What exactly is the God particle?
-
From what I gathered from the Hulu documentary, the only thing that they did was to identify an energy generated from crashing some hydrogen protons together. That does not prove that energy is omnipresent in all space and matter, nor that it is responsible for the creation of the universe, as was implied in the article linked by Golden in his OP. Personally, I'm not interested in any links to any articles that can't spell things out in black and white, without tossing a bunch of theories around. As far as I'm concerned, the Higgs Boson is still just a theory.
Problem is a theory is a formal explanation of a law.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe you are mixing up theory vs hypothesis.
After saying (bolded in red) that you don't accept theories, you are refusing the explanation of a fact?
-
-
![]()
I'm not mixing anything up. Despite the fact that there is a difference in definition between the two terms, there is still a lot of similarity, as can be seen in the following"
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, which are
proposed explanations of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method, that fulfill certain criteria. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[3] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[4] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A fact is something that is not subject to contradiction, theories and hypotheses are. Despite the fact that I am not a scientist, and don't have any credentials to interject anything formally, I do not need them, because I am the authority on what I think and believe, and am not subject to any scientific organization. That is not to say that I reject all scientific findings, but there certainly are a number of them that I do.
-
I have no problem and I also don't see any facts just theory.
Example, a long time ago I read somewhere that scientist don't know how a bumble bee could fly. It's body to big and heavy for the wing size and a lot of other gibber jab about the theory of aerodynamics. We all know they do fly.
-
-
I have no problem and I also don't see any facts just theory.
Example, a long time ago I read somewhere that scientist don't know how a bumble bee could fly. It's body to big and heavy for the wing size and a lot of other gibber jab about the theory of aerodynamics. We all know they do fly.
As a retired pilot, I'm familiar with the bumble bee dilemma also. As I recall, the center of gravity of the bee is all wrong also.
-
I got those damn bee's flying around my house they love my flowers.
-
I find this discovery fascinating - I must be a nerd.
Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To me mathematics is the only pure discipline. Science is "just about" models of cause and effect. The 4 fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces exist to explain cause and effect. The search is to unify these but I doubt that humans will have some deep internal understanding of these things, just better mathematical models to explain the behavior. My very limited understanding of this new particle is that it ties together the theoretical model and has great significance.
-
-
I got those damn bee's flying around my house they love my flowers.
And your flowers love them for the pollination.
-
I have no problem and I also don't see any facts just theory.
Example, a long time ago I read somewhere that scientist don't know how a bumble bee could fly. It's body to big and heavy for the wing size and a lot of other gibber jab about the theory of aerodynamics. We all know they do fly.
Scientists Finally Figure Out How Bees Fly | LiveScience
-
I have no problem and I also don't see any facts just theory.
Example, a long time ago I read somewhere that scientist don't know how a bumble bee could fly. It's body to big and heavy for the wing size and a lot of other gibber jab about the theory of aerodynamics. We all know they do fly.
Scientists Finally Figure Out How Bees Fly | LiveScience
That article was about honey bees, not bumble bees. I have never heard anyone say that the flight of all bees can't be explained. Also, it only addresses part of the question, because it didn't touch on the center of gravity aspect. I imagine that the only reason that this "research" was done, is to fend off any statements about intelligent design, not with a true interest in the question. That makes this this finding questionable, and raises doubt about it's merit, and seems to just be a convenient means of working against ID, not for science.
-
Quote