Proof of 'God particle' found

squod

LordSmeg wrote: »

Or to put it another way possibly found the missing piece to the standard model of physics. But who needs understanding and knowledge when you can be ignorant instead ?

GENEVA (AP) — Scientists working at the world's biggest atom smasher plan to announce Wednesday that they have gathered enough evidence to show that the long-sought "God particle" answering fundamental questions about the universe almost certainly does exist.

Researchers at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, or CERN, say that they have compiled vast amounts of data that show the footprint and shadow of the particle, even though it has never actually been glimpsed.

Starting to believe in something intangible that you can't see LordSmeg? Blind faith much?

Duggys Housemate

Caliden wrote: »

Calling it the 'god particle' is like a slap to the face of any scientist contributing to the higgs boson research.

They call it that. It's a dumb phrase for sure.

Pushtrak

Mance Rayder wrote: »

Einstein's theory of Relativity has been thrown into doubt recently when in CERN they pushed neutrinos faster than the speed of light—60 billionths of a second faster, and nothing happened.

Proving once and for all that we don't know what the fu*k is going on.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/neutrinos-cant-beat-light/

Physicists at the CERN laboratory have put the final nail in the coffin for the idea that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light. They also confirmed that the groundbreaking results from 2011 can be blamed on faulty equipment.

Pudsy33

Mance Rayder wrote: »

What's this got to do with the bible?

My apologies, misinterpreted your point. While we don't have a complete picture of the universe, and probably never will, science has certainly progresses a long way in the last 100 years.

Mance Rayder

Pushtrak wrote: »

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/neutrinos-cant-beat-light/

Yeah someone already pointed that out.

Pushtrak

Pudsy33 wrote: »

My apologies, misinterpreted your point. While we don't have a complete picture of the universe, and probably never will, science has certainly progresses a long way in the last 100 years.

100 years ago, we were just finding out about atoms, so yes. A long way is an understatement.

Pudsy33

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

I cant do actuarial science, but I know it works?

Mance Rayder

Pudsy33 wrote: »

My apologies, misinterpreted your point. While we don't have a complete picture of the universe, and probably never will, science has certainly progresses a long way in the last 100 years.

I love science, I am all for scientific method. I just don't like militant atheists (Not saying your one of them, just in general;)) who jump on threads just because it has the word God in the title.

It is possible to be have a spiritual side and be scientific. They are not mutually exclusive.

Scioch

squod wrote: »

Starting to believe in something intangible that you can't see LordSmeg? Blind faith much?

Possibly found evidence to back up a scientific model = blind faith now ?

suicide_circus

Why such hype about a discovery that has not been made ? Guess they have to justify the billions spent with a big press conference.

Mance Rayder

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why such hype about a discovery that has not been made ? Guess they have to justify the billions spent with a big press conference.

They have discovered that they may discover something. Actually they are making progress, and the work is worthwhile, but calling something a "God" particle gets everyone's knickers in a twist.

Pudsy33

Ignore, misquotation.

Ciaran0

granturismo wrote: »

Yes sir, a theory is:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

eg
Einstein's THEORY of Relativity. Prove it now sir.
Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Prove it now sir.
The THEORY of the Big Bang. Prove it now sir.

Gravity is just a theory....

dlofnep

Pudsy33 wrote: »

You quoted the article as saying the Higgs Bosson "almost certainly does exist" No one can make a similar claim about god.

Sure they can. God almost certainly does not exist. Next.

ScumLord

Leftist wrote: »

bit of an ungrateful attitude that.

what if you created concious life in some form and it cursed you because it was fat or had a sore leg? not your fault is it.

Delighted they found God tbh. Can't see the downside.

They didn't find god at all, they found evidence of a particular particle. If I was god and created the universe and gave animals a distinct set of instincts designed to help them survive then decided to make one animal ignore all those instincts for my own amusement and also made them jump through all sorts of hoops to appease my own ego then filled them up with all sorts of contradictory ideals I wouldn't be at all surprised if their reaction towards me wasn't all that favourable, The holy gods are trolls, nothing more.

granturismo wrote: »

eg
Einstein's THEORY of Relativity. Prove it now sir.
Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Prove it now sir.
The THEORY of the Big Bang. Prove it now sir.

Your always going to have problems with science if you ignore the work of the people in those fields for lay peoples attempt at an explanation. For the theory of relativity you should read the works of Albert Einstein. For the theory of evolution there a guy called Charles Darwin that you should look into. Oh look you jad the answers in your post all along.

Phill Ewinn

LordSmeg wrote: »

Possibly found evidence to back up a scientific model = blind faith now ?

Listen to yourself there.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

No, if you cannot understand the math the faith is in those who do and how they are interpreting the results of their experiments.

Which are open to scrutiny from everyone else in the academic world and may be proven to be false is and when better evidence comes to light to suggest that. To even get to the point of being taken seriously you need evidence to suggest you may be on to something. Its not plucked out of thin air and proposed as truth. Its logical conclusions from observable phenomena which all go towards backing up a theory.

DB21

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. SO F**KING WRONG.

There being actual proof, which I'm sure could be dumbed down for the religious numbskulls =/= blind faith.

Pudsy33

Mance Rayder wrote: »

I love science, I am all for scientific method. I just don't like militant atheists (Not saying your one of them, just in general;)) who jump on threads just because it has the word God in the title.

It is possible to be have a spiritual side and be scientific. They are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I'd agree with most of that. There is no need for god to be discussed in this thread whatsoever.

And thats a very strong point. Although its worth mentioning one can be spiritual without belief in god

Duggys Housemate

I, for one, hope the theory of gravity is never refuted.

dlofnep

granturismo wrote: »

Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Prove it now sir.

What part of the theory of evolution by natural selection do you dispute? Evolution is already a proven fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection best explains that fact.

Scioch

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Listen to yourself there.

Thats about the level of argument I expected alright.

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

No, if you cannot understand the math the faith is in those who do and how they are interpreting the results of their experiments.

Which are open to scrutiny from everyone else in the academic world and may be proven to be false is and when better evidence comes to light to suggest that. To even get to the point of being taken seriously you need evidence to suggest you may be on to something. Its not plucked out of thin air and proposed as truth. Its logical conclusions from observable phenomena which all go towards backing up a theory.

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

Pudsy33

dlofnep wrote: »

Sure they can. God almost certainly does not exist. Next.

Well played

Pushtrak

Mance Rayder wrote: »

I love science, I am all for scientific method. I just don't like militant atheists (Not saying your one of them, just in general;)) who jump on threads just because it has the word God in the title.

Tell me what militant is, and how it is applicable to atheists.

It is possible to be have a spiritual side and be scientific. They are not mutually exclusive.

Spiritual as in non-religious? What exactly is meant by spiritual in a non-religious capacity? Never quite got what people meant.

Pedant

CERN is mostly publicly funded by governments around the globe. It's easier to convince publicly funded sources than privately funded sources who are more likely to have expertise in the field and would probably be more capable of sifting through the bullshit.

Therefore, CERN come out every once in a while with press releases to reinsure the public that their money is being well spent.

The fact is, however, CERN announced that they have discovered something like the Higgs-Boson particle a few months ago, so this announcement is just rehashing old news and really just another effort to get a funding lifeline.

Here's what they said in December 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/8947263/Higgs-boson-scientists-reveal-first-tantalising-glimpses-of-God-Particle.html

Notice that they say they haven't fully discovered it yet, so basically their saying "We're nearly there, please continue to fund us, we're nearly there, just one step away". They're just drawing it out for as long as they can.

kincsem

smash wrote: »

Well having proof which suggests it exists because they have found it's footprint, is a lot different than having a belief that something exists because a book says so.

Bigfoot?

Mance Rayder

Evolution is a fact, anyone who disputes it is simply not worth taking seriously.

ScumLord

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

People share tasks, just because you can't carve a sculpture or paint a painting doesn't mean you can't appreciated the art at some level, or even go onto appreciated it in full with some research into art. That's if you have the time, which you won't if you've other work or interests to fill your time.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

Priest hood is based on perpetuating a non changing story that cannot be backed up.

The scientific community couldnt be further from that. I have faith in the scientific community not to tell me what is real or true but to find the best possible explanation as can be drawn from the facts and proof available. Same way as I have faith in the weather man to do his job. I dont have blind faith that he cannot be wrong, I dont believe the higgs boson exists with 100% certainty but there are pretty good indications that it does. Indications which have a high chance of being correct given the level of detail gone through to get them. By people who have a very high possibility of doing a good job considering the experience and knowledge required to get them to that position. Which to means the results when standing scrutiny is a good indication that the finding are accurate.

Its not blind faith, its not comparable to religion.