Proof of 'God particle' found

paddy147

PK2008 wrote: »

Pfff.......what has 'science' ever done for us?

Im still trying to figure out which came 1st......the egg OR the chicken???:D

Duggys Housemate

paddy147 wrote: »

Im still trying to figure out which came 1st......the egg OR the chicken???:D

Tom Cruise came first.

B.A._Baracus

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

diabloro

Leftist wrote: »

Do you have a concept of how big and how complicated the universe is? He created life that can think for itself. that is genius. Every year he should get the noble prize imo.

He truly would deserve it but he won't turn up to collect it.

Duggys Housemate

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

Or they are mildly pleased and jerking off to pornhub?

Scioch

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

I'd imagine the smug anti group thinkers have a horn at the ready too waiting to denounce whatever popular opinion arises.

paddy147

We all know this is how it all really began......:D

Burt Lancaster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

Hardly. Atheists are smart enough to know Physics doesn't deal with the non physical.

christmas2012

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Tom Cruise came first.

nope ,L ron hubbard came first,he had his first orgasm setting up the cult scientology..

diabloro

LordSmeg wrote: »

But that just boils down to faith in your own experience. You say you understand the math involved in this. So you have faith in the math being accurate and faith enough to attribute worth to those findings.

Your argument is "people have faith". Which I cannot argue against. But faith doesnt have to be blind faith. I understand the concept of mathematics, I dont have to know particle physics to have the same faith in your equations as you do, only your ability to apply them which when scrutinized by peers makes my view that they are correct just as valid as anyone elses regardless of whether or not I have tested it myself.

I dont have to prove everything myself to prove its right. Nobody does and that doesnt mean my opinion is not valid or that I am purely relying on faith.

I have faith this switch will turn on my light. I agree.

steddyeddy

Well Duggy's housemate is right to be honest. The god sqaud didnt turn up and it turned into another attack on people's beliefs. Unfortunatly scientists do have faith in certain theories or hunchs on hypotheses. The scientific model is sound and a large jump away from religion but the scientists enforcing this are only human and are prone to dogma. People shouldnt accept one thoery out of hand because some scientist said it. 100 years ago we were told there was no such thing as the giant panda and bonobo. The incorrect process of photosynthesis was also held as dogma for years. When a scientific theory is developed that turns around a more strongly held theory there can be a lot of dogmatic resistance to the new theory. The chemical theory of absorption was one such thoery that is now accepted but the scientist that proposed it was excluded from presenting his theory at the time.I had lecturers that told us "we know this doesnt happen that way" or "we know that this animal probrably exists but the scientific community can be very dogmatic and to pass this course you better put down the dogmatic answer".


Im a scientist myself though and I dont think science is as inaccessible to people as is currently believed. That to me reminds me of the time when the bible was only for priests to read to the lay people. Scientific models are free from dogma, faith or belief but scientists are not.

DarkJager

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

All over the face of your religious beliefs.

steddyeddy

This has nothing to do with religion. It shouldnt have been called the god particle.

paddy147

Has proof of this particle enriched any of your lives today??

And if so how?





PS-Does anyone here in Ireland really give a flying fcuk??

Unless this particle can produce 50 euro notes for us all?

Duggys Housemate

paddy147 wrote: »

Has proof of this particle enriched any of your lives today??

And if so how?





PS-Does anyone here in Ireland really give a flying fcuk??

Unless this particle can produce 50 euro notes for us all?

Tom Cruise.

Duggys Housemate

Im old enough to remember when a discussion on a Physics topic on the internet would have people actually talking about the discovery. I miss those days.

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Tom Cruise.

Oh my "God"........you are so correct........Tom Cruise.:D

Scioch

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Duggy's housemate is right to be honest. The god sqaud didnt turn up and it turned into another attack on people's beliefs. Unfortunatly scientists do have faith in certain theories or hunchs on hypotheses. The scientific model is sound and a large jump away from religion but the scientists enforcing this are only human and are prone to dogma. People shouldnt accept one thoery out of hand because some scientist said it. 100 years ago we were told there was no such thing as the giant panda and bonobo. The incorrect process of photosynthesis was also held as dogma for years. When a scientific theory is developed that turns around a more strongly held theory there can be a lot of dogmatic resistance to the new theory. The chemical theory of absorption was one such thoery that is now accepted but the scientist that proposed it was excluded from presenting his theory at the time.I had lecturers that told us "we know this doesnt happen that way" or "we know that this animal probrably exists but for the scientific community can be very dogmatic.


Im a scientist myself though and I dont think science is as inaccessible to people as is currently believed. That to me reminds me of the time when the bible was only for priests to read to the lay people. Scientific models are free from dogma, faith or belief but scientists are not.

But that is completely different than comparing faith in a priest with faith in a scientist which is what Duggy's housemate did. Its easy to say now "look at this theory that was wrong" but at the time the may have been nothing whatsoever to suggest it was wrong. So the possibility of something being wrong is really no grounds to distrust it when all evidence suggests it isnt. It would be an absurd conclusion to come to.

People here are not accepting the scientists word (because sceintists are not basing this on their word) they are accepting the possibility of it being correct because all evidence suggests that (assuming it stands up to scrutiny).

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Im old enough to remember when a discussion on a Physics topic on the internet would have people actually talking about the discovery. I miss those days.

Yeah, you'd swear this was AH or something. :rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

But that is completely different than comparing faith in a priest with faith in a scientist which is what Duggy's housemate did. Its easy to say now "look at this theory that was wrong" but at the time the may have been nothing whatsoever to suggest it was wrong. So the possibility of something being wrong is really no grounds to distrust it when all evidence suggests it isnt. It would be an absurd conclusion to come to.

People here are not accepting the scientists word (because sceintists are not basing this on their word) they are accepting the possibility of it being correct because all evidence suggests that (assuming it stands up to scrutiny).

No my point is that a non scientist has as much faith in scientific theories as a believer in a priest. That is, the "mysteries" of the thing are not understandable to him. For different reasons, sure.

This thread is an example, there is no discussion of what this means for the Standard Model, very little understanding about the standard model, very little attempt to understand, no questions asked - well one - and just an attack on religion - off topic - and meta discussion on whether belief in scientists is the same as belief in priests.

Thats because nobody understands the science, or even the implications of this, and - lets be honest - y'all don't care.

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Yeah, you'd swear this was AH or something. :rolleyes:

oook, but I am pretty sure that after hours threads are sometimes on topic.

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

No my point is that a non scientist has as much faith in scientific theories as a believer in a priest. That is, the "mysteries" of the thing are not understandable to him. For different reasons, sure.

This thread is an example, there is no discussion of what this means for the Standard Model, very little understanding about the standard model, very little attempt to understand, no questions asked - well one - and just an attack on religion - off topic - and meta discussion on whether belief in scientists is the same as belief in priests.

Thats because nobody understands the science, or even the implications of this, and - lets be honest - y'all don't care.

Huh??..Who said what now???:D

Duggys Housemate

paddy147 wrote: »

Huh???:D

Tom Cruise.

delad

paddy147 wrote: »

Unless this particle can produce 50 euro notes for us all?

It will open up the possibility of a free energy source, which is an indirect way of giving us all 50 euro notes.

Burt Lancaster

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Thats because nobody understands the science, or even the implications of this, and - lets be honest - y'all don't care.

Personally I don't trust any of that Ron L. Hubbard related stuff

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Tom Cruise.

Ah yeah...Tom Cruise.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

No my point is that a non scientist has as much faith in scientific theories as a believer in a priest. That is, the "mysteries" of the thing are not understandable to him. For different reasons, sure.

But we can understand the tools a scientist uses such as mathematics, logic, reason, testing and peer review. Its not faith in what they tell us, as we know the methods they use to get this information. As opposed to a priest who has nothing only his word. I dont know how a car engine works but expecting it to start is not the same as expecting a prayer to work.

This thread is an example, there is no discussion of what this means for the Standard Model, very little understanding about the standard model, very little attempt to understand, no questions asked - well one - and just an attack on religion - off topic - and meta discussion on whether belief in scientists is the same as belief in priests.

Its AH, its an off topic forum dedicated to religion bashing, social welfare bashing, single mother bashing etc etc. Its nothing new. The is a physics forum where those who wish to discuss this without the nonsense will go. What you see in this thread is what this forum is for.

Thats because nobody understands the science, or even the implications of this, and - lets be honest - y'all don't care.

No its because this isnt the physics forum. And I havent seen you do much to clarify the science either just jump in with comparing faith in a scientists findings with faith in a priest. Which doesnt exactly bring us back around to discussing the implications. You as well as everyone else is contributing to the level of discussion here so you have absolutely no grounds to come along now and cry about it.

paddy147

delad wrote: »

It will open up the possibility of a free energy source, which is an indirect way of giving us all 50 euro notes.

Ooooh Im sure all the goverments and oil companies will like that then.

So will the 50 euro note be in my bank acount this Friday then???:D

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

oook, but I am pretty sure that after hours threads are sometimes on topic.

Now who's the one with the faith ?

steddyeddy

LordSmeg wrote: »

But that is completely different than comparing faith in a priest with faith in a scientist which is what Duggy's housemate did. Its easy to say now "look at this theory that was wrong" but at the time the may have been nothing whatsoever to suggest it was wrong. So the possibility of something being wrong is really no grounds to distrust it when all evidence suggests it isnt. It would be an absurd conclusion to come to.

People here are not accepting the scientists word (because sceintists are not basing this on their word) they are accepting the possibility of it being correct because all evidence suggests that (assuming it stands up to scrutiny).

Fair enough but Im talking about theories that had nothing going for them which were upheld at the time.The giant panda, bonobo and giant squid had multiple witness sightings which uphelp consistent anatomical and ethological observations yet were dismissed as myth. THe chemical theory of absorption had enough evidence to overturn the previous thoery but was ignored by scientists and the scientist who came up with the theory wasnt even allowed to present it.