Hawking his theory

[loCAtek]

The Grand Design (2010, Bantam Books, ISBN 0553805371) is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. [1]

The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory may not exist. ;of which graity is a part (or was)] Albert Einstein and other physicists had proposed such a Theory based on an early model of the universe containing three-dimensions and time. Since then, the model of the universe has changed significantly. It is now believed that the universe has 10, or even 11 (M-Theory), dimensions.[2]

I ascribed that I don't know what gravity is.

What do you ascribe gravity is, my sixth time asking? I think I can stop repeating my replies, until you've answered my questions at least once.

[Gob]

The trouble is you are talking nonsense, and half the time do not even seem to know what the hell you are going on about yourself.

Hawking has not said anywhere in any way;"gravity not being able to fit into a 'unified theory' is proof of spontaneous creation."

Gravity is a force pulling together all matter. The more matter, the more gravity. Simples.

[loCAtek]

From;

A Brief History of Time, [which he changed*]

Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest) path between two nearby points.

The mass of the sun curves space-time in such a way that although the earth follows a straight path in four-dimensional space-time, it appears to us to move along a circular orbit in three-dimensional space. 32

Light rays too must follow geodesics in space-time... this means that light from a distant star that happened to pass near the sun would be deflected through a small angel, causing the star to appear in a different position to an observer on the earth. 34

*In case you hadn't noticed he's always changing his views.



... and your views are?

[loCAtek]

From;

A Brief History of Time, [which he changed*]

Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest) path between two nearby points.

The mass of the sun curves space-time in such a way that although the earth follows a straight path in four-dimensional space-time, it appears to us to move along a circular orbit in three-dimensional space. 32

Light rays too must follow geodesics in space-time... this means that light from a distant star that happened to pass near the sun would be deflected through a small angel, causing the star to appear in a different position to an observer on the earth. 34

*In case you hadn't noticed he's always changing his views.



... and your views are? 7th or 8th time asking?

[Gob]

Where on earth in that does it say; "gravity not being able to fit into a 'unified theory' is proof of spontaneous creation." ?

What has this to do with "faith"?

[thestoat]

*In case you hadn't noticed he's always changing his views.

The mark of a great scientist. Happy to alter his views to fit with the reality as he can see it. He doesn't alter the reality to fit his views ...

[Crackpot]

He does neither. All he does now is talk about things so theoretical (and unprovable) so he gets his name in headlines every few months.

Hawking hasn't impressed me in years.

[thestoat]

Hawking hasn't impressed me in years.

He still impresses those around him, and he has some very impressive people around him

All he does now is talk about things so theoretical (and unprovable)

You mean like a church leader?

[Lord Jim]

I respect Hawking for his very impressive and inspiring personal struggle...

And for the brilliant contributions he has made to physics over the years....(Though I've seen some interesting documentary interviews with other respected figures in the field that are seriously challenging some of theories he's developed in recent years, and there's some evidence that his very effective PR operation may have made him look more impressive in his research to the general public than many of his colleagues believe him to be.)

But when it comes to matters theological, his opinions are no better and no worse than anybody else's....

I don't see anything that would make his opinions on the subject of the existence of God have any more validity than yours or mine....

I fail to see why anyone would think he had some sort of special insight into the topic....

[loCAtek]

You mean like a church leader?

Rather, which was my point about it being a faith. Particularly, if you don't understand the theories he's postulating in the first place. You just have faith that they are correct.

[thestoat]

Rather, which was my point about it being a faith. Particularly, if you don't understand the theories he's postulating in the first place. You just have faith that they are correct.

I think that is fair to an extent. The fundamental difference is that there are many out there trying to prove him wrong or add more detail to what he says. If anyone manages to prove him wrong like any good scientist, he would take the new knowledge on board and base future work on that. Even supposition would be listened to, understood and then, if it bore merit, looked into and embraced. I don't see that open minded attitude going on with religion.

[loCAtek]

Those regular folks and clergy who support same-sex marriage would disagree.

[thestoat]

Those regular folks and clergy who support same-sex marriage would disagree.

That's arguing around the periphery. Sure the religious will make changes about bits and pieces where they absolutely have to, but when someone comes along with suggestions that god may not exist, that matter isn't debated. If you went to any great scientist with "proof" that gravity didn't exist (I'm picking a really extreme example here) it would be looked at, analysed and reasoned, and then - and only then - would it be thrown out or taken on board if it had merit. To me, that is the difference.

[Gob]

Rather, which was my point about it being a faith. Particularly, if you don't understand the theories he's postulating in the first place. You just have faith that they are correct.

Really? So now it's about us "believing" that Hawking is correct. Funny, no one's said that. What happened to your argument that we only "believe" in gravity and have no proof therefore it's all about us "ascribing" faith?

What happened to

"gravity not being able to fit into a 'unified theory' is proof of spontaneous creation." ?

Throw yourself out of a high window, (say 20 th floor) and stop believing in gravity. See if it stops working due to your lack of faith.

Throw yourself out of a high window (say 20 th floor) and believe really hard in god and jesus dying on the cross for your sins and being your savior, see if god or jesus saves you.

In fact take the pope and the most holy virgin nun, and the best person at believing in the Koran, and anyone else holy, take a totally innocent new born baby, and chuck the fucking lot of them out of a high window (say 20 th floor) and see if their belief saves them.

Your fundamental error is stating that people have 'belief" in gravity in the same way as people have a belief in superstition.

They do not.

Gravity is a provable and testable fact, god is a superstition, unprovable and untestable, the two are in no way the same. Your confusing the two types of belief in the hope of making a vague point, only works for you Lo.

No one, not even the pope would deny gravity is a fact.

Hawking has an understanding of gravity which far outstrips ours, he is also open to more testing and more hypothesis and new theories, this in no way is the equivalent of believing a a two thousand year old self contradicting, book of rules, and a big bogeyman in the sky.

Until you get that simple truth through your head, you're going nowhere in this debate.

[Crackpot]

Gravity is a provable and testable fact

Actually it's not. There are therories out there that gravity is a side effect of other universal forces. We can test and prove what we ascribe to "gravity" but we can not say what is gravity.

[Crackpot]

You mean like a church leader?

I mock those that try to pass off ID as science as well.

[Gob]

Gravity is a provable and testable fact

Actually it's not. There are therories out there that gravity is a side effect of other universal forces. We can test and prove what we ascribe to "gravity" but we can not say what is gravity.

I agree C-P, I was pointing out that ones "belief" in gravity is founded on evidence and testable factors, where as any belief in a religion is not testable, and does not give quantifiable results when tested.

[tyro]

Gravity, as Sir Isaac Newton understood it, was and remains a testable fact. It has gained the status of “law”.

Objects have been launched into deep space at a time when I was very young (older than Miles) to meet up with planets years and years later and were swung about and into other directions, all according to plan because someone understood how gravity would affect the planets and the probe.

A pretty impressive show of understanding if you ask me.

From what I read and understood, Hawking’s point was that the creation of the universe was similarly a sequence of events that obeyed the laws of physics, and as a result, didn’t need a God to make it so.

It doesn’t matter that our understanding of gravity is incomplete – our understanding of anything is incomplete – but we have done remarkable things with our limited understanding.

The one thing that truly differentiates religion and science is that science tends to converge. Modern musings by modern scientists are much like those of Einstein when he was young, but the stuff that got batted about over the years was either accepted or dropped.

Religion just keeps on diverging and splintering. The volume of flavours of faith has forced fractions to ever expanding fringes.

Take Scientology for example.

Science is not a faith. If it were there would be 8,573 explanations for gravity and more than 534 would contest that it is a myth and that their followers can fly, or at least levitate.

[loCAtek]

Granted tyro, and excuse me while I hug you 'round the knees for a second, pleeeeease?

...but like the Dali lama said there are as many different versions of Buddhism as there are Buddhists; the point of spiritual religion is to relate to you personally. Failing that it becomes dogma.

Rather, which was my point about it being a faith. Particularly, if you don't understand the theories he's postulating in the first place. You just have faith that they are correct.

Really? So now it's about us "believing" that Hawking is correct. Funny, no one's said that. What happened to your argument that we only "believe" in gravity and have no proof therefore it's all about us "ascribing" faith?

Well, I asked repeatedly, but you wouldn't give a straight answer.

What happened to

"gravity not being able to fit into a 'unified theory' is proof of spontaneous creation." ?

Throw yourself out of a high window, (say 20 th floor) and stop believing in gravity. See if it stops working due to your lack of faith.

Throw yourself out of a high window (say 20 th floor) and believe really hard in god and jesus dying on the cross for your sins and being your savior, see if god or jesus saves you.

In fact take the pope and the most holy virgin nun, and the best person at believing in the Koran, and anyone else holy, take a totally innocent new born baby, and chuck the fucking lot of them out of a high window (say 20 th floor) and see if their belief saves them.

Your fundamental error is stating that people have 'belief" in gravity in the same way as people have a belief in superstition.

They do not.

Gravity is a provable and testable fact, god is a superstition, unprovable and untestable, the two are in no way the same. Your confusing the two types of belief in the hope of making a vague point, only works for you Lo.

No one, not even the pope would deny gravity is a fact.

Hawking has an understanding of gravity which far outstrips ours, he is also open to more testing and more hypothesis and new theories, this in no way is the equivalent of believing a a two thousand year old self contradicting, book of rules, and a big bogeyman in the sky.

Until you get that simple truth through your head, you're going nowhere in this debate.

[Note to Strop: I'm not a Christian. I'm not advocating any one religion or book, but a healthy sense of spirituality.]

Actually, a great many people are 'saved' just that way. That's where, "There are no atheists in foxholes" originated; from those in supposedly impossible positions that their only recourse was to pray. If they are not saved physically by praying, then their devout belief saves their souls. That's kinda the point of spirituality; serving the spirit.

Don't know why Hawking decided to include the spiritual to comment on in his book of psychics (root for psychical.). If he truly is an atheist, spirituality should be irrelevant to him and his field.

[loCAtek]

BTW throwing yourself out a window still doesn't justify;

"gravity not being able to fit into a 'unified theory' is proof of spontaneous creation." ?

Check out what the 'Unified theory' is. It's an attempt to explain the relationships between the forces, or laws of physics. [believe it or not, I enjoy science very much.] As stated, we know what gravity is: greater mass attracts lesser mass; the earth attracts you whether you're standing atop it, or any height above it. What we(including Hawking) don't understand is: why it is.

Hawking's explanation, "It spontaneously created itself" is a pure statement of faith.