Scientists to unveil proof of ‘God particle’

[PoliticalChic]

Science is not supposed to provide a 'cause'. Or a reason. It uses a methodology to observe from verifible facts what exists. We understand much of evolution from observations from scientists of Darwin's time, to the present scientists working on genetics. It does not need a Diety, the workings of nature are adaquete to create what we see.

If you wish to ascribe to Diety any thing that you do not understand, that is fine. Just do not expect the rest of us to share in your delusions.

"It uses a methodology to observe from verifible facts what exists."

From speculation to belief. Some call it 'faith.'

So just a quick question for you.

Do you know for a fact 2+2=4, or do you just believe it?

Let's how much of a dunce you really are....

....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.

So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?


"The discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, believed life on earth came about from DNA seeded here by an alien civilization from a far-off planet. As Graham Hancock points out in his book “Supernatural” - subtitled “Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind” - Crick’s hypothesis was “………oddly similar in its essence to the cosmology of the ayahuasca-drinking Yagua Indians of the Peruvian Amazon, who told the French anthropologist Jean-Pierre Chaumeil: At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth…………..”.
Carta Blanc: A Junkyard Hurricane and Zipf's Law


Science....filled with as much hypothetical speculation as religion.

 

[bobcollum]

With just reading the first line of your post PC...yes, theoretical means not fact, this has never been disputed, and if it has, the people in the discussion need to buy a dictionary.

The split between theoretical sciences and religion occurs at the point when religion is accepted as reality by those that follow it, and theoretical sciences eventually through technology are able to conduct physical experimentation to repeatedly verify a hypothesis, thereby making it fact.

Evolution, still just a theory despite many verifications to the hypothesis, it is indeed incomplete at this point.

General and Special Relativity, still just a theory despite numerous verifications to the hypothesis, so much so that we're able to use the findings in a practical, physical manner, for instance, satellites and GPS navigation...all because of Einstein.

How has Christianity(specifically, because I'm guessing it's your religion) evolved in comparison? Science has done more for the world in a practical sense in just a fraction of the time monotheistic religions have been around.

 

[bobcollum]

Let's how much of a dunce you really are....

The irony is just too delicious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found

GENEVA (AP) — Physicists say they have all but proven that the "God particle" exists. They have a footprint and a shadow, and the only thing left is to see for themselves the elusive subatomic particle believed to give all matter in the universe size and shape.

APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found - Businessweek

Still just hints however. Interesting, but no comments from me, yet.

It is actually more than hints. They have definitely found a particle that has the predicted mass of the Higgs bosun. It is remotely possible that it is a brand new, and unpredicted particle, but we haven't found a completely new particle in decades. This is either the Higgs bosun in one form or another, or it is actually a particle of dark matter that shares some characteristics of the Higgs.

 

[bobcollum]

I'll humor you...

....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.

So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?

Why should I have to answer for an idea that occurred around 60 years ago that has an incredibly small amount of credibility, if any, among contemporary scientists?

"The discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, believed life on earth came about from DNA seeded here by an alien civilization from a far-off planet. As Graham Hancock points out in his book “Supernatural” - subtitled “Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind” - Crick’s hypothesis was “………oddly similar in its essence to the cosmology of the ayahuasca-drinking Yagua Indians of the Peruvian Amazon, who told the French anthropologist Jean-Pierre Chaumeil: At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth…………..”.
Carta Blanc: A Junkyard Hurricane and Zipf's Law


Science....filled with as much hypothetical speculation as religion.

Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist.

He's a regular on conspiracy theory-esque programs like Coast to Coast AM and Ancient Aliens on the History Channel...the idea doesn't constitute what's professionally viewed as theoretical science, not by a long-shot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

I see you know less about other people's beliefs than you know about science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a holy book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open to peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

Explain dark matter and the fact that every single designed experiment to prove the existence of dark matter has failed.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

I see you know less about other people's beliefs than you know about science.

Don't start on me QW, read my discussion with PC in this thread, I'll end up having to repeat it to you, and I'm not doing that.

 

[bobcollum]

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a holy book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open to peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

Explain dark matter and the fact that every single designed experiment to prove the existence of dark matter has failed.

Dark matter hasn't been verified, thus it's still theoretical.

Why the hell is this so hard to understand?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Not all the science I accept relies on belief, but anything that's still in the theoretical stage, absolutely.

Science however, in comparison to monotheistic religions, is always making progress towards proving how real it is, always finding answers once we can technologically replicate the thought experiments that lead to the theory.

Where religion has been what it is and more than likely always will be that way.

If you prefer multi theistic religions you should love Hinduism, they actually believe the entire universe is only 5000 years old.

Or, just maybe, you have no fracking idea what you are talking about.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Thinks he knows what he's talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you fucking joking? The Bible is not the "Wisdom of the West". Modern western culture is influenced by a great deal of things that have absolutely no basis on the Bible. Same thing goes with our judicial system. What, you think that swearing on the bible is somehow what gives you claim to say that our judicial system is based off the bible?

What, do you think the ten commandments are somehow an influence on our judicial system? Even if they were, the ten commandments and everything in the bible is just ripped off from previous civilizations and religions. Eye for an eye? The golden rule? Yeah. All those things predate the bible... from other cultures and other religions. Many of the stories in the bible are ripoffs of other religions.


And please, don't even fucking get me started on the awful shit that the bible has done for history and mankind, particularly in its heyday. Our legal system is mostly based off of cultures like the Romans and Greeks, along with some of that of the bible.

But again, what the fuck is the point of any of this we're discussing? You're talking about a religious book that people believe is the divine, infallible word of god(which is why they choose to ignore most parts of it... heh). The bible has not been a major influence on our government for quite some time.

You really think virgin births and split personality god(s) and heaven and hell and rebirth and rapture like end times originated with the bible? Fucking please.

You're not serious.....are you?


The point is that the science you choose to believe is based as much on faith as religion is.

No, one is clearly testable, and makes predictions. The other tells stories that we know are false.

Every single electronic device you use is derived from quantum mechanics. Without an understanding in quantum mechanics first, it would never have been possible to invent the microchip. If our understanding of QM had been wrong, the microchip would never have worked.

If general relativity had been wrong, GPS satellites would not work, instead they are accurate to 2 nanoseconds (a nanosecond is a billionth of a second). This was understood BEFORE the satellites were put into orbit, and worked flawlessly.

You see how science makes predictions on the future, and they work? When has your religion every predicted anything?

When one knows as little about the subject as you do, you could save yourself loads of embarrassment by sticking to crayolas and silly putty.



1. "... one is clearly testable,..."
That would be the level at which you excel....junior high school

How about the Big Bang...the origin of the universe....

You've tested same, dolt?
Reproduced it?
No?....neither has anyone else.

2. How about the demonstrations of the Higgs boson imparting mass to particles....

Tested?
Strike two?


3. Are you familiar with the Multiverse Concept?
There are so very many errors and unexplained phenomenon in science that
some physicists propound the idea that there are an infinite number of universes
each with their own physical laws, fundamental causes and principles.

"If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

Testable...you dunce?

Sounds like "stories that we know are false."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"That wasn't a tapeworm."

I was speaking on behalf of people who trust in the global community level of research in all sorts of scientific fields. I do have the power to speak on the behalf of all of them. Want to see my card?


And wait a second. Are you just going to give me names of scientists who are particularly fond of which share your views(and maybe strengthen them for you), and expect me to somehow also believe that simply because I personally cannot dispute what they have to say?

I don't know anything about the guy you're speaking of. What kind of praises and criticisms does he get from the larger community of scientists in his field(s)?

Oh and Quantum Mechanics. That's a great one. Do you have any idea how many actual tangible scientific breakthroughs there which have been translated into actual real world technologies? Your life probably benefits from the theories of quantum mechanics.

Curiosity "10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics"

Answer your own question... on why you choose to believe him, compared to the other quantum physicists in the world. Since I personally lack the degrees and knowledge involved of things such as quantum mechanics and theoretical physics, I instead choose to read the musings and findings of scientists that corporations and governments choose. People who have been shown to be true powerhouses of their fields.

What is the difference between trusting in the global community level of research, whatever the frack that is, and trusting in the global community level of Bishops of the Catholic Church?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you're basically denying the existence of all the things we owe our thanks to quantum mechanics on? Transistors, lasers, quantum cryptopgraphy. THOSE THINGS EXIST, and they are thanks to quantum mechanics.

Sorry, but in terms of the type of belief your religious folk engage in, that is god literally giving man the power to conjure miracles. It's real, and it's tangible. Those theories have yielded us real world results and technologies.



Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish!

Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

Sorry, but my lack of ability to understand the sciences on the level that the scientists do DOES NOT mean I do not lack an understanding of the theories themselves. I have a very good understanding of what the Higgs Boson represents and I'm very fascinated by quantum cryptography and quantum computers and have studied a great deal about them.

It's called having an educated opinion. You can have that without actually having degrees in the field.

We don't owe all that much to quantum dynamics, we owe quite a bit to the natural phenomena that quantum dynamics attempts to explain. I suggest you do some basic reading, you can start with this article posted earlier in the thread.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

The real problem here is that quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible, yet both survive because all the predictions of the standard model are holding, and none of the predictions of the various models of quantum mechanics have matched up to reality. We should have discovered a slew of particles by now, and we haven't. Each time we don't the predictions of quantum mechanics become less tenable, but we are forced to cling to the overarching theory because nothing else works.

That explains why real scientists are concerned, why Hawkings bet against finding the Higgs, and why you are just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll humor you...

....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.

So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?

Why should I have to answer for an idea that occurred around 60 years ago that has an incredibly small amount of credibility, if any, among contemporary scientists?

"The discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, believed life on earth came about from DNA seeded here by an alien civilization from a far-off planet. As Graham Hancock points out in his book “Supernatural” - subtitled “Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind” - Crick’s hypothesis was “………oddly similar in its essence to the cosmology of the ayahuasca-drinking Yagua Indians of the Peruvian Amazon, who told the French anthropologist Jean-Pierre Chaumeil: At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth…………..”.
Carta Blanc: A Junkyard Hurricane and Zipf's Law


Science....filled with as much hypothetical speculation as religion.

Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist.

He's a regular on conspiracy theory-esque programs like Coast to Coast AM and Ancient Aliens on the History Channel...the idea doesn't constitute what's professionally viewed as theoretical science, not by a long-shot.

1. "Why should I have to answer for an idea...blah blah blah..."
That proves my point. There are tons of absurd ideas once known as science.

But basic ideas are correct.
The same can be said of the Judeo-Christian ideas that serve as the guidance for Western Civilization.

And again, both are based on faith.

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Berlinski


2. "Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist."
I can understand why you'd like to pretend that the subject of the quote wasn't Francis Crick...
...or, do you believe he was "a charlatan, not a scientist."?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BBC News - US sees stronger hints of Higgs

"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction.

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."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Science is not supposed to provide a 'cause'. Or a reason. It uses a methodology to observe from verifible facts what exists. We understand much of evolution from observations from scientists of Darwin's time, to the present scientists working on genetics. It does not need a Diety, the workings of nature are adaquete to create what we see.

If you wish to ascribe to Diety any thing that you do not understand, that is fine. Just do not expect the rest of us to share in your delusions.

Talk about delusions, the main purpose of science is to answer one simple question, why. Science is always about cause and effect, anyone that does not understand that does not understand the first thing about science.

Newton asked why things moved, and why somethings stopped faster than others. The search for that cause led to the laws of motion which govern everything in the universe.

Darwin asked why birds in one part of the world had different beaks than similar birds in other parts of the world, and the search for the cause of that led to the theory of evolution.

Boyle asked why pressure went up when volume went down, the result is the internal combustion engine. Without science asking why we would not have modern civilization.

The problem here is not that science is not supposed to ask why, or that religion is not supposed to ask how, the problem here is that there are idiots that want to restrict science from asking the most important question of all time. Could it be that those idiots, like you, are afraid of the answer?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you fucking joking? The Bible is not the "Wisdom of the West". Modern western culture is influenced by a great deal of things that have absolutely no basis on the Bible. Same thing goes with our judicial system. What, you think that swearing on the bible is somehow what gives you claim to say that our judicial system is based off the bible?

What, do you think the ten commandments are somehow an influence on our judicial system? Even if they were, the ten commandments and everything in the bible is just ripped off from previous civilizations and religions. Eye for an eye? The golden rule? Yeah. All those things predate the bible... from other cultures and other religions. Many of the stories in the bible are ripoffs of other religions.


And please, don't even fucking get me started on the awful shit that the bible has done for history and mankind, particularly in its heyday. Our legal system is mostly based off of cultures like the Romans and Greeks, along with some of that of the bible.

But again, what the fuck is the point of any of this we're discussing? You're talking about a religious book that people believe is the divine, infallible word of god(which is why they choose to ignore most parts of it... heh). The bible has not been a major influence on our government for quite some time.

You really think virgin births and split personality god(s) and heaven and hell and rebirth and rapture like end times originated with the bible? Fucking please.

You're not serious.....are you?


The point is that the science you choose to believe is based as much on faith as religion is.

As you've clearly been immersed in the secular propaganda too long...and there is hardly ant hope that you can think for yourself any longer...

...still...try this: where did the material that supposedly came into existence after the 'big bang' come from?

Bet you have 'faith' that science can answer that....


As an aside....Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia). And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

I'm sure you find cows smarter than these guys....

Again, the difference is a willingness to entertain the notion that we may find answers we hadn't expected after the experimentation has been done, and then we can appropriately adjust based on the findings. Nothing in the theoretical science world is set in stone, hence the theoretical aspect of it.

Are you trying to tell me that your religion is only theoretical in your mind? I have a hard time imagining that you'd be willing to go there.

You can try to make your point till you're blue in the face, it isn't going to make it correct.

Are you trying to argue that, if science ultimately proves that religion is wrong, she won't accept reality? Why not turn that around and ask yourself what will happen if science ultimately proves religion is right? Will you accept reality, or will you still insist that religion and truth are incompatible?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is not supposed to provide a 'cause'. Or a reason. It uses a methodology to observe from verifible facts what exists. We understand much of evolution from observations from scientists of Darwin's time, to the present scientists working on genetics. It does not need a Diety, the workings of nature are adaquete to create what we see.

If you wish to ascribe to Diety any thing that you do not understand, that is fine. Just do not expect the rest of us to share in your delusions.

"It uses a methodology to observe from verifible facts what exists."

From speculation to belief. Some call it 'faith.'

So just a quick question for you.

Do you know for a fact 2+2=4, or do you just believe it?

Do you understand the difference between science and math?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you fucking joking? The Bible is not the "Wisdom of the West". Modern western culture is influenced by a great deal of things that have absolutely no basis on the Bible. Same thing goes with our judicial system. What, you think that swearing on the bible is somehow what gives you claim to say that our judicial system is based off the bible?

What, do you think the ten commandments are somehow an influence on our judicial system? Even if they were, the ten commandments and everything in the bible is just ripped off from previous civilizations and religions. Eye for an eye? The golden rule? Yeah. All those things predate the bible... from other cultures and other religions. Many of the stories in the bible are ripoffs of other religions.


And please, don't even fucking get me started on the awful shit that the bible has done for history and mankind, particularly in its heyday. Our legal system is mostly based off of cultures like the Romans and Greeks, along with some of that of the bible.

But again, what the fuck is the point of any of this we're discussing? You're talking about a religious book that people believe is the divine, infallible word of god(which is why they choose to ignore most parts of it... heh). The bible has not been a major influence on our government for quite some time.

You really think virgin births and split personality god(s) and heaven and hell and rebirth and rapture like end times originated with the bible? Fucking please.

You're not serious.....are you?


The point is that the science you choose to believe is based as much on faith as religion is.

No, one is clearly testable, and makes predictions. The other tells stories that we know are false.

Every single electronic device you use is derived from quantum mechanics. Without an understanding in quantum mechanics first, it would never have been possible to invent the microchip. If our understanding of QM had been wrong, the microchip would never have worked.

If general relativity had been wrong, GPS satellites would not work, instead they are accurate to 2 nanoseconds (a nanosecond is a billionth of a second). This was understood BEFORE the satellites were put into orbit, and worked flawlessly.

You see how science makes predictions on the future, and they work? When has your religion every predicted anything?

How do you know they are false?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you're basically denying the existence of all the things we owe our thanks to quantum mechanics on? Transistors, lasers, quantum cryptopgraphy. THOSE THINGS EXIST, and they are thanks to quantum mechanics.

Sorry, but in terms of the type of belief your religious folk engage in, that is god literally giving man the power to conjure miracles. It's real, and it's tangible. Those theories have yielded us real world results and technologies.



Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish!

Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

Sorry, but my lack of ability to understand the sciences on the level that the scientists do DOES NOT mean I do not lack an understanding of the theories themselves. I have a very good understanding of what the Higgs Boson represents and I'm very fascinated by quantum cryptography and quantum computers and have studied a great deal about them.

It's called having an educated opinion. You can have that without actually having degrees in the field.

We don't owe all that much to quantum dynamics, we owe quite a bit to the natural phenomena that quantum dynamics attempts to explain. I suggest you do some basic reading, you can start with this article posted earlier in the thread.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

The real problem here is that quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible, yet both survive because all the predictions of the standard model are holding, and none of the predictions of the various models of quantum mechanics have matched up to reality. We should have discovered a slew of particles by now, and we haven't. Each time we don't the predictions of quantum mechanics become less tenable, but we are forced to cling to the overarching theory because nothing else works.

That explains why real scientists are concerned, why Hawkings bet against finding the Higgs, and why you are just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe.

"...just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe."

Now, Q....I believe this is an exaggeration.

I can name tons of scientists who attack religion....but, offhand, can't think of any Judeo-Christian folks attacking the idea of science.