|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jul 2, 2012 19:30:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 4, 2012 2:34:15 GMT
It's speculation. They said they'd announce something this week, not that it's the higgs boson.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Jul 4, 2012 5:49:33 GMT
*higgs boson sneaks out of supercollider*
STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 4, 2012 5:56:14 GMT
I'm just saying, CERN saying they'll announce something later this week =/= "The Higgs-Boson's existence has been proven."
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 4, 2012 16:15:32 GMT
They say it has been proven, but in this case there isn't much room for debate, anyone who goes against you will, pretty much be flamed, anyway, I personally think that it is traces, rather than he actual particle, this giving them a lead but no definite, concrete particle to show.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 4, 2012 16:18:47 GMT
No room for debate? Anyone that goes against me will be flamed? Nonsense. I see you weren't watching the actual CERN webcast last night, in which they said they most certainly did not find or prove the Higgs. They say it has been proven? Says whom?
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 4, 2012 17:31:54 GMT
No, not that, I am saying that You can't actually prove them wrong. I m saying there isn't much debating on wether it exists. I am referring to the title itself not to the comments. And not you qwerty, I meant the publisher of the topic. I mean you can't say he is wrong as they haven't actually revealed it, perhaps I should work more on my grammar, it certain ally not making me any good things.
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jul 4, 2012 18:17:08 GMT
No room for debate? Anyone that goes against me will be flamed? Nonsense. I see you weren't watching the actual CERN webcast last night, in which they said they most certainly did not find or prove the Higgs. They say it has been proven? Says whom? Argh, remind me of never trusting jounalists again... You're actually right.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Jul 4, 2012 19:33:45 GMT
Tempy is true scientist, skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 5, 2012 18:45:02 GMT
It seems David Hume wins this one: emperically speaking, you know that an "impression" existed as it's existing, but the moment it stops existing you don't really know whether the impression ever occurred; nevertheless, you have more reason to believe an "impression" ever existed if you experienced it directly than if someone communicates their experience to you, and you have just as much reason to believe an "impression" ever existed if you experienced it directly than if someone communicated a previous communication of someone else's experience of the "impression" to you.
In short: from an Empiricist's point of view, there's no reason to trust an account of anything unless you experienced it for yourself...
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Zero on Jul 12, 2012 6:04:43 GMT
5 Sigma baby! Almost perfect!
|
|