It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That 'discovery' has already been called into question.
Not really. What has been questioned is whether or not the data supports one hypothesis or another. The 'discovery' is rock solid.
In recent days, at least 34 news outlets were selling the "story" that the particle discovered by the LHC is perhaps not the Higgs boson, scientists finally realized. It's the techni-higgs, and so on. So the Higgs boson remains undiscovered, and all this amazing stuff.
If you look what these deluded texts are building upon, you find out that it is a September 2013 (!) preprint
The Technicolor Higgs in the Light of LHC Data
by Belyaev, Brown, Foadi, and Frandsen (UK-Belgium-Denmark). And of course that the paper doesn't really claim that it's likely that the particle discovered in 2012 is not the Higgs boson. Moreover, after more than a year, the paper has 2 self-citations plus 7 other citations which surely makes it a below-average preprint among thousands of preprints posted on the arXiv every year.
So why this insane hysteria now? The closest thing to an answer that I can find is that the preprint was "just" published in Physical Review D. However, if you look at that PRD page, you will see that the word "just" is an extreme exaggeration because even in that journal, the paper was published in August 2014.
So why this insane hysteria now? The closest thing to an answer that I can find is that the preprint was "just" published in Physical Review D. However, if you look at that PRD page, you will see that the word "just" is an extreme exaggeration because even in that journal, the paper was published in August 2014.
So a much more accurate explanation of the explosion of these reports is that the people calling themselves "science journalists" are a bunch of lazy, lousy, batšit crazy scumbags who spend 90+ percent of their lives by copying and "improving" the šit from their fellow lazy, lousy, batšit crazy scumbags so that they can serve these feces as a yummy dinner for their retarded readers.
In the recent month and even in 2014 or in recent 5 years, there has been absolutely no advance that would increase the probability that a technicolor explanation of the electroweak symmetry breaking is right. All the experimental results would increasingly strongly disfavor, and de facto eliminate, the whole technicolor research program.
The observed Higgs boson looks as close to the 125 GeV Standard Model Higgs boson as you can get. Pretty much every single property of the particle that has been measured individually strengthens the case for a Standard Model-like Higgs boson and disfavors technicolor-like alternatives. It's so close that even if there were "some" technicolor underneath, the particle would still deserve to be called the Higgs boson.
Recall that technicolor theories are contrived proposed man-made (therefore "techni-") theories with Lagrangians similar to that of Quantum Chromodynamics (dynamics of colors: therefore "-color") that governs the behavior of quarks. So technicolor theories predict lots of "technihadrons", analogous to pions and protons, but at a different scale, and the condensates of some of these composite particles is supposed to break the electroweak symmetry – which is normally achieved by the Higgs field.
Such models are highly problematic if you realize that only one Higgs-like particle has been measured and the other should be significantly less observable, for one reason or another. On the other hand, the "compositeness" technicolor-like theories inevitably predict many Higgs-like species just like there is a whole zoo of hadrons predicted by QCD. That's a rather universal, lethal problem, especially now when we clearly observe one animal and no zoo.
Also, the QCD-like scale of the technicolor has to be much higher than the QCD scale (and even higher than the electroweak scale or a TeV) because the new forces would have already produced some deviations in the Standard Model – the hypothetical new forces and particles must be very weak and therefore "generated" by a rather high energy scale. But if that's so, there is really no explanation for the lightness of the "techni-higgs" that is claimed to replace the Higgs boson. Its mass should be comparable to at least many TeVs, too.
(Note that string theory offers a loophole to avoid this conclusion that the "characteristic energy scale of the theory" has to agree with the "masses of the predicted particles".)
But the media reports make it sound as if if the discovery of the Higgs boson has been reverted or at least seriously questioned, and that's also how the stupid yet loud aggressive laymen commenting on these stories interpret all the news. So these stories may do nothing else than to energize the subhuman trash that hates science and feels proud about it.
One of the major EU players, Wal Thornhill, says gravity is actually electricity, but wait there's more. Despite all known measurements of electricity and electromagnetism showing it's limited to the speed of light, he claims that is false and it's not limited to the speed of light, and that the entire scientific community suffers from self-delusion if they accept the experiments which show absence of the aether, because, you know, everyone knows that waves can't travel through nothing. Seriously, the claims are so far in the deep end of the woo pool that the electric comet claims seem tame in comparison.
originally posted by: Astyanax
I've heard some breathtaking bollocks from EU supporters over the years, but I have to say this is the first time I've heard one of you actually deny the existence of gravity. Go to the top of the class!
Notice the 1882 reference which of course wasn't a widely held view at the time, Thornhill also seems to ignore everything we've learned since then. GaryN is right about one thing, yes the boffins have tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism, but what he doesn't mention is the more important point that they've failed to do so in many experiments and observations since 1882.
Wal Thornhill on Gravity. From Holoscience.com
"...The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star.
How do you like that? "If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing." The irony of the self delusion statement is rich since experiments show that we can't rely on what we call "common sense" to predict the outcome of an experiment, as much as we would like to do so. Relying on so called "common sense", rather than experimental evidence, can lead to self-delusion.
"This simple electrical model of matter has the great virtue of reducing all known forces to a single one – the electric force. However, it has a price. We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. ...
"We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal electric force. ...
The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing. So Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium, the æther.
how it tracks stars in a manner consistent with the belief that basically, stars can't be seen in space?
The star trackers still use classified technology, military stuff,
originally posted by: DexterRiley
Now once the probe got close to, and actually contacted the surface of the comet, electromagnetic forces became more of a factor. At that point, it is possible that the EM forces overcame gravitational forces and may have been instrumental in causing some of the anomalous behavior experienced by Philae at touchdown.
originally posted by: GaryN
What I have said and still say is that your eyes or a device with simple optics can not see them.
What makes you say that? What's missing from this pdf?
actually your naked eyes can see stars in space..
..you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions. It's like a huge yawning endlessness on your left side and you're in between those two things and trying to rationalize it to yourself and trying to get some work done.
Neil Armstrong: “The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might ...er ...be visible."
originally posted by: GaryN
And you are going to tell Hadfield he needs to wait for his eyes to adapt? Well, they are in total dark for 90 minutes at a time when on an EVA, but of the 200+ who have been EVA, how many talk about the view of the stars or planets? Gave lectures, wrote a book describing the Milky Way? Oh yeah, I forgot, they were all too busy to take a look. Right....
I like to go down into the docking compartment and turn out all the lights and watch the nighttime sky through the two portholes there. Just like at home, if you are indoors looking out through the window when all the lights are on inside, it is very hard to see the stars. Your eyes are adjusted to the bright interior, and besides all you can usually see is glare off the window. After turning off the lights, it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adapt to the dark, and slowly the stars get more and more distinct. These past couple of weeks the moon has been close to a new moon, so without the light from the moon, the stars seem even brighter.
- Science Officer and Flight Engineer Ed Lu
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: choos
I believe that's because, without atmospheric distortion, the stars are just intense pinpoints of light due to their distance. IE the brightest stars would not necessarily appear to be larger when viewed through the vacuum of space.
Has it been reliably established that the 'singing' is of magnetic origin, or is that just a hypothesis?
(RPC consists of five instruments on the Rosetta orbiter that provide a wide variety of complementary information about the plasma environment surrounding Comet 67P/C-G
The instruments are designed to study a number of phenomena, including: the interaction of 67P/C-G with the solar wind, a continuous stream of plasma emitted by the Sun; changes of activity on the comet; the structure and dynamics of the comet’s tenuous plasma ‘atmosphere’, known as the coma; and the physical properties of the cometary nucleus and surface
"It's highly likely that Philae had either an excess of electrons or protons"
Why is that?
These currents are from solar photon-induced photoelectrons leaving the surface, plasma electrons and ions impinging on the surface, and charged particles emitted from the vehicle (e.g., from active ion emission). A balance equation for current density can be written as:
Jelec + Jion + Jpe + Jsec + Jback + Jart = 0
where the currents Jelec and Jion are from external plasma electrons and ions, respectively, Jpe is the net photoelectron current, Jsec is the net current due to secondary electrons (few eV) generated by energetic primaries (electrons and ions) at the satellite surface, Jback is the backscattered electron current from electrons reflected back from the surface with some energy loss, and Jart is a possible artificial current.
"When I drop a ball on the floor and it bounces, of what kind is the 'repulsion force'? Is the force that makes the lander bounce different from the agency that makes the ball bounce ?"
"You mean there would have been arc discharges between the lander and the comet? Wouldn't they have fried Philae's sensitive instruments? If so, how come there was telemetry and activity on the lander, everything except the anchoring bolts working fine, until the battery died?"
You betcha! There's a whole bunch of anomalous behavior when one's cranium impacts Mike Tyson's fist and it's all electromagnetic.
On the other hand, the later mocking of my attempt to inject some basic science into the EU discussion was disheartening.
The RPC-Mag experiment detected changes in the comet environment’s magnetic field of an oscillatory nature in the 40-50 millihertz range.
This demonstrates to me that the ESA *is* interested in acquiring new information about the comet's interactions with the solar wind, or the active plasma environment in our solar system.
Rosetta, and Philae by default, has been immersed in a soup of plasma, varying magnetic fields, and photons of all wavelengths.
It is interesting that the hops that Philae took on Rosetta’s surface are somewhat reminiscent of a bouncing ball.
What later mocking would that be? I addressed just one post to you and there was no mockery in it at all.
Never said it wasn't, but the effects being examined are many orders of magnitude below those predicted by EU pundits. They are, in fact, well in line with what standard science would lead us to expect.
No, it is profoundly uninteresting, because at that point, a bouncing ball — or at any rate a bouncing box with legs — is just what Philae was.
That would be the solar wind (which grows increasingly tenuous the farther you travel from the Sun) and the nearly-as-tenuous atmosphere created round 67P/C-G by outgassing. This 'soup' of which you speak is very thin gruel. Indeed, it is barely there at all. The sources you yourself have quoted make this quite clear.
You are probably aware that the energy of a wave is given by the Planck-Einstein equation, E = hn, where E is the energy, n is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. So energy is directly dependent on frequency; the higher the frequency, the greater the energy.