Page 1 of 5

0799: "Stephen Hawking"

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:01 am UTC
by LucasBrown
Image
Alt text: "'Guys? The Town is supposed to be good, and I thou--' 'PHYSICIST STEPHEN HAWKING DECLARES NEW FILM BEST IN ALL SPACE AND TIME' 'No, I just heard that--' 'SHOULD SCIENCE PLAY A ROLE IN JUDGING BEN AFFLECK?' 'I don't think--' 'WHAT ABOUT MATT DAMON?'"

All hail the mighty wheelchair-bound god. Whatever he says must be an extremely profound truth.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:02 am UTC
by ARandomDude

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:05 am UTC
by RogueCynic
I'm sure it happens a lot. A noted scientist tries to socialize and is misinterpreted. I liked the comic.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:08 am UTC
by Eternal Density
This makes me want to hug Hawking. *shrug*

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:09 am UTC
by uncivlengr
So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:11 am UTC
by tuckels
I'm all depressed now.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:18 am UTC
by glasnt
Now I know how Jesus feels.

"Hey guys, I'm sorry, I ate a whole leg of goat yesterday, I don't feel like red meat today. I mean, tomorrow is Saturday, and we can have a bbq, but tonight, how about fish?"

IT IS UNHOLY TO EAT RED MEAT ON A FRIDAY, IF YOU DO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

"No, really, I did--"

*sigh*


HI JOEE

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:19 am UTC
by EduardoLeon

Hilarious. But, after I stopped laughing, it made me think: How do those we regard in high esteem actually feel about it? Does it feel good? Or does the awkwardness overweigh the benefits (both social and psychological/emotional) of such a position in the eyes of others?

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:20 am UTC
by Stanistani
glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

The holes in your wrists will heal in time.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:21 am UTC
by Jatopian
uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?
No, but now I can't unsee it. :(

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:25 am UTC
by rpgamer
uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

Man, I thought I'd be the only one.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:40 am UTC
by squareroot
uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

Even if I try to read it like that, I can't. It looks more like "THE TirriES"

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:58 am UTC
by joee
glasnt wrote:HI JOEE


HAPPY BIRTHDAY CRACK BOOM GLASNT

Poor Stephen Hawking. This comic makes me sad. No one will go see a movie with him

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:58 am UTC
by Kyrn
glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

"Hey guys, I'm sorry, I ate a whole leg of goat yesterday, I don't feel like red meat today. I mean, tomorrow is Saturday, and we can have a bbq, but tonight, how about fish?"

IT IS UNHOLY TO EAT RED MEAT ON A FRIDAY, IF YOU DO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

"No, really, I did--"

*sigh*


HI JOEE

Or:

"Hey, you know that meat that seems to infect diseases when eaten? Maybe we shouldn't eating it until we find some way to clean it thoroughly."

PORK IS UNCLEAN AND SHALL NOT BE CONSUMED.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:01 am UTC
by cjmcjmcjmcjm
Kyrn wrote:
glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

"Hey guys, I'm sorry, I ate a whole leg of goat yesterday, I don't feel like red meat today. I mean, tomorrow is Saturday, and we can have a bbq, but tonight, how about fish?"

IT IS UNHOLY TO EAT RED MEAT ON A FRIDAY, IF YOU DO YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

"No, really, I did--"

*sigh*


HI JOEE

Or:

"Hey, you know that meat that seems to infect diseases when eaten? Maybe we shouldn't eating it until we find some way to clean it thoroughly."

PORK IS UNCLEAN AND SHALL NOT BE CONSUMED.

Yes.
uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?

and yes.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:11 am UTC
by tigger89
uncivlengr wrote:So, anyone else initially think the name of the newspaper was, "THE TITTIES"?


Count me in the mind-in-the-gutter club. The m kind of looked like tti, with the dot of the i smushed into the e.

I could have sworn I'd registered here a few years ago to make a stupid comment about the comic(much like this one, which I'd originally wandered over to post about), but no username was registered at my e-mail. Odd. Maybe my account was purged.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 am UTC
by Steve the Pocket
Stanistani wrote:
glasnt wrote:Now I know how Jesus feels.

The holes in your wrists will heal in time.

And also the whole being-dead thing apparently.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:39 am UTC
by NotAllThere
When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:58 am UTC
by JohnofArc
NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.

Smartest thing said thus far in the thread

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:08 am UTC
by facefive
haha this one made me laught out loud for real hahahahaha

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:17 am UTC
by yedidyak
NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.


Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:40 am UTC
by Vroomfundel
yedidyak wrote:
I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.


Might have something to do with the fact that you can credibly prove theologians wrong with science and not the other way round - unless, of course, "because god made it so" counts as a credible argument. Kind of like http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2005

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:42 am UTC
by MJZimmer88
MAAAAATT DAMONNNN

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:00 am UTC
by darthdavid
yedidyak wrote:
NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.


Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

Because most religions attempt to explain reality, do a much worse job at it than scientists then attempt to convince the public that they're right and that people should listen to them instead of the scientists. Why shouldn't scientists attempt to steer people away from one of the biggest blocks on scientific progress in the modern world?

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:06 am UTC
by Kyrn
yedidyak wrote:
NotAllThere wrote:When I read in the Times that Hawkings says God doesn't exist, I was expecting to see on the inside pages an article by the Pope on M-Theory and Quantum Gravity.


Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:15 am UTC
by yedidyak
When theologians make pseudo-scientific statements then sure, use science to prove them wrong. But just because you have a degree, or even a Nobel Prize in physics does not make anyone an expert on religion or theology. What Hawking essentially did in his latest statement was disprove his earlier statement about god, therefore eliminating the need for a god in his theory of the big bang. Yet I have seen no religion that bases itself on Hawking saying once that there was a need for god to start the big bang. Seriously, there is a lot more to (some) religions than what most people (even on the xkcd fora) believe.

I saw a study recently (sorry cant find a link) that showed that in 1900 40% of scientists were religious. in 2000, 40% of scientists were religious. Science in no way disproves religion as a whole. Maybe specific religions, but the whole 'if science is right then obviously there is no god' line is crap.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:19 am UTC
by littlelj
MJZimmer88 wrote:MAAAAATT DAMONNNN

^ This.

I used to live round the corner from Stephen Hawking. That man really wants to get run over. He just zooms into traffic, which screeches to a halt. I mean, I guess he's had (having?) kind of a crappy life, but is near-death experiences the only excitement he gets?

Comic made me :(

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:22 am UTC
by cypherspace
yedidyak wrote:Or an in depth study of theology by Hawking? I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.
Because journalists are morons and don't understand science.

Stereotypes a-go-go!

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:26 am UTC
by yedidyak
Kyrn wrote:Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.


Read an interesting study on this exact point recently. The point he made was that '6 days' can obviously not mean 6 days as we know them now, because before the Earth existed it is meaningless to talk about Earth time due to relativity. The only place it makes sense to measure those 6 days was relative to the point of the big bang, and speed of time at the moment time started - when matter formed. Interestingly he showed that 6 days at that speed would translate into about 14 billion years of current Earth time. Also, the end of each 'day' matches up pretty well with major events, e.g. Cambrian explosion, formation of seas etc.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:44 am UTC
by mister k
All I know about Stephen Hawking is that he went to see "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" at the picturehouse in Cambridge. While leaving the cinema I suddenly realised "hey, thats Stephen Hawking!".

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:48 am UTC
by keithc
yedidyak wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.


Read an interesting study on this exact point recently. The point he made was that '6 days' can obviously not mean 6 days as we know them now, because before the Earth existed it is meaningless to talk about Earth time due to relativity. The only place it makes sense to measure those 6 days was relative to the point of the big bang, and speed of time at the moment time started - when matter formed. Interestingly he showed that 6 days at that speed would translate into about 14 billion years of current Earth time. Also, the end of each 'day' matches up pretty well with major events, e.g. Cambrian explosion, formation of seas etc.
{citation needed}

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:52 am UTC
by yedidyak
keithc wrote:
yedidyak wrote:
Kyrn wrote:Unless they provide something new other than "God made it so", there's nothing else to hear. Granted if they DO have something new other than "God made it so" (like WHY or HOW God made it so, other than deception alone), then I would be more interested. For instance, using relative timeframes to frame the creation of the universe in a bibical sense? That's interesting.


Read an interesting study on this exact point recently. The point he made was that '6 days' can obviously not mean 6 days as we know them now, because before the Earth existed it is meaningless to talk about Earth time due to relativity. The only place it makes sense to measure those 6 days was relative to the point of the big bang, and speed of time at the moment time started - when matter formed. Interestingly he showed that 6 days at that speed would translate into about 14 billion years of current Earth time. Also, the end of each 'day' matches up pretty well with major events, e.g. Cambrian explosion, formation of seas etc.
{citation needed}


Author - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
Book on his website - http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ScienceGod.aspx

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:57 am UTC
by markfiend
yedidyak wrote:I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

I've never understood why Emperor's-new-clothes-alogical comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by experts in Imaginary Fabrics.

(ref The Courtier's Reply)

*Edit to add: the Genesis creation account (which one? there are two conflicting versions in chapters 1 and 2) only match up with known history if you squint really hard, cross your fingers, and really, truly, believe in fairies. :roll:

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:00 am UTC
by keithc
yedidyak wrote:What Hawking essentially did in his latest statement was disprove his earlier statement about god, therefore eliminating the need for a god in his theory of the big bang. Yet I have seen no religion that bases itself on Hawking saying once that there was a need for god to start the big bang.

He never actually said that there was a need for (a) god to start the big bang, what he said was "If we find the answer to (the question of why it is that we and the universe exist), it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." He was almost certainly using the term "God" in the metaphorical sense that many physicists do, and not as a literal being, so the whole paragraph is really a great rhetorical flourish on which to end the book. I am pretty sure that even at that time he was "out" as an atheist or at least agnostic.
Interestingly, "god" does not appear in the index to "Brief History".

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:01 am UTC
by keithc

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:02 am UTC
by yedidyak
markfiend wrote:
yedidyak wrote:I've never understood why theological comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by theologians.

I've never understood why Emperor's-new-clothes-alogical comments by physicists are given more credence than scientific comments by experts in Imaginary Fabrics.
(ref The Courtier's Reply)


"A witty saying proves nothing." (Voltaire)

What your incredibly witty saying essentially says is 'I believe that religion is a load of crap, therefore anyone talking about it is talking a load of crap. Proved. Also, since I know a lot about crap, I am an expert on religion.'

EDIT -
markfiend wrote:Edit to add: the Genesis creation account (which one? there are two conflicting versions in chapters 1 and 2) only match up with known history if you squint really hard, cross your fingers, and really, truly, believe in fairies.


Oh wow! You have all by yourself come up with something that no one else reading the Bible has though of in the last 3500 years! How clever you are! Suddenly I realise that it all makes no sense!

Seriously? But of course, if I mention any of the books on this subject you will call them 'Emperor's fashion catalogues' and so I won't bother.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:17 am UTC
by Monika
Eternal Density wrote:This makes me want to hug Hawking.

Yeah, the comic is kind of sad.

But it also reminds me of Hawking's appearance in Star Trek The Next Generation, where he acted as himself (or rather his holography), playing cards with the smartest people of history, and wins :D . This was awesome.

yedidyak wrote:"A witty saying proves nothing." (Voltaire)

I am so going to use that.

Also, there are no gods.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:22 am UTC
by markfiend
OK fine. I'll quit with the Emperor's new clothes thing.

But why bother trying to match the state of current knowledge with the Bible? Why not try to match it up with the Eddas? Or the Greek creation myths? Or the Aztec creation myths? Or... (Well you get the point.)

The reason that I can dismiss Gerald Schroeder as a crank is as follows:

Genesis Chapter 1, summary: (quickly typed up with reference to Genesis chapter 1 here)
Day 1: Creation of light and darkness
Day 2: Creation of the firmament, separation of waters above the firmament from those below it.
Day 3: Creation of dry land, and of land plants
Day 4: Creation of great lights (Sun and Moon)
Day 5: Creation of water animals and of birds
Day 6: Creation of land animals and mankind.

So, plants (never mind the Earth itself) come before the Sun? Birds come before land animals?

Listen, I don't have a problem with Genesis as mythology. I don't have a problem with religious believers. But trying to claim that the Genesis story matches up in any meaningful way with reality... I have a problem with.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:30 am UTC
by Kyrn
markfiend wrote:OK fine. I'll quit with the Emperor's new clothes thing.

But why bother trying to match the state of current knowledge with the Bible? Why not try to match it up with the Eddas? Or the Greek creation myths? Or the Aztec creation myths? Or... (Well you get the point.)

The reason that I can dismiss Gerald Schroeder as a crank is as follows:

Genesis Chapter 1, summary: (quickly typed up with reference to Genesis chapter 1 here)
Day 1: Creation of light and darkness
Day 2: Creation of the firmament, separation of waters above the firmament from those below it.
Day 3: Creation of dry land, and of land plants
Day 4: Creation of great lights (Sun and Moon)
Day 5: Creation of water animals and of birds
Day 6: Creation of land animals and mankind.

So, plants (never mind the Earth itself) come before the Sun? Birds come before land animals?

Listen, I don't have a problem with Genesis as mythology. I don't have a problem with religious believers. But trying to claim that the Genesis story matches up in any meaningful way with reality... I have a problem with.

My explanation:
Day 1: Refers to matter and antimatter states.
Day 2: Refers to matter states itself (solids, liquids, gas, plasma).
Day 3: Refers to consolidation of solids (molecules, inc biological molecules)
Day 4: Creation of star systems.
Day 5: Creation of life as we know it. Birds refers to insects. (alternatively, reptiles and avians together)
Day 6: Reptiles, Avians, Mammals. (alternatively, mammals alone)

You're still taking things too literally.

Re: "Stephen Hawking" discussion (#799)

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:38 am UTC
by markfiend
Kyrn wrote:You're still taking things too literally.

o.O
If you're going to distort -- oh, sorry, interpret -- the text so much that it no longer says anything remotely related to what it says, then why bother keeping it at all?

Your "explanation" is nothing of the kind.