Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

Ok, I have been reading some Hawkings and some Atheist sites recently, after brawling with Ray K. Now, do you Hawking fans follow this idea??

"Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding."

If so, he pulls this "four-dimensional hypersphere" out of his butt. Why not say a Pink Elephant exists there that caused the Universe?

Jerry Smith · Jun 20, 2002

I don't agree with Hawking on every point, but I would be horse dragged before I had the nerve to call him "stupid". Of all the unmitigated gall....

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

I didnt. He rocks usually. But I am asking where he gets this idea? And why do people buy it??

Satoshi · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah

If so, he pulls this "four-dimensional hypersphere" out of his butt. Why not say a Pink Elephant exists there that caused the Universe?

Why don't you give us the paper in which Hawking proposes this concept? It's rather difficult to judge just who is pulling what out of their respective butts when all you give us is an insult and what looks to be a summary.

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by Satoshi

Why don't you give us the paper in which Hawking proposes this concept? It's rather difficult to judge just who is pulling what out of their respective butts when all you give us is an insult and what looks to be a summary.

No problem dude.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

Morat · Jun 20, 2002

Well, bear in mind you're reading a laymen's level explanation.

I'd imagine that, if you could follow the physics and math, you'd have a better understanding of it.

Inflation, for instance, directly follows from symmettry breaking in a Higgs field. Of course, without the math, you can't see why.

What I don't understand is why you're calling Hawking stupid because he's explaining a concept that you can't understand in simpler terms so you can grasp the idea.

It's no crime not to be able to follow the math or physics involved. Very few people can. But why call him "stupid" because he can? Bluntly, you're no more qualified to discuss the merits of his works than I am to discuss literary criticism of Russian novels. I can't even read Russian.

npetreley · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah

Why not say a Pink Elephant exists there that caused the Universe?

If you say the pink elephant evolved, I'll bet you'd get half the people on this board to believe it created the universe.

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

If you say the pink elephant evolved, I'll bet you'd get half the people on this board to believe it created the universe.

LMAO!

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
Well, bear in mind you're reading a laymen's level explanation.

I'd imagine that, if you could follow the physics and math, you'd have a better understanding of it.

Inflation, for instance, directly follows from symmettry breaking in a Higgs field. Of course, without the math, you can't see why.

What I don't understand is why you're calling Hawking stupid because he's explaining a concept that you can't understand in simpler terms so you can grasp the idea.

It's no crime not to be able to follow the math or physics involved. Very few people can. But why call him "stupid" because he can? Bluntly, you're no more qualified to discuss the merits of his works than I am to discuss literary criticism of Russian novels. I can't even read Russian.

So you are saying that you accept him on BLIND FAITH, huh?

Satoshi · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah

No problem dude.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

Now why don't you reference Hawking's actual work? The article you gave appears to be a layperson's explanation or summary. It seems to be rather simplified and as such, doesn't go into much justification. If you're going to call someone stupid, do so to the author of the article for writing such a quick piece or yourself for confusing what looks to be a simplified summary with Hawking's entire hypothesis.

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah

So you are saying that you accept him on BLIND FAITH, huh?

Is "A Brief History of Time" online? If so, I will link to it.

Morat · Jun 20, 2002

So you are saying that you accept him on BLIND FAITH, huh?

Did I say he was correct? I merely pointed out that calling him stupid for using terminology you don't understand to describe math and physics you don't understand doesn't constitute "stupid".

As for whether he is, well, he might be. The best people to judge, of course, are his peers.

Currently, even by a quick scan of a layman's article, I can tell he's still hypothesizing. That's true of any pre-Big Bang cosmologies, though. The lack of a GUT prevents anything more at this stage.

ashibaka · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
If so, he pulls this "four-dimensional hypersphere" out of his butt. Why not say a Pink Elephant exists there that caused the Universe?

Heck, why doesn't he say that a humanlike, omnipotent, omniscient, conscious being did it? That'd be a hoot! Just like a regular person, but with superpowers so that he can make the universe!

Oh, wait.

BTW, there's a difference between what Hawking thinks is verifiably true and what Hawking is proposing. 'Tis but a hypothesis, no need to get all worked up about it.

mac_philo · Jun 20, 2002

Hawking is not responsible for this quoted material, so the real topic is "Is This Uncited Author Really This Stupid."

In any case, the notion of a 'hypersphere' is odd to us laypeople, and so are pink elephants, but the former is not as arbitrary as the latter. If you are confused as to why physicists would appeal to a hypersphere, it may be illuminating to consider what physicists in a two-dimensional universe would hypothesize about the 'shape' of their universe. They would appeal to something equally odd to their laypeople--a hyperdisc. That is, a sphere.

You can read about two dimensional universes in Chesterton's 'Flatland' or Dewdney's 'Planiverse.' It'll limber your mind up for these sorts of concepts and give you some analogies that your mind can spatially represent.

Sauron · Jun 20, 2002

Sauron · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by Satoshi

Now why don't you reference Hawking's actual work? The article you gave appears to be a layperson's explanation or summary. It seems to be rather simplified and as such, doesn't go into much justification. If you're going to call someone stupid, do so to the author of the article for writing such a quick piece or yourself for confusing what looks to be a simplified summary with Hawking's entire hypothesis.

Indeed.

I find it amazing the number of christians on this board who expect to have everything spoon-fed to them.

"Hawking is nuts".
Oh, really, did you ever read what he actually said?

"Well, no. Can you tell me about it?"
Can't you operate a browser? There are dozens of professional and university sites that deal with his material directly? How about going to amazon.com and ordering one of his books?

"Yeah, but that takes a lot of time and work. I just found this one website."
You mean that you slandered a well-respected scientist without even reading his own writings? Based on some website you stumbled across?

"Well, yeah."
"Did it ever occur to you that maybe that was pretty shallow of you, and not very professional?"

"Hey don't criticize me!"

For a group of people who are constantly telling nonbelievers "you need to read the bible for yourself", you would think they would apply the same standard to themselves, when it comes to investigating other items.

But maybe consistency is too much to ask.

Joe V. · Jun 20, 2002

+++
Ok, I have been reading some Hawkings and some Atheist sites recently, after brawling with Ray K. Now, do you Hawking fans follow this idea??

"Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding."

If so, he pulls this "four-dimensional hypersphere" out of his butt. Why not say a Pink Elephant exists there that caused the Universe?
---

Here's the chief difference between you and Hawking.
He didn't pull anything out of his butt, he calculated his conclusions of the origins of the universe based on an understanding of quantum physics and mathematics. You base your conclusions of the origins of the universe from a book written thousands of years ago. Who am I supposed to believe more, Hawking or you?

- Joe

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

LMAO, when did I ever insult the man? I was simply getting your attention. Hes a genius, and he says some great things about God.

I asked if you all follow this idea? Considering the emotional response, I know that you do worship him, blindly, as you all pointed out.

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 20, 2002

Originally posted by Sauron

Indeed.

I find it amazing the number of christians on this board who expect to have everything spoon-fed to them.

Respond to my question about the first virtual particle and I might take you seriously.

jon1101 · Jun 20, 2002

Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?

I can't answer this because I'm not knowledgable enough to critique him. If he is, however, I think you should take his position as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge so that we don't have such a 'stupid' person holding Newton's old chair.

-jon

Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid?

Based on a True Story

Fish out of water

Based on a True Story

Active Member

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

Based on a True Story

Based on a True Story

Active Member

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

ShiiAce

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rabbit Worshipper

Based on a True Story

Based on a True Story

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency