Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 326

Thread: Michio Kaku ????

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18

    Michio Kaku ????

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pw13F7ahjY

    Another credibility lost. It seems Michio Kaku lost it
    Why is it so hard for producers to do a one minute google search and to find this forum and all the answers that they will ever need about "subject"
    I've just sent my email to NBC.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    2,390
    I'd appreciate some mention of what he's lost, before clicking on a YouTube link, please.

    CJSF
    "Soon the man who sweeps the room brings the secret telegram, 'COMMENCE OFFICIAL INTERPLANETARY EXPLORATION.' "
    -They Might Be Giants, "Destination Moon"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    In brief, Kaku acknowledges that 95% of UFO sightings are misidentifications, but the remaining 5% are up for question. In response to a book he's reviewing, he takes a pretty positive stance that the remaining 5% are probably due to actual aliens.

    I thought he had more sense than that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,358
    I've never been that impressed by Michio Kaku... I find him very vague and wishy-washy, and doesn't really come across as being very scientfic (He had some segments on "Alien Planet" which I watched again recently and my eyes glazed over every time he spoke, he's just too full of airy-fairy armwaving for my tastes).

    Still... he's saying here that 5% of UFO sighting cannot be explained (whereas the other 95% can). His view appears to be that if they can't be explained - even by educated people who can think of a lot of different possible explanations - then they are likely to be aliens (though he also says this isn't completely convincing, in that there's no "alien DNA or alien chips" yet). Me, I'd just say that they're "unexplained" and leave it at that.

    That said, I suspect part of this may just be a ham-fisted attempt to advertise his "scifi science" program.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    And that ant analogy?
    We ignore or stamp on ants because they are so small. We DO give trinkets and food to larger animals. (anybody have a bird feeder?)
    So; maybe these aliens are several hundred feet tall?

    And if they are not that interested in us, then why do they come here?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    613
    I haven't thought too highly of him ever since he sided with the anti-nuke nuts before the launch of Cassini.

  7. #7
    I'm not familiar with that. What was their objection to Cassini?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,229
    The objection was to the 72 pounds of plutonium in the RTGs on the spacecraft. They objected to the launch, and later to the Earth flyby.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    231
    this is also the same guy all the people who believe that solar storms are deadly reference on youtube--;

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    279
    Cant solar storms be deadly, at least, indirectly?
    Or, have the world's power grids and communications satellites already been hardened?

    To get back on topic, I don't know much about him personally, but I did find his recent cable tv series entertaining.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    And that ant analogy?
    We ignore or stamp on ants because they are so small. We DO give trinkets and food to larger animals. (anybody have a bird feeder?)
    So; maybe these aliens are several hundred feet tall?

    And if they are not that interested in us, then why do they come here?
    Maybe elephants or whales are big enough to catch their attention?

    But I confess I sometimes amused myself by killing or otherwise mistreating ants as a child, so I dunno how good the original analogy is.

  12. #12
    Is there a conspiracy here?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    And that ant analogy?
    We ignore or stamp on ants because they are so small. We DO give trinkets and food to larger animals. (anybody have a bird feeder?)
    So; maybe these aliens are several hundred feet tall?

    And if they are not that interested in us, then why do they come here?
    A bit off topidc maybe, but was watching a science show called "Killer Ants". The Bull Ant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_ant was featured during it, and these suckers are huge at about 1.5 inches long.

    They also have very very bad tempers. I personally would not go around stepping on any bull ant's if I could possibly avoid it!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Percival View Post
    Is there a conspiracy here?
    Normandy's OP brought up Kaku's UFO opinions. Discussion of UFOs is typically limited to CT.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Normandy View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pw13F7ahjY

    Another credibility lost. It seems Michio Kaku lost it
    Why is it so hard for producers to do a one minute google search and to find this forum and all the answers that they will ever need about "subject"
    I've just sent my email to NBC.
    Unfortunately, KAKU has been like this for a long time, most of the time at new age woo conferences (and it goes far beyond just UFOs). Clips from his remarks and comments at these events have been forwarded to me for several years now, and yes, it is sad, but there have always been a few brilliant eggs that end up a bit cracked.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    Still... he's saying here that 5% of UFO sighting cannot be explained (whereas the other 95% can). His view appears to be that if they can't be explained - even by educated people who can think of a lot of different possible explanations - then they are likely to be aliens (though he also says this isn't completely convincing, in that there's no "alien DNA or alien chips" yet). Me, I'd just say that they're "unexplained" and leave it at that.
    Could he be right? I personally have never seen anything that wasn't explained or was way too weird to be an alien (is that an oxy moron?). Can anyone point me at a thread that deals with this well or a clip of something that cannot be explained?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Could he be right? I personally have never seen anything that wasn't explained or was way too weird to be an alien (is that an oxy moron?). Can anyone point me at a thread that deals with this well or a clip of something that cannot be explained?
    He might be right - but that'd entirely be a belief on his part and not a fact, and I know if I see a scientist talking about something on TV I'd expect to hear facts about it and not beliefs.
    Assuming the stats he mentions are true, the fact of that matter would be that 5% of UFO observations remained unexplained - which means they could be any number of things that we just haven't thought of yet (including figments of the imagination - I'm not sure if the unexplained UFOs that he was talking about even had any kind of photographic evidence associated with them). What it doesn't mean is that those 5% must therefore all be alien spacecraft.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    He might be right - but that'd entirely be a belief on his part and not a fact, and I know if I see a scientist talking about something on TV I'd expect to hear facts about it and not beliefs.
    Assuming the stats he mentions are true, the fact of that matter would be that 5% of UFO observations remained unexplained - which means they could be any number of things that we just haven't thought of yet (including figments of the imagination - I'm not sure if the unexplained UFOs that he was talking about even had any kind of photographic evidence associated with them). What it doesn't mean is that those 5% must therefore all be alien spacecraft.
    His whole manner of phrasing was incorrect and deliberative, in the manner of many ufologists. He's already well on his way to being a modern Hynek.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,066
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    Assuming the stats he mentions are true, the fact of that matter would be that 5% of UFO observations remained unexplained - which means they could be any number of things that we just haven't thought of yet (including figments of the imagination - I'm not sure if the unexplained UFOs that he was talking about even had any kind of photographic evidence associated with them). What it doesn't mean is that those 5% must therefore all be alien spacecraft.
    Shoot, it doesn't even necessarily mean that we don't have an idea. As far as I know, it just means that we don't have enough evidence to be sure one way or another.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,199
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    He might be right - but that'd entirely be a belief on his part and not a fact, and I know if I see a scientist talking about something on TV I'd expect to hear facts about it and not beliefs.
    Assuming the stats he mentions are true, the fact of that matter would be that 5% of UFO observations remained unexplained - which means they could be any number of things that we just haven't thought of yet (including figments of the imagination - I'm not sure if the unexplained UFOs that he was talking about even had any kind of photographic evidence associated with them). What it doesn't mean is that those 5% must therefore all be alien spacecraft.
    Actually they can also be many of the same things the others have been identified to be, there just wasn't enough information to eliminate enough of them.
    The 5% isn't unidentified because all mainstream possibilities have been eliminated for them, it's because not enough have been eliminated to say which it was.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,358
    Well, yes . The point I was making (maybe poorly ) was that the 5% is "unexplained" which means exactly that, and not "therefore must be alien spacecraft".

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Mr Kaku, if you are reading this (or anyone can be bothered to try to contact him, may I ask..

    Which are your five 'best' (ie most unexplainable ) incidents?

    I would truly like to know. For sadly, the more deeply I look into the 'best' incidents, the more they tend to unravel...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    With the best will in the world, I can't understand how Kaku can believe that all of the 5% of unexplained cases are extraterrestrial in origin.

    I actually do believe very strongly in extraterrestrials myself. On a good day I could maybe believe that about 5% of that 5% of all sightings are truly intriguing; that makes a grand total of 0.25% which have the 'high strangeness' factor. Kaku appears to fall into the 'I want to believe' camp.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    I actually do believe very strongly in extraterrestrials myself. On a good day I could maybe believe that about 5% of that 5% of all sightings are truly intriguing; that makes a grand total of 0.25% which have the 'high strangeness' factor.
    I am sure you posted that expecting this type of response, but even if there is a .25% "high strangeness" factor, that doesn't make them ET, that just means they are highly strange, and nothing else.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    I actually do believe very strongly in extraterrestrials myself. On a good day I could maybe believe that about 5% of that 5% of all sightings are truly intriguing; that makes a grand total of 0.25% which have the 'high strangeness' factor. Kaku appears to fall into the 'I want to believe' camp.
    Why 5%? Why not 8%? Or 100%? Or 0%?

    And if it's not 0%, why hasn't the world changed as a result of their arrival at our planet?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Torsten View Post
    The objection was to the 72 pounds of plutonium in the RTGs on the spacecraft. They objected to the launch, and later to the Earth flyby.
    Yes, despite decades of operational experience with plutonium-fueled thermoelectric generators, some people insist they are unsafe. RTG fuel casks are demonstrated to be impervious to launch catastrophes, both on the test stands and in actual flight experienced. In one case, we simply recovered the RTG cask from the wreckage of the rocket, wiped off the soot, and installed it in a new RTG. The graphite casings are practically indestructible.

    Further, each 2.5 g fuel element is vanadium- or rhodium-clad to eliminate the biological danger associated with alpha decay. Even if the casing were ruptured or destroyed, the individual fuel elements are entirely safe even if ingested. The energy required to declad the pellet is approximately the same as the energy to destroy the pellet itself and disperse it through the ambient. Even in the worst-scenario where the high-velocity orbital assist flyby of Earth destroyed the cask and declad the fuel, the dispersal would occur at a very high altitude and dilute the plutonium to a safe level.

    Despite the handwaving fears of anti-nuke activitists, plutonium dust is quite difficult to inhale. The danger of a highly remote event like a high-altitude RTG rupture with significant damage to the fuel elements presents less danger than toxicity from cropdusting pesticide blow-off. It's irresponsible, in my opinion, to lend one's scientific credibility to such imaginary problems, especially when one is anxiously engaged in the science that such engineering activity as radioisotopic generators facilitates.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    Why 5%? Why not 8%? Or 100%? Or 0%?
    8% is close enough to 5% to be indistinguishable.

    0% is what I believe most of the time - but it is just about feasible that some sightings might have something to do with extraterrestrial intelligence: we can't quite dismiss the possibility yet. We may never be able to do so.

    But Kaku seems to imply that 100% of inexplicable sightings are associated with ET; that seems an absurdly high proportion. Most of that 5% are inexplicable because there is not enough data to make a good explanation.
    Last edited by eburacum45; 2010-Aug-27 at 06:15 PM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Yes, despite decades of operational experience with plutonium-fueled thermoelectric generators, some people insist they are unsafe. RTG fuel casks are demonstrated to be impervious to launch catastrophes, both on the test stands and in actual flight experienced. In one case, we simply recovered the RTG cask from the wreckage of the rocket, wiped off the soot, and installed it in a new RTG. The graphite casings are practically indestructible.

    Further, each 2.5 g fuel element is vanadium- or rhodium-clad to eliminate the biological danger associated with alpha decay. Even if the casing were ruptured or destroyed, the individual fuel elements are entirely safe even if ingested. The energy required to declad the pellet is approximately the same as the energy to destroy the pellet itself and disperse it through the ambient. Even in the worst-scenario where the high-velocity orbital assist flyby of Earth destroyed the cask and declad the fuel, the dispersal would occur at a very high altitude and dilute the plutonium to a safe level.

    Despite the handwaving fears of anti-nuke activitists, plutonium dust is quite difficult to inhale. The danger of a highly remote event like a high-altitude RTG rupture with significant damage to the fuel elements presents less danger than toxicity from cropdusting pesticide blow-off. It's irresponsible, in my opinion, to lend one's scientific credibility to such imaginary problems, especially when one is anxiously engaged in the science that such engineering activity as radioisotopic generators facilitates.
    When Dr. Kaku attempted to get the injunction to stop the Cassini launch, I sent him an angry email asking what he based his fears on, and a spirited debate ensued between us. His argument deteriorated to where his main point was that all nuclear endeavors should be stopped because the technology could be misused by military interests. Kaku grew up in post-war Japan with a resulting lifelong abhorrence for anything nuclear. It was unfortunate that this so totally colored his judgement, but was psychologically understandable given his background.

    Since then, I have maintained a generally high respect for the man, but to get back to the subject of the OP, it has been sad to see him increasingly pandering to what I would call the sensationalist and fringe elements of cosmology. Popularity with the masses can be very seductive.

    Mike
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    With the best will in the world, I can't understand how Kaku can believe that all of the 5% of unexplained cases are extraterrestrial in origin.

    I actually do believe very strongly in extraterrestrials myself. On a good day I could maybe believe that about 5% of that 5% of all sightings are truly intriguing; that makes a grand total of 0.25% which have the 'high strangeness' factor. Kaku appears to fall into the 'I want to believe' camp.
    And what leads you to believe that any "UFO reports" are reflective of alien visitation?

    I don't think that any intelligent, rational person doubts that there may be other intelligent technological life in the universe, we simply have zero compelling evidence of its existence, yet alone of its visitation to our planet.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    8% is close enough to 55 to be indistinguishable.

    0% is what I believe most of the time - but it is just about feasible that some sightings might have something to do with extraterrestrial intelligence: we can't quite dismiss the possibility yet. We may never be able to do so.
    What I am getting at is, how can you have any figures at all?

    And I find it implausible that even a single alien visitation could have taken place without it being recognised as a special case.

Similar Threads

  1. Time - by Michio Kaku
    By eburacum45 in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-02, 12:09 PM
  2. Expert Forum with Michio Kaku
    By buzzlightbeer in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Feb-02, 07:08 PM
  3. Michio Kaku
    By StarLab in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-29, 05:54 PM
  4. User's Guide to Time Travel by Michio Kaku
    By sarongsong in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-Jul-18, 10:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: