Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist

[Drich]

It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave.

I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

I did that.  Did you actually read the results of your 'fraud' search?  I rather doubt it.  The results included one story about a group of scientists who had an alternate theory to explain the Higgs data.  That story was repeated multiple times.  The rest of the hits are from crackpots and people criticizing things not directly relevant to the physics.  In short, your implied claim that the Higgs boson discovery was a fraud is based on pretty much crap.  One alternative theory and a bunch of bullshit.  So your rant below is just that: a rant, containing no substance.  Care to try again to document this 'fraud'?

I always look forward to you posts as you truly put in a semi valid effort. much respect for that..
Here's the thing you failed to do. You failed to watch the documentary.

It is the documentary that makes that one single story so damning (which I did indeed explain in the post you quoted from.) In that in the documentary the cern scientists themselves explain the evidence they had used to get funding to build the supercolider. Which is explain in great detail and has even been animated digitally so someone like you or me can easily grasp what they found and what they were looking for.

Even though they did not find evidence directly supporting the H/B, they simply realigned the theory to fit the evidence they had found. Which can also be used to validate several other competing theories, yet who got the Nobel prize?

How do you not see this as a problem? how can you argue that fact that a nobel prize was issued for the H/B particle theory based on the faith the Nobel commity had on the proclimation from the cern scientists that they found it?

NOT To Mention The Fact that there is only one real source that challenges the Higgs discovery only furthers my initial point. In that On this level of fringe science fact, raw data, and the people quilified to intrepret said data bottle necks. The fact that the Nobel commity was fooled and it took over a year for anyone too openly challenge the cern data only prooves the point I make it does not detract from it as you would like it to.

IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

Unsupported rant is unsupported.

Not true. what i just said about the nobel committee being fooled by cern, the fact that cern has further funding, and the fact that it took over a year for anyone else to legitimately challenge the cern findings supports everything I said here.

You are getting lazy with your sweeping dismissals.

That my naive friend is how your precious 'science/religion' works.

Or it's just a groundless story that you happen to believe.

That is why it was over a year later that the higgs boson discovery was debunked.

Citation needed.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/...415399496/
The story identifies the claim from cern that the H/B was discovered, then they also put forth several competing theory that state the H/B was not found, but rather the decay rates that point to the H/B (which again if you watch the video is what they initally had) which accoding to this paper lends it self to at least two different competing theories:
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.....90.035012

I think that's the bottom line.  We have a bible idolizing crackpot who is misrepresenting the physics and the facts.

Actually the bible has nothing to do with anything I said here. I am disappointed that you too want to default to a character assassination attempt rather than have a purely topical discussion.

Where's your evidence that the Higgs discovery was debunked?  I see a lot of ranting with no actual support.

You didn't do your due dillegence did you. You of all people should know not to ask me a question you are not 1000% sure that you know the answer of.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Scientists were quite excited when researchers last year announced they had observed the Higgs particle in the CERN particle accelerator known as the Large Hadron Collider. Prior to this discovery, the Higgs boson was a subatomic particle whose existence was predicated solely on theory, not direct evidence.

Now, a new study casts some doubt on the certainty of that discovery, suggesting the data collected with the LHC may explain a different type of subatomic particle, not the Higgs boson.
"The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particle is the Higgs particle," particle physicist Mads Toudal Frandsen explained in a recent press release. "It is true that the Higgs particle can explain the data but there can be other explanations, we would also get this data from other particles."

Frandsen was part of a team of scientists from the University of Southern Denmark who recently called into question the conclusiveness of the LHC data. Their hypothesis was detailed this week in the journal Physical Review D.

Frandsen and his colleagues say the data may explain the Higgs particle, but it also works for a theoretical type of particle known as the techni-higgs.

From the link posted above.

Again, the Nobel committee was fooled into handing out what is arguably the highest achievement/award one can receive for scientific discovery, Based on what the cern scientist discovered. Which it took over a year for anyone to challenge the findings/to break through the red tape/scientific beucracy to openly challenge the statement that what was found is proof to the H/B throey.

Again that is what is being discussed. The corruption in science and the faith one has to have to blindly accept it as the Nobel Committee did.