Anyone (still) believing the Royal Society's famous sociopath, Stephen Hawking (Insane "physics") ? - {FPP Note 20091204-II-V1.0.1}
Koos Nolst Trenite
famous sociopath, Stephen Hawking?
4 December 2009
{FPP Note 20091204-II-V1.0.1}
(Version 1.0.1
on 5 Dec 2009)
'
Does anyone (still) believe Stephen Hawking, the British Royal
Society's famous sociopath?
I never did, and I always wondered how people could talk with a
straight face about his fictional concepts.
And that is because I DO maintain some connection to life, to people,
to reality. In other words, I am a very compassionate person, and
quite the opposite of some autistic "scientist" - or even worse, of
a "theoretical physicist," or of an 'astronomical' "cosmologist,"
which nowadays is probably synonymous with 'being autistic,'
"in which the brain suffers from a Large frontal Hadron,
and from Temporal Higgs Bosons crossing the CERNICUS Pons
to the Mare BROOKHAVEN, at about twice their rest-mass,
due to their velocity being half that of light itself,
affecting those parts of the brain that are
responsible for the effort of 'Un-Thinking,'
(the 'UT-factor' which may be genetically determined
- as shown in recent scientific research in Japan
on the brain of the non-herding species of the giant
jelly fish, with a similar crossing frequency in the
Pons)
showing, in relative time, the brain-singularities of
the 'Autistic Personality Syndrome' or APS,
all of which appear within the space-time of an MRI scan
of an autistic person's brain, and these become visible
as non-absorbing Black Holes, on a tomography screen."
'
Nine million or so people were (and probably still are) that strongly
hypnotized by 'Academia and Nobel-Prizemia,' *(4)(2)(*)
they were made that Insane as to have bought the sociopath's most
famous Science Fiction book, which he called "A Brief History of
Time."
(Quotes of the Science Fiction book by Stephen Hawking are
enclosed, for your judgment on his sociopathy: on his
complete, and malicious - and quite possibly also on your
own - irrationality.)
Unsurprisingly, in Wikipedia they did not write 'his popular
Science FICTION book "A Brief History of Time",'
but in Wikipedia they erroneously left out the word "FICTION:"
Wikipedia being the roving ground of those sociopaths that
maintain the 'peer-reviewed' "religion of science." *(1)
With the common goal, of sociopaths wanting to ruin the
lives of people as much as they can, and wanting to have
themselves seen as 'supremos,'
by means of their extremely harmful "religion of
science," *(1)
they find a rich opportunity to do so freely in Wikipedia,
trashing the most vital and trail-blazing SCIENTIFIC
discoveries,
trashed "because these do not fit their sociopathy,
their 'religion of science'."
'
Hence my question:
Does anyone here still believe Stephen Hawking, the British Royal
Society's famous sociopath?
Does anyone here still BELIEVE the lies of Stephen Hawking
"about Life, Time, Space, etc.."
- which are by the way quite comparable to Sigmund Freud's
lies "about life,"
lies given with the same intention of successfully
driving you very and lastingly Insane and incapable of
recovering - by means of
lies about the nature of your life,
which any child who reads English well, can easily detect as the
most Insane of lies:
'
The Royal Society's most famous sociopath, WHILE PRETENDING VERY
FORCEFULLY THE OPPOSITE - as sociopaths do - (he) BREAKS YOUR
CONNECTION WITH REALITY
(in denial as he is, of Life itself and in denial of ninety
percent of vital and real scientific data, on the subjects he
"teaches" his Science Fiction about). *(1)
Yet he claims to talk about "physics," WITHOUT CALLING it
Science Fiction,
while the bad Science Fiction that he writes, may appeal to
your desire to be lied to,
much like you are also entertained by stage magic,
it may be entertaining enough, to your utterly confused minds.
'
It is hardly possibly to stride farther from reality, than he does,
while claiming himself to be the champion of the very opposite,
of "science."
His urge to drive others Insane and Blind, is somewhat
paralleled by his admirer, TV "philosopher" Carl Sagan,
equally opposing the nature of life itself, but who was
considerably less sociopathic, though:
They come in degrees of malice to and lies about life.
'
Again: It is hardly possibly to stride farther from reality, than our
protagonistic sociopath Stephen Hawking does
while he is claiming to you most 'loudly' to be "the very
opposite," yes, "the champion of rationality and insight."
So you swallowed it, and - on his command - you did reject the
simplest of truths that you actually do know very well ...should
you be allowed to think, yourself (not hypnotized, that is), starting
yourself to OBSERVE AND PERCEIVE. *(3)
'
'
[I quote from his Chapter Two]
From Chapter TWO of 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking
CHAPTER 2: SPACE AND TIME
Only a one page quote, already from Chapter Two of his popular science
fiction book, 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking, proves
his sociopathy already fully:
"Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's
theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if
light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would
have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured
relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere,
even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through
the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their
speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different
observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light
coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular,
as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit
round the sun, the speed of light measured in the
direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we
were moving toward the source of the light) should be
higher than the speed of light at right angles to that
motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887
Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to
receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley
carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School
of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed
of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that
at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great
surprise, they found they were exactly the same! Between
1887 and 1905 there were several attempts, most notably by
the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, to explain the result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects
contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved
through the ether. However, in a famous paper in 1905, a
hitherto unknown clerk in the Swiss patent office, Albert
Einstein, pointed out that the whole idea of an ether was
unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea
of absolute time. A similar point was made a few weeks
later by a leading French mathematician, Henri Poincare.
Einstein's arguments were closer to physics than those of
Poincare, who regarded this problem as mathematical.
Einstein is usually given the credit for the new theory,
but Poincare is remembered by having his name attached to
an important part of it.
The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as
it was called, was that the laws of science should be the
same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their
speed. This was true for Newton's laws of motion, but now
the idea was extended to include Maxwell's theory and the
speed of light: all observers should measure the same
speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This
simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the
best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed
up in Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 (where E is energy,
m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that
nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. Because
of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an
object has due to its motion will add to its mass. In
other words, it will make it harder to increase its speed.
This effect is only really significant for objects moving
at speeds close to the speed of light. For example, at 10
percent of the speed of light an object's mass is only 0.5
percent more than normal, while at 90 percent of the speed
of light it would be more than twice its normal mass. As
an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises
ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to
speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed
of light, because by then its mass would have become
infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it
would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get it
there. For this reason, any normal object is forever
confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the
speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no
intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light.
An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way
it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time. In
Newton's theory, if a pulse of light is sent from one
place to another, different observers would agree on the
time that the journey took (since time is absolute), but
will not always agree on how far the light traveled (since
space is not absolute). Since the speed of the light is
just the distance it has traveled divided by the time it
has taken, different observers would measure different
speeds for the light. In relativity, on the other hand,
all observers must agree on how fast light travels. They
still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has
traveled, so they must therefore now also disagree over
the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the
light has traveled - which the observers do not agree on -
divided by the light's speed - which they do agree on.) In
other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the
idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must
have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock
carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by
different observers would not necessarily agree."
From Chapter TWO of 'A Brief History of Time'
by Stephen Hawking - CHAPTER 2: SPACE AND TIME
[end Quote]
'
'
* So we have to go back to actually looking at life, and to do so with
the very Sane, and the very Caring, and the very Truthful and very
Beautiful:
"The art of Leonardo da Vinci, and the music of Bach and Mozart,
are as priceless in Beauty, as are the value and vitality of
caring knowledge and the 'wisdom shaping future' of the Human
Rights Issues - borne as all these are, from the same spirit or
Soul. This issue, on 'Fine Particle Physics' (FPP) is part of
the Human Rights Issues.
I am endowed with so vast an amount of Spiritual Intelligence
(defined as having that much love for people, as - with love of
people motivating the intention and feeding the ability - to
seek out and connect to those data, that are the necessary and
the most vital to the subject or to the goal to achieve), so,
that I have regained the necessary understanding
so far ABOVE current "science" in all its areas, including also
the philosophies and religions of East and West, and of North
and South, that I am inconceivably FAR above those who are now
collectively seen as "Academia," or as "Nobel-Prizemia" if you
like to be more expressive,
in describing the global "science" community which floats on
the highest COMMON level of their intelligence (which is too
Insane and too much captive in malice, to describe it without
nausea) with their uncanny belief about themselves and about
their "sciences" "being scientific,"
because in their "sciences," they omit about ninety percent of
the AVAILABLE and VITAL data from ACTUAL Science - and the
remaining ten percent data they DO teach, learn and use, of
that half is wrong data or is reversing actual Science)." *(2)
Koos Nolst Trenite 'Cause Trinity'
human rights philosopher and poet
'Solomon's wisdom was greater
than the wisdom of
all the men of the East,
and greater
than all the wisdom of Egypt.'
1 Kings 4:30
_________
Footnotes:
(*) See above.
(1) 'Chemical Concept Of Life - 'The Big Bang In Your Primordial
Soup' '
{HRI note 20091115-I-V3.2.2-u_all}
(15 November 2009 - Version 3.2.2 on 30 Nov 2009)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/26d2ace77de056dc
'Evil Creatures Fight for Evil BELIEFS, versus the Rational
Truth' (ECFEB)
{HRI 20080918-V1.5.1}
(8 Sept 2008 - Version 1.5.1 on 15 Mar 2009)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/9dcf45b8b09b581c
(2) 'Fine Particle Physics and the Mathison-Trenite Life Energy
Fluctuation Meter (LEF Meter) - PART THREE'
{FPP 20090913-draft-V1.0-p3}
(13 September 2009 - Draft V1.0-p3 issued on 1 Nov 2009)
http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.physics/msg/15f0d99c50ec6809
(3) 'Definition of Perception (to restore and repair Perception)'
{HRI 20091203-V2.1} {FPP 20091203-V2.1}
(3 December 2009 - Version 2.1 on 4 Dec 2009)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/msg/8ab18eb8b3439986
(4) Sturdy supporters of Stephen Hawking's sociopathy, claimed to be
so by Stephen Hawking himself in his book quoted above:
"Over the years, my principal associates and collaborators were
Roger Penrose, Robert Geroch, Brandon Carter, George Ellis,
Gary Gibbons, Don Page, and Jim Hartle. ... Brian Whitt,
gave me a lot of help writing the first edition of this book.
My editor at Bantam Books, Peter Guzzardi, made innumerable
comments which improved the book considerably. In addition,
for this edition, I would like to thank Andrew Dunn, who
helped me revise the text."
__________
References:
'Extremely High Performances of Bach - Introduction to Bach
(Johann Sebastian Bach)'
{HRI 20051021-V3.2-A-V2.1}
(31 Dec 2005 - Version 2.1 on 24 Nov 2009)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/6e75b52e95edd72b
(further as applicable)
____________
Verification:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld
Copyright 2009 by Koos Nolst Trenite - human rights philosopher
and poet
This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
anyone who learns from it and (even if he can not learn from it)
who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included,
to others who might be able to learn from it (but not to sociopaths
specifically, because these vehemently oppose any true knowledge
of life and about themselves).
None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
or religious or scientific or artistic "agenda," but only to educate,
and to encourage people to judge un-dominated and for themselves,
about any organizations or individuals.
Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
PlatoWorld at Lycos.com