(March 23, 2016 at 10:36 am)drfuzzy Wrote:So you are doubling down.. Bold when you know your right, very very foolish when you thing the other person is just bluffing.(March 23, 2016 at 9:11 am)Drich Wrote: Nuupe.
Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.
Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?
Again If the Higgs Boson was conclusively found, then why are the Cern scientists not able to record or identify that specific partical? Why can they only look at what it supposedly leaves behind and claim it to be the particle? Do they not understand that someone else (like the team in denmark) could say those reminates are from another particles destruction??? Why did the team from denmark (who's research paper and concerns I posted) contradict the conclusions that the Cern scientist found? why is their ANY conflict of the Higgs data if infact their is conclusive proof the higgs exist?
Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.
A honest man would look at what I just showed you and ask himself what else do i believe, just because my god of science says so? But not you huh? you like any man of strictly 'faith' (on either side of God/science) is going to bury his head in the sand at all of the conflicting evidence he is presented and pretend the person doing the presenting is dumb, so you can feel good about your ignorance.
Green = mind-boggling ignorance, including a misunderstanding of scientific method. Red = misspellings.
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.)