Hawkings changed his theory about objects remaining intact and not
crushed in black holes because he already believed that black holes
may form one or multiple branches (vortex) with other universes.

He wrote does exact words in his past book: "Black Holes Aint so
Black"


But obviously he doesn't mention if they are crushed by the time they
reach the other universe (Possibly a new Big Bang).

[snip]

No.

Learn basic physics before you graduate yourself to black holes.

Oh yea, the name is Hawking - not Hawkings.

In article ,
says...
Hawkings changed his theory about objects remaining intact and not
crushed in black holes because he already believed that black holes
may form one or multiple branches (vortex) with other universes.

My understanding of Hawkings view now is that he believes that they
cannot form vortex with other universes now!


He wrote does exact words in his past book: "Black Holes Aint so
Black"


But obviously he doesn't mention if they are crushed by the time they
reach the other universe (Possibly a new Big Bang).


--
Meditating and trying to think of nothing is both draining and
ultimately useless. It is better and more relaxing to read a book or
watch a movie.

Observations of Bernard - No 64

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
[snip]

No.

Learn basic physics before you graduate yourself to black holes.



Hahaha. Well excuse me Sir Eric Guisse. So you are the one who knows
if I graduated, I am impressed.


Unfortunately I did not lie, and it is from Steven Hawkin's book:
"Black Holes Aint So Black".

Of course!!! YOU READ IT. SHAME you can't remember what you read!@

On 14 Aug 2004 22:22:01 -0700, (Peter K.) wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
[snip]

No.

Learn basic physics before you graduate yourself to black holes.



Hahaha. Well excuse me Sir Eric Guisse. So you are the one who knows
if I graduated, I am impressed.

It is rather obvious that you know nothing, unless your stupidity is
an act.



Unfortunately I did not lie, and it is from Steven Hawkin's book:
"Black Holes Aint So Black".

If you are going to spew rehashed material from a book, at least make
an effort to get it right. Hawking made a big deal about information
loss, which is a different subject than objects being destroyed once
they enter the hole.


Of course!!! YOU READ IT. SHAME you can't remember what you read!@

No, I haven't read it but I have read enough popularizations of black
holes to make the average person **** physics jargon to last a
lifetime.

I suggest you read it again, or pick a different subject to read
about.

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
On 14 Aug 2004 22:22:01 -0700, (Peter K.) wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
[snip]

No.

Learn basic physics before you graduate yourself to black holes.



Hahaha. Well excuse me Sir Eric Guisse. So you are the one who knows
if I graduated, I am impressed.

It is rather obvious that you know nothing, unless your stupidity is
an act.



Unfortunately I did not lie, and it is from Steven Hawkin's book:
"Black Holes Aint So Black".

If you are going to spew rehashed material from a book, at least make
an effort to get it right. Hawking made a big deal about information
loss, which is a different subject than objects being destroyed once
they enter the hole.


Blah blah blah pause blah blah (it's a tempo!)

The point is, Hawking not I spoke about this Universes branching out
to other universes through black holes. Not my words nor yours.
As for spewing words, most people would believe in Hawking's words
than yours.

And if you don't believe that's what Hawking said, that's your
problem.