RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe

RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 3:56:06 PM)
"Gravitation is negative energy, and the net sum of gravitational energy and positive energy is zero." I have no idea what the hell you are talking about....There is no such thing as negative energy. Gravity is a potential energy which can be converted to kinetic energy- at least that's what I learned in my high school physics. Sam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 4:53:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Gravitation is negative energy, and the net sum of gravitational energy and positive energy is zero." I have no idea what the hell you are talking about....There is no such thing as negative energy. Gravity is a potential energy which can be converted to kinetic energy- at least that's what I learned in my high school physics. Sam Yes, there is negative energy. There are many physics sites that explain it, both in Newtonian and quantum physics. Google "gravity negative potential energy", or "big bang theory for beginners", where this comes from: "The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy), the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (called potential energy), and the energy associated with the mass of all the particles (usually referred to as rest energy). The key feature to bear in mind is that the gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. You can see this by realizing that in order to separate two objects, one has to overcome the attractive gravitational force and this requires one to supply positive energy from outside. This is why launching satellites into space requires such huge amounts of positive energy supplied by fuel, in order to overcome the negative gravitational potential energy of the satellite due to the Earth's attractive force. This negative gravitational potential energy exactly cancels out the positive energy of the universe. As Stephen Hawking says in his book A Brief History of Time (quoted by Victor Stenger, Has Science Found God?, p. 148): "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." In other words, it is not the case that something came out of nothing. It is that we have always had zero energy." Even more basically, think about gravity this way: at a given distance from a massive body, a body at rest has all potential energy and no kinetic energy. If it is now allowed to accelerate toward the massive body, its potential energy decreases and its kinetic energy increases. By conservation you know that this system in isolation cannot lose or gain energy...as distance changes the net sum of the energies is always 0. Therefore they must be of opposite sign...one increasing and one decreasing with distance. Since kinetic energy is traditionally defined as positive energy, potential energy must be negative energy. (you could flip the definitions and it would be of no consequence). You might also read a bit about symmetry and its relationship to conservation. It has been proven that a) conservation is a consequence of symmetry and b) the net sum in the universe of anything that is conserved must be zero. The latter implies that there must be negative energy that is equal in quantity to positive energy. Potential energy is that negative energy. There is also an interesting (cover) article in a recent (within 3 months) SA about the apparent violation of conservation of energy due to redshifting of light that results from expansion of the universe. Although there is a difference between cosmological redshift and doppler redshift, the article explains that there really is no violation because (although as I recall they dont express it quite as simply) the kinetic energy loss that is evidenced by the redshift (Planck's law) is offset by a gain in potential energy. physicsforum.com is pretty good for explanations, ranging from plain English to formulas.

Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 5:13:44 PM)
~ FR ~ The laws of physics break down at the singularity postulated by the Big Bang. So essentially what we have here is a theory which proposes a source for the universe that exists beyond all known laws of physics and independently of space and time. Sound familiar? K.

thornhappy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 5:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShoreBound149 Based on this, I will now worship M-80s. Thank you. I like those volcanos and Piccolo Petes myself. A dualistic religion.

thornhappy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 5:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Hi Ken We have the same problem. Your description doesn't work either. If you look at the cosmic microwave background radiation- kind of the hot gas that warmed up everything before the stars formed- its measured in millions of light years (or more) although the universe was only a few minutes old. As far as I can tell, using Newtonian physics- ... Sam You can't use Newtonian physics near c, or in the atomic realm either.

Termyn8or -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 6:07:25 PM)
"You have a profound misunderstanding of red shift/blue shift." I don't think so. Velocity is always relative. Ken is right in that - put more simply we measure nothing by something. Let me put it this way, suppose for a moment that outside our solar system there is absolutely nothing. Nothing beyond, no stars, nothing to see at all. Does that space then exist ? This is akin to the tree in the forest argument. The conservation of energy argument doesn't cut it either. We could be moving at any speed through space, however most of our detectable universe is in a tight range of velocity space, if I may borrow a term from plasma physics. The Doppler effect merely measures the variations. So, who is to say that this singularity which resulted in the big bang was stationany ? And statioanry relative to exactly what ? If not absolutely still (?) one side of the universe would have to be flattened if we accept current theory. I do not, at least not as "gospel". If Man survives he might learn better, it would not be the first time. Now of course there is no way we can accelerate anything to beyond C. This I accept. But to presume by the words of a few that it is impossible is just as illogical as blind faith. The Doppler effect would still be alive and well if we were truly alone, but it would all be within our own solar system, which would constitute the whole of the universe. But then if we were truly alone, it would. This is thinking outside the box. T

samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 6:10:15 PM)
Hi Thorn Yeah you can. Momentum is always conserved- no matter what- even in a fission or fusion reaction. How else could you make any sense out of the data from the colliders? But I agree that Newtonian examples of kinetic energy start running into trouble. Sam

joether -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 6:21:38 PM)
I'm just curious. How many of you are actually physics scientists? Failing that, hold a serious, hard science degree, that is closely related to physics?

samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 7:31:30 PM)
I have a doctorate in chemistry. Does that count? Pretty sure that Thornhappy and Ken also have advanced degrees in the hard sciences as well. Sam

DomKen -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 8:41:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct I have a doctorate in chemistry. Does that count? Pretty sure that Thornhappy and Ken also have advanced degrees in the hard sciences as well. Sam Mines actually in math which is pretty helpful in understanding physics.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 8:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'm just curious. How many of you are actually physics scientists? Failing that, hold a serious, hard science degree, that is closely related to physics? I was a physics major till I realized there was more money in practical science. :)

Brain -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 8:57:04 PM)
Do you have a degree like this guy? Brian Greene (born February 9, 1963) is an American theoretical physicist and one of the best-known string theorists. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996. Greene has worked on mirror symmetry, relating two different Calabi-Yau manifolds (concretely, relating the conifold to one of its orbifolds). He also described the flop transition, a mild form of topology change, showing that topology in string theory can change at the conifold point. He has become known to a wider audience through his books for the general public, The Elegant Universe, Icarus at the Edge of Time and The Fabric of the Cosmos, and a related PBS television special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene YouTube - Who lives in the eleventh dimension? - Parallel Universes - BBC science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7xRgfPjAI quote: ORIGINAL: samboct I'm sorry, but the current explanation of the Big Bang forming the universe runs into a massive problem termed inflation. Essentially, the universe is larger than its age of some 12 billion years. It's bigger than 12 billion light years across. If the speed of light is a constant- well, then how did this happen? Yeah, I know, somebody starts saying that space has lots of extra dimensions or something, but the physical model of the big bang doesn't make intuitive sense. Furthermore- I know of no way of proving that there wasn't an organizer of the big bang- i.e. some agency shaping the whole thing. This organizer would have been destroyed during the big bang, thus religions which claim that the creator died to give his creation life have got at least a shred of a point. I'm a scientist- I know that no religion has got the explanation for where we came from right, but it doesn't mean that the concept is wrong. These days, I'm more agnostic than anything else- I can't prove or disprove the notion of a creator and I'm OK with that. Sam

Hillwilliam -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/3/2010 10:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'm just curious. How many of you are actually physics scientists? Failing that, hold a serious, hard science degree, that is closely related to physics? Double majors marine science and biology, minors in chem and physics, 3 years grad school. Spent many years playing with various particle beams and spectrometers in a materials science/analytical lab.

kdsub -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 12:24:03 AM)
Hmm... I suppose ALS is a spontaneous creation too. If he knows the truth about the universe and God why can't he heal himself? I would think it a lot easier to understand a little problem with DNA and nerves then to pass judgment on God and creation don’t you think? Butch

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 2:30:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Do you have a degree like this guy? Brian Greene (born February 9, 1963) is an American theoretical physicist and one of the best-known string theorists. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996. Greene has worked on mirror symmetry, relating two different Calabi-Yau manifolds (concretely, relating the conifold to one of its orbifolds). He also described the flop transition, a mild form of topology change, showing that topology in string theory can change at the conifold point. He has become known to a wider audience through his books for the general public, The Elegant Universe, Icarus at the Edge of Time and The Fabric of the Cosmos, and a related PBS television special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene YouTube - Who lives in the eleventh dimension? - Parallel Universes - BBC science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7xRgfPjAI Great quote. I am certain you have no idea what any of that actually means.

StrangerThan -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 4:04:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster I knew this all along, myself... The entire history of scientific progress is a laundry list of "facts" that weren't, and I think it would be exceedingly naive of us to imagine that the scientific facts of today are somehow immune to that process. To believe that Stephen Hawking has delivered the final answer is no different from blind faith in anything else. K. Well, in my view, the entire history of scientific progress has been the slow, painstaking process of utilizing empiricism and reason to displace the superstition, irrationality, and ignorance of "folk wisdom" and religion. There have been, along the way, some hypotheses and theories that were based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Eugenics, Phlogiston, Phrenology, Homeopathic "medicine", Ether, the Geocentric universe, the Flat Earth, the 4 Bodily Humours, Numerology, Miasma (bad air), and the Classical Elements (fire, earth, air, water; plus aether or void in some systems; the & Chakras correspond to the 5 elements in the Hindu Mahabhuta system) are but a few (note that not all of these are post-Rennaiscence (sp) "theories"). A few current examples are Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis (the theory that oil is spontaneously created below the mantle and seeps up), Cold Fusion, ESP, UFOs, and the Solar variation theory of GCC. The pseudoarcheology presented by ID proponents is a particular source of humor to me. There is no testable, falsifiable alternative to a natural Cosmology. The Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't make the Universe. I agree with you for the most part. I also agree with Kirata. I don't find the two mutually exclusive given that science contains and has always contained a good bit of supposition. That fact is borne out by headlines that appear quite frequently noting how a new discovery has rewritten what we know of a given subject. As far as Hawking is concerned, I think the man is brilliant. If I have a problem it is with the statement as fact. I'm sure someone can tell me how nothing has mass and is therefore subject to gravity in any sense. But that's not the point. The point for me is that Stephen has posited a suggestion that can neither be confirmed nor denied. While that may be a learned suggestion I don't find the concept of a controlling entity to be exclusive of the points he raises. Then again, I never found the theory of evolution at odds with the concept either, nor the big bang theory as far as that goes. Einstein once said that "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Then again, he spent a decent part of life thinking space was filled with ether.

Aneirin -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 4:09:43 AM)
FR For some reason this whole thread is reminding me of Monty Python's Holy Grail and in particular the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow

mnottertail -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 5:47:58 AM)
Well. The guy who knows the most about it (Einstein, who may be wrong on a few minor points about how this is all slapdashed together, but nobody has actually proven that yet) actually said something really close along the lines of : In the PONDERABLE universe, NO MATERIAL OBJECT can exceed the speed of light. For those of you so inclined, this little ditty permits god to gallavant about the universe instantaneously without regard to our human limitations or physics or any comment to the contrary by one Mr Hawking. However, that misses the mark widely, since Steve said that he didn't create it, not that he doesn't flit thither and yon in it.

THELADY -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 7:56:05 AM)
In school I avoided science as much as possible, I was lucky in college and took a physics class taught by a high school p/t staff teacher rather than biology which I really wanted to avoid( who cares what makes up a crow's foot, or yuck, how to disect a frog). Not that I don't find science fasinating! for years I subcribed to discover magiizne! I am constantly amazed that people put their full faith in the big bang THEROY and the THEROY of evolution or even the THEROY that the speed of light is the fastest we can travle(this being based on what we presently know), yet dismiss any possibility that there be a God. after all a THEROY is only an educated guess based on known facts available at that time. THEROIES often change as new facts are discovered. Why can science and God not coexzist? If there be a God wouldn't science be part of the creation? could he not have created the earth with a big bang? as brian said ....LOL...... just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not true!

mnottertail -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/4/2010 7:59:12 AM)
I just explained why anything moving faster than the speed of light is of no value whatsoever to us, you might just as well eat dirt as sustenance as ponder beyond the speed of light. It would be like heavily used toilet paper, no exploitative value.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875