Stephen Hawking?
06 December 2011, 08:49 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Stephen Hawking?
Is he really smart or just full of ****?
I'm watching a programme of his at the moment and everything in it has to be pure speculation without any scientific proof?
....Says the man who can't even use google!
I'm watching a programme of his at the moment and everything in it has to be pure speculation without any scientific proof?
....Says the man who can't even use google!
06 December 2011, 09:03 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ....
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he's very smart, actually.
Have you seen his Lego self portrait?
http://frontiereditor.files.wordpres...wking-lego.jpg
Have you seen his Lego self portrait?
http://frontiereditor.files.wordpres...wking-lego.jpg
06 December 2011, 09:30 PM
#5
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he's very smart, actually.
Have you seen his Lego self portrait?
http://frontiereditor.files.wordpres...wking-lego.jpg
Have you seen his Lego self portrait?
http://frontiereditor.files.wordpres...wking-lego.jpg
TX.
Trending Topics
07 December 2011, 09:34 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 December 2011, 09:58 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 25 year old south african who worked for me a long time ago said, of Mr Hawking, "He's pretty bright for a retard!"
07 December 2011, 02:00 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operative word here is "known". "Time stops in a black-hole" is a priori knowledge; it exists, but is independent of experience. It is non-empirical in that the actual act of time stopping cannot be observed by us, but empirical in that we are able test and measure the mathematics that support the theory.
07 December 2011, 02:34 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Posts: 2,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The theory works on the basis that time is a dimension just like space. Space and time is a dimension that we travel through, obviously we travel through space freely, but time is travelled through in one direction only.
If I am right, a black hole pulls in everything around it, and compresses it into something very tiny/nothing. And if the dimension of space sucked into it becomes nothing then the dimension of time will also be nothing...
I hope that makes sense.
Obviously it cannot be proved in this day and age, and I cannot prove him wrong or right as I have never been inside a black hole (except this one fat bird I banged last year).
People who have the scientific knowledge/understanding that Hawkins does base all of their theories on their own research/knowledge. Basically it is the highest form of 'guestimation'
If I am right, a black hole pulls in everything around it, and compresses it into something very tiny/nothing. And if the dimension of space sucked into it becomes nothing then the dimension of time will also be nothing...
I hope that makes sense.
Obviously it cannot be proved in this day and age, and I cannot prove him wrong or right as I have never been inside a black hole (except this one fat bird I banged last year).
People who have the scientific knowledge/understanding that Hawkins does base all of their theories on their own research/knowledge. Basically it is the highest form of 'guestimation'
07 December 2011, 03:10 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
07 December 2011, 03:19 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to be the prerogative of all those scientists studying astronomy etc etc that when they have thought up what they state is an acceptable theory and they find that there is a hole on the requirements to prove that theory, they come up with a missing item which is all they need to prove the theory but they just cannot find the said item! They expect us all to meekly accept the positive likelihood of their theory being true!
Les
Les
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...n-hawking.html
07 December 2011, 03:49 PM
#20
07 December 2011, 04:53 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ....
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time you made a similar statement, on a thread with exactly the same title, it ran to 33 pages!
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...n-hawking.html
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...n-hawking.html
07 December 2011, 05:28 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
The theory works on the basis that time is a dimension just like space. Space and time is a dimension that we travel through, obviously we travel through space freely, but time is travelled through in one direction only.
If I am right, a black hole pulls in everything around it, and compresses it into something very tiny/nothing. And if the dimension of space sucked into it becomes nothing then the dimension of time will also be nothing...
I hope that makes sense.
Obviously it cannot be proved in this day and age, and I cannot prove him wrong or right as I have never been inside a black hole (except this one fat bird I banged last year).
People who have the scientific knowledge/understanding that Hawkins does base all of their theories on their own research/knowledge. Basically it is the highest form of 'guestimation'
If I am right, a black hole pulls in everything around it, and compresses it into something very tiny/nothing. And if the dimension of space sucked into it becomes nothing then the dimension of time will also be nothing...
I hope that makes sense.
Obviously it cannot be proved in this day and age, and I cannot prove him wrong or right as I have never been inside a black hole (except this one fat bird I banged last year).
People who have the scientific knowledge/understanding that Hawkins does base all of their theories on their own research/knowledge. Basically it is the highest form of 'guestimation'
Cheers.
08 December 2011, 10:34 AM
#28
I lifted him into his car once. I was a maths student at the Cambridge college where he was a fellow, so used to get invited to the occasional faculty dinner. This was in the days before his speech computer, so he wasn't easy to understand.
Definitely brilliant, but probably no more so than many other theoretical physicists working today.
Definitely brilliant, but probably no more so than many other theoretical physicists working today.
08 December 2011, 12:32 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time you made a similar statement, on a thread with exactly the same title, it ran to 33 pages!
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...n-hawking.html
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...n-hawking.html
How perspicaceous of you to notice that other thread. Do you keep a running total of numbers of replies on threads? I am wondering what exactly is the point of your post about that anyway.
That thread incidentally was about a different subject even though Hawkins was mentioned.
Les
08 December 2011, 01:15 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How perspicaceous of you to notice that other thread. Do you keep a running total of numbers of replies on threads? I am wondering what exactly is the point of your post about that anyway.
That thread incidentally was about a different subject even though Hawkins was mentioned.
Les
That thread incidentally was about a different subject even though Hawkins was mentioned.
Les