Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

Did he by chance explain why the big bang happened?
 
Sisi tukitoa hiyo mifano tupo sawa kwa sababu hatuamini ukuu wa huyo mungu ambao majaribu kutueleza hapa. ....

Mungu muweza wa yote/mjuzi wa yote --Ambaye alishindwa kuutumia uweza/ujuzi wake ili kujua kwamba shetani anayetaka kumuumba ipo siku atakuja kumsaliti na kuwa adui yake mkuu. ...Hahah uweza/ujuzi wake wa yote upo wapi hapo? ....Kwetu sisi mungu hayupo wala hana ukuu wowote so hatukosei pindi tunapo mfananisha na chochote. .....

Ila nyinyi mnapo jaribu kutufananisha na chochote wakati mnatueleza kuwa mungu wenu hana madhaifu hapo ndio huwa mnatushangaza
 
Kwanza tukubaliane

Andiko hilo lipo kwenye kuran au nimelitunga tu na halipo kwenye quran?
 
Mbona kama unaenda mbele na kurudi nyuma.

Utofauti wa mafundisho ndipo lilipo tatizo hata mafundisho ya ukristo juu ya Yehova ni tofauti na mafundisho ya uislamu juu ya Allah. Hata sasa kadri siku zinavyoenda tunaona mafundisho mapya mbalimbali,hivyo ni kweli kuna tofauti ila kote jina Mungu lipo bila kujari ni wengi au mmoja.
 
Hapa hatuzungumzii wewe unaamini vp na ndiyo maana kuna watu humu wanaamini Mungu mmoja na ndiyo muumba ila hawaamini vitabu vya dini na wengine hawaamini Mungu kabisa,tunaangalia kinachojadiliwa na sio imani binafsi ya mtu. Ndiyo maana hiyo Kiranga wako kuna uzi mtu anauliza peponi ni wapi yeye kaja kueleza Mungu hayupo wakati mleta mada anataka kujua peponi ni wapi?
 
Sijasema urudie swali
Habari nzima ya jua kuzama kwenye matope ipo kwenye quran au nimeitunga mimi?
Nimeuliza vizuri ili nijibu kiusahihi nisijibu kisha baadaye nikaja kukataa nilichojibu.

Unauliza kuhusu andiko linalosema kuwa jua huwa linazama kwenye matope?
 
Hahah jamaa kakimbia
Nimmfuata huko huko upande wake na amesahindwa kuthibitisha kwamba big bang theory haitokani na Mungu.
Anataka Mungu amwambie methodology alizotmuia kufanya uumbaji. tutakesha. Yaani anataka Munug asememe process aliyotumia kuumba ulimwengu kuanzia nyota, black hole , galaxy na vingine beyond?
 
Mbona ameshindwa kufafanua kuhusu black holes! how they get their magnetic field force . The more we know about science, then GOD presence is seen. Hao wanaosema hakuna MUNGU huwa wanatamani kumuona alafu wanashindwa hapo wanaishia kusema hakuna MUNGU. Wanatumia mbinu hii ili ajionyeshe kwao kwamba yupo, wanapotea . Kuna njia za kumuona MUNGU ukizifuata hakika utamuona wala hakuna shaka kwenye hilo.
 
Wapi ameshindwa kufafanua kuhusu black holes and how they get their "magnetic force"?

Unaweza kupanukuu tusome na kujadili kwa kina?

Ameshindwa kufafanua au wewe umeshindwa kuelewa?

Wewe unaweza kumfafanua huyo Mungu unayesema yupo ukathibitisha yupo kweli?
 
In one of your writing, you stated that, understand this is A is understand what makes A. Further, you continue adding that, you cannot define this is A without understanding A. But one thing you misconception is that understanding what is A is not understanding what makes A. Here is an example to show what I mean between understanding "what is" and "what makes science".
I hope you understand what is a car. But a car as one cycle came into that form and you understand it as a car due to different materials that perform different functions. So, understanding a car as one cycle does not means understanding materials that makes a car and how they work.
From this simple example there will help to understand that, science as a knowledge does not depends only on understanding what is science, but also other knowledge that makes science such as psychology, philosophy and theology.
 
Where did I write that understanding A is understanding what makes A?

Can you give me a quote of my direct words that shows this?
 
Nimeuliza vizuri ili nijibu kiusahihi nisijibu kisha baadaye nikaja kukataa nilichojibu.

Unauliza kuhusu andiko linalosema kuwa jua huwa linazama kwenye matope?
Kwani mimi nauliza kuhusu habari gani hapa??

Ulivyokua unasema habari hiyo si ya kweli ulikua unazungumzia habari gani????
 
In 1981, Hawking argued that within black holes are other virtual black holes that flash in and out of existence very quickly and that they erase the information about matter subsumed by the holes.
His theory led to the “Black Hole War,” according to theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind in his 2008 book by the same name. For a quarter century, Susskind and Hawking and other renowned theoretical physicists had competing notions about lost information. Not everyone agreed with Hawking’s idea that matter could be lost.
Betting matters
In 2004, Hawking decided that he was wrong and that information might not be lost after all. In 2007, he paid off a $1 bet made in 1980 with physicist Don Page. Hawking’s concession was humorous. “I concede in light of the weakness of the dollar,” he wrote on April 23, 2007.

But the problem presented by the information paradox wasn’t solved: It still wasn’t clear what happened to matter subsumed by black holes. But an answer might lie in entropy, the original measurement Hawking proposed to better understand black holes in 1974.
In 2016, Hawking, a Cambridge colleague Malcolm Perry, and Harvard University’s Andrew Strominger published a paper providing a tentative explanation. They argued that mass less particles, or photons, called “soft hair,” could surround black holes and preserve information.
The physicists worked on the paper with Hawking during his final days. It argues that Hawking’s original 1974 calculation of black-hole entropy corresponds to their calculations of soft hair entropy. They believe that at a black hole’s event horizon, or the point at which light can’t escape gravitation pull, soft hair holds the traces of information about matter that seems to disappear into the black hole.
The riddle’s still not solved, however. Scientists don’t know if soft hairs store all the information that was once thought lost to black holes, or only a part, and the paper makes assumptions that still have to be proven valid. “We don’t know that Hawking entropy accounts for everything you could possibly throw at a black hole, so this is really a step along the way,” Perry tells the Guardian. “We think it’s a pretty good step, but there is a lot more work to be done.”
Bado haujarizika pia nafikiri unamjua vizuri Mwanafizikia Don Page !!!!
 
Hapo ndiyo kashindwa kufafanua kuhusu black holes and how they get their "magnetic force"?
 
Hapo ndiyo kashindwa kufafanua kuhusu black holes and how they get their "magnetic force"?
Alikuwa hata hajui angeelezea vip? refer to DEEP astronomy articles
Whether they exist around refrigerator magnets or black holes, magnetic fields are invisible. To study the ones connected to Sagittarius A*, researchers relied on SOFIA, which is a modified Boeing 747SP aircraft. Specifically, they employed SOFIA's newest instrument, the High-resolution Airborne Wideband Camera-Plus (HAWC+), to track polarized far-infrared light emitted by dust particles.

Because dust grains line up perpendicular to magnetic fields, astronomers were able to map the shape and infer the strength of the magnetic field around the black hole. Combining the new map with mid- and far-infrared images of Sagittarius A* revealed the direction of the magnetic field.
Sijui ni wapi hauelewi
 
Hawking alikuwa hajui kuelezea vipi magnetic fields?

Unaelewa magnetic fields zimeanza kuelezewa vizuri mwaka gani?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…