|
|
Re: Stephen Hawking's science doesn't work....
Posted:
Feb 26, 2012 9:42 PM
|
|
On 2/26/2012 6:35 PM, microm2011@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:29 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2012 6:20 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 6:05 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2012 6:00 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 25, 11:53 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 8:51 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 8:47 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 8:10 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 6:21 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 5:38 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 7:09 pm, sbalneav<sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12-02-24 09:02 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 6:59 pm, sbalneav<sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12-02-24 08:37 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 6:28 pm, sbalneav<sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12-02-24 08:06 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For exploding black holes...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An equal amount of positive energy would fall in over time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He says there is negative energy which is really nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But even if you take it serious a black hole won't decay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There would be a form of thermal equilibrium by positive and negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling in balanced in time...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's this thing you have for Hawking? Did his wheelchair run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over your toe one time, or like what?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am aware that he is aginst me no matter if he wants it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to look like it or not.. It is only now that I will fight.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By posting on Usenet? How do you think that's going to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has had his time...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you a supervillan?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is a timekeeper and a dangerous authority.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A timekeeper? Dangerous? He's an old man in a wheelchair.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who will start a war of science against religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is off of their rocker... religion is just as guilty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to the extreme unfortunately...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religion lost that war a long time ago. It was called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Enlightenment" and "The Renaissance".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hawking ought to leave innocent religious people alone.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, because an old man in a wheelchair expressing his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion's really bothering the religious.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He should be forced to...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You could have an Epic Rap Battle with him:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn7-fVtT16k
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stalker...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, we know you are. Leave Hawking alone!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whose brave enough to take an objective shot at Hawking!?
>>>>>>>>>>> His MO is intimidation
>>
>>>>>>>>>> He can barely move anymore because of his disability. What
>>>>>>>>>> "intimidation" are you referring to?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and he has been put up as an authority
>>>>>>>>>>> by the world. Something Einstein would have nothing to do with.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should I let Hawking intimidate me?
>>>>>>>>>>> I am big deal...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch; the shared prize...with Alia Sabur- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>> What else but his intellectual intimidating dan?
>>
>>>>>>>> His intellect intimidates you? Is that because he can debate you under
>>>>>>>> the table without so much as even thinking about it?
>>
>>>>>>>>> He tried to pull that off with Alia Sabur but she
>>>>>>>>> wasn't going for it either...
>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't heard of this. Can you show it?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Alia Sabur And Mitch Raemsch - God Bless America!!!
>>>>>>>>> Dan...
>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot!
>>
>>>>>>>> Yet you can't show how.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>> The how is that you are going to continue to follow me around!!!
>>>>>>> I think everyone expects it...
>>
>>>>>> I respond to you and to whomever I please. I am no more following you
>>>>>> than I am anyone else. Cut the ego trip; you're not that special.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> The point is why are you responding to me?
>>
>>>> Because you're posting to a newsgroup I read.
>>
>>>>> What have I done?
>>
>>>> Posted something I wanted to respond to.
>>
>>>>> Hawking's a timekeeper who started something dangerous. Period.
>>
>>>> Like what?
>>
>>>>> Right in science needs to clean it up.
>>>>> It is lunacy to create a war of religion and science.
>>
>>>> For example?
>>
>>> His book exemplifies it...
>>
>> For example?
>>
>>> I consider hawking as a failed scientist who is an authority
>>> and a timekeeper not willing to accept that science is going forward
>>> for the longest time. His idea that he would solve all
>>> of science in twenty years said twenty years ago is just hubris.
>>
>> You can't even cite this assertion, can you?
>>
>>> And of course he repeated he would solve all of science again...
>>> but in another twenty years...
>>
>> Or this.
>>
>>> He is the lunatic scientist that proposed we would have to solve our
>>> problems by way of populating what never will be. That is living on
>>> the Moon and beyond...
>>
>> We haven't done it, but that doesn't make Hawking a lunatic.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Such as....?
>>
>>> Einstein said the atheists authorities were his problem by
>>> misrepresenting him...
>>
>> [citation needed]
>>
>>> He was right. God does not play dice with the universe.
>>
>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
>> a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
>> personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
>> If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
>> unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
>> science can reveal it."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He believed in an impersonal God.
He called himself an agnostic and a believer in "Spinoza's God"
> You are one person who would represent this same problem for him.
Yet you can't show that I would.
> Einstein said his enemy were the atheists by misrepresenting him.
You can't show that he said that either.
> Einstein was not an atheist...
Didn't say he was.
|
|
