HAWKINGS RADIATION
hEM, why it is uncomprehensible of what i put? As Hawkings also said a book without a single mathematical formula sells thousands. I mean you might disagree and/or believe in hawkings radiation but those explanations were my attempt to put in simple, logic terms what a non-mathematician would never understand about hawking's radiation.
So i reposted it, though obviously we can argue them, but not with such a short derisive comment (-: 
I mean i do understand that certain parts have to have more mathematical and physical rigor, i like specially the physical explanation of the frequency modes, which is a more detailed way to say that the particles and antiparticles do not have to fall into the black hole necessarily - what i explained with the arrow of time that we cannot choose. Perhaps the part of cosmology is too long and we might take down the hypothesis of the bg radiation (i recognize it has part of personal research, as i work on cosmological models of black holes), so i would agree with taking away the 2.7 k hypothesis...

but the other short reasons should stay as mathematical/logical/experimental proves are important and are often disregarded by many physicists in these days of string theory take care  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93