Someone quotes the bible out of context to him weekly.

that makes him an expert in the way of the universe.

The point. -----> .



You ->



http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps3.html

You're talking about the development of time travel. We'd be doing very well to come up with a concrete theory that predicts it's theoretically possible. That's a huge difference. Besides, even if it is, your idea of using these theories to go watch things evolve is :psyduck:. There are other problems associated with time travel as well.

please explain, i wasnt paying attention

I like how scientists dismiss religious beliefs because 'it cant be tested in a lab', yet they will latch on to any scientific belief from the far breaches of the imagination as long as you call it a 'theory' and make it sound plausible...
Would someone show me how you test the big bang theory in a lab? Mathmatics can only be so accurate, no one can guess variables that may or may not happend thousands to billions of years ago. It's retarded.

So maybe religions should have been called theology so scientists would give it credit...

I don't really care how the universe started, lets start figuring out where its going instead.

How so? You're trying to call out a man pursuing his doctorate in physics, who works at CERN, on his physics. How does that deviate at all?


1) If this theory I posted holds true (which who knows, upon further testing it could easily fall apart but the mere thought that it could is exciting to me, at least) then it would be a giant step forward in the realm of time travel. Now I'm not saying it's possible, but if it is this could most certainly make it very much possible--the thing is you'd be travelling to the same point in time in a twin universe. Not at a different point in our own universe's timeline.

2) Hawking also wrote a short story about timetravel where people could only watch, not talk to anyone or affect any outcomes of any situations, and were merely observers via timetravel.

3) Why would watching evolution be such a horrible idea? Because you want it to be? We could see how things evolved the way they did, why, and therefore use controlled evolution on livestock to make them do what we want. It'd be better than steroids, better than any other kind of physical manipulation, etc. Same goes with plants, food, and limitless other plants/animals for varying reasons (the bumblebee going extinct comes to mind--what if we have to somehow get a successor to that?)


Note how all the real scientists in this thread said it was neat but not necessarily true and could easily fall apart under scrutiny?

Also, Religion IS Theology.

Finally, despite all the horrible horrible things wrong with your post and mindset, you have to know how the universe started in order to know where it's going.

clearly the only use for time travel is to go back and talk to jesus.

maybe even moses. he was god too right

You just made that up. You don't know what most scientists think or why, or that those same scientists do that. You're annoyed by a hypothetical situation you created in your own head.

I said religion should have been CALLED theology, not what it is.

There are many things that you don't have to research how it started to see where it's going, I don't see what the huge fascination with it is. It just seems to me like another waste of time. Even if they proved the universe would collapse on itself in 2.33453 million years, would you really want to know that? I mean theres NOTHING for anyone to do about that. I'd much rather just be going to work one day and suddenly there be nothing in existance, than to know the day before that its my last day to exist, and watch the news show millions of people world wide, looting, raping, murdering.... whats the point?

You see armageddon, I see a use for the "billions" dial on that time machine we built.

What?

Humanity will never possess the technology to travel in time, we're too overwhelmed by our own greed and inability to work together to achieve that. We still use oil, because its still worth money... If money never mattered we would probably be past oil, past whatever is going to take oils place, and into the next form of energy, whatever that would be. Even at that stage, we probably wouldn't have enough energy to create something to take a human through time safely.

I think his point is that he doesn't care about anything. He has no thirst for knowledge. Whatever, that's fine. Go cure a disease.

Also, the fact that you are trying to envision a world where people didn't compete proves you are a crazy person.

kop_aoejedi, ive always wondered

i have heard there is a measurable correlation between intelligence and happiness. what are your thoughts on this subject

This is not a discussion about humanity and it's greed. Stop trying to turn it into one. Where you get your ideas is as obvious as where J-Lo gets her fame.

That said, Oil is the most efficient, has little to do with the money issue.

It's more efficient because we've spent almost 100 years developing it... what else would you expect.

IN ANY CASE, I meant "find out where its going" in terms of things we could find useful. Like whats going on with stars and solar systems we might some day reach, not look for when something so huge and disasterous is going to 'repeat itself' that we have no hope of surviving.

Why do people who obviously read ZERO books throw their opinion in on a physics discussion? I can understand being confused by the subject matter. I can also understand an arrogant reluctance to defer to an authority on a subject (believe me, I can). But... I mean, not knowing what's coming after oil? How can you not know this? How braindead do you have to be to not have heard about relative energy densities even in passing? Or even the debate over the budget of the French reactor project?

This is just... baffling.

If you're so sure about whats coming next, shouldnt you be an investor? There are many power options that are possible replacements for oil, but none of them are sure things yet. Also, why is it people who spend all their time reading books think that no one else deserves an opinion instead of giving useful insight to others? (which would make the most sense)

edit: typo

Gasoline, when combusted, releases something like 25x as much energy as the alternatives. It's not because we "developed it for 100 years", it's because that's the specific amount of energy you can get out of that molecule. We've yet to find any viable means that comes NEAR it.

And knowing the beginning and the end of things is very helpful as to figuring out that which lies in the middle. You're thinking in a far too linear matter here.


Because your opinion is uneducated, you do not WANT to educate yourself on the matter, you know nothing about it except for your own conjecture, and yet you think your opinion is ****ing gospel. That's why.

I'll admit, I know **** all about physics and quantum physics, but it interests me. I wanted to see the opinions of the members here who DO know more about it. And what I ended up with was a ****fest compounded by idiots playing at gods of science. Yet they know nothing of the circumstances, nothing of the science, and nothing of the situation. If you want to throw your opinion out there, that's fine. But don't be surprised when it gets thrown right back into your face.

Internal combustion engines are really inefficient. Turbines are a lot better, but electric power suffers from its own drawbacks regardless of what you use as an energy source. Oil is just convenient. A "spent almost 100 years developing it... wh" didn't make a whole lot of difference.

In all honesty we probably would have put oil to rest as a power source decades ago if it weren't for people like Sarn making radiation a [trendy cause].



For vehicles. If radiation weren't a problem we'd all have fission-powered cars that would never, ever need to be refueled.

Why do you insist on telling people how to live their lives? They enjoy studying the universe, they want to know how it started. Let them. You do your thing, and hopefully no one will come into your place of work and tell you you'd be more help to society building a bridge or something.

Because calling those people "retarded" can help secure a feeling that there is no need to question. Theories are terrible things.

Haha, I didn't try to hijack this thread, everyone just felt the need to hammer my opinions because they aren't the same.

As for me not 'wanting to educate myself on the matter', if I wasn't interested on the subject I wouldn't post in the thread, I like to hear new things that are discovered, this theory IS somewhat interesting. I just hate how it just fuels the debates (like this one sort of) and ends up wasting everyone's time. When and IF they can ever test theories like this, then it will be something to jump on.

I won't continue about gas and such because I really am not trying to hijack this thread.

Back to the topic already.

Someone explain to me though how to prove, and why we would want to, the big bang theory? Besides doing some extreme math crunching and simulation after simulation, is it even relatively possible to predict something that happened before anything existed?

A fusion reactor costs $7.6 billion USD (2006). If you read a book or - indeed - knew what 'fusion' was, you would be able to find this information for yourself.

Unfortunately you don't have 7.6 billion fingers, so I'll help you out and state that it's a lot more money than I have and I don't think a bank will let me amortize the loan over 2 million years.

If you read a book you would also know what 'amortize' meant.


Fun fact you didn't learn from a book: Oil is used for a lot more than just power generation.

Fun fact you didn't learn from a book: Oil is used for power generation in more than just cars.

All of the replacements for fossil fuels as an electrical power source are, in fact, sure things.

....because people like you aren't interested in useful insight, as clearly indicated by the fact that you don't read books which contain them?

See that's what I'm talking about, in all of your ultimate wisdom, you're useless because instead of spreading knowledge to others, you just try to insult them for not knowing all these entirely 'useful' facts that you do.

If you want to try to insult someone by telling them that you're smarter than they are, you should go back to grade school... There's no point in that here. You probably are far more informed in physics than me, SO WHAT? You should have figured it out by now that you're not going to get away from people who still have opinions on things you know... Quit crying about it.

So, as someone who is far more informed in physics than you, I am pretty comfortable telling everybody on this forum to sit down, shut up and take James Bond and Martyn at their word on anything involving physics and higher math. I'm also pretty comfortable telling you that your ideas about science (as a system of deduction) are crude and simple, your concept about the way the typical scientist approaches the typical problem is incorrect, that you are a fool for thinking that any but the most easily-discredited scientist is interested in questioning religion and the fact that you need to ask why religious matters are outside of the scope of scientific inquiry does nothing but advertise your wholesale ignorance of everything. I also think your professed lack of interest in discovery is pathetic, but that has little to do with your opinion and more to do with a personal distate I have for your sole, legitimate personal perspective.



Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's valid.

In your own words, if you think all opinions are right you should go back to grade school to be coddled.

Because it's an "opinion" does not grant itself immunity for being a stupid or shallow statement. Or one that is poorly established and show a complete disregard of doing a bit of research.

You don't have to know much of physics to find it hard to respect a comment such as



or

I never said all opinions are right, but all opinions have the same right to be heard regardless of whether or not you think so. If you choose not to read them, thats fine. You just don't have the right to ridicule and INSULT individuals who give theirs.



Thats true too.

We are not physics teachers. There are books for this.

Anyone see the gaping problem to this?
Is it just me?


Anyone?

hah yeah i apparently used the wrong word on that last part, but lets all pick apart my sentances just to disregard what it meant.

There's no point in insulting people at all, its a waste of everyones time. That should be obvious. It helps no one, why bother?

edit: more typos

Actually I do, in some form or venue. It's called free speech. The fact that it makes you feel stupid doesn't restrict my speech any more than your nonsense is restricted for being a nauseating and headache-inducing nightmare.

Haha that's true also. This thread is awesome, I've had fun annoying you all for today! Oh yeah... and THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED 9-11! *twighlight zone music*. Enjoy the rest of your discussions.

Too bad we'll all be dead.

Wow, what a ****ing loser.

This is why no one likes you.

You're :downs: personified.

I thought that was me?

Anyway going back to the discussion on oil and power earlier, i absolutely love nuclear energy. We happen to have people at this school who are vehemently against it. The really bad part is they didn't know about the one we've had up north for years know and how it, and basicly all other plants, have a near perfect safety record. They prefer to just spout crap about Chernobyl all day long.

You know, normally I'd call him an idiot for straying off topic, but it doesn't really matter at this point. That and I think he knows he's an idiot anyways.

No, actually I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you start to blur science with philosophical speculation at a certain point.



My point is that you were jumping the gun. Hypothesis #45,903 on the origin of the universe is not a giant break thorough in human achievement. This is farther from time travel than Copernicus was from traveling to the moon. Besides, the actual data that they base this theory on is a lot more interesting and useful than the theory itself. The origins of the universe is not a very practical subject matter. It's like black holes or something. Neat to read about, but utterly useless.

The thread exploded..

Anyway, returning all the way to the very beginning of the thread. Yes, it is impossible to directly experiment on pre-big bang theories. But there is another way to test them.

You can use the theory to make predictions.

If you make a prediction about how the universe would be if your theory was true, then do experiments to verify the prediction, you've supported your theory. Your theory will stand until it makes a prediction that is proved FALSE. This is exactly why the standard model, which is mostly un-testable, stands up : It predicted the existence of previously unknown particles, and then those particles were discovered.