I am still a scientist!

As a follow-up to my previous thread (www.abovetopsecret.com...), which was hilariously declared a hoax, I am giving you the once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity (act now!) to ask me science questions once again. This time, in the science forum, me being a scientist and all.

First, about me:
I have a graduate degree in theoretical physics, specializing in string theory, from a top physics university. I also have a graduate-level understanding of several areas in math, applicable to physics. I am a very good physicist, with an expert understanding of many topics, including string theory, quantum mechanics, and general and special relativity.

I'm giving you this opportunity because (in addition to the fact that most people, including people on this forum, do not typically have the chance to ask questions to an actual research scientist) I find these boards' lack of understanding of science hilarious, and figure it is my due diligence as a scientist to give you the chance to learn something.


Here are my rules:
First, to quote my previous thread,

I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret alien technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by "TPTB" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).

1. My expertise is in physics and math, and to a lesser extent, astronomy and astrophysics. Try to keep questions limited to these areas. However, I will be happy to answer basic questions outside of my field if I happen to know the answer (just don't make the whole point of your question be to ask about RNA transcription or something).

2. I reserve the right, in the interests of using all of our time in the most efficient way possible, to ignore questions which are repeated, which I find incomprehensibly stupid, which cannot be parsed in terms of ordinary English grammar, which contain a large amount of technobabble, which accuse me of being a hoax / disinfo agent / etc.

3. I reserve the right to stop replying when the posts become too crazy, accuse me of being one of "them", TPTB / disinfo agent / hoax / bigfoot / etc one-too-many-times, I get bored, or for any other reason.

4. Do not ask me homework questions, and do not ask me to do random calculations; I don't care, and you wouldn't understand. I may, however, refer you to textbooks where calculations are done, or include simple calculations on my own if it would be sufficiently illustrative.

5. I will not respond to posts demanding I "prove" I am a physicist. I have better things to do (and so do you).

6. I will not give out any personal information, or tell you any specific papers I have worked on. I don't need anyone tracking down and harassing my colleagues and coworkers. We get enough letters and e-mails from crackpots, we don't need more.

7. Keep in mind when asking questions that I do not believe in any conspiracies.

8. I will not comment on any questions regarding 9/11, the Moon landing, or medical conspiracies, because they are all too stupid, and too uninteresting.

9. I reserve the right to laugh, mock, and ridicule any post I deem worth of laughter / mockery / ridicule.

10. I am happy to give recommendations for textbooks, or some basic advice about how to become a scientist / what to study, etc, even though these are not technically science questions.

Sounds like you need a little ego deflation, your head is going to explode.

It appears that this thread may be a hoax as well. It is suspicious to say the least that you place an abundance of demands, protocals and conditions to place your expertise at our disposal.

It occurs to me and others Im sure...that a conspiracy site is probably not the place to come to and offer your "services", much as a "dial-a maid" sevice.

It the credentialing and 'conditions' you place on your "talents" that make me suspicious. Most with your implied degreed "education" would do no such thing, not here, and not by trying to convince us they are a bonafide "scientist".

Then again...perhaps that's just me.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
It occurs to me and others Im sure...that a conspiracy site is probably not the place to come to and offer your "services", much as a "dial-a maid" sevice.

Believe me, there are few places more in need of scientific explanations than places like this!

It the credentialing and 'conditions'

The "conditions" are so we don't waste everyone's time with, for example, posts like this one.

not by trying to convince us they are a bonafide "scientist".

I am not trying to convince anyone. I don't really care if you, or anyone else, believe me. I can give you the opportunity to learn things, not make you learn. (And, geeze, it's not like science is objective and you can determine if someone knows it or not.)

reply to post by Moduli


Well thanks for taking questions,

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head, and after reading your input parameters, is to ask if you can layman-ize and sort of make accessible what Dr. Sylvester Gates and his colleagues are discovering concerning error-correction block code sequences in string theory equations.

Thanks in advance.

X.

No offense intended, though this may sound harsh.

If i want to talk to a scientist, the last place i would go is a conspiracy forum. Any questions i have can be answered with the numerous, reputable science outlets on the internet and darkweb.

I have no questions Therefor i require no answers.

I neither believe nor disbelieve you. Im kinda neutral lol

I don't have any science questions for you,I just wanted to say you remind me of Sheldon from 'the big bang theory'. Is it just me or does anyone else see it too?


PS I neither believe or disbelieve you but use caution when answering questions OP. en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Thiago David Olson built a working nuclear reactor by asking questions in forums.

I have a question.
If we make a tear in the vacuum of space, will that create a wormhole?
Or are wormholes bs?

Originally posted by Xoanon
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head, and after reading your input parameters, is to ask if you can layman-ize and sort of make accessible what Dr. Sylvester Gates and his colleagues are discovering concerning error-correction block code sequences in string theory equations.

I do not see anything like this in his list of recent publications I just skimmed through.

Generally, I haven't read any papers on anything like this, so I can't comment specifically, but it's not clear what something like this would even mean. So my guess is that this is either not true, or an oversimplification or something else (such as a poor or confusing explanation of mathematical consistency in physics).

The idea, on the other hand, that we live in a simulation, is nonsense, as I expressed in the thread on that topic.

Originally posted by PutAQuarterIn
I don't have any science questions for you,I just wanted to say you remind me of Sheldon from 'the big bang theory'. Is it just me or does anyone else see it too?

I get that sometimes. I actually do know one of the physicists that Sheldon is based off of, though! The guy is much more personable than Sheldon though .

Originally posted by LeLeu
I have a question.

If we make a tear in the vacuum of space, will that create a wormhole?
Or are wormholes bs?

The word "tear" doesn't have a scientific meaning, so I can't answer that part of the question.

Wormholes are acceptable solutions of classical general relativity under certain conditions. Unfortunately, those conditions are always ones that seem to be not satisfied by actual matter.

The conditions can be "momentarily" satisfied (this has a technical meaning beyond the scope of this discussion) and it does seem like it may be possible for microscopic wormholes to exist in some sense, but this means that they should be thought of more as weird particles than science fiction wormholes (which seem to be impossible).

reply to post by Moduli


And you think this thread will end differently how?

Whatever you call yourself, scientist or whatever, it's clear you're a bit of a jack ass. Do you know this is a conspiracy forum first and foremost, right? It is not a scientific research forum, but never the less this site does have intelligent posters and crazy ones, and everything else in between.

what gives microscopic energy particles their properties, and how can they maintain an illusion of stability macroscopically?

what compels my human brain to even bother asking a question like that?

"from a top physics university" sounds incredibly veiled and made up imo. If you are so proud of your resume then youd certainly drop the name of the university.

Also, there are a lot of experts in theoretical physics on ATS. Just look at all the "omg I discovered free energy" threads that are posted almost daily.

Best of luck to you regardless. Physics is one of the most demanding scientific disciplines, at least for me.

I do not see anything like this in his list of recent publications I just skimmed through.

No problem. I have found his article here...

This article first appeared in Physics World, June 2010.

Physicists have long sought to describe the universe in terms of equations. Now, James Gates explains how research on a class of geometric symbols known as adinkras could lead to fresh insights into the theory of supersymmetry — and perhaps even the very nature of reality.

being.publicradio.org...

Generally, I haven't read any papers on anything like this, so I can't comment specifically, but it's not clear what something like this would even mean. So my guess is that this is either not true, or an oversimplification or something else (such as a poor or confusing explanation of mathematical consistency in physics).

The idea, on the other hand, that we live in a simulation, is nonsense, as I expressed in the thread on that topic.

Right. Although I do find it entertaining to imagine that we are a simulation on a computer system in the future, I don't buy it as reality either. As far as I can tell it is a practical joke on the part of Kurzweil. I was just wondering what it could mean, if anything.

Thanks anyhow.

Originally posted by yourmaker
what gives microscopic energy particles their properties, and how can they maintain an illusion of stability macroscopically?

The phrase "energy particles" is nonsense. Energy is not an adjective, and is not interchangeable with "particle."

What gives particles their properties is complicated. In an over-simplified sense, the answer is mathematical constraints force their properties to be what they are. The constraints are typically simple when phrased correctly, and whole classes of properties come from them, so this is a significant conclusion.

I also don't know what the "illusion of stability" is supposed to mean. Particles are stable if they cannot decay into other particles, or if they can, but it is very unlikely.

reply to post by Moduli


You said in your previous thread you specialize in High Energy Particles and String theory. But apparently in this thread "Energy Particles" are nonsense, therefore you sir, are nonsense.

Can you explain the source / cause of inertia?

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by PutAQuarterIn
I don't have any science questions for you,I just wanted to say you remind me of Sheldon from 'the big bang theory'. Is it just me or does anyone else see it too?

I get that sometimes. I actually do know one of the physicists that Sheldon is based off of, though! The guy is much more personable than Sheldon though

.

Originally posted by LeLeu
I have a question.

If we make a tear in the vacuum of space, will that create a wormhole?
Or are wormholes bs?

The word "tear" doesn't have a scientific meaning, so I can't answer that part of the question.

Wormholes are acceptable solutions of classical general relativity under certain conditions. Unfortunately, those conditions are always ones that seem to be not satisfied by actual matter.

The conditions can be "momentarily" satisfied (this has a technical meaning beyond the scope of this discussion) and it does seem like it may be possible for microscopic wormholes to exist in some sense, but this means that they should be thought of more as weird particles than science fiction wormholes (which seem to be impossible).

edit on 24-3-2012 by Moduli because: suffexes!

Thanks for you reply, sorry if my question was a bit vague though
The reason I asked was that the Extreme Light Infrastructure project or mainly the
Ultra High Field Facility aims to pull apart the vacuum of space to see what's on the other side.
They have stated they may find evidence of other dimensions but I've also read that they may
create a wormhole. Although the wormhole speculation does'nt come from them I must say.

Why is the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light ?
We all know the Einstein said it is the case, but why is this presumed true ?
I think an answer that a layman may understand is in order.

how come such a prolific scientist got the time to run this BS all over again?

you know you have been exposed before...
and you again come in here without any proof or evidence to put on the table..

when science is based on facts..i suppose you already know we face hoaxes and nutty people on daily basis here and on YT

are you trying to make fun of us lol?