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: 23
83
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
CLP,

Columbo would be proud.




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:43 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.
cool, not my cup of tea but good for you


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.


ok...rudeness & superiority comlex shining through but ok...


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!
How is it that things here appear rediculous to you but string theory does not? string theory has sounded completely absurd every single time its been explained to me - it seems to be grasping at straws.


Considering that one of the other new posts in this forum--a guy who worked in the media as evidently a technical or support person of some kind--has been quickly ridiculed as being one of "them" / a "disinfo agent" / a hoax / whatever, all because he doesn't scream that his bosses are all aliens, or Illuminati, or whatever, I don't expect too many of you to take what I say seriously.
I think that whole thing was just people seeking attention thread op included

But, for those of you who'd like to actually learn actual science from an expert, I'm happy to give some time to answering your questions!
cool


The purpose of this theory is to "unify" all interactions into a single description, in a way which provides additional, testable, constraints on the low-energy limit of the theory (in other words, one that provides explanations of things seen at low energies, such as particle masses, strengths of interactions, etc). We want to do this because, in addition to describing all forces at once, it provides additional mathematical constraints that relate things together that weren't known to be related before.
so I get that a unified theory would make things 'easier' in terms of calculation...but why oh why would it make things more accurate? isn't it kind of presumptuous and to repeat myself - absurd to assume that everything in this universe is built from the same core 'building blocks' simply because we haven't discovered otherwise; I ask this partly because we are still finding new species of animal every day here on earth, why would a similar thing not be true also for a much larger area to explore?


String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. The details of why we definitely know it's right are too complicated to discuss here (there's a reason you have to go to school for ten years to be a theoretical physicist!) but basically this is known by mathematical consistency (the same way you can know 1,000,000 + 1,000,000 = 2,000,000 without having to get a million things, count them, get a million more things, count them, then put them together in a pile, and count how many things you have! You can just say this is the logical result of 1+1=2 and the rules of arithmetic). There are no other theories that does what string theory can do.


I'm sorry but I don't agree; specifically, I believe anything can be explained if a person explaining just keeps at it....If you can't communicate your knowledge to others there's not a huge amount left worth learning it for in the first place.

I know I'm a laymen right so lets use the popular double slit experiment in quantum physics, its basically proves that while they had in their minds beyond any shadow of a doubt that they would get either A.) or B.) they got C.) so my point then is how can you be so certain of string theory & that a 'C.)' answer isn't hiding somewhere in all that data you 'don't need to look at'...?

Peace,
-Bob



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
2 Questions:

1) Who is more intelligent...you or Sheldon? BBT

2) What came first...The chicken or the egg? (I have already figured this one out and I'm not a scientist so I was just wondering)


Welcome. Seems like you've already made your mark.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I have three questions.

1. How do we move from one "moment" of time to the next when time is infinitely divisible and there is no "smallest" unit of time?

2. How can an object move from one "area" of space to another when space is infinitely divisible and there is no "smallest" unit of space?

If your answer is planck time 10^-43, then:

3.If Planck Time is the smallest unit of space/time, then as an analogy to other smallest units such as strings; what then is in between the Planck Time units which would define where one Planck unit begins and another ends? I.E. what is between the Planck Time "frames" of the film we call our reality and how are we moving forward between these units?

.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I think I understand that argument. But isn't there a website somewhere containing, for example, a caption that reads along the lines of "this is the such and such equation, familiar to all string theorists." ?


Unfortunately, no...not that I know of. However, if you go to Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of THIS PDF TEXTBOOK, you'll see a very complicated description of what I explained.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kurifuri
 


You ride his tip by proclaiming that everything he says is golden. Even though a lot of what he's claimed to be "fact" and "absolute truth" has been debunked to at least the degree to where we can tell he's not being completely honest. That sir, is how you are on his "tip."


edit on 26-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory.

io9.com...

nige.wordpress.com...


And that is only the beginning of the holes in your claim

Also, nothing is ever proven in science. THIS IS THE FIRST RULE!
If scientists went around proving things, it would put an end to all science.





edit on 26-6-2011 by chooselove because: more info



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

Welcome and hope you enjoy ATS! So how is the ATS Amusement Park working out for you? These people are tough, so you really do have to stand at attention and be ready for anything and everything that comes your way.
You haven't (so far) been a bundle of joy with some of your answers (but I know some of the people have put you to the test too.)
.Hmmm...You don't believe ....in God, no soul, God not needed in science, no aliens visiting Earth, no reincarnation, no ghosts, and so far everything anyone has ask you are very easy questions, with very definitive answers.
I don't have a question for you, well, I do, but you can't answer it, no one can, so no need to ask.
Have fun.....and wishing you good health again.


edit on 26-6-2011 by ellieN because: added to.....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I wonder if anyone has yet proposed some "stringy" theory as to why the Solar neutrino output (or some other, as yet undiscovered, mechanism) somehow seems to alter radioactive decay rates?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Please address the claims of the sun and the moon changing positions....
i.e. the claim that the sun arrived two days sooner than it should have up in the arctic circle....
Isn't it true that if THAT is true, there would be major signs on earth.....

Also -- just how much can we control the weather. Anything beyond simple cloud-seeding?

What is HAARP used for anyway??

Thanks -- I'm a wanna-be scientist, but I need some good data to back up my arguements!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by kurifuri
 


You ride his tip by proclaiming that everything he says is golden. Even though a lot of what he's claimed to be "fact" and "absolute truth" has been debunked to at least the degree to where we can tell he's not being completely honest. That sir, is how you are on his "tip."


edit on 26-6-2011 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



Omg thank you for clearing that up for me I did feel like dealing with that.

Btw I'm still laughing out loud at this



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Moduli
 





To answer these questions: It doesn't exist, and I do.


Ok..these responses pretty much tell me what you are all about.....disinfo..


see ya...wouldn't wanna be ya


I don't understand, someone has a differing opinion than you do on a subject completely irrelevant to the OP and he is somehow a disinfo agent because of it?


See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


I dont think he or any other scientist truely understands a whole lot about gravity(from a scientific standpoint, although a good hypothosis is in order =) ). They seem to have unlocked what they know based on its effects on matter.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


Well he was right



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Whew! Okay. I had to stop lurking and actually say something. Hi.

Mr. Scientist, sir, I need your opinion on something. (And don't want to take the time right now to look back a whole bunch of pages... or even one for that matter to remember what your handle is.) (Oh, I also want to let you know that my 4-year-old daughter is one of your biggest fans. She loves the science.)

The edit was here: Moduli! (It was on the same page after posting.)

I've often wondered about the concept of Dark Matter. Is this really a thing, or is it simply a concept that many people have agreed could be used as a placeholder? "The math doesn't work without 400% of the matter we know to exist, so here it is!"

I've always viewed it as a throw-away [place actual answer here when we find it].

Now, I can see how the throwaway answer can be helpful (as you mentioned somewhere in the 445 posts leading up to this response) to figure out other answers... but does a throwaway answer like this (okay, assuming it is one) also contribute to later generations of scienticians being constrained to the thought that the throwaway answer was the answer all along? (Does that make sense? Maybe not. Another wording, then!) Does the existence of a throwaway answer distract from finding the real answer?
edit on 26-6-2011 by CrikeyMagnet because: I realized what I didn't know at the time.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli


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.


Good for you. As a Scientist myself I can tell you that we are culpable for the ignorance portrayed. We're obviously not getting our messages across and it's all too easy to laugh and poke fun at other people, without seeing the deeper message.
We are failing in educating people about Science, about the Scientific Method, about the Philosophy of Science, and about the various sub-disciplines of Science itself. This is not something to laugh about, or joke about with your friends. That is akin to fiddling while Rome burns. Poking fun will just mean that you will turn people off by your supercilious attitude.

What we need to do is actively engage in Outreach, to accept that there are some people who know more about some things and some who know more about others and even more who don't seem to want to know. These are the people who concern me; the Scientifically-dispossessed.

Yes, there are some wild and far-out threads and posts here and yes they can be entertaining. However, to mock people while not providing an alternative just reinforces the idea of an ivory tower, and it is part of my 'mission' (if you will) to break down this ivory tower and demystify Science. It's something that takes a long time and a lot of effort and I haven't done too well yet, but I am constantly growing and trying to grow others and aid their understanding of Science. Luckily I am involved in a Tertiary Institution and we have an active Outreach programme.

Welcome aboard.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
OK Mr. Scientist (you don't mind if I call you that do you -- after all it was you who said you were a scientist but didn't tell us which one).

Can you prove that you can speak English. Personally I don't believe you can. You are just stringing words together which look like English, but actually you are a hoaxer. If you were an English speaker you'd be able to tell me what the meaning of the following sentence is:

Theta tau mu phi sigma equals dpsi,

under the substitutions theta = 0, tau = my, mu*phi = dog is, sigma = smarter, dpsi = proved.

Unless you can answer my challenge successfully I will not believe you can speak English!

Anyhow, welcome to ATS. And I thought I was the only academic who came on here purely for entertainment to laugh at the hilarious and idiotic theories debated without regard for the corpus of human knowledge to date. Of course I don't mean that in any egotistical sense. I mean it in a strictly factual sense. It just happens to be highly entertaining, and it is a fact that this is how I justify coming on ATS. I'm being honest with myself. I am truly not here to find some truth I have been missing. I have to admit, I initially came to ATS because I thought that maybe there were facts outside my knowledge which I should be apprised of that could be found here. At first I thought that one in ten threads revealed something astonishing that I should know. Then I revised it to one in one hundred. Not so long ago I revised it to one in a thousand. Soon after I adopted the maxim, "if it is a theory posted on ATS it is by definition wrong". That philosophy has experimentally worked out quite well for me so far.

Occasionally facts are presented that I was not apprised of. But they do not include facts about some super suppressed technology or secret that the whole world should know about but doesn't. They are mundane facts, such as that there are people who make claims about so and so which are considered lunatic and easily debunked (again and again and again).

Oh, lest people believe that all credentialed academics do not believe in God, I would like to mention that I am an exception. I have a strong and ardent faith. Sure, science has banished God to the gaps, which have shrunk substantially over time. But I see Him in some pretty sizable gaps: the fact that there is anything (physical) at all, the origin of life and the phenomenon of consciousness, all of which just coincidentally happen to be things that my God claims to have something to do with.

I am still undecided on the issue of whether God or man is responsible for mathematics. But I do not believe that the universe itself is merely a mathematical object. I do not believe that a part of a mathematical object can observe other parts of that object and be aware within itself that it does. Philosophically I believe that the universe has a substance beyond the mathematics itself and that mathematics is merely a description of the rules by which that universe operates. So, studying modular forms as I do, I do not know whether modular forms exist by virtue of some features of the reality which we inhabit and that we merely discovered them because of the reality we inhabit or whether they exist independently of the reality we inhabit and happen to turn out to be useful when studying some aspect of that reality.

Anyhow, I believe I get some questions. Wow, my very own real, live string theorist to interrogate!

My first question: can you explain to me (a mathematician) what is meant colloquially by "dimensions being curled up". This infuriating description is used of the "smaller" dimensions of string theory in just about every popular article on the subject (popular articles being the only way people in my field get to hear about your field, unless we are less lazy than me). However, to a mathematician, this word salad is particularly meaningless. Can you enlighten me without frightening me with too much machinery? I know what a manifold is, some group theory, topology, etc. But I'd appreciate not being beaten over the head with physics jargon.

My second question: what has changed about string theory in recent years to take it from being a highly speculative theory which makes no testable predictions and therefore not scientific to being what you describe as "surely true"? I admit to having been asleep for about a third of the last decade or two, so probably didn't notice the appropriate press releases on this.

Finally, I have to speculate that your posts on here are partially inspired by the recent antics of the Lulzsec group. I have to notice the similarity between your apparently arrogant assertion that you are entertaining yourself at the expense of the peon masses. You are using your 1337 skilz to amuse yourself and demonstrate your superiority by victimizing unsuspecting victims who claim to know better, but are in actual fact ignorant. However, as an outside observer I have to note one significant difference. Lulzsec has the advantage in their strategy. They can prove their superiority over the various security "experts" that they claim to humiliate by delivering the goods. You on the other hand can't possibly hope to deliver anything to this list which establishes your superior ability.

I suggest you reformulate your strategy. Try to think of a way to demonstrate your superiority in a way that cannot be denied by the people you are trying to humiliate.

One final thing: take a crack at deciphering my signature. Oh, go on. Just for a few minutes. It's not that hard, really. Prove once and for all that academics are so much smarter than the average ATS participant. You know you are. Don't hold back. Let `em have it.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by j-man
 


If it exist, it can be detected. People claim to see ghost and feel Jesus but when brought to the test, they fail every single time.


So one night i was on the computer and saw something (like a shadow?) in the corner of my eye, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up instantly, i looked down the hall and then my dog started barking at something which was no pysically there. When i looked down the hall there was nothing to see, it just felt like something was there and i was kinda shocked.

The fact that i did see something in the corner of my eye and my dog started barking (looking in the same direction) means something had to be there. I decided to investigate and i looked around down there to see if a shadow could have been projected from a light source, but it could not have happened. There is absolutely no way a physical person could have been down there.

I will give you details on the features of my house (not location derrrr) if you are interested to prove me wrong and tell me it was a person. But how do you explain what has happened ? I personally believe it was a "ghost"......



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
OP,
I read your post for amusement but after a few of your replies I got bored. See, to me you are just as nutty as some of these others that claim other outlandish things.

String Theory is not proven, I mean come on you guys flip flop all around incorporate super string theory, M theory all to prove your theories. You guys build a multi billion dollar accelerator to find your Boson Particle, so did you find it? Oh but you guys justify the failed Boson experiments, don't you? Got to justify all those billions of dollars to find not what you wanted to find. If you look at what you do from far a way you will find that who you criticize look similar to you.

See to me, your like the UFO disclosure guy. He thinks disclosure of UFO's are coming soon, Same thing about you, you think your string theory will be proven. Actually you write like it is, which is a joke and a sure sign of a nut to me.
However, I do enjoy reading and watching programs about Science, I do enjoy reading ATS. I have found some very intelligent people here and some as arrogant as you in their beliefs which are the far left of your right.
By spending most of your life in Math you may have forgot or never been taught, in human theory arrogance has never been proven to be successful.
Just some advice,
Have a good day



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
I work primarily on string theory, a theory that combines general relativity with quantum field theory (which is quantum mechanics plus special relativity). The purpose of this theory is to "unify" all interactions into a single description, in a way which provides additional, testable, constraints on the low-energy limit of the theory (in other words, one that provides explanations of things seen at low energies, such as particle masses, strengths of interactions, etc). We want to do this because, in addition to describing all forces at once, it provides additional mathematical constraints that relate things together that weren't known to be related before.

String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory.


you are a preacher or a charlatan but certainly not a scientist

you believe string theory is definitely correct but it is entirely speculative. you have no proof & in reality you don't know nothing.

How come a theory can be "not speculative" i wish the scientist that you pretend to be could answer that

controversial ? does this matter ? in fact if it were controversial it probably had more chance to be close to Truth; like let say electric universe theory.

Sure the universe is multidimensional, no need of phd to realize that; but there are flaws in the string theory. stop lying about this. those weaker minds you laugh at might end up take your words as granted; & they are not.

All the greatest scientist have one thing in common : they might come close to the Truth but they never touch it. The real scientists are however aware of this and remain humble.

go back to laughing on weaker minds, might be what you best at. good luck.



new topics




 
83
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join