Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: looking
Next: FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Jul 2010 23:27 On Jul 27, 3:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You are entitled to revise history to fit your needs. With regard to the Dirac magnetic monopole and the multi-million dollar search for free quarks in the lab, in deep mines and even on the surface of the Moon, I know what happened, and the order of the events, and how the postmodern pseudoscientists have "saved the phenomena" repeatedly in the recent past. Tacking on new particles and new fields, all unobservable of course, until a few brave physicists (some of whom are Nobel prize-winners) have cried "foul". When you have 70 years and 1000s of credulous sycophants to make your Ptolemaic paradigm seem air-tight, and when epicycles are allowed to be added without experimental evidence, of course you are going to appear to have a nearly invincible case. It's a house of cards and it is coming down in the 21st century. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 07:46 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 27, 3:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You are entitled to revise history to fit your needs. > > With regard to the Dirac magnetic monopole and the multi-million > dollar search for free quarks in the lab, in deep mines and even on > the surface of the Moon, I know what happened, and the order of the > events, and how the postmodern pseudoscientists have "saved the > phenomena" repeatedly in the recent past. Tacking on new particles and > new fields, all unobservable of course, until a few brave physicists > (some of whom are Nobel prize-winners) have cried "foul". > > When you have 70 years and 1000s of credulous sycophants to make your > Ptolemaic paradigm seem air-tight, and when epicycles are allowed to > be added without experimental evidence, of course you are going to > appear to have a nearly invincible case. > > It's a house of cards and it is coming down in the 21st century. I am less optimistic. http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/images/stories/Fear_of_the_Invisible/letter_from_m_gonda_to_m_popovic_03.26.84.jpg http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ And it goes on and on and on, and millions of people get killed at the cost of trillions of dollars. Compared to that, String Theory is rather a benign cancer of science. Uwe Hayek. > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 08:29 On Jul 27, 10:27 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 27, 3:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You are entitled to revise history to fit your needs. But I haven't. As I said, you are just confused about what the history IS. > > With regard to the Dirac magnetic monopole and the multi-million > dollar search for free quarks in the lab, in deep mines and even on > the surface of the Moon, I know what happened, and the order of the > events, and how the postmodern pseudoscientists have "saved the > phenomena" repeatedly in the recent past. Tacking on new particles and > new fields, all unobservable of course, until a few brave physicists > (some of whom are Nobel prize-winners) have cried "foul". Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. > > When you have 70 years and 1000s of credulous sycophants to make your > Ptolemaic paradigm seem air-tight, and when epicycles are allowed to > be added without experimental evidence, of course you are going to > appear to have a nearly invincible case. > > It's a house of cards and it is coming down in the 21st century. We'll see, won't we? In the meantime, as I said, you have the same channels as anyone else to put forward your ideas in developed form. And you can do it without whining.
From: Igor on 28 Jul 2010 10:12 On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 5:17 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > > Oh dear, "high-energy" physicists cannot seem to find another piece of > > > their Ptolemaic puzzle. > > > > Before it was, ta-da, the mythical "magnetic monopoles". TOTAL NO > > > SHOW. > > > No aspect of modern physics predicts magnetic monopoles. > > > Stop making things up. > > > > And of course there was the, ta-da, mythical "free quarks". TOTAL NO > > > SHOW. > > > QCD does not predict free quarks. > > > Stop making things up. > > > > Now after searching high and low all over the barnyard, the mythical > > > "Higgsy pig" is nowhere to be found. Well maybe Higgsy pig is hiding > > > under the, ahhh, mud in the pig sty. > > > > See:http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3073#comments, > > > or search on "Higgs Bozo". > > > > An interesting question is whether the devotees of the Substandard > > > Model would ever dare to question the basic assumptions of their > > > faith. Or is the search for the mythical particles an endless fool's > > > errand? > > > Continued childish behavior towards a scientific theory noted. Grow the hell > > up, Robert. > > > [snip rest] > > The Higgs particle is science's excuse for a creation of mass that > can only come from God at the beginning of time. God does not need a > phenomenon to create. > But can God create something so heavy that even he cannot lift it?
From: John Park on 28 Jul 2010 10:46
"Robert L. Oldershaw" (rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu) writes: [...] So you don't understand English. Not a good start. [Hint: what does "wherefore" mean?] --John Park |