Does finding the God Particle make Edgar Cayce right?

[PoliticalChic]

Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you are one of the stupidest people to ever slither arround in the internets tubes.

The god particle is just a nick name you brain addled fool

Wrong again, Ms. Truthie...

The hope of atheistic scientists is that they can pretend that a hypothetical particle is the origin of all mass.

This is so they can explain the weird gap in the Standard Model, one of physics' most successful theories. The model as it stood had no mechanism to explain why some particles are massless (such as the photon, which is the quantum bit for light and other types of electromagnetic radiation), while other particles have varying degrees of mass (such as the W and Z bosons, which play a part in the weak nuclear force). By rights, all particles should be without mass and zipping around freely.
The Higgs boson made simple - Cosmic Log

Did I teach you something new again?

You're welcome.

I think most of us knew of your legendary copy/paste prowess already.

What does that have to do with your claim that it's nonsense, because it fills a recently unfilled hole?

I'm curious as to what view of the universe you feel makes the most sense.

1. To be clear, atheistic scientists have as their raison d'être a) understanding the origins of the universe, and b) the inchoate fear that it may not be understandable sans a supernatural force. Based on this framework, any sort of word salad or hypothesis will do, so long as it conforms to a and b above. That's where the 'God particle' comes in....

2. Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities.

The above was written by the mathematician David Berlinski.

3. What makes most sense to me?
To question, rather than to accept.

The universe is expanding, as seen in the red shift.
Looking backwards, we wind-up at the 'Big Bang,' from whence, all we have today.

Question...where did whatever was in the Bang come from?


4. To inform that question, required reading found here:

The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

 

[bobcollum]

Wrong again, Ms. Truthie...

The hope of atheistic scientists is that they can pretend that a hypothetical particle is the origin of all mass.

This is so they can explain the weird gap in the Standard Model, one of physics' most successful theories. The model as it stood had no mechanism to explain why some particles are massless (such as the photon, which is the quantum bit for light and other types of electromagnetic radiation), while other particles have varying degrees of mass (such as the W and Z bosons, which play a part in the weak nuclear force). By rights, all particles should be without mass and zipping around freely.
The Higgs boson made simple - Cosmic Log

Did I teach you something new again?

You're welcome.

I think most of us knew of your legendary copy/paste prowess already.

What does that have to do with your claim that it's nonsense, because it fills a recently unfilled hole?

I'm curious as to what view of the universe you feel makes the most sense.

1. To be clear, atheistic scientists have as their raison d'être a) understanding the origins of the universe, and b) the inchoate fear that it may not be understandable sans a supernatural force. Based on this framework, any sort of word salad or hypothesis will do, so long as it conforms to a and b above. That's where the 'God particle' comes in....

2. Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities.

The above was written by the mathematician David Berlinski.

3. What makes most sense to me?
To question, rather than to accept.

The universe is expanding, as seen in the red shift.
Looking backwards, we wind-up at the 'Big Bang,' from whence, all we have today.

Question...where did whatever was in the Bang come from?


4. To inform that question, required reading found here:

The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

Berlinski is a contrarian who seems to have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to academic science. How he can oppose evolution but also be a proponent of Intelligent Design speaks to where he really stands despite his facade of 'questioning rather than accepting'. He's a quitter that would rather chalk it up to something being beyond our comprehension than strive for actual answers.

What was before the big bang? Nobody knows...though it's not logical to run with that as some evidence that a deity is responsible for it's creation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think most of us knew of your legendary copy/paste prowess already.

What does that have to do with your claim that it's nonsense, because it fills a recently unfilled hole?

I'm curious as to what view of the universe you feel makes the most sense.

1. To be clear, atheistic scientists have as their raison d'être a) understanding the origins of the universe, and b) the inchoate fear that it may not be understandable sans a supernatural force. Based on this framework, any sort of word salad or hypothesis will do, so long as it conforms to a and b above. That's where the 'God particle' comes in....

2. Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities.

The above was written by the mathematician David Berlinski.

3. What makes most sense to me?
To question, rather than to accept.

The universe is expanding, as seen in the red shift.
Looking backwards, we wind-up at the 'Big Bang,' from whence, all we have today.

Question...where did whatever was in the Bang come from?


4. To inform that question, required reading found here:

The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

Berlinski is a contrarian who seems to have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to academic science. How he can oppose evolution but also be a proponent of Intelligent Design speaks to where he really stands despite his facade of 'questioning rather than accepting'. He's a quitter that would rather chalk it up to something being beyond our comprehension than strive for actual answers.

What was before the big bang? Nobody knows...though it's not logical to run with that as some evidence that a deity is responsible for it's creation.

1. He wrote a well thought out book, "The Devil's Delusion."
Read it?


2. Did you read the Lightman piece in Harper's?
A comment re: multiverse?


Both would give you many new thoughts and reasons to question the 'scientists.'

 

[strollingbones]

i just skip over the cut & paste queen....

the foundation has made a mint on him...but he died poor....

 

[strollingbones]

o and i dont pretend to under the god particle...i barely made it thru physics as it was

 

[Dajjal]

o and i dont pretend to under the god particle...i barely made it thru physics as it was

Wittgenstein said, " the only thing left for philosophers to do is an analysis of language"

I think he meant that exposing truth is now in the realm of physics, and philosophers who are not physicists have no chance of understanding the implications of modern science and cosmology. I think Steven Hawkins said something similar.