Stephen hawking does a backflip

[Taya!]

Sourced from "The Australian"

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AFTER nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole gobbles everything within it - including traces of its own existence - physicist Stephen Hawking has done an intellectual backflip.

 

Next week at a conference in Dublin, the wheelchair-bound Oxford University academic will recant his controversial "black-hole paradox".

 

It's an idea he first proposed in 1976 and involves the complicated physics of black holes, or dense objects such as what remains when some stars run out of fuel and collapse under their own weight.

 

Leading cosmologist Paul Davies, of Macquarie University's Australian Centre for Astrobiology, heard rumours earlier this year about Dr Hawking's intellectual conversion. "Evidently, something has caused him to change his mind, but he's being very coy about what it is," Professor Davies said yesterday.

 

Even the organisers of the 17th International Conference on General Relativity know little of what the great thinker will say or why he's saying it. "He sent a note saying, 'I have solved the black hole information paradox and I want to talk about it'," said Curt Cutler, chairman of the conference scientific committee.

 

Dr Hawking's paradox begins with the notion that the gravitational pull of black holes is so great nothing escapes from them.

 

Nothing, that is, except "Hawking radiation", the energy emitted by the gravitational field around a black hole. The radiation "erases" information about matter inside the black hole, turning it into the cosmological equivalent of "white noise", Professor Davies said.

 

When the hole vanishes, he explained, so does the information, violating the laws of quantum physics which say that the information can never be destroyed.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Obviously, we live our daily lives by the laws of Quantum Mechanics, it would be very inconvenient to have to throw them out...

 

What is your opinion and what do you think he'll come out with in a few weeks?

[Dave]

He's already done it.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3913145.stm

[K. B. Robertson]

Sourced from "The Australian"

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AFTER nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole gobbles everything within it - including traces of its own existence - physicist Stephen Hawking has done an intellectual backflip.

 

Next week at a conference in Dublin' date=' the wheelchair-bound Oxford University academic will recant his controversial "black-hole paradox".

 

It's an idea he first proposed in 1976 and involves the complicated physics of black holes, or dense objects such as what remains when some stars run out of fuel and collapse under their own weight.

 

Leading cosmologist Paul Davies, of Macquarie University's Australian Centre for Astrobiology, heard rumours earlier this year about Dr Hawking's intellectual conversion. "Evidently, something has caused him to change his mind, but he's being very coy about what it is," Professor Davies said yesterday.

 

Even the organisers of the 17th International Conference on General Relativity know little of what the great thinker will say or why he's saying it. "He sent a note saying, 'I have solved the black hole information paradox and I want to talk about it'," said Curt Cutler, chairman of the conference scientific committee.

 

Dr Hawking's paradox begins with the notion that the gravitational pull of black holes is so great nothing escapes from them.

 

Nothing, that is, except "Hawking radiation", the energy emitted by the gravitational field around a black hole. The radiation "erases" information about matter inside the black hole, turning it into the cosmological equivalent of "white noise", Professor Davies said.

 

When the hole vanishes, he explained, so does the information, violating the laws of quantum physics which say that the information can never be destroyed.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Obviously, we live our daily lives by the laws of Quantum Mechanics, it would be very inconvenient to have to throw them out...

 

What is your opinion and what do you think he'll come out with in a few weeks?[/quote']

 

*********************************

 

There are many long established, ignored reasons why Hawking's 'big bang'

and all of its contingencies are untenable. The best known - generally ignored - reason is that there is no common center from which the observed ('red shift') expanding universe, is expanding.

 

That is to say, when the observed expansion (discovered in 1927 by Sylpher and refined in the early 30's by Hubble) universe is 'back tracked', it does not converge on a common point of 'beginning' ('Ylem'/'Cosmic egg'); while on the other hand, it is a consensus among astrophysical scientists, that, no matter where an observer goes, all systems in the (spatially) expanding universe, are measured to be receding - at speeds incrasingly proportional to the increased distance - 'Hubbles law': in direct line of sight, relative to any observer, from any location... (operative words, repeat: the spatially expanding universe is observed to be moving directly away from the observer's direct line of sight, no matter where the expanding universe is measure from).

 

This is not the signature of a singularly centered, expolosive 'big bang'. Whereas, it is instead the dynamic structure of a repelling force acting out of all matter in direct proportion to mass values, as Einstein originally submitted (1919), exactly as does the conventionally perceived impelling force of gravity, except in the opposite direction of - parallel to - the (presumed & unidentified) 'impelling force (F) of gravity, not only answering the previously unanswered question put forth by Newton himself:

 

'Why doesn't a universe full of mutually impelling bodies, collapse on itself?'

 

But also accounting for the observed structural dynamic of expansion, which is fullfilled by a repelling force (what Einstein called 'the Cosmological Constant' - Lamda ^) acting equally out of all material entities, generating a force proportional to the inert (and heavy) mass value of any and all - microcosmic and macrocosmic - physical systems/entities; exactly as the conventionally perceived 'impelling force of gravity', but in the opposite direction...

 

Einstein's Cosmological Constant predicted an expanding universe, eight years before it was discovered. Upon it's discovery by Sylpher (1927) and and its refinement by Hubble (1931), Einstein was persuaded to abandon his Unified Field Cosmological Constant - repelling - Force, because it required that all of physical - as well as spatial - reality be recognized as constantly expanding (accelerating); which, so goes the still prevailing consensus: 'Obviously it is not'.

That is, 'Obviously the physical (as considered apart from the spatial) universe, is not expanding.' The patent rejection of the concept of a physically - as well as spatially - expanding universe is the standardized failure to recognized and denial of the 4-D space time continuum, which is the physical expansion of all three dimensional entities at right angles to themselves. The big bang theory, for example, completely excludes the (supposedly 'acknowledged') 4-D space-time contiuum, in which the 'back-tracking' of the observed, spatially expanding universe, does not intersect at at a beginnng - or ending - point in space; but rather becomes as small as the expanding universe enlarges around it: squared.

 

Hawking's personal and socio-political courage may be irreproachable, but he's still wrong about the (4-D ignoring) 'big bang theory'; which is in fact hypothetical. just as is 'particle theory'; since no atomic or subatomic charge (neutron, electron or proton, or any system constituted of them) has ever been observed or proven to be contained by a discontinuous surface surrounding it from 'empty space.'

 

In the words of Bertrand Russel: 'No two 'particles' ever make 'contact'; when they get too close, they move off'. THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

 

A large school of physical science is called and dedicates itself to what is ubibuitously - and dogmaticaly - termed 'Particle Physics'; yet, to this day and until further notice; 'science' has not found and cannot find a 'particle'; even - and especially - when it ventures to seek one (or more) out and find (locate and identify) it.

 

That is to say, 'contact' requires the interaction of two or more 'surfaces'; and since the so called particles are invariably found to be undulating charges of electricity having no surfaces; instead, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers: which, so far, are unreachable; strongly suggesting that each microcosmic, subatomic charge is infinitely dense toward it's center, and that microcosmic infinity is as interminably endless as macrocosmic infinity, in what is said to be acknowledged as a 4-D universe; whereas the 4th dimension of space-time is conveniently disregarded in any conference advocating the so called 'big bang beginning'.

 

'When in doubt, cite Hiesenberg's Principle'. - *KBR

 

'For parlour and political use, the vague generality is a life-saver.'

- Robert A. Heinlein

 

'Quantum mechanics is not an incubrance to, but rather a product of total field theory'. - *KBR

 

'The idea that field theory is not applicable to the entire universe, is based upon prejudice.' - Albert Einstein. IDEAS & OPINIONS.

 

These increasingly controversial issues are further dealt with, including reference to documentary source materials confirming the above discussion, in the file entitled 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension: The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field', at URL http://einstein.periphery.cc/.

 

Thank you for reading this post.

Sincerely,

Kent Benjamin Robertson

[KaiduOrkhon]

The above listed URL is updated to http://forums.delphiforums.com/AlbertTheAxe