It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am a Scientist.

page: 10
83
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
People with high intelligence don't have to prove they are smart... all they have to do is let the other people demonstrate they aren't. You and the OP have done exactly this.


Says the guy who said (in the post I ignored because it was total nonsense, the same kind of total nonsense I mentioned in my first post)

Originally posted by Laokin
You don't even know what a probability wave is. You are confusing the probability displacement of a particle with the opposite form the wave.

This is covered in childrens documentaries called "What the Bleep Do We Know." It's been understood for nearly 100 years, it's not new.


Yes, "What the Bleep Do We Know," the classic definitional crackpot quantum mysticism flick!

Even wikipedia knows it's wrong!
en.wikipedia.org...

The film has been criticized for both misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience and has been described as quantum mysticism.


Bravo!




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Lots of people will make the mistake of not doing research and supporting the wrong person who claims to have all of the answers... all the while they are living in dillusion of religion that tells them they are indeed correct. In actuality, they are operating on near braindead levels of intelligence and will always think they are right about everything.

People with low intelligence always try to prove how smart they are by declaring how much smarter they are.

People with high intelligence don't have to prove they are smart... they show it by owning all of the idiots in the retarded forum and then declare the are smarter. Kurifuri and the OP have done exactly this.

See yourself on now, won't you?

(If you didn't see my challenge to the OP, go back... because he said there was no answer cause i attempted to trick him with a bogus equation... but the equation is actually over a page long. I provided the answer.)

FIXED

Original post by Laokin

edit on 26-6-2011 by kurifuri because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Cheers to people like Laokin and CLPrime for showing up and quickly dismissing this chap.


Well, as Laokin just stated, the answer to his problem was posted by him. You guys can't really judge yet if my problem is legitimate, as I haven't posted the solution... mainly because the solution is something that needs to be arrived at, rather than posted outright. I assure you, though, if the OP fails to satisfactorily answer my question, I will post the solution.


I think the answer is "potato"...

Am I right?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Ya I'm gonna have to go with the OP on that one. Some of the defined variables don't even show up in the equation. It seems like Deny Ignorance was replaced with Perpetuate Stupidity a while ago.


The equation that was posted should be very well understood... since it's a core concept of string theory.

I'll give you an example

"E=mc²"

Is an equation. By looking at it, we define E as Energy, M as Mass, and C as the speed of light.

How do we know this, because it is common knowledge known amongst physicists studying the theory of relativity.

The same exact scenario. If he studied string theory, he should have been VERY familiar with that equation... as the premise states.

(I'm not familiar with it... however, that isn't to say that this isn't true.... but the OP failed my challenge as well, so he has no credibility here, and one must assume he is incorrect and showing inferior knowledge of the subject. However, he does still have oppertunity to solve that equation and redeem himself... I assume CLP will post the results when he believes he's given the OP enough oppertunity to solve it.)
edit on 26-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yes.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Close



Moduli, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the 'S' is, even. But, if you need me to, I will give you the context. Think spin.
edit on 26-6-2011 by CLPrime because: forgot who I was talking to



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
When A person takes on the "Collective Conscious" (of society) they're going to have their work cut out for them. Collective Mass scrutiny is brutal no matter how smart you profess to be. Formal education or not "out of many, one will come" with the solution (good or evil). Our gene pool is capable of producing god-like intelligences.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


You are not a physicist. No one is buying your bs claims.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


You are not a physicist. No one is buying your bs claims.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
This is just a constatation, not a question.

Moduli said:
"I don't know about this study so I can't comment on it specifically, but marijuana and cigarettes have very different chemical compositions, so it would not be surprising for one to have higher cancer rates than the other. "
So u "don't know" about this, and yet on some pages before u say something like:
"Soul is made of nothing, they don't exists"

This just reminds me of that interview with Steven Hawking, in which he saying that there is no souls or heaven, or something like that..

I think u guys should just stick to questions on which Moduli is expert, and that is string theory (or whatever it is)

On soul-astral projection-remote viewing-out of body experiences-etc, he can just give u HIS OPINION.

p.s. sry for possible grammar errors.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I have a question for the questioner lol. What makes you so sure that merely observing the results can change them in any way shape or form. How can you check what it's doing without observing? Sounds like a bit of a conundrum to me.


YouTube double slit experiment it's an animated video I think by dr. Quantum it will explain this in detail for you



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



which page is the ? on?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I have a question for the questioner lol. What makes you so sure that merely observing the results can change them in any way shape or form. How can you check what it's doing without observing? Sounds like a bit of a conundrum to me.


Because the math that describes each of these situations would be different. The math that describes quantum mechanics very accurately says it's interactions with the environment that collapse the wave function, and the collapse of the wave function is just the evaluation of a conditional probability.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by Moduli
 

The reason I always ask this is because TV shows that try to stylize particle physics and quantum mechanics in particular, often describe particles as being "perturbations of a medium" (or in shows attempting to address string theory and the like, "a membrane.") That gives the, possibly incorrect, impression that there is something to be perturbed, which always leads me to ask "what is that?" But if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that what's being perturbed is a field consisting of the very particles we're talking about and their interactions, not some sort of magical "medium" that when perturbed somehow conjures them up out of nothing... right?


Yeah, that's a better way to think of it.



I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is: if there was no matter or energy whatsoever in the universe, what would the universe be like?


Well, it would be empty!



Would the space it occupies still be there?


Well that depends on exactly what you mean by empty... The question you're trying to ask is really a tautology. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there. If there's nothing there but space, then there's nothing there but space. If that space has a boundary, it has a boundary. Etc...

This is the case because of the mathematical description. You're basically asking "what if these parts of the equation aren't there." Well, then they aren't there, and not being there, they don't do anything. But which parts you omit depend on which of these questions you asked.


Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Close



Moduli, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the 'S' is, even. But, if you need me to, I will give you the context. Think spin.
edit on 26-6-2011 by CLPrime because: forgot who I was talking to


What? Which one? There are like ten pages and I don't memorize all of it. Are you talking about the insane one with the S = int( dtau .... )? Because the only S that's equal to an integral like that is an action, and it would be even more nonsense if someone claimed it was spin. But it's also not an action because it appears to be garbage, unless there's a magical context that explains what any of it's supposed to mean, including the random substitutions.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





really? you find him to be spreading non-factual information because he doesn't accept a flying saucer is in a secret lab somewhere? heh...


Yep..I do..and the fact that he buys into the OS story of 911. My gut tells me not to trust this guy, and when he said he was a believer that terrorists did 911 , I knew for sure this guy was out of touch with reality , by choice , or by stupidity....so nothing he posts will ever seem valid to me, concerning what the governments know and don't know.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by Laokin
 


Lots of people will make the mistake of not doing research and supporting the wrong person who claims to have all of the answers... all the while they are living in dillusion of religion that tells them they are indeed correct. In actuality, they are operating on near braindead levels of intelligence and will always think they are right about everything.

People with low intelligence always try to prove how smart they are by declaring how much smarter they are.

People with high intelligence don't have to prove they are smart... they show it by owning all of the idiots in the retarded forum and then declare the are smarter. Kurifuri and the OP have done exactly this.

See yourself on now, won't you?

(If you didn't see my challenge to the OP, go back... because he said there was no answer cause i attempted to trick him with a bogus equation... but the equation is actually over a page long. I provided the answer.)

FIXED

Original post by Laokin

edit on 26-6-2011 by kurifuri because: (no reason given)


Can we get a ban on this guy... or what? This is clearly just classical trolling now. My equation was NOT bogus. A simple google would give you the answer. He said it could not be explained by math, I provided the demonstration of it being explained by math.

Also, you giving yourself credit? A bit narcissistic, since you haven't said anything other than "Go OP, You're winning!" etc... etc...

If you get credit, then I guess the winning football teams cheerleaders get credit too.... don't they?

LOL.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Guess what dude? Terrorist DID attack the WTC. Its been proven.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I'm not a scientist.

Can I haz potato now?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by CLPrime
 



which page is the ? on?


I think it's 7 or 8 somewhere around there



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Thank-you.

Hmm. Another way (I think) of asking the question would be, "Is theory telling us that three dimensional space 'emerged' as a result of the expansion of the universe, or was three dimensional space already there for the universe to expand into?"

I think that gets closer to what I'm asking. (I hope lol.) Thanks again. (Not that what you said didn't already go some way toward answering it.)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Guess what dude? Terrorist DID attack the WTC. Its been proven.


Obvious troll is obvious. Your account was created today... you have 22 posts... most if not all in this thread.

Exposed.

You're done now.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join