"Curiosity" is now showing on Discovery I.D. if you get it.

[Skidmore]

Stephen Hawkings is discussing the history of science and whether there is a god or not.

[Akoto]

1. So far, interesting show. Cool presentation. n/t

[femmocrat]

2. Thank you!

I am watching it on Animal Planet. It looks very well done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. also on the science channel

[malaise]

4. I'm lovin' it

:hi:

[malaise]

5. Here come the religious nutters

If there was nothing including time before the big bang, then Hawkings is correct and I believe him, but he'll be putting lots of snake oil salesmen put out of business so expect major controversy.

[Little Star]

6. I thought it was very interesting...

I also believe everything he said is more than likely true.

But my question is, who has proved that god needs time, as we understand it, in order for god to exist?

I guess my feeling is that both can still be true 1.)god did not create the universe or us and 2.)there could still be god.

just thinking out loud....................

[physioex]

7. Lets think....

The Bible does indeed invoke time as something god needed to create the universe. According to religion god does need time.

[Little Star]

12. You are talking about organized religion which...

is not necessary in order to believe in god. A person could not believe in the bible and still believe there is god.

[physioex]

14. Assuming there is a a god....

And he did not create our universe. What is his purpose then?

[Skidmore]

15. The very idea of god is a creation of man and that concept has changed over time

as man's knowledge of the universe around him increases. "God" is the persona man has given to those mysteries for which he has no rational explanation. Religions are the creations of man as well and serve to marshal the wealth and political structure of the societies in which those belief systems are embraced.

[Little Star]

19. I am not arguing that there is a god....

I was just saying that Hawkings did not prove there was not a god. "Even if" all he said is true up to the point where he stated there was not a god and "I believe he was right up till that point".

I could tell you what I "think" the purpose of god "might be" and even how I "think" this whole god/human thing may all work. But just because I have thoughts and ideas doesn't mean I can prove them or that you can disprove them.

I am just "open to the idea" of a god and a possible purpose for a god. What I am NOT INTERESTED in is organized religion or using the bible in a literal sense. A belief in god requires no bible or organized religion.

In my opinion organized religion does MUCH more harm and causes MUCH more hate than it does good.

On the good side organized religion provides a community for people to possibly bond and socialize and some even do good work helping the poor, etc.(too bad so many are just big clicks that are unwilling to welcome to new people with open arms, shame on them!)


I know I'm rambling! sorry!

[Warren DeMontague]

16. I think, past a certain point, words like "god" and "exist" cease to mean anything.

Here's a project. For the purposes of your assertion, as a thinking-out-loud exercise, define "god". Then define "time". Then define "exist".

Good luck. I mean that sincerely.

[madrchsod]

8. great show...but i doubt it will change anyone`s mind

[physioex]

10. That's not the point....

It's about education. Let's get people to think beyond some limited fairy tales.

[Little Star]

35. imho, even a small child could understand what Hawking's explained.

It was actually laughable what people believed through out history until science could prove by using the laws of nature how ignorant we were. Guess you can't know what you don't know till you know it!

If their minds are not changed it is because their minds are closed or perhaps owned by a organization (church).

[RebelOne]

9. Saw it and I am now watching

Into The Universe With Hawkin. It is awesome. It is hard to get my mind around it.

[physioex]

11. Curious....

What are some aspects your find difficult?

[RebelOne]

22. I have always found it awesome that space goes on and on.

Is there any end or does it just stop at a brick wall?

[physioex]

23. Can't answer that question.....

It depends on if there is a curvature to space and I think experiments are under way to find out. If space is found to be curved then it would be like living in an asteroid game you keep going in one direction and comeback on yourself. If space is found to be perfectly flat then yes it would be infinite and you could travel to one of several Level 1 parallel universes. Probably one with another you with some other history.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional physicist but just from what I have read. :)

[Better Believe It]

13. Just saw it. Terrific presentation by Hawkings. Recommend

[Little Star]

20. I agree. Even my young grandchildren could see and understand what he was saying

was true. We need more of this kind of education.

[Xicano]

17. I have a big problem with Hawking's theory.

Hawking is trying to say that before the bing bang there was nothing, not even time itself, ergo, there couldn't be a gawd.

The problem I have with that is it violates a major aspect of science. If you believe Hawking that nothing existed prior to the big bang, then, you have to also believe the big bang just happened out of nothing and for no reason. Notice he doesn't explain how the big bang just all of the sudden and for no reason whatsoever happened.

Magic is a better scientific explanation than what Hawking is trying to push.

[Skidmore]

18. I guess I interpreted his take on this as

the universe exploded out of an implosion--a black hole. I could see a cyclical expansion and collapse of matter. Where it comes from is something I don't think we'll ever know regardless of the number of religions or scientists in the world or the history of the world.

[Xicano]

25. Physicists have measured the expansion of the universe. Its accelerating

Therefore, the universe being a cyclical expansion and collapse of matter is not supported by observation. Hawking should know this.

But even if the universe was cycle of expansion and collapse. Hawking would be contradicting himself by saying 'nothing' existed prior to the big bang. Obviously prior to the big bang in a cyclical universe would be the universe itself.

Also, even though matter has collapsed down to a singularity in a black hole. The area of gravity still remains. So in a cyclical universe, not only would Hawking be wrong in saying nothing existed prior to the big bang because of the previous universe having existed. Its gravity would have still be there prior to the big bang as well if this were a cyclical universe. But again, current observations show the rate of our universe expansion is accelerating.

Myself personally, I have a hard time buying all aspects of the big bang theory. Basically I have a hard time buying into the "inflation" aspect of it. I see inflation as a cheap band-aid to fix some problems with the big bang theory.

As far as what caused the big bang. I myself am partial to the membrane collision theory.

[physioex]

21. Hawking did not talk about the multiverse....

However he said you can get something for nothing and not by magic and not violating physics. For matter you have antimatter, for energery you have negative energy. When you add up all these things you get nothing. Hence from nothing you can get something (and still have nothing). ;)

[Xicano]

28. Because it contradicts his fundamental science violating theory of something from nothing.

Matter and antimatter annihilate one another. But to say they annihilate one another is incorrect in the sense that, according to E=MC², all matter is highly condensed energy. Therefore they convert one another's mass completely into energy.

An important principle of physics is that energy cannot be destroyed. It can only be converted into a different state. So when electrons and protons come into contact with positrons and negatrons one hundred percent of their mass is converted into energy. That is unless of course there happens to be more of one than the other. Then the one which is more will still have some of its mass left.

Secondly I do not agree with the assertion that energy from one cancels out the energy from the other. Energy is the basic state. But suppose that were the case. Then to believe Hawking is to believe that there was "exactly" the same amount of antimatter/energy as there was matter/energy. And if that were the case it would violate observations made today.

[physioex]

30. I think I understand.....

And it goes back to my 1st statement that he did not talk about the multi verse. In our universe there was a small bias towards matter hence our existence. But then there must also be our "evil twin" where the bias is towards antimatter. And even more exotic, an universe of effect leads to cause (causally different).

Alas soo many things about the multi verse I don't understand.


Disclaimer: My occupation/training is not physics related, just from what I have learned (and still in the process of). :)

[Xicano]

31. Disclaimer: My occupation is longshoreman.... :)

Its just I've always loved physics, but, I come from a poor family where I had no opportunity to go to university. My parents only had enough money to barely make ends meat, but, also made too much money for me to qualify for a grant. And I didn't think it was a good idea to get myself into massive debt where I wasn't guaranteed a job in physics to pay it back while also earning a reasonable living.

So instead I went to a junior college and got an AS degree in aerospace. But in 1993 the aerospace industry was hit hard with lay-offs and I ended up getting laid-off from McDonnell Douglas (Long Beach). But the silver lining in that was how I became a longshoreman and I wouldn't trade this job for any other. This job is like no other and the ILWU has become a second family.

:toast:

[physioex]

32. I have a funny story to share....

When I was in highschool, I had a textbook that said most of the matter in the universe was solid. My instructor corrected it and said that actually most of the matter was plasma. :rofl:

[Xicano]

34. Actually your high school instructor is correct.

Most of the matter in the universe is in a plasma state.

[sudopod]

24. Then were did God come from? nt

[Xicano]

26. I don't support the laughable Gawd created everything theory.

To me there is no such thing as some invisible man in the sky. Gawd to me is the collective consciousness of every speck of matter and energy within the universe.

[physioex]

27. I dont go for the god crap either...

However my take is god has nothing to do with matter but the equations of the multiverse.

[Xicano]

29. That's is certainly a possibility.

Since its hard to explain where everything started from. How long has time existed? Is there a beginning or has time always existed? If it has always been there, then, how do we explain that? If it has a beginning, then, how did it begin?

Certainly difficult questions to answer without something, of which we probably have no concept of, having something to do with it. So, some form of gawd is attractive in answering these difficult questions.

[WCGreen]

33. Even as a kid i realized that if you are willing to believe in an everlasting

life, why can't you take that step and believe in a never beginning.

It's eternity both ways, a cosmic recycling, if you will...