Higgs Boson - The evidence of God Particle

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Dec 18, 2012.

  1. jem

    jem

    The later... and yes.. just as the random chance model knows seems to have been discarded... the appearance of fine tuning may someday be explained. I have no problem with good science.... I am just trying to straighten out... 1950s thinking atheists who still argue that science says we got here by random chance. We were taught that in school in the 70s and much of what we were taught back then as truth was wrong.

    For instance... I was also taught that oil came about from the dinosaurs dying off. It would take a shit of dinosaurs to make that much oil.

    I was shown pictures of man walking up from a monkey... which showed we evolved from monkeys... (now they are saying we had a common ancestor.)

    I was in the top east coast public schools they taught a lot of speculation as fact. I find that annoying.

    And they are currently indoctrinating kids with new opinions being taught as fact.

    From distortions of history to distortions of science. They do also teach some very good stuff too. But facts should be facts and speculation or opinion should be so labeled.

    Right now my son learned all about the aggression of the crusades... but he seems to getting a white washed version of the spread of islam... and was carefully told that it was wrong to say it spread by the sword.

    WTF who thinks its right to do that?
    Show the facts... show the spread of islam, show the reaction or aggression by the western world. Let the kids draw conclusions.
     
    #21     Dec 19, 2012
  2. stu

    stu

    The link in that opening "statement" of yours is to a religious website called The Good News, NOT The Economist.
    The Good News is ...'the biblically based flagship publication of the United Church of God'
    http://www.ucg.org/science/god-scie...es-fine-tuning/ ...your link.

    You made NO link to the Economist before you posted this flawed assertion.....
    "I provided an article which showed the finding of Higgs Boson shows that the standard model of the universe can be used to predict where the Higgs Boson would show up... and that therefore many of the constants of the universe are tuned to 20 or more decimal places."

    So.... "once again we see proof you will bullshit"



    What The Economist does say is...

    "The discovery of the boson, then, is rightly hailed as the crowning achievement of one of history's most successful scientific theories. But it is also almost certainly the beginning of that theory's undoing, and its replacement by something better. In science, with its constant search for the truth, this is something to celebrate."

    The Standard Model will evolve.

    All your arguments if they can even be called that, are bogus. 2+2 = 3. They always have been.
    Higgs does not mean 20 or more decimal places. Bogus, as your 2+2=3 'random chance' claims are bogus.

    You won't know what you're being taught when you can do little more than keep distortorting it to make groundless conclusions based only on what you want to believe.
     
    #22     Dec 19, 2012
  3. jem

    jem

    Once again you troll your ass off.. your cover up for your tremendously stupid mistake is the elegantly specious argument we expect from you.



    1. My link cited the economist article. Had you not been lying your ass off you might have read it. Here is the key... try reading the first sentence... "says The Economist magazine" and cites the article...

    here is the quote...

    "The discovery," says The Economist magazine, "puts the finishing flourish on the Standard Model, the best explanation to date for how the universe works—except in the domain of gravity, which is governed by the general theory of relativity" ("The Higgs Boson: Gotcha!" July 7, 2012, p. 71).

    Of the 17 particles the theory predicted, 16 had been found. But it took decades and billions of dollars invested in the Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile circular tunnel on the border of Switzerland and France, to finally pin down this last particle—the Higgs boson.

    What is also remarkable is the precision of the calculations behind the discovery. The constants of the universe, the very laws governing physics as we know it, can be stated in mathematical equations to the point where the approximate location and mass of the Higgs boson were found. Yet elation has given way to a reluctant admission—and thoughts of throwing out what's been found.

    As The Economist explains: "One problem [with the Higgs discovery] is that, as it stands, the [Standard] model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places . Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%" (p. 72, emphasis added throughout).

    http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-higgs-boson-evidence-universes-fine-tuning/

    2. not only were you wrong but you lied about science...

    Stu... quote...

    "to make a flawed conclusion...."the standard model of the universe can be used to predict where the Higgs Boson would show up... and that therefore many of the constants of the universe are tuned to 20 or more decimal places. " (=3).

    Higgs is predicted in the Standard Model. Nothing to do with constants' 20 decimal places or more, but confirmation of how particles get mass."


    but then here is the quote from the Economist...

    http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

    "The constant gardener

    One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

    Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."

    Stu you were wrong about the science again.
    You lied your ass off with no regard for whether the constants are to 20 decimal places or not.

    I catch you in lies about science in just about every exchange we have. thread.



     
    #23     Dec 19, 2012
  4. pspr

    pspr

    Ah, another fine Jem-Stu debate. It's always fulfilling that our side always wins.
     
    #24     Dec 19, 2012
  5. stu

    stu

    Lol cheerleader . In your dreams.
     
    #25     Dec 19, 2012
  6. stu

    stu

    It is then of course, as I said. Your link was to 'the biblically based flagship publication of the United Church of God' The Good News, NOT The Economist.

    From your god slanted approach you've tried to wrongly and falsely assert that because Higgs showed up as required for the Standard Model to hold.... 'that therefore many of the constants of the universe are tuned to 20 or more decimal places.'

    Nowhere in the Economist nor for that matter in the god blog, is it said because of Higgs, constants are tuned to any number of decimal places.

    The overriding summation of the Economist leads toward new knowledge from Higgs, filling gaps in the Standard Model allowing it to develop into giving better information evaluating the constants properly than it does now.

    Compact version of where debate with Jem goes.

    jem: 2+2=3

    here's why 2+2 is not .....

    jem: liar. Black is white

     
    #26     Dec 19, 2012
  7. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    Jem fits my perception of a Marine. He stands his ground and returns massive fire. He doesn't care for authority and thinks for himself. His arguments are lean with zero percent body fat.

    He makes you look like a black-dressing overfed ACLU lawyer by comparison. Just 'sayin.
     
    #27     Dec 19, 2012
  8. stu

    stu

    Doesn't care for authority. Don't make me laugh. He is forever appealing to authority, linking to anything cut&paste that can be misunderstood in favor of a imaginary creator.
    Empty or duff cartridges may be massive fire in your book but not in most peoples.
    Just sayin' you maybe, but it's the evidence and the facts that show him up.

    You guys really must like to think it is right to be wrong.
     
    #28     Dec 19, 2012
  9. Scientists who won't allow God to enter the conversation are every bit as close minded as religious fanatics who won't allow science to enter the conversation.

    Would you agree, or Would you say you are one of factual statistics that you have above stated?
     
    #29     Dec 19, 2012
  10. jem

    jem

    Stu does not even understand what a fallacious appeal to authority is..

    if you were to say that the red sox are better because that is who einstein rooted for... that would be a fallacious appeal to authority... a non sequitor.

    But if I cite hawkings paper and say Hawking explains our universe appears fine tuned (or not) according to the math of the physical constants..

    That is a proper citation to support my argument.
    Its what academics do.
    Its why you see footnotes in academic papers.


    you can learn about the difference between a legitimate use of expert testimony and a fallacious appeal to authority here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
     
    #30     Dec 19, 2012