Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking
Rediff.com ^ | August 03, 2004 10:06 IST | Rediff.com

Posted on 08/02/2004 10:16:56 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: CarrotAndStick

If Black holes truly do not exist, how does one explain the existence of liberal democrats such as Kerry? Information vanishes into this mystery and is forever lost in revisions, indecision, distortion, and envy. Democrats can make the tax payers money vanish without a trace of improvement in any area it's expended on.

Of course the Republicans are doing a fair job themselves of learning that trick, such as ten billion down the African black hole for aids when African leaders have tossed the very possibility that aids exist down their own black hole, and an eventually 34 billion in Social Security to Mexico who can make that vanish down a black hole without an illegal ever seeing a dime of it.


41 posted on 08/03/2004 7:33:49 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
You're right about Hawking being overrated. He doesn't believe in life after death, so I automatically know not to believe everything he says.

Hawking is no more qualified an authority on theology than I am. However, just because you disagree with his views on religion in no way impacts his abilities as a scientist.

42 posted on 08/03/2004 7:42:08 AM PDT by Modernman ("I have nothing to declare except my genius." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Would be interested in such contextualization of the subject matter -- also any analysis of the behavior of these scientists that explains their "shunning" and more general determinations not to include "unorthodox" theorists in their networks of acceptance and communication.

The behavior of the scientists is in this case perfectly appropriate. This fellow Mitra is a deep-fried crackpot whose work is replete with errors of the most trivial kind.

Right off the bat this article hits us with: "He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity." Never mind that Schwarzschild's paper was the first published solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity. It was published in 1916, only a year after GR was published.

Later we are hit with: "Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley Robertson and Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that BHCs have intense magnetic fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black holes which cannot have magnetic field." This sentence is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but it will suffice to point out that the Kerr-Newman solution to the Einstein Field Equations was published in 1965 (rotating, charged black holes must necessarily have intense magnetic fields).

There are plenty more howlers in this article, and if you follow the links AdmSmith posted, you'll see that Mitra's papers are veritable fountains of errors.

It is the shame of FreeRepublic that the rantings of crackpots are routinely posted in lieu of science, and accepted uncritically and to great applause by a certain segment of Freepers, who despite the pride they take in their ignorance of the topic, seem to have a politically motivated need for mainstream science and scientists to be discredited. It really reflects badly on all of us.

43 posted on 08/03/2004 8:40:49 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Hmm.... Looks like this article (or I) touched a nerve. So, are you saying that all of Mitra works should be discredited and he should be shunned by the scientific community?


44 posted on 08/03/2004 8:49:47 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: unspun
So, are you saying that all of Mitra works should be discredited and he should be shunned by the scientific community?

The works are discredited by their own errors. As for "shunning", the scientific community is under NO obligation to take anybody seriously. The attention of scientists is something that must be earned. Mitra, far from earning it, has actively destroyed any chance at such attention, because of his trivially erroneous claims.

Besides, if you follow the links AdmSmith provided, you'll see that Mitra has received the attention of some physicists. The results of that attention were not flattering to Mitra, to say the least.

If a maverick historian came along and tried to claim that the Roman Empire never existed, or that the United States of America existed before England did, would academic historians be under any obligation to give attention to his work?

45 posted on 08/03/2004 9:02:55 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Which reminds me... in the "future episode" of the Simpsons where Lisa becomes president, this joke is told by Krusty the Klown:

"What's the difference between Pakistan and a pancake? I don't know any pancakes that were nuked by India!

What, too soon?"

46 posted on 08/03/2004 9:07:52 AM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
If a maverick historian came along and tried to claim that the Roman Empire never existed, or that the United States of America existed before England did, would academic historians be under any obligation to give attention to his work?

Sorry, but I don't see that analogy as quite apt. It seems that Mitra, as wild and inaccurate as his theorizing may have been, did serve to point out an inaccuracy in then-current "belief" by the scientific community.

47 posted on 08/03/2004 9:20:42 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: unspun
It seems that Mitra, as wild and inaccurate as his theorizing may have been, did serve to point out an inaccuracy in then-current "belief" by the scientific community.

Not even remotely. Mitra insists that black holes are impossible. Then Hawking changes his opinion on a very subtle theoretical issue regarding black holes--a change which, I might add, had been urged on him for years by Kip Thorne, who by any standard is a mainstream physicist--and Mitra claims vindication? Preposterous.

48 posted on 08/03/2004 9:27:57 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
It is worth noting that with credentials comes the obligation to shred inferior or poorly thought out theories. It is a form of housecleaning.

Now that sounds like fun!

49 posted on 08/03/2004 9:29:50 AM PDT by zeugma (The Great Experiment is over and the Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid

roflmAo!


50 posted on 08/03/2004 9:30:25 AM PDT by King Prout ("Thou has been found guilty and convicted of malum zambonifactum most foul... REPENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the reputed journal, Foundations of Physics Letters...

It's not reputed, it's real enough.

51 posted on 08/03/2004 9:33:11 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HassanBenSobar

Was this scientist an Objectivist of the Ayn Rand sense of the word? That makes sense because in the Objectivist community, the existence of black holes has been held to be impossible because it was a contradiction.


52 posted on 08/03/2004 9:45:06 AM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
99.9% of the claims to have overturned some established principle of science turn out to be nonsense, produced by fringe scientists who have made some fundamental error. I very much suspect this is the case with Dr. Mitra. In particular, there is a vast difference between his claim that black holes cannot exist, and Hawking's claim that black holes, if you feed them absolutely nothing, will shrink by radiation over a semi-infinite time period.

Nonetheless I predict FR's motley collection of science kooks will be exulting at this further evidence of the closed-mindedness of the scientific establishment

53 posted on 08/03/2004 9:56:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
It is the shame of FreeRepublic that the rantings of crackpots are routinely posted in lieu of science, and accepted uncritically and to great applause by a certain segment of Freepers, who despite the pride they take in their ignorance of the topic, seem to have a politically motivated need for mainstream science and scientists to be discredited

Your outstanding and eloquent plea for reason reminds me why you are my second-favorite Freeper. (Radio Astronomer is my favorite. Sorry).

It really reflects badly on all of us.

The small but annoyingly loud number of pseudoscientists does no service to FR or conservatism in general, and only gives the Left further ammunition. And the person who winds up taking these shots is Jim Rob, who has done prehaps more than anyone to establish a strong and coherent conservative community on the Web. It is through no fault of his own that the pseudoscientists (as well as the homophobes, Muslim-bashers, and other fringe dwellers who masquerade as being part of mainstream conservatism) keep trying to sabotage things.

54 posted on 08/03/2004 10:05:25 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (<A HREF=http://www.michaelmoore.com>stupid blob</A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Well, I'm sure that must depend on what the meaning of "black hole" is. But in any case, I don't find "religious warfare" to be conducive to the practice of science --even when one "odd ball" is ganged upon by those who adhere to oft adjusted "conventional wisdom."


55 posted on 08/03/2004 10:56:38 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"Ganged upon"? Wait, I thought he was being "shunned"!

The fact of the matter is that the guy is flat-out wrong, and easily shown to be so. The only things a competent scientist can do is debunk him or ignore him. There's no third option. Which would you prefer? You've complained about both.

56 posted on 08/03/2004 11:04:03 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Alamo-Girl; marron; PatrickHenry
Further evidence of the sheeple mentality in the scientific community....

Yes, Brother A ... but it isn't just the "scientific community" that acts this way. This seems to be human nature.... (And you may recall what Katherine Hepburn says about "nature" in The African Queen: Nature is what we humans "were put here to rise above" ... or words to that effect).

I think Hawking is a real stand-up guy to make a public correction of a long-standing error regarding a subject that probably is very dear to his heart.... The man has both integrity and guts, and I honor him for it.

57 posted on 08/03/2004 11:21:12 AM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"Ganged upon"? Wait, I thought he was being "shunned"! The fact of the matter is that the guy is flat-out wrong, and easily shown to be so. The only things a competent scientist can do is debunk him or ignore him. There's no third option. Which would you prefer? You've complained about both.

Surely you know of cases of both "ganging upon" and shunning. Consider the old practice of tarring, feathering, running out of town on a rail and being told never to come back.

What would I prefer? I would prefer that scientists stick to the scientific process instead of jumping to conclusions and not considering hypotheses which would contradict that which already seems demonstrated by the SP --and as you know, it becomes difficult to claim thoroughgoing "proof." I think Copernicus would have the same preference.

Further, there is no room for ad hominem in the SP.

58 posted on 08/03/2004 11:24:41 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; marron; PatrickHenry; Physicist; jennyp
Yes, Brother A ... but it isn't just the "scientific community" that acts this way. This seems to be human nature.... (And you may recall what Katherine Hepburn says about "nature" in The African Queen: Nature is what we humans "were put here to rise above" ... or words to that effect). I think Hawking is a real stand-up guy to make a public correction of a long-standing error regarding a subject that probably is very dear to his heart.... The man has both integrity and guts, and I honor him for it.

Good point - props for Hawking. And Hawking probably knows something about being an obvious target for being considered an "excluded other."   I'd guess that being handicapped can be good for the putting the workings of human nature into perspective, especially in one's view of humans regards and treatment of others.

Physicist asked me what I prefer as to the deportment of scientists and I answered in post #58.

59 posted on 08/03/2004 11:32:31 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: unspun
instead of jumping to conclusions

Stop right there. Nobody has jumped to anything, here. The conclusions come from working through the mathematics. See again the links that AdmSmith provided. Mitra isn't assumed to be wrong, he is demonstrated to be wrong.

and not considering hypotheses which would contradict that which already seems demonstrated by the SP

Physicists do that every day. If scientists only considered current theories and only accepted those data that were in agreement with them, there'd be nothing for a scientist to do, nothing at all. It is the job of the experimentalist to find ways in which current theories fail in the lab. It is the job of the theorist to compose new theories which match the existing data, and predict previously unknown phenomena. If you don't understand that, then just what is it that you think scientists do?

Scientists are not under an obligation to consider hypotheses that contain simple mathematical errors or easily refuted misconceptions. That's what we're talking about here.

60 posted on 08/03/2004 11:45:12 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson