Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I used this quote in an argument to link Christianity with modern violence in a fabulous essay

There seems to be a link between overbearing, patriarchal families and a rigid view of a Creator who also physically punishes his/her children. You can see an exaggerated example of it in the Phelps family (Westboro Baptist Church) and see it's manifestation in Mel Gibson's work as well as his personal life. The Passion of Christ was in that sense, pornographic violence that spoke to those who espouse such an understanding of love.

[keysjangle 145]

"I only beat you because I love you"

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"I only beat you because I love you"

That's what my wife says.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"I only beat you because I love you"

Yep. I think Freud had a name for it.

[웃 910]

and see it's manifestation in Mel Gibson's work as well as his personal life. The Passion of Christ was in that sense, pornographic violence that spoke to those who espouse such an understanding of love.

I don't think Mel Gibson invented the movie "The Passion of Christ". A few weeks after seeing it in theaters I was watching the oldies channel and there was a movie in black and white that was virtually identical to "The Passion of Christ". Pretty much nothing was changed scene for scene. Maybe a movie buff knows what I am talking about...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think Mel Gibson invented the movie "The Passion of Christ". A few weeks after seeing it in theaters I was watching the oldies channel and there was a movie in black and white that was virtually identical to "The Passion of Christ". Pretty much nothing was changed scene for scene. Maybe a movie buff knows what I am talking about...

Gibson's film obsesses in an almost erotic way over the punishment and the pain inflicted on Jesus.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Gibson's film obsesses in an almost erotic way over the punishment and the pain inflicted on Jesus.

####### kind of porn do you like to watch?

[웃 910]

Gibson's film obsesses in an almost erotic way over the punishment and the pain inflicted on Jesus.

My point was it is not his film. He copied/plagiarized/stole the entire script from a movie pre-1975 line for line, scene for scene...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My point was it is not his film. He copied/plagiarized/stole the entire script from a movie pre-1975 line for line, scene for scene...

Hmmm...that's the first I've heard that.

[BishopM 114]

Gibson's film obsesses in an almost erotic way over the punishment and the pain inflicted on Jesus.

I never thought of it in that way, Steve, but I always just skip past the flogging scene anyways. I do love the movie...find it quite accurate according to the Gospels.

####### kind of porn do you like to watch?

[scandal 951]

The contents of the universe all move in the direction of death. With an ending ahead, why wouldn't there be a before behind?

The universe expands out. Reversing the view, where is the starting point?

I think I have read that some speculate our universe will probably be swallowed, sucked or pass through a black hole. Cool.

Your questions are amongst the most profound that can be asked. What came before? What is the starting point?

No one has definite answers, and I won't pretend that I do.

But I can shed some light on this. I posted on this once or twice before on similar VJ threads, a search can bring them up.

Essentially, in classical Newtonian physics we think of a universe with 3 spatial dimensions and a 4th temporal dimension that in theory can extend to infinity both forward and back. In other words, you can imagine events taking place as far off in the past or the future as you like .. there is no limit to how far time reaches. This is a conception of the universe most of us are most naturally comfortable with. It corresponds to our perceptions of reality.

However, General Relativity has given us a significantly different perspective on the nature of time, space, and the universe. In essence all 4 dimensions (3 spatial, one temporal) are intricately interwoven into the fabric of the material universe. They both define the universe and are defined by it. Spacetime essentially defines geodesics (shortest line curves) between any two massive bodies interacting through gravitational attraction. What this means is that only when you have a universe populated with massive bodies (stars, galaxies, quasars etc.) can you even have spacetime as the "stuff" that gives structure to the shape and dimensionality of the universe. As bodies move with respect to each other, they literally warp spacetime itself.

So, to return to your questions of what came "before" , the way you need to think of this in the context of General Relativity is that the very notion of "time", of "before/after", only makes sense when the universe exists and spacetime exists. "Before the big-bang" there is no "time" or "space" at all.

Hope that helps.

As to the eventual death of the universe, a black hole suck isn't very likely.

The cosmological options are really two: (1) heat death (2) the big crunch.

Heat death means the expanding universe keeps expanding forever, smearing out the energy and matter of the universe over larger and larger geometries until eventually the energy density per any unit volume is so low that we're effectively at absolute zero kelvin throughout the universe - we've literally frozen to death.

The big crunch means that the expansion eventually slows, then stops, then reverses back into a contraction phase due to gravity. That assumes there's enough matter (visible and dark) to pull itself back together through gravity. In that scenario, we eventually contract everything back to a point singularity, as we were at the big bang.

The current physics, as I understand it, is that this is unlikely. Gravity is a very weak inverse-square-law force and there is simply isn't enough matter (including dark matter) to overcome the inertial force of the currently expanding universe. We're on our way to heat death in another 10-20 billion years or so, apparently.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Expressing very complicated/ complex concepts in a way that many can comprehend requires excellent communication skill and effort.

You have the skill and I appreciate the effort.

Thanks Scandal.

Do you have a few "reads" on the subject to recommend?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[웃 910]

Your questions are amongst the most profound that can be asked. What came before? What is the starting point?

No one has definite answers, and I won't pretend that I do.

But I can shed some light on this. I posted on this once or twice before on similar VJ threads, a search can bring them up.

Essentially, in classical Newtonian physics we think of a universe with 3 spatial dimensions and a 4th temporal dimension that in theory can extend to infinity both forward and back. In other words, you can imagine events taking place as far off in the past or the future as you like .. there is no limit to how far time reaches. This is a conception of the universe most of us are most naturally comfortable with. It corresponds to our perceptions of reality.

However, General Relativity has given us a significantly different perspective on the nature of time, space, and the universe. In essence all 4 dimensions (3 spatial, one temporal) are intricately interwoven into the fabric of the material universe. They both define the universe and are defined by it. Spacetime essentially defines geodesics (shortest line curves) between any two massive bodies interacting through gravitational attraction. What this means is that only when you have a universe populated with massive bodies (stars, galaxies, quasars etc.) can you even have spacetime as the "stuff" that gives structure to the shape and dimensionality of the universe. As bodies move with respect to each other, they literally warp spacetime itself.

So, to return to your questions of what came "before" , the way you need to think of this in the context of General Relativity is that the very notion of "time", of "before/after", only makes sense when the universe exists and spacetime exists. "Before the big-bang" there is no "time" or "space" at all.

Hope that helps.

As to the eventual death of the universe, a black hole suck isn't very likely.

The cosmological options are really two: (1) heat death (2) the big crunch.

Heat death means the expanding universe keeps expanding forever, smearing out the energy and matter of the universe over larger and larger geometries until eventually the energy density per any unit volume is so low that we're effectively at absolute zero kelvin throughout the universe - we've literally frozen to death.

The big crunch means that the expansion eventually slows, then stops, then reverses back into a contraction phase due to gravity. That assumes there's enough matter (visible and dark) to pull itself back together through gravity. In that scenario, we eventually contract everything back to a point singularity, as we were at the big bang.

The current physics, as I understand it, is that this is unlikely. Gravity is a very weak inverse-square-law force and there is simply isn't enough matter (including dark matter) to overcome the inertial force of the currently expanding universe. We're on our way to heat death in another 10-20 billion years or so, apparently.

Or as PH would put it: there is a mathematical formula I could show you but you wouldn't understand it so what is the point.

[SuperDuper! 230]

but that would be a more interesting read, i bet.

Thanks for lightning things up around here, Chuck. Seems that some folks are determined to be just an argumentative, "I'm-smarter-than-you", boring stick in the mud. Peace.

[scandal 951]

Do you have a few "reads" on the subject to recommend?

Since this thread began with an article about Stephen Hawking, I can really think of no better book than his "A Brief History of TIme" for an intelligent layman's view (i.e. no math) to General Relativity and Cosmology.