Hawking's faith....

[Michael]

God did not create the universe, says Hawking - Yahoo! News

"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," Hawking writes.

Did anyone else notice that Hawking's argument is based upon a complete non-sequitur? What does gravity have to do with "spontaneous creation"?

 

[Cabal]

I heard that gravity is mildly relevant to cosmology.

But hey, what do I know.

I suspect people should reserve judgement until they buy the actual book.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Gravity is Stephen Hawking's omnipotent deity.

In this religion, the god Gravity uses magical Dark Energy to control the universe.

However this begs the question who wrote the Law of Gravity?

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God did not create the universe, says Hawking - Yahoo! News



Did anyone else notice that Hawking's argument is based upon a complete non-sequitur? What does gravity have to do with "spontaneous creation"?

He's proven himself to be pretty damn smart when it comes to astrophysics. I'm willing to defer to his expertise until a paper is published soundly refuting his claim. I don't understand the finer points of biochemistry (or even the rough points), but I don't reject pharmaceutical companies as being faith-based - that, I daresay, is the non sequitur.

 

[MorkandMindy]

God did not create the universe, says Hawking - Yahoo! News



Did anyone else notice that Hawking's argument is based upon a complete non-sequitur? What does gravity have to do with "spontaneous creation"?

Gravity has a lot to do with spontaneous creation. Although our measurements are very rough indeed, they do allow the very real possibility that the total content of the Universe comes out at zero. That's where the gravity comes in. It is negative energy and balances out the positive energy content of matter / energy.

A zero sum Universe is entirely compatible with spontaneous creation, and that our Universe may have spawned from another Universe, and other Universes in turn may well have spawned from ours, and the sort of numbers could be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Universes spawned by each since that appears to be about the number ours may be spawning.

Smalley had a bit to say on that. Basically this Universe is generally not very conducive to life, but is very conducive to black hole formation, so it can be postulated that in the same way as evolution works with life, so it may also work with Universes, and the Universes that reproduce most abundantly are the most abundant. Of course they also need observers to comment on that fact...

 

[Michael]

I heard that gravity is mildly relevant to cosmology.

But hey, what do I know.

I suspect people should reserve judgement until they buy the actual book.

Well, if the rest of the book is based upon that particular non-sequitur, I'm sure I'll be very disappointed. The fact that gravity exists does not lead to conclusion that something came from nothing. That's just silly. In fact Hawking's claim ultimately violates the laws of physics. Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. It's therefore impossible that something came from nothing.

 

[Michael]

He's proven himself to be pretty damn smart when it comes to astrophysics.

CBC News - Health - Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes

He's proven himself to be "human" just like the rest of us.

I'm willing to defer to his expertise until a paper is published soundly refuting his claim.

Why? Is his book a published paper that passed peer review? What makes his theological perspective any more valid than anyone else?

I don't understand the finer points of biochemistry (or even the rough points), but I don't reject pharmaceutical companies as being faith-based - that, I daresay, is the non sequitur.

Ya, but you can buy pharmaceutical supplies, whereas inflation is dead. I'm afraid that claiming that the laws of gravity demonstrates that "spontaneous creation" is possible is like claiming that Gauss's law does the same thing. There's no correlation between these two things. Gravity is simply a byproduct of mass and mass is energy. Energy exists. It cannot be created or destroyed. Hawking's argument essentially violates the laws of physics, *AND* it's a non sequitur.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, if the rest of the book is based upon that particular non-sequitur, I'm sure I'll be very disappointed.

Why? You've made your own judgement, and the book would have fulfilled it. I daresay the main part of his book is to explain just how he came to that conclusion - a soundbite is hardly going to convey the full complexity of advanced cosmogony.

The fact that gravity exists does not lead to conclusion that something came from nothing.

Sure it does: it explains how a spontaneous, ex nihilo beginning of the universe doesn't violate conservation laws.

That's just silly.

Lots of things are silly. Doesn't mean they're not true.

In fact Hawking's claim ultimately violates the laws of physics. Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. It's therefore impossible that something came from nothing.

First, that's a bald assertion on your part - it's entirely possible that energy can be created or destroyed. Conservation laws have been broken in the past.
Second, conservation laws state that the net amount cannot change, not that the gross amount cannot change. The universe spontaneously coming into existence doesn't violate the mass-energy conservation law because, as has been pointed out before, all positive mass is balanced negative gravitational potential.

 

[Michael]

Gravity has a lot to do with spontaneous creation.

How so? I've experience gravity my whole live but I've never seen anything "spontaneously created" here on Earth.

Although our measurements are very rough indeed, they do allow the very real possibility that the total content of the Universe comes out at zero.

Go stand in the sunshine. You can "feel" how wrong that statement is. There is a net positive amount of energy in the universe. You can see it and feel it.

That's where the gravity comes in. It is negative energy and balances out the positive energy content of matter / energy.

How did gravity take away that heat the sun just provided you with?

A zero sum Universe is entirely compatible with spontaneous creation,

Maybe, but it's completely at odds with reality. In reality the universe is *FILLED* with energy.

and that our Universe may have spawned from another Universe,

Well, energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. That wouldn't be an example of spontaneous creation however. Hawking's argument is essentially based on two fallacies. It's a non-sequitur fallacy *and* it's violation of the laws of conservation of energy. Gravity doesn't "take away" energy. If anything it's a "storage mechanism" for energy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

CBC News - Health - Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes

He's proven himself to be "human" just like the rest of us.

I said 'pretty damn smart', not 'infallibly omniscient'.

Why? Is his book a published paper that passed peer review? What makes his theological perspective any more valid than anyone else?

Because he has routinely proven his expertise in the field. In lieu of my own expertise, I'll implicitly trust a proven biochemist when it comes to biochemical matters. The same is true with Hawking. His cosmological models are inherently more trustworthy because he knows far more about theoretical physics than any of us here. He could be wrong, of course, but it's far more likely that you are wrong. That you don't understand him is neither here nor there: the rest of us do.

Ya, but you can buy pharmaceutical supplies, whereas inflation is dead. I'm afraid that claiming that the laws of gravity demonstrates that "spontaneous creation" is possible is like claiming that Gauss's law does the same thing. There's no correlation between these two things. Gravity is simply a byproduct of mass and mass is energy. Energy exists. It cannot be created or destroyed. Hawking's argument essentially violates the laws of physics, *AND* it's a non sequitur.

Says you. The eminent, proven physicist, the smartest man alive, says differently. Who am I to believe when it comes to theoretical physics? The theoretical physicist who has contributed more to our understanding of the cosmos than anyone else who has ever lived, or the internet denizen who, frankly, hasn't?

 

[Michael]

Why? You've made your own judgement, and the book would have fulfilled it. I daresay the main part of his book is to explain just how he came to that conclusion - a soundbite is hardly going to convey the full complexity of advanced cosmogony.

You could be right about that, but I must say it's sounds suspiciously like Guth's "poof" (free lunch) theory.

Sure it does: it explains how a spontaneous, ex nihilo beginning of the universe doesn't violate conservation laws.

I don't believe it 'explains" anything of the sort. It might "allege" that, but when was the last time you saw gravity cause anything to go "poof" right in front of you and spontaneously create itself here on Earth?

First, that's a bald assertion on your part - it's entirely possible that energy can be created or destroyed. Conservation laws have been broken in the past.

Actually your last statement is a bald faced assertion on your part, and I'm simply looking at the *LAWS* of physics. If you can show it's not actually a "law", I'm all ears.
Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

Second, conservation laws state that the net amount cannot change, not that the gross amount cannot change.

What exactly does that mean? Apply that concept to the sun that is current heating the Earth. It takes energy to do that, right? How much is the gross and or net energy of the universe and how are you "measuring" it?

The universe spontaneously coming into existence doesn't violate the mass-energy conservation law because, as has been pointed out before, all positive mass is balanced negative gravitational potential.

So what? It doesn't cancel out the energy warming up the Earth every day. It doesn't "cancel out" anything in fact. If we take two objects, and move them apart, that distance equates to *POTENTIAL ENERGY*. It can be converted back into KINETIC energy again, but it's still energy.

 

[Nabobalis]

He's proven himself to be pretty damn smart when it comes to astrophysics. I'm willing to defer to his expertise until a paper is published soundly refuting his claim. I don't understand the finer points of biochemistry (or even the rough points), but I don't reject pharmaceutical companies as being faith-based - that, I daresay, is the non sequitur.

Would be interesting to see if any papers do pop up in response to this. Might troll the arxiv for a bit.

What is this book about anyway? Not sure where he would of gone next after doing "A Brief History of Time".

Edit: Seems my reading list gets bigger and bigger Damn you Amazon!

 

[Michael]

I said 'pretty damn smart', not 'infallibly omniscient'.

Well, like I said....

Because he has routinely proven his expertise in the field. In lieu of my own expertise, I'll implicitly trust a proven biochemist when it comes to biochemical matters. The same is true with Hawking. His cosmological models are inherently more trustworthy because he knows far more about theoretical physics than any of us here.

I'm frankly amazed at how willing you are to "have faith" in something labeled "science", or anyone's statements with a label of "scientist". Do you give the Pope the benefit of the doubt as it relates to the topic of God? That is *HIS* field of expertize after all.

He could be wrong, of course, but it's far more likely that you are wrong.

Why? Isn't it more likely that you are wrong and the Pope is right by "default'?

That you don't understand him is neither here nor there: the rest of us do.

So what exactly do you "understand" that I do not?

Says you. The eminent, proven physicist, the smartest man alive, says differently.

Um really? He's the smartest man alive is he?

Who am I to believe when it comes to theoretical physics?

If this were reversed and related to spiritual topic and I said that about the Pope's views, and expected you to feel the same way, would you?

The theoretical physicist who has contributed more to our understanding of the cosmos than anyone else who has ever lived,

Oh come on. He doesn't even have a Nobel Prize. Surely others have contributed more.

or the internet denizen who, frankly, hasn't?

So essentially his statement is a non-sequitur and you're defending it with a appeal to authority fallacy?

 

[pgp_protector]

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

God did not create the universe

Hmm Who's saying God didn't do it ???

 

[MorkandMindy]

Well, like I said....

I'm frankly amazed at how willing you are to "have faith" in something labeled "science", or anyone's statements with a label of "scientist". Do you give the Pope the benefit of the doubt as it relates to the topic of God? That is *HIS* field of expertize after all.

Why? Isn't it more likely that you are wrong and the Pope is right by "default'?

So what exactly do you "understand" that I do not?

Um really? He's the smartest man alive is he?

If this were reversed and related to spiritual topic and I said that about the Pope's views, and expected you to feel the same way, would you?

Oh come on. He doesn't even have a Nobel Prize. Surely others have contributed more.

So essentially his statement is a non-sequitur and you're defending it with a appeal to authority fallacy?

His statement is not a non-sequitur. Have you read my response?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You could be right about that, but I must say it's sounds suspiciously like Guth's "poof" (free lunch) theory.

The adage "Don't judge a book by its cover" springs to mind.

I don't believe it 'explains" anything of the sort. It might "allege" that, but when was the last time you saw gravity cause anything to go "poof" right in front of you and spontaneously create itself her on Earth?

When I witnessed the Casimir effect at my university laboratory.

Actually your last statement is a bald faced assertion on your part, and I'm simply looking at the *LAWS* of physics. If you can show it's not actually a "law", I'm all ears.
Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 'law' in physics is an axiom, a principle hitherto assumed to be true. We used to consider the Conservation of Parity as unwavering as the Conservation of Energy - but particle physics has shown us that the former law can indeed be broken. Specifically, the Weak interaction is not invariant under parity transformations. Other conservation laws have also been violated. They are principles, assumptions, not rigorously proven results. The conservation of energy has withstood testing thus far, but it is fallacious to assume that it can never be violated - we simply don't know enough.

What exactly does that mean? Apply that concept to the sun that is current heating the Earth. It takes energy to do that, right? How much is the gross and or net energy of the universe and how are you "measuring" it?

Matter is positive energy, gravitational potential is negative energy. The Sun warming the Earth uses energy derived from matter falling down a gravitational potential well. The energy from the photons hitting the Earth ultimate comes from Hydrogen (matter) falling down the gravitational potential well the other Hydrogen has created.

So what? It doesn't cancel out the energy warming up the Earth every day. It doesn't "cancel out" anything in fact. If we take two objects, and move them apart, that distance equates to *POTENTIAL ENERGY*. It can be converted back into KINETIC energy again, but it's still energy.

And if the matter didn't exist, the potential energy wouldn't exist either. That's the point.

 

[Michael]

His statement is not a non-sequitur. Have you read my response?

Yes. You failed to demonstrate any cause/effect link between gravity and "spontaneous creation".

 

[pgp_protector]

The adage "Don't judge a book by its cover" springs to mind.


When I witnessed the Casimir effect at my university laboratory.


A 'law' in physics is an axiom, a principle hitherto assumed to be true. We used to consider the Conservation of Parity as unwavering as the Conservation of Energy - but particle physics has shown us that the former law can indeed be broken. Specifically, the Weak interaction is not invariant under parity transformations. Other conservation laws have also been violated. They are principles, assumptions, not rigorously proven results. The conservation of energy has withstood testing thus far, but it is fallacious to assume that it can never be violated - we simply don't know enough.


Matter is positive energy, gravitational potential is negative energy. The Sun warming the Earth uses energy derived from matter falling down a gravitational potential well. The energy from the photons hitting the Earth ultimate comes from Hydrogen (matter) falling down the gravitational potential well the other Hydrogen has created.


And if the matter didn't exist, the potential energy wouldn't exist either. That's the point.

Casimir effect FTW

 

[Michael]

The adage "Don't judge a book by its cover" springs to mind.

Well, there is probably some truth to that statement, but the fact Guth was trying to sell that same argument sounds mighty "convenient". I suspect they are related ideas and Guth's ideas bite the dust the MOMENT we look under the hood.

When I witnessed the Casimir effect at my university laboratory.

Huh? Care to elaborate? What has "spontaneously created" in that experiment?

A 'law' in physics is an axiom, a principle hitherto assumed to be true. We used to consider the Conservation of Parity as unwavering as the Conservation of Energy - but particle physics has shown us that the former law can indeed be broken. Specifically, the Weak interaction is not invariant under parity transformations. Other conservation laws have also been violated. They are principles, assumptions, not rigorously proven results. The conservation of energy has withstood testing thus far, but it is fallacious to assume that it can never be violated - we simply don't know enough.

I never understand this argument, especially when coming from an atheist. You're essentially choosing to toss out physics when it suits you just like any theist might do.

Matter is positive energy, gravitational potential is negative energy.

No. What is "negative energy" and how does it cancel out the heat from the sun that warms the Earth every day?

The Sun warming the Earth uses energy derived from matter falling down a gravitational potential well.

Um, that would only work if the Earth was heavier than the sun. It takes *ENERGY* to get particles to fly off the sun and to overcome the "gravity' of the sun.

The energy from the photons hitting the Earth ultimate comes from Hydrogen (matter) falling down the gravitational potential well the other Hydrogen has created.

Again, you forgot about the energy it took to escape the gravity of the sun.

And if the matter didn't exist, the potential energy wouldn't exist either. That's the point.

That's not much of a "point" of you ask me. We can take an atomic weapon and convert mass into energy. Gravity exists in the presence of mass, but energy even exists in massless forms, including all those photons that heat the Earth. How does that photon kinetic energy "cancel itself out"?

 

[MorkandMindy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking
Did anyone else notice that Hawking's argument is based upon a complete non-sequitur? What does gravity have to do with "spontaneous creation"?

Gravity has a lot to do with spontaneous creation. Although our measurements are very rough indeed, they do allow the very real possibility that the total content of the Universe comes out at zero. That's where the gravity comes in. It is negative energy and balances out the positive energy content of matter / energy.

A zero sum Universe is entirely compatible with spontaneous creation, ...

Yes. You failed to demonstrate any cause/effect link between gravity and "spontaneous creation".

I guess I should have filled in a bit more but I thought you were familiar with it - some quantum mechanics about energy and particles and anti particles spontaneously appearing (and usually disappearing) but I suspect Cabal and Wiccan child will do a better job of it.