Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?
Jones et al, I think we have to keep in mind what the essence of a theory is: It is based on a set of assumptions and expands from those with an established set of tools, ie 'the set of accepted methods'. Based on that 'belief' of mine, the Higgs Boson is something which only 'exists' within this belief-system. A similar case being the Ptolemaen system of cycles and epicycles. It had-and has- true predictive value, but was a lot more cost-intensive than the Galilean theory. So if you have a workable theory, but which does not converge but eventually needs hyperexponetial effort ton chase the other ghosts (dark matter, dark energy), one has a problem. So the next question is, whether the particle zoo can ultimately be closed, or whether there is some infinite regress, which finally eats up all of the resources the universe has to offer, to explain 'itself'. We will see. Guenter Von: Jones Beene An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 19:11 Donnerstag, 5.Juli 2012 Betreff: RE: [Vo]:Higgs found or not? David, I agree that this is could be an elaborate PR stunt, and little more. That would be true, even if they nailed it. So what ? How can one justify the enormous expense? It does zero for practical solutions to the energy crisis. The prima donnas at CERN are extremely well-paid and are highly motivated financially to keep the Euros flowing ...
Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?
Anyway, now that the origin of mass has been "found", perhaps the focus will finally shift to the origin of energy. Harry On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Found or made? > > The LHC is the mother and the laws of physics are the father. > > Harry > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: >> Higgs are slowing you down. Free Higgs with integer spin: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLyfBhi3xj4 >> >> Now we know we are more than two quarks and an electron. >> >> T >>
RE: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?
David, I agree that this is could be an elaborate PR stunt, and little more. That would be true, even if they nailed it. So what ? How can one justify the enormous expense? It does zero for practical solutions to the energy crisis. The prima donnas at CERN are extremely well-paid and are highly motivated financially to keep the Euros flowing in a time of cutbacks for other science programs. The Higgs search is a boondoggle of gigantic proportions; and naming it the "god particle" is emblematic of the lengths they will go to for greed, rather than science... or to be fair: for greed with some arguable science on the side. That money could be better spent elsewhere. LENR comes to mind. However, as for the science, and as for what the geniuses may have missed in the rush to judgment (you mentioned "another particle" which could be confused with this discovery), consider this... whatever was found weighs-in at about 125 GeV or giga-electronvolts, according to reports. Funny, that figure was mentioned but the commentators did not follow up on the implications. There are indeed possible implications for LENR and energy anomalies in general. If you look at the periodic table for nuclei in that mass-energy range, you find the interesting situation with elements 52 and 53, and possible 54. These would be tellurium, iodine and xenon. Why is iodine lighter than tellurium, when it has a higher Z? This seldom happens in the periodic table (twice, I think). Did we not determine previously here that the only other example in the periodic table was Nickel !?! (i.e. Ni is lower in a.m.u than Cobalt yet has higher Z. This "could be" coincidental for sure, but it is a bit curious, due to other considerations including our focus on Ni-H. All of the these three elements, tellurium, iodine and xenon, have in fact been mentioned as energy anomalies over the years in one form or another - far in excess of similar elements. There is compelling information on electrical discharge anomalies in Xenon, (see http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58918.html for a recent Xe claim but there are others including Papp and Gray). There is plenty of detail on energy anomalies in the vortex archives on all of these three elements. But having the same mass as the putative boson may be only coincidental, admittedly ... unless you believe in quantum mechanics taken to its full extreme From: David Roberson The news is buzzing with the CERN announcement of the discovery of a new boson. They are careful not to state that the Higgs has been found at this time. How would they actually know that this is the Higgs when there are no known particles that are associated with the force of gravity that I am aware of? Obviously it is not possible to see any gravitation effects from such a massive particle in the short time of its existence. And, it seems to me that the actual mass has been unknown for a long time and seems to be changing every time I read about what is expected. Are they jumping the gun in this case to get publicity? In my estimate it is more likely that they have found some other type of particle that might even be more interesting than the Higgs. Does anyone share my question about this discovery? Dave <>
Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?
Found or made? The LHC is the mother and the laws of physics are the father. Harry On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Higgs are slowing you down. Free Higgs with integer spin: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLyfBhi3xj4 > > Now we know we are more than two quarks and an electron. > > T >
Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?
Higgs are slowing you down. Free Higgs with integer spin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLyfBhi3xj4 Now we know we are more than two quarks and an electron. T
[Vo]:Higgs found or not?
The news is buzzing with the CERN announcement of the discovery of a new boson. They are careful not to state that the Higgs has been found at this time. How would they actually know that this is the Higgs when there are no known particles that are associated with the force of gravity that I am aware of? Obviously it is not possible to see any gravitation effects from such a massive particle in the short time of its existence. And, it seems to me that the actual mass has been unknown for a long time and seems to be changing every time I read about what is expected. Are they jumping the gun in this case to get publicity? In my estimate it is more likely that they have found some other type of particle that might even be more interesting than the Higgs. Does anyone share my question about this discovery? Dave
