It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by Demoncreeper

Lol that's because people want to believe that the shaky light video is real.. but they don't want to believe that this person who's is saying all their beliefs are wrong is right

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Moduli

Peter Woit is a crackpot.

And it makes tons of predictions. I'm sorry if they're too complicated for you (or him) to understand, but it does!

Again, since is not about vague generalities, it's about specific predictions. If I predict that we should measure
x = 1.545634289734645613213456456903463423423425039458345
exactly, and we measure it's exactly that, that's pretty strong proof the theory was a pretty good one!

Well, there seem to be more and more crackpots out there then, since many are starting to agree with him. Not saying they're right, but they have good points.

Can you name one prediction String Theory makes that has anywhere near the precision on your variable X up there?

Also, if you really are in High-Enery physics and String Theory, these following ten questions should be a total breeze to answer, especially since I have less physics education than that and can think these up off the top of my head.

(1) Fill in the blanks. Wick's Theorem tells us how to go from _______ ordered products to _____ ordered products.

(2) What is amputation in QFT and why do it?

(3) What do bremsstrahlung diagrams do for infrared divergences?

(4) Is energy conserved globally in General Relativity? How does this specifically relate to Killing Vectors

(5) Name some different ways of obtaining Christoffel Symbols? (Computer methods don't count here)

(6) In bosonic String Theory, what are the ramifications of satisfying the conditions of Lorentz Invariance?

(7) What is a D-Brane and how does it relate to gravity?

(8) Complete the list of ten dimensional supersymmetric string theories:
Type IIA, _____, _______, .......

(9) What does M-Theory do for this list?

(10) How are the branes in M-Theory different than D-branes?

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

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by mb2591

I don't think this could be done efficiently enough to be very usable. It is possible to do but you would put in more energy than you would receive in the output

I wonder. I mean, I still leave fuel injection alone and am old school carbs which is a bigger waste of fuel...but..a 500HP engine should also be able to loop enough energy, to power a generator, to feed a small container of distilled water with enough amperage, to separate the molecules and not lose too much power. I mean, these engines are extremely non efficient anyways. If we are going to waste so much fuel, it might as well be water, where the by product is steam. Not greenhouse gasses. Where it ends up right back where it started. Renewable. Clean.

I'm just very unsure of the amperage needed. You see experiments with batteries etc. creating combustible hydrogen. Some plumbers use an HHO converter for their flames. I just wouldn't want to blow myself up, trying to make one. haha.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
reply to post by Moduli

Hey there! I´m just a lowly geologist (oceanography), so my entertainment mainly comes from people talking about anything to do with earthquakes. A few other topics as well, but earthquake related discussions are definitely where it´s at for me. Sometimes I just don´t have the heart to refute people´s theories.

I hope you´ll be able to set a few people straight, for those who are genuinely not of understanding. I see this ATS as more of a very interesting psychological insight into common mentality of people, particularly the ones who "want to believe". I attend this forum more so on a wish to remain up to date with what other people around me are thinking of current events, etc.

No questions so far from me about string theory, as I have studied it a little already, but I would just say hello and welcome! Hope you have fun here, at least before the reptilian illuminati come take you away, of course.


Originally posted by Aliensun
Ok. Giggle and smirk, dogma man. We will strive to entertain you with things of which you evidently can't conceive. You show us that you are well schooled, but denying ignorance with your superior attitude backed with multiple sheepskins, I suppose. I'm sure that after several pages you have been taken to task multiple times for your outlook, but I must add my own. I'm sorry but I can't help mocking your approach to our crowd.

Ever [...]

Ever [...]


Ever [...]


Hey, ever proved a complicated mathematical statement about reality to within a five-sigma confidence interval? No? Didn't think so.

Originally posted by BobbyShaftoe
at which point does this theory stray from sense?

Well, first of all, I'm not watching a four hour video. Second, right off the bat. What he says is just technobabble. He just strings together a bunch of words the thinks sounds good together and goes ahead and says them.

Originally posted by solargeddon
Can the universe, quantum physics, truely all be explained through logic ?


If so, when do we hit the ceiling of logic ?

I don't know what this would mean. We can always figure out new things, and there's an infinite amount of stuff to know, and there may or may not be an infinite amount of interesting things to know.

How does logic allow for creativity, and unpredictablity ?


How does string theory explain the ability of a human to think lateraly, creatively, and imagine ? is there an equation for that ?

That's not what string theory does; string theory explains fundamental interactions between particles, and the short-distance/high-energy structure of spacetime.

It's the job of biology (which is explained by chemistry, which is explained by quantum mechanics, which is explained by quantum field theory, which is explained by string theory!) to address these kinds of questions.

Though, there are indeed equations that describe how people work. We know this because people behave in a predictable enough way to define reasonable classes of behaviors: someone is "good" or "bad" or "smart" or "nice" or whatever. We don't, however, have an exact description of them because people act in very complicated ways!

The things you want to understand are described by neurology, and the understanding of intelligence and systems that can learn. All of these fields are still very young and very new, and can only answer basic questions. But we know enough to know that they can be described! Just not enough to know how.

Is there any update on the speculation floating around that one of the colliders may have discovered a new force, if so which is the front runner for a answer ?

Well, it was never claimed anything was discovered, just that something interesting was noticed, and it was not known if it was due to statistical noise or due to a real effect. It turned out it was due to noise.

Is it possible for particles (quantum) to posess a form of intelligence ?

No. Complicated interacting systems are needed to "remember" past information, or to preform "generic" tasks. Quantum mechanics is too simple to have single particles do this. But complicated systems, like the network of neurons in your brain, or a very sophisticated computer, can be intelligent.

Can they control their outcomes/environment ? If so, is this done as a collective, independently, or both ?

No, outcomes of "fundamental" things are random, and outcomes of the non-microscopic world come from deterministic averages of random things.

With the advent of knowledge on the quantum level, is everything produced by "upward causation" ? Can we exercise control/manipulate the quantum level ?

No, it is inherently random.

Can the holographic principle tie in with string theory ?

Yes, it comes from string theory in fact.

Can there ever be a marriage of philosophy and physics, where philosophy can be explained by maths and logic ? (bizzare nonsensical question, but still

Physics was actually formed from a divorce from philosophy, so no! This happened in the same way that chemistry was formed in a divorce from alchemy. So philosophy has very little correct to say about the physics of the past 150 or 200 years.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:09 PM
I always take any opportunity I can get to ask these two questions of any theoretical physicist or cosmologist I'm lucky enough to have the ear of briefly. As a layperson, my terminology may not be accurate, so please bear with me.

1) When theories refer to elementary particles as being, ultimately, ripples or wave forms in a medium, or in some cases a membrane, what exactly is being referred to? Is it a misconception to call it a membrane or a medium as if it's a literal field or substance of some kind (i.e. is the word membrane just a convenient conceptual way to try to describe complicated mathematics to the average layperson,) or is there really such a thing as a membrane or medium that would continue to exist even independent of our universe? Or do we simply not know yet?

2) When people talk about the holographic principle, I have a similar question. How literal is this, or is it - again - a convenient simplified conceptualization? If the theory turned out to be proved one day, would it literally mean that all of the information in our physical universe is "encoded" on the boundary of our spacetime, and that three dimensional space is something of an illusion?

This is just something I've always wondered and love to pick the brains of people such as yourself about. Thanks in advance.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Demoncreeper

In all fairness though, with all the bogus "personalities" and downright hoax threads as of late, it has caused many here to be suspicious. The OP could be what he says he is, but unless he can prove it somehow, we can't be sure. I would love to be able to take some one's word, but unfortunately, I can't. Maybe if he can answer the equation question from Prime....It would give some credence to OP's claims. I don't want to insult someone if they are telling the truth....however, I don't want to be played for a fool either. There have been several threads recently, where I took the OP as truth, and proceeded to give heartfelt replies, only to find out I was duped. Sooooo....that's why there is so much suspicion.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by StealthyKat

There isn't enough "proof" on MOST of all of the threads on ATS. I just wonder why this guy all of a sudden has to provide definitive "proof" against the norm here. haha. I do see what you are saying though.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:20 PM
I've a question. Well, maybe two.

Firstly, are you more precise at work than when you say:

Originally posted by Moduli
I am almost exactly 6' tall.

Second, are you familiar with Tom Bearden and his views on scalar weaponry, and what's your take on the subject?

I think he a fruitloop, but I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I will be often in the future.

Oh, as long as I'm here, do you know of any way one could cause an earthquake using a HF radio array? a la HAARP?

Ok, that was three questions, not two. I'll stop now.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by Demoncreeper

What other threads do people post in? Ones about UFOs? The NWO? 2012? People don't care about proof in those topics.
But, this guy has invoked the scientists here... that's a whole different group. And, you'll notice, even some of them aren't asking for proof.
But I am...

ETA: which I see has been answered below.
edit on 26-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Unvarnished
First questions first, does God fit anywhere within string theory? =D

Definitely not! He (or she!) is not needed anywhere in science.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
I meant extracting the hydrogen safely and on demand and feeding it into the engine for the same combustion process that the engine is built for.

I don't think so. Thermodynamics would tell you the usable energy you get out has to be less than what you put in, because you have to put in the binding energy to break the bonds, and that's the same energy you get out when it recombines.

Originally posted by CLPrime
So, here's the question (it may seem difficult to most here, but, I assure you, it should be no sweat for a String Theorist)...

What does the following equation (evaluated under the given conditions) describe:

Looks like nonsense to me. It's just a bunch of random letters integrated with some random substitutions of things that aren't even in the above equation being made.

Unless you want me to say what it "describes" in a more vacuous sense: it's an integral of some variables over tau, which is apparently a parameter of some kind, where some substitutions of things that aren't said are apparently made at some point that's not stated.

In fact, it looks like the kind of equation that shows up when a crackpot cobbles together some physicsy-looking stuff and claims it's their revolutionary new theory.

So, unless you're hiding some context where these symbols are defined to mean something useful, I'm going to go with "it doesn't mean anything."

I just got done reading the book Quantum by Kumar, and at the end he talks about Bell's inequality theorem. If I understand him right, he states that the inequality has been shown to hold experimentally, but not across the board, meaning there have been some experiments where the inequality is inconclusive. Is there a current consensus about the validity of the inequality, and does this give any more support to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, or are their other theories that have developed that are considered more correct?

I'm not an expert in experimental tests of Bell's inequalities, but there are many good reasons other than the inequalities to believe quantum mechanics is inherently random (mainly, any attempt to make it non-random badly breaks it!). The idea that there are "interpretations" of quantum mechanics is a little misleading. There's really only one quantum mechanics, and it has no interpretations attached.

The phrase "Copenhagen interpretation" is basically used to denote the fact that an interpretation is not really needed, and that the full description is given literally by Schroedinger's equation. The name "interpretation" is really just an unfortunate historical choice.

Although it is the case that we have a greater understanding of the details now than we did then, and the usual thing cited in contemporary textbooks as the "correct" "interpretation" of quantum mechanics is something called "decoherence." The technical details are, well, technical, but basically it's the Copenhagen interpretation plus an explicit description of the thing called "wavefunction collapse," which I discussed a little in an earlier answer.

But there are people who still do tests of Bell's inequalities (and I believe there are other additional inequalities too), and the general belief is that quantum mechanics is inherently random.

Originally posted by mb2591
They come from generic perturbations of the metric tensor around a conveniently chosen background.

Will you give me an example of this like..

I don't understand what you mean?

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:23 PM
Welcome Moduli!

I hope what you've experienced so far hasn't made you regret you decision to join!

I am not a scientist, though I do find "science" and all its permutations to be most entertaining: I like to give the old grey matter something to do between my "9 to 5" and "American Idol".

Might you indulge me with your thoughts on the following:

Are you familiar with the theory put forth by Peter Lynd regarding the "indivisability of Time? Mr. Lynd posits, in his consideration of the Zeno Paradox, that what we call Time cannot be segmented into discrete units (days, hours seconds, pico-seconds, etc.), since, if I understand his theory correctly, to do so would leave "gaps" between those discrete units in which Time would not exist, and therefore, the next "unit" would never come to pass.

I hope I've not mis-stated the theory too badly!

It seems to me that if, correct, this would have a profound impact on all we understand about our universe, our reality, in fact. It would seem to me that even (and particularly) your field, particle physics, would be "turned on its head" if we began to see time as something that could not be divided, in truth, (although, for the sake of convenience, we would continue to do so) and was taken to exist as a single "glob" without past or future.

Recognizing that the current human mind might not be capable of imagining a reality that was not "linear" (past to present to future), but rather "globular", (all is "now") perhaps this theory is nothing but an "oddity" best left on the shelf.

Or, perhaps, if Mr. Lynd is correct in his analysis, we have a "crack" in the doorway to a new understanding of how our reality is actually "put together"?

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:25 PM

This is a conclusion based on reading many posts on many forums, not an assumption
. But whatever.

Otherwise known as an assumption, because many posts on many forums do not make all posts on all forums that way.

No one human is entirely like another. Similarity in some, is not definite by all, so... branding those you think are similar, is indeed the definition of assumption.

That's not how science works. That's like saying "because you've never personally gotten a million things, then a million more things, then put them together in a pile and counted them, you can't *really* say 1million+1million=2million." Yes, I can. I can and I do.

That analogy does not apply. A better one would be as follows:

Scientist A is in his lab conducting experiments associated with light.

Scientist B is in his lab conducting experiments on anti-gravity.

You propose, since Scientist A knows arithmetic that he can say definitively that Scientist B is not in his lab conducting experiments on anti-gravity.

Scientist B holds knowledge secretly, without divulging his findings. Therefore Scientist A cannot have any knowledge about Scientist B's findings.

Thus proving, that no matter his grasp on arithmetic -- he is 100% incapable of making the statement that Scientist B's work is a hoax/non-existent.

It's not a matter of how much arithmetic you know. Arithmetic is formulaic insofar, that, there is rules of the language that is numbers. I.E. You can know all the algebra, all the calculus, all the advanced maths you wish.... but if some one uses those rules to define something unknown in a way that nobody has ever done before, you cannot claim your knowledge of arithmetic is sufficient enough to say it's impossible.

A more precise analogy, is 1+1=2. You thought of that... pat yourself on the back.... But the guy who figured out 1+1=2 doesn't necesarrily know that 3,000,000*3/2²=2121.3203432559643.

That isn't to say he couldn't figure it out the same way, and replicate that guys findings... but that is to say, he never asked his math that question before.

Understand now?

It's even more in poor taste to accuse a new member of being a liar, no?

No, it's not. It's a service to the community to expose frauds for what they are. Especially so, considering the subject matter of this forum. In fact, one should come to expect that in a place like this... logically. We are a group of skeptics... to expect anything else would be asinine.

You may.

Thank you.

"Theory" is the best it gets. Saying it's just a theory is like saying "sure you have a car, but it's *just* a Ferrari." You only say that out of ignorance or jealousy that you don't have such an awesome car!

noun ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē
an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances

This is the definition of Theory in the context of science. They are hypothetical facts... because they cannot be proven.... they are just generally believed to be accurate.

It is not ideal, nor is it hypothetical that the car is a "Ferrari." That would be a fact, if I was standing in front of a Ferrari. You see why that analogy doesn't work yet?

Ignorance or Jaelousy has nothing to do with it. However, Ignorance and Jaelousy, can indeed... force people to stick with theories that have already been proven 100% incorrect. Pride has something to do with this as well.

Math has very little to do with numbers, and there is plenty of evidence for string theory. It's just that the evidence is very technical. That's no different than the evidence for things in other fields. Do you think the evidence for how RNA transcription works is easy to understand? I'm sorry if we can't make the universe physically explode in front of you with it's awesomeness, but "I don't understand" is not a reason something is wrong!

When did I say anything about not understanding the results? I think it is YOU who doesn't understand. You see, the evidence is HYPOTHETICAL for string theory. However, the evidence for RNA transcription is very technical, and not hypothetical at all. Hypothetical evidence cannot be proven, it's just generally assumed to be correct based on human interpretation and what they would logically deem "plausible."

Again, back to the core understanding of Scientific Theory, which you are failing to grasp on all accounts for being a self proclaim physicist.

This is very alarming, no?

Nope! That's the opposite of what happened. Nice guess though. Einstein, who spent his whole damn life telling everyone he did not ever claim anything Newton ever said was wrong--evidently to no avail--turned out to do the opposite.

Newtonian mechanics was put on a firmer foundation, and made MORE correct, by EXTENDING it to a theory that explained things that Newtonian mechanics *could not* explain. We call this extension relativity. The fact that Newtonian mechanics is not wrong can be seen in the fact that you can get a degree in applied Newtonian mechanics (called mechanical engineering). And, indeed, you can use it to do lots of cool stuff!

Except you ignore that newton was classically wrong accrossed the board when it came to the details (the ones you say are facts...) in his theory. His theory essentially was correct, but his math wasn't. As a result he posted inaccurate numbers for a vast array of variables accosiated to his theory. e.g. high speed motion, strong gravitational fields, etc.

Einstein corrected these mistakes and evolved upon them new discoveries that were being hidden by the mistakes of Newtons Law. This new theory became the Theory of Relativity.

You may say that since his underlying theory was generally accurate, that he wasn't wrong... but his entire body of work to prove his thoery was riddled with mathmatical errors that actually concealed the understanding of relativity... thus pushing an agenda that would hold us back from true understanding. It was the great mind of Albert Einstein that discovered the mathmatical errors and unveiled the theory of relativity.

You show you lack an abundance of "Scientific Knowledge."

Not that this has anything to do with the point... But actually, it's easier in a lot of ways. "Complex" math is "complex" because it is more constrained--there are more relations. It's also done more carefully. It makes it easier to find mistakes, not harder.

Not true. You can write equations that purposefully come to outcomes that you wish to seemingly hoax people into believing in a theory. The fact that this can be done... proves that it can happen by mistake. What you say is true to an extent, that math is a language that makes sense or it doesn't...

However, the english language is very similar in this aspect. The answers you will get depend heavily upon the questions you ask. The errors aren't in the math, but in the logic of the mathmatician. And yes, there have been NUMEROUS peer declined papers that include real math, but math that is logically incorrect and filled with dillusions of grandor.

Only someone who doesn't understand what "a fact" is would say this. It's also unrelated to the claims I've made. Experiments pin down the structure, math tells you more. See the addition example yet again!

Wrong. Math pins down the structure, and experiments prove if the math is correct. The hypothesis comes before the experiment. Not the other way around.

Actually, this is not called "errors" but "oh god I hope the Germans don't get it first"s. More experiments make things easier, fewer experiments make things harder (sometimes much harder) but not impossible.

Again, you lack the credentials to comment on this fact, since most of the nuclear testing took place AFTER the war was over, circa 1953 - 1968. We also launched nukes into orbit and detonated them in space.... to test what the EMP would do to the magnetosphere of the earth. Something they had proposed mathmatically and had a completely unforseen event in actuality.

Another case of the math being wrong. This isn't to say, that the math itself is wrong...this is to say that the mathmatician made false calculations. We have the proper math now, from examining the explosions. Again though, the original math (which was not rushed as this was AFTER WWII) before the series of over 100 nuclear tests was wrong. It took collectively over 100 nuclear tests to get right.

Except they didn't. They were more, not less. This is like saying discovering a new continent makes all maps "wrong". NO, it makes all maps incompete. It overturns nothing. It told you about something that was not on the map. So you build a bigger map and give it a new name so as not to be confused with the old maps when you talk about them.

You can even make statements about the new continent without seeing it! "Hey there's an ocean next to me, so if there's another continent over there, it must have an ocean next to it, too! In fact, that ocean must be between us! And it must be at least as big as the longest distance we've measured the ocean to be!"

When did I say they were less not more? How does that validate the fact that newtons math was incorrect... ???

I'm going to be like you and just say "This means nothing." Because it's all rehotirc that ignores the actual facts that Eisntein corrected Newton's mistakes. He did. He didn't just add to it, he fixed it, THEN added to it.


I do indeed!

Aparently you don't.

I do! Apparently you don't.

You misunderstood me. Arithmetic is something that is applied. It is not something you know. Mathmatics is something you know. Arithmetic is the art of applying mathmatics. You don't "KNOW" arithmetic, you know Math. Arithmetic is what you DO with Math.

No that we have that out of the way... My point, which obviously went over your head, is that the math is a living language. It constantly evolves depending on the context you use it in... You are bound to the rules of math, but those rules are rather generous... seeing as you can use numerous equations to solve the same problems. Do you see how it's limitless yet?

Yes, the usual "scientists know the least about how science works" argument. Always a favorite!

You cannot interpret what I said as that, in any way, shape, form, or fashion. A physicist doesn't make first grade science mistakes. You did. You can't even properly define Scientific Thoery. You liken Scientific Theory into arbitrarily calling a Ferrari a Ferrari because you are jaelous. This doesn't even make sense.

Light--and everything else--are probability waves. Not physical waves (or physical particles). And those kinds of wave can look like physical waves of particles. This is what the Schroedinger equation says. That's what the Psi in it is. A *probability* wave.

This has been understood for literally nearly 100 years. It's not new.

You don't even know what a probability wave is. You are confusing the probability displacement of a particle with the opposite form the wave.

This is covered in childrens documentaries called "What the Bleep Do We Know." It's been understood for nearly 100 years, it's not new.

This doesn't make any sense. Classical physics is included in quantum physics, that's the whole point of quantum physics. It is roughly the "hbar goes to zero" limit of quantum mechanics.

Strings combine general relativity with quantum field theory.

Now you just outright fail. Unified Field Thoery was Einsteins OWN attempt at unifying micro and macro physics. You are officially clueless.

He did not. He was one of the people responsible for creating quantum mechanics. That's what he won his Nobel prize for!

You know nothing about Einstein. Yes, he won his nobel prize for aiding in the creation of quantum physics. This doesn't not mean, however, that Einstein didn't believe it was an incorrect model. He was very vocal about his beliefs, but understood it was the best model for understanding what happens at the quantum level at that time, specifically.

You need to do your homework on Mr. Einstein.

It has nothing to do with arithmetic, so I can't explain it with arithmetic. But here's the answer: spherical harmonics. Well, a spherical harmonic. One of a wave function. You know, those things I mentioned describe probability waves that you refused to read about?

Everything in physics can be explained in arithmetic. You failed the challenge. Here is the answer, a simple google search would have yeilded for you. Yes, it was intentionally a very easy challenge to pass... somehow I just knew you would fail though.

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

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

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:27 PM
Moduli,can you give me your interpretation of the original dynamic intent of the mathematical perspective?Why and for what specific reason do we attempt to manifest our intentions through a cheap copy of nature that is conceptualised from outside of nature and her rules as oppose to being born of and inside the rule of nature which are universal?

Do you believe that our manifestation and interpretation of mathematical ideas are displayed or are emoted in a manner that would be recognisable to another sentient life form that may have stayed on the natural science path and also obtained technology,possibly not based on our conceptualisation of mathematical intention?

Doese string theory allow for the unified focused intent of humanities collective cumulative reality or rather humanities ability to change and alter the physical world through group manifestation on a macro scale utilising billions of collective energies.?Are we included as a weighted factor in the conceptualisation and understanding of the functions of string theory as a physical participant or essential component in its very existence or its manifest idealism??

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:27 PM
I know many of these are out of your field and could even be described as random or even maybe by a 12 year old as retarded. But anyways, this is the internet. Can you answer these questions?

Is teleportation possible?

Is fast than light travel possible?

Is an inverse tachyon beam possible?

What do you think of advanced nuclear technologies?

What do you think of fusion power?

Can you do my homework?

edit on 26/6/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:27 PM
seems odd to this uneducated mind that a scientist would be so "sure" about what he knows. wasn't string theory not too long ago all but dismissed by main stream science? wasn't main stream science so "sure" that it was nonsense? and now this scientist is so "sure" that the military doesn't have higher level mathmatics because he hasn't seen it. wasn't there a time (and not too long ago) that what we now call america didn't exist because we hadn't seen it? wasn't there a time (not too long ago) that string theory was nonsense 'cause no-one has a way to see it? hell...wasn't it too long ago the idea of 10 dimensions was without a doubt the most utterly ridiculous thing anybody ever had the nerve to utter? just an observation.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by CLPrime
So, here's the question (it may seem difficult to most here, but, I assure you, it should be no sweat for a String Theorist)...

What does the following equation (evaluated under the given conditions) describe:

Looks like nonsense to me. It's just a bunch of random letters integrated with some random substitutions of things that aren't even in the above equation being made.

Unless you want me to say what it "describes" in a more vacuous sense: it's an integral of some variables over tau, which is apparently a parameter of some kind, where some substitutions of things that aren't said are apparently made at some point that's not stated.

In fact, it looks like the kind of equation that shows up when a crackpot cobbles together some physicsy-looking stuff and claims it's their revolutionary new theory.

So, unless you're hiding some context where these symbols are defined to mean something useful, I'm going to go with "it doesn't mean anything."

As deeply entrenched in String Theory as you claim to be, you should know what every variable in that equation describes, and you should be familiar with what the equation, itself, is describing - and, no, not in a vacuous sense, but in a definite sense.

At the very least, you should be able to tell me what the equation is solving for (what the 'S' is). The "vacuous" description you gave is something any 1st-year calculus student is capable of.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Moduli

With all due respect sir , string theory is STILL a "theory" right?not fact yet or confirmed yet, so im assuming the concept of string is NOT FACT.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by SaturnFX
the null statement (default) is indeed agnostic, it is a non belief.
if it was...for lack of a better term, theistic (I know there is no such thing), then there would be no reason to continue investigation and falsification.

Nope. The scientific method can basically be thought of as a fancy version of proof by contradiction. Note: contradiction. Not whateverdiction.

You are slyly switching your view now it seems, for now its "contradiction", and eventually you will shift to "oh, but I meant falsificationism (popper) all along, I just use fancy terms...

But you still did not address how this initially came are trying to defend your belief in absolutes without proof...
aka, you stated clearly there is no soul...

Now, if all that is required to debunk your claim is elementry philosophy and a hypothesis, I can do that in a sentence, thereby destroying your claim (considering your claim requires belief only, where I can present evidence to my hypothesis, allowing for a greater degree of truth to favor my hypothesis.

The soul exists: here are the mechanics:
The soul is a conscious entity existing in a different area of the universe. It is connected not directly in the body (held) but rather manipulated.
You can measure the energy field around the human with tools today to see the effect of this connection. The brain is used as the processor from the commands.
Decided to forego a ton of links on biofields and instead put this fun and easy to digest video:

The commands are sent via quantum entanglement (quantum teleportation)instantly to the reciever (brain).
cute thread about quantum teleportation
(far too many sources otherwise to post on a quick hypothesis...I am sure you are aware about entanglement, so unnecessary anyhow)

the source is still unknown. The brain is a reciever that processes commands. beyond secondary commands (heartbeat, reflex) higher thinking is recieved from exterior sources. the secondary commands may also be coming from the spinal reflex network anyhow (our "second brain")[citation needed]

The soul connection (some call this the astral string) does have weight and is registered at the time of human death. The weight of the connection on the human species is approximately 3/4th an ounce

There...hypothesis complete. a halfarsed randomly slapped together discussion that will take a considerable amount of time to falsify...
This means that the "fact" of there being no soul is no longer a fact.
Again, this was just randomly grabbed stuff on the fly to prove a point of your claiming moreso than a proper and well put together hypothesis on the existance of a soul.
Back to agnosticism I guess

(disclosure: I am not sure overall if such a thing does or doesn't exist...I am agnostic on the concept..just stating that to state positively knowledge in the unknowable is the methods of a very dubious person)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:34 PM
Quantum Mechanics has been the accepted "theory" for the past 100 years, and is a favorite name dropper of people who have never studied Physics, but it is filled with contradictions and is just a temporary math model of the physical Universe. If anyone cares to understand real modern Physics, then check out and

To my knowledge string theory is no more then a theory, this model is good but wrong calculable concept.

A theory that will never be a FACT
edit on 26-6-2011 by LulzCode6 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Moduli

Oh wow. So you deign to come down the mountain and go slumming?

Nah. Why don't you go back to your room and console yourself with the fact that you are OH so much smarter than the rest of us plebes.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in