| |
Main
Date: 23 May 2007 05:08:51
From: TMA
Subject: Hawking 180
|
Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes do
retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 18:47:02
From: Stuart Chapman
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
TMA wrote:
> Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes do
> retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
> universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
> another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>
>
I don't any of the details of what you're talking about, but if Hawking
has completely changed his mind on something, good on him. Being able to
change your viewpoint on the basis of new evidence is what good science
is all about.
--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 15:41:34
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"Stuart Chapman" <ten.no.edonretni@nampahc.trauts > wrote in message
news:1357vs0n9auaoa2@corp.supernews.com...
> TMA wrote:
>> Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes
>> do retain information about the masses they consume and return them to
>> this universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits
>> to another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
> I don't any of the details of what you're talking about, but if Hawking
> has completely changed his mind on something, good on him. Being able to
> change your viewpoint on the basis of new evidence is what good science is
> all about.
>
> --
> Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
One more time...
|
| | | |
Date: 24 May 2007 06:54:52
From: Stuart Chapman
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
TMA wrote:
> "Stuart Chapman" <ten.no.edonretni@nampahc.trauts> wrote in message
> news:1357vs0n9auaoa2@corp.supernews.com...
>> TMA wrote:
>>> Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes
>>> do retain information about the masses they consume and return them to
>>> this universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits
>>> to another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>> I don't any of the details of what you're talking about, but if Hawking
>> has completely changed his mind on something, good on him. Being able to
>> change your viewpoint on the basis of new evidence is what good science is
>> all about.
>>
>> --
>> Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
>
> One more time...
>
>
This is Usenet, only sent once from my end, things like that happen. So
what's your problem with Hawking changing his mind?
--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 22:12:36
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
>>
>>
> This is Usenet, only sent once from my end, things like that happen. So
> what's your problem with Hawking changing his mind?
No problem...just a comment I made only to be snubbed by Greissel for no
reason
and with no merit.
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 18:45:59
From: Stuart Chapman
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
TMA wrote:
> Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes do
> retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
> universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
> another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>
>
I don't any of the details of what you're talking about, but if Hawking
has completely changed his mind on something, good on him. Being able to
change your viewpoint on the basis of new evidence is what good science
is all about.
--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 18:45:44
From: Stuart Chapman
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
TMA wrote:
> Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes do
> retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
> universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
> another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>
>
I don't any of the details of what you're talking about, but if Hawking
has completely changed his mind on something, good on him. Being able to
change your viewpoint on the basis of new evidence is what good science
is all about.
--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2007 05:43:17
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote:
>Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes do
>retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
>universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
>another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>
You know little about physics and even less about physicists.
Eugene L Griessel
Kissing is just pressing your lips to the sweet end of 66 feet of
intestines.
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2007 15:40:50
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za > wrote in message
news:4653d44b.617741@news.uunet.co.za...
> "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>
>>Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes
>>do
>>retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
>>universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
>>another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>>
>
> You know little about physics and even less about physicists.
>
Making statements like that with nothing to back it up points to
assholishness..not foolishness.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 15:46:44
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote:
>
>"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
>news:4653d44b.617741@news.uunet.co.za...
>> "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yep, Stephen did a 180 to the dismay of dedicated physicists. Black holes
>>>do
>>>retain information about the masses they consume and return them to this
>>>universe in an altered state. His black holes now are not conduits to
>>>another universe but are bound to this one. TSK..tsk.
>>>
>>
>> You know little about physics and even less about physicists.
>>
>
>Making statements like that with nothing to back it up points to
>assholishness..not foolishness.
>
Physicist are seldom dismayed when theories are changed - most are in
fact overjoyed. Which merely confirms my earlier statement that you
know little about physics.
Eugene L Griessel
History is littered with wars that no one believed would happen.
That's never stopped anyone waging them.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 17:01:58
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
>>
>
> Physicist are seldom dismayed when theories are changed - most are in
> fact overjoyed.
Not according to the article I read...ASSHOLE!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 13:32:30
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote in message
news:as_4i.50331$V75.17433@edtnps89...
>
> >>
> >
> > Physicist are seldom dismayed when theories are changed - most are in
> > fact overjoyed.
>
> Not according to the article I read...ASSHOLE!
What article would that be?
And why the nasty attitude, dude?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 18:40:48
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
Maybe you should read the OP from the all knowing E. Griessel...nasty is as
nasty does.
> And why the nasty attitude, dude?
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 18:49:23
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/
dismay is my word...but so what?..words words words...
Skepticism and puzzlement
Hawking's new theory produced waves of skepticism and puzzlement from
leading physics professors. Two in the front row - William Unruh of the
University of British Columbia and Robert Wald of the University of
Chicago - shrugged and shook their heads in disbelief as Hawking spoke.
"Hawking is completely revising his prior belief that what goes into a black
hole is washed out. Now he believes that anything emitted from a black hole
can be identifiable back to its source," said Wald, an expert on black
holes. "He's running away from what we still believe."
Unruh said: "Part of the problem is he's providing so few details, so it's
impossible to know whether we can believe these calculations. Stephen
Hawking's not stupid, so we're going to take what he says seriously ... but
the whole theory we're hearing seems extremely speculative."
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 22:48:35
From: OG
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote in message
news:T005i.43628$g63.35466@edtnps82...
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/
>
> dismay is my word...but so what?..words words words...
>
> Skepticism and puzzlement
> Hawking's new theory produced waves of skepticism and puzzlement from
> leading physics professors. Two in the front row - William Unruh of the
> University of British Columbia and Robert Wald of the University of
> Chicago - shrugged and shook their heads in disbelief as Hawking spoke.
>
> "Hawking is completely revising his prior belief that what goes into a
> black hole is washed out. Now he believes that anything emitted from a
> black hole can be identifiable back to its source," said Wald, an expert
> on black holes. "He's running away from what we still believe."
>
> Unruh said: "Part of the problem is he's providing so few details, so it's
> impossible to know whether we can believe these calculations. Stephen
> Hawking's not stupid, so we're going to take what he says seriously ...
> but the whole theory we're hearing seems extremely speculative."
>
I think we would really appreciate your summary of Hawking's argument and
why Wald and Unruh disagree.
In your own words of course.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 08:02:42
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
>>
>> Unruh said: "Part of the problem is he's providing so few details, so
>> it's impossible to know whether we can believe these calculations.
>> Stephen Hawking's not stupid, so we're going to take what he says
>> seriously ... but the whole theory we're hearing seems extremely
>> speculative."
>>
>
> I think we would really appreciate your summary of Hawking's argument and
> why Wald and Unruh disagree.
>
> In your own words of course.
Who..me?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 May 2007 20:36:11
From: OG
Subject: Re: Hawking 180
|
"TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote in message
news:CQR5i.59040$Xh3.3017@edtnps90...
>
>>>
>>> Unruh said: "Part of the problem is he's providing so few details, so
>>> it's impossible to know whether we can believe these calculations.
>>> Stephen Hawking's not stupid, so we're going to take what he says
>>> seriously ... but the whole theory we're hearing seems extremely
>>> speculative."
>>>
>>
>> I think we would really appreciate your summary of Hawking's argument and
>> why Wald and Unruh disagree.
>>
>> In your own words of course.
>
>
> Who..me?
Why not? You read the article, so you can tell us why physicists are
'dismayed' .
It'll do you good,
|
|
