RIP Stephen Hawking

[PondPopper]

So is the ranch changing hands? Thats all I want to know!

Not in this life. Maybe we will have another Big Bang.. We can do it all over again..
I just don't want to come back as a 400"'Whitetail... Nope.

[sir shovelhands]

It turns out that it means exactly what I meant..
It also turns out that a "theory" and "hypothesis" ARE" the same unlike what you said here on post 71..

3) It's obvious some on here did not take the time to learn the difference between theory and hypothesis






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scientific theory, and the everyday word "theory" are NOT the same.

Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


I'll try to dumb it down: a scientific theory is the current best explanation that can be repeatedly tested and proven with the same results. If more information becomes available, or there are cases where the theory does not prove true, then it is updated.

A good example would be gravity: you probably think of gravity according to how Newton's Theory of Gravitation explains it, as a force between objects. This is fine, because it's a good and simple explanation for most cases, but in certain cases like near black holes, gravity does not behave according to Newton's Theory, so Einstein developed the general theory of relativity which explains gravity as a spacetime curvature. As it holds true for more cases then Newton's Theory, it has supplanted it.

This also leads to an explanation of why the study of black holes is important: they are a proving ground for scientific theories.

I should also point out that scientific theories are backed up by mathematics, as an example, einstein's field equations which explain gravity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

[PondPopper]

Scientific theory, and the everyday word "theory" are NOT the same.

Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


I'll try to dumb it down: a scientific theory is the current best explanation that can be repeatedly tested and proven with the same results. If more information becomes available, or there are cases where the theory does not prove true, then it is updated.

A good example would be gravity: you probably think of gravity according to how Newton's Theory of Gravitation explains it, as a force between objects. This is fine, because it's a good and simple explanation for most cases, but in certain cases like near black holes, gravity does not behave according to Newton's Theory, so Einstein developed the general theory of relativity which explains gravity as a spacetime curvature. As it holds true for more cases then Newton's Theory, it has supplanted it.

This also leads to an explanation of why the study of black holes is important: they are a proving ground for scientific theories.

I should also point out that scientific theories are backed up by mathematics, as an example, einstein's field equations which explain gravity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Have you ever seen a black hole?? I mean really seen one?

[Encinal]

Have you ever seen a black hole?? I mean really seen one?

Have you ever seen your own brain?

[PondPopper]

Have you ever seen your own brain?

Actually yes.

[Rush2Judge]

Sir Shovel, you win a cupie doll! Or a beer ever we should meet.

[sir shovelhands]

Have you ever seen a black hole?? I mean really seen one?

The premise is flawed, black holes don't allow light to escape, thus they cannot be seen with a naked eye. They are detected by their interactions with the universe around them, like when they come close enough to stars to start sucking them in.

If you are trying to make the point that if you can't see it, then it doesn't exist, then you should reconsider the existence gravity, the air you breath, and God.

[Encinal]

Actually yes.

Physically seen it. Or seen it with some kind of imaging?

[PondPopper]

So no one here has ever seen a black hole.. Got it. I just someone had since they have been mentioned numerous times..

[systemnt]

Physically seen it. Or seen it with some kind of imaging?

You mean like with the cameras and telescoping equipment used to "see" the interaction of stars around a "black hole" proving their existence?

Whole lotta trust in scientists on both accounts....

[Rush2Judge]

Have you ever seen a black hole?? I mean really seen one?

Have you seen gravity? An electromagnet wave? A photon? A neutron? An electron? A quark?

Please stop.

Science is not a threat to Christianity.

[PondPopper]

Have you seen gravity? An electromagnet wave? A photon? A neutron? An electron? A quark?

Please stop.

Science is not a threat to Christianity.

So you haven't seen one either.. Hmm.

[Vermin93]

OK. Enlighten me.

Sure...

Hawking's passion and goal was to understand the universe.....the how, when and why it even exists. People like you may think this is pointless, but human civilizations have always looked to the sky in wonderment and have sought to explain and unravel it's mysteries.

You're certainly not the only person that doesn't seem to appreciate the complexity and significance of discoveries in mathematical physics, theoretical physics and cosmology. These are fascinating subjects that tackle some of the most difficult questions and awe inspiring observations known to mankind. And yes, most people don't have the time or the curiosity to care, especially if they've been dogmatically programmed what to believe about the makeup and origins of the universe. Thankfully there were great minds like Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Hawking that did care.

Speaking of Einstein, he and Hawking held similar opinions about God. Mainly that "God" might have created the laws of nature which govern the universe, but that "God" doesn't manipulate these laws. Hawking believed the universe demonstrates it didn't need God to create it. The mere possibility is mind-boggling.

Hawking said "I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful."

Hawking's explanation should seem possible to anyone who's seen no good evidence of heaven, an afterlife, divine creation of the universe, or divine control of our fate. As scientific minds like Hawking continue to discover and refine explanations regarding the creation of the universe and the origins of life, traditional beliefs will be further questioned and reexamined. I say thank goodness for that!

As mentioned by others, equating theory to hypotheses is appropriate in a non-scientific context. In science they are vastly different. You posted the non-scientific definition from a dictionary, but a dictionary can also show you the way...

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory - In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...d-theory-usage

[Encinal]

You mean like with the cameras and telescoping equipment used to "see" the interaction of stars around a "black hole" proving their existence?

Whole lotta trust in scientists on both accounts....

Kinda like trusting he has a brain, which was where I was going with it.

Thanks for the assist.

[systemnt]

Kinda like trusting he has a brain.

I havnt had enough beer to do that kinda math