Supernovae

Sadly, I've never seen his original book. It's a shame as it would have been a laugh. It was about the same time that a book called "Has Hawking Erred?" came out and was in Heiffers alongside "Brief History" in the Math/Physics section. I have to admit that I was in tears reading "Has..." although I was outraged that Heiffers could be so stupid as to put it in with the real books...Anyway, I've looked at his "rebuttals" to Conner & Page's critiques and they are laughable. BUT, you have to know what your talking about to understand. And I don't mean basic postgrad level GR either. Although his use of words and analogies to refute mathematics (always a bad sign) should sound the warning bells, his own mathemtics does look convincing... sort of. But he falls apart. His original work is torn apart by Conner & Page. His reply depends on re-interpreting his book results based on discovering the non-lorentzian regions of his metric, having read about them from a paper or two by Ellis... he then gives "obvious" interpretations of what can be done with these non-lorentzian regions. But at this stage he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Definitions break down and trying to make sense of "evolution" across such boundaries is a nightmare. Fortunately for him, he knows there are not many around in a position to argue. I'm too rusty to attack at the level of Page (Page was Hawking's student back around 1980) but I'm almost in the mood to crank back up to speed