Evolution of what?

[YoursTrue]

Actually there is.

It's called Entropy.

Again, it's mental gymnastics using words of scientists. Not making sense. No justification. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a generally accepted fact that Hawkings was a genius. His IQ was 160.

• 85 to 114: Average intelligence
• 115 to 129: Above average or bright
• 130 to 144: Moderately gifted
• 145 to 159: Highly gifted
• 160 to 179: Exceptionally gifted
• 180 and up: Profoundly gifted

So? He knew the truth about the universe, evolution, the "Big Bang" and God? I don't think so. If you think that high IQ means a person can figure things out about evolution, the big bang, life, and God, hey, go with it. That's your thing, not mine.

 

[YoursTrue]

I mean, everyone has an opinion, but you're quick to dismiss his accomplishments. Based on what? Seems like unmitigated arrogance to me. Why do you judge his contributions to science as ridiculous?

I am speaking only of his surmises, conjectures and changing opinion of the so-called big bang theory. But here is an interesting account: How Stephen Hawking became the world's most famous physicist – Physics World

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not putting him down but he also made money that way. And yes he figured what he figured even though it was clearly mental gymnastics. Maybe this, maybe that.etc. fini say what you want, I see that. Bye for now.

Oh Jiminy Cricket. As if making money somehow invalidates his ideas. Let me ask you, when you are sick and go to the doctor, and the doctor says, Take this Amoxicillin, do you say to your doctor, "No, I don't trust your prescription, because you are getting paid for this appointment" ???

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So? He knew the truth about the universe, evolution, the "Big Bang" and God? I don't think so. If you think that high IQ means a person can figure things out about evolution, the big bang, life, and God, hey, go with it. That's your thing, not mine.

What I think is that people with high IQs are better able to process information.

Your remarks are starting to form a pattern. You have no respect for people who are better educated, and you have no respect for people who have better mental skills. It's starting to look like you view yourself as the pinnacle of human intellect, and the existence of anyone better than yourself makes you angry because their existence challenges that view of yourself. I think a little humility is in order here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Again, it's mental gymnastics using words of scientists. Not making sense. No justification. Bye for now.

No. It's your denial of actual of facts in favor of staying in ignorance and embracing one's fantasy.

Worst kind of hobbling of a person's intelligence and ability to discern fact from fiction. Don't waste your mind like that because it's a terrible thing to do.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am speaking only of his surmises, conjectures and changing opinion of the so-called big bang theory. But here is an interesting account: How Stephen Hawking became the world's most famous physicist – Physics World

Your emphasis here is on the negative aspects of Hawking's life, and not his science and worldview. Yes Hawking is human and made mistakes. Speaking only from what you conclude as " his surmises, conjectures and changing opinion of the so-called big bang theory" reflects your ancient tribal beliefs and the rejection of science. Hawking contributed to the science of physics and cosmology, but Hawking does not represent totally the knowledge of physics and cosmology. Yes, it is obvious that Hawking did change his view over time for that matter the knowledge of science changes over time.

Note the conclusion and the last paragraph of the article:

The structure does, however, lend itself to the human story, and I found the final chapters (about Hawking’s early life) markedly poignant, knowing already all that was to follow in his life. I was left with the feeling that Hawking Hawking is not really an exposé; it is less explosive and more sympathetic to its subject than the publisher’s description led me to expect. Is it too cynical of me to wonder if this was a publicity stunt of their own?

 

[metis]

Most scientists think that there was matter of some sort and that it exploded, right?

Not matter-- energy. Not exploded-- expanded.

And it was teeny, tiny but then blasted out and made the entire universe. I think it's wacko.

Except all the studies done thus far strongly point in that direction to that point, whereas no serious cosmologist today doubts that this is what happened. However, what caused this to happen is simply unknown.

There are numerous books on the BB written by research cosmologists, and I can give the titles of a few that I read if you're interested.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not matter-- energy. Not exploded-- expanded.



Except all the studies done thus far strongly point in that direction to that point, whereas no serious cosmologist today doubts that this is what happened. However, what caused this to happen is simply unknown.

There are numerous books on the BB written by research cosmologists, and I can give the titles of a few that I read if you're interested.

A couple of qualifications to note; If the it was the expansion of a singularity the initial expansion was energy, matter formed as a result of the expansion. There are several theories that may explain the expansion of the universe in the concepts of a cyclic universe. Some of the evidence is found in the observations of 'Black Holes' and the likely that singularities form in Black Holes and the possibility as our universe winds down a new universe can form with th emerging of Black holes

Yes there are unanswered questions concerning the origins of our universe and all possible universes.

Objections to the cosmology of the origins of our universe by @YoursTrue are based on an intentional ignorance of science, and th presumption of the rejection of all science that does not agree with their ancient tribal worldview. 'Arguing from ignorance' claiming science does not know leads to the conclusion that the science is false. and they fail to recognize that the knowledge of science will always be incomplete and evolves and changes with new information.

 

[Astrophile]

"At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began." See, they think it was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density, etc. called a singularity. And suddenly, voila, there it is! (Insane)

If I understand it correctly, matter was not compacted into a very small ball at a specific location in space. It may be more accurate to say that mass-energy and space-time were compacted into a very small volume that formed the entire universe. To think of there being something outside the universe is as inaccurate as thinking that there was a time before the big bang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I understand it correctly, matter was not compacted into a very small ball at a specific location in space. It may be more accurate to say that mass-energy and space-time were compacted into a very small volume that formed the entire universe. To think of there being something outside the universe is as inaccurate as thinking that there was a time before the big bang.

Yes, from my understanding as well. I wonder, @YoursTrue , are you aware of the mass energy equivalence that Einstein discovered? The simple form of the it is E =mc^2. That there was no "mass" does not mean that everything came from nothing. At the time of the Big Bang everything was in the form of energy, not matter. Matter came about after the extremely hot early universe cooled down a bit.

 

[YoursTrue]

If I understand it correctly, matter was not compacted into a very small ball at a specific location in space. It may be more accurate to say that mass-energy and space-time were compacted into a very small volume that formed the entire universe. To think of there being something outside the universe is as inaccurate as thinking that there was a time before the big bang.

No, I am not saying that matter was compacted or not into a teeny tiny miniscule ball before it exploded. I am saying, however, that I think it's preposterous to believe that or suggest that. Why? Because again -- it is preposterous. If one believes it is not preposterous, ok. Back to sci-fi and games again. It is like God saying in the book of Job, where were you when I created things? So anyway -- maybe later.

 

[YoursTrue]

If I understand it correctly, matter was not compacted into a very small ball at a specific location in space. It may be more accurate to say that mass-energy and space-time were compacted into a very small volume that formed the entire universe. To think of there being something outside the universe is as inaccurate as thinking that there was a time before the big bang.

I'm going back to Spinoza.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Because again -- it is preposterous.

Since when has your personal sense of incredulity been the standard for scientific theory?

 

[YoursTrue]

Since when has your personal sense of incredulity been the standard for scientific theory?

That's right, it is not. It is my personal sense of what makes sense and what does not necessarily make sense to me.
There is an interesting book about Dr. Hawking which I intend to read, but the forwarding remarks about the book are very interesting. Definitely worth a read as far as I am concerned. https://www.amazon.com/Hawking-Selling-Scientific-Celebrity/dp/1541618378

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's right, it is not. It is my personal sense of what makes sense and what does not necessarily make sense to me.
There is an interesting book about Dr. Hawking which I intend to read, but the forwarding remarks about the book are very interesting. Definitely worth a read as far as I am concerned. https://www.amazon.com/Hawking-Selling-Scientific-Celebrity/dp/1541618378

We seem to be wired differently. You seem to assume that you have the education and intelligence to understand everything there is to know. I don't feel that way at all. There are plenty of times when I will start reading a journal article and just smh and say, "Wow, this is too difficult for me." It's not that I'm stupid; I'm not. But I am well aware that there are occasions where I will either lack the intelligence necessary to understand something, or that I lack the necessary educational background to understand it. For example, I'm aware that quantum mechanics says that a subatomic particle can be in two places at once. My common sense says, "Preposterous!" But I have the humility to know that I'm simply not on par with the physicists who study these things, and I trust that, as experts, they know what they are doing.

 

[YoursTrue]

We seem to be wired differently. You seem to assume that you have the education and intelligence to understand everything there is to know. I don't feel that way at all. There are plenty of times when I will start reading a journal article and just smh and say, "Wow, this is too difficult for me." It's not that I'm stupid; I'm not. But I am well aware that there are occasions where I will either lack the intelligence necessary to understand something, or that I lack the necessary educational background to understand it. For example, I'm aware that quantum mechanics says that a subatomic particle can be in two places at once. My common sense says, "Preposterous!" But I have the humility to know that I'm simply not on par with the physicists who study these things, and I trust that, as experts, they know what they are doing.

But they don't. And it is sad that you believe what they say in reference to so many matters. Because you think they had a high IQ maybe? Wow is all I can say. Anyway have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

We seem to be wired differently. You seem to assume that you have the education and intelligence to understand everything there is to know. I don't feel that way at all. There are plenty of times when I will start reading a journal article and just smh and say, "Wow, this is too difficult for me." It's not that I'm stupid; I'm not. But I am well aware that there are occasions where I will either lack the intelligence necessary to understand something, or that I lack the necessary educational background to understand it. For example, I'm aware that quantum mechanics says that a subatomic particle can be in two places at once. My common sense says, "Preposterous!" But I have the humility to know that I'm simply not on par with the physicists who study these things, and I trust that, as experts, they know what they are doing.

I am truly glad I don't lean in your direction, no insult intended.

 

[The Hammer]

I am truly glad I don't lean in your direction, no insult intended.

I wouldn't want to think like you even if it paid.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wouldn't want to think like you even if it paid.

lol, ok. Meantime, I'm going to ask about Spinoza. Maybe you have an opinion, maybe you don't. I'll put it on another thread.