Comments on: An alien ate Stephen Hawking

By: Sheila

Sheila — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:39:09 +0000

The movie I liked the best was Apollo 18 which reinforces the fact that NASA lies to everyone about everything. Even you.

By: Sheila

Sheila — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:36:45 +0000

I doubt that Stephen Hawking wasted his time reading your book Phil. But one can always dream, eh?

By: JonS

JonS — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:27:08 +0000

I think in fact it’s more likely that an aggressive alien race would create self-replicating robot probes that will disperse through the galaxy and destroy all life that way.

Huh? Why would some alien race want to do that?
The human would rate as aggressive but even though we are far from that sort of technology it isn’t very likely we would do so even if we could unless you would see making robots to mine mars say, as some kind of evil.
Why would a probe be designed to reproduce recklessly? Again we wouldn’t do it so why would a more intelligent lifeform do so?

You watch too much crappy scifi mate.

By: shashank

shashank — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:16:26 +0000

My question is that after a long period why our scientist is not able to made a spaceship thats cover a very long distance in short hour.If we think about the Stephen Hawking theory we will find that he simple wants the answer why human biengs are weaker than the aliens.Last night I had heard the Stephen Hawking theory on discovery he told that aliens take the energy from the celestial bodies for their spaceship.So how we think that ones day alien talks with him.There is no mean to send the signal in the outer space according to me aliens may be change there possition time to time these signal should not be taken by those.In order to make contact with aliens we want a spaceship that takes the energy from the celestial object for their super engine.Thats the only way we contact us otherwise we always find the aliens in this huge universe and its possibility is 0.5% that they will find him when we continue to find the aliens in such way.

By: Anita Ikonen

Anita Ikonen — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:33:16 +0000

… and that the Moon be made of cheese.

By: Kenneth Polit

Kenneth Polit — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:46:31 +0000

Do you know why we never went back to the moon? There weren’t any native people to oppress and exploit. If there were “moon men” we would never have left and the “moon men” would have suffered the same fate as the American Indians.

By: Amy

Amy — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:34:48 +0000

Actually, the animation was quite nice. For the series as a whole, in fact. But I won’t dispute the ‘aliens’ bit went down a little roughly. I, too, seriously doubt Dr. Hawking spends anytime thinking about alien life- the much larger prize would be unifying (or explaining the discrepancies therein of) quantum physics and general relativity. Unification, unfortunately, makes for much less riveting animation. It’s TV. Don’t expect anything but bro-science, even from legitimate scientists.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:18:48 +0000

Beatrice–Interesting reading the possible reasons that aliens might not gotten into space. Another thought: What have been the historical prerequisites for cultures developing advanced seafaring technologies? Being near the ocean, for one.(Maybe a planet where “space” isn’t visible to the inhabitants would discourage space exploration) I think having lots of islands within sight has helped–the Polynesians spread through the Pacific after their ancestors did a lot of shorter island-hops off SE Asia. Europeans had the history of seafaring in the Mediterranean before they spread over the world. (If we didn’t have a moon to get to, maybe we wouldn’t have gotten started). Cultural reasons (The Chinese sent an impressive fleet into the Indian Ocean many centuries ago, but then dropped out).

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:45:31 +0000

Capitalism is the closet thing to democracy. People buy and sell goods and services free from central direction.

How is having an aloof public administrator telling you what you can buy, or sell, and at what price, democratic?

People voting with their dollars every day on what they like and dislike is a real democracy. Socialism is authoritarian.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:44:07 +0000

I totally disagree and the empirical evidence does not support your position. Capitalist countries are BY FAR, more superior than command-and-control economic countries at protecting the environment. This occurs because a clean environment is a luxury good. Luxury goods are bought by rich people. And only capitalism produces wealth.

The greatest environmental degradation has not been done in capitalist countries but in socialist ones. Not only do socialist countries struggle to build wealth and lift people out of poverty, but they are not equipped to use scarce resources efficiently or to innovate and find alternatives.

I’d put links but skeptic blog won’t let me. Just google search economic freedom and enviornmental quality. You should find lots of stuff like this: http://freebazaarblog.com/fbzblogfiles/econfreedom6.jpg

PS, for a long time the US government prohibited private companies from going to space, so it is not surprising that they didn’t even try.