I am a Scientist.

Originally posted by Laokin
reply to post by Moduli

 

3 quick adresses before I start here....

Firstly... this is a board for Conspiracy Theories.... so yes, there are some cooks here, that is to be expected. However, assuming that the entire populace of the board is indentically "looney-toons" would be a very false assumption as one member does not represent another member with any kind of measurable consistency. Surely you would know this considering your stature.

]

This is a conclusion based on reading many posts on many forums, not an assumption . But whatever.

Secondly... It would be wrong to assume something is not true just because you have no experience with it. I.E. You may not be involved and as such, you would obtain zero knowledge of the people who are involved, so to say absolutely that certain activities aren't taking place (when we know that they are and have admissions from people who are KNOWN to be in powerful positions) is just a falsity. This should also come really easy to some one like you, who is bound to this process in a scientific matrimony.

That's not how science works. That's like saying "because you've never personally gotten a million things, then a million more things, then put them together in a pile and counted them, you can't *really* say 1million+1million=2million." Yes, I can. I can and I do.

Thirdly... It is in incredibly poor taste to introduce yourself by insulting the members of the society you are attempting to join. This, is common sense.

It's even more in poor taste to accuse a new member of being a liar, no?

Now I may continue with the meat of my address to you....

You may.

I'm not a "debunker" of string theory, in fact... it seems very plausable to me. However, you state it is absolute... this I have a huge problem with.

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

This is just outright false. Is it called String Fact?

"Theory" is the best it gets. Saying it's just a theory is like saying "sure you have a car, but it's *just* a Ferrari." You only say that out of ignorance or jealousy that you don't have such an awesome car!

Right, because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim. Numbers just don't cut it on their own.

Math has very little to do with numbers, and there is plenty of evidence for string theory. It's just that the evidence is very technical. That's no different than the evidence for things in other fields. Do you think the evidence for how RNA transcription works is easy to understand? I'm sorry if we can't make the universe physically explode in front of you with it's awesomeness, but "I don't understand" is not a reason something is wrong!

Remember Newtons Law?

Like back when I was a boy...

He had all the math to support his theory, however -- it was proven to be incorrect.

Nope! That's the opposite of what happened. Nice guess though. Einstein, who spent his whole damn life telling everyone he did not ever claim anything Newton ever said was wrong--evidently to no avail--turned out to do the opposite.

Newtonian mechanics was put on a firmer foundation, and made MORE correct, by EXTENDING it to a theory that explained things that Newtonian mechanics *could not* explain. We call this extension relativity. The fact that Newtonian mechanics is not wrong can be seen in the fact that you can get a degree in applied Newtonian mechanics (called mechanical engineering). And, indeed, you can use it to do lots of cool stuff!

When you have super complex mathmatics, it becomes exponentially harder to pin point minor errors.

Not that this has anything to do with the point... But actually, it's easier in a lot of ways. "Complex" math is "complex" because it is more constrained--there are more relations. It's also done more carefully. It makes it easier to find mistakes, not harder.

There is no scientist in the world that would claim something was absolute fact based on mathmatics alone...

Only someone who doesn't understand what "a fact" is would say this. It's also unrelated to the claims I've made. Experiments pin down the structure, math tells you more. See the addition example yet again!

To cite some proof, watch the documentary "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie." You will see, how numerous times mathmatics weren't enough, so they actually had to demonstrate nuclear explosives to see if their theories match the yield, distance, and the effects of the explosion. All things that could be potentially proved mathmatically, but the tests defied expectations and in most cases were much BIGGER than anticipated. A simple error in numbers eh?

Actually, this is not called "errors" but "oh god I hope the Germans don't get it first"s. More experiments make things easier, fewer experiments make things harder (sometimes much harder) but not impossible.

This very well may be true, however... at the time of Newton's Law, there were no theories that could do what that did either... not until Einstein, and his equations were able to do what others couldn't.... and now we have numerous equations post einstein that do things einsteins equations could not do.

Except they didn't. They were more, not less. This is like saying discovering a new continent makes all maps "wrong". NO, it makes all maps incompete. It overturns nothing. It told you about something that was not on the map. So you build a bigger map and give it a new name so as not to be confused with the old maps when you talk about them.

You can even make statements about the new continent without seeing it! "Hey there's an ocean next to me, so if there's another continent over there, it must have an ocean next to it, too! In fact, that ocean must be between us! And it must be at least as big as the longest distance we've measured the ocean to be!"

Do you see the pattern yet?

I do indeed!

You don't know arithmetic, you apply it.

I do! Apparently you don't.

You CANNOT be a man of science and make statements like this.

Yes, the usual "scientists know the least about how science works" argument. Always a favorite!

This explanation only applies if you consider light to be a wave. Einstein said wave AND particle.... which is indeed impossible. Even Einstein knew so... so we know that isn't the case.

Light--and everything else--are probability waves. Not physical waves (or physical particles). And those kinds of wave can look like physical waves of particles. This is what the Schroedinger equation says. That's what the Psi in it is. A *probability* wave.

This has been understood for literally nearly 100 years. It's not new.

Wrong. Period. Outright. 100% false. String theory is the first semi successfull theory that attempts to unify classical physics and subatomic/quantum physics.

This doesn't make any sense. Classical physics is included in quantum physics, that's the whole point of quantum physics. It is roughly the "hbar goes to zero" limit of quantum mechanics.

Strings combine general relativity with quantum field theory.

He himself admits that quantim phsyics is indeed WRONG.

He did not. He was one of the people responsible for creating quantum mechanics. That's what he won his Nobel prize for!

Explain "Prolate Spheroidal Wave Function" using your "arithmetic" skills. (Show your work, and explain why it works.)

It has nothing to do with arithmetic, so I can't explain it with arithmetic. But here's the answer: spherical harmonics. Well, a spherical harmonic. One of a wave function. You know, those things I mentioned describe probability waves that you refused to read about?

reply to post by Moduli


Hey there! I´m just a lowly geologist (oceanography), so my entertainment mainly comes from people talking about anything to do with earthquakes. A few other topics as well, but earthquake related discussions are definitely where it´s at for me. Sometimes I just don´t have the heart to refute people´s theories.

I hope you´ll be able to set a few people straight, for those who are genuinely not of understanding. I see this ATS as more of a very interesting psychological insight into common mentality of people, particularly the ones who "want to believe". I attend this forum more so on a wish to remain up to date with what other people around me are thinking of current events, etc.

No questions so far from me about string theory, as I have studied it a little already, but I would just say hello and welcome! Hope you have fun here, at least before the reptilian illuminati come take you away, of course.

Ok. Giggle and smirk, dogma man. We will strive to entertain you with things of which you evidently can't conceive. You show us that you are well schooled, but denying ignorance with your superior attitude backed with multiple sheepskins, I suppose. I'm sure that after several pages you have been taken to task multiple times for your outlook, but I must add my own. I'm sorry but I can't help mocking your approach to our crowd.

Ever see, what for all appearances, a genuine UFO (either ours or theirs?)

Ever consider that aliens could visit here(or do you buy the old Sagan argument?).

You totally understand quantum physics but don't allow any of that "strange stuff" it predicts?

Ever have a psychic experience that showed you that the world is not as we are taught by nearly everyone?

Ever notice that some of us are just as smirky with our superior attitudes as you because we have seen such things?

Who's more in touch with what is? Dated theoretics or open eyes and minds?
Should some of us, again, give a recounting of scientists that have made proclaimations in voice and paper that are exactly wrong about how the Universe is and, more importantly, how we can learned to alter it?

Your whole thread and headline is as funny as any doom-and-gloom poster of a thread on Comet Elenin. The only difference is your scope of ignorance is a bigger threat to us than such a poster, and that scares me.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by BobbyShaftoe
what are your views on the theories of Nassim Haramein?

It appears to be total nonsense.

at which point does this theory stray from sense?
video.google.com...#

and fanks for the reply BTW

Originally posted by j-man
What does botter me though, is that you seem to have a certain answer for every question presented. It's all defenite "yes" or even more definite "no"'s.

These are all very easy questions with very definite answers.

Originally posted by AlphaBetaGammaX
What particular types of math classes have been most beneficial to you? I have been told that Applied Math is extremely beneficial to all fields, but I've also been told it is not really that beneficial, and the same for Linear Algebra, etc. Every Prof. that I talk to has drastically different opinions.

Well it really depends on what you want to use it to do. Generally, any of the math classes are useful to do something (that's why they're there!). For me, the most useful have been in the graduate geometry tree of classes: multivariable calc, linear algebra, topology, group theory, abstract algebra, differential geometry, differential topology, algebraic geometry, etc. These are the most useful for theoretical physics. They're less useful for applied things, though. For those analysis branch and numerical methods branch classes would be better.

Basically, I want to be able to understand most of everything.

Well you need to take most of everything then . But this is much to ambitious! You can never know close to everything, unfortunately.

I also don't want this to really be 'field related' in that I would like to be able to have enough of the basic sciences under my belt so that I can learn some fields by myself, outside of a university.

An undergrad degree (a B.S.) in general undergrad math and in any science is sufficient for learning the basics of any other science on your own. More advanced things almost always require some formal education, since they involve lab work, technical details, field experience, etc.

So, if you glance back at your career and the careers of your cohorts, are there any math or other science classes that you think are indispensable to the ability to function as a scientist, and that you think I should look into?

Well, all of my math classes and all of my physics classes really. That's the point of having people take them!

but when I ask it at the university, all I get is "Why don't you just take the minimum credits needed and go on??

Well, you shouldn't take the minimum, you should take as many as you can! Don't take too many at once though, you don't want to be so overworked you fail everything! But as you take more classes and get more experience in a particular subject you start to get a feel for what you need to learn.

But to get more specific advice you'd need to get an idea of what specifically you want to do. And the best way to get a good idea of what you want to do is to learn as much as you can until you find something fun!

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 simply untrue.

Sould can and might exist, and there may be a mechanism in the body that does hold one. We haven't found it yet, but technology still advances. There are plenty of things in the body that we don't fully understand.

The Brain is one of them... It's also very plausible that if a soul does exist, it would be housed in the brain... or even smaller, in the DNA sequences.

This is a fact, that we don't know for sure one way or the other. The only fact is, we haven't found one yet... not that it does not exist.

This is how Science works. As long as there are unanswered questions, you cannot say difinitively one way or the other... it's just not science then.

Hi Moduli,

A few Q's.....

Can the universe, quantum physics, truely all be explained through logic ?

If so, when do we hit the ceiling of logic ?

How does logic allow for creativity, and unpredictablity ?

How does string theory explain the ability of a human to think lateraly, creatively, and imagine ? is there an equation for that ?

Is there any update on the speculation floating around that one of the colliders may have discovered a new force, if so which is the front runner for a answer ?

Is it possible for particles (quantum) to posess a form of intelligence ? Can they control their outcomes/environment ? If so, is this done as a collective, independently, or both ?

With the advent of knowledge on the quantum level, is everything produced by "upward causation" ? Can we exercise control/manipulate the quantum level ?

Can the holographic principle tie in with string theory ?

Can there ever be a marriage of philosophy and physics, where philosophy can be explained by maths and logic ? (bizzare nonsensical question, but still )

Thanks for taking the time to answer, hope you get well soon

reply to post by Moduli


First questions first, does God fit anywhere within string theory? =D

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Moduli

 

Thanks for the fast reply. I appreciate the honesty of your answer as it was kind of what I suspected. Not knocking your profession or anything but the whole super colider business seems like a big waste of money if it's just for fun and giggles.

Well, that's a common thought, but the thing is that if you do science well, you're guaranteed to get something that has applications eventually.

100 years ago no one thought quantum mechanics would have any applications, but today the things we've learned from it go into making your hard drives, CPUs, flat screen monitors, and thousands of other devices work.

just saying that it's really too expensive at this time and in our current economic situation.

It's actually quite cheap. Science is typically the least funded thing in the list of things with government funding! Plus that money goes to employ tons of people directly as scientists, and tons more indirectly, from the factory workers that make our equipment to the janitors who clean the floors in our labs .

Originally posted by mb2591
Care to explain where these gravitons come from?

They come from generic perturbations of the metric tensor around a conveniently chosen background.

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..

I am not a biologist, but I don't think that's correct. Smokers lungs wouldn't be full of black goo that chokes them if that were the case .

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

I don't know about this study so I can't comment on it specifically, but marijuana and cigarettes have very different chemical compositions, so it would not be surprising for one to have higher cancer rates than the other.

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

Bet you can't answer that, Smartypants.

Depends on what you mean by "stuff," "come from," and "originally."

Smartypants.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Narrowing of the wavelength is not the same as wavelength collapse.

I did not even use the word wavelength! The PROBABILITY DENSITY, which satisfies the wave equation because it is a probability wave, collapses.

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)

I got my information from my physics PhD. Maybe you need to re-read your source. Or, I dunno, read a textbook or something.

And photonic is not a word. Unless you're talking about Enterprise firing its photonic torpedoes.

The science of photonics[1]

Note how the word "photonic" (which is not a science word) was not used to describe "photonics" (which is).

reply to post by Laokin


What exactly is the definition of the soul? The soul is that which combines itself with ultimate reality, the ability to see the all pervading energy of the universe. Everything you see around you is sensory perception translated by your brain as data and from there blocks the true Reality of the universe. So do souls exist? Sure, I think so, the brain is undefined and is not subject to the domains of space and time.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by Laokin
reply to post by Moduli

 

3 quick adresses before I start here....

Firstly... this is a board for Conspiracy Theories.... so yes, there are some cooks here, that is to be expected. However, assuming that the entire populace of the board is indentically "looney-toons" would be a very false assumption as one member does not represent another member with any kind of measurable consistency. Surely you would know this considering your stature.

]

This is a conclusion based on reading many posts on many forums, not an assumption

. But whatever.



Well since you are say that everyone on this forum doesn't know what they are talking about.. and you are now a part of this forum.. One would have to assume that you are a cocky ratard.. Gotcha haha but seriously you with all of your 100% no room for error logic I know everything is kinda off putting and doesn't seem very scientific.. I though science always had room for change..

Originally posted by Moduli


Well that depends on what you mean I guess? You could make a steam engine or something by boiling water, but water doesn't combust so you could not build an internal combustion engine that runs on it.

A steam engine would not be hard to build, but it would be very inefficient and would have a tendency to explode (that's why the first cars sold to the public weren't steam powered! There were steam powered cars, though! But no one used them.)

Thanks for the reply.

I meant extracting the hydrogen safely and on demand and feeding it into the engine for the same combustion process that the engine is built for.

reply to post by Moduli


Alright, Moduli... first of all, welcome to ATS.
Now, I have a question for you. But, before I ask it, I want to tell you... don't worry about answering in a way that will be "over the heads" of others here. Don't even worry about the answer being over my head. If you can answer it, then please do so. And, I will tell you up front, any attempt by you to not answer this one question will be seen, by me, as evidence that you are not who you say you are. If you can answer it - which you should be able to, considering your field of study - then you will have proven that you are who you say you are. I f you cannot, then I would suggest to everyone else here that they ignore you... any String Theorist who cannot answer the following question should be fired.

So, here's the question (it may seem difficult to most here, but, I assure you, it should be no sweat for a String Theorist)...

What does the following equation (evaluated under the given conditions) describe:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4380806e407a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SaturnFX


I agree that this person's cut and dry answers, without any supporting evidence, are suspect.

Most of the answers are one liners, too.

But don't mind me. I'm just here to be entertained.

reply to post by Moduli


Hi Moduli,

I just got done reading the book Quantum by Kumar, and at the end he talks about Bell's inequality theorem. If I understand him right, he states that the inequality has been shown to hold experimentally, but not across the board, meaning there have been some experiments where the inequality is inconclusive. Is there a current consensus about the validity of the inequality, and does this give any more support to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, or are their other theories that have developed that are considered more correct?

They come from generic perturbations of the metric tensor around a conveniently chosen background.

Will you give me an example of this like..

They come from "enter a generic perturbation here" of the "enter metric tensor here" around a conveniently chosen background. (what is the background)

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

This is not the case. Theories predict exactly the right amount of carbon. These news reports seem to be based on the misunderstanding of an important amplification factor in the description of fusion in stars that this kid seems to not know about, but has been known to everyone else for a while...

And why can't it be infinite? We thought the world was flat 500 years ago,

No one educated thought the world was flat 500 years ago, it's shape--even its diameter--has been known for thousands of years! Also, we know because we've measured the universe. These measurements tell us that all the matter in the universe was created in a very small place a very long (but not infinite) time ago.

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

This has been discussed already.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
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.

Nope. The scientific method can basically be thought of as a fancy version of proof by contradiction. Note: contradiction. Not whateverdiction.

Originally posted by EthanT
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.

Peter Woit is a crackpot. He's not even a scientist! He administrates computers at the place he works! Occasionally they let him teach a baby math class because they don't have enough money to higher new professors!

And it makes tons of predictions. I'm sorry if they're too complicated for you (or him) to understand, but it does!

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.

Again, since is not about vague generalities, it's about specific predictions. If I predict that we should measure
x = 1.545634289734645613213456456903463423423425039458345
exactly, and we measure it's exactly that, that's pretty strong proof the theory was a pretty good one!

Without SUSY, string theoyr is in trouble.

Actually, it's not. It just makes it look more complicated. It turns out that the normal Standard Model is in trouble without it--more trouble than string theory would be in!

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.

I'm confident because the Standard Model would be horribly broken, and would only have made hundreds of predictions to dozens of digits of accuracy by a hilarious sequence of total freak accidents the Higgs mechanism doesn't exist. It would be like finding out your computer doesn't work on electricity, but on magical pixies that have a colony inside its box. Very unlikely.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Narrowing of the wavelength is not the same as wavelength collapse.

I did not even use the word wavelength! The PROBABILITY DENSITY, which satisfies the wave equation because it is a probability wave, collapses.

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)

I got my information from my physics PhD. Maybe you need to re-read your source. Or, I dunno, read a textbook or something.

And photonic is not a word. Unless you're talking about Enterprise firing its photonic torpedoes.

The science of photonics[1]

Note how the word "photonic" (which is not a science word) was not used to describe "photonics" (which is).

Do not think creating a black hole on ats will get you out of this!

anyhow, welcome to ATS, scientist or just pretending to be one, its always good to have new angles on...even if only to stir the pot a bit.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by Moduli


Well that depends on what you mean I guess? You could make a steam engine or something by boiling water, but water doesn't combust so you could not build an internal combustion engine that runs on it.

A steam engine would not be hard to build, but it would be very inefficient and would have a tendency to explode (that's why the first cars sold to the public weren't steam powered! There were steam powered cars, though! But no one used them.)

Thanks for the reply.

I meant extracting the hydrogen safely and on demand and feeding it into the engine for the same combustion process that the engine is built for.

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

I don't think this could be done efficiently enough to be very usable. It is possible to do but you would put in more energy than you would receive in the output

I also want to mention, that i see more people here trying harder to disprove you, than would try to disprove a shaky night video of a mysterious light.

That ='s sad.

I just wanted to know about HHO for vehicle engines. haha.


I also want to ask, since your opening post, have you found more legitimate members than you once thought? or are you still on the wavelength that the members are still mostly "technobabbly outrageous claims" makers?

Cheers for your replies and time, whatever the case may be.