BREAKING: Physicist Stephen Hawking dies at the age of 76 – family

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Probably aborted 1000 times a year.
Ya think? or only stupid people get ripped apart before they are born?

I'd say it's a crapshoot. The percentages of geniuses aborted is probably about the same as in the general population. It's not that we're short of geniuses, or people. It's not like, "let's have a lot of babies because one of them might grow up to solve this baffling population problem!"

Cool no prob, keep killing coz odds.

Besides you really think we have enough f'kn geniuses?

Look around einstein.

most of you idiots can't spell your own name.

a reply to: rnaa

Not to mention einstein was completely wrong with his GR.
I dont necessarily agree completely with hawking either

a reply to: Hyperboles

Not to mention einstein was completely wrong with his GR.

Wow! That's a pretty bold statement!!! Care to back that up with any facts???

Of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you meant something 'other' than the General Theory of Relativity with your "GR" reference.

If that was what you indeed meant, then please do expand on specifically what you believe to be wrong with it.

if he had ALS and was diagnosed in 1961 with a life expectancy of 2 years after finding out. so something isnt adding up

a reply to: blackz28

No if , he did have a rare form of ALS and he did defy all the predictions about his life expectancy , death's loss was sciences gain.
The situation he found himself in would have probably crushed most people but Steven had work to do , his strength of purpose and determination to do that work along with excellent medical care are what likely saw him through.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

To all those saying Mr. Stephen Hawking is "now flying free," "now has new answers," and "godspeed."

Please show a little respect for what the man stood for.

He was an avowed atheist.

He passionately neither believed in demons, angels, fairies, afterlife, nor god.

He wished the world would abandon superstition and value truth as evidenced by facts.

Goodbye, Mr. Stephen Hawking, my hero.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Hyperboles

Not to mention einstein was completely wrong with his GR.

Wow! That's a pretty bold statement!!! Care to back that up with any facts???

Of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you meant something 'other' than the General Theory of Relativity with your "GR" reference.

If that was what you indeed meant, then please do expand on specifically what you believe to be wrong with it.

Without going into all his tensor calculus sheites. A pendulum slows down at the equator as compared to the poles, which is exactly opposite to what is postulated by his GR.

Einstein himself said: I have generated the GR math, which I myself don't understand and a single experiment can prove it all wrong

a reply to: Elementalist

Would his mind have developed as it did had he had a good working buddy? Impossible to know. Everything happens for it's own reason and there is much even he couldn't explain.

a reply to: reject

Please show a little respect for what the man stood for.

It disturbs no it angers me that first Hawking then
Dawkins and now Sir Ridley Scott are all promoting Intelligent
Design. What right did Dawkins have to insert his
personal belief now in a 'highly plausible God' or
Sir Ridley Scott to do so in his Aliens/Prometheus/Covenant Movies?

originally posted by: DeIirium
It disturbs no it angers me that first Hawking then
Dawkins and now Sir Ridley Scott are all promoting Intelligent
Design. What right did Dawkins have to insert his
personal belief now in a 'highly plausible God' or
Sir Ridley Scott to do so in his Aliens/Prometheus/Covenant Movies?

Neither Hawking nor Dawkins have ever done any such thing, in any way, at any time - out-of-context, cherry picked quotes not withstanding. So you are angry over nothing at all with regards to those two.

And Ridley Scott is a film director who knows how to make a great movie sometimes. He is a also human with opinions and is entitled to express those views, but why would you think his movies, made to entertain (made to 'scare the life out of the audience' in his words), have any long term impact on the question of intelligent design? Why waste your anger on that?

Personally, I am angry that people are lying about Hawkings and Dawkins view on the matter.

a reply to: rnaa

It's historical revisionism.

They also tried to do it to Charles Darwin; claiming he denounced evolution, repented, converted, and asked God for forgiveness on his deathbed.

Some say they were successful with Hitler (was a very devout Catholic which is borne out by "Christ killers" denunciation of Jewish people; also hated gays.)

Dawkins latest enlightened concept
is on par with Nazi themes. That we
all should begin to entertain cannibalism.
Dawkins goes beyond
Global Warming green all the way to
Soylent Green.

After Hawking finally caved in and
retracted his blunders on Black Holes
then he opened up his own Green
reasoning. Suddenly humanity should
be wary of little green men Hawking
pontificated. Space Aliens could get a
fix on our position and be coming here
to get us.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

I Wonder if Stephen Finally Proved the Existence of a Creator God ? If Not , He will have Hell to Pay.............

a reply to: CaptainBeno


An Existence Without the Sense of Pain for Eternity , God Bless you Stephen , Truth is Finally Yours.......

Just as we were assured by Hawkings that there was no heaven
we are now assured that there are Infinite multiverses with
endless variety. I don't want to hear about Hawkings and
his little green men claim, that there are multiverses
where complex items are intelligently preplanned
and executed by space aliens.

originally posted by: rnaa
Back on track:

The "Mount Rushmore of Physics"

• Isaac Newton
  
• Albert Einstein
  
• Richard Feynman
  
• Stephen Hawking
  

Discuss.

• Isaac Newton
  
• Isaac Newton
  
• Sir James Jeans
  
• ...yet to be seen, I can think of a number of options
  

Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds.”

Stephen Hawking was more of a philosophical cosmologist though; proposing and discussing imaginary models or scenarios/storylines for the universe and imagined so-called "multiverse" (connected to so-called "M-theory" and "String theory", see my previous comment linked further below), which one could also refer to as theoretical cosmology or theoretical (astro)physics as is often done (the latter term "theoretical physics" being the most popular cause it sounds like it's more relevant to real/factual physics, physics pertaining to discussions about the reality/truth of a matter and not merely what one could imagine but not verify, such as M-theory as earlier discussed in my previous comment in this thread and the incorrect application of certain aspects of QM in Quantum Cosmology, the main focus of Stephen Hawking's publications).

Here's a relevant discussion concerning Stephen Hawking's main subject of interest as brought out in the movie "The theory of everything" (the same subject Sir James Jeans and Isaac Newton found rather intriguing but drew different conclusions from; it's best to watch the 2 videos in my previous comment first, you can skip the technical stuff in the 2nd video with Freeman Dyson talking about Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Cosmology, but the rest is relevant to some of the things discussed below, the timeframes that are relevant to have seen in the video with Freeman Dyson are mentioned in my previous comment):

Perhaps this subject and in particular Isaac Newton's view of time that seems to differ from the way W.L. Craig explains or uses the word in the presentation above, may be of help in understanding the historical background regarding that subject as well, and how it relates to what's discussed above (it really gets going with Newton's view of time shortly after 12:44):

Anyway, as Stephen Hawking said and as quoted before in this thread:

All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.

And what could be more appropiate to honor the man than to choose the same subjects he chose concerning the topic of the beginning of the universe, which has been conclusively proven (that it began) in my opinion and evaluation of the available evidence from QM to Einstein's theory of relativity to the entire field of cosmology and physics? Allthough it does matter in what way "we keep talking" (I do not recommend doing it like Lawrence Krauss at 2:20 below or on other occasions where he shows similar behaviour):

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: rnaa
Back on track:

The "Mount Rushmore of Physics"

• Isaac Newton
  
• Albert Einstein
  
• Richard Feynman
  
• Stephen Hawking
  

Discuss.

• Isaac Newton
  
• Isaac Newton
  
• Sir James Jeans
  
• ...yet to be seen, I can think of a number of options
  

I meant:

• Isaac Newton
  
• James Maxwell
  
• Sir James Jeans
  
• ...yet to be seen, I can think of a number of options
  

And when I said:

Allthough it does matter in what way "we keep talking" (I do not recommend doing it like Lawrence Krauss at 2:20 below or on other occasions where he shows similar behaviour).

I was thinking about this situation (with the bolded part), which relates to this topic regarding the beginning of the universe: