In your opinion, was Stephen Hawking a responsible Cosmologist, Physicist and Scientist?

Stephen Hawking was the best follower of last century ideology, he was not scientist, because he didn't do anything of his own.

Mr. Einstein didn't know the size of the universe, didn't know much of knowledge of atom, yet he predict, postulate, and model the universe. He wrote a one dimension, flat, static formula for the three dimension universe that it is changing every moment.

Same thing did Mr. Hawking, he wrote a formula for prediction of Black Hole that never been observed.

A good scientist is the worst follower, yet present unprecedent phenomenon to science, It does not matter right or wrong, but the meaning of research is challenging, testing, and discovering, not theorize, predict, and modeling the nature to follow it.

It seems that you judge on the basis of his popular books. Have you ever read his PhD thesis of 1966 (available online at https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-PHD-05437/1) and his scientific papers? https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq_database=database%3A%20(astronomy%20OR%20physics)&p_=0&q=author%3A(%22Hawking%2C%20Stephen%22)&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc

Dear Professor Wolfgang R. Dick

Thank you for your answer. It seems that you did not read the discussion well or fully.

At the other end of the spectrum, by saying "it seems that you judge on the basis of his popular books" do you mean that Stephen Hawking as a Cosmologist, Physicist and Scientist could say what ever he liked in his popular (science) books?

I need to add that Not only I added "interviews and speeches of Stephen Hawking" but also I added 8 categories of his claims, pick one or more then we go through. Concerning your question about his thesis, No, but I will.

At the same time, have you ever read "The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanic" by Leonard Susskind? (please see A & B as attached). It is a 2008 published book, for your convenience I have marked some points, in a page of that book. And Leonard Susskind scientific papers as well?

Also there are a lot of clips of Professor Leonard Susskind in You Tube teaching topics such as Physics, cosmos, and black holes in his classes, understandable, scientific, full of sprit, and sense of humor. You may like to watch.

As Always I am grateful for sharing your opinions and hope to hear from you soon.

Best Regards

Dear Rahim Alijani ,

A discussion about science popularization and the responsibility of scientists in this is a very general and brought one, and, although it is of great interest, I do not have the time to take part in this. Perhaps others may contribute. Concerning the discussion of Susskind and Hawkins, this was a scientific one, and, as Leonard Susskind wrote, he "deeply respected" Hawkins. Therefore this is another question and is not connected to Hawking's popular books.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

I think Stephen Hawking was almost similar as Blind Mystic Baba Vanga popular for predictions, which never belong to any scientific metrics or scales, but some futile exercises good for exaggerators with scaling through a scale of nonscientific thoughts.

Dear Professor Wolfgang R. Dick

Thank you for you contribution. I myself "deeply respect" all, even those how are subject to more research. And of course I deeply respect all who take part in discussions. You mentioned "Leonard Susskind" and "he deeply respected Hawkins [Hawking]". But Susskind complete sentence is "But it was a fierce intellectual struggle of ideas between people who deeply respected each other but also profoundly disagreed.”

So, based on what professor Susskind says, we can respect each other and have intellectual struggle of ideas, and profound talks about popular books of Hawking. Which I think the youth will find them useful. At the same time let me mention that according to Wikipedia Susskind book is a "popular book" as well. (see photos attached).

I hope you take part in discussions as these can help all, specially young minds all over the world. those who read these things may become more critical, creative, skeptic ( I mean in sciences).

Once more thank you so much for sharing your ideas

All best wishes

Rahim

Dear Javad Fardaei

Thank you for your answer. I am in agreement with most of what you mentioned. Some other parts must be left for expert views of the field, if they come and join. I can add several other points that can help to understand this case from the view of an outsider of the field (I mean me, myself). He never won Noble. It is said that as he did "not like" titles he reportedly turned down a knighthood. But he had accepted others before! I don't know on what bases he offended Philosophy discipline (N and O in attachment) and made them angry and frustrated (Z as, attached photo of an article DOI: 10.1080/02580136.2012.10751783)

Some people think these things and talking about them is a taboo. If it is a taboo, why there are scientific articles and books about those who did misconducts and frauds in sciences? why top journals advertise the name and affiliations of those whose articles have been retracted? why the sites and pages that track "retractions" of scientific papers, not only publish whatever information they can find, but also they have exclusive information, and everywhere real or virtual, such as here in RG they enthusiastically talk about those retractions, and their "so called" authors, and parent institutions? If these are taboo and make some people angry, why there are articles in world top journals about misconducts of scientists far gone in History, such as Ptolemy, Galileo and Newton? These are not my words, all references to what I wrote here are available. Most of them presented fully in other discussions I did or took part in RG.

I think we need to study more about the phenomenon of Matthew effect. The more we read, the more we understand its mechanism and how to help others in sciences.

Best Wishes

Muhammad Ali Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Like you, I think, we can not understand the scientific discipline he belonged to (so sporadic) and also the scientific methods he used to use for his claims.

Best Regards

Not being a specialist in cosmology, etc. I will nevertheless take part in the discussion, as it touches on the important topic of the popularization of science. I would consider it necessary to separate Hawking's work, written early in his career, from recent work, where his contribution is not obvious.

If everything is clear with scientific works (or almost everything) - in the scientific world, any work divides the community into two groups - supporters and opponents (not always according to scientific criteria, but this is a topic for a separate discussion), then a popularizing texts interacts with a much wider audience, where there are also thoughtful people who want to get "to the very essence" and rabid fanatics who uncritically perceive any word of an idol. Along with them, there are people who sincerely sympathize with fatality of the author, in general according to Shakespeare: She lov'd me for the dangers I had pass'd / And I lov'd her that she did pity them. (Shakespeare, Othello, Act I Scene 3, lines 168–169) and "victims" of the media, who perceive any printed text as the ultimate truth (What the last book tells him, / That will fall on his soul from above ... N. Nekrasov, Sasha, 1856).

In this regard, an unbiased observer has many questions, for example:

1. To what extent can one trust S. Hawking's inner circle that he has retained clarity of thought to the end (meanwhile, other properties are also important for a scientist, for example, memory, self-criticism, the ability to receive and analyze information, etc.)?

2. Considering the critical physiological limitation for the presentation of one's thoughts, the existing restraint of the physical volume of produced texts, what is the role of mediators and are they not implicit co-authors?

3. Did his entourage use him to publish their own texts signed by the master (everyone knows cases when a collaboration is created around former great scientists using his name, especially if a person start to believe in his greatness...)? etc.

I think that only a full-fledged investigation can partially clarify the situation. But life also solves such problems - we will meet in 50 years and look at what remains of his texts in scientific circulation.

Sometimes the problem is so big that we even do not need to be specialist. Who can prove the scientific rationality behind claims as I have marked in photos attached as A, B and C? (of course he has other claims in this regard, such as 400 years, 200 years left...I will write about them later).

While I think if a person doing science had a great finding and great paper(s), thesis, book, does not justify he/she does or says what ever he/she likes baselessly. By working hard and honestly in sciences we may gain a social standing, but does it guarantee me (for example) to do what ever I like in sciences? Even if I can and I want, science will hold me accountable. Again wrong? how those all 35000 retracted papers and thousands of "so called" authors attached to them, in just "retraction watch website" have been discovered.?

Also the point about popular science and popular books in sciences are more important. Simply because, the readers are not specialist, but caught with nonsenses, while the name of a science celebrity dictates him/her to accept the words (of that celebrity) easily. As we see it in today's world. For sure it has bad consequences for a society, the youth and advancement of science, but unseen.

Dear All

Can anyone explain the highlighted assertion, form page 16th of Black Holes, book by Stephen Hawking, according to universal scientific research methods?

thank you

Hi All

There is another discussion in RG, with this title

Now Have a look at photos I have attached and compare them. These are expert views.

I like Stephen Hawking because he was a smart guy who appeared on TV's "Star Trek" and "Simpsons". Sure, he had eccentricities like rejecting philosophy and frequently changing his views. I think these were mistakes but I wouldn't make them a big deal - you won't find an original thinker who doesn't sometimes do things society looks down on. If you did find a scientist who always did what society expected, I don't think she or he would be able to introduce the world to truly original ideas. If you dedicate your life to the "accepted norms and frameworks of science and academic research", you won't end up being another Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton ... or Stephen Hawking. Referencing styles, bibliographies, etc might be essential in this strange society where such things are accepted norms and frameworks of science and academic research, But to be blunt, they have nothing to do with science - they don't impact our search for knowledge and truth but are purely editorial matters. We need research presented clearly and neatly but we don't need to sacrifice science for the sake of references, formatting, etc.

I believe that at scales trillions of times smaller than subatomic particles, the human brain and the rest of the universe are composed of the same things (base 2 maths - the electronic binary digits of 1 and 0 - and topology and Wick rotation). This enables consciousness to continue after the body and brain have perished. So I like to think Stephen is watching as I type this - and I hope he's giving me a big smile and a thumbs-up.

Rodney Bartlett

It seems that you know a kind of science that, at least I am unaware of it. You did your best to stand in the middle, to disable any response, while a tone of anger could be seen in it. I don't know how many days you spent to prepare such reply to this discussion, but here is my answer.

1- you say: "Referencing styles, bibliographies, etc might be essential in this strange society where such things are accepted norms and frameworks of science and academic research..."

Actually right now you are referencing me, by saying bibliographies ...might be essential. If I had not written this piece, how could you cite it to appear here? The "strange society" you talk about is all of the world, from where you are up to Asia, Europe, Africa, America... I am sorry to tell you about.

All of the world of science ask for it, not only journals, and publishers, but also professors in university departments. You have listed 13 (preprints) none of them published. You say "Referencing styles, bibliographies, etc might be essential in this strange society"?

you don't accept referencing and bibliographies?

why you have more than 30 REFERENCES in for example in "Static, Topological Universe = Steady State + Big Bang" A preprint from you in SSRN.com.

You don't accept this style? introduce your system to this "strange society". Not bad you know that "Albert Einstein" (you mentioned) used to cite the scientific works of others.

go to this discussion to see another debate "a scientific one" about ""Albert Einstein" articles.

I did not open other preprints in your page, don't they have references?

2- Also you named Isaac Newton. good to know that the metaphor: Standing on the shoulders of giants, that could be seen in Google Scholar is his.

search google and see this and now read it carefully:

Talking is easy, but not working. Therefore you help all the academia. All day long, people ask about how to publish in journals here in RG, all kind of scientific questions and discussions are asked here, you deny all? if you know tell them your method for truth and advancement of science and a better life for all of us around the world,. Show them your original Ideas. Be helpful to all of us. Why not?

4 "Electronic binary digits" you talked about. They come from three sciences, at least, Electronics, computer sciences and mathematics. Did you personally invent them? You learnt them by heart? never read them? or study them? they themselves are references, for sure you did not invent them.

5 Internet and RG are parts of this "strange society" you talked about, why don't you introduce yours to all of us, we all move in to it, to be where you believe "is not strange"

6. When Stephen Hawking, himself did not believe to life after death, how do you want him to give you a big smile? what are his original findings for us? why don't you complain to The Nobel Prize Foundation? as they never chose him as a winner.

7 you say: "If you dedicate your life to the "accepted norms and frameworks of science and academic research", you won't end up being another Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton ... or Stephen Hawking."

Of course I can not be and we have a science in this "strange society" (in your words) called biology, with many branches. It tells us we are all different. It seems by this question you mean you can be another person, so go ahead... while in this world I know, I have to focus on a small scientific topic to learn more about it,

8. If you don't accept this strange society, why you have put these in your RG home page? (1) ResearchGate (2) ORCID (3) Publons (4) Web of Science. Wouldn't be better that you show what you yourself know and we are unaware of it?

9, You talk about "original ideas'? show us yours.

10 concerning your original ideas, I opened your preprint I mentioned it before. And found out that in first sentence you have written "This article disputes the idea that 1+1=2 because a unified theory that has implications in physical terms for everything in space-time means 1+1=2, and all our mathematics..."

Combined this with your unpublished works, zero citations, I finish it here.

To be honest as I saw the first sentence of your preprint, I talked about it before, suddenly I lost all my interest to give a complete reply. Other wise I would have given a very long and complete answer. Enjoy your life...

I hadn't planned to reply but you said I should show what I can do. This story I'm preparing for a competition is a summary of "my" original ideas combined with a little bit of science fiction in obvious places. I put "my" in quotes because the ideas aren't solely mine - they come from all humanity ("what I can do" therefore means I can assemble humanity's ideas into a kind of original jigsaw puzzle). I still have to number the references correctly. And referring to myself - using the word "I" - was a compulsory condition for entering the competition.

Dear All

Hello

It was some 4 days ago that I introduced, the title of this discussion in another related discussion. But I promptly received answers from two scholars, "Peter Jackson" and "Peter Kepp".

I had not intended to discuss it there, but as those two RG members liked to answer right there, I moved along with them. We had long exchanges that was not at ease.

I have been thinking, if this discussion were not about a world celebrity, would the answers of people from different corners of the Globe so divided or furious?

So as the answers of those two scholars were a mix of special and general information, I think you might like to have a look at what went there in that discussion. While any answers regarding it, here or there are welcome.

So the title and its URL

Thank you

Hello Please compare these 5 claims and then read little note after which (credits attached). (1)Stephen Hawking says we have got about 1000 years, (2) 600 years (3) 500 years, (4) 200 years, (5) 100 years to leave Earth...

Feedbacks are welcome

Thank you

Also an article regarding this movie in Insider

This article does not show that he (the real Stephen) had added that he had given up "continues to seek, A Theory of Everything" while commenting positively about that movie as the title of the article shows.

(Credits attached)

Thank you

Hello All,

and Psychology helps, but not in favor of us! Please have a look at the attached photo, a simple search in Google, about Stephen Hawking Books. In most of them One thinks the title of a given book is the name of the author!

If we look at scientific books may be in our room, home, office, library shelves and compare the titles of them with the photo attached here, we may see how "idol of authority" and psychology (of course unknowingly) hand in hand move to curb the advancement of knowledge. These things may not impress us in the world of academia, but what about the youth, specifically Generation Z?

* The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Robert K. Merton, 1973, The University of Chicago Press.

In a 2018 clip that you can find it attached as A, Neil deGrasse Tyson, askes Stephen Hawking about the beginning of universe,

Stephen Hawking answers:

"…The normal laws of physics hold there is nothing South of the South Pole so there was nothing around before the big bang."

But clip B has been published online in 2021,

the "Program host" asks Neil deGrasse Tyson about the beginning of universe,

As an ordinary person I can ask several questions: 1- Is the science of those two cosmologists so generative and productive to move us just from South Pole to North Pole? 2- As the Earth is in a ball shape, cant I add the following logical statement? There is certainly some thing in South of South Pole and North of North Pole as we again move to The equator? Can I also say and "reserve!" it for me myself, As There is nothing WEST Of THE WEST, so there was nothing around before the big bang, OR As There is nothing EAST Of THE EAST, so there was nothing around before the big bang? 3-Puting anything away and supposing (for example) anything these two cosmologists say is correct, Didn't Neil deGrasse Tyson, did a kind of Plagiarism, just by replacing North and South? 4- Why the science of these and others such as Carl Sagan, and Michio Kaku, does not go beyond words? 5- If other sciences were like the science of these, were would we be? For example some thirty years ago, no INTERNET no WWW. Weren't we searching them in NORTH and SOUTH POLES? or Supposing there was not Johannes Gutenberg, who invented the movable-type printing press, which started the Printing Revolution. were would we be? 6- I did not understand C as attached, it is an article stating Stephen Hawking, in an almost last paper "A smooth exit from eternal inflation?" claimed our universe never had a singular moment of creation. 7- So at last South, North, or none for beginning of our universe? 8- Did not Neil know about the last finding of Stephen on the beginning of our universe? as in 2021 he does not let Poles go away 9- what is the benefit of such "science" for we as the public...

And many other questions are there in my head regarding this kind of science that moves just our eyes on papers, articles, books, clips, but not ourselves!

Corrections, feedbacks are welcomed.

Thank You

"Don't Tell The Aliens We're Here, They Might Not Be Friendly... If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans,"*

When Voyager 1 and its identical sister craft Voyager 2 launched in 1977, each carried a gold record titled The Sounds Of Earth that contained a selection of recordings of life and culture on Earth. The cover contains instructions for any extraterrestrial being wishing to play the record. NASA/Getty Images**

While in the first reference we see the reporter has added points about Voyager. One can ask her/himself, if aliens are so dumb, that if we don't tell where we are, they don't find us, then if so dumb, how and with what kind of technology, tools and vehicles they want to reach us? In this borderless universe (as it is said) what do aliens want from the earth?

And too many other questions one can have and ask...

In reality, Hawking should have advised NASA and also warn all of us before 1977, which is apparently the date that Voyager1 and 2 launched... each carried a gold record, to tell the universe, everything possible with the technologies of 1970s...

Put it aside that academic and scientific world consider UFOs and Aliens, pseudoscience!

*https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/04/aliens_stephen_hawking.html

**https://www.npr.org/2017/09/30/554489944/the-voyager-golden-record-finally-finds-an-earthly-audience

Yes he was...He did admit that he was wrong about his theory on Black Holes....