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: 13
83
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Crazy. (I mean that in the "wow, far out" sense not in any derogatory way lol. I have retained my sense of wonder about all of this somehow despite being next to 30, so I say things like that a lot. "Crazy," or, "Wow, tripped out!")

So, I guess here's the big one. And I'm guessing we don't know this yet or that there are several potential answers. But here goes anyway.

You say the spaces rearranged themselves, and you've alluded in other posts to the theorized number of dimensions, how they may be infinite but that isn't required, etc. So my question is: does anybody have any theories with respect to how all of this started? Where the dimensions/spaces came from? Or is it generally hypothesized now that it's all just a potentially inifinite roiling sea of dimensions all moving about, colliding, rearranging, etc?

If so... that warrants another "far out" from me lol.

Thanks again. That's my last question. Oh, and what are some reliable books or at least sources for the layperson to learn more about all of this if learning calculus isn't an option?

Peace.




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Annee
 


You need to go read some of the links I provided in the previous post. The world of science is full of manipulation, and corruption ,and greed my dear. There are liars , and they manipulate the facts to ensure certain agendas are met.

Really sad for you that you trust in scientists ,and the world of science so much. You have no idea how many good scientists have been run out of their fields ...for failing to comply.



A scientist should be considered just a person
Science is a tool employed to understand stuff...the person using said tool tends to be called a scientist (with the proper training)...however, like any tool, it can be used properly, or improperly.

The science (if used properly) can allow for a greater understanding of whatever is being discussed...a scientist is just the monkey that speaks out about the findings his tool uncovered...

So no...just taking the word of a scientist on something is not a generally good idea to do religiously...however, the material presented should be accepted if it is properly worked.

But I agree, scientists themselves come in all shapes and sizes...a corporate scientist is significantly different in their credibility than say, a freelance scientist..agendas tend to drive a person to employ the tool of science differently.


The worst argument though is when people say "science taught us ages ago that (enter nonsense here...world flat, smoking good, etc)" to try and dismiss science...no, science never really said that, it was scientists employing bad science that said that.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Annee
 


You need to go read some of the links I provided in the previous post. The world of science is full of manipulation, and corruption ,and greed my dear. There are liars , and they manipulate the facts to ensure certain agendas are met.



I have been following this stuff for over 20 years.

No I don't need to read your links. Science is not speculation.


I think gabby is talking about 9/11/2001 are you saying 2011-2001 > 20? Obviously not but just pointing out you might be confused



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Hello oh bright scientist-type person

:-)

1. May I ask you for your view on what a "theory" is and what a "fact" is. This has been touched upon in this thread. And its something that seems to come up a lot in discussions that tend towards the scientific. Someone gives a fairly conclusive answer that relies upon one or another scientific theory and, sure as nuts, someone else will say "oh yeah - but that's just a theory". So okay. But isn't it ALL just theories? I have a theory that you are a real, living human being that seems to have some scientific training. But that's just a theory. You could be a computer simulation that is passing the Turing Test with flying colours! Or I could be hallucinating this whole experience as a result of misidentification of the mushrooms I picked in the forest this morning. Or I could be plugged into some matrix-like machine. Or... well... you get the idea. What I am saying is that it seems to me EVERYTHING is *just* theories.

But what then is "fact". What facts do we have that are not actually dependant, further downstream, on a theory. Is there something we know that is absolute... something that is not at all open to debate... something that absolutely cannot and will not be reviewed and changed in a few years time when more and better info comes along?

It very much seems to me the only incontrovertible fact I can come up with is that I exist. Just that.

I look forward to you thoughts!

2. And while we are at it. What is "time"? I have a VERY sketchy understanding of physics but from what I understand Einstein proposed Space/ Time as being essentially one thing. So then time would be another dimension in space. Is this correct? And if it is then my question becomes, "What is space/time?". I get that we can measure it and observe interactions with it... but what IS it?

3. And here's more... How (in layman's terms please) do we propose the Higgs boson would donate the attribute of mass to other sub-atomic particles? That is what it is supposed to do, isn't it? And if that is what it does then does that mean that the Higgs boson is the only sub-atomic with the attribute of mass? Or are there others? Which brings me to the forth question, if you will continue to humour me...

4. What is mass? It seems like an odd question to ask since it is such a fundamental part of all of our life's experiences but given question 3. above it struck me that there is much we take for granted that we actually know little about. So maybe you can enlighten me.

5. It seems I just can't stop. :-) So I also want to know WHY the speed of light IS the speed of light. It seems EM radiation could propagate at any speed really. So why did it settle on THAT particular speed? Do we know? Is there some physical property that we know of that places a limit on its rate of propagation?

6. I'll stop after this. I promise. What happens to the stuff that falls into black holes. It gets crunched by the gravity? Then the spaces between the molecules and atoms gets compressed? And then?

7. I lied. So I also want to ask your opinion about on spiritual-type stuff. Is consciousness purely a function of the brain? Does the observer alter the outcome by the act of observation? Is there anything beyond that which can be empirically observed?

I hope you found my questions entertaining. I'm sure I shall find your answers to be so.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 
I have a question i was always intrigued by a debate via news article between Tesla and Edison concerning ether how does that fit in with string theory?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by doomy
 


??? Is this how you treat new members. I just checked the web address, this isn't fox news. I am welcome aren't i?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Op I suppose you subscribe that nikola tesla is just a loon too?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


ok, I have only read till page 2 of this thread....
to the post where you said the -double slit experiment = "funny" and "nothing special at all"-

mock us all you want, most of us may not be schooled scientists but we aren't stupid!

I'm moving on, nothing special to see here then someone showing off a few scientific words he learned.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zingdad
 


Theory's describe facts.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





So no...just taking the word of a scientist on something is not a generally good idea to do religiously...however, the material presented should be accepted if it is properly worked.


Your whole post was excellent ..this sentence made a lot of sense...and yes I do value and accept what has been properly worked and presented.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoSphere
reply to post by Moduli
 


I am theoretically on the very tip (outside) of an object traveling the speed of light. I am sitting right above a large flashlight mounted on the front (which is turned on.) I hold in my hands my own flashlight (also in the on position.) My questions to you are:
1) Will my neighbor also traveling the speed of light next to me see the light emitting from my ship, at all?

No, not out in front of you.
2) Would someone observing me from far away as I travel towards them see the light from my ship at the same time they see me, or before they see me (light is traveling at 2c bc the ship is traveling at C plus the C from the light - we know this effect in general physics but Einstein firmly shows that C is constant.. so why the hypocrisy?)
You would arrive at the same time as the light emitted from your ship and the light would be amplified quite a bit because of this..
3) Could I turn the flashlight in my hands on and off, at all, or would I essentially be "frozen," in time dilation traveling at C.

You could turn the flash light off but it would still appear to you as being on.. If it was in a fixed position.
4) If the flashlight was pointed in a direction directly perpendicular to my velocity while I was traveling at C, would the light beam from my flashlight bend or stay straight?

Well the light would appear to make a quarter circle but it isn't technically bending.


Can't assure you this is right I'm only just out of high school but I think it is



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


On the contrary. It is quite impossible to verify as you cannot see it with your own eyes (lest you muddy the results if the theory is correct) Ya see? A theory that says if you watch this happening it will change the result and if you don't the result stays the same, therefore the result will always remain a mystery. Gotta love modern contradiction...erm....science



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





I have been following this stuff for over 20 years. No I don't need to read your links. Science is not speculation.


I'm not saying science is speculation , though at times it can be. I'm saying that scientists are human, and can very much manipulate their "facts" to assist specific agendas.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mb2591
Op I suppose you subscribe that nikola tesla is just a loon too?

I think that anyone who could just come up with concepts like Tesla did would have to be loon.
A genius maybe, but definitely a loon.

This is a fun thread. I can't wait to see the answer to the earlier equation.

edit on 26-6-2011 by subject x because:




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
It is, in fact, an action. Let me, using the given variable substitutions, revert to its original equation:



Plus, I'll give you this:



That should help.


It's hilarious that you think that's what that was supposed to mean. theta=0 was my favorite part. Second only to the random insertion of integral dtheta. But really all of it was pretty hilarious.


Originally posted by MACchine
reply to post by Moduli
 


I think your mocking of others, so called misunderstanding of science, is actually your misunderstanding of their poor use of language which demonstrates your own over specialization and under education of language skills, soo typical in this age of the stupid genius, to the point of being boorish.


Nope, it's just their good 'ol lack of understanding of what words mean. That's not a language issue. It's an issue that they don't know science words mean something and can't be strung together in a way that sounds fancy to them.

And at any rate, I have no problem with dumb questions, just dumb answers
. And dumb fake questions.



What would an anti-matter black hole look like in our universe if it were by some quirk of science visible here, and how would it behave ?


That doesn't make sense, a black hole isn't something that can be "antimatter" it's just a black hole. You can put whatever you want into it and it's still just a black hole (well, but bigger because you just put stuff into it).



Ok, there has been this long mystery of the missing matter in the universe, recently answered by some proof of energy streams in space, now see if I got this, steams in the macro NOT quantum accept that they are made up of massive amounts of electrons, ordinary matter. But there is also the missing anti-matter which perviously was part of the missing matter but now I am assuming is separate and still missing.


There's no "missing" anything, there's just stuff we don't know the details of that the media have styled as "missing" because "not in the Standard Model Lagrangian" doesn't sound as exciting.



So, UC Berkley did this test a few years ago where they were trying to find, and really thought they might find it, that parallel universe a couple of millimeters away from our visible universe, and there are many experiments that look for and add to the evidence that such parallel universes might exist, and I am saying that this might still be valid for an anti-universe, although understood HIGHLY theoretical.


There were no "tests" there was just a misunderstanding of a model. Their model was wrong, it didn't give the right answer or make much sense, and AFAIK no one but the media paid it much attention.



Say, there IS an anti-universe that has black holes just like ours, and we have finally just recently seen black holes and they are doing REALY STRANGE STUFF everything that was postulated AND MORE !!!


There's no such thing as an anti-universe, that doesn't make sense.


Originally posted by marriah3330
Honestly, when my friends and I took those blue mushrooms in high-school, we found out about the string theory just from those next 4 hours, then two years later you see Michio Kaku and another scientist on the Discovery channel in which according to some has all the answers to life itself, explain what the world REALLY looks like, but truth is it took me/us 4 hours to learn (after eating a handful of blue fungus)
Marriah


Brilliant, I applaud you.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by Moduli
 

You say the spaces rearranged themselves, and you've alluded in other posts to the theorized number of dimensions, how they may be infinite but that isn't required, etc. So my question is: does anybody have any theories with respect to how all of this started? Where the dimensions/spaces came from? Or is it generally hypothesized now that it's all just a potentially inifinite roiling sea of dimensions all moving about, colliding, rearranging, etc?


Well, "where" it came from is not a terribly meaningful question, but the details of how the structure of space became like it is should be answered exactly by string theory, but we don't know the details of how to get the exact answer from it yet.



Thanks again. That's my last question. Oh, and what are some reliable books or at least sources for the layperson to learn more about all of this if learning calculus isn't an option?


That's kind of like asking "how can I learn how to build a space shuttle without any math." Sorry, not going to happen! There a few popular science books out there, off the top of my head the ones by Hawking and Susskind and Randall are probably good. There is a more technical, but still popular one, by Penrose "The Road to Reality" that teaches a lot of math at a basic level and talks about lots of things. I have heard it is good, but not easy reading.

At any rate, now it is time for sleeping, but I will come back at some point and answer remaining questions and laugh at remaining accusations.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kurifuri
 


Ok here's some psychology for you to debate, i gave you a quick analysis of your actions:

You never had a lot of real friends. Since that gives you a lot of spare time you were able to read a lot of books about space with pretty pictures. You thought, I want to understand this better, so you bought scientific books. Unfortunately the content of most of those books was to difficult for you to understand, so you just got the overall picture. You learned words like quantum physics (most likely from Stephen Hawking's 'A brief history of time'. and got on the internet to search if someone could break down these problems. You found this site, lingered a while to read other peoples findings, amateurs like yourself giving opinions and was enjoying it.

Then today: the thread you've been waiting for! An actual scientist willingly answering every question you present him. A dream come true! But hey, other people seem to dismantle him... Don't trust him... Noo... Your dream thread... NOOOO! Well then you just go trolling around right.

And since I am a psychologist this is fact...

Oh, and knowing stuff doesn't make you intelligent Per Se... Think about that one...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kurifuri
Quick question. I have heard alot of people mention disinformation, are you guys talking about the government? Cause that seems... unlikely.


Disinformation can come from many places
Some can be paid. This is also often called cointel (counter intelligence) (think...government trying to hide something to instead of deny, they send out random people to add a bunch of nonsense in the topic to confuse the issue...aka, ufo's are real, so they send some out to discuss reptilians, annunaki, nibiru, etc...making the whole subject stupid_)

Some just unpaid ego over information..
(Studies have shown repeatedly that my bloodline in specific is advanced beyond the monkeys you are...here is some information showing that =hands over a doctored genetics test=.....now, I am awesome...its just scientific fact...)
(poor example, but basically meaning lying for ego purposes).


Now, when a person unwittingly sends forth false info, they aren't spreading disinfo...its then misinformation...just means they bought whatever the person they were listening to said.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I know where this going , string theory main concept is to eliminate GOD.

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God.
edit on 26-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zingdad
 





But what then is "fact". What facts do we have that are not actually dependant, further downstream, on a theory. Is there something we know that is absolute... something that is not at all open to debate... something that absolutely cannot and will not be reviewed and changed in a few years time when more and better info comes along?


This is 'Science'. You want Philosophy. That's two doors down.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mb2591
[I think gabby is talking about 9/11/2001 are you saying 2011-2001 > 20? Obviously not but just pointing out you might be confused


I am not confused - she/he also mentioned hidden UFOs.
edit on 26-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)







 
83
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join