Is it me, or is Michio Kaku a total buffoon?

[Integral]

Haven't read all of this but as to the title of the thread,

It's you.

 

[OmCheeto]

Haven't read all of this but as to the title of the thread,

It's you.

Me!? Or has this turned into a 'who's on first' kind of thread?

 

[Tekno]

Me!? Or has this turned into a 'who's on first' kind of thread?

I think he was referring to the originator of this topic... his response to the question that is the title of this topic.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think he was referring to the originator of this topic... his response to the question that is the title of this topic.

I knew that. I was just trying to be funny.
sorry...

Is anyone going to be listening to Coast to Coast this Friday?

 

[Tekno]

I knew that. I was just trying to be funny.
sorry...

LOL... you don't have to apologize (but I apologize too just in case at times).

 

[Noone]

Yes people have made great leap's in understanding the physical world around us and the way's it work's,and dose not work...

Meany people came up with the same concept's that (they) have ,but since they had not worded them in a way for presatation or in a absolute form that has or dose not conflict with it's self or other theorie's. They had not gained the fame as other such people as hawlking's.
(A new hollywood for wise people)
Also the answer's are within nature it's self, we just need to translate it into somthing we can communicate to other's. So when you give cred to other's you should give equal cred to the source.. wonder what hawlkings was observing or doing when he uncoverd such thought's about the physical world, within his own mental world -.-'
Thought's are like tree trunk's, they come from the root's, created by the seed (seed would be the brain, and the root would be the thing that lead you to that thought)
I won't speak anymore about the Tree of Thought tool, the other parts are errelevent to the point that i was trying to make.

 

[rewebster]

I have a 'lecture' (repeat) of Kaku on the tube/TV right now, and the only thing that I can think of while watch him is that he is the "Eric von Daniken of Physics". He's closing by stating where is book is on the 'best seller list'.

He 'knows' and states as 'fact' things about time travel, black holes, things of science fiction as if they were just around the corner of our development, what aliens are like and how they live, and anything/everything that is the 'popular culture' that people go 'yeah, I've thought about that and I think that may be possible'.

I think he presents himself an educated 'crackpot' who has been accepted because he's entertaining to general public about physics principles and possibilities on the far edge of hypothesis (not realistic theories) whose talks are meant for the entertainment value.

In other words, he's making money, making a living, off of fantasy physics.

 

[tribdog]

Want to talk about a real buffoon? According to Ted Turner the Earth is going to be eight or nine degrees warmer in the next forty to fifty years. Crops will no longer grow and most humans will be dead. The ones who aren't dead will be cannibals.
I didn't hear him say this, but some radio guy was talking about it. I might actually live to see this happen, can't wait. I'm just glad my name isn't Stew.

 

[Tekno]

Want to talk about a real buffoon? According to Ted Turner the Earth is going to be eight or nine degrees warmer in the next forty to fifty years. Crops will no longer grow and most humans will be dead. The ones who aren't dead will be cannibals.
I didn't hear him say this, but some radio guy was talking about it. I might actually live to see this happen, can't wait. I'm just glad my name isn't Stew.

Nah, you won't get to see it... the Mayan's calendar says the world will nearly end on Dec. 23, 2012... Global warming will never get us that quick! (couldn't resist) LOL

 

[BryanP]

I don't disagree that he is a sellout, but I don't agree with him being a "buffoon".

Kaku does know his stuff.

 

[OmCheeto]

In other words, he's making money, making a living, off of fantasy physics.

My sister is always sending me science links because she knows I'm a total nerd.
Yesterday she sent me a link to some kraut talking about alternative fuels. Your comment reminded me of something he said. He talked about something that was once science fiction, then a vision, then a decision, then a reality, and now, it is history. It was the trip to the moon of course, that he was talking about.

Interesting how fantasy physics can become real like that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well I hope your right, but I have a nagging suspicion that String theory is fantasy physics.

If you ask me it's sophistry and or

If you have a problem with x, write some maths that solves the problem but that can't be proved ever. End of problem. Now pretend it's science.

That said I am still a big fan of Kaku.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well I hope your right, but I have a nagging suspicion that String theory is fantasy physics.

Actually, I think Professor Kaku might agree with you on that point. And now you can ask him yourself. They are supposed to be having an open chat with him on his forum tomorrow evening.

That said I am still a big fan of Kaku.

Ditto.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Actually, I think Professor Kaku might agree with you on that point. And now you can ask him yourself. They are supposed to be having an open chat with him on his forum this coming Friday.

Oh no, I'm not learned enough yet to really ask anything appropriate, I'm just looking at it from the perspective of a semi-educated poster on a physics forum, if I was going to criticize string theory I'd have to do a hell of a lot more studying especially in maths if not the concepts behind it which I understand well enough, that said though I think Smolin et al do a pretty good job of criticising it IMO. Actually for reference I'll dig out a critique I found very informative about string theory.

Ditto.

Ditto, ditto.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Ahep-th%2F0611132

There you go, an accessible to degree level or less critique of string theory.

I think knowing just that and various other things on there own are not enough to critique the theory without understanding the mathematical formalism too, which obviously I don't.

I like the epilogue, don't worry the actual meat of the paper is less emotive.

Which begins with:

11 Epilogue

In its monomaniac pursuit of quantum gravity ST has seriously paralyzed the
post SM research which is aimed at an understanding of the many conceptual
questions which the SM is able to raise but unable to answer. All indications
from more realistic approaches as QFT in CST (which is in the middle of sorting
out some deep problems as local covariance and diffeomorphism covariance) as
well as from spectacular experimental astrophysical discoveries point towards
one conclusion: it is much too early to seriously take up QG, especially if it
leads to the post SM research getting into an oblique position.
As it happened several times in the past, a single-minded pursuit of a problem
by an entire community turns out to be detrimental. The solution often
comes from individuals who follow a conservative path, but using a higher penetrating
conceptual depth of focus combined with a more appropriate mathematical
formalism and a lot of patience. The best known illustration of this
was the end of wild speculations about how to overcome ultraviolet divergencies
through the work of those individuals who discovered renormalization theory.
Presently there is a similar situation with respect to gravity and QT...

and ends on.

It would be a mistake to interpret this critique as the result of frustration of an
isolated dissatisfied old-fashioned individual. After the first listing of version 1
of this paper there were some encouraging reactions (including one from a string
theorist who agrees with the seriousness of my criticism but hopes that it still
can be overcome). If one could combine all the dissenting voices into a particle
physics Samizdat it could be the beginning of an insurgency of the old particle
physics guard against the squandering of their heritage and the replacement of
a critical dialog by the domination of an ideology of metaphors.

Or for those who haven't got half an hour to waste a more concise but less scientific critique.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL

"Superstringers have now created a culture in physics departments that is openly disdainful of experiments. ... There is an intellectual struggle going on for the very soul of theoretical physics, and for the hearts and minds of young scientists entering our field," says physicist Zlatko Tesanovic of Johns Hopkins University.

 

[rewebster]

That said I am still a big fan of Kaku.

hey---I watched the whole show after I found it----I still think he's very entertaining on that level--in a similar way that Bill Nye is, or Carl Sagan was.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Actually, I think Professor Kaku might agree with you on that point. And now you can ask him yourself. They are supposed to be having an open chat with him on his forum tomorrow evening.


Ditto.

Really? Do you have a link to where it talks about this open chat? I tried searching, but came up empty, like my bag of cheetos :)

 

[Tekno]

Really? Do you have a link to where it talks about this open chat? I tried searching, but came up empty, like my bag of cheetos :)

That I can help with... http://www.mkaku.org/forums/announcement.php?f=24

 

[RetardedBastard]

That I can help with... http://www.mkaku.org/forums/announcement.php?f=24

God, I feel rather like my name right now. I thought Cheetos said Kaku will be having an open chat in "this" forum instead of "his" forum. My bad.

 

[OmCheeto]

Or for those who haven't got half an hour to waste a more concise but less scientific critique.

Yes. You can waste a lot of time reading all of the papers and blogs on the pro's and con's of string theory. I find it interesting that the anti-stringers have sold out and are money grubbing by selling books on why string theory is wrong:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

And then there are the people who comment on the anti-string theory books:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/NEWreviews.html

I think this is one of the major flaws of the internet: So much time can be wasted just viewing endless debates over differing opinions.

hmmm... looks like I've been suckered in!

arghhhhh...

 

[rewebster]

My sister is always sending me science links because she knows I'm a total nerd.
Yesterday she sent me a link to some kraut talking about alternative fuels. Your comment reminded me of something he said. He talked about something that was once science fiction, then a vision, then a decision, then a reality, and now, it is history. It was the trip to the moon of course, that he was talking about.

Interesting how fantasy physics can become real like that.

yes, but if you look at some of the other wild ideas throughout history, some had more of a chance at becoming reality more than others. have you ever seen or read some of those "Popular Science" magazines from the 1910's , 1920's , and 1930's ? ---From flying cars for everyone by the 1950's, to, whatever-----even back in the 60's they thought everyone was going to be traveling by electric powered 'track' cars by the 1980's.

That's (those) seem like the subject matter(s) that he talks about it seems.

If he talks about 100 of those types of things, and one (1) comes closer to fruition than the rest, which one out of the 100 do you think he'll say, 'I told you it was possible!' ?

 

[OmCheeto]

yes, but if you look at some of the other wild ideas throughout history, some had more of a chance at becoming reality more than others. have you ever seen or read some of those "Popular Science" magazines from the 1910's , 1920's , and 1930's ? -

Nope. But I routinely read the "50 years ago" and the "100 years ago" section in Scientific American.

--From flying cars for everyone by the 1950's, to, whatever-----even back in the 60's they thought everyone was going to be traveling by electric powered 'track' cars by the 1980's.

That's a weird coincidence. I came up with that same idea about 6 months ago. It's actually quite logical if you sit down and think about it.

That's (those) seem like the subject matter(s) that he talks about it seems.

If he talks about 100 of those types of things, and one (1) comes closer to fruition than the rest, which one out of the 100 do you think he'll say, 'I told you it was possible!' ?

Michio Kaku is 61 years old. He will be long dead by the time any of his ideas come to pass. And anyways, most of the things he talks about aren't even his ideas. He just has very good science feeds.

On a side note:
I think the thing I don't like about this thread is how someone can question whether or not someone who built a particle accelerator in their parents garage while in high school is a buffoon. I'm amazed that such a geek nerd can function normally in society.

 

[Tekno]

God, I feel rather like my name right now. I thought Cheetos said Kaku will be having an open chat in "this" forum instead of "his" forum. My bad.

LOL.. ah, don't feel bad... I only knew the answer because I am a member at Dr. Kaku's forum.

 

[gendou2]

I think it must just be you. He is a THEORETICAL physicist, you can't say that THEORETICAL physics is correct or incorrect because it is THEORETICAL.

Yeah, it's just a theory.

How ridiculous. A theory in Physics must be able to be proven wrong.
This means you might be able to prove any theory false by experiment.
Kaku can be just as wrong as Nostradamus or Newton.
Being wrong doesn't decide how good a physicist is.
Being a good physicist is about making a contribution.

 

[flyingpig]

Wonder if he is reading this right now lol

 

[Evo]

We used to host Kaku's forum. But I think that this thrawd is worn out.

Locked.