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

[Revoltingest]

. Imitating me is not going to humble me as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

But I did successfully point out that your tactics can backfire.
If they're only appropriate when used against others, are they really cromulent?
No.

 

[Zosimus]

Instead of ASSUMING I haven't heard of it, you might ask IF I've heard of it. Or you could just simply say something like "My reason for doubting science is the problem of induction" and wait to see how I respond. Instead, you take a condescending, snotty tone with people who might otherwise have an interest in discussing this or other matters with you...so you get what you got.



Then I think you're doing a poor job of looking. Why don't you start a thread in the Philosophy section, asking to debate Bayesian epistemology with some who cares about that issue, instead of trolling in other threads, where you avoid telling people up front about what you want to discuss and instead engage people indirectly by being insulting?

Enough. All I wanted to know was what your problem was with science, because you hadn't been clear. Go be happy with yourself; I'll not be engaging with you further.

So you haven't got any kind of an answer for the problem of induction.

Perhaps you could explain why most published research findings are false and why that doesn't bother you?

 

[Zosimus]

But I did successfully point out that your tactics can backfire.
If they're only appropriate when used against others, are they really cromulent?
No.

Considering that cromulent means appearing legitimate, while actually being spurious... I can't help but wonder whether that's a serious question.

Of course, the difference is that the person to whom I was speaking was speculating whereas I was not. I was quoting a website, and I linked to it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So you haven't got any kind of an answer for the problem of induction.

Perhaps you could explain why most published research findings are false and why that doesn't bother you?

I perhaps could...If I cared enough to engage in such a discussion with you...

 

[Zosimus]

I perhaps could...If I cared enough to engage in such a discussion with you...

I doubt it. But anyway, I searched for Bayesian epistemology in this forum, and didn't find any threads that were remotely interesting. So I came here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering that cromulent means appearing legitimate, while actually being spurious... I can't help but wonder whether that's a serious question.

Of course, the difference is that the person to whom I was speaking was speculating whereas I was not. I was quoting a website, and I linked to it.

That's not what "cromulent" means.
Your poster is now ironic, eh.

 

[Zosimus]

That's not what "cromulent" means.
Your poster is now ironic, eh.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cromulent?s=t

adjective

Appearing legitimate but actually being spurious: These citations are indeed cromulent

[a word used by the schoolteacher, Miss Hoover, in an episode of The Simpsons, in which she defended one made-up word by making up another]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent

Used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, and therefore, in reality, spurious and not at all legitimate. Assumes common knowledge of the inherent Simpsons reference.
Yes Professor Smith, these citations are perfectly cromulent.

 

[Revoltingest]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cromulent?s=t

adjective

Appearing legitimate but actually being spurious: These citations are indeed cromulent

[a word used by the schoolteacher, Miss Hoover, in an episode of The Simpsons, in which she defended one made-up word by making up another]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent

Used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, and therefore, in reality, spurious and not at all legitimate. Assumes common knowledge of the inherent Simpsons reference.
Yes Professor Smith, these citations are perfectly cromulent.

The Urban Dictionary is not a cromulent source.
From Wikipedia....
Cromulent is an adjective that was coined by David X. Cohen. Since it was coined, it has appeared in Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon. The meaning of cromulent is inferred only from its usage, which indicates that it is a positive attribute. Dictionary.com defines it as meaning fine or acceptable.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

 

[Zosimus]

The Urban Dictionary is not a cromulent source.
From Wikipedia....
Cromulent is an adjective that was coined by David X. Cohen. Since it was coined, it has appeared in Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon. The meaning of cromulent is inferred only from its usage, which indicates that it is a positive attribute. Dictionary.com defines it as meaning fine or acceptable.

Wikipedia is not a valid source. This exact link shows why.

Wikipedia refers to Dictionary.com as its source.

Yet I already quoted from Dictionary.com, wherein we read:

cromulent
adjective

Appearing legitimate but actually being spurious : These citations are indeed cromulent

[a word used by the schoolteacher, Miss Hoover, in an episode of TheSimpsons, in which she defended one made-up word by making up another]

And that information comes from

The Dictionary of American Slang, Fourth Edition by Barbara Ann Kipfer, PhD. and Robert L. Chapman, Ph.D.
Copyright (C) 2007 by HarperCollins Publishers.

 

[viole]

Maybe you don't get where I'm coming from. Let me break it down for you.

Science is based on a logical fallacy. Therefore, all scientific results are highly speculative. The purpose of science, in most cases, is to obtain federal funding. The secondary purpose of science is to get published and thus advance someone's career. Thus, it's not surprising that most published research findings are false. In fact, approximately 80 percent are wrong. The reasons for this are known, and no corrective action has been taken.

Therefore, I conclude that QM is wrong, and GR is wrong too. The difference is that GR is demonstrably wrong whereas QM is not demonstrably so at the present time. In the future, QM will be proved wrong. It may even take centuries, but it will happen.

By what will QM be proven wrong? More science?

And what are the articles you posted to make your point if not (QM) scientific papers, or papers that have the ambition of being such? And what makes you think that whatever disproves X will not eventually be found to be false, too? How is that not self defeating?

I am not sure who suffers from logical fallacies here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Wikipedia is not a valid source. This exact link shows why.

Wikipedia refers to Dictionary.com as its source.

Yet I already quoted from Dictionary.com, wherein we read:

cromulent
adjective

Appearing legitimate but actually being spurious : These citations are indeed cromulent

[a word used by the schoolteacher, Miss Hoover, in an episode of TheSimpsons, in which she defended one made-up word by making up another]

And that information comes from

The Dictionary of American Slang, Fourth Edition by Barbara Ann Kipfer, PhD. and Robert L. Chapman, Ph.D.
Copyright (C) 2007 by HarperCollins Publishers.

You find Wikipedia unacceptable, but will cite Urban Dictionary?
Oh, that's rich!
If you really want to understand the meaning of this neologism, then, go to the original source
(The Simpsons, season 7, episode 16).
There, you'll discover that the Wikipedia definition is accurate, & that yours is wrongo pongo.


Watch & learn.....

Notice how "cromulent" is used....Miss Hoover is saying that "embiggen" is legitimate, & not at all spurious.

Wikipedia: 1
Zoosimus: 0

 

[Zosimus]

By what will QM be proven wrong? More science?

And what are the articles you posted to make your point if not scientific papers, or papers that have the ambition of being such?

I am not sure who suffers from logical fallacies here.

Ciao

- viole

Well, viole, you see, I feel no need to believe in the Bible before quoting it to Christians to prove a point.
Similarly, I feel no need to believe in science to quote a scientific research paper to prove a point.

However, I will point out a simple test of Einstein's general relativity that just about everyone can understand.

Imagine that we have two spacecraft orbiting the Earth. Each is in an identical geosynchronous orbit seperated by, let's say, a mile. The two ships are joined by a rope that's longer than a mile with lots of play in it. A machine slowly pulls the rope until it's taut. Now if Einstein's theory is true, and space is curved, we should see that the taut rope actually follows a curved path whereas if Einstein's theory is false, then the taut rope should connect the two ships in a straight line.

Which side of the bet do you put your money on?

 

[Zosimus]

You find Wikipedia unacceptable, but will cite Urban Dictionary?
Oh, that's rich!
If you really want to understand the meaning of this neologism, then, go to the original source
(The Simpsons, season 7, episode 16).
There, you'll discover that the Wikipedia definition is accurate, & that yours is wrongo pongo.


Watch & learn.....

Notice how "cromulent" is used....Miss Hoover is saying that "embiggen" is legitimate, & not at all spurious.

Wikipedia: 1
Zoosimus: 0

No, first I went to the Oxford English Dictionary. Cromulent doesn't have an entry.
Then, I went to the American Heritage Dictionary. Cromulent doesn't have an entry.
Then, I went to Dictionary.com in which I found the definition I provided you with.

However, since you seem to be enamored of Wikis, let's try This one.

Cromulent has taken on an ironic meaning, to say that something is not at all legitimate and in fact spurious.

 

[viole]

Well, viole, you see, I feel no need to believe in the Bible before quoting it to Christians to prove a point.
Similarly, I feel no need to believe in science to quote a scientific research paper to prove a point.

Your analogy does not hold water. Two contradicting claims in the Bible defeat the whole Book since it assumes the premise of being totally right. Two competing scientific theories do not make the assumption to be both right or to have been inspired by a divinity that cannot make mistakes.

However, I will point out a simple test of Einstein's general relativity that just about everyone can understand.

Imagine that we have two spacecraft orbiting the Earth. Each is in an identical geosynchronous orbit seperated by, let's say, a mile. The two ships are joined by a rope that's longer than a mile with lots of play in it. A machine slowly pulls the rope until it's taut. Now if Einstein's theory is true, and space is curved, we should see that the taut rope actually follows a curved path whereas if Einstein's theory is false, then the taut rope should connect the two ships in a straight line.

Which side of the bet do you put your money on?

Wow. You defeated GR! What an idiot Einstein was, to miss something so obvious. Please write a paper so that I can offer you dinner in Stockholm when you collect your Nobel prize for physics

By the way, why make it so complicated with orbiting stations? On the surface of the earth the curvature is even bigger. What speaks against two people pulling a rope here on earth?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Your analogy does not hold water. Two contradicting claims in the Bible defeat the whole Book since it assumes the premise of being totally right. Two competing scientific theories do not make the assumption to be both right or to have been inspired by a divinity that cannot make mistakes.

This is untrue. The concept of Biblical inerrancy only applies to the autographs.

Wow. You defeated GR! What an idiot Einstein was, to miss something so obvious. Please write a paper so that I can offer you dinner in Stockholm when you collect your Nobel prize for physics

Because it's already been done (and in a variety of forms). One variation is called Bell's Spaceship Paradox. However, in this version the two spacecraft are accelerating. The version I mentioned was published by Tom Van Flandem in 1998. However, seeds of the controversy can be found in the writings of Sir Arthur Eddington in the 1920s.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, first I went to the Oxford English Dictionary. Cromulent doesn't have an entry.
Then, I went to the American Heritage Dictionary. Cromulent doesn't have an entry.
Then, I went to Dictionary.com in which I found the definition I provided you with.

However, since you seem to be enamored of Wikis, let's try This one.

Cromulent has taken on an ironic meaning, to say that something is not at all legitimate and in fact spurious.

You cherry pick an authority which confirms what you want.
But when it conflicts with the original source, it's just plain wrong.
Miss Hoover is the ultimate authority.

 

[viole]

This is untrue. The concept of Biblical inerrancy only applies to the autographs.

Maybe. But when I use it, I use it against someone who believes it. Otherwise, it would be as useless as using science to prove that science is wrong.

Because it's already been done (and in a variety of forms). One variation is called Bell's Spaceship Paradox. However, in this version the two spacecraft are accelerating. The version I mentioned was published by Tom Van Flandem in 1998. However, seeds of the controversy can be found in the writings of Sir Arthur Eddington in the 1920s.

So, why do you think we cannot use two people on the surface of the earth to perform the same experiment, since on earth the curvature is even bigger? What motivated those people to complicate things by using orbiting objects where the curvature of space is smaller, too?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

You cherry pick an authority which confirms what you want.
But when it conflicts with the original source, it's just plain wrong.
Miss Hoover is the ultimate authority.

Well, next time Santa Clause invites Miss Hoover and me over to his place, I'll ask her what she meant by that word.

 

[Zosimus]

Maybe. But when I use it, I use it against someone who believes it. Otherwise, it would be as useless as using science to prove that science is wrong.

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

So, why do you think we cannot use two people on the surface of the earth to perform the same experiment, since on earth the curvature is even bigger? What motivated those people to complicate things by using orbiting objects where the curvature of space is smaller, too?

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.