Proof of 'God particle' found

delad

Pushtrak wrote: »

I have provided a video to back up the claim that time began at the big bang. I have provided a written source showing this too. You either

A) Accept the big bang.
Reject the big bang.

I accept the big bang, I'v never denied that.

delad

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I was stating a proven observation, because the evidence shows it.
It has been proven numerous times since Einstein first came out with it, Time is not fixed.

We live in what is now called space-time, they are intrinsically linked, no space without time, no time without space.

The point I'm making is that if you don't know if the multiverse exists then you can't come out with the statements:

"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk"

ArtSmart

delad wrote: »

I accept the big bang, I'v never denied that.

it's the big bang theory, and yes I accept it is pretty funny, and yes Penny is hot.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

A The point I'm making is that if you don't know if the multiverse exists then you can't come out with the statements:

B"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk"

What is the relation between A and B? The multiverse isn't a prerequisite when talking about the big bang. One does not need to have any position on the multiverse for the purpose of this discussion.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

The point I'm making is that if you don't know if the multiverse exists then you can't come out with the statements:

"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk"

Outside our space-time there is no space or time, that is why we call this space-time.
Time ends (begins to those not comfortable with cosmology) at the big bang you have been given the reason why. Even if we don't know what is beyond the BB we know something that isn't, and that is space and time as we know it here.

CodyJarrett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pa34orcwwA

shizz

prinz wrote: »

shizz wrote: »

My point was that there are far more religious folk claiming it proves god than ppl saying it proves god doesn't exist.

Did you count all the tweets or what?

Of course I didn't. You don't need to to see who the majority lies with.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

The point is that given the finite nature of the universe. It is entirely reasonable that there was an external intelligent cause which brought it into being.

The Universe is only finite with respect to how one defines limits.

The Universe is infinite. Even when all matter has decayed back into subatomic particles, gamma-rays and the temperature of the universe reaches absolute zero, it's not exactly the end of reality. Reality will still continue one for infinity even when there is only nothingness and blackness. For something to be ended is entirely subjective. Similarly, the fact that there was a Big Bang that brought everything we see into being doesn't mean that that was the beginning of the Universe.

cartell_best

Intelligent design!

--LOS--

the people of after hours discussing this makes me cringe


here's a nice tune though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aU-wFSqt0

Pushtrak

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/beyond-the-higgs-boson-the-large-hadron-collider-can-make-the-future-critical-for-physics-research/articleshow/14755405.cms

"If the Higgs boson had turned out to be more massive than 135 giga electron volts (GeV), some of my work on supersymmetry would have had to be abandoned," says Vempati. Some parts of supersymmetry theory - called minimal models - would not hold if the particle was heavier than 135 GeV. Fortunately for Vempati, and hundreds of other physicists who have staked their careers on supersymmetry, the Higgs particle seems to have a mass of 125 GeV.

Supersymmetry, which goes by the name of SUSY, is now a critical part of theoretical physics. It resolves many inconsistencies in other theories and holds them together in a neat and beautiful mathematical framework. Yet SUSY has no experimental evidence so far.

Physicists were hoping that the LHC would throw up particles that would validate supersymmetry, but it hasn't happened so far. "Supersymmetry is already in trouble," says Vivek Sharma, professor of physics at the University of California in San Diego and a key experimentalist at LHC. Over the next several years, the LHC would rigorously test several theories of physics, providing many anxious moments to thousands of theoretical physicists around the world.

More at the link.

nozzferrahhtoo

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Please re-read posts 477 479 480 and follow the actual links in them. Your back up is there. There is currently no scientific basis for thinking time was an attribute of the universe when it was a singularity.

If you have any evidence that it was, or if you have a model philologos can use on how causality can exist without time, then by all means present it to us on your way out the door to present your findings to the Nobel prize judging panel.

Again, the point is that the claim being made by those touting "First Cause" is entirely dependent on causality. Since current scientific consensus is that the laws of physics as we know them entirely break down at the point we poorly label "The Big Bang" the onus of proof is on them, not me, to show how this is possible.

nozzferrahhtoo

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

Few people say that and I myself correct them when they do. It is a common theist trick to try and paint it this way too. Strawmannery at it's poorest.

No, what is actually being said is that "anything is possible... but there are many things for which there is not just little, but NO substantiation whatsoever at this time".

"God" is one of those things. There is currently literally no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to lend the claim "god" exists even a modicum of credence.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

In respect to the topic at hand I find it peculiar that many people have latched onto this particular discovery in order to say that it nullifies God's existence, when it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort:

No science does... and you know this already.

What it (science) DOES do however is nullify the reasons that have so far been presented for thinking there is a god.

Massively different thing. Again however... you know this already. As usual you feign ignorance about what the position of others actually is, in order to straw man it into something it is not. You oooze desperation.

Capt'n Midnight

http://i.imgur.com/5IdxP.jpg

Pushtrak

Anyone want to hear the higgs boson?