LONDON (AP) — Stephen Hawking understands the workings of the universe — but says he cannot fathom the popularity of Donald Trump.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."
WoW! Even Hawking is baffled by the "Trump Black Hole."
#1: ConservingFreedom To: buckeroo (#0)
Sounds to me like he perfectly understands the popularity of Donald Trump.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 16:51:04 Reply Private Reply
#2: Justified To: buckeroo (#0)
Just proves even book smart people don't know it all.
Trump kicking everyone's butt is easy to explain and comprehend if you can be honest to yourself.
Justified posted on 2016-05-30 17:05:26 Reply Private Reply
#3: Gatlin To: buckeroo (#0)
I can understand how he is ... It is hard to define truly amazing.
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-30 17:30:01 Reply Private Reply
#4: paraclete To: buckeroo (#0)
RUBBISH! Hawking should stick to what he knows and stay out of politics and economics. It is clear the freedom loving Brits find the EU regulation stiffling and if they want less of it they should not yield to scare tactics. Britain wants to protect its borders, it cannot do so from within the EU. Britain allowed migration from other parts of the empire and understands better than most the consequence. A nation can develop without political integration with other nations, a nation can successfully trade without political integration. If Britain wants to leave the greater german economic bloc they should do so
paraclete posted on 2016-05-30 18:56:16 Reply Private Reply
#5: GrandIsland To: Justified (#2)
Absoloutly. Spot on.
The people of this country are gonna see a win by a greater landslide than they've seen in over 100 years.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-30 19:01:20 Reply Private Reply
#6: Roscoe To: buckeroo (#0)
Hawking has no accomplishments save celebrity.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 19:10:45 Reply Private Reply
#7: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#5)
Greater than Harding's 1920 win by 60-34 over Cox, eh? I'm bookmarking this one.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:11:09 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: buckeroo (#0)
Yep. That's Trump.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 19:13:57 Reply Private Reply
#9: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#7)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-30 19:15:03 Reply Private Reply
#10: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#6)
'In his work, and in collaboration with Penrose, Hawking extended the singularity theorem concepts first explored in his doctoral thesis. This included not only the existence of singularities but also the theory that the universe might have started as a singularity. Their joint essay was the runner-up in the 1968 Gravity Research Foundation competition.[155][156] In 1970 they published a proof that if the universe obeys the general theory of relativity and fits any of the models of physical cosmology developed by Alexander Friedmann, then it must have begun as a singularity.[157][158] [159] In 1969, Hawking accepted a specially created Fellowship for Distinction in Science to remain at Caius.[160]
'In 1970, Hawking postulated what became known as the second law of black hole dynamics, that the event horizon of a black hole can never get smaller. [161] With James M. Bardeen and Brandon Carter, he proposed the four laws of black hole mechanics, drawing an analogy with thermodynamics.[162] To Hawking's irritation, Jacob Bekenstein, a graduate student of John Wheeler, went further—and ultimately correctly—to apply thermodynamic concepts literally.[163][164] In the early 1970s, Hawking's work with Carter, Werner Israel and David C. Robinson strongly supported Wheeler's no-hair theorem that no matter what the original material from which a black hole is created it can be completely described by the properties of mass, electrical charge and rotation.[165][166] His essay titled "Black Holes" won the Gravity Research Foundation Award in January 1971.[167] Hawking's first book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, written with George Ellis, was published in 1973.[168]
'Beginning in 1973, Hawking moved into the study of quantum gravity and quantum mechanics.[169][168] His work in this area was spurred by a visit to Moscow and discussions with Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky, whose work showed that according to the uncertainty principle rotating black holes emit particles.[170] To Hawking's annoyance, his much- checked calculations produced findings that contradicted his second law, which claimed black holes could never get smaller,[171] and supported Bekenstein's reasoning about their entropy.[172][170] His results, which Hawking presented from 1974, showed that black holes emit radiation, known today as Hawking radiation, which may continue until they exhaust their energy and evaporate.[173][174][175] Initially, Hawking radiation was controversial. However, by the late 1970s and following the publication of further research, the discovery was widely accepted as a significant breakthrough in theoretical physics.[176][177][178] Hawking was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1974, a few weeks after the announcement of Hawking radiation. At the time, he was one of the youngest scientists to become a Fellow.[179][180]' - https://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Career
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:17:01 Reply Private Reply
#11: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#9)
ROTFL! You backpedal faster than Lance Armstrong pedals forward.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:18:17 Reply Private Reply
#12: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#8)
Source? Dictionary.com defines it as "a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:20:00 Reply Private Reply
#13: A K A Stone To: Justified (#2)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 19:23:09 Reply Private Reply
#14: ConservingFreedom To: A K A Stone (#13)
Tell us about your discoveries in general relativity and quantum physics, Brainiac.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:33:27 Reply Private Reply
#15: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
Merriam-Webster
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 19:45:30 Reply Private Reply
#16: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#15)
What Merriam-Webster actually says:
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:56:03 Reply Private Reply
#17: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 19:56:33 Reply Private Reply
#18: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#6)
Wasn't he the guy who walked close to the event horizon of a black hole and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket? And that led to the invention of the iPhone?
So there's that.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 19:56:41 Reply Private Reply
#19: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 19:57:17 Reply Private Reply
#20: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
Theories with no applications are not accomplishments, especially when they have been refuted.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 19:58:40 Reply Private Reply
#21: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#19)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:58:56 Reply Private Reply
#22: ConservingFreedom 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".
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:07:20 Reply Private Reply
#23: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
His being Hawking's. He refuted himself.
Bwahahaha!
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:10:51 Reply Private Reply
#24: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
I gave an old, yet valid, definition.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 20:13:09 Reply Private Reply
#25: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#18)
He's the G.R.R.M. of celebrity "scientists."
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:17:50 Reply Private Reply
#26: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#23)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:18:13 Reply Private Reply
#27: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#26)
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.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:24:39 Reply Private Reply
#28: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#27)
No, theorizing backed by rigorous calculation.
Wrong no matter how often you repeat it.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:26:59 Reply Private Reply
#29: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#28)
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?
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:33:03 Reply Private Reply
#30: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#29)
Perplexing boobs like you.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:38:01 Reply Private Reply
#31: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:38:30 Reply Private Reply
#32: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#31)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:43:45 Reply Private Reply
#33: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
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?
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:49:31 Reply Private Reply
#34: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#33)
Try putting 2 and 2 together, dimwit.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:55:09 Reply Private Reply
#35: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
And the coward flees again.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 21:00:33 Reply Private Reply
#36: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#35)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 21:02:55 Reply Private Reply
#37: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:07:53 Reply Private Reply
#38: ConservingFreedom To: A K A Stone (#37)
No, that's not the black holes we're talking about.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 21:10:16 Reply Private Reply
#39: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:12:17 Reply Private Reply
#40: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
Stephen Hawking: “there are no black holes”
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 21:13:47 Reply Private Reply
#41: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#37)
If they hate cops, I bet he does. That makes Furguson Missouri a virtual target rich environment for ConservingFreedom...
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-30 21:14:09 Reply Private Reply
#42: ConservingFreedom To: A K A Stone (#39)
Sometimes we make noises like monkeys ...
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 21:14:51 Reply Private Reply
#43: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#40)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 21:16:19 Reply Private Reply
#44: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#42)
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:17:18 Reply Private Reply
#45: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
Empty theorizing without any useful application. You just keep sharing your tail.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 21:25:43 Reply Private Reply
#46: buckeroo To: A K A Stone, ConservingFreedom (#44)
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?
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-30 21:37:19 Reply Private Reply
#47: A K A Stone To: buckeroo (#46)
So mud adapted into a tadpole? Or a one cell creature if you will?
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:49:22 Reply Private Reply
#48: A K A Stone To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
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?
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:50:49 Reply Private Reply
#49: buckeroo To: A K A Stone (#47)
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-30 22:04:58 Reply Private Reply
#50: A K A Stone To: buckeroo (#49)
I find this to be hogwash.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 22:07:47 Reply Private Reply