Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

jam

If you have not seen it, it,s on the Discovery station

tonite, 8:00 pm west coast, two parts.

talesin

jam, thanks for the heads-up,,, just watching it now (commercial break!) ...

later!

tal

Peace to you, dear jam... and thank YOU! I was wondering if anyone was going to comment on this broadcast (I was, at some point). My husband and I watched it. It was fascinating to me... but not for the reasons one might think. I wasn't bowled over by Dr. Hawking's scientific revelations. Rather, I was blown AWAY by how much the narration sounded like... a sermon from a religious podium! OMG, the enormous number of "while this may sound baffling," or "this may seem to be confusing, but"... or "not everyone can understand this, but...". All of which were followed by an example or explanation that had at lease one huge "hole" (pun intended) in it... if not many.

But, so that I am not accused of thinking I'm smarter than Dr. Hawkings, perhaps I can ask someone here what I would ask HIM, were the chance ever to arise. (And no, I'm not nor do I on any level think I am smarter than Dr. Hawkings, so ya'll can hold the ridicule - I just have questions, which anyone could and should be able to ask).

Dr. Hawkings proposed a theory regarding the Big Bang... where the universe came from nothing. To help us "understand" this theory, he gave the following examples:

1. The positive/negative energy theory through the "man digging a hole" model

2. Protons appearing from nowhere and then disappearing again

3. "Black holes" (imploding stars) and the nonexistence of time

Here are my questions:

1. Re Positive/Negative Energy Theory - Dr. Hawkings' theory depicted a man digging a hole with the displaced dirt being "positive" energy and the resultant hole being "negative" energy. Using math (which is appropriate), he showed where the "equation" still comes back to "0" (i.e., you have the hill of dirt - positive, but the hole - negative. The two cancel each other out, so that you don't really have more than you started with. Makes sense. The flaw, though, appears when he attempts to show where, after the "Big Bang", the positive and negative energy WENT. His model showed that the positive energy ended up in the physical cosmos. Which is depicted by the "hill" of dirt. Okay. He then asks the question, though: "Where did the NEGATIVE energy go?" Well, if his model of the man digging the hole is appropriate to his example... the negative energy HAD to go... ELSEWHERE. In the "hole" left by the "bang." But... it didn't. It, too, ended up in the physical cosmos. In THAT light... the "man digging a hole" model is inaccurate - if both the positive AND negative energy ended up in the same place... then we are back to square one: the flat plain... where there is neither hill NOR hole... because the two are still TOGETHER. Or, in the alternative... the hole... is IN the hill... which still leaves us without the hole as a separate "space". Or, alternatively... the hole exists... and the "negative" energy is THERE (which isn't the case, according to physicists).

My questions for this model would be: how can you have a model, depicting first, a flat plain of dirt, representing positive and negative energy in its combined state... then a man digging a hole with the displaced dirt making a hill that represents "positive" energy... and the resultant hole representating "negative" energy... with the two now in very distinct... and different... spaces, status, and properties... and then say that the "negative" is in the SAME PLACE as the "positive"?

2. Re Protons Appearing/Disappearing From/Into "Nothing" - In this model, the example showed a field of protons... most of which were static; however, every so often a proton would appear... then disappear. The theory is that they do so FROM nothing... and disappear INTO nothing. Yet, the model didn't show any of the STATIC protons doing this, but only some others.

My questions would be: Does the fact that we cannot, at THIS time, track where the unusual protons are coming FROM... or GOING... truly mean that they are coming from/going to NOWHERE? What if we later "discover" that either (1) they are in fact coming from/going to another "place"... dimension, if you will, or (2) are actually NOT disappearing into nothing at all but simply appearing, disappearing, and then reappearing in a different location... and we just don't have tools precise enough, yet, to measure the... ummmm... "shadow/trace"... they leave in the process... or track their path? If we do so ever develop such a tool... and come to find out that they're NOT just appearing "from nothing"... will that change the TRUTH of what was happening before we COULD so measure?

3. Re Black Holes and the Non-Existence of Time - This one was most curious to me... because it opines that since time began with the Big Bang, there could be no God BEFORE that... because there was no time for God to exist IN. It does not take into account, however, that time only applies to that which is physical... mass/matter. Which God is not, nor is anything in the spirit realm. True, nothing PHYSICAL could have existed before time existed. In addition, there are imploding stars (black holes, and thus pockets where time does not exist) all over the physical universe. Yet, there IS a physical universe... and one that is expanding... even beyond these "holes." If Dr. Hawkings' theory is correct, then nothing can exist OUTSIDE of these black holes - they themselves would negate time ANYWHERE in the universe. That is not the case, however.

But my question relates to the END of Dr. Hawkings' black hole theory. He theorizes (and I do not disagree with him) that the "beginning"... the "big bang"... was the result of a black hole... but of one that as indescribably small. And dense. In the model, the universe is shown sucking back in on itself... until nothing is left but dense darkness... and a very tiny "black hole"... that appears as a LIGHT. Tiny, yes, but in order for that tiny speck to implode... it would HAVE to have an enormous amount of ENERGY.

My questions, therefore, would be: Where, though, did that ENERGY come from? And what CAUSED that tiny star... TO implode? Did it actually implode? Or... did it EXPLODE?

As to this last model, I would offer to Dr. Hawkings that, if that star literally existed in an OPPOSITE universe, then what we know as the physical universe absolutely COULD be the result of its implosion... however, unlike stars that implode in THIS world, the physical universe... and thus cave in on themselves... perhaps another phenomena occurred... one where a "star"... in another "world"... one that is the OPPOSITE of this one (the positive to our negative, or negative to our positive... and I can't call it is "universe" as it may not be limited to one)... did EXACTLY the OPPOSITE... and so EXPANDED... and SPREAD its "energy", thus forming the physical world... by forming mass/matter. In either case, it wouldn't have been an implosion in this world, but an explosion (and an implosion in an opposite world).

And I would offer that that "star"... is JAHESHUA, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit... whose "birth" caused that "explosion" (verses implosion). And that the impetus for that event were the "words": Let the Light... come forth! And when he did, when that Light... that ENERGY Source... came forth... so did the physical universe.

Finally, I cound a couple other things interesting in the shows just before and after this one. The first show was about the Greek physicist, mathmetician, astronomer, and philospher, Gallileo... and some of those who came before him, including Aristarchus and Copernicus. What I found interesting is that Copernicus, and later Galileo (who later renounced, to safe his own life)... promoted beliefs regarding our solar system that had been presented close to 2,000 years before. But... SCIENTISTS rejected the theories of all of these! Yes, religion played a role, but it was SCIENTISTS of their respective days that presented th greatest problems.

In the post-show, then, I found it quite amusing that many PHYSCISTS... actually don't agree on the origin... or cause of the origin... of the universe. Or that there even is only ONE universe. Apparently, there are several theories out there. Like... religion. And, again, the "sell" for ALL of these theories... was like listening to a badly masked "sermon."

I will say, however, that the "arguments" presented by the one theologian (I forget his name - he was from Georgetown U)... were utterly embarrassing. The moderator and other panelists (two physicists)... spoke logically and coherently, and asked valid questions. Unfortunately, the lone theologian was only able to "sermonize"... without actually addressing, let alone answering... any of the questions posed to him. It was painful to watch.

Anyway, I know that I will never had the privilege of meeting with/speaking to Dr. Hawkings. WAY above my lowly "pay grade"! But, just in case he's out there... and watching/listening (not that he has nothing better to do)... if I COULD ask him, these are the things I would ask.

I would also ask those HERE who know (and I don't doubt that some of you do!): does that fact that we don't understand something NOW... YET... because we don't have the skill, means, tools... intelligence... to do so NOW... mean that it wasn't true before we "proved" that it was? Again, was the earth REALLY flat... before anyone literally PROVED it to be a sphere? Isn't the truth... the TRUTH... regardless of whether we are to "prove" it so at any given time?

I look forward to hearing from... whoever... if you wish to comment.

Again, peace to you all!

A slave of Christ,

SA

talesin

AGuest

I enjoyed the show, but thought it was quite dumbed down by some of the narration and beautiful graphics.

In answer to your query,,,

YES!!! That is why I wish people (not just here, but all over the world) would let belief in G*d be a personal thing, and treat each other with kindness and respect as PEOPLE.

tal

bohm

Oh boy, Jesus must have answered the first 10'000 questions before you accepted the voice you hear is actually him and not the average neural dysfunction!

poor man!

talesin

mock, mock, mock

bohm,,, I responded to your pm weeks ago,,, with a reasonable and detailed answer,,, no reply,.

I guess you have nothing better to do than make fun of sincere people and write whiney PMs.

harrumph!

t

AGuest

Thank you, dear Talesin (peace to you!). Yeah, the show didn't really "answer" the "questions", did it? While science appears to know some things (perhaps a great many, too!)... this show didn't show that. To the contrary, it created even more question, IMHO. And I agree with you regarding everyone letting belief in God be a personal thing; unfortunately, religion itself has contributed to the great amount of intolerance it receives. It's just sad that some of the rest of us get caught up in the "trick bag", too. Not fair... but, then, who promised fair in this life?

Ah, Bohm... dear, dear, dear, dear Bohm. The greatest of love and peace to you... and may the end of your search (to find someone to help you get over your... issues...) arrive soon!

Again, peace to you, both!

A slave of Christ,

SA

PSacramento

From what I gather, most scientist agree that Time, as we know it and applies to our universe, started when the universe started, before that time as we know it was NOT as we know it.

The laws of our universe only apply to OUR Universe.

There is no reason to believe that they would apply to "alternate universes" if such existed.

jam

It,s all over my head. It created more questions.

The bottom line, if there are alternate universes

who created them.

bohm

talesin: I have been writing on a reply on/off the past week. im sorry, i have been busy.

Aguest: What are my issues?

Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

Share this