Who is your favorite Physicist?

Well, ya know, just like the "puppets" that serve as ventriloquists' dummies, Hawkingson needs someone else to speak for him. He kinda looks like one, too, know what I'm sayin?

And you are everything he wasn't, Max. You are an abject science denier. You pick and choose your "science" according to your political views.

You are a strong advocate against science.

As Feynman said,

Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

Max is a cargo cult type of "scientist," eh?

Just like you, layman. And all the rest of the deeply religious "American" science deniers.

Yes I did and no You asked for me to explain how it is I'm qualified to make that conclusion. When you give me an explanation without arrogance on what makes you qualified to interrogate people asking opinions I will tell you what brought me to the conclusion that he is a puppet.

Exactly layman's got the right idea, he would be extremely easy to control too. Look at who one of his very good friends is too Mr. Bill Gates.

That may be your perception to you yes then I am talking out of my ass. Apparently you have no clue what TFT is?

Isaac Newton. For all intents and purposes, he invented science. And yes, I am aware that people reached valid scientific conclusions before Newton.

Is it really necessary for people to act like assholes on a lighthearted thread like this? Geez.

It's really not at all... I started the Thread and that person had to start running their mouth to me and 2 or 3 others there was no reason for it...

If you're talking about this, Max, which I suspect you are...



Then, no, it wasn't necessary. It's just that I couldn't resist, once the mocking started, know what I'm sayin?

You have my sympathies. The nuances of the word 'puppet' would appear to be over the heads of some people !
BTW I concur that David Bohm ( an Einstein collaborator) is certainly worthy of consideration as a guy whose career was restricted due to his humanitarian and esoteric interests.

I thought that 'puppet' was a jibe, intended to mean that Hawking is someone who merely voices the idea of someone else (the modern variant is 'sock puppet'). This led me to wonder 'how does MKABRSTI know that?', and to ask for elucidation. The person who pulls Hawking's strings must be profoundly able, and it would be interesting to know how Hawking got the Lucasian chair, or indeed, his first degree. Now it seems that he was likened to a distorted marionette in appearance. If this was intended as a serious comment, then it was crass almost beyond belief. I say 'almost' because this is A2K after all. Maybe that implies that this thread has a sarcastic intent, that is, to mock shallow judgements of scientists. Hey! Let's be light-hearted (?!) and call him a 'spastic'. If that were so, I would maybe say that Einstein must be my favourite physicist because of his gnarly hair, or possibly Paul Davies because he is a bonzer bloke who has been awarded the Order of Australia.

As for Bohm, in the 1980s I was intrigued by comments about Bohm made by Douglas Hofstadter in "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Brain". This led me to borrow Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" from the local library. I had to renew the 2-week loan period 3 times, which was OK as nobody else seemed to be asking for it. I was interested in fractals at the time, and Bohm's notions of enfolded order resonated with that. I reserved judgement on Bohm's ideas about quantum minds. (I still do!) There are some equations, although the book is accessible enough that you can skip over them:



here he is talking about how oscillators of the same natural frequency in a fixed Lorentz frame tend to lock in phase with each other, any change of phase being 2nπ, where n is an integer, thus quantization of action can arise, at least in that special case, out of topological conditions.

This kind of stuff is the main reason it took me 6 weeks (on and off) to get through it.

The whole text of the book is here

http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

Yes. I've got that book together with 'The Ending of Time ' (Dialogues with Krishnamurti).You would find that easier going ! Bohm's esotericism is reflective of that of Bohr ( who adopted the YinYang symbol as his coat of arms when he was knighted).
Both understood the seductive aspects of language and attempted to transcend them.

If you get an answer of 6 to your own equation of 2+(2x3) you have no business in the world of science or any type of intellectual debate of any sort. Seriously.

I have been intrigued by Frank J Tipler - the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead, is maybe a number of steps too far for me, although I like his Tipler cylinder time machine. Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to Tipler's Omega Point stuff, in which he compares Tipler to Doctor Pangloss.

Anything affiliated with Omega is good stuff.

Sorry- a typo - that's "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid".

6 weeks to read the book, two more to review what I thought I had learned.

Damn You must be quite the busy person. I mean I'm busy as hell in my day to day life but I usually bang a book out in a day or two.