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: 25
83
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mb2591
reply to post by XtraTL
 


Seems like you want to believe whom he says he is.. If you were following this thread all day like a few of us were it would be evident that this person is not a phd and not a string theorist.


In my books, what makes a person an expert is not just all the book-learnin' and class time. You still have to be able to relate that to people. I can see that you're looking for a PhD.-sized answer, but you have to realize that simply acquiring a PhD takes seven years. Couple that with the years of research and experience in all related areas (details omitted because I'm a lowly B.Sc.), and you get to a container (in this case, a person with a PhD) with centuries of knowledge on a topic... or perhaps even just centuries of examples to look at and compare to.

Most of the questions that have been asked here have been in more of the "If you're so smart, riddle me this!" milieu. I, for one, think his answers around string theory, particle physics, and sundry other scientific principles were perfectly acceptable... especially if you consider that as a human in general, he has the great freedom to have an opinion. Even scienceologists have opinions!

So if you're looking for a PhD-sized answer to any of these questions, that becomes time to start the real book-learnin'. The willingness to discuss and to correct any "crazy" "science" is helpful. The important thing is that he's reading here.

(Many of us hold the beliefs we do because we've seen and heard things that do not mesh with the official story, and sometimes all it takes to really push us to start digging is just seeing that someone else had the same thought.)

Moduli: I'm not sure if you said this before, but were you looking for this site when you found it? Or were you looking for information about... something?




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Though I know your not an Engineer, But here is a question that I feel the answer is so obvious that it is almost undeniable.

911 How likely is it for those buildings to fall the way the did. Not one, not two but three. Identically in their own footprint? I find this highly unlikely. In my opinion this is a straight up physics question.

What's your take?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Has this been classified as a hoax yet? Because if not, I'm thinking of claiming myself to be Aid to Obama or the Butler during Bilderberg



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by metro
Has this been classified as a hoax yet? Because if not, I'm thinking of claiming myself to be Aid to Obama or the Butler during Bilderberg


I'm a Nazi Disney Chicken! Pleasure to meet you Aid to Obama.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
How can something exsist if it is a theory, think aboout it. String theory is cool and all and Ive only read Michu book. Your theoretical physicist so for you to say string theory is real means you have proof and thus its not a theroy anymore.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist.


Welcome to the board, nerd.


One of the few moments where you literally do laugh out loud. star for that




This thread made me laugh out loud. Glad I could pay it forward.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

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.

Well, that looked all science'y, therefore it must be correct


Sorry, not 'potato'

how about potatoe



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by metro
Has this been classified as a hoax yet? Because if not, I'm thinking of claiming myself to be Aid to Obama or the Butler during Bilderberg


All he claimed to be is a scientist. You could call yourself a scientist if you search of truths with a systematic approach. It's a loose term.

He is not a good scientist or even an amicable person. If one were to lasso him out of his cloud of smug and drag him to Earth, perhaps he would be charming. He has shown wit and humor... maybe there's a decent ATS member in him yet. But a great scientist? Hardly.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by j-man
 


Gravity is more than one force which is why we can't figure it out.... We have to break it down and we think it's so weak that it couldn't be more than what it is.... To me, gravity begins with the center of the universe ( which we can't seem to find...) and ends with our own solar system.... centrifugal force at it's best.... Just wish I could create the simple equation to master it all. Unfortunately E=MC2 isn't it...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. )


thats were i stopped reading. I can't take any one seriously,especially a "scientist", if they think a theory is definitely correct.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by metro
Has this been classified as a hoax yet? Because if not, I'm thinking of claiming myself to be Aid to Obama or the Butler during Bilderberg


All he claimed to be is a scientist. You could call yourself a scientist if you search of truths with a systematic approach. It's a loose term.

He is not a good scientist or even an amicable person. If one were to lasso him out of his cloud of smug and drag him to Earth, perhaps he would be charming. He has shown wit and humor... maybe there's a decent ATS member in him yet. But a great scientist? Hardly.


He didn't just claim to be a scientist. He claimed to be a theoretical physicist. That's not a loose term. Besides, scientists only know one topic extremely well and tend to lack severely in other areas (Such as interpersonal relationships, mechanics and even love). It was funny to have people ask him about things he had no knowledge of, yet still claimed to be well-versed in such areas. Smug indeed. But when presented with what is apparently an elementary problem in his field of specialty he disappeared pretty quickly.
edit on 26-6-2011 by metro because: (no reason given)


XL5

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I didn't read all the questions, so I hope it has not been asked yet. Can high energy plasmas be entangled? If they can, how would it be done on an engineering level. I always hear about entanglement but never how to do it.

Also, are the spinning plasmas in the sun, entangled?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davian

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!

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. 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!

Let me tell you specifically what I do.

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. 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.

What I personally do (string theory is a big field, and lots of people do different things) is to try to understand what the basic structure of the theory looks like, and to try to understand how this constrains the allowable low-energy theories. In other words, how we get the Standard Model out of strings, what additional things this tells us, etc.

I'm happy to answer any questions, in this thread, that people have about physics, until I get annoyed with too many people accusing me of being a "disinfo agent," a troll, "closed-minded," etc. I will not, however, provide any personal information or any information of any kind that can identify myself or my colleagues or my university affiliation (I don't want my friends and coworkers getting harassing e-mails / letters / visits, believe it or not, they get a lot already, they don't need more!)


Science is a religion. It is made (fabricated) by the human mind to explain the unexplainable. You will find, like religion, science is heavily flawed, and is not 'fact' at all. You are close minded for steadfastly asserting your 'opinion' is correct, because it is not.

There is so much about the cosmos, the universe, that will never be "correct" in human terms. You need to accept that.
Smartest thing anyone has said here and It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out, does it?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Well, that looked all science'y, therefore it must be correct


Actually, it's all mathy.
I did post a link to a PDF textbook where all of this could be found, but everything gets buried so fast.




Sorry, not 'potato'

how about potatoe


'Potatoe' would be the answer given an action integral taken at theta = [int]a,1 (1/n) dn



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Moduli:

Thank you for the opportunity to into ask questions.

Have you read the "Keys of Enoch"?

If so, can you please comment on the the elements of string and quantum fields that are covered in the document.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


How does string theory apply in the quantum realm ?
edit on 26-6-2011 by cyberone because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Sounds like a troll to me - with his arrogant manner (and the fact he has other new members to defend his claims - ie:kurifuri - which is likely either a friend or an alt)

As to science, nothing in science is a given, or an absolute. New discoveries are being made all the time, and some of these upend old certainities. As soon as I hear someone say something is a given - you might as well call them a speaker for some cult.


I hold a BSc in Biology, can I call myself a scientist to? This thread should have been deleted as soon as the tone of the OP was one of arrogance towards other members, and the site as a whole.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

Originally posted by mb2591
reply to post by XtraTL
 


Seems like you want to believe whom he says he is.. If you were following this thread all day like a few of us were it would be evident that this person is not a phd and not a string theorist.


In my books, what makes a person an expert is not just all the book-learnin' and class time. You still have to be able to relate that to people. I can see that you're looking for a PhD.-sized answer, but you have to realize that simply acquiring a PhD takes seven years. Couple that with the years of research and experience in all related areas (details omitted because I'm a lowly B.Sc.), and you get to a container (in this case, a person with a PhD) with centuries of knowledge on a topic... or perhaps even just centuries of examples to look at and compare to.

Most of the questions that have been asked here have been in more of the "If you're so smart, riddle me this!" milieu. I, for one, think his answers around string theory, particle physics, and sundry other scientific principles were perfectly acceptable... especially if you consider that as a human in general, he has the great freedom to have an opinion. Even scienceologists have opinions!

So if you're looking for a PhD-sized answer to any of these questions, that becomes time to start the real book-learnin'. The willingness to discuss and to correct any "crazy" "science" is helpful. The important thing is that he's reading here.

(Many of us hold the beliefs we do because we've seen and heard things that do not mesh with the official story, and sometimes all it takes to really push us to start digging is just seeing that someone else had the same thought.)

Moduli: I'm not sure if you said this before, but were you looking for this site when you found it? Or were you looking for information about... something?


Well to be fair he/she didn't say it was a phd but did say they had 10 year of schooling..
May I point your attention to page 20 at the bottom a post by CLPrime I think this will be all you need to understand what I am saying
edit on 26-6-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Moduli
 

Welcome ,and thank you for taking the time to share what you know.

One question I have is how you can be so sure there are not advance technologies that you may not be aware of.

The military seems to have high level secrets, that are kept from some high security levels within the military. It stands to reason that science is used in some of these operations, and not any average joe scientist would know about it.

What makes you so sure that there not advanced technologies you are being kept in the dark about, but other scientists may know of.

this guy asked my question so thanks for sparing me the time. i must just add you know what you know because of studing or first hand knoledge. i have studied and have first hand knowledge of tech thats not for public use so your not right on that. good luck on the physics let me know when i can be beemed up scotty. : )



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Sounds like a troll to me - with his arrogant manner (and the fact he has other new members to defend his claims - ie:kurifuri - which is likely either a friend or an alt)

As to science, nothing in science is a given, or an absolute. New discoveries are being made all the time, and some of these upend old certainities. As soon as I hear someone say something is a given - you might as well call them a speaker for some cult.


I hold a BSc in Biology, can I call myself a scientist to? This thread should have been deleted as soon as the tone of the OP was one of arrogance towards other members, and the site as a whole.



Your tone sounds pretty arrogant too.

But to the question, I don't think you need to have credentials to call yourself a scientist. You need credentials to publish yourself as any sort of respectable scientist... but to call yourself a scientist you just need questions, and a driving need to answer them by logical and systematic approaches.

Oh, and the fact that he has new members that are defending his claims could simply mean that people who have been reading for a long time have been pushed to action (or talktion) by something he said, or by his presence. In television terms, this would translate to higher ratings. Hey, I joined today! I am a currently unemployed Canadian, with a B.Sc. in Computer-type-thingies, and I talk like this all the time. I only joined this site today because he said things that I actually wanted to respond to. (Oh right, and I'm unemployed now, and I didn't have time to read this whole thing. How did people stay on it all day? It's nice outside (no matter your weather.), and some suggest we have very few days left to enjoy it.)



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join