Explaining the God particle

[mzungu]

You're not addressing what I've been railing against ... that's the problem.

For about the 10th time, when science tells me they have the truth, I feel compelled to simply ask if they had it from 1930 - 2006.

I don't think that's an unfair question, in light of what is being addressed.

Anyone who says science has the truth is ... in my opinion ... wrong.

And Arab-phoning "truth" to "reality" doesn't fool me.

Science does not claim truth. Science only claims probability and present knowledge. Increase in knowledge forces science to redefine the boundaries.

It used to be believed that malaria was caused by foul air. This was accepted by the medical profession until it was discovered that the culprit was the anopheles female mosquito that carried the plasmodium parasite which invaded the red blood cells of the victim. What would you have told the doctors then? That it was wrong to redefine the disease?

What you seem to miss here AV is that science knows that it does not know everything and that everything it knows may and or will change as more knowledge is gained.

You also seem to think that science should be treated like the Bible; never changing in content. Well my friend science changes and with change comes new knowledge and progress!

All things wise and wonderful!

 

[Tiberius]

Was Pluto truth/reality from 1930-2006?

If not, did scientists think they had the truth/reality ... but really didn't?

Geez, AV, get over it.

Pluto existed back then. It hasn't changed.

The abstract word we give to tell us about Pluto has changed, but it has in no way changed Pluto itself.

Seriously, why do you not get this? You think words are magic or something?

From 1930 to 2006, Pluto was a space object with a certain diameter, a certain mass, a certain orbital speed, a certain trajectory, a certain average distance from the sun. None of those things have changed.

 

[dad]

No. This is another place where we agree with Protestants, actually.

First lifeforms?

The first comment does contain a reference to the creation of the Earth, but it's only in passing. The second (while Divinely inspired) comes from one of Paul's letters, rather than Jesus' Earthly ministry, so I wasn't counting it. At any rate, neither of them really contribute here.

Jesus quoted in the New Testament counts!

It works, though, which means that present state physics can explain things in space.

So can Santa. Some might say he sneezed oout the universe. It works like the big bang! The big sneeze. The problem is both oppose God and neither stands on their own feet, they start out from a belief.

Sometimes, we get something wrong. This is true even on Earth. We revise what we expected to find, we go back, and we look to see if the results are consistent with our new understanding. Then, if they are, we incorporate that new understanding into our theories, and it becomes predictive. If its predictions are true, then that's support for its being accurate.

You use present state laws all the way for checking, or anything else. Circular.

For instance, Einstein, in his formulas of general relativity, included a cosmological constant to allow for a stationary Universe. Otherwise, general relativity would suggest an expanding Universe. When the red-shifting of distant galaxies was discovered, Einstein decided to remove his cosmological constant. We were suddenly looking at a Universe that suggested continual expansion.

Nonsense. Redshift need not mean expansion at all. He bailed prematurely.

We actually see gravitational lensing between objects at any given distance, some of which are much too large to be nearby. For instance, this is a photo of galaxies with distortion due to gravitational lensing:



As a result, we can safely say that gravitational lensing occurs at very great distances from the Earth.

OK, let's look at that. We see some fuzzy 'galaxies'. Proof that it is gravity doing the fuzzy business?

 

[Tiberius]

So can Santa. Some might say he sneezed oout the universe. It works like the big bang! The big sneeze. The problem is both oppose God and neither stands on their own feet, they start out from a belief.

False. Science is based on evidence.

See that word? It's something you don't have. EVIDENCE.

And science doesn't stem from a belief. it stems from that evidence.

Unlike religion, which starts with a conclusion and tries to force facts about reality to fit with what it says, science starts off with facts about reality and forms a theory around them.

In other words, Religion is like taking a round hole and trying to force a square peg into it. Science is like taking that square peg, measuring it and then chiseling out a hole specifically designed to fit it.

You use present state laws all the way for checking, or anything else. Circular.

Then propose some other laws that we can use instead.

OK, let's look at that. We see some fuzzy 'galaxies'. Proof that it is gravity doing the fuzzy business?

Everything we see is explainable in terms of gravity. And there is nothing that we see that is impossible according to gravity.

So why shouldn't we conclude that gravity is responsible?

 

[dad]

False. Science is based on evidence.

Too bad the foundation they use for past modeling isn't.

Unlike religion, which starts with a conclusion and tries to force facts about reality to fit with what it says, science starts off with facts about reality and forms a theory around them.

Too bad that science is a fraud then. We all know it uses the present as the key to the past and future. It is locked out.

In other words, Religion is like taking a round hole and trying to force a square peg into it. Science is like taking that square peg, measuring it and then chiseling out a hole specifically designed to fit it.

Sounds like toddler business.

Then propose some other laws that we can use instead.

How about the law of not knowing and being honest?

Everything we see is explainable in terms of gravity.

Wow. What a weighty load of nonsense.

And there is nothing that we see that is impossible according to gravity.

All praise to gravity I guess?

So why shouldn't we conclude that gravity is responsible?

Think about it. There ought to be a reason!!! Is that too much to ask?

 

[mzungu]

All praise to gravity I guess? Think about it. There ought to be a reason!!! Is that too much to ask?

Yes indeed! we owe our very existence to gravity and as far as I am concerned if there is a God then this god's name would be GRAVITY. The good side of this is that science knows more about gravity than creationists do.

 

[dad]

Yes indeed! we owe our very existence to gravity

Kids...beware, lest so called science get you too.

and as far as I am concerned if there is a God then this god's name would be GRAVITY.

See where they are coming from kids? Insane would be too polite a word.

The good side of this is that science knows more about gravity than creationists do.

Gravity...where!? On earth? I think we all know about that. Irrelevant.

 

[Tiberius]

Too bad the foundation they use for past modeling isn't.

Yes it is, and if you weren't so ignorant about science you'd see that.

Too bad that science is a fraud then. We all know it uses the present as the key to the past and future. It is locked out.

If that's true (and it isn't), then wouldn't it make religion worse than a fraud?

Sounds like toddler business.

I know it's a little advanced for you, but try to keep up.

How about the law of not knowing and being honest?

Care to put it in mathematical terms? Oh, no you can't...

Wow. What a weighty load of nonsense.

Ah, the typical idiotic response of just arbitrarily dismissing whatever you don't like as nonsense.

How far do you think you're going to get with that?

All praise to gravity I guess? Think about it. There ought to be a reason!!! Is that too much to ask?

And there is a reason. Because it works.

If you find something that works perfectly, why should you conclude it is wrong?

 

[dad]

Yes it is, and if you weren't so ignorant about science you'd see that.

Guess I don't have the faith some have.

If that's true (and it isn't), then wouldn't it make religion worse than a fraud?

The present is not the key to the past then??? Make up your mind.

I know it's a little advanced for you, but try to keep up.

Hard to concentrate when you need a change.

Care to put it in mathematical terms?

Tell the truth = 7 Give us some 7.

Ah, the typical idiotic response of just arbitrarily dismissing whatever you don't like as nonsense.

No, there is a sequence involved. First you post it then we can dismiss.

How far do you think you're going to get with that?

Far away from your little gravity god.

And there is a reason. Because it works.

It works near earth.

If you find something that works perfectly, why should you conclude it is wrong?

No, I just whack it into place.

 

[Tiberius]

Guess I don't have the faith some have.

What faith? It's all there for you to look at and test for yourself if you wanted to.

The present is not the key to the past then??? Make up your mind.

It isn't true that science is a fraud. Kind of hard to be a fraudster when everything you do is made publicly available so others can see exactly what you are doing.

Hard to concentrate when you need a change.

I assumed that's why you had so much trouble with it.

Tell the truth = 7 Give us some 7.

How do you determine that it equals seven? Explain your answer in detail.

No, there is a sequence involved. First you post it then we can dismiss.

Why should I post it when you are the one using it? What sequence are you using to determine that my response is "a weighty load of nonsense"?

Far away from your little gravity god.

Gravity is caused by mass. You going to go somewhere where there's no mass?

It works near earth.

And it works on the things we see a long way away too.

No, I just whack it into place.

It works perfectly and you think it's OUT of place?

 

[Gracchus]

Guess I don't have the faith some have.

I would agree with you again. I think your faith is probably ... unique.

 

[dad]

What faith? It's all there for you to look at and test for yourself if you wanted to.

Great. So where would this be, aside from in your head of course?

It isn't true that science is a fraud. Kind of hard to be a fraudster when everything you do is made publicly available so others can see exactly what you are doing.

How else could we know it was a fraud?

How do you determine that it equals seven? Explain your answer in detail.

I deemed it so, to make some math as you requested. I could use other numbers if that one hurts your head.

Why should I post it when you are the one using it? What sequence are you using to determine that my response is "a weighty load of nonsense"?

Well, I look at a precise claim you make and go from there. Are you claimess in Seattle?

Gravity is caused by mass. You going to go somewhere where there's no mass?

Yes. I am. You thought earth zone mass dictated stuff??? No. Not unless we are talking fishbowl!

And it works on the things we see a long way away too.

How long you don't know. Impressive.

It works perfectly and you think it's OUT of place?

No, if it works then it is safely in this state, no need to whack it.

 

[dad]

I would agree with you again. I think your faith is probably ... unique.

No. Hundreds of millions to say the least believe in the Living God.

 

[Tiberius]

Great. So where would this be, aside from in your head of course?

It would be in a wonderful little place called "reality". You should visit it sometime. They have a lovely gift shop.

How else could we know it was a fraud?

Are you saying that the only way we can find out if someone is a fraud is if they show us the evidence themselves?

I deemed it so, to make some math as you requested. I could use other numbers if that one hurts your head.

In other words, you are just making stuff up.

Well, I look at a precise claim you make and go from there. Are you claimess in Seattle?

Ah, but if you've already determined that science is a "weighty load of nonsense", you must have already applied your sequence to some claim! Why don't you just use that same claim again and walk us through the method you used to determine it was "a weighty load of nonsense"?

Yes. I am. You thought earth zone mass dictated stuff??? No. Not unless we are talking fishbowl!

And where would this massless place be that you are planning to go to?

How long you don't know. Impressive.

Ah, but we do know, don't we? And you've never been able to point out a flaw in the techniques used.

No, if it works then it is safely in this state, no need to whack it.

Absolutely correct!

So when we see that it works for distant galaxies, we know that they are, as you said, "safely in this state", so you have proved my point!

 

[dad]

It would be in a wonderful little place called "reality". You should visit it sometime. They have a lovely gift shop.

Great...address??

Are you saying that the only way we can find out if someone is a fraud is if they show us the evidence themselves?

No. They would likely talk up a good fight, but cry like a little girl when the showdown came.

In other words, you are just making stuff up.

Yoou asked for numbers...you got some.

Ah, but if you've already determined that science is a "weighty load of nonsense", you must have already applied your sequence to some claim!

Every claim actually. Want to add to the pile?

Why don't you just use that same claim again and walk us through the method you used to determine it was "a weighty load of nonsense"?

Easy. Post a claim. I can't play whack a mole until a mole pops up. Thems the rules.

And where would this massless place be that you are planning to go to?

Heaven.

Ah, but we do know, don't we? And you've never been able to point out a flaw in the techniques used.

Point out a technique...and a flaw will follow like night follows day.

Absolutely correct!

So when we see that it works for distant galaxies, we know that they are, as you said, "safely in this state", so you have proved my point!

Only after you get to the 'seeing they work the same in distant galaxies' bit!

 

[Tiberius]

Great...address??

Open your eyes and pull your head out of books filled with old stories.

No. They would likely talk up a good fight, but cry like a little girl when the showdown came.

Then your earlier point falls flat.

Yoou asked for numbers...you got some.

If that's what counts as proof to you...

To paraphrase Euler, (a + b^n)/n = x, therefore same past state!

Every claim actually. Want to add to the pile?

No, I want YOU to pick some claim that YOU have already examined and tell us how YOU concluded it was nonsense.

Easy. Post a claim. I can't play whack a mole until a mole pops up. Thems the rules.

So you never actually examined any scientific claims before?

Heaven.

Send me a postcard.

Point out a technique...and a flaw will follow like night follows day.

Why don't you use one of the techniques you;ve already examined and found to be flawed?

Only after you get to the 'seeing they work the same in distant galaxies' bit!

Yeah, we do that by opening our eyes and noticing that everything we see in those distant galaxies is perfectly explainable with present state laws.

 

[mzungu]

...http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/learning-think-critically/

 

[Gracchus]

No. Hundreds of millions to say the least believe in the Living God.

But not everyone thinks that you are his sole and inerrant prophet.

 

[dad]

But not everyone thinks that you are his sole and inerrant prophet.

No one does. Thankfully. Those that honor God and His word do not seem to be able to or want to dispute my bible case. You are not able. What can you do?

 

[dad]

If that's what counts as proof to you...

It was not meant to be proof of anything, merely a kind gentlemanly gesture to some poster that saked for math.

No, I want YOU to pick some claim that YOU have already examined and tell us how YOU concluded it was nonsense.

Higgs field. It is nonsense because it cannot apply to the universe, and it is alluded to apply by the creme de la creme of the science world.

Yeah, we do that by opening our eyes and noticing that everything we see in those distant galaxies is perfectly explainable with present state laws.

Such as?