Hawking: God did not create Universe
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
jesus, stfu penrose 
is he Buddhist now?
is he Buddhist now?
your smiley face may indicate you already know this... but just in case...
he is just about the smartest guy in the world on this stuff... that is all.
Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
he is just about the smartest guy in the world on this stuff... that is all.
Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
here is just the beginning of his bio on the site.
he created that impossible triangle.
Born in Colchester, Essex, England, Roger Penrose is a son of psychiatrist and mathematician Lionel Penrose and Margaret Leathes,[2] and the grandson of the physiologist John Beresford Leathes. His uncle was artistRoland Penrose, whose son with photographer Lee Miller is Antony Penrose. Penrose is the brother of mathematician Oliver Penrose and of chess Grandmaster Jonathan Penrose. Penrose attended University College School and University College, London, where he graduated with a first class degree in mathematics. In 1955, while still a student, Penrose reintroduced the E. H. Moore generalised matrix inverse, also known as theMoore–Penrose inverse,[3] after it had been reinvented by Arne Bjerhammar (1951). Penrose earned his PhD at Cambridge (St John's College) in 1958, writing a thesis on "tensor methods in algebraic geometry" under algebraist and geometer John A. Todd. He devised and popularised the Penrose triangle in the 1950s, describing it as "impossibility in its purest form" and exchanged material with the artist M. C. Escher, whose earlier depictions of impossible objects partly inspired it. Escher's Waterfall, and Ascending and Descending were in turn inspired by Penrose. As reviewer Manjit Kumar puts it:
As a student in 1954, Penrose was attending a conference in Amsterdam when by chance he came across an exhibition of Escher's work. Soon he was trying to conjure up impossible figures of his own and discovered the tri-bar – a triangle that looks like a real, solid three-dimensional object, but isn't. Together with his father, a physicist and mathematician, Penrose went on to design a staircase that simultaneously loops up and down. An article followed and a copy was sent to Escher. Completing a cyclical flow of creativity, the Dutch master of geometrical illusions was inspired to produce his two masterpieces.[4]
In 1965, at Cambridge, Penrose proved that singularities (such as black holes) could be formed from the gravitational collapse of immense, dying stars.[5] This work was extended by Hawking to prove the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.
....
he created that impossible triangle.
Born in Colchester, Essex, England, Roger Penrose is a son of psychiatrist and mathematician Lionel Penrose and Margaret Leathes,[2] and the grandson of the physiologist John Beresford Leathes. His uncle was artistRoland Penrose, whose son with photographer Lee Miller is Antony Penrose. Penrose is the brother of mathematician Oliver Penrose and of chess Grandmaster Jonathan Penrose. Penrose attended University College School and University College, London, where he graduated with a first class degree in mathematics. In 1955, while still a student, Penrose reintroduced the E. H. Moore generalised matrix inverse, also known as theMoore–Penrose inverse,[3] after it had been reinvented by Arne Bjerhammar (1951). Penrose earned his PhD at Cambridge (St John's College) in 1958, writing a thesis on "tensor methods in algebraic geometry" under algebraist and geometer John A. Todd. He devised and popularised the Penrose triangle in the 1950s, describing it as "impossibility in its purest form" and exchanged material with the artist M. C. Escher, whose earlier depictions of impossible objects partly inspired it. Escher's Waterfall, and Ascending and Descending were in turn inspired by Penrose. As reviewer Manjit Kumar puts it:
As a student in 1954, Penrose was attending a conference in Amsterdam when by chance he came across an exhibition of Escher's work. Soon he was trying to conjure up impossible figures of his own and discovered the tri-bar – a triangle that looks like a real, solid three-dimensional object, but isn't. Together with his father, a physicist and mathematician, Penrose went on to design a staircase that simultaneously loops up and down. An article followed and a copy was sent to Escher. Completing a cyclical flow of creativity, the Dutch master of geometrical illusions was inspired to produce his two masterpieces.[4]
In 1965, at Cambridge, Penrose proved that singularities (such as black holes) could be formed from the gravitational collapse of immense, dying stars.[5] This work was extended by Hawking to prove the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.
....
Covered a thousand times before.
If you knew anything about Penrose you'd know he favors cyclic cosmology in which he does away with any question of so called fine tuning.
Some (very few) scientists say there is a God, but there is no science which states there is a God.
Likewise there is no science that states the universe is fine tuned.
If you knew anything about Penrose you'd know he favors cyclic cosmology in which he does away with any question of so called fine tuning.
Some (very few) scientists say there is a God, but there is no science which states there is a God.
Likewise there is no science that states the universe is fine tuned.
Penrose said this is fine tuning on the video.
--- that is proof you were just lying about what I was saying and about what scientists were say...
-- I have also given you proof that science calls the precision of the constants of the standard model... fine tuning.
so cease your troll lies.
====
Now if you wish to change this to a discussion about the cause of the fine tunings...
I am sure Penrose would tell you that his possible explanation is not fact its speculation....he therefore does not do away with the fine tunings of our universe.
he is providing another prong....which might explain the fine tuning...
a.multiverse ala big bang and inflation.
b. Tuner
c. some cyclical model... bang and the stretch... over and over...
it seems to me this is also a multiverse... but I do need to learn more about what he says... perhaps you have a link ...
--- that is proof you were just lying about what I was saying and about what scientists were say...
-- I have also given you proof that science calls the precision of the constants of the standard model... fine tuning.
so cease your troll lies.
====
Now if you wish to change this to a discussion about the cause of the fine tunings...
I am sure Penrose would tell you that his possible explanation is not fact its speculation....he therefore does not do away with the fine tunings of our universe.
he is providing another prong....which might explain the fine tuning...
a.multiverse ala big bang and inflation.
b. Tuner
c. some cyclical model... bang and the stretch... over and over...
it seems to me this is also a multiverse... but I do need to learn more about what he says... perhaps you have a link ...
Last edited:
Bullshit. Proof my ass.
Most constant values, except one in particular, are calculated from the values of others, as Weinberg shows, which evaporated any so called appearance of fine tuning associated to them.
If what Penrose says is proof the universe is fine tuned, then what Hawking says about there is no God, is proof there is no God.
I am sure Penrose when pressed would tell you that in exactly in the same way, fine tuning is not a fact in science but at the very best, it's speculation.
It simply stands to reason if you don't know how a value came to be what it is, which Penrose nor anyone else does yet, then you can't say whether it is fine tuned or not.
a. math, science, physics
b. Religion. Not math, not science, not physics.
c. math, science, physics... conformal cyclic cosmology is not a multiverse.
You say you need to learn more about what he says....
If you weren't so dishonest you might start to learn more about everything as well as Penrose's CCC.
more twisted troll bullshit.
1. the video is presented to show you are lying about whether people in Science say there "is" fine tuning. Clearly now, even to you... there are.
so one troll lie was just countered. you should apologize for lying.
2. what a bunch of bullshit...evaporated? How the hell did the scientists at cern know where to look for the higgs boson? if the fine tunings of the standard model evaporated? You keep lying your ass off. its kind of funny but it is sick.
the exact opposite happened at cern when 20 or so constants tuned to at least 30 places... help the CERN scientists find the Higgs Boson. It was an incredible validation of the very precise numbers calculated for the standard model. That you could argue against the reality of that achievement is sick.
3. hey troll... no one is trying sell you religion on this thread. we are just trying to get you to admit the truth. that our universe has constants which appear finely tuned to many top scientists....(and some say is)
and that most explain it by surmising there must be a multiverse... but some of the top scientists admit... that a Tuner could be the answer.
that is all.
that is not religion... that is the state of science.
1. the video is presented to show you are lying about whether people in Science say there "is" fine tuning. Clearly now, even to you... there are.
so one troll lie was just countered. you should apologize for lying.
2. what a bunch of bullshit...evaporated? How the hell did the scientists at cern know where to look for the higgs boson? if the fine tunings of the standard model evaporated? You keep lying your ass off. its kind of funny but it is sick.
the exact opposite happened at cern when 20 or so constants tuned to at least 30 places... help the CERN scientists find the Higgs Boson. It was an incredible validation of the very precise numbers calculated for the standard model. That you could argue against the reality of that achievement is sick.
3. hey troll... no one is trying sell you religion on this thread. we are just trying to get you to admit the truth. that our universe has constants which appear finely tuned to many top scientists....(and some say is)
and that most explain it by surmising there must be a multiverse... but some of the top scientists admit... that a Tuner could be the answer.
that is all.
that is not religion... that is the state of science.
Fine tuning is just a topic that some have taken up because they need to get published. I'd bet that some of the authors don't even believe what they write.
As for the extreme number known as the cosmic constant, who cares. There are plenty of extreme numbers in physics, ie Boltzmann's constant, the charge and mass of an electron, etc.., that you're not going to care too much for another goofy number.
As for the extreme number known as the cosmic constant, who cares. There are plenty of extreme numbers in physics, ie Boltzmann's constant, the charge and mass of an electron, etc.., that you're not going to care too much for another goofy number.