Stephen Hawking baffled by dynamics of Trump's popularity

Source: AP
Published: May 30, 2016
Author: staff
Post Date: 2016-05-30 14:46:19 by buckeroo
Views: 9200

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."

Post Comment   Private Reply

#13: A K A Stone    To: Justified (#2)

Hawking isn't smart he is a f'n retard.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 19:23:09   Reply   Private Reply

#14: ConservingFreedom    To: A K A Stone (#13)

Hawking isn't smart he is a f'n retard.

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)

Source?

Merriam-Webster

misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 19:45:30   Reply   Private Reply

#16: ConservingFreedom    To: misterwhite (#15)

Merriam-Webster

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)

He believes if two monkeys fuck they make humans. A FUCKING RETARD!

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 19:56:33   Reply   Private Reply

#18: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#6)

"Hawking has no accomplishments save celebrity."

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)

There you go.

misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 19:57:17   Reply   Private Reply

#20: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#10)

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.

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

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 19:58:40   Reply   Private Reply

#21: ConservingFreedom    To: misterwhite (#19)

You gave as the definition a misleadingly truncated version of the secondary definition. There we go indeed.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 19:58:56   Reply   Private Reply

#22: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#20)

Theories with no applications are not accomplishments,

By your shabby 'logic' all of quantum chromodynamics, for example, contains no accomplishments.

especially when they have been refuted.

published last week on arXiv, says: “there are no black holes”- SCIENCE & TECH 27 JANUARY 2014

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)

"peers have yet to have a go at assessing his idea".

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)

"You gave as the definition a misleadingly truncated version of the secondary definition."

I gave an old, yet valid, definition.

misterwhite posted on 2016-05-30 20:13:09   Reply   Private Reply

#25: Roscoe    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?

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)

He refuted himself.

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)

if later science shows earlier science to be incorrect

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)

His fame rests on that incorrect "science" (empty theorizing),

No, theorizing backed by rigorous calculation.

which he now refutes.

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)

theorizing backed by rigorous calculation

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)

what would you say was the single most useful application of the black hole theorizing

Perplexing boobs like you.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:38:01   Reply   Private Reply

#31: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#30)

I figured you would punk out.

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 20:38:30   Reply   Private Reply

#32: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#31)

Quantum chromodynamics has no useful applications - dismiss it if you like, but your betters know better.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:43:45   Reply   Private Reply

#33: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#32)

Quantum chromodynamics

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)

Let's try again:

Try putting 2 and 2 together, dimwit.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 20:55:09   Reply   Private Reply

#35: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#34)

Try putting 2 and 2 together

And the coward flees again.

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 21:00:33   Reply   Private Reply

#36: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#35)

Ah, what the hell, I'll spoonfeed you: black hole theory has had no useful applications to date. So what?

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 21:02:55   Reply   Private Reply

#37: A K A Stone    To: ConservingFreedom (#36)

Do you fuck monkeys?

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:07:53   Reply   Private Reply

#38: ConservingFreedom    To: A K A Stone (#37)

"black hole theory has had no useful applications to date."

Do you fuck monkeys?

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)

The retard thinks he is the offspring of monkeys. So hawkingshithead thinks you fuck your monkey wife.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:12:17   Reply   Private Reply

#40: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#36)

black hole theory has had no useful applications to date

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)

To: ConservingFreedom

Do you fuck monkeys?

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)

hawkingshithead thinks you fuck your monkey wife.

Sometimes we make noises like monkeys ...

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 21:14:51   Reply   Private Reply

#43: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#40)

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 21:16:19   Reply   Private Reply

#44: A K A Stone    To: ConservingFreedom (#42)

Ok you're a good sport. If you believe in evolution yoe can't be that smart in my view.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 21:17:18   Reply   Private Reply

#45: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#43)

If later science

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)

If you believe in evolution yoe can't be that smart in my view.

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)

Don't you learn to adapt the world around yourself?

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)

If later science shows earlier science to be incorrect, the earlier science remains no less an accomplishment

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)

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.

buckeroo posted on 2016-05-30 22:04:58   Reply   Private Reply

#50: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#49)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 22:07:47   Reply   Private Reply

#51: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#50)

But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.

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.

buckeroo posted on 2016-05-30 22:16:00   Reply   Private Reply

#52: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#45)

"If later science"

Empty theorizing

Wrong no matter how often you repeat it.

without any useful application.

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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 22:21:16   Reply   Private Reply

#53: A K A Stone    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.

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-30 22:22:53   Reply   Private Reply

#54: ConservingFreedom    To: A K A Stone (#48)

Science says X will cure you.

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.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-30 22:26:29   Reply   Private Reply

#55: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#52)

Wrong

You fled gibbering in terror a dozen times when asked to show ANY useful application.

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-30 22:47:46   Reply   Private Reply

#56: A K A Stone    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.

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

A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-31 00:20:33   Reply   Private Reply

#57: ConservingFreedom    To: Roscoe (#55)

You fled gibbering in terror a dozen times when asked to show ANY useful application.

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?

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-31 13:36:35   Reply   Private Reply

#58: Roscoe    To: ConservingFreedom (#57)

Which part of "black hole theory has had no useful applications to date" did you not understand?

Stephen Hawking: “there are no black holes”

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-31 15:07:05   Reply   Private Reply

#59: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#24)

Roscoe posted on 2016-05-31 19:50:11   Reply   Private Reply

#60: ConservingFreedom    To: A K A Stone (#56)

Stephen Hawking Predicts: “This Pill Will Change Humanity"

No he doesn't - nor does the prime minister of Nigeria want to transfer millions to your account.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-06-01 17:58:20   Reply   Private Reply

#61: A K A Stone    To: ConservingFreedom (#60)

Yes mental midget the retatd slob does.

A K A Stone posted on 2016-06-01 18:26:15   Reply   Private Reply

#62: ConservingFreedom    To: A K A Stone (#61)

'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/

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-06-01 18:38:29   Reply   Private Reply