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: 20
83
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by N34Li3Z

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by Moduli
 


I have to disagree, on your assumption that a craft cannot travel beyond the speed of light; simply because you can, if you have a magnetic force shield surrounding you ship.

Cheers,

Erno86


easy, just convert the ship, temporarily, into nuetrinos, and when you arrive, bam...cut the regz switch back on. plus, who needs to travel a crazy distance when you can use einstein-rosenthall bridge (sorry podowski) it?

all you need apparently is some sort of crazy gyroscopic thingy, probably with lots of energy, and magnets, and rotating kerr singularities and such, like that one time traveller dude drew with the general electric diagram, john titor, yeah, that dude


Thanks, but I sir, do not want to be turned into nutrino and "regz switched back on."

I think that you are making things far to complicated, in relation to "beyond the speed of light speeds."

Think of something more simple, in relation to the Universe; like a black hole dust covered baseplate, on the bottom of your flying saucer.


Cheers,

Erno86



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Hi Moduli,

I am by no means a scientist. From what I have heard string theory is something about several dimensions rubbing into each other or bouncing off each other, or something. Basically, for someone who has no knowledge whatsoever, what is string theory? How does it fit in with the big bang (or does it?)? If my initial statement was at least somewhat in the general vicinity of what string theory is, how did all these dimensions get strung together in the first place?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


Hello, N34Li3Z

And sir, I would love to travel "crazy" distances, just to get off this crazy planet!!!


Foofighter's forever,

Erno86


edit on 26-6-2011 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


String theory is nothing more than a theory.

Anyway, I recently finished a book called From Eternity to Here by Sean Carroll. I found a lot of what he had to say very interesting. Just wondering if you might have read it, or know of some of his theories.. Just interested to hear your thoughts on his work



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I'm not going to slam the OP, but true science involves a healthy dose of skepticism, so I hope thats how he approaches it.

Look at how many established facts have been disproven in the last 2 years.

Life that that can use arsenic as food, goldilocks planets now being considered almost common, amino acids found in a meteorite.

A true scientist wants his science to be open and reproducable by other scientists, but he/she also should be open the the idea that they can be wrong.

Climate science for one, has shown us what can happen when you work towards a specific result instead of letting the chips fall where they may.

Anytime I hear a person say they are 100% certain of any result I have to doubt not only their results but their method also.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColeYounger
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.


actually the op sounds more of a philosopher I know he claims to be a theoretical physicist but the lack of equations in his explnations is odd.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
most sciences that are true don't need people campaigning for them trying to prove they aren't speculative..

(See, I can poke fun at your high and might view of science, you're not the only one having fun on here).



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
If the off topic posts continue, you may very well be post banned. THIS is the final warning!

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
MOD NOTE: REFRESHER ON POSTING ON ATS

1. Off topic posts will be actioned by staff.
Post On Topic – Please Review This Link.

2. One word or one line posts that add nothing to the topic will be actioned.
(This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

3. There will be no insults, attacks, name calling or anything like that.
ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics


From here on out...........posting bans may be issued if the rules of ATS are not followed.

Thank you.......carry on.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by kurifuri
Ignore that post from the guy who claims a theory is not a fact. He has no understanding of the scientific method and the meaning of the word theory in context with scientific exploration.


You're joking right? You know for every theory, there is another theory that tries to explain that the original theory is wrong.... right?

Einstein's theory of relativitely is KNOWN to contain errors, I.E. meaning it's wrong at some level. Newtons Law, which was a theory.... and still is... has been proven to be inaccurate... containing errors.... meaning, it too is also wrong at some level.

This is the exact reason they are Theories. The theory that light is a wave and a particle depending upon observation is ONE theory. The counter theory, that explain in more detail and more mathmatic precision is called "The Rope Hypothesis."

It too, is a Theory, but it pretty well proves to original one wrong. Scientific theories are NOT facts, they are evolving observed principles. They cannot be proven factually by the technology of today, and as such -- never get past "Theory" branding.

The most advanced theories bring us new technologies.... but this doesn't make them the correct answer by any means.... It just means it's "partially" right.

You don't understand scientific theory. You need a dictionary.


Umm... actually a scientific use of the word "theory" is as close as science can come to absolute fact. Of course theories and science in general are constantly evolving, however theories are as airtight as science gets.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 
Welcome to the Jungle I am glad you enjoy the posts but dont take everything here as a joke ITS NOT ! there are many truths in other forums.You may be jaded in your outlook if you think otherwise .again WELCOME to ATS



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Hi again Moduli,

Just read your repsonse to my post, and have a Q.......

Random : Definition from the Oxford Dictionary


made , done , or happening without method or conscious decision:



Statistics governed by or involving equal chances for each item:



(of masonry) with stones of irregular size and shape.





informal odd, unusual, or unexpected:




without method or conscious decision:


Link to the definition of "Random"

Please tell me which of the above definitions from the word "Random" is in play, when relating back to your responses to my questions on page 6 of this thread .

Oh one other extra thing, where you state as fact, can you please provide links to support, I'm sure you can appreciate verification through evidence is essential, as without proof, threre is only speculation.

Thank you



edit on 26-6-2011 by solargeddon because: Add link to support external text ( what a good girl I am )



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.

I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret alien technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by "TPTB" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious. There are so many astounding misunderstandings of such basic things... I semi-regularly read several of the sub forums just to see how the newest poster has strung together some technobabbly words to make some ridiculous claim. It's fascinating. I also know of several colleagues of mine who occasionally do the same, and we trade ridiculous stories of things we've read.

So why am I here? You've provided me with so much entertainment, I thought I'd return the favor. (Also, I have the flu and working is making me dizzy, and I've got nothing else to do at the moment!) So, feel free to, in this thread, ask me any physics questions you want and I will answer them to the best of my (flu-ish, sleep-deprived) ability!


I just want to tell you Mr. String Theory, that people are on this forum to pass along information because the main stream media is too coagulated with bull puckie to ever report the truth about any issue that deserves to be read by millions of readers around the world. People like you who find it "amusing" or should I say for your personal prime points of laughter because you believe those who post here are not intelligent or capable of having knowledge to equal or beat your big head and ego due to that cheap piece of insignificant paper you hang on your wall that says you went through so many years of college, really have a problem in today's world. You are socially unacceptable because you belittle and look down your nose at those who don't have that piece of insignificant paper hanging on their office walls.

Life Experience prevails over scholastic experience any day of the week. Anyone can train a monkey to press a button to get a banana. That does not mean the monkey knows what he is doing !

I am not here to "amuse" you. I am here searching for answers to questions that you are incapable of understanding because your ego has gotten in the way of your humanity.

Happy Trails to you Mr. Scientist.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I must say, tact is not one of your strongpoints.There are quite a few extremely intelligent people on this site and even though you are sick ,your introduction is in poor taste.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It's nice that you came here and insulted us in your introduction. So do you really think you are superior? How do you know you're not being lied to, that there are no suppressed technologies, no aliens, no conspiracies.

Dude, think for yourself! You're being brainwashed by your peer-reviewed/expert world.

Sorry, with such disrespect, I don't welcome you. Get lost, mr. I have an ego bigger than the whole United States!


EDIT: And if you couldn't find any truth on this website, you are ridiculously blind.
edit on 26-6-2011 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Also, OP, when you say government technology is not more advanced...? really? I have a hard time believing that. Do you know what is going on in Area 51? Do you really deny the possibility that the Air Force is not testing new flight technologies and weapons and such that is not open to the public?

You know for a fact that the government does not have people developing new technologies that we have not heard about?

Just because you went to school for ten years to become a THEORETICAL physicist? You MUST be right in everything you say/believe... theoretical.. hm..

I think they are.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.

I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret alien technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by "TPTB" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious. There are so many astounding misunderstandings of such basic things... I semi-regularly read several of the sub forums just to see how the newest poster has strung together some technobabbly words to make some ridiculous claim. It's fascinating. I also know of several colleagues of mine who occasionally do the same, and we trade ridiculous stories of things we've read.


Hi Moduli and welcome to the boards.

First let me apologise for any spelling errors in the following paragraphs, I have mild dyslexia.Just a heads up


I really value the opinions and views of someone with your scientific background, however i don't wish to sound arrogant but i found your reasons for posting on here a little belittling. We don't all have the intelligence or mental capacity to be physicists. So while our efforts to try and understand modern and future technological principals may not be the best, we doing the best we can. I'm glad we could provide you with so many hours of entertainment in our own little humbling way.

Again please dont think im having a go at you, it just seemed like a shot below the belt to us non scientific type peeps.


Originally posted by Moduli
how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).


The above statement isnt quite true is it? The government/military do have technologies advance of the people they govern.

The Blackbird was well ahead of its time when it was put into action, and it was kept super duper secret for the longest time before being made public. Same goes for the stealth bomber, The H Bomb (Manhattan project) and even fibre optics and laser technology.

Any history book will tell you that Adolph Hitler had access to technologies that were well in advance of the allied nations. Hell they guy was even experimenting with Anti Gravity......BEFORE we even had jet engines. Its why the Russians and Americans were so desperate to get their greedy little hands on German scientists after the war. The germans had a number of very advanced projects in the works called "Wunderwaffe" or wonder weapons. Some were more feasable then others, but still it ddint stop them experimenting with advanced tecniques, one of which lead to the V2, the first ICBM Missile.

So while the powers that be as you call them, might not be a millennia ahead with regards to technology, they almost certainly have access too and are testing technologies way ahead of what the normal people have. Understandably so though, i mean they have to stay ahead of the enemy right? The question is just how far advanced, 10 years? 20 years max maby? depends on what you believe.

Its been the same story throughout history. I mean considering what we currently have at the moment on the consumer level, i dread to think what their currently testing or cooking up in labs at the moment.

Im going to assume that your a civilian scientist, as a result you cant possibly know what the military scientists are currently working on, and even if you did, you certainly wouldnt have the authorzation to post information about it on here.

The splitting of the atom and the invention of the Hydrogen bomb were world changing technologies, It would be a little nieve to think that the powers that be arnt developing a new more powerfull alternative.I mean they developed the most destructive weapon know to man, are you really that confident that they wouldnt do it again? they have already done it once.

Id be interested to know what you thoughts are on some of the military and civilian personnel who have come forward (in the 1000's no less) with more credentials backing them up then you can imagine. Thease people have disclosed information (some with ofiicially veryfied paperwork) on what the goverments/illuminati or whatever are doing behind our backs.

What could they possibly have to gain from it, besides destroying thier carrers? Take Edger mitchell for example. the 6th man to walk on the moon. He has publicly come forward and said that Aliens exists, and that the goverment are in posseson of advanced technology as a result? The mans a national hero, he;s already achived a lifetimes goal. Why would he lie?

What about all the "scientits" that have come forward who worked for Lockheed martin? The Skunkworks? Nasa? Nasa? CIA? Army? Navy? Marines? Surely they cant all be lying?

Again please dont think of this as me having a go at you my friend, im just curious as to what you thoughts are on thease topics, some of them cant be ignored, the facts are the facts.

Looking forward to your reply chap


Jademonkey 2K



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Moduli

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.


Hm. As a String Theorist, I would've assumed your ability to extrapolate and apply would be better than this.
Do you even know what the second function is?


Since the OP seems to have run away, I will give the solution to what I asked... just so people know that it was a reasonable request to ask of a String Theorist.

The second function above is the first-order Lagrangian describing the energy dynamics of a massless, spinless particle. This is the basis for all superstring derivations - when String Theorists mathematically predict the dynamic (energetic) qualities of a string corresponding to any given particle, this is the base equation that allows such a prediction. It would be impossible for any String Theorist to make any contribution to the theory whatsoever if he didn't know this basic function.

The first function above is the substitution of that Lagrangian into the action equation (which I didn't give, but it should be known to even the most novice String Theorist: S = [int]L dt) specifically for any spin-1/2 particle (fermions).

These functions also need to be known by String Theorists in order to solve for equations of motion, which are essential and describe how a system reacts to external forces.

The equation I initially posted, oh so long ago, involved the substitution of variables (which were given) to simplify, as well the condition that the integral was only for a given theta value (which was given as 0, so that part didn't even need to be taken into consideration - though, ironically, this is the part that the OP chose to focus on).

So, in the simplest terms, the answer is: the function describes the action, with respect to time, of any and all fermions.

Sorry, not 'potato'



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Moduli,the amount of diversionary dynamics you read is proportionate to the importance of the thread content,based on this i encourage you to continue exchanging perspectives here and to try to be thorough in answering other posters questions because you never know when you may hit a nerve so to speak.

That wasnt a blatant repeat attempt to have my questions on pg7 noticed,truly just advice from someone who is past the initiate stage here in the jungle.

Keep up the good work,I thought your approach was honest,and straightforward,I dont feel belittled by you at all so I personally leave out negativity,we all embrace the realisation that we have entered a lions den of intellect when we get here to ATS,its just that we all enter the room in a different style.No harm ,no foul.

You will be humbled by someone here sooner than later,trust me,it may be a 70yr old grandma or an 17 yr old high school student,I trust when you meant entertainment value you were referring to the diversity of perspectives you expected to find here ,kinka like the diversity of styles like you see at a mensa meeting,right?

I also enjoy being able to slide from one extreme of the scale to the other here on these forums,and surely that is funny sometimes,as I try to maintain a naturalistic ,harmonic perspective it is sometimes extremely entertaining to watch different perspectives try to define MIDDLE so they may enable themselves an opportunity to meet.

However the humble pie you shall be served here as we all are from time to time will allow you to find the MIDDLEGROUND here along with the rest of us.

You wont find greater fun and learning anywhere else and we all know we learn proportionatly more when we are having FUN.


edit on 26-6-2011 by one4all because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
83
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join