Colonizing planets?

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Essentially after putting forth a couple of different theories in a biref history of time he later said....doh! I guess I was wrong! He is good on the Simpsons though.

Which theories were these?

[couchspud]

Re: Colonizing planets?

I was reading that earlier today and came to the conclusion that Hawking has passed "super-genius" and reached "totally ****ing insane".......

Paging Dr. Srangelove.

[Uncle Bobby]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Which theories were these?

Some of his black hole theories.

It is interesting to note that there has never been one verified existance of a black hole.

[griswold]

Re: Colonizing planets?

It is interesting to note that there has never been one verified existance of a black hole.

I have seen movies to the contrary.....

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Some of his black hole theories.

It is interesting to note that there has never been one verified existance of a black hole.

I don't recall him retracting any black hole theories (he may have, I haven't heard of it). It is true that they exist only in theory, but there is strong evidence that they exist.

I get Atronomy magazine every month, and often pick up Sky and Telescope and Scientific American. Honestly, much of what I read in these magazines gives me a headache.

The meat of Hawkings' "Brief History of Time" is theories of space and time, and the birth and expansion of the universe. I found that much of what he said made me say "Of Course!" after the fact, but I never would have figured it out myself. His examples made me re-evaluate my definitions of what time and space really are. I remember him talking about a guy bouncing a rubber ball on a table that was in a moving train. Where did the ball move? Up and down in a static spot? Or did it travel down at an angle by 20 feet horizontally and then up at an angle by 20 feet horizontally? Or did it move at an unknown parallel due to the rotation and movement of the earth, the solar system itself, and our galaxy? In the end, the idea of a static spot in space became ridiculous.

His examples of time were even more headache causing. Speed affected time, even though you could not point to a static point in space. The faster you travel, the slower time gets. Hence why they have to reset clocks on the top floors in skyscrapers every year. The earth rotates, and hence you're moving faster at the top of a building. Imagine yourself holding a broomstick and swinging it. At the base, where you hold it, it moves slow, but at the end it moves fast. Same thing. Since time slows with speed, you have to re set clocks every year at the tops of tall buildings.

[Uncle Bobby]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Hawking explains it well but those ideas are not new stuff.

He has done some interesting mathematical manovering which predicts Hawking radiation. But new forms of energy and particles has also been predicted by things like string theory which still hasn't panned out.

Hey, the guy is a genious. He could probably finishes a Sudoku while blowing his nose. But I don't know if history will remember this him in 300 years like we do Newton or Galileo.

[Muley69]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Hawking explains it well but those ideas are not new stuff.

He has done some interesting mathematical manovering which predicts Hawking radiation. But new forms of energy and particles has also been predicted by things like string theory which still hasn't panned out.

Hey, the guy is a genious. He could probably finishes a Sudoku while blowing his nose. But I don't know if history will remember this him in 300 years like we do Newton or Galileo.

As with a lot of science, when someone is able to prove his theories it will be Hawking that gets most of the credit.

[Muley69]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Don't forget that a black hole isn't a "hole" as in you jump from one point in space to another...here is a good explanation of it. Because of the speed of light is NOT "infinite", there is a good theoretical basis to suggest that these things CAN exist.


Q: What is the proof of the existence of black holes? -Amtrak

A: A black hole is an object so collapsed and, consequently, with such a large gravity field that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Earth, for example, is not a black hole because our escape velocity--a measly 11 kilometers per second-is far less than light speed (300,000 km/s). Even spacecraft escape Earth. The more compact an object is, the higher its escape velocity. A black hole is so compact that-within a certain distance of it--not even light can escape. Therefore, we can't see it directly. Within that "certain distance" (called the event horizon) no information escapes.

[NASA] A cosmic searchlight: a black-hole powered jet of electrons

You ask for "proof" of black-hole existence. That's not exactly how it works. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts the existence of black holes-as bizarre as they seem. We've verified Einstein's theory in many ways, which gives us confidence in its predictions. Consequently, we think such objects exist in the real world. His theory also gives us indirect ways--how gravity affects matter--to detect black-hole candidates.

We verify that an object is a black hole by looking at its effects on the environment. Then we compare what we observe against effects of other known phenomena. The entity that can best explain these observations, in the simplest way, is the winner.

[Uncle Bobby]

Re: Colonizing planets?

And science is filled with scientists who's theories that have fallen by the wayside and names have been forgotten.

[Uncle Bobby]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Only parts of Einstein's general relativity theory have been supported through observation. But there are other theories that explain the same observations.

[Opus]

Re: Colonizing planets?

you tellin me I don't exist mofo?

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Only parts of Einstein's general relativity theory have been supported through observation. But there are other theories that explain the same observations.

Einstein's Theiry of Relativity accurately explains the universe where large objects like planets, systems and galaxies are concerned. It breaks down at the tiniest atomic scales. The reverse is true for Quantum mechanics. It accurately makes predictions on the atomic level, but not for large objects. This is where string theory came from. An attempt to reconcile relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism.

Hawking's work in this field (and in quantum mechanics in particular) has been invaluable to the field.

[Uncle Bobby]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Meh. Until they can can do something constructive, like turn back time and undo Steve Smith's goal, I am less than impressed.

[Muley69]

Re: Colonizing planets?

And science is filled with scientists who's theories that have fallen by the wayside and names have been forgotten.

Okay, I just don't get the hate-on for Hawking here...??

Remember that many of our most famed scientests were routinely scorned and ridiculed by society and the church of the day and it was only year's later that we recognized their genius.

[Uncle Bobby]

Re: Colonizing planets?

Okay, I just don't get the hate-on for Hawking here...??

As I have said, I asked what contribution has he made to the advancement of civilization?

Newton's laws were used to calculate trajectories to the moon.

Einstein talked about the idea of turning matter into energy and that led to nuclear power.

Now some of Hawking's predictions may eventually lead to some new form of space travel. But it also may be just a bunch of gibberish. Time will tell.