Hawkings A Brief history of time -now

[newtonian]

It is airing now on the science channel. <br /><br /><br />Hawking theorizes our universe did not have a beginning in time but radther came from imaginary time.<br /><br />I had never heard of this imaginary time hypothesis.<br /><br />Can anyone post links or comments?<br /><br />Feel free to post any comments on the bnoadcast here.

 

[grooble]

There had to be a beginning, if time was eternal and you could go back in time forever then time would never have gotten to the Now, the current moment. <br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

grooble- Are you sure? <br /><br />However, note I agree our universe's space-time had a beginning. <br /><br />Primordial time, during which cause and effect proceeded at the origin of our universe, already existed before our universe existed.<br /><br />However, I do not know if primordial time had a beginning or not.<br /><br />I do believe God is the First Cause.<br /><br />You all - How do you feel about Hawking's hypothesis concerning imaginary time?

 

[mooware]

Imaginary time is an interesting notion. I don't know enough to comment, but certainly am interested in reading more. I do have a couple of Hawking books here that deal with it. I generally have to read these things two or three times before I think I get it.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

mooware - Hawking presented the hypothesis as an alternate to a beginning for our universe. and seemed motivated to eliminate the need for a Creator by providing a model whereby there was no creation or beginning.<br /><br />Interestingly, he frequently referred to God, and the broadcast even mentioned that another read the Bible to him on occasion. I understand Hawking is an atheist - or is he still pondering how it all began?<br /><br />How do you feel about my hypothesis? In brief:<br /><br />1. Our universe had an origin which is in harmony with the observed scientific principle of cause and effect.<br />Compare the big bang theory.<br /><br />2. Definition of time: the medium through which cause and effect flow.<br /><br />3. Our universe's space-time began at the origin of our universe, perhaps 12 billion years ago (see astronomer Wendy Friedman's calculations, or 13.7 billion years ago - a popular current estimate.<br /><br />4. Cause and effect cannot proceed without time, yet our universe was caused before its space-time existed, therefore there must have been earlier time, which I call primordial time.<br /><br />5. Our universe is not the only universe. As in 1 Kings (1 Kings 8:27) . . .Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you. . .<br /><br />As part of a multiverse within a much larger universe, time already existed in those universes.<br /><br />In fact, time existed even before those universes with their own space-times,etc. - since the First Cause, God, already caused which required time.<br /><br />6. The First Cause did not have a beginning. I do not know if He created time or if time always existed.<br /><br />And now I am off-line while I watch Nova on PBS episode welcome to Mars.

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">seemed motivated (Hawking) to eliminate the need for a Creator by providing a model whereby there was no creation or beginning. </font><br /><br />I don't know that he is "motivated" to exclude a creator. I think whether there is or isn't one, doesn't play into his ideals. <br /><br />I've read a couple of hawking books. He doesn't label himself as an Athiest or a believer, and he does that on purpose. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">1. Our universe had an origin</font><br /><br />Likely OUR universe had an origin of some type. The exact method of how our universe was created has not been pinned down, and likely won't be for some time. As you are aware, the Big Bang theory is one explanation, M/String Theory is another. and some people adhere to the God theory.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Definition of time: the medium through which cause and effect flow. </font><br /><br />A reasonable explantion and seems to be the popular consesus.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">3. Our universe's space-time began at the origin of our universe, perhaps 12 billion years ago (see astronomer Wendy Friedman's calculations, or 13.7 billion years ago - a popular current estimate. "</font><br /><br />That seems to be where the evidence leads us for the moment.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">4. Cause and effect cannot proceed without time, yet our universe was caused before its space-time existed, therefore there must have been earlier time, which I call primordial time. </font><br /><br />There may have indeed been time before our universe came to be. Imaginary? Primordial? Are they one in the same? Or maybe time as we know it has always existed.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Our universe is not the only universe. As in 1 Kings (1 Kings 8:27) . . .Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you</font><br /><br />This is subject to the readers interpretation. Not proo

 

[claywoman]

Question here:<br /><br />Who created God?

 

[nacnud]

Mr Chumly Warner<br />24 Arcatia Road<br />Henly-upon-Thames<br />Middlesex<br /><br />(he also created frogs and those spoon-fork combinations you get in fast food outlets)

 

[mooware]

You gotta ask newtonian that one.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>(he also created frogs and those spoon-fork combinations you get in fast food outlets)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Those would be "sporks". And it is fitting you should mention those, because they contain the secret path to enlightenment. When you can foon your spork, you will have acheived grace. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />(Sorry to draw the thread offtopic, folks. But sometimes a little silliness is a good thing, especially on a Monday.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I've read a couple of hawking books. He doesn't label himself as an Athiest or a believer, and he does that on purpose. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And that's crucial. It isn't significant to the discussion. He's the sort of person who will certainly change his mind if presented with contrary evidence, and he also seems to be the sort of person who does not wish to believe in something that he hasn't spent a lot of time really seriously thinking about. I gotta admit a certain admiration for that. When it comes to intellectual pursuits, he likes to take the hard way.<br /><br />"A Brief History of Time" is a fascinating movie, especially for the way it explores Hawking's life even as it outlines his thoughts on cosmology, gravitation, and so forth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mooware]

I saw that "Brief History Of Time" was on the Science channel. I didn't get a chance to watch though. I have to catch these things when everybody goes to bed otherwise I risk boring my family to tears.<br /><br />I have read the book though, as well as "Black Holes And Baby Universes"<br /><br />

 

[5stone10]

That's Errol Morris - the king of documentaries.<br /><br />He also did 'The Thin Blue Line' and 'Gates of Heaven'.

 

[newtonian]

mooware - To respond on some of your post it is necessary to make reference to what the Bible actually states.<br /><br />Yes, my faith has not come out dogmatically in favor of multiverse for the reason you state.<br /><br />However, it seems to me there is a reason earth is always singular in the Bible, while heaven is often plural, for example:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:1) . . . In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.<br /><br />Notice that "the" is in bracketts. The original Hebrew does not have the definite article here. It is properly translated "In a beginning" also. There is no indefinite article in Hebrew, so the absence of the definite article often implies being indefinite, or "a" in English.<br />If there were other beginnings.....<br /><br />On God having a beginning or being the First Cause, this is not mere interpretation.<br /><br />It involves in depth research, however.<br /><br />For example, the name of God in the Bible, translated Jehovah in the King James Version in Psalms 83:18, has a specific definition in Hebrew.<br /><br />The definition is similar to First Cause, it is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" in the causative sense, therefore: "He causes to be."<br /><br />"(Je·ho´vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning "He Causes to Become"]"<br /><br />The point again is thet hawah in the causative form means cause to be. <br /><br />There are a number of verses which show all things came from Jehovah and through his first creation, although it is true that church doctrines have obscured these simple statements:<br /><br />For example, speaking of wisdom personified, which in Biblcial context would be God's firstborn son:<br /><br />(Proverbs 8:22-31) 22 "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as

 

[newtonian]

Calli - Hi! How are you?<br /><br />I thought it was interesting how often God or Creator was mentioned in the broadcast.<br /><br />And I share Hawking's deep interest in determining how our universe began - in as much detail as can be either proven or at least infered by the evidence extant.<br /><br />But what is imaginary time, as Hawking refers to? He indicates our universe did not have a beginning in time because of imaginary time.<br /><br />That is quite different from what I believe, namely: that our universe's space-time had a beginning and was caused during primordial time, and that our universe was also caused to be during primordial time, hence our universe had a beginning in primordial time.

 

[mooware]

Newtonian: Well, thank you for the translation examples, scripture quotes and cross references between biblical texts as offered proof. No doubt you heavily research biblical texts.<br /><br />However, I would say it was more faith as to whether nor not a god had or was a first cause. Simply stated, the Bible is a book, and there is no evidence to prove its holiness. Therefore, appealing to it and stating that a god exists, or is/was first cause because it says so seems to be fallacy.<br /><br />Have you looked in anything other than Biblical texts to prove whether God was first cause or not?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

mooware- Clearly you are not aware of the evidence for the holiness of the Bible- but I can assure you there is plenty of evidence.<br /><br />To post in detail the proofs would be off thread theme.<br /><br />Do you wish me to start another thread, perhaps in Free Space, and detail the evidence so you can examine it?<br /><br />I can assure you that I do not use the Bible to prove the Bible - I am well aware of the dangers of circular reasoning. <br /><br />Yes- I have reasoned independently on whether God was the first cause or not.<br /><br />To quote Hawking on the episode (from memory):<br /><br />If the universe had a Creator, God (after discounting this due to the imaginary time hypothesis for no beginning for our universe), Hawking asked:<br /><br />Who created God?<br /><br />BTW - Hawking did acknowledge that a beginning for our universe could indicate a Creator.<br /><br />Back to who created the Creaor, note that Hawking was also reasoning independent of the Bible.<br /><br />ID theory [there are many versions] is often independent of the Bible. You might want to check out the book: "Evolution from Space," by astronomer Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickmasinghe. Though they favor a panspermia type of informational direction to the origin of the various life forms on earth.<br /><br />They also reason independently from the Bible.<br /><br />This could be a very long post. <br /><br />Let me, for now, make a simple response, which you also could independently ponder on:<br /><br />Scientific observation has shown both the principle of cause and effect and the (law?) of biogenesis. <br /><br />Simply extrapolated you would have life causing life.<br /><br />Or even more generally, a long chain of causes and effects going back to the origin of primordial time, if primordial time had a beginning, or going back forever if time did not have a beginning.<br /><br />Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I see only two choices from the observational evidence of cause and effect:<br /><br />1. An infi

 

[newtonian]

mooware- If you would like evidence for Biblical scientific accuracy more appropriate for this section, Ask the Astronomer, see my Biblical Astronomy threads.<br /><br />I will bump one shortly.<br /><br />Of course, astronomy is only one branch of science. There are hundreds of lines of evidence involving the many other branches of science- would you like me to post a few examples?<br /><br />On said threads, a few other branches of science are noted as they relate to astronomy, but they are not discussed in depth. Some of the lines of evidence include:<br /><br />Geology <br />Earth Science<br />Physics, including Astrophysics<br />Biology, including microbiology, origin of life sciences, and human biology<br />Chemistry, including biochemistry<br />Archaeology<br />History (especially showing fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies)<br />Technology (especially as it relates to creation of intelligence, AI)[including biotechnology and Information technology)<br />Materials science<br />Ecology (e.g.: as it relates to how fine tuned and complex earth's ecology is)<br />Medicine <br />Geography (including tectonic causes)<br />Etc.

 

[mcsquire]

Daywomen posted:<br /><br />Question here:<br /><br />Who created God?<br /><br />Always wondered that myself! Anyway I notice in the two years since this post there's been no theorys on gods geneology! Hawkin came up with his theorys quicker than that!!!<br /><br />Tone

 

[docm]

Chiming in a bit late. <br /><br />God: the intelligence of the multiverse, born from the totality of its information<br /><br />Time: Gods way of stopping everything from happening all at once <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

I agree.

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Who created God? </font><br /><br /><i>"...and in the end, Man created God"</i> - rogers_buck<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">"...and in the end, Man created God"</font><br /><br />My thoughts exactly!

 

[lukman]

The fact is that my niece in singapore have just bought me two books, they are a brief history of time and the elegant universe. I have seen the elegant universe video clip, now i am reading it, i have not yet seen or read a brief history of time. <br /><br />You may laugh at me why i have the book very late, the fact that i live in a small deveoping country, difficult for me to find such title in a book store here.<br /><br />My comment: why those two books, which have been around for more than a decade, where many things have been changed ever since. And yet, they just make the movie now? it is as late as i got the book.<br /><br />I believe i am having the early edition of a brief history of time, if not wrong there are many important updates and editing in the later version, what are they? thanks -)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lukman]

Post deleted by lukman <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>