Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1067
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 22:41:00 -
[61] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Yeah right. I have no reading comprehension. I guess that's what got me 4 years at Rice University.
So, since you attacked me personally (oh and CCP will be looking at that), I will return in kind that you are just simply an angry idiot who has no idea at all what you are talking about or trying to say.
Why don't you take that exquisite education of yours and submit a reasonable counter argument if you think that this object is the particle that higgs expected to find in the Higgs field? Since you seem to think so.
And as for "Whaaaa I am telling CCP" to suggest that you have an issue with reading comprehension do to your responses to my OP, is in no way a personal attack. So go right ahead.
|
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
87398
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 22:46:00 -
[62] - Quote
Even your opinions of charities for children is repugnant:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3737235#post3737235
...and that also apparently involved discussing some Forum Moderation.
As this is your first thread since August, I can only assume you've had to "involuntarily go away" for awhile already.
"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."-á - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882 |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1067
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 22:53:00 -
[63] - Quote
I work in the medical field and that statement is 100% true, and I stand buy it whole heartedly. If you think it is repugnant, I suggest reading it again since you seem to be missing various subtle points in text.
Also...no thoughts on Higgs fields then I take it? Well ok then
P.S. On second thought, I must be really leaving an impression if you somehow found that post lol. You have even been keeping track of how long I have not been posting? (Looks out window )
|
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1206
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 23:59:00 -
[64] - Quote
Snagletooth Johnson wrote:Of course they're desperate. Science has become a joke. Science is no longer about discovery of the unknown and follwing the evidenece wherever it may lead, but about social engineering and then coming up with the evidence, no matter how flimsy or far fetched, to prove it. Science has become a tool for Progressive politicans and a weapon for anti-theologists secularists/militant atheists.
methodolgy has been kicked to the curb Empiracal Evidence has become a luttany of articles repeating the mistakes and stupidity of other and so claiming it as proven fact. Peer Reveiw has become a nothing a Progreesive bully pulpit to shout down and ruin the careers of those who dare see another possiblity Welcome to the new world of science, where we dream up facts first, then come up with theories to prove it.
Just switch a few words around and this could be a post about religion. I always said anti scientific theists mirrored their 'opposite' bitter high science atheists way more than either group would ever be willing to admit |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 00:38:00 -
[65] - Quote
They don't call it the "Science Religion" for nothing.
|
Onyx Nyx
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
600
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 01:40:00 -
[66] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:They don't call it the "Science Religion" for nothing.
As the saying goes; Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings. I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 02:02:00 -
[67] - Quote
Onyx Nyx wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:They don't call it the "Science Religion" for nothing. As the saying goes; Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings.
Yep, in planes flown by Mother Teressa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Dali Lama. Way to fail stereotype.
FYI, war and the ego of nations flew us to the moon...science just allowed us to get there.
|
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
2829
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 02:15:00 -
[68] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I work in the medical field and that statement is 100% true, and I stand buy it whole heartedly. If you think it is repugnant, I suggest reading it again since you seem to be missing various subtle points in text. I also work in a medical field. I can assert that your assertion is not 100% true. Not even remotely. Courageous of you to stand by your blanket statement, but you make too many blanket statements to be a scientist. Or, more to the point, to be the kind of scientist I'd bother respecting.
Now, if you want to discuss the internal back-biting and unprincipled politics of academia or of garnering and defending grant moneys, we can have a conversation. Of course, that applies to ALL of academia; science is hardly the only field so-contaminated. But for actual science? Done discussing it with you - you've surrendered all credibility there with me. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc |
Onyx Nyx
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
600
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 02:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Onyx Nyx wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:They don't call it the "Science Religion" for nothing. As the saying goes; Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings. Yep, in planes flown by Mother Teressa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Dali Lama. Way to fail stereotype. FYI, war and the ego of nations flew us to the moon...science just allowed us to get there.
And no one ever died in the name of [your] God? I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1917
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 02:57:00 -
[70] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Akita T wrote: I wouldn't exactly pride myself with that thread if I was in your position, but to each its own, I guess. Side-note, this case we have here is more or less the reverse of that - in that truly massive amounts of data were scoured and certain events were repeatedly recorded, with inconclusive data repeatedly chopped off, leaving an ever-mounting mountain of, yes, circumstantial, yet fairly solid evidence to support the claims, whereas no clearly conflicting evidence could be found.
So do you have a link to their fairly solid evidence to support their claims, where as no clearly conflicting evidence could be found? I would truly love to go over that data (no sarcasm intended). It seems to me that if you run that many trials of collisions, one out of every 1 trillion (10^12) times you might find just about any result that you were looking for. http://www.atlas.ch/news/2012/latest-results-from-higgs-search.html
"The 2012 data set comes from proton collisions with an increased centre of mass energy of 8 TeV and includes more data (collected in only three months) than was collected in all of 2011.[...]The LHC is expected to provide ATLAS with double the data again by the end of the 2012, before the beginning of a long shutdown to upgrade the accelerator. When the machine starts up again toward the end of 2014, it will operate at nearly twice its current energy." "Both channels show a statistically significant excess at about the same place: a mass of around 126 GeV. A statistical combination of these channels and others puts the significance of the signal at 5 sigma, meaning that only one experiment in three million would see an apparent signal this strong in a universe without a Higgs." "We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV. [...]A little more time is needed to finalize these results, and more data and more study will be needed to determine the new particleGÇÖs properties." (note: this means sometime in 2016 or even later)
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/milestone-higgs-quest-scientists-find-new-particle-861976?franchiseSlug=sciencemain
"After today's announcement, Heuer alluded to the job ahead. "We have to find out which kind of Higgs boson this is. ... We have discovered a boson, and now we have to determine what kind of boson it is," he told reporters. Later, he said "we can call it a Higgs boson, but we cannot call it the Higgs boson." Getting the full picture would take time. "Ask me in three, four years," after the LHC reaches full power, Heuer said." "Fermilab physicist Don Lincoln, who is a member of the CMS research team, agreed that a little caution was in order. "It is definitely a boson, and it looks and smells like the Higgs. But until we do all the senses ... we won't know for sure,""
And a few extra discussions...
http://resonaances.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/when-shall-we-call-it-higgs.html
"the particle discovered at the LHC last year is being called different names: sometimes the 125 GeV particle, sometimes a scalar boson (as opposed to scalar fermions), and most often a Higgs-like boson. This caution was understandable at the early stage, given the fresh memory of faster-than-light neutrinos. However, since it's been walking and quacking like a duck for more than half a year now, there's a discussion among experimenters when they will be allowed to drop the derogatory "-like" suffix. " "We know it's a boson. We know it's not spin 1 [...] Formally it might be spin 2, but in practice it cannot be either.[...]Thus, the 125 GeV particle has to be a scalar.[...]we're left with a spin-0 particle as the only reasonable option. But zero spin is still not equivalent to a Higgs boson.[...]A Higgs boson is a scalar particle that couples to W and Z bosons as in L1, with cV > 0. Along the same vein, one can define the Higgs boson as a unique Higgs boson with the cV coupling close to one. Thus, to prove we are dealing with a Higgs and not an impostor it is enough to prove the coupling cV is non-zero. Actually, we already know that based on the current data.[...]So, with very few assumptions, and independently on what the values of the other couplings are, one can argue the particle discovered at the LHC is a Higgs boson. At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1, so it clearly smells like the Higgs boson. But of course that last statement is less robust as there's still a lot of room for other Higgs bosons being present in nature."
and
http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/11/14/higgs-results-at-kyoto/ with further reading at http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-standard-model-higgs/seeking-and-studying-the-standard-model-higgs-particle/ and http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T Build your own EVE PC http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734 |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9743
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 03:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
Quote:
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?
It was built for many experiments and yes, I would like to have been on the team that didn't find it as that would have earned even more fame as it would have been the team that proved the cornerstone of science was wrong. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1917
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 03:15:00 -
[72] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Because they are calling this new generic particle a "god" particle, giving people Nobel Prizes for it and claiming that it holds the answers to every hole in the theory of everything. How utterly daft can you be? They found an impostor particle at energy levels a hundred trillion times lower then expected, and because of the objects spin they immediately conclude that it a byproduct of the "higgs field". That is not science, it is a horrible, horrible miscarriage of science.
"In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F ) The nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/may/29/why-call-it-the-god-particle-higgs-boson-cern-lhc
"[...]physicist in Manchester. He paused. He sighed. And then he said: "I really, really don't like it. It sends out all the wrong messages. It overstates the case. It makes us look arrogant. It's rubbish." He then added: "If you walked down the corridor here, poked your head into people's offices and asked that question, you would likely be struck by flying books." "
"For the origins of the name so loved by journalists, we have to go back to Fermilab. In the early 1990s, the former director of the lab, Leon Lederman, wrote a great book on particle physics that he called "The God particle", which was to be the main target for an enormous but ultimately ill-fated machine called the Superconducting Supercollider. In the book, he justifies the name by saying the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname ..." So that's how we got to where we are today. Physicists call it the Higgs boson, but it could easily be the B-E-H-G-H-K boson (make an acronym out of that if you can). And we in the media just can't stop ourselves calling it the God particle."
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/14/the-higgs-boson-why-scientists-hate-that-you-call-it-the-god-particle/
" We donGÇÖt call it the GÇ£God particle,GÇ¥ itGÇÖs just the media that do that,GÇ¥ a senior U.S. scientist politely told an interviewer on a major European radio station on Tuesday. GÇ£Well, I am the from the media and IGÇÖm going to continue calling it that,GÇ¥ said the journalist GÇö and continued to do so. [...] GÇ£I hate that GÇ£God particleGÇÖ term,GÇ¥ said Pauline Gagnon, a Canadian member of CERNGÇÖs ATLAS team[...] GÇ£The Higgs is not endowed with any religious meaning. It is ridiculous to call it that,GÇ¥ [...] Oliver Buchmueller, from the rival research team CMS, was a little less trenchant. GÇ£Calling it the GÇÖGod particleGÇÖ is completely inappropriate,GÇ¥ said the German physicist, who divides his time between CERN and teaching at LondonGÇÖs Imperial College. GÇ£ItGÇÖs not doing justice to the Higgs and what we think its role in the universe is. It has nothing to do with God.GÇ¥ "
...
Also, where did you get the idea that the particle they found has "energy levels a hundred trillion times lower then expected" ?!? Seriously, WHERE FROM? The particle has an energy of ~125 GeV/c^2, which is equivalent to about 20 * 10^(-9) Joules, which is pretty damn huge for a single particle. If the particle would have an energy level "a hundred trillion times higher" than that, it would have to have an energy level of about 2000000 J PER PARTICLE, which is downright preposterous. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T Build your own EVE PC http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734 |
Cynter DeVries
Spheroidal Projections
730
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 04:12:00 -
[73] - Quote
Props to Akita for both a debunking and a bedunking. Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead. |
Reiisha
Evolution
487
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 08:25:00 -
[74] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Opening post
Lots and lots of hot air.
Instead of just deriding people who are actually trying to learn more about the universe we live in, present your own theories.
It's easy to criticize without offering a counterpoint.
Akita T wrote:Proper arguments
Thank you for bringing some intelligence back into this thread :>
If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all... |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 13:16:00 -
[75] - Quote
Onyx Nyx wrote:
And no one ever died in the name of [your] God?
And no one ever died in the name of the godless? You also presume that I am I even have one... By collecting all religions into one thing and smashing their ideologies and practices together, you display your own ignorance.
Quote: GÇ£My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.GÇ¥ GÇò Dalai Lama XIV
Going over Akita's posts now. This will clearly take a while lol.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 13:45:00 -
[76] - Quote
Akita T wrote:[ Also, where did you get the idea that the particle they found has "energy levels a hundred trillion times lower then expected" ?!? Seriously, WHERE FROM? The particle has an energy of ~125 GeV/c^2, which is equivalent to about 20 * 10^(-9) Joules, which is pretty damn huge for a single particle. If the particle would have an energy level "a hundred trillion times higher" than that, it would have to have an energy level of about 2000000 J PER PARTICLE, which is downright preposterous.
I guess I'll just start here: 'God Particle' One Year Later
Quote:Lincoln says that there's a very large discrepancy that still needs to be addressed. The Higgs-boson-like particle observed at the LHC a year ago has about 100 trillion times less than energy than what the Standard Model predicts.
If you only research things that supports your own personal view, you will end up finding exactly what you are looking for. In essence, you are under educating yourself.
Now since pepople have asked for my own "theory" and have thrown accusations at me like the true church goers of science they are.... I'll make this so utterly super simple that even Krixtal Icefluxor will have a hard time misunderstanding me.
The Problem With The Standard Model Goes Something Like This:
It reaches strait down to some core assumptions made early on. Let's say I am a scientist... I see water and ask "what's this? What is it made out of?" So I do my science thing and learn it is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.
I pat myself on the back and then ask "Hmmm... what is this "Hydrogen made out of? What holds it together?" I do my science thing and realize that the answer is even smaller particles, enter protons and electrons.
I pat myself on the back. I then have to ask... "Hmmm... what is this proton made out of?" I do my science thing and realize Quarks. I pat myself on the back.
Now I have to ask what are these quarks are made out of. Now one person might say Gluons hold them together. Others may begin to sight those amazing little "strings" of string theory. Well ok... now what? You guessed it. What are Gluons and/or strings made out of? What holds them together?
And now we have a "Higgs" particle that is supposed to be a part of a "Higgs Field". So we apparently have a field that is responsible for some very key universal interactions that is not a magnetic or gravitational one. Ok... so what makes up the Higg's particle?
It never ends...
Here in lies the fundamental assumption at the beginning, that dooms the whole theory. The standard model is based entirely on the "Particle" principle. The idea that spacetime is nothing and only a particle can govern interactions. Because of this basic presumption underlining every standard model theory, if you partake, you will forever be looking for smaller and smaller particles that do smaller and smaller things. It never ends.
Now For Those Ignorant People Who Think This Means I Am Talking About A "God Force"
I am not. A particle is not just a ball floating around in space, it also has properties that make it very much like a waveform. This should be giving people clues... and is in fact, but these clues lead people away from the standard model at the very small scale and so the academic community blatantly disregards them. Or... alternatively you get ridiculous contemplations like string theory. String theory itself is not bad... the idea of actual strings floating around like particles is. The math is also bad in it's attempts to bring these imaginary strings into reality.
If you don't know where this is leading, then maybe you should read a little more about the ideas of some very smart free thinkers alive today, doing some very interesting work. Instead of always bending a knee to "trendy cutting edge" of mainstream presumptions that cannot be proven conclusively.
|
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1208
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 14:06:00 -
[77] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
If you don't know where this is leading, then maybe you should read a little more about the ideas of some very smart free thinkers alive today, doing some very interesting work. Instead of always bending a knee to "trendy cutting edge" of mainstream presumptions that cannot be proven conclusively.
I have been staying out of this discussion as I pretty much understand physics as it has to do with biomechanics, but I will jump in here to say it is pretty disingenuous to continue to post and make points towards other's citations, then say the above and refuse to cite said free thinkers. |
Shirley Serious
Gutter Press
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 14:09:00 -
[78] - Quote
The LHC is supposed to only reach full power in 2016, isn't it ? |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 14:26:00 -
[79] - Quote
Slade Trillgon wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
If you don't know where this is leading, then maybe you should read a little more about the ideas of some very smart free thinkers alive today, doing some very interesting work. Instead of always bending a knee to "trendy cutting edge" of mainstream presumptions that cannot be proven conclusively.
I have been staying out of this discussion as I pretty much understand physics as it has to do with biomechanics, but I will jump in here to say it is pretty disingenuous to continue to post and make points towards other's citations, then say the above and refuse to cite said free thinkers.
This is the first time that I have, and since most of the people here actually know nothing about physics, but are more or less experts in forum debates and breaking down arguments (be those arguments true or false) a more appropriate technique is to give the debaters less information to deal with.
In such and environment, half of the effort is just keeping the debate on track and pointed in a single direction that covers as simple of a core subject as possible. You cannot defend 10 ideas at once, you can only defend one. If you personally what to learn more about what I am referring to google and research Cymantic waves. You will find allot there pertaining to your Biomechanic knowledge as well.
There is more (as in other theories) and it is not hard to find if you google outside of the box a little.
|
Onyx Nyx
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
600
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 15:18:00 -
[80] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Onyx Nyx wrote:
And no one ever died in the name of [your] God?
And no one ever died in the name of the godless? You also presume that I even have one... By collecting all religions into one thing and smashing their ideologies and practices together, you display your own ignorance. Quote: GÇ£My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.GÇ¥ GÇò Dalai Lama XIV
I may be ignorant. Which is fine, I can actually live with it.
But then again, I do stand in the shadow of yours.
Quote: "I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness." --- Christopher Hitchens
I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more. |
|
Cynter DeVries
Spheroidal Projections
731
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 15:22:00 -
[81] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Akita T wrote:[ Also, where did you get the idea that the particle they found has "energy levels a hundred trillion times lower then expected" ?!? Seriously, WHERE FROM? The particle has an energy of ~125 GeV/c^2, which is equivalent to about 20 * 10^(-9) Joules, which is pretty damn huge for a single particle. If the particle would have an energy level "a hundred trillion times higher" than that, it would have to have an energy level of about 2000000 J PER PARTICLE, which is downright preposterous. I guess I'll just start here: ' God Particle' One Year LaterQuote:Lincoln says that there's a very large discrepancy that still needs to be addressed. The Higgs-boson-like particle observed at the LHC a year ago has about 100 trillion times less than energy than what the Standard Model predicts. If you only research things that supports your own personal view, you will end up finding exactly what you are looking for. In essence, you are under educating yourself. Now since pepople have asked for my own "theory" and have thrown accusations at me like the true church goers of science they are.... I'll make this so utterly super simple that even Krixtal Icefluxor will have a hard time misunderstanding me. The Problem With The Standard Model Goes Something Like This: It reaches strait down to some core assumptions made early on. Let's say I am a scientist... I see water and ask "what's this? What is it made out of?" "What hold's it together" "What makes it work" So I do my science thing and learn it is made out of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. I pat myself on the back and then ask "Hmmm... what is this "Hydrogen made out of? What is it made out of?" "What hold's it together" "What makes it work?" I do my science thing and realize that the answer is even smaller particles, enter protons and electrons. I pat myself on the back. I then have to ask... "Hmmm... what is this proton made out of?" What is it made out of?" "What hold's it together" "What makes it work?" I do my science thing and realize Quarks. I pat myself on the back. Now I have to ask what are these quarks are made out of, what holds it together and what makes them work?. Now one person might say Gluons hold them together. Others may begin to sight those amazing little "strings" of string theory. Well ok... now what? You guessed it. What are Gluons and/or strings made out of? What holds them together? What governs their interactions and what makes them work? And now we have a "Higgs" particle that is supposed to be a part of a "Higgs Field". So we apparently have a field that is responsible for some very key universal interactions that is not a magnetic or gravitational one. Ok... so what makes up the Higg's particle and field? What governs it's interactions, holds it together and makes it work? It never ends... Here in lies the fundamental assumption at the beginning, that dooms the whole theory. The standard model is based entirely on the "Particle" principle. The idea that spacetime is nothing and only a particle can govern interactions. Because of this basic presumption underlining every standard model theory, if you partake, you will forever be looking for smaller and smaller particles that do smaller and smaller things. It never ends. Now For Those Ignorant People Who Think This Means I Am Talking About A "God Force"I am not. A particle is not just a ball floating around in space, it also has properties that make it very much like a waveform. This should be giving people clues... and is in fact, but these clues lead people away from the standard model at the very small scale and so the academic community blatantly disregards them. Or... alternatively you get ridiculous contemplations like string theory. String theory itself is not bad... the idea of actual strings floating around like particles is. The math is also bad in it's attempts to bring these imaginary strings into reality. If you don't know where this is leading, then maybe you should read a little more about the ideas of some very smart free thinkers alive today, doing some very interesting work. Instead of always bending a knee to "trendy cutting edge" of mainstream presumptions that cannot be proven conclusively. Your account of the history of particle physics is essentially wrong, and discredits your assumed "never-ending progression". The reason atoms were called "atoms" was because they were thought to be atomic and indivisible... until there was evidence to the contrary. Protons, neutrons and electrons were thought to be indivisible, until there was evidence to the contrary.
It was observations and evidence that led to the ever-smaller divisions, not a publishing treadmill as you assert. It was the fundamentals of the scientific method that led us down this path.
Your complaint that "it isn't little balls of stuff" and then saying "no, no, no, it's waves" ignores wave/particle duality. They are reciprocal treatments of the same thing. How do you manage to cope with the two-slit experiment that uses both forms in the same experiment? (I'm not asking how you explain it, I'm asking whether your head explodes because quanta are detected.)
Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 15:33:00 -
[82] - Quote
Quote:Your account of the history of particle physics is essentially wrong
Good god people (no pun intended) it was not an "Account" of anything. It was a simple follow along game written out in crayon for the simple minded. Go back and read it again and try not to take it to literally.
I mean seriously...
Onyx Nyx wrote: "I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness." --- Christopher Hitchens
Much like the Dali Lama, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mother Teresa... says the person with "I kill Kittens" in their sig. LOL
|
Cynter DeVries
Spheroidal Projections
731
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:23:00 -
[83] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Quote:Your account of the history of particle physics is essentially wrong Good god people (no pun intended) it was not an "Account" of anything. It was a simple follow along game written out in crayon for the simple minded. Go back and read it again and try not to take it to literally. I mean seriously... wtf? Onyx Nyx wrote: "I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness." --- Christopher Hitchens
Much like the Dali Lama, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mother Teresa... says the person with "I kill Kittens" in their sig. LOL Metaphor, simile, or hyperbole, it's still a straw man. Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead. |
Onyx Nyx
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
600
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:07:00 -
[84] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Quote:Your account of the history of particle physics is essentially wrong Good god people (no pun intended) it was not an "Account" of anything. It was a simple follow along game written out in crayon for the simple minded. Go back and read it again and try not to take it to literally. I mean seriously... wtf? Onyx Nyx wrote: "I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness." --- Christopher Hitchens
Much like the Dali Lama, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mother Teresa... says the person with "I kill Kittens" in their sig. LOL
Says the guy with "One" and "Ultimate" in the same sentence. I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9748
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:57:00 -
[85] - Quote
Shirley Serious wrote:The LHC is supposed to only reach full power in 2016, isn't it ?
It is currently undergoing an upgrade which will double its power. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Shirley Serious
Gutter Press
72
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 19:29:00 -
[86] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Shirley Serious wrote:The LHC is supposed to only reach full power in 2016, isn't it ? It is currently undergoing an upgrade which will double its power.
well, Half Life 3 confirmed, then, isn't it?. |
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
1097
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 19:49:00 -
[87] - Quote
The Only thing I have managed to get out of this Thread, is the underlying disrespect some of the sides here have against the new wave of "Porno-Science" for the masses.
I too have witnessed respectable men of science debase themselves for the sake of the "show", which entails people willing to go to certain extremes to keep theorizing for the sake of it in a money grabbing attempt at grants.
Academia like many others have pointed out is full of these people from all fields of Science that honestly do it for the social renown, status quo enthronement and social/monetary benefits certain positions entail.
What I have read from OP and the underlying thread is simply a distaste on the will of some people wanting to prove things for the sake of their own agendas regardless of possible evidence whatsoever.
The actual mechanics and science behind it is an entirely different matter and here both OP and others seem to be at an impasse, and it gets muddled there in positions of abstract topics and poorly formulated statements from people practically playing a virtual mind game of "battleship" (which most threadnaughts end up being)
Also I have a secret to confess ...
I am only posting here to show this to anyone that might have missed it
SCIENCE! yay! Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 22:03:00 -
[88] - Quote
That's pretty cool Brujo Loco, are you in any way shape or form associated with that?
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 22:04:00 -
[89] - Quote
Onyx Nyx wrote:
Says the guy with "One" and "Ultimate" in the same sentence.
I am now somewhat confused. Say wah?
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 22:08:00 -
[90] - Quote
Cynter DeVries wrote: Metaphor, simile, or hyperbole, it's still a straw man.
It is actually not at all. It is very, very important to appreciate the ultimate road of the standard model. It's like plugging in a number into a calculator and getting .3333333333333333 forever. As people now conceive the universe there will always be another smaller particle responsible for the composition and interactions of the bigger one. It leads you to a search without end for infinite smallness.
This is a major flaw, and people who are out there trying to prove certain theories right now do not seem to have enough foresight to realize the implications of the model they hold so dear. This is a huge issue and no one even seems to pay it any mind at all. How that can be so... I truly find perplexing...
The standard model works, and it will always work. But at the level of the very tiny it breaks down. This does not mean that the standard model isn't good, it means that in order to understand "everything" you need to come at it from a totally different direction all together. After you do that, then you can plug it back into the model that you already have provided that you still can, need to do so or if you even want to.
If they cannot observe this particle that they have found doing exactly what they are claiming that it does, then it is not proof of anything. It's just any old positively charged particle that could be named (insert random name) as oppose to this very specific thing they are claiming that it is. It has no definite relevance, and it is bad science to ask the world to believe in it.
Yep... that's right "believe".
Faith... in what cannot be seen or proven. That is not my kind of science... if it is your's have a good time. You have your own "Science Religion" that makes you feel safe and secure in your understanding of your existence. But it s not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |