Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe

[foreWard]

gees, just joking around, not "getting at" anything...I knew it was just a typo, obviously. relax.

 

[Member243850]

Alright I am sorry too... maybe i was a but out of hand

I apologize i meant no harm..... we are supposed to be all friends here...at least i think so hahahaha

No worries dude! It's all gud!

Keep well dude

 

[Martimus]

But light has gravity.

Light contains energy. And energy contains Protons. Protons have no measurable mass but can be effected by outside forces like gravity.

Maybe we're just seeing an example of how E=MC2 isn't the end all and be all of Physics?

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html

 

[Member243850]

Light contains energy. And energy contains Protons. Protons have no measurable mass but can be effected by outside forces like gravity.

Maybe we're just seeing an example of how E=MC2 isn't the end all and be all of Physics?

How Gravity Affects Photons

Yes!

Good stuff Martimus!

I love this kind of topic very interesting here!

Hmm but if light can be bent by a black hole then surely it must have mass?

Hmm i dunno actually my bad

 

[byteware]

Yes!

Good stuff Martimus!

I love this kind of topic very interesting here!

Hmm but if light can be bent by a black hole then surely it must have mass?

Hmm i dunno actually my bad

According to current theory, gravity is not a function of mass. Gravity is a function of a graviton particle, which is related to the Higgs Boson particle (the particles that give things mass).

The nature of their relationship isn't exactly known, but I assume (yes, I know what that makes us all) that it's that relationship which gives us gravity's general behavior in regards to mass. However, that would explain why gravity effects light, even though light has no mass. It would have to have graviton particles.

 

[Member243850]

According to current theory, gravity is not a function of mass. Gravity is a function of a graviton particle, which is related to the Higgs Boson particle (the particles that give things mass).

The nature of their relationship isn't exactly known, but I assume (yes, I know what that makes us all) that it's that relationship which gives us gravity's general behavior in regards to mass. However, that would explain why gravity effects light, even though light has no mass. It would have to have graviton particles.

Wow.... thanx dude!

I did not know all of that i will have a look at the Higgs Boson particle

Thank you!

I love this kind of topic it's great fun!!

 

[Martimus]

Hmm but if light can be bent by a black hole then surely it must have mass?

Light can be refracted by more than just gravity. The path that light travels can be changed simply by introducing a reflective surface.

I've always wondered, if black holes really do exist and have the intense gravitational fields that some astronomers seem to believe, wouldn't they gather all matter including dust and debris? If a black hole is pulling in a wall of dust, couldn't that wall of dust act to reflect ambient light into the black hole giving us the belief that light is being pulled into the black hole?

Physics has lots and lots of theories... but very few facts. Given that the closest black hole is believed to be about 1600 light years from Earth (and one light year is approximately 5,865,696,000,000 miles), all of this is happening far enough away that it's difficult to see even with a telescope. For that reason I'm thinking that it's theoretically possible that the absorbtion of light may be a "trick of light" due to the fact that all matter in the vicinity of the black hole is being swallowed up by that black hole. With no matter in the area, there is nothing for the light to reflect against. Maybe this gives us the false impression that light is also being swallowed up by the black hole.

 

[Member243850]

Light can be refracted by more than just gravity. The path that light travels can be changed simply by introducing a reflective surface.

I've always wondered, if black holes really do exist and have the intense gravitational fields that some astronomers seem to believe, wouldn't they gather all matter including dust and debris? If a black hole is pulling in a wall of dust, couldn't that wall of dust act to reflect ambient light into the black hole giving us the belief that light is being pulled into the black hole?

Physics has lots and lots of theories... but very few facts. Given that the closest black hole is believed to be about 1600 light years from Earth (and one light year is approximately 5,865,696,000,000 miles), all of this is happening far enough away that it's difficult to see even with a telescope. For that reason I'm thinking that it's theoretically possible that the absorbtion of light may be a "trick of light" due to the fact that all matter in the vicinity of the black hole is being swallowed up by that black hole. With no matter in the area, there is nothing for the light to reflect against giving us the impression that light is also being swallowed up by the black hole.

Wow!!

Thanx Martimus!

It is very interesting to learn about new things... but you are right... most are just theories no concrete evidence... anyways

I am sure someday we will know more right?

 

[byteware]

Light can be refracted by more than just gravity. The path that light travels can be changed simply by introducing a reflective surface.

I've always wondered, if black holes really do exist and have the intense gravitational fields that some astronomers seem to believe, wouldn't they gather all matter including dust and debris? If a black hole is pulling in a wall of dust, couldn't that wall of dust act to reflect ambient light into the black hole giving us the belief that light is being pulled into the black hole?

Physics has lots and lots of theories... but very few facts. Given that the closest black hole is believed to be about 1600 light years from Earth (and one light year is approximately 5,865,696,000,000 miles), all of this is happening far enough away that it's difficult to see even with a telescope. For that reason I'm thinking that it's theoretically possible that the absorbtion of light may be a "trick of light" due to the fact that all matter in the vicinity of the black hole is being swallowed up by that black hole. With no matter in the area, there is nothing for the light to reflect against. Maybe this gives us the false impression that light is also being swallowed up by the black hole.

There are a couple of things wrong with your theory here.

1) With any given black hole, dust wouldn't be floating out at a distance, it would be pulled into the event horizon... and very quickly.

2) Black holes are called such, because light doesn't escape them. Even with dust reflection, light would likely be reflected in EVERY direction. So, we would still see light coming from black holes.

 

[Familyguy1]

There are a couple of things wrong with your theory here.

1) With any given black hole, dust wouldn't be floating out at a distance, it would be pulled into the event horizon... and very quickly.

2) Black holes are called such, because light doesn't escape them. Even with dust reflection, light would likely be reflected in EVERY direction. So, we would still see light coming from black holes.

Well...nothing escapes them really, and nothing can. Sound cannot even escape it if I read something right..

 

[byteware]

Well...nothing escapes them really, and nothing can. Sound cannot even escape it if I read something right..

I don't think you can really HAVE sound waves in space.... but yes, if you COULD have sound space, it wouldn't be able to escape a black hole.

 

[Frisco]

Well...nothing escapes them really, and nothing can.

Not true.

Nothing in the form it was in as it entered a black hole can escape in that same form. However black holes lose mass, thus something that was in there escapes and leaves behind less mass.

 

[w_bovine]

It really just boils down to whether you value evidence or wishful thinking. I, for one, wouldn't mind a little evidence. "Faith" is just a fancier term for hoping.

Hebrews 11:1 NASB Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

 

[Martimus]

There are a couple of things wrong with your theory here.

Thanks but until I get a PHD in theoretical physics I really don't think my musings qualify as a theory.

My point was, and is, that so very little is truly known about black holes... even their existance is more myth than fact. The longest range telescopes currently in use are, I believe, radio telescopes. Radio telescopes are glorified radio receivers with giant directional antennas. Much of the information on black holes is derived from the fact that no radio emissions are being received by certain spots in deep space.

Radio Astronomy

Here's some info on the black hole believed to be 1600 light years from us in the constellation Sagittarius:

Dramatic Outburst Reveals Nearest Black Hole

 

[Familyguy1]

Not true.

Nothing in the form it was in as it entered a black hole can escape in that same form. However black holes lose mass, thus something that was in there escapes and leaves behind less mass.

Ah! right, thats true..I left out that part.

So something that goes into a black hole but yet escapes(how..exactly?) is basically not what it once was correct?

 

[Frisco]

Ah! right, thats true..I left out that part.

So something that goes into a black hole but yet escapes(how..exactly?) is basically not what it once was correct?

Matter being absorbed by a black hole becomes less and less of what it was prior to a certain proximity to the black hole.

Also, one thing that is changing in the research on black holes is that they were once only surmised to exist by the behaviors of matter and light in the vicinity. None have been directly observed for obvious reasons, no light emitting thus nothing to observe by our eyes.

However now something is being pursued that wasn't possible just a few decades ago: information escaping from the black holes.

Physicists Demonstrate How Information Can Escape From Black Holes

 

[Weazol]

Understanding the beginning of time isn't going to prevent you from dieing. So why waste your time?

 

[Member243850]

Understanding the beginning of time isn't going to prevent you from dieing. So why waste your time?

Hahahahaaa lol that is very funny Weazol dude!

But i like this kind of topic i don't care if it's only theory... bring it on! All of it is very interesting to me!

Hmm.... yes light can be reflected / refracted.... hmm but how can something that has no mass supposedly be pulled in by a black hole?

I know this is slightly off topic but what makes metal so reflective? Like mercury in between glass "sheets"? Can any1 here answer this 4 me pretty plz i wud love to know.... Thanx in advance if you can.... I would be very grateful if you could thanx.

Stinky Stinky

 

[byteware]

Thanks but until I get a PHD in theoretical physics I really don't think my musings qualify as a theory.

My point was, and is, that so very little is truly known about black holes... even their existance is more myth than fact. The longest range telescopes currently in use are, I believe, radio telescopes. Radio telescopes are glorified radio receivers with giant directional antennas. Much of the information on black holes is derived from the fact that no radio emissions are being received by certain spots in deep space.

Actually, black holes are identified (at the moment) by finding a binary star system with only one star.

You can watch the gravitational effects on the star, and determine what the mass must be of the second star. The first black hole discovered, Cygnus X-1 was 6000 light years from Earth.

And it's not radio waves that we are looking for, but X-rays.

But yes, no one has actually BEEN to a black hole to confirm that what we are seeing (or not as the case may be) is in fact a black hole

 

[Martimus]

And it's not radio waves that we are looking for, but X-rays.

Lets not quibble. You are correct but, then again, radio waves and x-rays share the same electromagnetic spectrum. They are simply at different frequencies/wavelengths.

IMO one of the challenges in Astronomy today is that watching black holes could be compared with watching rats on the street from the observation deck at the Empire State Building. You may see them but not with a tremendous level of detail. That's why Astronomers are slow to announce discoveries. They want to make absolutely sure of what they see before they make their discovery public.

 

[byteware]

Lets not quibble. You are correct but, then again, radio waves and x-rays share the same electromagnetic spectrum. They are simply at different frequencies/wavelengths.

IMO one of the challenges in Astronomy today is that watching black holes could be compared with watching rats on the street from the observation deck at the Empire State Building. You may see them but not with a tremendous level of detail. That's why Astronomers are slow to announce discoveries. They want to make absolutely sure of what they see before they make their discovery public.

True. Very true.

I don't know that we'll ever see one close up, no matter how technologically advanced we become. It's safe to say that whatever they are, they are something that we need to avoid...

 

[jaseman]

Hawking's assumed "intelligence" reminds me of a few Bible verses.
Psalm 53:1, 2
Romans 1:20-22

 

[Bob Maxey]

After decades of reading about these things, learned scientists expressing opposing views on that subject still do not fail to intrigue me.

I agree. If the scientists are brilliant and well schooled, there should (actually there is) only one truth. Something happens because of this or that. End of story. Like, one plus one equals two. End of story. Global warming is one example of thousands of brilliant people all saying different things.

Faith Vs Proof.

Faith is easy: I can know that something is absolutely the way it is and I do not need proof. I have faith and that is all that is or will ever be required. God exists, period. Do not give a flaming cat if you think I am silly. Don

 

[Dark Jedi]

I think Mr Hawkins is a brilliant man and could only wish I had a tenth of his intellect . That being said do you think he is given special treatment than others because he is in a wheelchair and has a medical condition. You think he would be taken as seriously if he was able to walk and talk and be a healthy human being.

I am sorry man can try to be logical but in the end his emotions will always come in to play sometime down the road. We have always lived by our emotions and is our one flaw in life. It has been shown in here where people talk about be being logical but when someone goes against him or her. First thing that always happens is they let their emotions take over and they lash out.

Theories are just that what someone thinks is true. Look at Einstein. Some of his theories was proven wrong by people in this day and age. They are doing nothing but taking a guess and using a mathematical formula to say their right. Who can really say their wrong when what less than 1% of when worlds population could even comprehend the formula.


In the end with all their theories it all comes down to chance and that gives them a 50/50 chance of being right. They can no more prove the creation of the universe than they can tell you what the next card will be on the river in poker. I find it funny how when they have a theory and they are missing one thing to tie it in all together. They invent a new element or mass that has never been proven to exist.

I am by no means saying I am right and your wrong. Just his I feel and I could be all wrong. I really don't care.lol

Have to start work now.

 

[hakr100]

I think Mr Hawkins is a brilliant man and could only wish I had a tenth of his intellect . That being said do you think he is given special treatment than others because he is in a wheelchair and has a medical condition. You think he would be taken as seriously if he was able to walk and talk and be a healthy human being.

Hawking is one of the intellectual giants of the last half of the 20th Century. He would be taken seriously if he were able to run marathons.

Hawking is a theoretical physicist. That descriptor is key