Tomorrow's headline:

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mickeyl

Guest
<font size="2">Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money.&nbsp; Higgs particle is a bigger joke than bigfoot.</font>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV><br />... your wager being? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

why06

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money.&nbsp; Higgs particle is a bigger joke than bigfoot. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>It will take months to process all the data. And even then I don't believe the Higgs particle will be even looked for until next year when they run it at full power. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money.&nbsp; Higgs particle is a bigger joke than bigfoot. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>This is quite an improvement.&nbsp; One can discern your unambiguous thought and even see a hint of an intent.</p><p>You are totally off base, but at least this time we know which base.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money.&nbsp; Higgs particle is a bigger joke than bigfoot. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></font><br />You really don't get it.&nbsp; Not finding the Higgs may even be a bigger triumph for the LHC than finding it.&nbsp; The purpose of the LHC is to find what is there, not to predict what is there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You really don't get it.&nbsp; Not finding the Higgs may even be a bigger triumph for the LHC than finding it.&nbsp; The purpose of the LHC is to find what is there, not to predict what is there. <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>I'd rather think that 'not finding it' won't be taken to mean it doesn't exist, instead argument would be made for a still bigger colider, at most one would be able to say that the probability that Higgs particle exists are now lower than they have been prior to the new colider experiments</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>on another note, I can see how the OP can grate on people's views but that's still no reason for replies in the tone that DrRocket employs and for personal attacks, in short I find his reply reprehensible and one which has no place on any forum </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money.&nbsp; Higgs particle is a bigger joke than bigfoot. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>You realise that the experiment is set to run for decades, don't you? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money.&nbsp; Higgs particle is a bigger joke than bigfoot. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>Won't be tomorrow's headline for sure, as many allready pointed out.</p><p>Who Knows? Higg's could very well be a Bigfoot. Waste of money could be argued. Complete flop is out of order though, seeing as&nbsp;the experiment&nbsp;allready up and running, and represents a huge succes&nbsp;for international cooperation that will help set the standard for future endeavours. As mentioned elsewhere, the&nbsp;challenges involved in dataprocessing allready produced spinn-off technology for other projects.</p><p>Appreciate you starting your own thread on the subject.&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;on another note, I can see how the OP can grate on people's views but that's still no reason for replies in the tone that DrRocket employs and for personal attacks, in short I find his reply reprehensible and one which has no place on any forum <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Sorry you are offended,&nbsp; But not very sorry.</p><p>When people post unsubstantiated opinions to the effect that a large group of very talented scientists are acting irresponsibly, they deserve harsh treatment.&nbsp; While everyone has a right to his opinion, not all opinions have value.&nbsp; Moreover, unchallenged, such nonsensical statements can do a significant amount of damage to young people who are forming their own opinions and who may not have the necessary background in the facts to recognize nonsense quickly.&nbsp; There are far more people reading this forum than post here. </p><p>Challenging mainstream beliefs is part and parcial of science, but a valid challenge requires valid logic and verifiable facts as a basis.&nbsp; Nonsense is nonsense and ought to be quickly and clearly identified for what it is.</p><p>I was actually complimenting mickeyl.&nbsp; His posts have graduated from gibberish to rubbish.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

why06

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry you are offended,&nbsp; But not very sorry.When people post unsubstantiated opinions to the effect that a large group of very talented scientists are acting irresponsibly, they deserve harsh treatment<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I agree. mickeyl statement was nothing more than a random burp that happened to land on the interwebs. I was not tommorrows headline and will probalbly never be in tommorrow's headline of any note-worthy publishment. In fact I think our even discussing it was giving mickeyl's comment much more credit than it was worth. I'm an advocate for fair treatment, but some people deserve a little smack in the face every now and then to get em' to shut-up. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff6600">When people post unsubstantiated opinions to the effect that a <strong>large group of very talented scientists</strong> are acting irresponsibly</font>, they deserve harsh treatment.&nbsp; While everyone has a right to his opinion, not all opinions have value.&nbsp; Moreover, unchallenged, such nonsensical statements can do a significant amount of damage to young people who are forming their own opinions and who may not have the necessary background in the facts to recognize nonsense quickly.&nbsp; There are far more people reading this forum than post here. Challenging mainstream beliefs is part and parcial of science, but a valid challenge requires valid logic and verifiable facts as a basis.&nbsp; Nonsense is nonsense and ought to be quickly and clearly identified for what it is.I was actually complimenting mickeyl.&nbsp; His posts have graduated from gibberish to rubbish. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font size="2" color="#ff6600">British scientist Professor Stephen Hawking has bet 100 dollars (70 euros) that a mega-experiment this week will not find an elusive particle seen as a holy grail of cosmic science</font> </DIV></p><p>how about Stephen Hawking, doesn't he also deserve harsh treatment given his bet amounts at least partly to what the OP here said? what about HIS influence on young people, surely his attitude will have way more influence...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>you know, people are not so benighted and can sort for themselves what is nonsense and what is not and they don't need to be babied under your patronage, not saying one cannot oppose what people post, all I am saying is that every such opposition should include at least some reasoning and not be just a heap of personal attack and nothing else</p><p>and if you feel that any reasoning would be wasted, then don't post if you don't have anything better to say, I can say that again, posts that contain nothing but a personal attack have no place on any forum</p><p>&nbsp;-------------------</p><p>the very first sentence in the quote above (which I put in orange and bold) speak tons of your blind trust in official physics community and its views, if they are <font color="#ff6600">many </font>and with <font color="#ff6600">titles </font>to their names, you take that fact itself as some sort of guarantee and deserving of respect, on the other hand a lonely voice of an individual or a minority doesn't carry any weight with you simply because it is just one voice or minority voice and as such is automatically regarded with suspicion or worse (riducule and personal attack on one's knowledge and abilities...)</p><p>that's much wider issue than just this thread and its OP's person and harks back to my previous defense against your attacks of this kind, the reason I earned personal attacks from you are the same - your attitude towards me is - 'who is this guy with his lone defense of absolute space (ether) against the opinion of the absolute majority of scientific community' and any merrit of my position didn't even come to consideration really*, my voice was simply just one voice against the majority and as such had to be cranky, majority simply can't be wrong in your world, your's sir is hundred percent herd mentality</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>and what that means that there are '<font color="#ff6600">very talented</font>' people collaborating on LHC project, does that in itself give that collaboration some merrit? 'tallented' by whose or what standards? by the standards of the historical physics achievements? there is such a thing as sleeping on laurels I'd say </p><p> I dare say talented people could always have been said to be in sciences at any time in past history because it is relative term to a large extent depending on times one lives in, too bad that physics ground to a virtual halt for the past half a century or more when one considers fundamental advances such as were the rule during the decades of the first half of the previous century, currently major issues like the dark matter or energy phenomena languish, the former now close on to half a century and the other is getting long in tooth also, what good did those tallented people when they spent uncounted hundreds of millions of dollars in grants on experiments regarding these issues with no result whatever and the solution when it comes might very well show them to have been off base all along </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>--</p><p>* proof that you were not concerned&nbsp; with any arguments is that when I made a point and won the argument, it was just passed on in silence while other attacks and or dismisals were made as if those successfull arguments were like clean air that one doesn't notice, you simply don't care about myslef making the case for absolute space and your mind is made up, once and for all, simply becasue wide physics community holds different (opposite) views </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree. mickeyl statement was nothing more than a random burp that happened to land on the interwebs. I was not tommorrows headline and will probalbly never be in tommorrow's headline of any note-worthy publishment. In fact I think our even discussing it was giving mickeyl's comment much more credit than it was worth. I'm an advocate for fair treatment, but some people deserve a little smack in the face every now and then to get em' to shut-up. <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>there are many threads on this forum which I completely passed on commenting because I thought they were of no value, that is being nonsensical sci-fi like rambling (of course not all threads that I don't comment on are that), in fact if everybody followed the same policy those threads would have gone down forgotten and even the most naive around here would not take them for valid physics views, nevermind that such policy shuts up people most effectively as well as mark such posts as unsound in effect</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>that said, there are quite a few among established physics community that think about LHC pretty well the same thing although they may not say it with such a pessimism, still it is true that any such project is not a complete waste of money, one learns even from mistakes and the bigger they are the more one 'learns', plus there are the spinoffs as you say</p><p>scientists around the LHC now will be under big expectation pressures and I expect we might see premature annoucements of Earth shaking results that will then fall on their face, nature of experiments of this kind is that their interpretation is not black and white from just one or few results and often scientists end up seeing what is not there if the motivation is high enough, happened time and time again before </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>myself I am inclined to see the LHC as the dinosaur of its kind that even if it will yield some results (but not the expected ones) they won't be of the kind to justify it, somewhat as the space shuttle program which didn't do much for space exploration (except perhaps things like launching (?) and servicing Hubble telescope) and about which one could also argue in terms of spinoff technologies... too bad that the inital vague but huge expectations never materialized (those about labs in freefall coming out with revolutionary technologies and experiments that would change the physics...) and even the 'cheap' means (due to reusability) of getting to orbit fell on its face, logical as it seemed initially in theory, shuttles are anything but cheap and Russians seem to be able to do just about the same thing with their rockets and for a lot less money&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>how about Stephen Hawking, doesn't he also deserve harsh treatment given his bet amounts at least partly to what the OP here said?</font> <font color="#333399">what about HIS influence on young people, surely his attitude will have way more influence...</font><br /><font color="#333399"> Posted by vandivx</DIV></font><br /><font color="#800000"><font color="#000000">Opening Post:</font> <font size="1">"</font></font><font size="1" color="#800000">Large Hadron Collider is a complete flop, and total waste of scientific money."</font> </p><p><font color="#800000"><font color="#000000">Hawking:</font> "Both the LHC and the Space program are vital if the human race is not to stultify and eventually die out.Together they cost less than one tenth of a per cent of world GDP. If the human race can not afford this, then it doesn't deserve the epithet 'human'."</font><font color="#800000">&nbsp; </font></p><p>Steven Hawking would have a very poor view toward the attitude of the opening poster.&nbsp; Yes, he made a bet that the Higgs particle would not be found, but as I have already said, the value of the LHC is NOT dependent on the Higgs being found.&nbsp; Its value is in its ability to look beyond where we have already seen and show us what is there, and what is not there.&nbsp; (edit: Yes, I do hope that Professor Hawking's attitude influences young people.) </p><p>&nbsp;</p><div class="storyHead"> <h1><font color="#0000ff">Stephen Hawking: Large Hadron Collider vital for humanity</font></h1><font color="#0000ff"><u>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2710348/Stephen-Hawking-Large-Hadron-Collider-vital-for-humanity.html</u></font><h2><font color="#0000ff">The work of the Large Hadron Collider is crucial for the survival of humanity, according to Professor Stephen Hawking. </font></h2><strong><font size="3" color="#0000ff"> Prof Hawking made clear that the LHC project is one of the most important in the history of scientific endeavour.</font></strong></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>Comparing Hawking's statement to MickyL's???&nbsp; That was the best laugh I have had all week.&nbsp; Did you happen to read the rest of what Hawking had to say about the LHC?&nbsp; The context of the two statements are so far apart, I can't even make a proper analogy.</p><p>Not to mention, Hawking has a propensity for losing bets.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>how about Stephen Hawking, doesn't he also deserve harsh treatment given his bet amounts at least partly to what the OP here said? what about HIS influence on young people, surely his attitude will have way more influence...&nbsp;{/QUOTE]</p><p>What about Hawking's statement.&nbsp; He is making a bet that they don't actually find a Higgs boson.&nbsp; That seems perfectly reasonable to me.&nbsp; He is not stating that they should not look.&nbsp; He is not stating that they are wasting their time performing an experiment.&nbsp; He is merely stating his guess as to the outcome of that experiment.&nbsp; I think he has had quite a positive influence on young people -- and that is due to his use of rigor and reason in reacing conclusions and in clearly noting the differences&nbsp;among fact, hypothesis and speculation.&nbsp; He does a lot of speculating.&nbsp; Sometime he is right.&nbsp; Sometimes he is wrong.&nbsp; But his speculations are alwars responsible, and based on real physics and real logic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you know, people are not so benighted and can sort for themselves what is nonsense and what is not and they don't need to be babied under your patronage, not saying one cannot oppose what people post, all I am saying is that every such opposition should include at least some reasoning and not be just a heap of personal attack and nothing elseand if you feel that any reasoning would be wasted, then don't post if you don't have anything better to say, I can say that again, posts that contain nothing but a personal attack have no place on any forum&nbsp;-------------------the very first sentence in the quote above (which I put in orange and bold) speak tons of your blind trust in official physics community and its views, if they are many and with titles to their names, you take that fact itself as some sort of guarantee and deserving of respect, on the other hand a lonely voice of an individual or a minority doesn't carry any weight with you ...</DIV></p><p>On the contrary, much very good physics has come about because of&nbsp;the insight of a single individual who is thinking outsid the box. or a a group of individuals struggling with a difficult problem and thinking outside the box.&nbsp; The work of Lorentz and Poincare influenced a maverick named Einstein who came up with special relativity and then in a second bit of original work and outstanding insight formulate general relativity.&nbsp; Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, DeBroglie, Einstein Wigner and others were thinking way outside the box to conceive and then develop quantum mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp;Dirac extended that to&nbsp;include special relativity and in the process discovered that the laws of physics not only accomodate but actually demand the existence of anti-matter.&nbsp; Schwinger, Tomonaga and&nbsp;Feynman took that&nbsp;base and developed a viable theory of quantum electrodynamics,&nbsp;another triumph of oriniginal thinking.&nbsp;&nbsp;Glashow, Salam and Weinberg went further and&nbsp;unified quantum electrodynamics with the theory of the weak force, the electroweak theory.&nbsp; Gell Mann&nbsp;and Zweig thought outside the box and proposed the existence of quarks which lead to the theory of the strong force --&nbsp;quantum chromodynamics.</p><p>The history of science&nbsp;and physics in particular is filled with examples of individuals thinking independently and creatively.&nbsp; The key is that they pursued their ideas in a rigorous and&nbsp;disciplined manner.&nbsp; They knew what in classical theory might be open to challenge and what was sufficiently well supported by experiment and a body of theory to be taken as foundational.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The importance of the correspondence principle -- that new theories must&nbsp;reduce to established theories in the&nbsp;those situations in which the established theories are known to provide valid and accurate predictions -- cannot be overemphasized.&nbsp;&nbsp;Creative thinking is the lifeblood of science.&nbsp; But to simply declare that established physics is wrong is utterly foolish.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>simply because it is just one voice or minority voice and as such is automatically regarded with suspicion or worse (riducule and personal attack on one's knowledge and abilities...)that's much wider issue than just this thread and its OP's person and harks back to my previous defense against your attacks of this kind, the reason I earned personal attacks from you are the same - your attitude towards me is - 'who is this guy with his lone defense of absolute space (ether) against the opinion of the absolute majority of scientific community' and any merrit of my position didn't even come to consideration really*, my voice was simply just one voice against the majority and as such had to be cranky</DIV></p><p>Not at all.&nbsp; Your voice did not have to be considered cranky because of an unorthodox position.&nbsp; Unorthodox positoins , as noted earlier, have been the source of much progress in physics.&nbsp; It is the nature of your position, the content of&nbsp;your assertion of absolute motion, the lack of specificity as to how that absolute motion might be recognized, and the lack of rigor in your reasoning that&nbsp;is the mark of a crank.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>majority simply can't be wrong in your world, your's sir is hundred percent herd mentality&nbsp;and what that means that there are 'very talented' people collaborating on LHC project, does that in itself give that collaboration some merrit? 'tallented' by whose or what standards? by the standards of the historical physics achievements? there is such a thing as sleeping on laurels I'd say I dare say talented people could always have been said to be in sciences at any time in past history because it is relative term to a large extent depending on times one lives in, too bad that physics ground to a virtual halt for the past half a century or more when one considers fundamental advances such as were the rule during the decades of the first half of the previous century, currently major issues like the dark matter or energy phenomena languish, the former now close on to half a century and the other is getting long in tooth also, what good did those tallented people when they spent uncounted hundreds of millions of dollars in grants on experiments regarding these issues with no result whatever and the solution when it comes might very well show them to have been off base all along &nbsp;--* proof that you were not concerned&nbsp; with any arguments is that when I made a point and won the argument, it was just passed on in silence while other attacks and or dismisals were made as if those successfull arguments were like clean air that one doesn't notice, you simply don't care about myslef making the case for absolute space and your mind is made up, once and for all, simply becasue wide physics community holds different (opposite) views <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>You seem to want to try to restate my opinions for me and you distort them to your own ends when you do so.&nbsp; I have nothing but admiration for those who can work in a rigorous and disciplined manner to produce creative physics.&nbsp; But there is a large difference between vision and hallucination.&nbsp; You have not won the arguments that you think you have.&nbsp; You in fact have produced no specific justification for any notion of absolute space whatever.&nbsp; If you have a case you simply have not made it.</p><p>Feel free to present a serious argument.&nbsp; But that argument should be rigorous, and specific.&nbsp; If you have a useful notion of absolute space then define it in rigorous mathematical terms and be prepared to defend in in those terms as well.&nbsp; Saying that the mainstream is wrong will not due.&nbsp; You need to PROVE your case using rigoroug mathematics and physics.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vastbluesky92

Guest
<p>I would say that DrRocket was overreacting if this had been mickeyl's first post, but he has proved again and again that his scientific ideas are gibberish and outside of reality and will never listen to well thought out responses, so when he makes a blatant statement like this it isn't just like he's some new guy who read something on the internet and believed it. I would have given up responding to him at all by now.</p><p>I wouldn't agree with centsworth that not finding it would be more of a triumph than finding it--it would be such an amazing discovery which would elucidate a lot about particle physics and mass--but it's definitely a win-win situation. Whatever we find we know a lot more than before. Also, sometimes it seems as if people forget that searching for the higgs particle is only one of the myriad ways that LHC can expand our knowledge of physics.</p><p>By the way, I saw someone else on a message board or something using derekmcd's avatar and my initial reaction was "What, he stole that from derek!?!" Just thought that was amusing.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>--____________________________________________--</p><p><font size="1"> Don't be too hard on me...I'm only in PHY 1010 ;)</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#339966">         The following goes without saying:</font> </p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would say that DrRocket was overreacting if this had been mickeyl's first post, but he has proved again and again that his scientific ideas are gibberish and outside of reality and will never listen to well thought out responses, so when he makes a blatant statement like this it isn't just like he's some new guy who read something on the internet and believed it. I would have given up responding to him at all by now.Posted by vastbluesky92</DIV></p><p><br />look what I did, I didn't respond to his (OP)&nbsp;post, if everybody did the same, he would soon go away if his track record is as you say (which I suppose is&nbsp;as you say&nbsp;but I don't particularly look even who posted when I see garbage and so can't say myself one way or another), basically I can only repeat myself -&nbsp;if one has nothing to say except put somebody&nbsp;down then its better if one doesn't post at all as it serves no purpose whatever, ignoring such posts&nbsp;is much more&nbsp;in keeping with forum etiquette&nbsp;and effective</p><p>BTW when I see how people are picqued by negative comments re LHC I can only see that as their insecurity as to its expected&nbsp;import, else why such aggresive&nbsp;defensiveness</p><p>to be honest, knowing Hawking I didn't really&nbsp;think his bet was putting down LHC as such&nbsp;or being against it, likely he just thinks that there's no Higgs particle, clearly&nbsp;he would be rooting&nbsp;for such mamoth project but that in my eyes is a minus for it, his predictions of future of physics as well as its projects like this one leave a lot to be desired to put it politely (it is not that long that he thought physics essentially&nbsp;finished, like that writer Fukuyama (spelling) who thought world&nbsp;history was finished some ten or fifteen yrs back)</p><p>I'd say&nbsp;Hawking made the bet to call attention to himself and to LHC project or just to have&nbsp;something interesting to say to those&nbsp;pesky newspaper men, the seriousness with which&nbsp;people took my sort of tongue in cheek comparison was to be expected given the circumstances</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the contrary, much very good physics has come about because of&nbsp;the insight of a single individual who is thinking outsid the box. or a a group of individuals struggling with a difficult problem and thinking outside the box.&nbsp; The work of Lorentz and Poincare influenced a maverick named Einstein who came up with special relativity and then in a second bit of original work and outstanding insight formulate general relativity.&nbsp; Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, DeBroglie, Einstein Wigner and others were thinking way outside the box to conceive and then develop quantum mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp;Dirac extended that to&nbsp;include special relativity and in the process discovered that the laws of physics not only accomodate but actually demand the existence of anti-matter.&nbsp; Schwinger, Tomonaga and&nbsp;Feynman took that&nbsp;base and developed a viable theory of quantum electrodynamics,&nbsp;another triumph of oriniginal thinking.&nbsp;&nbsp;Glashow, Salam and Weinberg went further and&nbsp;unified quantum electrodynamics with the theory of the weak force, the electroweak theory.&nbsp; Gell Mann&nbsp;and Zweig thought outside the box and proposed the existence of quarks which lead to the theory of the strong force --&nbsp;quantum chromodynamics.The history of science&nbsp;and physics in particular is filled with examples of individuals thinking independently and creatively.&nbsp; The key is that they pursued their ideas in a rigorous and&nbsp;disciplined manner.&nbsp; They knew what in classical theory might be open to challenge and what was sufficiently well supported by experiment and a body of theory to be taken as foundational.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The importance of the correspondence principle -- that new theories must&nbsp;reduce to established theories in the&nbsp;those situations in which the established theories are known to provide valid and accurate predictions -- cannot be overemphasized.&nbsp;&nbsp;Creative thinking is the lifeblood of science.&nbsp; But to simply declare that established physics is wrong is utterly foolish.&nbsp;Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>you don't read what I post, it is easy&nbsp;in hindsight&nbsp;to say what you say&nbsp;here but if you were around in those days, you&nbsp;would be talking quite differently and most likely would&nbsp;not be so openminded at all, instead you would be&nbsp;rooting for the particular&nbsp;established physics position&nbsp;whatever it&nbsp;would be at the time,&nbsp;it is very easy to claim post historical&nbsp;fact one's openmindedness but quite another when it comes to testing it in present times on new fresh challenges</p><p>also, I have NEVER "simply declare[d] that established physics is wrong ", you put that into my mouth,&nbsp;it comes from your spite towards me and not from what I said or implied in my recent&nbsp;posts as I would never make such a sweeping&nbsp;statement or&nbsp;claim anything like that simply because I don't think in wildest dreams that all that is established in physics&nbsp;is wrong, all it shows is your hatered of my views becasue they don't toe the line on some particular points of established physics and it clouds your mind</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all.&nbsp; Your voice did not have to be considered cranky because of an unorthodox position.&nbsp; Unorthodox positoins , as noted earlier, have been the source of much progress in physics.&nbsp; It is the nature of your position, the content of&nbsp;your assertion of absolute motion, the lack of specificity as to how that absolute motion might be recognized, and the lack of rigor in your reasoning that&nbsp;is the mark of a crank.&nbsp; Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>apparently&nbsp;the points I raised&nbsp;like that twin experiment which I claimed proves the existence of absolute space fell on (conveniently)&nbsp;deaf ears - essentially I claimed there that the&nbsp;time dilation due to uniform motion is not strictly&nbsp;relative but accumulates and so is real and so&nbsp;the space must be real, that is absolute, because motion in it has real lasting effects which directly&nbsp;contradicts relativity of motion of SR</p><p>in turn then, I argued that this very phenomenon - time dilation due to uniform motion - could in principle be used to establish the degree of motion in this absolute space including the absolute rest, which would be the state in which time dilation would be minimized relative to all other reference frames ( I say in principle because our hands are still&nbsp;full just establishing the time dilation as such never mind the fine measurements&nbsp;that&nbsp;would be&nbsp;needed to establish the&nbsp;absolute rest via this effect)</p><p>supposing my ideas regarding the absolute space are altogether wrong, still the inconsistencies in physics (or even contradictions as per above) would still stand and anybody who is&nbsp;simply not just after mantaining status quo would want them cleared up, burrying one's head in sand won't make the problems go away</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You seem to want to try to restate my opinions for me and you distort them to your own ends when you do so.&nbsp; I have nothing but admiration for those who can work in a rigorous and disciplined manner to produce creative physics.&nbsp; But there is a large difference between vision and hallucination.&nbsp; You have not won the arguments that you think you have.&nbsp; You in fact have produced no specific justification for any notion of absolute space whatever.&nbsp; If you have a case you simply have not made it.Feel free to present a serious argument.&nbsp; But that argument should be rigorous, and specific.&nbsp; If you have a useful notion of absolute space then <font color="#ff0000"><strong><em>define it in rigorous mathematical terms and be prepared to defend in in those terms as well.&nbsp; Saying that the mainstream is wrong will not due.&nbsp; You need to PROVE your case using rigoroug mathematics and physics.</em></strong></font>&nbsp; Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>your speaking of rigor I suppose means supplying&nbsp;quantitative base as I believe&nbsp;the arguments I made were&nbsp;pretty rigorous as far as they went (in fact few people around this forum are as painstaking in presenting their ideas), that recalls to me the comment I think S. Weinberg made regarding Einstein's 1905 paper on SR which he said was like from different world, that physics community was taken aback by the fact that the paper consisted&nbsp;in such a&nbsp;large part&nbsp;in just a&nbsp;verbal arguments and that&nbsp;the mathematical expressions that were there&nbsp;were very few and far in between which was unusuall even in those days before the modern times came in when any verbal comments are thinly inserted among the veritable forest of mathematical notation as is the case nowadays... free citation </p><p>I don't know that Einstein was called crank and not rigorus enough as much as the paper was contentious for a long time after being published</p><p>your call for rigorous presentation is preposterous, you seem to forget&nbsp;we are not on some closed forum&nbsp;professionally moderated by peers but on fully amateur forum where people are free to put things into fray to be discussed while they should not go after one another's throat including freely&nbsp;throwing around opprobrious expressions like crank, halucinations&nbsp;etc.</p><p>I argued the isolated points that I believed can be argued on their own and that's what I did and I believe I met successfully the various objections that came up, at the same time I don't claim having made full rigorous case for absolute space or even&nbsp;explaining those points - those points were rather meant to prove to people that the established physics has holes in its fabric in certain particular places which&nbsp;definitely seem to point to the existence of absolute space&nbsp;and that some serious mending is due, nothing less and nothing more, it is only your wishes clouding your mind that you make that into a sweeping and wholy unwarranted&nbsp;declaration that I claim that the "established physics is wrong"</p><p>------------</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have nothing but admiration for those who can work in a rigorous and disciplined manner to produce creative physics.</DIV> I can only say to this - too bad this rigorous and disciplined manner that you so admire is not producing any advances like solving the mysteries of physics which are now&nbsp;outstanding for decades or even half a century and worse, such mysteries as those in&nbsp;QM (as you quoted R Feynman with relish on this particular point not&nbsp;long ago)&nbsp;are nowadays actually reveled in with everybody having given up on solving them</p><p>others like Dark Matter mystery&nbsp;are eating up untold millions of dollars&nbsp;with no solution in sight... well, maybe they are disciplined those researchers working on their various grants but I'd seriously doubt they are&nbsp;rigorous if that should mean questioning everything including&nbsp;the&nbsp;science foundations or near foundations, scientists that start where their predecessors left off without&nbsp;examining the foundations of the&nbsp;scientific heritage they left behind as bequest to future generations&nbsp;are in my eyes nothing but plain hacks, here I got that off my chest</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<p><font size="2">Glad to hear Dr. Hawking agrees with my opinion.&nbsp; Check out my website to understand my reasoning behind the futility of Large Hadron Collider ever finding additional miniscule particles.&nbsp; www.dark-energyuniverse.com ; Many of you seem brainwashed by inconsistencies and unproven principles of particle-physics.&nbsp; Also; why06 apparently needs someone like Derek Jeter to hit him on top of the head to knock a little insight into it.</font></p>
 
U

UncertainH

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Glad to hear Dr. Hawking agrees with my opinion.&nbsp; Check out my website to understand my reasoning behind the futility of Large Hadron Collider ever finding additional miniscule particles.&nbsp; www.dark-energyuniverse.com ; Many of you seem brainwashed by inconsistencies and unproven principles of particle-physics.&nbsp; Also; why06 apparently needs someone like Derek Jeter to hit him on top of the head to knock a little insight into it. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>I checked out the web site looking for some proven principles of particle physics but couldn't find much. It is good to question things but don't get brainwashed by your own ideas. I'm putting together a web site that explains how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. I'll let you know when it done.</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....call for rigorous presentation is preposterous, you seem to forget&nbsp;we are not on some closed forum&nbsp;professionally moderated by peers but on fully amateur forum where people are free to put things into fray to be discussed while they should not go after one another's throat including freely&nbsp;throwing around opprobrious expressions like crank, halucinations&nbsp;etc.I argued the isolated points that I believed can be argued on their own and that's what I did and I believe I met successfully the various objections that came up, at the same time I don't claim having made full rigorous case for absolute space or even&nbsp;explaining those points - those points were rather meant to prove to people that the established physics has holes in its fabric in certain particular places which&nbsp;definitely seem to point to the existence of absolute space&nbsp;and that some serious mending is due...Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>When you make claims that physical principles that have been shown to provide extremely accurate predictions of the behavior of nature within a known domain of validity are wrong and that a discredited approach is to be preferred you have two basic&nbsp; choices:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Provide a clear statement of your alternative along with a rigorous presentatin of substantiating data and theory.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Be recognized as a crank.</p><p>The fact that nonsense is posted in an amateur forum does not relive the poster of the responsibility to clearly define and defend his positon.&nbsp; Lack of rigor is a clear indication of lack of clear thinking.&nbsp; If you don't want to be considered a crank then don't exhibit the characteristics of a crank.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dabiznuss

Guest
If&nbsp; you really believe the standard model of particle physics is an accurate description, and we will find the HIGG'S particle. Your imaginations must have left you when you were 6 years old. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If&nbsp; you really believe the standard model of particle physics is an accurate description, and we will find the HIGG'S particle. Your imaginations must have left you when you were 6 years old. <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>Just what is your rationale for such a&nbsp;comment ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dabiznuss

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just what is your rationale for such a&nbsp;comment ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><font size="2">First, the Standard Model does not attempt to explain </font><font size="2">gravity</font><font size="2">, and it is unknown how to combine </font><font size="2">quantum field theory</font><font size="2"> which is used for the <strong class="selflink">Standard Model</strong> with </font><font size="2">general relativity</font><font size="2"> which is the best physical model of gravity. This means that there is not a good theoretical model for phenomena such as the early universe.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">For example, the theory contains many seemingly unrelated parameters of the theory&nbsp;i think&nbsp;21 in all (around 18 parameters in the core theory, plus </font><font size="2" color="#000000">G</font><font size="2" color="#000000">, </font><font size="2" color="#000000">c</font><font size="2" color="#000000"> and </font><font size="2" color="#000000">h</font><font size="2" color="#000000"> there are believed to be an additional 7 or 8 parameters required for the neutrino masses, although neutrino masses are outside the standard model and the details are unclear). Research also focuses on the </font><font size="2" color="#000000">Hierarchy problem</font><font size="2" color="#000000"> (why the weak scale and </font><font size="2" color="#000000">Planck dimensions</font><font size="2" color="#000000">&nbsp;are so disparate), and attempts to reconcile the emerging Standard Model of </font><font size="2" color="#000000">Cosmology</font><font size="2" color="#000000"> with the Standard Model of particle physics. Many questions relate to the </font><font size="2" color="#000000">initial conditions</font><font size="2" color="#000000"> that led to the presently observed </font><font size="2" color="#000000">Universe</font><font size="2" color="#000000">.</font></p><p><font size="2">OHHH YEAH & About </font><font size="5"><strong>85% of the mass of the universe is yet unaccounted-for by any of the particles in the Standard Model -- missing "dark matter". </strong></font></p><p><font size="5"><strong><font size="2">If i make a theory that accounts for only 15% of things would you believe it?</font></strong></font></p><p><font size="5"><strong><font size="2">ITS non-sense non-imaginative and scrambled information just thrown together</font></strong><br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY