jump to navigation

Stephen Hawking Says Something From Nothing Is Possible Because… September 4, 2010

Posted by BrewFan in Art, Food, Gardening, Sports.
trackback

Updated and Bumped: Here is a link to the whole article.

I can’t prove that God exists. Anybody who says they can is a liar. But I can provide evidence for the existence of God. Each one of us then has to weigh the evidence and then render a verdict. What Hawkings is doing is dismissing some of the most important evidence (“Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God.”) on the basis of an assertion that the spontaneous creation of something from nothing is supported by the law of gravity and quantum theory. WTF? He then asserts “Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.” So the law of gravity and quantum theory don’t apply to other universes? Does that mean that God could have created those other universes? Am I the only one that finds such reasoning unbecoming of such a great scientist?

He says so! Well, that settles that.

The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

About these ads

Comments»

1. wiserbud - September 2, 2010

*sniff

*sniff sniff

Is…. is this a new post?

I do so enjoy seeing intellectuals (and others who think they are) spend so much time trying to denounce something that, according to their personal belief system, doesn’t even exist.

It’s almost as if, for some reason, they need their opinions to be fact. The alternative is just too scary for them to contemplate.

2. Michael - September 2, 2010

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.

Huh? If there is a law of gravity, you can’t say there is nothing.

You can’t even say there is just a law. Gravity can’t be a law in the absence of matter.

3. Suburban Scarecrow - September 2, 2010

I believe that Hawking’s statement is a logical fallacy called “begging the question.” I thought he was supposed to be a smart fellow.

4. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere - September 2, 2010

Reminds me of the joke about the guy who figured out how to create life and challenged God, who much to his suprise, showed up.

Guy recovered quickly, and God said “Show me what you got, hot stuff.”

Guy grabbed a test tube and said “Watch this, and he bent down to grab some dirt.”

Behind him he heard God say “AhAhAh Ah. Make your own dirt.”

5. Tushar - September 2, 2010

If I were God, I would give Stephen his speech back, and ask him to shut up.

6. kevl - September 2, 2010

Stupid brainiac.

7. Mitchell - September 2, 2010

Poor fellow. It sounds like he’s descending into senility.

8. Mitchell - September 2, 2010

Seriously, that’s just nonsensical double talk. He could have said “It’s turtles all the way down” and be as valid.

9. God - September 2, 2010

LOL

10. Hotspur - September 4, 2010

So, Who instituted that law of gravity?

11. Michael - September 4, 2010

It sounds like Hawking is trying to take on the argument from First Cause, which is a logical dead end anyway, and it’s already been done to death. You can never explain why the First Cause does not need a cause. If that is what his book is up to, he is grappling with a straw man. God does not reveal himself as a rational necessity.

12. Anonymous - September 4, 2010

But who created God? I’m betting it was that tricky bugger Allah.

13. Cathy - September 4, 2010

But who created God? I’m betting it was that tricky bugger Allah

The human mind is a terrible thing to waste.

14. BrewFan - September 4, 2010

But who created God? I’m betting it was that tricky bugger Allah.

God is eternal so He didn’t need to be created.

15. hudson duster - September 4, 2010

I always thought Hawking had to be smarter than that because even I can see through it. Where did gravity come from? And why does it get so unpredictable when I drink?

16. Martin Luther (the first, the original, the unique) - September 4, 2010

When reason gets in the way of faith, then throw reason out.

Reason is presumptuous enough to plunge into many matters like a blind horse.

17. Cathy - September 4, 2010

God: Who is it that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?!! (Job 38:2-ff)

Me: Um. Lord, that would be Stephen Hawking.

God: Stephen, brace yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer me.

Where were you when I laid down the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you understand!!

…Surely, Steve, you know, you elitist joke, for you were already born! Yes, Stevie boy, I, God, see clearly that you have lived so many years! You should be grateful that I have not yet wiped you clean from this beautiful earth, my creation, in which I placed you and gifted you!

*Cathy joins God in eye-ball rolls and face palms*

Stephen Hawking Computer Voice: Hey God, did you read my book?

18. Russ from Winterset - September 4, 2010

What this post needs is….a musical interlude!

Because when you’re having a metaphysical argument between God and Steven Hawking, the only man alive who can mediate the fight is Billy Preston.

19. BrewFan - September 4, 2010

ha! Nice selection, Russ.

20. Michael - September 5, 2010

That was impressive, Russ.

Is Billy Preston a Lutheran?

21. Russ from Winterset - September 5, 2010

I don’t know, Michael, but I think a better question would be: Are Lutherans Billy Preston?

22. Ron Krumpos - September 5, 2010

In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

23. Michael - September 5, 2010

The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Exactly how does this relate to Billy Preston?

24. Michael - September 5, 2010

Also, Ron, how much money did you spend on your bong?

25. Cathy - September 6, 2010

Ya think Krumpitz has a hypothetical formula that measures annoyance levels of subjects responding to him?

Has he yet to develop and test the rate of speed at which he bores a human mind into mystical unconsciousness?

Inquiring minds wanna know this shit.

26. Mr Black - September 6, 2010

Oh dear, ignorant religous folk attacking science because they understand neither the basic principles nor the specifics that are being talked about.

If you want to believe in god, all power to you. Far be it from me to deny people their faith. But trying to jam god and science into the same conversation is silly, and it always will be. There is as much “evidence” for god as there is for magical dragons. Don’t try to turn zero evidence into some kind of scientific failure. It is simply your own failure to understand.

27. Michael - September 6, 2010

Mr. Black, I did not attack science at all, nor do I fail to understand it. I mocked Ron because he was making an attempt to equate the special theory of relativity with some sort of sophomoric oriental mysticism.

We’ve all heard that kind of pontification before. Normally, weed is involved.

We agree that “trying to jam god and science into the same conversation is silly.” That’s why the reports on Stephen Hawking’s book sound like it is silly as well.

28. Michael - September 6, 2010

By the way, I also do not intend to denigrate oriental mysticism. My own faith is a near eastern mystery religion. It got started by this really strange guy in Israel.

29. Cathy - September 6, 2010

But trying to jam god and science into the same conversation is silly, and it always will be.

Since God gave us intellect and the ability to reason things out, which is what the word ‘science’ means, I doubt God sees the problem the same way you do, Mr. Black.

Sometimes science and human reason have limits. We are not God and therefore are unable to noodle out everything. Some things are beyond our ability to reason. There is nothing wrong with a dose of humility in an intelligent human who knows when it’s time to stop trying to reason and let that issue go to faith or lack of faith if one chooses. Many great scientists would or have already agreed with this notion. Our intellect can even help us reason WHEN it is time to stop employing reason. Others have come to this conclusion, including Einstein. Maybe you could give it a try. Why are you pointing the finger? Sheesh!

Your words sound even sillier than Hawking’s.

30. Cathy - September 6, 2010

I simply can’t decide which of these statements is a more fun or delightful target for playful metacognizance.

Oh dear, ignorant religous folk attacking science because they understand neither the basic principles nor the specifics that are being talked about.

Don’t try to turn zero evidence into some kind of scientific failure. It is simply your own failure to understand.
.
.
Mr. Black misspelled RELIGIOUS.

Mr. Black might consider instructing Mr. Hawking’s reasoning with that second one.

*snigger*

31. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere - September 6, 2010

But trying to jam god and science into the same conversation is silly, and it always will be.

Sir Francis Bacon and Michael Faraday are outside. They’d like a word or two with you.

32. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere - September 6, 2010

It is simply your own failure to understand.

To understand what, exactly?

33. BrewFan - September 6, 2010

Sir Francis Bacon and Michael Faraday are outside. They’d like a word or two with you.

Ha! Mr. Black is one of those people who don’t know or like to ignore the fact that science is a branch of philosophy not vice versa.

34. Cathy - September 6, 2010

To understand what, exactly?

What evah Blackhellhole thinks he understands that gets him to view himself above the rest of the unwashed masses.

35. lauraw - September 6, 2010

*sniff*

He may have a point…

*runs away*

36. BrewFan - September 6, 2010

*tackles lauraw as she makes her getaway and gives her the ‘soli deo gloria’*

37. lauraw - September 6, 2010

*puts up a phony halfass feint of a struggle*

38. Tushar - September 6, 2010

>>But trying to jam god and science into the same conversation is silly, and it always will be.

**points finger at Stephen Hawking**

He fuckin started it.

39. Sobek - September 6, 2010

“Where were you when I laid down the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you understand!!”

Huh. I just quoted that (in Arabic) on my current art project. Coincidence? Or is Cathy stalking me in Arabic?

40. Cathy - September 6, 2010

Hi Sobek. Say hello to your lovely life-partner.

41. Sobek - September 6, 2010

Not really on-topic, but I’ve been kicking this around in my little moron-brain for a while, and I might as well type it up.

A while back we had a lengthy conversation here about religion, in which Amish basically made the “why do bad things happen to good people” argument, or the Problem of Pain. Well, most any argument can be reduced to a syllogism (or a series thereof), so I tried it with the Problem of Pain argument, which basically turns into this:

A. A just and loving God would not allow unfair pain to exist.
B. Pain exists.
Therefore,
C. There is no such thing as a just and loving God.

The logic itself looks sound, if the premises can be established. Premise B looks unassailable. But Premise A looks like argument by assertion, and nothing else, even if it is a very common assertion (expressed in many ways, beginning with “a just and perfect God logically must…” and with any number of possible endings).

The reason Premise A looks so odd to me is that a central pillar of the Christian faith – indeed, a key component in the single most important thing ever to happen in the history of everything – was the brutal suffering, torture and death of a person who Christians believe was literally the only person ever who didn’t do anything to deserve pain.

That’s not meant to justify the suffering of others: not at all. My point is that if one of the most important things that Christians believe runs fundamentally counter to the asserted Premise A, then the entire argument is meaningless. The perfect counter to “God wouldn’t let bad things happen to good people” is our faith that God let the worst possible thing happen to the best possible person.

In sum, if you believe in Christianity, there is no such thing as the Problem of Pain, stated as an argument against the existence of God. There is still the difficult matter of dealing with that pain as it comes – no trifling matter – but it has nothing to do with whether God exists.

42. Sobek - September 6, 2010

Will do, Cathy. We’re both very sorry we can’t make it down to Texas to hang out with all y’all.

43. geoff - September 6, 2010

A. A just and loving God would not allow unfair painMichael to exist.
B. PainMichael exists.
Therefore,
C. There is no such thing as a just and loving God.

There. Now it’s unassailable.

44. Ron Krumpos - September 9, 2010

Before you guys gang up on me, reread the last sentence:
This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Most religious people have an anthropomorphic image of God, as some Grand Being “up there.” Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Nobel physicist, in 1959 invited me to the University of Chicago’s Yerkes Observatory. He introduced me to mysticism and the universality of the Universe.

Chandra once said “God is man’s greatest creation.” He wasn’t questioning God just people who shape God to their preferred image.

PS Most of you are much to young to remember the Sutherland Lounge. I once took him there to hear John Coltrane. He loved it. Coltrane’s second wife Alice later became a Hindu swami in Southern Caifornia:
http://www.myspace.com/alicemcleod

45. BrewFan - September 9, 2010

Most religious people have an anthropomorphic image of God

I know I do

46. Tushar - September 9, 2010

>>B. Pain Michael exists.

He is just a figment of your imagination.

47. Cathy - September 9, 2010

He is just a figment of your imagination.

…a fig-newton of your imagination.

48. Ron Krumpos - September 9, 2010

Cathy,

You said Sometimes science and human reason have limits. True mystics agree with you. How about that shit?

49. Russ from Winterset - September 9, 2010

I wonder why this conversation seems to be moving in a random series of arcs that form no discernable pattern. You know what the simple way to put question would be?

Yeah. That’s right. The answer is still Billy Preston, bitches.

50. Russ from Winterset - September 9, 2010

OK, in the interest of bipartisanship, here’s a song about some science stuff.

You’re welcome.

51. John Menuis - September 22, 2010

Someone asked “Where did gravity come from?” I ask Where did GOD come from?

52. Michael - September 22, 2010

Texas.

53. sandy burger - September 22, 2010

Since nit-picking at Michael makes me happy, I just want to point out that this statement:

Gravity can’t be a law in the absence of matter.

is entirely wrong.

54. Tushar - September 22, 2010

I bemoan the fact that no one appreciated the irony and hilarity of my comment #5. This place is turning into H2.

55. BrewFan - September 22, 2010

I ask Where did GOD come from?

God is eternal, the First Cause. HTH

56. Russ from Winterset - September 22, 2010

Classic discussion of sciency-type stuff!

57. Mitchell - September 22, 2010

This is God’s view of people like Stephan Hawking trying to figure stuff out:

To be fair, it’s not just S.H. who looks like that – we all do.

58. H.S.Pal - September 30, 2010

A CRITIQUE OF THE VOID

If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one can depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

Footnote: If the universe is treated as a whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.

CLIMAX

I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.
H.S.PAL

59. skinbad - September 30, 2010

Welcome to the party, Pal.

60. Jason Tannery - August 26, 2011

Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy.

The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’:

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’:

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe.

Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation. The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation:

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

61. Michael - August 26, 2011

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects.

Jason, apparently you have not considered the Boob Paradox. You need to think this over some more.

62. BrewFan - August 26, 2011

I think the shakespeare monkeys-with-typewriters have turned their attention to the sciences.

63. Jason Tannery - September 17, 2011

Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.

Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.

If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.

Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

64. Jason Tannery - September 17, 2011

Michael,

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects.

Read carefully the above sentence, there have to be some objects that could attract force, i.e. gravity. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist without the influence of objects or masses.

65. Michael - September 17, 2011

Jason, have you ever actually played with boobs?

66. Jason Tannery - September 19, 2011

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.

Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:

The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

67. Anonymous - April 16, 2012

Idiots who say God is eternal. Are you that dumb? That is the ultimate copout and a fallacy in itself. Not only did God come out of nothing. You also forget God creates things out of nothing.

68. zuma - August 14, 2012

There are many galaxies in this world and yet there is orderliness among each group of galaxies in which each orbit its own centre of mass. For instance, if the universe would be generated by itself through Big Bang Theory or Steady Stage Theory, the likeliness of disorderliness would occur that each galaxy would not orbit its own centre of mass. Instead, all the planets of the galaxies would fly around everywhere aimlessly in this universe and that would cause all the inhabitants on the earth to be in danger due to the likeliness that the earth to be crashed by other galaxies. Some galaxies might be even worse, to the extent, hitting each other. This is due to nothing would force the new galaxy to be formed to move in such a way that it would orbit its own centre of mass. It seems to be that each time when a new galaxy is formed, the same pattern, i.e. each would orbit its own centre of mass, would appear. The orderliness of all the galaxies in their movements around their own centre of mass gives the impression that there should be one that is in control of the entire universe. Religious people call it, God

69. zuma - August 14, 2012

The reasons why the data that have been gathered for red shift and blue shift from the observation of galaxies through the use of telescope might not be served as a guide that the world would be expanding:
a) The accuracy of the telescope that has been used to determine whether the galaxies would be in red shift and blue shift in order to conclude that the galaxies would moving away or towards the earth could be in question. In short distance of viewing an object, the telescope could identify accurately the change of the size of planet from big to small or small to big so as to give signal whether it should be in blue shift or red shift. However, if the object is placed very far away from telescope, the object that is shown in the screen on the telescope would be very small. The telescope might turn up to show one signal as a result of its inability to identify the accuracy of change of size of the object as if that all the galaxies are moving far away from the earth. Or in other words, it might have given wrong signal that the world would be expanding due to the inaccuracy of the telescope since it might be accurate in short distance with a big object and yet it might not be accurate if if would be in very small and tiny object that would appear on the screen when it would be placed many miles far away from the earth. Thus, the accuracy of the telescope might be in question since it has not been tested whether it could be accurate when objects would appear to be very tiny and small on the screen..
b) The telescope might have been tested on earth to be accurate in short distance and yet it has not been tested from one galaxy to another so as to determine whether it is still accurate to measure the movement of object in the galaxies that is located in many miles far away from the earth.
c) If you would blow a balloon, all the substances in the balloon would be shaken and vibrated. Even if they would be creatures inside the balloon, all the creatures would feel the strong pressure, i.e. wind, pulling them towards the corner of this balloon. Why is it that we that are on earth would not feel the pressure that the earth would be expanding? As we know if we blow the balloon, all the things in the balloon would fly away and would turn up to be in messy order. Question has to be raised. Why is that the air would still remain on earth despite the great pressure that has caused galaxies to advance as a result of expanding? No matter the pressure would externally influence as a result of the world expanding, nothing has affected the earth and it seems to be that something is controlling the earth to make it a secure place. Religious people call it, God.
d) If you blow a balloon, all the substance would go travel towards the corner of this balloon. Let’s use blowing balloon to explain the galaxies. Let’s assume that you blow from the Mars, you would certainly see blue shift as well as red shift since some galaxies would move towards the earth from Mars. If you would blow from the sun, the same, you would still see some galaxies moving towards the earth since there are some galaxies from the sun would move towards the earth from the sun. However, if you would blow from the earth as a centre outwards, you would then see all galaxies would be moving far away from the earth. Now question has to be raised. The assumption that all galaxies would have been moving far away from the earth seems to presume that the earth would be stagnant and all galaxies would be advancing away from the earth. As the earth would turn up to be the centre of the universe, it turns up that a person would view from any side of the earth would turn up to be that all galaxies seem to moving away from earth. This seems to be weird and irrational.
The reliability of data gathered from scientist that the world would be expanding is in question.

70. zuma - August 16, 2012

The word, universe, as mentioned below refers to the entire system that is made up of many galaxies instead of a galaxy by itself.
Big Bang Theory assumes that galaxies are advancing towards the edge of the universe as a result of the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be in this entire universe:
a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
b)It is rational to assume that our galaxy is in accelerating speed in which many galaxies would be moving far away from us. As a result of it, it reflects red shift. However, as our galaxy would be travelling faster than other galaxies, there would be a likeliness that our galaxy would overtake other galaxies that are moving ahead of us towards the corner of universe and that would reflect unavoidably blue shift. As our galaxy gets closer to those galaxies that are moving ahead of us since our galaxy is accelerating, those galaxies that are behind us would show red shift and those that are ahead of us in which our galaxy would overtake them soon as a result of accelerating, would show blue shift. Thus, it is inevitable to have red shift as well as blue if our galaxy is in the midst of those galaxies to advance towards the corner of the universe.
From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
Let’s assume that our earth would be stagnant in the centre of the universe, the above events would not occur since we would only see red shift instead of blue.
To presume that our earth would be in the centre of the universe and all other galaxies would be advancing away from us, is rather irrational and not justifiable.
The above have caused us to question whether it is accurate to use light from the star that is run through a spectrophotometer so as to determine whether it is red shift or blue for the determination whether the universe would be expanding.

71. zuma - August 16, 2012

Let’s presume that spectrophotometer could be a reliable source to be used to detect all galaxies would be advancing further away from the earth. It might not give any sufficient reason that this entire universe would be expanding on the condition if our universe has already been extended into infinity. If our entire universe has already been extended up to infinity in the beginning of the creation of this universe or somewhere later, the red shift that is reflected in spectrophotometer nowadays could only reflect the advancement of galaxies and it would not imply the further expansion of universe since the space of the universe has already been extended in the infinity without any end initially and needed not to been extended further currently.
Some might have pointed out that the website below, has computed the size of the universe to prove that there could be a boundary of this universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151 The formula that they use to compute the size of the universe is by means of the basic 184K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion years age of the universe. The above computation is based upon the assumption that the universe would be expanding. As the assumption that the space might not be extended fully and it assumes that the extension of space would progress accordingly with the age of universe as well as the speed of light, the computation of the size of the universe has been done by using the age of the entire universe to be multiplied by the speed of light that travels in space. Now a question has to be raised. If this world would have already been extended to infinity initially, it is inappropriate to use the speed of light to be multiplied by the age of this universe so as to compute the size of the universe since this universe itself would have already been developed into infinity without boundary in the very beginning.
From the above explanation, it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially in the very beginning.

72. Retired Geezer - August 16, 2012

This Zuma fellow seems like he’s done some studying.

73. Michael - August 16, 2012

it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially in the very beginning.

Damn! I was gonna make the exact same point, and Zuma beat me to it.

74. zuma - August 20, 2012

Refer to the website here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 There are about 100 known galaxies that are in blue shifts. As there are so many blue shifts, it is irrational to use many red shifts that have been discovered through Hubble telescope to conclude that this universe would be expanding. The following are the reasons why it is irrational to conclude that the universe would be expanding to support Big Bang Theory:
a) This universe might have been extended up to infinity in the past and there would have no place currently for further expansion since the space would be in infinity without boundary currently. If that would be so, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this entire universe would be expanding.
b) Even if this entire universe might have a boundary, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this universe would be expanding due to these blue shifts might reflect there could be some galaxies that would have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of universe for their return. As some of these 100 over galaxies could have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of the universe for their return and yet many still struggling behind in advancing and would have not reached the corner of the universe yet due to the expanse of universe and it would take many and many years for galaxies to reach its corner of the universe for their return, these would have turned up to be more red shifts than blue.
As the universe might not be expanding as a result of the exceptional cases of above, it is irrational to use many red shifts than blue to conclude this universe would be expanding so as to support Big Bang Theory.

75. zuma - September 5, 2012

What is Big Bang Theory? The following is the definition of Big Bang theory that has been extracted from the third paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, under the sub-title of ‘Big Bang’:
‘The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, THE UNIVERSE WAS ONCE IN AN EXTREMELY HOT AND DENSE STATE which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a SINGULARITY, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.’
As the phrase, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state, is mentioned in the definition of the Big Bang theory, it implies that something would have caused that universe to be once in an extremely hot and dense state. If nothing would have caused the universe to be extremely hot and dense state, how could the universe be in hot and dense condition? Or in other words, there must be something that would have caused the universe to be hot in order that Big Bang theory could be triggered off. This certainly contradicts Stephen Hawking’s theory that supports that something could be generated from nothing. This is by virtue of Big Bang theory requires heat and dense state instead of nothing in order to trigger off Big Bang theory and yet the phrase, something could be generated from nothing as suggested by Stephen Hawking, implies the absence of anything and this includes also heat and dense condition.
The phrase, After its initial expansion from a singularity, as mentioned in the same paragraph in the website address above gives us the impression that Big Bang theory is the continuation theory of General Relativity.
The following is the extract from the first paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Timeline of the Big Bang’:
‘Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GENERAL RELATIVITY yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. THIS SINGULARITY IS SOMETIMES CALLED “THE BIG BANG”, but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the “birth” of our Universe.’
Both phrases, general relativity, and , singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”, as extracted above give us the idea that Big Bang theory is meant for general relativity.
What is General Relativity? The following is the definition of General Relativity as extracted from the second paragraph under the sub-title, Introduction to General Relativity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity:
‘General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Eistein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time.’
The phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, as mentioned in this definition gives the implication that the general relativity has their derivation from three elements and there are masses, space and time. It is only at the existence of masses that has been coordinated with the warping of space and time that these would contribute the gravitational attraction.
As mentioned early that Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity and yet the General Relativity is only at work among masses, space and time. As masses have to be needed to be in existence in order to have the creation of General Relativity and yet Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity, it gives the implication that the masses of substances have to be present in order to generate Big Bang theory. As the existence of masses of substances would then generate Big Bang theory, Stephen Hawking’s theory that Big Bang theory would create something out of nothing would be wrong. This is by virtue of it is the must to have masses of substances to interact with time and space so as to generate Big Bang theory.
Now a question has to be raised. As it is a must to have masses of substances in order to generate Big Bang theory that would result from their warping of space of time and yet Big Bang theory requires nothing to generate something, all these point to the fact that the Big Bang theory itself is unscientific and contradictorily and cannot be reliable.

76. zuma - September 8, 2012

Does the absence of cosmological constant from Einstein Field Equation supports this universe could be created to be something from nothing?
The following is the extract under the sub-title, Einstein Field Equations, from the website address, http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cosmological_constant:
(…where G is the gravitational constant. .. This “cosmological constant” was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, and it is given the symbol Λ .
R μν -1/2 Rg μν + Λ μν =8πGT μν (2)
When Λ is positive it acts as a repulsive force. )
As the phrase, the ‘cosmological constant was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that Einstein presumed that the universe should be in static stage and that was why he inserted Λ μν into his equation.
At the absence of cosmological constant, Λ μν, from the above equation, the universe would turn up not to be static universe and the equation should be:
R μν -1/2 Rg μν =8πGT μν
From the equation above, the space time as expressed by (R μν -1/2 Rg μν) has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant.
What is gravitational constant? The mathematical formula of gravitational constant could be located in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation, under the sub-title, Newton’s law of universal gravitation as indicated below:
{F = G (m1 m2)/(r) the power of 2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}
From the above formula, it is obvious that F, the force between the masses, has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant. If the gravitational constant is zero, the force between the masses should be zero too. Or in other words, there should not be any gravity at the absence of masses. This certainly would not support Stephen Hawking’s theory that mentions that gravity could exist at the absence of masses so as to generate something out of nothing.
As gravitational constant has to deal with masses and the Eistein Field Equation, i.e. R μν-1/2Rg μν=8πGT μν, has to deal with gravitational constant, it gives the ultimate conclusion that Eistein Field Equation has to deal with masses despite the absence of cosmological constant. Or in other words, in order that Eistein Field Equation to be at work, masses of substances must be in existence in order to generate General Relativity. Thus, it opposes the theory that supports that universe could be generated to something out of nothing.

77. geoff - September 8, 2012

*shakes head sadly*

A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

78. wintersetruss - September 8, 2012

All this science jibber-jabber? When the best response on the thread is back at #18? Madness.

79. zuma - September 12, 2012

Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
(The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
(The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.

80. zuma - September 17, 2012

a)What is the impact on mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2) and energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete? Should the law of conservation of mass and energy be abandoned? Should we abandon the law of conservation of mass and energy to accept Big Bang Theory since there are contradictory?
Indeed, all the things in this universe are in the operation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. The following is the possible scenario if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete:
All chemistry and scientific formula could never be equal due to the possible and unexpected creation and/or destruction of mass and/or energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete. Let’s give you an illustration. As we know H2 + O = H2O (water). What if there would be a destruction of oxygen, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2. What if there would be a creation of nitrogen in the interval, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2 + O + N. The absence of the law of conservation of mass and energy would turn up to be that H2 + O could never be equal to H2O. As the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, H2 + O would turn up to be equal to H2O. Let’s give you another illustration. E = MC^2 (mass –energy equivalence). If the law of conservation of mass and energy does not work on mass-energy equivalence, the equation could never be equal. What if there would be a destruction of energy, the equation would turn up to be E – E1 = MC^2. What if there was a creation of mass by 10000 times during the process, the equation would turn up to be E = 10000*MC^2. What if there was a destruction of mass by N, the equation would turn up to be E = (M-N)C^2. What if there was a destruction of energy by 80%, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2*20%. As mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2. If the law of conservation of energy and mass is not at work, the General Relativity’s formula could never be established as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv. What if the energy would be destroyed by 80%, the equation would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = [(8 Pi G/c4) Tuv.]*20%. Besides, as we know G = gravitational constant and gravitational constant has been established as {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) ^2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}. If substance could be destroyed completely in the interval, the equation would turn up to be F = G(m10)/(r)^2. What if there would be a sudden creation of m3 in the interval, F =G(m1m2m3)/[(r1)^2*(r2)^2*(r3)^2]. Note: r1 is the distance between m1 and m2; r2 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m1 and m3; and r3 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m2 and m3. All these would alter the result of gravitational constant and have direct influence upon the equation of General Relativity. What if there would be a creation or destruction of energy, T, the General Relativity would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv + or – T. Or in other words, the mathematical formula for mass-energy equivalence could never balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy has become obsolete. It is upon the law of conversation of energy and mass that the formula has turned up to be equal due to there would not be any creation or destruction of mass or energy.
Mass-energy equivalence expresses that E = MC^2 and that implies that matter could be converted to energy. However, this equation does not imply that energy may be converted to matters. There is no evidence from scientists that energy can be converted to matter currently. As energy could not be converted to matter, how could Big Bang Theory support that the creation could start up with energy from a very hot condensed state in a very tiny point whereby the energy could be converted to mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this modern universe as if that mass could be created in which the law of conservation of mass states that it cannot?
b)How could the density of the hot condense state in a very tiny point as suggested by Big Bang Theory be greater than the density of rock of any planets? If the density of the hot condense state could not be greater than the density of rock of any planets, how could the mass in this very tiny point be equal to the total mass of all the planets and etc. in this modern world? This is by virtue of the total mass that would be in the hot condense state must be equal to the total mass of all the planets, stars and etc. that are among all galaxies since the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created.
c)Some might comment that the particles in the space might not carry much mass. As we know there is electromagnetic wave in the space and each wave carries much particles. As much space in vacuum state implies more particles for much electromagnetic wave, much space implies much mass and carries more weight.
d)If you might know the experiment that has been carried out through Large Hadron Collider at CERN, you should have known that it serves no purpose to convince the world that universe in the very hot dense could produce a mass of a huge planet. This is by virtue of we have heard of the production of matter and antimatter through it and yet none of the experiments have come to our mind that it could produce a big planet through this machine and not even a small little sand. For instance, if LHC could be so efficient to create an environment that would meet the condition that is required by Big Bang Theory, the experiment should show a creation of a planet or a small little rock instead of a tiny particle. Some might consider the existence of 6 dimensions to be at work. Why is it that the possible existence of 6 dimensions could not cause LHC to generate a piece of rock instead of tiny small particles currently when this system has generated the environment that seems to meet the condition that Big Bang Theory should be? If LHC could not create a piece of rock but small particles, how could we be sure that the very tiny point that has been assumed by scientists in Big Bang Theory in the beginning could create the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this current universe?
e)Would there be possible that LHC could create new particles?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/What+is+the+LHC/11833.aspx:
(The LHC accelerates two beams of atomic particles in opposite directions around the 27km collider. When the particle beams reach their maximum speed the LHC allows them to ‘collide’ at 4 points on their circular journey.
Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide and detectors, placed around the collision points, allow scientists to identify these new particles by tracking their behaviour. )
As the phrase, Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide, is mentioned above, it implies the new particles could be generated from LHC. However, question has to be raised about the two initial beams of atomic particles in opposite directions before the collision. Where should they be after the collision? It seems to be that the initial two beams should have vanished. The two initial beams should have been transformed into these thousands of new particles after colliding instead of being treated as new particles are created out from nothing. This is the same logic as why a new product, water, should be formed when hydrogen is burned in the air.

81. zuma - September 18, 2012

As the formula of mass-energy equivalence would not balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete, the end-result would turn up to be that mass-energy equivalence would be questionable due to the formation of equation to esablish General Relativity could not be established. The end-result that the law of conservation of mass and energy would be obsolete would be E cannot be equal to MC^2 and Ruv – (1/2) guv R cannot be equal to (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv due to the possible creation and destruction of mass and energy. If mass-energy equivalence and General Relativity could not be established as a result of the law of conservation of energy and mass has turned up to be obsolete, the theory could not be used to Big Bang Theory. This reliability of this theory is still questionable.

82. rd - January 27, 2013

I feel it is not possible to ever have nothing for nothingness is something having nothing still is an exsitence of nothing there fore having something

83. rd - January 27, 2013

there is no way to ever have nothing because nothing exists as nothing thus creating something out of nothing. you think?

84. rd - January 27, 2013

the reason we (you and I) dont know what there was before there was nothing is because we have not imagined it yet and there fore know not its name.

85. rd - January 27, 2013

Laws of science and nature are only byproducts of creation

86. rd - January 27, 2013

Oh yeah i would say the Apple does not fall far from the tree but not true of the seed

87. wintersetruss - January 27, 2013

What if dog were actually spelled…..C-A-T?

(once again, skip all the tomfoolery & scroll back to comment #18)

88. Anonymous - January 28, 2013

so what if GOD is an alien? Its still GOD’S law and GOD is still GOD.Better do what GOD says. Aliens or Angels are spoken of many times within the Bible. IF GOD is more spiritual and less alien in nature. Don’t you know that GOD made aliens(angels) too? If one was GOD and can make all things. Wouldn’t one make many things from IMAGINATION? Its probably a more comlex simplicity for GOD to know than we as humans. No telling how many times life has been stopped and started on this world not counting the many we have not seen. To be atheist takes more faith than to believe in GOD and Jesus Christ for there is our existence and THE WORD. More and more artifacts are being found that confirm the Bible..There is more proof that GOD exists than proof that GOD does not exit. Supernatural -science cannot explain. Just because one cannot explain it does not mean it does not exit.

89. rd - January 28, 2013

Man can grow a tree but he cannot make the seed. Hmmmm lets see-could it have been GOD? Very good possiblity. Yep.

90. BrewFan - January 28, 2013

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

91. Jow Blow - June 7, 2013

GOD = I don’ know and can’t conceive of anything outside my personal experience, so this will have to do.

92. zuma - August 4, 2013

Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.

In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.

The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:

a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.

b)The creation of sun:

According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:

Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.

As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.

c)The creation of stars:

Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.

As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.

The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.

How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

93. Ed Gordon - August 22, 2013

Im looking at some of these responses on here spanning the last few years. You religious folk come across so smug as you demean science and tout your imaginary, unproven god. You try and make scientific explanations of things sound like they’re the stupidest, most idiotic things you have ever heard in your lives. Let me remind all of you that your rebuttal to these things are Magic apples, talking snakes, people riding in whales as if they were submarines, people walking on water and turning one fish into hundreds of fish, and one glass of wine into gallons of wine. And then theres my personal “favorite,” coming back from the dead after 3 days of rotting away in a cave. Step back and really think about all that stuff for a second and say it out loud to yourselves…….there……..do you hear how that sounds? RIDICULOUS is how it sounds.

94. Jaime Roldos - September 21, 2013

I seriously doubt the author of this blog understands the science behind Hawking’s theory. I do find it amusing that creationists find Hawkings theory so threatening. Believe him, don’t believe him. But, getting all bent out of shape speaks volumes.

95. Anonymous - January 19, 2014

If I ask you to lend me 20 dollars and I tell you I will pay you back in 24 hours , you have two choices. You can either believe me or not believe me. If I tell you God created the universe and all it contains you have two choices .You can either believe me or not believe me.If God tells me money is the root of all evil and I would have to burn the 20 dollars ,(if you lend it to me that is).I have two choices.I can either believe God or not believe God.In 24 hours If I tell you God said money was evil and to burn it(the 20 dollars I am holding in my pocket)you have two choices . You can either believe me or not believe me.Those who believe God exists will lend me 20 dollars only if the facts show i am trustworthy which inturn will be based on my past dealings with others .Atheists will probably do the same.In the second statement those who believe God exists will not reqiure any facts ,but the atheists will once again reqiure some evidence of fact before being convinced/.Those who believe God exists will misinterperate the third statement,as all men are born sinners and by giving the church a percentage they may keep the rest and that the evil athiests and there foolish facts should be banished from the ever expanding universe.The athiests will probably relunctantly agree money is the root of all evil but never discuss it .The last statement will once again be altered by those who believe God exists, claiming the Devil disguised as God was who I was listening to and by burning the 20 dollars I would be investing in HELL.They of course insisted I invest in the church to save all our souls before its to late.The athiests would of course cry foul ,jump me wrestle me to the ground to get their 20 dollars back.,which they truly believe they lent me 24 hours ago.No ones perfect one wrong doesnt take away all the rights.I know Stephen hawkins is 100% correct when he says everthing was indeed created from nothing.You see how our universe in its present state is governed by the many laws of physics,etc These coexist with matter,etc..Now if all that exists is removed you have nothing.Can we all agree?Both athiests ,, christians,all else who believe in God Agree there was a beginning.So in the beginning when there was nothin no laws no money nothin, all this empty space contained infinite energy at infinite speed as every part was the same as the other as there was nothin there but not governed by anything nothin exploded into somethin, energy slowed ,mass appeared then us with our scales to weigh it. oh i used to believe in santa claus but found out otherwise,i have never believed in god but i asked one time what god was and the reply was somethin like an all emcompasing being who occupied everyone of us and the entire universe.there you could possibly say that we were created from god but can never prove cuse all us pieces would have to get together to agree and if we ever did we would all disappear angod would suddenly reapper and exclaim ooooohhhh.what a rush. These facts are purely fictional for we were never here.

96. Anonymous - January 22, 2014

it is not possible to have nothing. Why? Because nothing(nothingness) is still something. So there for you cant have something without nothing or nothing without something


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 175 other followers

%d bloggers like this: