Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'

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.

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.

Quote from: The Knowledge on December 15, 2011, 06:50:05 PM

Quote from: Thork on December 14, 2011, 02:50:53 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.

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, 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.

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.

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!

Yeah!


I mean...hey!

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?

In my opinion, there is no Higgs field.

Damn, that would have saved the LHC team some time.

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.

Quote from: 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).

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

"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.

Quote from: Thork on December 16, 2011, 07:43:54 AM

Quote from: 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?