Gravity or God?

Gravity or God? Print Email address Gravity or God? I recently read the book The Grand Design by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonardo Mlaudino. The book contains the idea of a total reversal of the idea of God, describing God as an idea that has no scientific basis and science denies its existence at all. So the authors always claim Hawking, and he tried to infer the validity of what he mentioned a set of theories and scientific laws that are one of the pillars of physics, did he succeed in this or the right side? - Let's discuss together what Stephen Hawking put forward in his book, objectively and impartially, and in the light of the scientific evidence reached by science, and consider the validity of his words or not .. Is what he said built on a scientific basis endorsed by physics or the opposite is true? And was he successful in his presentation and inferences and what went to him? This is what we will be exposed to in our subject .. And since the place will not accommodate all of what is mentioned in the book of theses, we will strive to refute what the author partially put forward in this article and in future articles if God pleased us.. As this article is considered as an introduction and refutation of the part put forward by the author, I have chosen part of what he referred to, and postponed the other theses for future meetings, God willing, and I have put a title to it, which is "Gravity or God!" I know it’s surprising, but it takes a bit of attention to see what Hawking really said. In his book The Great Design, Hawking states in p. 142: "Because it shapes space and time, gravity allows space-time to have local stability and global instability. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of matter can be in balance with the negative energy of gravity, so there are no constraints that prevent the creation of whole universes." "As long as there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing! Hawking here claims that the universe was created because of the force of gravity, and this leads us to wonder.. What is gravity? Gravity is the tendency (masses and objects) to move and gravitate toward each other, as in gravity between the Earth and the Sun, and as an attempt to describe the gravitational forces between uncharged objects, Newton deduced the law of general gravitation through numerous astronomical observations. Newton's Law of General Attraction states: "Each object attracts another object in the universe with a force mounted on the line between the two centers, and its intensity is directly proportional to their masses and inversely to the square of the distance between them." The Standard Image of Newton's General Law of Attraction Where: It is the force of gravity. The attraction between the blocks. is the mass of the first particle. is the mass of the second particle. Is the distance between the two particles From the above definition, we find that gravity is caused by matter, an emergency on it, where the objects (masses) were first found and then gravity worked to connect them to each other..! And this is Newton's concept of gravity. Now that we've been exposed to the concept of gravity and the law of universal gravitation, let's go now, dear reader, and see what Hawking says about the creation of gravity in the universe! "Gravity is what makes up space and time," and that's true, because it's the existence of gravity that binds the masses together, and even space and time, like Einstein, and that's what we're going to find out in a little while, but let's continue. “At the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy represented by matter can balance the negative energy represented by gravity. There would therefore be no constraints preventing entire universes from coming into being.” We will discuss this point in detail later when considering the multiverse and M-theory, one proposed approach to a theory of everything (TOE). For now, let us present the part connected to his initial statement, namely: “As long as there is a law of gravity, the universe creates itself from nothing.” Where I do not know where the correct scientific basis on which Hawking built his words?! After being exposed to Newton's words and his definition of gravity, we find that Hawking's theses contradict what Newton put forward about gravity and his understanding of it, where Newton says that gravity is: Because Newton's understanding of gravity was incomplete, let's go to Einstein and his clearer concept and his more correct explanation of gravity. In the early 20th century, in two papers published in 1905, and in 1915, the famous physicist Albert Einstein changed the concept of gravity. The less massive objects will fall into this curvature created by the first object, and will therefore be captivated by its gravity. This is known as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and by examining Einstein's definition, we find three very important things he mentioned and deduced from his concept of gravity: The first is the vacuum; and here some might think that the vacuum is nothing, which is wrong, of course, because nothing is nothing, that is, there is nothing, no matter, no energy, not even a vacuum. The vacuum that Einstein means is the physical vacuum, and it can be defined as "the space or space without any matter or energy, only a very small fraction of the energy" where there is no such thing as a total vacuum, no one has been able to empty any space of matter. The second thing that Einstein proved, is the field; the field is the area where the effects of the object appear, such as the magnetic field, it is the area where the effects of the magnet appear, and because there is no field without something produced by the same, gravity also can not exist without what has resulted, which is matter (mass). Third, according to Einstein's relativity: gravity is the curvature of space caused by mass, and by illuminating this sentence well, especially the last two words (caused by mass), and conscience cause it to return to gravity, we find that gravity is caused by the existence of mass and not the other way around! According to both Newton and Einstein, gravity is a force arising from mass (the Newtonian concept), or a field resulting from the existence of mass (the Einstein concept). Just as the beginning of the universe and time, and the four forces including gravity, are known to be the Big Bang, talking about the pre-Big Bang is something that is outside the laws of physics. It is also worth talking about that even in the scientific community Hawking's book "The Great Design" has not received much acceptance, and we see this clearly in the views of some scientists, we mention here only some of them. Professor Paul Davies, an English physicist in The Guardian, said: “The laws in question remain unexplainable; do we accept them as eternal? why not accept God? well where were the laws at the time of the Big Bang? we are at this point in the muddy waters.” - Also physicist and cosmologist Marcello Glisser says: "The claim of a definitive theory is incompatible with the basics and alphabets of physics and experimental science and data collection. We do not have the tools to measure nature as a whole. We can never be sure that we have a definitive theory. There will always be an opportunity for surprises, as we have learned from the history of physics over and over again. - Theoretical physicist Peter Witt of Columbia University: “I am not a proponent of introducing talk about God into physics, but if Hawking is determined to enter the battle of religion and science, what baffles me is his use of a weapon whose validity or effectiveness is as questionable as M-theory.” The Economist also devoted an update to Hawking's book, describing his words as untestable. “Philosophy seems to have replaced science.” The American philosopher William Craig says: "Nothing is new in this book at all, but a purely philosophical discussion, especially in the first third! It is curious to learn that Hawking, on the first page of his book, says that philosophy is dead." As Mohammed Bassel al-Tai, a professor of cosmic physics at Yarmouk University in Jordan, says: "The laws of physics on reality need an operator, this is what we learn from quantum mechanics, all legal formulations in quantum mechanics take the procedural mathematical formulation Operator formation and this formulation hides in its content the existence of the operator, on the other hand, all physicists studying quantum mechanics know that the institutional character of the mechanics of the world and the phenomena of the world is probability and not determinism, that is, the consequences of the action of the laws of the world (measures) are not deterministic. Professor of mathematics John Lennox, who has dedicated a book entitled "God and Stephen Hawking.. Whose design is it then?" "To say that philosophy is dead, is very dangerous, especially when you yourself do not stop using it, and because Hawking has an erroneous understanding of both philosophy and religion, he wants us to choose between God and the laws of physics, that the laws of physics can create nothing, it is just a mathematical description of natural phenomena, Newton's laws of motion will not push a billiard ball on the table without a player hitting it, the laws will not move the ball as well as they create it. Where did Hawking’s cosmological plan come from? It’s definitely not from the universe, so who made it work if not God? The atheistic scientists’ attempt to escape the Creator’s idea makes them attribute existence to less credible things like energy, laws, or blocks. To me, the more I understand science, the more I believe in God, the more I wonder at the breadth, complexity, and integrity of his creation. The question now is, which is the first to find gravity or matter? If we say gravity as Hawking claims, and that it is the cause of the creation of the universe itself, where did it come from? And who wrote the law that walks on it? And if matter is found first (according to Newton and Einstein) there is no argument for Hawking what he went to, and his article becomes just philosophy without evidence, contrary to what he mentioned to us in his book that philosophy is dead! Finally, there may be an objection to what we have mentioned: Stephen Hawking's words about gravity may be capable of something other than the above, such as the existence of worlds other than our own, may have originated from them, and I have been to review the book in full so as not to mind such objections, as the author's theses are many and interconnected with each other, which is better and more complete, but the place does not fit for that unfortunately. References: (1) Paul Davies, "Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps", The Guardian, Saturday 4 September 2010. <www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/04/stephen-hawking-big-bang-gap> (2) Marcelo Gleiser, "Hawking And God: An Intimate Relationship", September 09, 2010. <www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/09/08/129736414/hawking-and-god-an-intimate-relationship> (3) Peter Woit, "Hawking Gives Up", Posted on September 7, 2010. <www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3141> (4) "Even Stephen Hawking doesn't quite manage to explain why we are here", The Economist Newspaper, Sep 9th 2010. <www.economist.com/node/16990802?story_id=16990802> (5) The Grand Design: A Critique (1 of 3) - Youtube <www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSYmBsGIeT8> 6 Mohammed Basil al-Tai, "Stephen Hawking and the Creation of the World?", Urban Dialogue-Number: 3150 - 2010/10/10. <www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=231582> (7) John C. Lennox, "God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?", Lion UK (September 1, 2011). • Previous • Next > — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2016-04-04 (archived at the Internet Archive) http://www.braheen.com:80/mag/2nd/49-gravity-or-thegod