Yep this guy A poor scientists and shameless self promoter, much like Hawking, yet liberals think he is some kind go genius.
Hawking never “studied” under Zel’dovich; he traveled to Moscow in 73 to meet with Zel’dovich and Alexei Starobinsky about their work. During their discussions they showed him how the uncertainty principle demonstrated that black holes should emit particles. Shortly thereafter he revised his theorem. Imagine; scientists sharing thoughts and information; what a novel idea. /sarc/ As far as you calling him a fraud? Regardless of name or stature, allegations of scientific misconduct, be it plagiarism or otherwise are taken very seriously in the science community. Did Zel’dovich accuse him of it? Did any of his other contemporaries? If so, name them; at least their opinion would have merit; instead of some anonymous ninny. - - - Updated - - - Disregard for scientists and the scientific method has grown and ripened with the modern conservative movement. From Barry Goldwater's anti-intellectualism, through Ronald Reagan’s sympathy for creationism and Newt Gingrich's passion for science "skeptics," on through the present day, Republicans have shown a marked preference for politically inspired fringe theories over the findings of long-established and world-renowned scientific bodies. Conservative America, truly an information free zone.
Oh what a nice way of framing the Hawking fraud. You can say he talked with I can say we studied under. Its distinction without difference. You have no argument because you know he ripped off Zeldovich so you would rather ague semantics than to admit that he is a fraud. Fact in neither his 1974 or 1975 papers does he give Zel'Dovich any credit for the discovery that black holes admit radiation. He blatantly stole the idea and sold it as his own. That is scientific fraud. Your only defense seems to be this ludicrous argument that he couldn't have gotten away with it. Of course he could. After his 74 paper he was being praised as the next Einstein. If the next Einstein were revelaed to be a fraud who ripped off a Soviet scientist it would have been a major PR boner. In the late 70s Zel'Dovich's 71 paper on black hole radiation makes it into the western journals, questions are asked, and Hawking quietly adds and addendum to his papers giving Zel'Dovich some passing credit and the issue is swept under the rug thanks to cold war politics. Hawking is a fraud. The only major contribution he made to science he stole! Blah blah (*)(*)(*)(*)ing blah, cry me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing river. I dont disregard "scientists" I disregard certain people based on their own actions. Tyson is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing worthless self promoter and poor scientists.
What you expect web links to (*)(*)(*)(*) that went on 40 years ago. Please now that is funny. Fact: Zel'Dovich published a paper in the Soviet Block that black holes emit radiation in 71. Fact: Hawking goes to study with Zel'Dovich in 73. Fact: Hawking comes back to the US and publishes a paper in 74 that finds that black holes emit radiation and another in 75. Fact: Neither paper references or even mentions Zel'Dovich's 71 discovery. Fact: In 77 Zel'Dovich's paper 71 makes it to the western journals. Fact: Hawking queilty publishes an addendum giving Zel'Dovich some limited credit. This is all easily verifiable so your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) "but you have very little to back up your claims" is simply reactive bull(*)(*)(*)(*) for lack of a real argument. You are reacting instinctively to someone attacking a leaders of your scientist religion like a member of the medieval church or a member of ISIS. There is no thinking involved its pure conditioned reaction. You cant beat me understand that. This isn't a fight you can win.
I have no desire to "beat" you or to "win". I am just interested in the truth, but I require more than a rant on a forum to make up my mind. Also, you might want to look into some anger management courses.
The only framing going on is your attempt to frame Hawking. There is no “distinction without difference” because your version is patently false. Your excuse for none of his contemporaries never accusing him of fraud is also bs, then again your fabrication isn’t surprising when all you have to substantiate a claim is personal opinion and assertions. It’s you that has no “argument”. End of discussion.
Let me simplify this as simply as possible for you. Who discovered the black holes emit radiation and when did they publish it. Did Hawking discover it and publish in 74 or did Zel'Dovich discover it and publish in 71? Are these dates personal opinions and assertions? No they are facts. Hawking ripping of Zel'Dovich is one of the clearest and open and shut cases of academic fraud in the last half century. Hawking only got away with it because of cold war politics. Cant have the next Einstein proven to be a fraud who ripped off a Soviet scientist so the issue is quietly swept under the rug and forgotten. Further notice the argument here. I've given you dates and facts. All of this could be easily refuted were it not true. However, the best you can come up is you cant find a record from 1977 of anyone officially accusing Hawking of fraud. SO (*)(*)(*)(*)ING WHAT! Do you expect it to be posted in 1977 TMZ you obvious Millennial. Things were done by word of mouth back then. DUH! What you want a tweet? Millennials they have no concept that life used to be very different. That Hawking had to write and addendum to his 74 and 75 papers giving credit to Zel'Dovich is the proof that people were talking and asking questions. Otherwise he wouldn't have wrote the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing addendum coincidentally right after Zel'Dovich's 71 paper hit the western Journals. It was damage control. You are the one who has no argument because you cant even reconcile the dates of Zel'Dovich's paper and Hawkings, much less Hawking's failure to reference Zel'Dovich's 71 paper in either. You have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing argument because deep down inside you know its true Hawking ripped off Zel'Dovich. Its plainly obvious.
Be careful, Cosmo. This guy is a self-professed high school football coach, running from thread to thread, claiming expertise in all sorts of things, just looking to stir up fights. Dude is a nut.
I read that sentence 4-5 times and I still don't know what it says. A patent not made by a scientist that counts as a scientific discovery? So, you get to tell us what a "scientist" is, what a "discovery" is? This sounds like typical anti-intellectual stuff. Pray tell, what is a "discovery", in your own words, and what is a "scientist"?
Patents are no scientific discovery. Take Bernoulli's principle for example that was published in 1738. That was a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. Using this discovery, many inventors and engineers made cool things. Inventors don't make scientific discoveries. Scientists do. Inventors make things using the processes that the scientists discover and identified.
It says it right there "in the narrowest sense" it's eureka moment. Your using an outlier of a definition.
Hawking is so flawed (well the scientific academic community in general).... Hawking claims that if aliens existed they would have already destroyed us, hence since we're not destroyed then aliens don't exist - yeah, some logic there.. Of course his peers just claim aliens don't exist because they never seen one, yet these are people who try to claim facts by doing math.... Yeah, well I have never seen a black hole... 90% of what these physicists claim and especially quantum physicists claim can't be proven, yet ironically prove aliens do exist (or at least can travel long distances by bending space) but will deny that fact all day... I think some of these alleged scientists in the academic community are some of the most closed minded people on the planet, and I think it's because they fear being wrong.
What’s plainly obvious is that you can’t find a scientist that would substantiate your claim. ~fini~
He has only said it any time the idea has been brought up.. http://www.space.com/29999-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-danger.html
What needs to be substantiated? Who published first Zel'Dovich or Hawking? You cant argue it because you know you are wrong.
Cosmo seems to have his fingers in his ears yelling la la la when people actually bring up real facts about Hawking. The man is an underachieving (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and media creation and not one of the greatest scientists ever. In another universe Stephen Hawking is a brilliant physicist in this universe however we is a media creation and carnival barker.
Since YOU have never seen a black hole (which by definition cannot be seen) then they don't exist? I take it you don't believe in microorganisms either since you cannot "see" them? As for this so called 90% that can't be proven, you obviously have no understanding how science works. Science doesn't try to 'prove' anything, in only makes observations (directly or through experimentation), creates theories and then attempts to disprove these theories. At any time, a new observation could totally disprove Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.
Dates or no dates; you can’t provide the name of anyone in the scientific community who supports your claim of fraud against Hawking. All you have is your opinion.Deal with it and move on, or not, I couldn't care less.
So you have no argument. Your argument is the Hawking obviously got away with it and it was quietly swept under the rug as I said in my initial post.
I have to agree with you, I think people just think he is smart because of that robot voice and geeky look... He may be a good physicist but he is also remedial in logic....
