Off Topic The 'Stephen Hawking is an overrated fool' thread...

Yes, but don't get me going at this time of night, PLEASE! This is my field (sshhh!!). It's all an utter crock of ****e, designed to get funding from dumb politicians. All I will say here is that Black Holes are forbidden by simple conservation of angular momentum (Standard Physics), as any high-school kid would have understood when schools actually taught proper science (think ice skaters, spinning and bringing their arms and leg in, spinning faster). Once BH's are gone, everything else collapses. That's it, I'm done for the night. Tara!

 

(For film buffs on this thread, apologies for the double diversion.)

For another day then.
Galileo, Newton, Clerk-Maxwell, J.J.Thompson,Einstein, Planck, etc etc...ad nauseam had their detractors. So did Darwin.
Modern Physics is real - my field,before retirement, I may add.
Maybe you need BBC IPlayer to view the link below...that bit's real (BBC IPlayer may need a UK ip address). I'm sure you can get it somehow through YouTube - some geek will have overcome the restrictions.).
More funding from politicians I say.More enlightenment is definitely needed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xxgbn/horizon-20102011-9-what-is-reality

For film buffs on this thread, apologies for the double diversion.

 

Sorry, it won't open here, but I'd like to see it. Any way you could copy 'n paste it, and PM it to me?
I wonder how many other Theoretical Physics types there are on here?

 

I have a masters in Physics, but only worked professionally in research for about 6 years before taking an unexpected road to elsewhere.

I remember first hearing about black holes, white holes, worm holes, and all that heady stuff as a 13 year old lad about 1975, theories from a severely physically disabled Englishman named Steven Hawking who, alas, wasn't supposed to live to see 1980.

 

Well, that's a surprising three, so far! In my opinion, Hawking is an overrated fool, whose fame is due largely to his terrible physical (bodily) issues. He's changed his mind several times about his own ridiculous ideas. As I said earlier, a simple argument based on Conservation of Angular Momentum destroys the concept of Black Holes. Nature is well known to abhor a vacuum, but She positively excludes any possibility of any type of singularity in the physical universe. FACT!!

 

Why can't black holes exsist then? Aren't they just quasars that have given way under their own gravity?

 

No, there aren't any. We know that everything in the universe spins. If a large mass shrinks under its own gravity, it has to spin faster to conserve angular momentum. The so-called centrifugal force (simplifying, here) at the surface increases (outwards) continuously, until at some point it matches the (inward) gravitational force. At that critical radius and spin rate, the 'effective' gravitational force at the surface is ZERO. Any further reduction in radius and associated increase in spin-rate will force the 'effective' force at the surface to be outward, and put the material near the surface into tension (NOT compression). That material at the surface will then fracture, and fly off tangentially in a curved path. Thus, a Black Hole will never form. Instead, a series of smaller masses will fly off along curved paths, the later masses having lower initial speeds, giving the illusion of an expanding universe. Thus NO Dark Matter, either.
The only real mystery is where all the matter came from in the first place. But that's another story. I'm working on it.

 

It came from one of them there Black Holes, I betcha; the same place all that yellow went ...

 

Pepsodent ! Central to Cosmic happenings.

 

Jeez, that's a blast from the past. The jingle at junior school went:
You'll wonder where the yellow went
When you brush your teeth with wet cement ...

Hilarious? Not!

 

I expect to come on here and read how lots of posters (mistakenly) believe they know more about football than Steve Bruce, but I am surprised to find an individual so ****ing conceited that he is comfortable calling Stephen Hawking 'an overrated fool'.

 

Ok. So what do you think of his work? Which version of his work do you like best?

 

Well, you might not agree with him, but calling Hawking a 'fool' might be the most ****ing stupid thing you've said.

I presume Einstein was an imbecile too.

 

You're actually trying to defend your position... you sad ****er.

 

He's just jealous of Hawking's superior American accent.

He also has problems with disabled people "God made them for a reason"

 

Bengal = Glen Hoddle confirmed.

 

As you well know, that comment was directed solely at you. Our readers may enjoy enlightening themselves by going to their profile and doing a Search for 'retard' or 'tard' as used by yourself in numerous posts. The funny thing is, you obviously still don't know the source of the original quote. Go on, find it. It's your calling in life.

 

Yes, I'm defending my opinion. Please tell me how, in your opinion, it differs in any way from offering a negative opinion on any other 'famous' professional: a footballer, a singer, an actor, a politician ...

 

Calling Stephen Hawking an 'overrated fool' is not one of the most clever things I've seen posted on this page

 

See the above. If you look in the right places, and have a reasonable understanding of Theoretical Physics, you'll find many people, including at least one Nobel Laureate, who share my opinion of his work -- and why.
I also don't think Julia Roberts is a particularly pretty woman. Other people's opinions of her possibly differ. That's their prerogative.