Proof of 'God particle' found

brummytom

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. are you serious?

After reading the thread you just had closed, I wouldn't have expected you to say that

Don't feed!

Jester252

Kinda wish the Higgs boson never got the nickname of "The God particle"

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

paddy147

God is alive and real indeed

He lives at number 621,wears yellow speedos and a green cap too.:D

delad

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. are you serious?

After reading the thread you just had closed, I wouldn't have expected you to say that

I'm just saying, its possible to believe in the big bang theory and believe in God. God needed to create us somehow, why not by using the big bang method?

MrReynholm

How'd religion get into this thread?

Don't insult this (hopefully, anyway) news by dragging your book written by morons living in caves a few thousand years ago into this.

MrReynholm

delad wrote: »

I'm just saying, its possible to believe in the big bang theory and believe in God. God needed to create us somehow, why not by using the big bang method?

No it's not.

Now it's time for you to shut up and go do your colouring in like a good little lad.

christmas2012

i cant wait for the allah found it first theory..:D

delad

paddy147 wrote: »

How will this amazing information change my life for the better then?

Do we not have to pay back the German Bondholders now???

It means you can teleport yourself to mars to get away from your debt. I suppose time travel is on the cards as well, so we could in theory go back in time and assasinate Bertie.

Nollog

Gurgle wrote: »

*Ahem* a science thread in AH, where 4 of the 5 words in the thread title are 'Proof of God found'.

(OP, can you make that a small 'g' please?)

Are you saying that people who believe in God don't stay up late?

MrReynholm

christmas2012 wrote: »

i cant wait for the allah found it first theory..:D

Well, he does advocate that his people prod and enter the smallest gaps they can find anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

Burt Lancaster

Why is it called the God particle ?

Pushtrak

MrReynholm wrote: »

How'd religion get into this thread?

*Reads thread title*

Yeah, how'd it happen? No one could have predicted it...

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Why is it called the God particle ?

I think it was the name of a book done to popularise the science behind the higgs boson, and nothing sells as good as a controversial title. Lots of scientists don't actually like the name.














(Good ol' Wiki.. Didn't just read it there, had read it before... :pac:)
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F

Jester252

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Why is it called the God particle ?

The media needed to dumb it down

Duggys Housemate

Pushtrak wrote: »

*Reads thread title*

Yeah, how'd it happen? No one could have predicted it...

The name had nothing to do with religion, just an excuse for a few people to groupthink their attack on religion to garner thanks.

Meanwhile I am defending materialism in the Philosophy forum against a very slippery customer and I don't see any of the heroes of page one in there.

MrReynholm

Pushtrak wrote: »

*Reads thread title*

Yeah, how'd it happen? No one could have predicted it...

Yeah but it also has the word "particle" in it.

Usually the bible bashing crowd run for their lives when science pops its head up. That or casually tries to put their arm around it and go "see all that good **** you guys discovered? Well, that's cause our God wanted you to" like a bunch of uneducated, fence straddling cúnts.

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The name had nothing to do with religion, just an excuse for a few people to groupthink their attack on religion to garner thanks.

Meanwhile I am defending materialism in the Philosophy forum against a very slippery customer and I don't see any of the heroes of page one in there.

Well what do you think would happen when people see the word "God" in the thread title.


Do you need a degree in science to figure that one out??

paddy147

MrReynholm wrote: »

Yeah but it also has the word "particle" in it.

Usually the bible bashing crowd run for their lives when science pops its head up. That or casually tries to put their arm around it and go "see all that good **** you guys discovered? Well, that's cause our God wanted you to" like a bunch of uneducated, fence straddling cúnts.

Tom Cruise is probably spying on you right now so.:D

Duggys Housemate

MrReynholm wrote: »

Yeah but it also has the word "particle" in it.

Usually the bible bashing crowd run for their lives when science pops its head up. That or casually tries to put their arm around it and go "see all that good **** you guys discovered? Well, that's cause our God wanted you to" like a bunch of uneducated, fence straddling cúnts.

The God squad didn't turn up.

paddy147 wrote: »

Well what do you think would happen when people see the word "God" in the thread title.


Do you need a degree in science to figure that one out??

It would be nice if this thread were for people with science degrees, actually.

Benny_Cake

MrReynholm wrote: »

Usually the bible bashing crowd run for their lives when science pops its head up. That or casually tries to put their arm around it and go "see all that good **** you guys discovered? Well, that's cause our God wanted you to" like a bunch of uneducated, fence straddling cúnts.

Get off the fence - how do you really feel!?

losthorizon

Forget the god particle visit this place

http://www.themysteryworld.com/2012/04/trip-to-creation-museum.html

paddy147

What ever hapened to that lady who used to prance around on O'Connell Street,beside the Anna Livia Fountain,holding a bible and singing to everyone?

She allways dressed in her Sundays Best clothes

People would stand looking at her in utter bemusement

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The God squad didn't turn up.



It would be nice if this thread were for people with science degrees, actually.

I think Tom Cruise has an opening for you in his "clique"...:D

Benny_Cake

Getting away from the infantile remarks about religious faith and back to the Higgs Boson, obviously there is the intellectual satisfaction of filling in the gap in the Standard Model. Is there any speculation as to any technological applications that this discovery might lead to? I find this stuff fascinating if way beyond my understanding.

Duggys Housemate

paddy147 wrote: »

I think Tom Cruise has an opening for you in his "clique"...:D

Why would you think that? Were you mumbling Tom Cruise to yourself all day because he was mentioned in the news yesterday ?

tomcruisetomcruisetomcruise


and, so you decided to mention him in this thread twice for no apparent reason?

Or is it you cant tell the difference between science and scientology?

Burt Lancaster

MrReynholm wrote: »

Usually the bible bashing crowd run for their lives when science pops its head up. That or casually tries to put their arm around it and go "see all that good **** you guys discovered? Well, that's cause our God wanted you to" like a bunch of uneducated, fence straddling cúnts.

But atheist bible bashers don't believe in God ?

Duggys Housemate

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Getting away from the infantile remarks about religious faith and back to the Higgs Boson, obviously there is the intellectual satisfaction of filling in the gap in the Standard Model. Is there any speculation as to any technological applications that this discovery might lead to? I find this stuff fascinating if way beyond my understanding.

Its really about the Standard Model. It is difficult to explain but the Higgs Boson explains mass. With the verification, they haven't yet created a unified model - one which incorporates string theory and quantum mechanics. In any case the mathematics is right, and it is extraordinary that we can know so much with such limited tools.

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Why would you think that? Were you mumbling Tom Cruise to yourself all day because he was mentioned in the news yesterday ?

tomcruisetomcruisetomcruise


and, so you decided to mention him in this thread twice for no apparent reason?

Or is it you cant tell the difference between science and scientology?

Im just a simple farmers son.:D

Ah shyte,cant remeber if thats was Tom Cruise that said that.
No wait,it was Enda Kenny who said that.

Or was it????

Hmmmm...................

MrReynholm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Getting away from the infantile remarks about religious faith and back to the Higgs Boson, obviously there is the intellectual satisfaction of filling in the gap in the Standard Model. Is there any speculation as to any technological applications that this discovery might lead to? I find this stuff fascinating if way beyond my understanding.

With regards to technology, the next big advances will be made in the area of quantum computing.

Like dark matter, I can't see an application for this particular particle at this point in time but then the same could have been said about quantum physics not all that long ago.

PK2008

Pfff.......what has 'science' ever done for us?

paddy147

PK2008 wrote: »

Pfff.......what has 'science' ever done for us?

Im still trying to figure out which came 1st......the egg OR the chicken???:D

Duggys Housemate

paddy147 wrote: »

Im still trying to figure out which came 1st......the egg OR the chicken???:D

Tom Cruise came first.

B.A._Baracus

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

diabloro

Leftist wrote: »

Do you have a concept of how big and how complicated the universe is? He created life that can think for itself. that is genius. Every year he should get the noble prize imo.

He truly would deserve it but he won't turn up to collect it.

Duggys Housemate

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

Or they are mildly pleased and jerking off to pornhub?

Scioch

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

I'd imagine the smug anti group thinkers have a horn at the ready too waiting to denounce whatever popular opinion arises.

paddy147

We all know this is how it all really began......:D

Burt Lancaster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

Hardly. Atheists are smart enough to know Physics doesn't deal with the non physical.

christmas2012

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Tom Cruise came first.

nope ,L ron hubbard came first,he had his first orgasm setting up the cult scientology..

diabloro

LordSmeg wrote: »

But that just boils down to faith in your own experience. You say you understand the math involved in this. So you have faith in the math being accurate and faith enough to attribute worth to those findings.

Your argument is "people have faith". Which I cannot argue against. But faith doesnt have to be blind faith. I understand the concept of mathematics, I dont have to know particle physics to have the same faith in your equations as you do, only your ability to apply them which when scrutinized by peers makes my view that they are correct just as valid as anyone elses regardless of whether or not I have tested it myself.

I dont have to prove everything myself to prove its right. Nobody does and that doesnt mean my opinion is not valid or that I am purely relying on faith.

I have faith this switch will turn on my light. I agree.

steddyeddy

Well Duggy's housemate is right to be honest. The god sqaud didnt turn up and it turned into another attack on people's beliefs. Unfortunatly scientists do have faith in certain theories or hunchs on hypotheses. The scientific model is sound and a large jump away from religion but the scientists enforcing this are only human and are prone to dogma. People shouldnt accept one thoery out of hand because some scientist said it. 100 years ago we were told there was no such thing as the giant panda and bonobo. The incorrect process of photosynthesis was also held as dogma for years. When a scientific theory is developed that turns around a more strongly held theory there can be a lot of dogmatic resistance to the new theory. The chemical theory of absorption was one such thoery that is now accepted but the scientist that proposed it was excluded from presenting his theory at the time.I had lecturers that told us "we know this doesnt happen that way" or "we know that this animal probrably exists but the scientific community can be very dogmatic and to pass this course you better put down the dogmatic answer".


Im a scientist myself though and I dont think science is as inaccessible to people as is currently believed. That to me reminds me of the time when the bible was only for priests to read to the lay people. Scientific models are free from dogma, faith or belief but scientists are not.

DarkJager

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I bet athiests around the world are jerking off to this news.

All over the face of your religious beliefs.

steddyeddy

This has nothing to do with religion. It shouldnt have been called the god particle.

paddy147

Has proof of this particle enriched any of your lives today??

And if so how?





PS-Does anyone here in Ireland really give a flying fcuk??

Unless this particle can produce 50 euro notes for us all?

Duggys Housemate

paddy147 wrote: »

Has proof of this particle enriched any of your lives today??

And if so how?





PS-Does anyone here in Ireland really give a flying fcuk??

Unless this particle can produce 50 euro notes for us all?

Tom Cruise.

Duggys Housemate

Im old enough to remember when a discussion on a Physics topic on the internet would have people actually talking about the discovery. I miss those days.

paddy147

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Tom Cruise.

Oh my "God"........you are so correct........Tom Cruise.:D

Scioch

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well Duggy's housemate is right to be honest. The god sqaud didnt turn up and it turned into another attack on people's beliefs. Unfortunatly scientists do have faith in certain theories or hunchs on hypotheses. The scientific model is sound and a large jump away from religion but the scientists enforcing this are only human and are prone to dogma. People shouldnt accept one thoery out of hand because some scientist said it. 100 years ago we were told there was no such thing as the giant panda and bonobo. The incorrect process of photosynthesis was also held as dogma for years. When a scientific theory is developed that turns around a more strongly held theory there can be a lot of dogmatic resistance to the new theory. The chemical theory of absorption was one such thoery that is now accepted but the scientist that proposed it was excluded from presenting his theory at the time.I had lecturers that told us "we know this doesnt happen that way" or "we know that this animal probrably exists but for the scientific community can be very dogmatic.


Im a scientist myself though and I dont think science is as inaccessible to people as is currently believed. That to me reminds me of the time when the bible was only for priests to read to the lay people. Scientific models are free from dogma, faith or belief but scientists are not.

But that is completely different than comparing faith in a priest with faith in a scientist which is what Duggy's housemate did. Its easy to say now "look at this theory that was wrong" but at the time the may have been nothing whatsoever to suggest it was wrong. So the possibility of something being wrong is really no grounds to distrust it when all evidence suggests it isnt. It would be an absurd conclusion to come to.

People here are not accepting the scientists word (because sceintists are not basing this on their word) they are accepting the possibility of it being correct because all evidence suggests that (assuming it stands up to scrutiny).

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Im old enough to remember when a discussion on a Physics topic on the internet would have people actually talking about the discovery. I miss those days.

Yeah, you'd swear this was AH or something. :rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

But that is completely different than comparing faith in a priest with faith in a scientist which is what Duggy's housemate did. Its easy to say now "look at this theory that was wrong" but at the time the may have been nothing whatsoever to suggest it was wrong. So the possibility of something being wrong is really no grounds to distrust it when all evidence suggests it isnt. It would be an absurd conclusion to come to.

People here are not accepting the scientists word (because sceintists are not basing this on their word) they are accepting the possibility of it being correct because all evidence suggests that (assuming it stands up to scrutiny).

No my point is that a non scientist has as much faith in scientific theories as a believer in a priest. That is, the "mysteries" of the thing are not understandable to him. For different reasons, sure.

This thread is an example, there is no discussion of what this means for the Standard Model, very little understanding about the standard model, very little attempt to understand, no questions asked - well one - and just an attack on religion - off topic - and meta discussion on whether belief in scientists is the same as belief in priests.

Thats because nobody understands the science, or even the implications of this, and - lets be honest - y'all don't care.