I think the danger with Hawking is that his point of view is only one possible way of thinking. That doesn't really allow for the possibility of different theories.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Martin Baxter <martinbaxt...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > Hawking's belief is *absolute*, with *no* way around the roadblock. As for > this implying a belief in Deity, I can't say, because I've spent my entire > life as a scientist trying to maintain an absolute separation between Deity > and Science. Also, I ahve no notion as to what Hawking believes, one way or > the other. I've never bothered to look into him beyond "A Brief History". > > As for what other scientists amy believe about the "impossibility" of time > travel, I quote Dr Michio Kaku. > > "There's no law on the books saying that time travel is an absolute > impossibility." > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Keith Johnson > <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote: > >> >> >> It's tricky to do books/shows that are popular, entertaining, pull in the >> masses, but also appeal to people who want a bit more science. "Cosmos" and >> "Connections" did it brilliantly, though neither was as hard science as, >> say, an episode of "Nova". >> Hawking says time travel would be opposed by a *sentient* universe? >> Really? If he thinks the Universe is self-aware, isn't that akin to belief >> in a diety of sorts? >> How does his view of time travel's difficulties gel with Einstein and >> others, who i think also say it's impossible to travel time: i.e., not >> possible to travel freely in both directions at will. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Martin Baxter" <martinbaxt...@gmail.com> >> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2010 6:50:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Digging Hawkins' "Into the Universe" >> >> >> >> Keith, I'm not watching it for two reasons. >> >> 1) I keep forgetting that it's on. (Too many concussions.) >> >> 2) I'm not really a fan of Hawking's, partially because he's short on >> science, as you said (I bought both editions of "A Brief History of Time", >> and came away feeling cheated at the quality of the writing) and partially >> because he's managed to churn out what I consider to be the bane of my >> existence, the Chronology Protection Conjecture. In it, he states that time >> travel is inherently impossible, that the Universe itself is a sentient >> being that will act to prevent any alterations of the spacetime continuum. I >> don 't buy that. >> >> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I'm watching Stephen Hawking's two hour "Into the Universe" on Discovery >>> Channel. That's to be followed by "How the Universe Works", a one-hour show >>> on black holes, one of my fav topics. I am really enjoying the show. The >>> graphics are really cool, lending colorful visuals to the phenomena they >>> discuss: the formation of black holes...how Sol condensed from a dust cloud >>> and started fusing...how the "stuff of life" from which we're made >>> originated in stellar fusion, released by the explosions of supernovae. Very >>> entertaining. My only minor complaint is, like a lot of shows of this type, >>> it's a bit light on the science for me. For example, they talked about how >>> black holes formed, but didn't go into detail about why some black holes are >>> larger than others (how does a point singularity equate with descriptions of >>> size?), or explain the statement that smaller black holes actually aren't >>> pure black, but give off energy. Of course they're covering a lot of time, >>> and the show is crafted to be easily digestible by a diverse TV audience, so >>> I won't quibble too much. >>> >>> I really like the show, but you know, decades later, I still haven't seen >>> a science series that moved and informed me quite as much as Carl Sagan's >>> "Cosmos". A close second is James Burkes' great series "Connections", a >>> British science series in which the narrator shows, as the name implies, how >>> discoveries and inventions across history and in various places are related >>> to each other in amazing ways. He may, for example, start talking about the >>> invention of the steam engine, and in the middle, tell you how a key part of >>> its invention is related to...tea in India, then jump from that to the art >>> of spinning yarn, and so on, ultimately showing how all these seemingly >>> unrelated things in fact worked together. Fascinating stuff, which you can >>> watch here: >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell >> wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik >> >> > > > -- > "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell > wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik > > > > -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
