The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 12:23:23 PM

Title: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 12:23:23 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

Desperate and under-fire Round Earth Scientists are grasping at straws, as public pressure to explain 'gravity' is heaped upon them. With a suspicious population demanding a better answer than 'magic' for why things fall to earth, SCIENTISTS are resorting to phrases such as
Quote from: Guido Tonelli
As of today, what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson.
So ... they found something or nothing. They don't know.

This news comes just months after reports that there was no Higgs particle (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/), left furious taxpayers wondering whether the $9 billion dollar LHC had just been part of the EU gravy train.

Embarrassed officials have flip-flopped again to quell anger and to cast doubt and conjecture upon the subject. With Dr Stephen Hawking waiting in the wings to say "I told you so" before stuffing another $100 into his already bursting wallet (http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Hawking-Higgs-wont-be-found-20080909), even RET scientists on the same side can't get their story straight.

They may have glimpsed the particle? I may have glimpsed the yeti. It was dark, something was moving, I can't confirm it. It was either something or nothing. And RErs ask how can a conspiracy make money from RET?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 12:39:51 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

Desperate and under-fire Round Earth Scientists are grasping at straws, as public pressure to explain 'gravity' is heaped upon them. With a suspicious population demanding a better answer than 'magic' for why things fall to earth, SCIENTISTS are resorting to phrases such as
Quote from: Guido Tonelli
As of today, what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson.
So ... they found something or nothing. They don't know.

This news comes just months after reports that there was no Higgs particle (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/), left furious taxpayers wondering whether the $9 billion dollar LHC had just been part of the EU gravy train.

Embarrassed officials have flip-flopped again to quell anger and to cast doubt and conjecture upon the subject. With Dr Stephen Hawking waiting in the wings to say "I told you so" before stuffing another $100 into his already bursting wallet (http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Hawking-Higgs-wont-be-found-20080909), even RET scientists on the same side can't get their story straight.

They may have glimpsed the particle? I may have glimpsed the yeti. It was dark, something was moving, I can't confirm it. It was either something or nothing. And RErs ask how can a conspiracy make money from RET?
You really do need to do a better job. No one claimed that "no Higgs partical". From your reference's title: "CERN: Higgs boson ‘God particle’ likely does not exist". Following the lay journalist's reference, we get to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14596367 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14596367) which claims only: "New results to be presented this week at a conference in India all but eliminate the mid-range where the Higgs - if it exists - might be found.", not what the journalist claimed.

Next, the scientists are 94% and 98% sure they've found the Higgs boson. If so, it's in the lower range, by the way. So there has been no flip-flop either.

Once they get more measurements over the course of 2012, they hope to get to a one-in-a-million level of confidence. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/science/tantalizing-hints-but-no-direct-proof-in-search-for-higgs-boson.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/science/tantalizing-hints-but-no-direct-proof-in-search-for-higgs-boson.html?_r=1)
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 12:43:31 PM
Next, the scientists are 94% and 98% sure they've found the Higgs boson.

I would love a citation for this please.

A citation looks like this.

Quote from: http://www.extrahype.com/the-god-particle-may-not-exist-after-all-stephen-hawking-wins-the-bet
They state that, with a 95% probability, the Higgs does not exist within the range of energies the LHC has so far explored, between 145 and 466 billion electron volts.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: jraffield1 on December 13, 2011, 12:47:23 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

Desperate and under-fire Round Earth Scientists are grasping at straws, as public pressure to explain 'gravity' is heaped upon them. With a suspicious population demanding a better answer than 'magic' for why things fall to earth, SCIENTISTS are resorting to phrases such as
Quote from: Guido Tonelli
As of today, what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson.
So ... they found something or nothing. They don't know.

This news comes just months after reports that there was no Higgs particle (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/), left furious taxpayers wondering whether the $9 billion dollar LHC had just been part of the EU gravy train.

Embarrassed officials have flip-flopped again to quell anger and to cast doubt and conjecture upon the subject. With Dr Stephen Hawking waiting in the wings to say "I told you so" before stuffing another $100 into his already bursting wallet (http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Hawking-Higgs-wont-be-found-20080909), even RET scientists on the same side can't get their story straight.

They may have glimpsed the particle? I may have glimpsed the yeti. It was dark, something was moving, I can't confirm it. It was either something or nothing. And RErs ask how can a conspiracy make money from RET?

If they find the Higgs, science wins; if they don't find it, science also wins. How are you not understanding this?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 12:51:30 PM
If they find the Higgs, they can prove gravity, the Jesus bolt of RET. Without it, RET cannot explain even its most fundamental principals. That would be a massive RET fail.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Rushy on December 13, 2011, 12:54:29 PM
UA and celestial gravitation definitely don't use any form of magical energies, they must trump gravity!
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 01:11:43 PM
Next, the scientists are 94% and 98% sure they've found the Higgs boson.

I would love a citation for this please.

A citation looks like this.

Quote from: http://www.extrahype.com/the-god-particle-may-not-exist-after-all-stephen-hawking-wins-the-bet
They state that, with a 95% probability, the Higgs does not exist within the range of energies the LHC has so far explored, between 145 and 466 billion electron volts.

Fine:
Quote from: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/
For one experiment, the bump at 125 times the energy of the proton has a confidence level of about 94%, the other experiment sees it at about 98%.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 13, 2011, 01:14:44 PM
If they find the Higgs, they can prove gravity, the Jesus bolt of RET. Without it, RET cannot explain even its most fundamental principals. That would be a massive RET fail.

As I recall, FET relies on celestial bodies having the same inexplicable gravity that you keep deriding RET about, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
As you know, I have only ever advocated UA.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 13, 2011, 01:18:21 PM
UA still requires the celestial bodies to exert a gravitational influence on the FE in order to explain tides and measured local variations in g.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: jraffield1 on December 13, 2011, 01:19:41 PM
Also, even if the Higgs particle is not discovered, there are other theories that may very well be true.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 13, 2011, 01:20:06 PM

This news comes just months after reports that there was no Higgs particle (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/), left furious taxpayers wondering whether the $9 billion dollar LHC had just been part of the EU gravy train.


Anyone who would be furious if the LHC did not detect the Higgs Boson is a moron. For a comparable example, it's like being furious at your smoke detector for not detecting smoke if there isn't a fire. It doesn't mean the detector is faulty, it means what you're detecting isn't there. And if the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, it's very important to know that so we can rethink the structure of physics. This is called science.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 01:21:32 PM
As you know, I have only ever advocated UA.
Could you tell us then what you advocate causes the moons of Mars and the Galilean Moons of Jupiter to revolve around their respective planets? With a decent scope you can observe all six moon's revolutions.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 13, 2011, 01:22:53 PM
As you know, I have only ever advocated UA.

Oh, BTW while you were off screaming at the media or whatever it is you do when you're not working yourself into a rage on here, one of the other FE'ers clued us in to your admission of trolling. I've seen the posts in which you admit it. They detailed the history of your posts before I came here. It was quite enlightening. So cut the "I believe" crap. Because we know you don't.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 13, 2011, 01:24:33 PM
Also, the Higgs boson is not thought to be responsible for gravity (at least not directly responsible).  It's thought to be responsible for mass.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
As you know, I have only ever advocated UA.
Could you tell us then what you advocate causes the moons of Mars and the Galilean Moons of Jupiter to revolve around their respective planets? With a decent scope you can observe all six moon's revolutions.
Celestial gearing.

Next, the scientists are 94% and 98% sure they've found the Higgs boson.

Fine:
Quote from: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/
For one experiment, the bump at 125 times the energy of the proton has a confidence level of about 94%, the other experiment sees it at about 98%.

Now lets read  more of the quote.
Quote from: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/
After a year of runs, both experiments see something that might be Higgs, but they’re not 100% sure. One sees something at about the 94% confidence level, the other at 98%. That’s pretty good, but it’s not enough to be completely sure. It seems likely they’ve found something, but it’s like a fuzzy picture: it looks like Higgs, but it still might be something else.

So they are 94% sure they have found something. Not 94% sure they have found the Higgs Boson. They don't know what the hell they may or not have found. Also ... since when is a blog a valid source?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 01:47:40 PM
As you know, I have only ever advocated UA.
Could you tell us then what you advocate causes the moons of Mars and the Galilean Moons of Jupiter to revolve around their respective planets? With a decent scope you can observe all six moon's revolutions.
Celestial gearing.
Please explain. Provide the evidence you personally collected on the existence of these gears. I'd expect that you've recently travelled to both systems. Then submit the evidence to peer review.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 13, 2011, 01:53:32 PM
As you know, I have only ever advocated UA.
Could you tell us then what you advocate causes the moons of Mars and the Galilean Moons of Jupiter to revolve around their respective planets? With a decent scope you can observe all six moon's revolutions.
Celestial gearing.
Please explain. Provide the evidence you personally collected on the existence of these gears. I'd expect that you've recently travelled to both systems. Then submit the evidence to peer review.
That would be a major thread derailment. I wish to keep my thread on topic and would ask you to respect that wish.

Feel free to use the search function. Celestial gearing has been discussed at length in your absence.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 01:54:09 PM
Now lets read  more of the quote.
Quote from: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/13/mass-effect-maybe-higgs-maybe-not/
After a year of runs, both experiments see something that might be Higgs, but they’re not 100% sure. One sees something at about the 94% confidence level, the other at 98%. That’s pretty good, but it’s not enough to be completely sure. It seems likely they’ve found something, but it’s like a fuzzy picture: it looks like Higgs, but it still might be something else.

So they are 94% sure they have found something. Not 94% sure they have found the Higgs Boson. They don't know what the hell they may or not have found. Also ... since when is a blog a valid source?
You're quite right. The assumption is that this new something must be the missing piece of SM. It might not be; however, it's in one of the energy ranges and otherwise decays like SM predicts.

I guess blogs have always been a valid source. This one hosted by Discover Magazine and written by Dr. Pliat is one of the best at explaining science to those without a science background. You, of course, should following the links of his references rather than complaining.

Of course, I have to point out that you infamously believed a marketing statement on a website that glass could be made 'perfectly' flat before.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 13, 2011, 02:57:59 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

Desperate and under-fire Round Earth Scientists are grasping at straws, as public pressure to explain 'gravity' is heaped upon them. With a suspicious population demanding a better answer than 'magic' for why things fall to earth, SCIENTISTS are resorting to phrases such as
Quote from: Guido Tonelli
As of today, what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson.
So ... they found something or nothing. They don't know.

This news comes just months after reports that there was no Higgs particle (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/), left furious taxpayers wondering whether the $9 billion dollar LHC had just been part of the EU gravy train.

Embarrassed officials have flip-flopped again to quell anger and to cast doubt and conjecture upon the subject. With Dr Stephen Hawking waiting in the wings to say "I told you so" before stuffing another $100 into his already bursting wallet (http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Hawking-Higgs-wont-be-found-20080909), even RET scientists on the same side can't get their story straight.

They may have glimpsed the particle? I may have glimpsed the yeti. It was dark, something was moving, I can't confirm it. It was either something or nothing. And RErs ask how can a conspiracy make money from RET?

Yeah, why don't those stupid scientists look for Moon shrimps instead!
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: randall_55 on December 13, 2011, 07:46:27 PM
UA still requires the celestial bodies to exert a gravitational influence on the FE in order to explain tides and measured local variations in g.

Yes you are correct.

Thork, if gravity is magical and not real, please explain to us how tides work and why there are measured variations in gravity/UA based on altitude.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Rushy on December 13, 2011, 08:22:51 PM
Certain parts of the earth are created of less dense aether materials resulting in the UA passing through the earth and into the atmosphere, gaining velocity and pushing things up with more force as it goes. It affects things at the surface usually only over land. This is why the UA is measured less over land.

Tides are caused by the aether wind rushing off the land. High tide = no aether wind. Low tide = high aether wind.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: randall_55 on December 13, 2011, 09:09:48 PM
Certain parts of the earth are created of less dense aether materials resulting in the UA passing through the earth and into the atmosphere, gaining velocity and pushing things up with more force as it goes. It affects things at the surface usually only over land. This is why the UA is measured less over land.

This does not explain the inverse relationship between altitude and measured gravity/US. Please address this hole in your theory.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 02:36:17 AM
Thork, if gravity is magical and not real, please explain to us how tides work and why there are measured variations in gravity/UA based on altitude.

Tides (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
I dispute that gravity varies around the earth. I have documented this in many threads.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on December 14, 2011, 03:14:35 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

Desperate and under-fire Round Earth Scientists are grasping at straws, as public pressure to explain 'gravity' is heaped upon them. With a suspicious population demanding a better answer than 'magic' for why things fall to earth, SCIENTISTS are resorting to phrases such as
Quote from: Guido Tonelli
As of today, what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson.
So ... they found something or nothing. They don't know.

This news comes just months after reports that there was no Higgs particle (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/), left furious taxpayers wondering whether the $9 billion dollar LHC had just been part of the EU gravy train.

Embarrassed officials have flip-flopped again to quell anger and to cast doubt and conjecture upon the subject. With Dr Stephen Hawking waiting in the wings to say "I told you so" before stuffing another $100 into his already bursting wallet (http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Hawking-Higgs-wont-be-found-20080909), even RET scientists on the same side can't get their story straight.

They may have glimpsed the particle? I may have glimpsed the yeti. It was dark, something was moving, I can't confirm it. It was either something or nothing. And RErs ask how can a conspiracy make money from RET?

If they find the Higgs, science wins; if they don't find it, science also wins. How are you not understanding this?
Science never wins as the system itself is inherently fail.  It seems you haven't done the slightest of lurking still.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: momentia on December 14, 2011, 03:25:55 AM
Thork, if gravity is magical and not real, please explain to us how tides work and why there are measured variations in gravity/UA based on altitude.

Tides (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
I dispute that gravity varies around the earth. I have documented this in many threads.

Sorry to disappoint, but gravimeters do not read the same thing everywhere. You can say that acceleration changes do to some weird effect or other, but the instrument still gives different readings for g in different locations. You can't change that.

For example:
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/8666/1/2(2)_p247-250.pdf

People get different reading on their gravimeters at different locations.

As for tides being caused by pressure? no
yes, pressure does change tides by a little.
but to even change the tides by 2 meters would need a pressure change of ρgΔh = ΔP = 1000*9.8*2 / 100 = 196 millibars between areas of high and low tide bi-daily.
In fact if you look at a classic barometer, the range of pressures is only about a 100 or so millibars:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hRk12r_HAXI/TltaVoTOduI/AAAAAAAAH0I/SqRXFHwwBSU/s1600/barometer.jpg)

Usually the needle never comes near those points.


Also, if you have ever looked at a chart of barometric pressure, it typically does not change that much in a day on a daily basis. This means there is different driving force at work, not atmospheric pressure
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: spanner34.5 on December 14, 2011, 03:55:31 AM
This particular branch of the conspiracy will never definitely find anything. If they do succeed, their funding will disappear for that project.

To the people supplying the money for the Higgs particle project.

I will maybe glimpse one for a lot less money..

Please PM me for my contact details. Discount given for cash.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Rushy on December 14, 2011, 07:06:50 AM
Certain parts of the earth are created of less dense aether materials resulting in the UA passing through the earth and into the atmosphere, gaining velocity and pushing things up with more force as it goes. It affects things at the surface usually only over land. This is why the UA is measured less over land.

This does not explain the inverse relationship between altitude and measured gravity/US. Please address this hole in your theory.

Actually, it does. You should read it again.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 07:49:37 AM
People get different reading on their gravimeters at different locations.
'People'. What people? This is another assumption.

Let me explain. Today the price of gold is
(http://www3.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP320519iacghf0b2444da00001a66gg4hceiadg2i?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=36&w=465&h=18)

An ounce is according to Google
ounce/ouns/
Noun:   
A unit of weight of one sixteenth of a pound avoirdupois (approximately 28 grams).
Gold is sold by weight (http://www.safe-jewelry.com/gold_jewelry/gold_is_sold_by_weight.htm). Not mass.

Weight is mass*gravity. According to the lies you swallowed, in Mexico City gravity =9.779 m/s2. In Helsinki (Finland) and Oslo (Norway) gravity = 9.819 m/s2. A variation of 0.5%.

So if I buy a million dollars worth of gold in Mexico city I make $50,000 selling it in Finland? Does gold vary in price from country to country? No. Are the Finnish people being ripped off? No.

Were your bathroom scales calibrated for your country? No. Do aircraft take on more fuel when flying over areas of increased gravity (which means increased lift required which means more drag and hence more fuel? No. In fact does anyone ever compensate for this alleged fluctuation ever? Does it ever come up? Something so fundamental involving trade or transport or so many other things? No. Never a dickie-bird. Stop just swallowing what you are told and look at the world analytically. Your claim has absolutely no bearing on reality. Its not what happens on earth. Only in NASA fairytale land. 

I might add that the world record for Javelin has been broken in Scandinavia more times than anywhere else in the world. The place with the highest gravity has the best throwing records? 0.5% is a lot in world record terms.

62.32     Eric Lemming            12/09/29  Stockholm
66.10     Jonni Myyrä              19/08/24  Stockholm
66.62     Gunnar Lindström     24/12/12  62.32 Eksjö
69.88     Eino Penttilä             27/10/01  Viipuri
71.01     Erik Lundqvist          28/08/15  Stockholm
71.57     Matti Järvinen          30/08/08  Viipuri
71.70     Matti Järvinen          30/08/17  Tampere
71.88     Matti Järvinen          30/08/31  Vaasa
72.93     Matti Järvinen          30/09/14  Viipuri
74.02     Matti Järvinen          32/06/27  Turku
74.28     Matti Järvinen          33/05/25  Mikkeli
74.61     Matti Järvinen          33/06/07  Vaasa
76.10     Matti Järvinen          33/06/15  Helsinki
76.66     Matti Järvinen          33/09/07  Turin
77.23     Matti Järvinen          34/06/18  Helsinki
77.87     Yrjö Nikkanen          38/08/25  Karhula
78.70     Yrjö Nikkanen          38/10/16  Kotka
80.41     Bud Held                 53/08/08  Pasadena
81.75     Bud Held                 55/05/21  Modesto
83.56     Soini Nikkinen          56/06/24  Kuhmoinen
83.66     Janusz Sidlo            56/06/30  Milan
85.71     Egil Danielsen          56/11/26  Melbourne
86.04     Al Cantello              59/06/05  Compton
86.74     Carlo Lievore           61/06/01  Milan
87.12     Terje Pedersen        64/07/01  Oslo
91.72     Terje Pedersen        64/09/02  Oslo
91.98     Janis Lusis              68/07/23  Saarijärvi
92.70     Jorma Kinnunen       69/06/18  Tampere
93.80     Janis Lusis               72/07/06  Stockholm
94.08     Klaus Wolfermann    73/05/05  Leverkusen
94.58     Miklos Nemeth          76/07/26  Montreal
96.72     Ferenc Paragi           80/04/23  Tata
99.72     Tom Petranoff          83/05/15  Los Angeles
104.80    Uwe Hohn               84/07/20  Berlin

67% of all Javelin world records in Scandinavia. And not one in a low gravity area such India or Mexico?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 07:55:04 AM
...
Weight is mass*gravity.
...
Wrong. See http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3 (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3).
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 14, 2011, 07:55:33 AM
67% of all Javelin world records in Scandinavia. And not one in a low gravity area such India or Mexico?

Well, you have to figure that high gravity must force their throwing arms to grow much stronger.  Maybe the high gravity is why the Vikings were so badass.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 08:08:20 AM
...
Weight is mass*gravity.
...
Wrong. See http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3 (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3).
Are you trying to look deliberately stupid?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
In science and engineering, the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity. Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g; thus: W = mg.

If you don't even understand basic units you should probably bow out of the discussion to save your blushes.

67% of all Javelin world records in Scandinavia. And not one in a low gravity area such India or Mexico?

Well, you have to figure that high gravity must force their throwing arms to grow much stronger.  Maybe the high gravity is why the Vikings were so badass.
Because athletics isn't competed by people from all nationalities in events all round the world? Are you saying Scandinavians don't compete abroad in low gravity areas? Must be a bummer for them at the Olympics.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 14, 2011, 08:10:09 AM
People get different reading on their gravimeters at different locations.
'People'. What people? This is another assumption.

Let me explain. Today the price of gold is
(http://www3.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP320519iacghf0b2444da00001a66gg4hceiadg2i?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=36&w=465&h=18)

An ounce is according to Google
ounce/ouns/
Noun:   
A unit of weight of one sixteenth of a pound avoirdupois (approximately 28 grams).
Gold is sold by weight (http://www.safe-jewelry.com/gold_jewelry/gold_is_sold_by_weight.htm). Not mass.

Weight is mass*gravity. According to the lies you swallowed, in Mexico City gravity =9.779 m/s2. In Helsinki (Finland) and Oslo (Norway) gravity = 9.819 m/s2. A variation of 0.5%.

So if I buy a million dollars worth of gold in Mexico city I make $50,000 selling it in Finland? Does gold vary in price from country to country? No. Are the Finnish people being ripped off? No.

Were your bathroom scales calibrated for your country? No. Do aircraft take on more fuel when flying over areas of increased gravity (which means increased lift required which means more drag and hence more fuel? No. In fact does anyone ever compensate for this alleged fluctuation ever? Does it ever come up? Something so fundamental involving trade or transport or so many other things? No. Never a dickie-bird. Stop just swallowing what you are told and look at the world analytically. Your claim has absolutely no bearing on reality. Its not what happens on earth. Only in NASA fairytale land. 

I might add that the world record for Javelin has been broken in Scandinavia more times than anywhere else in the world. The place with the highest gravity has the best throwing records? 0.5% is a lot in world record terms.

62.32     Eric Lemming            12/09/29  Stockholm
66.10     Jonni Myyrä              19/08/24  Stockholm
66.62     Gunnar Lindström     24/12/12  62.32 Eksjö
69.88     Eino Penttilä             27/10/01  Viipuri
71.01     Erik Lundqvist          28/08/15  Stockholm
71.57     Matti Järvinen          30/08/08  Viipuri
71.70     Matti Järvinen          30/08/17  Tampere
71.88     Matti Järvinen          30/08/31  Vaasa
72.93     Matti Järvinen          30/09/14  Viipuri
74.02     Matti Järvinen          32/06/27  Turku
74.28     Matti Järvinen          33/05/25  Mikkeli
74.61     Matti Järvinen          33/06/07  Vaasa
76.10     Matti Järvinen          33/06/15  Helsinki
76.66     Matti Järvinen          33/09/07  Turin
77.23     Matti Järvinen          34/06/18  Helsinki
77.87     Yrjö Nikkanen          38/08/25  Karhula
78.70     Yrjö Nikkanen          38/10/16  Kotka
80.41     Bud Held                 53/08/08  Pasadena
81.75     Bud Held                 55/05/21  Modesto
83.56     Soini Nikkinen          56/06/24  Kuhmoinen
83.66     Janusz Sidlo            56/06/30  Milan
85.71     Egil Danielsen          56/11/26  Melbourne
86.04     Al Cantello              59/06/05  Compton
86.74     Carlo Lievore           61/06/01  Milan
87.12     Terje Pedersen        64/07/01  Oslo
91.72     Terje Pedersen        64/09/02  Oslo
91.98     Janis Lusis              68/07/23  Saarijärvi
92.70     Jorma Kinnunen       69/06/18  Tampere
93.80     Janis Lusis               72/07/06  Stockholm
94.08     Klaus Wolfermann    73/05/05  Leverkusen
94.58     Miklos Nemeth          76/07/26  Montreal
96.72     Ferenc Paragi           80/04/23  Tata
99.72     Tom Petranoff          83/05/15  Los Angeles
104.80    Uwe Hohn               84/07/20  Berlin

67% of all Javelin world records in Scandinavia. And not one in a low gravity area such India or Mexico?

Interesting use of statistics in a toyally irrelevant way.

Do compare with this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_jump

and divert yourself.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 14, 2011, 08:16:26 AM
Because athletics isn't competed by people from all nationalities in events all round the world? Are you saying Scandinavians don't compete abroad in low gravity areas? Must be a bummer for them at the Olympics.

Yes, that's the point.  The practice in their native countries where supergravity has turned them into monsters.  Then they compete in places with normal gravity against regular mortals (and the poor folks from low gravity areas like Mexico) and thus break records left and right.

We may have to give this one to the REers.  :(
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 08:22:37 AM
Because athletics isn't competed by people from all nationalities in events all round the world? Are you saying Scandinavians don't compete abroad in low gravity areas? Must be a bummer for them at the Olympics.

Yes, that's the point.  The practice in their native countries where supergravity has turned them into monsters.  Then they compete in places with normal gravity against regular mortals (and the poor folks from low gravity areas like Mexico) and thus break records left and right.

We may have to give this one to the REers.  :(
I think you are missing the point. It must be easier to chuck a spear in a low gravity environment. Gravity does not pull it to earth as fast so it can travel further. So your Viking guy is going to be able to chuck it further at events with low gravity. He may train in Oslo but once he gets to mexico, his javelin is falling to earth 0.04m/s2 slower. That's got to help. Besides I see no evidence at all of fluctuation. Just heresay that 'people' notice this on gravimeters.

Anybody own a gravimeter? Any one know anyone who does?

On a separate note, my Pixie detector picked up 7 pixies and an elf in my back garden last weekend. I have the exterminators booked for Monday.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2011, 08:24:34 AM
People get different reading on their gravimeters at different locations.
'People'. What people? This is another assumption.

Let me explain. Today the price of gold is
(http://www3.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP320519iacghf0b2444da00001a66gg4hceiadg2i?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=36&w=465&h=18)

An ounce is according to Google
ounce/ouns/
Noun:   
A unit of weight of one sixteenth of a pound avoirdupois (approximately 28 grams).
Gold is sold by weight (http://www.safe-jewelry.com/gold_jewelry/gold_is_sold_by_weight.htm). Not mass.

Weight is mass*gravity. According to the lies you swallowed, in Mexico City gravity =9.779 m/s2. In Helsinki (Finland) and Oslo (Norway) gravity = 9.819 m/s2. A variation of 0.5%.

So if I buy a million dollars worth of gold in Mexico city I make $50,000 selling it in Finland? Does gold vary in price from country to country? No. Are the Finnish people being ripped off? No.

Were your bathroom scales calibrated for your country? No. Do aircraft take on more fuel when flying over areas of increased gravity (which means increased lift required which means more drag and hence more fuel? No. In fact does anyone ever compensate for this alleged fluctuation ever? Does it ever come up? Something so fundamental involving trade or transport or so many other things? No. Never a dickie-bird. Stop just swallowing what you are told and look at the world analytically. Your claim has absolutely no bearing on reality. Its not what happens on earth. Only in NASA fairytale land. 

We've been over this before, but let's try it one more time anyway.  Commerce absolutely does take these local variations of g into account for the very reason that you pointed out.  From the NIST Handbook 44, 2010 edition (http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/h44-10.cfm), Appendix B, page 8:
Quote
3.2.1. Mass and Weight. – The mass of a body is a measure of its inertial property or how much matter it contains. The weight of a body is a measure of the force exerted on it by gravity or the force needed to support it. Gravity on earth gives a body a downward acceleration of about 9.8 m/s2. (In common parlance, weight is often used as a synonym for mass in weights and measures.) The incorrect use of weight in place of mass should be phased out, and the term mass used when mass is meant.

Standards of mass are ordinarily calibrated by comparison to a reference standard of mass. If two objects are compared on a balance and give the same balance indication, they have the same “mass” (excluding the effect of air buoyancy). The forces of gravity on the two objects are balanced. Even though the value of the acceleration of gravity, g, is different from location to location, because the two objects of equal mass in the same location (where both masses are acted upon by the same g) will be affected in the same manner and by the same amount by any change in the value of g, the two objects will balance each other under any value of g.

However, on a spring balance the mass of a body is not balanced against the mass of another body. Instead, the gravitational force on the body is balanced by the restoring force of a spring. Therefore, if a very sensitive spring balance is used, the indicated mass of the body would be found to change if the spring balance and the body were moved from one locality to another locality with a different acceleration of gravity. But a spring balance is usually used in one locality and is adjusted or calibrated to indicate mass at that locality.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 14, 2011, 08:26:49 AM
Because athletics isn't competed by people from all nationalities in events all round the world? Are you saying Scandinavians don't compete abroad in low gravity areas? Must be a bummer for them at the Olympics.

Yes, that's the point.  The practice in their native countries where supergravity has turned them into monsters.  Then they compete in places with normal gravity against regular mortals (and the poor folks from low gravity areas like Mexico) and thus break records left and right.

We may have to give this one to the REers.  :(
I think you are missing the point. It must be easier to chuck a spear in a low gravity environment. Gravity does not pull it to earth as fast so it can travel further. So your Viking guy is going to be able to chuck it further at events with low gravity. He may train in Oslo but once he gets to mexico, his javelin is falling to earth 0.04m/s2 slower. That's got to help. Besides I see no evidence at all of fluctuation. Just heresay that 'people' notice this on gravimeters.

Anybody own a gravimeter? Any one know anyone who does?

On a separate note, my Pixie detector picked up 7 pixies and an elf in my back garden last weekend. I have the exterminators booked for Monday.

Or read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_throw
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2011, 08:33:02 AM
'People'. What people? This is another assumption.

Let me explain. Today the price of gold is
(http://www3.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP320519iacghf0b2444da00001a66gg4hceiadg2i?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=36&w=465&h=18)

An ounce is according to Google
ounce/ouns/
Noun:   
A unit of weight of one sixteenth of a pound avoirdupois (approximately 28 grams).
Gold is sold by weight (http://www.safe-jewelry.com/gold_jewelry/gold_is_sold_by_weight.htm). Not mass.

BTW, you gave the definition of an avoirdupois ounce, not a Troy ounce.

Quote

Troy weight
is a system of units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_unit) of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass) customarily used for precious metals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precious_metal), gemstones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone), and black powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_powder).
 There are 12 troy ounces per troy pound,[1] rather than the 16 ounces per pound found in the more common avoirdupois system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois). The troy ounce is 480 grains, compared with the avoirdupois ounce, which is 437-1/2 grains. Both systems use the same grain of exactly 0.06479891 gram.[2] Although troy ounces are still used to weigh gold, silver and gemstones, the troy pound is no longer used.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 08:36:28 AM
Markjo's comment is irrelevant. The fact they are moving to standardise the units is not because of complaints that things change weight as they move around the earth. ::)

Or read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_throw
So there is no correlation between location and world records for chucking things even though variations would allow an advantage in certain parts of the world? Thank you. This is my point. Gravity does not fluctuate. It doesn't even exist - See Universal Acceleration and the equivalence principle.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 08:39:18 AM
We've been over this before
Yes, because you have 18,000 posts and have been here everyday since the dawn of time. Maybe that should be your cue to allow other people to get a word in edgeways?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2011, 08:41:40 AM
Markjo's comment is irrelevant. The fact they are moving to standardise the units is not because of complaints that things change weight as they move around the earth. ::)

Which comment are you referring to?  The one where I proved that commerce does take local variations of g into account or the one where I show that you didn't know that Troy weight is a system of measuring mass?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 08:43:29 AM
You did not prove commerce takes local variation into account. You made a limp inference and arrived at a daft conclusion.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 08:48:47 AM
...
Weight is mass*gravity.
...
Wrong. See http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3 (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3).
Are you trying to look deliberately stupid?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
In science and engineering, the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity. Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g; thus: W = mg.

If you don't even understand basic units you should probably bow out of the discussion to save your blushes.

Did you even read what you posted?

'gravity' is not an acceleration.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2011, 08:49:21 AM
You did not prove commerce takes local variation into account. You made a limp inference and arrived at a daft conclusion.

You may choose to ignore the guidance of the NIST at your own peril, but don't say that I didn't try to warn you.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 09:02:06 AM
'gravity' is not an acceleration.


Quote from: http://www.societyofrobots.com/sensors_accelerometer.shtml
Gravity
Gravity is an acceleration. A such, your accelerometer will always be subject to a -9.81 m/s^2 acceleration (negative means towards the ground).

Quote from: http://www.conservapedia.com/Surface_gravity
Surface gravity is an acceleration, and is commonly measured in the units of acceleration, which are distance (or length) per square unit of time. The SI units of acceleration are m/s².

Quote from: http://lateblt.tripod.com/physics.htm
Gravity is an acceleration, not a constant speed.

Quote from: http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/
The earth’s gravity is an acceleration

Quote from: http://milesmathis.com/orbit.html
Gravity is an acceleration and nothing more.

I see. ::)
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 09:25:47 AM
'gravity' is not an acceleration.


Quote from: http://www.societyofrobots.com/sensors_accelerometer.shtml
Gravity
Gravity is an acceleration. A such, your accelerometer will always be subject to a -9.81 m/s^2 acceleration (negative means towards the ground).

Quote from: http://www.conservapedia.com/Surface_gravity
Surface gravity is an acceleration, and is commonly measured in the units of acceleration, which are distance (or length) per square unit of time. The SI units of acceleration are m/s².

Quote from: http://lateblt.tripod.com/physics.htm
Gravity is an acceleration, not a constant speed.

Quote from: http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/
The earth’s gravity is an acceleration

Quote from: http://milesmathis.com/orbit.html
Gravity is an acceleration and nothing more.

I see. ::)
I do have to agree--if you're going to use the term in the vernacular, and perhaps that's all you intended.

Since you appear to trust the source http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/ (http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/). Let's consider that on that page we find:

Quote from: http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/
The force of gravity over the surface of the Earth is not constant. For it to be so the Earth's composition would have to be perfectly uniform and it's shape perfectly spherical. The Earth would have to be beyond the influence of other heavenly objects. Fortunately for us, and the clients for whom we work, gravity is discernably variable even over very small distances.
The gravity at any point on the earth is the cumulative effect of many influences. At the poles, gravity is more than at the equator because the polar regions are 21km closer to the centre of the earth. Mountains can be 8km further from the centre of earth than the oceans, and these too experience less gravity. Daily, the moon passes overhead, as does the sun. Between them the sun and moon produce two tides a day, which cause the Earth to bulge and gravity to change. Geological formations result in changes to sub-surface density and therefore mass. Newton showed that gravity is directly proportional to mass and consequently, higher gravity is observed over denser strata.

So why would you trust that source for its definition and not its statements against your UA-only model?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 09:34:08 AM
??? I do not believe in gravity full stop. It is a fabrication of the conspiracy to patch a hole in the theory. A problem that a $9 billion dollar particle accelerator still hasn't solved.

I do not think gravity varies all over earth. I do not think gravity is responsible. But even I know that W=mg and that gravity is an acceleration in Round Earth Theory. You can keep posting stupid all over my thread if you like, but the guests reading this are going to find it upsetting that RET was argued so poorly.

Maybe you will be our greatest weapon against The Conspiracy ClockTower? Alienating those who have doubts amongst the sheeple and forcing them into our open arms.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 10:18:15 AM
??? I do not believe in gravity full stop. It is a fabrication of the conspiracy to patch a hole in the theory. A problem that a $9 billion dollar particle accelerator still hasn't solved.

I do not think gravity varies all over earth. I do not think gravity is responsible. But even I know that W=mg and that gravity is an acceleration in Round Earth Theory. You can keep posting stupid all over my thread if you like, but the guests reading this are going to find it upsetting that RET was argued so poorly.

Maybe you will be our greatest weapon against The Conspiracy ClockTower? Alienating those who have doubts amongst the sheeple and forcing them into our open arms.
Great for us! Drs. Eagan have provided verifiable, objective evidence on a page you referenced. I'm sure all the guests will consider their documented evidence published by Keele University against your ramblings accordingly. Please do keep linking to sources who categorically oppose your conclusions. Thanks so much!
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: randall_55 on December 14, 2011, 10:28:29 AM
I do not think gravity varies all over earth.

So are you saying all the scientists who have measured an inverse correlation between measured gravity/UA and altitude within experimental error are lying to us? And all the scientists who have reviewed their work and confirmed it are lying to us as well? Are this people in on the conspiracy? Do they even know about the conspiracy?

The list of locations of where javelin throwing records have been set is no where near enough evidence to discredit variation in gravity/UA. There are so many more factors that contribute to athletic performance that have much more of an effect than local gravity.

Quote from: Thork
Were your bathroom scales calibrated for your country? No. Do aircraft take on more fuel when flying over areas of increased gravity (which means increased lift required which means more drag and hence more fuel)? No.

A persons weight fluctuates more than .5% over the course of a day, local calibration is not necessary for bathroom scales, the difference is too small. Airplanes carry enough fuel to take them to their destination, plus additional in case of emergencies. I don't know the details, but I am willing to bet that is is significantly more than an additional .5% of what it would take to get them to their destination. In addition, airplanes fly at higher altitudes, where gravity is less, requiring less fuel (according to your explanation).
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 14, 2011, 02:34:16 PM
Thork, if gravity is magical and not real, please explain to us how tides work and why there are measured variations in gravity/UA based on altitude.

Tides (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
I dispute that gravity varies around the earth. I have documented this in many threads.

Didn't you read the stuff where I pointed out we've all seen the post where you admit you're a troll?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 14, 2011, 02:50:53 PM
@randall_55 - I am not disputing a decrease in the force we feel from UA as altitude increases. Pizzaplanet has explained this at length and of course it is logical as you move away from the protective sheild of the earth and out into the dark energy stream. I dispute that the force of acceleration changes at random places around the earth's surface.

@The (ironically named) Knowledge. That isn't a rebuttal. That's argumentum ad hominem.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: momentia on December 14, 2011, 05:27:48 PM
@randall_55 - I am not disputing a decrease in the force we feel from UA as altitude increases. Pizzaplanet has explained this at length and of course it is logical as you move away from the protective sheild of the earth and out into the dark energy stream. I dispute that the force of acceleration changes at random places around the earth's surface.

@The (ironically named) Knowledge. That isn't a rebuttal. That's argumentum ad hominem.

You already admit that acceleration changes with height.

Why don't you admit that acceleration changes with location. Friendly link:
http://www.microglacoste.com/fg5specs.php
Quote
Accuracy: 2 µGal (observed agreement between FG5 instruments)
Precision: 15 µGal/sqrt(Hz) at a quiet site [eg. About 1 µGal in 3.75 minutes or 0.1 µGal in 6.25 hours]

This is the type of device used to absolutely measure gravity to 1 part in 10-8 or better, which is more than sufficient to measure differences in g at different locations. It is used many places in gravimetery. I don't care if you say gravimetery is not related to the earth beneath, thats not the point (not now). The point is that instruments such as this read different accelerations at different locations.

Also, your explanation for change in g with change in height makes no sense.
What are the rules governing UA? Does UA come through the earth or around it?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: randall_55 on December 15, 2011, 10:00:18 AM
What are the rules governing UA? Does UA come through the earth or around it?

UA does whatever makes explaining things for FE'ers easiest. What UA does is likely to drastically change depending on which phenomenon an FE'er is trying to explain.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 15, 2011, 06:50:05 PM

@The (ironically named) Knowledge. That isn't a rebuttal. That's argumentum ad hominem.

No, argumentum ad hominem is not possible when what I am disagreeing with is your assertion that you hold a particular view. Since the argument itself is "Thork holds/does not hold a view" it is impossible to commit a logical fallacy by accusing you of falsehood in your statement.
Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of attacking you instead of your argument, and in this case the argument itself is whether you are truthful or not.
Pray tell, how else should I phrase my suspicion that you are being a liar?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: hoppy on December 15, 2011, 06:56:48 PM
??? I do not believe in gravity full stop. It is a fabrication of the conspiracy to patch a hole in the theory. A problem that a $9 billion dollar particle accelerator still hasn't solved.

I do not think gravity varies all over earth. I do not think gravity is responsible. But even I know that W=mg and that gravity is an acceleration in Round Earth Theory. You can keep posting stupid all over my thread if you like, but the guests reading this are going to find it upsetting that RET was argued so poorly.

Maybe you will be our greatest weapon against The Conspiracy ClockTower? Alienating those who have doubts amongst the sheeple and forcing them into our open arms.
        +1
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 15, 2011, 07:00:25 PM
??? I do not believe in gravity full stop. It is a fabrication of the conspiracy to patch a hole in the theory. A problem that a $9 billion dollar particle accelerator still hasn't solved.

I do not think gravity varies all over earth. I do not think gravity is responsible. But even I know that W=mg and that gravity is an acceleration in Round Earth Theory. You can keep posting stupid all over my thread if you like, but the guests reading this are going to find it upsetting that RET was argued so poorly.

Maybe you will be our greatest weapon against The Conspiracy ClockTower? Alienating those who have doubts amongst the sheeple and forcing them into our open arms.
        +1

Yeah, denial of data always makes FET look so much more convincing than the alternative...  ::)
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: trig on December 16, 2011, 06:01:08 AM
??? I do not believe in gravity full stop. It is a fabrication of the conspiracy to patch a hole in the theory. A problem that a $9 billion dollar particle accelerator still hasn't solved.

I do not think gravity varies all over earth. I do not think gravity is responsible. But even I know that W=mg and that gravity is an acceleration in Round Earth Theory. You can keep posting stupid all over my thread if you like, but the guests reading this are going to find it upsetting that RET was argued so poorly.

Maybe you will be our greatest weapon against The Conspiracy ClockTower? Alienating those who have doubts amongst the sheeple and forcing them into our open arms.
So, Thork believes the Conspiracy is perfect, keeping millions of scientists silent for generations (maybe even centuries) but is unable to get a few dozen scientists at LHC in line. They try to say "we have found the Higgs Bosson and therefore explained gravity", but fumble their way around the 10 words necessary to say so, even though someone payed 9 billion dollars to have just those 10 words said. At almost a billion a word, it is quite easy to get those 20 or so "scientists" in a row, wouldn't you think?

In reality, those scientists would have seen the holes in the Conspiracy since they were about 7 years old and would now either be totally in the Conspiracy, giving picture perfect statements for the press, or would have blown the Conspiracy to pieces since they were 14. They would never, ever try to explain to the reporters how 9  billion dollars might be spent for nothing, or worse yet, spent to find evidence against the Conspiracy.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2011, 06:13:03 AM
Please don't confuse the Higgs Boson with the Graviton.  They are 2 different particles and have different interactions in different theories (The Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory, respectively).
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 16, 2011, 07:43:54 AM

@The (ironically named) Knowledge. That isn't a rebuttal. That's argumentum ad hominem.

No, argumentum ad hominem is not possible when what I am disagreeing with is your assertion that you hold a particular view. Since the argument itself is "Thork holds/does not hold a view" it is impossible to commit a logical fallacy by accusing you of falsehood in your statement.
Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of attacking you instead of your argument, and in this case the argument itself is whether you are truthful or not.
Pray tell, how else should I phrase my suspicion that you are being a liar?
I don't know if you have noticed, but the title of this thread is "Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'". Not "Is Thork a troll?". You were not interested in the debate as usual. You merely accused me of being a troll and posted your verbose reworded wikipedia drivel about arguments again. That, is argumentum ad hominem. Unfortunately Markjo is a terrible mod and won't do anything to keep you from derailing threads, so I guess from here unless you have a comment to make about FE theory, you are going to get ignored ... mostly because you're kinda boring.

Please don't confuse the Higgs Boson with the Graviton.  They are 2 different particles and have different interactions in different theories (The Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory, respectively).
How many more made-up sub-atomic particles does RET need to cobble together a theory?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2011, 08:51:53 AM
Please don't confuse the Higgs Boson with the Graviton.  They are 2 different particles and have different interactions in different theories (The Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory, respectively).
How many more made-up sub-atomic particles does RET need to cobble together a theory?
That depends on which theory you're referring to.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: trig on December 16, 2011, 08:55:02 AM
Please don't confuse the Higgs Boson with the Graviton.  They are 2 different particles and have different interactions in different theories (The Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory, respectively).
Your explanation is very opportune, and you already had explained that the Higgs Bosson explains more about mass than about gravity. I appreciate your introduction to this subject.

But Thork's conspiracy claims have little to do with the details of quantum physics, it has to do with a lame attempt to declare any physics advancement a plot of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2011, 10:02:04 AM
But Thork's conspiracy claims have little to do with the details of quantum physics, it has to do with a lame attempt to declare any physics advancement a plot of the conspiracy.

True enough, but Thork isn't the only one incorrectly attributing gravity to the Higgs Boson.  If people are going to argue about Higgs, the least they could do is learn what it is and what it isn't.

Wait a minute.  What am I saying?!?  Never mind.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 17, 2011, 12:01:46 PM

@The (ironically named) Knowledge. That isn't a rebuttal. That's argumentum ad hominem.

No, argumentum ad hominem is not possible when what I am disagreeing with is your assertion that you hold a particular view. Since the argument itself is "Thork holds/does not hold a view" it is impossible to commit a logical fallacy by accusing you of falsehood in your statement.
Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of attacking you instead of your argument, and in this case the argument itself is whether you are truthful or not.
Pray tell, how else should I phrase my suspicion that you are being a liar?
I don't know if you have noticed, but the title of this thread is "Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'". Not "Is Thork a troll?". You were not interested in the debate as usual. You merely accused me of being a troll and posted your verbose reworded wikipedia drivel about arguments again. That, is argumentum ad hominem. Unfortunately Markjo is a terrible mod and won't do anything to keep you from derailing threads, so I guess from here unless you have a comment to make about FE theory, you are going to get ignored ... mostly because you're kinda boring.


(a) There are many threads in which side-topics arise. You yourself contribute to them at times
(b) It's not reworded from Wikipedia, it's my own wording of what I understand Argumentum ad hominem means. If you think that it means something different, why don't you make a thread to explain it? (since one must not sidetrack in this thread. ) Failure to make a thread to explain your definition of it will be taken as concession that my definition is accurate. Though as far as I can tell, your definition is "any disagreeable comment on a person's character", such as:

Thork: "I am a genuine flat earth believer"
The Knowledge: "No you're not"
Thork (in loud scream): "Argumentum ad hominem!!!!!"

(c) If my posts are so dull, why do you keep reading and replying to them? Oh, my mistake - see "INS disproves FET" thread for proof you don't address my posts.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: zarg on December 19, 2011, 03:18:44 PM
The fact they are moving to standardise the units is not because of complaints that things change weight as they move around the earth. ::)

Yes it is. Learn to read:

From the NIST Handbook 44, 2010 edition (http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/h44-10.cfm), Appendix B, page 8:
Quote
3.2.1. Mass and Weight. – The mass of a body is a measure of its inertial property or how much matter it contains. The weight of a body is a measure of the force exerted on it by gravity or the force needed to support it. Gravity on earth gives a body a downward acceleration of about 9.8 m/s2. (In common parlance, weight is often used as a synonym for mass in weights and measures.) The incorrect use of weight in place of mass should be phased out, and the term mass used when mass is meant.

Standards of mass are ordinarily calibrated by comparison to a reference standard of mass. If two objects are compared on a balance and give the same balance indication, they have the same “mass” (excluding the effect of air buoyancy). The forces of gravity on the two objects are balanced. Even though the value of the acceleration of gravity, g, is different from location to location, because the two objects of equal mass in the same location (where both masses are acted upon by the same g) will be affected in the same manner and by the same amount by any change in the value of g, the two objects will balance each other under any value of g.

However, on a spring balance the mass of a body is not balanced against the mass of another body. Instead, the gravitational force on the body is balanced by the restoring force of a spring. Therefore, if a very sensitive spring balance is used, the indicated mass of the body would be found to change if the spring balance and the body were moved from one locality to another locality with a different acceleration of gravity. But a spring balance is usually used in one locality and is adjusted or calibrated to indicate mass at that locality.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 03:47:08 PM
So, jumping in without reading a single post in the thread, why would using weight instead of mass need to be phased out. It's never been...in.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 04:04:58 PM
So, jumping in without reading a single post in the thread, why would using weight instead of mass need to be phased out. It's never been...in.
Good point... Even though Thork implies differently, the industry measures mass, not weight. They use either a calibration mass to zero a scale or they use a balance.

Laypeople don't worry about 0.5% variance and just use weight.

It must be a sad day for Thork when KIG delivers the killing blow. RET victory!
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:06:25 PM
Yeah!


I mean...hey! :(
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: El Cid on December 21, 2011, 12:22:01 AM
In my opinion, there is no Higgs field.  The universe began when someone observed it and caused a quantum waveform collapse.  So, there must have been someone there.  Awesome, huh?
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 21, 2011, 04:28:17 AM
In my opinion, there is no Higgs field.

Damn, that would have saved the LHC team some time.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: jraffield1 on December 21, 2011, 09:41:06 PM
The universe began when someone observed it and caused a quantum waveform collapse.  So, there must have been someone there.  Awesome, huh?

I suppose that really depends on what counts as an observer. In some experiments, a single photon is all that is required to collapse a wave-function, I guess the photon was the observer. Call it God if you wish, I shall continue worshiping his noodly goodness.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Thork on December 22, 2011, 04:35:02 AM
Please don't confuse the Higgs Boson with the Graviton.  They are 2 different particles and have different interactions in different theories (The Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory, respectively).
How many more made-up sub-atomic particles does RET need to cobble together a theory?
Lol. Today they just added another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908
"The new particle is made up of a 'beauty quark' and a 'beauty anti-quark', which are then bound together,"
This sounds like something Levee would write. ::)

Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: markjo on December 22, 2011, 06:19:45 AM
Please don't confuse the Higgs Boson with the Graviton.  They are 2 different particles and have different interactions in different theories (The Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory, respectively).
How many more made-up sub-atomic particles does RET need to cobble together a theory?
Lol. Today they just added another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908)

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908
"The new particle is made up of a 'beauty quark' and a 'beauty anti-quark', which are then bound together,"
This sounds like something Levee would write. ::)

I'm having a hard time deciding if you are trying to mock the discovery of a new composite particle that they thought would exist anyways or if you are amused that particle physicists might actually have a sense of humor when they name some of the particles.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: The Knowledge on December 22, 2011, 02:15:32 PM

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908
"The new particle is made up of a 'beauty quark' and a 'beauty anti-quark', which are then bound together,"
This sounds like something Levee would write. ::)

Nah, it's about 5 pages too short.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: kbthiede on December 22, 2011, 05:55:16 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

Desperate and under-fire Round Earth Scientists are grasping at straws, as public pressure to explain 'gravity' is heaped upon them. With a suspicious population demanding a better answer than 'magic' for why things fall to earth, SCIENTISTS are resorting to phrases such as
Quote from: Guido Tonelli
As of today, what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson.
So ... they found something or nothing. They don't know.


IMPLYING THE INFINITE UPWARD ACCELERATION OF NOT ONLY THE WHOLE WORLD BUT ALSO THE DISC-SHAPED SUN AND MOON  ISN'T "MAGIC" IN ANY WAY.


Sigh

the flat earth society is such a massive troll.
Title: Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 05:44:56 AM
In my opinion, there is no Higgs field.  The universe began when someone observed it and caused a quantum waveform collapse.  So, there must have been someone there.  Awesome, huh?

But could it have been Cthulhu?