I warned you about name calling Jacnas, and you did it again. Then you gave me a 2000 character response resonating with fear and anger. Keep focused, Jacnas, focus! Control your temper, and learn tolerance. Whether you are right or wrong on this issue is not the point. Accept the fact that CERN scientists have likely excluded an important missing piece of the Big Bang puzzle, and move on. Keep your responses to the 500 character maximum, and I am warning you to refrain from name calling.
@genogeno1234 If you read some pop-sci articles on the net, most physicists are not surprised that the Higgs boson has not yet been found and/or are witholding judgment until the end of 2012. Particularly because the LHC seems to have ruled out Higgs boson with mass in the range of 150-450 GeV and the Tevatron seems to be closing the low mass gap; but there is a window at around 120 GeV (which is close to the most likely predicted value) where it may yet reside; stay tuned for the next year!
@Jacnas Actually, most physicists are surprised that they haven't found it yet because the odds of it existing at those levels are very slim, hence the 95% confidence level.
@genogeno1234 Therefore the general understanding that the universe has originated in a hot dense state and has been expanding and cooling ever since is wrong? How so? Maybe some details and finer points are wrong but if Higgs is not found, how does that invalidate this empirical observation corroborated through decades of observation and experimentation?
@Jacnas I stated that we are at least 100 years from knowing the real truth. It was my opinion. These are exciting times we live in, and the work being done by physicists is astounding and I applaud their work. What I cannot (and will never accept) is that something came from nothing as implied by the current model. It reeks of creationism. Perhaps the Big Bang was merely one of an infinite number of "mini" big bangs. It makes more sense to me, I just don't know how it could be proven or not.
@genogeno1234 Have you even watched the video? We now understand that 'nothing' is really a boiling soup of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence on extremely short time scales. Believe it or not, on these small scales things DO come from nothing all the time. Quantum physics allows things to appear from nothing and this isn't controversial.
@genogeno1234 In the case of the universe this doesn't even have to violate the conservation of energy because the current observations (NOT theories, observations) strongly suggest that the universe is flat; it has no net curvature which means it's energy content is exactly zero; the negative gravitational potential exactly balances it's positive energy content.
@Jacnas the problem is that there currently doesn't exist one unified model. Hence the "100 year in the future" comment. Don't take it so personally that I don't agree on the Big Bang (as it has been taught) model. I am intrigued by the "multiverse" model which makes more common sense to me since it basically proposes that the big bang wasn't really a big bang, but rather one of an infinite number of sudden expansions.
Crackpot? Really? Are you that afraid of that your beloved model is failing that you resort to name calling? That is a manifestation of fear. Also, it is irrelevant that the Big Bang was discussed before the Higgs Boson. What is relevant is that the Big Bang is creationism masquerading as science. I respect your beliefs in the same way that I respect a muslim or christian's religion, but other than that, I look at the Big Bang model as nothing more than creationism masquerading as science.
@genogeno1234 The reason why you're a crackpot, and not just a skeptic or a dissenter, is your unwarranted haughtiness and smugness. In order to afford such confidence in your position you have to believe one or both of the following about the vast majority of experts who disagree with you:
1. That they are either corrupt liars in-it-for-the-money or
2. That they are incompetent fools.
This is common to all crackpots, whether they be creationists, 9/11 truthers or climate change deniers, etc.
@genogeno1234 Option 1 is problematic in view of the competitive nature of science; any scientist who could disprove the current model (and replace it with his ideas, ideally) would become famous, respected and get a lot of grant money! Young, budding scientists have a vested interest in disproving established theories to make a name for themselves.
@genogeno1234 Option 2 should create a cognitive dissonance in anyone who has half a brain. How do you reconcile the idea that the experts are fools if they designed, built and launched, among others, the Hubble Space telescope and the WMAP satellite, the latter enabling such precise observation of the cosmic microwave background that we now know the age of the universe to 4 decimal places? Is the WMAP mission just a very expensive fool's errand?
@genogeno1234 You want to be a dissenter and believe that the BB theory is wrong? Fine, then ask questions. The more inconvenient the better! But have some humility and realize that you bear a burden of proof. And you're up against some very competent, smart people.
CERN scientists have announced with a 95% confidence level that the Higgs Boson, the pillar upon which the Big Bang is predicated, does not exist. Maybe one day we will finally realize that we are at least 100 years from knowing the real truth. Let's call the Big Bang what it really is...creationism masquerading as science.
@genogeno1234 The Big Bang theory was formulated long before the existence of the Higgs Boson was theorized. Why are crackpots so adamantly against the big bang anyway?
How unfortunate that this brilliant theory gets to be shot at by people who don't know what they're talking about.
TwinSteel 3 months ago
I warned you about name calling Jacnas, and you did it again. Then you gave me a 2000 character response resonating with fear and anger. Keep focused, Jacnas, focus! Control your temper, and learn tolerance. Whether you are right or wrong on this issue is not the point. Accept the fact that CERN scientists have likely excluded an important missing piece of the Big Bang puzzle, and move on. Keep your responses to the 500 character maximum, and I am warning you to refrain from name calling.
genogeno1234 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 If you read some pop-sci articles on the net, most physicists are not surprised that the Higgs boson has not yet been found and/or are witholding judgment until the end of 2012. Particularly because the LHC seems to have ruled out Higgs boson with mass in the range of 150-450 GeV and the Tevatron seems to be closing the low mass gap; but there is a window at around 120 GeV (which is close to the most likely predicted value) where it may yet reside; stay tuned for the next year!
Jacnas 3 months ago
@Jacnas Actually, most physicists are surprised that they haven't found it yet because the odds of it existing at those levels are very slim, hence the 95% confidence level.
genogeno1234 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 Therefore the general understanding that the universe has originated in a hot dense state and has been expanding and cooling ever since is wrong? How so? Maybe some details and finer points are wrong but if Higgs is not found, how does that invalidate this empirical observation corroborated through decades of observation and experimentation?
Jacnas 3 months ago
@Jacnas I stated that we are at least 100 years from knowing the real truth. It was my opinion. These are exciting times we live in, and the work being done by physicists is astounding and I applaud their work. What I cannot (and will never accept) is that something came from nothing as implied by the current model. It reeks of creationism. Perhaps the Big Bang was merely one of an infinite number of "mini" big bangs. It makes more sense to me, I just don't know how it could be proven or not.
genogeno1234 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 Have you even watched the video? We now understand that 'nothing' is really a boiling soup of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence on extremely short time scales. Believe it or not, on these small scales things DO come from nothing all the time. Quantum physics allows things to appear from nothing and this isn't controversial.
Jacnas 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 In the case of the universe this doesn't even have to violate the conservation of energy because the current observations (NOT theories, observations) strongly suggest that the universe is flat; it has no net curvature which means it's energy content is exactly zero; the negative gravitational potential exactly balances it's positive energy content.
Jacnas 3 months ago
@Jacnas the problem is that there currently doesn't exist one unified model. Hence the "100 year in the future" comment. Don't take it so personally that I don't agree on the Big Bang (as it has been taught) model. I am intrigued by the "multiverse" model which makes more common sense to me since it basically proposes that the big bang wasn't really a big bang, but rather one of an infinite number of sudden expansions.
genogeno1234 3 months ago
Crackpot? Really? Are you that afraid of that your beloved model is failing that you resort to name calling? That is a manifestation of fear. Also, it is irrelevant that the Big Bang was discussed before the Higgs Boson. What is relevant is that the Big Bang is creationism masquerading as science. I respect your beliefs in the same way that I respect a muslim or christian's religion, but other than that, I look at the Big Bang model as nothing more than creationism masquerading as science.
genogeno1234 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 The reason why you're a crackpot, and not just a skeptic or a dissenter, is your unwarranted haughtiness and smugness. In order to afford such confidence in your position you have to believe one or both of the following about the vast majority of experts who disagree with you:
1. That they are either corrupt liars in-it-for-the-money or
2. That they are incompetent fools.
This is common to all crackpots, whether they be creationists, 9/11 truthers or climate change deniers, etc.
Jacnas 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 Option 1 is problematic in view of the competitive nature of science; any scientist who could disprove the current model (and replace it with his ideas, ideally) would become famous, respected and get a lot of grant money! Young, budding scientists have a vested interest in disproving established theories to make a name for themselves.
Jacnas 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 Option 2 should create a cognitive dissonance in anyone who has half a brain. How do you reconcile the idea that the experts are fools if they designed, built and launched, among others, the Hubble Space telescope and the WMAP satellite, the latter enabling such precise observation of the cosmic microwave background that we now know the age of the universe to 4 decimal places? Is the WMAP mission just a very expensive fool's errand?
Jacnas 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 You want to be a dissenter and believe that the BB theory is wrong? Fine, then ask questions. The more inconvenient the better! But have some humility and realize that you bear a burden of proof. And you're up against some very competent, smart people.
Jacnas 3 months ago
CERN scientists have announced with a 95% confidence level that the Higgs Boson, the pillar upon which the Big Bang is predicated, does not exist. Maybe one day we will finally realize that we are at least 100 years from knowing the real truth. Let's call the Big Bang what it really is...creationism masquerading as science.
genogeno1234 3 months ago
@genogeno1234 The Big Bang theory was formulated long before the existence of the Higgs Boson was theorized. Why are crackpots so adamantly against the big bang anyway?
Jacnas 3 months ago
Truly mindblowing stuff.
Thanks for posting!
TomFynn 10 months ago