Strange

Except it appears he never said such a thing. It is a lie made up by some Christian website (there are certain Christians who think it is OK to lie, apparently). That would be OK, except there is no such thing as astral projection (remember, this is a science forum),

One of those is a scientific theory. The other one sounds like something you made up.

An image is crated when light is reflected from something. So you need a surface to project an image on to.

Black holes don't explode. So you would end up with a universe with black holes, the remains of stars and planets, etc separated by ever increasing distances. The Milne model, and others like it, are completely empty. You could create models that juts contain one or more of the components you mention, to see how they behave. The same is true of all fields. There is nothing special about the Higgs field, in that respect. The assumption of homogeneous and isotropic is a good approximation to the universe at large scales, and allows a solution to the Einstein Field Equation to be derived. It has nothing to do with the laws of physics. The universe around us (in the solar system or our galaxy) is not at all homogeneous or isotropic, but the laws of physics are exactly the same.

The Earth formed: http://www.space.com/19175-how-was-earth-formed.html http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ And then: http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/education/down_under/copper/formed.html https://uwaterloo.ca/earth-sciences-museum/resources/detailed-rocks-and-minerals-articles/copper

Someone beat you to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

That is very slightly different: GR: All results consistent with theory. No results contradict theory. Aether: No results consistent with theory. All results contradict theory. I know it's subtle but I'm sure you can figure it out with a little thought. The aether was never a viable model.

There are various reasons people might do it. The Milne Model was an early attempt to model the universe, but is contradicted by observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model Other vacuum solutions are just ways of exploring different cases. There are a limited number of exact solutions to the Einstein Field Equations so I think something can be learned from any of them, even if they don't describe the universe we live in. The presence (and distribution) of mass and energy affects the behaviour of space-time but doesn't cause it to exist. No. 'Cos it was empty.

That is useful because if they answer "yes" then they can use insanity as a defense.

Intelligence is not directly related to brain size. It is partly the ratio of brain size to body size, and also the structure of the brain. http://tdlc.ucsd.edu/educators/educators_myths_biggest_brain.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/ https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=animals+brain+size+intelligence

If he did use that example, then he was wrong. I assume you have just misremembered it. If the Sun could somehow disappear, our orbit would not change for 8 minutes (obviously, this is impossible, so physics does't really apply). Now we have detected gravitational waves, we know it isn't.

That (without pantheism) sounds quite similar to Einstein's views, as far as I understand them. It has been quite a common view of philosophers and mathematicians (including some who might claim to be atheist - this is their alternative to a god).

The only "backlash" (as far as I am concerned) is to point out that this is opinion/philosophy and not science. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. Others will disagree. I don't really care either way. This isn't a finding. It is an opinion. It isn't even a new one. He is not the first to say that the fact that the world can be described mathematically is proof of the mind of god. The idea goes back to at least the Greeks and has been common ever since. Einstein said similar things (despite being an atheist). Also, I don't know if Kaku is talking about a literal god (in the Christian or other sense) or just a more abstract/metaphysical concept (as Einstein meant it).

You have to separate the man from his work (in all areas of science). This is something that popular science is really bad at. Popular science articles talk about Einstein or Darwin while science is about GR or evolution. Scientists often (always) have opinions that have nothing to do with science.

I am saying you should ignore (most) of what Kaku says, not string theory.

Do you know if, historically, integral and differential calculus were developed as separate things - and then later it was realised they were inverses? Or was that always known?

Many people think it is, which is why so many people are working on it. But there are other approaches being looked at as well. Science is trying to understand them, not get rid of them.

I have no idea what other scientist think of ok Kaku. I have never seen any comments about him. I guess he is popular with people because he writes the sort of stuff that people like to hear.

It is just there. Space is full of fields of different types. No, your "medium" is the field. Because the field is quantised, it happens to be "lumpy". Fields are everywhere. It doesn't "emanate" from anywhere. They fill space rather than being space.

How can it be invisible if it blocks light? That would make it very visible.

I get the impression that there are more threads about bad science that refer to Michio Kaku than any other individual. Don't just take what he says with a pinch of salt, ignore it.

How does a grossly inaccurate statement like that help anyone?

Yes it is. It is just "stuff" you have made up. So what. None of these are the medium for electromagnetic waves. Even if there were such a thing, they are not the medium for electromagnetic waves. It might make sense to you, but that is only because you made it up. It has nothing to do with any science. The "medium" for electromagnetic waves is the electromagnetic field, which isn't a medium in any sane meaning of the word. But if it makes you happy to call the field a medium, then go ahead.

Please stop posting nonsense.

I think of them being the same thing, but there might be some difference in meaning. Anyway, I wasn't sure if you were looking at the areas of science that require/develop the most demanding technology (which would possibly be either particle/quantum physics [see the LHC, for example] or astrophysics [LIGO, LISA, etc]) or which is most likely to lead to the most exciting new technologies (your guess is as good as mine!).