11–20 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this is science, it doesn't mean anything to creationists.
On the contrary, some creationists make great efforts to engage science on it's own terms, with hilarious results: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay
Amazing, I wonder what this means for creationists and more importantly - our understanding of our universe?
God either created the Higgs or he didn't. This science illuminates God. That's all.
It's not an argument for or against creationism.
(Although if you believe God created the world, then just say it. There is nothing wrong with believing that. But don't hide behind a psudo-science like creationism.)
Amazing, I wonder what this means for creationists and more importantly - our understanding of our universe?
So, when I asked him if he believed in Dinosaurs, he said that some fossils were from before the Great Flood, and that those animals where the beasts that died a few thousand years ago.
When I asked him about Carbon-14, and that those fossils were dated millions of years ago, his answer was simple: Two options, those experiments are wrong, or is God testing our faith.
This could be God testing our faith again for them, so... nothing will change.
What stood out to me from watching the presentation was the incredible integrity of the physicists involved. The CMS group had 2 sets of data with > 5 sigma significance, but chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly. Consider the enormous effort spent to show that the result was not some background fluke - two separate detectors, running 2 completely different means of detection,…
Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't.
Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!!
What stood out to me from watching the presentation was the incredible integrity of the physicists involved. The CMS group had 2 sets of data with > 5 sigma significance, but chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly. Consider the enormous effort spent to show that the result was not some background fluke - two separate detectors, running 2 completely different means of detection,…
> So, chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't. Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!…
A nobel prize is at stake! If ATLAS only had the results and not CMS, they would have lost the nobel. For them to put aside personal glory for science is impressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't. Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!…
> Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. A nobel prize is at stake! If ATLAS only had the results and not CMS, they would have lost the nobel. For them to put aside personal glory for science is impressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't. Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!…
> Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. A nobel prize is at stake! If ATLAS only had the results and not CMS, they would have lost the nobel. For them to put aside personal glory for science is impressive.
This is probably yet another argument in favor of the claim that Nobel Prize in its current form is antiquated and not matching the reality of modern science (especially particle physics).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this is science, it doesn't mean anything to creationists.
On the contrary, some creationists make great efforts to engage science on it's own terms, with hilarious results: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay
Amazing, I wonder what this means for creationists and more importantly - our understanding of our universe?