No holes but lots of leaks - another headache for the "standard model"

A particle accelerator in the US has shown compelling hints of a never-before-seen particle, researchers say . . . It could also signal a new fundamental force of nature, and the most radical change in physics for decades.

A new particle and a new fundamental force. Sounds like another brain-scratching moment for globularist science! Nevermind, I'm sure you'll jam it into the "standard model" somehow - you always do!

An interesting new discovery is made; FET victory?

An interesting new discovery is made; FET victory?

Another way for the conspiracy to make money. 

every freshman physics class would have to change their textbooks."

ITT: Lord Wilmore shows that he fundamentally does not understand how science works.

ITT: Lord Wilmore shows that he fundamentally does not understand how science works.

How so? You'd try to say the same thing, if we proposed a second sun or other such thing.

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

A particle accelerator in the US has shown compelling hints of a never-before-seen particle, researchers say . . . It could also signal a new fundamental force of nature, and the most radical change in physics for decades.

A new particle and a new fundamental force. Sounds like another brain-scratching moment for globularist science! Nevermind, I'm sure you'll jam it into the "standard model" somehow - you always do!

I'm sorry but what does this new particle have to do with the shape of the earth? 

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

A particle accelerator in the US has shown compelling hints of a never-before-seen particle, researchers say . . . It could also signal a new fundamental force of nature, and the most radical change in physics for decades.

A new particle and a new fundamental force. Sounds like another brain-scratching moment for globularist science! Nevermind, I'm sure you'll jam it into the "standard model" somehow - you always do!

Incorporating new things we learn about our universe into our standard model is the very essence of learning about our surrounding universe and the mysteries therein.

How is this any different than your research into Luna theory for cause of moon light and your incorporation of it into FET?  Should we then simply dismiss it just because it is a relatively new concept?  or should we allow it some credence to at least Zeteticly give it a chance for study and review as something new that was observed?

Seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black again to me that you have already pointed out in another thread....

I must have missed the Globularist meeting where they announced that everything ever has been discovered and we cannot add to it. I need to stop sleeping in.

I wonder if this new particle might help shed some insight into dark matter.

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

A particle accelerator in the US has shown compelling hints of a never-before-seen particle, researchers say . . . It could also signal a new fundamental force of nature, and the most radical change in physics for decades.

A new particle and a new fundamental force. Sounds like another brain-scratching moment for globularist science! Nevermind, I'm sure you'll jam it into the "standard model" somehow - you always do!

Yes, we globularists actually try to make sense of the world around us as it truly is, rather than steadfastly denying anything that doesn't agree with our predetermined world-view.

Quote from: Horatio on April 08, 2011, 10:41:31 AM

ITT: Lord Wilmore shows that he fundamentally does not understand how science works.

How so? You'd try to say the same thing, if we proposed a second sun or other such thing.

This "new particle" is an observation that was made.  You would be proposing something that hasn't been observed.  Ironically, the scientists would be following the zetetic method more closely than you would be, unless of course, you actually saw a second sun, and weren't just proposing it.

What are the chances Wilmore will pop his head back in and try and explain more?

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

A particle accelerator in the US has shown compelling hints of a never-before-seen particle, researchers say . . . It could also signal a new fundamental force of nature, and the most radical change in physics for decades.

A new particle and a new fundamental force. Sounds like another brain-scratching moment for globularist science! Nevermind, I'm sure you'll jam it into the "standard model" somehow - you always do!

Well, yeah... That's what science is. We discover something new, and try to figure out how it fits in with everything else. What do you mean by standard model?

What do you mean by standard model?

In this context, I think that it would be safe to assume that he means the standard model of particle physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Quote from: Tausami on April 09, 2011, 07:59:48 AM

What do you mean by standard model?

In this context, I think that it would be safe to assume that he means the standard model of particle physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Oh okay. I was afraid he was talking about science in general.

The standard model readily acknowledges that there are things it can't yet explain, this is just one of those things. I don't see how this could in any way be damaging to science as the OP seems to imply.

It appears, though, that while searching for one hypothetical particle to stuff into an inconsistency, they stumbled upon another.  Granted, this is theoretical physics, but one inconsistency piled upon another inconsistency could be termed 'dicey theoretical physics.'

It appears, though, that while searching for one hypothetical particle to stuff into an inconsistency, they stumbled upon another.  Granted, this is theoretical physics, but one inconsistency piled upon another inconsistency could be termed 'dicey theoretical physics.'

First of all, the Higgs boson is not an inconsistency in the Standard Model.  It's just an (as yet) unobserved part of that model.

Secondly, this is just one more example of how some of the most significant discoveries in science happen by accident.

Thirdly, this is not theoretical physics, it's particle physics.  Theoretical physics can't readily be tested by experimentation.  This new particle was discovered by actual experimentation (a zetetic approach, don't you think?).

Your first) Yes, I misstated that.  The inconsistency prompted the search for the Higgs boson.

Your second) Don't jump the gun here.  So far it is a "suspicious bump." 

Your third) The Higgs boson is so far hypothetical. You think looking for a hypothetical particle in particle physics to satisfy a prediction in the Standard Model is not also theoretical physics?   Are they mutually exclusive for some reason?

Standard model? More like sub-standard model!

Let's see you do better, James.

Let's see you do better, James.

He doesn't need to, the sun putting out fires and the anti-moon have been witnessed by millions.

Or standard failure, since failure seems so standard for them, amirite?

...amirite?

Nope.

Maybe Portable Model?

Portobello model, since you'd have to be high on psychadelic mushrooms to come up with half of the crazy nonsense which globularism's doctrines are made up of.

Good luck getting high off portobellos, James.

Portobello model, since you'd have to be high on psychadelic mushrooms to come up with half of the crazy nonsense which globularism's doctrines are made up of.

Well. the guy who discovered DNA was on LSD, but I think you agree with DNA.

Quote from: James on April 09, 2011, 08:59:37 PM

Portobello model, since you'd have to be high on psychadelic mushrooms to come up with half of the crazy nonsense which globularism's doctrines are made up of.

Well. the guy who discovered DNA was on LSD, but I think you agree with DNA.

Hmmm... that would explain why life always appears to be on an Acid Trip.... deoxyribonucleic acid, to be specific.

What are the chances Wilmore will pop his head back in and try and explain more?

Apologies, I've been away.


Anyway, what's there to explain? Globularists supposedly understood the "fundamental forces" of the universe, and have a bunch of hypothetical stuff they'd like to find. Instead, they've suddenly found out that there's a new "fundamental force" (which the old model supposedly didn't need to explain everything), and found a new particle that isn't one of the many hypothesised particles they'd like to find.


So if the standard model was so good and confidence inspiring, how did it miss this stuff?