Stephen Hawking Update

7 Feb 2014

The idea black holes don't exist, as espoused by Stephen Hawking, has been challenged by physicists according to ... although, as already noticed in the earlier post, he doesn't doubt their existence - only their boundary that inhibits light emissions from the 'hole' - or whatever it is. Thunderbolts forum is also featuring this subject but Galaxy New comes up with some alternative views.

For a completely different tkae Tall Bloke recommends ... Mathis is not everyone's cup of tea but on this occasion it may be worth browsing his web page. Mathis is not very fond of modern physics theory and the claims that are made and in this instance he refers to one of his own papers which repudiated Polchinski's claims of a 'firewall' (or event horizon) which forced Hawkings to make a riposte of some kind. He claims Hawking's new paper is superfluous, mere candy floss. He claims that by reason Mercury has ice caps at the Poles, Saturn's moon Enceladus is behaving strangely, and salt doesn't obey fundamental rules of chemistry, even classical physics has its problems. Experiments seem to show that modern physics and chemistry are breaking down - are inadequate, but the consensus theories are still rampant - even though they do not work, or can be seen to work. He says Hawking's paper provides no data, no back up, and consists of just his views. It is just waffle.

Later, he suggests Hawking is preaching propaganda - not science. Most people believe in black holes - but adds, 'what most people believe isn't a piece of data that makes a physical response or even a theory. Most people believe huge numbers of thing that aren't true and their beliefs are based on few or no facts' - which is one way of putting it. One cannot help but think of CAGW here - or a thousand and one popular ideas. Latger, Mathis brings in Stephen Crothers (a speaker at the upcoming Electric Universe conference). He showed, according to Mathis, that erhe mathematics on which a lot of modern physics rests, is manufactured. Mathis claims to have extended Crothers arguments. On another occasion he compares modern science to modern art - the polar opposite of what it claims to be. That might very well apply to some of the art - but is science really that bad?