Clearasil was best for clearing blackheads back in my day. I know **** all about black holes though although i once had an encounter with a rather tasty spanish dancer.
I love the way people on this thread state how they 'know' something for definite. Modern humans have been around a mere 200,000 years, we can't even out of our own solar system yet so what makes you think you know all these universal rules etc?
I can definitely say I've just polished off a bacon, sausage and egg banjo. It was scrumptiously delicious.
Most Black Holes rotate and there will be a limit to how fast they rotate for the reasons you describe but that wouldn't stop them existing as long as they were spinning below this limit. Black Holes have been observed which spin close to this limit and slower. The fact that no bodies believed to be Black Holes have been observed which appear to breach the limit (1150 rotations per second) rather supports the Black Hole theory. For what it's worth, although I would never refer to Stephen Hawking as an idiot, I am a little sceptical about his future legacy and can't stand his "Mind of God" utterances. I also don't disagree with you about a lot of the big Physics funding being suspicious. However I think the LHC at CERN is an easier target. Since their announcement that they had made observations which were not inconsistent with the existence of the Higgs Boson (whatever that means), it's all gone quiet over there. God knows how much that set up has cost.
Keep in mind the term "fool" is not the opposite of smart, intelligent, learned, etc. It is the opposite of "wise." Some of the most intelligent people around can be the biggest fools, and wisdom can be bound in the simple and uneducated. Remember your Jonathan Swift. I say this because many bristle at the very idea of referring to such a brilliant man as Hawking as a fool. Unfortunately, this is a common peril for scientists who gain celebrity status (reason being it is peril for ANYONE who gains celebrity status). I'll name two more scientists, brilliant scientists, who became fools as their fame grew: Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
thats why stephen hawkins can change his mind.its not a problem with a theory.as long as he explains what he hadn't considered previously. you seem quite an intellegent bloke.why do you feel the need to be so rude.is it a wum thing or do you see your views as been so spot on that other opinions actually wind you up.
As the observer I choose to manifest the universe how I wish and not how I am told. Thus i declare a universe without Bengals, and lo, it is done.....
I think he's overrated in his ability to communicate as his bestseller wasn't really that good or that easy a read, as it was meant to be. I'm sure he even ended up doing another version of it which was supposed to be easier.
Yes, of course it can do, and often does. But when the predictions turn out to be nonsense, as they sometimes do, it indicates that the TP was incomplete at best, or completely bogus at worst.
Precisely. But only a fool lays incomplete ideas before the general public before they have been thoroughly validated.
How does a BH get 'observed'? How do you know it's spinning, and how fast? Is the gravitational field external to (any) body dependent on its rate of spin? Is that field purely radial, or does it have a transverse component dependent on the spin rate? What do you make of the so-called 'frame dragging'?
I'm glad Bengals got his own thread where he can spout nonsense to his hearts content. Does anybody remember the physics teacher from Longcroft School, Dr Richards? I got into trouble with him for drawing pictures of breasts on his classroom windows in the condensation, with my lack of understanding of science I didn't understand that my titty drawings would always come back unless the windows were cleaned. I bet he knew better than Stephen Hawking too Dr Richards, these fellas know their onions
Is this a joke I'm not getting, or have you just corrected the spelling by changing the correct name to an incorrect one?
