Stephen Hawking

  • 254 Replies
  • 40732 Views
?

st james

  • 105
  • a sinner saved by grace
Stephen Hawking
« on: February 06, 2015, 02:33:19 AM »
is Stephen Hawking a believer in the FET and in the Bible?
is he being "held hostage"/prisoner by diabolical forces using human puppets to keep him quiet?

YOU decide!

prt i
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> ;

prt ii
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> ;
nisi Dominus frustra

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2015, 03:40:46 AM »
It's hard to tell what's going on with this person. I'll tell you what's not going on. He's no scientist what has been pushed into us, so that leaves a few things to ponder.

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

2. He was actually a genius who knew too much and was about to spill the beans but was rendered paralysed by constant drugging to stop him talking, so someone does it for him so people think it's really his thoughts. Truth scale? Maybe 2.

3.An actor who plays a persona that has people gripped to push scientific nonsense, who plays a good part for a very good living, knowing that it's just specific performances needed whilst in the normal world he's walking about among people who are oblivious to who it is. Truth scale? Maybe 5.

This stuff is so clever and also in your face as being a lie, it's hard to know how this lie is being panned out.

All we can take from it is the logical aspects of what we've been fed.
logically it's sensible to assume that Hawking would not be using a shit computer screen with silly words slowly getting put on it and a speak and spell effigy of a voice computer in this day and age...bearing in mind when this thing was supposedly invented for him... to be of the same spec.
It ludicrous even if it was possible at the time, which I sincerely doubt.

Also, as I said before. His ailment is terminal, yet his terminal appears to mean a full adult average lifespan that even the fittest most careful eaters don't manage in the main.

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.

I wish I knew what the real truth is in how this stuff is panned out, but I don't. All I know is, there's something not right about this and it's as clear as day.

?

st james

  • 105
  • a sinner saved by grace
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2015, 04:03:46 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic

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.

that's abt "the strength" of it, i'd say!  :(
(i'd give that claim a 7-7½ )

but.....it would also be more than reasonable to claim that Hawking "discovered" some-thing astounding abt the very nature of "the Universe" that could well threaten the very existence of TPTB......now....that could be: irrefutable proof of the existence of Almighty God, some sort of "free energy"/Tesla stuff and/or flat Earth-type stuff......
(6-6¾ !)    :(

re: the "free energy"/Tesla stuff.....
apparently, several inventors/engineers in the US were 'on the verge' of going public with their discoveries wrt this and received some very disturbing visits from fed(dot)gov "men in black"....after which....they mostly shut-up abt it......
there was even a small firm in Cairns, Australia who, a few yrs back, were advertising their discoveries abt this (free energy from a magnetic generator......that only needed an initial boost from a 12v bttry to 'kick-start' it and then kept producing over-unity/zero-point energy indefinitely).....but....all of a sudden...they vanished "POOF".....without a trace...i think, though, that you can still access their web-site via the WayBack archive......"lutec" or some-thing they were called......

ha ha....when the story abt them 'broke' in the Cairns Post, they literally had people camping out on their front door-stop for days on end wanting to get hold of one of their 'machines'....even though, apparently, they hadn't really got past the proto-type stage......

(there was another one in Eire/Rpblc of Ireland......they were producing a similar thing...called it "orbo" or some-such.....they stayed "on the radar" for a few yrs and, then, just sort of fizzled......whether from gov' pressure/intimidation or they just ran out of money/backers....don't know!....their company was called 'steorn' or some-thing....again...you might be able to get on to it via the WayBack archive!!)
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 04:10:36 AM by st james »
nisi Dominus frustra

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2015, 06:42:44 AM »
Mods... can this absurd thread be shifted to Complete Nonsense please?

    ::)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2015, 06:53:32 AM »
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.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2015, 08:20:39 AM »
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.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2015, 08:36:22 AM »
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.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 08:37:59 AM by sceptimatic »

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2015, 08:40:19 AM »
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.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.

Let me restate

Quote
...[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.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2015, 08:58:25 AM »
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.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.

Let me restate

Quote
...[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.
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.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2015, 09:08:27 AM »
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.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.

Let me restate

Quote
...[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.
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?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2015, 09:28:01 AM »
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.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.

Let me restate

Quote
...[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.
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?
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.
All I'm saying ( for the reasons stated) is that it begs questioning.

Now here's something for you. If Hawking is this world reknowned scientist, you bring me up any video at all of him talking normally before this ailment struck him down.
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.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2015, 09:57:11 AM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Around 3:13

Any other questions?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2015, 09:59:18 AM »
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.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2015, 10:55:13 AM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Around 3:13

Any other questions?
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.
I'll once again put down what I said and highlight what I said.

I said: 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.


So once again, this world reknowned scientist before he became incapacitated - is there even one video of him actually talking coherently like any normal person would?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2015, 10:57:25 AM »
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.
His speech in that video is nothing but mumbling so don't pretend you can understand what's being said.


*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2015, 11:08:22 AM »
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.

More proof.

Quote
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.

Quote
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]

36. Larsen 2005, p. xiv.
42. Ferguson 2011, p. 92.
58. Ferguson 2011, p. 91.
145. White & Gribbin 2002, p. 101.
146. Ferguson 2011, p. 61,64.
147. Ferguson 2011, pp. 64–65.
148. White & Gribbin 2002, pp. 115–16.
149. Hawking, Stephen; Penrose, Roger (1970). "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology".                                   Proceedings of the Royal Society A 314 (1519): 529–548. Bibcode:1970RSPSA.314..529H.
150. Ferguson 2011, p. 49.
151. Ferguson 2011, pp. 65–67.
152. Larsen 2005, p. 38
153. Ferguson 2011, pp. 67–68.
154. White & Gribbin 2002, pp. 123–24.
155. Larsen 2005, p. 33.
156. R. D. Blandford (30 March 1989). "Astrophysical Black Holes". In S. W. Hawking and W. Israel. Three Hundred Years of Gravitation. Cambridge University Press. p. 278.
157. Larsen 2005, p. 35.
158. Ferguson 2011, p. 68.
159. Larsen 2005, p. 39.
160. White & Gribbin 2002, p. 146.
161. Ferguson 2011, p. 70.
162. Larsen 2005, p. 41.
163. Hawking, Stephen W. (1974). "Black hole explosions?". Nature 248 (5443): 30–31.
164. Hawking, Stephen W. (1975). "Particle creation by black holes". Communications in Mathematical Physics 43 (3): 199–220.
165. Ferguson 2011, pp. 69–73.
166. Ferguson 2011, pp. 70–74.
167. Larsen 2005, pp. 42–43.
168. White & Gribbin 2002, pp. 150–51.
169. Larsen 2005, p. 44.
170. White & Gribbin 2002, p. 133.
171. Ferguson 2011, pp. 82, 86.
172. Ferguson 2011, pp. 86–88.
173. Ferguson 2011, pp. 150,189, 219.
174. Ferguson 2011, p. 95.
175. Ferguson 2011, p. 90.
176. White & Gribbin 2002, pp. 132–33.
177. White & Gribbin 2002, p. 162.
178. Larsen 2005, pp. xv.

Sources

Ferguson, Kitty (2011). Stephen Hawking: His Life and Work. Transworld. ISBN 978-1-4481-1047-6.

White, Michael; Gribbin, John (2002). Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. ISBN  978-0-309-08410-9.

Larsen, Kristine (2005). Stephen Hawking: a biography. ISBN 978-0-313-32392-8.

and a couple scientific journals.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2015, 11:11:04 AM »
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 a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2015, 11:20:16 AM »
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 a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
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.

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.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2015, 11:30:41 AM »
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 a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
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.

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.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2015, 11:35:33 AM »
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 a video is the ultimate proof for you, then I have some videos from the ISS to prove the earth is round.
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.

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.
It's entirely up to you if you want to find one. I've looked and can't find one.
I mean, you don't have to do anything to be honest. You can just concentrate on your home and get it ship shape. I've said what I needed to on this. If I decide to dig more or something comes to light, I'll add to it.



?

st james

  • 105
  • a sinner saved by grace
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2015, 09:42:50 PM »
Quote from: Lemmiwinks

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.

I never questioned that he was "a world renowned physicist".....and, i think, SM only put it out there as a possibility.....(he can speak for him-self though!).....so "pull up" with the straw man, eh?

go back and read the OP and check out the Y-tb vidz......then you might get some idea of what this is all abt?

uh....do you really think that TPTB couldn't pull off a stunt like they are claiming there?

if so: then you really are a sheeple, eh?

baaaaa!
nisi Dominus frustra

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2015, 04:01:50 AM »
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.

Quote
If he was world renowned there must be some video, even just one of him actually talking. Can you find one?
Oh and I mean talking coherently.
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2015, 04:09:39 AM »
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.

Quote
If he was world renowned there must be some video, even just one of him actually talking. Can you find one?
Oh and I mean talking coherently.
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.
Stop making up nonsense in order to have a kid like dig.  ;D

*

HumanKentipede

  • 129
  • The defeat of Scepti was a sweet victory.
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2015, 05:50:57 AM »
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.
One thing though. It's certainly not nonsense to question this and you know it.
You would know everything about angry ranting threads wouldn't you my little scepti.
*cough* I smashed you *cough*
Leatherman: Leave nothing undone.

Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2015, 09:37:36 AM »
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?

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...
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2015, 01:11:34 AM »
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?

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...
No one is saying he wasn't/isn't real or a real scientist of his time.
It just appears extremely fishy that he had motor neurone disease that wrecked his body in short order with a life span of 5 to 10 years.
He apparently was incapacitated at aged 20. He is now around 73 years old and still going strong in the brain department while his body just soldiers on in the state it is.

A miracle? Was he the chosen one or did his brain counteract the condition?
You have to believe a lot of things here to accept that he just happens to be the one to fight this ailment and still live a normal, infact a super normal life in the brain department, managing to become a world reknowned theoretical physicist.

There's something not right about all of this at all. I'm not interested in people jumping in and shouting" yes it is right, nothing to ponder here - move along."

Apparently he was a world reknowned scientist before he was struck down as I've been informed by Lemmiwinks.
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.
Now I can't find one. Not one snippet where he even talks for 30 seconds or even 10 seconds, coherently.

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.
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.

Definitely something not right about all of this but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2015, 01:13:55 AM by sceptimatic »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2015, 01:13:44 AM »
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.

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 AmericanMIT Technology ReviewAustralasian ScienceNew Scientist, have yet to make any reference at all to sceptimatic's world-shattering claims.  Why not?



*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27741
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2015, 01:17:10 AM »
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.

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 AmericanMIT Technology ReviewAustralasian ScienceNew Scientist, have yet to make any reference at all to sceptimatic's world-shattering claims.  Why not?
So prove yourself. Prove that my questioning is wrong.
You harp on about Hawking as if you personally know him. You know nothing other than what's put out. You accept this and I don't, so show me a video - even 10 seconds of him talking before he was rendered incoherent.

Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2015, 02:51:18 AM »
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.

here he is:



If only he'd known back then that some kid blathering at his keyboard would demand to see video of him before he became ill, I'm sure he'd have got right on it.  ::)


Quote
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?

Quote
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:

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2015/01/features/giving-hawking-a-voice

Quote
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.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Stephen Hawking
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2015, 03:01:02 AM »
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?

You're the one "questioning" (absurdly) Hawking's credentials as far as the worldwide scientific community's status quo goes,  logic tells us that the onus is on you sceptimatic to provide viable evidence supporting your negative claims about Hawking.


Quote
... show me a video - even 10 seconds of him talking before he was rendered incoherent.
Straw man.  Irrelevant.  Illogical argument.

The ability to speak coherently has nothing at all to do with one's intellectual abilities.