please demonstrate your assertion?
quote:
Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions.
No, they do not. Black holes are less old than the universe!
Its the ssme old story. Only now we have a new kind of fundamentalist theology with the same anxst as those who have been beaten to disappear before.
™ Version 4.2
