I am a Scientist.

Originally posted by kurifuri
Ignore that post from the guy who claims a theory is not a fact. He has no understanding of the scientific method and the meaning of the word theory in context with scientific exploration.

You're joking right? You know for every theory, there is another theory that tries to explain that the original theory is wrong.... right?

Einstein's theory of relativitely is KNOWN to contain errors, I.E. meaning it's wrong at some level. Newtons Law, which was a theory.... and still is... has been proven to be inaccurate... containing errors.... meaning, it too is also wrong at some level.

This is the exact reason they are Theories. The theory that light is a wave and a particle depending upon observation is ONE theory. The counter theory, that explain in more detail and more mathmatic precision is called "The Rope Hypothesis."

It too, is a Theory, but it pretty well proves to original one wrong. Scientific theories are NOT facts, they are evolving observed principles. They cannot be proven factually by the technology of today, and as such -- never get past "Theory" branding.

The most advanced theories bring us new technologies.... but this doesn't make them the correct answer by any means.... It just means it's "partially" right.

You don't understand scientific theory. You need a dictionary.

Originally posted by mb2591
Do you believe in aliens?

I do not believe any aliens are visiting Earth. There may be aliens out there somewhere else, and those guys may even be intelligent! However we have no good handle on how easy it is for the biochemical processes that create life are, and under what conditions and for what time periods they must persist so we can't estimate the number of places life will be in the universe or galaxy (well, we can't estimate better than "at least one"!)

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I assume you have peer reviewed proof to back up that positive claim statement....

That's not how the null hypothesis works. The default statement is not "agnostic." Check out how conditional probability works, and why it's the basis of the scientific method in your favorite advanced probability textbook to see why this distinction is important.

Originally posted by StealthyKat
I hate to say I'm not able to take your word for it, but unless you provide some information

But the thing is, if I did, how would you know it was correct? If I was a "disinfo agent," wouldn't the government set up fake credintials for me? Then I could say "Here, I'm Bob Awesome who went to the Institute for the Smartest Man in the World" and I could give you the link to ISMW.edu and it would say "yes Bob awesome went here and was the most awesome student ever."

So you see, you've defeated your own argument!

Also, I don't care. I'm here for my amusement, not yours .

Originally posted by kurifuri
Follow up question! How can we rely on the hypothetical existence of other universes to complete hypothesis that didn't make sense before? If the math doesn't work without 'x' then we have proved 'x' exist haven't we?

Kind of like how we can rely on the existence of hypothetical numbers that square to negative numbers in order to solve real math problems!

Also, the extra universes is not an assumption, it's a conclusion. And this conclusion is independent of the other conclusions--you can think of it as a "bonus conclusion." Just like how imaginary numbers are bonus numbers that let you solve problems you couldn't before.

Originally posted by gypsychology909
Hey there welcome to a great adventure.

I think its kind of you to offer some insight into the fundemental reasons why things happen.

Help me to understand this thing in some abstract or even simpler way :
That some proven (wilderness/nature) trackers (ie. American Indians) totally lose those skills and abilities when their long hair is removed!?!
I think this was proven by experiments the army conducted following unusual patterns during Viet Nam recruitment.

Thanks eh.

This isn't really a physics question... but I could imagine a number of reasons. The most obvious is either poor methodology or small sample size errors. Others are lack of confidence (hair is important to them), subtle factors like lack of hair being distracting, their head getting cold, the wind not blowing in their hair, depriving them of wind information, etc. If the study were properly done it would have identified and determined these factors. That it apparently didn't leads me to believe the answer is "poor methodology."

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by j-man

 

Souls don't exist because there is no mechanism in the body that holds one. It has not been detected by anybody at all ever in the history of forever. Get over it.

If it exist, it can be detected. People claim to see ghost and feel Jesus but when brought to the test, they fail every single time.

No mechanism in the body to hold one? The thinking is too small. The soul does not reside within the body, so to look for a place it would be within the body is ridiculous.

People who see ghosts fail every single time? Perhaps if that was so the tests are too limited? I work with the dead and the living as part of my life's work.. don't charge for it either. Not only do they exist they can touch the physical in order to provide proof of their existence.. which is what we have them do to their living friends and relatives.

So many people truly Believe they know better because they are highly educated, but in reality they have closed themselves off to anything outside of their chosen set of Belief based Limitations.

welcome to ats a place the world is predicted to end adleast once a week...

Originally posted by Moduli

almost had it right...however, the collapse of the wave into a matter behavior came from the photonic interaction...

"photonic" is not a word. Indeed, it's technobabble!

(literally, observing did alter the state...but not magically..the photons created a reaction to the wave)...that is how it is explained in QP circles..not a narrowing of the wavelength.

These words don't seem to mean anything.

Originally posted by mb2591
Is there such things as gravitons?

Or a particle that accounts for the gravity force

Yes, gravitons do exist and do mediate gravitational interactions. At least, at low energies. At high energies closed strings do.

Originally posted by mb2591
Also sense it sounds like you clearly don't believe in any kind of conspiracy.. Why did the government take all the maps that show radiation levels offline right after the japan earthquake

Well, first of all, I am not aware that they did. Second, from whom? Radiation levels are monitored by a number of agencies for a number of reasons (scientific, defense, etc) and "the government" would not have the authority or ability to "remove" them.

Second, they didn't go out of their way to tell people the radiation levels because that is not information that is useful for people to have, because they don't know what radiation levels are dangerous. People tend to think *any* level is dangerous, and that's definitely false! In fact, bananas are known to set off radiation detectors at ports designed to detect radiological weapons! They're that radioactive! It turns out "that" radioactive is not very radioactive!

Third, the levels of radiation were never that high. As far as I remember they never got above the levels a pack a day cigarette smoker would get (yeah, they're radioactive, too!). But that's not nearly high enough to be dangerous--smokers die of the carcinogens in cigarettes, not the radiation.

But as I said, I don't think they "removed" any information. Though they certainly did not volunteer it to the public. And it was, AFAIK, always available to anyone from the groups who track these kinds of things.

Care to explain where these gravitons come from?

There was a map the public had access to that was taken offline shortly after the japan earthquake. Now try to find any map that shows radiation levels around the world.. A user posted one from Egypt which just happened to go offline within 5-10 minutes of it being posted.

Also I was aware that cigs are radioactive.. But Im pretty sure that the radioactivity comes from the tobacco being grown with radioactive fertilizers and this also accounts for why they cause cancer.. My reason for this you ask? Well recently marijuana was proved to not cause cancer.. Unless the user also smoked cigs in which case it made the risk for cancer higher. Also I have to believe this as fact because the number of deaths from marijuana in the 100's or 1000's of years of use in the world is a grand total of 0

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by j-man

 

Souls don't exist because there is no mechanism in the body that holds one. It has not been detected by anybody at all ever in the history of forever. Get over it.

If it exist, it can be detected. People claim to see ghost and feel Jesus but when brought to the test, they fail every single time.

This is exactly what I mean, what you should have written is of the likes of this:

Souls have not been proven to exist since it is not known how the human body could hold one. It has not been scientifcally detected. ("Get over it" was unneccesary all the way)

If it exists I think it should be detectable. I don't believe people who claim to have seen ghosts or felt Jesus because they couldn't reproduce it in a conditioned experiment.

Off course that statement would have made no sense to write in this forum since it was kind of off topic and wouldn't make a case at all, so maybe you should just have said nothing...

Your here for our amusement too buddy, personally I belive the soul is just the energy within our bodys. As I belive god is merely the energy around us "God is everywhere" "God created everything". I'm an atheist and this seems to be a pretty logical explanation to me. So you disprove the soul? Disprove energy mate.

I got a hardcore science question: where did stuff come from, originally?

Bet you can't answer that, Smartypants.

reply to post by Laokin


At certain point things become fact while still holding a theory title. Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. A theory that describes Evolution.

At some point things stop being up for debate and start becoming unequivocal truths.

'I can reject it because its only a theory' is not really a train of thought one should get into.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


I agree. YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT! THAT MEANS GOD DID IT.

Check and mate, science.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Actually, my skepticism is pretty much confirmed by the failure of the double slit experiment explanation...

This is the same explanation found in every non-introductory textbook on quantum mechanics. Try reading one! The technical details are described by something called "decoherence" but the idea is exactly what I explained.

Narrowing of the wavelength is not the same as wavelength collapse.
you may need to reread the article you got your information from again. I got my info on a physics forum after discussions between my monkeybrained self and an actual professor...the collapse is from photonic interactions (aka, the interactions between photons and electrons)

almost had it right...however, the collapse of the wave into a matter behavior came from the photonic interaction...

"photonic" is not a word. Indeed, it's technobabble!

The science of photonics[1] includes the generation, emission, transmission, modulation, signal processing, switching, amplification, detection and sensing of light. The term photonics thereby emphasizes that photons are neither particles nor waves — they are different in that they have both particle and wave nature. It covers all technical applications of light over the whole spectrum from ultraviolet over the visible to the near-, mid- and far-infrared. Most applications, however, are in the range of the visible and near infrared light. The term photonics developed as an outgrowth of the first practical semiconductor light emitters invented in the early 1960s and optical fibers developed in the 1970s.

Indeed one of us is babbling, but I suggest it may be you moreso than me.

See, I am employing what is known as falsificationism...to your claims anyhow.
much easier for me to tear down your claims than for you to prop them up...so, good luck with the scientific method refuting your claims to be a scientist...actually, you may be a scientist overall, but your claiming is going to rip apart your credibility...

As a scientist, you really should know better..

(literally, observing did alter the state...but not magically..the photons created a reaction to the wave)...that is how it is explained in QP circles..not a narrowing of the wavelength.

These words don't seem to mean anything.

this thread suffers a similar issue

But there is to much carbon in the universe to make it as old as we claim it is now.

There is this wunderboy making a update on Einstein.


And why can't it be infinite? We thought the world was flat 500 years ago, 100 years ago we could not dream of the things we have now and especially the ideas we have at this day and age. 50 years ago black folks we not welcome anywhere. 10 years ago we did not live in a world full of fear as we do nowadays.


As a theoretical physicist you can consider the possibility that the universe we see, could not be the only universe out there, hence the infinitely infinite universe thing I was typing.

Is there no room for multiple universes in string theory? Or layers of universes if you like?

reply to post by purplemer


better then glp, every 2 seconds

Nice, thread now in Science and Tech forum

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
I got a hardcore science question: where did stuff come from, originally?

Bet you can't answer that, Smartypants.

This is the funniest darned thread I've read in a while. It's just missing a zombie apocalypse question.
Then it'd be perfect.

Mr. Scientist, you're a breathe of fresh, slightly acerbic, air.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I assume you have peer reviewed proof to back up that positive claim statement....

That's not how the null hypothesis works. The default statement is not "agnostic." Check out how conditional probability works, and why it's the basis of the scientific method in your favorite advanced probability textbook to see why this distinction is important.

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.

I KNOW that cold fusion is impossible. I KNOW the universe is 4000 years old.

How do you know?

show me the proof, or move it into its proper catagory...science is not a religion, it is not a system of beliefs that will be factual regardless of evidence or not.

If you make a claim, its your responsibility to move your hypothesis through the testing cycle to theory and then finally fact.
Your claiming fact without theory, only hypothesis...that, to me, is delusion moreso than scientific standing.

reply to post by Icurus


How is that a valid argument?

Also your not an Atheist.

Originally posted by youallcrazy
Nice, thread now in Science and Tech forum

I suspect it should be in hoax...I may be proven wrong, but I am inclined to think that will be its final resting place.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Nah the dude is legit. Though, with all of the inane question flowing around he might not want to come back

reply to post by Moduli


You speak with a bit too much confidence about String Theory. We don't know if it is definitely right. As Peter Woit says, it's "not even wrong" because it makes no solid testable predictions.

Even if we do find say evidence of extra dimensions in the LHC, that is not definitive proof of String Theory. It is only an indirect test that could have other meanings. String Theory merely "allows" extra dimensions on a scale that could be detected by LHC, it doesn't predict that they have to be at the scale. Therefore, it would be a promising result for String Theorty, but it still would not be definitive, as you seem to be claiming.

Also, your microscopic black holes and SUSY are looking less and less likely each day, as most physicists are admitting. Without SUSY, string theoyr is in trouble. Superstrings need SUSY to explain, or unite, matter and forces. Bosonic string theory isn't going to cut it alone.

And, you seem a bit overconfident about the Higgs too. There is no guarantee we're going to find that either. And, if we don't by the end of the year, that too will start to look rather unlikely.

There's a lot up in the air right now. I'd be ready for a surprise. It'll be fun and exciting in the end, either way.