The Higgs is getting ahead of the horse. Just because a particle within this mass range has been discovered does not prove that it is a special one. Perhaps someone should show that the discovery actually performs a function before they jump too high and far. I have to be skeptical in this case since the proof is so weak that what has been found actually contributes to mass in any way.
Why is this so well accepted by the physicists when LENR seems to be required to jump every conceivable hoop before it is given any acceptance? Could someone please outline the proof that anything other than this particle having a mass within a broadly accepted range demonstrates anything at all? How can we be so positive that an entirely different mechanism is not being revealed instead of mass? A skeptic at least once, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Proton radius in question, after 3 years the textbooks may need to be corrected... On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm ... don't be so quick to write Puthoff off wrt Higgs. It may not have > been a "former requirement" but things change. Well, we don't yet have a five sigma horse to put before the cart yet. The alleged Higgs might have a different spin to it, so to speak.
