« U.S. NAVY'S NEW FIRE SCOUT MQ-8B ROBOTIC HELICOPTER TO BE USED FOR SURVEILLANCE AND KILLER-HUNTING MISSIONS OVER AFGHANISTAN | Main | SECONDMARKET RELEASES Q1 2011 PRIVATE COMPANY STOCK REPORT »

05/17/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

zuma

Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.

Jason Tannery

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

Jason Tannery

The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

Jason Tannery

Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.

Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.

If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.

Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

Jason Tannery

Refer to the website address below for the evidence of dark energy: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080811-dark-energy.html

The following is the extract from the above websites under the fourth paragraph:

The new image reveals the spectral fingerprints created by dark energy as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures that are roughly half a billion light-years across.

Dark energy is being defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy as a hypothical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Despite there was an image to reveal the existence of something, or the so-called, dark energy, that it could stretch huge supervoids and superclusters even up to half a billion light-years across, it might not provide the truth that the universe could be expanding due to the following possibilities:

a)The universe itself could be created initially in infinity and there might be no space limit or boundary. If that could be our universe to be since nobody in this earth did ever see any boundary of this universe, the thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures to move would not lead to the conclusion that this universe could be expanding. Instead, it simply gives information that something has been causing the huge supervoids and superclusters to move forward.

b)There could be also the possibility that this universe could be so huge that it could take a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel from one end to another in order to have their return facing us in a few trillion light years later.

There are a few likeliness that would not give the conclusion that the universe could be expanding by seeing that thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters across and there are:

1)The so-called, dark energy, might simply perform its routine function to cause the huge supervoids and superclusters to be stretched across and yet it is either within the huge boundary of the universe in which it would take a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end to another until its final return in advancing to us in a few trillion years later or in the universe that could have been created to be lasted until infinity.

Let’s refer to another website pertaining to the velocities of the galaxies in advancement: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7109-evidence-of-dark-energy-missed-30-years-ago.html

The following is the extract for the analysis:

In 1972, Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, US, reasoned that in the nearby universe - where the expansion is at its slowest - the gravitational attraction between groups and clusters of galaxies should produce significant deviations in their velocities from the otherwise largely smooth speed of expansion. These deviations are called "peculiar velocities", but Sandage pointed out that galaxies in our vicinity - those lying just beyond our "Local Group" of the Milky Way and its immediate neighbours - showed abnormally low peculiar velocities.

Let’s assume that you would blow a balloon. The air would go from one end and to move in one direction to cause the balloon to expand. However, consideration has to be taken in is the moving speed for all particles in the balloon should be the same regardless whether those particles that are nearby each other or big or small to the ultimate reach of the boundary of the balloon so as to cause it to expand further. There should not be any reason for all particles within the balloon to travel with various speeds despite the particles could be big or small.

As discovered by Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, in 1972 that there is a significant deviations in their velocities among galaxies, it does not provide a good source to prove the galaxies might be expanding. If there could be a constant force that could cause the universe to be expanded, the moving speed for all the galaxies should be the same in advancing further away from us instead of with irregular velocities that some are advancing faster than another.

The deviation of velocities of galaxies in advancement is mentioned the same in the website as follows: http://www.universetoday.com/16170/astronomers-find-new-evidence-for-dark-energy/

The following is the extract:

When the team compared galaxies against the CMB, they found that the microwaves were a bit stronger if they had passed through a supercluster, and a bit weaker if they had passed through a supervoid.

As the velocities of all the galaxies have been deviated from each other, it is irrational to be quick to jump into the conclusion that our universe could be expanding so as to use it to support Big Bang theory.

Jason Tannery

Stephen Hawking supported that this universe was created spontaneously. Charles Darwin supported that human beings were evolved from apes. However, science could not explain why human beings could speak various types of languages. Not only that, you could never find apes speak in human languages. As apes could never speak in human languages, how could human beings be evolved from apes? Even if Stephen Hawking supported spontaneous creation, how could it by luck that all human beings were created to speak in various languages? This can never be by chance or by luck. Even if Stephen Hawking would use quantum theory or gravity to support the creation of the universe, there could not be such a co-incidence that human beings were created with diversified languages, such as, Germany and Arab languages are entirely different.

The Bible has the explanation on how the languages to be diversified. The following is the extract:

Genesis 11:9, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Without God, there is no way for human beings to speak various kind of languages.

Kong Li

Quoted from Hawking:
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.
Hawking describes human being as a computer that it would stop working when its components fail. However, he fails to point out that there are many discrepancies between a computer and a human being for the following reasons:
a) Computer is without emotion and is immobile, but human beings could move around they like and have emotion and could respond to surrounding environment;
b) Computer does not have soul, but human beings have souls and that is why there is afterlife for human beings.
As human beings are living things and computers are non-living things, it is erroneous to use the nature of computers to determine the same for human beings. Thus, his support that human beings would be the same as computers to cease in working and there should be no afterlife, is rather erroneous.
Stephen Hawking also mentioned that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
Queries have been raised pertaining to tiny quantum fluctuation that has assumed by him to have existed prior to the formation of the universe.
a) As Stephen Hawking was not born prior to the formation of the universe, how does he know tiny quantum fluctuation did exist prior to its formation?
b) Who was the one that created quantum fluctuation prior to the formation of the universe?
c) Let’s assume that there is quantum fluctuation prior to the formation of the universe, what made that fluctuation to be so effective to create planets in this universe especially almost all the planets look identically, i.e. many planets look round.

Account Deleted

Hawking has lost the plot. That's not hard to see.

The comments to this entry are closed.

FullColor_1024x1024_72dpi
Click to visit our ImaginativePRO website

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2010
My Photo