Disappointing. Nothing he didn't write in his previous books, not worth your time if you read his previous work :/
If you have time and energy, read http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-G...0679454438 no bullshit, raw mindfuck.

he seems full of bullshit to me. Never liked or found anything intelligent in his work (edit: I am talking about Hawking).

for example:

“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.”

what oversimplified nonsense is this? How gravity existed in the 1st place? I am not saying it is God that created everything. I am just saying that it is beyond our gasp to understand what is going on. Everyone that tries to explain what we are and how everything existed in the first place, doesn’t have the mental depth to understand that this is far beyond us. I am sure Einstein understood this simple fact and he was a true genius and not a tale story teller who makes the mind of the average Joe happy. He actually delivered and did and wrote some pretty useful stuff.

Stephen Hawking is nothing on the lan. He is just an online hero.

What about his other comment about how we should avoid making contact with alien races at all costs? I think he's a little crazy now and forgot he watched Independence Day 15 years ago.

lol I am curious to see how he is backing that up. I am sure it is not mathematical equations (might be the movie like you said)

maybe he assumes the aliens will have a similar mindset as humans.

as a matter of curiosity, what is your education?

Masters degree in Computer Science

So this is probably beyond your grasp anyway?

there is no such thing for me honestly. I won't bullshit you, playing it modest.

and computer science is mathematics and logic. Used to have great minds. Nowadays, in defence of ur stupid trolling, is just another career option and you can hardly find a graduate that can make a program.

that's amazing, you must be the smartest guy alive

lol who cares anw. You can have the title

Hawking is not though

C'mon, he's practically a cyborg

what does education have to do with knowledge?

ur supposed to get some whilst

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1959488#pid1959488

^ this explains your question

(please refrain from calling it "oversimplified nonsense" simply because he was condensing hundreds of years of work in physics into an interview answer)

ok, I will watch it when I find some time

nice watch!

Doesn't answer my question, rather supports what I said that it is too naive to think that you can explain everything.

It does, though. "Gravity" is merely a consequence of time and energy.

saw this, "Never liked or found anything intelligent in his work" - and lol'd.

*wraps

typo fml

Grand theoretical physics is cute, but its more of a self indulgent religion than anything real. Clearly humans don't have the knowledge to fully understand the universe. Trying to fully describe the world in our state is like an ant trying to cross an ocean. Impossible. We aren't smart enough, yet.

The speculation is actually pretty entertaining. I just hate when the theorists try to piece extra bullshit in to their theories to make them hold up. Like dark matter for instance. The only reason "dark matter" is a phrase is because theorists refuse to realize they have no idea what gravity really is.

well, 'h' tells us that sometimes putting in a placeholder isn't all that stupid.

wow you are really superior to everyone, can you give me links to some of the award winning papers you have published?

Huh? Look it up buddy. Particle physics has no empirical evidence for gravity. The "graviton" hasn't been found yet. http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~dfehling/
When Astrophysicists watch the motion of space probes traveling through our solar system, they are puzzled to find that their motions are different than what was predicted. Current theories on gravity cannot explain the way galaxies move or why they hold together. I could go on and on, but the fact that there are major holes in the classic theory of gravity is readily known. Is it so hard to believe that us glorified monkeys aren't smart enough to fully understand our surroundings?

What? We understand gravity perfectly, it's just that we don't understand why it's so weak compared to any of the other forces. The "graviton" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gravity itself, but merely why it's so weak - a product of M theory which would allow it to pass through to other dimensions.

We're going to have to disagree on whether or not scientists understand gravity perfectly. I think there is plenty of evidence that we don't. Also, the graviton does have a lot to do with gravity according to the standard model. By that model, all forces have a mediating particle which would be the graviton in gravitys case. M Theory is really interesting. We'll see how much of it can be proven at the LHC.

The graviton is the answer to "what", but not the answer to "how". The answer to "how" is already explained by physics.

Depends on what you mean by fully understand.

Much of the complexity is from the interaction of all the (insert large number) of different particles with each other, but that doesn't mean that the underlying principles are inherently complex or not understandable by "glorified monkeys". In fact I think we have done a pretty good job of it so far in our short existence.

Of course, science has come a long way. You have to make mistakes before you learn. Scientists once thought the sun was God and the Earth was flat because that is all they could observe about their surroundings. Now scientists have other theories. It's all about what you believe. I don't believe we have the real answers yet and we won't until we have the ability to freely travel the cosmos. Like I said before, I do enjoy the speculation.

Science has nothing to do with beliefs, like some sort of religion.
It's the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (thanks wikipedia).

They are not just making things up, and even if they don't understand certain parts they use educated guesses, until some better theory comes along and replaces the previous one. Which happens all the time.

There is empirical science and theoretical science. Empirical science is real and can be proven immaculately with experimentation, examples, and mathematics.

Theoretical science uses mathematics and thought experiments to prove theories, but that is all it produces, theories not real concrete facts. They have yet to be proved with real evidence. While the theories might be true, there is also the possibility that they in fact not true.

This is the reason it takes a certain belief to think a theory is correct. Belief in something unproven is religion. For instance, before M-Theory was developed, String theory was divided into 6 different groups of theorists. All of whom believed their own theory to be correct. Now they believe in something else. String theory is still religion because it has yet to be proven.

No, a theory has evidence, but isn't made into a law due to being unable to be directly tested (repeatably so) or observed for whatever reason. You're thinking hypothesis.

edit: the coming together of string theory was merely a unification brought on by additional evidence.

You seem to mistake theory and hypothesis, as the closest thing you could call a "religion" would only be a hypothesis. We predicted atoms long before we actually found them - they were a THEORY because we had evidence that they had to exist, and the evidence turned out to be true. While evidence may change the general shape of the outcome in regards to a theory, it's always in the same direction.

I said real evidence, which would constitute what you said about directly tested or observed. Maybe a lot of the current theories are true, maybe they are not. With out empirical proof, belief comes in to play. Perhaps the term religion is too extreme of a word.

All empirical truths are made up of real evidence, and a theory is just a collection of real evidence. Once you can directly test/observe that evidence, it would no longer be evidence - it would be law.

Do you deny evolution? It's a theory, merely because it cannot be directly tested. I'll assume that you do (if you don't, I have nothing more to say), so why would you treat any other theory differently? Without attacking the entire foundation of the scientific method, you can't discount the validity of the system to produce theories.

I'm not saying I don't believe in any theories. With evolution there is plenty of rock solid evidence indicating the theory is true. However, many contemporary theories on the make up of the universe have large holes. When you design theories that are based off of other theories that are based off of other theories, a lot gets lost in translation.

Evidence based on evidence is still evidence. I could understand dislike for supporting a theory with a hypothesis, but a theory is really just a blanket description for a collection of evidence. Which holes do you find in general relativity, quantum theory, M theory, and dark matter?

Current theories on Universal Dynamics or gravity fail to describe the motion of galaxies and stars. Dark matter is the extra matter theorists need to describe the universe the way they want to. It all depends on what you believe. Are the current theories of gravity incorrect or is there some form of matter out there that we can't see, in the perfect quantity to hold the universe together? I would pick the former.

I have no problem with quantum theory as most of it has been experimentally proven. However, there still are holes in the theory. It will remain incomplete until the Higgs Boson and graviton are found.

As for relativity, the only evidence that it may be true is gravitational lensing. However, there are other effects that could account for the phenomena such as electromagnetic fields. The electrical genius Nikola Tesla was opposed to Einsteins theories calling them "a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ".

Maybe we have it all figured out, maybe we are thousands or millions of years away. Believe what you want.

Dark matter is a result of equations, not hypothesis - just like string/M theory. Discounting the entire foundation simply because one part MAY be wrong is ignorant.

On what basis can you discount relativity? You'll need more than the unfounded opinion of an electrical engineer. Disbelieving strong theories simply because of a hypothesis is more like the religion you describe. For all intents and purposes, relativity is a law.

edit in response to your edit: How can you have no problem with quantum theory when we have almost no understanding of it? Hell, the more we try to understand, the less we can.

Special relativity is incorrect. If it was correct, objects would orbit in different directions and on different planes. Look at any galaxy, there is only one plane and one direction of orbit (the same is true for solar-systems).

I don't understand why anyone considers movement a mystery. Things move... and it is the movement itself which causes the structure of galaxies, what people call 'gravity'. The stars are both moving and rotating, and that is why there is only one plane and one direction of orbit (which is untrue for binaries and clusters, because all the objects are stars of similar density, and therefore, similar gravitational effect).

Relativity is certainly not a law. Clearly we're getting no where so lets agree to disagree. :)

It's not just the rotation of stars causing 'gravity', it is all motion. Black-holes (which are more like inverse stars - in that they ingest light and heat, rather than expelling it), also rotate and cause the same 'gravitational' structure as stars. It is also whatever else. Like tornado's or whirlpools, anything within vicinity of a superior force, will be affected by it. As they spin around, the various things within proximity will begin to spin around with them. In space, it is the same, but with some kind of 'space wind' or 'space water'... same principle as tornado's and whirlpools... in space. If you've seen a hurricane from a satellite view, it looks remarkably similar to a galaxy. It is not a coincidence.

Now, what exactly the 'space-wind' is, no one yet seems to know. It certainly is not some kind of magnetic force though, as Newtonian gravity would suggest, nor is it any kind of 4th-dimensional plane, as Einsteinian gravity would show.

Obviously, we cannot visibly see the rotation of stars or black-holes, but like with many things, we cannot see them, yet they are true. You cannot see the molecules in your chair, nor can you see that the Earth rotates around the sun. Regardless, such things are true.

The proof, that the motion itself is what causes what we call 'gravity', and that the various stars, black-holes and other like-objects are rotating, is in the universally recurrent pattern being that almost all the objects (galactic/solar-systemic), rotate along the same plane and in the same direction. Nothing but the rotation of a central, superior object could cause such a constant pattern.

I always throughly enjoy how eloquent you are. Thanks.

over the years many predictions from the theory of relativity have been found to be true in experiments. Some of them being very recent experiments.

I kind of doubt Mr. Tesla was able to consider all that when he wrote his statement.

especially since he also made this statement

'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.', "

Do you still think Tesla's opiinon is to be trusted regarding space?

I used Tesla as an example to show that not all scientsist perscribe to popular physics. Telsa had many great ideas. It's a pitty much of his research was lost in a fire, which subsequently drove him bat shit crazy.

not all scientsist perscribe to popular physics

Not all scientists are physicists.

or he went bat shit crazy and lit up his shit. see how it's all like, relative dude.

Hrm i see what you did there, you're right. I'm convinced!

see how easy it is when you like, talk and shit?

This just in: there is no "truth" in the models of physics that you can ulitmatively prove with empirical data, it's merely "not yet false" or possibly insufficient in detail as new evidence proving a hole in the theory could always appear. Are the mechanics according to Newton "wrong"? Is special relativity "wrong"? What does "wrong" even mean? You should always keep in mind what the boundaries of a scientific theory in physics are, and my guess is that all physicists do but might not sound like it when talking to the public.

Seeing as you question relativity: go try to build your own particle accelerator with Newtonian mechanics, my guess is it will fail. You mentioned electromagnetic fields, but at the end of the day what is a magnetic field but an electric field transformed by motion according to relativity?

By classical electromagnetics, an object does not need space-time or space to be curved to create a magnetic field. I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm saying that building uproven theory upon unproven theory leads to convoluted assumptions which take a lot of faith to believe.

you can't build modern shit if you don't use that relative shit.

Scientists once thought the sun was God and the Earth was flat because that is all they could observe about their surroundings

really? which scientists were that and what scientific method did they use? it doesn't matter, we know the earth isn't flat now through scientifically verifiable evidence, and it has nothing to do with belief. i do enjoy your speculations, too, like I enjoy the speculations of the crazies in america that think evolution is a belief system.

You're right, evolution is not a belief system because it has been empirically proven. Dark matter and completely accurate models of cosmic movement have not.

as long as we agree that scientific hypothesis which, though not empirically proven, but are propositions based on verifiable truths but are subject to further research, as with many areas in cosmology including this one, are not a belief system in the same sense as a religion to a god is.

FIne :). Like I said to vedic, the term "religion" might be a little extreme. At least scientific theorist have some sort of rational thinking in what they believe. However, non empirical theories are still beliefs to some degree.

funny coincidence, but yesterday evening I read an essay by some physicist (forgot his name)

He argued that physicist should stop trying to form a unified field theory, as there are more than enough other topics in physics that are worthy of reasearch. He also said that believing such a theory must definately exist is a bit like religion :P

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you.

Well duh, obviously they are researching new things here and nobody knows if a unified theory exists, thats the whole point. Otherwise maybe we should just keep researching things we already know and see how much progress that brings.

The fact that one may exist is based on the whole history of physics and how it seems to be building up to such a theory. It's like Einstein said "we are all standing on the shoulders of giants". Developments are nearly always small incremental steps, revolutionary jumps are very seldom.

And even if someone were to prove that such a theory couldn't exists, it would be just as great a result as being able to prove that it does exist. So either way the research is usefull.

I presume then that you have a better proposal than dark matter? Please share it.

Haven't read the book yet, but he's basically talking about the things discussed in this video:


(yes, it's long, but worth it)

HOLY SHMOLY. that surely wasnt good night story talk

How about you create a troll account so people can put it on ignore and read this stuff without overlooking it? :<

It's not like there are many opportunities to make a quality post on this site.

Once in a while there are topics that would be considered 'quality' by anybody and that's speaking in the most pessimistic way possible

you mean this: http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1960653

or this: http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1760567

god damn this was amazingly informative and interesting!
i don't like dawkins i find him awkward and a bit pretentious, this guy was perfect in his delivery

"we live in a universe dominated by nothing". knew that after first Big Brother episode.

I'll just bump this because I'm bored and that was good.

He could lead the troops into battle so long as the battle had disabled access or was downhill or sommet

The only thing more expansive than Stephen Hawking's intellect is Liam's waistline.

say that to my face faggot i'll fucken twat you up

Put him in a a tank?

I don't understand why intelligent people participate in unintelligent discussion like "God".

Religion is the best troll ever.

intelligent person that tries to relate to the unintelligent person to impress it = attention whore

yep, like greenspan is/was for the financial community - there are a thousand guys that understand it better than him, but that guy sure made himself sound smart

intelligent person that tries to relate to the unintelligent person = ?

Greenspan is a smart person, he just abandoned his policies somewhere along the lines of GW Bush's administration.

Now his legacy is the mindless 2000s consumption orgy, much like Clinton's legacy is a blowjob from fatass jew.

he knew how to create bubbles - that's about it

what if the majority of people are in the unintelligent side and the intelligent people simply want their rights - like in our society?

intelligence drifts about on a whim

AND RELIGION IS IN THE AIR

can we get back to disrespecting games, gaming gear and women? All this intellectual talk is making me hungry.

That's why I posted THIS at the same time as this thread

Jibber jabber no god k multidimensional facets of existence yadda yadda black holes to Antares invasion in subspace continuum blah blah blah blah stringing along the hyperioids convoluted matter gathering around particles from the 10th dimension durr hurr hurr charging my protons derpy derp liam has an event horizon

Well, that about wraps it up for this thread.

U mad at no god?

Yes, i'm a model Christian and take massive offense to anyone implying that there is no God that guides us.

Just like your mother.

That's right. I'm from an extremely religious family, we take pride in being devoted to our Lord God. Every sunday i put Christian sneakers on my Christian feet and walk down a Christian street to the Christian church where i enter into the House of God with a big old Christian smile on my beautiful Christian face and pray for good tidings to God amongst my Christian brethren then i go back to my Christian home and walk my Christian dog so he can do a Christian poop on the Christian grass outside my Christian condo. IT's pretty amazing.

Hallelujah

Then how come there is pasta?

gravity

chinese

http://superstringtheory.com/ ??

You are looking at the wrong end of the stick. On the long run, religion isn't about scripture, it's about faith. True, that is has skewed the vision of many ppl over here and the Nordic countries would have been better off w/out Christianity but shit happens.

This Idea of religion as something that I have been lied to is quite childish

Luoja selkeää Suomea, jumala hämärämpi käsite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-LVUlTRFnY

religion is just a bad attempt at science.

More like primitive trolling.

elaborate

How they argued just for the sake of arguing, back in the day.

I'd hardly call getting people's panties in a twist for the last 5000 years primitive tho, if anything I'd say it's the mother of all trolling.

i just farted

I read all of this and have come to a few conclusions. You people are nerds. There are varying nerds among you, which I will now describe.

1. The nerd that forms opinions and will argue for the sake of appearing intelligent because of the relevant topic, which they actually know nothing about.

2. The nerd that counters arguments after reading up a bit on wikipedia about the relevant topic, which they know nothing about, for the sake of appearing intelligent.

3. The nerd that took one course that is, more or less, relevant to the topic and believes they are an expert on the matter, forcing their opinions as facts with disregard for any arguments thereafter.

4. The rare nerd that is actually knowledgeable of the relevant topic because they have studied extensively through personal interest, their education, and/or job. Most likely, this nerd will not be so pretentious as to chime in as the buzzkill, but rather enjoy the ignorance of the topic in silence, or perhaps even communicate a common interest for banter with another nerd of its type who has made a valid point.

5. The 4chan nerd who trolls hard. This is more of a sub-class nerd as it can easily fall into nerd categories 1-3, and even 5, creating an endless cycle of idiocy.




Tl;dr?
Everyone is a genius at ESR!

so you are No.3 ?

I think he´s a 2 maybe, he is clearly doing this "for the sake of appearing intelligent"/superior which isnt part of 3...

but he is trying to sell it as facts, isn't he?


Final offer: 2.5

ok?

Deal.

Nerd.

Nerd.

plz no verbal abuse, calm down my friend, ok?

Nerd.

send by god
er ist tot krank ok?
aber er will nicht dass es jemand weiss,,
psst!!

GERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMANGERMAN

leider ging mein grass vor 1,2 std aus, spende dir den applaus, der dir gebührt und führt dich in eine seitenflanke, ich schließe die schranke, bin weg.. KOPFFICK ;))