I am a Scientist.

reply to post by Moduli


I hate to say I'm not able to take your word for it, but unless you provide some information, most will not believe you. I could start a thread saying that I am a DNA expert, but that doesn't make me one. Just in case you didn't know, there are many intelligent and rational people here who simply enjoy exploring the unknown. Since you brought up the thread about the MSN "insider"....it causes me to question your claims. At first, I thought that was legitimate, but now I'm having doubts. Suddenly all these "insiders" are showing up here, and yes, I'm suspicious. Where did you get your education? What have you studied specifically? I don't think stating that will lead to finding out personal information about you...... I really hope you are being truthful, but you really can't expect people to take your word for it, since anyone can make claims on the Internet.

Follow up question! How can we rely on the hypothetical existence of other universes to complete hypothesis that didn't make sense before? If the math doesn't work without 'x' then we have proved 'x' exist haven't we?

Hey there welcome to a great adventure.

I think its kind of you to offer some insight into the fundemental reasons why things happen.

Help me to understand this thing in some abstract or even simpler way :
That some proven (wilderness/nature) trackers (ie. American Indians) totally lose those skills and abilities when their long hair is removed!?!
I think this was proven by experiments the army conducted following unusual patterns during Viet Nam recruitment.

Thanks eh.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You're paid to think, Mr. Scientist! National security is our job.

www.southparkstudios.com...

reply to post by Moduli


3 quick adresses before I start here....

Firstly... this is a board for Conspiracy Theories.... so yes, there are some cooks here, that is to be expected. However, assuming that the entire populace of the board is indentically "looney-toons" would be a very false assumption as one member does not represent another member with any kind of measurable consistency. Surely you would know this considering your stature.

Secondly... It would be wrong to assume something is not true just because you have no experience with it. I.E. You may not be involved and as such, you would obtain zero knowledge of the people who are involved, so to say absolutely that certain activities aren't taking place (when we know that they are and have admissions from people who are KNOWN to be in powerful positions) is just a falsity. This should also come really easy to some one like you, who is bound to this process in a scientific matrimony.

Thirdly... It is in incredibly poor taste to introduce yourself by insulting the members of the society you are attempting to join. This, is common sense.

Now I may continue with the meat of my address to you....

I'm not a "debunker" of string theory, in fact... it seems very plausable to me. However, you state it is absolute... this I have a huge problem with.

String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory.

This is just outright false. Is it called String Fact? Right, because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim. Numbers just don't cut it on their own. Remember Newtons Law? He had all the math to support his theory, however -- it was proven to be incorrect. Complex math, is complex. Meaning, the smallest of errors will take you to enormously wrong conclusions. When you have super complex mathmatics, it becomes exponentially harder to pin point minor errors. There is no scientist in the world that would claim something was absolute fact based on mathmatics alone... You would have a very strong evidential case to potentially demonstrate how your theory is possible... however, bad equations are bad equations -- errors in logic can also fundamentally change your mathmatics.

To cite some proof, watch the documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie." You will see, how numerous times mathmatics weren't enough, so they actually had to demonstrate nuclear explosives to see if their theories match the yield, distance, and the effects of the explosion. All things that could be potentially proved mathmatically, but the tests defied expectations and in most cases were much BIGGER than anticipated. A simple error in numbers eh?

We will move on.

There are no other theories that does what string theory can do.

This very well may be true, however... at the time of Newton's Law, there were no theories that could do what that did either... not until Einstein, and his equations were able to do what others couldn't.... and now we have numerous equations post einstein that do things einsteins equations could not do.

Do you see the pattern yet? Not a single one of these Scientists ever thought they knew the answer... they just knew their equations were "more correct" than the others... Assuming they are perfection only serves to prove to me that you are not a man of your word. You are NOT a scientist in profession. If you are a man of science, I'm willing to bet you are a consumer enthusiest.

You only further prove this point as you continue to respond in this thread.

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.

You don't know arithmetic, you apply it. I can write new equations right now and you would have no way of knowing it existed unless you read it. Period. You didn't invent string theory, nor did you find it on your own. The man who invented string theory, wrote equations no body else on the planet thought of until he did so. That is how new theories are created. No matter how much you know, you can never be certain that new pieces of math that haven't been concieved yet will pop up.... Meaning you have insufficient knowledge to make the claim that there are no hidden advanced technologies, because you know enough math.

This is absurdly stupid. Elementary level stupid. You CANNOT be a man of science and make statements like this.

There's really very little going on here. It's no different than water waves moving through two slits and making an interference pattern on a wall (you can do this in the bathtub!). The only difference is that the waves are probability waves instead of physical water waves. That's okay, though, there's nothing strange about that.

It's a little funny that when you "measure" it you don't see the interference, but it turns out that nothing funny is actually going on. What really has happened is something like "now the waves have gotten really narrow" and, for example, a really narrow water wave has no trouble passing through a single wide slit!

The only place something interesting happens is in the "measurement." It turns out--unlike what you read on these forums (and many other places!)--that this is just a convenient abstraction and doesn't mean anything special. It's just an arbitrary distinction between "before" and "after" that turns out is useful to make mathematically.

What is really going on is that interactions between particles "in the system" (arbitrary distinction) effect "the environment" (arbitrary distinction) in a way that causes the wave to become skinny ("localized").

So the wave-like-ness is just the fact that probability distributions can be broad (pass through both slits at once) and the particle-like-ness is the fact that the probability distribution can be narrow (fits through just one slit).

Nothing special at all!

This explanation only applies if you consider light to be a wave. Einstein said wave AND particle.... which is indeed impossible. Even Einstein knew so... so we know that isn't the case.

The most plausable theory is "Light: The Rope Hypothesis." The Rope Hypothesis explains the double slit phenomenon in an absolute way that no theory before it could. Sort of like how you claim "String Theory, does so much more...." etc.

Get educated.

Science is about details, not vague generalities. And getting the details right does make it right, by definition. To really understand what this means you should learn some symbolic logic!

Wrong. Period. Outright. 100% false. String theory is the first semi successful theory that attempts to unify classical physics and subatomic/quantum physics. Einstein always said that the physics at the sub atomic level should be bound by the same principles that the physics of the macro universe are bound to. He himself admits that quantim phsyics is indeed WRONG. Like newtons law was wrong. We used it to land on the moon, however... his theory was factually incorrect. It was close enough to get the job done, but not correct.

Your own theory "String Theory" was founded on with this as one of it's core principles. So that's really it.

I'm done combing. You are a fraud, a hoax... and a nasty mean person to prey on people who simply disagree with you.

You sir, are a piece of work.

On second thought, lets make this more fun, I'll give you a chance....

Explain "Prolate Spheroidal Wave Function" using your "arithmetic" skills. (Show your work, and explain why it works.)

Will you accept my challenge?

Moduli,

Again thanks for your reply, you obviously know about string theory and I won't question you are one smart fellow and even a scientist.

What does botter me though, is that you seem to have a certain answer for every question presented. It's all defenite "yes" or even more definite "no"'s.

Fact of the matter is, you can't know some of your claims for sure. (Talking about souls, Roswell, out of bodie experiences, etc.). Not understanding or believing in these things is a lot different from knowing they don't exist.

You said in your reply to me that "knowing you don't know is better then thinking you know and not knowing"
I think that goes for you as well.

I also doubt about you knowing anything about Nassim Harameins work.

I have a vague academics question that some might say is better left to an academic advisor, but since you seem to be a curious person yourself, you might be able to understand where I am coming from. (And maybe can help me out)

I am graduating in a year, and I will only have General Physics I and II and Calculus I and II under my belt. I am going to take a year or two off before graduate school, and I want to take a bunch of classes that I don't need for any degree, but which will be beneficial to me as I go through life, exploring all fields further.

What particular types of math classes have been most beneficial to you? I have been told that Applied Math is extremely beneficial to all fields, but I've also been told it is not really that beneficial, and the same for Linear Algebra, etc. Every Prof. that I talk to has drastically different opinions.

Basically, I want to be able to understand most of everything. I also don't want this to really be 'field related' in that I would like to be able to have enough of the basic sciences under my belt so that I can learn some fields by myself, outside of a university.

So, if you glance back at your career and the careers of your cohorts, are there any math or other science classes that you think are indispensable to the ability to function as a scientist, and that you think I should look into?

Shoot, this turned out much longer than I expected. Sorry! I know you have lots of other questions to get to. I know this might seem like a weird question, but when I ask it at the university, all I get is "Why don't you just take the minimum credits needed and go on??" Hopefully, you understand that this isn't what I want to do, and can offer some suggestions.

Ignore that post from the guy who claims a theory is not a fact. He has no understanding of the scientific method and the meaning of the word theory in context with scientific exploration.

reply to post by Moduli

Thanks for the fast reply. I appreciate the honesty of your answer as it was kind of what I suspected. Not knocking your profession or anything but the whole super colider business seems like a big waste of money if it's just for fun and giggles. I do realize that no scientist knows the purported outcome of any experiment, but it seems like there has to be some sort of "end game" in mind to be able to know WHAT kind of experiments to do. And if there isn't purpose in the experiments it seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars especially in light of the economy at this time. I'm not saying that there is NO usefulness in that particular program, just saying that it's really too expensive at this time and in our current economic situation.

Not blaming it on you at all. Just making an observation.

Welcome.

I was enjoying your offerings immensely until we find the typical scientific response to the concepts of Soul and Reincarnation, which is one of complete negativity.

I would think to be so well educated as you must be that you would already know the Limitations of science and understand that it is in it's Infancy considering the short period it has existed.

If we are to be honest and say we do not know, then that must apply to all things we do not know. And one fact we can be sure of is that the only way to Know a thing is to have Experience of it, otherwise we are still only making a false claim to knowledge about the subject matter.

But, I will continue to enjoy your scientific offerings here.

Originally posted by Shamatt
Does string theory really predict multiple dimensions? If so, would these be the types of dymensions to harbour life, as ours does? Do you see a possability of communication or travel between dimensions?

It does predict extra dimensions, but "dimensions" is not used in the science fiction sense of "other realities"! What it means is that there are extra "degrees of freedom" that elementary particles can move around in. In other words, they are extra directions. But nothing can be hidden there, movement through these directions just determines the particle's properties.

The big bang...... they said on TV that a few secconds after the big bang the universe was already thousands of light years accross. How is this possible if nothing can travel faster than light? Surely it would have deen no larger then a few light secconds accross after that time? I personally don't beleive there ever was a big bang!

That's a good question, but the answer is pretty simple. It is the case that no "thing" can travel faster than light, but what expanded wasn't a "thing" it was the background that the things live on. The usual elementary explanation of this, which is not too bad, is to imagine some "stuff" that lives on the surface of a balloon that is limited to moving less than some speed (e.g., ants and they are limited to maximum-ant-speed), and the big bang is just the balloon expanding quickly--it's not limited to maximum-ant-speed, it's a balloon, not an ant. But what does happen is that the density of ants (ants per square inch) decreases, because the area increased. Also, if the balloon somehow does not inflate uniformly, the distribution of ants (density at a particular place) tells us about the way it non-uniformly expanded.

This is a little misleading, though, for several reasons, such as because the balloon expands into space, but the universe didn't need anything to expand into. But to understand any more than this you need to understand the math of general relativity.

But the big bang definitely did happen. It turns out that it makes lots of predictions, and all of those predictions have been verified!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Actually, my skepticism is pretty much confirmed by the failure of the double slit experiment explanation...

This is the same explanation found in every non-introductory textbook on quantum mechanics. Try reading one! The technical details are described by something called "decoherence" but the idea is exactly what I explained.

almost had it right...however, the collapse of the wave into a matter behavior came from the photonic interaction...

"photonic" is not a word. Indeed, it's technobabble!

(literally, observing did alter the state...but not magically..the photons created a reaction to the wave)...that is how it is explained in QP circles..not a narrowing of the wavelength.

These words don't seem to mean anything.

Originally posted by mb2591
Is there such things as gravitons?

Or a particle that accounts for the gravity force

Yes, gravitons do exist and do mediate gravitational interactions. At least, at low energies. At high energies closed strings do.

Originally posted by mb2591
Also sense it sounds like you clearly don't believe in any kind of conspiracy.. Why did the government take all the maps that show radiation levels offline right after the japan earthquake

Well, first of all, I am not aware that they did. Second, from whom? Radiation levels are monitored by a number of agencies for a number of reasons (scientific, defense, etc) and "the government" would not have the authority or ability to "remove" them.

Second, they didn't go out of their way to tell people the radiation levels because that is not information that is useful for people to have, because they don't know what radiation levels are dangerous. People tend to think *any* level is dangerous, and that's definitely false! In fact, bananas are known to set off radiation detectors at ports designed to detect radiological weapons! They're that radioactive! It turns out "that" radioactive is not very radioactive!

Third, the levels of radiation were never that high. As far as I remember they never got above the levels a pack a day cigarette smoker would get (yeah, they're radioactive, too!). But that's not nearly high enough to be dangerous--smokers die of the carcinogens in cigarettes, not the radiation.

But as I said, I don't think they "removed" any information. Though they certainly did not volunteer it to the public. And it was, AFAIK, always available to anyone from the groups who track these kinds of things.

reply to post by Moduli


Welcome to the forum!

I love physics! I've always enjoyed it at school and I still read a lot about it, however my math skills are pretty abysmal so it makes it hard for me to understand some things

I've had a silly little question on my mind for a while: If huge amounts of mass manage to bend space and time, do WE as an individual bend it too? I guess the effect would be immensly small but still there?

I also have trouble understanding the Hafele–Keating experiment, it still kind of blows my mind a little! Can you simplify somehow what happens in that experiment?

Thank you very much in advance and I hope you feel better soon!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by j-man


Souls don't exist because there is no mechanism in the body that holds one. It has not been detected by anybody at all ever in the history of forever. Get over it.

If it exist, it can be detected. People claim to see ghost and feel Jesus but when brought to the test, they fail every single time.

reply to post by mb2591


Uh... no? Also Ive been lurking in the forums for about two weeks now. I was just prompted to actually join the site today by my good new physicist friend's post. You may have heard of him.

reply to post by mb2591


DOUBLE POST!!