Comments by "gwho" (@gwho) on "Higgs Boson Discovery Wins Nobel Prize for Physics" video.

  1. "spanking space, and it will jiggle" This is how physicists get hard. Large hadron collider, or large hardon collider?
    160
  2. AwakenTruth111 but you cant. it's not even internally consistent. A square circle cannot exist. You cannot move up and down at the same time. God cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing. There is evidence for Higgs boson. There is no evidence for a deity, let alone the specific details of a christian deity.
    9
  3. They already found the Higgs Boson earlier this year. It asn't Jesus. FACT
    4
  4. don't know. but the idea and best understanding so far is that the higgs boson is fundamentally responsible for giving mass. It would be like asking what gives the photon light? well... you see. that's not exactly a valid question within the standard model. photons fundamentally give light (an em wave)
    2
  5. HHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA vote up. made my day.
    2
  6. Don't blame space programs. Blame government. The space program is 1% of the US budget. 62% of the budget is medicare, socialsecurity, welfare, pensions - all things supposedly to help the poor, and doing such a shitty job. Meanwhile, the debt is more than the yearly GDP, pushing us closer towards complete bankrupcy and sharp, massive currency devaluation, which will cause massive poverty. Without government, we'd have so much prosperity, productivity, and human capital to perform hundreds of these kinds of experiments, and take care of the entire world's poor. BLAME GOVERNMENT.
    2
  7. Please don't have kids, get promoted, become a speaker, or vote.
    2
  8. Religion and government has squandered and wasted so much more wealth, prosperity, and created lost income, pain and suffering, death, injustice, and lost talent.
    2
  9. The only reason Jesus gets mentioned here is because someone dubbed the Higgs Boson "the god particle". If it weren't for that nickname, Jesus would not get mentioned. It's just a nickname. What it actually is, is an explanation for mass. How is that god-related in any way? How is quantum fluctuation, or electroweak forces any more or less god-like than mass is? The key defining feature of religious thinking is unfalsifiability, and sheer willful and active avoidance of logic. As one who was religious and continuously applied logic to it, i came up with all possible defenses, as one should when exploring, defending, purporting, or disproving any argument. Ultimately, I had to yield and concede that religion was not rational or even internally consistent. Being nice and treating people according to universal principles is one thing. What passes for truth is another, namely subject to rational thinking, aka scientific method, aka anti-Platonic world of forms.
    1
  10. ***** It wasn't that I ignored basic logic. I held to it as best as I could. But I did not know it well. Who ever gets taught epistemology or philosophy as kids? When do you ever really pick it up? The religious asserts were taken as postulates, but more strongly valid postulates. It inevitably seems more strong/valid when you're a kid told it since day 1, and when you don't know other important points and arguments. Then comes the point of counterarguments. You can take it as it is. It's valid. But just as with any conflicting viewpoints and arguments, there is a digesting, clashing period, where you think through the implications, and test the validity, etc. Just like in court, or when debating a scientific hypothesis. You have objections. you have coutnerarguments, "but how about this line of reasoning? but how do you explain that?" And there are many people who throw those kind of questions just to stifle them. I was genuinely asking them. For instance, macroevolution. big jumps, how is it possible? Microevolution, sure, we observe that. Another: hydroplate theory. "Please rebut it" Another: why can't god, or certain initial conditions just be so? (upon further knowledge, the backwards regression of the hubble's constant points strongly to the big bang. interventions could defy that logic, but then you have to establish existence of god, the nature of god, which ultimately lack evidence, and must be discarded in favor of observable, reproducible constancy of the laws of physics. Again, there is a lack of knowledge and exposure to proper thinking. I really always submitted myself to it, and gravitated towards the study of logic and philosophy, but many people don't, and don't ever really get exposed to philosophy. After accepting the scientific method, as opposed to platonic world of forms or a god hypothesis that lead to corollaries very difficult if not to establish or test... after being exposed to many logical arguments... after actually having my rebuttal points addressed... after having time to truly digest it all... THEN one lets go. I'm human just like everyone else, but from my observations, I'm rare in that I truly do seek and subject myself to logic. My rebuttals and questions and defenses weren't ever shit I threw at people to shut them up, or bury my brain in the sand. I started off in a bad starting point, lacked exposure and teaching to philosophy and logical thinking like most people, but I've now gotten to a point where epistemology, and philosophy is correctly approached. And everything follows from there. And if there is something that overturns that, it won't be on whim, emotional desire, or tolerating contradictions. Thanks for asking. I think I got a lot out of explaining my side, which allowed me to identify how to approach and what goes on in others' minds. We're really all pretty similar, despite our differences. So presenting counter arguments, establishing epistemological postulates, and discussing the root beliefs, rather than their corollaries, doing it warmly, respecting the others' feelings and dignity, addressing their objections by continuing from their line of reasoning (and not only with arguments with new external postulates), and really discussing philosophy (i.e. how to think and the scientific method), and giving them time is the approach I conclude.
    1
  11. Assaf Wodeslavsky relativity cost nothing? Coming up with an unconfirmed theory, correct as it may be, does not enable one to act upon it. Experiments to test it must be done, and bring it into the realm of the a thesis, rather than hypothesis. Sure, coming up with multiverse theory costs nothing, if you ignore the subsidized paycheck and lost opportunity cost of professors. But we don't know if it's true until we experiment to do it. Experimenting will most likely involve huge amounts of energy to rip spacetime. But I think the arguments are plenty, and enough people have said enough.
    1
  12. to say that our lives are the cost of going to space is a bit skew. Space programs per se aren't the problem. With some economic knowledge and critical thinking, you'll see the government is the problem.
    1
  13. satellites rely on clock adjustment predicted by relativity. Without it, all your GPS searches would be far more inaccurate. Relativity so worthless. Space exploration, so worthless. ok...
    1