billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
quade 3
QuoteYour analogy doesn't even come close in explaining the mysteries of the universe.
Not even trying to explain the "mysteries of the universe." Just how the universe was created and how people came to be without any need for "god" required. It's not a mystery.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteYour analogy doesn't even come close in explaining the mysteries of the universe.
Not even trying to explain the "mysteries of the universe." Just how the universe was created and how people came to be without any need for "god" required. It's not a mystery.
I still haven't heard a convincing argument for what made the big bang . . . go "bang".
THAT would be a very important factor, no?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
quade 3
QuoteI still haven't heard a convincing argument for what made the big bang . . . go "bang".
Maybe you should read more Hawking?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteI still haven't heard a convincing argument for what made the big bang . . . go "bang".
Maybe you should read more Hawking?
did you miss the word "convincing"?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 2,400
>did you miss the word "convincing"?
What about what Hawking says about early universe formation do you disagree with?
What about what Hawking says about early universe formation do you disagree with?
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteI still haven't heard a convincing argument for what made the big bang . . . go "bang".
Maybe you should read more Hawking?
did you miss the word "convincing"?
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
turtlespeed 212
Quote>did you miss the word "convincing"?
What about what Hawking says about early universe formation do you disagree with?
I'd be paraphrasing, but I will get the quotes that I am looking for on line if I can - I don't have my copy of A Brief History of Time, I haven't read it in years. I do remember that there were some issues I had with how it was all tied to gether.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
tr027 0
Nigel,
I saw a thought-provoking show recently that lays out the basics of explaining why many people are susceptible to the religious virus/crutch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
I saw a thought-provoking show recently that lays out the basics of explaining why many people are susceptible to the religious virus/crutch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957
QuoteQuote>did you miss the word "convincing"?
What about what Hawking says about early universe formation do you disagree with?
I'd be paraphrasing, but I will get the quotes that I am looking for on line if I can - I don't have my copy of A Brief History of Time, I haven't read it in years. I do remember that there were some issues I had with how it was all tied to gether.
While A Brief History of Time is a good book, it's basically physics for dummies (unlike the for dummies series, however, it's well written.) If you are going to disagree with Hawking's conclusions, you'd have to actually look at his technical papers rather than his "putting physics into words for middle schoolers." Science books written like that, while interesting, run the risk of oversimplifying so that the masses can understand.
Personally, I can't think of anything that I disagreed with, but there are plenty of things that Hawking has written/said that I just don't freaking understand! More physics for dummies, please!
There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning
SkyDekker 1,123
QuotePersonally, I can't think of anything that I disagreed with, but there are plenty of things that Hawking has written/said that I just don't freaking understand! More physics for dummies, please!
Which is the point. There are very few (if any) people who truly understand his theories. Most just trust and believe he is right.
Trust and believe....wow that sounds familiar.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuotePersonally, I can't think of anything that I disagreed with, but there are plenty of things that Hawking has written/said that I just don't freaking understand! More physics for dummies, please!
Which is the point. There are very few (if any) people who truly understand his theories. Most just trust and believe he is right.
Trust and believe....wow that sounds familiar.
Oh Christ!
We agree?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 2,400
>Which is the point. There are very few (if any) people who truly understand
>his theories.
I understand several of his theories, and they fit with the observations of the universe we've made.
In science, when a new theory withstands the rigors of experimentation and observation, and better describes how the universe works, the new theory is adopted.
In religion, when a new interpretation of theology withstands academic scrutiny, and makes more coherent sense of the tenets of a faith, the author of that interpretation is generally burned at the stake (or otherwise removed from that faith.)
I see that as a bit of a difference.
>his theories.
I understand several of his theories, and they fit with the observations of the universe we've made.
In science, when a new theory withstands the rigors of experimentation and observation, and better describes how the universe works, the new theory is adopted.
In religion, when a new interpretation of theology withstands academic scrutiny, and makes more coherent sense of the tenets of a faith, the author of that interpretation is generally burned at the stake (or otherwise removed from that faith.)
I see that as a bit of a difference.
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteOh Christ!
We agree?
it was getting rather cold in my office.
GeorgiaDon 340
Which basically means that YOU (and Turtlespeed) don't understand them. Of course, in this you have lots of company. But, how much effort have you put into learning the requisite mathematics? Otherwise, why would you presume the universe should be simple enough for you to understand without putting in the effort? Don't you think there is a reason why it takes years of learning before anyone is in a position to contribute original research to physics (or chemistry, or biology, or any other science)?QuoteWhich is the point. There are very few (if any) people who truly understand his theories.
Your inability to understand (or intelligently critique) Hawking's theories says nothing about their validity, it only suggests you haven't considered the subject important enough to invest the effort to learn to speak the language. In all honesty I don't have the background to critique his theories either, but I wouldn't assume he's wrong just because I can't follow every nuance of his arguments, or because they just don't "feel" right to me.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
rhys 0
QuoteNo.
Imagine you're on a boat in the middle of the ocean. With your eye-height fixed to roughly 6 feet above the ocean surface, you can look out and seen nothing but ocean in every direction all the way to the horizon. To you it appears as if the horizon is about 3 miles away.
That doesn't mean that's all that exists, but what it does mean is that due to the way geometry and light works, that's all you can observe.
We're in kind of the same situation with the "observable universe." Because of the speed of light and the way time and space are intertwined at the scale of the universe, we can only see 13.75 billion light years. To us, that is the ONLY universe that is knowable and anything beyond it simply doesn't make any difference.
Not for our everyday lives but for the origin of the universe it makes all the difference, who is to say on a scale, that our universe is not a part of something much bigger indeed, like an atom or a cell.
One can speculate all they like, but the truth is that nobody will ever be sure. One contributing factor can change everything.
is impossible to know all the contributing factors.
That is why I just let it be.
QuoteWho's to say the buffaloes didn't conspire to secretly pull down my tree branch and very, very carefully cover their tracks? We can speculate on just about anything, but that doesn't mean it's even likely if it's an unknowable and for us never will be.
Because we know the liklihood of that is vrey minimal, I'm sure steven hawking could put a figure on it, as we know the nature of buffalo very well, we don;t know the nature of the universe very well at all.
QuoteOur universe is constrained and contained by the speed of light.
and our knowledge is constrained by what we can observe.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
Quote
I understand several of his theories
Add this to the list of things that make Bill and I different!
There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning
>and a heard would probably leave turd or two as evidence.
Exactly!
>We know about reproduction, but we do not know about the outer
>limits of the universe.
We know a lot about both. We don't know everything about both, not by a long shot. We _think_ we know a lot about reproduction because we're very familiar with it and it happens every day - and we can see the results.
>Show me one individual that claims to know how large the universe
>actually is where it's boarders are and what lies beyond?
See the man referenced in the beginning of this thread.
>Anyone that made such a claim would have to be lying as our technology is
>not yet capable of such observatons.
No more so than you are lying when you claim to have a great-great-great-great-grandfather. Can you prove it? No. Can you be pretty certain that you had one? Yes.
That's science for ya. Do we know exactly how big the universe is? No. Do we have a pretty good idea? Yes.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites