If you're interested in an excellent book on particle physics: The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World by Sean Carroll
That really is a great question you are asking, PT- What purpose does an individual like Stu serve? It does seem ironic that Stu would spend so much of his existence expressing his case that the idea of a supreme and supernatural God is bogus. And I agree too, that it may even seem contradictory for Stu to devote so much time to a subject he may regard as being fairy tale-like in essence. I for one am thankful for Stu's participation in such a debate. He is obviously an intelligent person who has the desire to delve into a subject, which to many, may initially seem doubtful that any kind of concrete answers or resolve can be obtained. In my mind, there are FAR too many believers and non-believers, who simply put little or no effort into searching for the answers to these age old questions: "Why we are here?", and to "What is the purpose?". I have little desire to converse with those who have done minimal in regards to the soulful research that was required for them to form their shallow views.
It is you reading the economist and scientist. It's you reading 2+2 and getting the answer 3, as per usual. I didn't say it did. You read what I say as badly as you read the economist and scientist. I said Higgs MAY extend and indeed revolutionize The Standard Model, which of course it will if it does turn out to be what the evidence suggests. So it Was 60's thinking which came through. The 60's thinking which you often think it clever to smirk at. No it didn't. Higgs boson is being confirmed . The Standard Model was confirmed over 40 years ago but is still incomplete. Showing your ignorance about the matter. And ignorance about the mass, for that matter. No, not finding Higgs would not have called the whole of the standard model into question. The standard model would stay as it is, a successful and practical explanation of how the universe is. But still incomplete. Finding Higgs is not confirmation of the model. The Standard Model is still incomplete, but not as much as the Higgless standard model was. You really might be better getting at least some basic understanding of what you are misrepresenting before you start trying to mangle everything to suit your silly assertions. The Standard Model concerns the influences that strong & weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces have over the known subatomic particles of the universe. It is not specifically to do with what values universal constants are calculated to have. Not understanding how this works is obviously key to you forming false assertions which will be why you keep reaching 3 as the answer to 2+2. It's no wonder you get the same sum wrong over and over, when determined to be as ridiculous as you are in some sort of desperate hopes for an imaginary sky god creator from trolling pseudoscience.
Stu's hilarious and I could easily fill a thread with examples of his STUpidity. For instance, he once "thought" he "reasoned away" the existence of God with this turd: A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible. Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot. STUpid assumptions + STUpid "logic" = STUpid conclusions
Jem, I don't know if this is OT...but are you saying u see mathematical precision (ie:non random events leading to us)emerge as we go more deeply in to quantum studies? I'm new to this section...Jesuit educated east coast as u call it...but I do go back and forth a bit in my faith. Sometimes I see that there must be a creator (time never had beginning IMO, etc) to only reason we seek a God is our need to live after inevitable death.
you just mis represented science and our conversation... you troll. 1. you are just bullshitting with word games. Grow... answer the question. We know the standard model does not deal with gravity. We know that outside of gravity the standard model is confirmed by a higgs boson finding. and of course you troll we know the model was not made to find universal constants... it uses the constants in the math that it uses to show how the universe operates. Now answer the question troll..
1. I am not sure how to answer your question. You may be getting at questions that have to do with standard models lack of dealing with gravity. (which is why we do not have a theory of everything.) but this is what I see from all my arguments with stu. he is a 1950s thinking zealout who still pretends science has evidence that we got here by random chance. Yet he never produces any evidence supporting his quackery. He likes to cast me as bible thumper... although in these science threads... I never bring up the bible. I quote scientists who speak of fine tunings of our constants and reference the concept that with tunings one could rational conclude tunings are evidence of a Tuner or Creator. for instance... a. 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." b. hawking.. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf ... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. c. carr... âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008) d. penrose... in writing... http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ penrose video... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> and a dozen other top physicists... Summary... I have provided dozens of quotes and videos from other top scientists. so given our current understanding it is widely and almost universally accepted that our universe appears fine tuned. The question is what the explanation... given what science understands now... a. we really are incredibly fine tuned because there is a Tuner; or b. perhaps there are almost infinite other universes... so our is not so special. (note this is pure speculation.) c. we will someday find a reason why our constants are so tuned.... via a theory of everything...(although... then the question might still be... does it take a tuner. d. there are a very small number of scientists who do not buy into the fine tunings..... but I will bet that with the finding of the higgs boson... there are even fewer.