Stephen Hawking a "denier"? (1 Viewer)

[DiStefano]

In a new paper, Stephen Hawking denies the existence of black holes, from which nothing can escape the event horizon. He claims that it is inconsistent with Quantum Theory.

But, but, but...the consensus among scientists is that black holes do exist.

Well, I have no idea whether he is right or wrong, but on the far edges of science, advances usually come when someone challenges the consensus.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=9407566

 

[Henry Ford]

In a new paper, Stephen Hawking denies the existence of that black holes, from which nothing can escape the event horizon. He claims that it is inconsistent with Quantum Theory.

But, but, but...the consensus among scientists is that black holes do exist.

Well, I have no idea whether he is right or wrong, but on the far edges of science, advances usually come when someone challenges the consensus.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=9407566

Talking about science you don't understand again?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What a perfect analogy. Bravo.

 

[Insein]

Hawking was one of the main proponents of black hole theory. Would be interesting to read why he thinks they don't exist after so many years explaining how they do.

 

[DiStefano]

In a new paper, Stephen Hawking denies the existence of that black holes, from which nothing can escape the event horizon. He claims that it is inconsistent with Quantum Theory.

But, but, but...the consensus among scientists is that black holes do exist.

Well, I have no idea whether he is right or wrong, but on the far edges of science, advances usually come when someone challenges the consensus.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=9407566

Talking about science you don't understand again?

Well, you can put me in the Werner Heisenberg camp.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hawking was one of the main proponents of black hole theory. Would be interesting to read why he thinks they don't exist after so many years explaining how they do.

He does think black holes exist. He's positing a different view of them.

 

[Henry Ford]

What level is your reading comprehension that you think his paper says that black holes don't exist?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

 

[DiStefano]

What level is your reading comprehension that you think his paper says that black holes don't exist?

If you define a black hole (as it has been until now), as a place where nothing can escape the event horizon, then yes, black holes do not exist according to that definition.

In fact, Hawking said it best: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity".

I think my reading comprehension is fine.

 

[tikigods]

Sounds like a 70s porn flick.

 

[Lutherman2112]

What level is your reading comprehension that you think his paper says that black holes don't exist?

If you define a black hole (as it has been until now), as a place where nothing can escape the event horizon, then yes, black holes do not exist according to that definition.

In fact, Hawking said it best: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity".

I think my reading comprehension is fine.

Objective observations suggest otherwise.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So good.

 

[Henry Ford]

What level is your reading comprehension that you think his paper says that black holes don't exist?

If you define a black hole (as it has been until now), as a place where nothing can escape the event horizon, then yes, black holes do not exist according to that definition.

In fact, Hawking said it best: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity".

I think my reading comprehension is fine.

I think you might want to revisit whether it is or not.

 

[wilked]

What level is your reading comprehension that you think his paper says that black holes don't exist?

If you define a black hole (as it has been until now), as a place where nothing can escape the event horizon, then yes, black holes do not exist according to that definition.

In fact, Hawking said it best: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity".

I think my reading comprehension is fine.

Objective observations suggest otherwise.

oof

 

[Fennis]

since the OP is apparently trying to win some weird political point about climate change, lets see what Hawking has to say on that subject:

As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces. As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Quantum physics is a definitely a good topic for laymen to discuss.

 

[Your Mother's Twin Sister]

since the OP is apparently trying to win some weird political point about climate change, lets see what Hawking has to say on that subject:

As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces. As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

 

[pantagrapher]

Well this backfired.

 

[DiStefano]

Of course, all the climate change cheerleaders will be here in force. It's like challenging someone's faith at a Baptist Convention.

 

[17seconds]

In a new paper, Stephen Hawking denies the existence of that black holes, from which nothing can escape the event horizon. He claims that it is inconsistent with Quantum Theory.

But, but, but...the consensus among scientists is that black holes do exist.

Well, I have no idea whether he is right or wrong, but on the far edges of science, advances usually come when someone challenges the consensus.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=9407566

Talking about science you don't understand again?

Well, you can put me in the Werner Heisenberg camp.

Oh did you look him up after you watched Breaking Bad?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Of course, all the climate change cheerleaders will be here in force. It's like challenging someone's faith at a Baptist Convention.

 

[matuski]

Well this backfired.

DiStefano oops.

 

[DiStefano]

Well this backfired.

DiStefano oops.

Not at all. This is more fun than the Sarah Jessica Parker thread.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This thread started badly for OP and has just gotten worse.

 

[DiStefano]

This thread started badly for OP and has just gotten worse.

I have no problem with that...

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread started badly for OP and has just gotten worse.

It has finally made me understand what the conservative moron argument against gay marriage actually is. "If we partially redefine what a thing is, we're actually saying that it doesn't exist."

So that's how it threatens straight marriage.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

This thread started badly for OP and has just gotten worse.

Not when you're as delusional as DiStefano...he thinks it's going swimmingly.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I always get black holes and the black box confused.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I always get black holes and the black box confused.

Black Hole. Black Box.

 

[((Morpheus))]

Please, tell us more.

 

[Dr Oadi]

since the OP is apparently trying to win some weird political point about climate change, lets see what Hawking has to say on that subject:

As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces. As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

What was the ice age?

 

[fatness]

Something is happening here but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. DiStefano?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

since the OP is apparently trying to win some weird political point about climate change, lets see what Hawking has to say on that subject:

As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces. As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

Isn't it technically his computer that says it?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I always get black holes and the black box confused.

Black Hole. Black Box.

Been watching a lot of Taylor Dayne videos because of this.

 

[joffer]

I don't get it

 

[Homer J Simpson]

since the OP is apparently trying to win some weird political point about climate change, lets see what Hawking has to say on that subject:

As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces. As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.

What was the ice age?

Ice ages took thousands of years to develop. If the current trends play out the way they're predicted to over the next century, it would be unprecedented. At least with the information we currently have.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can we get a quote from his paper either way?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Can we get a quote from his paper either way?

Here you go.

 

[McGarnicle]

I can personally confirm that black holes exist.

 

[Tango]

threads like this where the cool kids try to gang up make me despise the know-it-all central planners more than I usually do...

 

[Homer J Simpson]

threads like this where the cool kids try to gang up make me despise the know-it-all central planners more than I usually do...

YOU WILL ASSIMILATE!

 

[Zow]

Another solid push for the MOP award. Must say I'm pretty impressed with the recent strong plays of the many in the running.

 

[LinusMarr]

That guy hawking is a moron! Plus I hate his "accent"....

 

[E Street Brat]

I can personally confirm that black holes exist.

Now imagine the hole is white,

 

[NCCommish]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

 

[DiStefano]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

 

[matuski]

Distefano had two options... disappear quietly after the embarrassing himself in the OP, or double down and entertain us some more.

So glad he chose the latter.

 

[DiStefano]

Distefano had two options... disappear quietly after the embarrassing himself in the OP, or double down and entertain us some more.

So glad he chose the latter.

I knew the faith based people would be here in full force.

 

[NCCommish]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

Within classical physics no. Within quantum physics maybe. Within quantum physics there is a mathematical possibility that the computer I am typing on could change into a giraffe. So once you get into quantum physics uncertainty is everything.

 

[Black Box]

I always get black holes and the black box confused.

hi