I am a Scientist.

Op, i am not trying to discredit you here,but when your knowledge comes from only one point of view and that was of an academic that curltailed probably the same circle of professors thinking the same thing,I would not say that you have it all figured out.

Glad to see that you have joined, shall be nice to have your view on threads, but i will never take your word as being a "Scientist," as a all-knowing-all-seeing entity, in a highly COMPARTAMENTALIZED world. Where technology and views, ideas change within a days time.

Have fun on ATS

reply to post by kurifuri


A theory is not a fact, it is simply a theory, you never call fact a theory.
Most of the questions asked to this guy is already available to be searched
within the internet. Science it's self is a system of beliefs and "expected "
outcomes, only somethings can be proven such as if you throw a rock,
the kinetic energy from the throw which is provided by the chemical energy obtained
from food makes the rock travel untill the forces of gravity and resistance slow it down
till it cannot move anymore etc etc. Proving these things on sub-atomic levels is near
impossible therefore things cannot always be 100% correct. Science is about
observation and putting it into terms that we can understand.

Now if you excuse me I got better things to do.

reply to post by Moduli


I take it you would find Max Planck to be amusing as well? Just curious. Why would the one considered the founder of Quantum Physics have this to say:

en.wikiquote.org...

--- I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

--- We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics (1931)

--- As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

I just did another google search on Quantum Physics Studies Consciousness; Quantum Physics Studies Holographic Universe; Quantum Physics Studies Infinity and have quite a lot to read, however scanning over it, I'd say, you don't represent universal beliefs in physics or amongst scientists, though its possible many are compartmentalized and hold the company bias or media bias in any case, however, you do realize that there are many fully qualified physicists who disagree with some of your statements, don't you?

I saw an article a few months ago that purported the identification of particles of subparticulate matter. If I recall correctly, these particles were being attributed with what was, I believe, formerly known as "Van der Waal forces".

What can you tell us about that?

I find the back ground noise discovered in Germany that suggests we're in a holographic construct very interesting. It also would upset dimensions a little, for instead its more like dot matrix, erected into 3D by Light Sources, ie, stars???? Input from somewhere, construct!!!! And considering there are Quantum Physicists who suggest consciousness is primary, and matter is waves and illusion, and perceptioin, or the screen on the back of our minds is all that we're facing in this world, it could be argued that this is akin to a very advanced beyond our scope or even understanding, metaphorical computerized television with Infinite channels, they probably all appear 3D ish, though who's to say any of the "laws" of physics apply in uniform, anywhere.

reply to post by Moduli


Sure - I have a question: If String Theory is "Correct" then why do you still refer to it as a "Theory"? Things that have been PROVEN correct are NOT called a "Theory". My guess is what you MEAN to say is that there is a consensus among the Community of Physicists that this Theory is the most plausible given what you have learned from your observations and calculations, as well as from your 10 years of schooling. So - in reality - what you are saying is that "String Theory" is your "best guess", and nothing more.

I've been reading this topic on and off since 6 this morning.

After finally reaching the end, I am exhausted!

I can honestly say, this has been the best thread in months, for me.

A fantastical display, of interllects and idiots


But by far, the greatest moment in this thread, has to be Cluckerspuds response:

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist.

Welcome to the board, nerd.

You sir, for that comment, are crowned the genius of this thread !

You may have already figured this out, but I will make this recommendation anyway:

You may well be a physicist, or perhaps just a student of physics; however, it does not bode well to give definitive answers to questions OUTSIDE of your expertise. Those answers may be a matter of opinion, or at the very least, best left to experts of that particular subject matter.

Your willingness to supply "answers" to these questions outside your field of expertise casts doubt on your credentials and makes you look more like a troll and more likely to be a dormitory brat than a professor of anything.

If you are a physicist, as you claim to be, stick to field related questions and ignore the rest.

Double Slit itself is not definitive. Look at this physicist/professor and his comment in the last minute of a different outcome if its observed, and how the wave function collapses into a particle.


Quantum Mechanics: The Double Slit Experiment

Fermilab physicist, Dr. Robert Plunkett, describes the deBroglie wave nature of an electron as demonstrated in the infamous double slit experiment.

Can't seem to get a real consensus.

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist.

No, you are not. And I tell you why: your understanding of the double-slit experiment is factually wrong. Fail

Originally posted by wiredamerican
reply to post by Moduli

 

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious. There are so many astounding misunderstandings of such basic things... I semi-regularly read several of the sub forums just to see how the newest poster has strung together some technobabbly words to make some ridiculous claim. It's fascinating.

Thank you so much (sarcasm) for totally insulting the ATS boards. As far as I am concerned, you need to learn how to (put things in another way).

ATS members sometimes bring strange things to the discussion board, but to ridicule them , is an insult to our board.

Just don't go knocking on someones door and start to criticize their front yard before you get to know the person.

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

As far as your views on string theory they are quite fascinating to me . What makes this universe tick? What is the basic element that effects all happenings. Your string theory , is a mind blowing concept.

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

Firstly - Welcome Moduli, it's been fun reading this rather long thread.. usually when there are this many pages I skip to the end and read backwards.. not this time.

As for being mocked (response to wiredamerican)

It's never good to take oneself too seriously, there are a lot of self-proclaimed experts here that are no more qualified to speak on physics than they are plumbing but they will do so adamantly.

There are also a tendency here ( with some, not all ) that if a core belief is questioned you're automatically wrong, or a disinformation agent.. rarely have I seen someone question themselves .. "Hmm, maybe I'm the one who's wrong here"

We invite mockery in how we lack any discipline for our approach to some topics.. there's the crowd that believes in something for the sake of believing it and then those who require solid evidence

reply to post by 547000


No, you are not missing anything. They are probably fairly recognisable, even in the form they are given. And I'm sure the OP knows what they mean. The point is that this isn't a good test of anything. The fact that the OP doesn't answer questions like this is a better proof that he is an intelligent academic than if he is not.

Why do I know this? Because in marking exams I am confronted all the time by students who refuse to write sentences to accompany their random (and often wrong) equations. We spend a couple of years teaching students to explain their working. So, the point is, equations on their own only have meaning if you assign a meaning to the quantities and functions that appear in them. Otherwise they are just maths equations.

Certainly the integral signs have meaning (though not a physical one). Also, by convention, the various letters used stand for something. The letter Q is often used for charge, B for magnetic field. But these are conventions. The equations that are given have multiple forms only one of which is given here, and they may need to be modified if working in a different situation.

Finally, I am not a string theorist, but I can recognise these as some form of Maxwell's equations. In fact, I am not even a physicist. So the test is not particularly useful. It doesn't even prove that he is an academic. I could have easily told you as a second year undergraduate what those equations represented.

But the point still remains: they can mean whatever you want them to mean if you define the quantities that appear in them some other way. And this happens. There are literally millions of equations out there in mathematics and physics papers. Just because they happen to be meaningful to you, out of context, because you found them on Wikipedia or in an introductory physics textbook does not mean they are significant without context.

Consider that "Maxwell's equations" may be given in a microscopic or macroscopic form, in a covariant form, in a potential form, etc. there's like 8 different formulations. They may be given with or without Maxwell's correction to Ampere's law. They only have unique solutions when they are accompanied by boundary conditions, and they have to be reworked if you are in the influence of a gravitational field or under acceleration. So asking what they "mean" is an ambiguous question without more information.

Don't expect academics to dumb down science to the level of the masses in order to prove that they are more educated than the masses.

Originally posted by XtraTL

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by Moduli

 

I have to admit having read many of the replies now. I'm somewhat horrified. However as a really simple test to establish some basic trust. Here's a fairly well known class of partial differential equations:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37c31df239de.jpg[/atsimg]

It would be helpful if you could identify what it describes. I know it's easy, but gotta build trust somehow right? If nothing else it should assuage the doubts of some of the more paranoid ATS denizens.

Although I can guess what answer you want him to give, I think you are entirely missing the point he made. Equations on their own are meaningless. It's only when we give a semantic meaning to the symbols that occur in them that they start to be meaningful.

Posting random equations and asking what they mean is not a test of whether he is an academic. It's a really good way to annoy the guy though. Accuse him of not being an academic because he refuses to answer your stupid question which only displays how ignorant you are.

What do you think Feynmann would say if you asked him what those equations meant? I can absolutely assure you, he'd be just as stubborn as the OP.

No offense, the equations shown above are so utterly well known (this is putting it mildly) that you'd have to be a complete physics n00b to not know what they represent. No string physicist can claim to be a physicist if they don't know what these PDE's represent. Perhaps let me put it to you another way. When we do interviews in the computer gaming business we ask low-hanging fruit questions to weed out the chaff. This is one of those questions. You start from simple and go to complex not the other way around.

Actually, if the good Dr. really is working in string theory as a theoretical physicist, he probably knows the answer to this question (though he might not too -- it depends what he actually works on -- you might get further asking someone who works on mirror symmetry).

Haha, just no. Your commentary is highly amusing however!

I really am enjoying this thread-only have made it to page 15 so far.

I do hope the OP will continue the conversations though, even after the flu has gone. Too many of these types of threads get made with the opening poster eventually leaving it.

Thanks to the OP and the ATSers who have brought forth great questions and as well pressed the OP for further explanations of things.

Will ask some questions if I see the OP is going to stick around.

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by sjorges2002

I'm also a scientist. ....There is no way to prove that souls do not exist....

Sorry, science has proven souls exist:

www.snopes.com...

Can anyone answer my question in this thread a few pages back?

Since when is one Dr weighing a dying a patient proof?

Do you know how many changes a dying persons body goes through?

There are any number of reasons for a body losing weight at the time of death.

I have only three questions for you kind sir(or madam):

1) How can I make a QED (Quantum Entanglement Device)?

2) Were you the reason for the global blackout for 147 seconds in which the whole world saw the future?

3) Why did Flash Forward get cancelled?

Welcome, and we kindly ask you to remove your shoes before entering.

reply to post by Xtraeme


What you are missing is that the OP stated he was here for his own amusement. He doesn't care whether you think he is an academic or not.

Look at the number of people who say:

You believe the twin towers were brought down by terrorists -> you are ignorant.

You don't know what these bogus equations mean -> you are not an academic.

You gave a description of the double slit experiment which does not agree with my nonsense Simpson's episode description of them -> you are not an academic.

Let me say it more clearly: you cannot use popular level science to determine if someone understands science at an academic level. And you most certainly cannot check that someone knows more than you by first checking that they agree with your dumbed down and plain wrong understanding of the world. They don't!

You are aware that there are academics who don't even accept that there are infinitely many integers (look up ultrafinitists). Academics take all sorts of esoteric opinions on matters as an exercise in intellectual curiosity that they don't discuss in public, lest the public get the wrong idea.

I couldn't even begin to describe on this board the sorts of work I do some days in my job. I didn't do 12 years of school and 8 years of University just because I didn't have the Khan Institute on Youtube when I was a kid. I did that because it actually takes that long to get to the frontiers of science these days.

If that sounds arrogant, bad luck. It's just the truth of the matter.

in the paraphrased words of Maximus ala Gladiator... "are you not amused!!!!"

i sure as heck am!

i mean, dang, this thread is tearing me up! i dig it. vintage ATS!

i mean, here we got this new Cowboy come struttin' into town, naming himself Mr. Science, and he's got some shiny guns of logic and he ain't afraid to use 'em... and sure enough, he's got a sniper's wit, a wizard's dexterity, and the cool steely glare one could only hope a gen-u-ine scientist would possess... no soul, no god, no alien visitation, no reincarnation, no astral projection. blammo! there you have it folks! straight from the mage's mouth.

but then some good ol' ATS vets come onto the scene, ready and able to scope out this new fella... and so they draw their own shrewd pistols, and take keen aim to prove this stranger's salt... and in the process protecting some of us more lay folk that lurk here-abouts from the cold scrutiny and absolutism of the one called Mr. Science.

and then they go at it... matching theory for theory... formula for formula... pow! pow!

but then here comes Mr. Science, and he lays it right back on them. pow!

but them ATS lads don't back down. they've got too much pride. too much skill of their own. i mean, this is their turf!

blammo! pow! awesome!

all around dust storms of staggering complexities and mind devouring intricacies swirl about and i am left a dazed and amazed as my relatively meek mind attempts to comprehend what these arch-wizards are dueling about... and though i have no frickin' clue, i sure do like the fireworks!

so thanks, one and all... the OP (for all his swagger) has certainly made himself available, and has responded to most every query presented, and that is appreciated. and to the ATS vets... that's why i keep coming back. way to represent!

i am thoroughly amused! and truly impressed.

and now i'm going to go outside to talk to a tree (which i believe someone way back there said was pointless... but, well, i won't tell the tree that )

reply to post by XtraTL


Don't get me wrong. I think the OP is the real deal, and the way by which ATS is trying to "debunk" him is ridiculous. Take for instance Saturn FX started calling him a fraud simply because he gave a convicted answer to a question outside of his field, as though scientists have some sort of moral code to never comment on things or have strong views without evidence. That is nonsense. Many scientists do have strong views on things not well understood.

I do study science on my own and I think he actually understands what he's talking about. You can easily tell apart psuedo-scientists from people with actual background by paying attention to whether they mangle commonly accepted definition with made up meanings.

The poster said that they were PDEs. They don't seem to be PDEs to me. How are you supposed to "test" him if you don't know the material yourself?