All theory, no proof! Science will never admit it, but consciousness converts energy into matter and the mass of the matter is determined by the amount of energy converted.
see "HERE IT HIGGS" on youtube, they only repeated a head on elastic collision with two identical particles and caused a divergence of smaller particles. This is nothing new (yawn)! New theory suggests we do not need the Higgs Field...ether!!
Well, the particle moving through Higgs field is not slowed down by it. It is the Change of it's speed (inertia) that is affected by the field. Or am I wrong? Because all particles would eventually stop... And the field would be overcharged with their kinetic energy.
@beastinblack It's not the shape. Or the size. I'm not learned in the math involved in quantum mechanics, but from what I know about it, it probably has a lot more to do with the vibration of the particles. Their wave's respective frequencies probably are the deciding factor when it comes to how they interact with the Higgs boson.
yeah they arnt going to find the higgs, if it is a particle then how would it get out a black hole, this would mean that black holes have no gravity :S
am I understanding correctly that matter is nothing more than particles that are entrapped in a locality only to vibrate/oscillate within a defined space? If said particles were to move freely outside of said locality then they have become more energetic up to the point where mass turns into pure energy? That means the HIggs Field is nothing more than a damper on an oscillating system?? Thus you can find the resonance frequency of the system??
am I understanding correctly that matter is nothing more than particles that are entrapped in a locality only to vibrate/oscillate within a defined space? If said particles were to move freely outside of said locality then they have become more energetic up to the point where mass turns into pure energy? That means the HIggs Field is nothing more than a damper on an oscillating system??
sad that there will likely be no such "smoking gun" or higgs particle found at cern. If it were the kind of thing that existed, by now they would have likely seen more hints from it. And nearly all ranges of energy have been tried. Sure, it could pop up at the last moment, but at this point I'm betting it won't. It will be 2012, 2013, 2014 etc and there will be no Higgs Boson found. The answer is likely elsewhere and that means a boring, long wait :-(.
and furthermore, that 6 hours instead of 3 was lucky is an opinion of the observer, and not a fact by any means. once again, you don't even understand what you're in a debate about. Mind is clouded by uncertainty and illogical assumptions of misrepresented data and poor analysis.
like i said, you obviously haven't done your research very well.....can't just read one "study". Try their own website, goes into much further detail.
"Try their own website, goes into much further detail."
Have you?
"yet don't fluently understand the nature of what they are even saying."
Here is what they say:
"We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance expectation during the worst single day tragedy in American history."
ufos are speculatory......egyptians, mesoamericans, the Quran, Bible, Jung, Walker, and Green undeniably existed you moron. Just saying. Your smart ass comment just goes to show your obvious ignorance in this field, since it was obviously the best you could do.
obviously you are passing up the parts that don't suit your personal beliefs, and possibly don't understand exactly what you are reading. Two scientists known best for studying Remote Viewing hardly dictate my decisions when it comes to these matters. And this theory didn't originate with the GCP.....more like I-Ching, Kabbalism, Egyptian and Mesoamerica sciences, and many other fields, including Jung, Evan Harris Walker, and Green. I suppose you are smarter than them though.....sry.
In our conclusion, we suggest that, except for one special case, the physical RNG database cannot be explained by any influence model, and that contradicting evidence from two experiments on biological systems should inspire more investigations in a way that would allow valid DAT analyses.
Interestingly that paragraph shows nowhere in their study.
Here is from the conclusion of the study : "We have examined in detail the primary results with regard to the 11 September 2001 events as posted on the Global Consciousness Project web site and find that they do not
The indications that something quite unusual did happen in the RNG network before, during and after 9/11, were confirmed by independent researchers who conducted extensive statistical analyses that found striking anomalies in the data.
The data was studied by independent scientists (like the study by Edwin May and James Spottiswoode) who found no statistically significant deviations in the data.
What they found was nothing inconsistent with natural variation in random data.
They did find huge problems in the methodology in that the researchers had no hypothesis, no specifications for what consists a 'event'.
and since you twist words to suit your beliefs and spout false information to suit your own beliefs, i'll leave your ignorance to you and those who wish to be enveloped by it. Back "Down The Rabbit Hole" for me. Like I said before, you can't even explain to someone what "space" is, so you obviously get your info from youtube and aren't qualified to discuss these matters properly to begin with. Nice day.
i prefer the metaphysical hypothesis that consciousness causes state vector collapse thereby creating the universe we know and see.....observation manifests particles into a particular state of being, which is scientifically backed by many different experiments that have been carried out over the last 20 years. Carl Jung referred to it as the Universal Unconsciousness to explain his observations of Syncronicity in the universe.....and RNG or random number generators have shown this accurately.
Urgh, you are not talking about the global conciousness project are you?
What that shows is that if people try hard enough and mine enough data they will find something to confirm what they want to believe. As long as they ignore anything which doesn't fit, it is one big exercise in selection bias and Princeton should be really ashamed of having anything to do with it.
@ytmoog explain the massive annomalies that occured during the 9/11 attacks....and many others. you're using opinion rather than relying on data as you should. You must not have paid attention to the explainations of the experiments that were conducted.
"explain the massive annomalies that occured during the 9/11 "
Just to add to this.
Two teams of independent scientists were asked to analyse the data after then and found no statistically significant change in the randomness of the data at any time during or after.
1. immediately after the news released the images, they started recording the annomalies.
2. as stated in their report, "results were off the charts, and unlike any previous results recorded"
3. They also mine data for events when looking for new particles, which were predicted but still remained theories.....just as conscious creation was predicted yet still only a theory. Need to get your opinions worked out my friend. Edjucation
@ytmoog and give me one example of biased selection or ingnored piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit??? For someone who couldn't define "space", you sure are quick to draw biased assumptions on what an organization such as Princeton should ashamed of......just saying brother, i meant no offense.
I prefer not to make speculative statements based on nothing but wishful thinking.
"and give me one example of biased selection"
It is simple enough they mine the data for 'events' then mine the news for anything vaguely around the time. If they don't find anything is gets ignored... The predictive power of that experiment is nil.
If the big bang happen and all that is is now the universe we know .What was before the big bang?If we say nothing was before the big bang.Then surly there was a intelligence design behind the big bang.Because in my humble option only a supernatural being aka (GOD ) can make something from nothing..Just a thought .
Nope, it is based on direct observation of the universe through telescopes such as Hubble, observations of the universe in the far distant past using observatories such as WMAP, evidence from particle accelerators such as the LHC and Fermilab, along with much much more.
@ytmoog Could you explain please If we and all matter started in the same place and we move slower than the speed of light how is it that we can see back to almost the time of the big bang would not that light be far beyond us?
And the light which makes up the CMB would have been emitted from everywhere in the universe at the time.
So from the part of the universe we are in that light would be long gone, but if you look far enough into space you should see the light from that region given out a huge time ago now red shifted far into the microwave region.
@ytmoog: The hubble can look way off into the distance and catch a glimpse of the past because of the time light takes to reach us, but the big bang has never been directly observed. What has been observed is the momentum of galaxies as they move away from the center point. From this we can theorize that it all exploded from a point, but it's just a theory (unproven).
@AnduinX so what kind of prove do you want? a video?a picture?I like to think of the big bang as a initial baloon blow (a very strong one); in your opinion since u seem very exceptic what else could have initiated such expansion?
@ytmoog: The part that seems like a 'religion' is when they speak of what happened a miniscule fraction of a second after the bang, or say things like the laws of the universe did not exist before the bang. Frankly, how do they know this?
There is quite a lot of evidence what the universe would have been like a fraction of a second after the initial point, mostly from data generated from particle accelerators which create energy densities as high as you would find during that point.
But they are also well aware of the uncertainties and many errors involved, this is why Physicists follow the evidence.
@ytmoog space, i believe as generally excepted is an almost absolute vacuum that is cooled to around 1 or 2 Kelvin. apx 1 electron per cubic meter of "space" or something along those lines @itsonelouder1
So how would they actual detect the Higgs Boson, since it lasts for such a short period of time. And another question, you all might think I'm dumb...sorry I'm just curious. Where does the energy go when the Higgs Boson disappears if it's true energy is never destroyed, only changed?
@lattask8er the idea isn't actually detecting the higgs boson, but the pairs or (symmetry) of particles created upon the destruction of the boson. The theory doesn't call for the boson to disappear, but only change into it's constituent particles, since energy can neither be created or destroyed. in theory, you would get two gluon's, two up quarks, two electrons, yada yada......catch my drift???? the boson wouldn't disappear, but would be broken down into it's building blocks for detection.
most people that believe in the big bang theory don't actually quite "believe in it." more like they choose to believe/support it, or in other words that's where they put their faith.
Physcists do not 'believe in it' nor do they have any 'faith' in it. They recognise it as the scientific theory which best explains all the observed evidence. Predictions made using the theory have been shown to be correct time and time again.
@ytmoog it's correct that if they don't believe in it then they don't have faith in it. why then would they study something they don't believe, or why would they study something they believe not to make sense? so what I understood from you is that "Physicists" test theories and predictions that they have absolutely no faith in? or in other words, they are wasting their time? I don't mind if argue anything you feel is against your own beliefs, but atleast try to make sense when you speak to me.
@ytmoog I'm not even sure why you're arguing this. is it that "faith" is a common word used by religious people, that offends you? I'm sorry you don't understand English, maybe you can make a prediction on what you believe faith to actually means, rather than what it doesn't? maybe then we can clear up this silly confusion on the English language.
@ytmoog it seemed like you were getting really offended by how hard you are trying to argue against me, which I'm not even sure why you're arguing. I was simply trying to figure you out based on a theory through evidence. can you please explain why you were offended in the first place?
also, what dictionary did you get that "definition" out of? #1 on Google's dictionary for "faith" is "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". I'm interested to know what you think "proof" means.
@frosty1433 i have to agree that scientists don't carry "faith" too often, because that entails accepting it as truth without questioning it's accuracy or looking at the evidnece set forth by previous experiments. ytmoog iscorrect in his arguement that the word "faith" had no room in the matters of scientific endevour. Faith is used in a spiritual or religous context, or even philisophical or psychological/sociological, but not in logical reasoning or logical deduction.
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately."
faith has no room in science. and critical thinking = 0 faith
sad how @thmcbb that you feel the need to make a supernatural being "out of nothing" to support concepts your mind just cannot grasp. Before religion, people understood that nature was key.....your God came millenia later.
what you fail to realize is that the same can be said both ways. maybe you're the one that cannot grasp the concept of a "supernatural being", so you follow the nature as a mental pacifier. you would probably call that the "safe choice", but the sure thing is that it is in fact a choice. I would also say that humans are and have been relying of nature for far longer than they ever relied on religion. influence of religion has been steadily declining since Sunday worship, and that can be proved.
If the higgs field gives mass, and its very easy to see how it would, then higgs bosons are interacting with the matter in all of us right now. They're everywhere. Just like all the other bosons. All allowing exchanges of various forces. So the question is: if there is a way to detect a photon outside of the LHC, is there a way to detect the higgs outside of the LHC? I know the LHC has helped us find quarks that wouldn't normally occur but gravity or mass is very normal :-)
This seems to be somewhat reminiscent of the old ether theory. At least that's what I'm getting from the pictures and description. All particles have momentum and move through space filled with Higgs particles, the smaller particles interact less Higgs as they travel through it, and the larger ones interact with more.thus giving them more mass. Is this why matter gains more mass as it nears the speed of light? It is inter-acting with more of these Higgs (ether) particles?
Right now, I can't really understand much about the Bosons, but I believe that since there is a way to test Higgs theory, we should. And we are, hopefully! It will greatly help physics.
Good explanation of how the Higg's field funtioned after the Big Bang!
BTW, I have no problem with any philosophical/theological comments that relate to the science & are intellectually honest -- we are talking about the origin of existence after all. The term "Big Bang" was coined as a dismissive epithet by the atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle who thought it seemed too much like an act of divine creation. It continues to be a fundamental existential enigma.
@azzwal If you think about it. Darkness creates light, and in order for light to exist there must be darkness to distinguish it from. Everything works that way - In order for something to exist, there must be nothing to differentiate it. Something inevitably creates nothing, otherwise that something wouldn't exist to be distinguishable. And you are experiencing something rather than nothing, right? It's distinguishable? - Case Closed.
WHY ARE VIDEOS OF SCIENCE ALL OVER YOUTUBE GETTING CONTAMINATED WITH THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS!!! WHETHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIDEO'S CONTENT.
@ytmoog there is a also basic law that says "you can't create or destroy energy". you need another form of energy(think matter = energy) to create a particle and a antiparticle. there is also a imbalance between matter and antimatter which appears to be constant(which isn't the case if everything was created at big bang), so it's not that easy
no one has ever noticed a higgs boson so it might not even exist at all.
@ytmoog i know energy can be somehow "borrowed" (even if it's not that simple) but it doesn't help sinse it's just for a short amount of time(shorter if the amount of energy is larger),
when the universe expands it doesn't change the total amount of enrgy it is just a tranformation from motion energy to potential energy
@ytmoog i've heard about that hypotes, there is a different hypotes that there have been infinit many big bangs and will be in the future becuase the gravaty makes always makes the universe collapse(there is other possibiliteis as well)
there is no need of negative energy if the higgs field doen's exist.
so the case is pretty open, you can't say for sure how it really is, but i am more inte the second one.
@ytmoog i know energy can be somehow "borrowed" (even if it's not that simple) but it doesn't help sinse it's just for a short amount of time(shorter if the amount of energy is larger),
when the universe expands it doesn't change the total amount of energy it is just a transformation from motion energy to potential energy
Great Video, in my opinion i don't think a designer could have made such a universe with such complex tools. I mean from little tiny vibrating strings all the way to Einsteins theory of relativity, All the laws and forces in the universe are connected in some way or another. And they are dependent on each other to exist, its like a Giant Web and there all in the web together. And its like they all are missing links just like evolution and its mind blowing.
@ytmoog oh i think it would effect it too, because string theory says if you break a quark down even more you will get to these little tinny vibrating strings. And it says those 1D strings vibrate in different frequency which results in all of the different forces in the universe.
@bboyloco3 everything still is simple... it's just that there are so many layers of simple, that in their collective, they are complex.
On the tiniest scale, the universe still works the same way it always did and will do. Due to the large timescale, the result of these processes has become complex. but the universe still works the simplest, possible way. otherwise all the laws that require energy-saving as a basic principle would be violated.
Can somone tell me is this in the foundation level of GCSE sieance so look here brainiacs I wanna be like u guys and get A*s all the way so please explain
I may be only geussing, but it seems that the more a particle is similar to the Highs field, the less effect it has on the particle - just as it is in a palorised environment - the positive attracts the negative. What do tuo think? Is the Highs field a kind of polarisation?
If they fail to prove the existence of the Higgs it is still a win for science because at those energies it really should be there or it's back to the drawing board. Going back to the drawing board could save many years of wasted research. Falsifying a hypothesis is as good, if not better than confirming one.
how is this theory affliation with particle mind or law of attraction....is it because we are considered mass and whatever we think through can come through depending how....see i get stuck i want to UNDERSTAND
how can this energy affliate with the law of attraction....is it because we are mass and whatever we think through can come through depending on what we want....I WANT TO UNDERSTAND!!!
@ytmoog lol.......owned....and hes really right......but it is cute when uneducated minds try to put their 2 cents into something that obviously exceeds their capacity for thought.
really informative and interesting
bribribri56 6 days ago
This is a great video
sprattysy 6 days ago
untill 19th century they had thought the space is fullfilled with ether which lets the light go through.
but it was wrong.
now they started saying the space is fullfilled with Higgs particles?
though we would admit this fact..
TommieAitken 1 week ago
@TommieAitken
Yes, experimentation showed that Light needed no medium to pass through.
And experimentation will show whether there is a Higgs field or not.
"now they started saying the space is fullfilled with Higgs particles?"
No they are suggesting there is a Higg's Field present.
Imagine it as similar to a magnetic field. Actual Higgs particles can not exist at the low energy levels present today they decay very rapidly.
ytmoog 1 week ago
All theory, no proof! Science will never admit it, but consciousness converts energy into matter and the mass of the matter is determined by the amount of energy converted.
Eljaygee020346 2 weeks ago
@Eljaygee020346
Hypothesis not theory.
A hypothesis needs sufficient evidence before it can be considered a scientific theory.
And that will be up to what the LHC will find.
ytmoog 2 weeks ago
How does it "pop in and out of existance"? Doesn't that violate some kind of conservation?
MondayNites 2 weeks ago
@MondayNites
It is due to the uncertainty principle. A state which exists only for a very short time cannot have a definite energy.
The conservation of energy is a bit like a bank, you can go overdrawn temporarily as long as at the end of the day everything balances out.
ytmoog 2 weeks ago
Great! If there were some 2-hour show on this, I'd definitely want to check it out.
Rationalific 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
see "HERE IT HIGGS" on youtube, they only repeated a head on elastic collision with two identical particles and caused a divergence of smaller particles. This is nothing new (yawn)! New theory suggests we do not need the Higgs Field...ether!!
DFTDADAMS 1 month ago
Well, the particle moving through Higgs field is not slowed down by it. It is the Change of it's speed (inertia) that is affected by the field. Or am I wrong? Because all particles would eventually stop... And the field would be overcharged with their kinetic energy.
ketanovas 1 month ago
@ketanovas
It is a bit of a poor analogy they use.
What the Higgs field effects is what mass a particular particle would have.
And heavier particles need more energy to move at the same speed as a lighter particle.
ytmoog 1 month ago
what makes electron goes trough thehiggs field with less friction than top quark? anyone, please.
khe3 1 month ago
@khe3 that's my question too :)
brahim121985brahim 1 month ago
In bosom we trust!
leitzakobideoak 1 month ago
My thought exactly. In order to find the answer we need to look in the first or last dimension to find it, but how?
im415again 2 months ago
the higgs boson is in another dimension
beastinblack 3 months ago
i even believe that all particles are eventually waves ,when you break them down smaller.
because before the Universe ,there had to be waves of something .
little strings of energy probably , like string theory suggested.
ImmortalUniverse 4 months ago
@ImmortalUniverse their shape determines how they interact with the field - like aerodynamics
beastinblack 3 months ago
@beastinblack It's not the shape. Or the size. I'm not learned in the math involved in quantum mechanics, but from what I know about it, it probably has a lot more to do with the vibration of the particles. Their wave's respective frequencies probably are the deciding factor when it comes to how they interact with the Higgs boson.
MetalicAtheist 1 month ago
yeah they arnt going to find the higgs, if it is a particle then how would it get out a black hole, this would mean that black holes have no gravity :S
Typho0n86 4 months ago
@Typho0n86 '
but i agree on the idea that a higgs aint a particle.
i also believe a neutrino and a foton aint a real particle.
but eletro magnitic waves .
a higgs is a wave that takes the energy back to the micro wave background of waves.
atleast, i think so.
so actually what i believe is that a neutrino is a particle created by waves and charged by fotons.
and a foton is a electric magnetic wave that creates a smaller particle then a neutrino..
but they are all the same..
(waves)
ImmortalUniverse 4 months ago
am I understanding correctly that matter is nothing more than particles that are entrapped in a locality only to vibrate/oscillate within a defined space? If said particles were to move freely outside of said locality then they have become more energetic up to the point where mass turns into pure energy? That means the HIggs Field is nothing more than a damper on an oscillating system?? Thus you can find the resonance frequency of the system??
u2ooberboober 4 months ago
am I understanding correctly that matter is nothing more than particles that are entrapped in a locality only to vibrate/oscillate within a defined space? If said particles were to move freely outside of said locality then they have become more energetic up to the point where mass turns into pure energy? That means the HIggs Field is nothing more than a damper on an oscillating system??
u2ooberboober 4 months ago
sad that there will likely be no such "smoking gun" or higgs particle found at cern. If it were the kind of thing that existed, by now they would have likely seen more hints from it. And nearly all ranges of energy have been tried. Sure, it could pop up at the last moment, but at this point I'm betting it won't. It will be 2012, 2013, 2014 etc and there will be no Higgs Boson found. The answer is likely elsewhere and that means a boring, long wait :-(.
sandozer7 4 months ago
it seems as though the "higgs feild" is time itself or "the 4th demesion" any1?
GhettoAttack1 5 months ago
Lord Sidious?
dragster178 6 months ago
Informative. Thank You!
Chronix74 6 months ago
and furthermore, that 6 hours instead of 3 was lucky is an opinion of the observer, and not a fact by any means. once again, you don't even understand what you're in a debate about. Mind is clouded by uncertainty and illogical assumptions of misrepresented data and poor analysis.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"Mind is clouded by uncertainty and illogical assumptions of misrepresented data and poor analysis."
You are indeed clouded by poor analysis and misrepresented data.
And you have yet to come up with anything.
You quote one study on an entirely unrelated topic and that is all. Which you would have known had you actually read it.
ytmoog 6 months ago
funny how you post these exerpts, yet don't fluently understand the nature of what they are even saying.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
like i said, you obviously haven't done your research very well.....can't just read one "study". Try their own website, goes into much further detail.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"Try their own website, goes into much further detail."
Have you?
"yet don't fluently understand the nature of what they are even saying."
Here is what they say:
"We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance expectation during the worst single day tragedy in American history."
Do you understand that?
ytmoog 6 months ago
ufos are speculatory......egyptians, mesoamericans, the Quran, Bible, Jung, Walker, and Green undeniably existed you moron. Just saying. Your smart ass comment just goes to show your obvious ignorance in this field, since it was obviously the best you could do.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
obviously you are passing up the parts that don't suit your personal beliefs, and possibly don't understand exactly what you are reading. Two scientists known best for studying Remote Viewing hardly dictate my decisions when it comes to these matters. And this theory didn't originate with the GCP.....more like I-Ching, Kabbalism, Egyptian and Mesoamerica sciences, and many other fields, including Jung, Evan Harris Walker, and Green. I suppose you are smarter than them though.....sry.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"I-Ching, Kabbalism, Egyptian and Mesoamerica"
You forgot UFO's.
ytmoog 6 months ago
"one special case" which is the clear indicator that something is obviously present!
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
Edwin May and James Spottiswoode on RNG
In our conclusion, we suggest that, except for one special case, the physical RNG database cannot be explained by any influence model, and that contradicting evidence from two experiments on biological systems should inspire more investigations in a way that would allow valid DAT analyses.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
Interestingly that paragraph shows nowhere in their study.
Here is from the conclusion of the study : "We have examined in detail the primary results with regard to the 11 September 2001 events as posted on the Global Consciousness Project web site and find that they do not
hold up under close inspection."
ytmoog 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
Another interesting bit...
"Radin’s a priori choice of a 6-hour sliding window we now see was most fortuitous. Had
it been 3-hours the odds graph would have looked considerably different and not
persuasive at all. (See the 3-hour window plot in Figure 8.)"
ytmoog 6 months ago
cont...
"Similarly Nelson’s choice of a 4-hour summation window was equally fortuitous. Had
the choice been three hours after the first event as the Embassy bombing case might
suggest, or 3-hours after the last New York City attack, which could be considered
consistent with the Embassy bombing as well, the formal null hypotheses would not have
been rejected at the p = 0.05 level."
Fascinating, they show quite well that
ytmoog 6 months ago
Continued, as you seem to be passing up anything which does not suit your delusions...
"Not only is it easy, post hoc, to locate such fluctuations, random data require that they
must exist somewhere. Additionally, to the general reader such statements are quite
misleading."
ytmoog 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"Edwin May and James Spottiswoode on RNG"
"In our conclusion, we suggest that, except for one special case,..."
Out of interest I looked up the study which goes with that quote.
They are not referring to the GCP in the study you quoted there.
The actual title of the study you quoted is :
"Applications of Decision Augmentation Theory"
Nowhere in it do they mention anything about GCP or 911. I suggest before you quote random studies you read them first.
ytmoog 6 months ago
gravity it's not just a good idea, it's the law
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
to see through this guys bs , turn below text into url by removing spaces and add hypertext markup language and world wide web prompts to beginning
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
11 September 2001, Attacks on USA
The indications that something quite unusual did happen in the RNG network before, during and after 9/11, were confirmed by independent researchers who conducted extensive statistical analyses that found striking anomalies in the data.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
The data was studied by independent scientists (like the study by Edwin May and James Spottiswoode) who found no statistically significant deviations in the data.
What they found was nothing inconsistent with natural variation in random data.
They did find huge problems in the methodology in that the researchers had no hypothesis, no specifications for what consists a 'event'.
Everything was manipulated to fit post hoc.
Which is not science, not even close.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog once again, based on your opinion. i haven't seen any links posted to support your opinions
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
Well, you could try searching for the study I mentioned.
Google seems to find it very easily.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog seems you are still lacking
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@ytmoog and in the end, left wanting
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
Yes, in the end we are all still waiting for any coherent hypothesis from the GCP.
But they certainly are good at bringing in the cash from the gullible.
ytmoog 6 months ago
any evidence that "everything" was manipulated????
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
and since you twist words to suit your beliefs and spout false information to suit your own beliefs, i'll leave your ignorance to you and those who wish to be enveloped by it. Back "Down The Rabbit Hole" for me. Like I said before, you can't even explain to someone what "space" is, so you obviously get your info from youtube and aren't qualified to discuss these matters properly to begin with. Nice day.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"Like I said before, you can't even explain to someone what "space" is..."
I prefer not to make up explanations for which there is no evidence. You should try it.
ytmoog 6 months ago
sry education.....some of us have phones that aren't truly smarter than themselves.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
This guy really needs to stop contradicting himself^
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
i prefer the metaphysical hypothesis that consciousness causes state vector collapse thereby creating the universe we know and see.....observation manifests particles into a particular state of being, which is scientifically backed by many different experiments that have been carried out over the last 20 years. Carl Jung referred to it as the Universal Unconsciousness to explain his observations of Syncronicity in the universe.....and RNG or random number generators have shown this accurately.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
Urgh, you are not talking about the global conciousness project are you?
What that shows is that if people try hard enough and mine enough data they will find something to confirm what they want to believe. As long as they ignore anything which doesn't fit, it is one big exercise in selection bias and Princeton should be really ashamed of having anything to do with it.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog explain the massive annomalies that occured during the 9/11 attacks....and many others. you're using opinion rather than relying on data as you should. You must not have paid attention to the explainations of the experiments that were conducted.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"explain the massive annomalies that occured during the 9/11 "
1. they were not 'massive'
2. similar 'anomalies' are frequent and they do not actually define what constitutes an anomaly in advance, only after the fact.
Which is where the cherry picking comes in....
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog
"explain the massive annomalies that occured during the 9/11 "
Just to add to this.
Two teams of independent scientists were asked to analyse the data after then and found no statistically significant change in the randomness of the data at any time during or after.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog obviously you are lacking in edjucation
1. immediately after the news released the images, they started recording the annomalies.
2. as stated in their report, "results were off the charts, and unlike any previous results recorded"
3. They also mine data for events when looking for new particles, which were predicted but still remained theories.....just as conscious creation was predicted yet still only a theory. Need to get your opinions worked out my friend. Edjucation
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"obviously you are lacking in edjucation"
Classic ;)
"immediately after the news "
Right, 'immediately, then they started mining the data for all they were worth...
And yet the two teams of scientists asked to analyse the data after them found no statistically significant events at all.
"They also mine data for events.."
Exactly, then mine the news for anything... and no doubt if they find nothing they ignore it.
"Edjucation"
Try it.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog and give me one example of biased selection or ingnored piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit??? For someone who couldn't define "space", you sure are quick to draw biased assumptions on what an organization such as Princeton should ashamed of......just saying brother, i meant no offense.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003
"For someone who couldn't define "space""
I prefer not to make speculative statements based on nothing but wishful thinking.
"and give me one example of biased selection"
It is simple enough they mine the data for 'events' then mine the news for anything vaguely around the time. If they don't find anything is gets ignored... The predictive power of that experiment is nil.
ytmoog 6 months ago
If the big bang happen and all that is is now the universe we know .What was before the big bang?If we say nothing was before the big bang.Then surly there was a intelligence design behind the big bang.Because in my humble option only a supernatural being aka (GOD ) can make something from nothing..Just a thought .
thmcbb 6 months ago
@thmcbb
"...and all that is is now the universe we know"
That might not be so, many physicists posit a larger 'multiverse'. M Theory is one such idea, although that is a long way from being testable as yet.
ytmoog 6 months ago
Belief in the big bang is little different than belief in a religion, IMO, there's no proof. It's all assumption.
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
Nope, it is based on direct observation of the universe through telescopes such as Hubble, observations of the universe in the far distant past using observatories such as WMAP, evidence from particle accelerators such as the LHC and Fermilab, along with much much more.
To say otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog Could you explain please If we and all matter started in the same place and we move slower than the speed of light how is it that we can see back to almost the time of the big bang would not that light be far beyond us?
fartohard 6 months ago
@fartohard
It is because the universe is expanding.
And the light which makes up the CMB would have been emitted from everywhere in the universe at the time.
So from the part of the universe we are in that light would be long gone, but if you look far enough into space you should see the light from that region given out a huge time ago now red shifted far into the microwave region.
And that is what is seen.
I will send you a good link on it...
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog: The hubble can look way off into the distance and catch a glimpse of the past because of the time light takes to reach us, but the big bang has never been directly observed. What has been observed is the momentum of galaxies as they move away from the center point. From this we can theorize that it all exploded from a point, but it's just a theory (unproven).
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
"but the big bang has never been directly observed"
Apart from the microwave background radiation of course.
"What has been observed is the momentum of galaxies as they move away from the center point."
This is a misunderstanding, there is no 'center' point. This is because it is the universe which is expanding not matter expanding into something.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@AnduinX so what kind of prove do you want? a video?a picture?I like to think of the big bang as a initial baloon blow (a very strong one); in your opinion since u seem very exceptic what else could have initiated such expansion?
Blazerelf 5 months ago
@ytmoog: The part that seems like a 'religion' is when they speak of what happened a miniscule fraction of a second after the bang, or say things like the laws of the universe did not exist before the bang. Frankly, how do they know this?
AnduinX 6 months ago
@AnduinX
There is quite a lot of evidence what the universe would have been like a fraction of a second after the initial point, mostly from data generated from particle accelerators which create energy densities as high as you would find during that point.
But they are also well aware of the uncertainties and many errors involved, this is why Physicists follow the evidence.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@AnduinX
"...or say things like the laws of the universe did not exist before the bang. Frankly, how do they know this?"
If anyone did say such a thing they would indeed be wrong.
As things stand there is a lot of speculation about a greater multiverse (See M Theory for an example), but that is far from being even testable.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@AnduinX
There is a good video which covers your points here :
watch?v=BB1B42HYvZg
Worth a watch I think...
ytmoog 6 months ago
What existed first after the big bang, space or the Higgs field? Or are they both the same thing? If not, then what is space?
itsonelouder1 6 months ago
@itsonelouder1
According to the hypothesis the Higg's field formed shortly after the big bang. (about a hundred billionth of a second)
As to what space is I have no idea.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog Thank you. The mystery of space holds the answers. What the **** is it?
itsonelouder1 6 months ago
@ytmoog space, i believe as generally excepted is an almost absolute vacuum that is cooled to around 1 or 2 Kelvin. apx 1 electron per cubic meter of "space" or something along those lines @itsonelouder1
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrEckster 6 months ago
So how would they actual detect the Higgs Boson, since it lasts for such a short period of time. And another question, you all might think I'm dumb...sorry I'm just curious. Where does the energy go when the Higgs Boson disappears if it's true energy is never destroyed, only changed?
lattask8er 6 months ago
@lattask8er
The Higgs is predicted to decay with certain patterns of particles, with the same total energy.
So if they see these decay chains at the expected rate in the expected pattern, that would indicate the Higgs boson was being created.
ytmoog 6 months ago
@ytmoog Oh ok.
lattask8er 6 months ago
@lattask8er the idea isn't actually detecting the higgs boson, but the pairs or (symmetry) of particles created upon the destruction of the boson. The theory doesn't call for the boson to disappear, but only change into it's constituent particles, since energy can neither be created or destroyed. in theory, you would get two gluon's, two up quarks, two electrons, yada yada......catch my drift???? the boson wouldn't disappear, but would be broken down into it's building blocks for detection.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003 Ahh, I see now...thank you very much. :]
lattask8er 6 months ago
@azzwal
"one must consider all possibilities"
I would rather consider all the evidence.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@azzwal
And I would also note that has been pointed out to you in the comment section of this video some time ago as well.
I take it learning is not something you are good at?
ytmoog 7 months ago
@azzwal
"nothing does not create something"
Actually according to the laws of physics something is the direct result of nothing.
It is not possible to have nothing.
The rest of your posts consisted entirely of meaningless gibberish.
ytmoog 7 months ago
most people that believe in the big bang theory don't actually quite "believe in it." more like they choose to believe/support it, or in other words that's where they put their faith.
frosty1433 8 months ago
@frosty1433
Physcists do not 'believe in it' nor do they have any 'faith' in it. They recognise it as the scientific theory which best explains all the observed evidence. Predictions made using the theory have been shown to be correct time and time again.
Try again, come up with somthing new at least.
ytmoog 8 months ago
@ytmoog it's correct that if they don't believe in it then they don't have faith in it. why then would they study something they don't believe, or why would they study something they believe not to make sense? so what I understood from you is that "Physicists" test theories and predictions that they have absolutely no faith in? or in other words, they are wasting their time? I don't mind if argue anything you feel is against your own beliefs, but atleast try to make sense when you speak to me.
frosty1433 8 months ago
@frosty1433
Where did I state they thought it 'made no sense'?
I thought it was very clear, it is a scientific theory which can be used to make predictions which have been shown to correct time and time again.
They study it because it is successful. No faith required, only evidence.
ytmoog 8 months ago
@ytmoog I'm not even sure why you're arguing this. is it that "faith" is a common word used by religious people, that offends you? I'm sorry you don't understand English, maybe you can make a prediction on what you believe faith to actually means, rather than what it doesn't? maybe then we can clear up this silly confusion on the English language.
frosty1433 8 months ago
@frosty1433
Where did I mention religeon? Or religious people?
You seem very keen to put words in my mouth.
Let's see, one dictionary describes 'faith' as 'belief that is not based on proof' and 'something that is believed especially with strong conviction'.
Both of those are great impediments to progress in science.
Scientific theories are accepted only as long as the evidence continues to support them.
ytmoog 8 months ago
@ytmoog it seemed like you were getting really offended by how hard you are trying to argue against me, which I'm not even sure why you're arguing. I was simply trying to figure you out based on a theory through evidence. can you please explain why you were offended in the first place?
also, what dictionary did you get that "definition" out of? #1 on Google's dictionary for "faith" is "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". I'm interested to know what you think "proof" means.
frosty1433 8 months ago
@frosty1433
"Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"
If you prefer; this one is as good as any of them.
"Complete trust"
And it fails right there. Complete trust is something a good scientist should never have.
"I'm interested to know what you think 'proof' means."
In science nothing is ever 'proved', and the term 'proof' is only used in mathematics.
Scientific theories are accepted only as long as all the evidence supports them.
ytmoog 8 months ago
@frosty1433
And to add...
"I'm not even sure why you're arguing."
I enjoy it.
Although you are getting a bit boring now.
ytmoog 8 months ago
@frosty1433 proof means good booze or bad booze, strong or weak! Am I wrong?
kayakbruce1 8 months ago
@frosty1433 i have to agree that scientists don't carry "faith" too often, because that entails accepting it as truth without questioning it's accuracy or looking at the evidnece set forth by previous experiments. ytmoog iscorrect in his arguement that the word "faith" had no room in the matters of scientific endevour. Faith is used in a spiritual or religous context, or even philisophical or psychological/sociological, but not in logical reasoning or logical deduction.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
Critical thinking is a good practice for scientists......."faith", not so much.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003 critical thinking is good practice for everyone... faith is instinct, critical thinking used to be instinct.
frosty1433 6 months ago
@frosty1433 faith/fāTH/Noun
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately."
faith has no room in science. and critical thinking = 0 faith
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
notice neither uses the term "instinct"......in their definition. what you are doing is giving your opinion of how you feel.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
sad how @thmcbb that you feel the need to make a supernatural being "out of nothing" to support concepts your mind just cannot grasp. Before religion, people understood that nature was key.....your God came millenia later.
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
what you fail to realize is that the same can be said both ways. maybe you're the one that cannot grasp the concept of a "supernatural being", so you follow the nature as a mental pacifier. you would probably call that the "safe choice", but the sure thing is that it is in fact a choice. I would also say that humans are and have been relying of nature for far longer than they ever relied on religion. influence of religion has been steadily declining since Sunday worship, and that can be proved.
frosty1433 6 months ago
which documentary is this from? i want to see the whole thing
DrFunkenstein666 8 months ago in playlist quantum physics
If the higgs field gives mass, and its very easy to see how it would, then higgs bosons are interacting with the matter in all of us right now. They're everywhere. Just like all the other bosons. All allowing exchanges of various forces. So the question is: if there is a way to detect a photon outside of the LHC, is there a way to detect the higgs outside of the LHC? I know the LHC has helped us find quarks that wouldn't normally occur but gravity or mass is very normal :-)
xual235 8 months ago
@TrashMountainComplex People still believe in God?
atdponch 8 months ago
which documentary has it taken from?
a1malik 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
people still believe in the big bang?
TrashMountainComplex 9 months ago
@TrashMountainComplex
If by 'people' you mean physicists and 'believe' you mean accept it as the scientific theory which best explains all the actual evidence then yes.
ytmoog 9 months ago 16
@ytmoog from the supposed big bang to 100 billioneth second after is all assumed, not yet any evidence for this period.....tis an assumption ;)
3tangle3 8 months ago
This seems to be somewhat reminiscent of the old ether theory. At least that's what I'm getting from the pictures and description. All particles have momentum and move through space filled with Higgs particles, the smaller particles interact less Higgs as they travel through it, and the larger ones interact with more.thus giving them more mass. Is this why matter gains more mass as it nears the speed of light? It is inter-acting with more of these Higgs (ether) particles?
ZoeGnosis 10 months ago
@ZoeGnosis Wow interesting thought! Very perceptive. I wonder if it is also.
stencilpro1 9 months ago
Right now, I can't really understand much about the Bosons, but I believe that since there is a way to test Higgs theory, we should. And we are, hopefully! It will greatly help physics.
bilos1993 10 months ago
Good explanation of how the Higg's field funtioned after the Big Bang!
BTW, I have no problem with any philosophical/theological comments that relate to the science & are intellectually honest -- we are talking about the origin of existence after all. The term "Big Bang" was coined as a dismissive epithet by the atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle who thought it seemed too much like an act of divine creation. It continues to be a fundamental existential enigma.
wordzly 10 months ago
@azzwal If you think about it. Darkness creates light, and in order for light to exist there must be darkness to distinguish it from. Everything works that way - In order for something to exist, there must be nothing to differentiate it. Something inevitably creates nothing, otherwise that something wouldn't exist to be distinguishable. And you are experiencing something rather than nothing, right? It's distinguishable? - Case Closed.
windigo77 11 months ago
@windigo77
"Darkness creates light."
Not really. Excited electrons create light.
"Everything works that way"
Nope.
Nothing can and does create particles, which are measurable and were predicted by quantum mechanics.
Nothing inevitably creates something according to the laws of physics.
ytmoog 11 months ago
You know what they say, "the sky is the limit"
my response: "Well we put a man on the moon"
a4o31 11 months ago
WHY ARE VIDEOS OF SCIENCE ALL OVER YOUTUBE GETTING CONTAMINATED WITH THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS!!! WHETHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIDEO'S CONTENT.
GOODNESS, MOVE YOUR DISCUSSIONS ELSEWHERE!!!
CarlosMarti123 11 months ago 4
@CarlosMarti123 or.....you could move your comments elsewhere
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003 Or... you could move your ass elsewhere.
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 awe....did i hurt babies feelings? wipe your vag and piss off you lil pup!
searchingfortruth003 6 months ago
@searchingfortruth003 The only baby here is you.
Were you talking about yourself? And you have a vag? I thought so.
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
Comment removed
TomHallMusic 1 year ago
@TomHallMusic
"Each question creates another question and will do so forever."
Why is this a problem?
Certainly along the way much is learned.
It may be just me but I dislike living in ignorance and will prefer to try and learn rather than settle for it.
If you wish to go right ahead.
ytmoog 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
TomHallMusic 1 year ago
@TomHallMusic "Questions are difficult to answer therefore we should not try to answer them HUURRRRDUURRR" -TomHallMusic
Word up to Ytmoog
woodpeckerwar 11 months ago
@azzwal
"nothing cant create..."
Not true. It is known from quantum mechanics that something is the inevitable result of nothing.
Try again.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog there is a also basic law that says "you can't create or destroy energy". you need another form of energy(think matter = energy) to create a particle and a antiparticle. there is also a imbalance between matter and antimatter which appears to be constant(which isn't the case if everything was created at big bang), so it's not that easy
no one has ever noticed a higgs boson so it might not even exist at all.
adolf512 1 year ago
@adolf512
"you can't create or destroy energy".
This law is not as simple as you state.
Firstly the total amount of energy is not constant in an expanding universe.
Also while energy can not be created it can be 'borrowed', for a short period.
Also no one has 'noticed' the higgs boson before because no one had the LHC before. That will either discover it or rule it out.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog i know energy can be somehow "borrowed" (even if it's not that simple) but it doesn't help sinse it's just for a short amount of time(shorter if the amount of energy is larger),
when the universe expands it doesn't change the total amount of enrgy it is just a tranformation from motion energy to potential energy
adolf512 1 year ago
@adolf512
"when the universe expands it doesn't change the total amount of enrgy"
Actually it does, it increases.
Unless of course you factor in negative energy then it remains at 0 (or close enough to it).
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog i've heard about that hypotes, there is a different hypotes that there have been infinit many big bangs and will be in the future becuase the gravaty makes always makes the universe collapse(there is other possibiliteis as well)
there is no need of negative energy if the higgs field doen's exist.
so the case is pretty open, you can't say for sure how it really is, but i am more inte the second one.
adolf512 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytmoog i know energy can be somehow "borrowed" (even if it's not that simple) but it doesn't help sinse it's just for a short amount of time(shorter if the amount of energy is larger),
when the universe expands it doesn't change the total amount of energy it is just a transformation from motion energy to potential energy
adolf512 1 year ago
@ytmoog Just curious why do we need a colider to find it if they are every where? Is it like an egg? You have to break it open to find the yolk?
stencilpro1 9 months ago
@stencilpro1
It is a tad complicated but in order to show if the Higgs particle exists or not they need to make them.
And make a lot of them so that there is a clear signal.
ytmoog 9 months ago
Well then why does the higgs field affect some particles more and some less? Why does it create the mass for each particle that it has?
seniorbooboojuice1 1 year ago
ARE ALL PARTICLES ALWAYS ACCELERATING OR DECELLERATING?
slowmopoke 1 year ago
Great Video, in my opinion i don't think a designer could have made such a universe with such complex tools. I mean from little tiny vibrating strings all the way to Einsteins theory of relativity, All the laws and forces in the universe are connected in some way or another. And they are dependent on each other to exist, its like a Giant Web and there all in the web together. And its like they all are missing links just like evolution and its mind blowing.
bboyloco3 1 year ago
@bboyloco3
Complex tools?
If you are referring to the laws of Physics you will find that they are much simpler in the early universe.
It is only in this old cold universe that they look complicated.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog So in the begging things were very simple? then when it got colder things got more complex?
bboyloco3 1 year ago
@bboyloco3
That is it.
And the LHC can revert the process very briefly in a very small area.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog I have another Question does Higgs Boson effect String Theory in anyway?
bboyloco3 1 year ago
@bboyloco3
I would thiink so, but I really don't know much about the specifics of string theory.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog oh i think it would effect it too, because string theory says if you break a quark down even more you will get to these little tinny vibrating strings. And it says those 1D strings vibrate in different frequency which results in all of the different forces in the universe.
bboyloco3 1 year ago
@ytmoog Replicate
KTK401 1 year ago
@KTK401
?
ytmoog 1 year ago
@KTK401 I think you were trying to say replicate rather than revert.
KTK401 1 year ago
@bboyloco3 everything still is simple... it's just that there are so many layers of simple, that in their collective, they are complex.
On the tiniest scale, the universe still works the same way it always did and will do. Due to the large timescale, the result of these processes has become complex. but the universe still works the simplest, possible way. otherwise all the laws that require energy-saving as a basic principle would be violated.
liquidminds 1 year ago
Good video. Narrator sounds gay, though...?
They're going to be running that beast for a while to get their Higgs Boson,
I imagine.
dippywatcher 1 year ago
Can somone tell me is this in the foundation level of GCSE sieance so look here brainiacs I wanna be like u guys and get A*s all the way so please explain
MichaelJacksonbad101 1 year ago
I may be only geussing, but it seems that the more a particle is similar to the Highs field, the less effect it has on the particle - just as it is in a palorised environment - the positive attracts the negative. What do tuo think? Is the Highs field a kind of polarisation?
pogan1983 1 year ago
@sarahogh
Electric current is simply the movement of electrons.
Photons are involved as the communicator particle for electromagnetic forces.
ytmoog 1 year ago
Einstien Right
Hawking Wrong
...
WE ARE FUCKED
97ginoVDB 1 year ago
@97ginoVDB
Who is 'Einstien'?
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog The founder of Generla Theoyr!
airfire23 1 year ago
@sarahogh
An unexpected decay pattern would indicate some new unknown particles or physics...
Which would be great news.
The Higgs has several predicted decay patterns expected and the absence of those would rule it out.
ytmoog 1 year ago
so has anyone noticed that the comment section of this video has been almost solely dedicated to showing how stupid this azkeyz guy is?
devileye669 1 year ago
@devileye669 Maybe that's because he is....
Think about it.
dippywatcher 1 year ago
Great explanation. Thanks for sharing this video.
aquapurity 1 year ago
If they fail to prove the existence of the Higgs it is still a win for science because at those energies it really should be there or it's back to the drawing board. Going back to the drawing board could save many years of wasted research. Falsifying a hypothesis is as good, if not better than confirming one.
jacksawild 1 year ago
aaaand my brain just suddenly caught fire.
lainnorcal 1 year ago
how is this theory affliation with particle mind or law of attraction....is it because we are considered mass and whatever we think through can come through depending how....see i get stuck i want to UNDERSTAND
lopez33361 1 year ago
how can this energy affliate with the law of attraction....is it because we are mass and whatever we think through can come through depending on what we want....I WANT TO UNDERSTAND!!!
lopez33361 1 year ago
and clueless as to how any photo of any kind can be taken of higgs field or partical since it would emit no detectable energy.
and still not evidence for any of the claims , just a loss of millions of dollars on a failed premise.
azkeyz 1 year ago
@azkeyz
Yes, you are indeed clueless.
They are not 'photographing the higgs', they are looking for decay paterns predicted by the hypothesis.
If they don't find them then the hypothesis is falsified.
(which is how science works)
Perhaps you should try and learn something about cosmology and particle physics before trying to criticise...
ytmoog 1 year ago 11
@ytmoog lol.......owned....and hes really right......but it is cute when uneducated minds try to put their 2 cents into something that obviously exceeds their capacity for thought.
devileye669 1 year ago