No further comment. Waiting for results from CERN.
Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking
by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
poopsiecakes
Hi Shelby
You said: I ndeed, God OR the origin of the universe is NOT rocket science - both are ELEMENTARY.
I'm wondering how rocket science is more complex than particle physics. The science used to explain the beginning of the universe involves a WAY deeper knowlege of science than you or I have ever been exposed to and require years to understand even the basics. I don't find this threatening at all and if I wanted to understand better, the information is there. The TV specials are trying to make this knowledge accessible - it's not that anyone is hiding it.
and you know you're always welcome to my poporn, darlin :)
-
james_woods
I'm wondering how rocket science is more complex than particle physics. The science used to explain the beginning of the universe involves a WAY deeper knowlege of science than you or I have ever been exposed to and require years to understand even the basics.
Indeed.
-
AGuest
Poopsie... DAHLINK!! Peace to you... again... and again... and again!I'm wondering how rocket science is more complex than particle physics.
It isn't, dear one. It was facetious term taken from my generation's vernacular, is all. Sorry if I was confusing!
The science used to explain the beginning of the universe involves a WAY deeper knowlege of science than you or I have ever been exposed to and require years to understand even the basics.
I would absolutely agree, dear one: the SCIENCE used to explain it. Yes. Way deeper... and many years required to understand even the basics. Yes. What, though... and, now, please don't take this the wrong way... if that's wasn't the ONLY "way" to "explain" it, indeed, wasn't even THE way? I mean, close... but no cigar?
I don't find this threatening at all and if I wanted to understand better, the information is there.
And don't take THIS the wrong way, but the information to understand the science used to explain the beginning of the universe... as to which theory? Because there are a few. Yes?
The TV specials are trying to make this knowledge accessible - it's not that anyone is hiding it.
See, now, I didn't get that, dear one. I get that such specials are attempts to sell their particular theory. Which differs from another's theory. Some believe in one universe... others in a multiverse... some in the Big Bang... some in string theory (which believes that there are multi bangs, as well)... and... and... and...
For ME... I see folks who put their full faith in these as not much different from those who put theirs in religion (well, I admit I have a little more regard because at least science doesn't deal in blatant lies... but just lots of speculation). They're just at opposite ends of the spectrums.
Look, I get it that I don't think like some folks. It wasn't like I wasn't trying to understand other folks and how they think, though...
Again, peace to you... and a little less butter 'n salt, next time, please? Gotta watch the vital signs, my dear! LOLOLOL!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
poopsiecakes
And don't take THIS the wrong way, but the information to understand the science used to explain the beginning of the universe... as to which theory? Because there are a few. Yes?
I'm not going to get into a scientific debate because I don't have the qualifications to do so, sweets. From what I understand though, the theories don't necessarily cancel one another out. Scientists postulate based on what they know - it's different from a theory like 'I think the universe was originally bubble gum'. Credible theories are made based on what has already been proven by others and it's a building block of knowledge, not pulling ideas out of the air. There are plenty of fringe pseudo science ideas and the two should never be confused.
I'll tell you what's NOT rocket science (and I did get your reference, I was just being cheeky lol) is Bachelor Pad, which I'm getting sucked into again. Please help.
-
james_woods
Credible theories are made based on what has already been proven by others and it's a building block of knowledge, not pulling ideas out of the air.
Indeed.
-
poopsiecakes
I'm getting indeeded by Mr. Woods!
-
Twitch
Perhaps more of a less flippant response is in order.
You are absolutely right, dear Twitch (peace to you!)... and I was thinking of Aristarchus when I wrote "Greek". I was going to start with him and move forward to Galileo but then thought more would know of him that the the other. I just forgot to go back and remove "Greek."
I figured it was just a minor oversight. Giants of their day, and many others.
My point? Just beause an idea is radical doesn't mean it isn't TRUE. And just because the general consensus of those who [claim to] "know" is that it is NOT true... doesn't mean it isn't TRUE.
Conversely, an idea isn't true just because it's radical. Hopefully the general consensus knows what they're talking about, at least until proven otherwise . But without radicals, where would we be, in all aspects really? This doesn't mean all radicals are correct in their assertions though. The process can only correct itself for an observed fact based on the info given to it. Truth ultimately is defined by what is unknown.
Interesting. Things I've read indicate it was about more than that, that "heresy" was really just an excuse used by his enemies after he insulted one of them, a Jesuit, through one of his writings. Prior to, he actually had friends in the RCC, including the Pope... who later whimped out under pressure (from the Jesuits). And so, my understanding is that it wasn't actually the RCC... but an offended faction that USED the RCC to mete their revenge.
My understanding was that this happening during the Inquistion, for which the ideas of Copernicus and heliocentrisim were not tolerated and punishable by death. His recanting saved his life because of the time he lived in, ultimately, the politics of his time notwithstanding. Which just goes to show you, don't piss off the pious.
PresentED, dear one. At that time. It was the SCIENTISTS of their respective day who made things hard for Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, et al. Apparently, such scientists couldn't handle differing or dissenting views from their own... and either shut the ideas themselves down... or those who came up with them. I mean, I didn't make that up: it's out there... and was even stated in the program. So...
Well, if it was in the program, I didn't see it. But if I had a theory I thought was right, I'd defend it. So would you. But the truth will prevail and did.
Please... reread what I posted. Remember, the eyes can deceive you... and what you THINK I posted... I did not post. Not at all.
I did read your post. You seem to ask questions of Hawkings but direct them to those here familiar with his theories. You draw an analogy of part of his theory to the name you call god (don't know if you're gonna ask him that one) You discussed this little topic, summarized as scientists are the biggest problems. You then mentioned the scientific dissension on the origin of the universe and likening various theories as a religiious "sell'. Again, I didn't see the program but then again, I have no doubt of the angle the producers went with. That's the only sell here IMO other than your own, and mine. We all do it including the scientists trying their hand at figuring it out. You seem to have not liked certain aspects of the show but question others and integrate with some of your ideas.
Sigh... I have great respect for science, dear Twitch. Please, if you're going to take me to task, at least bother to read ALL that I posted... AS I posted it. Please...
So do I. And I did. Please see above. That's how I read it.
MY point was, in their attempts to SELL what they believe... they use the same tactics as religion: smoke, mirrors, high talk, fluff... and, if none of that works... the "Well, you really have to be more intelligent to get this part..." thing. That you and others can't see that... don't WANT to see that... is no different to ME... than JWs, et al. who can't... don't WANT to... see that THEY do this.
The difference between a scientific theory and a religious one is that the former becomes a law that can be demonstratable and universal to all. It's more the idea of the process, more the function than the form. It is mutable and evolving and understands more about our universe than you or I understand. But it will be the same for you, for me, for them, for anyone who wishes to study a branch of the tree of knowledge. I believe in that and you can too. The basics from 2000 years ago will be as true 2000 years from now. The universe is described in the language of mathematics.
As for the show's tactics as being similar to JW's, well, didn't see the show. I might ask if it's more the media production or the concepts/process behind science in general that you disagree with.
I do not dispute that. On the other hand, religionists could say, of such holy books/opinions... "It's told us more about GOD than science." Do you SEE what I mean?
Of this I have no doubt. Too bad the knowledge isn't universally known and accepted. A subjective topic, different for everyone. What does the diversion of holy books tell one of the nature of god? How many names are there for that which has no beginning or end?
I just think that if science is going to ridicule religion (and I don't blame them for doing so)... they really shouldn't be using the same kinds of tactics to DO it. Smacks of hypocrisy. You got facts? You got proof? You can prove or disspell a theory/idea? By all means, go ahead. Do that. But... DO that. Don't use the same old "holely" tactics.
Unfortunate but ego does prevail in the present. In the end, the facts will prevail.
That's ALL I'm sayin'...
Back atcha. Just following my instincts. Perhaps I should see the show but doesn't sound so good so far. I do have a few documentaries on Hawking. But Mandelbrot fascinates me.
-
Berengaria
What are you doing up and about at this hour Woods???
-
james_woods
What are you doing up and about at this hour Woods???
Just observing faulty science, beks. Just observing.
