So he believes in aliens and all-creating gravity, but not in God?
-
al666940-3 — 15 years ago(October 02, 2010 07:15 PM)
"In fact, most people don't understand Einsteinian Relativity all that well"
The basics sure they do.
"Thus, all particle production is in matched pairs of particles with their antiparticles. "
Aha, you forgot something: since opposite-charged particles ATTRACT each other to destroy each other, the universe would have NEVER become (at the Big Bang, all matter was prety close to each other). Yet here it is. So where is all this matching "antimatter"? Dark matter? That's just one of several theories, and not even a convincing one.
And just remember that GR has several implications that simply do not make sense, like time traveling and alternate universes, which are far more contradictory and absurd than the idea of a creator. So GR is clearly an incomplete theory, like Newton's theory was at his time (groundbreaking, yet incomplete).
"Hawking is premature in having this much confidence, since the GR equations are notoriously hard to solve exactly"
He's simply past his prime.
Remember that most geniouses who do their groundbreaking work at a young age spent their adult lives chasing pipe dreams:- Newton: after gravity he chased alquimy.
- Einstein: after GR, he chased unified theory.
- Tesla: after AC he chased death rays and who knows what else.
- John Nash: after game theory he chased aliens and his own lost sanity.
Need more?
-
al666940-3 — 15 years ago(October 03, 2010 05:16 AM)
Oh and I forgot to inc5b4lude John Nash, who after his game theory work he spent his life chasing aliens and hallucinations. Will add it above for other people.
"I already said it's possible to know basics"
Then it's possible to know the basics of Hawking's new idea. Yet even that doesn't make sense (gravity being the all-creating law).
"I know it's a big mystery why there's a deficit. With or without the deficit energy is still conserved, and in GR can sum up to zero. That's what I'm helping you to understand"
Now YOU are preaching to the choir, for thermodynamics (and thus energy conservation) were part of my engineering courses.
Yet you keep dodging the point: does gravity as all creating law make sense to you? It sure doesn't to me for there cannot exist gravity without matter (just like time cannot exist without change, for it NOTHING at all changed then the concept of time would become meaningless). -
Reema2688 — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 10:34 PM)
Aha, you forgot something: since opposite-charged particles ATTRACT each other to destroy each other, the universe would have NEVER become (at the Big Bang, all matter was prety close to each other). Yet here it is. So where is all this matching "antimatter"? Dark matter? That's just one of several theories, and not even a convincing one.
Funny how science works right! What was elusive and incomprehensible once, is pretty much on the verge of validation.
Maybe that is why great minds are so far ahead of commoners like us, and generally get recognition for their greatness posthumously.
The problem with social media - Idiots now got a voice -
al666940-3 — 15 years ago(October 03, 2010 04:16 PM)
"Historically speaking, atheists believe in ET while theists don't"
Aha, so we all believe in stuf5b4f we cannot prove in any case, right? We can surely say common sense is on our side (too big a place, everything needs designer), but that's it.
That's how I see it. I just don't like an alien believer to pretend I'm a self-deluded fool while, by his own logic, he's engaging in the exact same practice.
"When people cease to believe in God, the danger is not that they'll believe in nothing but that they'll believe in anything. G. K. Chesterton "
So true. In Mexico we have a similar saying: he who doesn't believe in God will kneel to any monkey/idol (for example all those presidents like Reagan and Miterrand who were not practicioners yet were surrounded by astrologers and even witch doctors). To bad it doesn't translate very well. -
greg-233 — 15 years ago(October 04, 2010 04:35 PM)
Whatever Stephen Hawking may think, I don't feel it's hypocritical to believe in aliens but not God. Some people might believe in both. Why should it be one or the other?
Olaf Stapledon's 1937 novel
Star Maker
deals with the premise of an all-powerful "intelligence" that was responsible for the creation of the universe. And not just
this
universe - countless others as well. Stapledon was a huge influence on Arthur C. Clarke. -
greg-233 — 15 years ago(October 05, 2010 04:13 PM)
"111c;Greg-233, you don't believe in God yet you do believe in ET, even though there's no evidence for such. What's the difference?"
I haven't stated that aliens definitely exist. Not in the same way theists say God exists. I certainly don't think we've ever been visited by any aliens.
Aliens are a bit easier to believe in than a God. It's not that much of a leap of faith to imagine that there is another form of life elsewhere in the universe that evolved over the aeons, just as we did here on Earth. In fact, there was another Earth-like planet discovered just recently. I think they said it was about 10 light years away, I can't remember exactly, and that it could support life.
Obviously, aliens wouldn't be endowed with supernatural powers, the way a God would be. But if their technology is far in advance of ours, it might be easy to
mistake
them for gods. Arthur C. Clarke stated that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Michael Shermer extended this by saying any sufficiently advanced species is indistinguishable from God.
Maybe if I'd had a religious upbringing, I would want a specific type of God (e.g. Yahweh) to exist, but I didn't. I've never once spent a Sunday morning at church. -
al666940-3 — 15 years ago(October 06, 2010 01:59 PM)
Don't bother with them.
I bet they also believe that GRAVITY created the universe.
A omniponent force that had no beginning nor end (if it created matter out of nothing it doesn't depend on matter to exist), and can create the universe out of nothing.
Wow, that sounds AWFULLY like a deity -
greg-233 — 15 years ago(October 06, 2010 11:07 PM)
"Anyone who reads as much SF as you do can only be a believer. Maybe that's the reason why Isaac Asimov is my favorite SF writer. Hardly any aliens in his fiction."
Well, yes, I do read a lot of SF, but that doesn't mean I believe that aliens REALLY exist. I've also read a lot of fantasy and horror, but that doesn't mean I believe goblins, elves, vampires and zombies really exist either.
"Furthermore, the main body of evolutionists are skeptical of ET life. Yet you won't rule it out. Obviously you must want to believe in ETs.
It takes more than a planet to support life. A lot of other conditions must also occur in order for life to emerge."
I don't think it's a case of
wanting
to believe in aliens. Their existence or non-existence would have no direct impact on my own day to day life, as far as I can tell. Considering the massive size of the universe, it does seem a bit strange that life should only emerge on one little ball of rock, orbiting one little sun in one little galaxy. I imagine the existence of alien life (if any) may raise some disquieting theological issues. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting Jesus had visited other planets.
Even if it did turn out that Earth was the only planet in the whole universe to have spawned any life, it wouldn't make the case for a god any more compelling. -
greg-233 — 15 years ago(October 11, 2010 06:13 AM)
"If ET is discovered it would mean the end for religion. Period."
It might simply necessitate a "revision" for Earth-based religions. The discovery of evolution by natural selection didn't stop Christians from believing in Adam and Eve and original sin. They just put a new spin on it. Who's to say the aliens wouldn't have developed religious beliefs of their own?
"The Bible also says that God created the stars in order to guide man on Earth. This means that man is central to His Purpose. What about the inhabitants of all those planets circling the stars? Are they just an after-thought?"
The Bible isn't right about everything. (There's a part of the book that described bats as birds.) I don't see any evidence that humans were made for a "Purpose". We got our chance to emerge as the dominant life-form because the dinosaurs were wiped out after a giant asteroid crashed into the Earth 65 million years ago. Assuming the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, there could be a parallel universe where the asteroid missed the Earth, and dinosaurs never became extinct. Instead, they may have evolved into something intelligent and there would be a race of "reptile people" ruling the Earth instead of us apes. To me, our existence doesn't suggest the outcome of a grand plan. Just pure luck.
"No, if the Bible is correct, then ET doesn't exist. If ET exists, then the Bible is wrong."
Would it really matter that much if the Bible turned out to be wrong? I can't imagine civilization falling apart if that were the case. -
greg-233 — 15 years ago(October 11, 2010 04:38 PM)
I think I remember you mentioning quantum mechanics on the Richard Dawkins board a while back! You said something about
The Legion of Time
by Jack Williamson.
Haven't people been saying civilization is falling apart for centuries?
"Without a belief in biblical inerrancy, the Bible becomes just a bunch of opinions and loses all credibility, with consequences for Christendom and Western civilization that we're seeing today."
At the end of the day, aren't
all
religions just a bunch of opinions?
Carl Sagan's book
The Demon-Haunted World
mentions religion here and there. Basing the structure of society solely on religious texts would have dangerous consequences of their own. For example, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live." Thankfully, most people no longer take that bit seriously. Sagan talks about the torture and burning of witches in one chapter. Here's an endorsement for the book by James Randi: