NavList:

   

Reply

Thanks Frank.
Wise words as always.
I'm not a neurologist so do not feel qualified to comment on your 2 theories.
I just hope the medics involved do so. I agree, slightly off nav topic except, 
I'm sure you agree, we rely on the general science background to do our thing 
well? (so science is sometimes on topic)
I also like Penrose and have at last read (or rather skimmed,) Newton's 
Principia, (Cohen and Whitman translation). Although I don't get all the 
maths, I surprisingly do get the principles and see the greatness of the 
work. 
Einstein and the Quantum mechanics folks I find even more difficult. Darwin, Pasteur, I do get. 
Wonderful in my old age to read all this stuff.
Subject closed I guess. I'm off to get the boat ready and do some lunars. Joy!
Francis

-----Original Message-----
From: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com] On Behalf Of Frank Reed
Sent: 20 March 2018 18:16
To: francis@pharmout.co.uk
Subject: [NavList] Re: Stephen Hawking

Francis Upchurch, you wrote:
"but as a doctor, I think the great unexplained mystery here, greater even 
than black holes etc., is how he managed to survive for so long with motor 
neurone disease which usually has a maximum life expectancy of 5 years"
It's venturing further off-topic, but maybe you could comment on the two 
theories (not mine!) that I have seen on this issue:
1) He was mis-diagnosed, slightly. There are a variety of neurological 
diseases that could show similar symptoms and can't be distinguished until 
after death.
2) This specific neurological disorder has a reduced impact when it strikes at 
an earlier age (it hit Hawking in his early twenties).
Earlier, Geoffrey Kolbe, you wrote:
"though I remember Dr. Stan Raimes, our undergraduate maths lecturer at 
Imperial College (London) where I did my degrees, being rather sniffy about 
Einstein's work, saying that Einstein was only famous because of the 
publicising efforts of his wife! Einstein was certainly a 'pop star' of his 
day too."
Yes, Einstein also became quite a "pop star" especially later in life. And I 
don't fault either of them for it. They excited the public in a way that few 
others could. On a much smaller scale, there are people like Brian Cox 
(famous in Britain) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (limited fame in the USA), who 
are relatively inconsequential as physicists in terms of their own research 
but seen by the some of their public audience as "great physicists". It's not 
a problem as long as the confusion isn't abused, and these people are 
communicators. They bring science to the wider world. It's a long and fine 
tradition going back to Michael Faraday's Christmas lectures.
But I'll say this to your old instructor Stan: Einstein completely 
revolutionized physics at least twice. He's in the same category as Isaac 
Newton. Hawking, as I mentioned, was in the top 500. Even in the much 
narrower category of British physicists with interests in black holes and 
cosmology, I would count Roger Penrose as more creative and probably more 
significant in the long-term than Hawking. Oh, and if Einstein's wife was an 
unsung contributor to Einstein's fame (or as some others have suggested, even 
to his fundamental science), then let's give her credit. But that won't 
change the colossal, wide-ranging revolutions launched by Einstein 
Incorporated.
Frank Reed
PS: Sorry for the non-navigational post. We will wind this down quickly.


[plain text auto-generated]
----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: http://fer3.com/NavList Members 
may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------


: 
http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Stephen-Hawking-FrankReed-mar-2018-g41657

   

Reply