Scientists may announce discovery of Higgs Boson

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » Scientists may announce discovery of Higgs Boson
« Previous Page | Next Page »
ghandikush
7/2/12 6:15:00PM
Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.
george112
7/2/12 6:20:26PM

Posted by ghandikush

Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.



No.

Subatomic is obviously proven.
Ex. Atom bomb.


However there is an infinite number of elementary particles . Each class smaller then the last.

An easy way to look at this is to continuously cut something in half. There will always be a half of a half of half and so on. Like fractals
ghandikush
7/2/12 6:24:44PM

Posted by george112


Posted by ghandikush

Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.



No.

Subatomic is obviously proven.
Ex. Atom bomb.


However there is an infinite number of elementary particles . Each class smaller then the last.

An easy way to look at this is to continuously cut something in half. There will always be a half of a half of half and so on. Like fractals



Atom bomb is obviously atomic, subatomic is claiming a measure to be attributed to unobservable (so far) electrons protons neutrons.

Electricity isnt true observation of electron models but in stead a measure of the force itself.

This is what Im saying. Universes made of universes for ever and ever.
george112
7/2/12 6:32:29PM

Posted by ghandikush

Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.



Everytime you look into the sky and see a star your looking at that star how it was a very very very long time ago. Essentially looking back in time.


These gravitational shifts you speak of could be how the state of things are today because the visual stars that we see are there are actually not there present day


There are stars so far away I cant even wrap my head around it.1000 lightyears is nothing for our hubble telescope so they say. But do you really know how long 1000 lightyears really is? A very long time my friend. Now disregard that 1000 and bump up the number to 1 million.

I don't care if your name was Einstein . There is just way to much time and too many variables for any theory to take into account all that has happened in that amount of time. Telling me there is gravitational shifts that far out and telling me you can detect blackholes and what not is Bullshit in my book
george112
7/2/12 6:36:13PM

Posted by ghandikush


Posted by george112


Posted by ghandikush

Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.



No.

Subatomic is obviously proven.
Ex. Atom bomb.


However there is an infinite number of elementary particles . Each class smaller then the last.

An easy way to look at this is to continuously cut something in half. There will always be a half of a half of half and so on. Like fractals



Atom bomb is obviously atomic, subatomic is claiming a measure to be attributed to unobservable (so far) electrons protons neutrons.

Electricity isnt true observation of electron models but in stead a measure of the force itself.

This is what Im saying. Universes made of universes for ever and ever.



An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about
MALICE
7/2/12 6:56:47PM

Posted by george112

An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about



You are way too far out there for me. All I have to say is your opinion on black holes looks more like to me you are saying "You say potato, I say potato."

You are saying scientists have discovered some unexplained effects caused by something which they have named a black hole. You are not convinced this black hole exists, but you do not deny the effects. The effects must be caused by something. Why not call it a black hole.

Potato. Potato.
george112
7/2/12 7:03:42PM

Posted by MALICE


Posted by george112

An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about



You are way too far out there for me. All I have to say is your opinion on black holes looks more like to me you are saying "You say potato, I say potato."

You are saying scientists have discovered some unexplained effects caused by something which they have named a black hole. You are not convinced this black hole exists, but you do not deny the effects. The effects must be caused by something. Why not call it a black hole.

Potato. Potato.




Why not call it the big bad wolf??

It's not just a name to call some effects.

There is obviously much more that comes with it.

The behaviour. Characteristics. The effects and influences.

It's its thing. Not just a word slapped onto something
prophecy033
7/2/12 7:07:51PM
Why won't this thread just die already
george112
7/2/12 7:18:44PM

Posted by prophecy033

Why won't this thread just die already





I will cease and desist
MALICE
7/2/12 7:19:36PM

Posted by george112

Why not call it the big bad wolf??

It's not just a name to call some effects.

There is obviously much more that comes with it.

The behaviour. Characteristics. The effects and influences.

It's its thing. Not just a word slapped onto something



Everything needs to be named at some point in time. You have a name. Scientists also named massive, luminous spheres of plasma "Stars." (I had help with the definition.) Their characteristics, behaviours, etc. are well known and we can see them approximately 8 minutes after they happen. Less is known about the black hole, but the evidence is still there. Call it a singularity if it suits you better, but there are enough agreement in the scientific community to convince me there are black holes.
ghandikush
7/2/12 7:20:05PM

Posted by george112


Posted by ghandikush


Posted by george112


Posted by ghandikush

Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.



No.

Subatomic is obviously proven.
Ex. Atom bomb.


However there is an infinite number of elementary particles . Each class smaller then the last.

An easy way to look at this is to continuously cut something in half. There will always be a half of a half of half and so on. Like fractals



Atom bomb is obviously atomic, subatomic is claiming a measure to be attributed to unobservable (so far) electrons protons neutrons.

Electricity isnt true observation of electron models but in stead a measure of the force itself.

This is what Im saying. Universes made of universes for ever and ever.



An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about



No, that would actually be subatomic particles.
george112
7/2/12 7:23:58PM

Posted by ghandikush


Posted by george112


Posted by ghandikush


Posted by george112


Posted by ghandikush

Well we are seeing mass gravitational shifts and absorbing planets light etc so I assumed we could call it proven. We make up shit like subatomic unobservable particles to account for our lack of understanding.

We are creating a false elaboration of current science to account for our holes in current science.



No.

Subatomic is obviously proven.
Ex. Atom bomb.


However there is an infinite number of elementary particles . Each class smaller then the last.

An easy way to look at this is to continuously cut something in half. There will always be a half of a half of half and so on. Like fractals



Atom bomb is obviously atomic, subatomic is claiming a measure to be attributed to unobservable (so far) electrons protons neutrons.

Electricity isnt true observation of electron models but in stead a measure of the force itself.

This is what Im saying. Universes made of universes for ever and ever.



An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about



No, that would actually be subatomic particles.



And Subatomic make atomic


Doesn't matter how far you break down its all of the same thing
george112
7/2/12 7:26:42PM

Posted by MALICE


Posted by george112

Why not call it the big bad wolf??

It's not just a name to call some effects.

There is obviously much more that comes with it.

The behaviour. Characteristics. The effects and influences.

It's its thing. Not just a word slapped onto something



Everything needs to be named at some point in time. You have a name. Scientists also named massive, luminous spheres of plasma "Stars." (I had help with the definition.) Their characteristics, behaviours, etc. are well known and we can see them approximately 8 minutes after they happen. Less is known about the black hole, but the evidence is still there. Call it a singularity if it suits you better, but there are enough agreement in the scientific community to convince me there are black holes.



Haha when you say stars and they take 8 minutes for them to see you are only referring to ONE star. The sun.

Prophecy I had to reply to that one...



MALICE
7/2/12 7:34:34PM

Posted by george112
Haha when you say stars and they take 8 minutes for them to see you are only referring to ONE star. The sun.

Prophecy I had to reply to that one...






Ya got me. I forgot to include the sun being close so scientists can study it with incredible accuracy. If that is what it is called. Pow Pow
Aether
7/2/12 7:40:41PM
ohhhhhhhh


myyyyyyyyy



goddddddddddddddddddd



This thread is painful to me on so many different levels. There's so much garbage and misinformation in here, I don't even know where to start. I guess we'll start with the whole "antimatter and black holes were invented" nonsense.

First off, yeah, we have seen antimatter, in fact we can create and store relatively small quantities of antimatter such as antihydrogen. So there's your first nonsense statement out the window, not only have we seen it, we can synthesize and STORE IT.

Secondly, you are basically asserting that if we can't physically see the light emitted from something, then we can't know it exists, which is simply wrong. We can't see ANY subatomic particles without observing how they interact with other matter. That's exactly how things like bubble chambers, neutrino detection arrays, and the detectors in particle colliders work. They have some substance that interacts with the particles that we can't physically see to produce an effect that we can directly see and measure. We can directly infer the existence of black holes, because it is the only possible explanation for the behaviour of light and matter that we have observed in certain areas. We're orbiting around a supermassive black hole right now. Black holes are also follow directly from Einstein's field equations, so if you're going to say they don't exist, you'll have to disprove several decades of research that has gone into validating Einstein's work, which happens to be, you know, the entire foundation of modern physics, and backed up by an absolutely ridiculous amount of experimental and observational evidence.

Thirdly, you don't understand wavefunction collapse even slightly. Atoms don't only exist when you think about them, this is new-age hippy garbage that comes as a result of not understanding anything about physics. The word "observer" does not mean even close to the same thing in quantum physics as it does in everyday parlance. An "observer" is simply anything that causes the wavefunction collapse. It can be a machine, a wall, another particle, anything. It doesn't mean that a human being has to think about the particle and it does what you think about. Most physicists do not believe that the wavefunction is a physical phenomenon, it is a probability map that humans use to understand something that they can't physically see.

Words like "spin" or "observer" in physics do no mean remotely the same thing as they do in every day speech.

I'm guessing some people in here watched "What the Bleep do We Know?!" and now they think they know something about physics.
Aether
7/2/12 7:51:50PM
An infinite number of elementary particles each smaller than the last? What are you talking about? Do you know what the word elementary means, or why they are called elementary particles? They're called elementary because they are NOT made up of smaller parts which can be subdivided.

Divide them in half forever? So you know nothing about the planck length either I guess.

This is just...

Where do you get your information from? Star Trek? This is laughable.
george112
7/2/12 7:52:56PM

Posted by Aether

ohhhhhhhh


myyyyyyyyy



goddddddddddddddddddd



This thread is painful to me on so many different levels. There's so much garbage and misinformation in here, I don't even know where to start. I guess we'll start with the whole "antimatter and black holes were invented" nonsense.

First off, yeah, we have seen antimatter, in fact we can create and store relatively small quantities of antimatter such as antihydrogen. So there's your first nonsense statement out the window, not only have we seen it, we can synthesize and STORE IT.

Secondly, you are basically asserting that if we can't physically see the light emitted from something, then we can't know it exists, which is simply wrong. We can't see ANY subatomic particles without observing how they interact with other matter. That's exactly how things like bubble chambers, neutrino detection arrays, and the detectors in particle colliders work. They have some substance that interacts with the particles that we can't physically see to produce an effect that we can directly see and measure. We can directly infer the existence of black holes, because it is the only possible explanation for the behaviour of light and matter that we have observed in certain areas. We're orbiting around a supermassive black hole right now. Black holes are also follow directly from Einstein's field equations, so if you're going to say they don't exist, you'll have to disprove several decades of research that has gone into validating Einstein's work, which happens to be, you know, the entire foundation of modern physics, and backed up by an absolutely ridiculous amount of experimental and observational evidence.

Thirdly, you don't understand wavefunction collapse even slightly. Atoms don't only exist when you think about them, this is new-age hippy garbage that comes as a result of not understanding anything about physics. The word "observer" does not mean even close to the same thing in quantum physics as it does in everyday parlance. An "observer" is simply anything that causes the wavefunction collapse. It can be a machine, a wall, another particle, anything. It doesn't mean that a human being has to think about the particle and it does what you think about. Most physicists do not believe that the wavefunction is a physical phenomenon, it is a probability map that humans use to understand something that they can't physically see.

Words like "spin" or "observer" in physics do no mean remotely the same thing as they do in every day speech.

I'm guessing some people in here watched "What the Bleep do We Know?!" and now they think they know something about physics.



Never said human was the observer.

Your whole post was you assuming I meant something in a certain way while at the same time using condescending tone to make your side of the arguement more valid then mine.

Bravo.

I also already knew about cern and the antihydrogen.

You are just plain not getting where I am coming from. And that is perfectly fine.
george112
7/2/12 7:57:36PM

Posted by Aether

An infinite number of elementary particles each smaller than the last? What are you talking about? Do you know what the word elementary means, or why they are called elementary particles? They're called elementary because they are NOT made up of smaller parts which can be subdivided.

Divide them in half forever? So you know nothing about the planck length either I guess.

This is just...

Where do you get your information from? Star Trek? This is laughable.







Aether
7/2/12 8:03:19PM

Posted by george112

An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about



So yeah, unless "consciously thought about" is a description that we apply to anything other than humans, you absolutely DID say that wavefunction collapse is the result of human thought.
george112
7/2/12 8:04:15PM

Posted by Aether

An infinite number of elementary particles each smaller than the last? What are you talking about? Do you know what the word elementary means, or why they are called elementary particles? They're called elementary because they are NOT made up of smaller parts which can be subdivided.

Divide them in half forever? So you know nothing about the planck length either I guess.

This is just...

Where do you get your information from? Star Trek? This is laughable.




The whole thread is about an elementary particle

What about when we are able to somehow collide higgs bosons and see what they make. Is that when you are going to change your definition of what an elementary particle is? Because I could have swore at one point what we use to think were elementary particles are not anymore
Aether
7/2/12 8:06:18PM



Have we ever seen a black hole?
Have we ever seen anti matter?

No. We have seen something we do not understand that directly influences something else. That causes something else. Scientists come up with these things to give reason to the why.




An also, no, you didn't know about antihydrogen, either that, or this statement was false to begin with. They are mutually exclusive, so you're either lying now, or you were wrong then, one or the other.

Stop talking out of your ass, you don't know anything about physics.
Aether
7/2/12 8:09:22PM

Posted by george112


Posted by Aether

An infinite number of elementary particles each smaller than the last? What are you talking about? Do you know what the word elementary means, or why they are called elementary particles? They're called elementary because they are NOT made up of smaller parts which can be subdivided.

Divide them in half forever? So you know nothing about the planck length either I guess.

This is just...

Where do you get your information from? Star Trek? This is laughable.




The whole thread is about an elementary particle

What about when we are able to somehow collide higgs bosons and see what they make. Is that when you are going to change your definition of what an elementary particle is? Because I could have swore at one point what we use to think were elementary particles are not anymore



They don't collide Higgs Bosons, they collide protons, which are NOT elementary particles, and they see what comes out (elementary particles)
george112
7/2/12 8:11:52PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by george112

An atom only exists when its consciously trying to be measured.

Take that one step even further and you'll realize everything that's made of atoms has had to had been consciously thought about



So yeah, unless "consciously thought about" is a description that we apply to anything other than humans, you absolutely DID say that wavefunction collapse is the result of human thought.



I'm going to give you what you want..


Aether your knowledge on this subject is superior to mine

Furthermore eventhough I'm sure you are not an expert on wavefunction collapse I am sure you have read about it on the net a lot longer then I have. To go even further the few minutes I did read about it only shed light on how it is not taught at the graduate level because of another more accepted view that being an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence.


But I'm sure you already knew that right?
george112
7/2/12 8:16:27PM

Posted by Aether




Have we ever seen a black hole?
Have we ever seen anti matter?

No. We have seen something we do not understand that directly influences something else. That causes something else. Scientists come up with these things to give reason to the why.




An also, no, you didn't know about antihydrogen, either that, or this statement was false to begin with. They are mutually exclusive, so you're either lying now, or you were wrong then, one or the other.

Stop talking out of your ass, you don't know anything about physics.



Anyone with the internet has access to that info my friend.

My stepfather happened to be subscribed to the science journal.

It's amazing how much stuff you learn from reading.

Come on Aether don't think you know where everyone and everything gets their information.
george112
7/2/12 8:18:33PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by george112


Posted by Aether

An infinite number of elementary particles each smaller than the last? What are you talking about? Do you know what the word elementary means, or why they are called elementary particles? They're called elementary because they are NOT made up of smaller parts which can be subdivided.

Divide them in half forever? So you know nothing about the planck length either I guess.

This is just...

Where do you get your information from? Star Trek? This is laughable.




The whole thread is about an elementary particle

What about when we are able to somehow collide higgs bosons and see what they make. Is that when you are going to change your definition of what an elementary particle is? Because I could have swore at one point what we use to think were elementary particles are not anymore



They don't collide Higgs Bosons, they collide protons, which are NOT elementary particles, and they see what comes out (elementary particles)





Read my post and recall where I said when and somehow
Aether
7/2/12 8:20:27PM

Posted by george112


Posted by Aether




Have we ever seen a black hole?
Have we ever seen anti matter?

No. We have seen something we do not understand that directly influences something else. That causes something else. Scientists come up with these things to give reason to the why.




An also, no, you didn't know about antihydrogen, either that, or this statement was false to begin with. They are mutually exclusive, so you're either lying now, or you were wrong then, one or the other.

Stop talking out of your ass, you don't know anything about physics.



Anyone with the internet has access to that info my friend.

My stepfather happened to be subscribed to the science journal.

It's amazing how much stuff you learn from reading.

Come on Aether don't think you know where everyone and everything gets their information.



You said:

"Have we ever seen antimatter? No."

Then you followed it up by claiming you already know all about antihydrogen. I don't need to know anything about you to know that these two statements are directly contradictory. It's telling that when I ask questions you respond with either sarcasm or more questions, and when you ask questions, I respond with concise explanations.
george112
7/2/12 8:29:38PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by george112


Posted by Aether




Have we ever seen a black hole?
Have we ever seen anti matter?

No. We have seen something we do not understand that directly influences something else. That causes something else. Scientists come up with these things to give reason to the why.




An also, no, you didn't know about antihydrogen, either that, or this statement was false to begin with. They are mutually exclusive, so you're either lying now, or you were wrong then, one or the other.

Stop talking out of your ass, you don't know anything about physics.



Anyone with the internet has access to that info my friend.

My stepfather happened to be subscribed to the science journal.

It's amazing how much stuff you learn from reading.

Come on Aether don't think you know where everyone and everything gets their information.



You said:

"Have we ever seen antimatter? No."

Then you followed it up by claiming you already know all about antihydrogen. I don't need to know anything about you to know that these two statements are directly contradictory. It's telling that when I ask questions you respond with either sarcasm or more questions, and when you ask questions, I respond with concise explanations.



There is nothing wrong with Questioning somethings validity .

Which is what I was doing. I knew about black holes but do I think they are necessarily real? No not really.

I was using the same logic. You are the type to knitpick everything someone says which is perfectly alright . This is the internet and its obvious you misunderstood. Like I had already previously stated a long time ago in this thread .

I am with the utmost certainty had this been a face to face debate you would not have misunderstood my meaning.

So 1 thing is going to happen.

1) I will stop posting on the matter as to me not wanting to accidentally type or say the wrong thing as to not get it mixed up by you.

Simple.
Aether
7/2/12 8:31:18PM

Posted by george112


Posted by Aether


Posted by george112


Posted by Aether

An infinite number of elementary particles each smaller than the last? What are you talking about? Do you know what the word elementary means, or why they are called elementary particles? They're called elementary because they are NOT made up of smaller parts which can be subdivided.

Divide them in half forever? So you know nothing about the planck length either I guess.

This is just...

Where do you get your information from? Star Trek? This is laughable.




The whole thread is about an elementary particle

What about when we are able to somehow collide higgs bosons and see what they make. Is that when you are going to change your definition of what an elementary particle is? Because I could have swore at one point what we use to think were elementary particles are not anymore



They don't collide Higgs Bosons, they collide protons, which are NOT elementary particles, and they see what comes out (elementary particles)





Read my post and recall where I said when and somehow



OK, then my answer would be yes, when there is proof that our current understanding of what an elementary particle is is incorrect, that would be when I would change my definition. That's exactly how science works. You can change your definitions ahead of time, those of us who follow the scientific method will wait for verifiable data. Until then, according to our data, the elementary particles consist of fermions and gauge bosons, of which the higgs is one.
Cooler
7/2/12 8:51:19PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by Cooler

Okay, then where did God come from?... Richard Dawkins probably the most well known Evolutionary Biologist would have a laugh at this bunch of pseudoscience about the god particle. The God particle is not peer reviewed or a consensus in the scientific community, one scientist or two do not make an idea valid it has to be peer reviewed and if it doesn't hold up against demonstrable, verifiable testing it's tossed aside until it has actual evidence. Evolution is a fact, not just a scientific theory (which is the graduation point of an idea in science) and people need to deal with it.



No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

"The God Particle" is a term coined by the popular media, the name has absolutely nothing to do with the science being done. It's called the Higgs Boson, and it's part of the standard model of physics, it's not some kind of fringe science trying to prove the existence of God. We've been acting under the assumption that this particle exists for decades, this isn't a really big discovery. NOT finding it would be a big discovery, because it would invalidate the standard model of physics. We expected to find this particle long before we started looking for it.



I do understand that the higgs boson is trying to understand subatomic particles but it's just that, subatomic particles and nothing to do with creationism which is what my problem is with this research when they even refer it to that at all...They still put this superfluous label of god on it...Everything that this is trying to imply in the article from yahoo is that "Science had it wrong all along" and that the "Universe isn't as old as we think it is" that's the mindset this is having even if it's just research into subatomic particles, like you said trying to rile people up, not just theists.
Cooler
7/2/12 8:53:35PM

Posted by cowcatcher

I'm such a hardcore atheist that I'm not just against the idea of God, I'm against the word!



Yeah it hurts the credibility of the people doing this research using language like that in a secular experiment.

P.S. you're an atheist too, everybody is, everybodys at least 99% atheist since you can't believe in them all like thor, zeus, yahweh, etc.
Pages: 1 [2] 3