Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Prof stephen hawking has come up with a new idea to explain why the Big Bang of creation led to the vast cosmos that we can see today. Astronomers can deduce that the early universe expanded at a mind-boggling rate because regions separated by vast distances have similar background temperatures.

They have proposed a process of rapid expansion of neighbouring regions, with similar cosmic properties, to explain this growth spurt which they call inflation.

View: Full Article | Source: The Telegraph

One thing is for sure, we may never know for sure what happened. This was how many years ago, the big bang? Hawkings theory is just a theory like the big bang.

isn't this the same old "Multiverse" theory ? Anyway, I don't like it...

i think for the most part scientist mostly are full of "BS"

i think for the most part scientist mostly are full of "BS"

Are you kidding me? Science and Scientist have changed this world based on proven facts and only facts. Proven science ,i.e not a theory, has never been wrong and never be wrong. Why? Because science is based on factual evidence, not faith, not story telling, but by experimentation and review.

So your comment is completely pointless and is utterly the most ridiculous thing I have read, besides posts on god.

Sounds like very a interesting philosophy . (It could've been anything that happened, we just don't know...statistically of course)

Eh?

isn't this the same old "Multiverse" theory ? Anyway, I don't like it...

and in a parallel Universe, a parallel you just posted that you do like it

Why do Prof's Hawking and Hertog constrain the 'universal wave function' to the early universe? There would be no reason to suppose, if their Theory is sound, that this wave function would not propagate through the entire history of the universe with the most probable events being 'the direct route' and so being more in evidence. Other, less probable, events would not be excluded from expression in the universe - just would be less frequently observed based on their probability.

It is, basically, a Multiverse Theory, but maybe with removing the theoretical barriers between 'verse's.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Leonardo

Are you kidding me? Science and Scientist have changed this world based on proven facts and only facts. Proven science ,i.e not a theory, has never been wrong and never be wrong. Why? Because science is based on factual evidence, not faith, not story telling, but by experimentation and review.

So your comment is completely pointless and is utterly the most ridiculous thing I have read, besides posts on god.

I agree that science is great, but there are so many scientific theories and hypothesis' that are being spewed as fact nowadays new findings are being doubted by many people. This is a good thing however, NO aspect of science should simply be believed cause "they" said so. It should all be doubted so that only those that can be proven 100% fact are considered true.

So everything what Stephen Hawking say goes to news eh?

I'm not impressed, what the hell happened with science?

Unfortunately the real truth is being suppressed, while SH makes ad-hok excuses.

I'm not impressed, what the hell happened with science?

Unfortunately the real truth is being suppressed, while SH makes ad-hok excuses.

What real truth is being suppressed? That seems like a wild claim not related to the subject.

Are you kidding me? Science and Scientist have changed this world based on proven facts and only facts. Proven science ,i.e not a theory, has never been wrong and never be wrong. Why? Because science is based on factual evidence, not faith, not story telling, but by experimentation and review.

So your comment is completely pointless and is utterly the most ridiculous thing I have read, besides posts on god.

There is little problem with your answer, as any honest scientist will tell, the observer always affect the observed

Well.............that's real interesting, your're explosive NEW theory!!! Makalae

It's an interesting theory... who's going to challenge him?

Be warned though... he's a top debater...

There is little problem with your answer, as any honest scientist will tell, the observer always affect the observed

That is only important at very small scales, around atomic size and smaller.

If I look at a tree, my looking at the tree has no effect whatsoever on the tree. Yes, of course, a tree does make a sound when it falls and there's nobody around to hear it.