RSS Feed
January 6th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
By
Tom Utley
Last updated at 12:47 AM on 6th January 2012
Genius: Scientist Stephen Hawking admits his biggest blunder was wrongly thinking information was destroyed in black holes
Silly old Stephen Hawking. His ‘biggest blunder’, he tells us (and you’ll fall about laughing when you hear this), is that he used to think information was destroyed in black holes.
What a twit, eh? Who would have believed that the former Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge, renowned as one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, could be guilty of such an elementary howler?
As I need hardly remind you, the Anti-de-Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT) has since put him right. So like all sensible people, he now accepts that a black hole’s information leaks back into our universe through quantum-mechanical perturbations at its event horizon.
All right, all right, I admit it. I don’t understand a word of this. Indeed, a thick fog of incomprehension descended on me the moment I began reading Professor Hawking’s 70th birthday interview in the latest edition of New Scientist, from which I’ve lifted most of the above.
Almost harder to follow than his answers are the explanations beneath them, helpfully added by the geeks at the magazine to guide the layman.
Conundrums
For example, what does the following mean when it’s at home?
‘Evidence of supersymmetry would support M-theory, the 11-dimensional version of string theory that is the best stab so far at a theory of everything, uniting gravity with the other forces of nature.’
On second thoughts, don’t try to explain. I am old and wise enough now to realise that some of life’s little conundrums will remain for ever beyond the power of my addled and shrinking brain to grasp.
So what a relief it was, after wading through the professor’s reflections on AdS/CFT, cosmic microwave background and supersymmetric partners for the known fundamental particles, to come across one of his answers that I could begin to understand.
And what an astounding confession it contains. For it emerges that there is one subject on which even this towering genius, with a brain the size of Jupiter, remains totally in the dark.
More remarkably still, it is a subject on which I believe I may be able to offer him at least a flicker of enlightenment.
The question the magazine asked him couldn’t have been simpler: ‘What do you think most about during the day?’
At this point, I like to imagine the New Scientist geeks looking at him through their pebble glasses, with their pencils poised over thick pads of graph paper, waiting eagerly for the great man to compose his answer on his voice-synthesiser.
These days, it’s said to take the professor a whole minute to form each word. This is because his motor neurone disease has left him with no control over any muscles except those in his cheek, which he uses to activate an infra-red sensor attached to his spectacles. So his interviewers would have had plenty of time to speculate on what his answer would be.
What does he think about most during the day? Something profound about the origin of the universe, no doubt, or perhaps some weighty ruminations on the possibility of time travel.
But no. After six minutes he was ready with his answer: ‘Women. They are a complete mystery.’
And he elaborated no further.
Here, the New Scientist boffins let us down badly. For of all the replies the professor gives in his interview, this is the only one to which they attach no explanation. As a service to theoretical physicists everywhere, therefore, I suppose the task of explaining women must fall to me.
Mystery: Stephen Hawking, pictured here in the seventies with first wife Jane and children Robert and Lucy, admitted that women were a total mystery to him
One possibility is that Professor Hawking was merely making a light-hearted remark to round off his interview. But I discount this at once on the grounds that people who have to devote 60 seconds to forming each word they utter are hardly likely to waste their breath on jokes. And, let’s face it, voice-synthesisers as laborious as his play havoc with comic timing.
Inexplicable
So let’s take what he says at face value. During the day, he really does think most about women. And he really does identify them as a mystery more inexplicable than any such trifling matters as the origins and workings of time and space.
Now, if you ask me, Professor Hawking has taken the first step towards grasping a very profound truth. His trouble is that he doesn’t quite realise it.
Where he goes wrong, like so many others of our sex through the ages, is in believing that because women look roughly like men — with a similar number of limbs, heads, etc. — they are like us, and their thought processes should be analysed in the same way as his or mine. In fact, it’s an illusion.
Illusion: Where Professor Hawking goes wrong is in presuming that women and men, because physically similar, should be psychologically analysed the same way
And the key to unravelling the mystery of women is to accept that they reason in an entirely different way from men — and there is just no point in trying to judge the two sexes by the same standards. In recognising that women are a mystery, he is half way there. Perhaps if I say that men and women live in parallel universes, he’ll find it easier to understand.
To grasp how radically different the two sexes are, the professor should look at a new study of 10,000 people by psychologists from Italy and Manchester University which found that men and women share only ten per cent of the other sex’s personality traits.
Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that of the other 90 cent, the most distinctively female characteristics were sensitivity, warmth, apprehension, self-reliance and tension. Meanwhile, the most male were emotional stability, dominance, rule-consciousness, vigilance and openness to change. Only 18 per cent of men had a typically female set of traits, and vice versa.
Eavesdrop
Or if Professor Hawking wants more evidence of the folly of trying to judge men and women by the same rules, let him follow me into the behavioural laboratory of the Utley household and eavesdrop on one of my occasional disputes with my wife.
This one began when Mrs U read a statistical survey which said that couples who smoked were more likely to produce girls than boys.
‘That’s rubbish!’ she said.
‘Why do you say that?’
‘Because we both smoke, you idiot, and we’ve produced four boys and no girls.’
Lesson: Professor Hawking only needs to learn one, crucial thing about women: they are always, always right!
Putting on my most soothing voice, which for some reason she seems to find acutely irritating, I pointed out that while our personal experience seemed at variance with the survey’s findings, it did not of itself prove the statistics wrong.
‘Oh yes it does,’ she said. ‘Don’t you realise they’re just trying to find something else to blame on smokers and make us feel guilty about?’
Ever the rational male, I ventured to suggest that it was no more blameworthy to produce girls than boys. I was prepared to concede that the researchers may have failed to isolate the relevant variable, and that parents’ smoking might have no influence on a baby’s sex.
Otherwise, it seemed to me an inoffensive finding that smokers were more likely to have daughters than sons.
It was only when my wife reached for the rolling pin that the truth suddenly dawned on me that she was right. The survey was almost certainly nonsense — and the researchers who published it were definitely trying to blame something else on smokers.
In this case, they were accusing us of interfering with natural sex-selection.
Indeed, this is the great truth Professor Hawking must come to grips with, on the eve of his 70th birthday on Sunday, which I hope will be a very happy one: women may not follow the same rules of logic as us chaps, they may not behave at all times in ways that seem rational to masculine eyes, but they are always, always right.
Understand that, and the mystery is solved. After all, you wouldn’t catch a woman claiming information is destroyed in black holes, would you now, Professor?
Share this article:
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
It must be True ….. I’ve just asked my wife ??? dare’nt give you her answer you wouldn’t publish it……..
Report abuse
No hope for women ever being understood by their menfolk then.
Report abuse
I agree with the author – in the end if you are a man its far far far far far easier just to nod your head and agree with the female point of view on virtually everything.
After all its the path of least resistance and will probably get you down to the pub quicker than arguing pointlessly for hours!
Report abuse
It wouldn’t be surprising at all if this statement was true, it’s believed that the past civilization were much more “intelligent” and had a supply of greater technology which helped them to create and build monuments (e.g. the Pyramids, 2.3million stones all cut perfect at the same shape placed onto each other), which leads scientist to believe we were visited by intelligent lifeforms from a different planet/star and “helped us out”. Who says that these visitor’s didn’t only bring us this technology and information but also take some information away from us later on in life after they came which could now be lingering out in deep-space.
Just my crazy theory and some facts in there.
~Phil~
Report abuse
It is reassuring that a genius such as Hawking shares the same conundrum as the rest of us male plods, viz: what makes a woman tick…..
Report abuse
Ut(ter)ly obvious!
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Posted in 
Tags: 
