What did Hawking mean?

[DontBeAfraid]

Doc... throw your computer away... throw your clothes away... stop eating any food that is grown or harvested with any kind of tools... turn off your power.... move out of your house... stop bathing with heated water... then tell us science has forged ahead in the wrong direction...

Tahn, the speed of light is the universal speed limit for anything that can exist in this universe. If the escape velocity for a massive object that resides in this universe is greater than the speed of light then photons cannot escape that object... if photons cant escape then it cannot reflect ANY light let alone produce any. Now go away.

[tahn1000]

and as i keep SAYING - it is a star which DOESN'T PRODUCE sufficient light in the visible realm. and that it's gravity is "so great" that light can't escape is WRONG.

[DontBeAfraid]

and as i keep SAYING - it is a star which DOESN'T PRODUCE sufficient light in the visible realm. and that it's gravity is "so great" that light can't escape is WRONG.

And as we keep saying MATH AND REALITY PROVE YOU ARE WRONG! What exactly do you have against math and reality anyways?

[tahn1000]

actually reality proves me right. and the maths that supposedly proves me wrong is THEORETICAL.

[DontBeAfraid]

Tahn... what happens to the gravitational pull of an object as its mass increases?

[Zer0th]

and as i keep SAYING - it is a star which DOESN'T PRODUCE sufficient light in the visible realm. and that it's gravity is "so great" that light can't escape is WRONG.

You're tilting at windmills armed with a pea shooter.

I assume you would accept that gravity bends space since it's a trivial observation that the apparent position of a star in the sky is disturbed when its light passes close by a massive object like our star, right?

The following helped to explain why light can't escape the event horizon of black hole to a similarly-minded skeptic: within, there is simply no direction that is "out," every direction eventually leads to the supposed singularity because space, given sufficient gravity, is bent around into its own closed space. You might think of it as a sort-of mini universe.

Arguing otherwise is akin to saying black is white... unless you've got some serious backup, which you obvious haven't because nobody has.

[Cartesiantheater]

Tahn... what happens to the gravitational pull of an object as its mass increases?

And once you figure that out Tahn, what happens when mass increases but volume remains constant? (a picture of a force field (the physics kind, not the sci-fi kind) around a spherical object would help).

what you DON'T seem to get is that the part about light being unable to "escape" is an entirely false premise. it is not that light can't escape, BUT THAT THE STAR - WHICH IT STILL IS - generates insufficent light in the visible realm. and like any other object stuck out in space, you can't see what's behind it. and that the gravitational pull of a "black hole" is the same as any other star in the universe.

One problem with your idea here:

The planet Jupiter, which is not a star, gives off its own "light" - it shines out radio waves (a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, like light is).

This means that a "normal" star is not going to fit your description, because if a planet can give off EM waves, so can any star.






Also, your post HERE demonstrates once again your vast ignorance about physics.

and like any other object stuck out in space, you can't see what's behind it.

This is FALSE. Because Relativity is right, we actually can SEE behind massive objects due to a thing called gravitational lensing.

Educate yourself (i.e. just because something "makes sense" to you does not mean it is right. Reason alone is insufficient to understand the universe. You need EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0112132136.htm







This completely refutes that portion of your argument. We most certainly CAN see behind objects that have massive gravitational fields.

Because of gravitational lensing. Which is experimentally verified (whereas your entire argument is based entirely on your "theoretical" reasoning- you have done no experiments).

[palerider]

Dear readers,


I have since chatted with Cartesian and I have to say the misunderstanding was mine not Carts! I also have to apologise to Cart for jumping the gun and making unecessary comments.

The poor spelling is because I speed type, I should have distinguished more clearly between the two scientists. I also took offence when I shouldn't have.

Cart has made very succinct and valid criticisms and also argued well his points. To avoid any further misuse of language here, I implore you to focus on the arguments and not any disparity between persons [or otherwise].

[Freddy]

Yet Hawking doesn't even see the illogic of his own definition. Both Religion and Science are products of the eminently-fallible Human brain. Science is even more fallible than Religion, as Science is perpetually asking for evidence that may not be or can never be made available — therefore, Science comes to a standstill while awaiting proof, while Religion forges ahead based on Faith.

— Doc Velocity

Faith is nonsense!

[palerider]

[palerider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bl...ensing_web.gif

Has an animated gif of lensing, perhaps too simple?? And yes its round a black hole.

Thought it was quite funky!

[Cartesiantheater]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bl...ensing_web.gif

Here is your pic. Wikipedia doesn't let you post their images, so I saved it and went to image shack.

[palerider]

Cart, thanks...its been a few years since I played on forums etc


To Freddy:

Faith is not nonsense, thats misusing words, for example, faith in scientific evidence contradicts the notion that faith is nonsense [Iff you believe in scientific evidence that is]

Better to hold the argument around that which a person has or does not have faith in, I have faith in scientific evidence, but I have no faith in our current world leaders.

A person who has faith in christianity may not bode well with you, but a person who has faith in science may be your best friend ???

The word faith can be applied to many things. Its not the 'faith' word I look for, its what follows it....... thats what I dread!!

[Cartesiantheater]

Cart, thanks...its been a few years since I played on forums etc


To Freddy:

Faith is not nonsense, thats misusing words, for example, faith in scientific evidence contradicts the notion that faith is nonsense [Iff you believe in scientific evidence that is]

Better to hold the argument around that which a person has or does not have faith in, I have faith in scientific evidence, but I have no faith in our current world leaders.

A person who has faith in christianity may not bode well with you, but a person who has faith in science may be your best friend ???

The word faith can be applied to many things. Its not the 'faith' word I look for, its what follows it....... thats what I dread!!

It is not logically possible to believe something without evidence and believe it only because of evidence at the same time.


Faith in the context of faith in god does not mean the same thing as faith in evidence. In fact, using faith in the former context in evidence is a contradiction.

Faith: belief that is not based on evidence

Scientists only have faith in what the evidence shows BECAUSE of the evidence.
You'll have to go further than evidence to make that claim. You'll have to go all the way to faith that observation is trustworthy, that our senses and equipment tell us a lot about the universe.

[palerider]

Yes your right!!! But only if our using the word faith as it is defined in the dictionary, I had foolishly contemplated 'faith' as word that many now misuse, but hadn't considered the logic of what I am saying....damn...your good!!

[Cartesiantheater]

Yes your right!!! But only if our using the word faith as it is defined in the dictionary, I had foolishly contemplated 'faith' as word that many now misuse, but hadn't considered the logic of what I am saying....damn...your good!!

Your argument has more merit, I think, if you take it further, to whether what we observe with our eyes and equipment is trustworthy.

[palerider]

I don't want to side track from the Hawking debate too much....but will come back to you on this...hehe

[Cartesiantheater]

Anyway, back on topic, so Hawking is just saying that the universe had no need for a super natural first cause moment? Or is it something else?

[Zer0th]

Anyway, back on topic, so Hawking is just saying that the universe had no need for a super natural first cause moment? Or is it something else?

Hawking eliminated cause by arguing that time began at the Big Bang. No before = no cause since cause necessarily precedes effect.

When ABHOT was first published, the gravitational fate of the universe was considered less certain than today. A big crunch was an actively-considered possibility [in my book it still is]; which then suggested the possibility of a cyclical universe. To state, as he did, that to ask "what came before the Big Bang" is a meaningless question, is mere sophistry to a determined end... to undermine the primary metaphysical issue, why there is something rather than nothing.

A possible "better" answer is all too apparent, that the universi have always existed.
.

[johnBeeone]

Does He read the Entire Bible and a bit of History of it and a bit Logical reasonings on What it is Written in the Bible? sorry for my poor words ambiguity....How Old is He Now?

Ps 90:10 ​​​​​​​The days of our lives add up to seventy years,
or eighty, if one is especially strong.
But even one’s best years are marred by trouble and oppression.
Yes, they pass quickly and we fly away.

If it is HE READ the Entire BIBLE That is Why he want To know GOD Like Einstein.. ^_^ Because He read the Entire Bible like on this Verse...


Proverbs 4:7 ​​​​​​​Wisdom is supreme – so acquire wisdom, and whatever you acquire, acquire understanding

Mark 4:11-12

11 He said to them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables,

​​​​​​​12so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand....

Being Obsessed or Knowing, on Searching for GOD ^_^ is There a WAY? or Technique on it?... a Kind of Pattern or Research.... There IS.. Come Let us Reason each other and the Bible will Answer for itself that we do not read the Bible or we know it because we read but in Truth we do not Know what is the real meaning of it and what is the Purpose of our Life...^_^

[Waymarker]

Scientists have been fond of telling us for years (unless they've changed their story) that black holes have "infinite gravity".
Ha ha are they thick or what?
"Infinite" means "without limit", which would mean a black hole would have sucked the whole universe into it long before now.
I could buy "enormous gravity", but "infinite gravity"? Nah..:)

[lycanox]

Its only infinite at the point near the singularity. Not at some distance away.

[Goldmoon]

The spirit of Antichrist.

BTW, Tahn1000... In your signature, you quoted a verse, thats not what john 8:37-40 says :p

I find it weird how unbelievers try to quote verses, but have changed it themselves, like TheWord for example, there is no verse that says whats in his signature, he made it up. Can they just not bring themselves to write something that REALLY is in the bible? lol (This is actually the case on most forums I go to)

"There will come a time when they will no longer endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts/desires, they shall heap together teachers, having itching ears." (From 2 Timothy 3 i believe.)