Stephen Hawking Was Wrong, Said Stephen Hawking

a reply to: Astyanax

I understand your point and agree with you. People formulate opinions on things they haven't a real clue about. They refuse to read the published science which is where the knowledge and explanations really are.

a reply to: Astyanax

Every time a scientific theory struggles with its own genesis there is the physics god to the rescue.

The problem for Hawking was his struggle to understand how the universe could have created conditions so perfectly hospitable to life,” says Hertog. "Stephen told me he now thought he had been wrong (in A Brief History of Time) and so he and I worked, shoulder to shoulder, for the next twenty years to develop a new theory of the cosmos, one that could better account for the emergence of life.

String theory is perfect for this. It comes across like the godless god copout when something extra is needed.

Why is our universe so hospitable to life?

It has to be.

Because every variation, including every universal history, initial condition, and law of physics has to exist in some form. According to string theory there is life because this is the universe where conditions allow for life.

I think people over-think this.

Amino acids are found EVERYWHERE in space. They are thought to be literally produced alongside inorganic stellar system formation.

The already present dust and ice in condensing clouds that can compact until fusion takes hold or emerge as building blocks from an extra-terrestrial primordial soup on the periphery.

I am willing to bet every system with icy comets has the organic building blocks of life left over from its formation. Stellar nurseries are probably equally packed full of these rudimentary building blocks for life. And primordial soups do not need to be attached to planets yet.

Plus it's logical in my mind to have some creation commonality.

I want to coin a new term for "panspremia" as "It-does-it-naturally-every-time-a-star-system--is-formed-from-a-condensing-cloud-of-material-spermia".

Doesn't have the same ring, but it's getting sorta of annoying with the complexity in which these theories try to link themselves up together for the theory of everything.

And maybe this is the universe where all those extra parameters line up to be perfect for this outcome?

Gravity is an elusive b**** in any case. Force carriers we cannot detect yet. That applies to all of the above.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Astyanax
Every time a scientific theory struggles with its own genesis there is the physics god to the rescue.

With your same logic, it can also be said that whenever a scientific mind reaches our for the idea of god, an atheist comes out of the bushes with his/her atheist idea "to the rescue". You atheism is as irrational and unfounded as any theology. You cannot prove that God is not there. You are literally a walking contradiction.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for the link. The paper is not very forthcoming: more a case of identifying possibilities than making any formal statements about 'what is'. I'm not competent to unpack it but it does seem quite philosophical: 'here we argue from a set of possible selective factors to a semi-defined set of possible worlds, though we're not sure whether the factors are really operating or not.' Too abstruse for me.

Multiverses repel the Ockhamist in me, anyway.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I figured that would trip people and make them skip the rest.

Never assume a prattling statement of mine on theoretical assertions is an indication of my theist or nontheistic leaning.

The universe is a quantum contradiction.

String theory says the laws of physics are super-positional, theologians say physical laws are intelligent design. Yet the former relies on the same assertions of the latter in many ways, especially where the "preuniverse" is concerned.

I subscribe to whatever i like best, which I hold in what i call, "current placeholder status", until something I like more comes along.

Presently, my idea deals with acausality as a work-around. It's superfluid vacuum theory with the added emphasis on "fluctuations in a zero point field can happen without cause. Evidence can possibly be corroborated by the Casimir effect or SPONTANEOUS EMISSIONS."

But I can't prove that. Can't even prove its not a simulation to think it's that, as solipsistic as that is. So I don't absolutely make what are ultimately unproven assertions.

And of course, someone can always ask where underlying vacuum energy came from. And then someone can come on top of that and ask what created the creator.

I'm not into ideological infinite reduction paradoxes, and I hold a default agnostic position as a matter of integrity.

That was some nice projection to assume though.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: ltrz2025
The universe is a walking contradiction.

LOL.

Darling, if you or any theory departs from wrong postulates (such as the one above), how can you expect you or the theory to be ever right? It's a logical impossibility. Besides being a real case of projection in your case, lol.

If the universe contradicted itself, it would have obliterated itself even before existing. Ridiculous.

Then, why would my statement be a projection, when I'm not adding or subtracting God as a factor? Are you always this wrong?

a reply to: ltrz2025

I changed the wording before your answer.

I changed it to, "A quantum contradiction" to be less misleading.

What I meant by that was in reference to the yet written Theory of Everything combining QM and Newton into a neat package. The uncertainty and whatnot. Actually the least meaningful part of that response. Easy thing to harp on.

And on a different note...

But why didn't the universe obliterate itself?

It's called The Assymetry Problem.

It actually should have. That why the CERN discovering the Higgs-Boson is so groundbreaking. It shows WHY all particles and antipatticles didn't annihilate themselves.

Higgs Mechanism. Which can beg the question, why it even exists. Now we are back into baseless master coding. Who says the higgs-mechanism isn't "programmed into the physical universe"?

So yeah, agnostic.

** And please, in the future refrain from patronizing ways to refer to me in debate. Not your Darling. I realize your self-esteem relies on demeaning people online, but you can do it without the pet name crap.

a reply to: Degradation33

LOL x 2.

The universe PROBABLY didn't obliterate itself because it's HIGHLY LIKELY not in contradiction (quantum or not). Probably, it is you and your theories (including that silly belief in the "quantum realm"), the ones that are contradictory and wrong. Plain and simple logic! Even basic common sense. For some reason, you are trying to force theories that are clearly wrong into a unified model that you expect to be right. That is logically impossible. But well, seeing what you think, not sure if logic is one of your main strengths.

Then, let me laugh at that statement of CERN finding Higgs-Boson. HAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHA. They "detected" "something" that they think is the "Higgs-Boson", but they can't tell, and the "thing" they detect does not correspond to anything they theorized on it to begin with. Even mainstream physicist have called the B.S. of CERN in this. What is so "groundbreaking" regarding CERN lying to the world, dear?


**People really lose their sleep over words on the internet?

a reply to: ltrz2025

I choose...the second lol to respond to.

Ummm.. go take your lulz up with the Atlas physicists? And then explain what particle interacts with both bosons and fermions, has zero mass, spin, and has been detected over 30,000 times.

What do you want to call it?

a reply to: Degradation33

Why do I need to call it anything?... You are the one affirming that this "detection" is "something" to which you even assign a name to, when the very same mainstream academia physicists have challenged it with very solid arguments.

Anyway, as said before, all the alleged sub-atomic particles are theoretical, never observed. Claiming that any of them exists as they are theorized is like claiming that Santa Claus exists because you see presents under the tree on Christmas morning. Sorry, this is just too silly to respond, I can't.

It's not about what I theorize or about what your wishful thinking, it's about logically stating facts.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Cop out. THEY'RE NOT THEORETICAL.

Quit demanding and forcing the debate to constantly put yourself in the offensive position.

I just want to hear YOUR alternative for what particle they observed decaying over 30,000 times. Doing exactly what the higgs boson was predicted to do. What did they ACTUALLY observe/detect? What other particle has ZERO SPIN?

Let me guess, you don't by the authenticity of their particle detectors?

Otherwise you're just laughing to be confrontational without any ability to at least back it up.

a reply to: Degradation33


YES THEY ARE THEORETICAL. Just google: "electrons are theoretical", and learn the truth.

Oh dear. Do you really consider offensive to say that it's SILLY to try affirm something (which particle?) that I have no way to verify? I thought that was common sense.

Then, not that I'm really interested of following anyone's wishful thinking, but to the thread:

Why assuming that it's a particle to begin with? You cannot see it! To even say that it's a particle when you cannot see it, it's the equivalent to say that it is God, which you also can't see.

The consequences of failed logic.

a reply to: ltrz2025

So now electrons are theoretical?

Tripping all over yourself now. What's a cathode ray tube anyway?

And I thought electrons had no radius?

Gravity wave is the new electron I guess.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Astyanax

Every time a scientific theory struggles with its own genesis there is the physics god to the rescue.

The problem for Hawking was his struggle to understand how the universe could have created conditions so perfectly hospitable to life,” says Hertog. "Stephen told me he now thought he had been wrong (in A Brief History of Time) and so he and I worked, shoulder to shoulder, for the next twenty years to develop a new theory of the cosmos, one that could better account for the emergence of life.

String theory is perfect for this. It comes across like the godless god copout when something extra is needed.

Why is our universe so hospitable to life?

It has to be.

Because every variation, including every universal history, initial condition, and law of physics has to exist in some form. According to string theory there is life because this is the universe where conditions allow for life.

I think people over-think this.

Amino acids are found EVERYWHERE in space. They are thought to be literally produced alongside inorganic stellar system formation.

The already present dust and ice in condensing clouds that can compact until fusion takes hold or emerge as building blocks from an extra-terrestrial primordial soup on the periphery.

I am willing to bet every system with icy comets has the organic building blocks of life left over from its formation. Stellar nurseries are probably equally packed full of these rudimentary building blocks for life. And primordial soups do not need to be attached to planets yet.

Plus it's logical in my mind to have some creation commonality.

I want to coin a new term for "panspremia" as "It-does-it-naturally-every-time-a-star-system--is-formed-from-a-condensing-cloud-of-material-spermia".

Doesn't have the same ring, but it's getting sorta of annoying with the complexity in which these theories try to link themselves up together for the theory of everything.

And maybe this is the universe where all those extra parameters line up to be perfect for this outcome?

Gravity is an elusive b**** in any case. Force carriers we cannot detect yet. That applies to all of the above.

my proof is the giant beer clouds!

life and beer. franklin said beer is proof that God loves us.

Ten thousand light years from earth in a constellation far, far away, there is massive cloud of alcohol. It’s space booze.

Discovered in 1995 near the constellation Aquila, the cloud is 1000 times larger than the diameter of our solar system. It contains enough ethyl alcohol to fill 400 trillion trillion pints of beer. To down that much alcohol, every person on earth would have to drink 300,000 pints each day—for one billion years.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: ltrz2025

So now electrons are theoretical?
Tripping all over yourself now. What's a cathode ray tube anyway?
And I thought electrons had no radius?
Gravity wave is the new electron I guess.

Oh lord, go and google "electrons are theoretical". Research for yourself, and be skeptical.

They detect "something" and they "assume/theorize" that they are "electrons", aka these fantastic and contradictive particles which are able change charge like you change socks, and disappear at will like David Copperfield. LOL. They never observed one, it's just what their failed mainstream model allows them to "theorize", a crazy particle that makes no sense.

An electron magically disappearing and re-appering would be the same thing as what they call "dark matter", but they are selling one as "truth" and the other one like "speculation". They are the most dishonest people in the world. Talking about electrons is literally like talking about unicorns and leprechauns.

I know, I know, it's hard to come out of the brainwashing of mediatized mainstream physics. This is why the mainstream model has been a religious comedy film for over 70 years. Kind of Monty Python's The Life of Brian, but taken seriously.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Yeah, no...

Is that like saying "Google The CIA did 911" or "Ancient Israelites Never Existed"?

You often get led by keywords to pseudoscientific nonsense, or out of context application of ideas.

I googled

"How electrons are observed"?

Gave a bunch of articles on how electrons behave in observation experiments.

a reply to: Degradation33

The truth is that you googled: "electrons are theoretical", and you didn't like what you've read, so you changed the question, as now you changed the subject, plus adding ad hominem and non sequiturs fallacies. Yes, negation is a strong cognitive operator! No wonder.

Thank you for showing the PERFECT example of the type of person who agrees with the postulates of the failed mainstream academia of physics ("We are right! It's the universe that is wrong!", lol). I couldn't have described your type any better if I tried, thanks for that!

People will intellectual honesty will understand, that's all that matters.


Much love

a reply to: ltrz2025

Sure...

I'm actually most concerned with control.

And a way to avoid giving you a position to do what you want to rhetorically is to make you respond to my prompts under as much of my direction as possible.

20 bucks says Reddit is the first response.

Checking....

Yup, Reddit.

With this quote:

"The electron is a theoretical model that has not been observed directly, but has been invented because it can consistently explain experimental data."

Yeah...

I think the electron is a lepton. One of six with corresponding antiparticles. Electron/positron and so on to the Muon. The spin is known, the charge is known, their strong and weak interactions are known, their classification forms a neat table of elementary particles that check out time and again.



So very sorry to quote Wikipedia some more, but I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything, so find fault and lol as you please.

There is an entire page on leptons that must all be only theory as well. Not like the electron is a stand-alone particle. It's a lepton flavor. And you can't exclude one from the other five, so all leptons must also be theoretical. As of now, it's like saying "The Up quark is theoretical".

Back to Wikipedia. Here's a quote:

Like the electron and the muon, (the tau) was expected to have an associated neutrino. The first evidence for tau neutrinos came from the observation of "missing" energy and momentum in tau decay, analogous to the "missing" energy and momentum in beta decay leading to the discovery of the electron neutrino. The first detection of tau neutrino interactions was announced in 2000 by the DONUT collaboration at Fermilab, making it the second-to-latest particle of the Standard Model to have been directly observed, with Higgs boson being discovered in 2012.

They must take liberties with the phrase "directly observed"...


Now stop burning my toast and calling it the communist anti-Jesus and answer.

In YOUR OWN WORDS what is YOUR alternative to the standard model of particle physics and affirmed existence of all six of its lepton pairs? Extra points for gauge and scalar bosons.

a reply to: Degradation33

WTH?... I can barely understand what you wrote. Communist anti-Jesus? Reddit?... what are you drinking? Oh, I get it more ad hominem and non sequitur fallacies! Right, you have a lot of that.

Then, I don't care what you "think", I don't have much "appreciation" for the way you "think". I thought I made that clear already. All I care is for facts, if you have some, bring them on. Not interested in people's wishful thinking.

Then, the physics part you wrote, all B.S. and lies, particularly the "Higgs boson being discovered in 2012" part.


Here, wake up and read the truth about the Higgs boson and realize how much these CERN people lie they way out of things (hey, they need to justify their 6 billion euros budget!):

theweek.com...

www.symmetrymagazine.org...

www.digitaltrends.com...

www.newscientist.com...


When you find some intellectual honesty, come back and we'll talk.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Can't process literary device?

I thought it was funny.

If you're going to say "The electron is theoretical" or question the higgs boson you need to back it up without pawning it off on links that predate the Higgs-Boson's discovery, or say something different entirely. You posted a link about questions that arose observing the higgs boson. Why it does the things it does. That doesn't really work to refute its existence.

About all you've done is say it's BS and post links.

If you truly know this stuff, and you have a great alternative to quarks, leptons, and bosons, I'd love to read it. You should have no problem. Why are leptons (including the electron) and bosons (including the Higgs) BS?

What's your alternative WITHOUT posting links?

Or are you not really interested in that?

Totally understandable, but if you're gonna sanctimoniously post on Intellectual honesty you could start with why it is you take on these types of debates to begin with.

Maybe admit all you care about is trying to get under people's skin with stubborn belligerence. That's totally normal too. An ancient internet tradition as old as forums themselves.

And yes, that is an ad hom response.