I have since edited
The Origin of the Universe, Stephen Hawking, with commentary of course :-)
to correct some misspellings
and wrong dates/numbers etc.
Im sure there are more lol.
I got the most glaring ones though.)
"Something eternal is more perfect than something created."
(This is what Dr Hawking (and many others) have a problem with.
They just cant wrap their heads around the fact that something is more perfect than themselves. It was the sin of pride that led to Satan's fall. Isaiah 14:12–14.Think about that for a second:
Anyway(s) lol.
"What was God doing before He made the world"
(I got a few ideas.
Post coming in the future.)
"A model is a good model, if it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model."
(Ask your self,
Is:
There is a probability (however small)
that the moon could have been made of Bleu Cheese
"a simple and elegant model."?)
"Many scientist were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning, because it seemed to imply that physics broke down."
(Well? Before time?
How could physics have existed?)
"One would have to invoke an outside agency,
to determine how the universe began."
(It's the whole problem:
"Something eternal is more perfect than something created.")
"They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding
at the present time, but didn't have a beginning,"
(WHAT WAS/IS THE PROBLEM EXACTLY
WITH TIME HAVING A BEGINING?
OTHER THAN THESE GUYS AND GALS JUST SIMPLY DONT LIKE IT?
THEY ARE INVENTING A PROBLEM THAT SIMPLY DOESNT EXIST AND CONTRIDICTING DIRECT OBSERVATONS. THEY STARTED IN 1948 AND HAVENT QUIT SINCE.
Anything but what we observe seems to be the motto.)
"One was was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle in 1948.
In the Steady State theory as galaxies moved apart, the idea was that new galaxies world form from matter that was supposed to be continually being created throughout space. The universe would have existed forever and would have looked she same at all times.
(Trying to get around a beginning 1x)
"But the observations showed more faint sources than predicted, indicating that the density of sources wat higher in the past. This was contrary to the basic assumption of the Steady State theory, that everything was constant in time. For this, and other reasons, the Steady State theory was abandoned."
(OPPS)
"Another attempt to avoid the universe having a beginning was the suggestion that there was a previous contracting phase, but because of rotation and and local irregularities, the matter would not all fall in the same point. Instead different parts of the matter would miss each other and the universe would expand again, with the density remaining finite..."
(Again?
WHAT WAS/IS THE PROBLEM WITH TIME HAVING A BEGINING?
"Something eternal is more perfect than something created."
They are purposely creating issues where there just aren't any and it directly contradicts their very own observations)
"I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity its is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time has a beginning."
"Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint hackaround microwaves throughout space.
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose und myself predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun."
(Failure in attempt #2 to disprove the Universe had a beginning.
OPPS.)
"There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself.
One is that the way the universe began is not within the realm of science.
The other...is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe."
CAN THEY NOT SEE THAT:
ONE
"The way the universe began is not within the realm of science"
IS PROVEN BECAUSE:
"the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe"
OF THE OTHER?
WTF?
He may have been one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, all I'm all for some Hawking Radiation and his and Penrose's theorems, but the LOGIC here is severely flawed. These people are simply not the philosophers and Theologians they like to think of themselves as.)
"In order to understand the Origin of the universe"
(You cant, its simply outside your scope and your own ridiculous conclusions prove it.)
"Each path, or history, has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A to B is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese but the amplitude is low"
(When your only option left?
Is every option has to exist?
Then you are out of options.)
"However when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time"
(WHY IS IT A PROBLEM THAT TIME WAS CREATED AGAIN? SOMEBODY PLEASE COME AND EXPLAIN THAT TO ME?
OH YEAH:
"Something eternal is more perfect than something created.")
Can you go more south than the south pole? Becomes...
"a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the south pole. Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point...
The same lows of Nature hold at the South Pole, as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning that it would be a place where the normal laws of nature broke down.
WHOSE OBJECTION?
This is where I really have a problem with this crap.
He is comparing the beginning of time and the universe to the south pole. They are not comparable and he knew so. It s called jumping units of analysis and I asure you he knew exactly what he was doing. Its like comparing why a certain type of plant exist in a forest as to why the forest exist in the first place. They are simply not comparable.
But why do that?
Well?
They obviously cant prove it didn't have a beginning anymore so they just figure out a way to work around the problem and they think people are to stupid to figure out what they have done. Not only did they jump units of analysis?
They did it by orders of magnitude.
(a class in a system of classification determined by size, each class being a number of times (usually ten) greater or smaller than the one before.)
ITS HARD TO CONVINCE ME THEY DIDNT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
(When I was at WKU the school newspaper did an article exposing the fact that Business Management Majors had a significantly lower GPA than did students (all) enrolled in the College of Education. Comparing one major (Business Management) to an entire college of them (College of Education) is doing the same thing. I was enrolled in a class called Social Research Methods and we just tore that article to pieces for the misleading way in which it was presented.
IT HAS STUCK WITH ME FOREVER.
Politicians and people trying to prove something they know isnt on the up and up do it all the time.
Walking past the south pole is in no way comparable
to walking back to when everything we see
came into existence.
TIME BEING A CREATED ENTITY IS ONLY A PROBLEM IF YOU THINK IT IS.)
The case for why our Universe may be a giant neural network
"Ultimately, Hawking felt that
the mainstream narrative
failed to explain:
“How the Universe
could have created conditions
so perfectly hospitable
to life.”
WELL NO FUCKING WONDER.
AND HE WAS A CELEBRATRY?
AND SOLD MILLIONS OF BOOKS?
ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS PREACHING TO HIS CHOIR THE TENATES OF THEIR FAITH.
"THERE CAN BE NO GOD."
DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.
No comments:
Post a Comment