| |
Main
Date: 21 May 2007 23:31:27
From: Sajeeb
Subject: About Hockings
|
Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 18:12:57
From: Bullseye
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On 21 May 2007 23:31:27 -0700, Sajeeb <sanish.1424@gmail.com > wrote:
>Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
>dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
>arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
Which scientists can't explain.
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 18:58:31
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On 2007-05-22, Bullseye <bulls@ei.com > wrote:
>
> His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
> opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
> Which scientists can't explain.
Perhaps it's just you weren't listening. There was no _before_
the big bang. This is covered in pretty much any text on the
subject.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
|
| | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 23:22:01
From: Bullseye
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:58:31 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
<andrews@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote:
>On 2007-05-22, Bullseye <bulls@ei.com> wrote:
>>
>> His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
>> opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
>> Which scientists can't explain.
>
>Perhaps it's just you weren't listening. There was no _before_
>the big bang. This is covered in pretty much any text on the
>subject.
Wrong. Just because they don't know what happened before the Big Bang
doesn't mean they've got it all figured out.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 10:58:14
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On 2007-05-22, Bullseye <bulls@ei.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:58:31 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
><andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps it's just you weren't listening. There was no _before_
>>the big bang. This is covered in pretty much any text on the
>>subject.
>
> Wrong. Just because they don't know what happened before the Big Bang
> doesn't mean they've got it all figured out.
It is as I said: time started at the big bang. Therefore was no
'before'. Why don't you try _reading_ "Hockings"' book before
dismissing it?
I'm aware that this concept may appear strange or even absurd at
first sight. It's so far removed from our day to day experience
and understanding of time maybe that's inevitable. But the difficulty
there lies with your head and your preconceptions, _not_ the theory.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 20:23:32
From: TMA
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 17:11:09
From: Bullseye
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:23:32 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote:
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/
>
From the guy himself. He has the balls to say he was wrong about black
holes. But don't tell that to these guys cause scientists have it all
figured out.
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 14:47:37
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Bullseye" <bulls@ei.com > wrote in message
news:4jc653hgahttcq30l2urf5au15ui5r06r2@4ax.com...
> On 21 May 2007 23:31:27 -0700, Sajeeb <sanish.1424@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> >dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> >arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
>
>
> His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
> opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
> Which scientists can't explain.
It's not 'his' theory, but the standard theory. The Big Bang theory can
be traced back to Lemaitre in the period 1927 to 1931, and its current
formulation is the product of the contributions of many others.
If General Relativity turns out to be essentially correct in its
formulation as a theory of space and time, then time itself would
have come into existence along with everything else at the instant
of the BB, so it would not make any sense to ask (at least from the
point of view of observers in our universe) what happened before,
since there was no 'before'.
Besides, Science is not a static set of ideas. It evolves with new
evidence. Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
that one cannot eventually be found. Scientists aren't afraid to
say, "We don't know yet".
|
| | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 20:22:10
From: starburst
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
Greg Neill wrote:
>>His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
>>opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
>>Which scientists can't explain.
>
>
> It's not 'his' theory, but the standard theory. The Big Bang theory can
> be traced back to Lemaitre in the period 1927 to 1931, and its current
> formulation is the product of the contributions of many others.
>
> If General Relativity turns out to be essentially correct in its
> formulation as a theory of space and time, then time itself would
> have come into existence along with everything else at the instant
> of the BB, so it would not make any sense to ask (at least from the
> point of view of observers in our universe) what happened before,
> since there was no 'before'.
This is a dodge. While it is interesting (and logical) to consider the
idea that our conception of time is meaningless in terms of the period
before the big bang, if used the way that you are doing it ignores (or
purposely sidesteps) the more fundamental question of causation, which
has nothing to do with "time." It was for this reason that mainstream
physicists and mathematicians (including Einstein) were initially
sceptical of the big bang theory; some even into the 1960s when the
background radiation was discovered. The whole idea brought up the
unfortunate question of genesis and smacked of theology and dogma.
That question remains. There are interesting theories now about
spontaneous ex-nihilo creation, and strings and dimensions, but each
theory falls right back to Aquinas and the first cause, designed as a
rational proof of God's existence. A glib answer about time doesn't help
you make your case that a creator isn't (or wasn't) there. When Hawking
(who's flatly brilliant) makes his comment about what's north of the
north pole, it sounds a little desperate.
>
> Besides, Science is not a static set of ideas. It evolves with new
> evidence. Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
> standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
> that one cannot eventually be found. Scientists aren't afraid to
> say, "We don't know yet".
But a lot (though certainly not all) are afraid to say "we *really*
don't know" or "maybe we *can't* know."
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 21:08:17
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"starburst" <nope@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:f301h7$pob$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> Greg Neill wrote:
> >>His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
> >>opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
> >>Which scientists can't explain.
> >
> >
> > It's not 'his' theory, but the standard theory. The Big Bang theory can
> > be traced back to Lemaitre in the period 1927 to 1931, and its current
> > formulation is the product of the contributions of many others.
> >
> > If General Relativity turns out to be essentially correct in its
> > formulation as a theory of space and time, then time itself would
> > have come into existence along with everything else at the instant
> > of the BB, so it would not make any sense to ask (at least from the
> > point of view of observers in our universe) what happened before,
> > since there was no 'before'.
>
> This is a dodge. While it is interesting (and logical) to consider the
> idea that our conception of time is meaningless in terms of the period
> before the big bang, if used the way that you are doing it ignores (or
> purposely sidesteps) the more fundamental question of causation, which
> has nothing to do with "time." It was for this reason that mainstream
> physicists and mathematicians (including Einstein) were initially
> sceptical of the big bang theory; some even into the 1960s when the
> background radiation was discovered. The whole idea brought up the
> unfortunate question of genesis and smacked of theology and dogma.
>
> That question remains. There are interesting theories now about
> spontaneous ex-nihilo creation, and strings and dimensions, but each
> theory falls right back to Aquinas and the first cause, designed as a
> rational proof of God's existence. A glib answer about time doesn't help
> you make your case that a creator isn't (or wasn't) there. When Hawking
> (who's flatly brilliant) makes his comment about what's north of the
> north pole, it sounds a little desperate.
If the mathematics are correct, and at the ragged edge of investigation
we have only the mathematics as a guide, then no, it is not a dodge
but a conclusion. Just because our experience-limited intuition
demands a linear and steady continuity to time does not make it so.
>
> >
> > Besides, Science is not a static set of ideas. It evolves with new
> > evidence. Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
> > standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
> > that one cannot eventually be found. Scientists aren't afraid to
> > say, "We don't know yet".
>
> But a lot (though certainly not all) are afraid to say "we *really*
> don't know" or "maybe we *can't* know."
Fine. Name three.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 23:25:25
From: starburst
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
Greg Neill wrote:
> "starburst" <nope@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:f301h7$pob$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
>
>>Greg Neill wrote:
>>>If General Relativity turns out to be essentially correct in its
>>>formulation as a theory of space and time, then time itself would
>>>have come into existence along with everything else at the instant
>>>of the BB, so it would not make any sense to ask (at least from the
>>>point of view of observers in our universe) what happened before,
>>>since there was no 'before'.
>>
>>This is a dodge. While it is interesting (and logical) to consider the
>>idea that our conception of time is meaningless in terms of the period
>>before the big bang, if used the way that you are doing it ignores (or
>>purposely sidesteps) the more fundamental question of causation, which
>>has nothing to do with "time." It was for this reason that mainstream
>>physicists and mathematicians (including Einstein) were initially
>>sceptical of the big bang theory; some even into the 1960s when the
>>background radiation was discovered. The whole idea brought up the
>>unfortunate question of genesis and smacked of theology and dogma.
>>
>>That question remains. There are interesting theories now about
>>spontaneous ex-nihilo creation, and strings and dimensions, but each
>>theory falls right back to Aquinas and the first cause, designed as a
>>rational proof of God's existence. A glib answer about time doesn't help
>>you make your case that a creator isn't (or wasn't) there. When Hawking
>>(who's flatly brilliant) makes his comment about what's north of the
>>north pole, it sounds a little desperate.
>
>
> If the mathematics are correct, and at the ragged edge of investigation
> we have only the mathematics as a guide, then no, it is not a dodge
> but a conclusion. Just because our experience-limited intuition
> demands a linear and steady continuity to time does not make it so.
>
I've already stipulated that the concept of "before" may be irrational
due to the nature of time and the limits of the cosmos. But I am
confused by what precisely you are concluding. Are you saying that any
attempt to assign causation in the big bang is also irrational? If so,
then how do you explain your comment below:
>
>>>Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
>>>standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
>>>that one cannot eventually be found.
It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Either
we can't know, because such questions by definition concern a situation
where the fundamental laws of the universe do not apply, and thus we
cannot understand the causation and therefore any attempt to explain it
is pointless; or, we should continue to look because perhaps we might be
able to understand it, which means that at least some of the fundamental
laws of the cosmos would have to apply, in which case there might
actually be a "before."
Do you see what I mean?
Scientists aren't afraid to
>>>say, "We don't know yet".
>>
>>But a lot (though certainly not all) are afraid to say "we *really*
>>don't know" or "maybe we *can't* know."
>
>
> Fine. Name three.
>
That's sort of impossible, since I can't prove anything about something
that people don't say. It's more a sense of hubris that I get from some
scientists. But that perception is not, if you'll forgive me, very
"scientific."
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 14:21:52
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On 2007-05-23, starburst <nope@nospam.net > wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
>>
>> If the mathematics are correct, and at the ragged edge of investigation
>> we have only the mathematics as a guide, then no, it is not a dodge
>> but a conclusion. Just because our experience-limited intuition
>> demands a linear and steady continuity to time does not make it so.
>
> I've already stipulated that the concept of "before" may be irrational
> due to the nature of time and the limits of the cosmos. But I am
> confused by what precisely you are concluding. Are you saying that any
> attempt to assign causation in the big bang is also irrational? If so,
> then how do you explain your comment below:
This is an intelligent question but it also shows how difficult it
is to comprehend a situation that is so completely removed from
our day to day understanding.
Causality relates to events. Events are a change in state: they
require _time_ to occur in. If we remove time we no longer have
events, just the conditions of the non-Universe. We can temporarily
consider these to be a constant and unchanging state for the purposes
of constructing a mental model, although of course without time
those concepts are meaningless.
Now we can hopefully see that the Universe was not caused by anything
but rather it was a fundamental property of the non-Universe that
is _had_ to create a Universe. There's no question of when it
happened or what caused it to happen at that particular moment
because those concepts are time-dependent. Again, strictly for
the purposes of constructing a mental model, I've found it helpful
to consider the big bang occurring simultaneously at all points in
time in the non-Universe. That's helpful to get over the hurdle
of there being a non-Universe suddenly sprouting a Universe -
remember these concepts depend on time.
>>>But a lot (though certainly not all) are afraid to say "we *really*
>>>don't know" or "maybe we *can't* know."
>>
>> Fine. Name three.
>
> That's sort of impossible, since I can't prove anything about something
> that people don't say. It's more a sense of hubris that I get from some
> scientists. But that perception is not, if you'll forgive me, very
> "scientific."
I was about to use a famous Arthur Eddington quote above but it fits
even better here: "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine,
it is stranger than we _can_ imagine." After briefly considering a
timeless non-Universe, I think I would tend to agree.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 00:26:38
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"starburst" <nope@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:f30c8q$6q$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> Greg Neill wrote:
[snip]
> > If the mathematics are correct, and at the ragged edge of investigation
> > we have only the mathematics as a guide, then no, it is not a dodge
> > but a conclusion. Just because our experience-limited intuition
> > demands a linear and steady continuity to time does not make it so.
> >
>
> I've already stipulated that the concept of "before" may be irrational
> due to the nature of time and the limits of the cosmos. But I am
> confused by what precisely you are concluding. Are you saying that any
> attempt to assign causation in the big bang is also irrational? If so,
> then how do you explain your comment below:
>
> >
> >>>Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
> >>>standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
> >>>that one cannot eventually be found.
>
> It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Either
> we can't know, because such questions by definition concern a situation
> where the fundamental laws of the universe do not apply, and thus we
> cannot understand the causation and therefore any attempt to explain it
> is pointless; or, we should continue to look because perhaps we might be
> able to understand it, which means that at least some of the fundamental
> laws of the cosmos would have to apply, in which case there might
> actually be a "before."
>
> Do you see what I mean?
Yes. If there is some meta-physics that can be discovered that
applies to the situation then there may be a logical reason (or
"cause") for the origin of what we call the Universe, but it may
lie entirely outside of the physics that applies to our universe.
For example, if we imagine that there are "rolled up" dimensions as
some theories do, and if one or more of these compact dimensions
happens to be timelike, then there is the possibility that a
pre-Universe had "time" that was not the time dimension that we
know and love. It could be that nothing about that time dimension
bears any resemblance to what we usually think of as time, and
its interplay with space could be quite different too. What would
a universe with four time dimensions and no space dimension
look like, for example? What kind of physics could go on?
Nothing in it or about it would map onto our concept of time,
there being no timeline of our reckoning there. There would still
be no "before" in the sense that we usually mean, and asking the
physics of our current universe about it would still be meaningless.
I don't know if that helps or not! :-)
I suppose my point is that our current theories do not admit to any
extrapolation to any sort of pre-existance beyond the origin of our
spacetime, and our current theory of spacetime (General Relativity)
is proving stubbornly resiliant to all attempts to falsify it
empirically. Without some inkling of what could supersede it, we
have no basis upon which to pose any meaningful question about
things it says nothing about.
>
> Scientists aren't afraid to
> >>>say, "We don't know yet".
> >>
> >>But a lot (though certainly not all) are afraid to say "we *really*
> >>don't know" or "maybe we *can't* know."
> >
> >
> > Fine. Name three.
> >
>
> That's sort of impossible, since I can't prove anything about something
> that people don't say. It's more a sense of hubris that I get from some
> scientists. But that perception is not, if you'll forgive me, very
> "scientific."
Okay, it's just a feeling you have then, not an assertion that can
be supported with examples and evidence. That's fine. It could be
that the group of scientists that you interact with happen to have
some form of superiority complex going on. What field(s) are they
in? In my own experience I find that while the portrayal of
scientists in movies and television tend to run to the know-it-all
end of the spectrum, the ones I've met in person have generally been
pretty open about the limits of their knowledge. After all, if
they already knew everything, why would they be doing research?
|
| | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 23:27:26
From: Bullseye
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:47:37 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca > wrote:
>"Bullseye" <bulls@ei.com> wrote in message
>news:4jc653hgahttcq30l2urf5au15ui5r06r2@4ax.com...
>> On 21 May 2007 23:31:27 -0700, Sajeeb <sanish.1424@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
>> >dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
>> >arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
>>
>>
>> His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
>> opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
>> Which scientists can't explain.
>
>It's not 'his' theory, but the standard theory. The Big Bang theory can
>be traced back to Lemaitre in the period 1927 to 1931, and its current
>formulation is the product of the contributions of many others.
I believe he came up with the theory that's why he's so famous. If
there were contributions to it before he is credited with having it be
a widely accepted theory.
>
>Besides, Science is not a static set of ideas. It evolves with new
>evidence. Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
>standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
>that one cannot eventually be found. Scientists aren't afraid to
>say, "We don't know yet".
I didn't say they won't be able to find answers. They're always afraid
to say "we don't know yet", they're always like "yeah we know what
happened" and so and so, and this bullshit theory says this happened
blah blah blah. When they don't know something they keep their mouths
shut and don't explain how they don't know about something.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 11:06:27
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On 2007-05-22, Bullseye <bulls@ei.com > wrote:
>
> I believe he came up with the theory that's why he's so famous. If
> there were contributions to it before he is credited with having it be
> a widely accepted theory.
The term "big bang" was actually coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle -
the theory itself is slightly older although it has of course
evolved over time. In 1949 Stephen Hawking was 7...
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 21:03:07
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Bullseye" <bulls@ei.com > wrote in message
news:asu6535s4h9i4hou6d59vv9pr7jk6ge0hr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:47:37 -0400, "Greg Neill"
> <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Bullseye" <bulls@ei.com> wrote in message
> >news:4jc653hgahttcq30l2urf5au15ui5r06r2@4ax.com...
> >> On 21 May 2007 23:31:27 -0700, Sajeeb <sanish.1424@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> >> >dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> >> >arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
> >>
> >>
> >> His big bang theory is great but limited till the time it exploded. It
> >> opens a can of worms about what happened before and how did it happen.
> >> Which scientists can't explain.
> >
> >It's not 'his' theory, but the standard theory. The Big Bang theory can
> >be traced back to Lemaitre in the period 1927 to 1931, and its current
> >formulation is the product of the contributions of many others.
>
>
> I believe he came up with the theory that's why he's so famous. If
> there were contributions to it before he is credited with having it be
> a widely accepted theory.
No. Do some research. An uninformed opinion is specious at best.
>
> >
> >Besides, Science is not a static set of ideas. It evolves with new
> >evidence. Just because scientists don't have a generally accepted
> >standard model of the ultimate origin of everything does not mean
> >that one cannot eventually be found. Scientists aren't afraid to
> >say, "We don't know yet".
>
> I didn't say they won't be able to find answers. They're always afraid
> to say "we don't know yet", they're always like "yeah we know what
> happened" and so and so, and this bullshit theory says this happened
> blah blah blah. When they don't know something they keep their mouths
> shut and don't explain how they don't know about something.
It is apparent that you know very little about the way that
science is done, how its finding are disseminated, and what
scientists do and do not know. If you did, you would realize
that your statements are just silly.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 02:28:25
From: Bullseye
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:03:07 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca > wrote:
>No. Do some research. An uninformed opinion is specious at best.
Whatever big bang, black holes, etc. Stephen Hawking's book became a
bestseller because it tried to bring information to the layman, unlike
more scientific literature that only physicists could understand. Like
I said your just a snob. "A book written for popular consumption is no
place to expect to find in-depth overage of scientific theories.
Search the scientific literature for details." -Greg Neill
Guess what? Stephen Hawking's books are considered scientific
literature.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 23:27:11
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Bullseye" <bulls@ei.com > wrote in message
news:lc9753l048vlktjjrhi08q57uh129qfaqn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:03:07 -0400, "Greg Neill"
> <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >No. Do some research. An uninformed opinion is specious at best.
>
>
> Whatever big bang, black holes, etc. Stephen Hawking's book became a
> bestseller because it tried to bring information to the layman, unlike
> more scientific literature that only physicists could understand. Like
> I said your just a snob.
The material is available to all, and the cost of entry is
an enquiring mind and the self motivation to learn. Is
your world populated by undeserving snobs, jocks, and rich
bastards, or are you simply peeved that achievement requires
some personal effort that you've not the ambition to make?
> "A book written for popular consumption is no
> place to expect to find in-depth coverage of scientific theories.
> Search the scientific literature for details." -Greg Neill
>
> Guess what? Stephen Hawking's books are considered scientific
> literature.
By whom? Certainly not those who apply themselves to learning
the material, and that includes the self educated amateurs, not
just the "scientific literati". Do you consider popular works
such as A Brief History of Time to be scientific literature?
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 12:07:52
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
Sajeeb wrote:
> Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
>
It's trolls all the way down,
HTH,
Shawn
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 14:52:33
From: TMA
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
Hocking stockings? IT's HAWKINGS....
"Sajeeb" <sanish.1424@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179815487.031647.111320@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 11:07:23
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote in message
news:RsD4i.49848$Xh3.42283@edtnps90...
> Hocking stockings? IT's HAWKINGS....
Um, actually it's Hawking. No 's'.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 16:35:38
From: TMA
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:4653067e$0$10529$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote in message
> news:RsD4i.49848$Xh3.42283@edtnps90...
>> Hocking stockings? IT's HAWKINGS....
>
> Um, actually it's Hawking. No 's'.
some of you here are like flies on shit when someone makes a small error as
opposed
to a LARGE error.
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 15:04:35
From: Astro Honey
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Sajeeb" <sanish.1424@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> > dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> > arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > replied:
> Hocking stockings? IT's HAWKINGS....
Nope, it's Hawking.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 11:04:20
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Astro Honey" wrote
> Nope, it's Hawking.
Maybe Sajeeb lives in Iowa, where the name'd be pronounced Hocking.
:-)
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2007 08:41:56
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Sajeeb" <sanish.1424@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179815487.031647.111320@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
A book written for popular consumption is no place to
expect to find in-depth overage of scientific theories.
Search the scientific literature for details.
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2007 18:10:04
From: Bullseye
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:41:56 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca > wrote:
>"Sajeeb" <sanish.1424@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1179815487.031647.111320@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
>> dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
>> arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
>
>A book written for popular consumption is no place to
>expect to find in-depth overage of scientific theories.
>Search the scientific literature for details.
Sounds like you're just a snob.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 14:33:54
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: About Hockings
|
"Bullseye" <bulls@ei.com > wrote in message
news:ehc6535s3e30c8kgb9prieof1lt5hmpvs0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:41:56 -0400, "Greg Neill"
> <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >"Sajeeb" <sanish.1424@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1179815487.031647.111320@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> Well in Brief History of Times We found a lot of possibities and
> >> dream.After a lot of time we found not enough information about his
> >> arguments.So what's the answer of that questions.
> >
> >A book written for popular consumption is no place to
> >expect to find in-depth overage of scientific theories.
> >Search the scientific literature for details.
>
>
> Sounds like you're just a snob.
How so? The primary literature can take the time and space
to go into details that a popular book for the layman could
never do. Much if it is available on-line for free, too.
All it takes is the will and effort to look and learn.
|
|
