From your viewpoint, are people like Stephen Hawking in on the conspiracy?

He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

Sorunx, thanks for starting this thread.

Tom Bishop's got my respect for being one of the very few people who can see Stephen Hawking for what he is.

I remember reading an interview with the respected journalist and science writer Bryan Appleyard when he voiced his opinion on Hawking. I remember him saying that Hawking had misunderstood Wittgenstein and on many points was 'bone-headedly wrong.' Appleyard went on to say that when he brought up these issues to Hawking, instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion, he was shocked when Hawking just wheeled himself away. This interview was in an issue of the Fortean Times, and as far as i'm aware is not available on line. Or at least it wasn't when i searched for it.

Appleyard seems to be one of the very few dissenting voices on Hawking. Which means almost everybody else has bought into the myth. I actually think that people enjoy the idea of this genius mind trapped inside a redundant body. Which is a shame.

I remember reading Appleyard's review of 'A Brief History', - it was scathing but fair.

Here's a link to Appleyard's review of Hawking's 'Universe in a Nutshell', for anyone who is interested: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/2001/11/stephen-hawkings-universe-in-a-nutshell/

Mizuki x

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2011, 03:59:19 PM

He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

Sorunx, thanks for starting this thread.

Tom Bishop's got my respect for being one of the very few people who can see Stephen Hawking for what he is.

I remember reading an interview with the respected journalist and science writer Bryan Appleyard when he voiced his opinion on Hawking. I remember him saying that Hawking had misunderstood Wittgenstein and on many points was 'bone-headedly wrong.' Appleyard went on to say that when he brought up these issues to Hawking, instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion, he was shocked when Hawking just wheeled himself away. This interview was in an issue of the Fortean Times, and as far as i'm aware is not available on line. Or at least it wasn't when i searched for it.

How convenient.

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2011, 05:00:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2011, 04:56:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2011, 03:19:22 PM

He said that Hawking has proven his work beyond doubt.

Quote from: Sorunx on July 02, 2011, 02:58:29 PM

Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Hmm, sounds like the two quotes are saying the same thing to me.

Unless the poster is saying that "Hawking has proven beyond doubt that he knows what he's talking about." But that would be stupid.

Are you saying that Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about?  Do you believe that you know more about astrophysics than he does?

Hawking wouldn't say that he knows beyond a power of doubt that the fabric of space-time is expanding. He would be the first to admit that his ideas are entirely speculative and that astrophysicists are little more than story tellers.

Half of his "Brief History of Time" and"On the Shoulders of Giants" is about how we know extremely little of anything.

Quote from: Anythingispossible

A lack of evidence, although not present in this context, does not lead to the conclusion that a theory is wrong. It simply means it does not have the evidence available to prove that it is right or wrong. Your claim that he is wrong ,therefore , has no merit

I have not been saying that Hawking was wrong. I've been saying that his work is utterly unproven and completely speculative.

Tom please halt your persistent support for Steven Hawking. He is a tool of the conspiracy in fact it is quite likely that he died several years ago and the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC et al) are animating his corpse for their nefarious plans.

excellent work Dr. Crustinator, your contributions are held in high regard by the brotherhood.

I have not been saying that Hawking was wrong.

Yes you have.

He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

Quote from: Mizuki on July 04, 2011, 06:34:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2011, 03:59:19 PM

He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

Sorunx, thanks for starting this thread.

Tom Bishop's got my respect for being one of the very few people who can see Stephen Hawking for what he is.

I remember reading an interview with the respected journalist and science writer Bryan Appleyard when he voiced his opinion on Hawking. I remember him saying that Hawking had misunderstood Wittgenstein and on many points was 'bone-headedly wrong.' Appleyard went on to say that when he brought up these issues to Hawking, instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion, he was shocked when Hawking just wheeled himself away. This interview was in an issue of the Fortean Times, and as far as i'm aware is not available on line. Or at least it wasn't when i searched for it.

How convenient.

Tausami, for your convenience - enjoy, my friend:-

'In 1988 I interviewed Stephen Hawking just before A Brief History of Time came out. I come from a scientific family, but I wasn’t particularly interested in science as such.

I’d been writing a book about post-war British culture and I’d vaguely, without thinking about it, assumed that science and the humanities had accepted some sort of deal: science ‘explains’ one type of thing, and religion and so on ‘explained’ other things. When I interviewed Hawking, my complacency fell apart. I thought the man was bone-headedly wrong about everything!

He wasn’t even right about the stuff he put in his book. He misunderstood Wittegenstein. I tried to explain this to him, but he just wheeled himself away. I was shocked. He had this view that science was ‘completable’, that it would have this Theory of Everything within weeks. I just thought that was irrational. After all, every physicist who has ever lived has thought they were on the verge of a Theory of Everything. Also, we know from the Incompletness Theorems of  Gödel that mathematics is not completable. Finally, how would we know we had the Theory of Everything? There are various answers to that, but I think they are all likely to be wrong.'

Source: http://thefrogweb.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/bryan-appleyard/

Mizuki x

Stop replying to the stupid troll named Tom Bishop. He is always trolling, and never supporting his claims with evidence. He can only claims other is wrong, newton was wrong, einstein was wrong, tesla was wrong, EVERYONE.

And he cannot prove nothing on the FE theory, he is the only one that know the real truth, so believe or avoid answering his trolling posts.

Maybe can be interesting to have a debate between Tom and Stephen Hawking, i m pretty sure that tom will be eaten alive by the genius of stephen hawking. Only problem is that hawking does not give a fuck of what tom is saying.

Stop replying to the stupid troll named Tom Bishop. He is always trolling, and never supporting his claims with evidence. He can only claims other is wrong, newton was wrong, einstein was wrong, tesla was wrong, EVERYONE.

And he cannot prove nothing on the FE theory, he is the only one that know the real truth, so believe or avoid answering his trolling posts.

Maybe can be interesting to have a debate between Tom and Stephen Hawking, i m pretty sure that tom will be eaten alive by the genius of stephen hawking. Only problem is that hawking does not give a fuck of what tom is saying.

Tom Bishop could easily kick Stephen Hawking's butt. Hawking would still be busy typing "Don't hurt me" with his cheek muscles by the time Tom had ripped out both his eyes and unplugged his chair. Bishop's arms would thrash around wildly, connecting with Hawkings frail body, his eyes gleaming and his wicked laugh echoing down the halls at Cambridge University. A swift fist would enter Hawkings rectum before expertly disengaging with a kidney or two, and then driving that self same offal into Hawking's dribbling mouth.
"Say its flat you f*cking whore, say its flat with your kidneys in your mouth, bitch!".

Tom has quite a temper, you know.

Oxford University.

incorrect.

fixed

Face it, Stephen hawkings has been askin for it for a while now.. 

Let's knock it off with the low content posting.

Despite the inevitable troll-fest that this thread has degenerated into, i would like to say, please do your own critical thinking about Stephen Hawking and his half-baked ideas.

All that glitters is not gold.

Mizuki x

Face it, Stephen hawkings has been askin for it for a while now..

He is a known troublemaker that is for sure. However, since he became a tool of the Conspiracy (NASA) he has minders with him 24/7 so is remarkably hard to get to.

Quote

Good to know observation doesn't always conclude. I guess viewing the Earth from from a human's perspective and saying it's flat isn't evidence that the Earth is flat.

Observing the stars move away from each other is observational evidence that the stars are moving away from each other.

It does not suggest that the fabric of space-time is expanding. No one observes the fabric of space-time expanding. Space-time expansion is not an observation. Hawking did not demonstrate that this occurs in any way.

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2011, 03:17:49 PM

Quote

Good to know observation doesn't always conclude. I guess viewing the Earth from from a human's perspective and saying it's flat isn't evidence that the Earth is flat.

Observing the stars move away from each other is observational evidence that the stars are moving away from each other.

It does not suggest that the fabric of space-time is expanding. No one observes the fabric of space-time expanding. Space-time expansion is not an observation. Hawking did not demonstrate that this occurs in any way.

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Do you have an alternate explanation?

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 12:41:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2011, 03:17:49 PM

Quote

Good to know observation doesn't always conclude. I guess viewing the Earth from from a human's perspective and saying it's flat isn't evidence that the Earth is flat.

Observing the stars move away from each other is observational evidence that the stars are moving away from each other.

It does not suggest that the fabric of space-time is expanding. No one observes the fabric of space-time expanding. Space-time expansion is not an observation. Hawking did not demonstrate that this occurs in any way.

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Do you have an alternate explanation?

Well first off, I dont need an alternate explanation.  If someone comes to me and says "fairies push things down to the ground at 9.81m/s/s" I am not the one with the burden of proof.  They have no first hand evidence that shows this is indeed the cause of the shifts.

Secondly, even within RE science we have several possible alternate explanations.  VSL theory comes to mind as does Dispersive Extinction Theory. 

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Actually, it's galaxies moving away from each other, not stars.

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 12:41:36 PM

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Actually, it's galaxies moving away from each other, not stars.

Stars move.

Quote from: markjo on July 08, 2011, 12:54:44 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 12:41:36 PM

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Actually, it's galaxies moving away from each other, not stars.

 

Stars move.

Yes, they do.  But I was referring to how galaxies moving apart is far more significant to the expansion of the universe than stars moving apart.  Please try to keep up, will you?

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 12:41:36 PM

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Actually, it's galaxies moving away from each other, not stars.

Hey markjo, what are galaxies made up of?

Quote from: Thork on July 08, 2011, 01:03:15 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 08, 2011, 12:54:44 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 12:41:36 PM

Stars supposedly moving away from each other.  This is another example of RE science "filling in holes" to make their theories work.  Because something blue or red shifts it does not necessitate that it is in fact moving.

Actually, it's galaxies moving away from each other, not stars.

 

Stars move.

Yes, they do.  But I was referring to how galaxies moving apart is far more significant to the expansion of the universe than stars moving apart.  Please try to keep up, will you?

The significance relative to a larger event is irrelevant.

Has anyone shown the expansion of the universe by measuring the changing distances between stars?

The significance relative to a larger event is irrelevant.

While we digress a bit, would someone explain the expanding universe theory to me?  I get the logical deductions and inferences from data but I can't understand then why all space isn't expanding, not just the outer, outer parts.  What is different, say, about inner space? Is the space in the atom expanding?  Why not? And would we even notice?  I like thinking about stuff like this while staring off into an evening sky.

Has anyone shown the expansion of the universe by measuring the changing distances between stars?

No. They have measured their speed and direction though and can thus infer that therefore their distance must be changing.

Quote from: Crustinator on July 09, 2011, 04:15:01 AM

Has anyone shown the expansion of the universe by measuring the changing distances between stars?

No. They have measured their speed and direction though and can thus infer that therefore their distance must be changing.

Define 'They'. Then meet me in a thread about conspiracy.

Quote from: John Davis on July 09, 2011, 01:06:45 AM

The significance relative to a larger event is irrelevant.

While we digress a bit, would someone explain the expanding universe theory to me?  I get the logical deductions and inferences from data but I can't understand then why all space isn't expanding, not just the outer, outer parts.  What is different, say, about inner space? Is the space in the atom expanding?  Why not? And would we even notice?  I like thinking about stuff like this while staring off into an evening sky.

The whole of space is expanding on a macroscopic scale, not just the far away galaxies. Imagine a compressed foam gradually foaming outwards... every part is moving away from every other part but the bits furthest from each other have greater realtive velocity and so the effect is more obvious.
However, this is not really the expansion of space as in the fundamental physical dimensions, its just objects moving further apart. If space itself were really expanding (or contracting for that matter) it is doubtful we would be able to perceive it unless certain aspects remained constant... just like if time sped up or slowed down we would still perceive it as going the same speed because our perceptions happen at a fixed rate per unit of time. Only to an outside observer in a different time frame would the difference be noticeable. But Einstein said it better than I can.
There was a sci fi short story which I can remember neither the author or title of which dealt with the universe actually getting smaller and smaller, and it was noticed by an apparent shift in light wavelengths, which remained constant, and gradually colours diappeared starting at the red end of the spectrum and ending up with no visible light at all. That was fanciful, but if space itself was getting bigger then clearly all the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagntesm, strong and weak nuke forces) are changing magnitude along with it to keep the perception of it being the same size. This would suggest that the simplest answer is that it isnt. But without something as a constant referance for comparison, you cant tell. This idea was also talked about by Einstein (and used by the FES too) in a discourse on the inability to tell gravitational force from inertia.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 09, 2011, 12:31:57 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on July 09, 2011, 04:15:01 AM

Has anyone shown the expansion of the universe by measuring the changing distances between stars?

No. They have measured their speed and direction though and can thus infer that therefore their distance must be changing.

Define 'They'. Then meet me in a thread about conspiracy.

They = the anyone mentioned by Crusty.

The whole of space is expanding on a macroscopic scale, not just the far away galaxies. Imagine a compressed foam gradually foaming outwards... every part is moving away from every other part but the bits furthest from each other have greater realtive velocity and so the effect is more obvious.
However, this is not really the expansion of space as in the fundamental physical dimensions, its just objects moving further apart. If space itself were really expanding (or contracting for that matter) it is doubtful we would be able to perceive it unless certain aspects remained constant... just like if time sped up or slowed down we would still perceive it as going the same speed because our perceptions happen at a fixed rate per unit of time. Only to an outside observer in a different time frame would the difference be noticeable. But Einstein said it better than I can.
There was a sci fi short story which I can remember neither the author or title of which dealt with the universe actually getting smaller and smaller, and it was noticed by an apparent shift in light wavelengths, which remained constant, and gradually colours diappeared starting at the red end of the spectrum and ending up with no visible light at all. That was fanciful, but if space itself was getting bigger then clearly all the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagntesm, strong and weak nuke forces) are changing magnitude along with it to keep the perception of it being the same size. This would suggest that the simplest answer is that it isnt. But without something as a constant referance for comparison, you cant tell. This idea was also talked about by Einstein (and used by the FES too) in a discourse on the inability to tell gravitational force from inertia.

Thanks for your answer and ideas.  Trying to think of some constant that would be an unchanging yardstick, 'c' of course works as well as anything else and includes time.   It's beyond me anyway but still fun to imagine.

Stephen Hawking used to be a vocal and powerful flat earther. NASA put him in that wheel chair and the chair just spouts out whatever they program these days. He would weep if they would fill his water bottle, once in a while

Quote from: Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time (1988)

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

It is immensely axiomatic that Steven Hawking's beliefs do not depict any idea, or even the spark of an idea, suggesting that he believes that our round Earth is flat.

I think it a form of unusual torture, a warning to the rest of us FErs. He now has to listen to all the heretic nonsense coming from his chair, and NASA has left him so disabled after repeated beatings, that he cannot even indicate its not him talking.
I mean the chair has an American accent for Pete's sake!

You are now poking fun at a man in a wheelchair, not that the majority of people would find that behaviour exhaustively pathetic or anything. Your baseless jibes on this subject are nothing less than silly.

His chair has an American accent? Can I assume you don't? I sure hope so. I wouldn't want to be affiliated in any way to someone with such narrow minded rudeness, or beliefs taken right out of the BC era 

Astrophysicists use fantasy to explain the cosmos. They construct overly elaborate explanations to explain the observable, the whole of which is unprovable and undemonstratable.  They gain notoriety because their fantasy models seemingly explain the unknown. They fill in the gaps of our knowledge with fantasy. They're story tellers.

and here we gain some insight into the psyche of a FEer.  just because YOU cant understand something does not mean that somebody much more intelligent than yourself can understand it.  these astrophysicists devote there lives to studying the heavens and you should thank them, but your ideology is so out of whack that you cant even recognize their accomplishments, which truly are a grace on humanity.