Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 17:44:00 -
[121] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I recall you saying you have a high school science level education. You have near no idea about this subject, nobody in this thread does.
That's funny because I do not recall stating my education level on these forums. But I must do pretty good with my high school only education considering I am currently practicing as a physical therapist between two doctors offices.
Eternum's Bio
I was featured 3 times in the Who's Who Among American High School Students and I also applied for a patent at the age of 13 involving matter to energy conversion. I always had a vested interest in this kind of stuff. My parents could not float the expenses of following through with said patent so I did not get it, and all the better since the principles were not very mature at the time.
My senior exit project was on Gyroscopic precession and why Eric Laithwaite was under the impression that a gyroscope spinning at a high rate of speed defined newton's law of gravity. It didn't, but he had some very interesting thoughts on the subject.
I spent most of my young years marveling at my grandfather who was an electrical engineer working for Lockheed martin. He basically helped design the guidance systems that the space shuttle used and worked on other lesser known projects prior to the shuttle such as the dinosaur project. Stuff that is hard to find even in a google search it is so obscure. You'd have to watch a documentary on how the shuttle came into being to find it.
At Present My current interest involves working with physicists who are willing to indulge a layman like myself, in a processes of intuitive reasoning leading to a space-time and + / - force only theory of the universe. I hope to write a book on it that will also feature other scientific fallacies like the incorrect timeline of human evolution. In my spare time I study graphic arts.
So I may not have a doctorate no... But i do have more than a high school education and I do have a pretty firm grasp of the concepts I am covering.
So that's my biography. Now do you!
baltec1 wrote:As for the subject at hand, of course its wrong, we still have a long way to go to understand everything. It is simply the best we can manage at this point in time. The higgs boson is real, whether you like it or not, it is now an observable fact. Science just did take a big leap, just not in the direction you like.
Wait... you are actually saying of course it's wrong? You really do think the standard model is wrong but you are here bashing concepts that attempt to fix some of the holes in the model without debate or discussion? I could never understand people who did that. Nor can I grasp the motivation behind it...
As for the higgs particle... NO it is not defiantly related to a higgs field. What you see is the logical and predictable conclusion of that kind of mass being smashed together at that kind of velocity. It is fundamental to electrodynamics. If you understood the material you would understand that a higgs-like particle HAS to be there. But that particle does not have to be a part of a universal spanning field nor does it have to be a part of a field that gives all matter it's mass.
The two things are not directly connected... you are just being told that they are and believe everything that you hear/read so long as it is coming from a perceived authority figure.
Oh And...
-1 troll for the "your argument sucks so I will attack your credentials without delivering a valid counter argument of my own". If and when you choose to actually read up on this stuff, you will find that much of what I am covering can be found in alternative theories found in the Wikipedia. You just have to do some searching to find it. You know... academic stuff
Man... i just can't help myself. I have to troll the trolls... maybe I need an intervention?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12163
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 18:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Wait... you are actually saying of course it's wrong? You really do think the standard model is wrong but you are here bashing concepts that attempt to fix some of the holes in the model without debate or discussion? I could never understand people who did that. Nor can I grasp the motivation behind it...
Of course the standard model is wrong, its incomplete and breaks in parts. However, at the same time it is the best answer we have and at the moment there isn't anything else to replace it.
Also, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 18:59:00 -
[123] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Also, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching.
Good enough for the laymen my friend. It is a fair enough place to start if you have no real experience with the material. It gives you a good list of things you may wish to find. Through which you can do further research and find your way to actual science papers that are publicly available.
baltec1 wrote:Of course the standard model is wrong, its incomplete and breaks in parts. However, at the same time it is the best answer we have and at the moment there isn't anything else to replace it.
Again... three times now I think... I invite you to read up on alternative theories to the standard model. Not all other theories have such gaping swiss-cheese-like gaps in them. Therefore... it is not the best possible model that we have right now is it?
Far too many doctorates, egos and research grants are on the line. More or less, these men and women have to either retire or die out leaving room for a new generation of fame seeking physicists to reintroduce already existing models that hold more promise then what we are force fed today.
I remind you that t he presumption that the ~125 GeV Boson is a part of this flawed standard model. No such interaction has ever been observed to suggest that it has any unique properties whatsoever. It has not been observed to interact with matter, alter matter or do anything special beyond float and decay. So the presumption that it is a sign of an all pervading field that gives all matter it's mass (except for things like photons) is likely to be just as flawed as the theory that sprang forth the idea in the first place.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12163
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:25:00 -
[124] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Again... three times now I think... I invite you to read up on alternative theories to the standard model. Not all other theories have such gaping swiss-cheese-like gaps in them. Therefore... it is not the best possible model that we have right now is it?
Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically. There are loads of great theories out there in all kinds of areas that claim to be the answer to some problem but if there is no evidence to back them up they aren't worth anything. The reason why everyone signs up the standard model is because it is the best answer we have that fits the observable data as a whole. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:29:00 -
[125] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically..
Would you mind linking me a scientific paper PDF that has in it scientifically proven observations of the Higgs field effect? If not, can you direct me to a PDF containing scientifically proven observations of the Higgs boson interacting with matter?
No? Hmmm... maybe all that is actually just based on math then...and not observations and testable facts after all.
Edit: Btw... where is your bio?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:40:00 -
[126] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically.. Would you mind linking me a scientific paper PDF that has in it scientifically proven observations of the Higgs field effect? If not, can you direct me to a PDF containing scientifically proven observations of the Higgs boson interacting with matter? No? Hmmm... maybe all that is actually just based on math then...and not observations and testable facts after all. Edit: Btw... where is your bio?
Maths based upon the entire standard model not just bits. Your problem is that you are cherry picking bits and not looking at the whole. As I said, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching, its stuffed full of cherry picked data and most of it is wrong and near none of it comes from peer reviewed papers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:55:00 -
[127] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Maths based upon the entire standard model not just bits. Your problem is that you are cherry picking bits and not looking at the whole. As I said, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching, its stuffed full of cherry picked data and most of it is wrong and near none of it comes from peer reviewed papers.
Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.
Do you know what the math of the standard model is? Then how can you make such a statement?
Do I know all of the math of the standard model? No, obviously i don't either. But i do know something that you don't seem to know about the math involved in quantum electrodynamics. It deals with mass, velocity and spin. When you get a certain mass going at a certain velocity that has a certain spin... you can reasonably predict what will come out of that reaction. It is all statistical but you can.
Therefore at 125 GeV we are almost certain to see something baring the properties of the ~125 GeV Boson because that is how it works! It has to be there based upon what we know about inertia, spin and energy interactions.
But when you assign a ludicrous effect to a particle that is in all other respects ordinary and benign you are no longer "following the math". You are using your imagination. Math does not tell us that something exists. It does not predict the existence of gravity it only explains how it works. There is no math that says "look here is the higgs field".
That is as simple as any human being can explain it to you. If you don't believe it then I suggest you do some reading. If you do not want to do some reading... well... then you're just some Joe somewhere cherry picking information because you saw it on the fox news.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10551
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:58:00 -
[128] - Quote
There is strong evidence in support of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For one, there is strong evidence to support its interaction with matter at or near the level predicted by the Standard Model. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:10:00 -
[129] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.
We just had most of the worlds scientific organisations warn that wikipedia is a terribly misleading place to get info on complex matters and every university generally bans its use. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:16:00 -
[130] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.
We just had most of the worlds scientific organisations warn that wikipedia is a terribly misleading place to get info on complex matters and every university generally bans its use.
Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?
Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?
Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.
@ James Amril-Kesh As for the "higgs proof" link i'm giving it a read. But I doubt a random blog from over a year ago will have new information in it.
And why is goonswarm suddenly fail sabotaging my thread?
|
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:30:00 -
[131] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:There is strong evidence in support of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For one, there is strong evidence to support its interaction with matter at or near the level predicted by the Standard Model.
Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13
Now since it is pretty obvious that you just googled your way to something that looked like "strong evidence" and didn't bother to read through the whole thing before posting it... I will recall one of my favorite sci-fi quotes of all time compliments of James T Kirk.
"James Amril-Kesh, I am laughing at the inferior intellect"
On A Side Note:
This is actually very interesting because we may have discovers a new fundamental law of nature here. Or perhaps not nature but the nature of eve and these forums. People like you pollute GD with mountains of thread derailing garbage all of the time and since there is no way to really prove or disprove what you are saying you get away with it.
But add into that dynamic something from the real world... and we get to see just how little you actually know don't we?
I might call this "Eternum's first law of forum interactions"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:31:00 -
[132] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?
Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?
Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.
In the last thread you hadn't even read anything from the scientific organisations that were running the experiments. In this thread you have said that the entire scientific community is only using the standard theory because they don't want to damage their grant money or their egos. Not exactly a good example you are setting here for researching this subject. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:34:00 -
[133] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?
Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?
Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.
In the last thread you hadn't even read anything from the scientific organisations that were running the experiments. In this thread you have said that the entire scientific community is only using the standard theory because they don't want to damage their grant money or their egos. Not exactly a good example you are setting here for researching this subject.
Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:50:00 -
[134] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now?
You linked your own thread, go have a look. Linking a bunch of radical theories is all fine and well but there is a reason why the standard modelis used by everyone. If the evidence backed those other theories we would be using them. There isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists looking to protect grant money or their egos, they use it because thats what the evidence point to. Questioning what we believe is good for science but its not good when you hold up theories when there is no evidence backing them up. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:56:00 -
[135] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now? You linked your own thread, go have a look. Linking a bunch of radical theories is all fine and well but there is a reason why the standard modelis used by everyone. If the evidence backed those other theories we would be using them. There isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists looking to protect grant money or their egos, they use it because thats what the evidence point to. Questioning what we believe is good for science but its not good when you hold up theories when there is no evidence backing them up.
No link then and no bio from you? Well ok then....
I feel all points have been made and I have poked fun at the two of you enough. Feel free to crap of the rest of the thread. Anyone with even a modest intellect could read this and see what you are trying to do at this point.
Thank you everyone who actually participated in the debate. I hope there will be more in the future. \0/
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:09:00 -
[136] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:No link then and no bio from you? Well ok then.... I feel all points have been made and I have poked fun at the two of you enough. Feel free to crap of the rest of the thread. Anyone with even a modest intellect could read this and see what you are trying to do at this point. Thank you everyone who actually participated in the debate. I hope there will be more in the future. \0/
You want me to point you to a good source of scientific papers?
Go to the Royal Society. Their archive holds every scientific peer reviewed paper from 1660. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2006
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13[...]
Actually, as I understand that link you provided here, they say basically "we have no proof that it's the higgs, but we have evidence speaking strongly against all other alternatives that remain possible based on what we know".
Edit: As such, "Evidence against Higgs Impostors" seems to mean "evidence against the possibility of the found particle being an impostor". |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:48:00 -
[138] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13[...] Actually, as I understand that link you provided here, they say basically "we have no proof that it's the higgs, but we have evidence speaking strongly against all other alternatives that remain possible based on what we know". Edit: As such, "Evidence against Higgs Impostors" seems to mean "evidence against the possibility of the found particle being an impostor".
Riyria Twinpeaks, you are correct but this entire thread is not about "actual higgs vs higgs imposters" it is whether or not there is any reason to think (through testing and observation) that the ~125 GeV Boson does anything at all besides decay.
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2006
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:57:00 -
[139] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Riyria Twinpeaks, you are correct but this entire thread is not about "actual higgs vs higgs imposters" it is whether or not there is any reason to think (through testing and observation) that the ~125 GeV Boson does anything at all besides decay.
I thought the discovery of the higgs boson is so important because it was predicted by the higgs field theory. Then, no matter whether you see it doing anything or not, the existence of the particle itself, if it can be confirmed to be the right one, is a strong indicator that there is merit to that theory, right?
Anyway, I'm tired now. xD |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 22:28:00 -
[140] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote: I thought the discovery of the higgs boson is so important because it was predicted by the higgs field theory.
Where as I have been postulating that quantum electrodynamics (aka raw particle chemistry) practically guarantees that a ~125 GeV type Boson must exist. There could be any number of them, none of which have anything to do with a field.
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Anyway, I'm tired now. xD
Goodnight! God knows how many pages of crap will be burring this post when you return!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |