[Phsstpok]

OK, biased and uninformative article. Hawking questioned his own conclusion about Black Holes being absolute in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time." It's the one thing that really bugged me about that book. Just when I was beginning to understand the physics of Black Holes (including absolute enegry/information sinks) about a third of the way through the book you turn the page and he says "and here's why I was wrong."

Now, Hawking's explanation of being "wrong" is based on Quantum Mechanics and "spontaneous" particles appearing near a black hole (Hawking radiation) and this Indian Physiscist bases his argument on the long discredited Einseinian Relativitiy theory (discredited by Quantum physics) makes me a little skeptical about this claim of "vindication."

Bottom line, I'll look at Hawking and then this chap, then I'll make a judgement. I won't take this article at face value.

[Physicist]

and this Indian Physiscist bases his argument on the long discredited Einseinian Relativitiy theory (discredited by Quantum physics)

Sorry, but that's wrong. Relativity has in no way been discredited by quantum mechanics; it's alive and well. Moreover, this Indian chap gets his relativity quite wrong.