It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust! And Happy Birthday day Prof. Hawkings! So glad you outlived all their predictions. Would LOVE to see his jyotish chart!
Ok, I googled event horizon and I read it twice. But I still do not understand. The part I understand least is the part about how from the observer's POV the object never makes it past the event horizon. But from the object's POV it does, and at regular time. Anyway, here's what comes to mind, having just listened to interview about vimanas, about universe not having a creator, from Veda: Curving back onto myself I create again and again. For several years now I have been using God and Universe and Life interchangeably. I don't think they are separate. So yes, I think Universe is God and is creating itself again and again. Fabulous post, thank you. ________________________________ From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodle...@mail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required..... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph: > > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a > > very few would allow creatures like us to exist. > > I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. > > Especially given the sentence just before! As Spock would say: > > Their logic is flawed. > > I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible > states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes > that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon > based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations > in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside > stars. I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You, me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh? > Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is > why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who > wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's! > > Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by > being the first person to work out how the quantum world might > interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that > black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's > all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at > the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book "A brief history of > time" but only because the bits about quarks twist my > head inside too much for comfort! > > *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding > on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most > powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: salyavin808 > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required..... > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe. > > > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€"no > > gods required > > > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW > > > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make > > lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people > > must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran > > around banging on pots. > > > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâ€"with a good dose of > > intuitionâ€"to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics > > and experimental testâ€"in other words, modern science. > > > > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe > > is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad > > day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its > > own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. > > > > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise > > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the > > order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to > > this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the > > extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the > > idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the > > latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem > > tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. > > > > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly > > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar > > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar > > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions > > of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the > > beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they > > are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they > > require to exist. > > > > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The > > fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment > > in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance > > from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow > > us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. > > We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would > > all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called > > the "weak" anthropic principle. > > > > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a > > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The > > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes > > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and > > content of the laws of nature themselves. > > > > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our > > solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, > > but also the characteristics of our entire universeâ€"and its laws. They > > appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we > > are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more > > difficult to explain. > > > > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of > > lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent > > life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be > > such that heavier elementsâ€"especially carbonâ€"could be produced from the > > primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. > > Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the > > forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew > > from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. > > > > Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that > > some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the > > heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to > > dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of > > stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy > > elements. > > > > By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics > > are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to > > physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change > > of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in > > the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in > > every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of > > the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in > > the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe > > would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the > > development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would > > decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. > > > > If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is > > necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is > > also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of > > gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are > > possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as > > that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its > > circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun. > > > > The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent > > observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that > > is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in > > the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind > > of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the > > natural question of why it is that way. > > > > Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work > > of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind > > appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. > > In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential > > design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced > > by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions > > according to some deliberate design." > > > > That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology > > suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear > > spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is > > something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is > > not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the > > universe going. > > > > Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That > > multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine > > tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. > > If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, > > putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the > > environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitatâ€"now the > > entire observable universeâ€"is just one of many. > > > > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a > > very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and > > insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the > > lords of creation. > > > > â€"Stephen Hawking is a professor at the University of Cambridge. Leonard > > Mlodinow is a physicist who teaches at Caltech > > > > From the book "The Grand Design" > > >
