Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God

reply to post by rickymouse


AFAIK the whole Big Bang theory came from the observed 'red shift' phenomenon. Physicists explained it away as 'Doppler's effect' which meant that every star is running away from Earth, which is then in the center of the Universe. This was too ridiculous to admit, so they decided that a big bang would be better. As for the 'red shift', there are alternative theories, for example, that light loses energy while traveling long distances, and the red part of the spectrum corresponds to lower frequencies and, hence, less energy.

Since when did Mr Hawking start to change the rules of universe or decide what happens or not?

Originally posted by mrkeen
reply to post by rickymouse

 

AFAIK the whole Big Bang theory came from the observed 'red shift' phenomenon. Physicists explained it away as 'Doppler's effect' which meant that every star is running away from Earth, which is then in the center of the Universe. This was too ridiculous to admit, so they decided that a big bang would be better. As for the 'red shift', there are alternative theories, for example, that light loses energy while traveling long distances, and the red part of the spectrum corresponds to lower frequencies and, hence, less energy.

edit on 18-4-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)

Some of those other theories of the past seem more rational than the big bang. The same evidence to prove the big bang can be used to prove other theories if a mindset allows it to. Seems like everyone is jumping at a theory of the time as reality. We cannot know reality as applied to the universe from a little spot in a little bubble. I don't care how much you look through a telescope, it is impossible for mankind to know how the universe was formed positively. Believing a theory is real when it probably is not even close is believing in a lie. In my book it is not necessary for us to know how the universe was formed, it is more practicle to look out at it and admire the beauty of the stars and watch the shooting stars and beauty of the northern lights and occasional comet passing by.

I don't care if some people want to dream up fairy tales but I hate when they start to shove them down your throat and use the fairy tales to make you give them money

I think what is hard for human mind to comprehend is that, things has all been there. Humans want a start and an end to everything.

Some people fill the constant with matter, and some fill it with god... the latter has barely any evidence.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, I do not believe in the big bang so I think his whole case is flawed. I think our universe is growing like a leaf on the tree of life. I think there are many leafs (universes) on this tree. It depends on what a person thinks god is as to whether god exists. This whole thing that we see is part of something big that is connected together by forces that we have yet to understand. The fact that it is expanding just shows growth to me, why do they have to over-dramatize things and make things into an explosion. As for Stephen Hawkings, how do we even know it is him talking. How do we know if he is even sane yet, the present world is far from sane. If you are sane and do not desire things that you do not need than you are considered not normal in this world today. Conditioning has taken us far from reality.

What's so difficult about this concept? The expansion of space is an observable fact. If objects in space are moving away from each other, it's then only logical to assume that they share a common point of origin. Be that origin an explosion or what ever, it all started at a single point.

As to the sanity of Stephen Hawking; well yes some of his theories are so way out there, a layman would surely consider him an adequate candidate for the loony bin. But when things like virtual particles are actually proven to be correct (which they are), then what would you call him? A genius, maybe?

Originally posted by Kryom

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, I do not believe in the big bang so I think his whole case is flawed. I think our universe is growing like a leaf on the tree of life. I think there are many leafs (universes) on this tree. It depends on what a person thinks god is as to whether god exists. This whole thing that we see is part of something big that is connected together by forces that we have yet to understand. The fact that it is expanding just shows growth to me, why do they have to over-dramatize things and make things into an explosion. As for Stephen Hawkings, how do we even know it is him talking. How do we know if he is even sane yet, the present world is far from sane. If you are sane and do not desire things that you do not need than you are considered not normal in this world today. Conditioning has taken us far from reality.

What's so difficult about this concept? The expansion of space is an observable fact. If objects in space are moving away from each other, it's then only logical to assume that they share a common point of origin. Be that origin an explosion or what ever, it all started at a single point.

As to the sanity of Stephen Hawking; well yes some of his theories are so way out there, a layman would surely consider him an adequate candidate for the loony bin. But when things like virtual particles are actually proven to be correct (which they are), then what would you call him? A genius, maybe?

Is it just me, or does everytime I hear of Stephen Hawking its always about him trying to prove that god doesn't exist.

Originally posted by resoe26

Is it just me, or does everytime I hear of Stephen Hawking its always about him trying to prove that god doesn't exist.

Yeah... it seems that he has become an activist. I still don't have any idea what he means by the word God.

I would like to know what sort of religious studies classes he has taken in his academic career.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by resoe26

Is it just me, or does everytime I hear of Stephen Hawking its always about him trying to prove that god doesn't exist.

Yeah... it seems that he has become an activist. I still don't have any idea what he means by the word God.

I would like to know what sort of religious studies classes he has taken in his academic career.

right.
Seems this guy throws more effort into disproving God then he does anything else.
I wonder if people blindly follow this guy.... hope not. Seems he has a hatred toward God, possibly because he is in a wheelchair? (if that is the case he already believes God exists)

Seems anti-God folks always tend to spend countless hours trying to prove non-existence of God... kinda makes them look like they WANT to believe he is real. Sad.
How bout he spend some time on other studies.

Originally posted by luciddream
I think what is hard for human mind to comprehend is that, things has all been there. Humans want a start and an end to everything.

Some people fill the constant with matter, and some fill it with god... the latter has barely any evidence.

edit on 4/18/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

an infinite quantity cannot exist inside time. time itself is even limited in duration by the size of intersecting dimensions.

the same way a straight line theoretically travels forever, but in reality does not.

entropy destroys your idea. the steady move from an orderly system to a chaotic state is easy to prove, but then if everything has existed forever, we would be in an (theoretically) infinitely chaotic state. this is not the case. if the chaos is measurable and the order from whence it came can be determined (it can), then time cannot be infinite.

reply to post by BlueMule

Yeah... it seems that he has become an activist. I still don't have any idea what he means by the word God.

Yes! that is a good insight - is "god" the programmer who created the vast simulation we all (might) be living in?
There is also the theory of "Quantun Entanglement" that says that particles which were once in close proximity retain the ability to relate to each other at faster than light speeds. At the big bang, all matter in the universe existed in one place, then spread through out the universe maintaining the ability to transfer info between themselves instantaneously. How is this so different from the concept of an all pervading consciousness which some people call god.

Plus these atheistic arguments also many time invoke a false dichotomy. Between scientific discoveries versus the dogma people "believe" from religious teachings. What about all the countless numbers of people who have experienced "god" directly or felt for themselves a vast universal interconnected consciousness. Scientists would dismiss this as hallucinations, but so many people have had these experiences its becoming hard to ignore. A lot of these people having these experiences have no "religion" whatsoever.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


reply to post by Bob Sholtz

so no. "empty" space isn't empty because it cannot have a value of zero.

A absolute empty space is something. It is a space/void that is absolutely empty of finite time.
A absolute empty space can not be zero. Because it exists as a absolutely empty infinite space.

It is the very first dimension.

reply to post by happydayze


Not to burst any bubbles here, but you might want to recheck the theory of quantum entanglement. It does Not permit any exchange of information.

--
I don't get what people mean with the 'anti-religion activism' stuff, isn't he just merely expressing his opinion?

reply to post by Kryom

you might want to recheck the theory of quantum entanglement. It does Not permit any exchange of information.

are you sure about that?

When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[6] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin).

Originally posted by Kryom

I don't get what people mean with the 'anti-religion activism' stuff, isn't he just merely expressing his opinion?

So he just likes to express his opinion, then?

Well, ok. Lets see if he wears his scientist hat when he expresses his opinions to the world about the movies, and pop-music, and politics, and the weather, and sports. I mean, doesn't he want to express his opinions about all these things to the world too?

There is no effect in the universe without cause. So what caused the Big Bang?

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

so no. "empty" space isn't empty because it cannot have a value of zero.

A absolute empty space is something. It is a space/void that is absolutely empty of finite time.
A absolute empty space can not be zero. Because it exists as a absolutely empty infinite space.

It is the very first dimension.

absolute empty space is something: i agree.
it is a space/void that is absolutely empty of finite time: time is only finite.
absolute empty space can not be zero: i also agree with this. space CAN be infinite, but only without time.

i do not think we are of such differing opinions. my question to you is: "where did it come from?"

perhaps it is unknowable, this is a distinct possibility. the first dimension could exist on it's own (i mean without other dimensions) but it would not have time (2nd dimension is required for 1st dimension to experience time), and we are still stuck with the question of it's origin.

reply to post by happydayze


The 'exchange' only happens one time. You can't 'scramble' the state of the particles again after they have been measured. So, sadly, instantaneous communication over infinite distances, not possible through entanglement.

A classical world example of how it works: take a marble with two sides, one green, one white. Separate them and put them in a box. Close the box and shake well. Open it again, and grab one of the halves, without looking which one you got. Now you could say these halves are in a state of 'superposition', and by opening your hand and seeing which half you have, you break the superposition. If it's green, then Bam, you instantly know that the other half, still in the box, is white.

A simplified and inaccurite example, but that's basically the core idea (I think).

reply to post by Kryom


Yes, the universe is growing, I am not denying that, but it didn't have to start from a big bang. I am just saying that mankind is not in a position to know if the Universe started with a big bang. It is just a theory, just because you can't prove a theory wrong doesn't make it right. Every bit of the evidence backing it can be from other causes, multiple causes in fact.

Steve Hawkings may have gone over the edge from genius, There is a fine line between genius and insanity. I personally would never stick my neck out and say that the Big bang was unreal nor deny the reality of God. I can state though that I do not have confidence in mankind to have correctly figured out how the universe was formed, or in fact can actually age the universe because aging it requires knowing more about it than we presently know.

I think science is demeaned by this theory myself. I have great respect for people doing research on things that are necessary. I do not think we need to fund salaries for research on how the universe was formed when we have serious problems in the environment to deal with.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Kryom

I don't get what people mean with the 'anti-religion activism' stuff, isn't he just merely expressing his opinion?

So he just likes to express his opinion, then?

Well, ok. Lets see if he wears his scientist hat when he expresses his opinions to the world about the movies, and pop-music, and politics, and the weather, and sports. I mean, doesn't he want to express his opinions about all these things to the world too?

Sure why not, might be fun to know his take on those as well. But what exactly do they have to do with the big bang, or the creation of the universe? Which, if I understood correctly now, is the subject here.

So who here has the credentials and the compiled research to definitively prove that Professor Stephen Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about? I personally don't fancy the option of arguing with a genius physicist without a significantly substantiated rebuttal and a few meticulously crafted backups under my belt.

So how about it? Any David's willing and able to go toe to toe with this Goliath?