STEPHEN HAWKING AND EUROPEAN TAXPAYERS

When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize, a 9 billion Large Hadron Collider should be
built, they gave the money without fuss - European taxpayers would
give everything for the development of the ideas of Stephen Hawking,
Stephen King and Harry Potter.

The problem is that, while developing his ideas, Stephen Hawking might
have been misled by the ideas of Sir Arthur Eddington, and this Sir
Arthur Eddington is by no means the most honest scientist in the
history of science:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
Stephen Hawking: "This argument about whether or not the universe had
a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was
conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little
consideration of observational evidence. This may have been
reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological
observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur
Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with
the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory
disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble.
In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in
serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second
Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the
argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been
a beginning."

Instead of just parroting Sir Arthur Eddington, Stephen Hawking should
have read Jos Uffink, officially the greatest expert on the
foundations of thermodynamics:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime
example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of
crowds' (ibid. p. 8) ...Clausius' verbal statement of the second law
makes no sense...All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century
of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean... Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers... and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me... I cannot explain what I cannot understand....This
summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see
irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is
it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of
Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of
Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was
right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as
expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED
HERRING."

So in the end Stephen Hawking may not get the Nobel prize and European
taxpayers may stop giving so much money for the development of his
ideas.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize,

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

Pentcho Valev a écrit :

So in the end Stephen Hawking may not get the Nobel prize and European
taxpayers may stop giving so much money for the development of his
ideas.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

--
kd

On Sep 25, 5:11*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize,

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel what are you talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rticle.physics
Stephen Hawking: "Indeed, some theories of spacetime suggest the
particle collisions might create mini black holes. If that happened, I
have proposed that these black holes would radiate particles and
disappear. If we saw this at the LHC, it would open up a new area of
physics, and I might even win a Nobel prize."

Can you explain, Clever Moortel, how Master Hawking deduced "black
holes would radiate particles and disappear" from the second law of
thermodynamics?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Sep 25, 5:11 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize,

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel what are you talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rticle.physics
Stephen Hawking: "Indeed, some theories of spacetime suggest the
particle collisions might create mini black holes. If that happened, I
have proposed that these black holes would radiate particles and
disappear. If we saw this at the LHC, it would open up a new area of
physics, and I might even win a Nobel prize."

Can you explain, Clever Moortel, how Master Hawking deduced "black
holes would radiate particles and disappear" from the second law of
thermodynamics?

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

On Sep 25, 5:18*pm, kduc wrote:
Pentcho Valev a écrit :

So in the end Stephen Hawking may not get the Nobel prize and European
taxpayers may stop giving so much money for the development of his
ideas.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

--
kd

My biographer Athel Cornish-Bowden changed his mind:

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/boz...nishBowden.htm
Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
"energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 25, 7:00*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize, a 9 billion Large Hadron Collider should be
built, they gave the money without fuss - European taxpayers would
give everything for the development of the ideas of Stephen Hawking,
Stephen King and Harry Potter.

The problem is that, while developing his ideas, Stephen Hawking might
have been misled by the ideas of Sir Arthur Eddington, and this Sir
Arthur Eddington is by no means the most honest scientist in the
history of science:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
Stephen Hawking: "This argument about whether or not the universe had
a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was
conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little
consideration of observational evidence. This may have been
reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological
observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur
Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with
the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory
disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble.
In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in
serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second
Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the
argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been
a beginning."

Instead of just parroting Sir Arthur Eddington, Stephen Hawking should
have read Jos Uffink, officially the greatest expert on the
foundations of thermodynamics:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime
example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of
crowds' (ibid. p. 8) ...Clausius' verbal statement of the second law
makes no sense...All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century
of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean... Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers... and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me... I cannot explain what I cannot understand....This
summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see
irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is
it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of
Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of
Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was
right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as
expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED
HERRING."

So in the end Stephen Hawking may not get the Nobel prize and European
taxpayers may stop giving so much money for the development of his
ideas.

Pentcho Valev

REPLY: VIDYARDHI NANDURI
COSMOLOGY DEFINITION:
Cosmology is a borderland between science and Philosophy
Cosmology deals with Multi-Universe concepts and the Universe as part
of Cosmos.
Cosmology details Creation, stability and dissolution of the Universe
or parts thereof.
Cosmology covers broad Prime drive functions and links :
COSMOLOGY FROM PHILOSOPHY TO VEDAS
1. Cosmology in Vedas 2.Cosmology in Philosophy 3.Science of
Philosophy
4. Basic Philosophy
FROM SCIENCE TO COSMOLOGY
1. Basic Science 2. Philosophy of Science 3.Cosmogony-Astrophysics
4. Cosmology -Present Day under Revision
NATURE TO COSMIC DIVINE
1.Nature 2.Divine Function in Nature 3. Divine Universe 4.Cosmos
Divine
Key Words: Cosmology Definition, Cosmology Primer, Cosmology Drive,
Cosmology Science, cosmology Vedas, Cosmology Philosophy, Cosmology
Nature,
Cosmic Divine Function, Cosmology interlinks, Cosmology Space Science,
Cosmology Knowledge Base, Knowledge Expansion, creation in the
Universe,
Stability of the Universe , Dissolution of the part of the Universe
Ref:COSMIC YOGA VISION SERIES-II:
Heart of the Universe-Nov 2006 -Book By Vidyardhi Nanduri
Copy Rights TXU 1-364-245 -
The Science in Philosophy- Pridhvi Viswam Asya Dharineem Cosmos yoga
vision series-II-
cover upto 10^5 Light Years — Centre of the Universe [Vidyardhi
Nanduri]
CONCENTRATION, MEDITATION AND DEDICATION ARE THE KEYS FOR PROGRESS
INDEX-
All Books - CONTACT AUTHOR-
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/A...ry.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-Interlinks-FREE DOWNLOAD :
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/author...p?EbookId=1422

In news:sci.physics, Pentcho Valev posted on Thu,
25 Sep 2008 07:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

Hawking:
In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in
serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second
Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the
argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been
a beginning."

If the second law of thermodynamics says that disorder always
increases with time, and human beings have only become more beautiful,
not uglier, over the course of time, it suggests that there was a
beginning in which we were in a primordial soup, but a guiding force,
apparently the same harmonizing intelligence described by Einstein,
has worked on human DNA throughout the course of evolution and natural
selection. So there was a beginning. It's just that now, the
universe will exist forever more. Since human thinking and abilities
have only improved over time, it only stands up to reason that we will
continue to improve. If the harmonizing force of nature has kept us
alive for this long, and if the more spiritually-minded people keep
feeling like something big is about to happen, maybe we should give
them a voice to see what they have to say. Maybe some of it will make
sense in these days of global communication, understanding, and
increasing connections between ideas.

Instead of just parroting Sir Arthur Eddington, Stephen Hawking
should have read Jos Uffink, officially the greatest expert on
the foundations of thermodynamics:

And after accusing Hawking of parroting Eddington, you then proceed to
parrot Jos Uffink by posting his work without even trying to phrase it
yourself. You're not only the pot calling the kettle black, you're
the kettle, too!

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime
example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of
crowds' (ibid. p. 8) ...Clausius' verbal statement of the second law
makes no sense...All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century
of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean...

I did a little research on thermodynamics and found that that whole
idea started with a poem written by Parmenides of Elea. Here's a
little information from Wiki:

Parmenides of Elea (Greek: , early 5th century BC) was an ancient
Greek philosopher born in Elea, a Greek city on the southern
coast of Italy. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of
philosophy, his only known work is a poem which has survived only
in fragmentary form. In it, Parmenides describes two views of
reality. In the Way of Truth, he explained how reality is one;
change is impossible; and existence is timeless, uniform, and
unchanging. In the Way of Opinion, he explained the world of
appearances, which is false and deceitful. These thoughts
strongly influenced Plato, and through him, the whole of western
philosophy.

Parmenides' timeless, unchanging universe is one Einstein intuited as
a static universe. Evidence forced Einstein to favor what we have
now, and what Parmenides called the world of appearances. We see what
the universe "appears" to be, but not what it really is *now* because
of the limitations of the speed of light. In fact, Parmenides was
right, and so was Einstein. We do live in a universe of appearances.

Now that I've confirmed what science has already known and been
telling everyone...

Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the
argument Clausius offers... and seven times has it blanked and
gravelled me... I cannot explain what I cannot understand....This
summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see
irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the
strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe
that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the
discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law
of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

He seems to think that the second law of thermodynamics is being used
to draw attention away from some other point of evolution or God.
Since you believe so strongly in his views, what do you think
thermodynamics is being used to hide?

Damaeus

On Sep 25, 10:11*am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote in message

*

When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize,

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

Quite right Dirk, the Nobel categories being Peace, Literature,
Medicine (including Physiology), Physics, and Economics.

I believe (but am not totally sure) that the categories were specified
in Alfred Nobel's Will, and cannot be amended or extended. A photo-
copy of that Will appears on pages 24-25 of Peter Wilhelm's classic
book, "The Nobel Prize". The text is written in longhand script in
Swedish, so for me this presents somewhat of a problem because of my
ignorance in the Swedish Language. :-) [If someone could point me
some credible link containing an English or German translation, I
would be immensely grateful.

In passing, I note that in the border next to the photo-copy of the
Will, Peter Wilhelm made these comments:

"Exactly as Nobel had wished, the prizes for physics and chemistry are
awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences. The prize in Medicine is
awarded by the Karolinska Institute and the prize for Literature by
the Swedish Academy. The last prize -- the Peace Prize -- is awarded
via the Norwegian Parliament which perhaps sounds a little strange, as
the other instituations are all Swedish. The reason is quite simply
that during Nobel's time the two countries were united."

Quite honestly, I hadn't know this priot to reading this beautiful
book little book which I wish that everyone having an interest in the
basics sciences and medicine could own, published in Stockholm in
1983. I have to confess, I don't really understand why I was sent a
copy which was received on the week before Christmas in 1983. Perhaps
the result of my requesting information on telephone and carrier
equipment from the LM Ericsson firm in Stockholm, or my friendship
with a young couple that I met why working at what then was the RCA
Laboratories Division. His name was Sigurd Bragnum and his friend
(who was also from Stockholm and whose name 50 years later I sadly
don't recall -- Sigmunda?). [From old memory, I believe that Sigurd
had once told me that his father was a physician who operated a
hospital in Stockholm.

All I know is that one day, shortly before Christmas, this book
arrived in my mailbox. It had an accompanying not, which is still
have, personally signed by a gentleman who personally signed the
letter as Hakan Ledin. It strangely arrived with the letterhead of
the accompanying letterhead roughly torn off, but becasue of the
accompanying note, I believe it was an LM Ericsson letterhead. What
remained was:

Hakan Ledin,
Executive Vice President,
Telefonaktiebolaget -- LM Ericsson
5-128 25 Stockholm - Sweden

I have for years puzzled about why someone sent me this book, and
why? Realizing that this newsgroup is propagated into Europe
(including Sweden), so should anyone has an answer please email me at
(my real email address).

With respect to the idiotic posts that now reduce the signal to noise
ratio on sci.physics, I'm not sure what motivates these folks to
expend so much energy pontificating on their crackpot ideas. I really
don't care, since the crackpottery is easily separated from real posts
on physics, and it it gives these posters a harmless outlet for their
frustrations, they are easily ignored.

Dirk, after 10-20 years, crackpotter is usually indicated on the
subject line, and then sometimes we take a look at the thread and see
who the posters are. This is why I responded to your post, and not
the post of the OP.

This type of filter works very well.

Harry C.

On Sep 25, 5:30*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 25, 5:11 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

When European taxpayers realized that, in order for Stephen Hawking to
get the Nobel prize,

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel what are you talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rticle.physics
Stephen Hawking: "Indeed, some theories of spacetime suggest the
particle collisions might create mini black holes. If that happened, I
have proposed that these black holes would radiate particles and
disappear. If we saw this at the LHC, it would open up a new area of
physics, and I might even win a Nobel prize."

Can you explain, Clever Moortel, how Master Hawking deduced "black
holes would radiate particles and disappear" from the second law of
thermodynamics?

There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel perhaps you are so enigmatic because, on the one hand,
you are not happy with Master Hawking's substantial contribution to
the financial crisis but, on the other, you should obey The
Fundamental Principle of Einstein Criminal Cult:

ZOMBIE DESTROY MASTER NEVER
ZOMBIE DESTROY ENEMY OF MASTER ALWAYS

Let me test this:

Master Hawking: The Michelson-Morley experiment REFUTES Laplace's and
Michell's (and Einstein's!) idea that the speed of light varies with
position in a gravitational field:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

P. Valev, enemy of Master: The Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMS
Laplace's and Michell's (and Einstein's!) idea that the speed of light
varies with position in a gravitational field.

Who is wrong, Clever Moortel: Master or enemy of Master?

Pentcho Valev