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 still a scientist!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by Moduli

Hi Moduli

You've mentioned general relativity offering a way to explain inertia(as resistance to changes in motion).

From my limited knowledge a classical model is the Mach's principle. But it has issues due to action at distance. Another idea I've heard of assumes a finite particle size and acceleration induced stress as the cause of inertia.

Could you elaborate a bit more on inertia? Maybe even in a separate thread? Feel free to correct my statements above. Btw I am ok if you use math if required. Thanks.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by Moduli

What is the force that makes planets, galaxies, or even atoms '"spin"? Or what is the nature of spin?
edit on 24-3-2012 by type0civ because: typos

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:32 AM
Where did you get your degree and how long have you been employed as a "scientist"?

What is your opinion regarding the 2012 hype? Do you see any reason what so ever to be concerned about the future of this Planet or its inhabitants? Thanks!

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by Moduli

I must commend your tolerance for the stupid people in here and your angel like patience in trying to explain even simple science to the most obnoxious and ignorant crowd ever. I don't know what has happened to ATS over the years, but it seems today it mostly consist of Beavis and Butthead types. I have said it before and I will say it again: ATS needs some kind of intelligence test to allow people to post in here. People not passing the test, should only be able to read.

One can only dream..

I think you are wasting your time in here and if you find a better forum for things like this, please tell me about it so I can go there also.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by Moduli

Here's a question... In reference to the Conservation of Angular Momentum, which states that when an object is spinning, the pieces that break off of said object will spin in the same direction. The question is, if the Big Bang theory is correct, while keeping the Conservation of Angular Momentum in mind, why do three of the planets in our solar system spin opposite of the others, and why do some of Saturn's moons also spin opposite of the others around Saturn?

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Moduli
I find these boards' lack of understanding of science hilarious, and figure it is my due diligence as a scientist to give you the chance to learn something.

9. I reserve the right to laugh, mock, and ridicule any post I deem worth of laughter / mockery / ridicule.

To be honest I'd rather listen to a babbling baby than to an arrogant, rude scientist, but when people delve deep into one field of study all of their lives, it's only human to lose something of their human-ness, so I'll give you a shot.
I recently watched a clip of Brian Cox trying to explain how a gravity wave can stretch everything moving through it, apparently without doing any harm. It sounded more like he was describing a lensing effect and not a genuine force. If a gravity wave IS a genuine force, wouldn't it pull everything apart? First, the wave would make contact with my skin, pulling it away from me. Why would the rest me stretch to accomodate this force instead of the force simply tearing me to shreds? What would be the difference between a gravity wave and woodchopper?

edit on 3/24/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:23 AM
Everyone is a scientist; although, some not so diaphanous, but they're reaching that way.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by Moduli

The idea, on the other hand, that we live in a simulation, is nonsense, as I expressed in the thread on that topic.

That is nothing but an opinion, and you know it. To claim otherwise is to claim you understand the core nature of the Universe with absolute certainty. And you do not.

The phrase "energy particles" is nonsense. Energy is not an adjective, and is not interchangeable with "particle."

The term energy and particle may not be directly interchangeable, but the term "particle" describes a specific form/structure of energy, namely a condensed stable system of vibrating energy (strings), does it not? Furthermore, the Big Bang theory states that the first moments consisted of a "high density energy" which then cooled and "condensed" during and after the inflationary period, forming electrons, quarks and elementary particles. How do you rationalize this, you can't honestly believe that particles came pre-made straight out of the Big Bang can you? Hmmmm Mr. Scientist...?

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:35 AM
Why do we see the same diffraction patterns by shining a laser at a pin head as
we do in the double slit experiment?

We are told the particles go through both slits but in the pin experiment there
are no slits but we see the same pattern?

(This is easily verifyable at home by anyone with a laser pointer, some tape pin cork etc.)


posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by Moduli

I have a simple question but I'll preface it first. One of the chief complaints about the Scientific Community is the arrogance in which members, and I do use the term members, express their "theory's as absolute fact. The "theory's" come from a very tiny, almost immeasurable bit of information, relative to the entirety of all that is. I find it utterly incomprehensible that one can make absolute statements based on so little information relative to all there is to comprehend. Often, it is very clear that add "I am a scientist' to the name plate and nothing more the a guess is seen as "fact."

So, one of the most implausible area's of "fact' stating is with regard to what we call the "universe." The scientific community has not, and can not, view it from start to finish and come to factual conclusions - they can only guess, in "fact' they view a tiny fraction of what there is to see, let alone what there was to see and proclaim as a community and individuals they have it all figured out. Now this would not be so bad, if the left their theory's to their own, but the insistence on shutting down anything other "ideas" because the know ALL the facts and know ALL there is, is what grates on folks.

Question: I have written a book, it is 100 chapters long. That is all I will say about the length of the book. I will give you one chapter, but I will not tell you which number, nor the style of narrative - or even if it is a narrative, you get one chapter: Can you tell me what the book is about? Can you tell me how many chapters? Can you rewrite the book from that chapter with 100 percent accuracy?

In fact, I will give you the chapter right now: "For at that point, oblivion took a holiday."

Have at it, as a I truly to feel that a scientist who can know all there is about the universe by looking up a today's sky, or even 200 years worth of notes about the sky, can EASILY answer my question as the variables are far less then those involved in the universe.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by Limbo

I did once learn the answer to that, but it was a while ago. If I remember correctly, the fact the light has to go around both sides of the pin creates the effects of two possible ways it can travel, the same as having two possible slits it can travel though. The wave forms of the photons then interfere with each other on the other side of the pin in the same was as the double slit experiment. It's obviously a bit more complex than that with a pinhead but you get the idea.
edit on 24-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:52 AM
The point is that while science isn't always right and will inevitably be wrong about some things in the future, SCIENTISTS devote a chunk of their lives to this field and know quite a bit more than a average person. This is no different than if they had devoted a chunk of their lives to being a pilot, or a mechanic, or a engineer, or a lawyer, or a doctor, or a architect, or a management executive, or a computer analyst. They expect as much respect for their work as any other professional. If you've attained the same level of education and experience then you've earned the right to be critical of them, but you cannot be dubious about your arguments as arguments without a solid foundation are a waste of time.

Me, all I've taken is PH 101. I've never even had a chemistry class, except for a small stint in HS. But I've done enough to know that science is incredibly powerful. We have the means to do amazing things with present technology and knowledge, but we waste a lot of our potential in various ways. I think the biggest issue is not one of science, but of apathy and inability of the average person to grasp the principles that serve as the bedrock of science. IF we all understood science better we would make better political and life choices. But I think this can be said for ANY professional field, mostly. Education is so important.

My awakening to all this happened in PH 101. I realized just how smart some of these people are and how dumb I truly am. Going into the class, I was really cocky and thought I knew what science was. I was wrong. Science is a lot of hard work and concentration and not for everyone. I also realized that even when I work really hard I'm only producing maybe 100 to 200 watts of work. A car, by comparison, is doing some 6000-9000 watts of work. Or should I have said energy or power? My knowledge about how to term these things is rusty, so I'm sorry. But the point of me saying this is that I realized our machine civilization and electromagnetic induction and all of these various technologies have catapulted us into the future. We're no cavemen anymore, but whether we can use all of this responsibly is another question.

My first question is: Why do we need string theory, what's the purpose for it being there?

And is it true that forces don't cause motion, but instead cause acceleration?
edit on 24-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM
Sorry Mr. Scientists. I read your egotistical and condescending OP, and quite frankly, won't be feeding you. Somehow I get the feeling your intent is not to spread education, but to revel in your own narcissism. But I did throw up in my mouth a little, so thanks for that!

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Moduli

In reply to the OP. Thanks for taking time out to be a part of a site like this. A large majority of people who claim to understand science only have scratched the surface. I also have a scientific background, but nothing to your education level. An inherent lack of understanding with Trig and Calculus makes it undesirable to move forward into physics or string-theory at a very involved level.

As to the resistance you are experiencing from other members on this site - well that is to be expected don't you think? After all, most of this site is conjecture and philosophical exploration of different ideas and possibilities presented.

As to your main concerns on this site, such as the power that be, and why people theorize their existence. This is a natural occurrence that has many social and psychological reasons behind it. With the continued downward spiral of economy, coupled with corruption in government, and a widening gaps between the poor and rich - conspiracy theories are expected to run rampant. It is unavoidable.

So in spirit of assuming they exist - I have never supposed that TPTB have any scientific people at their forefront. As I've always thought that this was a representation of the corrupt banksters that hold us all hostage with our current banking system. The very rich can afford to be as secret as they want. They don't have to let you in on any pet projects they may be attempting do they? They just fund your research and later use it as they wish - to their own ends. I'm quite positive that Einstein's invention is a very good example of how a scientist's work can take an unexpected turn, without the scientist being involved much past the part of discovery.

Nice thread. Glad to have a scientist aboard. I personally never know when I will have a science question and it's a lot easier to have an involved discussion on a topic than trying to muck it out reading scientific stuff on the internet. Some of it is quite beyond me, but I think I have a generally good take on the basics.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by Moduli

First, about me:

Look, dude. I don't really care what institution has certified you. You either make a logical, sensible point/statement, or you don't. You either have the capability to analyze a situation and apply critical thinking, or you don't.

I'm giving you this opportunity because

My apologies. Thank you for spending your incredibly valuable, industry-certified time with us. Would you like us to stimulate your scrotum with our tongues while you give yourself fellatio?

Here are my rules:

The Golden one?

[list of rules]

So, basically, you are just like anyone else; you have limited knowledge and experience; you just lack the ability to understand that human beings (even scientists) are able to be congenial and simply inform someone: "I don't know. That's not my specialty." - or "I think you're stupid."

You, pretty much, just listed a bunch of "rights anyone has to any conversation, particularly public ones on the internet."

I will not give out any personal information, or tell you any specific papers I have worked on. I don't need anyone tracking down and harassing my colleagues and coworkers. We get enough letters and e-mails from crackpots, we don't need more.

This is the internet. If I really want to, I can show up at your favorite coffee shop (or some other business establishment) and tell you the name of your first dog. Or, even more fun, distribute your internet history to your friends and coworkers.

Further, you're being very insistent upon being taken seriously; which means you really haven't worked on anything important... or you have quite the charitable outlook on things.

You think if I had a job where I worked in the fields I'm passionate about, I'd be on here much? Nope. I might drop by from time to time (like Phage, Boncho, etc); but I'd spend my time doing what I absolutely love and have the resources to do.

Needless to say - were I employed in the R&D field (or could somehow get paid to interpret the field/lab work of others and create theories off of it), I'd be a happy camper and exploiting their resources to the fullest.

I don't doubt you are a "scientist" (usually one would be more specific about their field of accreditation - such as degrees). Every person is a 'scientist' in that we all apply the scientific method to problems we hope to solve.

I just don't think you're as #-hot as you think you are. My ego can barely fit through the damned door, but I'm humble by comparison.

reply to post by type0civ

What is the force that makes planets, galaxies, or even atoms '"spin"? Or what is the nature of spin?

Planets and other bodies likely spin for different reasons than galaxies. Planets will spin based upon the vectors of the orbits that combined to create the planet, in the first place (presuming that model is correct, of course). Stars likely spin/rotate for the same reason (spare for they are created in orbit about the galactic mass).

Answering how things started spinning beyond that is a lot of guesswork (well, it is all guesswork; you can never really prove how something in nature happened unless you were there to observe it happening... even if you can reproduce the results in a certain manner, it doesn't conclude that was the manner in which it occurred). Without being able to solidify a single origins model (the "big bang" has always been a sort of stop-gap that doesn't really work in terms of physics, but we derive from observations of the visible universe) - it's difficult to model or postulate how vector rotations began in the first place. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try - but just be aware that it's not a "we know this to be true" sort of answer:

Unfortunately, that's just the preview - but it gives you an idea of how that particular group is thinking.

This is a page reference within a much larger publication that briefly discusses origins and moves on to observations of orbital/rotational behavior:

Not sure if that answers your question or not - but I always find google/bing/metacrawler to be a fairly good e-search tool to help get you started down the right search terms to find more accurate and pertinent queries.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Moduli

It's a reference to your previous thread, take your own advice friend.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Moduli

In relativity, there is an analogous equation in four dimensions. When you use this equation to describe a particle with mass m, you discover, by relating "length" to "distance traveled", and this to speed = distance traveled / time, that this enforces that there is *some* velocity that no one can exceed.

Math, alone, doesn't - since it is generally assumed that numbers are infinitely divisible. Nothing in the equation presents the case that an object cannot travel between two locations in 1x10^-1,000,000th second.

Here, you're getting into Planck constants, which are all derived units from electromagnetism (speed of light in a vacuum, proportional constant between energy and wavelength) and gravity (gravitational constant). Which is somewhat circular reasoning.

However, I accept Planck constants to be true... but even then, the equation still doesn't prohibit superluminous travel (merely instantaneous travel with t=0). The minimum amount of time it can take you to travel between two locations is Plank Time: 5.39121 × 10^−44 s. Which... just means that, at a certain point, speed will merely increase the distance traveled, not reduce the time it took to get there (IE - Energy applied will only increase the distance traveled).

Gravity waves make the most sense in explaining the effects of Special Relativity and the seemingly arbitrary restriction of all classical momentum... but that runs into considerable problems, as illustrated, here:

A more interesting prospect, however, is that the effects of gravity are emergent and dependent upon the energy held in a system. According to Planck scales, there can only be so much energy in a given region of space. As velocity of an object increases, so, too does the amount of energy each massive particle contains... at such a point - it can go no faster.

Under that model, however, it would imply that a photon is already at the extremes of its limits (which is clearly not the case as individual photons have energy levels dependent upon the frequency of the EM field they derive from). Which implies a completely different mechanic for the speed of light (perhaps a subatomic particle related to EM that is so dense as to be constrained to such a velocity).

Though a purely particle explanation fails to address the dual particle/wave natures of ... well... everything.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by crankyoldman

Can you tell me what the book is about? Can you tell me how many chapters? Can you rewrite the book from that chapter with 100 percent accuracy?

I bet it has 100 chapters in it. I need one more chapter to re-write the entire book though.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by Moduli

In your opinion, is there anything in the underlying mathematics which could the emergence of complexity similar to life in the time-frame where it has occurred?

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe

Apologies for butting in on someone else's thread, but I believe I can answer this:

Change in velocity (or even the angle of that velocity) requires a force.

No force = no change.

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in