I am a Scientist.

reply to post by mb2591


The point of my question has been missed. It was intended to encourage deep thought. How do you know that merely observing the reaction makes any difference, as it is impossible to verify. ie. If a tree falls in the woods........catch my drift?

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Annee

 

I believe a lot of things too. But I know the difference from speculation/belief - - from hard fact.

Do you now? do you know how much lying scientists have done to ordinary people to cover some things up. Do you realize how many scientists have been mysteriously killed, for threatening to expose some truths.

Do you? You are on ATS - a conspiracy site.

Where are your facts? What may appear as factual information is NOT Fact. It is speculation.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by Moduli

 

Thank-you.

Hmm. Another way (I think) of asking the question would be, "Is theory telling us that three dimensional space 'emerged' as a result of the expansion of the universe, or was three dimensional space already there for the universe to expand into?"

I think that gets closer to what I'm asking. (I hope lol.) Thanks again. (Not that what you said didn't already go some way toward answering it.)

Well, there doesn't need to be anything for the spaces to expand "into" because there is no notion of "into" needed. It's hard to describe why without math, but it is definitely the case that no "ambient" space is needed to expand into. Although the specific form (3 large space dimensions + 1 time dimension + small dimensions) did emerge just after the big bang, no space for them to expand into was needed. They just "re-arranged" themselves.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Moduli

 

Whats your opinion on other "theories of everything" such as LQG, Garrett Lisi's E8.. and more nonstandard altrough I dont know if crackpot stuff like Heim Theory?

These things are all crackpot theories. It turns out that all of the previously different non-crackpot ideas all turned out to be string theory (or to be incorporated together in a new theory which is called string theory to be a little more precise), which was kind of a shock! But it's part of the reason we're so sure the theory has got to be right.

Also, claiming that String Theory is surely correct seems pretty strong to me...

It is very strong, but that strongness is why we study it!

Even wikipedia says there is not proven theory of everything and all of them are just (more or less) speculations or hypotheses.

Ehh, wikipedia does not always have the most careful explanations of stuff like this. And all of the string theorists I know, at any rate, have long since quit trying to edit wikipedia out of annoyance at other people constantly adding crazy things to their articles .

What is your favourite interpretation of QM? And your opinion about de Broglie-Borm interpretation?

As I've mentioned, there is no interpretation of QM needed, but the correct answer to the reasonable version of quantum mechanics is called "decoherence" and it explains everything about QM.

What is your opinion about Thorium Power?

Don't know anything about it.

reply to post by Moduli


I think your mocking of others, so called misunderstanding of science, is actually your misunderstanding of their poor use of language which demonstrates your own over specialization and under education of language skills, soo typical in this age of the stupid genius, to the point of being boorish.

I have two BS degrees, Agriculture and Information Systems, and many years of experience working with professional software development teams.


So please, entertain me with the answer to this science question ???



What would an anti-matter black hole look like in our universe if it were by some quirk of science visible here, and how would it behave ?


That was the short easy version let me elaborate on the question now.

Ok, there has been this long mystery of the missing matter in the universe, recently answered by some proof of energy streams in space, now see if I got this, steams in the macro NOT quantum accept that they are made up of massive amounts of electrons, ordinary matter. But there is also the missing anti-matter which perviously was part of the missing matter but now I am assuming is separate and still missing.

So, UC Berkley did this test a few years ago where they were trying to find, and really thought they might find it, that parallel universe a couple of millimeters away from our visible universe, and there are many experiments that look for and add to the evidence that such parallel universes might exist, and I am saying that this might still be valid for an anti-universe, although understood HIGHLY theoretical.

Say, there IS an anti-universe that has black holes just like ours, and we have finally just recently seen black holes and they are doing REALY STRANGE STUFF everything that was postulated AND MORE !!!

So, what if with LARGE black holes in the anti-universe there is a size of singularity where really LARGE black holes exist in the multi-verse, visible to ALL realms !

That is what I am asking about if such a back holes existed in the anti-universe and WAS visible here, what would it look like ???


Please, don't do the usual condescending, this is wrong, that is wrong, certainly my technical language was nonexistent or wrong and I apologize for that, just try to understand what I am getting at, AND TEACH US ALL SOMETHING, and comment on the question and answer the question as best you can considering the many things not known yet that might make this possible.

reply to post by Laokin


I'm not really a pro on either. I do have extensive knowledge on both subject though. I'm only twenty, between the bull# that goes into living life i am surprised i know as much as i do. Though these are my two favorite subjects and i do spend a lot of time on them. Particularly astronomy. Been looking to the stars since i was a wee tike. First textbook i ever seriously read was about it. Never passed up a nugget of knowledge since.

reply to post by Laokin


I am very aware of the theory of relativity and what it entails, however, that equation is bogus. Quite a few of the defined variables don't even exist within the equation. How then, can you say that it's the real deal? If I'm wrong and the variables pertain to some more abstract relationship than please enlighten me.

reply to post by Moduli


I "Welcome" you and your knowledge to the forums.
You can be certain that I will be reading your input into the "information / disinformation" contained at this site.
There are those that take claims of "education and knowledge" as a threat to their postings here at ATS, they will make themselves known here very quickly... don't buy into their distractive tactics. It takes away from those of us that are willing to listen, learn, research and understand the reality of the given subjects.
I hope that you can convince your colligues to join you here, in assisting us learn and understand.
Hear you soon,
Ret

reply to post by SaturnFX


No, i am not.

reply to post by SaturnFX


No, i am not.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by mb2591

 

The point of my question has been missed. It was intended to encourage deep thought. How do you know that merely observing the reaction makes any difference, as it is impossible to verify. ie. If a tree falls in the woods........catch my drift?

But its not impossible to verify...the observation verses non observation produce different results consistantly...
if there was no results being measured, then it would fall under speculation, but since there are results, then you can conclude the differences...this is basic science.

deep thought is not required in this example your suggesting.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well said.

reply to post by Annee


You need to go read some of the links I provided in the previous post. The world of science is full of manipulation, and corruption ,and greed my dear. There are liars , and they manipulate the facts to ensure certain agendas are met.

Really sad for you that you trust in scientists ,and the world of science so much. You have no idea how many good scientists have been run out of their fields ...for failing to comply.

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Don't turn this thread into that. If you want to discuss it meet me in a relevant thread.

Fine ..We will meet on other threads as you wish.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by mb2591

 

The point of my question has been missed. It was intended to encourage deep thought. How do you know that merely observing the reaction makes any difference, as it is impossible to verify. ie. If a tree falls in the woods........catch my drift?

But its not impossible to verify...the observation verses non observation produce different results consistantly...
if there was no results being measured, then it would fall under speculation, but since there are results, then you can conclude the differences...this is basic science.

deep thought is not required in this example your suggesting.

Thank you I was about to post this.. Infidel did you watch the video?

Wow, so your a scientist, cool, me too, I'm a Biologist in fact, with a minor in Zoology; difference is your degree took 2 more years of school and I'M not going on here ridiculing everyone who may have alternative viewpoints. So I'm really glad you took the time out of your superior, science and factual filled life to come onto a website that you and your colleagues usually joke about to answer questions from people like us who you laugh about. Oh wait, I forgot, you said you just decided to come on here because you're sick with the flu or something and a lil dizzy nothin better to do. The funny thing is is yes, you do have a couple more years of school on me, but aren't we fellow scientists supposed to know that the science of today and yesterday and tomorrow is always up for change, our basic and limited knowledge and methods of supporting (yet never proving) our hypothesis' are pretty much 99.5% THEORETICAL?!, Hence the term "string THEORY."

Honestly, when my friends and I took those blue mushrooms in high-school, we found out about the string theory just from those next 4 hours, then two years later you see Michio Kaku and another scientist on the Discovery channel in which according to some has all the answers to life itself, explain what the world REALLY looks like, but truth is it took me/us 4 hours to learn (after eating a handful of blue fungus) what has I guess taken you 10+ years to figure out. So, I guess I don't have any questions for you yet about the string theory, one question I do have though is why would you think there couldn't be aliens or anything beyond what you have seen here on earth when our basic SCIENCE of today limits us from even exploring outside of our solar system, let alone the hundreds of other solar systems, let alone the universe, or the many other universes, and dimensions, and frequencies. Hell, the string theory is just a tiny, tiny piece to the limitless puzzle IMHO, it isn't the damn answer to everything or to life itself. Amazing theory yes it is, better than everyone elses, hmmmm, wouldn't say that.


Peace,
Marriah

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Annee

 

You need to go read some of the links I provided in the previous post. The world of science is full of manipulation, and corruption ,and greed my dear. There are liars , and they manipulate the facts to ensure certain agendas are met.

I have been following this stuff for over 20 years.

No I don't need to read your links. Science is not speculation.

It seems to me that human fallacy has been enveloped within itself to form one giant egomaniacal farce that is modern science (or at least our understanding of it). How can we possibly understand the workings of the universe when we are not capable of even understanding our own capabilities (sorry for the tongue twister lol). Our so-called knowledge is tainted by our earthly perceptions, and our preconceived notions of what "is". A few centuries ago every scientist thought the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Anyone who said differently was executed under the charge of heresy. What's to make you all think that we've really progressed at all. If not in our technology but in our perceptions of possibility. (dont know if any of that makes any sense or if I just need a trip to the loony bin but if any of you understands what I mean than I would love to have a convo on said topic (U2U-wise)

Can I just say to the OP I got a lot of respect for you simply with putting up with this "interrogation"! A lot of people crack and give up after just a few posts yet you keep going, that says a lot!

Quick question. I have heard alot of people mention disinformation, are you guys talking about the government? Cause that seems... unlikely.

Click here for more information.