Explaining the God particle

[Elendur]

Dad's ignorance is probably about as willful as Stephen Hawking's failure to climb Mt. Everest.

The implications of that would be sad, I'd much prefer otherwise. In the worst case (that I can imagine) it comes down to who's responsible in his stead.

 

[Elendur]

Guess not. I am not a mind reader.

That isn't needed, all that's needed is a little effort.

I do not deny a fishbowl field...guess who that leaves?

Of course you don't. It doesn't matter that you have no evidence to support your hypothesis of a 'fishbowl universe'.

False. It has. Coalesce from the dust of the dreamt up impact. Look it up, I know.

I dare you, find any reliable source to support your claim.
No one serious (perhaps I should add ", from a secular perspective") has ever claimed the moon "poofed" into existence.
Saying science supports that "poof" theory/hypothesis is wrong. Of course, as always, feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

I deny that.

Bringing some light.

Hmm... I guess we all do in a way.

 

[dad]

That isn't needed, all that's needed is a little effort.

Great, so start posting what you mean in a clear way.

Of course you don't. It doesn't matter that you have no evidence to support your hypothesis of a 'fishbowl universe'.

The fishbowl is not the universe. It is the part man lives in and knows about.

I dare you, find any reliable source to support your claim.
No one serious (perhaps I should add ", from a secular perspective") has ever claimed the moon "poofed" into existence.
Saying science supports that "poof" theory/hypothesis is wrong. Of course, as always, feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

Nonsense, they claim it coalesced...from dust...from an impact.


"Astronomers think the collision between Earth and Theia happened at approximately 4.53 Gya; about 30-50 million years after the Solar System began to form. In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle when the latter was nearly fully formed. Computer simulations of this "late-impact" scenario suggest an impact angle of about 45° and an initial impactor velocity below 4 km/s.[10] Theia's iron core would have sunk into the young Earth's core, and most of Theia's mantle accreted onto the Earth's mantle, however, a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and the Earth would have been ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some twenty percent of the original mass of Theia would have ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon."

Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behold the theory!!!!!!!!

Hmm... I guess we all do in a way.

No. Some bring darkness. Some prefer darkness.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The Internet isn't the media?

Maybe some of us don't like to talk technobabble all the time.

Translation: accuracy.

 

[Elendur]

Great, so start posting what you mean in a clear way.

I am.
I wrote what your claim was (since you weren't aware of it), you claimed man cannot rescurrect. I clarified that you needed provide evidence for that claim since it wasn't the default position. I then asked you if you could guess what the default position was, you repeatedly missed the default position with a long shot.
You never asked me for further clarification or explanation, indicating that you didn't require any further help. I guess I should take that as a indicator of your personality though.

The fishbowl is not the universe. It is the part man lives in and knows about.

I know what you refer to when you mean the fishbowl, I'm just saying (writing) that it's a major claim that you haven't provided any evidence for.

Nonsense, they claim it coalesced...from dust...from an impact.


"Astronomers think the collision between Earth and Theia happened at approximately 4.53 Gya; about 30-50 million years after the Solar System began to form. In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle when the latter was nearly fully formed. Computer simulations of this "late-impact" scenario suggest an impact angle of about 45° and an initial impactor velocity below 4 km/s.[10] Theia's iron core would have sunk into the young Earth's core, and most of Theia's mantle accreted onto the Earth's mantle, however, a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and the Earth would have been ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some twenty percent of the original mass of Theia would have ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon."

Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behold the theory!!!!!!!!

Great. I don't see anything about "poofing" though. You kind of shot yourself in the foot (metaphorically meant).

No. Some bring darkness. Some prefer darkness.

Indeed but they still bring light with them, the darkness might be more than the light but it's still there.

 

[dad]

I am.
I wrote what your claim was (since you weren't aware of it), you claimed man cannot rescurrect. I clarified that you needed provide evidence for that claim since it wasn't the default position.

That means in a round about unupfront way you are alluding to man being able to rise from the dead. False.

I then asked you if you could guess what the default position was, you repeatedly missed the default position with a long shot.

Dead and stay dead is the default reality.

You never asked me for further clarification or explanation, indicating that you didn't require any further help. I guess I should take that as a indicator of your personality though.

So, after saying you are clear you come up with this??

I know what you refer to when you mean the fishbowl, I'm just saying (writing) that it's a major claim that you haven't provided any evidence for.

Man has limited range. That is known. We have never been to deep space or the far past.

Great. I don't see anything about "poofing" though. You kind of shot yourself in the foot (metaphorically meant).

Coalesce. Imaginary smash up derby with the right sized magically appearing planet like body....big cloud of dust and debris....moon assembles, poofs, or coalesces. ..behold the theory!

Indeed but they still bring light with them, the darkness might be more than the light but it's still there.

Just let us know who the 'they' are and what is this 'light' they bring, Mr clear.

 

[Elendur]

That means in a round about unupfront way you are alluding to man being able to rise from the dead. False.

No, I am not alluding this. I was trying to lead you to a conclusion, that the default position is that man can or cannot rescurrect.
You're excluding the possibility of rescurrection with your "cannot", therefore you have to support your claim with evidence.

Dead and stay dead is the default reality.

If you say so.

So, after saying you are clear you come up with this??

To be precise, I wrote it. To be more precise, I didn't even claim I was clear when I came up with it, I claimed I post what I mean in a clear way.
I can see that perhaps I could improve the sentence by adding an "instead" before the last "though".
My style of writing could also add to the difficulty of reading due to it being influenced by my preference of literature along with the fact that english is my second language. I haven't noticed anyone else than you complaining though and I can't spot any major flaw in what I wrote.
Could you perhaps explain to me where the problem is (/wherein the problem lies)?

Man has limited range. That is known. We have never been to deep space or the far past.

That doesn't give you the right to pass of your hypotheses as truth though.

Coalesce. Imaginary smash up derby with the right sized magically appearing planet like body....big cloud of dust and debris....moon assembles, poofs, or coalesces. ..behold the theory!

I fail to see the equivalence in terms. Admit it, the term 'poof' is unfit to use in this case.

Just let us know who the 'they' are and what is this 'light' they bring, Mr clear.

They are, in this case, those who bring darkness (the opposite of light).
Light is, in this case, to me, a metaphor for knowledge and/or kindness/goodness.
I have never seen a man (or woman) who hasn't had any kindness (/goodness) in them, nor have I ever seen a situation where knowledge cannot be extracted.

 

[NailsII]

With recent news, it might be good to explain what the particle is.

Here is a short version

--God created the world and many things that are physical. He used materials, many very small. There is speculation one of the smallest may be involved in sort of 'manufacturing mass'. It is logical God would have used such a thing if they are right...hence a God particle is a good name! Kids...it just means another little thingie God used. Now remember also that this thing they think they found is on earth. We cannot imply it would exist far far away and long ago. Especially before anything was created!

If I missed anything feel free to chirp in....

I think that 'god particle' was a good name, because it may or may not exist.
Now that there is evidence that it does exists (as opposed to models and projections) then it seems silly to call it a god particle. Maybe 'theoretical particle' would be more accurate.

Don't get ahead of yourself. It is not shown to ...anything! We have a bunch of toddler like beings in white jackets smashing stuff and looking at the bits and fragments that result.

Speak for yourself...

 

[dad]

No, I am not alluding this. I was trying to lead you to a conclusion, that the default position is that man can or cannot rescurrect.

Nope. Cannot.

You're excluding the possibility of rescurrection with your "cannot", therefore you have to support your claim with evidence.

Possibility of you flying to the moon on a hot dog too?

To be precise, I wrote it. To be more precise, I didn't even claim I was clear when I came up with it, I claimed I post what I mean in a clear way.

This is supposed to mean something?

I can see that perhaps I could improve the sentence by adding an "instead" before the last "though".
My style of writing could also add to the difficulty of reading due to it being influenced by my preference of literature along with the fact that english is my second language. I haven't noticed anyone else than you complaining though and I can't spot any major flaw in what I wrote.
Could you perhaps explain to me where the problem is (/wherein the problem lies)?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

That doesn't give you the right to pass of your hypotheses as truth though.

The bible being known to be true and science having nothing to say about it does.

I fail to see the equivalence in terms. Admit it, the term 'poof' is unfit to use in this case.

No. It is a good term. Appropriate to the fable. No moon...poof...magic dust and debris and presto...a moon.

They are, in this case, those who bring darkness (the opposite of light).
Light is, in this case, to me, a metaphor for knowledge and/or kindness/goodness.

So lovey dovey stuff is light. OK. Too bad your so called science lacks any any everything to make it truth and light.

I have never seen a man (or woman) who hasn't had any kindness (/goodness) in them, nor have I ever seen a situation where knowledge cannot be extracted.

We are discussing knowledge of the state and laws of the far past. Let's see you extract that!

 

[dad]

I think that 'god particle' was a good name, because it may or may not exist.

OK. That may or may not be a relevant comment.

Now that there is evidence that it does exists (as opposed to models and projections) then it seems silly to call it a god particle. Maybe 'theoretical particle' would be more accurate.

Or maybe a particle that God uses.....

Speak for yourself...

I don't smash particles, I smash so called science pipe dreams. They don't rank a particle!

 

[Elendur]

Nope. Cannot.

Could you provide with the reason why you have set that as the default position then?

Possibility of you flying to the moon on a hot dog too?

Yes. That is a bit easier, however, as you've made a scenario with a whole lot less variables.
I would argue that is a possibility for me to fly to the moon on a hot dog.

This is supposed to mean something?

Yes.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

But seriously, am I to interpret that as you complaining without a cause?

The bible being known to be true and science having nothing to say about it does.

The bible is known to be true... Hmm... Sounds like the beginning of a circular argument right there.

No. It is a good term. Appropriate to the fable. No moon...poof...magic dust and debris and presto...a moon.

If you say so, you stepped outside of the scientific theory (-ies) when you made that equivalence though. Feel free to attack your straw man all you want.

So lovey dovey stuff is light. OK. Too bad your so called science lacks any any everything to make it truth and light.

In this case it was your metaphor.

We are discussing knowledge of the state and laws of the far past. Let's see you extract that!

Oh, I've extracted plenty of knowledge from this situation. It may be information that isn't to your liking though.

 

[dad]

Could you provide with the reason why you have set that as the default position then?

Why talk as if there is some default position on death? We die. We stay dead. End of story.

Yes. That is a bit easier, however, as you've made a scenario with a whole lot less variables.
I would argue that is a possibility for me to fly to the moon on a hot dog.

Quite a grip you have on reality. Impressive.

The bible is known to be true... Hmm... Sounds like the beginning of a circular argument right there.

It isn't an argument. Of course last week is an argument for some, I guess.

If you say so, you stepped outside of the scientific theory (-ies) when you made that equivalence though. Feel free to attack your straw man all you want.

The scientific theory (-ies) are so small, it is hard not to step off off some little pile, when discussing big issues.

In this case it was your metaphor.

But light is well known to represent truth. If one sheds light on a matter, that means we can see things better.

Oh, I've extracted plenty of knowledge from this situation. It may be information that isn't to your liking though.

Next time try to post some. Then your extractions can be weighed in the balances.

 

[Elendur]

Why talk as if there is some default position on death? We die. We stay dead. End of story.

There's a default position to everything.

Quite a grip you have on reality. Impressive.

You're really not seeing the way around?

1. I get all necessary things to gain access to the moon.
2. During the time I go to the moon I sit on a hot dog.

Voilà, I've gone to the moon on a hot dog.

It isn't an argument. Of course last week is an argument for some, I guess.

I didn't say (write) that it was an argument.

The scientific theory (-ies) are so small, it is hard not to step off off some little pile, when discussing big issues.

It's even easier when you prefer to make straw men.

But light is well known to represent truth. If one sheds light on a matter, that means we can see things better.

And that isn't far from knowledge.

Next time try to post some. Then your extractions can be weighed in the balances.

Alright.
Notice how you don't write questions, you write demands and exclamations. You never admit mistakes, possibly not even to yourself. You rarely answer questions that would require any form of work by your part.
You assume you have a position of righteousness and all that opposes your infallible (notice that I don't think it is infallible) interpretation of the bible is false.
When confronted with a direct, uncomfortable situation you either respond with avoidance, insults or a repeat of your earlier (confronted) argument, leading either into the same step or a variant where you try to veer into another path.
Logical fallacies is something often stumbled upon by you. People who try to point it out to you either gets ignored or completely denied by you.
That leads me to your utter lack of explanation, you often use the term "false" but you don't delve deeper in why you regard it as false.
And that leads me to your frequent use of straw men, even though your straw men gets explained where they went wrong and how the theories are really constructed you stick to them (again) refusing to admit you're wrong.
And that leads me to your disregard of evidence, you make claims you don't support with objective evidence and ignore all evidence otherwise.

Actually, I don't expect you to read it all (if not just to spite me) and least of all reflect over it. But hey, you demanded I post my extractions. There's probably more as well, but these points are those that quickly comes to mind.

 

[dad]

There's a default position to everything.

People die, they stay dead. Bing and a bam and a boom.

You're really not seeing the way around?

1. I get all necessary things to gain access to the moon.
2. During the time I go to the moon I sit on a hot dog.

No, the idea was the impossibility of traveling there on a hot dog. Doesn't cut the mustard.

Voilà, I've gone to the moon on a hot dog.

Not buying, thanks.

And that isn't far from knowledge.

That depends on what you want to pawn off as knowledge.

Alright.
Notice how you don't write questions, you write demands and exclamations. You never admit mistakes, possibly not even to yourself. You rarely answer questions that would require any form of work by your part.
You assume you have a position of righteousness and all that opposes your infallible (notice that I don't think it is infallible) interpretation of the bible is false.
When confronted with a direct, uncomfortable situation you either respond with avoidance, insults or a repeat of your earlier (confronted) argument, leading either into the same step or a variant where you try to veer into another path.
Logical fallacies is something often stumbled upon by you. People who try to point it out to you either gets ignored or completely denied by you.
That leads me to your utter lack of explanation, you often use the term "false" but you don't delve deeper in why you regard it as false.
And that leads me to your frequent use of straw men, even though your straw men gets explained where they went wrong and how the theories are really constructed you stick to them (again) refusing to admit you're wrong.
And that leads me to your disregard of evidence, you make claims you don't support with objective evidence and ignore all evidence otherwise.

Quite a little engine you have running inside your head. A lot of excuses for losing, basically, and vague Lucy's advice for 5 cents type of a self aggrandizing babble.

Actually, I don't expect you to read it all (if not just to spite me) and least of all reflect over it. But hey, you demanded I post my extractions. There's probably more as well, but these points are those that quickly comes to mind.

I was sort of hoping for something extracted from fact and science or the bible actually. Perhaps, even something related to the topic. Work on that.

 

[Elendur]

People die, they stay dead. Bing and a bam and a boom.

If you say so.

No, the idea was the impossibility of traveling there on a hot dog. Doesn't cut the mustard.

But I am traveling there on a hot dog i that scenario. It fulfills all your requirements.

Not buying, thanks.

You're just mad because you didn't see that loop-hole.

That depends on what you want to pawn off as knowledge.

True, although I have to say that "pawn off" gives it a negative tinge that isn't necessary.

Quite a little engine you have running inside your head. A lot of excuses for losing, basically, and vague Lucy's advice for 5 cents type of a self aggrandizing babble.

Oh, this brings me to your obsession where you claim you win and everyone who disagrees with you loses.

I was sort of hoping for something extracted from fact and science or the bible actually. Perhaps, even something related to the topic. Work on that.

You do realize that you don't provide with any information other than of yourself? It's kind of useless to extract what one has put in.


But as I thought, you didn't take even the slightest of it to heart.

 

[dad]

If you say so.

Ask around.People do die and stay dead. This is why we know that Jesus was God, he rose again...as promised.

But I am traveling there on a hot dog i that scenario. It fulfills all your requirements.

Evos and honesty...guess I expect too much.

True, although I have to say that "pawn off" gives it a negative tinge that isn't necessary.

In the case of so called science, and the alternate creation stories, they pawn off unsubstantiated fables.

You do realize that you don't provide with any information other than of yourself? It's kind of useless to extract what one has put in.

I find that showing that science has real limits and doesn't know that past after all to be useful info actually. History and the bible also are useful info on what went down.

 

[Elendur]

Ask around.People do die and stay dead. This is why we know that Jesus was God, he rose again...as promised.

Again, that has nothing to do with the default position.

Evos and honesty...guess I expect too much.

I don't understand, you're suggesting I'm dishonest. Why?

In the case of so called science, and the alternate creation stories, they pawn off unsubstantiated fables.

You know very well that in order to gain the status of 'theory' the hypothesis has to be tested against evidence. Therefore they are not unsubstantiated.

I find that showing that science has real limits and doesn't know that past after all to be useful info actually. History and the bible also are useful info on what went down.

The problem is that you don't show it, you claim it and don't back it up.
Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

 

[dad]

Again, that has nothing to do with the default position.

You don't get to make up what is a 'default' position on death. It is the default position of everyone.

I don't understand, you're suggesting I'm dishonest. Why?

I am suggesting you cannot really travel on a hot dog to the moon.

You know very well that in order to gain the status of 'theory' the hypothesis has to be tested against evidence. Therefore they are not unsubstantiated.

False. They are 100% unsubstantiated. Remember we are talking about the so called sciences that are really same state religion, not real knowledge. Unless the state of the past can be proven, it must remain unknown to science.

The problem is that you don't show it, you claim it and don't back it up.
Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

The differences in history and the bible in early earth I have outlined many many times. The inability of science to prove a same state past you demonstrate here and now. A full monty demo.


Recapping then, in this thread we have looked at what the Higgs field is, and saw that it is a field in the near earth area, that is involved in the way physical only state mass works and comes about possibly. It is better understood as a creation field. Not only that but a field that is in this time and space, or...state. No one can build big universal theories or make claims based on this higgs Creation field.

 

[Elendur]

You don't get to make up what is a 'default' position on death. It is the default position of everyone.

Exactly.

I am suggesting you cannot really travel on a hot dog to the moon.

I have explicitly explained how I would do that. It's semantics.
It's not really my problem if you can't understand.

False. They are 100% unsubstantiated. Remember we are talking about the so called sciences that are really same state religion, not real knowledge. Unless the state of the past can be proven, it must remain unknown to science.

Funny how you mention religion. Are you suggesting that the label 'religion' is lower than the ideal of 'science'?
That they are 100% unsubstantiated is false, you're either lying, misinformed or delusional.
Also, again with proven. How many times do I have to go over that same subject before you understand?

The differences in history and the bible in early earth I have outlined many many times. The inability of science to prove a same state past you demonstrate here and now. A full monty demo.

There are three points I would like to mention:
1. Your history and bible support is as weak as something can get. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.
2. Science doesn't "prove" anything (it doesn't even try). To demand something like that is absurd and idiotic (if you're outside of math).
3. Your second sentence, see bolded, makes no sense. Can you rephrase?

Recapping then, in this thread we have looked at what the Higgs field is, and saw that it is a field in the near earth area, that is involved in the way physical only state mass works and comes about possibly. It is better understood as a creation field. Not only that but a field that is in this time and space, or...state. No one can build big universal theories or make claims based on this higgs Creation field.

The only thing I've seen you do in this thread regarding the Higgs field is a lot of nonsense.



How old are you?

 

[dad]

I have explicitly explained how I would do that. It's semantics.
It's not really my problem if you can't understand.

Not my problem if you think you can fly to the moon on a hot dog.

Funny how you mention religion. Are you suggesting that the label 'religion' is lower than the ideal of 'science'?

Yes. When it has to do with belief systems cross dressing as science.

That they are 100% unsubstantiated is false, you're either lying, misinformed or delusional.

Or right...and obviously so.

Also, again with proven. How many times do I have to go over that same subject before you understand?

None. You are not qualified to discuss proven.

There are three points I would like to mention:
1. Your history and bible support is as weak as something can get. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

False. Let's take one example from ancient Egypt..spirits living among men. Not a present state thing. Or...from bible...long lifespans....not happening now.

2. Science doesn't "prove" anything (it doesn't even try). To demand something like that is absurd and idiotic (if you're outside of math).

Then it is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

3. Your second sentence, see bolded, makes no sense. Can you rephrase?

Yes. Prove that a present state existed as science assumes?

The only thing I've seen you do in this thread regarding the Higgs field is a lot of nonsense.

Then you are not qualified to discuss rationally.

How old are you?

Old enough to win.