I am a Scientist.

I cannot believe a "scientist" would come in and claim absolute knowledge of anything. I also can't believe you would call a theory, fact. Oh and what real "scientist" claims to be able to pass their knowledge down via an internet message board? You went to school to become a physicist for 6+ YEARS right? Your devaluing your own profession by acting like that knowledge is simple enough to explain on a message board. Unless, of course you think answering questions definitively like you know for a fact they are true without supplying any semblance of proof is a right given to all "scientists?"

lol and his colleagues make fun of us lol

we bashed him, trashed him and owned him all way to the bone

no way you can come to this forum and try to ridicule us ...no way sir

everything many of us do here is driven by the hearth..so we cant be ridiculed man

even if you are a scientist..which i doubt...is not in any way different from us..we all look for the same things on this planet in the end..love..and you aint need to be a graduate to find it and appreciate it..the rest is just a matter of a subject you love doing..your is science...mine is...erm is.....is....life

Originally posted by Moduli

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

I've known a few theoretical physicists in my day, and since "string theory" is still a perturbative formulation -- meaning the core theory/theories are a collection of estimations/approximations -- I've not known any to make that statement.

Arguably, in the world of scientists, theoretical physicists rank among those with the more insufferable egos, they still tend to shy away from such definitive statements for a theory that has yet to provide predictions that are able to be verified through testing.

reply to post by Moduli


i have been working on a therory that the very center of a black hole has a creamy carmel core. since it is all just therory i like to think my therory is correct. once i open up my papers to peer review , then i will b e proven correct.

reply to post by XtraTL

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!

I'm not defending some of the insanity I've seen in this thread. This is why I commented, "I have to admit having read many of the replies now. I'm somewhat horrified." The point was to provide a very simple test based on something I know is correct from a non-popular science level. As I pointed out earlier in the game industry when we interview people we ask weed out questions. Thankfully game development doesn't require string theory. Basically at worst all we have to deal with is SLERP and quarternions for animations. Though admittedly more highend AI R&D can get pretty tricky.

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.

This may be, but they come to this conclusions after looking at very well established findings and then challenge them. They don't suddenly forget the basics. They simply amend them. The point isn't to test his claimed level of expertise. The point is to get a basic sense of whether he's completely full of crap or at least reasonably intelligent on the subject matter he claims to have expertise in. Though you've unfortunately ruined some of the fun by giving hints at where to find more information.

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.

I understand where you're coming from. I've had conversations with people here on ATS in the past trying to explain why NASA isn't "smudging" out pixels of photographs of the moon to occult massive lunar bases. Going into the details of explaining how Goddard's SVS team maps satellite remote sensing data to geometry allowing for animations to perceptually transition among datasets via blending and interpolation of missing segments was difficult to simplify. So I get your point.

reply to post by 547000

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?

They're part of a class of well known PDEs. This is basically what our friend XtraTL was attempting to point out earlier discussing the variation of forms. They have an integral form and a differential form. Half the point is to see if our guest can even distinguish these things. Get me? You both ruined the test.

reply to post by Moduli


Well, not only am I convinced you are a scientist, you gain credibility with me because you can craft literate sentences, even to the point of properly placing punctuation when quotation marks come into play.

Welcome, enjoy the lunacy, but don't be so quick to dismiss everything. There is some excellent material on ATS about a myriad of topics. One area where I think ATS excels is gathering quick information about seismic matters, since ATS has a global community that translates into lots of eye witness anecdotal information. Several seismologists are on board too.

I am just a lowly mechanical engineer/patent lawyer, but I am constantly amazed at the incredibly closed minded thinking of "scientists". I have a bunch of friends from MIT I debate with. When asked about the diverging universes theory within quantum theory they say they don't like it. Dismissing concepts like quantum physics because you "don't like them" is sadly typical of scientists in this era. You can't even explain gravity, though you scientists like to believe you understand it. Being able to predict a phenomenon's behavior is very different than "understanding" it.

I still have text books showing electrons orbiting around a nuclei like its a freaking planetary body. That only changed in the 1960s in main stream education. Humans are a sadly primitive species, science seems only to be able to advance when the current generation of "scientists" dies off allowing a new generation to emerge. Religiously defending your beliefs is not science.

who is considered to have the greatest theoretical mind after Einstein.

has anyone come up with anything truly ground breaking in therrectical physics or are you still trying to prove or disprove or add on to Einstein's orignal work. I am under the assumption that string therory is just an extension of Einstein's work

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Ouch! He even caught SkepticOverlord off guard.

He's a theoretical physicist. The theory is most definitely correct.

You see, this highlights the profundity of the problem here. He's toying with everyone and having a jolly good time. His answer to the question about the double slit experiment was also correct, but only in a way that would not be recognizable to people here.

He's demonstrated to my satisfaction that he has a knowledge of string theory equivalent to at least the level of a highly motivated undergraduate or graduate student. His evasive and cocky answers lead me to believe he is more than that. But the jury is still out on that one, so to speak.

He could be a scammer for sure. But he's not unintelligent and clearly suffers from colds quite often.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

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.

Such as? A body can not lose weight upon death unless you think that lost weight is:

A: A Fart

B: What the scientists said, which SNOPES agrees with....the Soul.

So do some science and prove a Fart weighs 1 ounce. Then submit your proof to Snopes as well as some science journals to be peer reviewed.

Originally posted by jed001
who is considered to have the greatest theoretical mind after Einstein.

has anyone come up with anything truly ground breaking in therrectical physics or are you still trying to prove or disprove or add on to Einstein's orignal work. I am under the assumption that string therory is just an extension of Einstein's work

How about Edward Witten?

Relevant to this thread too.

I was with you until you said 'String theory is definately correct', and then it became abundantly clear that you share something with those people that make 'ridiculous' claims. While I wouldnt say your claim that string theory as a whole is ridiculous, it certainly isnt definately correct.
It certainly does do things that no other theory does.. but you cant deny that there are issues. They may be resolved, or an entirely new theory may emerge, who knows. Either way, from reading the forums its obvious that most of the conflict arises when people absolutely insist they are correct, and when they give any inclination that they believe they are superior to anyone else. Oh, and when they lack sources to back their points up.
So, can only assume that its most likely that this is a thinly veiled attempt at stirring up a bit of drama... in which case, I believe that if you type 'creationist forum' into google, that will provide you with enough subject specific entertainment to last you at least 20 years.

Originally posted by Red_xi

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 !

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Originally posted by XtraTL
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Ouch! He even caught SkepticOverlord off guard.

He's a theoretical physicist. The theory is most definitely correct,

You see, this highlights the profundity of the problem here. He's toying with everyone and having a jolly good time. His answer to the question about the double slit experiment was also correct, but only in a way that would not be recognizable to people here.

He's demonstrated to my satisfaction that he has a knowledge of string theory equivalent to at least the level of a highly motivated undergraduate or graduate student. His evasive and cocky answers lead me to believe he is more than that. But the jury is still out on that one, so to speak.

He could be a scanner for sure. But he's not unintelligent and clearly suffers from colds quite often.

You sir are either trolling very hard.. Or you live in some assbackward world where someone can run before they can walk.

And giving him credit based on his ego.. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.
:facepalm:

reply to post by Moduli


Hello Modulo. I too am a physicist (although I spend much more time researching economics these days). I do, however, know quite a lot about what you are saying and have spent a number of years in the field of Physics.

The first thing that catches my eye is that you claim that “String Theory” is definitely true and elude to it being the final end all theory of the most fundamental proportions. I have never met a physicist or scientist that claims any theory, not even the most fundamental, as certainly inevitable. There are no certainties in science, and not even our laws are set in stone. The nature of science itself is such that it is, and shall remain, ever changing.

I doubt Brian Greene (Elegant Universe)(whom I have met and discussed this with at length) would even state that string theory is a certainty. It is certainly a theory that holds much merit, but it has many inconsistencies and has had trouble for decades. Not until about 25 years ago did it start to gather steam once again, and even now it is disputed as only a strong possibility.

You discuss the LHC and the Higgs boson, and state that, “the LHC is going to detect the Higgs boson”. You go on to state that it must exist in some form or another. This is simply conjecture and I have never, and doubt I ever will, meet any scientist, ESPECIALLY a physicist, that would ever claim such a certainty without its discovery. It’s a likely outcome, it’s quite possibly true, there is a high probability that they may find it, but it is far from absolute at this time.

You also state that it “may be the case that extra, unexpected particles, may be discovered”. Of course extra particles will be discovered, the LHC is the longest, most energetic collider, ever created! How do you think we discovered Gluons, or Muons? How do you think we discovered Quarks?!? Yes, adding length to the collider and then bashing particles together, we will MOST LIKELY find new particles if they exist!

I have read many of your posts now and am beginning to see that you don’t seem to understand Quantum Mechanics. Without this fundamental understanding, how do you expect us to believe you understand string theory? Are you not aware of Schrodinger’s cat? The act of observing something, definitely changes its state. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, a principle learned by any 3rd year physics student, explains it nicely. The photon interaction changes its state in such a way that we can either know its momentum or its location, but never both.

You state that Gravitons “Do” exist, and I wonder sir, how do you claim such to be truth? Gravitons are a theoretical particle that have never been observed. General Relativity explains gravity as a wave and is in direct contradiction to the theory of a graviton unless you claim that they travel much as light does, as both a particle and a wave. Either way, the jury(all serious scientists who write peer reviewed articles) is still out on this one.

More coming soon, I am only through page 4 of this total post.

reply to post by Moduli


ok, theory scientist. what does static charge have to do with anti-gravity? do you know any of tesla works? Is it possible to move 100,000 thousand tons with the push of a finger. Do you think that a person can use the gravity forces of the earth to push the object? how do you think you would do this if you would? IF you use these technologies do you think you could accomplish this feat? ONE, the coander effect, TWO, the electron stripper, the van der graph, and the tesla coil. put them all together and do you think that this is possible? Do you think the electro static wall is possible? Don't know, ask 3M.

String and Super String theory is a THEORY. nothing more. Please members donot take scientis,professors,doctors,priest and pastors seriously. They are all flawed....String theory is definitely not correct. And it is a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. This guy cannot disprove that. MOST scientific statements are theories. Perfect example is the bigbang theory. Its a theory and we all assume its a fact because we all see it on corny tv shows. we have no proof on how the universe began and we will never know. Get over it science guy. Get a hooker if your lonely.

reply to post by Moduli


How can string selection rules which determine the superpotential be interpreted
as low-energy flavor symmetries?

Under what circumstances will string-derived flavor symmetries take the form of
continuous non-Abelian horizontal symmetries when acting on the low-energy degrees of freedom?

Thanks

reply to post by Pervius


The body naturally loses weight after death through various chemical changes. It isn't immediate but it happens over time. The various sphincters relax immediately and all waste is ejected from the body but I think he accounted for that. Still the methodology of the experiment was flawed. The sample size was far to small to prove anything and the ability to measure weight changes were imprecise. By his own admission some of the patients actually gained weight. Mice have been shown to lose weight immediately after death as well, do they have a soul? Even if we can't account for a change in body weight after death there is no reason to suspect it is the soul. It is pure speculation. Why anyone would think a incorporeal entity would have weight to it is beyond me. Also if the soul had weight to it, could we not trap it?

I also remember seeing that the margin of error on the scales used was 21 grams.

Since my last two reminders have been burried in the pages and ignored....

If the off topic posts continue, you may very well be post banned.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
MOD NOTE: REFRESHER ON POSTING ON ATS

1. Off topic posts will be actioned by staff. This includes complaints about staff actions = NOT on topic!
Post On Topic – Please Review This Link.

2. One word or one line posts that add nothing to the topic will be actioned.
(This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

3. There will be no insults, attacks, name calling or anything like that.
ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics


From here on out...........posting bans may be issued if the rules of ATS are not followed.

Thank you.......carry on.