"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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?
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.