| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2010 11:22:35 AM · #1876 |
Another review for Hawking's book. I could be wrong, but Hawking never struck me as an expert in string theory. Am I wrong about that? If you haven't read him, I might suggest Brian Greene as a good alternative. His book The Elegant Universe was excellent, although it is very likely to be dated now. I believe he wrote a sequel (which I have not read and I did find on wiki) The Fabric of the Cosmos.
Message edited by author 2010-09-03 11:25:12. |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 01:11:03 PM · #1877 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you haven't read him, I might suggest Brian Greene as a good alternative. |
Greene also turned the book into a presentation on PBS' NOVA program; here is his summary of String Theory, with links to the TV show and more ... |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 02:51:39 PM · #1878 |
Something I read lately on Hawking's theory:
Hawking: Something, what we call "the Universe", came from nothing.
Young Child (waving his hand wildly): How?
Hawking: By "creating itself".
Young Child (frowning): But how?
Hawking: Spontaneously.
Young Child (irritated): Using what?
Hawking: Nothing.
Young Child (through clenched teeth): How did it use "nothing" to make something?
Hawking: By using the law of gravity.
Young Child (hands on hips, glaring): Wait, isn't the law of gravity "something"?
Hawking: Yes, but the law of gravity exists because of creation, which exists because the Universe created itself out of nothing using the law of gravity.
Young Child: Yeah, right.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2010 03:01:24 PM · #1879 |
| That's childish, all right. |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 03:28:07 PM · #1880 |
| I found this to be an interesting discussion about Hawking's book. What do you think about it? |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 04:08:39 PM · #1881 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I found this to be an interesting discussion about Hawking's book. What do you think about it? |
I think it really makes me wish the US media was much more like the UK media. Excellent, fair presentation. A must watch for anybody interested.
EDIT: This was a total throwaway line and the whole interview has little to do with this (so watch it despite my quote) but I loved the one guy who said, "If you want to sell a lot of books make sure to 1) make it about God and 2) rubbish him." I think this backs up my idea that the "God is dead" portion of Hawking's book may be overhyped in order to generate coverage.
Message edited by author 2010-09-03 16:15:40. |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 04:14:28 PM · #1882 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I found this to be an interesting discussion about Hawking's book. What do you think about it? |
I think it really makes me wish the US media was much more like the UK media. Excellent, fair presentation. A must watch for anybody interested. |
Yea, pretty refreshing isn't it? I like how laid back and respectful everyone was. You didn't see the high tension and aggressiveness that is so prevalent in interviews here. |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 06:13:39 PM · #1883 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think this backs up my idea that the "God is dead" portion of Hawking's book may be overhyped in order to generate coverage. |
Do you think it is actually Hawking hawking the concept within the the book, or rather the media and/or the publisher hyping one small aspect of the book more-or-less out of context to boost sales? |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 06:37:49 PM · #1884 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think this backs up my idea that the "God is dead" portion of Hawking's book may be overhyped in order to generate coverage. |
Do you think it is actually Hawking hawking the concept within the the book, or rather the media and/or the publisher hyping one small aspect of the book more-or-less out of context to boost sales? |
Ya, I think it's the latter. Hawking doesn't strike me as someone who would make big deal about God one way or the other. He doesn't seem to have an axe to grind. I think it's probably a smart publicist and Hawking was willing to go along with it. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt Hawking is the next iteration of Dawkins. |
|
|
|
09/03/2010 06:47:52 PM · #1885 |
| Stephen Hawking quotes, below the white box, from 1988 to present. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:12:37 PM · #1886 |
Father Robert Spitzer will be debating Stephen Hawking tonight on Larry King ((CNN) at 6 p.m. PT, 7 p.m. MT, 8 p.m. CT, and 9 p.m. ET).
Both men will be discussing their recently published books concerning the origins of the universe.
Both men are physicists. One is also a priest. How cool is that? |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:30:16 PM · #1887 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Father Robert Spitzer will be debating Stephen Hawking tonight on Larry King ((CNN) at 6 p.m. PT, 7 p.m. MT, 8 p.m. CT, and 9 p.m. ET).
Both men will be discussing their recently published books concerning the origins of the universe.
Both men are physicists. One is also a priest. How cool is that? |
Very cool. I have set it to record to DVR. Thanks for the heads-up.
R. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:38:48 PM · #1888 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Both men are physicists. One is also a priest. How cool is that? |
If Spitzer is also a physicist, then Hawking is also a priest. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:46:48 PM · #1889 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Father Robert Spitzer will be debating Stephen Hawking tonight on Larry King ((CNN) at 6 p.m. PT, 7 p.m. MT, 8 p.m. CT, and 9 p.m. ET).
Both men will be discussing their recently published books concerning the origins of the universe.
Both men are physicists. One is also a priest. How cool is that? |
Can I ask how Hawking would even debate on live television? I don't think it's quite going to be what you think. Spitzer wasn't the guy on the BBC piece was he? |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 06:35:18 PM · #1890 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I ask how Hawking would even debate on live television? |
Any interviews with Hawking require questions to be asked well in advance so he can pre-program a response. Changing a question even slightly in a live format would be an obvious problem and no spontaneous discussion is possible. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 07:15:03 PM · #1891 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I ask how Hawking would even debate on live television? |
Any interviews with Hawking require questions to be asked well in advance so he can pre-program a response. Changing a question even slightly in a live format would be an obvious problem and no spontaneous discussion is possible. |
Agreed. So at best it's going to be a statement of position format with no back-and-forth. Still might be interesting, although I agree with you that Spitzer doesn't seem to be a physicist to me either (at least by the Wiki). |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 09:13:11 PM · #1892 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Spitzer doesn't seem to be a physicist to me either (at least by the Wiki). |
His field is Philosophy, I believe. Where this physicist idea came from I do not know.
R. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 04:35:01 AM · #1893 |
We've had a fun few days here in Ireland. The Minister of State for Science was all set to star at the launch of his friends anti-evolution book; "The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Last night he decided to withdraw, or rather, the author asked him not to attend because of the controversy.
Minister withdraws from launch of anti-evolution book
Originally posted by article:
In publicity material for the launch of his book on the theory of evolution, Mr May accused “Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel C Dennett, et al” of having “sacrificed reason on the altar of Chance, Mutations, Randomness . . .” Mr May called on “the world’s atheists, scientists, evolutionists plus tens of millions of their duped followers” to stop pretending they had “any facts whatsoever to support the greatest deceit in the history of science”. |
Anyway, turns out the author has €10,000 up for grabs for anyone who can prove evolution at a biochemical level. I don't want to give him free publicity by linking here, but you can get to his site through the news article above. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 07:25:00 AM · #1894 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
His field is Philosophy, I believe. Where this physicist idea came from I do not know. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Both men are physicists. One is also a priest. How cool is that? |
Right about there, is my guess.
Message edited by author 2010-09-14 07:25:25. |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 08:02:32 AM · #1895 |
Originally posted by JH:
We've had a fun few days here in Ireland. The Minister of State for Science was all set to star at the launch of his friends anti-evolution book; "The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Last night he decided to withdraw, or rather, the author asked him not to attend because of the controversy.
Minister withdraws from launch of anti-evolution book
Originally posted by article:
In publicity material for the launch of his book on the theory of evolution, Mr May accused “Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel C Dennett, et al” of having “sacrificed reason on the altar of Chance, Mutations, Randomness . . .” Mr May called on “the world’s atheists, scientists, evolutionists plus tens of millions of their duped followers” to stop pretending they had “any facts whatsoever to support the greatest deceit in the history of science”. |
Anyway, turns out the author has €10,000 up for grabs for anyone who can prove evolution at a biochemical level. I don't want to give him free publicity by linking here, but you can get to his site through the news article above. |
I don't mind the 10,000 Euros prize, lots of good things have happened in history because someone put up a prize to promote attempts, but he loses me when I look at his book excerpt and see, prominently featured, a discussion of "Cell Differenciation"...
R. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 02:59:59 PM · #1896 |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 03:17:34 PM · #1897 |
I've seen similar research before. Thanks for posting additional evidence that many apparent "miracles" can be explained through phenomena completely obedient to the "natural laws" of physics, chemistry, and mathematics -- no sacrifices or prayers to supernatural entities required ... |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 07:58:09 PM · #1898 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've seen similar research before. Thanks for posting additional evidence that many apparent "miracles" can be explained through phenomena completely obedient to the "natural laws" of physics, chemistry, and mathematics -- no sacrifices or prayers to supernatural entities required ... |
Hehe. You aren't thinking very hard Paul. If you take the story at face value, wouldn't you think the timing would be pretty suspicious? That right when the Egyptians are bearing down on the Israelites, a wind comes along to provide a land bridge?
I would assume either the story was a total fabrication or divine intervention. The least likely is that they were saved by a fortuitous occurance. Especially one that nobody has ever witnessed since. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 08:56:12 PM · #1899 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you take the story at face value, wouldn't you think the timing would be pretty suspicious? That right when the Egyptians are bearing down on the Israelites, a wind comes along to provide a land bridge? |
Nope... for two reasons: 1. As far as we know, it's JUST a story. Someone who witnessed winds opening up a land bridge might readily use that as a plot device to create an interesting story even if nobody actually crossed though it. 2. Timing is only suspicious if it coincides with an historic event. 100 other groups of Jews could have been backed against the same waters with no storm to save them, and only a chance event ends up making history (if indeed it was history). A massive storm that destroyed the fleet of Darius and another that destroyed the bridges of Xerxes before either could invade Greece are no less coincidental, but needn't be the handiwork of Poseidon. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 10:53:54 PM · #1900 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you take the story at face value, wouldn't you think the timing would be pretty suspicious? That right when the Egyptians are bearing down on the Israelites, a wind comes along to provide a land bridge? |
Nope... for two reasons: 1. As far as we know, it's JUST a story. Someone who witnessed winds opening up a land bridge might readily use that as a plot device to create an interesting story even if nobody actually crossed though it. 2. Timing is only suspicious if it coincides with an historic event. 100 other groups of Jews could have been backed against the same waters with no storm to save them, and only a chance event ends up making history (if indeed it was history). A massive storm that destroyed the fleet of Darius and another that destroyed the bridges of Xerxes before either could invade Greece are no less coincidental, but needn't be the handiwork of Poseidon. |
I think you missed we agreed on a lot of what you said. I know you aren't used to that... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:46:52 AM EDT.
