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: 27
83
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Don't be too hard on the OP. Perhaps, his or her job was to plant the seed of the tree of thought, and ours is to water, prune, and ensure that it grows the best it can?

Peace and Love,




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
You claim to be a scientist.
I am a historian.
I really hope the fact that I also have a PhD
doesn't mean I sound as much of a giant ass
as you do.
Dude.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
With the discovery of a new elementary particle, did you have to revise the whole string theory to include the new elementary particle?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Per-Chance...




It is true that in the "Double Slit" Experiment that the reason why, when being observed by recording equipment, the "beam of light" passing-through 2 slits becomes only 1 beam of light instead of 2, as when not being recorded?

Could the reason why be due to the photons hitting the recording equipment are quantum-entangled with the photons hitting the slits, and what going-in must equal-out to what passes through on the other side of the slits, and what's being recorded resulting in only one beam of light?

But when you take-away the recording equipment, you see with your eyes, two beams of light passing through?

Perhaps this is a feature of analog, which cannot be measured digitally. Has anyone tried an actual film camera? What happens when you record in-analog?

So, in-addition to analog circular-loops, you'd have digital-square or 45 degree angles, where the "difference between analog and digital being a scales-of-frequency resonated in Planck-Time. One domain can't be another domain, at the same-time, but is seen as "the same" when viewed in-analog, through the persistence-of-vision, through "Space-Time." It's an inversely-connected closed-system? Space (infinite) - Time (Finite) -or- Time (infinite) + Space (finite.) It might even make one think the universe was an infinite singularity, when you scale-it.

Go light-speed and time becomes infinite and space becomes a finite point, graduated-down or inverse-by-increments? That sounds toroidal, to me. You?

Seems connected, micro and macro, but how can a photon travel as a 45 degree angle through time, as well as a spiral in space? I suppose it would depend on how you look-at-it? I suppose, the closest distance between two-points in each "frame-of-time" would be a straight-line, which is efficient, can appear as an analog spiral, when each frame is viewed in-succession as a series or "path," from a particular perspective? Could this be an explanation of "Gravitational Lensing?" Could this explain everything?

Additional Observations: I have heard of the "digital-effect," which I have not heard of before where "propeller blades in-motion, seem as if they are 'disconnected' and 'oriented' oddly and not with any form like when 'filmed' by an analog camera which makes it seem 'gaussian'?" This is exactly the same observation of an astronaut falling into a singularity, one perspective seems as if the astronaut "freezes" in-time and another vantage seems as if the astronaut "spins-off" increasingly, inverse-versions, as in fractals? I feel as-if the two are related. Very closely.

Interesting, indeed.


Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


i think of light with reference to what the light is in, the gas medium, its refractivity
the gravatational feilds that the light is in,

my speculation follows
in the latest light experiments i have read the way to truly "look for" the two slit problem effects were........
the trick was to look for the effect light had on the medium it was propogated through
i have written a previous thread where i asked the question of medium density (the medium) and lights effects on the medium,
so in light (pun) of the consideration that must be given to the medium i would say that light as a particle induces a physical responce in the medium of the experiment,
and at the point of consriction (the plate with slits) a "resistor" type effect is produced devorcing the "particles" from their group effect on the medium untill free from the "restiction" or slots requiring that the particles once again "propogate" in the medium as individuals instead of as a group and create the "interference pattern we all know about.

the largest point to note is that by restricting the particles we are removing the "combined" effect of the particle in the medium and studying them individually

an example would be to force water through a hole an atom wide an look at the atoms and try and figuar out the dynamics of "water"
bad example i know but.......................

the refractivity of a medium shows lights interaction with the medium
and the anolog vs digital reference could be a way to differentiate between light (digital) and medium (anolog) behavious in the component parts.

IMHO
light particles disturbe the medium they are in, as they travel
xploder



Light particles disturb the medium, traveling in space-time (weight or metric placed on either space or time - inversely-related?) - and / or - Light waves don't disturb the medium traveled, due to it "carrying" the, for lack of a better word, "the digital fractional number" - what's left-over when subtracted - as in statistics, as in PHI, 1.186 -1 = fractional number. What got me going on this line was analog waveforms are curved and digital versions are square (sine), which resembles a block with half being under or over the analog boundary if seen or over-layed together. This boundary always is at 90 degree angle and half of this is 45 degrees. That's where the 45 comes from. But it's actually 90, for the "lost" or "gained" proportion? Does that make sense? Just thinking visually, so don't burn me at the stake for being wrong. Either one view "gains" a fraction of something as digital or one view "loses" a fractional part of something as analog, but is the same when seen as many samples. As with many samples approaches infinity, in statistics, and resembles a bell-curve. When seen as little or one sample it's square-like, when finite? Like those analog video-tape recorders, where the tape-head is oriented 90 degrees from the orientation of the tape?

The correlation with film vs. digital film, and the "digital rolling shutter effect," and "singularities," seemed oddly familiar. Wave vs Particle, but both, but when observed it destroys (on or off.) Just trying to see if this has merit. But what if observed digitally, which a digital camera, like the lines on the television (analog) if filmed by digital cameras, but an LCD monitor doesn't show that effect, due to the Hz being faster than our analog eyes, by "persistence of vision," which says anything 24 frames per second seem to appear in motion, but anything less, appears as frame-by-frame, which we do notice.

The Rolling Digital Shutter Effect: Oddly similar to what happens when an astronaut falls into a singularity, making it seem as two objects with different states:

Digital Rolling Shutter Effect


Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 



Seems connected, micro and macro, but how can a photon travel as a 45 degree angle through time, as well as a spiral in space? I suppose it would depend on how you look-at-it? I suppose, the closest distance between two-points in each "frame-of-time" would be a straight-line, which is efficient, can appear as an analog spiral, when each frame is viewed in-succession as a series or "path," from a particular perspective? Could this be an explanation of "Gravitational Lensing?" Could this explain everything?


quoting the op

i have been studying this exact thing for the last few days

in lensing we have reference frame issiues
we are in a spiral galaxy that is rotating with inertia and gravity
if we look at another galaxy it too is distorting the image we see because of its spiraling medium
encoded into the image on a gravatational llense is a composite of the spiraling motion of the galaxy and the image from the light as it transitions the medium and gravity inside the lens

it is very interesting to compair the large scale and the small scale

star and flag

xploder
edit on 26-6-2011 by XPLodER because: fix brackets


ahhh, so to carry the logic forward...those gravitational lenses could be atomic energy levels gaining, excited and when the medium changes the atoms release the equal incoming energy and output it and return to a non-excited state? Sounds interesting, but the medium is missing something. Could this be a dark matter or dark energy? producing the lensing, but if lensing is occurring, that infers an increase of scale, which seems transparent or not seen by analog, but digitally increases and, lenses? Could this be the equivalent to an dark-energy or matter? I'd to see how those gravitational lenses are physically located, to other observed astronomical formations or bodies.

Somethings are not or might not be in the correct sequence, or be described with the correct or best term. Please follow the general format of inference and help correct this, I'm just putting this down in writing, so I won't forget it.

Please bear with me.

This "perspective(s)" is / are evolving. Keeping expounding on this topic. Correcting when needed. By honest thought, and not biased opinion which might conflict with an obsolete perspective.

Peace and Love,

Learn all you can. But to understand, you'll have to download the rest from "out-there!"

Perhaps, a good example, but bad terms?

Quoted from XploDER: "an example would be to force water through a hole an atom wide an look at the atoms and try and figuar out the dynamics of "water"
bad example i know but......................."

But...

An example would be to force or "open a channel" to "information" by quantum entanglement through a hole an atom-wide and look at the "information" and try to figure-out the dynamics of "consciousness" to understand "cosmic-consciousness," which contains all of the mysterious ways of God?

Human Brains, seem to have or assemble "mental maps" or "networks," with new quantum-networks coming online and connecting, we learn or know "information" which may be inaccessible to thought and able to be roughly assembled and understood as a rough representation as numbers, in fractal format. But when "thought" and "connected" in the soul and mind, as thought, oh, that's another thing entirely, and the more networks which come online by quantum-entanglement, concepts which described or "roughed-out" as numbers, become salient and clear in the quantum-brain. Information of matter is never destroyed, everything we learn in-life is stored in-tandem, in the quantum universe, when we die, so it may seem as, "if we can connect to the quantum network of the universe, we may be writing our names in the book of life, for eternity."

Amazing isn't it. Best of all, it's free. All that is required is a true-intent of the heart and mind to seek-out the apparent and sublime information to truly understand. Everything is inter-related. Even, if it seems "strange" or "incredible." It will be through the "sublime" that we understand the true and mysterious ways of God and how the universe works.

Peace and Love,
edit on 26-6-2011 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


What is your opinion on 'Heat Death'?

Since the speed of light is not constant how can we actually be certain of anything?

What do you think of 'time dilation'?

Also, how can anyone claim something to be a truly random sample, when by definition 'choosing at random' no longer makes something random?

Finally, knowing those things what makes you so sure science has squeezed out any room for 'God'? There is far more we don't know then what we do know.

Thank you,

Koinonia

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

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



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


If you are a big bang believer... please explain where the super-dense matter came from. Also, please explain where the "nothing" to put it in came from. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mb2591

There was a map the public had access to that was taken offline shortly after the japan earthquake. Now try to find any map that shows radiation levels around the world.. A user posted one from Egypt which just happened to go offline within 5-10 minutes of it being posted.


Have you checked out targetmap.com? This seems to show the radiation of any place you would like. For example here's Japan: www.targetmap.com...
edit on 26-6-2011 by geraldcole because: (no reason given)

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

edit on 26-6-2011 by geraldcole because: fixing link



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I always wanted ask a physicist about their views and theories of quantum computing. Since your area of studies include string theory and quantum physics. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this subject.

Peace, Nova



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Hello.

Is it possible that gravity and electro-magnetism are the same force or are interconnected in some way?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by j-man
 


Actually, that is what sting theory (and M theory) do well ... they "include" gravity.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Sorry but you are arrogant, condescending and your choice of words adhere to absolutism which is a trait of the ignorant. Stating string theory is correct is misleading given the fact that no strings have ever been observed first and foremost. Also string theory has gone decades without any predictions and verification of such which means that under the definition of scientific theory, string theory is not a scientific theory. What string theory is like plastercine that can be molded to fit other scientific theories yet it doesn't solve any of the existing problems in physics like joining quantum mechanical theory with relativity conclusively nor predicatively. Also the consistency you mention within string theory doesn't mean anything nor does it mean it's consistent with actual physical phenomena given that it's a model that inherently can be molded to fit any set of parameters. What I mean is I can mold plastercine to look like a horse or a unicorn where one is real and the other is imaginary.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
talklikeaphysicist.com...
is it true?
edit on 26-6-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
an object is moving away from the earth at a constant velocity. This means that there are no net forces acting on the object, and therefor no work is being done. The object is constantly gaining energy in the form of gravitational potential energy. Energy is being gained, without being taken from somewhere else (no work). How does this not defy the law of the conservation of energy.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Ok, I'll pitch:

How about positive and negative energies affecting the 'mood' of water molecules?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kurifuri
 


Beg to differ. He's a supposed physicist yet he does not even know what photons are. This guy is a real good BS artist, problem is I'm better lol. You can't fool a big fool like me buddy, and looks like there's a few others who see your story the same way. Your full of it up to your ears, Moduli.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


String Theory is what I call the big mess theory. I agree with Lee Smolin that it's a hot mess. There's a string theory for every situation.

If we find the graviton, there's a string theory for that.

If we don't find a graviton, there's a string theory for that.

I we live in 10 dimensions, there's a string theory for that.

If we live in 11 dimensions , there's a string theory for that.

If there's 26 dimensions, there's a string theory for that.

How many branes exist? Are there 10/500 false vacua states or is it infinite?

The questions can go on and on about string theory.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


What makes you sure string theory is right when throughout history arrogant know it all individuals have been proven wrong over and over again.

You laugh at some, when time passes by, people will probably laugh at you for believing in strong theory.

So don't mind if I ask, what makes you so sure when so many others with your level of arrogance have been proven wrong?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


completely agree!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


If you'd read what I wrote you'd have noticed that I said I read most of it.

He clearly wasn't shown to be a fraud or you would simply point me to where it happened.

And besides, I never alleged that he was a PhD. I actually might know more about what is going on here than you think I do.

And anyway, isn't it the determination of this board that you have to be arrogant, indoctrinated and highly "educated" to hold the opinions this guy does? You can't have it both ways,
edit on 26-6-2011 by XtraTL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

Welcome to ATS, Moduli. Please provide your "take" on Hyperdimensional Physics (or Torsion Physics). Is this connected to SCALAR science? If so, if not, what is your take on SCALAR technology?




top topics



 
83
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join