Chief Elder Osiris : Stephen Hawkin, The Big Bang And God

Discussion in 'Chief Elder Osiris' started by Chief Elder Osiris, May 25, 2005.

  1. Chief Elder Osiris

    Chief Elder Osiris Well-Known Member MEMBER

    United States
    Jan 3, 2002
    Likes Received:
    > Hoteph Beloved sisters and Brothers:
    > Beloved, below are thoughts and comments about the cosmology of the
    > Universe coming from these minds you no doubt hold as being great,
    > regarding their thinking about the many mysteries that surround God,
    > Universe and Beings, in this case, Mankind.
    > So, what I am going to do is comment on everything that is written in the
    > article below, using the virginity of an Afrikan Mind of thought on the
    > same topics of discussion, as presented by no doubt, these minds of which
    > you hold to high esteem and respect, for what ever reason you do so.
    > The problem with the white Man, in his attempt to understand the Universe
    > is, he is not capable of dispelling the Human Flaw when dealing with that
    > of which is attempting to be understood and that is, we error in limiting
    > everything within the Human mental purview, in our attempt to know.
    > Thus he has condition us to take the same flawed approach, in all things
    > we question, yet our Ancient Afrikan Ancestors had no such a flaw when
    > conceiving of God and the Universe and the relationship, Beings are to it
    > all.
    > So, let us get started.
    > This 2nd Parts to a three part Response,

    This Is Part Two.
    > This require patience, it is quite lengthy.

    We don't know anything about the
    > universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth
    > of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big
    > bang.

    Osiris: Part Two

    That is my point, we know nothing concrete about the Universe in term of
    Time as a beginning.

    All that we attempt to measure is what we are able to see and what we see is
    not all there was in term of the Universe as a progressive absolute whole.

    We Beings only see in parts, therefore we only know in parts, yet we are
    miss led into believing what is speculated to us as being the whole Truth.

    Yes the Big Bang theory is created in Man mind and from his mental point he
    set out to make it so, even when there is no objective empirical data to
    back up the claim, evidentially factually.

    When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe,
    > someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God
    > knows what happened at the very beginning.


    You start out speaking empirically and end up speaking philosophically,
    predicated upon belief and not a balance of thought, having no facts to
    support the statement about a beginning.

    That is about all that Lederman has to say about God--in the first
    > paragraph--and that's the end of it. The thing that has made
    > Hawking's book so popular is that he is talking about God from
    > beginning to end.

    God is a reliable topic, as long as you do not allow religion set the
    standard for discussion.
    > Stephen Hawking
    > Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist. His book, A
    > Brief History of Time, is available in paperback and I strongly
    > recommend it. It has sold in excess of 10 million copies, and I think
    > he sold about five million before the paperback version. For a book
    > to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science
    > writing.
    > There has been a film made about the book. The film is also good.
    > There has even been a book made about the film. Hawking has a
    > wonderful sense of humor. He writes in the introduction of the second
    > book, "This is the book of the film of the book. I don't know if they
    > are planning a film of the book of the film of the book."
    I want to begin by saying something about Stephen Hawking's
    > scientific research. Hawking has made his reputation by
    > investigating, in great detail, one particular set of problems: the
    > singularity and horizons around black holes and at the beginning of
    > time.

    Ok, here is the situation as it is and not how we style it to be.

    The Mass of Darkness has no Horizon nor can it be measured or cut into and
    when I think of a hole being in something I think of an object that has been
    penetrated, thus causing the object to have a hole through it.

    Within the Infinite Mass Of Darkness, pure Space held together with strings
    of Energy so small and powerful it is in an inert state, never to be
    manipulated, yet from all of that invisible energetic action, matter form,
    be it physical or gases and it build up to the point it become layers on top
    of layers before that Infinite Dark Space and all the action that is taking
    place and serving to have the principals of cause and effect, is happening
    with the matter that form what is call the universe, objects and gases

    So, what happen when a super Nova occur is, the gas vapor, so thin at
    certain stages, at the collapse of the Star, the pressure cause a vacuum to
    occur in the mass of the Universe and an opening appear and because the mass
    of Darkness is unmeasured Energy, the force from such dark energy begin to
    pull through the universe mass opening all objects physical or ethereal
    lighted energy and through the cavity of the Universe the Infinite Mass of
    Darkness become visible like never seen or heard before and that is what is
    referred to as a Black Hole, the vision of the all mighty Infinite Darkness
    through the cavity vacuum of the Universe mass.
    Now, everyone is sure if you encountered a black hole, it would
    > be the last thing you ever encountered--and that is correct! A black
    > hole is a massive system so centrally condensed that the force of
    > gravity prevents everything within it, even light, from escaping.


    And so it is.
    > Hawkin's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a
    > physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the
    > period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the
    > equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a
    > singular boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known
    > as the "singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding.

    The singularity boundary theory is an accurate one, because in fact there is
    no way to prove that there is a boundary to Space and time, thus the
    Universe rest within its own self inducting action, never an end to it to
    be found, its self producing action I speak of.

    Sure man can profess to have founded a single boundary to the universe,
    because he is limited to how far back he can go.

    There is no telling of how many birthing of universes have taken place over
    the Time of Infinity.

    The singularity boundary theory based on certain discovery is just that a
    theory treated as limited fact and I would apply it to the universe in
    relationship to the Infinite eternal existence of that Dark Massive Space,
    in which the Universe reside and always has forever. In actuality, there is
    no boundary to Space nor the Universe.
    > Later, working by himself, in 1974, he began to formulate ideas about
    > the quantum evaporation of exploding black holes, the now
    > famous "Hawking radiation." These are all tremendously important
    > scientific works.
    > The work most referred to in A Brief History of Time is also the most
    > speculative: the 1984 work with James Hartle, a professor at the
    > University of California at Santa Barbara. Using an elegant vacuum
    > fluctuation model, they were able to provide a mathematical
    > rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the
    > beginning of time.

    No, what was done was to catch a universe phenomena at the Time of its
    happening and conclude, this is the way it must have happen in the
    beginning, well safely it is stated as a mathematically rationalization
    assumption based on an experiment and I say such an action has no alpha or
    an omega, in term of happening.

    This is also called the "universe as a wave
    > function." I need to emphasize that they were using very simple
    > models. Now, while such mathematical exercises are highly
    > speculative, they may eventually lead us to a deeper understanding of
    > this creation event.


    Nothing is going to lead to prove a single point of creation, in regard to
    the universe.
    electrical waves are present throughout out space Dark mass.
    > Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not
    > won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically
    > assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because
    > the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery
    > must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational
    > Hawkin Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved.

    Which does not mean that which Hawkin say in many instances regarding the
    universe is wrong, it just that there must be a compelling power of
    Reasoning that no instruments can defy, only verify, but when it come to
    implying that the beginning theory is a plausible one, then I must
    respectfully disagree.

    The mathematics
    > of his theory, however, are certainly beautiful and elegant. Science
    > is just beginning to verify the existence of black holes, let alone
    > verify "Hawking radiation" or any of his more radical theoretical
    > proposals.

    Science could not have verified Black holes, what science has no doubt done
    is verified a phenomena that has all of the appearance of a Black hole by
    description but not by actual fact, not by the thought of we thinking a hole
    is in something black, what we have here is an observation of the Mass of
    Darkness through something which a vacuum has occurred and we call it a
    Black hole. which technically and scientifically is inaccurate,
    > My opinion is that within the next year or two we will have firm
    > evidence for the existence of black holes.

    Depend on how you choose to define and establish such a hole.

    Unfortunately, I think the
    > person who will get the Nobel Prize will be the observe-tionalist who
    > comes up with its data. So I think Hawking may not get the Nobel
    > Prize soon, even though he's the world's most famous scientist.

    Famous for what? and if his science is of an empirical nature and he is the
    most famous of all scientist, hopefully not by recognition but because of
    his intelligence, then I question why he has not won the Nobel prize?

    End of part 2

    It Is Time to Condemn the Lie and elevate The Truth!!!

    We Must Cause Trouble ( with the truth ) Until Our Liberation!!!

    It Is The Black Fool Who Say I Have Lost Nothing In Afrika!!! ( Osiris )

    I Come, I Share, You Either Accept Or Reject, I Move On.

    Completely Loving The Afrikan Nation

    Honor And Respect to the Honorable Marcus Garvey


    Chief Elder
    Afrikan Spiritualize
    Political Activist
    National Chairman
    Sankofa Repatriation movement
    Pan-Afrikan Inter'national movement
    [email protected]