# General > General >  Stephen HAWKING

## sandyr1

Is he real or is he a fake?
Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
Comments if you wish!

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> Is he real or is he a fake?
> Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
> Comments if you wish!


Are you on about the programs that have been on Discovery? I have watched them all and i find his theorys are absolutely mind blowing! 

I think that people like him help us step out of the box a little. Get out of our usual way of thinking. after watching his programs i always wonder what it would be like to find life on other planets, life outside the solar system, time travel etc etc. 

I for one would love to meet him. His theorys amaze me  :Smile:

----------


## Sara Jevo

I've never heard him described as fake before lol.

Probably one of the cleverest people in the country - and someone who may well inspire lots of people with the way he didn't give in to his condition.

----------


## Serenity

> I've never heard him described as fake before lol.
> 
> Probably one of the cleverest people in the country - and someone who may well inspire lots of people with the way he didn't give in to his condition.


Exactly.

Anyway seems like he is nearly more a mathematician than physicist (in early life anyway) and anyone who understands the numbers cannot deny that it is more than likely there is other life out there. Admittedly it is a very rare occurence for the planets and sun to align so perfectly to permit life but with the huge numbers of solar systems out there it nearly must have happened elsewhere.

I cannot actually believe anyone is asking if he is a fake because of this?

----------


## sandyr1

> Are you on about the programs that have been on Discovery? I have watched them all and i find his theorys are absolutely mind blowing! 
> 
> I think that people like him help us step out of the box a little. Get out of our usual way of thinking. after watching his programs i always wonder what it would be like to find life on other planets, life outside the solar system, time travel etc etc. 
> 
> I for one would love to meet him. His theorys amaze me


No, haven't seen the Discovery programs....I have heard of him before, obviously a European thing, but I read a recent revalation 'that there might be life outside our solar system'..I even believe that. 
Yes S.J. I realize his condition, and he seems an amazing man but...just some Q's that were brought up in the press!
I suppose it is just the way the Media profiles people...

----------


## sandyr1

> Exactly.
> 
> Anyway seems like he is nearly more a mathematician than physicist (in early life anyway) and anyone who understands the numbers cannot deny that it is more than likely there is other life out there. Admittedly it is a very rare occurence for the planets and sun to align so perfectly to permit life but with the huge numbers of solar systems out there it nearly must have happened elsewhere.
> 
> I cannot actually believe anyone is asking if he is a fake because of this?


Am actually asking? Article in the Media about him/ fact or fiction. Nothing too complicated/ not well known here that's all....coming to our Kingdom.

----------


## Serenity

> Am actually asking? Article in the Media about him/ fact or fiction. Nothing too complicated/ not well known here that's all....coming to our Kingdom.


Can you please link to this article?

----------


## Bobinovich

> ...Admittedly it is a very rare occurence for the planets and sun to align so perfectly to permit life...


That's assuming that all lifeforms would require same or similar conditions as Earth in order to survive and evolve of course - I personally would doubt that to be the case.

----------


## Serenity

> That's assuming that all lifeforms would require same or similar conditions as Earth in order to survive and evolve of course - I personally would doubt that to be the case.


Exactly I was going to add that in my original reply.
It is likely that other lifeforms could survive in different circumstances than ours which only makes it more likely there is other life out there.

----------


## sandyr1

> Can you please link to this article?


Numerous articles...but am not getting into an arguement/ just one cannot believe one person's theory without some support.
I have a satisfactory answer thank you.........

----------


## Serenity

> Numerous articles...but am not getting into an arguement/ just one cannot get believe one person's theory without some support.
> I have a satisfactory answer thank you.........


I do not want to get into an argument. I want to see these articles.
Well I guess if they exist I will find them on google.

Hawking's theories are not just one person's theories. I doubt you would find many scientists who would disagree with most of his theories.
It has always annoyed me the way non-scientists use the fact that something is a theory to ridicule it. It's how science works. Until an idea is proven absolutely true it will be a theory. Doesn't mean it is some wacky, crazy, way out there idea.

----------


## Serenity

I have found numerous articles about Hawking's visit to Ontario but none that suggest he is a fake.
Also I am finding it hard to believe most people in Canada have not heard of him. He has worldwide best selling books and has even appeared in "The Simpsons".

----------


## fred

> Is he real or is he a fake?
> Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
> Comments if you wish!


I wouldn't believe everything he says, he gets a lot of interference from taxi cabs.

But the theory that there could be life outside our solar system doesn't seem too far fetched, statistically it is most probable that there is.

----------


## Gronnuck

> Is he real or is he a fake?
> Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
> Comments if you wish!


sandyr1 I can't understand why you have heard so little of the man.
Stephen Hawking is the greatest theoretical physicist of our generation. Have a look here 
Hawking's view of Aliens? Have a look here
His books _A Brief History of Time_ (1988) and _The Universe in a Nutshell_ (2001) were best sellers. One of the reasons he wrote them was so that ordinary people would gain better understand of what his mathematic research and theories were.

----------


## pegasus

> Is he real or is he a fake?
> Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
> Comments if you wish!


Are you planing to see hin when he comes to Canada? wasnt he the pysisist (sp) who had his theory about black holes published?  By his own admision he later said there isnt a black hole "in the absolute sense." Another whacky idea he put forward is that us humans must colinize space _or face an end to the species._ Also I have to laugh at this one ...... global warming would make earth as deadly as Venus. 
he cant beleive in life after death since he said that the human race has no future if it doesnt go into space.  ::  kinda sad methinks.

----------


## Cattach

> Is he real or is he a fake?
> Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
> Comments if you wish!


certainly not fake and one of the most brilliant minds on the planet.  If you do not know all about his wonderful theoretical discoveries which have come to pass you must be living on a different planet.  His understanding of physics and him it impinges on all of us is mind blowing.

----------


## sandyr1

> sandyr1 I can't understand why you have heard so little of the man.
> Stephen Hawking is the greatest theoretical physicist of our generation. Have a look here 
> Hawking's view of Aliens? Have a look here
> His books _A Brief History of Time_ (1988) and _The Universe in a Nutshell_ (2001) were best sellers. One of the reasons he wrote them was so that ordinary people would gain better understand of what his mathematic research and theories were.


Hiya,
Misunderstanding... I/ we have heard of him, but remember this is a whole other culture..in excess of 300 million people .e.g. in North America we cannot understand why so many people have small noisy diesel engines that costs much more than petrol engines, yes get more MPG, but the diesel is more expensive///and the Europeans cannot understand why we have such big petrol engines..V6/V8 that get 35 mpg. I am sometimes torn over where the 'Real World' is....
So getting the culture thing out of the way, I have read extensively and have always believed that there could be/ likely be life outside our World.
So when he comes out and says what I and many other people believe, it isn't such a revelation.
And being one of the 'cleverest people on the planet' and because it was on the Discovery Channel and the Simpsons & LOL' doesn't really mean that much. I am sure there are people who agree, but there are detractors. BTW....Nowhere did I say that there were any negative vibes on him coming here.
Also readable is Black Holes and Baby Universes ...&.. Long on fiction/ short on fact! 
Perhaps I put things into a different perspective.....Tariq Alli.....now a respected whatever, was part of the 'New Left'...professional agitator etc etc. Anti the US & Israel, in the 60's. I remember him when I lived in London...just an example of how we can all look at things differently and how people make up their minds. Is he good or not so good!
And.... 'One of the most brilliant minds on the Planet'? Perhaps/ perhaps not/ who can decide on that which is unknown.....nothing personal in this....just one's thoughts!

----------


## sandyr1

> certainly not fake and one of the most brilliant minds on the planet. If you do not know all about his wonderful theoretical discoveries which have come to pass *you must be living on a different planet.* His understanding of physics and him it impinges on all of us is mind blowing.


No. just don't take as gospel everything thats on the Discovery Channal or the Simpsons!! My turn for levity!

----------


## Serenity

> No. just don't take as gospel everything thats on the Discovery Channal or the Simpsons!! My turn for levity!


Please don't twist my words. I never said you should take everything said on the Simpsons as gospel, I said it would imply he is well known around the world. I thought you were saying he wasn't, so sorry if I misunderstood but I am struggling to understand what you are saying. Maybe if I could read one of these articles I would understand.

----------


## sandyr1

> Please don't twist my words. I never said you should take everything said on the Simpsons as gospel, I said it would imply he is well known around the world. I thought you were saying he wasn't, so sorry if I misunderstood but I am struggling to understand what you are saying. Maybe if I could read one of these articles I would understand.


No offence meant and my comment was 'for fun'.....just that we all have different views...The Media can make or destroy a person. Am saying that I personally keep an open mind.......and was wondering about him, but obviously he is lauded in the UK/ we shall see how he does here.....


Perhaps I should not have used the word "FAKE". Seems to get most people in a wrangle!.. BELIEVABLE might be better.....s
Have to Exit now/ Golfing calls.....

----------


## crayola

I met Stephen several years ago and asked him about the importance of the golden ratio in his work. The putdown I received from him was not very enjoyable.  :Frown:

----------


## Sara Jevo

what's "golden ratio" about?

----------


## crayola

Golden ratio

----------


## Kodiak

> Is he real or is he a fake?
> Seems his latest theory is that there could be life outside our solar system?
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...
> Comments if you wish!


Just for you here is a list of Stephen Hawkin's Awards. I do not believe a Fake would ever get such awards year after year, so I do believe he is genuine.

Steven Hawkin CH,CBE,FRS,FRSA

1975 Eddington Medal1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal      Society1979 Albert Einstein Medal1981 Franklin Medal1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)1985 Gold Medal of the      Royal Astronomical Society1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences1988 Wolf Prize in Physics1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord1989 Companion of Honour1999 Julius Edgar      Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society2003 Michelson Morley Award      of Case Western Reserve University2006 Copley Medal of the Royal      Society2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela2009 Presidential Medal of      Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States



If you do not know what Stephen looks like here is a Picture that was taken of him during a press conference in 2006 in France.

----------


## Gronnuck

Stephen Hawking must be famous - not everyone is the subject of a Lego model!

----------


## sandyr1

> I met Stephen several years ago and asked him about the importance of the golden ratio in his work. The putdown I received from him was not very enjoyable.


Firstly thank you to those who sent the pics. I do know who he is and have watched him in action. I guess what made me think was that there was an article stating that he felt there was possibly life outside our World, and I thought Dahhhhhhhhhhhhh....I accept that, and then some articles ..e.g. Long on fiction/ Short on fact and he was coming to Canada to put forth his views...I suppose I came at it from a different angle than you guys/girls....I am sure that time will test his theories.....
Now to a more interesting topic...

Crayola.....please tell us more if you wish....sounds neat. Da Vinci stuff!

----------


## rich

His presence on the London campus will be hugely important for the university fund-raising machine. That's why they want him, even if he stays for a few months only every year.

Basically they just need  to wheel the guy out and the big donors will cough up.

Nice work if you can get it.

(Note, I am not disparaging his work which is clearly superb.)

----------


## rich

And that should of course be Hawking - not the guy from Treasure Island...

----------


## Leanne

Stephen Hawkin has put forward a theory as to _how_ it is possible for life to evolve on other planets. There are lots of people who believe that life exists on other planets, in a similar manner to how people believe in divinities, but this is the first time (AFAIK) that there has been plausable reasoning rather than just faith.

The divine ratio is a fascinating occurance. Isn't there a huge prize for whoever solves the riddle? My personal theory is that it's relevence in botany is that the number comes from the angles derived from interactions between cellulose fibres and polysaccarides - in a similar manner to how honeycombs are formed (which also fit the ratio  :Smile:  )

----------


## Sara Jevo

> Golden ratio


Sorry . . . My head started to hurt after about 10 seconds lolol    ::

----------


## Boozeburglar

> I met Stephen several years ago and asked him about the importance of the golden ratio in his work. The putdown I received from him was not very enjoyable.


I had a child with him. How a supposed genius cannot work out basic contraception I will never know.

----------


## Leanne

> I met Stephen several years ago and asked him about the importance of the golden ratio in his work. The putdown I received from him was not very enjoyable.


What did he say?

I had a blonde moment on the train last weekend. I was reading a book and all through it the Stephen Hawking was little voice in my head that reads to me (do you hear your own voice when you read or someone elses? They say that dyslexics don't hear any voice which is why reading can be so difficult - but thats a thread for another day). Anyway I got near the end of the book, all the way hearing the metallic voice we are so familiar with, then realised I was reading Richard Dawkins not Stephen Hawkin. In the words of Homer (the cartoon character not the ancient guy) DUH!!

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Richard Dawkins


Now there IS a fake!

 :Smile:

----------


## sandyr1

> Stephen Hawkin has put forward a theory as to _how_ it is possible for life to evolve on other planets. There are lots of people who believe that life exists on other planets, in a similar manner to how people believe in divinities, but this is the first time (AFAIK) that there has been plausable reasoning rather than just faith.
> 
> The divine ratio is a fascinating occurance. Isn't there a huge prize for whoever solves the riddle? My personal theory is that it's relevence in botany is that the number comes from the angles derived from interactions between cellulose fibres and polysaccarides - in a similar manner to how honeycombs are formed (which also fit the ratio  )


Between you 'Trotting' and Thumper 'Thumping', and now poor Sara Jevo's poor head 'Hurting', this is becoming an interesting experience...tks.....s

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Another whacky idea he put forward is that us humans must colinize space _or face an end to the species._


Makes sense, at the rate we're reproducing the planet will not be able to support us so we need to find somewhere else.

----------


## Leanne

> Now there IS a fake!


I'm halfway through - first thing I have read of his - and the jury is still out. There are 5 points in the book (so far) that I really disagree with. i'm going to write to him and as for clarification  :Wink:  There is one part where he claims 'it has to be so because there is no alternative' - well I can think of at least 2  :Wink:  He's a bit like a lot of the people - appears to talk sense on the surface but there are holes if you know where to look. But then I have to keep in mind, he is just recounting others findings, none of it is original thought. It's the Greastest Show on Earth that I am reading, not the God Delusion. I'm fed up of all the religion conspiracies. Religion may be an ass but a lot of people take comfort from it so who are we to deny them that?

----------


## Moira

> Is he real or is he a fake?....
> 
> He is coming to Canada to educate us heathens...


Sandyr1, I can't quite believe you asked this question before checking some of the facts out for yourself.

He is??   May everything, including the stars,  be with him and you.   :Smile:

----------


## sandyr1

> Sandyr1, I can't quite believe you asked this question before checking some of the facts out for yourself.
> 
> He is?? May everything, including the stars, be with him and you.


Am unsure what your comment means.....yes I knew about him/ yes I have read some of his 'stuff'/ yes he is rather well known, but not quite sure he is a 'God'. I did say that someome recently published a revelation that came from his lips....that there could possibly be some form of life outside our World...Well again...Duhhhhhhhhhhh. To me that is a given...
As I mentioned, I look at it with some objectivity and because he can make a couple of predictions that does not make him totally unfallible.
So I wanted to see what other, perhaps better read people than me, thought on the subject...and I got it!
Am glad I asked the Q as I am better acquainted with this subject.
These informative threads are really good, and we can all learn from them.
John Little started one on I think '45'. Most interesting.
The World is full of wonderful 'stars'! Tks.....

----------


## pegasus

Topical read ......

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunder...ing-davies.htm

----------


## sandyr1

> Topical read ......
> 
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunder...ing-davies.htm


Thanks..I would say more than Topical....Required!

----------


## pegasus

> Sandyr1, I can't quite believe you asked this question before checking some of the facts out for yourself.
> 
> He is?? May everything, including the stars, be with him and you.


 must say i dont know what youre on about either

----------


## pegasus

> Thanks..I would say more than Topical....Required!


  :: 
i dont know what stephen hawking has done. i know hes famous but thats mainlky due to his physical considtion i think. Black holes and big bang? they were other peoples ideas anyway. not that i believe either of em

----------


## Boozeburglar

> i know hes famous but thats mainlky due to his physical considtion i think.


Zen idiocy.

----------


## pegasus

> Zen idiocy.


 whats that a kind of kung fu?

----------


## Boozeburglar

An art you master by mastering nothing.

----------


## rich

The ORG is not fooled by Stephen Hawking.

Delicious!!!!!

----------


## Aaldtimer

A giant attacked by minnows!  :: 
Carl Sagan said much the same thing around quarter of a century ago! ::

----------


## sandyr1

Re read Sagan's Bio... Didn't say anything about fish...Minnows?

----------


## sandyr1

> The ORG is not fooled by Stephen Hawking.
> 
> Delicious!!!!!


A Q...Do you believe everything you read? Is there no room for thought? Or doth thou agree? It's the Sabbath!

----------


## Aaldtimer

> Re read Sagan's Bio... Didn't say anything about fish...Minnows?


I'm referring to the idiots who are posting questioning Stephen Hawking's credentials!

Carl Sagan mooted the possibility of extra terrestials decades ago.

----------


## rich

Sandy when it comes to credulousness I yield to nobody.

I believe the Maple Leafs will win the Stanley cup next year.

The heavenly bodies are aligned........on our side.

There now, I've said it!

----------


## fred

> Another whacky idea he put forward is that us humans must colinize space _or face an end to the species._ Also I have to laugh at this one ...... global warming would make earth as deadly as Venus.


If you do the maths both are true. If it will happen or not is another matter but mathematically if we continue as we are that is what to expect.

----------


## horseman

How in the name of creation can any normal person do s-hawkings math? No such animal, an if fred persists with this one -I will have to question his judgement!

----------


## _Ju_

> Numerous articles...but am not getting into an arguement/ just one cannot believe one person's theory without some support.
> I have a satisfactory answer thank you.........


What would _one_ consider adequate support? Accolades of his collegues and fellow scientists? Physically verifiable proof that the numbers are right? Personal verification? 

What exactly do you mean by fake, because I for one, do not understand the question that yo seem to have had satisfactorily answered already?

----------


## fred

> How in the name of creation can any normal person do s-hawkings math? No such animal, an if fred persists with this one -I will have to question his judgement!


The maths is quite simple. If something increases by a percentage of itself in a given time period then it is an exponential increase. Something which increases by 7% per year doubles every 10 years. Draw it on a graph and it's not long before the line approaches vertical.

----------


## mrlennie

I'm interested, what is increasing by 7% per year? Sorry if it has been answered but I can't find it.

----------


## fred

> I'm interested, what is increasing by 7% per year? Sorry if it has been answered but I can't find it.


That is just an example I picked because it results in a doubling each 10 years. 7% sounds a small amount but it's the grains of rice on the chess board principle at play. With time that small amount results in a huge difference.

Many things are increasing by a percentage each year our system depends on expansion to exist. Many things in this world are finite continuous expansion can not be sustained indefinitely.

If the population of the world were to continue increasing at it's present rate it would be double in under 60 years, quadruple in the next 60 years, 8 times in the next 60, 16 in the next. An annual increase of just over 1% results in 16 times as many people in just 240 years. Obviously the population of the world can not continue to rise at it's present rate.

----------


## Leanne

> i dont know what stephen hawking has done. i know hes famous but thats mainlky due to his physical considtion i think. Black holes and big bang? they were other peoples ideas anyway. not that i believe either of em


Hmmm....

Stephen Hawkin didn't invent black hole theory - he is famous for questioning it and discovering paradoxes. He has revolutionised how black holes are thought about.

----------


## mrlennie

I see, this rings a bell. What do you think the solution is? It seems to me many scientists bring problems to the table but not so many solutions...

----------


## Leanne

> It seems to me many scientists bring problems to the table but not so many solutions...


What a bizarre thing to say. There are hundreds of thousands (arbitary number) of discoveries and solutions that have been found over the years. There are some concepts that are too complex for even the greatest of minds to unravel with today's limited knowledge. Why negate the achievements of the past - help create the achievements of the future.

----------


## mrlennie

Which part was a bizarre thing to say? It seems like your last sentance agreed with me...There is a flip side to science, WMD's and nuclear energy.

----------


## Leanne

> Which part was a bizarre thing to say? It seems like your last sentance agreed with me...There is a flip side to science, WMD's and nuclear energy.


The bizarre thing to say is that scientist bring problems not solutions. There are lots of solutions found...

I don't agree with you in the last sentence, I am stating that there as some principles that are not yet understood - not understanding something is not creating a problem???

Nuclear energy is not a bad thing - it is the way forward for sustainable energy. The unfortunate problem with so many of the renewable energy sources is that they have an environmental impact in building them in the first place. For example it would take many thousands of wind turbines to generate the amount of energy that a nuclear plant can produce in a day. The environmental cost from the concrete production alone to build said turbines would have a huge environmental cost. Concrete production is one of the most un-ecologically sound building methods.

Nuclear energy is currently difficult to contain and dispose of but a scientist's way of thinking would be to find a way to control the energy in a safer way and make the byproducts safer, not to discount it as a source because in it's current form it's dangerous. Nuclear energy could be a brilliant way of sterilisation. For example used surgical devices could be lowered into an underground chamber filled with nuclear waste. After a period of time they could them be moved to a non-nuclear area and decontaminated (how, I haven't thought of - I'll let someone else do that). Normal sterilisation is done by heat under pressure - this very process has an environmental burden. Using a 'free', 'readymade' source such as radiation would be more ecologically friendly for this reason. Radiation sterilisation would also allow plastic devices to be sterilised instead of disposed of. Who knows if this is even possible - I'm just opening my imagination to other possibilities.

WMD - yeah I agree. Their current use is horrific. How could we turn them around to make them more useful? We could aim them at an asteroid on a collision course with earth - that would be useful. I'm sure there are less farfetched uses though  :Wink:

----------


## mrlennie

> How could we turn them around to make them more useful? We could aim them at an asteroid on a collision course with earth - that would be useful. I'm sure there are less farfetched uses though


 :Smile:  Your right!!! 

But if you look back at my original post you will see I said "many scientists" not all. I love a lot of the work many scientists do and wish I had more time to read up on it but anyway I hope I made myself slightly more clearer  ::

----------


## mrlennie

> Nuclear energy could be a brilliant way of sterilisation. For example used surgical devices could be lowered into an underground chamber filled with nuclear waste. After a period of time they could them be moved to a non-nuclear area and decontaminated (how, I haven't thought of - I'll let someone else do that). Normal sterilisation is done by heat under pressure - this very process has an environmental burden. Using a 'free', 'readymade' source such as radiation would be more ecologically friendly for this reason. Radiation sterilisation would also allow plastic devices to be sterilised instead of disposed of.


Very interesting by the way. Thanks for bringing it to my attention...now i just need some glowing rocks :P

----------


## Cattach

> No. just don't take as gospel everything thats on the Discovery Channal or the Simpsons!! My turn for levity!


Have not seen the Discovery Channel for ages and never watched the Simpsons.  But I do listen to the news, read the papers and have a great interest in Science so can fully appreciate the wonderful work of Stephen Hawings.  Still cannot comprehend that people do not know of him and his work.  But then I guess there are folk on this planet but not aware of what and who is important on this planet.

----------


## Leanne

> But if you look back at my original post you will see I said "many scientists" not all


Yeah it was the 'many scientists' that bothered me... How many do we need to be classed as many? A number or a proportion? How big a number would we need to be classed as many? Shall we take 5000 as an arbitrary figure. It's 'many' to me. I have killed 'many' docks today with weedkiller - probably about 5000  :Wink: .

I registered in 2003 and my number is 45725 - the numbers increase with time so in 2003 there were over fortyfive thousand biomedical scientists. That is not taking into account clinical scientists or research scientists. For argument's sake lets just triple my number to cover them all. That gives us 135,000 scientists in the UK alone. 5000 doesn't seem very many now...

Or did you mean another definition of many?

So which is many? The many that that create problems or the many that you love the work of? They surely can't both be many? I'm none the wiser by your explanation  ::

----------


## mrlennie

I would still say many scientists. All specialising in one field. The field of problem creating. All scientists in the field of problem solving don't bug me at all.

----------


## Leanne

> All specialising in one field. The field of problem creating.


Again hmmmm. How does one set out on a career of creating problems? Why would one do that? What value is their in it?

For every experiment that succeeds, many fail. An experimental failure isn't a failure in the traditional sense of the word - it is just an impasse that results in a 180 round-turn which puts you on the right track again. I'll take your example of nuclear energy - yes it has it's horrific side, but just think how many lives have been saved from cancer due to radiotherapy.

Albert Einstein may have said "If only I had been a watchmaker" but maybe he should have wished to have been in the field of medicine...

----------


## mrlennie

Maybe its not their career but their motive. If you look back to what I was referring to it was to do with the seemingly gargantuan problem of over population. Something like in 100 years theres not going to be enough room to open an envelope.

Why would one do such a thing? To me it appears to be money or power. I noticed on the swine flu thread someone believed it to be a conspiracy. I do not have any of the facts but I can believe a similar case has happened or will happen in the near future.

----------


## Serenity

> Maybe its not their career but their motive. If you look back to what I was referring to it was to do with the seemingly gargantuan problem of over population. Something like in 100 years theres not going to be enough room to open an envelope.
> 
> Why would one do such a thing? To me it appears to be money or power. I noticed on the swine flu thread someone believed it to be a conspiracy. *I do not have any of the facts but I can believe a similar case has happened or will happen in the near future.*


This does not make sense to me. How can you have an opinion or belief in something if you don't know anything about it?

----------


## Leanne

> Maybe its not their career but their motive.


As a scientist, with scientists' motives I disagree with this as a motive. Maybe it says more about you own way of thinking than how scientists think?

Scientists' minds work to answer questions. Politicians and big-business twist these answers to their own means - as could have happened with the swine flu thing (or maybe not - who knows but those directly involved). No scientist worth their salt would deliberately set out to provide misinformation. There may be a few, just like there are a few people who work with animals who mistreat them, but they are by no means the 'many'.

----------


## mrlennie

I totally agree with you about politicians and big business - although I'm sure many would raise the objection you raised with me (And you included *all* politicians and big business) 

Maybe it says more about you own way of thinking than how scientists think? Wow that could be considered quite offensive - Maybe it says more about how I've been treated?

Scientists' minds work to answer questions. This makes most people - including myself - a scientist.

----------


## Leanne

> Scientists' minds work to answer questions. This makes most people - including myself - a scientist.


Exactly! People are born scientist. Children are the best. It is us, as adults, that stifle the young mind. How many parents get fed up of answering the 'But why?' question? I'm not even a parent yet and I do  :Wink: 

I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment. As I scientist myself I was offended by some of your own comments - two wrongs don't make a right and it was wrong of me to do so. As a scientist I wondered how you were qualified to know how scientists minds work and rationalised it that it is how your own mind works as a non-scientist - I stand corrected though  :Smile:

----------


## sandyr1

> I'm referring to the idiots who are posting questioning Stephen Hawking's credentials!
> 
> Carl Sagan mooted the possibility of extra terrestials decades ago.


I note with interest your intelligent reply...
Moot......Academic Interest, questionable, speculative et cetera!
Still don't know what you mean/ perhaps it's the caption under your posts that is affecting you.....
Seems I understand most other posts and many of them being excellent. I have learned a lot and am sure other people have as well......

----------


## sandyr1

> What would _one_ consider adequate support? Accolades of his collegues and fellow scientists? Physically verifiable proof that the numbers are right? Personal verification? 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by fake, because I for one, do not understand the question that yo seem to have had satisfactorily answered already?


I corrected my word Fake to Believable! It seems that most people blindly believe that he is a genious, so I have the answer.. Most people believe that he is 'The Man'!
My only further thought was a caption on his work....Long on Fiction, Short on Fact!...

----------


## mrlennie

> Exactly! People are born scientist. Children are the best. It is us, as adults, that stifle the young mind. How many parents get fed up of answering the 'But why?' question? I'm not even a parent yet and I do 
> 
> I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment. As I scientist myself I was offended by some of your own comments - two wrongs don't make a right and it was wrong of me to do so. As a scientist I wondered how you were qualified to know how scientists minds work and rationalised it that it is how your own mind works as a non-scientist - I stand corrected though


I am sorry if I offended you I did not realise! I can see that what i said could be hurtful and I would now word it "many so called scientists". 

Would that be more correct in your view?

----------


## Leanne

> I am sorry if I offended you I did not realise! I can see that what i said could be hurtful and I would now word it "many so called scientists". 
> 
> Would that be more correct in your view?


Yeah that will suffice  :Smile: 

I think we should point people in the direction of these few posts - it doesn't need to turn into a slanging match - we can both be right. We have both been offended, both questioned each other's posts yet still there is an amicable end to it  :Smile: 

Just good repped you x

----------


## mrlennie

> Yeah that will suffice 
> 
> I think we should point people in the direction of these few posts - it doesn't need to turn into a slanging match - we can both be right. We have both been offended, both questioned each other's posts yet still there is an amicable end to it 
> 
> Just good repped you x


Of course! as long as I'm more right  :Wink:  It was a good exchange! :Grin:

----------


## sandyr1

> Of course! as long as I'm more right  It was a good exchange!


Wow...lots of personal interaction appearing!

----------


## sandyr1

Rich...I see on another thread you are calling this one 'preposterous'!
I thought in your line of work you would know what 'spin' was and I am sure there is lots of it involved with your Hero...As you said yourself this acquisition will make the $'s appear!

----------


## rich

Curses! You have exposed me as a spin doctor. Well there goes my cover...

Back to Hawking. I recently read this book - below - not as part of my spin doctoring. I  strongly recommend it. 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31974468/

----------


## mrlennie

> This does not make sense to me. How can you have an opinion or belief in something if you don't know anything about it?


I thought it was common knowledge that things like these occurred?

I meant I have none of the facts of the swine flu case.

----------


## rich

The world according to Hawking

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_a..._a/219854.html

----------


## pegasus

*We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.*


does he ever come out with any science? or just audience pleasiers like this?

----------


## Leanne

> *“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”*
> 
> 
> does he ever come out with any science? or just audience pleasiers like this?


He sometimes comes out with little corkers like this.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-paradox.html

I'm not a big fan of that quote as we are not an advanced breed of monkeys (or of apes for that matter) but of something more primeval that evolved into us, apes and monkeys.

Edit - I've quoted New Scientist as it explains it somewhere between physicist and layman level. His actual paper, though fascinating, needs about 12 cups of coffee and a pack of headache tablets to get you through it. Oh and a physics - english translation...

----------


## crayola

> What did he say?


Oh gosh I don't remember exactly but it was something about it not being important enough to bother about.




> I had a blonde moment on the train last weekend. I was reading a book and all through it the Stephen Hawking was little voice in my head that reads to me (do you hear your own voice when you read or someone elses? They say that dyslexics don't hear any voice which is why reading can be so difficult - but thats a thread for another day). Anyway I got near the end of the book, all the way hearing the metallic voice we are so familiar with, then realised I was reading Richard Dawkins not Stephen Hawkin. In the words of Homer (the cartoon character not the ancient guy) DUH!!


Good grief did you really read a whole Dawkins book in a Hawking accent? That would be quite an achievement. I'm loving it.  ::

----------


## pegasus

> He sometimes comes out with little corkers like this.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-paradox.html
> 
> I'm not a big fan of that quote as we are not an advanced breed of monkeys (or of apes for that matter) but of something more primeval that evolved into us, apes and monkeys.
> 
> Edit - I've quoted New Scientist as it explains it somewhere between physicist and layman level. His actual paper, though fascinating, needs about 12 cups of coffee and a pack of headache tablets to get you through it. Oh and a physics - english translation...


 thanks for that. so his own work created a contradiciton and then he changes his mind and so removes the condtradiction.is this a genius?

----------


## Leanne

> thanks for that. so his own work created a contradiciton and then he changes his mind and so removes the condtradiction.is this a genius?


That's science for you. He proved black holes exist (in a quantum sense) but is now revising some of his theories about how they behave. There's nothing wrong with that. At least he admitted he was wrong instead of leaving us with the falsehood to save face...

----------


## pegasus

> That's science for you. He proved black holes exist (in a quantum sense) but is now revising some of his theories about how they behave. There's nothing wrong with that. At least he admitted he was wrong instead of leaving us with the falsehood to save face...


 well not quite. you can not prove that something exists from squigglkes on a piece of paper. whether black holes exist or not i dont know and niether does he 
bu8t at least this stuff is more interesting than monkeyus flying thro space ::

----------


## Leanne

> well not quite. you can not prove that something exists from squigglkes on a piece of paper.


Hence the word quantum - we can predict how it might behave based on the laws of quantum physics.

Edit - tried to describe quantum physics and failed - anyone want to have a go?

----------


## sandyr1

Well guys and Girls (And I can never tell who is what from the monikers), as I started this Subject I would like to express my thanks to all who contributed. 
It has been a learning experience and I still have a bunch to read. 'Tis quite a diverse World, and its Sunday nite. 
BYE4NOW ....Licence plate of a Turbo Carrera that passed me the other day. Am watching the 'Foxes' & the 'US' get a roasting.

----------


## Aaldtimer

> *We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.*
> 
> 
> does he ever come out with any science? or just audience pleasiers like this?


I refer you to Kodiak's post #24, do you think he would get these awards for "audience pleasiers" (sic) ? ::

----------


## pegasus

> I refer you to Kodiak's post #24, do you think he would get these awards for "audience pleasiers" (sic) ?


 
There are lots of poeple who have done _much more_ work. Dr. Hawkins fits the media stereotype.s Just because he has been given so many awards doesnt make him one of the *greatest* scientists. The hype that surounds him is really exagerated.
Whoops almost forgot to mention that he hasnt won the Nobel prize!  :Wink:

----------


## Boozeburglar

> The hype that surounds him is really exagerated.


Unlike normal hype?

----------


## pegasus

> Unlike normal hype?


  :Smile: 

maybe i should have oput hip hype

----------


## Leanne

> There are lots of poeple who have done _much more_ work. Dr. Hawkins fits the media stereotype.s Just because he has been given so many awards doesnt make him one of the *greatest* scientists. The hype that surounds him is really exagerated.
> Whoops almost forgot to mention that he hasnt won the Nobel prize!


Who has done more? You ask me for proof but fail to provide it yourself.

If I were a research scientist I would rather have a phenomena named after me than the nobel prize - that way your name lives on forever.

I wonder sometimes if the fact he hasn't won the nobel prize for physics is due to his popularity and a bit of colleague jealousy...

----------


## pegasus

> Who has done more? You ask me for proof but fail to provide it yourself.
> 
> If I were a research scientist I would rather have a phenomena named after me than the nobel prize - that way your name lives on forever.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if the fact he hasn't won the nobel prize for physics is due to his popularity and a bit of colleague jealousy...


 Jack Kilby?

----------


## Leanne

> Jack Kilby?


But it wasn't complete novel thought - the microchip had already been invented; it didn't take much to take this one step further. There were also others that won the prize jointly with him.

Jack St Clair Kilby is a technologist not a physicist - he won the nobel prize for technological advancement for his (and others) work in the use of semiconductors and his integrated circuit which is actually a subset of the nobel prize for physics. It's amazing what you can find on a google search  :Smile:  

I believe Stephen Hawkin has 12 nomination for the Nobel Prize for physics though I am unable to substantiate this as the Nobel website doesn't list nominations and any other site is just second hand info really (just as this is lol)

----------


## pegasus

> But it wasn't complete novel thought - the microchip had already been invented; it didn't take much to take this one step further. There were also others that won the prize jointly with him.
> 
> Jack St Clair Kilby is a technologist not a physicist - he won the nobel prize for technological advancement for his (and others) work in the use of semiconductors and his integrated circuit which is actually a subset of the nobel prize for physics. It's amazing what you can find on a google search  
> 
> I believe Stephen Hawkin has 12 nomination for the Nobel Prize for physics though I am unable to substantiate this as the Nobel website doesn't list nominations and any other site is just second hand info really (just as this is lol)


 hawking would not have his voice if it wasnt for kilby.

you claim that kilby was not a physisict.  ::  he won the Nobel prize in physics doidnt he?

----------


## Leanne

> you claim that kilby was not a physisict.  he won the Nobel prize in physics doidnt he?


Yeah but it's just a shame they don't have a separate Nobel Prize for advancements in technology - instead it is lumped in with Physics, whether they are true physicists or not  :Frown:  There are discussions at the moment to have a separate Nobel prize completely for advancements in technology, thus allowing pure science to keep the Physics, Chemistry and Biology prizes.

----------


## pegasus

> Yeah but it's just a shame they don't have a separate Nobel Prize for advancements in technology - instead it is lumped in with Physics, whether they are true physicists or not  There are discussions at the moment to have a separate Nobel prize completely for advancements in technology, thus allowing pure science to keep the Physics, Chemistry and Biology prizes.


I reckon that anyone who wins the Npbel Prize for physics can be called a _physisist._

----------


## Leanne

> I reckon that anyone who wins the Npbel Prize for physics can be called a _physisist._


I rekon that they should do another Nobel prize so people who aren't physicist in the strictest sense of the word can earn a prize worthy of them. It's a bit like me entering a horse show with a thoroughbred and winning a highland pony class. I'd be much happier with an achievement where I was judged against my own kind.

----------


## Boozeburglar

I will never forget the time Hawking and I were out on the razz the night before he addressed a NASA Convention at the Kennedy Space Centre. We were staying at Disney World. Steve has 'Elvis' privileges at all the Disney locations, (in return for some consultant work on cryogenics he is keeping on ice for now), so he has nocturnal access to all the rides. After the twentieth visit to the Hall of Mirrors we returned to the hotel, whereupon Steve decided to download some rock classics on his lappy while we got settled in at the bar. I warned him he needed to update his firewall and virus software before using the wi fi for any peer to peer. He reminded me he was my intellectual superior and Godlike to many, and went ahead disregarding my advice.

We emptied the bar that night to the hoary beat of Kiss, and trashed the room to the drum roar of Golden Earring. It was fun on an epic scale, although there was some embarrassment when Steve tried to drive his wheelchair into the pool at sunrise and grounded it on the rockery. Still, I suppose it was very rock and roll, until she was truly stuck fast.

Hawking clean wrong and starkers was not the first sight of Florida the Japanese contingent expected as they arrived fresh off their jet to join us for breakfast!

Fair play to them, they assumed it was the custom and were soon all sitting around the rockery nude drinking our stash of Highland Park. 

I felt bad when I realised the rockery was mainly populated with cactus. Didn't seem to bother the Japanese though; in fact I would say they enjoyed that aspect!

Amusement over, we barged our way through the hordes of bairns asking, "Hey mister, ain't you hot in that suit?", and motored over to the Space Centre.

We were well late, and I was beginning to worry my pal was not best prepared to address all those luminaries attending.

"Stevey biy, are ye sure you want to go ahead? Ye can cry off wi the usual medical excuses!", I inquired.

 "Nae bither man, I have it all set up in Powerpoint, I'll take my usual nap while I play it back. Used the same guff for months, a real crowd pleaser! Yon chil from that one hit wonder band cannae touch me! "Things Can Only Get Better"?? He's having a laff! Doesn't he know wur all doomed??? How they are lettin they regional accents on e science shows? I just dinnae unnerstand. Things are changin man, and no for the better!"

"OK, if you're sure."

Ladies and gentlemen! Please welcome one of the greatest minds in history, Professor Stephen Hawking!!!!!! (Some were looking bewildered when I said Hawking, I am sure they were expecting me to say Fry.)

Anyhow, Steve trundled out to do his thing.

"In the FFFFFFF..........beginning, FFFFFFFFF............."

You could have heard a pin drop, even in space!

I am afraid the rest of the speech is unrepeatable on a family orientated site.

 Let this be a warning! Not only is peer to peer illegal when you are sharing copyright material, unless you are very careful you are opening yourself up to all sorts of nasties such as the Gilles de la Tourette virus.

On the bright side, Steve was at last able to vocalize exactly what state he considers we will be in if we do not colonize space!

----------


## Leanne

BB - next time you go out can I play too? I've just had a delivery of 2 cases of wine - I can supply the pre-night tipple  :Wink:

----------


## pegasus

Since there is no device which can process your thouhgts its baffling how that voice thingy works? I havent seen Dr Hawkins tyoing, somehow the software responds to the movement in his eye and cheek muscles. Pretty advanced or what? When he is being interviewed the answers must be repared beforehand? Just a thought .....  ::

----------


## pegasus

> I rekon that they should do another Nobel prize so people who aren't physicist in the strictest sense of the word can earn a prize worthy of them. It's a bit like me entering a horse show with a thoroughbred and winning a highland pony class. I'd be much happier with an achievement where I was judged against my own kind.


 i finds it strange that you wont just give up when youre in the wrong. a nobel prize winner in physics isnt a physisist cause you say so?  ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> Since there is no device which can process your thouhgts its baffling how that voice thingy works? I havent seen Dr Hawkins tyoing, somehow the software responds to the movement in his eye and cheek muscles. Pretty advanced or what?


Yep, pretty advanced. Probably even more advanced than your own neural network, going by your posts on here.

----------


## pegasus

> Yep, pretty advanced. Probably even more advanced than your own neural network, going by your posts on here.


 youre the one who keeps sending me red cards with nasty wee cooments.

get a life sonny

----------


## Metalattakk

> youre the one who keeps sending me red cards with nasty wee cooments.


'Keeps'? I've told you a million times not to over-exaggerate.

And if the cap fits...

----------


## George Brims

> Let this be a warning! Not only is peer to peer illegal when you are sharing copyright material, unless you are very careful you are opening yourself up to all sorts of nasties such as the Gilles de la Tourette virus.


Nice one BB! In the good old days of minicomputers like the VAX, we would find it amusing to "Marvinize" a colleague's account. Every typed command would get a response from Marvin the Paranoid Android. "Really. Brain the size of a planet, and you want me to do that?"

----------


## Boozeburglar

> In the good old days of minicomputers like the VAX


If only I had known!

We just used ours to clean the carpets.

 :Wink:

----------


## George Brims

> If only I had known!
> 
> We just used ours to clean the carpets.


Aha! We used to stick ads for the VAX cleaners on the side of the computers, along with the slide rule in a fake glass box marked "In event of power cut, break glass".

----------


## George Brims

Here's what will happen if we follow Hawking's suggestion and go off to colonize the other planets.

http://vimeo.com/12079648

----------


## Leanne

> Here's what will happen if we follow Hawking's suggestion and go off to colonize the other planets.
> 
> http://vimeo.com/12079648


Venus is a more likely option...

----------


## Boozeburglar

Whatever happens I am sure the first application of colonizing will be the removal of undesirables.

So perhaps I will be up there somewhere soon.

----------

