What exactly is the God particle?

[Golden]

I think you may be over-thinking the issue, so lets make it simple : gravity is simply a force, just like electromagnetic and nuclear forces. I don't understand what else you require before you will let go of the word 'theory'

 

[seekermeister]

I agree that you don't understand my thinking or perspective, but you never will by simply beating the same old drum. It seems apparent that I will never convince you of anything along these lines, nor will you convince me either. I would prefer to over think a subject, rather than under think it.

 

[Golden]

:sarc: ?

 

[boohbah]

You fail to understand what I said. You cannot define what anything is by merely describing their characteristics and effects. It is easy only if you settle for less than a complete understanding.

bit like faith then int it.
one thing you cant accuse me of is being a religious fanatic.
(defining someone by their characteristics and effects)

 

[seekermeister]

You fail to understand what I said. You cannot define what anything is by merely describing their characteristics and effects. It is easy only if you settle for less than a complete understanding.

bit like faith then int it.
one thing you cant accuse me of is being a religious fanatic.
(defining someone by their characteristics and effects)

All faiths are not equal, because they consist of different substances. There are fanatics, fans and devotees of every faith. I have not yet figured to which faith you belong, nor how you rank in it.

 

[Layback Bear]

Hell they haven't figured what gravity is.

Better have a read of this mate:
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That verifies my point. We know it's there. We think we know what it does but we really don't know what it is and how it is produced other than theory. We can't produce it or store it. We can't stop it or change it.Their are theories like quantum mechanics. All we really know is that it is a force we have to have or their wouldn't even be a atmosphere around the earth.

 

[ionbasa]

as to what gravity is, the most accepted answer is "Gravity is a consequence of the structure of matter."
What causes gravity - dark energy, the new aether
you can also brush up on Quantum gravity here: Quantum gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are also some special considerations to take into account, Newtonian physics and quantum physics don't "work together" per say so there are multiple views on gravity:
Newton's and Einstein's views

Part of the problem is that on the quantum level things act unnaturally, an example of this is a particle acting like a wave or a wave like a particle.

Until we can find a definite reason for gravity it will always be a theory, much like the Higgs Boson, at first it was a theoretical particle, until they found proof.

 

[seekermeister]

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.

 

[Kari]

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.

With utmost respect for your and everybody else's beliefs, as far as I have understood you accept something else being "omnipresent in all space and matter, and being responsible for the creation of the universe" with far, far less proof.

Why do you have so big difficulties to accept scientific facts?


Sincerely,

Kari

 

[seekermeister]

With a reciprocal respect for your beliefs, I think that I have already made it clear that I do not consider theories nor vague evidence as the basis for facts. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that?

 

[ionbasa]

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?

 

[seekermeister]

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.

 

[Layback Bear]

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.

 

[seekermeister]

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.

 

[Layback Bear]

I got those damn bee's flying around my house they love my flowers.

 

[mjf]

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.

 

[seekermeister]

I got those damn bee's flying around my house they love my flowers.

And your flowers love them for the pollination.

 

[derekimo]

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

 

[seekermeister]

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.

 

[z3r010]

Flight Of The Bumble Bee Is Based More On Brute Force Than Aerodynamic Efficiency