pop morality

[Drich]

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.

You clearly do not understand that the existence of a particle and the measuring of its attributes has already been accomplished.  It fits the criteria for the Higgs and more research is being completed.  There is no "faith" needed, we have data.  No goalposts were moved, you clearly don't understand how science works.  Pick up a magazine.  Even Discover is good.  Or even better, "Particle Fever" is on Netflix.  It's a fabulous documentary.

How xtian of you to resort to insults and name-calling.  That's the kind of behavior I expect from a preechur.

You can't be this stupid... seriously??? Did you not read the research the denmark team did? I posted it like 3 or 4 different times!!!

While they (Denmark team) agree the particle behaves as predicted, they also point out several other particles would also behave in the way that has been recorded... It is a leap of Faith to say what was recorded was the higgs boson because again what was recorded was the particle decay and not the actual particle. that is why i used the Con-trail metaphore. Contrail is like the particle decay recorded. Yes it is evidence of a plane/Particle, but to say that can-trail/particle decay was the higgs boson it like looking at a con trail from an air plane and saying it was from a Boeing 787. Yes it is possible but their are an entire Air fleet of other possibilities as well.

I used the Cern scientist example to show that ALL Science is funded, and the Cern project was falling under tremendous pressure as 6 Billion Euros were spent to find nothing more than what they already had. So the sold us a pig in a poke.

[Drich]

Should we call the Nobel Prize committee and tell them they need to withdraw the 2013 award for Physics?

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ates/2013/

Should the Oscar be taken from dicaprio and given to will smith because he's black?

Who gives a crap. they are just self seeking self serving awards that mean nothing to anyone outside those circles and those who want to be apart of those circles.

[drfuzzy]

You clearly do not understand that the existence of a particle and the measuring of its attributes has already been accomplished.  It fits the criteria for the Higgs and more research is being completed.  There is no "faith" needed, we have data.  No goalposts were moved, you clearly don't understand how science works.  Pick up a magazine.  Even Discover is good.  Or even better, "Particle Fever" is on Netflix.  It's a fabulous documentary.

How xtian of you to resort to insults and name-calling.  That's the kind of behavior I expect from a preechur.

You can't be this stupid... seriously??? Did you not read the research the denmark team did? I posted it like 3 or 4 different times!!!

While they (Denmark team) agree the particle behaves as predicted, they also point out several other particles would also behave in the way that has been recorded... It is a leap of Faith to say what was recorded was the higgs boson because again what was recorded was the particle decay and not the actual particle. that is why i used the Con-trail metaphore. Contrail is like the particle decay recorded. Yes it is evidence of a plane/Particle, but to say that can-trail/particle decay was the higgs boson it like looking at a con trail from an air plane and saying it was from a Boeing 787. Yes it is possible but their are an entire Air fleet of other possibilities as well.

I used the Cern scientist example to show that ALL Science is funded, and the Cern project was falling under tremendous pressure as 6 Billion Euros were spent to find nothing more than what they already had. So the sold us a pig in a poke.

Of course Scientists are funded, from grants, from a number of sources.  Most research is.  It's important.
"A new study by a group of scientists from the University of Southern Denmark raises the possibility that the data collected from the Large Hadron Collider could instead explain another type of subatomic particle. Mads Toudal Frandsen, a particle physicist, explained in a statement, "The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particular particle is the Higgs particle ... 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."
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html
"What was found last year in CERN's accelerator could thus be either the Higgs particle of the Standard Model or a light techni-higgs particle, composed of two techni-quarks. Mads Toudal Frandsen believes that more data from CERN will probably be able to determine if it was a Higgs or a techni-higgs particle. If CERN gets an even more powerful accelerator, it will in principle be able to observe techni-quarks directly."

What I can't figure out is why you would think, for one second, that this research is a BAD thing.  Why do you think it disproves that the Higgs was found, or means that the LHC is a waste of time and money?  So why don't YOU explain to us what a Boson is, what a techni-quark is?  Explain to us how they measure attributes like charge and spin.  Why is this groundbreaking new data completely irrelevant, silly, and a waste of time?

[FebruaryOfReason]

I have conclusively shown ...

Utter bullshit. And there's no point arguing with you. You genuinely think it's possible for 500 year old men to build boats big enough to hold two of every animal in the world. You genuinely think that millions of cubic miles of water can emerge from the earth and be carried off by cosmic winds without leaving any geological trace.

No logic can possibly reach you.

[downbeatplumb]

You see what you've done there is not actually understand what Stephen Hawking said. He said that things could escape from the "black hole" over time not that the thing itself did not exist. What he means is the idea that things cannot escape the event horizon is not true but the THING ITSELF IS THERE. all the science supports it so. So black hole real but not as black as thought.
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawki...es-1.14583

I swear it feels like I'm trying to talk to a room full of monkeys sometimes... Or trying to play connect the dots with people who don't know how to count, don't know what dots are, and dont have anything to connect them with.

When I challenged your understanding, your sci fi understanding of a black hole/Gravity Well, I am challenging the model that is based off of Einstein's theory of relativity. In that a black hole is a depression in time and space that even light can not escape. a Gravity well. Hawkings theory says it is not a gravity well.

Now if black holes exist as Einstein's theory supports then Hawking is wrong. If Hawking's theory is correct then Einstein theory is wrong... That is what we grown folk call a contradiction, or a conflicting theory. both can not be right. which means the existence of a black hole down to it's very nature of how it works is truly unknown.
It's all just theory to explain why we have x-ray and gamma ray spikes when we scan the night sky.

Now heres the thing, no one is except you thinks that black holes don't exist they are just not as black as thought. This is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water it just means the theory needs to be fiddled with. I'm ok with that. Science is not dogmatic like religions are.

Did you know we can not even directly observe a black hole in space.

Yes its because they are black. You can however see the accretion fields and all sorts of other evidence for them in all sorts of spectrums and radio waves.

 All the pictures you see all the CG is just what we think is going on. That's because we have no gravity sensing telescopes., and we don't have any telescopes powerful enough that see deep enough into space to capture the visible light of a black hole nor the x-ray or gamma rays a black holes is supposed to emmit.

Heres a video (not CGI) of the black hole at the centre of our galaxy devouring a gas cloud which was directly observed by multiple telescopes.




.

That's why according to the old standard model nothing could ever escape a black hole. while Hawking says the opposite, that given enough time an object could. which blows EVERYTHING You were not even smart enough to know about black holes out of the water.

The black hole is still there, just not as dark as thought. This is not a hard concept why aren't you getting it?

Now if you didn't get frustrated and just skip over everything I just said, and you actually read and understood all of it, you would see what a very very thin line the whole black hole nonsense balances on. If I took all the excuses on why we can not observe a working black hole, and apply that to God, you clowns would loose your mind having a field day poking holes in our faith.

I understand your idiotic ranting just fine. The thing is the thing called black holes are still there, one of their attributes is a little off to what was previously thought. But this does not compare to the complete not appearance of a god or indeed any supernatural entity. Stop trying to drag us down to your level.

That sport, is what I am doing to you.

No it isn't.

I'm not doubting that black holes exist, I am not calling into question either Einstein nor Hawking's theories, I am simply pointing out all of that faith you and your buddies have in a system that habitually can not provide 'proof' on a cornerstone event like a black hole or the Higgs/Boson.

But they have, you've been told they have, shown the evidence and the theories that support them. Religion has nothing comparable just a bunch of old stories that have all turned out to be lies.

You said Science isn't used to support fantasy.. Yes the propaganda around it says that very thing, but in practice it DOES THAT VERY THING! (Science FICTION Is still fantasy) And further more it takes MORE faith to believe in some of the crap science comes up with than it does to believe in God.

All it takes to convince me that a scientific theory is wrong is evidence that is sufficiently strong enough, what would change your mind about god?

.

No that's how religion works, it tries to confirm what it looks for science tries to disprove things. What else could have done this thing?

AND that is how Science works like it or not. The two examples I provided underscore this fact.[/quote]

Jesus titty fucking Christ science is the anti thesis of religion and works in the exact opposite way. Belief is not required for science it can and is checked, religion is just something you believe without proof.
 


And this was where I got bored.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Not to mention, that's what the Scientific Method is FOR, having other researchers check your data.

Essentially, they're pointing out that there's another possibility, despite the fact that the mathematical calculations said there should be the H-B there at that specific GeV.

The theory predicted it. The math showed it should be there. And something was found there.

All the other team is doing is saying that the thing we found may possibly be something other than an intact HB, as you pointed out. But other scientists always conduct experiments that will confirm or reject a result from any group... that is quite literally how the Scientific Method works.

The funny thing is that you're attacking CERN when all they did was look for it at the GeV level the decay of the particle should have emitted, and they found that. It was predicted by one team (thus the Nobel), and then found by another team via the experiments at the LHC. Others will question the results, as they should, and it may be confirmed or denied by later research, but IT WAS THERE.

What's baffling in all this is that you think it makes science into "Imaginationland", or somesuch.

The same is true of the Black Hole. We infer their existence from mathematical models built upon the data, as you pointed out. And, as new data comes in, they sometimes need to adjust the idea to fit the new information (as when Einstein's discoveries about high-speed travel showed that Newtonian math couldn't accurately predict the motion of two objects relative to one another... Newton wasn't wrong, per se, he just didn't have the information necessary to formulate a model that gave us the degree of precision that Einstein allowed for). That's what's happening with Black Holes; we're refining our formulation of how they work. Hawking was the first to discover that the BH could emit radiation at all, and to show how it would work.

We get that the jury is still out on the proof via CERN of the H-B predicted by the winners of the Nobel, but that's science doing its job. While I applaud you for doing research on the findings of science, I find your deeply-ingrained agenda to be disturbing. Frankly, people like you frighten the shit out of me... you apply skepticism only when it suits you, such as attacking science because it says not-nice things about your favorite fairytales. We applaud your application of skepticism, however rudimentary, but we ask that you try really really really hard to gain a better understanding of how science works, and why it must work that way.

[The Grand Nudger]

There really isn't going to be a point at which your endless "you too!" remarks will matter Drich.  What's the endgame, that I decide we're all hypocrites somehow, somewhere?  Not exactly news-worthy.    You think a tq really -means- something.  That it's a defense of criticism for some position, or a criticism of a position itself. It's simply not. Doesn't matter whether it's true, false, or full on ignorant, doesn't work regardless.


That an adult may be a hypocrite doesn't bother me (and why should it?). If there's someone out there who "faithfully believes" in the "scriptures of science" - or however you choose to conceptualize it...so what? I start to worry when they begin to babble about their imaginary friends, not when they tell me they believe in something.  

[KevinM1]

Not to mention, that's what the Scientific Method is FOR, having other researchers check your data.

Essentially, they're pointing out that there's another possibility, despite the fact that the mathematical calculations said there should be the H-B there at that specific GeV.

The theory predicted it. The math showed it should be there. And something was found there.

All the other team is doing is saying that the thing we found may possibly be something other than an intact HB, as you pointed out. But other scientists always conduct experiments that will confirm or reject a result from any group... that is quite literally how the Scientific Method works.

The funny thing is that you're attacking CERN when all they did was look for it at the GeV level the decay of the particle should have emitted, and they found that. It was predicted by one team (thus the Nobel), and then found by another team via the experiments at the LHC. Others will question the results, as they should, and it may be confirmed or denied by later research, but IT WAS THERE.

What's baffling in all this is that you think it makes science into "Imaginationland", or somesuch.

The same is true of the Black Hole. We infer their existence from mathematical models built upon the data, as you pointed out. And, as new data comes in, they sometimes need to adjust the idea to fit the new information (as when Einstein's discoveries about high-speed travel showed that Newtonian math couldn't accurately predict the motion of two objects relative to one another... Newton wasn't wrong, per se, he just didn't have the information necessary to formulate a model that gave us the degree of precision that Einstein allowed for). That's what's happening with Black Holes; we're refining our formulation of how they work. Hawking was the first to discover that the BH could emit radiation at all, and to show how it would work.

We get that the jury is still out on the proof via CERN of the H-B predicted by the winners of the Nobel, but that's science doing its job. While I applaud you for doing research on the findings of science, I find your deeply-ingrained agenda to be disturbing. Frankly, people like you frighten the shit out of me... you apply skepticism only when it suits you, such as attacking science because it says not-nice things about your favorite fairytales. We applaud your application of skepticism, however rudimentary, but we ask that you try really really really hard to gain a better understanding of how science works, and why it must work that way.

Except, his 'skepticism' is entirely agenda driven.  Drich could give two shits about actual science.  What he's desperate to do, to the point of repeatedly embarrassing himself, is to falsely equivocate science and theism.  He's utterly desperate to make us out to be theists in everything but name so he can gloat over the hypocrisy he mistakenly thinks we're committing.

It's his MO.  He does exactly the same thing when it comes to slavery.  He just tried doing the same thing in Won2Blv's prophecy thread.  Drich has a very narrow, mostly factually incorrect view of reality, and rather than actually try to broaden his horizons and learn something, he attempts to twist things he obviously knows nothing about to fit into that vision.  And he gets schooled.  Every.  Single.  Time.

Now, he'll deny this.  Of course he will.  His ego cannot handle being wrong.  After all, he's a chosen one!  God spontaneously cured him of AIDS!  Of cancer!  God put a literal angel investor in his lap!  For some reason his god hasn't made him spell better than a 4th grader, but that's neither here nor there.  And all the truly smart people he knows agree with him!  It has nothing to do with confirmation bias, but with them being smart.  Surely smarter than the rest of you dumb atheists.  

And he's nicer, too!  Why, he just stated he wanted to kick dyresand's teeth in in the prophecy thread because of the way he types (oh ironies of irony).  And he's repeatedly tried to insult you regarding your prison time with his 'hurr durr, gay sex' insults.

Truly, Drich is the model of Christianity we should all follow.

[drfuzzy]

CERN keeps fact-checking it's own findings as well.  That's what science does.  It keeps asking questions.
http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-in...a78c1682e2

[TheRocketSurgeon]

CERN keeps fact-checking it's own findings as well.  That's what science does.  It keeps asking questions.
http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-in...a78c1682e2

...which, despite being science's greatest strength, for people who believe in magic and think that an invisible sky-daddy personally handed the human species an Ultimate Guide to the Universe™ via a tribe of desert warrior-goatherder people (after the universe existed for billions of years without us), offering Absolute Certainty Without Question™ so that you never have to deal with pesky facts from outside sources, is considered by them to be a weakness.