Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[Liability]

correct me if I'm wrong but the BBTdoes not state anything about something coming from nothing.
what it does say is that all matter in the universe was compacted in an infinitesimally small space....

Ok.

It was compacted to a really tiny "point." But it was still there.

And, that still begs the question: Where did it come from?

To say "it was ALWAYS" there also begs the question since it doesn't answer how it could "always be there."

What CAN exist prior to itself without being created?

How does THAT work?

The fact that energy cannot be created does NOT beg the question "where did it come from." Since it can't be created it always existed. There is no "before it existed." There is no "prior to itself" because there is no "prior."

No. Begging the question is your resort to the scientific sounding "law" that energy/matter cannot be created. It exists. It is here. So asking "where did it come from" is NOT answered by your religious sounding intonation of "it was always here." In the time before time it was here. In the time of the beginning of time, it was here. You sound silly primarily because you can't even acknowledge that your answer is not really an answer at all.

What you have confused is energy and time. You have them flip-flopped.

No. I don't.

You see energy as having a beginning and an end, it doesn't!

And you pretend to "know" this because you resort to "laws" that seem to prove it true under special circumstances. That is, within the parameters of space/time since the Big Bang, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (although they can change forms). But further examination of the laws of quantum physics lead to a variety of paradoxes and exceptions. So for all of your self-satisfied huffing and puffing, you still evade the actual question. WHERE did the stuff come from? "It was always there" isn't possibly true because it suggests that something can exist prior to itself. Your claim boils down to the ridiculous (and false) premise that Matter/Energy were self creating or some such malarkey. But if it didn't exist to create itself then it could not have created itself.

You see time as eternal, it isn't!

So you claim. But you have no greater ability to prove that concept than you have to explain how anything could "always" exist without causation of any kind.

Time has a beginning and an end, it is not eternal, in fact, time is not even constant, a change in motion will cause time to speed up or slow down. There was never a time before energy. Energy already existed before time began and energy will continue to exist in the same total quantity after time ends.

You are babbling. And your circular reasoning still begs the question. That "stuff" that existed prior to the beginning of time (how the fuck could there be a "prior" if time had not even begun by the way?) was, according to you, "always" there. Ho hum. So it had no causation. Bullshit. Where did the smallest neutrons, quarks or other sub-atomic particles COME from?

Edthesickdick flips through the pages of the Holy Book Of Mysticism and re-intones the magical phrase "it was always there." Oh. THAT's real authoritative.

The fact that energy can't be created and therefore always existed is not a theory, it is a proven Law, the FLoT. It was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and therefore cannot be pontificated away as you have been doing. To claim energy must be created you need to prove it with a repeatable experiment!

And you don't understand the basics of science. I am NOT in fact required to prove a single thing by repeatable experiments in order to CHALLENGE your claim that "it" was simply "always there." (By the way, you dolt, I have not argued that energy CAN be created, but I sure as hell deny your baseless claim that it is a certainty that it is impossible.) The experiments YOU refer to do establish (to our present level of scientific understanding) that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed within the parameters of our present space/time. No experiment has ever established that matter/energy could not have been created in some way OUTSIDE the boundaries of our limited perception. In fact, advanced quantum physics itself suggests that matter/energy could be created in a very special quantum state involving a vacuum. (It is interesting that advanced physics like that deny several of YOUR very premises. For instance, YOU fail to even consider things such as "quantum vacuum fluctuations" or "virtual particles.")

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

There you go pretending you understand science again. It is quite likely that it was always slowing down because there would have to be an outside force acting on it to speed it up. You should read the new paper Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by a guy called Isaac Newton.

It is always the case that the most ignorant know-it-alls are the most condescending!

Our solar system formed when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. Some of the material within this cosmic vortex formed into planets. That is why most of the planets, their moons and the Jupiter and Saturn rings rotate in the same direction , as do the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Even the gas of the Sun rotates in this counter clockwise direction due to angular momentum left over from the initial collapse of the nebula that led to the formation of the Sun and her planets. As the planets formed they kept this spinning motion. Just like when skaters pull in their arms and spin faster, as the material gathered in more closely to form a planet the material spun faster.

Maybe YOU should do a little reading first before you spout your pompous condescension!

Coming from the guy that is trying to be condescending.

You just proved my point, even if you don't know enough to understand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There you go pretending you understand science again. It is quite likely that it was always slowing down because there would have to be an outside force acting on it to speed it up. You should read the new paper Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by a guy called Isaac Newton.

It is always the case that the most ignorant know-it-alls are the most condescending!

Our solar system formed when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. Some of the material within this cosmic vortex formed into planets. That is why most of the planets, their moons and the Jupiter and Saturn rings rotate in the same direction , as do the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Even the gas of the Sun rotates in this counter clockwise direction due to angular momentum left over from the initial collapse of the nebula that led to the formation of the Sun and her planets. As the planets formed they kept this spinning motion. Just like when skaters pull in their arms and spin faster, as the material gathered in more closely to form a planet the material spun faster.

Maybe YOU should do a little reading first before you spout your pompous condescension!

Once the planet formed -- which was the premise before you just tried to alter it -- what outside force acted upon it to speed up that rotation, Copernicus?

Don't confuse him by keeping the goal posts in the same place.

 

[daws101]

You missed my explanation of left handed amino acids are found in living organisms and all cells ?

The thing that miller and urey showed was that right handed amino acids were formed as well as left handed amino acids. Left handed amino acids connect and produce proteins.

One problem,if right handed amino acids connected with left handed amino acids which is easy to do that organism would not survive. That cell would not survive. So tell me how what the chances were for only left handed amino acids coming together to form the first cell ?

Oh but it get's better, now explain how every cell only contains left handed amino acids ?

Talk about miracles.

So to you the next logical step is to conclude it was the hand of a deity? What's your point? If there's a chance for something, then there's a chance.

How bout some numbers.

You have 20 different amino acids in the right order in 100 trillion cells in the human body alone.

Now think of every living organism on this planet cells containing only left handed amino acids.

coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death."-ywc

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They say: "Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Yet -- it's here.

So, folks like me ask: "Where did it come from?"

Their 'Answer': The Big Bang.

So folks like me ponder and then ask: "Oh. Well the stuff that was in the Big Bang that came spewing out so prolifically when it went Bang. Where did THAT stuff come from?"

They say: "It was always there BECAUSE it can't be created or destroyed."

Folks like me ponder and then ask: "Uh huh. But for 'it' to have 'always existed' aren't you saying that something can exist before it exists? For example, if there was a period in the Universe (in the nano instant of the Bang in the Big Bang) where there was no life, then life did not always exist. It got created. What created life? The stuff that came prior to life. Ok. But what created that? The precursors to that stuff. Ok. But what created THAT stuff? It was always there! But if it was always there then why wasn't life always there? Why do some things require creation but some things don't?"

The cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations allow for creation of matter/energy.

Cool. So the claim that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is not always true.

A lot follows from that.

Yep.

If we set the cosmological constant (Lambda) = 0 in the Einstein field equations (EFE), mass and energy and momentum will be conserved in certain reference frames.

if Lambda is non-zero but space is neither expanding or contracting, its still possible those quantities will be conserved in certain reference frames. However - when space is either being created or destroyed (though expansion or contraction of the Universe), energy is in fact created (or destroyed), regardless of reference frame.

The entire concept of conservation of mass, etc. doesn't really mean the same in GR. Its possible, for a zero Lambda, to define quantities which are conserved regardless of reference frame, but these aren't mass, etc. - in particule, the Landau-Lipshiftz pseudo-tensor is conserved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress...dotensor#Landau.E2.80.93Lifshitz_pseudotensor

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You lost me here. Does the volume of the universe increase after the heat death of the universe? Never heard that one before.

Yes. The Universe continues to "expand" after heat death. But it wouldn't really matter. There would only be one thing left - temperature - which would be decreasing in time towards zero, but equal in value throughout the whole universe. So "space" wouldn't really matter, because every point in space would have identical properties to every single other.

Actually, since temperature requires heat, and heat requires movement, there really wouldn't be temperature. That is the major flaw with the heat death theory, it is a paradox. Doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it impossible to defend it using English.

There is movement in a heat death universe, just not bulk movement. Its all thermalized movement (which is heat).

You don't understand the heat death theory.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're full of shit. I said the Earth's rotation isn't constant, and that works against you, not for you. Besides, when you said the rotation isn't constant, all you meant was that it's slowing. You have no answer to what I've pointed out, other than bullshit.

Atheists are people who decided to trade intelligence for arrogance.

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

The Earth's rotation would slow with or without the moon. This effect, "tidal locking", is caused by slight distortions in the shape of the Earth due to gravity from the Sun. The Earth is elongated slightly towards the Sun, but because of frictional effects, the bulge pointing towards the Sun is always a little ahead the line of centers between Sun and Earth, so the sun is always tugging it ever so slightly in a direction that causes it to spin down.
EDIT - When this happens, the orbit itself gets bigger because in order to conserve angular momentum, much like an ice skater opening her arms, the orbital period must get larger.

If, on the other hand, the Earth were rotating in the opposite direction - against the direction of its orbit - these tidal effects would act to speed up its rotation.
EDIT - same as edit above but the orbit gets smaller.

The end result - in either case - is "tidal lock" - the Earth will rotate with the same period as its orbit and the same side will always face the Sun. The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth in the same way.

This is a secular effect, as opposed to a dynamical one, because it requires viscous forces to work. If the Earth were a perfectly rigid sphere, there would be no tidal effects.


EDIT - the moon, of course, also influences the Earth's rotation. The moon is trying to tug the Earth in a way that makes the Earth tidally locked to the moon, which is why the Earth/Moon orbit is getting slightly bigger with time.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

There you go pretending you understand science again. It is quite likely that it was always slowing down because there would have to be an outside force acting on it to speed it up. You should read the new paper Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by a guy called Isaac Newton.

It is always the case that the most ignorant know-it-alls are the most condescending!

Our solar system formed when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. Some of the material within this cosmic vortex formed into planets. That is why most of the planets, their moons and the Jupiter and Saturn rings rotate in the same direction , as do the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Even the gas of the Sun rotates in this counter clockwise direction due to angular momentum left over from the initial collapse of the nebula that led to the formation of the Sun and her planets. As the planets formed they kept this spinning motion. Just like when skaters pull in their arms and spin faster, as the material gathered in more closely to form a planet the material spun faster.

Maybe YOU should do a little reading first before you spout your pompous condescension!

QW is absolutely correct, the cloud that formed the solar system is responsible for most of the spin we see.

I say most because some objects do rotate in the "wrong" direction - this is likely due to chance encounters with other large objects in the past which set them spinning that way.

EDIT - What the entire solar system would "like" to do is for all the planets to be tidally locked to the Sun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. The Universe continues to "expand" after heat death. But it wouldn't really matter. There would only be one thing left - temperature - which would be decreasing in time towards zero, but equal in value throughout the whole universe. So "space" wouldn't really matter, because every point in space would have identical properties to every single other.

Actually, since temperature requires heat, and heat requires movement, there really wouldn't be temperature. That is the major flaw with the heat death theory, it is a paradox. Doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it impossible to defend it using English.

There is movement in a heat death universe, just not bulk movement. Its all thermalized movement (which is heat).

You don't understand the heat death theory.

Actually, I do, which is why I discount it. I am with Dyson in this, heat death is a myth. Gravity fracks up the thermodynamics.

 

[hortysir]

The fact that energy cannot be created does NOT beg the question "where did it come from." Since it can't be created it always existed. There is no "before it existed." There is no "prior to itself" because there is no "prior."

What you have confused is energy and time. You have them flip-flopped.

You see energy as having a beginning and an end, it doesn't!
You see time as eternal, it isn't!
Time has a beginning and an end, it is not eternal, in fact, time is not even constant, a change in motion will cause time to speed up or slow down. There was never a time before energy. Energy already existed before time began and energy will continue to exist in the same total quantity after time ends.

The fact that energy can't be created and therefore always existed is not a theory, it is a proven Law, the FLoT. It was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule and therefore cannot be pontificated away as you have been doing. To claim energy must be created you need to prove it with a repeatable experiment!

It's okay to say that about energy but Christians get ridiculed when we replace it with GOD????

 

[hortysir]

You're full of shit. I said the Earth's rotation isn't constant, and that works against you, not for you. Besides, when you said the rotation isn't constant, all you meant was that it's slowing. You have no answer to what I've pointed out, other than bullshit.

Atheists are people who decided to trade intelligence for arrogance.

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Our rotation hasn't been constant so it's impossible to deduce the rate of 15 billion years ago.
Meaning we have not the slightest clue how long the first day was.

 

[hortysir]

How would one miniscule particle create all of this mass?

 

[percysunshine]

There is movement in a heat death universe, just not bulk movement. Its all thermalized movement (which is heat).

You don't understand the heat death theory.

And you have never had sex with Syrenn...

 

[edthecynic]

Need one of my Valium?

I was using your statement against Ed's that said it was slowing.

IOW I wasn;t arguing.

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Our rotation hasn't been constant so it's impossible to deduce the rate of 15 billion years ago.
Meaning we have not the slightest clue how long the first day was.

You may have a point as according to the bible day and night have nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth or the sun. Day and night were created on the first day and the sun on the 4th. The sun has nothing to do with light and darkness or day and night.

Gen 1: 3* ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4* And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[hortysir]

Actually I said PRESENTLY the rotation is slowing, but that does not mean it was always slowing. The rotation was quite likely speeding up as the early Earth was forming before the moon was captured and began slowing it down.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Our rotation hasn't been constant so it's impossible to deduce the rate of 15 billion years ago.
Meaning we have not the slightest clue how long the first day was.

You may have a point as according to the bible day and night have nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth or the sun. Day and night were created on the first day and the sun on the 4th. The sun has nothing to do with light and darkness or day and night.

Gen 1: 3* ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4* And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

How many hours comprised the evening and morning?

 

[edthecynic]

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Our rotation hasn't been constant so it's impossible to deduce the rate of 15 billion years ago.
Meaning we have not the slightest clue how long the first day was.

You may have a point as according to the bible day and night have nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth or the sun. Day and night were created on the first day and the sun on the 4th. The sun has nothing to do with light and darkness or day and night.

Gen 1: 3* ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4* And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

How many hours comprised the evening and morning?

Since the evening and the morning has nothing to do with the sun, wouldn't that mean they were the same as today???

 

[Liability]

You may have a point as according to the bible day and night have nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth or the sun. Day and night were created on the first day and the sun on the 4th. The sun has nothing to do with light and darkness or day and night.

Gen 1: 3* ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4* And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

How many hours comprised the evening and morning?

Since the evening and the morning has nothing to do with the sun, wouldn't that mean they were the same as today???

No. If we cannot measure a day without the Sun, then without the Sun a "day" could mean a few billion years.

 

[edthecynic]

How many hours comprised the evening and morning?

Since the evening and the morning has nothing to do with the sun, wouldn't that mean they were the same as today???

No. If we cannot measure a day without the Sun, then without the Sun a "day" could mean a few billion years.

So that would make this still the seventh day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMZUA78TaRM]Jan Hammer - The First Seven Days 7 - The Seventh Day - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

Since the evening and the morning has nothing to do with the sun, wouldn't that mean they were the same as today???

No. If we cannot measure a day without the Sun, then without the Sun a "day" could mean a few billion years.

So that would make this still the seventh day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMZUA78TaRM]Jan Hammer - The First Seven Days 7 - The Seventh Day - YouTube[/ame]

Because there is no Sun?

Yeah.

You're a dick.

 

[edthecynic]

No. If we cannot measure a day without the Sun, then without the Sun a "day" could mean a few billion years.

So that would make this still the seventh day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMZUA78TaRM]Jan Hammer - The First Seven Days 7 - The Seventh Day - YouTube[/ame]

Because there is no Sun?

Yeah.

You're a dick.

Maybe so, but with good taste in music!