Hawking was NOT a spectatular physicist

This site claims to be redpilled and intelligent, yet openly is eulogizing this charlatan.
"F" threads and comments abound. There is even a banner dedicated to him.
The truth is Stephen Hawking was a subpar physicist. To press F means that you never studied physics at an advanced level and are incapable of analyzing information critically.

I bet you imbeciles didn't metaphorically press F when Hans Georg Dehmelt died about a year ago, a far more intelligent physicist that did much more to advance science than the proofless speculation about black holes and other unproven hypotheses of Stephen Hawking offered as more so as science material for the masses, especially as he aged, with books rather than academic papers. Hawking was never held to the same rigor as other physicists because of his condition, and strong rebukes, as you would expect to find in many journals such as Physics Letters were almost unheard of. He was immunized in his own little bubble and was protected from addressing criticisms with his works. Leonard Susskind was denied publication on multiple times and Hawking never addressed his academic rebuttals. Susskind himself is controversial with his string theory speculation but at least he strongly substantiates it.
If you have ever worked in academia or science, you will realize the norm is to try to disprove, or more accurately eviscerate, viewpoints that go against your hypotheses. It is brutal but this is what ultimately advances science.
Praising Hawking = I never studied physics at the graduate level.

I fucking hate non-scientists who pretend to be scientists.
>Dude, stephen hawking wow SCIENCE DUDE!" >
Like those morons who marched on that Day of Science in Washington. Imbeciles with undergrad degrees LARPing as scientists.
You offer an actual scientific argument against any of their politically-speared 'scientific' narratives "DUDE ITS 2018 ARE YOU AGAINST SCIENCE"

Attached: Proof.... where we are going we dont need proof.jpg (850x400, 49K)

Okay snow nigger. Gigs up, time for work.

Attached: IMG_2459.jpg (230x360, 24K)

F

i have suspected this.
redpill me on hawking radiation.

He votes labour. This is enough.

You're a fool: ion traps are fine, but they have not really advanced our understanding of the world the way Hawking did. His unproven hypotheses have led to huge insights into quantum gravity and hence the true nature of the universe at the most fundamental level. If you understood physics properly you would know how much he contributed -- for example, you reference Susskind's rebuttal to the information loss paradox as if it were somehow working against Hawking: the reality is Susskind was able to understand the universe at a much deeper level precisely because of Hawking's work, and I know he and many other physicists will miss Stephen dearly.

Sup Forums is quickly becoming as cucked as reddit.
First, they put this homosexual degenerate in the banner, now they put what to them must be "wow smart guy".
The world lost nothing of value when these people died. Hawking was not one of the brightest minds in the world, and replaced his unsubstantiated pseudoscientific ramblings with philosophical ones used to further political goals.
>quantum gravity
There are hundreds of physicists who publish in Physics Letter, before and after him who contributed very similar ideas on gravity and black holes. He was not so brilliant that without him quantum gravity would have never been advanced.
You are a fool to think he was anymore brilliant than your average physicist or that he was crucial for the development of quantum gravity. Hawking’s Euclidean quantum gravity isn't his idea but rather DeWitt's, and his model and namesake unfortunately remains despite not being the mastermind behind the theory. YaB was incredibly more intelligent than Hawking and was taken aback at his stupidity when meeting him.
Hawking takes center stage because of the popular conception that he is a genius. Actual physicists know that he was neither crucial for the development of the field or a genius.

Attached: some faggot.jpg (741x178, 19K)

Hawking showed that from a very general premise -- QFT in curved spacetime -- that black holes do not preserve information, they cause pure states to evolve into mixed states. Any theory of quantum gravity must reduce to QFT on curved spacetime in the appropriate limit, so if such a theory is to be unitary (and surely any candidate for a theory of quantum gravity must be), it must somehow avoid this very general conclusion.
In string theory, for example, this is solved by the holographic principle, which is to say a very subtle non-locality enters the theory when there are strong gravitational fields. This insight, followed by t' Hooft's explicit calculations about Hawking radiation, lead to Susskind's holographic principle, now realised in Maldacena's AdS/CFT correspondence, which demonstrates that in string theory evolution is unitary in the presence of a black hole, even though people are still wondering exactly how this is the case from a bulk perspective (instead of just saying "the boundary theory is unitary so the bulk theory preserve information), so Hawking's paradox is still not quite solved even in the case of non-perturbative string theory as realised in AdS/CFT.
And then we have Stephen's work with Hartle, showing how the universe could begin on a quantum level by tunnelling from a Euclidean signature to a Lorentzian one, offering the most specific quantum theory of the Big Bang available today, all from a paper over 40 years old.

You are an arrogant and misinformed individual. We should celebrate other physicists of course: Polchinski died last month and the public didn't care at all, but Hawking completely deserves the praise he gets. If you knew more real physics, not just this ion trap glorified engineering stuff, you would understand.

>There are hundreds of physicists who publish in Physics Letter, before and after him who contributed very similar ideas on gravity and black holes. He was not so brilliant that without him quantum gravity would have never been advanced.
It was he who performed the actual semiclassical calculation and highlighted the information loss paradox, which was vital for all subsequent developments in the quantum theory of black holes: of course he didn't come up with it all himself, so what?!
>Hawking’s Euclidean quantum gravity isn't his idea but rather DeWitt's
Again, these ideas do not form in a vacuum, nor do they form instantly. The fact of the matter is it was he and Hartle who described the more-or-less explicit theory.
>Actual physicists know that he was neither crucial for the development of the field or a genius.
Bullshit. There were plenty of other great physicists who deserve as much attention, and indeed Hawking was not the most vital researcher in his field, especially in later years, but you ask Lenny and Juan if they think Stephen was a genius, crucial to the development of their field, and you will find they say he was.

I stripped the the halo and vanity surrounding the mythical legend that is Steven Hawking. He, his statements, and his publications should be evaluated critically and not seen as the product of unquestionable genius, effectively canonizing him in this laughable cult-like science we have today.
He indeed did make some contributions, especially his earlier works, but the the level of acclaim and stardom he has received is not warranted. The is the pervasive notion that he is some unassailable genius—which is mostly used to spew not his physics narratives but instead his political commentary.
At least, will you admit that this popular elevation of Hawking does more harm than good?
A ton of ignorant fan boys who know nothing about physics celebrating a man, because they want to appear to be scientists themselves or think that is somehow fashionable.
>if you understood real physics
Oh, the irony.

holy shit calm your autism

Attached: 1359575757672.jpg (271x289, 21K)

Attached: 1507346338243s.jpg (221x250, 6K)

FINALLY

THAT FRAUD GOT BTFO

All I've seen about him in the catalog call him out. He was overrated popsci and didn't produce anything meaningful in decades, the only reason he was given so much attention is his illness.

>All threads I've seen
Forgive my phoneposting

>he doesn't know Aniki
Funny you would mention reddit. Go back there.

Hawkins is an overrated kike plant who is burning in hell right now.

I didn't mind fag Herrington as much as he still had a good heart, but why in the name of everything good do wenhave to put up with that demon cripple his obituary laughing in our face?? God riddance

>It was he who performed the actual semiclassical calculation and highlighted the information loss paradox, which was vital for all subsequent developments in the quantum theory of black holes: of course he didn't come up with it all himself, so what?!
You claim that ideas are communicable and do not form in a vacuum, yet, at the same time, hold that further development of these ideas are limited to a single linchpin. The implication is that without this single man, our advancement of theoretical physics and our understanding of the world at large would not have happened which is absurd.
>There were plenty of other great physicists who deserve as much attention, and indeed Hawking was not the most vital researcher in his field---
This is my main point.
>-----Lenny and Juan if they think Stephen was a genius, crucial to the development of their field, and you will find they say he was.
Crucial? Disagree. Helped to spark and popularize debate due to notoriety? I concede.
They certainly would not be critical as I am being and would speak more cordially, and rightfully so.
While Lenny might hold admiration for him personally, he would most definitely be an iconoclast against this image of Hawking peddled among pretend-scientists of the masses-- in his words:
"Science blogs bore me. When everyone is an expert, no one is an expert"

My good man, you see, I can appreciate you and your rebuttals to me even though we vehemently disagree regarding Hawking's intelligence and level of contribution to the field of physics. Your criticisms are fair and noted.
You obviously are NOT a simpleton lacking understanding in physics praising him """"just because""".

>Praising Hawking = I never studied physics at the graduate level.
fuck off senpai , whats wrong with praising a dude that did good work ? i mean he's not einstein\newton level but so what . anyone who does good theory work should be worthy of praise .

How would you know if the work is any good if you got no fucking understanding of it? If you can't evaluate it for yourself, you really have no idea whether or not it is good and simply take other's word for it. You offer praise despite not knowing what the fuck is going on.

you know this shit is publicly available and you can just read it right ? , i did when i was doing my undergrad

Guy was a leftist shitbag, for that reason good riddance.

Can someone tell me what he actually did? I understand he wrote 2 books which kind of bring an advanced level of physics to the layman. And I know about Hawking Radiation or whatever, but has he done anything actually relevant? Anything that adds to the world?

I have not engulfed in physics myself, mostly because of lacking interest so I won't say what he have and haven't achieved in that regard.
To me it seems like Stephen Hawking is a clear example of an underdog story. "A genius that prevailed and broke new ground despite his terminal illness". The public do love a good underdog story.

It would be an underdog story if the illness effected cognitive functions.

I don't think it matters in this case.

It doesn't matter if you can find it and look at it, retard, that doesn't mean you can understand it and evaluate it.
Citing a paper in undergrad doesn't make you a goddamn physicist.

That's not the point. The world gives Hawking's theories more weight because they come from a cripple. It could just as easily have been a nigger or pussy possessor.

Modern science is radically overweighted in theory and light on testing. We have discarded the scientific method in favor of the more comfortable politically correct theories. They may be politically correct because they support ideologies (race is a social construct) or because they are proferred by a minority (dark energy).

Indeed. Like gender studies. They already decide that a hypothesis is true before starting to test it. It's not scientific at all.

>laughing at a man that went trough hell on earth and still left a legacy

I can smell the jelly all the way from here

>Amerimutts need to import actual scientists because Amerimutts cannot science.
>think they everything about science because they attended ONE lecture at university before dropping out
>works at McDonald's, burgerking or some other shit job
Really activates those almonds

Dude's literally in a fucking wheelchair completely paralyzed and didn't drive himself off a cliff so he could learn. His theories aren't impressive, it's his passion that is admirable. If i was him, I would killed myself right away after realizing there is no way I'm ever getting out of this chair again. God bless you hawkins. F.

but you can understand it senpai in fact its very clearly written . what is your point ?.
>gives Hawking's theories more weight because they come from a cripple.
no it dosnt senpai it makes no sense . how is crippleness improving the theory ?

>We have discarded the scientific method in favor of the more comfortable politically correct theories.
no we didnt , and even if some did they are by definition not scientists and the scientific community is not affected .

also how the fuck is dark energy a
>comfortable politically correct theory
its not even exactly a theory

Attached: 1504363058539.png (2442x1068, 483K)

>laughing at a man
What laughter?
There is no mockery.
What is being deconstructed is the mythical image of him as being such an undeniable genius. The truth is his intelligence and contribution to the world of physics are highly overrated, especially relative to other physicists.
He did suffer badly in life but this is totally immaterial to the evaluation of his scientific publications and intelligence.

Based

Someone check these digits!

People love hawking not just for his raw contribution to science which was substantial, but also the role model to look up to, an exemplar of human spirit who struggled against enormous odds just to stay alive and continue his work, but to fight through the mental torture of being stuck in a paralyzed body and still contribute to society.

He proved that being handicapped doesn't have to be a reason to give up, that greatness is still possible.

He popularized science he made large parts of the public feel challenged and reinvigrated to be curious about physics and space that will be the gravitational wave that forms new stars out of nebulous people who will go on to replace him decades down the line.

If you're just looking at his raw addition to science then you're looking through a narrow lens, you might need an advanced grasp of physics to understand his contributions to science, but you just need to be a human with a heart to understand the profoud affect he had on society, which clearly you lack.

How about you go and do some experiments on these theories then, jackass? Or would you need a billion dollar facility built to run for years to maybe even get a chance of observing whether they are correct or not.

>If you're just looking at his raw addition to science then you're looking through a narrow lens

This 90% of pre-modern science ain't really useful, but the characters were inspiring and reached new grounds.