Re: Elaboration and Proof, on the Royal Society's famous sociopath, Stephen Hawking's ENTIRELY FALSE "Physics" - {FPP Note 20091204-II-V1.0.1-A}
Leonardo Been (Plato)
from the Magenta anti-Gluons that govern your thinking Cortex,
an effect from the Entropy that Evolution brings unavoidably and
relentlessly to your so evolving Minds,
due to the fundamental law of Entropy of modern nuclear physics -
the Law of the Conservation of Stupidity:
I have never seen such a well-organized and well-financed group
of imbeciles as you who use the above jargon, but who are
oblivious of the Entropic law that consumes you,
based as that law is on Hate and Envy and Ugliness, being
Entropic agents of the Mind,
governing you to such an extent, that you can not publicly express
even a modicum of gratitude for all the work I have done and do for
you...
'Elaboration and Proof, on the Royal Society's famous sociopath,
Stephen Hawking ENTIRELY FALSE "Physics" '
{FPP Note 20091204-II-V1.0.1-A}
(4 December 2009 - Addition V1.0.1-A on 6 Dec 2009)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2416797bf1ec365e
'
_________
Reference:
'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
Giga
"Leonardo Been (Plato)" <plato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b1b6617$0$14116$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl...
> Elaboration and Proof, on the Royal Society's famous sociopath,
> Stephen Hawking's ENTIRELY FALSE "Physics" and "Astronomy"
>
> 4 December 2009
> {FPP Note 20091204-II-V1.0.1-A}
>
> (Addition on
> on 6 Dec 2009)
>
> '
>
> The elaboration forms the sequence of proof:
>
> 1. Truth is absolute
>
> "Truth is defined in your soul, as
>
> 'That what happened, plus, who caused it, plus,
> the intentions of who caused it'
>
> - truth then (though it can be hidden in various ways)
> is absolute, it obviously can not ever be erased,
> no matter how distant in time it has come to pass
>
> - truth further, having become part of The Creation
> the moment something happened or was intended, can
> forever be remembered or viewed." {definition} (**)
>
> Koos Nolst Trenite
> human rights philosopher and poet
>
> '
>
> 2. Stephen Hawking can sense and thus - even if vaguely - knows the
> truth, and so do you.
>
> 3. The concepts proposed by Stephen Hawking, are NOTHING BUT lies
> "about Life and the Universe."
>
> 4. The lies of Stephen Hawking are malicious, highly destructive - to
> the society and to Life on Earth, to your life, to our life.
>
> 5. Stephen Hawking ENJOYS lying maliciously, on a grand scale to drive
> you and millions of others as Insane about Life, and about himself,
> as he possibly can - and to DESTROY Physics.
>
> 6. Stephen Hawking is a sociopath.
>
> Corollary: Already from 1. and 2. it follows, that Stephen
> Hawking KNOWS very well about himself, that he
> is a sociopath.
>
> '
>
> (**) {HRO 20081017-V2.3.2}
>
> '
>
> '
>
> _______________
> I wrote earlier:
>
> 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:
M Purcell
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> Doh!
I thought it was a very straight forward explanation of the concept of
time (basically a measure of change) but it was kind of dry, I had
trouble with a couple parts of it, and it's a little out-of-date. I
would recommend reading something by Richard Feynman, he's more
entertaining.
M Purcell
But for a scientific persepective of human nature I would recommend "A
Primate's Memoir".
Saul Levy
And for YOU to believe him, so are you!
Saul Levy
Giga
"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:defbc8ee-0dba-4135...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
=Or there is the excellent audio of some of his lectures (bit scratchy
sometimes) and some video around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics
Leonardo Been (Plato)
(the reader is naturally assumed to be in the possession of
sufficient social Intelligence and related faculties)
'
'
(original post):
Elaboration and Proof, on the Royal Society's famous sociopath,
4 December 2009
{FPP Note 20091204-II-V1.0.1-A}
(Addition on
'
The elaboration forms the sequence of proof:
1. Truth is absolute
"Truth is defined in your soul, as
'That what happened, plus, who caused it, plus,
the intentions of who caused it'
- truth then (though it can be hidden in various ways)
is absolute, it obviously can not ever be erased,
no matter how distant in time it has come to pass
- truth further, having become part of The Creation
the moment something happened or was intended, can
forever be remembered or viewed." {definition} (**)
Koos Nolst Trenite
Major Doctor
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Seriously, shut up.
"Leonardo Been (Plato)" wrote in message
news:cc621042-d5e7-45e1...@googlegroups.com...
(this is the original post, which was criminally deleted) <- this
statement: no meaning
[drivel snipped]
john
something more worthwhile?