You seemed to have missed the irony. My jest and sarcasm is meant to point out how those scientists... grow up to forget the most basic methods of science in the pursuit of their own wealth, fame and agendas. The "cutting edge" science that you speak of is also a place of egos, profits and improper/incomplete scientific methods.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but that entire collider was constructed to create such high energies specifically for the purpose of finding the imaginary Higgs particle. Everyone there, on both teams, were taught in school that this thing should have existed and all of them knew that was the reason why they were there.


Would you want to be on the team that "doesn't" find it?

The LHC is supposed to only reach full power in 2016, isn't it ?

This Link is an interesting one, which also confirms that CERN was in fact built in order to detect the higgs field (which another poster gave me crap about but there it is in black and white I think it was baltec1 if memory serves.) That entire site is actually pretty cool.

Hmmm.... if only I could prove gravity (drops pen)
Hmmm.... if only I had a model for how evolution can change a physical form (looks at my dog and googles dog breeds)
Hmmm... if only there was something in the universe suggesting the big gang (looks at expansion and redshift)



Well... I guess I have some evidence there. Now show me something suggesting a universal wide field of Higgs particles.

Edit:
You are totally correct about a higgs particle being different from a higgs field. The discovery of a higgs-like particle is not evidence of a universal wide higgs field with said interactions. Not by a long shot. But this is obvious... people just need a higgs field because to much time has passed with too many holes in their theory of everything.

You are right about the fact that they have found a particle. However you do not seem to understand two things. 1. It is not actually exactly like what they were looking for (thus can in fact be a look alike particle) and 2. finding a particle of a certain type is not the same thing as proving that it constitutes a universal wide field (of unknown origin) that has such a distinctive and funky effect.


It can be in plainer English for you, and it can't be simpler. I have no issue with the experimentation, the collider at CERN, or the standard model in general. I have a problem with making wild and unprovable leaps based upon limited information, and awarding sciences highest honor long before it was warranted to do so.


If you want to practice "faith science" go right ahead. I'll maintain the more pure ideology of what science should be, and that begins with observation and experimentation NOT numbers on a marker board, thank you very much.

Yea well that's bullshit. E=MC comes from observing 1. that mass exists 2. that radio active decay exists and 3. that the speed of light is constant and 4. Kinetic energy. Much like Isaac Newton after the apple fell on his head, he later took those observations and convert them into a mathematical representation of the effect.

Einstein did not pull it out of thin air as you are suggesting...



Another Example Of This
The first predictions of blackholes came from 1. observing the existence of stars 2. understanding that their fuel was not limitless and 3. that there was tremendous gravity involved. THEN you do the math and this leads to a prediction... ending in blackholes.



Observation comes first. It always comes first. There is just a new generation of scientists out there who think that they can go strait from the chalkboard to the universe and expect to predict what is out there through sheer imagination alone. There is NOTHING observable that even remotely suggests that 1. an invisible flux of particles 2. with an extremely fast decay rate 3. that have no unique properties like a photon or neutrino --- can permeate the universe and effect only some, but not all, particles for reasons unknown.


IT'S IMAGINARY SCIENCE



It is not, at all, in anyway shape or form, the same thing...
People like you just claim that it is. But it is still bullshit

Well I guess you can't read either...


Let me draw this in crayon for you... so he had 1. no knowledge of mass 2. no knowledge of kinetic energy 3. no knowledge of the speed limit of light 4. no knowledge of radioactive decay 5. no knowledge of atom? Really?

He had no knowledge of any of the time tested, probable with experiments and observable things, when he came up with his equation? And when he predicted the existence of stars he had no knowledge of 1. stars themselves and limited fuel 2. nuclear fusion inside of them 3. gravity? Hmmm?



Of course he did not have to do practicable experiments... others had already done it for him. He used his genius to put the pieces together based upon observations of the universe around him. He did not just come up with **** in front of his chalkboard and was like blam! Blackholes...




Usually I can see why other people do not understand certain complex ideas, but how someone as yourself cannot understand something so simple is beyond me. I can only conclude that you cannot tolerate losing and argument, even if it is on the Internet. Well... your going to have to live with this one, because you are wrong.

Your example still require knowledge of stars, gravity and limited fuel. The notion was never pulled out of thin air. Try the other example, it is a little harder to do a Mexican hat dance around.



But since you have mad wiki abilities, i will counter them with my own . November 27, 1783: John Michell anticipates black holes but also comes to believe that light could be slowed down by the gravity of stars. Link


Regardless of his insights and short comings, he is ultimately a person who new of and observed 1. stars 2. their limited fuel and 3. gravity. He thus did not come up with random crap in front of a chalkboard as you claim. Sorry... still wrong.



Just learn to live with it, you will be a happier man.

Nice try, but ultimately... fail.




Do tell, what observable and testable process leads us to the conclusion that there is a universal wide field of particles that we cannot see, that singles out only some (but not all) particles and gives them mass? The actual field... not a particle. What observations and tests do we have that leads us to that? And i mean like, in the same sense as stars + limited fuel + gravity = black holes? Hmm?


Welcome to "true" science (not pretend science)



Eternum Does The Victory Dance Towards baltec1

I am happy to make your day

The existence of a particle that is similar (but not exactly) like a predicted particle, in no way shape or form proves the existence of a universal wide field of them. When people discovered electricity magnetism was integrally associated with it from the get go. All you can say about what they found through observation is two things 1. it is positively charged and 2. it decays into normal stuff.


ATM it has no known interaction with matter suggesting that it does anything beyond float around, carry a positive charge and decay. Until it does, it is just a positively charged something or another, like the Tau Lepton. It should not, it must not, be presumed to do anything radical until it can be seen doing so.


You are still... very, very wrong, and further more you provided no links as asked

link me baby...


Most of what you are quoting is theory (as in pure imagination) not actually observable. Let's see it. Show me them detecting this field. Show me an abnormal interaction with matter that cannot be explained through ordinary processes. Show me a higgs particle being show to increase the mass of any particle. Show me this happening in any environment, so long as it is actually observable.


Lets see it... or are you still wrong

Nice try lol



But no, that does not work on these forums or any other. I am well vised on it enough, if you have more to contribute then lets see it. If you claim that they have done all of these things in a non-theoretical way, then show me. Brah.


Still wrong... don't cry about it though. Mkay?

It's been read and then some.