What did Hawking say caused the Big Bang?

  • Thread starter Thread starter afthomercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brucejlb said:
what good is discovering how black holes exist ?
Click to expand...
Well, my guess is, they want to learn how to manipulate black holes so they can go back in time and prevent me from discovering Catholic Answers.
 
gravity. that is hawking’s god. he said gravity caused everything

don’t ask him where gravity came from; he’d no answer to that…
 
Hawking says he follows spacetime back to before the beginning of the universe and gets a singularity because matter is compacted into this infinitely dense particle. But he also says time doesn’t exist before spacetime. That’s where he comes up with imaginary time. But if he can eliminate time, he should also eliminate matter. If you have nothing, you have NO time OR matter. The word “particle” in his description of the singularity says it all.
brian_custer said:
gravity. that is hawking’s god. he said gravity caused everything

don’t ask him where gravity came from; he’d no answer to that…
Click to expand...
I agree. In Newton’s Law, gravity is bound inextricably with mass. Quantum gravity relates to general relativity which describes spacetime (although this is not yet worked out). How can gravity explain the beginning of the universe from nothing, when spacetime did not exist? Gravity is part of the universe as we know it now.
 
Last edited:
afthomercy said:
The late Stephen Hawkings had specific theories about what existed before the Big Bang (he calls it Singularity) and what happened afterwards. I don’t see anywhere what he believed, caused the BIg Bang. Can anybody enlighten?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he postulated that he knew what caused it.

I think the usual response was approximately “I don’t know, but if God caused it, then what caused God? If God can be mysteriously and quintessentially prime, then why can’t the Big Bang?”
 
The “big bang theory” is based on their being something to explode. Where did this matter come from in the first place? Also, the laws of science tell us that chaos does not create order but disorder. So how do you explain how the “big bang” could create order ? When an atomic bomb was dropped on Japan during WW2, it did not create any buildings or useful structures.
 
Brucejlb said:
Also, the laws of science tell us that chaos does not create order but disorder.
Click to expand...
Nope, that’s not true. There is an order to chaos, you can see it in many places: clouds, the propwash of ships,… almost everywhere you look.
 
Brucejlb said:
The “big bang theory” is based on their being something to explode. Where did this matter come from in the first place? Also, the laws of science tell us that chaos does not create order but disorder. So how do you explain how the “big bang” could create order ? When an atomic bomb was dropped on Japan during WW2, it did not create any buildings or useful structures.
Click to expand...
I understand the critique. But realize that since we don’t have multiple big-bangs with which to compare, we can’t be entirely sure about what they should do.

The scientific ambiguity doesn’t prove or necessitate supernatural intervention. It only creates room for its possibility.
 
My understanding is that scientists observed that sometimes stars when they die, they become ‘white dwarfs’ a small version of themselves but with a lot more density… extrapolating from this observation is the idea that in the beginning there could be a point of ‘infinite’ density… never mind the word ‘infinite’ applying to the material world but Hawking used it… you are right that in this theory the magnitude of the explosion had to be extremely precise… an infinitesimally (but finite) stronger explosion and the universe would be a soup of particles, an infinitesimally weaker and the universe would collapse itself back to a point
 
Hi Dan, Where did the original matter that supposedly began the universe come from ??
 
So in other words believing in the “big bang” theory requires faith in something which can not be proven ?
 
Brucejlb said:
So in other words believing in the “big bang” theory requires faith in something which can not be proven ?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t put words in their mouth since they probably hate it as much as you probably do.

What it requires is the acceptance that there are some questions about the theory that still haven’t been answered and they don’t see this as something that necessitates the existence of a God.
 
Brucejlb said:
Hawking was a theorist which means that most of what he told us was a theory only and not base on any scientific knowledge. We must separate theory from fact.
Click to expand...
That is just wrong. Theorists always have to base their theories on observed data. If their theory does not mathematically lead to observed data, then their theory is either (a) wrong or (b) oversimplified.

It is not always pointless to start by considering a round cow on a frictionless plane, LOL. Sometimes, you have to start by imagining certain forces (such as friction) are not in operation in order to see the big picture clearly. The fine-tuning is added later.
 
PetraG said:
It is not always pointless to start by considering a round cow on a frictionless plane, LOL. Sometimes, you have to start by imagining certain forces (such as friction) are not in operation in order to see the big picture clearly. The fine-tuning is added later.
Click to expand...
That line reminds me of my old college physics prof… “If you use the word “deceleration” in your papers, I’ll throw them away. There is no such word. It is ‘negative acceleration’”

He was an Oxford Man who was extremely critical of American English…

Sorry for the hijack. 🤭
 
Vonsalza said:
That line reminds me of my old college physics prof… “If you use the word “deceleration” in your papers, I’ll throw them away. There is no such word. It is ‘negative acceleration’”

He was an Oxford Man who was extremely critical of American English…

Sorry for the hijack. 🤭
Click to expand...
If you belong to the Spanish grammar police, you may have some hope.

If you belong to the English grammar police, just give it up. The Isle has been stormed; the hordes who insist on the evolution of usage have it. They will not concede.
 
As far as I know, there is no scientific theory to explain that… also what caused the explosion? a system in equilibrium would require an external force to trigger such an event
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top