Why cant electromagnetic theory and current physics be combined?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I think you failed to understand what I write, we are saying the same thing.
I explained clearly what i mean by flawed:
Imprecise, and in some cases dumb luck that indeed touches upon something, but something larger (or dissimilar) then what is observed (no, not god).
For examlle: if we observe gravity, we can use it, doesnt mean we fully understand it.
Another example: geocentrism. It too could make predictions, it just that the whole model was flawed or inaccurate.
You are suggesting science is finished.
I do not pledge allegence to this fact.
I cannot come up with a better theory, doesnt mean some else cannot.
Why should i come up with a more PRECISE theory?
I have the best seat in the house i observe, and know for a fact that all systems (less the universe) are flawed.
You cannot seriously suggest what you have suggestes.
There is a ton of astronomical observational data that doesnt match relativity.
It could be an anomaly, but since there is so much data, it is more likely the system is flawed on a universal level.
But whatever man, for you, there is but one path, the other path needs a nobel prize winning theory.
Congrats on being open minded.
As for higgs boson thing, they announce that every year.
As for the link.
You cannot debunk him thats why you are religiously appealing to a made up (or misunderstood) particle.
Debunk him, and we can continue this conversation.
Debunk him, if he is SO WRONG.
And as it stands at this moment, no higgs boson, so yeah, keep your faith and keep waiting, just like for Jesus.
Also Stephen Hawking is also doubting the existence of the Higgs boson, so why is doubting apparently wrong for you?
It is skepticism itself.
And should you also be a true skeptic, as opposed to believer, you should have no problems debunking the professor. So go ahead, and do it He has been waiting for many many years. You will do him a favor.


Yeah it has never happened that science found something and latter it turned out to be something else.
You sre suggesting this never happened.
Well if it was my religious dogma, i would also say god is infallable.

If you cannot debunk him (read website for full calculations), we have nothing further to talk about.
Here is an alternate or more precise theory.
I have read comments there on the website from cern, trying to debunk him.
They didnt succeed.
Now, you on the other hand. 5 minutes is all it should take for you to debunk him.
If cern people cant debunk him, i am sure you can!






PS: please also understand that at the same time I am writing this, I am also hoping and enjoying the possible discovery of the Higgs boson particle. It is akin to discovering a new continent.
However this enjoyment of science, doesn't preclude my critical thinking skills.
It maybe that what they find is the postulated Higgs boson particle, it could also be something else (aka wishful thinking).
There is certainly an undebunked theory that offers another viewpoint.
Why I should reject an undebunked viewpoint is beyond me.
You are in effect asking me to turn of my critical thinking skills, and just follow what I have been told.
I can hold both viewpoints without conflict.
Conflict is what happens to perhaps you, when you meet an undebunked idea, that contradict your worldview.
I am cheering for discovery, but I maintain a hold of my critical thinking skills to realize, there are holes the size of a black hole in the theory and observational (astronomical) doesn't add up.
I willtake no leap of faith, that it will be explained.
Perhaps it will, perhaps not.
Sitting on the fence is just fine for me.
Asking me to follow a dogmatic belief in parts unsupported by observation, and asking me to deny a theory that hasn't been debunked is....well...you find the word for it.


PPS: And on a brighter note, I thank you for allowing me to understand this electric people theory better, and showing me the faults. You have saved me a lot of time, as I no longer need to evaluate it, as no explanation, equations, etc have been put forth. Thank you.

Here is article:
The ATLAS detector team has not discovered the Higgs boson — but a statistical bump at 126 GeV strongly suggests (95% certainty) that something new and exciting will be found there. The team leader, Fabiola Gianotti, says that we should have something conclusive — either for or against the existence of the God particle — in 2012.

The CMS detector team hasn’t found anything solid either, but there’s a large number of unexplained “events” in the low mass region (which correlates with ATLAS’s findings). There is a very strong hint that the Higgs boson (or another new particle) will be found at 126 GeV or lower. The CMS spokesman, Guido Tonelli, also expects a conclusion to be found in 2012.

key points:
1. they haven't found the higgs boson particle
2. they may possible have found something

I am sure this something will be explained as the plausible high boson particle, but that is just lame.
scientifically you either find seomthing or you don't.
speculation is not science. that is my point entirely regarding higgs boson.
it could be higgs, or it could be something else entirely.
We shall have to wait and see.
At this point: NO HIGGS BOSON, just an anomaly.
Reminds me of the book title: what mad pursuits.

From the language of the article it seems to me, they have given up finding it, they are now focusing on something new and exciting.
Off course you could force fit that new and exciting thing to be the "improved" higgs boson particle.
I bet ya thats exactly what will happen.

Woops they didnt just say higgs boson may be found in 2010, did they!?
www.science20.com...
How about 2009:
arstechnica.com...
Omg, i though science was supposed to be about postjudice not prejudice, but hey i might be wrong, according to you.

Also may I add the definition of flawed:
flawed/flôd/
Adjective:
(of a substance or object) Blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.
(of something abstract) Containing a mistake, weakness, or fault.

So if the current standard model contains a mistake, or einsteins theory contains a mistake or fault, it is by its very definition FLAWED.
If neutrinos travel faster the light, it is indeed FLAWED.
No point really getting emotional over a word, isn't that what religious people do (god, saints, bible, etc.)
Doesn't mean, I do not acknowledge the results, or technology. That is your leap of faith. I never said that, but you are welcome to quote me (in full context or otherwise).


anyway back to the issue at hand, I dare you to debunk what cern scientists couldn't.

We currently cannot understand the connection between the Macro-Universe and the Quantum-Universe as they do not behave the same.

I believe this is because we are looking for interconnectivity in just one Universal State and that the connection will be found in a Multiversal System. Split Infinity

Originally posted by BBalazs
Woops they didnt just say higgs boson may be found in 2010, did they!?
www.science20.com...
How about 2009:
arstechnica.com...
Omg, i though science was supposed to be about postjudice not prejudice, but hey i might be wrong, according to you.

I don't get your point. I don't think you understand science. But Dr Feynman explains it in this 1 minute video:
Feynman - The Key to Science

So to summarize:
1. Make a guess.
2. Make calculations based on the guess
3. Observe if the experiments are or are not consistent with predicted calculations.

So the Higgs is the guess in #1, and we've made a theory about it in #2, and now we are making observations in step 3.

Regarding 95%, what can I say? The number 95% speaks for itself. It's not 100%. There's a 5% chance it's something else. So further work is needed and to get the percentage of confidence above 5 sigma.

But that 5% chance has another meaning. It means there's only a 5% chance the guy is right about the Higgs not existing. Does this mean he's wrong? No. But those aren't very good odds that he's right. That's what I'm saying. But I certainly admit the Higgs may not exist, and you're making a lot of straw man arguments about my position saying I've closed the book or whatever...I haven't. If they get a confidence above 5 sigma, then they will call it proof, and I'd tend to agree with that...but we're not there yet.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BBalazs
Woops they didnt just say higgs boson may be found in 2010, did they!?
www.science20.com...
How about 2009:
arstechnica.com...
Omg, i though science was supposed to be about postjudice not prejudice, but hey i might be wrong, according to you.

I don't get your point. I don't think you understand science. But Dr Feynman explains it in this 1 minute video:
Feynman - The Key to Science

So to summarize:
1. Make a guess.
2. Make calculations based on the guess
3. Observe if the experiments are or are not consistent with predicted calculations.

So the Higgs is the guess in #1, and we've made a theory about it in #2, and now we are making observations in step 3.

Regarding 95%, what can I say? The number 95% speaks for itself. It's not 100%. There's a 5% chance it's something else. So further work is needed and to get the percentage of confidence above 5 sigma.

But that 5% chance has another meaning. It means there's only a 5% chance the guy is right about the Higgs not existing. Does this mean he's wrong? No. But those aren't very good odds that he's right. That's what I'm saying. But I certainly admit the Higgs may not exist, and you're making a lot of straw man arguments about my position saying I've closed the book or whatever...I haven't. If they get a confidence above 5 sigma, then they will call it proof, and I'd tend to agree with that...but we're not there yet.

That seems like a counterproductive list of steps for a person to take with science, i would

1) Make observations.
2) Guess what was going on.
3) Make calculations and if they do not fit, remake those calculations.

It makes me feel that's what some mainstream scientists are doing wrong right now, they make guesses, build their models and then observe something totally different, and instead of scrapping the model and starting over fresh or adjusting it to work better, they just add on to the current model that they have even though it was bad.

reply to post by cruddas


Can you give an example of such a model, or situation where what you describe is happening?