A cynic would say that there has been a "value" floating around, almost as a meme. maybe for 30 years, and this value keeps coming up in models, and is hinted at in beam-line data from time to time, and its getting more and more precise over time - but it is a high value and the means to "see it" have alluded the theorists until LHC
Let's say the historic "value" is/was abound 125 GeV. Somehow, and in something akin to the "Peter Principle" on steroids, the Ivory Tower lobby gets strong enough, in political influence, to entice several World class economies to fork over billions under the PR pretext that there is a "god particle" out there that will open up our understanding of the Universe in a way that the old version of God never could. That is the crux of it. The proponents do not mention that they designed the detector based on three decades of suspicion of where this particle will be found. And they try hard to obfuscate the fact that the value can now be derived for the price of PC, from extending data already present, and without the $5 billion wasted. OK - that sounds cynical and self-serving, but it all depends on POV (point-of-view). My strong skepticism, like that of Terry, Dave and others of a few months back (in personally not having found a real use for the "value") changed almost overnight - since that skepticism has been mollified greatly in the recent days by finding that the value can indeed plug into my own pet theory of LENR gain very well. Hmm. "it's all relative" in the end, no? i.e. relative to POV and to what you get out of your personal god, so to speak. Spend-on, oh ship of CERN . but keep "the value" always the same. :-) From: David Roberson 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 Jones Beene 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.
