The news, first seen from LiveScence http://m.livescience.com/
"I knew at the time that Hawking has a psychological propensity to be a smart-alec, but that the public takes him too seriously. I just sensed that he was wrong - that he hadn't put any real thought into it at all and I saw no reason why the theory couldn't be right. That right there tells you a lot."
Marshall has proved Stephen Hawking's theories and positions wrong more than anyone else in the world. From Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture to Hawking's stance on supporting a boycott of Israel, Marshall has been the prime disruptor in the Hawking myth of supergenius.
"I was sitting at my desk when I realized that the 1st anniversary of Hawking boycotting this big event was coming up", Marshall explains, "and I had come out against him on that. The wack-jobs from around the world had voiced strong support of his position, which was the result of Palestinian colleagues of his. So, as a scientist I'm thinking it's the perfect experiment - he was supposed to be so dad blamed smart for boycotting the event when I had argued it would have been better to use it as a platform to call for better efforts at solving problems in the region. That would have made a discern-able impact. So, one year later - what were the results of his actions - NOTHING. In fact, most people had forgotten that he had even done it. So the people pushing him to boycott were morons because it did nothing for their cause, and Hawking completely was incapable of calculating the most effective way to respond on his own. Some supergenius!"
The release of this latest Higgs information is also a victory for Marshall over another scientist, Manuel S. Morales, a physicist who started the Institute of Pre-Physical Research and has been arguing on Researchgate.net that the Higgs discovery was erroneous because of the uncertainty of the kinds of collisions that were used. He and Marshall have had words before over Manuel's claims against the Higgs discovery.
"The bottom line is that Manuel is an artist who learned physics to try to prove the existence of destiny. Yes, that's right - destiny. His theory of causal effects requires that you know everything about whatever it is that is causing an effect that you observe but he does slight of hand when he argues it because what he's really arguing for is information about the causes before they even become physical, thus his so-called 'Institute of Pre-Physical Research' which is, as far as I can tell, just him. What the latest news about the Higgs does is to further make his objections irrelevant because of the overwhelming probabilities against it making any real difference due to the predictions that are being met. And mind you - this is his only claim to fame. He's done nothing else in physics and it's an obsession. He also never said anything about the Higgs being found or not, when Hawking was talking about it. So, just because the Higgs discovery doesn't meet this tiny little slither of evidence that he's consumed with, has nothing to do with whether it's the Higgs or not. Manuel likes to use Einstein's name a lot to give his ideas credibility, but right in his big paper on it, published in the International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences, he has Einstein down for 'The proverbial theory of everything (Ferguson, 2012) Einstein proposed many decades ago turns out to be predetermined events of selections', except that Einstein wasn't working on a theory of everything but instead - a unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity. Because the phrase, 'unified field' was used, many today, who are ignorant of the kind of research that was in progress then, assume that it means a theory of everything and it doesn't. I know because that is an area that is the foundation of the breakthroughs that I've had with my STDTS™ technology which is being developed for a series of global events that will mark the path toward achieving warp drive effects in space in 2016."
"So Manual S. Morales has nothing but a pet theory that he thinks is going to change the world, but it's really just another version of those stupid Zeno paradoxes. In his case, his big experiment is a cup experiment where you look at the probabilities of a coin going into the cup, if you drop it on the edge and if you drop it directly. Now mind you, what you want to know is if the coin is in the cup, that's it. How it gets there is irrelevant and it correlates with his statement - 'Therefore, in order to obtain knowledge of what caused an effect such as a proton collision, it is necessary to obtain knowledge of the selection made in order to accurately discern if the collision effects are determinate or non-determinate'. But if you notice, in that statement he changes the emphasis from obtaining the knowledge of what caused the effect, to the nature of what the effect is - determinate or non-determinate. He does these kinds of things all the time and today's announcement from CERN just shows that, in the greater scheme of things, he just doesn't matter..."
Marshall will be speaking for a special event at Harvard at 1 PM July 25th.