Split Thread Scorpion's Spiritualism

[Scorpion]

For God's sake! The man's name is Hawking. Not Hawkins. Hawking.

Ok, so thats a big deal. But when I wrote to him I probably used his correct name, because for one thing I have a copy of his book, "a brief history of time".
In any case the issue is he said on television that he had a new equation that proves all energy can be converted back into matter.

 

[Pixel42]

In any case the issue is he said on television that he had a new equation that proves all energy can be converted back into matter.

Clearly he didn't, or you would have got a different response to your email. You must have misunderstood.

Try reading his book again, it gives a good account of Special Relativity.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Because its working on the flesh/brain and not on the soul

How do you define which bit of you is the soul? 'Soul' is a word which helps us to think about one of the aspects of ourselves, isn't it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ok, so thats a big deal. But when I wrote to him I probably used his correct name, because for one thing I have a copy of his book, "a brief history of time".

But that's Steven Hawkins' book. The title of Stephen Hawking's book is "A Brief History of Time".

In any case the issue is he said on television that he had a new equation that proves all energy can be converted back into matter.

Which one, Hawkins or Hawking?

 

[Scorpion]

Clearly he didn't, or you would have got a different response to your email. You must have misunderstood.

Try reading his book again, it gives a good account of Special Relativity.

I am sure of what I heard on television a few years ago. He claimed to have a new equation which proves all matter can be converted back into energy. It is because I wanted to see this equation that I e-mailed his web site.
As for his book, he says on page 1.
" Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales, I therfore resolved not to have any equations at all. In the end, however, I did put the one equation, Einstein's famous E = mc2. I hope that will not scare off half my readers"

 

[Scorpion]

But that's Steven Hawkins' book. The title of Stephen Hawking's book is "A Brief History of Time".

Which one, Hawkins or Hawking?

God, you people are picky. I make one mistake and you all jump on it, and make it into a soap opera.

 

[Scorpion]

Clearly he didn't, or you would have got a different response to your email. You must have misunderstood.

Here is his twitter address, you can ask him yourself.

https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Hawking

 

[Scorpion]

To get back on topic I have had another go at opening my third eye, and I saw the word "can" which I took to mean, I can open my third eye if I try hard enough, as I was thinking I could not do it. I then went to bed and woke up several times in the night, and saw blobs of light with shapes in them.

 

[Pixel42]

I am sure of what I heard on television a few years ago. He claimed to have a new equation which proves all matter can be converted back into energy. It is because I wanted to see this equation that I e-mailed his web site.

Once again: if you were remembering correctly you would have got a different response to your query. So this is a good example of what we've been saying about memory being unreliable.

I've been following Hawking's work since the 1970s, I'm pretty sure I've seen every documentary he's ever made, and I've never heard him say this.

 

[desertgal]

I am sure of what I heard on television a few years ago.

You misunderstood, or recalled incorrectly, as...

He claimed to have a new equation which proves all matter can be converted back into energy.

...he clearly didn't claim that, because if he had...

It is because I wanted to see this equation that I e-mailed his web site.

...then he (or the assistant) would have responded in the affirmative.

See how that works?

You write: "Hey. Professor Hawking, on television a few years back, you said you had an equation which will convert matter back into energy.
To which, if he had made such a claim, he (assistant) would have responded with: "Why, yes, I did! What an outstanding memory you have, my good man! Here ya go..."

Or something along those lines. That's how Q&A works. You ask the question, and if the guy actually made the claim, he responds in the affirmative. If he didn't actually make the claim, he responds in the negative, which he did.

As for his book, he says on page 1.
" Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales, I therfore resolved not to have any equations at all. In the end, however, I did put the one equation, Einstein's famous E = mc2. I hope that will not scare off half my readers"

So the evil professor deliberately withheld all equations from his book just to flummox you? What is your point?

 

[desertgal]

Here is his twitter address, you can ask him yourself.

https://twitter.com/Prof_S_Hawking

You said you emailed his website. His Twitter account is not his website, and a Tweet is not an email.

To get back on topic I have had another go at opening my third eye, and I saw the word "can" which I took to mean, I can open my third eye if I try hard enough, as I was thinking I could not do it. I then went to bed and woke up several times in the night, and saw blobs of light with shapes in them.

So what?

I thought the topic was your spiritualism, not your delusions. (Not that there's any difference here.)

 

[Donn]

To get back on topic I have had another go at opening my third eye, and I saw the word "can"..

It was your subconscious telling you to can it.

 

[Scorpion]

The point is, nothing exists except energy. Therefore everything we see, and the likes of you people keep calling reality, is just an illusion.

Stuff is not stuff, it is energy in another form.

 

[Scorpion]

You said you emailed his website. His Twitter account is not his website, and a Tweet is not an email.

My God! are you going to make an issue out of that now. OK! I e-mailed him. But I did it on an old computer so I do not have a copy of that e-mail so I cannot prove it. But at the time his web site had an e-mail address to contact him. Now his web site does not have an e-mail address, but I found him on twitter.

 

[Akhenaten]

The point is, nothing exists except energy. Therefore everything we see, and the likes of you people keep calling reality, is just an illusion.

Stuff is not stuff, it is energy in another form.

And?

 

[Pixel42]

The point is, nothing exists except energy.

And 11 dimensions of space and time.

It's true that mass and energy can be converted into each other, but this is an oversimplistic summary of Special Relativity. Try reading Hawking's book again, or there are several good online resources I can direct you to. At the moment you're like a five-year-old trying to join in an adult conversation.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder if this will help:

Symphony of Science - the Quantum World!


​

 

[desertgal]

My God! are you going to make an issue out of that now.

Not really, but it's that or discussing something the Professor didn't actually say, which is equally pointless.

 

[Scorpion]

And 11 dimensions of space and time.

It's true that mass and energy can be converted into each other, but this is an oversimplistic summary of Special Relativity. Try reading Hawking's book again, or there are several good online resources I can direct you to. At the moment you're like a five-year-old trying to join in an adult conversation.

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable

 

[Pixel42]

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable

True, but it's built on a foundation of known physics - repeatable, objective observations.

How predictive and testable is your theory of the spirit world? It's a castle in the air, with no foundation at all.