Explaining the God particle

[mkatzwork]

Not applicable out of the fishbowl of the earth at the present time.

By 'fishbowl' - do you mean the observable universe?

Not applicable to the future or past. For example, name a prediction about your perceived first ancestor? Name a prediction about how to create mass?

How are you defining mass? How are you defining 'first ancestor'? Are you saying that all hypotheses are invalid because they necessarily refer to observations expected in the future? If not, you are clearly invalidating some hypotheses for a reason, can you give the reason? It seems somewhat arbitrary right now...

Subject to your testing ability.

Yes, absolutely - which is why scientists strive to build bigger and better tests to expand the evidence pool, a good example of which is the LHC, which finally had the energy levels to produce the kinds of particle interaction that yielded the Higgs candidate.

 

[dad]

Anything you like within the mathematics that underpins the Higgs field hypothesis.

So go for it...

Uh - I was referring to mass-energy equivalence, pointing out that when you say mass is 'made out of something' you simply demonstrate that you're not really familiar with what mass is, except for 'that stuff we see around us'.

Here is an experiment for you then...walk into a door. Feel anything? That is telling you something is there. Are you suggesting it is nothing?

Mass isn't defined like that at the level of physics we're discussing. I'm not sure if you're confusing mass and matter or if you're just not understanding the whole lot...either way your concept of what mass actually 'is' is wrong (but only in the sense that you are subscribing to the common misconception of what mass "is").

The world and sun and moon and stars....do they count? I am talking about the level of reality. What you think you understand is another matter.

Firstly - do you mean mass or matter? Not the same thing. Are God and Jesus bound by the concepts of the conservation of mass/energy?

You kidding?

We know of four fundamental 'forces', or are you proposing new ones?

Of course our forces are a drop in the bucket. They are here in this temporal state for our benefit only.

What do you think mass is 'made from', since you phrase the question that way (if you decline to answer you'd be correct and justified - since the question itself malformed - but you should know that would somewhat make it look silly that you asked it in the first place)?

Loaves and fishes. Is mass involved in them?

Uh....I think you don't quite understand either special or general relativity. Let's take an example - GR predicts gravitational lensing, a prediction that has been confirmed many times now - and that's happening far away from us in the universe. The fact we are an observer to it does not make us special.

OH!!?? Correction....lensing is happening! I would like to see you prove it is either gravitational, or gravitational in a way that equals earth gravity??

If you're supposing that the observation is taking place on earth and that's what you're meaning by 'earth state', then you're effectively ignoring the ability we have to make predictions about unobserved phenomena outside of our own 'state'. For example, we know the orbital period of Pluto, but no human being has ever observed the orbital period, because it hasn't completed a full orbit of the Sun in the time we've known it existed...

That is all near earth. Pluto is in our fishbowl.

This is a paragraph that appears to be in the English language, but its meaningless to me - 'time in involved and present state light speed'...did you miss some words out?

Ha.

How about this....time is involved in light speed


Typo

Can you clarify what numbers are 'slapped around' by the "implications" of whatever it is you are talking about?

Ha. Yes...math equations. They all have little symbols or letters that represent stuff....time, light speed...mass...etc etc. If you run the numbers assuming that all the universe is the same, or the far past, or future, then we need to look at the letters and symbols and meanings.

Since you're talking about math derived from general relativity and fairly established scalar mathematics, I think examples would be in order, since your claim is extraordinary (if it means what I think it means, which I'm not sure it does, because it's so strangely worded).

ANY equation that includes any force or law or light, or time etc. E = MC2 for example. Translated it might read something like... earth state energy, earth state mass, and earth state light speed....

 

[dad]

By 'fishbowl' - do you mean the observable universe?

Mainly near earth. We do not know that far space is the same do we?

How are you defining mass? How are you defining 'first ancestor'?

There was no first ancestor. But so called science alludes to one. As for mass....would property of physical matter suffice?

Are you saying that all hypotheses are invalid because they necessarily refer to observations expected in the future? If not, you are clearly invalidating some hypotheses for a reason, can you give the reason? It seems somewhat arbitrary right now...

First I will define future and past, for the purposes of this discussion as I see it. I do not believe science applied more than about 4500 years ago, our present nature. I also do not believe it will apply in the far future, possibly even scant years, or months! (the bible indicates a different nature once the final slice of history begins as I understand it).

Yes, absolutely - which is why scientists strive to build bigger and better tests to expand the evidence pool, a good example of which is the LHC, which finally had the energy levels to produce the kinds of particle interaction that yielded the Higgs candidate.

Bigger and better tests while the world starves and suffers. OK. Smashing stuff is overrated in my opinion.

 

[mkatzwork]

So go for it...
Here is an experiment for you then...walk into a door. Feel anything? That is telling you something is there. Are you suggesting it is nothing?

Indeed, that tells you something is there, but believe it or not, it is NOT strictly mass that is causing the effect you feel when you walk into a door, but the effects of electromagnetism (broadly speaking).

If you look at matter (not mass) from a purely point-particle perspective, then an atom is roughly 99.9999999999999% "empty" space. This isn't the entire picture, of course, because we need to delve into the quantum mechanics that Bohr and others figured out, as well as the Pauli exclusion principle, to describe it further, but the reason you cannot walk straight through the door is not due to the fact that is has mass per se. In a similar sense, its also why you can't push the north poles of two strong magnets together, another example of EM fields putting up a barrier, in case you were doubtful of the explanation.

Incidentally, if a neutrino hits that door, it may well pass straight through. The problem you're encountering is the very human one of viewing and encountering things only on the macroscopic scale...the "something is there" scale. The 20th century has shown us that this scale is really not the way the universe works on the fundamental, quantum level and understanding it will be the next great technological breakthrough - think quantum computers (not very far off) and much more beyond.

The world and sun and moon and stars....do they count? I am talking about the level of reality. What you think you understand is another matter.

Those things count as human descriptions of phenomena that have the property of mass and we describe as "matter". But "mass" still isn't what you think it is...

You kidding?

No. If God and Jesus set up the laws of physics, are they bound by them? This could digress into a separate topic...

Of course our forces are a drop in the bucket. They are here in this temporal state for our benefit only.

Ah, anthropic arguments, the offspring of Ptolemy and others. Most times that we have decided that things are set up 'for our benefit' and that we are the center of the universe, we've come to the crushing Copernican realization that we're wrong. You just have to look at the Pale Blue Dot image to realize how insignificant we are in this universe. We shouldn't be sad about it, but we shouldn't be under any illusions either.

Incidentally, the fundamental forces aren't 'ours'...frequently, they very much act against us, as anybody who's parachute has failed on a skydiving attempt, or anybody who has been struck by lighting would be happy to relate...

Lastly, the forces don't act 'in' a temporal state in quite that way. Gravity for example can actually curve space-time - i.e. far from being temporal itself, gravity can and frequently does itself affect time, and that's been confirmed experimentally. It's also another aspect of General relativity.

A precision measurement of the gravitational redshift by the interference of matter waves : Abstract : Nature

Loaves and fishes. Is mass involved in them?

You didn't answer the question. I'll let people draw their own conclusions from that...unless you want to say what you think mass 'is made of', or you can cede the point that mass isn't like that, in which case you'd be correct.

OH!!?? Correction....lensing is happening! I would like to see you prove it is either gravitational, or gravitational in a way that equals earth gravity??

General relativity predicts the exact amount of lensing that should happen caused by gravity in a given situation, a testable prediction. It happens to the same degree in both very distant objects (including some of the most distant known) and in very close objects (the sun in fact, gravitationally lenses almost all the light reaching the earth).

If it was anything else other than gravity acting here, we should see a different amount, or none. The predictions so far match to an accuracy level of around 99.7%, but the discrepancy is due to local systematic effects that we can't get around down here. We can however get around them from space.

The GAIA mission will be able to test it from outside our atmosphere, to a far greater precision, and that launches next year. The sample size it will use is around a billion stars mapped out over the entire sky, all measured extremely accurately, so if there's any flaw in GR, we'll know...

That is all near earth. Pluto is in our fishbowl.

Can you define where the fishbowl ends? Does the fishbowl expand as we learn more about the universe, and does it therefore obey some kind of quantum observational law, such that once we can observe the universe, all the particles suddenly obey a certain set of rules? It's an interesting idea but completely untestable and unfalsifiable, of course...

Ha.

Typo.

It happens!

How about this....time is involved in light speed

Ah, ok, clearer now. How about this - observing from the perspective of a photon, even in our earth 'fishbowl', there is no such thing as time. A photon, an excitation of an EM field, in a general sense has absolutely no experience of time.

To describe this properly you have to get into differential geometry and null geodesics, but I don't want to digress too far. Plenty of resources about it out there if you're interested.

Ha. Yes...math equations. They all have little symbols or letters that represent stuff....time, light speed...mass...etc etc. If you run the numbers assuming that all the universe is the same, or the far past, or future, then we need to look at the letters and symbols and meanings.

So what? Physics frequently does not assume that things were always the same, especially when you get into the deeper reaches of cosmology and Planck time theoretical physics. The mathematics of what we know yields predictions about what we should observe. If those don't match, then we change the model until it fits, and then extrapolate more predictions, and so on and so forth. That's how it works, and the fruits of that work over centuries has yielded the computer in front of you and yielded a probe that is currently leaving our solar system, just for starters.

 

[mkatzwork]

Mainly near earth. We do not know that far space is the same do we?

Nothing we've observed from the far reaches of space has shown anything different to what we see close to us.

There was no first ancestor. But so called science alludes to one.

Er......so-called Genesis does too, I think his name was supposedly "Adam"...so I think you should rethink your position a little there. A strange criticism.

Incidentally, we don't just 'allude' to it, depending on how you define 'first ancestor'...

As for mass....would property of physical matter suffice?

In one broad sense, yes, in others, no.

First I will define future and past, for the purposes of this discussion as I see it. I do not believe science applied more than about 4500 years ago, our present nature. I also do not believe it will apply in the far future, possibly even scant years, or months! (the bible indicates a different nature once the final slice of history begins as I understand it).

What observations have led you to the conclusion that the various things we've discerned about the universe didn't apply beyond 4500 years ago?

Bigger and better tests while the world starves and suffers. OK. Smashing stuff is overrated in my opinion.

Oh, so you'd happily do away with all MRI machines, the particle acceleration technology used in cancer therapies, nuclear waste monitoring, the internet (developed to allow particle physicists to communicate more easily and the first two websites were those of particle physics labs), superconductors...and so on?

The argument that this particular branch of science hasn't benefited the world is puerile, short-sighted and long ago refuted. Incidentally, the Large Hadron Collider, the biggest and most experiment undertaken so far and a significant advance to mankind's knowledge of the universe around us, cost around $9 billion; a puny sum compared to the world's expenditure on military resources in one year - around $1.5 trillion.

 

[dad]

Nothing we've observed from the far reaches of space has shown anything different to what we see close to us.

Nothing shows it is the same...and no distances are known. Not for stars. That kind of numbs you argument.

Er......so-called Genesis does too, I think his name was supposedly "Adam"...so I think you should rethink your position a little there. A strange criticism.

Adam was not a little bacteria wafted in from a comet. Notice? Rethink asking others to rethink. I thunk already.

Incidentally, we don't just 'allude' to it, depending on how you define 'first ancestor'...

I was using the usual slime story that science tries to sell the innocents. Some little thing that somehow became alive and went on to spawn you and trees and animals...etc.

In one broad sense, yes, in others, no.

Then stop being cloudy and say what you mean.

What observations have led you to the conclusion that the various things we've discerned about the universe didn't apply beyond 4500 years ago?

The observations that you sully all evidences with a sordid same state past belief. (you being so called science and it's devotees)

Oh, so you'd happily do away with all MRI machines, the particle acceleration technology used in cancer therapies, nuclear waste monitoring, the internet (developed to allow particle physicists to communicate more easily and the first two websites were those of particle physics labs), superconductors...and so on?

Hey I would do away with apple pie if it would shut up the godless blatherers.

The argument that this particular branch of science hasn't benefited the world is puerile, short-sighted and long ago refuted.

The smashing stuff branch? Heck it gave us Hiroshima...how bad could it be?

Incidentally, the Large Hadron Collider, the biggest and most experiment undertaken so far and a significant advance to mankind's knowledge of the universe around us, cost around $9 billion; a puny sum compared to the world's expenditure on military resources in one year - around $1.5 trillion.

So it is chump change and you want to use all military spending as a whipping boy. Not sure that helps you.

 

[mkatzwork]

Nothing shows it is the same...and no distances are known. Not for stars. That kind of numbs you argument.

Boy, are you behind on cosmology. We have been accurately measuring the distances to stars using parallax for nearly two centuries. Curiously those numbers tally with the numbers found from studying the actual brightness of a star (measured from its color spectrum) and the apparent brightness from earth. When you test something with two separate techniques and get the same answer, it is irrational to think that must be wrong...

No observation has shown that the past 4500 years ago was governed by radically different laws of nature, unless you'd care to present some. However, the idea that science presupposes the opposite without evidence is erroneous - we observe what is there and make predictions, and then test those predictions. Your 4500 year margin is entirely arbitrary, based on interpretations of a book that you presupposed to be correct. The only presupposition engaged in here is yours.

You're going to need some better arguments, simply going "boo, your argument stinks" and running away impresses nobody...if there is a God he should probably find your stunningly simplistic view of his creation insulting.

Adam was not a little bacteria wafted in from a comet. Notice? Rethink asking others to rethink. I thunk already.
I was using the usual slime story that science tries to sell the innocents. Some little thing that somehow became alive and went on to spawn you and trees and animals...etc.

Actually, you're conflating panspermia, abiogenesis and evolution, three entirely separate theories, and demonstrating your ignorance of all three. Impressive.

I was just responding to your point that we didn't have a first ancestor. Both science and religion say we do, in a sense, but only religion invokes the magic man in the sky.

Then stop being cloudy and say what you mean.

You were being asked for the definition, not me. That definition would be fine under some circumstances, and weak under others, for example in relation to gravitational effects. But we'll deviate wildly off track here if we delve further, something you'd like as you'll apparently try anything to obfuscate a clear point by your opposition.

The observations that you sully all evidences with a sordid same state past belief. (you being so called science and it's devotees)

Uh...no. That would be an observation, not observations, for starters, and science frequently examines for evidence of change over time. There are several branches of physics that have respected theorists questioning the most fundamental things that seem with all observations to have been constant, including the most fundamental perhaps, the speed of light in a vacuum.

I googled 'same state past' and came up with hundreds of examples of...you. I guess you coined that one all by yourself, congratulations. However, consider this please: since to have "past" requires time to flow - which it really doesn't in many senses, can you explain your physical worldview from a) the perspective of a photon and b) the perspective of a particle beyond the even horizon of a black hole, for starters? Physics shows us that 'time' and 'past' are meaningless concepts here, so how would you be able to explain them? Did God create timeless vortices 4500 years ago just for kicks, just to mess with us?

Hey I would do away with apple pie if it would shut up the godless blatherers.
The smashing stuff branch? Heck it gave us Hiroshima...how bad could it be?
So it is chump change and you want to use all military spending as a whipping boy. Not sure that helps you.

The point you made was that these experiments, such as a the biggest (9 billion for the LHC) cost money that could be used against world hunger.

My counter was that your argument is facile and erroneous: if you really want to end world hunger (cost - approx 175 billion) perhaps you should look to any of the following expenditures on a global scale before moralizing against science and progress.

Pornography - Probably around $100 billion but likely much more
Prostitution - more than $108 billion annually
Drugs - more than $300 billion annually
Counterfeiting - more than $300 billion annually
Illegal gambling - possibly as high as $308 billion in the US alone.

PS...almost no historians believe that Hiroshima ultimately didn't save lives. Plus, that's very unpatriotic of you...not that I care but others with your worldview would consider the ramifications of your comparison practically heretical.

I think I've figured out your strongest debating technique. It's the equivalent of farting loudly and then blaming the smell on the other person in the room. Almost every fallacy I've pointed out in your argument you've just tried to throw at my counterargument, and you shift the burden of proof at any turn you can. You said the mathematics of the Higgs had symbols in it that 'didn't represent something in the real world', I asked you for a single example, and you tried to twist it around to make me pick one instead.

You'd better have some other clubs in your bag...

 

[dad]

Boy, are you behind on cosmology. We have been accurately measuring the distances to stars using parallax for nearly two centuries.

That's what you think. Parallax is now exposed as a belief based system.

Curiously those numbers tally with the numbers found from studying the actual brightness of a star (measured from its color spectrum) and the apparent brightness from earth.

How would that be curious when they are all inbred and circular in your models? Show us for example, how a brightness of any star independently shows a clear distance? What is the fundamental premise?

When you test something with two separate techniques and get the same answer, it is irrational to think that must be wrong...

We shall see how independent they are!

No observation has shown that the past 4500 years ago was governed by radically different laws of nature, unless you'd care to present some.

History and bible.

However, the idea that science presupposes the opposite without evidence is erroneous - we observe what is there and make predictions, and then test those predictions.

Nonsense. You observe what laws exist on and near earth, then use that and only that to proclaim insane stuff about the universe.

Your 4500 year margin is entirely arbitrary, based on interpretations of a book that you presupposed to be correct. The only presupposition engaged in here is yours.

Well, it is bullet proof to science, so you can take it or leave it. You likely can't refute it.

You're going to need some better arguments, simply going "boo, your argument stinks" and running away impresses nobody...if there is a God he should probably find your stunningly simplistic view of his creation insulting.

Watch and see who runs. You just are not clued in enough to know you will have to yet.

Actually, you're conflating panspermia, abiogenesis and evolution, three entirely separate theories, and demonstrating your ignorance of all three. Impressive.

No. I declare them sister in the faith, joined at the hip, and the same premise is used for both. Both are also insane and godless and unsupportable.

I was just responding to your point that we didn't have a first ancestor. Both science and religion say we do, in a sense, but only religion invokes the magic man in the sky.

Let me be clear...we do not have a bacteria like magically appearing first ancestor. Adam I do not consider a first ancestor. I consider Adam and Eve first ancestors.

You were being asked for the definition, not me. That definition would be fine under some circumstances, and weak under others, for example in relation to gravitational effects. But we'll deviate wildly off track here if we delve further, something you'd like as you'll apparently try anything to obfuscate a clear point by your opposition.

If you think that was a clear point, or opposition, you need to give your head a shake.

Uh...no. That would be an observation, not observations, for starters, and science frequently examines for evidence of change over time. There are several branches of physics that have respected theorists questioning the most fundamental things that seem with all observations to have been constant, including the most fundamental perhaps, the speed of light in a vacuum.

Tested on earth. All well and good for fishbowl physics.

I googled 'same state past' and came up with hundreds of examples of...you. I guess you coined that one all by yourself, congratulations.

Thanks.

However, consider this please: since to have "past" requires time to flow - which it really doesn't in many senses, can you explain your physical worldview from a) the perspective of a photon and b) the perspective of a particle beyond the even horizon of a black hole, for starters?

Yes. There was no event horizon. Any tough questions?

Physics shows us that 'time' and 'past' are meaningless concepts here, so how would you be able to explain them?

Meaningless? No. I do not think that is shown. Time is one way on earth in this present time. According to the bible, things will change radically. I do not see how you think you can apply temporal state earth time to anything or anywhere or anytime other than here. There was time before there was space/time. The bible says so anyhow. There were days already before day 1 in creation week. Our day is not the be all end all measure of time.

Did God create timeless vortices 4500 years ago just for kicks, just to mess with us?

The reason I use 4500 years is because the flood was likely about a century before that time. The nature change was likely about a little over a century after the flood. No imaginary vortex needed.

The point you made was that these experiments, such as a the biggest (9 billion for the LHC) cost money that could be used against world hunger.

Yes. Or housing, missionaries...etc.

My counter was that your argument is facile and erroneous: if you really want to end world hunger (cost - approx 175 billion) perhaps you should look to any of the following expenditures on a global scale before moralizing against science and progress.

Any my counter was that your smashing stuff science resulted in womd. I do not want a choice between 2 evils. I prefer the Prince of Peace taking over and getting rid of both.

Pornography - Probably around $100 billion but likely much more
Prostitution - more than $108 billion annually
Drugs - more than $300 billion annually
Counterfeiting - more than $300 billion annually
Illegal gambling - possibly as high as $308 billion in the US alone.

Sin. You want to lump CERN in with sin...fine with me.

PS...almost no historians believe that Hiroshima ultimately didn't save lives. Plus, that's very unpatriotic of you...not that I care but others with your worldview would consider the ramifications of your comparison practically heretical.

I find it was terror just as the drones are today. I have no great loyalty to terrorist leaders, sorry.

I think I've figured out your strongest debating technique. It's the equivalent of farting loudly and then blaming the smell on the other person in the room. Almost every fallacy I've pointed out in your argument you've just tried to throw at my counterargument, and you shift the burden of proof at any turn you can.

So you are staring to realize that something smells and that you must look in a mirror. Good start.

You said the mathematics of the Higgs had symbols in it that 'didn't represent something in the real world', I asked you for a single example, and you tried to twist it around to make me pick one instead.

Give us some Higgs math, and I will try to dissect it for you.

You'd better have some other clubs in your bag...

 

[mkatzwork]

Watch and see who runs. You just are not clued in enough to know you There was no event horizon. Any tough questions?

Ok, since the thread is getting long in the back and forth will address a couple of these at a time for sanity's sake. So you say black holes don't exist - and you dispute general relativity even in what you think is just this "present state"?
What do you think the companion objects are in x-ray binary systems when the orbital dynamics demonstrates the companion to be above the collapse limits of a neutron star?

Do you dispute that an object moving at the speed of light does not experience time?

Any my counter was that your smashing stuff science resulted in womd.

Actually it could be said the scientific method yielded the vast majority of weaponry ever created - however in history it has generally and frequently been religion that instigated their use...hence the worry about Iran.

Give us some Higgs math, and I will try to dissect it for you.

I don't need it dissected since I understand the vast majority of it, and you don't seem to. I ask you again...name one symbol or part of the mathematics of scalar fields or any other part of the theoretical basis of the Higgs that you feel doesn't represent something and that you object to. I think you don't even know any of the mathematics you're dismissing.

Will deal with the rest next...

 

[dad]

Ok, since the thread is getting long in the back and forth will address a couple of these at a time for sanity's sake. So you say black holes don't exist - and you dispute general relativity even in what you think is just this "present state"?

?? I said there was no event horizon...one that was involved in creating the universe, to be more precise. As for relativity, why would I dispute it? But it is relative only to this state.

What do you think the companion objects are in x-ray binary systems when the orbital dynamics demonstrates the companion to be above the collapse limits of a neutron star?

OK, so cite an example.

Do you dispute that an object moving at the speed of light does not experience time?

Depends on the object! Also where it is moving...earth area of elsewhere....

Actually it could be said the scientific method yielded the vast majority of weaponry ever created - however in history it has generally and frequently been religion that instigated their use...hence the worry about Iran.

If science had a clue they would know we are in a sin state. What did you think sinful man would do with womd??

I don't need it dissected since I understand the vast majority of it, and you don't seem to. I ask you again...name one symbol or part of the mathematics of scalar fields or any other part of the theoretical basis of the Higgs that you feel doesn't represent something and that you object to. I think you don't even know any of the mathematics you're dismissing.

Will deal with the rest next...

I asked for some simple equation relating to the higgs field. You do not provide one, rather claim you understand it.

 

[mkatzwork]

?? I said there was no event horizon...one that was involved in creating the universe, to be more precise. As for relativity, why would I dispute it? But it is relative only to this state.

Why would there be an event horizon related to the creation of the universe? Whoever mentioned that? (There was no space-time in the big bang singularity model to define an event horizon in for starters, so you're correct in saying that no event horizon existed there, but that wasn't what we were talking about)

In trying to define your bizarre idea of the errancy of physical constants, I asked you how from your worldview you could explain time from the perspective of a photon entering the event horizon of a black hole, to which you said "there was no event horizon".

Implicitly then you must think there is no such thing as a black hole, since that is a necessary element of a black hole, a sort of prerequisite. Unless you're just confused?

OK, so cite an example.

Wow...just wow. Really?? Let's copy and paste the whole of this part of the discussion just so you can see your own evasion:


ME: Please point to an example of a mathematical symbol in any of the math underpinning the Higgs field hypothesis that you feel "doesn't represent anything".

YOU: Hardly anything in there that does! (except present earth state stuff).

ME: Pick one, for ease of discussion. Should be easy for you since you consider scalar fields "basic".

YOU: I think you are asking me to pick something within the scalar field area, is that right?

ME: Anything you like within the mathematics that underpins the Higgs field hypothesis.

YOU: So go for it...




I don't have any problem with the mathematics involved - you're the one saying you have an issue with it. So again...once again...please pick a term or terms. Google the thing if you don't actually know of anything about it...I cannot possibly know which terms you are objecting to!!!

Depends on the object! Also where it is moving...earth area of elsewhere....

No, it doesn't. Can you give me an example of a particle "in the fishbowl" moving at the speed of light in a vacuum, that somehow experiences time, and normalize that in terms of special relativity?

If science had a clue they would know we are in a sin state. What did you think sinful man would do with womd??

Sure, because sin can be measured empirically. My sin level is over 9000!

I asked for some simple equation relating to the higgs field. You do not provide one, rather claim you understand it.

See above. I asked you to find me a term in any of those equations that you did not think 'represented anything'. If you have any knowledge of these equations, you should be able to find one, since clearly you think some of them are 'simple', which by your standards I think they're probably not - ever worked with Lagrangians before?

 

[Trogool]

The Internet isn't the media?

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

Then why the heck do you post so heavily in a subforum devoted to it?

 

[mkatzwork]

If science had a clue they would know we are in a sin state. What did you think sinful man would do with womd??

PS...leads me to think of this; if God had had a clue he would have realized his creation was in an 'about to fall' state. What did he think Adam & Eve would do with the fruit of the tree of life?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Well it didn't take long for the fnarring at the name God particle to turn to "Oh look, this totally was predicted by our belief all along" once it was shown to actually exist.

Please conjugate the verb to fnarr

 

[dad]

PS...leads me to think of this; if God had had a clue he would have realized his creation was in an 'about to fall' state. What did he think Adam & Eve would do with the fruit of the tree of life?

We do not know all the facts. He does. If God wanted man as a creature in His image, to live forever with Him, would it not be feasible that He wanted mankind to grow up...one way or the other?

 

[dad]

Why would there be an event horizon related to the creation of the universe? Whoever mentioned that? (There was no space-time in the big bang singularity model to define an event horizon in for starters, so you're correct in saying that no event horizon existed there, but that wasn't what we were talking about)

I think you mean (in your own terms) the observable universe? So where is the imaginary event horizon you refer to supposed to be then?

In trying to define your bizarre idea of the errancy of physical constants, I asked you how from your worldview you could explain time from the perspective of a photon entering the event horizon of a black hole, to which you said "there was no event horizon".

OK, so now we get into black holes. First, can you show us one please?

Implicitly then you must think there is no such thing as a black hole, since that is a necessary element of a black hole, a sort of prerequisite. Unless you're just confused?

I do have my doubts, you are right.

Wow...just wow. Really?? Let's copy and paste the whole of this part of the discussion just so you can see your own evasion:


ME: Please point to an example of a mathematical symbol in any of the math underpinning the Higgs field hypothesis that you feel "doesn't represent anything".

YOU: Hardly anything in there that does! (except present earth state stuff).

ME: Pick one, for ease of discussion. Should be easy for you since you consider scalar fields "basic".

YOU: I think you are asking me to pick something within the scalar field area, is that right?

ME: Anything you like within the mathematics that underpins the Higgs field hypothesis.

YOU: So go for it...




I don't have any problem with the mathematics involved - you're the one saying you have an issue with it. So again...once again...please pick a term or terms. Google the thing if you don't actually know of anything about it...I cannot possibly know which terms you are objecting to!!!

Anything that has distance time light energy or etc etc etc in it. Usually you use a symbol for the stuff.

No, it doesn't. Can you give me an example of a particle "in the fishbowl" moving at the speed of light in a vacuum, that somehow experiences time, and normalize that in terms of special relativity?

Who said in the fishbowl? If a particle travels in the fishbowl of earth and vicinity, then one supposes that it obeys our laws, no?

Sure, because sin can be measured empirically. My sin level is over 9000!

Look at the world today. Sin can be measured. It is prevalent. If a just man sins 7 times a day, and you claim only 9000 sins, then what is that 3 and a half years?

See above. I asked you to find me a term in any of those equations that you did not think 'represented anything'. If you have any knowledge of these equations, you should be able to find one, since clearly you think some of them are 'simple', which by your standards I think they're probably not - ever worked with Lagrangians before?

When you say "those" equations, you need to post some.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

PS...leads me to think of this; if God had had a clue he would have realized his creation was in an 'about to fall' state.

Do you realize the bible never speaks of redeeming us from an "about to fall state?" Only teaching us so that we know better.

(Seems you need to adjust a few things to account for that.)

What did he think Adam & Eve would do with the fruit of the tree of life?

Or to the point - how does this pertain to you and I today?

 

[ProScribe]

Did it speak?

No, it was just a tiny tiny particle that has something do with the property of light.

 

[florida2]

No, it was just a tiny tiny particle that has something do with the property of light.

The Higgs boson has nothing to do with light.

 

[dad]

No, it was just a tiny tiny particle that has something do with the property of light.

I see. So in this case, rather than a microscope, you used a vision to see it. OK.