United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Stephen Hawking baffled by dynamics of Trump's popularity
Source:
AP
URL Source: http://elections.ap.org/content/ste ... led-dynamics-trumps-popularity
Published: May 30, 2016
Author: staff
Post Date: 2016-05-30 14:46:19 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 7701
Comments: 62
The British astrophysicist told ITV's morning show Monday that the presumptive Republican Party candidate for U.S. president "is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." Hawking also appealed to British voters to vote to keep the United Kingdom inside the European Union in a June 23 referendum. He said remaining within the EU provided essential support for British scientific research as well as its economy and security. He said: "Gone are the days we could stand on our own against the world. We need to be part of a larger group of nations, both for our security and our trade."LONDON (AP) — Stephen Hawking understands the workings of the universe — but says he cannot fathom the popularity of Donald Trump.
WoW! Even Hawking is baffled by the "Trump Black Hole."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-21) not displayed.
.
.
.
#22. To: Roscoe (#20)
By your shabby 'logic' all of quantum chromodynamics, for example, contains no accomplishments. Not a refutation, boob: "peers have yet to have a go at assessing his idea". A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. His being Hawking's. He refuted himself. Bwahahaha!
I gave an old, yet valid, definition.
He's the G.R.R.M. of celebrity "scientists."
Still wrong, boob - he offered a hypothesis with only the supporting argument that it resolved an apparent paradox in a way arguably more satisfying than other proposed resolutions. And if later science shows earlier science to be incorrect, the earlier science remains no less an accomplishment, cf. Isaac Newton. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. His fame rests on that incorrect "science" (empty theorizing), which he now refutes. Therefore, you want people to support Hillary. Or Epstein. Or that naked sicko who was prancing about at the Libertine convention.
No, theorizing backed by rigorous calculation. Wrong no matter how often you repeat it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Just like Global Warming. Just out of curiosity, what would you say was the single most useful application of the black hole theorizing Hawking now rejects?
Perplexing boobs like you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I figured you would punk out.
Quantum chromodynamics has no useful applications - dismiss it if you like, but your betters know better.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You're such a craven coward. Let's try again: Just out of curiosity, what would you say was the single most useful application of the black hole theorizing Hawking now rejects?
Try putting 2 and 2 together, dimwit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And the coward flees again.
Ah, what the hell, I'll spoonfeed you: black hole theory has had no useful applications to date. So what?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Do you fuck monkeys?
Do you fuck monkeys? No, that's not the black holes we're talking about. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The retard thinks he is the offspring of monkeys. So hawkingshithead thinks you fuck your monkey wife.
Stephen Hawking: “there are no black holes”
Do you fuck monkeys? If they hate cops, I bet he does. That makes Furguson Missouri a virtual target rich environment for ConservingFreedom... I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Sometimes we make noises like monkeys ... A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If later science shows earlier science to be incorrect, the earlier science remains no less an accomplishment, cf. Isaac Newton.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Ok you're a good sport. If you believe in evolution yoe can't be that smart in my view.
Empty theorizing without any useful application. You just keep sharing your tail.
The primary purpose of life for all is to survive. When conditions change, all of life modifies itself to adjust to the conditions. In its most simple state, that is all there is about evolution. Don't you learn to adapt the world around yourself?
So mud adapted into a tadpole? Or a one cell creature if you will?
So if we say Science says X will cure you. And X doesn't cure you. Then it was useful to to to X even though it had no affect?
What is the essence of life? Mud isn't life, so we can rule out your silly question. An example of a one celled animal is an amoeba. It survives and adjusts to the world around itself, so yes, it can evolve.
Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery. - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/18565- life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.html#sthash.IIf7Duuo.dpuf I find this to be hogwash.
There is speculation that the "beginning" was based on high energy particles bombarding certain chemical compounds creating DNA. It hasn't been reproduced by man yet.
Empty theorizing Wrong no matter how often you repeat it. You keep saying this like it had any relevance to whether something is science - and I keep pointing out that quantum chromodynamics is likewise without any useful application. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I don't believe that happened. Is not what we witness in the real world. In the real world things don't change into different things. They reproduce after like kind. Just like the Bible says they do. When you plant an apple tree. You don't worry that it might change into a cocomadoo tree. You can be certain it will be an apple tree. When two skunks mate. You can be assured it will produce a skunk. Not a Toadalawrench. Evolution is a fairy tale. People who believe in it are deluded. Sure we adapt and learn new things. But that isn't changing into something entirely different.
Science never says anything WILL cure YOU - it may say something HAS cured A PERCENTAGE of those with a certain condition, which remains true even if YOU don't turn out to be part of that percentage. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You fled gibbering in terror a dozen times when asked to show ANY useful application.
Stephen Hawking Predicts: “This Pill Will Change Humanity" - Harvard Study Shows Brain Boosting “Smart Drug” Proven To Double IQ Is The Biggest Discovery In History
Which part of "black hole theory has had no useful applications to date" did you not understand, cretin? Is your daffynition of "empty theorizing" any theorizing without any useful application? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Stephen Hawking: “there are no black holes”
No he doesn't - nor does the prime minister of Nigeria want to transfer millions to your account. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yes mental midget the retatd slob does.
'Finding the interview proved virtually impossible…I tried searching the CNN website, google, and a variety of other sources to see if Anderson Cooper even interviewed Stephen Hawking, with no success. 'Well, it turns out (if you were surprised anyway) that Hawking did NOT say that….Instead in the REAL article (wasn’t even an interview with Anderson Cooper) he was talking about Artificial intelligence and how “Success in AI would be the biggest even in human history”.' - www.supplementcritique.co...racle-supplement-or- hoax/ A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Theories with no applications are not accomplishments,
especially when they have been refuted.
published last week on arXiv, says: “there are no black holes”- SCIENCE & TECH 27 JANUARY 2014
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
"peers have yet to have a go at assessing his idea".
#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
"You gave as the definition a misleadingly truncated version of the secondary definition."
#25. To: misterwhite (#18)
Wasn't he the guy who walked close to the event horizon of a black hole and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket?
#26. To: Roscoe (#23)
He refuted himself.
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#26)
if later science shows earlier science to be incorrect
#28. To: Roscoe (#27)
His fame rests on that incorrect "science" (empty theorizing),
which he now refutes.
#29. To: ConservingFreedom (#28)
theorizing backed by rigorous calculation
#30. To: Roscoe (#29)
what would you say was the single most useful application of the black hole theorizing
#31. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
#32. To: Roscoe (#31)
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
Quantum chromodynamics
#34. To: Roscoe (#33)
Let's try again:
#35. To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
Try putting 2 and 2 together
#36. To: Roscoe (#35)
#37. To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
"black hole theory has had no useful applications to date."
#39. To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
#40. To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
black hole theory has had no useful applications to date
#41. To: A K A Stone (#37)
To: ConservingFreedom
#42. To: A K A Stone (#39)
hawkingshithead thinks you fuck your monkey wife.
#43. To: Roscoe (#40)
#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#42)
#45. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
If later science
#46. To: A K A Stone, ConservingFreedom (#44)
If you believe in evolution yoe can't be that smart in my view.
#47. To: buckeroo (#46)
Don't you learn to adapt the world around yourself?
#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
If later science shows earlier science to be incorrect, the earlier science remains no less an accomplishment
#49. To: A K A Stone (#47)
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)
But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.
#52. To: Roscoe (#45)
"If later science"
without any useful application.
#53. To: buckeroo (#51)
There is speculation that the "beginning" was based on high energy particles bombarding certain chemical compounds creating DNA. It hasn't been reproduced by man yet.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#48)
Science says X will cure you.
#55. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
Wrong
#56. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
Science never says anything WILL cure YOU - it may say something HAS cured A PERCENTAGE of those with a certain condition, which remains true even if YOU don't turn out to be part of that percentage.
#57. To: Roscoe (#55)
You fled gibbering in terror a dozen times when asked to show ANY useful application.
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
Which part of "black hole theory has had no useful applications to date" did you not understand?
#59. To: misterwhite (#24)
#60. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Stephen Hawking Predicts: “This Pill Will Change Humanity"
#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
#62. To: A K A Stone (#61)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]