String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

Even the scientists are against you. You guys just can’t catch a break.

After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles – which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.

Let the mudslinging begin!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/string-theory-co-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0

 

94 thoughts on “String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

  1. I wonder if we were to demonstrate that our existence was a 10 billion trillion to one long shot would we have any warrant to exclude lucky accident from the set of possible explanations?

    check it out

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

    Is discounting accident in when the odds are 10 billion trillion to one against it an extraordinary claim?

    peace

  2. phoodoo: It doesn’t matter if every member of SETI is a skeptic Rumraket.What YOU claimed is the one universal of all skeptics, the one reason why people identify as a skeptic, is that in the absence of extraordinary evidence, they are skeptical of such claims.

    Of extraordinary claims, yes.

    phoodoo: No I have just proven to you that a number of quite famous skeptics, DO NOT adhere to your definition of what makes someone call themselves a skeptic, so that means you were entirely wrong about what makes a “skeptic”.

    No, at best that would mean there’s disagreement about what a skeptic is. It might also be they’re wrong about being skeptics if they think they are, supposing extrateresstrial life existing is an extraordinary claim (but we can’t say it is, because we don’t have the information that allows us to put numbers on it).

    phoodoo: I think perhaps what makes one identify as a skeptic, is the shared inability to admit when they are wrong.

    Cool. That’s just wrong though.

  3. phoodoo:
    Oh now its not an extraordinary claim!!You have seen the light!!

    I never agreed it was an extraordinary claim, I merely stated that there are skeptics who doubt it. I’m one of them.

    phoodoo:
    Oh now its not an extraordinary claim!!Its a perfectly reasonable and likely conclusion now.

    Why do you say that? I’ve consistently said we don’t have the information to put numbers on it. Then we can’t say it’s likely.

    phoodoo: Why didn’t you say so earlier when you were arguing that just because they don’t believe it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t look???

    I don’t hold that opinion, that’s why.

    phoodoo: Now you are saying, of course they believe it, because its not an extraordinary claim at all! Its obvious!!!

    I don’t actually say this. Anywhere.

    phoodoo:
    Have you no shame?

    Not of anything I’ve said or done in this thread. I shouldn’t have.

  4. Rumraket,

    Geez what a load of bullshit Rumraket, you really pile it on! Throw all the shit you can think of against the wall.

    “They don’t really believe in the claim of alien life, but it doesn’t hurt to look; they are not all skeptics; there is disagreement about what makes a skeptic; if they say they believe in alien life, maybe they are not really a skeptic; actually its not an extraordinary claim, so its perfectly compatible with skepticism to believe in alien life; maybe they have good evidence for alien life, so they have found the extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim already; not all skeptics require extraordinary evidence to believe in something extraordinary because there are all flavors of skeptics; actually there is no definition of a skeptic, and I was just making that up like I always do, because I didn’t want to admit that skeptics are really exactly as you described. I never said what you claim I said, even if I did….”

    What a farce.

  5. Everything I wrote makes perfect sense. You are just disappointed I have in point of fact given thought to this subject before and your attempt to extract a contradiction out of me has backfired spectacularly.

    I await your next thread with bated breath.

  6. fifthmonarchyman:
    I wonder if we were to demonstrate that our existence was a 10 billion trillion to one long shot would we have any warrant to exclude lucky accident from the set of possible explanations?

    ¨
    At least this is an interesting question. Technically no, 10 billion trillion is 10^21th power, that still means there’s at least a million more planets in the universe than those odds. AFAIK there’s at least 10^26 stars in the known universe, and there are more planets than stars.

    On a more specific note regarding “ruling things out” using probability, you can’t actually do that. You can only state things in terms of probabilities (and relative probabilities, such as A is less likely than B), that means you can’t “rule them out”. It just means you can say they are “unlikely” or “very likely”, not ruled out entirely. Besides, you have to have something to replace/compete the “unlikely” thing with.

    For example, the odds that life originates by “lucky accident” could be 1 in 10^30 (say) and it could also simultaneously be the case that the odds that life is created by an intelligence is 1 in 10^300. That would still make “lucky accident” the most likely option.

    fifthmonarchyman: Is discounting accident in when the odds are 10 billion trillion to one against it an extraordinary claim?

    I take it you meant to ask whether it is an extraordinary claim that something happening by “lucky accident” if the odds are 1 in 10^21? That depends on what the odds of the alternative is. If it’s even lower, you should stick to the one having a likelyhood of 1 in 10^21th power.

  7. phoodoo: You are truly a skeptic Rumraket.

    And in your book that’s a bad thing, I know. Better to be gullible than skeptical. Thanks for letting us know.

    phoodoo: Now I see why you identify as such.I have rarely seen anyone lie as profusely as you.

    Pick one thing I wrote and demonstrate it was a lie. I challenge you.

  8. What a tragic blurt. Newcomers, Phoodoo is not a parody nor are his posts. Joe G / Frankie, Mung and him are an accurate portrayal of the state of ID supporters.

  9. Richardthughes:
    What a tragic blurt. Newcomers, Phoodoo is not a parody nor are his posts. Joe G / Frankie, Mung and him are an accurate portrayal of the state of ID supporters.

    I wonder if anyone here would read phoodoo and FMM and wonder if Dawkins might be right about child abuse. After which, as Dawkins also wrote, “there is no sensible limit to what [these people] are capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence.”

    I think a good argument can be built here about the catastrophic potential inherent in incompetent parenting. To think what has been done unto what could have been human beings! Seriously, this is heartbreaking.

  10. Rich,

    What a tragic blurt. Newcomers, Phoodoo is not a parody nor are his posts.

    OK, I guess it’s time to come clean. Phoodoo is my sock. 🙂

  11. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    Its a perfectly reasonable and likely conclusion now.

    So you don’t see a distinction between “reasonable” and “likely”? That would certainly explain a lot. Not least your habit of putting your words in other people’s mouths.

  12. Rumraket: That depends on what the odds of the alternative is. If it’s even lower, you should stick to the one having a likelyhood of 1 in 10^21th power.

    The alternative in this case is “not an accident”.

    So is it an extraordinary claim that intelligent life on earth is not an accident when the odds it was an accident are 1 in 10^21th power?

    peace

  13. fifthmonarchyman: The alternative in this case is “not an accident”.

    So is it an extraordinary claim that intelligent life on earth is not an accident when the odds it was an accident are 1 in 10^21th power?

    First of all, we already know intelligent life on Earth is not an accident. It evolved.

    But suppose we had two options, “accident” and “not an accident”. And if “not an accident” could only mean one thing, as in some specific mechanism or process. And the odds it was an accident was 10^-21. Then by definition, since life exists, and the two options are fully dichotomous (intelligent life is either an accident or it is not), then no it would not be an extraordinary claim to say that life was “not an accident” since the the probability it was not an accident would be 1 – 10^-21(which is very very close to 1).

  14. dazz:
    Rumraket,

    Devastating logic. Don’t expect that to sink tho. FMM, like most fundies, is immune to logic

    AND has redefined “evidence” to mean “anything that can be represented as supporting my foregone conclusion. If it can not, it’s not evidence.”

  15. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    It doesn’t matter if every member of SETI is a skeptic Rumraket.What YOU claimed is the one universal of all skeptics, the one reason why people identify as a skeptic, is that in the absence of extraordinary evidence, they are skeptical of such claims.

    No I have just proven to you that a number of quite famous skeptics, DO NOT adhere to your definition of what makes someone call themselves a skeptic, so that means you were entirely wrong about what makes a “skeptic”.

    I think perhaps what makes one identify as a skeptic, is the shared inability to admit when they are wrong.

    There are many who don’t think that the hypothesis that there might be life on other planets is an “extraordinary” claim. It would be if you made the claim about a specific planet orbiting a specific star, but to suspect that it’s out there somewhere and is worth searching for is actually a fairly conservative viewpoint.

    *edit* Ninja’d by Stormfield. I should read ahead a bit before posting.

  16. Excerpts from a relevant New York Times article by astronomer Adam Frank:

    In a paper published in the May issue of the journal Astrobiology, the astronomer Woodruff Sullivan and I show that while we do not know if any advanced extraterrestrial civilizations currently exist in our galaxy, we now have enough information to conclude that they almost certainly existed at some point in cosmic history…

    You might assume this probability is low, and thus the chances remain small that another technological civilization arose. But what our calculation revealed is that even if this probability is assumed to be extremely low, the odds that we are not the first technological civilization are actually high. Specifically, unless the probability for evolving a civilization on a habitable-zone planet is less than one in 10 billion trillion, then we are not the first.

    [Emphasis added]

  17. Rumraket: then no it would not be an extraordinary claim to say that life was “not an accident” since the the probability it was not an accident would be 1 – 10^-21(which is very very close to 1).

    cool so we are a good way through the explanatory filter.

    We have eliminated chance can we also eliminate law given fermi’s paradox and the number of habitable worlds in the universe?

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman: Rumraket: then no it would not be an extraordinary claim to say that life was “not an accident” since the the probability it was not an accident would be 1 – 10^-21(which is very very close to 1).

    We have eliminated chance

    No we haven’t. We have not “eliminated” anything, we have just stated two relative probabilites. One is much much greater than the other and if the two options are the only two possible ones, then we should believe much more strongly in the most likely option. But they’re probabilities, not certainties. There’s a chance we could be wrong.

    fifthmonarchyman: can we also eliminate law given fermi’s paradox and the number of habitable worlds in the universe?

    I think you need to read my previous post again. We just stated a hypothetical scenario with two fully dichotomous options, you can’t now suddenly introduce a third and “rule it out”.

    And no, Fermi’s paradox (which is not, in fact, a paradox) is irrelevant to the scenario we invented.

  19. Phacts are not facts.

    1. Kaku is NOT a cofounder of string theory. Read his description of himself.
    2. The number of hits for “primitive semi-radius tachyon,” using Google Scholar to search, is… wait for it… wait for it… ZERO. Big, phat, phucking, IDiot-ass zero.

    Phoodoo needs to compose a retraction, and have Alan insert it at the beginning of his post.

    ETA: I removed the quote marks from the search term, and still got zero hits. There is no scholarly publication with the words “primitive,” “semi-radius,” and “tachyon” occurring separately, let alone together.

  20. Tom English:
    Phacts are not facts.

    1. Kaku is NOT a cofounder of string theory. Read his description of himself.
    2. The number of hits for “primitive semi-radius tachyon,” using Google Scholar to search, is… wait for it… wait for it… ZERO. Big, phat, phucking, IDiot-ass zero.

    Phoodoo needs to compose a retraction, and have Alan insert it at the beginning of his post.

    ETA: I removed the quote marks from the search term, and still got zero hits. There is no scholarly publication with the words “primitive,” “semi-radius,” and “tachyon” occurring separately, let alone together.

    How’s that retraction going, Phoodoo? Time to score some honesty points!

  21. Richardthughes,

    At some point maybe Tom should mention what post he is talking about, huh?

    But just for fun, since neither you or Tom know what the hell you are talking about, I actually READ the link you just gave. Here is what it says:

    “Dr. Michio Kaku — theoretical physicist, bestselling author, acclaimed public speaker, renowned futurist, and popularizer of science. As co-founder of String Field Theory, Dr. Kaku carries on Einstein’s quest to unite the four fundamental forces of nature into a single grand unified theory of everything.”

    No I know you don’t read Richard, and even if you could, you wouldn’t understand it, but WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

  22. Richardthughes:
    Phoodoo: “String Theory Co-Founder”

    Michio Kaku’s official website: ( http://mkaku.org/home/about/) “Dr. Michio Kaku is the co-creator of string field theory, a branch of string theory. ”

    Dishonest, stupid or other, Phoodoo?

    I just quoted it:

    “As co-founder of String Field Theory, Dr. Kaku carries on Einstein’s quest to unite the four fundamental forces of nature into a single grand unified theory of everything.”

    You are fucking high aren’t you??

    You and Alan don’t know anything about molecular phylogenies, Allan doesn’t know the definition of a GA, Joe can’t name one GA that doesn’t have a search to it, Neil thinks its quote mining to quote him, and you can’t even read one simple paragraph that is stuck right in front of your face that is a fucking direct quote from the page your are supposedly referencing, but for which you haven’t read.

    Holy shit, I hope you all are enjoying your hashfest. I hate to think of all of the regret when you sober up.

  23. You left out the word “field,” phoodoo. And that’s enough to get people here in an uproar. The only reasonable explanation is that you must be dishonest.

  24. Mung,

    Yes, Richard can go fuck himself, but it still doesn’t explain this:

    2. The number of hits for “primitive semi-radius tachyon,” using Google Scholar to search, is… wait for it… wait for it… ZERO. Big, phat, phucking, IDiot-ass zero.

    Who the hell is he talking about? And why??

  25. Besides which, according to Neil, String Theory is not a theory. So its all mute apparently.

    I guess the same goes for gravity.

  26. Mung:
    You left out the word “field,” phoodoo. And that’s enough to get people here in an uproar. The only reasonable explanation is that you must be dishonest.

    I actually gave “stupid” as another explanation and a write-in third option.

    #MungsAgainstWordLawyering.

    Except the two things aren’t the same.

    /Edits.

  27. walto:
    I only wish it were more mute…..

    Actually, I think we have even had this discussion about this word use here.
    Words become part of language through usage.

    Because saying moot means it is up for discussion, for something to be a mute point means it can’t even be discussed. They actually hold quite different conveyances. As Neil thinks string theory is not even a theory, the point is not even debatable. It is mute, not moot.

    Glad its important to you though.

  28. phoodoo: Words become part of language through usage.

    “Mute” is already part of language. It doesn’t mean “moot”. How’s that retraction coming?

  29. phoodoo: Because saying moot means it is up for discussion, for something to be a mute point means it can’t even be discussed. They actually hold quite different conveyances. As Neil thinks string theory is not even a theory, the point is not even debatable. It is mute, not moo

    Moot is more commonly used as an irrelevant point as in “Besides which, according to Neil, String Theory is not a theory. So its all ( whether string theory and string field theory are interchangeable) mute ( moot as in irrelevant ) apparently”

    Actually Neal did not say it was “mute”, he said it was a speculative hypothesis. Generally speculation requires a non-mute discussion in order to speculate.

Leave a Reply