Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I am a Scientist.

page: 39
83
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Look, here is the deal, I just went through the first 4 pages and already have found numerous flaws and issues in the OP's statements and posts... He has been wrong more times than acceptable.

I am no scientist and I have proven several of his statements wrong already.


Either, this is a really bad scientist or it is not a scientist at all......


Good day




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
A description of Sheldon Cooper's career from "Big Bang Theory":

Sheldon is a published theoretical physicist and has earned a Master of Science and two doctoral degrees.[18] Sheldon conducts string theory research at Caltech. Throughout the course of the show, Sheldon has switched disciplines from bosonic string theory to heterotic string theory,


en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmmmmm



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
hint, the collection of protons. hence the electron stripper. I am no scientist i am an inventor.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The atom smasher. Quite the thing, but what are they really looking for? Do you even know what the ether is? Everything is related. If you do not understand then that is your impedment. I only give.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Best thread in a while.
See, this is why I love ATS.

If you come on here and say you are a theoretical physicist,
you damn well better be a theoretical physicist.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Hi Moduli

I was following the thread at work, I had flu too btw, but couldnt take it off.

I work in construction though so tougher that clever clever string theorists. I hope.

Any way funny stuff over with my point follows sir.

As a thruther and a man of reasonable judgement but most importantly common sense. I wish they did PHDs in common sense. You dont believe 911 was an inside job, your answer was short and sweet, "no it wasnt".

As a scientist I would like to know what evidence you have based that theory on. As not a scientist but as an engineer with 20 years experience and alot of construction common sense, please tell me you have followed the actual theory's (very much like your scientific theory) based on probability, or just accepted the truth as the real truth is beyond your rational comprehension. ie "they" would never do it.

Sir with the evidence of free fall etc etc and what is common sense , please provide your "string" theory for why the 911 buildings (all 3) fell by plane fuel and why building 7 fell with no plane. And stretching the probability theorem , 3 steel buildings fell by fire on 1 day for the first time in steel frame history, 911 , and their is evidence historically of building hit by planes and didn't fall, not least the empire state building in the 40/50ss.

Etc etc , my theorists please provide your reasoning for disbelieving the truths as told not least by the firemen on the ground, hearing explosion in the basements (norm controlled methods, destroy the foundation to collapse on itself) and the puffs of interim explosions seen on video to remove the path of resistance to the floor.

The buildings should have toppled and I hope you know that.

Bless you

Brian

btw . I am loving your knowledge and thanks for sharing, but want to know what made you believe your truth , it may change MY mind. I have also worked for one of the biggest demolition contractors in London.

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



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Honestly, this thread reeks of someone who has watched Sheldon Cooper on "The Big Bang Theory" a bit too much....


That was my original gut reaction when reading the opening post. And subsequent inconsistencies and inaccuracies pointed out by many well-learned members over the past view pages have resulted in the conclusion that the statement, "I am a scientist," at least in so far as the implied institutional/academic "scientist" is concerned, is false.

As such, this thread is now in the HOAX forum until such time as the thread author would like to verify his credentials with myself or any other ATS Administrator.

Carry on. (for now)
edit on 27-6-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Sweet, I was wondering when it would happen.


They always say to trust your gut instinct.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


pfff...that is tough

but i like!!! Star for u sir!!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
They always say to trust your gut instinct.

If I trusted MY gut, where topics would be concerned, ATS would be a very different place.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I see that Moduli has still not returned from his "sleep period" to answer the last remaining questions about "life, the universe, and string theory". It was a noble effort, but I get the feeling that our "scientist" has recovered from his flu induced nightmare, and is now back in the real world



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


modulii said: No, there is no remotely plausible mechanism by which this could happen.


one of the massive problems with modern physics is its insistence on "mechanism". (re: quantum "mechanics")

it seems obvious that an objective reality must surely be mechanical. but reality is NOT objective. there are no two ways about this. you may be able to construct a logical objectivity, but relational subjectivity is the name of the game....particularly with regard to consciousness studies which is the primary focus of much of the sciency silliness on this board.

so, with that in mind, I have a rather serious question.

it is usually the position of the naysayers that quantum coherence is a property of the sub-atomic scale exclusively. however, it is well known that a positive feedback loop is capable of amplifying perturbations to the limits of a physical system. considering this, is it plausible that the human nervous system could be a closed feedback loop which is capable of maintaining a macro-level coherent state of its constituent atomic-level electron interactions?

you see, just like with your earlier explanation about knowing the correctness of mathematics, I know enough about generalized quantum theory and biology to say that the descriptions of quantum mechanics seems to be a dead ringer for an explanation of consciousness and I get really offended when people that "KNOW" start getting too preachy.


I have some other more "esoteric" ideas rolling around my head that I would be happy to waste your time with.


....best



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Lysergic
They always say to trust your gut instinct.

If I trusted MY gut, where topics would be concerned, ATS would be a very different place.


Haha, I know exactly what you mean



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
What is dark matter

Dark mass

If you find it and you will , how will it change science. I find it incredulous that 90% of your science you know nothing about and still can claim to have theories. Trust me on this that 90% of matter will mess your theories up big time. But as you said, you not lieing (ie newton) you just getting closer to the truth. Good luck finding something you will never explain in your life time.

The god particle (higgs) could be anything, why couldnt it be a soul.... passing from one string to the next, just because you dont believe (to be honest i dont) doesnt make it a potential reality.

When science can explain the "lost" 90 percent of mass , dark/soul/god particles I listen

Answer my 911 first mister super brain

Brian

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



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Honestly, this thread reeks of someone who has watched Sheldon Cooper on "The Big Bang Theory" a bit too much....


That was my original gut reaction when reading the opening post. And subsequent inconsistencies and inaccuracies pointed out by many well-learned members over the past view pages have resulted in the conclusion that the statement, "I am a scientist," at least in so far as the implied institutional/academic "scientist" is concerned, is false.

As such, this thread is now in the HOAX forum until such time as the thread author would like to verify his credentials with myself or any other ATS Administrator.

Carry on. (for now)
edit on 27-6-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)


It took 39 pages to get to this understanding?????

Thankful for small mercies - we did actually get there, and here we are in the correct forum now.

Note that the OP got a HUGE number of flags. That's the problem here, the flagging system.
Maybe that's why we're on pabge 39.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I'm sure i'm not the only one curious about the question i'm going to ask...

Does anyone here disputing the mad scientist have an Undergraduate Physics Degree or better that can systematically and definitively squash what he's claimed thus far?

edit on 27-6-2011 by MaelMan82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Liar. No true theory is impossible to prove.

Um based on all current knowledge it is impossible to prove scientifically. So the OP making such a big claim, better have extraordinary proof. And the only proof he needs is a logical explanation for how they can prove it correct.

edit on 26-6-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



You're trying to base your argument on something trivial in order to disprove all the actual science the OP is sharing with people asking questions.

Take for example the theory of evolution. MOST people just accept it as fact, because there is so much conclusive evidence that suggest it's fact.

The OP has done the same thing with String Theory. There is a plethora of evidence that strongly supports String Theory, the OP has just already accepted it's fact - something that I can't blame him for, afterall, this is what he does for a living. Most people aren't educated enough, and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, but generally, the general public doesn't have as much exposure to the topic of string theory yet for it to be generally accepted like evolution is.

This post is not meant to sway anyone one way or another, but to provide some perspective for those of you who are getting caught up on the semantics of what the OP says instead of the actual meat of what he says.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MaelMan82
 


he has made alot of claims, 911 i dispute his presumption it wasnt inside job. I would love his science to convince me otherwise.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Gooseygander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Look, here is the deal, I just went through the first 4 pages and already have found numerous flaws and issues in the OP's statements and posts... He has been wrong more times than acceptable.

I am no scientist and I have proven several of his statements wrong already.



Then what makes you feel you can conclusively say the OP is wrong about everything? Atleast the OP is, supposedly, an expert in his field.

The arrogance that is assumed in some posts is mind numbing.

Pack it up everyone, gimme said the OP is wrong. Without any supporting evidence and admitting that he's not a scientist, let's just accept this simple statement and move on.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gooseygander
reply to post by MaelMan82
 


he has made alot of claims, 911 i dispute his presumption it wasnt inside job. I would love his science to convince me otherwise.


I know he has made a lot of claims - i've read the entire thread. I also disagree with his assertion towards 9/11 in agreement with you. So far, you and I don't have an undergrad physics degrees i'm guessing.

I don't need him to use his science to convince me otherwise - i'm confident in my belief about 9/11.
edit on 27-6-2011 by MaelMan82 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
83
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join