Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.

[Polymath257]

I've read several of his papers, so do you want to discuss stuff in this one? Have you read his ABHOT? Have you watched his shows or youtube like I did?

I've educated myself about Hawking, so let's not beat around the bush here if you want to discuss IPAWFFBH.

Oh, goodie. You read ABHOT. How much of it did you understand?

What is his 'no boundary' condition and why is it relevant? What is its current status?

What does Hawking have to say about events before the Big Bang?

Let's hear from you, in your own words, what Hawking radiation is. I won't even limit you to 140 characters.

And what can you tell me about the details of the singularity theorems Hawking did with Penrose? What conditions do they have? What assumptions did they make? How are they relevant to the existence of Black holes?

How is the singularity at the Big Bang different than the singularities at Black Holes?

Again, in your own words, not those of a website or video.

 

[james bond]

Oh, goodie. You read ABHOT. How much of it did you understand?

What is his 'no boundary' condition and why is it relevant? What is its current status?

What does Hawking have to say about events before the Big Bang?

Let's hear from you, in your own words, what Hawking radiation is. I won't even limit you to 140 characters.

And what can you tell me about the details of the singularity theorems Hawking did with Penrose? What conditions do they have? What assumptions did they make? How are they relevant to the existence of Black holes?

How is the singularity at the Big Bang different than the singularities at Black Holes?

Again, in your own words, not those of a website or video.

No need to show off my knowledge, but I'll select Hawking radiation. It's theoretical, but it's the radiation emitted from an area near the event horizon of a black hole. Quid pro quo. Why is Hawking and Susskind fighting over the findings of the event horizon?

 

[james bond]

So did you confirm black holes exist as you claim, Polymath257 ha ha? I'm sure if you did, then we would all have heard about it by now. Like I said, it still has to pass peer-review even though I do think they exist. I'm not sure how they exist when it violates the laws of GR.

Thus, can I say it. Atheists are usually wrong.

By the same token, a gravitational singularity should exist if a black hole does exist. What about a white hole, where the stuff pops out instead being pulled in by gravity?

 

[Shad]

The video was to show that it was atheist physicists who found the fine tuning theory. Shout out and thanks from the creationists. It really is an oldie but goldie. No wonder the atheists didn't point this out. Now as to the comment that this does not prove design, let me see. What it does is it does prove intelligence behind this fine tuning of our universe. The design is in the universe and how it works because our earth is placed just in the right place with the moon and sun. Then it has these other planets we can explore. So yes, looking at our Milky Way and Earth, I would think that it was designed very nicely.

Puddles are also amazed that the hole they fill is perfectly designed.

Hawking also believes in fine tuning and it demonstrates his intelligence. Does it also show design? I don't know. It depends what this other universe looks like. Does it look random like a tornado hit my son's room. Or is it some kind of organized structure.

If you are not sure then your previous points are moot.

Back to the video, I would agree its title is misleading and the message cards in it are selling a pov.

You are right, they are selling something.

 

[Polymath257]

No need to show off my knowledge, but I'll select Hawking radiation. It's theoretical, but it's the radiation emitted from an area near the event horizon of a black hole. Quid pro quo. Why is Hawking and Susskind fighting over the findings of the event horizon?

The question is whether there can be information loss at the event horizon. Under quantum mechanics, information cannot be truly lost, while the classical version of a black hole only retains information about mass, spin and charge. Thus a paradox. Hawking admitted he was wrong and that the information is conserved and is eventually emitted in that Hawking radiation.

What is the mechanism for the radiation?

 

[Polymath257]

So did you confirm black holes exist as you claim, Polymath257 ha ha? I'm sure if you did, then we would all have heard about it by now. Like I said, it still has to pass peer-review even though I do think they exist. I'm not sure how they exist when it violates the laws of GR.

Yes, once again we have seen them at the center of the Milky Way and several other galaxies. The point is that what we see is close enough to being what GR predicted to constitute a detection, even if quantum effects change the details slightly.

Thus, can I say it. Atheists are usually wrong.

By the same token, a gravitational singularity should exist if a black hole does exist. What about a white hole, where the stuff pops out instead being pulled in by gravity?

Again, the singularity may well be smoothed over by quantum effects but we would still call the resulting object a black hole. No white holes have been found, although quasars were suspected of being such at one time. In fact, they have black holes in them.

 

[james bond]

The question is whether there can be information loss at the event horizon. Under quantum mechanics, information cannot be truly lost, while the classical version of a black hole only retains information about mass, spin and charge. Thus a paradox. Hawking admitted he was wrong and that the information is conserved and is eventually emitted in that Hawking radiation.

What is the mechanism for the radiation?

It's the energy that radiates out near the event horizon from an electron that gets separated from its brother electron that gets pulled into the black hole. Hawking doesn't think they are entangled as in quantum entanglement.

What Hawking is saying about the information paradox is that it's not an information loss, but information change. Apparently, the radiated electrons contain the original information but are not put back the same way. His theory is they have been scrambled so that it cannot be put back together. There are more layers to the event horizon if there is one. They call it an outer horizon and inner horizon and a theoretical firewall in-between. The mystery is the firewall and what happens to matter as it passes into it. I think the matter which goes past the firewall into the black hole is still destroyed.

 

[james bond]

Again, the singularity may well be smoothed over by quantum effects but we would still call the resulting object a black hole. No white holes have been found, although quasars were suspected of being such at one time. In fact, they have black holes in them.

What I learned about the two was a singularity is formed from the collapse of a star less than the Chandrasekhar limit while a black hole is formed greather than the Chandrasekahar limit, i.e it depends on the mass of the star before collapse. This seems too pat thought as diagrams show both black hole and possibly the singularity is at its center. At this point, who knows for sure? The same with the gravitation pull being so strong that all matter is destroyed. This does not follow the sacred quantum theory. I like where they differentiate singularity and black holes in that the singularity forms an edge. The GR physicists seem to think that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not happen here and thus contradict what quantum physicists would think.

As for white holes, if black holes can happen, then white holes should happen, too, but they haven't been found. Maybe they're less frequent or they do not exist except in theory. We have to know what happens at the horizon of a black hole first.

 

[james bond]

The creationist view is in flux, too. It appears that they support the GR view and that dead star collapses into a singularity. They do not support as much the black hole theories, but it's not like they're against it. What if the star core is greater than Chandrasekhar limit?

Just two different arguments and theories. I'm not sure how true this statement is, "Astronomers would use the radius of the event horizon to specify the size of a black hole. The radius of a black hole measured in kilometers equals three times the number of solar masses of material in the black hole. One solar mass is the mass (amount of matter) of the sun."

This is what creationists assume:
"The Big Bang cosmology is based on what is called the Copernican Principle. It is the idea that the universe is the same everywhere, which is a basic starting assumption. While some popular literature implies a universe that has a boundary and center, the Copernican Principle implies there is no boundary or center. The Copernican Principle is an arbitrary, evolutionary assumption that relies upon man's word. On the other hand, the Bible, or word of God, implies that the universe has a boundary and that the Earth is near the center, thus providing substitute starting assumptions contradictory to that of the Copernican Principle.

This is important because gravity depends on a center of mass, which implies an edge to the mass. According to the Big Bang theory there is no edge and therefore no center and therefore no net gravitational force. In the biblical creationism context, the universe may have a boundary with a net gravitational force. The significance of this is the fact that gravity slows time which follows exactly what is predicted and demonstrated by experiment by the theory of General Relativity."

White hole cosmology - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[Shad]

Well this put a damper on the OP when the only major figure for the argument is actually against it.

 

[Polymath257]

It's the energy that radiates out near the event horizon from an electron that gets separated from its brother electron that gets pulled into the black hole. Hawking doesn't think they are entangled as in quantum entanglement.

Be careful. The 'brother' of the electron isn't an electron. I tis a positron: an anti-electron.

What Hawking is saying about the information paradox is that it's not an information loss, but information change. Apparently, the radiated electrons contain the original information but are not put back the same way. His theory is they have been scrambled so that it cannot be put back together. There are more layers to the event horizon if there is one. They call it an outer horizon and inner horizon and a theoretical firewall in-between. The mystery is the firewall and what happens to matter as it passes into it. I think the matter which goes past the firewall into the black hole is still destroyed.

This is really an area of active theoretical research. There are a LOT of questions that have yet to be resolved. And these are often fundamental to the issues surrounding quantum gravity.

The biggest problems for the quantum gravity theories is that NONE of them have been tested to *any* degree. They are *pure* supposition.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oldie but goldie. They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design.

If we were asked to explain the existence of a watch, but were rapped over the knuckles any time we considered the slightest possibility of creative involvement...:

We might first propose that the watch was eternal, it always just was, and anyone who thinks a creation is necessary is not very smart.. (eternal models ; no creation= no creator)
I am old enough that I was taught this, and anything else was 'science denial'

If we were then shown a date of manufacture, we might argue that this was a fake, and the watch was really still eternal (steady state)

Once a specific creation event and date was established beyond reasonable doubt, we'd probably be forced to imagine that the watch created itself by imploding and exploding again (big crunch/bounce etc)

Once this too was debunked- what else is there? An infinite probability machine that can accidentally create anything and everything.. except a watch maker of course, which would defeat the purpose!

Even atheists increasingly accept ID as a solution to this problem- some form of 'alien scientist' , as long as we don't call it God of course, that would be a little embarrassing at this point.

 

[james bond]

Be careful. The 'brother' of the electron isn't an electron. I tis a positron: an anti-electron.



This is really an area of active theoretical research. There are a LOT of questions that have yet to be resolved. And these are often fundamental to the issues surrounding quantum gravity.

The biggest problems for the quantum gravity theories is that NONE of them have been tested to *any* degree. They are *pure* supposition.

I used the word 'brother' because Hawking Radiation is based on photons and quantum entanglement. Do you want to explain how it became electrons and positrons?

Yes, the biggest problems are on the quantum physics side, and this is how we got into this discussion from the BBT. Thus, it goes to show that BBT hasn't made it's case. Even Hawking has changed from the video I posted of the universe beginning at the tiny quantum single point. The creationists are calling it the Science of the Gaps. It includes the multiverse hypothesis after the quantum physicists found fine tuning.

 

[Polymath257]

I used the word 'brother' because Hawking Radiation is based on photons and quantum entanglement. Do you want to explain how it became electrons and positrons?

Electrons and positrons are produced in pairs spontaneously by quantum effects. This, by the way, is a demonstration that things can appear 'out of nothing'. The positron is the anti-matter equivalent of the electron and quantum fluctuations always produce matter-antimatter pairs.

Yes, the biggest problems are on the quantum physics side, and this is how we got into this discussion from the BBT. Thus, it goes to show that BBT hasn't made it's case. Even Hawking has changed from the video I posted of the universe beginning at the tiny quantum single point. The creationists are calling it the Science of the Gaps. It includes the multiverse hypothesis after the quantum physicists found fine tuning.

And yet the overall picture of an expanding universe that was once hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions is well supported. That is what most scientists mean when they talk about the Big Bang theory. What modifications are required for the inflationary stage and before are considered to be *additions* to the basic theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@james bond Why is it so important for you that scientists be atheists and atheists be scientists?

 

[james bond]

@james bond Why is it so important for you that scientists be atheists and atheists be scientists?

It shouldn't be important, but the term atheist scientist is the conservative view since atheists took over in the 1800s. Prior to this, Christian scientists ruled this domain. It wasn't until the 1920s that creation scientists started to come back during the Scopes trial in the US. On the other side is the liberal view of creation not being science and all that we discuss here. The only accepted science is that which does not deal with creation or the Bible. If we look at what this science boils down to and that is whether it has been peer-reviewed or not.

Allow me to change the subject a bit from physical science to medical science in order to discuss the differences of this argument. In medical science, we have the two thoughts of empiricism vs rationalism. In the US, the medical view is that of empiricism. One has to show empirically how a drug provides a benefit and has acceptable side effects in order to pass muster. We learn that everything is physical and material. The brain is that which controls all of our bodily functions. The body is that which listens to the brain and carries out its instruction. The less mainstream view is that of rationalism where theory is presented to explain human behavior and that which affects the mind and body. The thinking is the mind and spirit is immaterial and that which controls the brain and body. For example, the body is the temple of the spirit is not a philosophy of empiricism, but that of rationalism. The way we treat disease would be approached differently between these lines of thinking. The medical doctor would treat the disease as something physical that which has attacked the body. What is necessary is medicine to counteract and alleviate the attack. Thus, an antibiotic may be prescribed to treat the patient. On the other hand, we have diseases such as alcoholism or drug addiction which isn't so clear. We can't empirically treat the patient by giving them a pill to make the disease go away. We need some kind of therapy and avoidance to cure the patient from their disease or addiction. This would involve a rationalistic type of thinking.

The above is contrary to what evolutionists want you to believe that science is science. There is nothing of the sort. Science has always been a search for the truth and knowledge and of argument. There are laws, principles, theories and such which means more people have accepted the science. Usually, it starts with professionals in the field and the general public accepts their findings. There is no proof in science such as that of math and Q.E.D. The science is not final nor that science is science. To go back to my previous example, we see that medical science works this way. I use medical science because it does not have the God argument as much as the physical sciences although creationists know that there is no place that there is not God. There will be the creation vs evolution debate in medical science, too.

Otherwise, we all live in a happy world where one can believe what they want.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only accepted science is that which does not deal with creation or the Bible.

Science is science. There is no "accepted" science. Science is a method. There is evidence and proof, or there is not.

This would involve a rationalistic type of thinking.

Addiction treatment isn't my area of study, but I know enough they don't parade around like some holistic new age quacks. They use science. Even faith-based programs, if they are licensed, are using science.

The above is contrary to what evolutionists want you to believe that science is science.

Actually, you have a massive gap in your understanding of science. We have empirical studies to treat addiction, and we are finding better ways. You pretty much have no argument because you're saying we don't have things that we actually do have.
And you didn't actually answer my question. You keep using "evolution" and "science" and "atheism" as if they are explicitly, intimately, and inherently forever linked together. Me, I do that science thing, I accept evolution as fact, but guess what? I'm not an atheist, and I don't exclude that there may be some god sort of thingy. But I do often forget where I park my car, so I'm not going to lie and pretend to have any knowledge about something that lies beyond what our ape brains and three-dimensional perception can perceive.

 

[viole]

Ugh. The apes analogy. (I do not consider myself descended from apes because I can use facts, reasoning and historical truths to make and back up an argument. Big problem for evos if you ask me.) The basic thinking related to what you mentioned whatever it means is we have to look at the observer as relative. For example, if you were on a train watching a ping pong game. You would observe the game the same as if it was being played in your back yard (stationary). Now, if you were watching the same game standing away from the train as it passed by and you could see the game (assume it's a glass car), then the ping pong ball is traveling at 100 mph the same speed as the train. It doesn't matter. Both of your measurements are correct. As for spaghetti, there's different thinking on that, too, ha ha. When the theoretical astronaut reaches a black hole, Hawking thinks he will be torn apart with the legs going first and the head later. This is because the effects of gravity is lesser as an object is further away. It means the astronaut will be stretched apart like spaghetti until he is torn. I'll leave the atomic clock alone as that is more difficult to describe in an unbounded vs bounded universe. Enjoy your sphagetti. Ciao.

You are not descending from apes. Believe me.

You are an ape. Like me. Great apes, to be exact. We are also primates and mammals, among other things.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

When you say cosmology, it usually is in the area of philosophy. It could be hypothesis (starting a formal proposal in terms of publishing a paper for others to review (not even close to peer-review)) vs just shooting the bull among us. Is Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking very credible in the area of cosmology, physics and quantum physics? Yes. We have Feynman, Dirac, Oskar Klein, Schwarzschild (not a physicist, but a doodler) and more. Then there are the basic metrics used like Robertson-Walker and Klein metric. Even that doodler has a metric ha ha.

So, do you agree in what else they say? In the field of physics and cosmology, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

You are not descending from apes. Believe me.

You are an ape. Like me. Great apes, to be exact. We are also primates and mammals, among other things.

Ciao

- viole

Sorry. I'm not any kind of ape. I'm a human and descended from other humans. I can learn and speak different languages (another point brought out in the Bible). There's no reason for it if the default was we spoke the same language. Apes can't talk. Bipedalism is not an advantage unless you're human. It's not helpful for an animal to be bipedal like that of a human. If we descended from apes, then they should have disappeared like the ape-man. It's fake science.