Complete tangent, but the "atoms are 99.99% empty space" always threw my head for a spin until I watched some PBS show with Stephen Hawking (Stephen Hawking's Universe perhaps?) that talked about strong and weak atomic/nuclear forces. Really answered the questions I had like why atoms can't just pass through each other if/since they are 99.99% empty space and therefore would be unlikely to physically collide. Cool stuff!

Your video, Stephen Hawking - Higgs Discovery has lost me $100, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Discovering Higgs Boson = groundbreaking. Seeing Stephen Hawking crack a sly grin = priceless.

Stephen Hawking on Higgs Discovery has lost me $100

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, epic rap battles of history, nice peter' to 'Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, epic rap battles of history, nice peter, erb' - edited by messenger

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
I want to see the study. I wouldn't take Romney's unsupported word for the color of the sky.

Well you should take anyones unsupported word. I think we can engage on this level though, I wanna see the study and an academic discussion about this. We won't see that thanks to our media.


Maybe I shouldn't, but there -are- a few people who have earned my trust enough that I will assume from the start that they both know what they are talking about, and haven't distorted it for some personal goal. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking, for example. Unlike this particular case and unlike Romney, I don't believe I've ever heard either of them make public claims outside of their own area of expertise (which is part of why they have earned my trust).

>> ^VoodooV:

[...] but it just bugs me that we'll listen to someone like him and not someone who has actually done the research.


Think about it- the job of the scientist is not necessarily to sell an idea- it is a to find it- likewise, the job of a politician should be to deal with the formalities (legal consequences, society framework) of said idea.
The job of a "POP-STAR" should hence theoretically be as a archetype citizen, i.e. to focus support/interest and ideally "playtest" or introduce models/ideas for society (that is why we are interested in them).

That is how it is supposed to work in a confetti unicorn way- something, we often forget.

As an example:
imagine Cristopher Walken explaining Stephen Hawking's theories.
imagine Justin Bieber educating the youth on globalism.
confetti and unicorns...

>> ^PlayhousePals:

I'm gonna need a new outfit! Oh nooo ... too late =o/


Get a time machine.

Your video, Sheldon from Big Bang meets Stephen Hawking, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm no expert when it comes to a global warming debate, but I've been on this Earth for well over 40 years and I'll be damned if I can tell you the last winter in the Detroit area I've been through where I have not once had to shovel snow up to this point in the season. I'll give you a hint: N-E-V-E-R. Something's going on, and it ain't no "tide goes in, tide goes out" bullshit.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^lantern53:
What's happened to our educational institutions?

Idiots like you aren't allowed in them.
Seriously lets look at the facts about the smartest mother fuckers on this planet. They know global warming is occurring.
Anyone who's smarter than Stephen Hawking please stand up and we'll listen to you. Otherwise, nah shut the fuck up.

>> ^lantern53:

What's happened to our educational institutions?


Idiots like you aren't allowed in them.

Seriously lets look at the facts about the smartest mother fuckers on this planet. They know global warming is occurring.

Anyone who's smarter than Stephen Hawking please stand up and we'll listen to you. Otherwise, nah shut the fuck up.

He also states that his personal beliefs are his alone and not to be forced onto others. I am taught by professors at a state university where I have been told point blank that they have religious beliefs, yet they still teach Science. The two are not incompatible or exclusive. I suggest this article by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow about the subject. I assume you will accept Dr Hawking's conclusions. PDF


I'm voting for Obama because he is the man right now, but I'm finding it surprisingly easy to play devils advocate for Ron Paul.

I don't find Ron Paul's rhetoric or discourse frightening or crazy.

Obama says he is a Christian, which by default means he denies evolution de facto, and I am a biological sciences major.... and you know why I don't care? Because Obama believes in everyones rights, and doesn't deny science where science is the leader.

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

Look how the fucking GOP candidates cant go ONE DAY without saying something so incendiary... they cant possibly believe such things ... and expect more than 48% of the vote...

Bluntly put: If Ron Paul was a racist, it would probably HELP his campaign the way the world is. Consider that.

This is the lamest thing I've seen since Stephen Hawking.

Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.

How quickly your commentary changes. I guess that's scientific, right? Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!" Now it's that there is no concensus.

To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.

Ahh, more science here..before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense. Now it's, a scientist said it so I can believe its true. Hah!

Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.

Science doesn't know anything about origins, whether it is the origin of the Universe, or life itself. It doesn't have a clue, and it is plainly obvious when one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely. The emperor has no clothes.

But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?

I don't want to lose the thread here. If you want to discuss all of these things, message me.

Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?

Science gets a lot right but overall it is blind. I appreciate science, and I have nothing against it. I am just against things which aren't science, such as macro evolution.

>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
You never explained anything but rather offered your amatuer opinion. Here is the opinion of an expert:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
Congrats, you can use Google - but no, that isn't much of a link (I'm very surprised you couldn't find something better than that, really). Hell, the story doesn't even support the headline. But even if Stephen Hawking swears on his life that the Universe came from nothing, it wouldn't mean us "followers of Scientism" would believe that. Science doesn't work like that.
Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.
And did I explain it before? Yes, I did. I just checked. So did a couple other VS posters. And you commented on the Tyson Big Bang video. Did you watch it before writing your stupid comment (oh, and it was stupid)? In there, he explicitly says that the Big Bang theory doesn't explain what happened before a certain threshold. As Tyson says around 31 minutes, we need a new theory to get us before that.
That's the current scientific consensus. His talk is simple and easy to understand, and you pretended to watch it. Do you think he's lying about the current state of knowledge? Do you think he's wrong? Or do you think some new secret scientific consensus has maybe emerged since that video? Hint: it hasn't.
To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.
To learn about what is the Big Bang theory, try the Wikipedia article - which, as I quoted before, does represent more or less the current consensus. (Hint: when you want to learn about scientific theory at a "popular" level, try Wikipedia before USA Today). As it says, science doesn't have a consensus on seeing past the Big Bang. You can see some other speculative theories at the end of that article.
Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.
But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?
Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?