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: 28
83
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
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,


and that seed of thought would be.."your mostly a bunch of fools,and I have the handle on what is known fact" ?

The op was very hard on the general members here....and made some very blatant statements, that are not backed up scientifically at all.

Why are you sticking up for him?


I'm starting to think he was a prankster just playing with us..which does not qualify as food for thought , in my opinion.




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Advaita Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism seem to tie well into String theory; have you studied either one or have a statement on Religion/Philosophy?

Thanks!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 





Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious


thank you...i take this board very seriously



I also know of several colleagues of mine who occasionally do the same, and we trade ridiculous stories of things we've read


very nice of you indeed



So why am I here? You've provided me with so much entertainment, I thought I'd return the favor.


you can learn something from here too...school doesnt make you a know it all...you miss lot of things with school..life maybe?

just replied shortly so that i will be reading this thread further at work..while i'm being paid...so i'll be back..trust me on this one



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
GUYS GUYS.....stop it..!! Why is this thread in the front page??? so we just basically made this guy's introduction thread into some kind of a celebrity stuff lol....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Noobastronomer
 


yep..no kidding,and now hes laughing about it at work with the guys...

what can I say...but

see ya ...wouldn't wanna be ya.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I'm not, but if he didn't create that thread and the potential for me to read it, I would have never thought of the theory which arose from it, therefore, the purpose of being a pompous ass was fulfilled. And allowed me to understand things better by writing about a theory I held and think to be "real."

Read about it here:

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,

You can see the thread, here: LINK.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Can't say he's a BS artist, but I would say he doesn't really understand science though he may understand mathematics. Mathematical models don't preclude imaginary elements unsupported in actual physical phenomena. Conclusively saying something is correct given there are still areas unanswered and glaring problems with the model resides, you guessed it, with belief not science. Why mainstream keeps funding string theory still amazes me given all the other alternatives out there that are just as ridiculous. Like one guy said, observe some data and formulate a theory to fit it, mainstream will eventually consume it into another string theory version. Label a theory rick's theory of whatever, you will be ridiculed, but label it string-theory-Z and it's more acceptable. It's hilarious come to think of it.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


Even so....photons are what light consist of, which is physics at its most basic (first unit in academic physics course I took in HS), yet this master physicist and string theorist here that studied for 10 years, supposedly, stated that photons don't exist. How does that add up. I was in the military (some of you would call me the dumbest type of person around) and I can STILL see right through this guy. Trust me, he's nothing but a wannabe or a troll. One area where I can agree with you though is that this is pretty funny isnt it? lol
edit on 27/6/2011 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
The op was very hard on the general members here....and made some very blatant statements, that are not backed up scientifically at all.


Here's what I don't get. Was he really being that hard on you? He started off by saying what I'm sure most of you know, and on some level all of you probably agree with. Most of what is discussed here could make even the most educated schlub sound like a raving loony. (Tough this should have a disclaimer saying "to the casual outside observer.")

Where I come from, that's just the introduction part of the conversation. If you're here, and you're posting regularly... or if you live in the world at all, and espouse the beliefs that you do, then you need to be ready to face some debate. If someone comes in with a differing opinion, you've got to have better ammunition than the "If you're so smart..." (And technically, I'm pretty sure he never said he was smart... just educated. (No offense, Moduli... just PCing myself.) In that way, instead of chasing away a person with an opposing view, you can incorporate what they know, or they can incorporate what you know. (That's the point, right?)

It seems like a lot of people went directly to Karl-Rovian smear tactics instead of actually debating. What up, folk?

I also remember from college (and from real-life, really) the people in classes who would ask deliberately vague, answerless, confused questions just so they could show how much more they knew than the instructors. Those folks wasted a huge amount of time on behalf of everyone else.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 




The same way I am sure there is no super-advanced arithmetic that the government is keeping from us! Simply, I know enough arithmetic to know what that would mean that that it is not a sensible claim to make.
Pffftt...I could not help but laugh at that unintelligible response. The logic is completely flawed.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by Laokin
 


I am very aware of the theory of relativity and what it entails, however, that equation is bogus. Quite a few of the defined variables don't even exist within the equation. How then, can you say that it's the real deal? If I'm wrong and the variables pertain to some more abstract relationship than please enlighten me.


e=mc2 is mass-energy equivalence. Only one small part of the theory of relativity. It's made up of several equations.... This one is the most famous. Most impressive math...

Look up "Mass-Energy Equivalence." This might answer your question better than I can.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 

I understand your point and don't disagree. All I can say is I understand science and I also understand belief. String theorists are mainly mathematical and do little to no experimental work. Most can't tell the different between what's real and what's not. This is why string theory is a mess, along with the fact that string theorists also compete with each other on which personal string theory is best. Also,most military types I've known usually had a good BS detector.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

Originally posted by gabby2011
The op was very hard on the general members here....and made some very blatant statements, that are not backed up scientifically at all.


Here's what I don't get. Was he really being that hard on you? He started off by saying what I'm sure most of you know, and on some level all of you probably agree with. Most of what is discussed here could make even the most educated schlub sound like a raving loony. (Tough this should have a disclaimer saying "to the casual outside observer.")

Where I come from, that's just the introduction part of the conversation. If you're here, and you're posting regularly... or if you live in the world at all, and espouse the beliefs that you do, then you need to be ready to face some debate. If someone comes in with a differing opinion, you've got to have better ammunition than the "If you're so smart..." (And technically, I'm pretty sure he never said he was smart... just educated. (No offense, Moduli... just PCing myself.) In that way, instead of chasing away a person with an opposing view, you can incorporate what they know, or they can incorporate what you know. (That's the point, right?)

It seems like a lot of people went directly to Karl-Rovian smear tactics instead of actually debating. What up, folk?

I also remember from college (and from real-life, really) the people in classes who would ask deliberately vague, answerless, confused questions just so they could show how much more they knew than the instructors. Those folks wasted a huge amount of time on behalf of everyone else.


I left the conversation when he ignored the results of my formal challenge. This thread was always bound to get nasty... everybody should have expected it. This thread was no better than any "I'm Illuminati: Questionaire" threads that pop up in the past.

Even his replies were consistent with those guys. Always from a perch, talking down -- in absolutes, with no citation or supporting evidence to the outlandish claims they make. Then evolving into troll wars, then the aggro T&C's with people flying off the topic....

This thread shares ALL of those similarities.

We shoulda seen it coming...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
In his original post he said we at ATS have provided him with entertainment and he's decided to return the favour.

I think this guy's a 'troll' to a certain extent. He's not stupid by any means, but the way he's answering questions, a lot of which he's not going into explanation and just giving a general "Yes, because I know it is" or "No, obviously you're babbling". He definitely has a lot of arrogance, and the way he writes is in a 'language' that he knows, or assumes, most on this board won't understand anyways, so who can argue with a guy who uses big words meant to confuse and draw attention away from what he's actually saying? If he actually wanted to educate, or right the wrongs he and his friends spend so much time laughing about, he would put it in plain english so every person could have a chance at understanding, instead of using the condescending tone he does.

It's not very different from that introduction thread the other day that made the front page

My Name Is Hussein, and I have a message for you

where the guy starts a thread, gets people going enough to make it to the front page, and then ditches. Not saying this guy won't come back, in fact I hope he does, but just something I noticed.

Also, someone mentioned that perhaps this was some kind of social experiment. I've been following the thread for the better part of the evening and I think he might be onto something.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Cinquain because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2011 by Cinquain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CrikeyMagnet
 


I don't agree with chasing away someone with an opposing view. This should be a stead fast principal on this board (probably is - don't know since I'm new too), but I do believe that after many years of education convincing him outside of his limited perspective on physics, especially since he is career physicist in string theory, like others on this board, that intelligent aggressive responses tend to be the only way to "enlighten" his kind. Some scientists should learn a thing of two about psychology. Most banter back in forth in arrogancy on who is the smartest and threatened by anyone else who may be smarter completely unaware of their actions. He came in with a predetermined mindset that mocking others on this board was part of his daily fun with colleagues. Sorry but that is nothing but childish and a sign of great immaturity and worthy of lesson.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Moduli, gotta love the fact that you put to rest some of the government advanced technology speculation by simply saying that they are not hiding super advanced mathamatics from you.. theres power in that. as well as humor.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by CantSay
 


Even so....photons are what light consist of, which is physics at its most basic (first unit in academic physics course I took in HS), yet this master physicist and string theorist here that studied for 10 years, supposedly, stated that photons don't exist. How does that add up. I was in the military (some of you would call me the dumbest type of person around) and I can STILL see right through this guy. Trust me, he's nothing but a wannabe or a troll. One area where I can agree with you though is that this is pretty funny isnt it? lol
edit on 27/6/2011 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)

how can you know that photons exist? Being that it is what we use to observe things, it can't be observed directly.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Moduli
We call upon you, to give us a sign that you are still with the living ?


If so, you might want to petition the mods, to close your thread, just until you have some time to catch up ?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 


Photons have been measured in several ways and are quantifiable. They exist. What they are is a different question.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
If quantum entanglement exists, do you think we will be able to use it in the future to communicate across galaxies instantaneously ?

Also, does motion actually exist, or is it just in our heads ?




top topics



 
83
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join