Here is the bottom line for Mav and Stu. This is Hawking paper in full. And here is a quote. If Mav wants to call him a christian fine. Stu this shows that you are quoting hawking out of context. His statement about gravity is in context of a multiverse. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency 3 See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological spacetimes. 1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would s
Even wikipedia says your are lying stu... The authors write: 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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[12] The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes.[11]
For Mav. This is from Judaism online. This is not a Christian issue. its a science issue. http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/intelligent-design/ The Universe as a Fit Habitat In recent years these and other parameters for the universe have been more sharply defined and analyzed. Now, nearly two dozen coincidences evincing design have been acknowledged: 1. The gravitational coupling constantâi.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that. On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist. 2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.(a) 3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction: neutron -> proton + electron + neutrino The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible. A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos would pass through a supernovaâs envelop without disturbing it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae. 4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not âshareâ an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible. 5. The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of (he orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. if the electron to proton mass ratio were slightly larger or slightly smaller, again, molecules would not form, and life would be impossible. 6. The age of the universe governs what kinds of stars exist. It takes about three billion years for the first stars to form. It takes another ten or twelve billion years for supernovae to spew out enough heavy elements to make possible stars like our sun, stars capable of spawning rocky planets. Yet another few billion years is necessary for solar-type stars to stabilize sufficiently to support advanced life on any of its planets. Hence, if the universe were just a couple of billion years younger, no environment suitable for life would exist. However, if the universe were about ten (or more) billion years older than it is, there would be no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of a galaxy. In other words, the window of time during which life is possible in the universe is relatively narrow. 7. The expansion rate of the universe determines what kinds of stars, if any, form in the universe. If the rate of expansion were slightly less, the whole universe would have recollapsed before any solar-type stars could have settled into a stable burning phase. If the universe were expanding slightly more rapidly, no galaxies (and hence no stars) would condense from the general expansion. How critical is this expansion rate? According to Alan Guth,(6) it must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055. Guth, however, suggests that his inflationary model, given certain values for the four fundamental forces of physics, may provide a natural explanation for the critical expansion rate. 8. The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the Systems into stars Either way the universe would be devoid of stars and, thus, of life. (Some models for the universe relate this coincidence to a dependence of entropy upon the gravitational coupling constant. [7, 8]) 9. The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines how much nuclear burning takes place as the universe cools from the hot big bang. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in Stars. This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet. On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible. more...
15. The distance between stars affects the orbits and even the existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, the gravitational interaction between stars would be so strong as to destabilize planetary orbits. this destabilization would create extreme temperature variations on the planet. If this distance were slightly larger, the heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae would be so thinly distributed that rocky planets like earth would never form. The average distance between stars is just right to make possible a planetary system such as our own. 16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature conditions on surrounding planets. Small stars, like the sun, settle into a stable burning phase once the hydrogen fusion process ignites within their core. However, during this stable burning phase such stars undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity. This gradual increase is perfectly suitable for the gradual introduction of life forms, in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet. If the rate of increase were slightly greater, a runaway green house effectc would be fell sometime between the introduction of the primitive and the introduction of the advanced life forms. If the rate of increase were slightly smaller, a runaway freezing(d) of the oceans and lakes would occur. Either way, the planetâs temperature would become too extreme for advanced life or even for the long-term survival of primitive life. This list of sensitive constants is by no means complete. And yet it demonstrates why a growing number of physicists and astronomers have become convinced that the universe was not only divinely brought into existence but also divinely designed. American astronomer George Greenstein expresses his thoughts: As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agencyâor, rather, Agencyâmust be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?(11)
Straight from the authority you chose - states one universe; 'no boundary'; all possible histories; allows this particular universe to come about. The problem is Jem, you are obviously not au fait on the subject. As long as you're cutting and pasting stuff others have written about Stephen Hawking's work, getting your *education* from wiki, or from second, third hand ...5th hand often religiously motivated opinions , when you can read it yourself direct from Hawking, will be why you remain incognizant of the facts to do with the subject. That and always acting like a creationist.
I have educated you on this subject a dozen times in the last month. I present the whole paper and I present videos. You have been caught lying and misrepersenting things dozens of times. You seem to now be arguing the theory of eternal inflation. Why don't you tell us how and why the theory of eternal inflation explains the tunings. Go ahead give it shot einstein. You going to make any predictions with that "theory"? two weeks ago you were arguing the tunings were inevitable... you could not show the science...I had to explain to you the theory of everything was not yet developed. Now you are going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum... and basically saying nothing about anything... you are now supporting a theory which leaves you with no way to predicting anything. and it still speculates there are regions with different constants... which makes it essential the same as the multiverse theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation Note the standard model does not explain the fine tunings if there is only one universe. wikipedia again. In standard inflation, inflationary expansion occurred while the universe was in a false vacuum state, halting when the universe decayed to a true vacuum state and became a general and inclusive phenomenon with homogeneity throughout, yielding a single expanding universe which is "our general reality" wherein the laws of physics are consistent throughout. In this case, the physical laws "just happen" to be compatible with the evolution of life. The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to "sub"- universes not in causal contact with each other and resulting in different physical laws in different regions which are then subject to "selection", which determines each region's components based upon (dependent on) the survivability of the quantum components within that region. The end result will be a finite number of universes with physical laws consistent within each region of spacetime.
Yes he is. Exasperatingly so. But you have to admire the tenacity of his denseness and ability to misconstrue, misrepresent, ignore and basically butcher science to suit his predetermined ideas. He's very smart at being stupid.
jem is only here for exercise, and he knows he gets the better workout by fighting from the weaker position. : )
Yeah that could be possible huh? He seems too smart to be that stupid. In debates jem would choose to be the devil's advocate ?
....what a load of dribble. Not the multiverse, not a megaverse but the universe and ".. the no boundary proposal, can account for all the complicated structure that we see around us." Stephen Hawking That's what the man said. Neither is he arguing against string theory. He's showing how his proposals could help it become falsifiable. "That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology" Stephen Hawking So much for your so called "speculative pseudo science" In your quest for a god where none belongs you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick as usual. Educate yourself first.