Technically he's correct. The sun is 99.8% of the mass of our solar system. But Jupiter still has enough mass to pull the sun just a tiny tiny bit, enough that they've defined what's called the barrycenter to adjust for the sun wobbling that tiny little bit from Jupiter's pull. Small enough to be considered irrelevant to most discussion but technically it's there..

And the Earth still revolves around the Sun.

Yes I agree. But if you were taking it to nerd extremes to make a point, you could technically say that the Earth revolves around the barrycenter of our solar system, which happens to be in the center of the sun.

Which just happens to be our Sun...

And the circle is complete.

:D

Yes, but the sun is also orbiting the barrycenter of the universe too.

http://imageshack.com/a/img706/3609/q2k6.gif

For Jupiter, the barrycenter point is actually outside of the sun's photosphere because of the gravity between the two.

http://imageshack.com/a/img542/4207/1jva.gif

Solar system barrycenter relative to center of sun by year:

http://imageshack.com/a/img827/8728/2apu.png

More: http://christophercrockett.com/astrowow/barycenter/

http://www.hivplusmag.com/research/2...top-spread-hiv

Marijuana May Stop the Spread of HIV
Researchers may just give you a reason to light up soon.
BY DIANE ANDERSON-MINSHALL

People with HIV (and other conditions) have used prescription marijuana to treat the side effects of medication, but a new study published in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, recently showed that daily doses of may even help combat the disease. According to Leaf Science, the study by Louisiana State University researchers showed that THC (a main component of marijuana) given to monkeys over a 17-month period decreased damage to immune tissue of the gut — an important site of HIV infection — by acting at the gene level.
“It adds to the picture and it builds a little bit more information around the potential mechanisms that might be playing a role in the modulation of the infection,” said the lead author of the study, Dr. Patricia Molina.
Leaf Science reports that while HIV normally spreads by infecting and ultimately killing immune cells, researchers "observed higher levels of healthy immune cells in animals that received THC – something they noticed in a previous study as well."
In 2011, Molina and her team discovered that HIV-positive monkeys monkeys treated with THC had lower levels of viral infection, higher numbers of immune cells, better survival rates, and less weight loss.
The results of the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, were unexpected.
“When we started the study, we thought it was going to increase viral load, we thought it was going to decrease lymphocyte counts much more dramatically, and we did not see that," she told Leaf. "If anything, it looks like there might be some beneficial immunomodulation, particularly at the early stages of infection.”
The next stop, she says, will be to try to understand why marijuana might help stop the spread of HIV so that treatments can be developed that are more specific to how THC works.

Oh shit. Don't let Donger see this...

So what is it about the barycenter that makes it the focal point from which our solar system revolves?

Cant think of a better place to put this, its scientific in a MacGyverish kinda way, already have my can, just need a hole punch and I'll be using this little puppy this summer for sure...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pajkt594Ruw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You sourced "Leaf Science" in the Science is Cool thread?

Seems legit.

Your unwillingness to even begin to accept Marijuana as a medicine his hilarious.

The Dongster is very conventional... booze good, pot bad... don't question the authoritahs.

Well, I do accept that THC has some "medicinal value," so I don't see what is so funny.

Do I think that it cures cancer? No.

Do I think that it could "cure" AIDs? No. At least not until the findings of the above stoners are confirmed by a slightly less biased outfit.

it's just another drug, and I didn't and don't see why another drug should be legalized.

Anyway, let's not hijack this high-quality thread with this stuff, okay?

I can't recall if it was on this thread or not, but anyway. They figured out the origin of that mysteriously appearing Mars rock:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/tech/i...-mystery-rock/

Well that's the point where the gravitational forces even out with relation to the masses. Planets don't have circular orbits, they're elliptical, and because of that a planet with decent mass compared to it's star can tug the star like the gif image above. The link in that post explains it better than I'm able.

The fact that there is a barrycenter, is how we detect planets in other far away galaxies. We look for that little wobble in the parent star, indicating that a planet is tugging at it.

This is a science thread. I thought we are a little more precise than what we are when we talk about in here. I prefaced my comments with I know its quibbling.

I think most people were not even aware a Barrycenter exists.

It is natural and requires no processing.

So no, it is not just another drug.

Buy, hey. Let's let Big Pharm charge exorbitant prices for chemicals that cause all kinds of side affects.

You watch Reefer Madness everyday, don't you? LMAO

Let me know when someone claims it cures those things.

Aturnis.

You can see he concentrated on the reporting party - Leaf Science - instead of the people who did the study.. the university science department.

BTW since this is the science thread, you can bet your ass that study will be peer reviewed before claiming anything but theory.

So why we so mad?

Bump did once.

You should skip that guys posts entirely, like most people do.

LMAO

Anyway, back to the science.

Troll

It cures the **** out of violence. Nothing after a hit but cheetohs and a grin.

I'm surprised Donger still lives in Colorado.

Earlier you said that the sun "orbits" the barycenter of the universe. Technically no object has to orbit another. You also can fall into the object or you can escape the orbit as well though not the gravitational force altogether. And since the barycenter of the universe is a mathematical grid/measurement starting point, it is arbitrary to what mass is being included. And can wildly swing as the result. Bary-anything is just an attempt to put a ruler, a grid to deal extend the "algebra" to the situation under investigation.

Best Science post yet!


http://i.space.com/images/i/000/036/...jpg?1392741629

Kate Upton in Zero G

http://bcove.me/kooxn80z

Cant figure out how to embed it

In a video taken during the shoot on March 18, 2013, Upton can be seen floating through the air as photographers and the crew work to capture the model posing gracefully on the other side of the aircraft. The magazine unveiled the photos online and announced them via Twitter @SI_Swimsuit.

"One small step for swimsuit, one giant leap for mankind," someone adapting astronaut Neil Armstrong's famous words as he stepped on the surface of the moon for the first time, said at the end of the Sports Illustrated video.



ZERO-G passengers experience weightlessness as pilots flying the company's modified Boeing 727 fly in parabolic arcs while thousands of feet above Earth's surface. As the plane tilts its nose and flies on the downslope of the parabola, passengers experience about 30 seconds of weightlessness at a time. For Upton's shoot, the company flew a series of 13 weightless parabolas and four parabolas imitating lunar gravity, according to ZERO-G.

Upton floated through the plane in gold and white two-pieces and a gold lamé zip-up one piece. She also posed in droplets of weightless water while floating upside down in the plane for the magazine's 50th swimsuit issue. The weightless shoot was four years in the making, according to a passengerheard speaking in the Sports Illustrated video.

Model Kate Upton Floats in Weightlessness #2
Pin It Model Kate Upton floats in weightlessness during a photo shoot for Sports Illustrated's 2014 swimsuit issue. Image uploaded Feb. 18, 2014.
Credit: Sports IllustratedView full size image
"So yeah, this happened," Sports Illustrated representatives posted on Twitter from the @SI_Swimsuit profile today.

Upton isn't the only celebrity to fly in ZERO-G's unique brand of weightlessness. Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire founder of commercial spaceflight company Virgin Galactic, took a ZERO-G flight with his family recently. Branson flew with ZERO-G in order to get a taste of weightlessness before Virgin Galactic's suborbital vehicle SpaceShipTwo makes its expected debut later in 2014.

Yes, you're right. When I said the sun orbited the barrycenter of the universe, I meant that it orbited the barrycenter of just our solar system. I said it right the first few times, but confused "Universe" with "Solar system" in the post with the gifs. I meant the total center of mass of the planets in our solar system. Not the entire universe.

Technically, I also referenced the barrycenter of the Sun-Jupiter as well, which is different than the planet center of mass as it just compared the masses of two bodies.

Everyone know the future of secure communications is using Quantum theories. The problem has been that only scientific labs or huge businesses have enough quantum memory to run the math to encrypt and decrypt.

Now they have figured out a way to not use quantum memory.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-quantum...-memories.html

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/ne...signatures.jpg

And I thought Hawking going on the comet was cool...

Hell yeah, gurl...

http://imageshack.com/a/img534/1/qjys.jpg

LMAO

Heh. Just saw that one today on Facebook.

If you're on FB and into that sort of thing, the page "I ****ing love science" is pretty cool.

They're awesome. I've linked quite a bit of stuff from them actually. Definitely one of my favorite's on Facebook.

A lung you say? YES! Let me dial it in the computer here.. one moment... TA-DAAH! A replacement lung!

Human lung made in lab for first time

(CNN) -- For the first time, scientists have created human lungs in a lab -- an exciting step forward in regenerative medicine, but an advance that likely won't help patients for many years.

"It's so darn cool," said Joan Nichols, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch. "It's been science fiction and we're moving into science fact."
If the lungs work -- and that's a big if -- they could help the more than 1,600 people awaiting a lung transplant. Lungs are one of many body parts being manufactured in the lab -- some parts, such as tracheas and livers, are even further along.

"Whole-organ engineering is going to work as a solution to the organ donor shortage," said Dr. Stephen Badylak, deputy director of the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

The researchers in Galveston, Texas, started with lungs from two children who'd died from trauma, most likely a car accident, Nichols said. Their lungs were too damaged to be used for transplantation, but they did have some healthy tissue.

They took one of the lungs and stripped away nearly everything, leaving a scaffolding of collagen and elastin.

The scientists then took cells from the other lung and put them on the scaffolding. They immersed the structure in a large chamber filled with a liquid "resembling Kool-Aid," Nichols said, which provided nutrients for the cells to grow. After about four weeks, an engineered human lung emerged.

Repeating the process, they created another lung from two other children who'd died.

The lab-made lungs look very much like the real thing, Nichols says, just pinker, softer and less dense.

Nichols said she thinks it will be another 12 years or so until they'll be ready to try using these lungs for transplants.

"My students will be doing the work when I'm old and retired and can't hold a pipette anymore," she said.

Before researchers experiment on humans, they'll try out lab-made lungs on pigs, she said.

Doctors have already had success transplanting patients with synthetic tracheas. The first procedure was done in 2011, and since then, six more have been done.

Two of the patients have died of causes unrelated to their tracheas, said David Green, CEO of Harvard Apparatus Regenerative Technology, which makes equipment used to make engineered body parts.

Earth selfie... courtesy of the ISS.... bump up the resolution to HD and fullscreen this shit.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FG0fTKAqZ5g?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Makes sense.

Rep for you fine Sir. Much awesomeness!

Monkey Avatar. Seriously you guys... Monkey Avatar...

And this is just the stuff we admit to.....

Master monkey's brain controls sedated 'avatar'

The brain of one monkey has been used to control the movements of another, "avatar", monkey, US scientists report.

Brain scans read the master monkey's mind and were used to electrically stimulate the avatar's spinal cord, resulting in controlled movement.

The team hope the method can be refined to allow paralysed people to regain control of their own body.

The findings, published in Nature Communications, have been described as "a key step forward".

Damage to the spinal cord can stop the flow of information from the brain to the body, leaving people unable to walk or feed themselves.

The researchers are aiming to bridge the damage with machinery.

Match electrical activity

The scientists at Harvard Medical School said they could not justify paralysing a monkey. Instead, two were used - a master monkey and a sedated avatar.

The master had a brain chip implanted that could monitor the activity of up to 100 neurons.

During training, the physical actions of the monkey were matched up with the patterns of electrical activity in the neurons.

The avatar had 36 electrodes implanted in the spinal cord and tests were performed to see how stimulating different combinations of electrodes affected movement.

The two monkeys were then hooked up so that the brain scans in one controlled movements in real time in the other.

The sedated avatar held a joystick, while the master had to think about moving a cursor up or down.

In 98% of tests, the master could correctly control the avatar's arm.

One of the researchers, Dr Ziv Williams, told the BBC: "The goal is to take people with brain stem or spinal cord paralysis and bypass the injury.

"The hope is ultimately to get completely natural movement, I think it's theoretically possible, but it will require an exponential additional effort to get to that point."

He said that giving paralysed people even a small amount of movement could dramatically alter their quality of life.

Reality or science fiction?

The idea of one brain controlling an avatar body is the stuff of blockbuster Hollywood movies.

However, Prof Christopher James, of the University of Warwick, dismissed a future of controlling other people's bodies by thought.

He said: "Some people may be concerned this might mean someone taking over control of someone else's body, but the risk of this is a no-brainer.

"Whilst the control of limbs is sophisticated, it is still rather crude overall, plus of course in an able-bodied person their own control over their limbs remains anyway, so no-one is going to control anyone else's body against their wishes any time soon."

Instead, he said this was "very important research" with "profound" implications "especially for controlling limbs in spinal cord injury, or controlling prosthetic limbs with limb amputees".

Realising that goal will face additional challenges. Moving a cursor up and down is a long way from the dextrous movement needed to drink from a cup.

There are also differences in the muscles of people after paralysis; they tend to become more rigid. And fluctuating blood pressure may make restoring control more challenging.

Prof Bernard Conway, head of biomedical engineering at the University of Strathclyde, said: "The work is a key step forward that demonstrates the potential of brain machine interfaces to be used in restoring purposeful movement to people affected by paralysis.

"However, significant work still remains to be done before this technology will be able to be offered to the people who need it."

A new and daring cosmological model of the universe from a university in Taiwan describes the universe without a big bang – an eternal universe with NO beginning and NO end. This new and insane model for the universe is actually crazier than it sounds, so bear with me here while we delve into details.

Professor Wun-Yi Shu (from the National Tsing Hua University), has completely veered off of traditional cosmological thinking by proposing a universe that hypothetically explains our observations better than the current models. Shu means to do away with dark energy altogether, while at the same time explaining the acceleration of the universe more precisely. Shu proposes this model to answer some of the most puzzling questions in cosmology, such as the flatness problem (a problem pertaining to cosmological fine-tuning), and the horizon problem (which deals with the uneven temperatures in the universe) – all in one encompassing new model.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/w...rd-225x300.png

Shu’s cosmology includes a sweeping change of our understanding of the universe. Space, time, mass, and length can all be converted between themselves. The speed of light and the gravitational constant are both variable. Time has no beginning or end (neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity). The universe is a sphere instead of being flat (a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere called a 3-sphere) and other seemingly bizarre concepts. At some point in the universe’s history, time converts into space, while mass converts into length. Conversely, the opposite also at some point holds true. Length converts to mass and the universe contracts – eventually causing the conversion to take place again procuring another inflation/expansion event.

Shu argues that the big bang cosmological model does not adequately explain the expansion of the universe; thus forcing scientists to propose the existence of things such as dark energy to help fill the voids in our knowledge. According to the tests he has run using observations of Type Ia supernovae, his model of cosmology is a much better match for the available data. The nature of Shu’s cosmological model eliminates problems facing the big bang event because this model simply does not have one. Furthermore, the 3-sphere nature of Shu’s universe automatically eliminates the flatness and horizon problems – although I would be neglectful if I failed to mention that inflation has (for the most part), solved both of these problems.

Shu’s ‘steady state’ model of the universe has been published on ArXiv for review from his peers (although ArXiv itself is not a peer reviewed journal). Pending review, Shu’s model might gain some credence– or it will simply remain as an interesting (albeit insane) artifact of mathematics

If I wanted hunches without any evidence or verification I would read ol' weaselzipper.

I wasn't clear if it was a slip up or you were going to address geocentric's claims. But it is important to recognize that the same equations of gravity theories allow for what we refer to orbiting (in which smaller mass objects move over larger angular distances than the larger mass objects in ellipses) also allows parabolic and hyberbolic movements that means objects collide or have ever increasing distances between them.

Ok this is a mathematical phase space that is the model. It takes the relationships of length and mass, tied Newtonianly/Einstein by gravity, and finds a phase space to set them as equivalent. Not unlike in Einstien's theories were one uses units were mass is tied to the total energy of a system. Since this model starts with present conditions, I would expect it to cascade forward and backwards unchanged. And while our present "Big Bang" models have trouble with expansion and dark matter and such, we headed down those models to account for Hubble's observations that the universe is expanding and the Hiss of the background radiation as evidence in the first place. The unevenness and the acceleration in expansion is seen as more of a perturbance from a smooth model with a distinct starting point of the relationship between parts of existence of Big Bang.

I suspect this higher dimensional theory captures the different relationships that the parts of existence may have in a multidimentional universe but does not embed the particular relationship of our specific universe. It is sort of like tying a knot. There are all kinds of knots and this new theory expresses the relationships of knots in general but the specific steps and the "knot" that results is our universe is not specified.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YmB-MYH3_1Q?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Excellent post, loved that.

It gives an excellent idea of just how populated the world is, ****ing lights everywhere, no wonder its so hard to find a chunk of water and woods around here to have to myself.

And the northern lights, that was the highlight, absolutely beautiful... they're like God decided to put on his own Pink Floyd laser light show, must be even better in space.

Wow, has anyone else published some theories similar to this. Pretty far out from the mainstream.

Did Thannon Tharpe coin the term Barrycenter?

Now we can call this a football thread as well.

Somewhat off topic but I love seeing Hawking eat $#it.

"I know energy can never be created or destroyed but super massive black holes suck everything in and NEVER, EVER, let anything out."

Skip 8 years.

"So, I was wrong. Hawking radiation (TM) does leak out. BH's push this out."

8 years later.

"****. I don't even think black holes are what I thought they were..."

Why the anger towards Hawking?

He's taken a very confrontational stance on BH's and fought anything that might conflict with his theories on them.

Hey, I love A Brief History Of Time and his ability to explain complex concepts to the average joe.

I think he revolutionized many aspects of theoretical physics and brought it into the mainstream. All this is good.

He just seems to be hateful and and dismissive of anything that might conflict with his work...

I get the same way when I'm told my dick isn't all I think it is.

On top of that he can't use his dick...

That's a low blow if I've ever seen one.

Ever wonder why we teach Conservation Laws with the energy concept and fore go doing so from Momentum conservation. The problem is that at atomic levels you can't label every atom to follow path. They all look alike (at least the same isotopes do). But we know Conservation exists so we switch to the squaring of things (the most famous E=mcSquared) and fore go keeping track of direction (as in vectors) which is in line with a statistical understanding of Entropy and 2nd Law Thermodynamics. It is even more necessitated when you throw in Quantum Mechanics on top of this. So notice we give up on following each individual thing and go with general relationships.
I think in this same Science thread is an article about leaving Feynman's diagrams behind (which try to model individual paths and are nice in simple systems) and go with a higher dimensional geometry that reflects the energy time result and gives us a simpler look at the final answer because there are both restricted states going in and out of a system Quantum Mechanically. You don't get bogged down in the details of trying to follow an ever larger accounting of possibilities to sum to the result.
So there are higher dimensional systems that can give us an answer in general questions. And the trick is to knit together well behaved manifolds where each of the parts are well behaved and additionally representative of different physical parts of the system under investigation.
I am sure this is what this Physicist has done.

The whole 10 and 11 dimensional space and Penrose and his parts in discussing reality all use similar approaches. The inverse deSitter spaces and other inventive well behaved vector spaces or better yet Clifford spaces are being mathematically developed and tried in looking at a multidimensional explanation. (Even in computer games we see 5 dimensional systems with one of the axis set at infinity to be a projective geometry that facilitates following extended relationships lost in three dimensions say when something goes behind a building in line of sight in three dimensions.)

The problem is these processes is they need real results as predictions of behavior of some momentum involved items because that is what we really detect in this world in order to be substantiated as reflective of our particular universe.

That's what the ladies accuse ME OF TOO! BITCH!!!!!!!!!

Tiny Crystal Is Oldest Known Piece of Earth, Scientists Say

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scien...sts-say-n36916

Scientists using two different age-determining techniques have shown that a tiny zircon crystal found on a sheep ranch in western Australia is the oldest known piece of our planet, dating to 4.4 billion years ago.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday, the researchers said the discovery indicates that Earth's crust formed relatively soon after the planet formed and that the little gem was a remnant of it.

John Valley, a University of Wisconsin geoscience professor who led the research, said the findings suggest that the early Earth was not as harsh a place as many scientists have thought.

To determine the age of the zircon fragment, the scientists first used a widely accepted dating technique based on determining the radioactive decay of uranium to lead in a mineral sample.

But because some scientists hypothesized that this technique might give a false date due to possible movement of lead atoms within the crystal over time, the researchers turned to a second sophisticated method to verify the finding.

They used a technique known as atom-probe tomography that was able to identify individual atoms of lead in the crystal and determine their mass, and confirmed that the zircon was indeed 4.4 billion years old.

To put that age in perspective, the Earth itself formed 4.5 billion years ago as a ball of molten rock, meaning that its crust formed relatively soon thereafter, 100 million years later. The age of the crystal also means that the crust appeared just 160 million years after the very formation of the solar system.

The finding supports the notion of a "cool early Earth" where temperatures were low enough to sustain oceans, and perhaps life, earlier than previously thought, Valley said.

The zircon was extracted in 2001 from a rock outcrop in Australia's Jack Hills region. For a rock of such importance, it is rather small. It measures only about 200 by 400 microns, about twice the diameter of a human hair.

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscm...ux-720-600.jpg

This type of thing is why you don't base a government on science or religion.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zCFDkj2JtyA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Watch a Car-Sized Asteroid Slam Into the Moon
by NANCY ATKINSON on FEBRUARY 24, 2014

Hey, all you astro-photographers/videographers out there: were you shooting the Moon back on September 11, 2013? You may want to review your footage and see if you captured a bright flash which occurred at about 20:07 GMT. Astronomers say a meteorite with the mass of a small car slammed into the Moon at that time and the impact produced a bright flash, and it even would have been easy to spot from the Earth.

According to astronomers Jose M. Madiedo, from the University of Huelva and Jose L. Ortiz, from the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia both in Spain, this impact was the longest and brightest confirmed lunar impact flash ever observed, as the “afterglow” of the impact remained visible for 8 seconds.



Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/109704/...#ixzz2uGdpDQ26

You have a link to any of his pettiness?

I'm not convinced that Hawking can do anything other than drool at this point. I saw a History or Discovery Channel show on the guy and he can't even type into his voice machine anymore. Anything Hawking "says" has to be pre-programmed into the voice box prior to an appearance.

He has a full-time theoretical physicist guy that hangs out with him all the time that supposedly interprets his grunts and eye movements to figure out what he's trying to say.
So I'm guessing any new theory he puts forth is largely the assistant's theory with Hawking's name attached to give it some kind of weight.

Not sure where you would get that idea. Especially on the heals of his latest publication which was less than one month ago, that could potentially change much of what has been predicted of black hole physics.

He hasn't typed into a voice machine in well over a decade. He's been using a system that interprets a range of small facial movements. He does program entire presentations sentence by sentence. But any interpretations are done by his complex hardware/software setup custom made from Intel, and not his personal assistant translating grunts.

His new theory is absolutely his own, and to suggest otherwise is crazy. I'm really surprised you would suggest that.

From wikipedia:
So in 2005 he could get about one word a minute and has continued to deteriorate. It's nine years later.

And I'm just going by what the show (which I watched a few years ago) showed in real time. His assistant was writing equations on a board and he was literally trying to translate grunts and eye movement to determine if he had it right, or where he had it wrong.

Well that's not correct. Hawking's communications devices have received several upgrades since that time. His input has improved dramatically, like over 10 words per minute last I knew. And his newest system allows for word and sentence prediction, using advanced prediction algorithms specific to Hawking. He literally has a dedicated Intel team constantly working on better communication devices and techniques for him. His assistant doesn't have to translate grunts. Hawking hasn't been able to grunt for a long time anyway.

Besides that, the idea that he, or his assistant, or the scientific community in general, would allow his assistant to to pass off work under Hawking's name is just crazy for many reasons.

He's wrong and he's angry about it.

There are reasons he knew, and many people knew, but his lie was a good one.

The einstein rosen bridge is the basis for all black holes. Its how the universe works.

Yin and Yang.

The way the oil drips from one level of that cute little device to the other.

It's how energy works. It's NEVER created and NEVER destroyed...

How could you tell he was angry?

So you're saying the show I watched was making shit up?

I checked and you are correct, as of 2013 he could get "UP TO" 10 words a minute. I haven't seen it happen. All we see are the pre-programmed sentences. But 10 words a minute sounds excruciating.

As far as the "he, or his assistant, or the scientific community in general" not allowing something like that to happen. Well, lets address those one by one. He really can't talk, so it's easy enough to keep him silent. The scientific community in general really doesn't have a hell of a lot more access to Hawking personally than you or I, so they can be bamboozled, and I don't believe they are quite as incorruptible as you do. That leaves the assistant. And I can think of several scenarios where he might benefit, not the least of which is financially.

I'm not saying any of that is the case. Just saying that I am not convinced everything is as they say.

Do you realize he still does live interviews and lectures and such?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UxojnylOalM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There's plenty more recent interview videos and such available.

I think it's approaching impossible that Hawking's personal assistant could pass off work for Hawking, either with or without Hawking's permission, or that the rest of the world could be bamboozled as such.

So Hawking would allow himself to be tried out to present someone else's work as his own even if he disagrees with it? That's ****ing crazy. He's not a prisoner. If he wanted to say "hey, this ain't my work, I don't approve of this theory", he would.

Bat shit crazy man.

I read...

OK. I just don't understand where you're coming from. I've never heard Hawking described the way you're doing so.

Do you have a link?

So you show a video with him just sitting there drooling, while a pre-recorded message plays and this is supposed to be proof of a live interview?

What if he can't talk at all? What if they are just saying he can? What if someone is just pre-recording messages in his computer and rolling him on stage? If he can't talk, or move, there's not much he could do about it.

And I readily admit, that notion is pure conspiracy theory. But it isn't impossible.

My point before all of this got conspiracified, was that the assistant is probably doing most of the heavy lifting these days, both literally and in the realm of theoretical physics. It really can't be any other way when the guy speaks, at most, 10 words a minute.

Dude. He had nothing but time in his mind. He had more time to think about these things than literally anyone. Communicating his theory is the easy part.

:facepalm:

OK, you're trolling.

His most recent "statements" conflict with his own theories on singularities.

He won't come out and say it but what he IMPLIES is that information is shared. And he doesn't understand how or why but it does go....elsewhere...

His theories about event horizons have bothered him since the beginning. He's admitted as much. But not because it conflicts with his own theories, it conflicts with quantum mechanics. Hawking's initial theories satisfied Einstein's relativity, but not quantum mechanics. Hawking always felt that something was missing and that black hole physics should be able to satisfy both.

Several years ago, some other astrophysicists came up with the black hole firewall paradox, which says quantum mechanics actually can be applied to black holes if the event horizon acts like a firewall. But that theory violated Einstein's relativity.

Hawking then produced his new theory, which actually satisfies both quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity at the same time, by removing the event horizon altogether and instead defining an "Apparent horizon".

He's been of the belief that information is shared since the 70s, when he theorized "Hawking radiation". That was the whole point of his Hawking radiation idea.

I'm just not understanding why he would be mad at anything.

So it's not Swiss Cheese?