Keith, I had the link bookmarked, but it's gone dead. I'll have to chase it down a different way. You'll have it as soon as I do. I recall that his solution for intrducing the gravitational force was something that set a few "established" physicists and theorists on edge, because it, like all great things, came out of left field, where they, with their staid little minds, never thought to look. The guy who cracked it likes to surf more than play with numbers, if that tells you anything.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote: > > > you must give us more! someone thinks he cracked Unification?! that would > include bringing in the troublesome gravitational force. i've heard nothing > of this! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Baxter" <martinbaxt...@gmail.com> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2010 12:33:01 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Digging Hawkins' "Into the Universe" > > > > I agree, Mr Worf. And what's really scary is that, in the mathematical > community, Hawking's word is often taken as the end of the conversation, as > though that Lucasian Chair he holds is a golden throne, and Hawking the King > of All Maths. A couple of years a go, a guy in Hawaii, who barely scraped > through school with a BS in math, cracked the Grand Unification Theory, the > Holy Grail of Science that marries the seven known forces of the Universe > (which I canNOT name right now -- time to turn in the sheepskins). Hawking > and all of the other bigwigs have been battering themselves senseless trying > to solve this. Hence, this guy's doing so has been reported on VERY quietly. > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 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/ >> > > > > -- > "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
