Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stephen Hawking's Voice Beamed Into Space as His Ashes Are Interred (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the remembering-Mr.-Hawking dept.

The ashes of renowned physicist Stephen Hawking were interred at Westminster Abbey in London on Friday in a memorial ceremony attended by a mixture of celebrities and members of the public. From a report: Astronaut Tim Peake and British actor Benedict Cumberbatch and both gave readings, and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees paid tribute to the Hawking's work. Following the service, Hawking's words, set to an original score by composer Vangelis, will be beamed into space by the European Space Agency.

Hawking died in March aged 76 after a lifetime of studying the science of space and time. His final resting place is situated between the remains of two other great scientists: Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton. It is a rare honor to be interred at the Abbey, and one that has not been afforded to a scientist for almost 80 years. Before Hawking, the last scientists laid to rest at Westminster were atomic physicists Ernest Rutherford in 1937 and Joseph John Thomson in 1940.

45 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. RIP by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

    Rest in peace Mr Hawking.

    1. Re:RIP by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for showing the evils of religion. Because this man, or any person, didn't believe in a magical guy in the sky, even though he did nothing wrong his entire life and in fact suffered most of his life because the magical guy in the sky "has a plan", he'll be in torment for eternity.

      If that's the "loving" god you worship, I'll pass.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re: RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know what funny idiocies bounce inside your cranium, but:

      at peace

      1Free from anxiety or distress.
      1.1Dead and therefore free from the difficulties of life. (Oxford Dictionary).

      Go do your proselytizing somewhere else.

    3. Re:RIP by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that's the "loving" god you worship, I'll pass.

      Amen. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) I couldn't agree more. I mean, I guess if you need a book, weekly meetings, and daily meditation to help you navigate shit that's going on in your life, have at it. But if I have to listen to one more politician beg for our "hopes and prayers" for the victims of this weeks mass shooting or natural disaster I'm going to puke. I mean, I can't help but snicker at the irony of asking an invisible man to help those he just smote.

    4. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then you believe Hawking was correct and you should fully understand that there is no point in wishing him peace.

      Further, if you ascribe to Hawking's views, then you would also understand that it's stupid to even respond to me. If Hawking is no more and his body will just be recycled in the circle of life, why bristle at my discussion of the situation should Hawking be mistaken?

      I've never understood why atheists where so militant about this kind of thing... Seems that if you really believe there isn't anything you'd not really care at all as you don't have any skin in that game anyway.

    5. Re:RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      That is not entirely true, it is difficult to know with certainty the disposition of someone else's soul. We are judge on our relationship to God , which in part has to do with how much we desire to know the truth and live the truth. It is very difficult to know what experiences the devil may have given someone that keeps them back from the knowledge of what is true, but in so much as they are sincerely seeking the truth and are not at fault in not finding it , it becomes more difficult to know what the final consequences will be for them. Hell is something we choose for ourselves by our persistent rejection of the truth so in a persons ignorance, there is at least some hope they will eventually find peace.

      Still , a well educated and strident atheist ? My guess would be he will be in purgatory a while and need serious some prayer for his soul if he makes it at all. One of the unanswerable questions is if his rejection of God was sincere or if he was really rejecting what he imagines God to be , which is what most atheists do. Most Christians I know have struggled with a temptation to atheism some are former athiest and so many I'd guess around 30% Christian's have a good understanding of atheism. On the other hand , most atheist I know , I'd guess something like 70% of them, have never really taken the time to understand what they are rejecting , and are instead rejecting either 'the faith there parents taught them poorly' or the character of faith made popular in certain literature, they don't actually reject God or true faith in him because various situations conspire to prevent them from ever knowing the evidence that supports his existence.

      So , what will the all knowing judge of the universe do for those souls , will they be punished for what is not their fault. It would not be unjust if they were, but there is also reason to hope he will be Merciful.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    6. Re:RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      I had not yet been created. Simply because you being does not prove you end.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    7. Re:RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      you have created an incredible straw man, which has little or nothing to do with what Christians actually believe?
      You are welcome to burn him , but if you would like to understand why a person can Go to Hell when there is completely good I'l;l offer you a simple way to think about it:

        God is not a rapist, he will not violate your free will, if you reject him in this life in such a way that your rejection carries over into the next, he lets you be alone with yourself for eternity, well you probably get to interact with the other beings you do accept , that is Hell.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    8. Re:RIP by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      I'm on board with your post, but some comments.

      I admire Stephen Hawking greatly, for his contributions to science and his example of facing adversity and making the best of his situation. His legacy will be long-lasting. And he certainly didn't deserve to suffer in his life the way he did.

      That said, I think you overdo it when you say he "did nothing wrong his entire life." He was an imperfect human being, like all of us.

      And while there are those who pervert religion to evil purposes, I wouldn't say it consists of nothing but "evils." It has tried, and often succeeded, to illustrate the nature of humanity and compassion. Faith should never be the enemy of reason. But reason needs evidence, and sometimes you just don't have it.

      Stephen Hawking was an atheist. He often spoke of God, but as a metaphor for concepts others identify with. A quote:

      God is the name people give to the reason we are here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.

      He also famously countered Einstein's complaint of quantum mechanics ("God does not play dice!") with his own comments:

      [E]ven God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

      [...]

      Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.

      RIP Professor Hawking. Whether or not there is a God, IMHO you have earned a place in the Pantheon of great minds in history.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:RIP by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, the infamous "God created man and gave him free will, but whines and bitches when man uses that free will."

      It seems if your god, or any god, was truly omnipotent, it would have created perfect beings from the beginning. Instead, we get stories of how it's a woman's fault we're screwed up because she exercised her free will.

      That this being, who screwed up from the beginning, then impregnated another man's wife so she would have his child who would then be sent to his death by God's own chosen people, is even proof of the ridiculousness of religion.

      If one can live a good life not going around robbing, raping or stealing, and still not be considered to go to your heaven, again, I'll pass.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:RIP by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the nature of hell. What an atheist wants is to be apart from God, that's what they get. They just realize what they gave up with no way to get it back. As they say, hell is other people.

      This conception of Heaven as a theme park to which someone denies you tickets isn't quite right. It's more like a community you include or exclude yourself from.

    11. Re:RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      no , it doesn't. However, there are mountains of evidence for the existence of God and it is a theory that makes sense. If your interested I can send you a few links.
      On the other hand, it is something that can't be proved convulsively because likely the proof would require super human intelligence, not because of how remote God is , but how close. Just like it isn't easy to prove the existence of EM or quantum physics without special training and equipment even though it is all around us all the time. Of coarse by some estimations 30% or more of the people on the earth don't have a high enough IQ to understand the mathematics that prove quantum mechanics, so it should be no shock there are limits on what we are able to fully understand.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    12. Re:RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      right, you have to start from the place there is no one who deserves salvation. Then it becomes a mystery ( aka something too difficult for a human to understand fully). Why some are saved and for that matter which ones. Because everything belongs to God and we should have not doubt he wills to save all. The scriptures make it clear what God expects us to do to be saved, but they are relatively silent on exactly who will be dambed , lest we should make ourselves judges.

          We know the God judges not with human eyes , but instead judges the unseen human heart. So unless you know with certitude what opportunities for salvation someone rejected, you cannot know with certitude their final destination. Also, you can never know what someone repented of or thought between exhaling their last breath and the soul leaving the body.

        Of this I'm sure, there are two extremes to be avoided, not everyone goes to hell, as we all deserver and not everyone goes to heaven. I don't think it is ours to 'know' beyond that. We must look to ourselves and do the best to help others, but always hope God is merciful to people who have not been giving the grace to know what is true, because it is impossible to know, if they were unable or unwilling and if they changed their mind before they died.
          The worse we can say about someone is that the life they lived does not bode well for them if they did not change their path as their last act upon this earth.
      We can hope , that in God's mercy, he supplied them with the grace to do just that, if they would accept it.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    13. Re:RIP by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If one can live a good life not going around robbing, raping or stealing, and still not be considered to go to your heaven, again, I'll pass.

      Then you should be happy that God created you with the free will to make that choice, instead of creating you as a toady yes-man servant who is forced to love and obey him whether you want to or not. See, that's how it works. You get to choose.

      When you created children, if you did, did you want them to be slaves to you, loving you not by choice but by force? When they bring you a Father's Day present in a week or so, would it mean anything if they were programmed robots forced to bring you gifts or does it mean more if they get to choose? Would a wife you created these children with be more valuable and interesting if she were a slave to your whims not by any choice of her own but by design?

      Have a nice day.

    14. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'm 100% NOT an artiest [sic] and I wrote the original post.

      You don't believe in over a thousand gods.

      I'm appealing to the logic of the situation.

      Naive.

      Atheists don't believe in the spiritual, there is nothing but the physical, so when you die, your mind stops functioning and for you, it's over.

      No, atheists don't believe in gods. It's in the name.

      IF Hawking is wrong, and I fully believe that he was, then there will be no peace for him as he faces his creator, having denied the creators existence and refused the creator's provision of eternal life.

      This is only the case if the version of the one god you happen to believe in, is a judgmental psychopath. Even if we assume that a god exists, there's only a 0.00% chance of your version being the one.

      So, either way, there is no peace for Hawking...There is either nothing, or judgment...

      There's millions of ways just on the theist side. All of which with the same merit, and not many of which are like your judgemental psychopathic creator.

    15. Re:RIP by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I'm a bigot for seeing the irony in religion? I said right in my post, if you want to practice religion, have right at it. Believe what you want, all you want. Just don't expect me to play along and pretend it's going to solve the worlds problems.

    16. Re:RIP by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Interesting movie (on netflix) called Come Sunday, about a very popular Pentecostal preacher with a large church who decided that based on scripture and having the Holy Spirit speak to him, that there was no hell. Not a "liberal" church so needless to say there were a lot of unhappy parishioners.

      Also an accompanying radio show on This American Life with more details and background and less drama, and makes things a bit easier to understand for those who weren't raised as a protestant.

    17. Re:RIP by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think so much cultural baggage gets mixed up with theology, and the end result is that people will mistake casual feel-good statements as religious dogma. Ie, "it was God's will" gets used a lot, but it also flies in the face of other religious beliefs

      If everything that happens is purely God's will, then there's no free-will because God would therefore be a micro-manager of all events. So many people use such trite comforting statements that they start to believe them. Ask them to back this up with scriptures and they often fail, or cite scriptures that don't really have that meaning. Others seem to have totally inconsistent views here - it's God's will if a child dies from disease, but not God's will if a shooter did this. But anyone claiming to know God's will probably needs to get a bit more humility.

      Too much religion these days is more about belonging to the right club, separating us from them, as opposed to a spiritual seeking of truth.

    18. Re:RIP by K10W · · Score: 1

      I think so much cultural baggage gets mixed up with theology, and the end result is that people will mistake casual feel-good statements as religious dogma. Ie, "it was God's will" gets used a lot, but it also flies in the face of other religious beliefs

      If everything that happens is purely God's will, then there's no free-will because God would therefore be a micro-manager of all events. So many people use such trite comforting statements that they start to believe them. Ask them to back this up with scriptures and they often fail, or cite scriptures that don't really have that meaning. Others seem to have totally inconsistent views here - it's God's will if a child dies from disease, but not God's will if a shooter did this. But anyone claiming to know God's will probably needs to get a bit more humility.

      Too much religion these days is more about belonging to the right club, separating us from them, as opposed to a spiritual seeking of truth.

      Mod parent up, can't believe this isn't 5 insightful already because is better quality comment than the 4 and 5's preceeding it..

    19. Re: RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Really? Would you like some links.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...

      http://www.miraclehunter.com/m...

      You can of course try dismiss every piece of evidence, but there are literally thousands or more and that isn't even accounting for the millions of more modane, experiences of believers.

      Is it enough for proof beyond all doubt? Of course not, but I've met people who can explain away fossil evidence as myth. So all doubt is a whole lot higher standard of proof then most sciences.

      Is the case proved? You have to decide for yourself. But your dead wrong and just plain ill informef you think there is no evidence.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    20. Re: RIP by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately none of that is evidence, so there is nothing to dismiss.

    21. Re:RIP by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      Where I hope that is true, I seriously doubt an Atheist is going to be at peace. If he was right, there is nothing (no peace, just nothing), if he was wrong... Well, let's just say, there will be no peace then either.

      This phrase is just to express my admiration for his achievements.

      With regard to the "judgement", well, there are quite many versions of what we will be judged upon. One thing is sure, Mr Hawking did not bury his golden coin in the sand.

    22. Re: RIP by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      It is just as much evidence if classified and studied as any other physical phenomenon. The evidence of course is more like that used in archeology and history then physics, but as an example the miricle at Lancano, was examined in lab by two professor who published there results. Finding heart tissue from a man of middle easten descent. They were unable to find any physical phenomenon that would account for the size and arrangement of the tissue. It has embedded bread particles and is the size of a small pancake (much too large for a normal human heart) .

      If you follow the Wikipedia article it likes to the published paper.

      It is just as much science as any archeology.

      The healings at lourds France are now in the thousands. Documented by a group of physians of differing faiths, which at various points in time have included several atheist ( but they keep converting ).

      They are well documented and include cures for bone deasease, cancer, blindness , the only cause anyone has found so far is a Marian apparition.

      The number and frequency makes them useful for study, because something unaccounted for is certainly happening.

      In the end no one can get you to see evidence that you are closed minded too, i've talked to enough climate change deniers and young earth creationists to know that. In the end people will do what they want for whatever reason makes them happy unless they are seriously committed to knowledge of the truth.

      I will pray that you find happiness in this life and your way to good things in the next.

      May God bless you.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  2. WHy by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Why are we scaring away ETs?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  3. Hawking is vastly overrated by AnthonywC · · Score: 2

    His popularity came from his disability; not his actual scientific accomplishment (while still good; is arguably not that great). For example, the former Lucasian Professor Paul Dirac is a much more accomplished physicist than Hawking.

    1. Re:Hawking is vastly overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hawking's accomplishments go beyond being a physicist though. He's just as recognized for helping make science popular among us commoners that maybe didn't choose to go into it for a career. He could take the ideas in modern physics and theoretical physics and distill them down in a way that most anyone could understand if they were willing to actually crack a book and do a modicum of thinking about the subject. And helping to get this sort of thought process instilled in a larger percentage of the public isn't a bad thing to have accomplished at all. I know there were always science related popular books about, but his really kicked off a whole wave of science inclined books to allow the general public to begin to grasp some of the most interesting science of the day.

    2. Re:Hawking is vastly overrated by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well the fame is obviously because of the chair and the voice, because you don't get famous for doing physics. If you go through the list of Nobel prize winners I think the only one any significant number would remember is Albert Einstein, and if he'd been more serious and well-groomed I doubt even he'd reach that fame on merit alone. Maybe Schrödinger for the cat but very little else. So what's the merits if you try to take away all the fame? I honestly don't know enough physics to tell and you can't really go by other physicist's awards and whatnot if you assuming they were all swooning over his disability.

      He was pretty clearly a very bright young student bordering on genius before he was diagnosed with the condition though. And I doubt physicists are really handing out participation awards, I don't think any of them would hold back from arresting Hawking on any flaws in his theories. His main theory of Hawking radiation isn't proven yet which is why he doesn't have a Nobel prize, but it certainly could be true. I know he plays into a human idea that mind and body are in balance so an extraordinary mind and crippled go together like Xavier in X-Men but reality is they're quite orthogonal. His condition doesn't make his mind that special, but it doesn't preclude that possibility either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Hawking is vastly overrated by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Yet, there is something to be said for dumb-ing it down to reachable levels for us layman.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  4. In Space... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    ...nobody hear you scream...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  5. Re:Heroes by afidel · · Score: 1

    Sure we do, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and before him Sagan.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. By Vangelis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let me guess the piece was called Wheelchairs of Fire.

    Captcha: perhaps

  7. Re:compared to what, dick wad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Compared to Paul Dirac, for starters...

    Every job interview you have will start with "why can't you read?"

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. More than a scientist by Muckluck · · Score: 1
    I actually respect him a lot for his cartoon voice acting as much as his science contributions. He was someone who not only excelled at science and explaining concepts, but also did some funny work as a voice actor in Futurama.

    To quote him, "I like physics, but I love cartoons".

    --


    --I like turtles...
    1. Re:More than a scientist by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      He also appeared in Star Trek: The Next Generation and multiple times on The Big Bang Theory, though I love his Futurama work the most.

      Hawking: I call it a "Hawking Hole".

      Fry: No fair! I saw it first!

      Hawking: Who is The Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  14. Re: Beamed his voice into space? by pgn674 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Sounds like that's exactly the opposite of what would have wanted.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. What an atheist wants is to be apart from God... by truckaxle · · Score: 1

    What an atheist wants is to be apart from God, that's what they get.

    That is prehaps the stupidist comment here... i know, i know it gets passed around in churchy circles - but it is just stupid. If someone wanted to be apart from God, then they would not be an atheist... but an angry theist. Do you want to be apart from Zeus? From Krishna? Or do you just not believe those concepts and proposals are viable? Think before spouting stupid platitudes - as it reveals that you haven't thought very deeply.

  17. Re:What an atheist wants is to be apart from God.. by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    I mean that in the sense that you want no relationship with them. I certainly don't want any sort of relationship with Zeus or Krishna.

    Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a non-trivial number of self-described atheists who are mad at a god they don't believe in. Visiting any major atheist forum will disabuse you of any notion that they don't exist. One of the largest cohorts thereof are ex-believers who left the church as teenagers after a falling out with their parents.

  18. So why not do what he said we shouldn't by Kuruk · · Score: 1

    So Stephen Hawking was outspoken with his views on contacting Alien life.

    "One day, we might receive a signal from a planet like this," Hawking said, referring to the potentially habitable alien planet Gliese 832c. "But we should be wary of answering back. Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn't turn out so well," he added in 2016 during the documentary "Stephen Hawking's Favorite Places," which streamed on the CuriosityStream video service."

    Following the service, Hawking's words, set to an original score by composer Vangelis, will be beamed into space by the European Space Agency.

  19. His voice, or his "voice"? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    Stephen Hawking's actual voice (before his disability caught up with him) ?

    Or the computer generated voice (the name of whose sample donor I could not locate )?