38 7

"Einstein and Hawking: Unlocking The Universe" produced by the BBC for the Science Channel.

i watched this last night, these guys should have been science fiction writers. They both produced silly theories that many accept as true. neither understood the true nature of time and space.

the truth about the universe is that time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space.

time is a constant, it does not slow or stop.
space extends forever and it does not expand or bend.

there is so much misconception in the scientific community that as a human - it embarrasses me.

By gater7
Actions Follow Post Like

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


The difference between Einstein, Hawking, and you.... Is that they've observed thousands of physics experiments, performed math that boggles the mind, and come to a logical conclusion. You have made claims with absolutely no evidence.

Also, you'll note that Hawkings explicitly stated in A Brief History of Time that (based on his research and logic) what came before the Big Bang, if anything, is mathematically irrelevant to the current universe.

We constantly discover amazing things that contradict our understanding of physics. If you ever discover or mathematically prove your assumptions, please let us know!

tkcoy Level 5 Mar 11, 2019

But.. but.. rational abstraction!


Wow. Just wow. There's so much wrong with this... brain fart that I don't know where to start.
Did you know that without allowing for Einsteinian time dilation, satnav becomes wildly inaccurate within hours?
These guys didn't just pluck these ideas out of the sky. They are the most accurate theoretical descriptions of the evidence that they could come up with at the time.

time dilation is not time

@gater you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.


Those are some nice assertions. Look, I can assert things too. Space is shrinking. Time is two dimensional. Cats love water.

indirect76 Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

Don’t forget The Kremlin hates Bananas!!!

@darthfaja In Soviet Russia, banana peels you!




I mean, I personally don't disagree with you that there was no beginning and that space is infinite.. but you offer no explanation or argument to back up your claim other than a dickhead-ish tantrum. You need to form a logical argument. I have one for an infinite universe that basically revolves around it being the theory with the least assumptions. That's really all we can do because we are limited in the amount of the universe we can observe.

I disagree that space isn't expanding. We know it is based on how galaxies are appearing to move away from us. The further they are, the faster they're moving away from us. If their observed movement were simply due to momentum, redshift wouldn't increase exponentially with distance.

Also disagree about time. Space and time are linked.. and we know that moving through space at different velocities changes how time effects you. If you took 2 atomic clocks and put on at the lowest point possible on Earth and the other at the highest point, over the years the time they kept would change from one another.

Bottom line, don't be a science denier just because you want to be.. and if you can't help yourself, at least provide an argument backing up your claims.

FatherOfNyx Level 6 Mar 11, 2019

You’re response is moronic because ‘effect’ is a noun, not a verb.

Naw, that was a brilliant response.

@indirect76 We can't all be Stephen fucking Hawkinsons..

@FatherOfNyx hey, i want to be nikola fucking tesla!

the path to understanding comes from logic

@gater And observation.. You seem to disregard observations made in light of your theory.

@FatherOfNyx how do you apply observation to time?

@gater As I stated earlier, atomic clocks are one way. You can observe differences in atomic clocks that were once synced. Those differences come from the differences in the rate which they travel through space.

@FatherOfNyx you bring up clocks - clocks are not time - they are just an attempt to measure time.

@gater They're not attempting, they are. The measurement of time is like language. When we look at a tree, we see a tree. When a German looks at it, they see a baum. When a Swede looks at it, they see a träd. All different words for the same thing. It's the same with time. We base our time off of the movements of our planet, our moon, our view of the solar system. If we lived and evolved on Mars, our measurements would be different as they are based on different celestial movements.. but it would be describing the same thing, the passage of time. If Martians were to perform the atomic clock experiment, they would have different measurements that show the same results.

It's pretty silly to say that you can't measure or observe time while making the claim that it's infinite. I mean really, does that not sound fucking stupid? Time is infinite, but you can't observe or measure it.. kind of makes it hard to prove it's infinite.

If you don't want this forum to reject you just so you can whine about it, put some effort into your claims. All you're doing is spouting a philosophical stance with no evidence.. or even a damn logical argument. That's pretty much what theists do.

@Piece2YourPuzzle. It's not just objects moving. At the very edge of our observable universe, galaxies are moving away from us at near light speed. They aren't actually traveling at near light speed, if they were, they would disintegrate.

Another piece to your puzzle, if we see a galaxy moving away from us at near light speed, that means when they look at us, our galaxy is moving away from them at near light speed. Obviously we know our galaxy isn't traveling at near light speed. The only way to get this effect is if the space between galaxies is expanding.

Space isn't expanding. The objects in space are moving. The universe is a container like a soup is contained within a pot with all the ingredients moving around in the pot. The universe is just most likely an "infinite" "pot". The moving objects leave proof that they are moving (redshift measurements), not that the pot is expanding. To say the container is expanding is to say you see the entire container and can measure it expanding. We can only observe what we can observe and we don't see the entire universe. As far as we know, the "entire" universe is only that which we see.


@FatherOfNyx Nothing you said leads to any sense of the theory of space actually expanding. The DISTANCE between galaxies is expanding.


@Piece2YourPuzzle And what encompasses the distance between galaxies? Space. You can say the distance between galaxies, the area between galaxies, the region between galaxies, the realm between galaxies.. but in the end, it's still space. If you could view the fabric of space like a sea of virtual particles, those particles aren't literally expanding.. but the amount between galaxies is increasing, causing expansion.


I would be rather embarrassed if I were you expounding on the foolishness of Einstein and Hawking and how little they understood of anything...

Alana48 Level 2 Mar 11, 2019

they understood physics on a molecular level - neither understood the universe

@gater molecular, atomic, sub atomic, potatoe potato. It's all the same. Correct?

Something to think about....


Great thinkers are courageous for putting their theories out with the knowledge that they may be disproven. Fortunately you haven’t done this.

Diagoras Level 6 Mar 11, 2019

in time mankind will accept the concept of infinite time and space, just as some accept evolution, but it is a slow process. people can only understand what they are able to understand.


You probably think he world is flat don't you.

noworry28 Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

Apply the right frame of reference and it's flatter than a pancake.


Put your ideas forward for peer review. Intelligence is useless if not passed on.

powder Level 8 Mar 11, 2019

And in the end accept the Nobel Prize, world renown fame and being accepted as the most enlightened human to have ever lived.


Space and time are closely related, and their combination is called space-time. Time is relative as is space, though time relativity is a very tiny effect in ordinary circumstances. Space-time is also curved, and that curvature is apparent as gravity. Time relativity makes GPS clocks a bit slower than ground ones, and gravity makes GPS clocks a bit faster, though not as big as the time-relativity effect. So GPS clocks are run a tiny bit fast to stay in sync with their observers' clocks.

lpetrich Level 4 Mar 11, 2019

there is no spacetime - there is space, and there is time.


Why do you think that space and time are infinite?

Our observations are over only a finite amount of both space and time. The observable part of our Universe has approximately flat space, meaning that we have no hint of a boundary or an antipode. Time, however, is another story. The oldest nontrivial effect that we observe is primordial density fluctuations, and those were likely generated in a phase of "inflation" or exponential expansion some 13.7 billion years. It had a timescale of around 10^(-36) seconds and to produce the observed flattening, it needed some 60 e-foldings. So our Universe had some sort of beginning.

lpetrich Level 4 Mar 11, 2019

you learn about the universe with logic, you learn about galaxies with a telescope

Why does one use logic to learn about the Universe? That's an empirical question, like the nature of galaxies.


Yep, and guess what. The world is flat and only six thousand years old, and he sun goes across the sky in a small boat each day and spends the night in a cave.

It may well be that the ideas of Einstein and Hawkins will need to be corrected in the future, that is the way both science and human progress work, but it is unlikely now that they will be turned over completely and they will never be valueless. And to answer one of your questions with one piece of evidence. (Only one because I do not have the time to waste on all of them , not because they can't be answered. )

The reason we know that space bends is because. When objects like planets pass behind other large objects with big gravity, the apparent speed of them can be observed to slow down and speed up as they go in and out of transit. If you wish to obtain your own instruments and make the measurements again, you are welcome. Until then it is best to remember that. "I can't understand it." Is not the same as. Its not true.

Fernapple Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

"The reason we know that space bends is because. When objects like planets pass behind other large objects with big gravity, the apparent speed of them can be observed to slow down and speed up as they go in and out of transit."

And all that this states is that objects with gravity affects other objects with gravity. It says absolutely nothing about space bending. You don't need space bending in order to explain gravity.

@johnprytz True, but it is not the planet which speeds up and slows down, only the appearance, the photons follow a curved path, and photons have no or next to no mass.


Photons have no rest mass. And gravitons (the particles that convey the force of gravity) have no rest mass. But that doesn't mean that gravity (gravitons) has no influence on electromagnetic energy (photons). Light from a distant star (photons) is deflected by the Sun's gravity (gravitons). That says nothing about space bending. You don't need a bending space for gravitons to influence photons.

Important to remember your words :"I can't understand it" is not necessarily TRUTH. Example: when I ask a question a sales clerk can't answer, I tell them "It's OK if you don't know" ! I wish folks would stop thinking they have to answer questions for which they don't have knowledge. Krueger/Dunning, or social pressure ??!

@johnprytz Yes but that only accounts for about half of it.

"Yes but that only accounts for about half of it."

Can you elaborate please since I don't know exactly what you are referring to.


Where is this trend coming from? Did I just miss it before? Is this just a part of agnostic I've (thankfully) missed?

People making basic assertions and disparaging great minds because they think it makes them look profound? I mean, just look at this Youtube video! Complete with more basic assertions pronounced like a Confucian monk passing on the mystic arts in the comments:

You learn about time from clocks, and about ants with a magnifying glass.


You have nothing to prove here. We do not measure IQ points. You don't get Agnostic karma from trying to look like the smartest atheist. If you get to Level 8, you can get a T-shirt. However, you can do that just by commenting "lol" on a lot of posts, probably.

These types of posts aren't making you look like a genius science-man with a big ol' brain. They make you look like someone who thinks they're smarter than they really are.

Xuande Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

you learn about time from clocks??? lol wrong


Cool. So prove it?

Paracosm Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

You seem to have the opinion that you are smarter, more intelligent, no more about cosmology than Einstein and Hawking together. That is some arrogance showing there.

jlynn37 Level 8 Mar 11, 2019

not smarter - but a greater ability to reason abstractly.

@gater LMAO


Hawkings books and those about Einstein might help you actually understand what they said and the science that affirms their theories. Just because you are sceptical and can think about it differently does not mean you are correct or that your POV is valid.

ToolGuy Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

"Just because you are sceptical and can think about it differently does not mean you are correct or that your POV is valid."

While this is true, I should point out that this forum exists for those who are skeptical and for those who are freethinkers.

@johnprytz But one would hope that the thinking would not just be free but also grounded in empirical data and logic.

Well I can't speak for the person who started this topic off, but I believe I have made my statements in accordance with empirical data and logic.


So cool that you are a better scientist than Einstein and Hawking. Where do you have your academic appointment? Where do you publish?

Stephanie99 Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

Im not a scientist - im a philosopher.

@gater Ah! He's a philosopher. That explains quite a bit.

@TheAstroChuck Right - I deal with truth - you deal with theories.

@gater The question still applies. Philosophers also publish and have academic appointments when they are recognized as legitimate.

@Stephanie99 Philosophers have the highest level of understanding. I posted the truth about time and space - the BBT is a ridiculous joke - they think time can stop - it can't - they think space isn't infinite - it is.

@gater Just because you say so?

@Stephanie99 no - because its true.


"Silly theories"???

So you, with your intuition and common sense, and perhaps some YouTube videos, have disproved Einstein's theories. Congratulations.

OldWiseAss Level 6 Mar 13, 2019

Krueger/Dunning at work ?

Einstein and Hawking both had theories that should be categorized as science fiction.


Sorry, you just don't understand what they are saying. Time is not constant, and space does bend, whether you believe it or not.

Bobby9 Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

alright - you keep believing that

@gater Thanks for the permission. When you have proof of your "point" let me know.

@Bobby9 why don't you offer proof that time is not a constant, and proof that space bends? I could use a good laugh today

@gater YOU made the initial statement, therefore it is up to YOU to justify it, I am merely saying I don't believe you.

"Time is not constant, and space does bend, whether you believe it or not."

Time is not constant because motion is not constant and therefore change is not constant and without change there's no valid concept of time, BUT space does NOT bend. If you insist that space bends then you are insisting that space is an actual something. Now, that being the case I insist that you tell all of us what space is composed of! What is the chemical formula of space? If space isn't composed of anything then it can't bend.

@johnprytz I and many very knowledgeable astrophysicists insist space bends. You comment is noted.

"I and many very knowledgeable astrophysicists insist space bends."

Yet not one single astrophysicist can actually identify what space is composed of! If space bends it MUST be composed of something. Since space literally surrounds you and everybody else, how effing difficult can it be to pin this down?

@johnprytz Inability to identify what space is composed of merely means we don't know. We don't know a great deal of what makes the Universe tick. Additionally I have never read anything that says space in empty, quite the opposite.

"Inability to identify what space is composed of merely means we don't know."

You're assuming there is actually something to know! We don't know that there aren't actual faeries at the bottom of gardens, but do you want to spend time looking for them? As I've already said, since space is literally surrounding you right now, how difficult can it be to pin it down?

"Additionally I have never read anything that says space in empty, quite the opposite."

And I've never said that space is entirely empty. What I'm saying is that, for example, you have this hydrogen molecule in space, and you have another hydrogen molecule in space, but what is between them? Absolutely nothing - total emptiness.

@johnprytz Are you assuming there is nothing more to know? Even if you are your assumption is just that, and assumption. As I previously said, since we are referring to the unknown, there is no reason to continue. You speculation is no better than anyone else's. Bye.

There is no unknown here. Space is not composed of anything. Just wishing space to have an actual composition doesn't make it so. If I'm speculating, then you too are speculating. But at least my speculation is based on what we do know, not what we'd like to know.


The only time I have ever seen the word, "silly" used is as a derogatory term. I would not characterize either Einstein or Hawking as "silly". If you disagree with their theories, perhaps you should say, "I disagree with their theories in the matter of..."

dahermit Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

Let me get this straight, you watched a two hour documentary and discovered, hitherto unknown, flaws by two of the top scientists of the last century. My you are some genius, I wish I had that kind of insight, if I did I would be putting it to good use and not on here making rash statements that makes one look stoopid.

GothRik Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

no - ive known for years that time and space are infinite.


Einstein’s theoeries made prediction that we’re later proven true by experiments. Relativistic effects have to be taken into account for the calculations used to maneuver space probes that have been sent out across our solar system. An atomic clock on the ground compared with the same type of clock that travels around the globe on a jet then is returned to the same earthbound location as the ground click shows a difference in time. What is your explanation?

jmac63 Level 2 Mar 12, 2019

you are referring to the effects of time dilation - which is the effect gravity has on clocks


@gater Sorry no. Gravity does not affect atomic clocks. Time dilation is a relativistic effect predicted by Einstein’s theories.

"Sorry no. Gravity does not affect atomic clocks."

And I believe that you are totally wrong! Atomic clocks that are synchronized and then separated by altitude - say one remains on Earth at ground level while the other travels on an aircraft / spacecraft or is placed say on the lunar surface in a reduced gravitational field - will not remain synchronized.


"there is so much misconception ... - it embarrasses me."

I recommend you learn to live with your embarrassment.

TheAstroChuck Level 8 Mar 12, 2019

in time all of humanity will accept what im saying as true - im just way ahead of the curve.

@gater Sure you are. Sure you are.

@gater You are truly deluded. I suggest a little lie down, perhaps for a long time. Forever would be good.

@KevinTwining "You are truly deluded. I suggest a little lie down, perhaps for a long time. Forever would be good."

Don't you think that that was just a little bit uncalled for? Really? Further, it was totally nonconstructive and contributed absolutely nothing to the topic that was raised. What would have been interesting would have been detailing exactly why you felt the poster was "deluded" with hardcore data and logic to back you up.


@johnprytz Only just a little bit uncalled for (i.e. the bit about "forever" ). Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with @KevinTwining

Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with Kevin Twining.

That's your privilege. But I would have thought put-downs might be beneath the dignity of an actual scientist. I mean you wouldn't use such put-downs in a formal reply to an academic peer-reviewed paper even if you personally thought your scientific colleague was an absolute moron.

@johnprytz Lighten up John. It will be OK.

@johnprytz I’m not a scientist. Also, I don’t feel the need to back my comments up with data that’s already accepted and widely available. Also also, at my age, I can’t be dealing with idiots. I’ve had a lifetime of hearing their shit, and I can’t put up with it anymore. I am now officially a grumpy old man, and proud of it. Opinions are NOT of equal value, and those based on rubbish aren’t worthy of equal consideration. Nor are their proponents.


"Lighten up John. It will be OK."

Well I've noticed in some of your replies to Gater that you've been anything but light, but rather pretty heavy on the insults. I would feel that someone with your intelligence and level of education might just respond, at times, more gently.

@KevinTwining "Also also, at my age, I can’t be dealing with idiots. I’ve had a lifetime of hearing their shit, and I can’t put up with it anymore. I am now officially a grumpy old man, and proud of it."

Of course you could just ignore those who you feel are idiots which of course would save you some time and effort. I very much doubt that slinging off at Gater, or anyone else here, is going to alter their worldviews. What's sometimes worse than being talked about is not being talked about!

@johnprytz ‘What’s sometimes worse than being talked about is not being talked about’. Poor Oscar - you misused one of his great and pithy lines. Read your comment again.


Time is a measurement to the fact that things happen. Something occurs and has a duration. Time measures this. If nothing occured, that in and of itself would be an occurence with a duration that could be given measurement, but if NOTHING is occuring that means you nor any one is standing by with a stop watch scaled to measure the duration of "nothing" occuring.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

you are close - time is essentially the natural advancement of the universe.

@gater you might say that. no universr, still "time". just nothingg by which to measure or standardize

@Antifred you are right

@gater I know, but i tried being wrong once but it turned out to be the right thing. Just being so good just is like so natural, i just can't do anything about it.

@Antifred some have an innate ability to see past the bullshit and to recognize what is true. this requires abstract reasoning.

@gater antispace get people to think about bang theory. there was antispace? then bang and space pushed antispace away?


I have been try to tell people this for eons but no one listens to me.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

you can tell some people the truth about something, like evolution, and they will never accept it. all you can do is offer them the truth, its up to them to accept it. either way - your understanding of truth does not depend on others agreeing with you.


@gater -- You have not presented a theory. You have made a posit. Show your work.

evidentialist Level 8 Mar 12, 2019

theories are necessary when you're not sure of something - like the Big Bang Theory, or Special Theory of Relativity. I am sure time and space are infinite.

@gater If you are sure, then you should at least be able to explain it. That's what a scientific theory is, it's a model of explanation. All you're doing is making claims with no explanation. Come on man, if you're able to put this much effort in.. take it one step more and actually explain yourself. That's why you're getting so much push back, you're not doing shit other than making claims. Claims with no explanation are empty.

@FatherOfNyx alright that's fair, but its kind of like taking a test and you have the right answer but the teacher won't accept it because you didn't show your work. I wish I had the words to make it clear for everyone.

@gater -- No, it's not like taking a test, having the right answer, but being marked down because you didn't show your work. It is apparent you don't truly understand what the word theory means when used in science. What you have done here is more like this:

A young man was working away in the patent office one day when a brilliant idea popped into his brain. Immediately he raced out into the street shouting the German equivalent of eureka.

A policeman, upon seeing the wild-eyed young lad accosting people at random, stopped him and said, "Young man, why are you running about and shouting at the townspeople?"

"Because I've found it."

"Found what?"

"Space-time. It's ... it's a continuum, you see? Light is constant and time and space must comply with local acceleration."

"What on earth are you babbling about? Explain yourself."

"Well ... damn it man ... it's logic. Don't you see it? We've missed it all these years. All those great men of science haven't seen it and it was dangling there in plain sight for all to see."

"No, I don't see it, nor shall I see it until you explain yourself. What I can tell you is this, if you continue bothering people, I shall be forced to take you in until you calm down. I hear there is a man in Vienna who might be able to help you. I believe his name is Sigmund ... uh ... Sigmund Freud."

"Bah! That blathering baboon wouldn't -- couldn't understand. He doesn't see it either. Why are all of you so ... so dense?"


A theory describes a phenomenon, describes it thoroughly, and shows all the work used in the process. If a theory works, it can make predictions based on the description presented therein about future effects of a given phenomenon.


@gater Being sure is not proof. Theists are sure there is a god.

@Bobby9 no - theist depend on faith

@gater They are sure of their faith.

@Bobby9 no - that's why its called faith - faith is believing in something that you have no evidence or proof of.

@gater Not worth bickering about. You "point" is semantics.

@gater -- And you, Sir, have given no evidence or explanation for your posit. You have made the assertion, now provide the support for the assertion.

Write Comment

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

Similar Posts

My answer to what was the hardest to accept: the lack of having a hereafter, and when getting older ... Why does biblical text and big bang theory sound so simular when understood? Though it seems paradoxical after I poked the bear last night, I believe 100% in agnostic.com's core... So as I take a drunkard's walk through this site I see some interesting concepts, some wisdom and a ... My Introduction video to my Atheist channel. Coming out Atheist! - International Atheist Day ... I recently learned the philosophy community defines an atheist more broadly than any definition that... The Logic of Indecision: If you say you are agnostic, you are saying that you do not know, but ... So, as I rattle around here in the bowels of this beast during half time of the various first 4 ... I really had not considered the "Is atheism another religion" argument and the first four of the ... NEW PROFILE PHOTO FOR.... International Atheist Day 3-23-19 Howdy Folks, I am new and desperately in need of kindred spirits for discussing mutual beliefs.... In Texas, a Quiet Effort to Protect 'Conversion Therapy' Is Underway - Rewire.News In response to the suggestion that the local state parliament cease to say the Lord's Prayer each ... Atheism vs. Scientific Method Forgive me if this has been posted about already, but with the obvious association of agnosticism ... "COMMon UNITY 5" Get it? [youtube.com] Oran Mor Community. Squires, Missouri. Ozarks. ... I try to be positive in life. I look to the good in most things. Having grown up in a Disciples of... My tshirt creation was finally delivered for International Atheist Day 3/23/19 The TRUTH about the Christchurch mosque - YouTube

Share this post


Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Humanist.com is the largest non-profit community for humanists!