Stephen Hawking

Yep I do know that. The difference is, you don't question anything against mainstream science. You pretend you do but you don't.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 09, 2015, 09:41:52 AM

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.

Is this like the 100% sure you are of things you have not tested or seen or another kind of sure?

How often do you consider whether or not you are wrong?

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).

How long do people survive motor neurone disease ?
The average length of survival is 2-4 years. Occasionally, people live longer.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 09, 2015, 08:38:40 AM

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.

It's already been pointed out that his intelligence likely developed because of his illness and confinement: genius is learnt, not inborn, generally speaking.
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...
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.

Quote

Let me put this simply to you. Do you agree that, at 73 years of age, Hawking is not only miraculously outlived his condition...
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.

Answered in the post you're responding to. try a little harder next time, k?
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.

Quote

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?

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?
It's a machine that has a robotic voice.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:03:35 AM

How do you know that he's tutoring students?
It's a machine that has a robotic voice.

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.
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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:09:52 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:15:08 AM

What scrutiny would this be?

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:07:14 AM

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.

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 01:54:36 AM

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.

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:16:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:15:08 AM

What scrutiny would this be?

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:07:14 AM

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.

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 01:54:36 AM

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:18:35 AM

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:16:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:15:08 AM

What scrutiny would this be?

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:07:14 AM

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.

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 01:54:36 AM

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.

Try reading.

And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?
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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:22:46 AM

And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?
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?

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.
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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:22:46 AM

And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?
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?

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.
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.

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:25:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:22:46 AM

And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?
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?

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.
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/ 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.

Quote from: guv on February 10, 2015, 02:50:34 AM

Quote from: BiJane on February 10, 2015, 02:25:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 02:22:46 AM

And I'm asking you how people would know it's a lie to stop him tutoring?
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?

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.
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/ 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.
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 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.

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.

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!.
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.

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?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 06:51:58 AM

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.

Quote

And 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.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 06:32:18 AM

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.

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.

I wish you people would make your mind up on this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 06:51:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 06:32:18 AM

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.

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.

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.

Quote

I wish you people would make your mind up on this.

Who said different?