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

[viole]

Well, In fact, if you believe what you read in the scientific literature, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the scientific literature.

I do not believe in anything I read without doing my homework, as a matter of fact. It seems you do, at least according to the articles you posted.

Of course I might be wrong. But what are my choices? After all, I can communicate with you remotely because of science, not because of Aristoteles or Plato. The same is valid for Newton. Wrong theory, but vastly more useful thhan any phylosophical articles you can post, independently from it being right or not.

I don't see the relevance, but go right ahead. Stand a couple of people on different mountains a few miles apart, stretch a rope between them, and see whether the shortest distance between the two of them is a curved line. I'll wait right here.

Curved manifolds have straight lines too, and are therefore useless to measure curvature. So, I do not see your point. Can you expand on that? Are you addressing the metric imposed on spacetime by a gravitational field, maybe?

How do you really measure if a portion of space is curved? Spoiler: it is possible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

I do not believe in anything I read without doing my homework, as a matter of fact. It seems you do, at least according to the articles you posted.

Of course I might be wrong. But what are my choices? After all, I can communicate with you remotely because of science...

Speculation. Or have you travelled to an alternate universe in which science is not used so that you can determine exactly what has been created by science and what has not? Perhaps I should also mention that Ohm's law, the basis of all electronic circuits, was ridiculed by the scientists of the day as a tissue of naked fantasy. Perhaps we have the ability to communicate over a distance not because of science but despite it.

..., not because of Aristoteles or Plato. The same is valid for Newton. Wrong theory, but vastly more useful thhan any phylosophical articles you can post, independently from it being right or not.

You didn't say much here, so I'll just content myself with ridiculing your poor grammar and spelling.

Curved manifolds have straight lines too, and are therefore useless to measure curvature. So, I do not see your point. Can you expand on that? Are you addressing the metric imposed on spacetime by a gravitational field, maybe?

If space is curved, as Einstein claimed, then the shortest distance between two lines in a gravitational field should be a curved line. Funny that Euclid didn't work that out.

How do you really measure if a portion of space is curved? Spoiler: it is possible.

Space is not, and indeed cannot, be curved. It's a contradiction in terms.

The funniest thing, though, are the people who put heavy balls on a rubber sheet to show that space can be curved by masses resting on it. Of course, the space is curved only because gravity pulls the mass downward! In short, one is using gravity to explain gravity. I much prefer the napkin religion, personally.

 

[Ouroboros]

I checked the first couple pages and last page, but don't feel like going through the rest to see if this was already posted. The article in the OP is a hoax article:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864

Kaku never said that stuff about tachyons and the universe being created by an intelligent being. He did say the stuff about God being a mathematician and cosmic music, but that is (or at least could be) a metaphorical view of God.

Also, he didn't say string theory explains gaps in the Big Bang Theory. He said "Big Bang" is a misnomer, in that it doesn't tell you much. And that's even assuming it was he who wrote those words, which is still questionable to me.

Anyway, no, Kaku didn't find evidence the universe was created by an intelligent being, nor did he claim to.

Wow. That's crazy.

How often we get caught in debates based on incorrect information.

Great find!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wow. That's crazy.

How often we get caught in debates based on incorrect information.

Great find!

It's not crazy. Earlier in the thread I posted quotes and links supporting the position that Kaku did not mean there is some creator deity, but rather that he uses the term "god" in a metaphorical way, much like Einstein did, to the point something of his I quoted even included "the God Einstein so eloquently wrote about." The whole deal about Kaku stating he found evidence is untrue because he never stated he has evidence, he has never claimed there is even a Deistic god out there, and it is very much so a case in which the media took something way out of context and spun it into something that doesn't reflect the facts.

 

[viole]

Speculation. Or have you travelled to an alternate universe in which science is not used so that you can determine exactly what has been created by science and what has not? Perhaps I should also mention that Ohm's law, the basis of all electronic circuits, was ridiculed by the scientists of the day as a tissue of naked fantasy. Perhaps we have the ability to communicate over a distance not because of science but despite it.

QM is also the basis of all electronic circuits. By the way, what is the contribution of extra-scientific endeavours in the field of modern technology? Do you think you can calculate the amount of entropy generated by a bunch of computing processors by using philosophy? Or poetry, maybe? What about ballet?

You didn't say much here, so I'll just content myself with ridiculing your poor grammar and spelling.

You hurt my feelings. English is the latest language I learned, so I am aware that it is still a work in progress.

If space is curved, as Einstein claimed, then the shortest distance between two lines in a gravitational field should be a curved line. Funny that Euclid didn't work that out.

Funny that you ignore that he might have suspected it. That is why the postulate of the parallels, which is valid only for flat spaces, is a postulate and not an axiom. An assumption not deducible from the basic axioms, no matter how hard you try. And a postulate that can be left out, leading to non-euclidean geometries, as Gauss and Riemann, among others, have found.

If you do not believe me, I suggest you deploy your primary intellectual prosthesis: google.

Space is not, and indeed cannot, be curved. It's a contradiction in terms.

Lol, why? You are making things up as you go along.

The funniest thing, though, are the people who put heavy balls on a rubber sheet to show that space can be curved by masses resting on it. Of course, the space is curved only because gravity pulls the mass downward! In short, one is using gravity to explain gravity. I much prefer the napkin religion, personally.

The curvature of space above the surface of earth deviates from flatness by an amount which has the order of magnitude of a 10,000th of a billionth radiants based on a triangle whose sides are in the ballpark of 100 Km. That is what GR expects when we plug in the mass and size of the earth. And that is already challenging enough to measure; we are not a neutron star, after all.

Therefore, your falsification of GM by using a rope one mile long and check that it looks straight is, well, ludicrous.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

QM is also the basis of all electronic circuits. By the way, what is the contribution of extra-scientific endeavours in the field of modern technology? Do you think you can calculate the amount of entropy generated by a bunch of computing processors by using philosophy? Or poetry, maybe? What about ballet?

Given that both math is a philosophy, I would have to say yes.

Funny that you ignore that he might have suspected it. That is why the postulate of the parallels, which is valid only for flat spaces, is a postulate and not an axiom. An assumption not deducible from the basic axioms, no matter how hard you try. And a postulate that can be left out, leading to non-euclidean geometries, as Gauss and Riemann, among others, have found.

An axiom is a self-evident truth that relates to all sciences whereas a postulate is something that is not related to all sciences, but is field specific. When someone says given a line l and a point p there is one and only one line through point p that does not touch line l, one is making a definition of parallel. Yes, it's true that you can make a different definition, resulting in kinematic geometries. This does not mean that Euclidian geometry is wrong any more than we might say that American English is wrong and British English is right. It's merely a different treatment that may (or may not) result in difficulties when this idea is used in the real world. Remember again that math is a philosophy.

Lol, why? You are making things up as you go along.

Because it is a contradiction in terms.

The curvature of space above the surface of earth deviates from flatness by an amount which has the order of magnitude of a 10,000th of a billionth radiants based on a triangle whose sides are in the ballpark of 100 Km. That is what GR expects when we plug in the mass and size of the earth. And that is already challenging enough to measure; we are not a neutron star, after all.

Speculation.

Therefore, your falsification of GM by using a rope one mile long and check that it looks straight is, well, ludicrous.

What I have pointed out is not a scientific experiment but rather a thought experiment. Thought experiments are used to check the logic of a situation–not the facts. For example, I could say:

If the gravitational force propogates at the speed of light, and if it takes light 43.2 minutes to reach Jupiter from the sun, then it will also take the force of gravity 42.3 minutes to reach Jupiter. Thus, Jupiter will be attracted to a point where the sun was 42.3 minutes ago rather than to the point at which the sun is now. If the sun is moving, the point at which the sun is now will be different from the point at which the sun was 42.3 minutes ago. Thus, Jupiter would experience either a slowdown in velocity due to a sort of gravitational braking or an increase in velocity due to a sort of gravitational acceleration. Since these changes in velocity have never been observed, gravity must propogate at a different speed.
------------------------------------
This conclusion is true provided that the initial postulates are true.

-----------------------------------
If gravity truly curves space rather than merely attracting things that have mass, then waves such as light will also be affected by the curvature of space. However, if gravity is a wave, then gravity will also be affected by its own gravity/curvature of space. Thus not only can light not escape from a black hole, gravity waves similarly cannot do so.

 

[viole]

Given that both math is a philosophy, I would have to say yes.

So, show me, based on pure mathematics, how to infer the entropy generated by a bunch of computing machines.

An axiom is a self-evident truth that relates to all sciences whereas a postulate is something that is not related to all sciences, but is field specific. When someone says given a line l and a point p there is one and only one line through point p that does not touch line l, one is making a definition of parallel. Yes, it's true that you can make a different definition, resulting in kinematic geometries. This does not mean that Euclidian geometry is wrong any more than we might say that American English is wrong and British English is right. It's merely a different treatment that may (or may not) result in difficulties when this idea is used in the real world. Remember again that math is a philosophy.

I am not saying that euclidean geometry is wrong. I am saying that non Euclidean geometries are not wrong either.

Because it is a contradiction in terms.

Prove it to me.

What I have pointed out is not a scientific experiment but rather a thought experiment. Thought experiments are used to check the logic of a situation–not the facts. For example, I could say:

If the gravitational force propogates at the speed of light, and if it takes light 43.2 minutes to reach Jupiter from the sun, then it will also take the force of gravity 42.3 minutes to reach Jupiter. Thus, Jupiter will be attracted to a point where the sun was 42.3 minutes ago rather than to the point at which the sun is now. If the sun is moving, the point at which the sun is now will be different from the point at which the sun was 42.3 minutes ago. Thus, Jupiter would experience either a slowdown in velocity due to a sort of gravitational braking or an increase in velocity due to a sort of gravitational acceleration. Since these changes in velocity have never been observed, gravity must propogate at a different speed.

So, you observed intantaneous transfer of gravitational influence? Source, please.

------------------------------------
This conclusion is true provided that the initial postulates are true.

-----------------------------------
If gravity truly curves space rather than merely attracting things that have mass, then waves such as light will also be affected by the curvature of space.

It is.

However, if gravity is a wave,

Gravity is not a wave. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

QM is also the basis of all electronic circuits. By the way, what is the contribution of extra-scientific endeavours in the field of modern technology? Do you think you can calculate the amount of entropy generated by a bunch of computing processors by using philosophy? Or poetry, maybe? What about ballet?



You hurt my feelings. English is the latest language I learned, so I am aware that it is still a work in progress.



Funny that you ignore that he might have suspected it. That is why the postulate of the parallels, which is valid only for flat spaces, is a postulate and not an axiom. An assumption not deducible from the basic axioms, no matter how hard you try. And a postulate that can be left out, leading to non-euclidean geometries, as Gauss and Riemann, among others, have found.

If you do not believe me, I suggest you deploy your primary intellectual prosthesis: google.



Lol, why? You are making things up as you go along.



The curvature of space above the surface of earth deviates from flatness by an amount which has the order of magnitude of a 10,000th of a billionth radiants based on a triangle whose sides are in the ballpark of 100 Km. That is what GR expects when we plug in the mass and size of the earth. And that is already challenging enough to measure; we are not a neutron star, after all.

Therefore, your falsification of GM by using a rope one mile long and check that it looks straight is, well, ludicrous.

Ciao

- viole

Your patience is epic.
Mine...less so.

 

[viole]

Given that both math is a philosophy, I would have to say yes.

Just as a side note: what does "given that both math is a philosophy...." mean? Both math and.. What? Or is it "both maths"? But then it should be "both maths are...", if I am not mistaken.

Excuse my poor English, but that looks like a pretty thick grammar error. I make the assumption that English is not your mother language, either. If this is the case, or I misread that, because of my already assessed poor English, then I apologize.

Otherwise, I'll just content myself with ridiculing it, too. And doubly so.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Just as a side note: what does "given that both math is a philosophy...." mean? Both math and.. What? Or is it "both maths"? But then it should be "both maths are...", if I am not mistaken.

Excuse my poor English, but that looks like a pretty thick grammar error. I make the assumption that English is not your mother language, either. If this is the case, or I misread that, because of my already assessed poor English, then I apologize.

Otherwise, I'll just content myself with ridiculing it, too. And doubly so.

Ciao

- viole

Your English is just fine.
I had no idea it was a second language for you.
But some people.....they should be more careful about casting stones at others.
There's irony splattering all over the place.

 

[Zosimus]

So, show me, based on pure mathematics, how to infer the entropy generated by a bunch of computing machines.

No, I'd rather see you show me how to calculate the entropy without using it.

I am not saying that Euclidean geometry is wrong. I am saying that non Euclidean geometries are not wrong either.

Math is a tool. It can no more be right or wrong than can a hammer.

So, you observed intantaneous transfer of gravitational influence? Source, please.

No, I never said that. Go back and read the argument.

Gravity is not a wave. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

Speculation and anyway, it doesn't answer the question of what happens to gravity waves. Additionally, it sidesteps the question of exactly how gravity propogates at the speed of light while merely being the curvature of spacetime.

 

[Zosimus]

Just as a side note: what does "given that both math is a philosophy...." mean? Both math and.. What? Or is it "both maths"? But then it should be "both maths are...", if I am not mistaken.

Excuse my poor English, but that looks like a pretty thick grammar error. I make the assumption that English is not your mother language, either. If this is the case, or I misread that, because of my already assessed poor English, then I apologize.

Otherwise, I'll just content myself with ridiculing it, too. And doubly so.

Ciao

- viole

The answer is simple. I had originally written "both math and science are" and then I thought... do I really need to mention science? After all, one does not calculate anything with science. One only needs math and perhaps a pencil....or a good calculator. So I erased "and science are" and inserted the word is, forgetting about the word both.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

After all, one does not calculate anything with science.

Electricity, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, geology, paleontology, psychology, anthropology, pretty much any science revolves around making calculations as math is one of our very few ways of proving truths. Even those pursuing higher degrees in philosophy have to take advanced math classes in order to prove why the problem they are presented with is true. Good god! Even Einstein had a bit of cognitive dissonance when his math showed what he believed was wrong.

 

[Zosimus]

Electricity, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, geology, paleontology, psychology, anthropology, pretty much any science revolves around making calculations as math is one of our very few ways of proving truths. Even those pursuing higher degrees in philosophy have to take advanced math classes in order to prove why the problem they are presented with is true. Good god! Even Einstein had a bit of cognitive dissonance when his math showed what he believed was wrong.

As I said, one calculates not with science but with math.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I said, one calculates not with science but with math.

This is a rather strange separation of the two.
Without science, there are no numbers to calculate, no theories to provide the formulas, & no method in choosing what calculations to perform.
Your earlier incorrect answer to my probability problem illustrated that one cannot calculate an answer unless one understands the problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I said, one calculates not with science but with math.

That's like saying I do repairs with my hands, not with tools. Of course I use my hands, but there is no way in hell I can replace intake manifold gaskets in a car without the proper tools. Much in the same way a ratchet is an indispensable tool for a mechanic, math is an indispensable tool for science. Without math, we essentially have no science as math is how we prove our claims of science.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's like saying I do repairs with my hands, not with tools. Of course I use my hands, but there is no way in hell I can replace intake manifold gaskets in a car without the proper tools. Much in the same way a ratchet is an indispensable tool for a mechanic, math is an indispensable tool for science. Without math, we essentially have no science as math is how we prove our claims of science.

I'd say it differently.....
Math is a tool used to measure & build models (aka theories) of the natural world.

 

[Zosimus]

This is a rather strange separation of the two.
Without science, there are no numbers to calculate, no theories to provide the formulas, & no method in choosing what calculations to perform.
Your earlier incorrect answer to my probability problem illustrated that one cannot calculate an answer unless one understands the problem.

It's not a strange separation of the two. Math is deductive. Science is inductive.

And my calculation of the probability problem was 100 percent correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a strange separation of the two. Math is deductive. Science is inductive.

That doesn't address your claim, nor my subsequent refutation.

And my calculation of the probability problem was 100 percent correct.

You were 100% correct for the problem you inferred.
But you weren't even close for the problem I posed.
You illustrated that probability calculations are more than crunching some numbers.
They're about understanding the problem, getting all relevant information, & using the correct method.
You didn't do that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd say it differently.....
Math is a tool used to measure & build models (aka theories) of the natural world.

That too, but I work on cars and electronics. I could also throw in editing and design, which relies on math for things like lay out, borders, and other things, but I've yet to receive even a dime for things like that.