This person...how...or who he is, is put there to gain emotional responses from people, because people naturally feed into emotion and those at the top know that using emotion can stop most people questioning anything that's said or about the person himself.
It's like anything that's questioned. There are always emotions attached to all these shenanigans and many people use them to argue a point, instead of actually arguing the real points at hand.
Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
It can be moved to angry ranting, it may be best for it then people who want to come into it and start steaming from emotion can be dealt with. I'm all for it.Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
It can be moved to angry ranting, it may be best for it then people who want to come into it and start steaming from emotion can be dealt with. I'm all for it.Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
...[Hawking] was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak [using his own mouth.]
And I'll reiterate. It's not nonsense to question it at all. Infact it's one conspiracy that requires a more in depth look at for the very reasons I stated, which aren't the only reasons.It can be moved to angry ranting, it may be best for it then people who want to come into it and start steaming from emotion can be dealt with. I'm all for it.Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
Let me restateQuote...[Hawking] was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak [using his own mouth.]
I went ahead and did some clarification to my quote for you.
So yes it is nonsense to question it, and it honestly, truly and deeply makes you look like an idiot.
And I'll reiterate. It's not nonsense to question it at all. Infact it's one conspiracy that requires a more in depth look at for the very reasons I stated, which aren't the only reasons.It can be moved to angry ranting, it may be best for it then people who want to come into it and start steaming from emotion can be dealt with. I'm all for it.Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
Let me restateQuote...[Hawking] was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak [using his own mouth.]
I went ahead and did some clarification to my quote for you.
So yes it is nonsense to question it, and it honestly, truly and deeply makes you look like an idiot.
Still, I'm happy for it to be moved to angry ranting if st james is, as it's his topic...but no way is this a topic for CN. Not a chance.
You know what might help you here. Try looking at what I postulated. I've repeatedly said there could be many scenarios but none of which can be verified.And I'll reiterate. It's not nonsense to question it at all. Infact it's one conspiracy that requires a more in depth look at for the very reasons I stated, which aren't the only reasons.It can be moved to angry ranting, it may be best for it then people who want to come into it and start steaming from emotion can be dealt with. I'm all for it.Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
Let me restateQuote...[Hawking] was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak [using his own mouth.]
I went ahead and did some clarification to my quote for you.
So yes it is nonsense to question it, and it honestly, truly and deeply makes you look like an idiot.
Still, I'm happy for it to be moved to angry ranting if st james is, as it's his topic...but no way is this a topic for CN. Not a chance.
So you are saying that if you are shown a broken down car, it is not nonsense to question the fact that the car in question never worked? And when presented with videos of the car working, and pictures of the car working it is still not nonsense to question if that is just a conspiracy to make it look like the car is working?
(http://)Your reading comprehension skills are either as rusty as a 10 year old weathered nail or you are sat there deliberately taking the piss...or...you are simpoly trying all ways to make out that things do not require questioning.
Around 3:13
Any other questions?
Also I find your coherently comment rather offensive, because he slurs his speech due to his illness doesn't mean he is unable to speak for himself.Don't start your emotional crap on me, it won't work. And don't use that slurring his speech bullshit either.
If he was world reknowned there must be some video, even just one of him actually talking. Can you find one?
Oh and I mean talking coherently.
Hawking's speech deteriorated, and by the late 1970s he could only be understood by his family and closest friends. To communicate with others, someone who knew him well would translate his speech into intelligible speech.[64]64. Ferguson 2011, pp. 81–82.
1966–1975
In his work, and in collaboration with Penrose, Hawking extended the singularity theorem concepts first explored in his doctoral thesis. This included not only the existence of singularities but also the theory that the Universe might have started as a singularity. Their joint essay was the runner-up in the 1968 Gravity Research Foundation competition.[145][146] In 1970 they published a proof that if the Universe obeys the general theory of relativity and fits any of the models of physical cosmology developed by Alexander Friedmann, then it must have begun as a singularity.[147][148][149] In 1969, Hawking accepted a specially created Fellowship for Distinction in Science to remain at Caius.[150]
In 1970 Hawking postulated what became known as the second law of black hole dynamics, that the event horizon of a black hole can never get smaller.[151] With James M. Bardeen and Brandon Carter, he proposed the four laws of black hole mechanics, drawing an analogy with thermodynamics.[152] To Hawking's irritation, Jacob Bekenstein, a graduate student of John Wheeler, went further—and ultimately correctly—to apply thermodynamic concepts literally.[153][154] In the early 1970s, Hawking's work with Carter, Werner Israel and David C. Robinson strongly supported Wheeler's no-hair theorem that no matter what the original material from which a black hole is created it can be completely described by the properties of mass, electrical charge and rotation.[155][156] His essay titled "Black Holes" won the Gravity Research Foundation Award in January 1971.[157] Hawking's first book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. written with George Ellis, was published in 1973.[158]
Beginning in 1973, Hawking moved into the study of quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.[159][158] His work in this area was spurred by a visit to Moscow and discussions with Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky, whose work showed that according to the uncertainty principle rotating black holes emit particles.[160] To Hawking's annoyance, his much-checked calculations produced findings that contradicted his second law, which claimed black holes could never get smaller,[161] and supported Bekenstein's reasoning about their entropy.[162][160] His results, which Hawking presented from 1974, showed that black holes emit radiation, known today as Hawking radiation, which may continue until they exhaust their energy and evaporate.[163][164][165] Initially, Hawking radiation was controversial. However by the late 1970s and following the publication of further research, the discovery was widely accepted as a significant breakthrough in theoretical physics.[166][167][168] In March 1974, a few weeks after the announcement of Hawking radiation, Hawking was invested as a Fellow of the Royal Society, one of the youngest scientists to be so honoured.[169][170]
Hawking was appointed to the Sherman Fairchild Distinguished visiting professorship at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1970. He worked with a friend on the faculty, Kip Thorne,[171] and engaged him in a scientific wager about whether the dark star Cygnus X-1 was a black hole. The wager was a surprising "insurance policy" against the proposition that black holes did not exist.[172] Hawking acknowledged that he had lost the bet in 1990, which was the first of several that he was to make with Thorne and others.[173] Hawking has maintained ties to Caltech, spending a month there almost every year since this first visit.[174]
1975–1990
Hawking returned to Cambridge in 1975 to a more advanced academic senior position —as reader. The mid to late 1970s were a period of growing public interest in black holes and of the physicist who was studying them. Hawking was regularly interviewed for print and television.[175][176] He also received increasing academic recognition of his work.[42] In 1975 he was awarded both the Eddington Medal and the Pius XI Gold Medal, and in 1976 the Dannie Heineman Prize, the Maxwell Prize and the Hughes Medal.[177][178] Hawking was appointed a professor with a chair in gravitational physics in 1977.[58] The following year he received the Albert Einstein Medal and an honorary doctorate from the University of Oxford.[36][42]
So while I am at work and can't dig into finding a video for you, would the fact he taught classes at one of the most prestigious schools on Earth before his speech deteriorated before hundreds, if not thousands of students be proof enough he could speak at one time while being a world renowned scientist? Or are you that paranoid to think all of that has to be fake without a video to show it?If you can provide a video of him speaking to a class at the most prestigious school on Earth as a world reknowned scientist, then I'll accept that, as long as he is actually talking coherently enough to easily understand that he is a real scientist.
If a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
So while I am at work and can't dig into finding a video for you, would the fact he taught classes at one of the most prestigious schools on Earth before his speech deteriorated before hundreds, if not thousands of students be proof enough he could speak at one time while being a world renowned scientist? Or are you that paranoid to think all of that has to be fake without a video to show it?If you can provide a video of him speaking to a class at the most prestigious school on Earth as a world reknowned scientist, then I'll accept that, as long as he is actually talking coherently enough to easily understand that he is a real scientist.
If a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
You prove to me enough stuff to dispel my thoughts and I'll accept , as long as the proof is undeniable enough to pose no questions from me.
The first proof of his genius would be a video of him actually talking to the class by his own mouth and in words anyone can understand.
It's entirely up to you if you want to find one. I've looked and can't find one.So while I am at work and can't dig into finding a video for you, would the fact he taught classes at one of the most prestigious schools on Earth before his speech deteriorated before hundreds, if not thousands of students be proof enough he could speak at one time while being a world renowned scientist? Or are you that paranoid to think all of that has to be fake without a video to show it?If you can provide a video of him speaking to a class at the most prestigious school on Earth as a world reknowned scientist, then I'll accept that, as long as he is actually talking coherently enough to easily understand that he is a real scientist.
If a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
You prove to me enough stuff to dispel my thoughts and I'll accept , as long as the proof is undeniable enough to pose no questions from me.
The first proof of his genius would be a video of him actually talking to the class by his own mouth and in words anyone can understand.
So you will ignore the fact that there have been zero students from Cambridge or Caltech that have come forward and said Hawking never spoke before us in the 60s and 70s, and instead demand a video of it.
Well, my house flooded last year and I am still putting it back together, tonight I am finishing the last of the painting because tomorrow the bank is coming to inspect it, if I remember to, I'll find a video of him speaking unless someone else finds it before I do.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
Now here's something for you. If Hawking is this world renowned scientist, you bring me up any video at all of him talking normally before this ailment struck him down.What a puerile comment LOL. And so typical of sceptimatic's total failure to grasp even the basic tenets of logic. Absurdly, he seems to equate neurophysical disabilities—such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis—with mental retardation. He seems to think because Hawking can no longer speak unaided that, over time, he's become a moron. I'd love to see sceptimatic "prove" his nonsensical denpressure hypothesis in order for Hawking accept it. Yeah... well... it's more likely I'll see an avian pig tomorrow! sceptimatic couldn't even clarify his ludicrous denpressure "equation" on these forums, and was forced into shutdown mode whenever we reminded him of that. Total fraudster. And liar.
If he was world renowned there must be some video, even just one of him actually talking. Can you find one?Irrelevant. Hawking talks infinitely more coherently than sceptimatic has in his entire life. It's a pity that people like sceptimatic—with their outmoded, condescending, bigoted attitudes towards people with disabilities are given public forums such as these in order to espouse their 1950s era opinions and tiny-minded prejudices.
Oh and I mean talking coherently.
Stop making up nonsense in order to have a kid like dig. ;DNow here's something for you. If Hawking is this world renowned scientist, you bring me up any video at all of him talking normally before this ailment struck him down.What a puerile comment LOL. And so typical of sceptimatic's total failure to grasp even the basic tenets of logic. Absurdly, he seems to equate neurophysical disabilities—such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis—with mental retardation. He seems to think because Hawking can no longer speak unaided that, over time, he's become a moron. I'd love to see sceptimatic "prove" his nonsensical denpressure hypothesis in order for Hawking accept it. Yeah... well... it's more likely I'll see an avian pig tomorrow! sceptimatic couldn't even clarify his ludicrous denpressure "equation" on these forums, and was forced into shutdown mode whenever we reminded him of that. Total fraudster. And liar.QuoteIf he was world renowned there must be some video, even just one of him actually talking. Can you find one?Irrelevant. Hawking talks infinitely more coherently than sceptimatic has in his entire life. It's a pity that people like sceptimatic—with their outmoded, condescending, bigoted attitudes towards people with disabilities are given public forums such as these in order to espouse their 1950s era opinions and tiny-minded prejudices.
Oh and I mean talking coherently.
You would know everything about angry ranting threads wouldn't you my little scepti.It can be moved to angry ranting, it may be best for it then people who want to come into it and start steaming from emotion can be dealt with. I'm all for it.Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?I'd agree with you if it was complete nonsense, but it's actually nothing of the sort and you know it.
::)
You out yourself as a shill with each post you make. You're becoming so obvious that you should think of incorporating it into your name.
You two idiots do realize that he was already a world renowned theoretical physicist before he lost the ability to speak for himself right?
I second Geoff, this should be moved to CN.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
This is a bizarre conspiracy. Hawking is a pretend scientist put forward by Cambridge university and Them to fool us into thinking something or other so that they could something. Is this about right?No one is saying he wasn't/isn't real or a real scientist of his time.
Hawking is a theoretical physicist with hundreds of publications in his name, publications that are generally only read and understood by other theoretical physicists. Someone else is writing these papers and books and pretending it's Hawking so that....so that.....so that...err...
sceptimatic's response [sic] to my posting (above) leads me to believe that he actually has not the fainest of ideas as to who exactly Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA is, or the worldwide reputation he's gained over the past forty years in the fields of theoretical physics and cosmology.So prove yourself. Prove that my questioning is wrong.
Which is surprising considering that he himself has claimed to be a world-renowned researcher, genius, and the author of a dozen books. I would've expected Hawking to have been informed of sceptimatic's detailed results with the laser and 2km flat ice experiment that he now claims to have been accepted by many accredited scientists—and selected members of this very forum.
sceptimatic's alleged proof of the earth's flatness would throw decades of Hawking's research, theories and writings into total disarray. Why have we yet to hear anything vaguely supporting this? The world's top science magazines such as Scientific American, MIT Technology Review, Australasian Science, New Scientist, have yet to make any reference at all to sceptimatic's world-shattering claims. Why not?
If that's the case then there should be some video snippets of him talking coherently to someone somewhere about science if he was this world reknowned theoretical physicist.Why? The internet has made you into a little kids demanding video of everything. They didn't have video recording on mobile phones in the 60s, and they generally didn't send round film crews to make random footage of theoretical physicists.
Weirdly for that time, they managed to rig up a computer that reads his brain patterns and types them out on a screen for a voice to reel it all off to whoever and where-ever.It doesn't read his brain patterns you idiot. Why don't you do some basic research before you open your mouth?
Not only that but he's also wrote many books, apparently from this same thought process. All this back in a time when computers were as basic as they come, yet to this very day his computer has not been upgraded.It's been upgraded lots of times - where are you getting this shit from? The entire system has been replaced several times since 1985. They just replaced it 2 months ago. Read about the history of it:
Definitely something not right about all of this but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.Proved wrong? You need to say something that is right first.
So prove yourself. Prove that my questioning is wrong.Uh... it's not up to me to disprove your nonsensical claims about Hawking. You really do overestimate your reasoning abilities time and again on these forums, and subsequently prove just how naive and ill-informed you are. You must've missed they day they studied logic at school maybe?
... show me a video - even 10 seconds of him talking before he was rendered incoherent.Straw man. Irrelevant. Illogical argument.
I'll take the two last posts as arguing for no reason.What? You mean you've been made to look silly?
I'll take the two last posts as arguing for no reason. Nothing to see here.
Here's a suggestion. It may help you greatly if you actually learn to read what's being said rather than to make up your own bullshit about what's been said. Just a thought to help you along rather than sit and make up crap to suit your own ego. ;DI'll take the two last posts as arguing for no reason. Nothing to see here.
LOL... so once again I've totally destroyed any argument that sceptimatic tried—but failed—to mount in order to destroy [sic] Hawking's credentials and/or reputation. I'm more than confident that 99,99% of people posting here fully accept Hawking's credibility—with sceptimatic being possibly the only exception. Obviously he hasn't questioned as to why that should be. Apparently—and illogically—he thinks he's the only person here who knows the "real" truth about Hawking apparently being a fraud.
You'll also notice that sceptimatic hasn't been able to substantiate—in any way—his claim that because he has a serious speech impediment Hawking doesn't even know what he's talking about or is mentally retarded. And like a lot of ignorant people, sceptimatic conflates physical disability with mental disability.
I'm also guessing he laughs at people with MS or autism or Down syndrome—but wouldn't be game to insult them face-to-face. Bigots are also invariably cowards.
Yes, and he makes those speeches using an inefficient clicker.My response to that statement is:
Here's a suggestion. It may help you greatly if you actually learn to read what's being said rather than to make up your own bullshit about what's been said. Just a thought to help you along rather than sit and make up crap to suit your own ego.
I'll take the two last posts as arguing for no reason. Nothing to see here.Because they completely destroyed you?
Ok. lets just assume that mr. hawking is actually secretly controlled by the members of the conspiracy.
what the hell is the point?
So please explain to me how a disorder that makes you lose control of most of your muscles makes your brain turn to mush? I would think it would make you smarter, because you would constantly be thinking. And by the way, he has a clicker that he uses to cycle through letters. But let me guess, Scepti, being the unsympathetic and dimwitted person he is, he will probably say something along the lines ofWho mentioned his brain going to mush. Learn to read what's said and you won;t have to fiollow your peers in making shit up. Try it sometime.QuoteYes, and he makes those speeches using an inefficient clicker.My response to that statement is:
the speeches are prewritten, and put into the computer. Complicated, right?
So basically they are controlling Hawking just cus they're evil, and they do evil things?I already said I don't know what's happening. The person could be an actor. I don't rightly know.
So basically they are controlling Hawking just cus they're evil, and they do evil things?I already said I don't know what's happening. The person could be an actor. I don't rightly know.
The thing is, neither do you. You just accept what's put on your plate and gobble it up.
1. He's either a real person who just happens to have had an ailment that kills most within 5 years and the remaining ones in about 10 years and yet his super scientific brain manages to keep him alive for over 50 years, outliving most fit people at his age of 73 despite not being able to exercise or even move his entire body, yet communicate through a cheap speak and spell like machine that just happens to turn is thoughts into words. Truth scale of 1 to 10? 0
I see a lot of problems with this.So I take it you must have been asleep then and have never seen him to think this. You may as well be saying to me that Mickey mouse isn't a disney mouse, he's a duck that just appears to look like a Mickey mouse.
1: Stephen Hawking is not completely paralyzed, his disease just makes him get weaker over time.
2: The machine he uses to talk does not read his mind, it uses a little button he holds in his hand and presses. He is not completely paralyzed so he can do that.Yeah I agree that it doesn't read his mind, it reads his eye and cheek movements apparently. Take a close look at him when questions are fired at him. He doesn't move a muscle in his hands nor in his face and hardly moves his eyes.
3: He didn't survive so long because of his genius, it was because of technology advancing as fast as it does.Technology advancing? There is no known cure for this and treatment even now is in its infancy. Look it up. You're scraping the barrel.
4: His genius is not in spite of his condition, but partially because of it because he hasn't really got anything better do do then sit and think about the universe.So by this thought , he has nothing better to do and just becomes a genius, knowing the universe and what not? I mean, surely he can't be reading other people's stuff because that makes them the geniuses and him the student memorising their work.
Truth scale 1 to 10: 10
I already said I don't know what's happening.Uh... in case you haven't yet become aware of this sceptimatic, we already figured this out. It's more than apparent from the vast majority of your comments on these forums. It would also seem that you don't know what's happening with most things in the world LOL.
The person could be an actor. I don't rightly know.Refer above. Two things that you "don't know" in a single post? Not looking good is it mate? ;D
The thing is, neither do you. You just accept what's put on your plate and gobble it up.Which, as the author of a dozen books, you'd never expect people to do would you—in order to earn a living? Or accept the teachings of the people who enabled you to qualify with 13 academic credentials? Or trust the pilots who taught you how to fly your helicopter or light plane?
You should have saved the effort.I already said I don't know what's happening.Uh... in case you haven't yet become aware of this sceptimatic, we already figured this out. It's more than apparent from the vast majority of your comments on these forums. It would also seem that you don't know what's happening with most things in the world LOL.
QuoteThe person could be an actor. I don't rightly know.Refer above. Two things that you "don't know" in a single post? Not looking good is it mate? ;DQuoteThe thing is, neither do you. You just accept what's put on your plate and gobble it up.Which, as the author of a dozen books, you'd never expect people to do would you—in order to earn a living? Or accept the teachings of the people who enabled you to qualify with 13 academic credentials? Or trust the pilots who taught you how to fly your helicopter or light plane?
I'm guessing you also expect us to "gobble up" your denpressure hypothesis without any sort of evidence too? ;D
How common is motor neurone disease ?
About 40-50 people develop motor neurone disease in NZ each year.
The average age of onset is 55. Uncommonly, it develops in young people. (Hawking).
How long do people survive motor neurone disease ?
The average length of survival is 2-4 years. Occasionally, people live longer.
Aged 20 and now he's 73 or so. So what are we talking here? a miracle that just happened to befit an Einstein type genius?
And you don't think it's questionable?
You should have saved the effort.
Clearly not. You don't question anything, you simply accept everything as long as it is sold to you as official.How common is motor neurone disease ?
About 40-50 people develop motor neurone disease in NZ each year.
What is with citing NZ stats? First thing that came up in google for you?QuoteThe average age of onset is 55. Uncommonly, it develops in young people. (Hawking).
YupQuoteHow long do people survive motor neurone disease ?
The average length of survival is 2-4 years. Occasionally, people live longer.
That is an average. There are always statistical outliers. If the 2-4 years is 1 standard deviation in the statistical data, then 33% of people live less than 2 years and more than 4.QuoteAged 20 and now he's 73 or so. So what are we talking here? a miracle that just happened to befit an Einstein type genius?
Not a miracle, just unlikely. Like winning the lottery or getting hit by lightning.QuoteAnd you don't think it's questionable?
I don't particularly care that much, but if I were to question it, I would do a better job than you.
Try your best to save energy. The effort is commendable but neither use nor ornament.You should have saved the effort.
Why particularly?
Because you haven't yet explained denpressure, or because what I said was painfully close to the truth?
I guess I just get a bizarre Red Bull high whenever I can shoot you down in flames—and which saves me money every day LOL.
Try your best to save energy. The effort is commendable but neither use nor ornament.
Talk about it in the relevant topic and stop acting like a kid. You're wasting energy.Try your best to save energy. The effort is commendable but neither use nor ornament.
Well, at least you've agreed—finally—that you haven't fully explained denpressure to anybody's satisfaction on these forums. I'm guessing you thought it'd just disappear into the sunset like the Marlboro cowboy... never to be seen or heard again LOL.
I am pleased however to see that I can still get under your skin by repeatedly reminding everybody about your failed denpressure notion. It's probably something which you now wish you'd never made up in the first place. I guess your denpressure is sort of like the 21st century version of "phlogiston"?
;D ;D ;D
Clearly not. You don't question anything,
you simply accept everything as long as it is sold to you as official.
Talk about it in the relevant topic and stop acting like a kid. You're wasting energy.Try your best to save energy. The effort is commendable but neither use nor ornament.
Well, at least you've agreed—finally—that you haven't fully explained denpressure to anybody's satisfaction on these forums. I'm guessing you thought it'd just disappear into the sunset like the Marlboro cowboy... never to be seen or heard again LOL.
I am pleased however to see that I can still get under your skin by repeatedly reminding everybody about your failed denpressure notion. It's probably something which you now wish you'd never made up in the first place. I guess your denpressure is sort of like the 21st century version of "phlogiston"?
;D ;D ;D
Did you know in the adult world, two people can question the same thing and come to different conclusions?Yep I do know that. The difference is, you don't question anything against mainstream science. You pretend you do but you don't.
Incorrect, I am currently in the process of questioning Anthropomorphic Climate Change based on evidence that temperature records have been falsified.I'm sure you'll come to your conclusion when mainstream science does and happen to agree with the findings.
Yep I do know that. The difference is, you don't question anything against mainstream science. You pretend you do but you don't.
Incorrect, I am currently in the process of questioning Anthropomorphic Climate Change based on evidence that temperature records have been falsified.I'm sure you'll come to your conclusion when mainstream science does and happen to agree with the findings.
What number am I thinking of? You seem to have this mind-reading thing down pat.It's not mind reading as such. It's reading your comments over time. It builds a picture.
Is this like the 100% sure you are of things you have not tested or seen or another kind of sure?Never 100% sure of most things, except that the Earth is not a globe but that's not important in this topic.
How often do you consider whether or not you are wrong?Often. How about you?
It's not mind reading as such. It's reading your comments over time. It builds a picture.
Never 100% sure of most things, except that the Earth is not a globe but that's not important in this topic.
Often. How about you?
About 40-50 people develop motor neurone disease in NZ each year. The average age of onset is 55. Uncommonly, it develops in young people. (Hawking).It's already been pointed out that his intelligence likely developed because of his illness and confinement: genius is learnt, not inborn, generally speaking.
How long do people survive motor neurone disease ?
The average length of survival is 2-4 years. Occasionally, people live longer.
Let me put this simply to you. Do you agree that, at 73 years of age, Hawking is not only miraculously outlived his condition but done so by having a full on mental ability to work throughout it, authoring numerous books, having 2 wives whilst also painstakingly typing out his teachings to classes of university students for umpteen years, as well as doing every show known to man....now what I'm saying to you - is - does this not warrant questioning...even if it's a simple head scratching as to being a little bit too miraculous to be altogether, true?About 40-50 people develop motor neurone disease in NZ each year. The average age of onset is 55. Uncommonly, it develops in young people. (Hawking).It's already been pointed out that his intelligence likely developed because of his illness and confinement: genius is learnt, not inborn, generally speaking.
How long do people survive motor neurone disease ?
The average length of survival is 2-4 years. Occasionally, people live longer.
I'm no ALS expert, but the thing that stands out to me in your example is that two uncommon things have happened: what if there's a link? Perhaps the reason he's lived longer is because he contracted the illness when younger. A quick bit of research shows the main ways ALS is treated is by aiding, for example, his breathing: muscles that will be stronger in a younger person.
Regardless, it's far from impossible: and the crucial point you haven't addressed, is why parade such a facade? Hell, I've met someone who studied for their PhD under Hawking: and there are plenty of others. Why are people who may be willing to give away or spot the fact he's an actor or protests to the words he's being made to say allowed to come into contact with him?
Either I'm in personal contact with someone who's in on the conspiracy, and it's grown quite a bit unnecessarily, or you might want to rethink this. Pretty sure one of the required elements of a conspiracy is to expose as few questionable elements as possible.
Let me put this simply to you. Do you agree that, at 73 years of age, Hawking is not only miraculously outlived his condition...Answered in the post you're responding to. try a little harder next time, k?
They say that this condition causes a person's muscles to seize up[ in their face as well as limbs. It causes people to struggle to breathe because their throat muscles seize up. This also causes them to choke on even drinking fluids, let alone food and this is only in the early stages...sort of like a year or so after being diagnosed.
To look at Hawking in his chair, we can plainly see that he can barely (if at all) use his mouth or facial features, yet I saw a video of his supposed carer feeding his a meat stew...and no, it wasn't mashed up...yet she was spooning it into his mouth.
In truth I'd like to believe that this is a miracle of some man happening to do the impossible and defy everything thrown at him. The problem is, he's done far too much through this slow typing machine alone to make this credible, let alone all the rest of this stuff.You'd be amazed how much can be done when you don't really have much in the way of timewasting to do. Do you think he's going to get up to play football?
How do you know that he's tutoring students?QuoteLet me put this simply to you. Do you agree that, at 73 years of age, Hawking is not only miraculously outlived his condition...Answered in the post you're responding to. try a little harder next time, k?
They say that this condition causes a person's muscles to seize up[ in their face as well as limbs. It causes people to struggle to breathe because their throat muscles seize up. This also causes them to choke on even drinking fluids, let alone food and this is only in the early stages...sort of like a year or so after being diagnosed.
To look at Hawking in his chair, we can plainly see that he can barely (if at all) use his mouth or facial features, yet I saw a video of his supposed carer feeding his a meat stew...and no, it wasn't mashed up...yet she was spooning it into his mouth.
I mean, regardless, ALS is not a well-known illness. no one professes to be an expert: hopefully that'll change, but... Still, it seems a more than reasonable summation that maybe the fact it affected his body while it was stronger, implies that the effect the degeneration had would be markedly less pronounced. And if you survive for longer with a certain condition, your body can adapt to it.QuoteIn truth I'd like to believe that this is a miracle of some man happening to do the impossible and defy everything thrown at him. The problem is, he's done far too much through this slow typing machine alone to make this credible, let alone all the rest of this stuff.You'd be amazed how much can be done when you don't really have much in the way of timewasting to do. Do you think he's going to get up to play football?
And you're only examining the probabilities one way. Even if what you say is granted (which is far from a necessary step), you propose that those who know he's a lie are perfectly willing to let him tutor PhD students, give lectures etc, and generally show off who he is, increasing the chance he'd slip up: rather than say, for example, rendering him a recluse who still authors science novels, but whose disability renders him unable to make such speeches. That would hardly be unreasonable.
How do you know that he's tutoring students?Well the professor commonly known as Hawking tutors students. One of them's a lecturer at my university, and you can happily take the radical step of using google to verify such information.
It's a machine that has a robotic voice.
So your lecturer learned what he knows from a speak and spell type computer or do you know something for sure?How do you know that he's tutoring students?Well the professor commonly known as Hawking tutors students. One of them's a lecturer at my university, and you can happily take the radical step of using google to verify such information.
It's a machine that has a robotic voice.
Either he actually is tutoring, or the conspiracy are idiots and have decided to expose an element of themselves to public scrutiny unnecessarily: which is something like rule one or rule two of things massive, secretive conspiracies shouldn't do.
So your lecturer learned what he knows from a speak and spell type computer or do you know something for sure?Congrats on yet again ignoring the crucial thrust of the post.
What scrutiny would this be?So your lecturer learned what he knows from a speak and spell type computer or do you know something for sure?Congrats on yet again ignoring the crucial thrust of the post.
I'd ask if you know how universities work, but I doubt it. people have more than one lecturer, and generally PhD supervisors merely guide the students to relevant and useful texts, as well as explain trickier bits. And you're still ignoring the question.
Why would the conspiracy subject themselves unnecessarily to scrutiny? Why take that risk?
What scrutiny would this be?
Either he actually is tutoring, or the conspiracy are idiots and have decided to expose an element of themselves to public scrutiny unnecessarily: which is something like rule one or rule two of things massive, secretive conspiracies shouldn't do.
And you're only examining the probabilities one way. Even if what you say is granted (which is far from a necessary step), you propose that those who know he's a lie are perfectly willing to let him tutor PhD students, give lectures etc, and generally show off who he is, increasing the chance he'd slip up: rather than say, for example, rendering him a recluse who still authors science novels, but whose disability renders him unable to make such speeches. That would hardly be unreasonable.
Same question as above.What scrutiny would this be?Either he actually is tutoring, or the conspiracy are idiots and have decided to expose an element of themselves to public scrutiny unnecessarily: which is something like rule one or rule two of things massive, secretive conspiracies shouldn't do.And you're only examining the probabilities one way. Even if what you say is granted (which is far from a necessary step), you propose that those who know he's a lie are perfectly willing to let him tutor PhD students, give lectures etc, and generally show off who he is, increasing the chance he'd slip up: rather than say, for example, rendering him a recluse who still authors science novels, but whose disability renders him unable to make such speeches. That would hardly be unreasonable.
Try reading.Same question as above.What scrutiny would this be?Either he actually is tutoring, or the conspiracy are idiots and have decided to expose an element of themselves to public scrutiny unnecessarily: which is something like rule one or rule two of things massive, secretive conspiracies shouldn't do.And you're only examining the probabilities one way. Even if what you say is granted (which is far from a necessary step), you propose that those who know he's a lie are perfectly willing to let him tutor PhD students, give lectures etc, and generally show off who he is, increasing the chance he'd slip up: rather than say, for example, rendering him a recluse who still authors science novels, but whose disability renders him unable to make such speeches. That would hardly be unreasonable.
And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Try reading.Same question as above.What scrutiny would this be?Either he actually is tutoring, or the conspiracy are idiots and have decided to expose an element of themselves to public scrutiny unnecessarily: which is something like rule one or rule two of things massive, secretive conspiracies shouldn't do.And you're only examining the probabilities one way. Even if what you say is granted (which is far from a necessary step), you propose that those who know he's a lie are perfectly willing to let him tutor PhD students, give lectures etc, and generally show off who he is, increasing the chance he'd slip up: rather than say, for example, rendering him a recluse who still authors science novels, but whose disability renders him unable to make such speeches. That would hardly be unreasonable.
And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?
Ok, so it's logical to assume that if he is using his muscles to type out his stuff then he should be looking at the monitor to do this and should be concentrating on putting his words right...would you say this is a very fair assumption?And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?
And regardless of specifics, a pretty basic rule of a conspiracy is don't put a lie in front of everyone's faces time and again, they might notice.
And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?
And regardless of specifics, a pretty basic rule of a conspiracy is don't put a lie in front of everyone's faces time and again, they might notice.
This is the problem with people like you. I'm not in any way taking the piss out of anyone who has any condition. get this firmly implanted into your emotionally charged head.And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?
And regardless of specifics, a pretty basic rule of a conspiracy is don't put a lie in front of everyone's faces time and again, they might notice.
septic you can pull the piss out of anyone you like if they got two feet and a heartbeat but have a look at this guy http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Brothers-recall-day-flames-came-calling/7649920/ (http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Brothers-recall-day-flames-came-calling/7649920/) he has been in a bed since 26 July 1984. He stuffed up after my birthday party. If you were put in a room with him he would make you piss just by talking. I not happy about you taking the piss out of people who are disabled.
This is the problem with people like you. I'm not in any way taking the piss out of anyone who has any condition. get this firmly implanted into your emotionally charged head.And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?
And regardless of specifics, a pretty basic rule of a conspiracy is don't put a lie in front of everyone's faces time and again, they might notice.
septic you can pull the piss out of anyone you like if they got two feet and a heartbeat but have a look at this guy http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Brothers-recall-day-flames-came-calling/7649920/ (http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Brothers-recall-day-flames-came-calling/7649920/) he has been in a bed since 26 July 1984. He stuffed up after my birthday party. If you were put in a room with him he would make you piss just by talking. I not happy about you taking the piss out of people who are disabled.
Come back at me with any more of this and you'll simply be overlooked, I guarantee that.
I am questioning how one person who just happens to be a world reknowned theoretical physicist, manages to not only defeat a disease that takes the lives of everyone else in extreme short order but also manages to achieve the things supposedly set out before us.
We all know someone or are close to someone with some kind of ailment/disease and it's not something that should be mocked.
I'm not mocking the ailment/disease itself nor am I mocking Hawking. I'm questioning how it's possible to get it at his age and yet he lives to this very day, aged around 73.
The reasons why nobody can question any of this stuff is because of people like you unable to use rational thought, who deliberately go into emotional frenzy to stop any questioning.
Let me put this into your brain and I'll show you how anything can be twisted to make out someone is showing disrespect.
I could question the moonlandings' and someone...just like you are doing here, can pop in and shout. "You disrespectul bastard - Grissom, White and Chafee died as part of this." And blah blah. You use emotion to kill off an argument.
You haven't got the sense to look at any bigger picture because you wear blinkers for life and gobble up emotional content like it's fast food.
Stay out of the topic if you can't debate it without using emotion or be ignored in it. Your choice.
No need to get so defensive septic. The guy I linked to was nothing but a knuckle man until he got stuck in a bed. After they stuck him back together he lay in bed reading books and talking to visitors. the transformation was amazing.He had something that was curable by his own strength, at least to a great degree. His time spent reading will have greatly added to what capacity he already did, due to his focus being on only that. I accept this and have no problem with this.
He had bad brain damage from the accident but he worked his mind so hard he just got better to talk to all the time. He has more thinking time than anyone I know and it shows.Yes and like anything else, if you give people time to think or they have no other option but to think, then what was mundane at one time becomes interesting.
I took major umbrage at you inferring that a gimp could not think and I know that time spent thinking can be used well by a smart person.Look back in this thread and you will see at no time did I mention he could not think. mentioned the disease as in muscle, etc. I didn't mock anything about mind nor body in anyway. I questioned the length of time this uncurable and ongoing wasting that this disease does in short order and the fact that he seems to have outlived healthy people and is still going strong.
The threat of being ignored by you is a bit like a mouse telling a cat it will be ignored. I could not give a stuff!.It's not a threat, it's simply me explaining to you that I won't respond to the use of emotion from people when I'm debating something. I'm simply letting you know that if you try it again, your post will be not be responded to.
Have a good night.
It is also important to know that Hawking virtually all of his relevant scientific in 60s and early 70s at which point he could still talk. The only thing he did of note to the public when he was incapable of verbal communication is write A Brief History of Time. Although his book is his most popular accomplishment it is not his most relevant.So he's not a very influential or important scientist now. I wish you people would make your mind up on this.
That being said, Scepti is barking up the wrong tree, since Hawking is not a very influential or important scientist to the physics world. Apparently, he just hates people in wheelchairs.
So he's not a very influential or important scientist now.
And how would you know if Hawking hates people in wheelchairs?
Well you should have made it come across like that instead of acting like you were talking about Hawking.So he's not a very influential or important scientist now.
Did I ever say otherwise? I wish you people would make your mind up on this.QuoteAnd how would you know if Hawking hates people in wheelchairs?
Fail. Grammatically, the "he" in my second sentence refers to the subject, "Scepti", in the previous sentence.
Well you should have made it come across like that instead of acting like you were talking about Hawking.
Not amongst other physicists, no. His big work was all in the 60s and 70s. Guys in these fields are like athletes, they can be still be very good when they are older, but they will start losing their edge in their 30s, perhaps younger (Einstein produced all his major work when he was 26). If there was some kind of science/maths world cup, there is no way Hawking would get in the England squad. He wouldn't have done for decades.It is also important to know that Hawking virtually all of his relevant scientific in 60s and early 70s at which point he could still talk. The only thing he did of note to the public when he was incapable of verbal communication is write A Brief History of Time. Although his book is his most popular accomplishment it is not his most relevant.So he's not a very influential or important scientist now.
That being said, Scepti is barking up the wrong tree, since Hawking is not a very influential or important scientist to the physics world. Apparently, he just hates people in wheelchairs.
I wish you people would make your mind up on this.Who said different?
At least now I know what your game is. Cheers.Not amongst other physicists, no. His big work was all in the 60s and 70s. Guys in these fields are like athletes, they can be still be very good when they are older, but they will start losing their edge in their 30s, perhaps younger (Einstein produced all his major work when he was 26). If there was some kind of science/maths world cup, there is no way Hawking would get in the England squad. He wouldn't have done for decades.It is also important to know that Hawking virtually all of his relevant scientific in 60s and early 70s at which point he could still talk. The only thing he did of note to the public when he was incapable of verbal communication is write A Brief History of Time. Although his book is his most popular accomplishment it is not his most relevant.So he's not a very influential or important scientist now.
That being said, Scepti is barking up the wrong tree, since Hawking is not a very influential or important scientist to the physics world. Apparently, he just hates people in wheelchairs.QuoteI wish you people would make your mind up on this.Who said different?
So, what's my game?
Ok, so it's logical to assume that if he is using his muscles to type out his stuff then he should be looking at the monitor to do this and should be concentrating on putting his words right...would you say this is a very fair assumption?And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?Well, for starters, he's alive: he still has enough muscle control to react somewhat. or, failing that, if he has no input onto his machine, that would be noticed too.
The speak and spell like computer is tutoring, so how would anyone know if it was him or someone else just operating that machine by input of whatever is needed?
And regardless of specifics, a pretty basic rule of a conspiracy is don't put a lie in front of everyone's faces time and again, they might notice.
However David Mason, of Cambridge Adaptive Communication, fitted a small portable computer and a speech synthesizer to my wheel chair. This system allowed me to communicate much better than I could before. I can manage up to 15 words a minute. I can either speak what I have written, or save it to disk. I can then print it out, or call it back and speak it sentence by sentence. Using this system, I have written a book, and dozens of scientific papers. I have also given many scientific and popular talks. They have all been well received.
During a Technology, Entertainment, & Design Conference talk, it took him seven minutes to answer a question."
So, what's my game?Instant denial of anything that goes against mainstream acceptance. Nothing wrong with that in a way. It's up to you, so I'm just telling you I can see your game and I understand that nothing I ever say no matter what it is. If it goes against mainstream, then it's instant denial, probably after reading a few words.
Nah. It's all about putting the mind to work. It matters not whether you or anyone else thinks I talk crap. I think that about you people, so we're all in teh same boat.So, what's my game?
I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.
Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?What claims were these?
Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him. When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.
;D
He prewrites his speeches because of how long it takes to write them. Here is a qoute from him from an interview regarding an upgrade to his chair.Upgrading his chair? They done a piss poor job of that when you consider that the man is supposed to be this world genius. That voice is speak and spell or wargames W.O.P.R type. Something is not right about all this.
He uses a combination of cheek twitches and eye movement to write them.I don't buy this for one second.
So when he is giving a speech, it is just playing a script he wrote before hand. Hence why he isn't up there struggling with writing something out.Yeah, I agree with this. A script wrote beforehand, just possibly not by him.
As an example for when he does have to write on the fly, it does take a long time to receive a response.Not according to some footage I've seen, especially one where Magnus Magnusson is asking him about god on a show with two other well known sci-fi writers.
During a Technology, Entertainment, & Design Conference talk, it took him seven minutes to answer a question."Did you see any footage of this time delay?
So no, it's not a fair assumption that while he is giving a speech that he will be staring at the monitor and writing each sentence he is speaking.It's a fair assumption that he should be if he's taking in direct questions, otherwise how would he know to answer if he's not watching a screen?
Scepti, I believe you are wrong.Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?What claims were these?
Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him. When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.
;D
Before you answer, I suggest you read what I actually did say first of all - and understand that I have postulated scenarios. I have no direct evidence to put anything out as a fact. I merely put it up for questioning. I'm 100% aware that the people I'm dealing with in this thread are all going to drink from the same trough. I'm also aware that in 95% of cases I'm on my own.
People do not want to enter into my world because they are afraid that getting tagged with me, will render them a target of ridicule.
There's some that will be looking it all up and soon enough one or two will come in and understand what I'm getting at.
Just be aware that I'm questioning it.
Take this stuff to angry ranting. I'm giving you a bit of friendly advice.Scepti, I believe you are wrong.Notice too that sceptimatic was unable to refute any of the claims I made about his ludicrous opinions of Hawking (above @ 09:51:58 AM)?What claims were these?
Typical of the guy, he just runs away from addressing the relevant comment when he's lost for an answer—which applies to most questions asked of him or criticisms levelled at him. When it comes to the crunch, sceptimatic is as weak as feline's urine.
;D
Before you answer, I suggest you read what I actually did say first of all - and understand that I have postulated scenarios. I have no direct evidence to put anything out as a fact. I merely put it up for questioning. I'm 100% aware that the people I'm dealing with in this thread are all going to drink from the same trough. I'm also aware that in 95% of cases I'm on my own.
People do not want to enter into my world because they are afraid that getting tagged with me, will render them a target of ridicule.
There's some that will be looking it all up and soon enough one or two will come in and understand what I'm getting at.
Just be aware that I'm questioning it.
I completely and utterly destroyed you in the flame war, and if you think otherwise, you are very mislead.
You are no longer the best.
Nah. It's all about putting the mind to work. It matters not whether you or anyone else thinks I talk crap. I think that about you people, so we're all in teh same boat.So, what's my game?
I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.
But...as I said in another thread, it's about finding a common ground to debate from and to try and keep it as civil as possible from both sides.
To the extreme naive and gullible, I would agree with you about the barking mad bit. How can those without eyes, see?Nah. It's all about putting the mind to work. It matters not whether you or anyone else thinks I talk crap. I think that about you people, so we're all in teh same boat.So, what's my game?
I think Scepti is conflating popularity with influence. Yet another thing for him to be wrong about.
But...as I said in another thread, it's about finding a common ground to debate from and to try and keep it as civil as possible from both sides.
The popularity referred to was Hawking's as populiser of Science to the general population; not as to whether people agree with you...They don't, you're barkng mad and probably require some help.
I wasn't calling you ny names, iwas pointing out a fact.I'm not calling you a shill. Just naive. Anyway, this won't achieve anything other than back biting, so let's just plod along with the matters at hand.
if you look at my name its says shills in it ...spooky eh :D
Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
Do you have anything to say?Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Do you have anything to say?Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.Do you have anything to say?Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Yep, let me restate it.QuoteNo, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.Do you have anything to say?Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Yep, let me restate it.QuoteNo, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.
Not really but at least it was input of some sort.Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.Do you have anything to say?Scepti, why would it matter if we showed you footage? Every time you are showed a video of something you do not believe beforehand, you dismiss it? Why would you bother mentioning it? Instead tell us something that you would actually accept.You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.
Youtube has a BBC doc on Hawking. At one point, near the end, they show Hawking giving dictation to a PhD student. It is an arduous process with the PhD student watching Hawking scroll through his word matrix. The student tries to expedite it by guessing the word Hawking is spelling. Each word takes about 3-5 seconds to get correct. See for yourself and I eagerly await your incredulity.
Admit this, even if you think it's unlikely but remotely possible.
No, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Yep, let me restate it.QuoteNo, because he can respond to questions presented to him, and you can watch him respond. With the method Rama just gave you a place to look at in practice.
Well now I have something to add.
You're reading comprehension and debate skills are about on par with a 5 year old as is your understanding of science.
Better?
Sticking up for daddy. I can't argue with that.Ok so you basically have nothing to say other than to try and be father to Rama set. No problem.
He had something to say, you just chose to take it as a petulant child.
You are totally missing the point. It's not about the person in the chair to an onlooker. It's about the machine used in view of anyone. They simply do not know whether it's Hawking or someone operating that computer that is answering questions.That's true. Maybe Hawking has a midget physicist hidden in the bottom of his wheelchair who is actually answering the questions. Why didn't I think of this before?
I think it's more than obvious to everybody here that it's ultimately pointless attempting to have any sort of mature, rational debate with sceptimatic about somebody like Stephen Hawking.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html)
He's listed a number of absurd claims about Hawking's intellectual and academic credentials for which he has not the slightest of negative evidence; made several ill-informed comments about motor neuron disease which proves he has zero understanding of the condition; posited several self-contradictory (!) claims as to the means by which Hawking communicates; conflates inability to verbalise coherently with a lack of intelligence; claims others write Hawking's lectures for him; all this despite never having met the guy or even attended one of his lectures. Presumably sceptimatic can now add clairvoyance to his list of thirteen academic qualifications—qualifications that are apparently of a higher status than the multiple science degrees of Hawking?
If nothing else, sceptimatic's continual farrago of lies, irrational personal opinions, misrepresentation, half-truths, and a lack of any viable evidence for his absurd claims even further illustrates just what a mental midget the guy is.
What's even funnier, and even more convincing of this, is that the poor guy seriously doesn't seem to realise that everybody else posting here is laughing at him, and/or taking the piss out of him.
;D ;D ;D
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Much more simpler than that. It's called questioning something that does not appear to ring true. That's it. It's that simple.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Once I dead I'm dead. Nobody needs to remember me and if they do, I won't know anything about it.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Probably resentment that a guy who can't speak, can't move and is bound to a wheelchair will be remembered for millennia for his contributions to the human race and its understanding of the universe while people like scepti will be remembered about as long and as fondly as a fart in a crowded room.
Much more simpler than that. It's called questioning something that does not appear to ring true. That's it. It's that simple.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?Much more simpler than that. It's called questioning something that does not appear to ring true. That's it. It's that simple.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Questioning is one thing. Skepticism is a good thing.
But instead of of just wholesale dismissing anything that sounds counter-intuitive to you, actually research the fields of science that sound wrong to you, and through honest research look for a flaw in the conclusion or methodology of the theory you are examining.
That would be intellectually honest.
That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?If you want to go down that route, you can't prove you're not a brain in a vat being poked and prodded to experience this simulated world. But what would be the reason to think that is the case, and what would the point be in doing do?
It's too easy for people to say, " well go and see him and see for yourself."
I can no more prove for a fact he is a showcase for wider agenda than you can for saying he's legitimate, other than citing all of what has been placed into your mind. Accepting this is more honest.
That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?Much more simpler than that. It's called questioning something that does not appear to ring true. That's it. It's that simple.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Questioning is one thing. Skepticism is a good thing.
But instead of of just wholesale dismissing anything that sounds counter-intuitive to you, actually research the fields of science that sound wrong to you, and through honest research look for a flaw in the conclusion or methodology of the theory you are examining.
That would be intellectually honest.
It's too easy for people to say, " well go and see him and see for yourself."
I can no more prove for a fact he is a showcase for wider agenda than you can for saying he's legitimate, other than citing all of what has been placed into your mind. Accepting this is more honest.
You can wrap it up how you like. The simple questions are tehre for anyone to think about. You disregard it because you find no reason to question it. He's simply a genius theoretical scientist to you that happens to speak through a speak and spell machine. That appears good enough for you that nothing could be amiss.That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?If you want to go down that route, you can't prove you're not a brain in a vat being poked and prodded to experience this simulated world. But what would be the reason to think that is the case, and what would the point be in doing do?
It's too easy for people to say, " well go and see him and see for yourself."
I can no more prove for a fact he is a showcase for wider agenda than you can for saying he's legitimate, other than citing all of what has been placed into your mind. Accepting this is more honest.
Strictly speaking, we can't prove anything with total certainty: we could all be being deceived by some nigh-omnipotent creature. So what? The question's what's most likely, what we have reason to think. And when you've made a point of view unfalsifiable, to the point where you apparently believe all of the people who've met Hawking couldn't notice anything amiss, you've disregarded truth.
Your argument amounts to "That's quite a coincidence. must be fake." How exactly is that honest?
Ok then, you tell me how I go about this as regards Hawking?That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?Much more simpler than that. It's called questioning something that does not appear to ring true. That's it. It's that simple.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. ;D
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Questioning is one thing. Skepticism is a good thing.
But instead of of just wholesale dismissing anything that sounds counter-intuitive to you, actually research the fields of science that sound wrong to you, and through honest research look for a flaw in the conclusion or methodology of the theory you are examining.
That would be intellectually honest.
It's too easy for people to say, " well go and see him and see for yourself."
I can no more prove for a fact he is a showcase for wider agenda than you can for saying he's legitimate, other than citing all of what has been placed into your mind. Accepting this is more honest.
No, it isn't what you are doing.
THIS is how an honest skeptic goes about questioning a scientific theory, and the person behind it.
1. Theory is presented.
2. Examine the evidence of the theory, its predictive models, and mathematics.
3. Test or observe the function of the theory using the above. If your conclusions differ from the above, check to make sure your methodology was correct and there was no mistake in your math, or even check to see if you observations match up.
4. If they don't match, discover which step of the process that disagrees with the theory.
5. Using your previously accumulated discrepancies, present them to the scientific community.
6. The most demonstrable, objective theory/math/evidence always wins out.
7. Disprove theory, discredit theory creator.
You can wrap it up how you like. The simple questions are tehre for anyone to think about. You disregard it because you find no reason to question it. He's simply a genius theoretical scientist to you that happens to speak through a speak and spell machine. That appears good enough for you that nothing could be amiss.Again, you ignore everything that's said to make the same nonsense-points. A good deal of what you've said has, in this thread, been refuted thoroughly. There are several kinds of motor neurone disease, several ways it can affect someone, you're arguing that the fact he has a less lethal kind must mean it's faked.
The same applies to anything anyone questions about anything authority wise. You simply dismiss it and believe you're correct.
It's logical to question this stuff when he's defying a disease that kills most on just a few short years. He's had it since 20 and he's 73 and just happens to be able to perform miracles whilst defying the disease as in the authoring of many books as well as many TV appearances, as well as being a father and authoring books with his daughter, etc.
Not to mention being a professor at a university for most of his life inbetween all this.
Able bodied people couldn't manage all of this, yet not only does he do this, he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
You don't think it requires any thought on it because you are working by emotion and do not possess the logic or common sense to believe there could be something amiss.
Either that or you are simply denying it because you take a hate or dislike to a person on a forum and just will deny anything at all costs. Carry on though, it's all the same to me. ;)
The man in the wheelchair is constantly on television.
Television is full of shit.Therefore the man in the wheelchair is full of shit.
You can wrap it up how you like. The simple questions are tehre for anyone to think about. You disregard it because you find no reason to question it. He's simply a genius theoretical scientist to you that happens to speak through a speak and spell machine. That appears good enough for you that nothing could be amiss.That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?If you want to go down that route, you can't prove you're not a brain in a vat being poked and prodded to experience this simulated world. But what would be the reason to think that is the case, and what would the point be in doing do?
It's too easy for people to say, " well go and see him and see for yourself."
I can no more prove for a fact he is a showcase for wider agenda than you can for saying he's legitimate, other than citing all of what has been placed into your mind. Accepting this is more honest.
Strictly speaking, we can't prove anything with total certainty: we could all be being deceived by some nigh-omnipotent creature. So what? The question's what's most likely, what we have reason to think. And when you've made a point of view unfalsifiable, to the point where you apparently believe all of the people who've met Hawking couldn't notice anything amiss, you've disregarded truth.
Your argument amounts to "That's quite a coincidence. must be fake." How exactly is that honest?
The same applies to anything anyone questions about anything authority wise. You simply dismiss it and believe you're correct.
It's logical to question this stuff when he's defying a disease that kills most on just a few short years. He's had it since 20 and he's 73 and just happens to be able to perform miracles whilst defying the disease as in the authoring of many books as well as many TV appearances, as well as being a father and authoring books with his daughter, etc.
Not to mention being a professor at a university for most of his life inbetween all this.
Able bodied people couldn't manage all of this, yet not only does he do this, he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
You don't think it requires any thought on it because you are working by emotion and do not possess the logic or common sense to believe there could be something amiss.
Either that or you are simply denying it because you take a hate or dislike to a person on a forum and just will deny anything at all costs. Carry on though, it's all the same to me. ;)
Everything on television is full of shit.The man in the wheelchair is constantly on television.
Television is full of shit.Therefore the man in the wheelchair is full of shit.
Flat Earth Theory was explained on television
(http://)
Television is full of shit. Therefore Flat Earth Theory is full of shit.
Everything on television is full of shit.The man in the wheelchair is constantly on television.
Television is full of shit.Therefore the man in the wheelchair is full of shit.
Flat Earth Theory was explained on television
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=EtNVmIeh9H4)
Television is full of shit. Therefore Flat Earth Theory is full of shit.
The earth is flat.
I've just received this photo of scepit relaxing at home:I have to admit, this had me laughing for a while. ;D
(http://www.doremo.us/images/201307/goods_img/1104_G_1444104655.jpg)
he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
Of course I'm not sure. That's why I said "apparently."he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
Are you sure about the IQ bit?
So, who claimed he had the highest IQ in the world?Of course I'm not sure. That's why I said "apparently."he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
Are you sure about the IQ bit?
I remember seeing it claimed. Like I said, apparently. It doesn't mean anything other than that. I don't claim it.So, who claimed he had the highest IQ in the world?Of course I'm not sure. That's why I said "apparently."he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
Are you sure about the IQ bit?
If sceptimatic truly expects that we should consider his negative claims about Hawking as well-researched, credible. and factual, then he must of course define exactly which of his thirteen academic qualifications he's drawing upon to question and deny Hawking's academic qualifications. If none of sceptimatics's academic qualifications are in any of the science fields, then he's not qualified to comment on Hawking's qualifications.Do you see anywhere in this topic where I'm questioning qualifications. I'm questioning the condition he has and how he's living to 73 and still apparently going strong, reeling out all kinds of stuff.
So sceptimatic... can you name at least a couple of your scientific qualifications in order for you to make a reasoned assessment of Hawking's abilities—or lack thereof?
And if you can't—or are unwilling to—then I think we can all safely make the assumption that you don't know anything at all about Hawking, his intellect, his research, or his background as a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
The ball's now in your court my friend. Shape up or ship out. 8)
Do you see anywhere in this topic where I'm questioning qualifications. I'm questioning the condition he has and how he's living to 73 and still apparently going strong, reeling out all kinds of stuff.
No, your claim is that other people claim it. You can't support your claim.I remember seeing it claimed. Like I said, apparently. It doesn't mean anything other than that. I don't claim it.So, who claimed he had the highest IQ in the world?Of course I'm not sure. That's why I said "apparently."he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
Are you sure about the IQ bit?
I've claimed nothing of the sort. I've questioned a few things and put forward some possibilities, none of which I said were true. Look back and absorb what I said before you pipe in with utter nonsense.Do you see anywhere in this topic where I'm questioning qualifications. I'm questioning the condition he has and how he's living to 73 and still apparently going strong, reeling out all kinds of stuff.
Yes, I have seen where you've questioned Hawking's qualifications. You've claimed he's only an ordinary "actor" being fed his lines by somebody else, and is controlled by the NWO, or that a computer is doing all the work he claims via a type and spell "machine".
So... you do agree then that he has numerous degrees and doctorates in the sciences from several universities in the US and Britain?
And having agreed to that (apparently) why are you not prepared to divulge even a couple of your own alleged thirteen academic qualifications? What are you afraid of? That we might check up on their legitimacy? Surely if you're going to criticise Hawking's intellect, then you have to prove to us the level of yours?
I certainly can't support any claim about his IQ, you're right there.No, your claim is that other people claim it. You can't support your claim.I remember seeing it claimed. Like I said, apparently. It doesn't mean anything other than that. I don't claim it.So, who claimed he had the highest IQ in the world?Of course I'm not sure. That's why I said "apparently."he's also touted as a worldy scietific genius with the highest IQ in the world, apparently.
Are you sure about the IQ bit?
I've questioned a few things and put forward some possibilities, none of which I said were true.So now—when you're put on the spot, you're reneging? You're admitting that you have no evidence for your claims; that they were nothing more than "possibilities", or personal opinion, and may have even been completely untrue? What sort of pathetic debating mechanism is that? Do you even understand what the term "empirical" evidence is?
Learn to read and absorb what's been said. That's about the best I can do for you up to now, Geoffrey. Oh and calm yourself down a little or you'll and up having a breakdown.I've questioned a few things and put forward some possibilities, none of which I said were true.So now—when you're put on the spot, you're reneging? You're admitting that you have no evidence for your claims; that they were nothing more than "possibilities", or personal opinion, and may have even been completely untrue? What sort of pathetic debating mechanism is that? Do you even understand what the term "empirical" evidence is?
And why—again—are you not prepared to divulge even a couple of your own alleged thirteen academic qualifications? What are you afraid of? That we might check up on their legitimacy? One can only think your repeated reluctance to comply with this more than fair request is proof positive that you don't have any academic qualifications; that they exist only in your fertile imagination.
So I'm calling your bluff here sceptimatic; name a few of your academic qualifications, or risk being exposed as a liar. It's your call.
LOL..... At last I've caught sceptimatic out! He can't cite even one of his imaginary academic qualifications!
I guess we can all take it easy now knowing that the guy is an inveterate liar. I've been waiting for him to shoot himself in the foot, and be caught out by his own lies. Thank you sceptimatic; you've just made my day.
;D ;D ;D
LOL..... At last I've caught sceptimatic out! He can't cite even one of his imaginary academic qualifications!
I guess we can all take it easy now knowing that the guy is an inveterate liar. I've been waiting for him to shoot himself in the foot, and be caught out by his own lies. Thank you sceptimatic; you've just made my day.
;D ;D ;D
So, you admit that you have been trolling sceptimatic? You do realize that is against the rules, right?
If I put a certificate into this forum, you would simply call out fake. This is why it's pointless me needing to prove anything. Either accept what I say or don't. My life does not change because you decide I'm a liar.
LOL..... At last I've caught sceptimatic out! He can't cite even one of his imaginary academic qualifications!
I guess we can all take it easy now knowing that the guy is an inveterate liar. I've been waiting for him to shoot himself in the foot, and be caught out by his own lies. Thank you sceptimatic; you've just made my day.
;D ;D ;D
If I put a certificate into this forum, you would simply call out fake. This is why it's pointless me needing to prove anything. Either accept what I say or don't. My life does not change because you decide I'm a liar.
LOL..... At last I've caught sceptimatic out! He can't cite even one of his imaginary academic qualifications!
I guess we can all take it easy now knowing that the guy is an inveterate liar. I've been waiting for him to shoot himself in the foot, and be caught out by his own lies. Thank you sceptimatic; you've just made my day.
;D ;D ;D
Trolling is against the rules?!? I wouldn't implement that rule if I were you, there'll be nothing much left of the forum.
LOL..... At last I've caught sceptimatic out! He can't cite even one of his imaginary academic qualifications!
I guess we can all take it easy now knowing that the guy is an inveterate liar. I've been waiting for him to shoot himself in the foot, and be caught out by his own lies. Thank you sceptimatic; you've just made my day.
;D ;D ;D
So, you admit that you have been trolling sceptimatic? You do realize that is against the rules, right?
(http://s22.postimg.org/4cy3t5gbl/certificate.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)If I put a certificate into this forum, you would simply call out fake. This is why it's pointless me needing to prove anything. Either accept what I say or don't. My life does not change because you decide I'm a liar.
LOL..... At last I've caught sceptimatic out! He can't cite even one of his imaginary academic qualifications!
I guess we can all take it easy now knowing that the guy is an inveterate liar. I've been waiting for him to shoot himself in the foot, and be caught out by his own lies. Thank you sceptimatic; you've just made my day.
;D ;D ;D
If you put your certificate on this forum, we could check to see if it was real by contacting the institution that issued it, if we were so inclined.
So, you admit that you have been trolling sceptimatic? You do realize that is against the rules, right?
I have found that he used http://photofunia.com/effects/diploma (http://photofunia.com/effects/diploma) to create that image.I'm assuming—or hoping at least—that sceptimatic only posted his "diploma" as a joke in order to divert us from asking him to post a few of his legitimate academic credentials. He posted last year that he possesses thirteen, but thus far is unable—for some unknown reason—to provide even a couple of them.
You guys don't believe that scepti's real name is "Sambelli Dong"?
It's so convincing!
I was actually going through some old papers, and it turns out my diploma is just like his. Maybe our colleges used the same template...
Here's mine: http://u3.photofunia.com/1/results/z/x/zxbw17arpAjukbV6nyEFug_r.jpg?download (http://u3.photofunia.com/1/results/z/x/zxbw17arpAjukbV6nyEFug_r.jpg?download)
As you can see they are almost identical. Small world.
I wonder what would happen if we bumped the thread where sceptic said he would argue for a round earth if it was shown he lied.
communicate through a cheap speak and spell like machine that just happens to turn is thoughts into words. Truth scale of 1 to 10? 0
Given his attitude about Israel (BDS support and all that crap), and his support for the so-called "Palestinians", he ought to have his talk machine taken away from him, since it was invented in Israel. After all, he wants to Boycott, Divest, and Saction all things Israeli, so lets start with that, shall we? Then we shall see how far he gets.
Well, RAMA SET, you can't win an argument, so you get your moderators to ban me there. Lets just admit it. You took the coward's way out. But forget about the other site. Can you argue with what I just said? Surely, if Mr. Hawking wants to engage in BDS re: Israel, he should give up his talk machine. After all, it was invented in the country he wants to divest from, boycott, and sanction. He should take it all the way, shouldn't he?
So far, I can see that Lama Nachman of Intel was essential in inventing the thing, which means it was a Jew who did him the service, but no, it was NOT invented in Israel. Still, since he hates Israel to a degree that reaches the anti-Semitic, he ought to give it up.
No one is disputing that one can disagree with Israel and not be anti-Semitic. However, and that is the key word, many people start to hate Israel so much that they become anti-Semitic. Anyone who advocates BDS is one of these. Israel is the only democratic nation in the entire Middle East. There are Arabs serving in the military (by choice, they are not subject to the draft, unlike the Jews, who are). They serve in Parliament, and on the Supreme Court.
Even as far as "Palestine" goes, the idiotic claim of genocide is just that, idiotic. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in 12 years. in 47 years, the "Palestinian" population has quadrupled. How does that constitute genocide? If Israel and/or the Jews are trying to commit genocide on the so-called "Palestinians", then we must suck at it. If Israel truly wanted to commit genocide against the "Palestinians", carpet bombing the holy dogcrap out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for about two weeks and killing every living thing there down to the smallest rabbit would accomplish it. Israel could do that very easily with the technology and military capacity that they have. The fact that they have not indicates that genocide is the last thing they want to do.
EVERY single other country in the Middle East is either a dictatorship, a Kingdom, a theocracy, a chaotic mess, or an ISIS controlled hellhole. So, your choice is?
By demanding BDS, or demanding some stupid Right of Return for so-called "Palestinian Refugees", or by requiring Israel to return to the 1967 borders, you are asking her to commit national suicide. That is anti-Semitic.
Surely, if Mr. Hawking wants to engage in BDS re: Israel, he should give up his talk machine. After all, it was invented in the country he wants to divest from, boycott, and sanction.What the USA? When has he ever said that?
Well, RAMA SET, you can't win an argument, so you get your moderators to ban me there. Lets just admit it. You took the coward's way out. But forget about the other site. Can you argue with what I just said? Surely, if Mr. Hawking wants to engage in BDS re: Israel, he should give up his talk machine. After all, it was invented in the country he wants to divest from, boycott, and sanction. He should take it all the way, shouldn't he?
You funny. You can't make a point that does not involve varying degrees of insulting and nationalistic rage, that is why you got banned. Now you picked another agitation point just so you can continue trolling. Once again based on fallacious reasoning.
But he's a hateful, evil man.
In any of the three above listed options, they want the national suicide of the Jewish State. That is hateful and evil. Hawking is pushing for the first two. That makes him hateful and evil
In any of the three above listed options, they want the national suicide of the Jewish State. That is hateful and evil. Hawking is pushing for the first two. That makes him hateful and evil
Yes, but people who call for a two state solution don't think it will lead to mass violence. They don't want Israel to be destroyed, they just want something that might lead to that, because they think it will lead to peace, not the destruction of Israel.
It's a tricky issue. While the Jewish state definitely committed atrocities against the Palestinians in its formation, the now marginalized Palestinians will take any chance they get to slaughter the Jews, which we can't let happen, regardless of past events.
They were forcibly expelled in Egypt. However, in most countries such as Libya, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, the Jews left because of Zionist yearnings, not because of violence or property confisticarion.
It depends on how you define "forcibly". Just because someone doesn't come to you and say "get the fuck out or I am going to shoot your family in front of you" doesn't mean that they can't make your life so difficult that you effectively have no choice but to leave. For example, Iran likes to tote the fact that there are 25,000 Jews living there today. What they DON'T say is that that is 1/6 the number of what used to live there before 1979. Out of all the Arab countries in the world (and I know Iran is not an Arab state), the only one that has any real rights for Jews is indeed Morocco. The King before the one reigning now actually invited Jews to move there, and guaranteed their rights, and the current King has continued that. There are about 5,000 Jews there.
Well, I started out by being on topic regarding Hawking being a hateful and evil man. And Geoff, you need to grow up, at least in my humble opinion.No one else seems to object. But fine, I can start a thread in Philosophy. KMAN, follow me over there.
Well, I started out by being on topic regarding Hawking being a hateful and evil man.
Well, ok. So the originator of the thread hates Jews. And your point would be? That just makes him a bit of an idiot. I know quite a few of those in life. Just because I happen to have a low opinion of Hawking, and he also has a low opinion of Hawking, doesn't mean we have the low opinion of Hawking for the same reason. My wife's preschoolers could figure that one out. Come on!
Ah, no. I did not say that. He hates Jews. He is hateful and evil. Hawking is hateful and evil for the same reason. I have a low opinion of Hawking. The originator of the thread has a low opinion Hawking but for totally different reasons. THAT is what I said. Your inability to communicate is your problem, not mine. Anyway, enjoy your foolishness. I am going elsewhere, now that I have succeeded in making you look absurd.
Except BDS has never worked, and never will, because the world needs the Jews too much, and they know it.
Except BDS has never worked, and never will, because the world needs the Jews too much, and they know it.
Like I said, Israel will never be forced into doing anything. BDS will never work. The world needs Israel too much, and it knows it. Since Israel is rapidly becoming the Silicon Valley of the non-US world, the world can't survive without her, and knows it.
Geoff, how lacking in brains you are. Since Jews are not a race, it would be hard to be racist as such. We are an ethnic group as such, rather like the Latinos, in the sense that we can belong to any race. I would think that you would know at least that much. Obviously we are not a candidate for Mensa.
Like I said, Israel will never be forced into doing anything. BDS will never work. The world needs Israel too much, and it knows it. Since Israel is rapidly becoming the Silicon Valley of the non-US world, the world can't survive without her, and knows it.
Geoff, how lacking in brains you are. Since Jews are not a race, it would be hard to be racist as such. We are an ethnic group as such, rather like the Latinos, in the sense that we can belong to any race. I would think that you would know at least that much. Obviously we are not a candidate for Mensa.
It doesn't put the fear of G-d into me. It just reminds me that there are snot-nosed little anti-Semitic pigs in the world like you. Little Hitlers that need to be stomped on before they get too big. And one can only hope that after Obozo finishes his term in the White House, we get a real Commander in Chief, rather than the Coward in Chief we currently have, who will actually do something about the world as it now is, and make it a safer place to before civilised beings, which I would not count you among.
Actually, I voted for Obama twice, and volunteered to get him elected, twice. I now regret that. He is a traitor to the United States, and no friend of Israel.
And no, I don't want them ghettoised. I want them deported to the various nations of the Arab Middle East. There are 22 Arab nations in the world. Surely you could find a home for 4 million more Arabs. Israel had to take in 700,000 Jews who were ejected from Arab countries in 1948. If the 700,000 Arabs that left Israel at the order of Arab leaders had been taken in by Arab countries then, rather than being forced to live in refugee camps where their descendants still live, this problem would not exist.
But lets face it. Even the other Arabs despise the so-called "Palestinians". On the totem pole of Arabs, the "Palestinians" rank right at the bottom, even by the standards that other Arabs employ. The only reason that they are cared about at all is that Arabs hate us more than they hate "Palestinians". But lets be honest. "Palestinians" are basically treated as filth by other Arabs even.
I'm familiar with both, since I have an MA in history, which I suspect you do not. Movements of people are sometimes necessary. The Germans from the Sudetenland after WWII. The Hindus from Pakistan in 1947. The Muslims from India in 1947. Those are just a few. Your lack of ability to recognise the necessity for it is your problem, and your inability to see that it occasionally saves lives.
Because hey, if you say that the Nazi choice to do that is valid and ok with you, then I'll be ok letting the policies of Israel go, since you'll be acknowledging they are as valid for the same reasons as Nazi Germanys actions in regards to deportation.
Actually, I voted for Obama twice, and volunteered to get him elected, twice. I now regret that. He is a traitor to the United States, and no friend of Israel.Forced deportations? Classifying an ethnic minority as filth? This all sounds horribly familiar.
And no, I don't want them ghettoised. I want them deported to the various nations of the Arab Middle East. There are 22 Arab nations in the world. Surely you could find a home for 4 million more Arabs. Israel had to take in 700,000 Jews who were ejected from Arab countries in 1948. If the 700,000 Arabs that left Israel at the order of Arab leaders had been taken in by Arab countries then, rather than being forced to live in refugee camps where their descendants still live, this problem would not exist.
But lets face it. Even the other Arabs despise the so-called "Palestinians". On the totem pole of Arabs, the "Palestinians" rank right at the bottom, even by the standards that other Arabs employ. The only reason that they are cared about at all is that Arabs hate us more than they hate "Palestinians". But lets be honest. "Palestinians" are basically treated as filth by other Arabs even.
The reason the Germans were deported from the Sudetenland was because they were likely to be killed by vengeful Czechs. The reason Hindus and Muslims changed places in 1947 was to avoid mass death and civil war (and they still did not avoid all of it). Hitler was an ass. If he hadn't had his weird objection to the Jews, he would have won WWII, because the Jews were a mostly assimilated population that would probably have helped him do it! They certainly fought for Germany with distinction and honour during WWI. So I would argue that that is one deportation that simply wasn't necessary. The thought of it was brought on by the hatred of one man, rather than by external events.
I did not say I called them filth. I said other Arabs treated them as filth. As far as forced deportation, sometimes it is necessary. Again, I refer to India/PakistanOh yeah, that went well. ::)
and Sudetenland as examples.The Germans were deported to Germany. Therefore the Palestinians should be deported to....
My idea would be for the Israeli Government to pay each Arab adult person 60,000 US dollars severance paySeverance pay?
, plus eminent domain for any property they might lose, and to pay the cost of the relocation. It would be the responsibility of the Arab country in questionThe "in question" is the important part here. They are sovereign states and are under no obligation to take refugees. Anyway, you just said the other Arabs think Palestinians were filth?
I did not say I called them filth. I said other Arabs treated them as filth. As far as forced deportation, sometimes it is necessary. Again, I refer to India/PakistanOh yeah, that went well. ::)
Quoteand Sudetenland as examples.The Germans were deported to Germany. Therefore the Palestinians should be deported to....QuoteMy idea would be for the Israeli Government to pay each Arab adult person 60,000 US dollars severance paySeverance pay?
Quote, plus eminent domain for any property they might lose, and to pay the cost of the relocation. It would be the responsibility of the Arab country in questionThe "in question" is the important part here. They are sovereign states and are under no obligation to take refugees. Anyway, you just said the other Arabs think Palestinians were filth?
Unfortunately, that is true. But it is still the best option.It's not actually an option though is it?
It doesn't put the fear of G-d into me. It just reminds me that there are snot-nosed little anti-Semitic pigs in the world like you. Little Hitlers that need to be stomped on before they get too big. And one can only hope that after Obozo finishes his term in the White House, we get a real Commander in Chief, rather than the Coward in Chief we currently have, who will actually do something about the world as it now is, and make it a safer place for civilised beings, which I would not count you among.
Atually, its not fear, but respect. Not that I would expect an ignoramus such as yourself to comprehend.
Well, it is a form of subjection to the will of G-d, but it is willing in this case. GEOFF, the surprising thing is that for this being an inconsequential forum, you have spent a crap-ton of time here. Far more than I have. It seems you have been here far more than I have, and as much as anyone else. It is evidently not inconsequential in your miserable little life. I suspect you are typing from mummy's basement.
Furthermore, religion is actually growing in the Global South, which has far more people in it than the Global North. Australia doesn't count, as it has virtually no population. The State of California has more people than the entire nation of Australia. So that kind of statement is wrong, although coming from the lips of somebody with the IQ of a bull moose in rut (and that may in fact be an insult to the moose), I am not surprised as such.
Atually, its not fear, but respect. Not that I would expect an ignoramus such as yourself to comprehend.
The Global North is Russia, the USA, Canada, And Europe. I apologise for being imprecise.
Hawking is a glorified mathematician. He can do math. Great. And that qualifies him to speak on matters of whether or not G-d exists? Like I said, you have the IQ of a moose. Hawking probably has no qualifications in philosophy either. I do. Granted, only a BA, but that is probably higher than his.
Hawking is a glorified mathematician. He can do math. Great. And that qualifies him to speak on matters of whether or not G-d exists? Like I said, you have the IQ of a moose. Hawking probably has no qualifications in philosophy either. I do. Granted, only a BA, but that is probably higher than his.Hawking's stated opinion of God is that God is not needed for what we see: on that much, he is very much qualified to speak. After all, he's talking physics rather than philosophy. And speaking as a mathematician, there is a huge difference between maths and physics: maths is a major tool of physics, but physicists next to never do any of the mathematical legwork: they're concerned with application only.
Hawking is a glorified mathematician.
LEMMI, that is one way of looking at it. But its not just for the Jews. Its for them too. Have you seen how they are forced to live? I mean, Gaza, for example, has the HIGHEST human population density of anywhere in the world, higher even then Tokyo or Hong Kong. These people are jammed in there like sardines. My G-d, they live like animals. And Israel isn't stupid enough to let them live outside the boundaries of the Gaza Strip. Who would be, when they have publicly declared that they want to destroy your country, and kill as many of you as they can? But G-d, at least deporting them would give them more room to live in.Hong Kong density- 6571 people per square km
Ok. I'll accept that. No arguments here. Nevertheless, you really DON'T want to live there if you can help it, since its a third world crap-hole. They are packed in like sardines. When Egypt ruled them, they ran it like a rather large internment camp (not that it is any better now, but the fault is theirs, now).
I say that last because Israel completely disengaged from the area in 2005. There are no Jews there. They were forced to take control of the borders AGAIN because of attacks from the territory. But internally, there is nobody there except "Palestinians". Originally, They were permitted to import what they liked, more or less. That was stopped when the cement and other things that were supposed to be used to build schools and so-forth were instead used to build tunnels and other terror networks to attack Israel. Now there is a complete blockade of the territory, as there should be.
It should be noted that at last survey, 85% of Israeli Jews were noted as being in favour of a negotiated settlement with the "Palestinians" that would result in a Two-State Solution. So don't think we are the ones at fault here. I admit, my opinions are pretty damned intense, but they are a minority view, even in Israel. Now, that survey was taken before the last Gaza War in August. I don't know what the figure is now. But the Gazans have an ability to do incredibly stupid crap.
They manage to antagonise a population that is inherantly inclined to want to help them achieve their goals. Most Jews in Israel are weary of the Territories and all that comes along with them. They would be all too happy to find a solution that would work. But you can't do that when you are being targeted with rockets every time you effing blink!
I mean, do you really think that Jewish mothers want to send their sons to kill Arab sons? Hell, most of Israel is secular. In Israel, that doesn't mean what it means Stateside. Here, secular means atheist or agnostic. There, it means "less Observant", or perhaps "non-Observant", but most of them still believe broadly in G-d. 87% of Jews, even the ones who never see the inside of a synagogque, hang a mezuzah on their door, for example.
Irrespective of the meaning of the term, the fact is, my opinion is a minority. The majority of Jews would be happy to let the "Palestinians" live in peace if only the bastards would quit tossing rockets every chance they got. To be quite honest, so would I, much as I don't like the idea.
Ok. I'll accept that. No arguments here. Nevertheless, you really DON'T want to live there if you can help it, since its a third world crap-hole. They are packed in like sardines. When Egypt ruled them, they ran it like a rather large internment camp (not that it is any better now, but the fault is theirs, now).
I say that last because Israel completely disengaged from the area in 2005. There are no Jews there. They were forced to take control of the borders AGAIN because of attacks from the territory. But internally, there is nobody there except "Palestinians". Originally, They were permitted to import what they liked, more or less. That was stopped when the cement and other things that were supposed to be used to build schools and so-forth were instead used to build tunnels and other terror networks to attack Israel. Now there is a complete blockade of the territory, as there should be.
It should be noted that at last survey, 85% of Israeli Jews were noted as being in favour of a negotiated settlement with the "Palestinians" that would result in a Two-State Solution. So don't think we are the ones at fault here. I admit, my opinions are pretty damned intense, but they are a minority view, even in Israel. Now, that survey was taken before the last Gaza War in August. I don't know what the figure is now. But the Gazans have an ability to do incredibly stupid crap.
They manage to antagonise a population that is inherantly inclined to want to help them achieve their goals. Most Jews in Israel are weary of the Territories and all that comes along with them. They would be all too happy to find a solution that would work. But you can't do that when you are being targeted with rockets every time you effing blink!
I mean, do you really think that Jewish mothers want to send their sons to kill Arab sons? Hell, most of Israel is secular. In Israel, that doesn't mean what it means Stateside. Here, secular means atheist or agnostic. There, it means "less Observant", or perhaps "non-Observant", but most of them still believe broadly in G-d. 87% of Jews, even the ones who never see the inside of a synagogque, hang a mezuzah on their door, for example.
Irrespective of the meaning of the term, the fact is, my opinion is a minority. The majority of Jews would be happy to let the "Palestinians" live in peace if only the bastards would quit tossing rockets every chance they got. To be quite honest, so would I, much as I don't like the idea.
Ok. I'll accept that. No arguments here. Nevertheless, you really DON'T want to live there if you can help it, since its a third world crap-hole. They are packed in like sardines. When Egypt ruled them, they ran it like a rather large internment camp (not that it is any better now, but the fault is theirs, now).
I say that last because Israel completely disengaged from the area in 2005. There are no Jews there. They were forced to take control of the borders AGAIN because of attacks from the territory. But internally, there is nobody there except "Palestinians". Originally, They were permitted to import what they liked, more or less. That was stopped when the cement and other things that were supposed to be used to build schools and so-forth were instead used to build tunnels and other terror networks to attack Israel. Now there is a complete blockade of the territory, as there should be.
It should be noted that at last survey, 85% of Israeli Jews were noted as being in favour of a negotiated settlement with the "Palestinians" that would result in a Two-State Solution. So don't think we are the ones at fault here. I admit, my opinions are pretty damned intense, but they are a minority view, even in Israel. Now, that survey was taken before the last Gaza War in August. I don't know what the figure is now. But the Gazans have an ability to do incredibly stupid crap.
They manage to antagonise a population that is inherantly inclined to want to help them achieve their goals. Most Jews in Israel are weary of the Territories and all that comes along with them. They would be all too happy to find a solution that would work. But you can't do that when you are being targeted with rockets every time you effing blink!
I mean, do you really think that Jewish mothers want to send their sons to kill Arab sons? Hell, most of Israel is secular. In Israel, that doesn't mean what it means Stateside. Here, secular means atheist or agnostic. There, it means "less Observant", or perhaps "non-Observant", but most of them still believe broadly in G-d. 87% of Jews, even the ones who never see the inside of a synagogque, hang a mezuzah on their door, for example.
Irrespective of the meaning of the term, the fact is, my opinion is a minority. The majority of Jews would be happy to let the "Palestinians" live in peace if only the bastards would quit tossing rockets every chance they got. To be quite honest, so would I, much as I don't like the idea.
It is probably a small minority of Palestinians that are involved in war-drumming, rocket-firing and human shielding as well. Why don't you apply your reasoned approach to them?
A majority of Palestinians support the two-state solution, a slim majority, but pretty good considering what the average Palestinian probably sees of Israel, and a slim majority in Gaza also disapprove of Hamas.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Majority-of-Palestinians-still-support-2-state-solution-new-poll-says-381141 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Majority-of-Palestinians-still-support-2-state-solution-new-poll-says-381141)
It sounds like most Palestinians are not as unreasonable as you want them to be.
Frankly, both Yaakov and ausGeoff seem like total douchebags. Both their ideal world's would probably be living hells.
(http://)Can not watch it as its blocked in Oz.
Hawking is a glorified mathematician.
Hawking is a glorified mathematician.
Yaakov, there is nothing more glorious than a mathematician.