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: 31
83
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Welcome to the board miss ford.

Not to disappoint, for those like me who hadn't the foggiest idea of this 'string theory'





posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 





Originally posted by cry93
This may not fit into the type of questions you desire to answer but I have three.

Do you believe that astral travelling and out of body experiences are scientifically possible?



No, definitely not.




You are definitely, absolutely, undoubtedly wrong about this one sir. These things are possible and they are happening to people around the world ever single night. Simply because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Just because you have formed an opinion about something doesn't qualify you to state that opinion as fact, without complete detail, although any complete detail you give about the OBE/astral question would be wrong. In this case I know you are 100% wrong, because I experience OBE and Astral travel, but I do not believe some of the things others claim to be going on during these experiences.

Being so directly wrong and basing your answer off of nothing but your opinion leads me to question any and everything you are saying in this thread.

Do you base your scientific answers off opinion as well?!

After the answer you gave to the member's question about OBE and astral travel, I find it hard to take anything you say with any credibility.

You won't give details to the biggest question, answers you proclaim to know, but can't share because we aren't smart enough - once again an opinion.

You won't give any information for us to be able to verify the background you claim to have.

It is just as easy for a 10 year old kid to type up the OP, claim to be someone they are not, read questions from other individuals, search the answers out on the net, re-hash those answers here, and do it with a misplaced ego and superiority complex.

Please explain how you know these things are not possible, all the details, since the details are what make a theory correct, right?

I don't mean to be harsh here, but I have to call you out of class on this stuff.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Seeing that the OP hasn't made a reply to anyone since page 13 of this thread....
makes me think he left the sinking ship...
or maybe he had a bet with he MSM guy to see who could get the most stars and flags for two sortlike introduction threads.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
i have just read this entertaining string and now propose some objectively verifiable findings:

* the poster thinks he's six fee tall
* he smokes neither weed nor tobacco
* he has some familiarity with concepts relating to theoretical physics
* he has never had an esoteric experience

i further propose some subjectively established likelihoods:
* he is a physically unprepossessing super-geek who is at the beginning of an in all likelihood invisible and pointless career in big science
* he is emotionally illiterate and of youthful age
* he arises from a middle class or privileged background

it surprises me that ats folk have rallied to his thread in such numbers. he has said little about unification theory. his vain attempts to mathematicise reality/existence/the universe etc have yielded essentially nothing. this is so for theoretical physics as much as it is for this inflated young person.

in case we all have forgotten, our earth is facing mounting challenges with regards its capacity to allow us to go on living on her. this all due to the excessive application of newton/einstein in the service of pillaging our said earth for material gain and domination over each other. the fact that there are theoretical physics out there now, at this point in our history, projecting the outputs of their masturbatory mathematicising as 'fact' and that many of us sit back in awe of this, indicates nothing other than how lost we are presently as a sentient species.

do this boy a favour by not colluding in his masturbation, too much of that makes us go blind! more sooner than later, mother earth will force us to open our eyes and see, as only by seeing in a unified (material/ethereal) way do we stand a chance to maintain the ground we live on today for the sustenance of our children. the divine is everywhere ... all we must do is open our eyes and see! by keeping our eyes firmly shut and projecting false and exotic images on to our clamped shut eyelids (a la the theoretical physicists of this world) we achieve nothing other than a horrifying stasis in the face of our own annihilation.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Thank you CLPrime, SaturnFx and Laokin for exposing this guy. My BS meter went off very early but I still read all 30 pages of this thread and I just wanted to thank y'all for your good deeds. Guys like these are popping up way too often these days!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:01 AM
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!

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!)


hello from the south east UK.

I don't care who you are and don't have any questions for you. But you do sound like a self-obsessed, egomaniac.

Have fun.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GypsK
Seeing that the OP hasn't made a reply to anyone since page 13 of this thread....
makes me think he left the sinking ship...
or maybe he had a bet with he MSM guy to see who could get the most stars and flags for two sortlike introduction threads.
Or maybe he's sleeping or working in the lab? I don't know if he is the genuine article. At the moment I would have to take someone's word for it to believe either way.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman

Originally posted by GypsK
Seeing that the OP hasn't made a reply to anyone since page 13 of this thread....
makes me think he left the sinking ship...
or maybe he had a bet with he MSM guy to see who could get the most stars and flags for two sortlike introduction threads.
Or maybe he's sleeping or working in the lab?


Didnt he say he had the flu? dont think he's working with the flu...
didnt he say he was bored as well? maybe the boredom ware off... or maybe he's having a big chuckle over this entire thread
but who knows heh?
edit on 27/6/2011 by GypsK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Contradictions in Modern Physics

The modern theory of matter rests upon such supporting theories as the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, Quantum Mechanics, and the Special Theory of Relativity. After decades of work by thousands of physicists, the theory has "grown" until it can explain a very large body of physical phenomena. This has made the theory very successful; but the theory is not adequate or true because:

1. It is only a mathematical model consisting of equations and does not usually specify physical structure for elementary particles.
2. It frequently contradicts itself.
3. It provides no mechanism for such fundamental processes as the exchange of energy.
4. It has to rely upon numerous assumptions

Consider how Quantum Theory deals with the electron, a chief constituent of all matter:

1. Mathematical, not physical.
"Modern physicists today do not possess a single metaphor that unites in one image the principle features of quantum theory." Depending upon the situation, the quantum model of an electron is a particle or a wave, or a set of waves that form a wave packet, described by certain equations of energy, angular momentum, and wavelength.

There is only a tenuous link (given by Born) to a structure or physical interpretation of these equations. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology states that "a good theory of electron structure still is lacking....There is still no generally accepted explanation for why electrons do not explode under the tremendous Coulomb repulsion forces in an object of small size. Estimates of the amount of energy required to `assemble' an electron are very large indeed. Electron structure is an unsolved mystery...."

Modern science has no idea what holds an electron together and simply assumes it hangs together on its own. On the other hand, CSS has developed a proper model of elementary particles and published (in a refereed journal of physics) an explanation for a balance of forces on the electron. As a result of new classical models and research published since 1990, statements that classical physics cannot account for physical phenomena are no longer accurate. Today, physical models of CSS account for most fundamental phenomena without the numerous assumptions and self-contradictions of Quantum Mechanics or the Special Theory of Relativity.

2. Internal contradictions of the modern theory.
It is common to consider the electron as a point-like particle and omit or subtract unwanted mathematical terms associated with infinite energy. The aim is "not so much to get a model of the electron as to get a simple scheme of equations which can be used to calculate all the results that can be obtained from experiment." The point electron is still a dominant feature of the modern model of the electron. Not long ago, Nobel Prize winner Hans Dehmelt wrote about the "structureless point particle predicted by the Dirac theory."

But the electron, proton, and neutron all have measured amounts of spin (angular momentum) and magnetic moment. These features can only exist because the particles have a finite, non-zero size. So, a self-contradiction of the common theory is evident: On one hand, the particles are said to be point-like; on the other hand, they are known to have a finite size (needed to have a spin, magnetic moment and the distribution of charge referenced in the next paragraph). This inconsistency in modern science is incompatible with a Judeo-Christian world view of consistency where expediency is rejected and contradictions are never allowed.

Even when a point particle model is used for physics calculations, the particle is also said to have a wavelength that must be used in other calculations. And the point particle assumption for elementary particles has been proven false by Hofstadter (Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1961) who showed that neutrons, protons, and other elementary particles have a measurable finite size, an internal charge distribution (indicative of internal structure), and elastically deform in interactions.

The point electron used for convenience has additional problems called a "mystery" by Sellin. Concentration of the electron charge in a point would require an infinite amount of energy and an infinite force to balance the outward directed Coulomb Force. If the rest mass energy is infinite, then the equivalent mass (M) equal to energy (E) divided by the light velocity (c) squared must (by modern theory) also be infinite. But the rest mass of an electron has been measured, and it is not infinite. Evidently, the point particle assumption is contradicted by the known rest mass of an electron.

The significance of a correct model has become apparent: It is impossible to derive the stability, spin or magnetic moment of an electron from an infinitesimal point, so modern science assumes the electron has the right value for the spin and moment. In contrast, common sense science based on causal theory can derive electron characteristics from a physical model that has real size and shape. Proven equations of Coulomb, Ampere, and Faraday are used to relate electrical and physical features of the physical model.

Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions. Orbiting electrons in the atomic shells or nucleus must radiate energy into space according to well proven laws of electricity and magnetism and demonstrated daily by broadcasting radio stations. Atoms with orbiting electrons should suffer radiation death, but they are obviously stable! Originally, this inconsistency was simply postulated away by Bohr, though he well understood the contradiction. Bohr took the view that "A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a truth," and to remove all doubt, he argued that the two statements "There is a God" and "There is no God" are equally insightful propositions.

One day, "A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. `Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' `No,' answered Bohr, `I certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,' he added, `they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.' "

Since atomism allows non-causal events and actions, the contradictions in atomistic theory are explained in terms of assumptions or a disconnection of cause and effect. In contrast, consistency is inherent in the law of cause and effect.

3. No mechanism for fundamental process.
The foundation of a rational theory is cause and effect. In a rational theory, everything happens for a reason and not just by chance. Finite-sized physical objects are essential for a rational, causal theory. An example will make this clear. When a spring is compressed by holding one end fixed and applying a force to the other end of the spring, the spring becomes smaller and potential energy is added to the spring. The spring with its resistance to the external force of compression provides a mechanism for storing energy. There is a cause and effect relationship: the spring is compressed because of the external force. The spring has releasable energy because it has been compressed.

Now, instead of a spring, let us consider how a point object of zero size might store energy. But, a point cannot store energy! Clearly, there is no compression possible for a point and no energy can be stored in the point object. Although we have imagined the point object to exist, it is incapable of the property of deformation needed to store energy. So, we may assume a point object, but we cannot derive its properties from the laws of physics. The point object has no mechanism capable of storing energy in any form. It cannot react to other forces or objects; and the point object is not a proper, rational model to explain the phenomena observed for objects of the physical world. Therefore, in quantum theory the fundamental properties of elementary particles are assumed (because they cannot be related to force laws, other objects, or self-related properties of the same object). Quantum theory usually solves this problem by assuming that other short-lived "particles" exist to "carry" the forces---or by assuming new forces (the Strong and Weak Forces) that exist only in the atomic nucleus or in certain particles such as the neutron (when it disintegrates outside the atom). New force laws, new "particles" and new terms in equations will continue to be added in efforts to conform the modern theories of particle physics to results from new experiments. At some point, the theory will be abandoned when it becomes as cumbersome as the Ptolemy Theory of epicycles to explain planetary motions.

Since quantum mechanics has no physical mechanism for cause and effect relationships for atoms and elementary particles, some rational scientists try to add "a `disturbance model' of measurement [to] account for quantum randomness, the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, and other quantum mysteries as well. In this `disturbance picture,' an atom's actual position and momentum are always definite but usually unknown; its measured position and momentum cannot be accurately predicted because the measuring device necessarily changes what it measures." The "disturbance model" is not really a part of quantum theory and cannot be used to combine classical and modern physics. "Both Heisenberg and Bohr warned against interpreting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in terms of a measurement disturbance." " In brief, the Copenhagen Interpretation [named for Bohr, of Copenhagen] holds that in a certain sense the unmeasured atom is not real: its attributes are created or realized in the act of measurement." "Quantum theory is peculiar in that it describes a measured atom in a very different manner than an unmeasured atom."

4. Assumed properties of elementary particles.
Since the quantum electron has no physical structure, and no mechanism exists for exchanging energy or transmitting forces, then it is necessary to assume fundamental properties for the electron and proton: The quantum theory assumes that electrons and protons have intrinsic properties of spin, magnetic moment, stability, and inertial mass. The theory makes no attempt to derive them or relate them, but chooses such models that cannot relate its features: a point model is chosen for some occasions, and a wave model is chosen on others. The theory is unable to say if the essence of an electron is a particle or a wave; the theory can only say that an elementary particle is consistently inconsistent!

Above is stated on this link

So moduli , pls clarify the above QM Contradictions.Is it correct?
edit on 27-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
String 'theory' !


XL5

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
You know, its sad that so many get offended by this. So what, he believes/knows 9/11 was what the media says it was. So what if he thinks there is no technological conspiracy (I know there is). So what if he has a laugh at peoples ideas and beliefs. So what if he has claimed to be smarter then you, big deal. You don't HAVE TO get mad or fill 25-30 pages of questions he nor anyone else probably KNOWS. You don't need to be offended that some one may be smarter then you or has more anything than you especially if they are offering you some of what they have!

You don't ask your hair dresser or your automechanic questions about string theory even though they are smarter then you in a given field. I personally wonder why people who are scared of getting ripped off at the auto shop don't ask the mechanic WHY such and such part needs to be replaced or why its bad and if he can prove it to you (if he can't prove it to you, how can he prove it to him self?).

I have a great understanding when it comes to electronics/mechanics and some physics. It pains me when people believe certain things I clearly know are wrong and or can not happen and the claim they know when they don't. I'm not talking about antigrav stuff or advanced energy tapping devices, I mean the people who played a video game that stated that rail guns have no recoil. They will trust a video game before a physicist.

I know where the ego comes from though when your smart in something others don't understand. You tell people who you are or show them what you can do and they call you a genius and act like they are five years old and have just had the vinegar and baking soda demo. In my case, I put a motor on my bike or make a simple motor scooter and people ask me if I can build one for them, it pains me when they do this. They don't even offer enough money to equal the sum of the parts and get a bit mad when I refuse. Yet, when I tell them its easy, that they can make one for almost free and that all they need is a good look at home built stuff, do a bit of reading and a few tools, they claim they are not smart enough. You try to explain how you put the motor on your bike with bolts and a piece of bed frame, but they get this glassy eye'd stare and you know you are just wasting your time as they some how don't get it. You know they would like to be able to do what you do, know what you know, but they use "your a genius" as an "I'm stupid" shield, problem is, what are they shielding against. So your left with alot of people inflating your ego instead of rising to your level and it IS lonely at the top that some times you have to laugh.

The author asked us to ask questions that were reasonable, a chance to find stuff out. Yet very little of this 30 page monster is really constructive in any way. Its like when your girl asks you if you think that new dress makes her look fat or if you think the TV is too loud. You could have a thread "I am a structural engineer" in the science and tech forum, it could be done very respectfully, humbly and the person could have proof of their smarts and of what they say. They wouldn't even have to say anything about 9/11 or collapse and instantly, there would be 50 pages calling him a shill all before his/her second post.


I am an engineer (not the wooo wooo chugga chugga type)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Haha, I didn't realize how long this thread was when I posted my first response.

I went and read through a few more pages and I am satisfied completely that the ATS members can intimidate and squash anyone who comes around trying to peddle their lies.

The ATS members seemingly always overwhelm there type of people and run them out of their own thread before they can have ny real fun. A lesser group of members on a different website may have let him perpetuate hisstory for many hours, if not days on end.

I also feel good about seeing his logic for what it is. He seems to have based everything he stated off of the opinions he has made about different subjects, instead of having solid facts to lay down for us. I would almost be willing to bet money at this point that he would quickly look up answers to member questions, skim over the internet's answers, add his own opinion and then try to label it as bonafide fact.

Anyway, nice job once again ATS, the site owners and administrators should be very proud of the environment they have created, allowing ATS to have the best core group of members out of any alternative topic websites... any website at all for that matter.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I personally do not hate OP , I hate the idea of string theory which is from Guess work books !
edit on 27-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
You're a scientist i beg to differ

I m a scientist (RUG groningen) but i dont find the forums hilarious. I respect peoples opinions. HoweverI must admit that some 'theories' are hard to swallow. Unlike you I dont think I know it all , knowing it all isnt part of science its part of an overdeveloped ego , but welcome anyway.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

I'm not here to tell you 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).


Wow, such certainty! I imagine you must be privy to every other secret then in order to know that these aren't in there?!

In which case you will know about all of the secrets TPTB (them) are keeping from us that are indeed for real. Or are we to believe that 'they' genuinely have no secrets...?

See what i've done there - either you have to admit that you're above statements aren't true, or reveal a few secrets to prove they are


Sorry to seem obnoxious, but presenting absolutes in this context is a little thin.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
...Currently at page 15.

I'll have to continue reading after work. I just wanted to say, THIS IS WHY I LOVE ATS!

The topics being discussed are out of my comfort zone, but with anything I don't understand I try to research what I can to gain some basic understanding.

This thread is truly entertaining and educational.

It's a bit like watching Star Trek



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dsm1664
 


True say , "Star" for you my friend.This way people will learn from falsehood to infinite truth

edit on 27-6-2011 by solid007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


enjoyed your OP. I feel you are correct in what you've stated in regards to how people often act on this website. Welcome aboard!

BTW...I know nothing of relative theory, nor most theories for that matter, so no questions for you.

However be prepared to be called stupid, ignorant, naive, etc...and that's just the beginning. You'll be accused of being a plant or spreading propaganda in no time.

Eventually someone will tell you to deny ignorance, yet 90 percent of the time it will be from someone who is ignorant..lol.

edit on 27-6-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Come on Ppl...

look at the way he post..how he uses quotes (links....) , replies with multiple quotes..

he is not a new member here..a new account..but aint no new member

you dont post like a pro in your first posts..

at least its an inclination towards being a fraud..

and the board moved ot to science and technology...yeahh..deny ignorance right



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Above Top Secret is somewhat like a hybrid consisting of two types of people which are; those who are extremely paranoid, and those who are free thinking individuals. Sure, the extremely paranoid people sometimes post pretty off the wall topics, but it gets free thinkers like myself to consider all possibilities. Now you said that you are supposedly some type of scientist right? Are scientists not free thinking people? Albert Einstein(a true scientist) was. I'm sure he entertained any and all possibilities. I don't think you are a disinformation agent nor do I think you are an actual scientist because you can't even put a correct sentence together grammatically. It's probably because you are sick and bore though right?
Anyway, what I do think you are is a scared little guy seeing the world change around him which is probably the reason,like most of us, you ended up checking out this site. Let me leave a great quote to the all holy, unwavering, condescending, smug string theory scientist before I leave. "Those who think they know everything annoy those of us who know enough."



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join