Seriously -- I have heard it said that if an alien touched down on earth and wanted to talk with humans, or if the precise origin of all the universe were ever clearly agreed upon, that those would be the most significant of scientific events or discoveries EVER!
I am an interested party to all this but by no means a renowned expert -- so let's talk about what THE renowned expert believes and says!
Well, I think we do have something on the magnitude of the greatest discovery.
Let me explain...
Steven Hawking is widely known as the most intelligent theoretical physicist on earth -- and he is likened to Einstein! In fact, he is so widely revered, that whatever he says, almost all the other experts just go along with him and within days after he speaks it - they print it in the textbooks!
Well, Steven Hawking just came to the conclusion and has stated, that all of the universe (and all other universes - I'll explain below) were CREATED!! It did not happen from a big bang, nor did all the galaxies form from intra-stellar dust. Hawking sees there are just way too many holes in those theories - and the below link outlines some of those holes and inadequacies.
Plus, there's not enough time for it to happen, so he's got a totally "new and different" answer as to how it all happened.
First - let me note that Hawking believes there are infinite numbers of universes. We live in one, but he believes time follows many different, alternate or parallel paths, and we can only guess what's happening on those other ones...but there's an vastly infinite number of other ones...
BUT all that exists, all the stuff and all the matter in ALL of those infinite universes, was CREATED from nothing and they just "popped" into full existence already working and everything!! No God was required and so Hawking isn't even going to consider one (pretty closed minded for a theoretical physicist, huh?)
Read for yourselves, I'll give you the link later...
But, I think this constitutes the single most significant advance in all of science - in all of history...because, in effect, Hawking (and any scientists that follow) have just taken a GIANT jump from where they were previously at...and have now positioned themselves within microns of where the religious people who believe in creation by God stand. The only difference now is that Hawking thinks it all was "created spontaneously" and he does NOT see a God in the picture...while the religious people think exactly the same thing but see the God. Hawking makes sure he lets you know in his theory that he doesn't see a God, although not seeing something certainly cannot ever be used as proof that it's not there.
In fact, GODD science never has to prove the non-existence of other theories, or you'd get caught in an endless spiral of having to disprove everyone and anyone else, so it's actually interesting that he even takes on this approach, except I am sure it's planned as the best way to generate interest so his book can sell millions and make a lot of money -- anyone disagree here?
It's like a three people stumbling onto a big crop circle, and one says it's created by aliens, one says it was created by God, and one says it was created - BUT it was "spontaneous creation" and NO creator or intelligence was required. I see all three of those answers as being close to the SAME -- but those three people really don't know it. The guy who sees NOBODY simply fails to see the intelligence that created the circle...and the one guy who sees the intelligence misidentifies it as aliens and not a theological Creator. You be the judge.........
but let me back up a little and throw a few thoughts out.......
There's always been doubters of the Big Bang and other theories for the origin of matter and the universe...there's not enough time, not enough matter to explain it, and and lots of other things don't add up...Hawking does a good job in the first link below blowing away all the current theories...
One thought to ponder, one of many that do somewhat stump the experts...
-The estimated age of the universe (according to most scientists) is said to be about 13.75 billions years...give or take a billion or so..
-The estimated number of stars in the universe varies based on which expert you accept. But experts at least agree there's 100,000,000,000 stars (100 billion) just in our Milky Way galaxy. Then they also estimate there are tens to hundreds of millions of other galaxies...so the estimate of the number of stars is on the order of 1 quintillion or more..maybe MUCH more... (10 to the 20th to 24th power).
-The life expectancy of any given star is thought to be between 4 and 10 billion years (10 to the 10th power)...often ending with collapse and nova...or rarely supernova..
Thus -- all you have to do is a little math and you'll see that the numbers argue strongly that in our universe, roughly 10 to the 10th or
as many as 10 to the 14th stars (100,000,000,000,000, or 100 trillion) stars should be dying EACH year!
If even one in a hundred or one in a thousand causes a nova or supernova, then we should still, after sufficient time for the light to get here
(but the universe is OLD ENOUGH that we should already be seeing plenty of these)
..then we SHOULD be seeing a TRILLION novas each year - give or take a few billion!!!
But of course we are not...in fact it is a very rare event, maybe seen no more than a few easily seen novas in a decade for an astronomer to view or spot ...and with the most sophisticated of radio telemetry, then the number might rise to a few dozen per year but most totally invisible to the eye or to telescopes.
So -- the question is, where are all these supposed facts gone wrong??
If we should be seeing literally billions of stars and suns dying each year, but we don't see but maybe a few in a decade**, then where is the discrepancy in the reasoning...?
The experts don't know, and they don't discuss it very often either, as it tends to make a whole lot of their premises and ideas look perhaps a little faulty...
This argument is like knowing there are 6 billion people on earth, and also knowing the average life expectancy is 80 or so years, but then only finding one person who actually dies every five years or so...so you have to wonder where is the discrepancy -- why are NOT seeing all the old people die?? Somebody's theories or numbers simply have to be terribly wrong!
** a really bright new nova was spotted in April of 2008 - visible even to someone with good binoculars, it was thought to have occurred more than a billion light years away but just newly visible from earth.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=6817
A "supernova" which is a massive nova that's more than 1000 times more powerful doesn't occur any more than once every several centuries...
the last one observed occurred in 1604, so we might be due!
BTW it is thought that a supernova has to take place to give the elements that are the origins of NEW developing stars...but the extreme infrequency of supernovas
then makes a laughingstock out of that theory as well! Plus, even if true, the elements from one entire supernova really shouldn't be able to make much more than one new star, right? You can't just add extra space dust that didn't come from somewhere.
Thus the experts are at a total loss to explain how so many (10 to the 24th power) stars that exist got their origin since enough time has lapsed (13.75 billion years) that all the present stars had to have been destroyed and RE-made at least once or twice in that interval of time...
so there are really a whole lot of pieces of the puzzle missing.......
Just 100 years ago -- Einstein believed in very short order, we'd now be able to use the new theories of relativity and figure all those answers out...
but now, 100 years later we know little more than we did then on those answers. Many of the theories that have come up in the past 100 years have then subsequently been dis-proven and replaced by the new theory of the day -- only to fall flat again.
Steven Hawking, regarded by some as the most intelligent in this arena, "talks" a lot on these subjects but really admits he has virtually NOTHING else to add.......except that he often veers off course and lobs an attack on anyone with a religious point of view.
Hawking readily admits that all the science is still "not enough" to give even a decent explanation of things...so........
Now guess what Hawking himself is saying....and this is what constitutes the giant leap in thought......
That entire galaxies and universes "appear spontaneously from nothing."
He calls it "Spontaneous creation" but says no "creator" is involved, that this stuff just happens..and obviously it must happen
a whole lot with the quintillions of stars and galaxies!! And even more than a whole lot given he uses it to explain all the stuff in more than a googleplex of different universes....an infinite number of them.
Actually, I knew it was all but inevitable -- once the scientists learned enough or got smart enough, then they'd realize they have NO possible explanation for all that they see except to say that it all just happened and came into existence spontaneously but without any intelligence involved. That's because they would never in a gazillion years consider anyone intelligent was at play.
Whoa -- which theory is harder to believe -- that if you stumble on something incredibly complex and it HAD a creator, or that you stumble on something complex but it happened into existence spontaneously and without a creator!! you decide.....
Some scientist are ok crediting aliens and spontaneous events but talk about a God, and they say you're being silly!
Here's just a little on Hawking's ideas and his discussion on everything being CREATED out of NOTHING by "Spontaneous Creation".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html
http://www.thestar.com/article/857464--hawking-book-says-the-universe-was-created-spontaneously
But -- in an almost laughable conclusion, Hawking's final statement is that we are the "lords of the universe"...in other words...we are the gods...we don't need any others! Now, what's that age old saying about he who says there is no God???
Finally, if that theory is valid then I have another one to give you....with a little thanks to Gary Larson...
No comments:
Post a Comment