Lack of evidence put Hawking’s Nobel hopes in black hole

AP ^ | March 14, 2018 | Seth Borenstein

[C19fan]

Stephen Hawking won accolades from his peers for having one of the most brilliant minds in science, but he never got a Nobel Prize because no one has yet proven his ideas.

The Nobel committee looks for proof, not big ideas. Hawking was a deep thinker — a theorist — and his musings about black holes and cosmology have yet to get the lockdown evidence that accompanies the physics prizes, his fellow scientists said.

[DoodleDawg]

Hawking’s Nobel hopes died with him. They don’t award it posthumously.

[mcshot]

+2

[davidb56]

if obama gets one, everyone should too.....like a pair of sneakers.

[ExTxMarine]

GAME! SET! MATCH!

You win the internet today!! CONGRATULATIONS!

[ExTxMarine]

GAME! SET! MATCH!

You win the internet today!! CONGRATULATIONS!

[gov_bean_ counter]

He was a glorified science fiction writer.

[Wuli]

I’m with you. I consider Hawking the most over-promoted overrated scientist of our time. I think a giant contribution to all that was a massive undeserved sympathy vote he always got. I say undeserved because rating the science should not employ “handicaps”. You’ve either got it or you don’t.

[Getready]

One of the characterizations of his I didnt like was that he would write that so and so had proved something...cuz the math worked out....no physical test ....just math..still a smart guy...but there are many smart guys

[dforest]

Well, lets see, hmmn, Obama got a Nobel prize with no proof of doing anything to promote peace.

[SgtHooper]

LOL! Exactly!

[Ozark Tom]

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick found a mathematical flaw in the computer program of “Hockey Stick” fame, which when fed garbage files of random numbers would always produce a sudden upturn at the end of a representative graph. This was Mann’s ‘talking-point’ per evidence for a sudden surge of global warming based upon a computer program’s manipulation of tree ring growth, analysis purported as representative of temperature trends.

Way too much science is accepted based on mathematical models as the proof. Any science which requires different fudge factors depending upon at what scale the universe is examined, deserves re-evaluation from first principles, regardless of utility of current methods to get the answer sought after.

[SgtHooper]

He may be approaching the event horizon real soon! :-)

[minnesota_bound]

If Stephen Hawking was not crippled would he have been noticed at all?

[Getready]

Agree...he would say things like this “smart guy” discovered that black holes are really blah blah blah cuz the formulas used indicated blah blah blah...he misused the term “discovered”...should have used term “postulated” or “theorized”...his books became collections of suppositions to me.
Neverthelesd he was smart...I wonder where he is now? I hope that God is teaching him how he made the universe...and lets him enjoy it unfettered.

[aquila48]

“Ridiculously overrated physicist. Minor contributions compared to others. Disgusting personal character. I won’t miss Hawking.”

I agree. Realistically, he was only slightly more talented than DeGrasse-Tyson. Both are overrated because of their “handicaps” - race and awful disease.

[SuperLuminal]

"Ooops should be Stockholm."

Also, the documenting information better be written in Arabic...

[pabianice]

He was also a vocal Jew-hater who advocated that Israel give all its land to Arabs.

[Cronos]

"Scientists" are a broad bunch. You should be a fan of experimental scientists who follow what I call real science i.e. take a hypothesis and look for different proofs for and against it (positive and negative testing) -- only if it is proved conclusively that this exists and that there is no proof that it does not, do they accept it.

That's true of a lot of biological scientists or experimental physicists

As for theoretical physcicists, there is a difference between those who hypothesise and those who speculate. Hypothesis can be "oh, there is an inconsistency in this data, perhaps there are some gravity sucking entities, perhaps lets call it a black hole" while speculation is "lets go back and back and say there was a big bang"

Speculation is fine but if a scientist says this speculation is better than religion (which in the case of creation can't be "scientifically" proven or disproven) then he is not being scientific.

I consider myself highly logical but to ME, religion makes perfect sense. Using the cover term of "science" to create a pseudo religion is highly insulting to real science.

[mikrofon]

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 03/15/2018. Thanks C19fan.

---

---

· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

---