|
|
Re: Stephen Hawking's science doesn't work....
Posted:
Feb 28, 2012 2:52 PM
|
|
On 2/28/2012 11:46 AM, microm2011@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:42 am, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/28/2012 11:39 AM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 28, 11:33 am, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2012 11:25 AM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 8:53 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 5:19 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:51 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 11:55 AM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 6:42 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2012 6:35 PM, microm2...@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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Then what is your argument?
>>
>>>>>>>> That Einstein didn't believe in a personal God.
>>
>>>>>>> And why is that important?
>>
>>>>>> You thought it was.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> It takes two to tango...
>>>>> The point is he believed in A God.
>>
>>>> So what? And why is that important?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Because it is reality...
>>
>> Yeesh. So why is what he believed about a deity relevant?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He said that the atheists were his problem by misrepresenting him on
> that account....
>
> What do you have to say to that?
I would like to see his words, in context, before I speak on it further.
|
|
