(March 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:(March 23, 2016 at 10:56 am)Drich Wrote: So you are doubling down.. Bold when you know your right, very very foolish when you thing the other person is just bluffing.
So lets see who is bluffing. Please use the link I provided that transcribes professor hawking's new black hole theory, or take the posted paper from the denmark team and show me where what I have said is not consistent with their findings (which again contradict or creates a conflict with your understanding of these two subjects.)
Do you not understand that research questioning CERN's findings is a GOOD thing? This is how science works. If a theory is disproved, it's great, because new knowledge has been added. It's unlikely that the Higgs will be disproved, because it showed up as ≈125 GeV, which was in expected parameters. Science was delighted to find it. IF it is proven to be something else, scientists will also be delighted. It's just more data. The same with black holes. They've been identified and mapped through gravitational effects and radiation (and - - what else - - physicists help, I'm forgetting something). If they turn out to be something else entirely, cool!! More data.
Here the thing oh, great mover of goal posts.. I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing. I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified. You or DBP made the statement that 'science only deals with what is tangible/real' (the dig being God is not tangble or real, and it takes faith to believe in God.) I made the comment that 'science infact does not always operate on those principles, then I listed two common examples where faith in science fiction has bled over into science fact and blurred the lines in such away to make douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact when in fact their is as much faith being expended in the belief of how a black hole works, as a religious person would expend in the existence of God.
Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.