Will Stephen Hawking move to Perimeter Institute?

Don Lazaridis (nothing to do with Don Corleone) gave some money to the
Perimeter Institute and Stephen Hawking immediately decided to go and
see it:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/News/In_The_Media/Mike_Lazaridis_Donates_Additional_$50_Million_to_P erimeter_Institute/

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=657003

However there is a problem: Stephen Hawking does not know what the
Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed while the genius of Einstein
criminal cult, John Norton, does:

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."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly
differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

So pehaps it would be fairer for John Norton to see the money first
and Stephen Hawking second. But the rule cannot be strict because
there is a sad precedent: the Perimeter Institute has already accepted
a person that is even sillier than Stephen Hawking:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...dResize=False#
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

Leonard Susskind who is cleverer than Stephen Hawking and knows that
"reality is an illusion" (remember Big Brother's principles) has
already joined the Perimeter Institute and is allowed to look at and
even touch Don Lazaridis' money:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul...tephen-hawking
"Say that the universe is a hologram. Say that reality is an illusion
projected from lower dimensions. Say that you’re even smarter than
Stephen Hawking (at least when it comes to black holes and what
dribbles out of them). If you’re Leonard Susskind, father of string
theory, then who knows? You might be right."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/...kind_Joins_PI/

Pentcho Valev