Steven Hawking's Birthday

Today is Steven Hawking's birthday. Ive read all of his books. He's the most famous scientist alive today and I disagree with him on many things. This would make it seem as though I must not have a clue but lets take one example of Hawking's flaws when it comes to reasoning. When asked if time travel, that is traveling back in time were possible, Hawkings replied that because no one has visited us from the future that this is evidence that it is not possible. Perhaps he was just being coy, dismissive or patronizing. Who knows. The answer though is as silly as the question and very incorrectly reasoned.
Hawkings should have said that the idea of traveling back in time is silly and should be confined to science fiction stories. After all the concept of traveing back in time violates every rule of cause and effect not to mention conservation of energy, the impossibility of multiple universes existing much less existing similtaneously in an infinite number of possibilities.Instead he said something that awed the easily amazed. 
Let's assume that time travel is possible. This would mean that if we believed Hawking's explanation then we would have to assume that there is no beginning to time and that everything has already been played out. By this I mean, if time travel were possible then it would become possible the day it were discovered. Only after this point in time would someone be able to return to the past. If we all exist in the present and we discover a time machine then and only then could we go back to earlier versions of ourselves. This of course is just fantasy as if there were a past to go back to then that would mean the big bang would be re-occuring every milisecond and that everything you did would be repeating itself infinitely in aninfinite number of dimensions.
Hawking's didn't say that though and if you take the time to read all of his writings and theories you will find an excellent mathematical mind that, like his physical body, cannot explain correct answers to his correct mathematical results. Black holes? They are areas in space that have a lack of photons which is why the temperature of them are 0 degrees Kelvin. Simple answer but one that Hawkings seem to be unable to fathom. Happy Birthday Professor Hawking's, perhaps you are celebrating this day in an infinite number of dimensions. I doubt it. What do you think?

Brian Greene is a string theorist who is now holding the teaching position once held by Stephen Hawkins. Greene is a very smart man when it comes to complex mathematical ideas. I bought the book he wrote called "The Elegant Universe". I searched all over for it because some reporter who in hindsite knew nothing about string theory hyped up the book as a solution to the search for a "final unified theory that explained everything". I was sadly disappointed. Nothing is elegant about string theory even if you take the time to understand it.
To me if you are a world famous scientist and you write a book you should never start off by paroting a very illogical stance no matter how accepted it is. If you start off with an explanation of the Earth being flat and then go into that stance being above reproach then your credibility is shot by those who know better. No Greene didn't say the Earth was flat but he did say that eveything seeks disorder and that disorder is called entropy. Let's be clear about something; there is no such thing as disorder. Everything happens for a reason.
Greene used an example of a room that is all nice and tidy. Books and papers and furniture all in order. He says that left alone the room can only go into more and more disorder. This is hardly true in a scientific sense. Disorder is an opinion not a physical condition that occurs on it's own. No matter what happens in the room the laws of physics and chemistry will apply. I'm sure that Green understands this but it is not a minor point. everything seeks equilibrium. Everything. Inorganic matter will always seek the lowest level of  equilibrium while consciousness will always seek the highest level of equilibrium that it perceives as beneficial to it. Watch Brian Greene on ted.com talk about string theory

I love TED. No TED isn't a person. It's a web site full of educational videos at www.ted.com. "Ideas worth spreading" is in big print at the top and true to its promise the site has a lot of people with a lot of different ideas. Some of them are real eye openers. Some are by people who ared the most educated people on the planet who unfortunately don't have a clue. I watched on of these people the other day on string theory.http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html .
If you watch it don't worry if you don't understand it because the scientist who proposed the Higg's boson particle, which is the topic of this video, said himself that he has no clue what the discovery of the particle would mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Now the reason why i think that this string theorist doesn't have a clue is becausetheir theories (and there are many string theories) just don't make any sense even to those who understand them. There is nothing elegant about them.They rely on different numbers of imaginary unproven dimensions and most importantly they never mention where equilibrium plays into any of there computations. Now you can use a multibillion dollar particle accelerator all day long as they do to smash particles but no matter how pretty or accurate your data is, it is nothing more than data from a man made event. There are no particle smashers in nature. These scientists smash together particles using up enormous amounts of man made energy and then they expect the world to get all excited when they claim that they discovered some particle that has a "life" of less than 1 quintillionth of a second.
How anyone can take this seriously is beyond reason. More tomorrow.

Introducing Green State Dynamics

So here I am with my very own first blog site hoping to promote my new book  "Green State Dynamics". The name of the book is the name of the theory that I have developed after years of studying and research. I'm very proud of what I have came up with and I believe that my theory is the simplest explanation of everything all wrapped up into one tidy theory. Ill introduce my theory tomorrow. if anyone is reading this right now and is even slightly interested, I'll give you a hint. Take any book on physics and wherever you see the word "force" change it to the word disequilibrium and see what you get. if you have to change the other words too, thats fine but use the word disequilibrium instead of the word force. After all what does the word force really mean? Does an atom really have a force? Or does it have an equilibrium or disequilibrium?