Printable View
Once again with special thanks to our sister Kathy, who posted this video over at our sister forum Eye-Rise, here. ;)
DESCRIPTION
In two mind-blowing hours, Hawking reveals the wonders of the cosmos to a new generation. Delve into the mind of the world's most famous scientist and reveal the splendor and majesty of the universe as never seen before. See how the universe began, how it creates stars, black holes and life — and how everything will end.
DURATION
1 hour 27 minutes
Dagnabbit! They blocked it.
Try this link...https://www.proxysite.com/ Copy and paste the URL and change the server location...:D
I actually had tickets to see one of his presentations but my stepdaughter let me down. She was supposed to babysit my daughter and she never showed up...such is life.
As much as I admired Hawking in many ways, truth be told, he wasn't held in the highest regard by his peers. Among the biggies he was considered an also ran. He is often cited for his atheism/agnosticism but I think those criticisms are misplaced. The truly great scientists recognize there is much more to the cosmos than sheer physics can accommodate. His brane theory for the explanation of the universes as not requiring a creator was ludicrous. Not the brane theory, the approbation that it did away with a creator.
Sorry, if SH was so smart why didn’t he figure out the redshift hoax?
I’m a ton stupider than he and I did it.
...it’s because he had sold out.
There is no hoax. Redshift and blueshift are very real phenomena and can perfectly be explained by general relativity. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Dumpster Diver
Don't be silly. What could he have possibly hoped to gain from that? He knew he was on borrowed time all along. :hmm:Quote:
Originally posted by Dumpster Diver
Stephen Hawking was opinionated, but he was an honorable man.
There are always going to be people who disagree on the state or cause of things. As the page at the first of your links says, the alternative explanation for redshifts comes from — and I quote — "a small but vocal group". And in my personal opinion — supported by the article — there may be some truth to it in the event of quasars, but then that still doesn't discount the generally accepted observation that redshift signifies an object moving away from us, and that blueshift signifies an object approaching us.Quote:
Originally posted by Dumpster Diverhttp://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.htmlQuote:
Originally posted by AragornThere is no hoax. Redshift and blueshift are very real phenomena and can perfectly be explained by general relativity. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Dumpster Diver
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reds...ce_distortions
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...ingers-god.htm
Regardless of Stephen Hawking's personal opinion on this matter — which I'm not even familiar with — I also don't think that it would have been within the scope of his documentary to explain all the exceptions to the rule. The scope of the documentary was to provide for a clearly understandable cosmological model for viewers without a master's degree in astrophysics. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV7JX9BZDMs&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9M33FLH40&app=desktop
If Arp was wrong, why go after him like “establishment science” did? Why was he considered such a threat? And SH, very much part of the establishment, stayed away from it. If he is to be considered anywhere close to being “the greatest mind in Physics” of our time, he had to have made a statement.
Holoscience dot com, the website of Wal Thornhill, has a section about the incorrect theory of the Big Bang, proven incorrect by Halton Arp:Quote:
Originally posted by Dumpster Diver
Quote:
Attachment 2015
The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded “Galileo of the 20th century”, Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp’s new view of the cosmos, active galaxies “give birth” to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.
The huge puzzle for astrophysicists is why a galaxy should exhibit an atomic phenomenon. So we turn to particle physics. This difficulty highlights the fact that quantum “mechanics” applied to atoms is a theory without physical reality. The weirdness of quantum theory has been attributed to the subatomic scale to which it applies. But now that we have quantum effects in something the size of a galaxy, this convenient nonsense is exposed. If Arp is right many experts are going to look very silly. His discovery sounded the alarm in some halls of Academe and since nobody likes a loud noise – particularly if they are asleep – the knee-jerk response was to attack the guy with his finger on the alarm button. Arp’s telescope time was denied, papers rejected, and he was forced to leave the US to pursue his work.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synops...what-big-bang/
Since SH’s “genius” was based mostly on the existence of blackholes, and their “found ability to evaporate,” I doubt he’d want to venture into the arena where they don’t exist:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-ma...f-black-holes/
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-...r-logic-apart/
Arp didn't prove anything. He only came up with a theory, and for that matter, one that still does not explain the origins of the universe, while Einstein's General Relativity does, and has — in spite of the objections from vocal mavericks like Arp, Dollard, et al — yet to be proven false.Quote:
Originally posted by KeepTrying
By the way, the rules of quantum physics do not apply at such large scales as those of quasars and galaxies. That's what Erwin Schrödinger attempted to illustrate with the famous thought experiment of the cat in the box.
Actually, for a short while he did, but then he abandoned that theory again. Every year there are hundreds of people issuing some publication in which they claim that Einstein was wrong, and up until this very day, 65 years after Einstein's death, each and every single one of them has failed to prove it, while at the same time all experiments that sought to verify the accuracy of Einstein's equations and predictions have been proving him correct, all the way from how the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and is the same for all observers in all reference frames, over gravity- and speed-related time dilation effects, up to frame-dragging and — most recently — gravitational waves.Quote:
Originally posted by Dumpster Diver
Communication and navigation satellites as well as manned and unmanned spaceflights all operate upon the principles of Einstein's General Relativity. None of that would be working if Einstein — and by consequence Hawking — had been wrong. There is yet a lot to be discovered, but then we're talking about new and rare phenomena, not about how everything has just coincidentally managed to work while it was all based upon a theory that was supposedly utterly wrong.
My understanding without doing a mental refresh is that the Universe in fact is not nor expected to be homogeneous in structure. If it was there wouldn't be any galaxies or quasars to even discuss. The universe would be totally flat and formless. After the initial Big Bang there were a couple of 'expansion' events that let to the universes 'lumpiness'. I was also under the impression that redshift vs distance was not a straight line measure. There are a number of conditions which can distort the 'apparent' redshift of any cosmic body. I would venture that quasars would be such an object that attracted a lot of attention in this regard. I don't think the underpinnings of cosmological theory has as yet been overturned.
That is correct, yes. :)Quote:
Originally posted by NotAPretender
One such clear manifestation is that the observable universe appears to be made up of the kind of matter that we know, with positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. If the amount of matter and antimatter — which has negatively charged protons and positively charged electrons — in the universe were equal, then all matter in the universe would have already long annihilated itself, because when matter and antimatter collide, they both get converted into energy. That's what Einstein's formula "E = m · c2" is all about.
Absolutely agreed. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by NotAPretender
We shall see, but I see the theory of the Electric Universe will wipe out the “Standard Models” Black Holes, Big Bang, Redshift “effect” and Hawking as well.