Latest Results from the Large Hadron Collider Do Not Look Good For the Supersymmetry Theory of Everything

At least we ruled out something! Which means we're one step closer to the truth :)

bored? lets go mine the stars... :)

If we do not exist detemine by some of the smartest people around, then it antimatter, if I take tomrrow off from work.

i am definately not an expert but i do try to keep up, could this just mean they have not found supersymmetric particles yet, and what if we are not capable of finding them, would that necessarily mean they don't exist? it would be nice to have some evidence of their existence, cheers

By some of the smartest people around, they were allowed to create some of the best tools available, to validate we exist. Currently there conclusion is we should not exist. I wonder if they feel ok, if their future pay check should reflect the results of their work. Since their search and found nothing and they concluded they do not exist. I really so point in paying someone who isn't there.

Imagine they probably get a large salary in pursuant of something none of us can imagine and they themselves cannot see. And yet they being scientist find us religious people just having an odd little fantasy speaking to our invisible friend, in hopes of protecting our soul, of which we cannot quantify.

Quantum physics is the juncture where science and religion become so similar they may as well be one and the same. And fact always supersedes theory.

This means a lot and very little. Basically our lovely smart people took existing data, put it on the wall and tried to apply a math construct that would explain how what we know and what we perceive could have come to be as well as how they interact with each other.
After creating a great model that got other smart people to agree that it was a super model. So like some clothing makers do, they assume if you put your hopes on a super model you will sell clothes. Unfortunately their supermodel pigged out on bacon cheese burgers the night before and could not fit into the clothes.

The smart people are left with two options. Fix the clothes (symmetry hypothesis) or redesign new clothes for something that fits the data (come up with a new hypothesis they can test). If they fix the clothes, that means they need more strings and increase the dimensions of the clothes. Otherwise they need to scrap it all and start over.

Many scientists have dedicated a good portion of their life to these formulas. A good scientist can go through his life believing one thing, to find out he was completely wrong, and still feel good about his life. Science is one of the only field where being wrong can be just as valuable as being right.

Of course this also means all of those books are basically worthless now. The scientists will have to write new books on the topic, and of course there are no refunds or trade ins, so you will have to buy a new fall wardrobe for your bookshelf. (The bright side, lots of people will make money on a new set of books.)

@BubbaGump,

"Imagine they probably get a large salary in pursuant of something none of us can imagine and they themselves cannot see. And yet they being scientist find us religious people just having an odd little fantasy speaking to our invisible friend, in hopes of protecting our soul, of which we cannot quantify."

Show me a religious person who is building devices to prove the existence of his/her God and disprove the existence of competing Gods from other religions.

Also... the scientists are not paid based on theories they come up with... they get paid through grants to perform research and collect empirical data.

This is the crucial difference... scientists admit to themselves when their beliefs (ideas not based on empirical evidence) are proven wrong through experiments.

Religious folks don't even try to do experiments to test their own beliefs.

@sacridias

This is why this experiment is so ground breaking. I think the lack of supersymmetric particles will lead to an even greater discovery than proving the classical theoretical structure.

Means that there's either more to what we understand creating the opportunity to learn a few new things, or that we simply do not understanding anything at all with a chance to learn everything new as it is suppose to be understood.

If our laws of physics could be re-written, this would open the door to all the things that people keep saying are impossible; much like combustion engines and powered flight.

@Falconer13

The fact that we are as intelligent as we are and still don't have it all figured out is proof of something greater than us at work on the forces of the universe. Except things are not totally random. There's an order to nature that we're still trying to understand.

Truly exciting news.

@B.V.

I think the mix up is the divide between the religious and the spiritual. Spiritual folk seek truth, no matter what that truth may be. Religious folk hold on to one truth and usually do not except anything else.

True scientists seek truth through the collection of empirical data in the hopes that they might enlighten themselves and humanity. Regardless of their individual truths, every once and a while they may shed light on a scientific fact that shatters whatever truth they cling to (scientific or spiritual). This however does not shake them because they understand (like any intelligent individual) that we all form preconceptions about the universe surrounding us. Academic pursuit allows us to learn, grow, and evolve.

This is the connection between the scientific and spiritual; the search for truth through fact. However, no matter what you believe, anything that can not be calculated, measured, or quantified you must take with a measure of faith. In the end it's the only thing that'll give you peace of mind on the more simply complex things that drive most people mad in the pursuit of trying to figure out a definitive meaning.

we do not exist. we are simply constructs in a complex computer simulation. the big bang/god created the universe (same thing) was just the programmer turning on the computer

@B.V. A non-religious person is never wrong; at least to themselves. Being non-religious bring much opportunity for a Narcissist too. Of course in life he will have everything to himself, but at the end of life, he will have nothing.

But a Christian considers being a sinner and is always doing inner research and gladly admits he is wrong to learn a higher lesson. Though it’s not just about admitting to oneself be wrong, but actually understanding why and growing in spirit. Now I have seen a popular “feel-good” Christian belief that worries me. It just promotes 2 or 3 parts of Christianity. 1st, God our father loves and forgives us, 2nd Jesus our brother loves and forgives us. I have notice this seems exceptionally dominate in churches and little if any is explained about the 3rd. The 3rd understands the Holy Spirit. In Christianity we also need to understand if we show contempt to the Holy Spirit, we can lose our salvation. The “feel-good” church may touch on this, but I feel it is spoken rarely. If I was forgiven for everything, then I could easily rationalize I can do anything I want, because well I am forgiven and this just leads to chaos and no growth. The Holy Spirit is inside us and around us and it can see and know if we are honest\truthful\hypocritical in our love and request for forgiveness. People in church do not want to be told, not all go to Heaven; A great many preachers would be booted out the door. A true Christian is always introspective, growth oriented. Each of us is individuals and is having our own religious experience in life. 7 Billion People in the world and 75% of them believe in God and yes we do have a wide variety of cultures, language and regions. The journey of life is unique for each person.

Oh, my first comment about the scientist and saying we do not exist or nothing... I was just joking a little. Don't take it to serious, B.V.

@everyone actually, the spiritual generally attempt to use philosophy to prove logical assumptions on the nonphysical universe under the grounds that the mind is nonphysical and thus an indicator of its own nature. the perfection via divine revelation or otherwise is the religious, who believe they have found truth. Religion in itself, especially the older ones that have stood the tests of time are ingeniously explained and backed up with very minimal assumptions by philosophy and thus by the nature of philosophy rational. As I favor Catholicism and cannot accurately back up any non Christians but the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas make as much sense as the most current macro-physics book. The only assumption you need to make is that the universe is ordered and not by chance, not a very big leap of faith really. Especially is you judge the tree by the fruit it bears. Finally my very short guide for the spiritual wanderer to rapidly eliminate a spew of possibilities, Occam's razor, and true science and true faith are complimentary. this can lead you to just about any direction, but food for thought for the undecided theist is that God would have revealed himself and layed down absolute truth, if he has a plan for you then he would have revealed it. Assuming he still attends to this universe I find it doubtful that the true religion he layed down would have fallen. has it cracked or made mistakes? definitively. but luckily when all science is perfected it will be child's play to fix religion. very exciting thoughts for me anyway.

@phoenix the burning question I have is can a spiritual person who believes they have found truth still be considered spiritual? or is the act of completing their goal change their mission to find truth?

Nadure Baile,
15-year-old philosopher
really bad joke:"what do you call Sophia's husband? A philosopher!" *slaps knee while fake laughing*

We can't mix a set of believings based on faith with a set of believings based on trial and tests.

People can try to create large constructs around them, but there is fact: it is through the understanding of the laws, rules or mechanics of whatever-we-are-on universe we have made some actual progress.

The main strength of science is being able to evaluate itself and transform based on new data, not on holding the truth. Truth is just an abstract ideal we may never reach, just slowly aproximate.

So,

You religious guys.... stay out from my science! XD

"..... Some one famous once asked, if you heard TRUTH would you know it?...."

@nadur.baile

Oh dear, don't try to put makeup over christianity. They have a history so long and with so many texts and writers, of course soooome one had to make a little sense somewhere.

Don't forget the work of these philosopher priests started by learning from the philosophers of the (pagan) ancient greece.

That's the main issue of religion, you can't judge science by saying is stubborn when we have a lot of references in history like Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei because it was so hard to contradict their previous believings.

Physics was built upon a foundation of observations, a model dependent realism, understood through an evolved sensory system for Earth faring species.

There is a certain point, a singularity of perception, where human observation can no longer yield the secrets of the universe.

The periodic table of elements is a spectrum, similar to the light spectrum. There are elements, that we cannot observe using our Earth evolved sensory system, which are existing outside of the visible element spectrum.

Since these particles, or elements, have not threatened or benefited the survival of competing species on Earth, the sensory system did not evolve to understand them.

Furthermore, our entire existence, our conscienceness, is a fabrication of the true form of the universe, one that suits survival on Earth.

BubbaGump, your are officially banned from the comments here, as it is harder to understand your english than it is to understand these experiments!

@madmarv, I just read you profile and you last comment. I quote "......First! What up tosh.o?...." Now please explain this sentence so all POPSCI readers can enjoy all your wisdom in your writings. Thank you!

But you are correct at time, my spelling sucks, my grammar is bad. I know, I am sorry. Now as we speak about me, I hope you improve yourself too.

Thank you!
SMILE!

@migsposada very true, if you combine the writings of all who put themselves under the banner of the christian flag then flag we are a few needles of brilliance in a sea of ignorance. likewise if you read a book on the theory of the mind written in the 17th century you will be thoroughly dumbfounded on how this was once the agreed consensus of the mind. The book was about how the cosmic fluids vibrate to create all physical phenomena. point is, stick to the educated and those with credentials in every knowledge seeking activity. Although if you can point out any traditional book of Christianity that is illogical I'd love to hear it, otherwise you are flinging unfounded generalizations. yet again i come across one who seems to think you must choose faith or religion when they really are complimentary, the how and the why. they are both tools used to understand the universe and they work best when used in combination, I would certainly say the theory of evolution suggests some profound insights into the nature of God. Western civilization is in dept to Christianity and largely so to the monks. I'd recommend checking out these books and their credentials, you may be surprised by how much ignorance is distilled within society. "how the catholic church build western civilization" and the much more humorous "the book of general ignorance"

@bubbagump no offense but i have to agree i'm rather confused with what your saying, but i'm sure i'm just as guilty

Nadure Baile,
15-year-old philosopher

Please take your Ritalin, Bubba. Then maybe you won't feel the need to post 23 times a day.

@nadur.baile

They can be complementary, if religion is used as a spiritual guide, but for most of the population it does not end there.

So, there are a needles of brilliance as you say, but the sea of ignorance is not something left in the past, it still lives in this XXI. I think the problems generated by religion (as a whole) outweight its benefits, specially when most of the believers are not actually following the concepts behind their religion.

As Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

For practical purposes, society can benefit a lot more from not having religious organizations than it can benefit from those believings.

I think I can be a good human being (and thus a good christian in the practical sense) without following a religion or believing in a god, because I love the human race and its potential. We can tell good from bad, in a secular way.

@Greg_NJ, I promise you, my needs are out of this country, but soon they will be arriving and all will be well. hehe hoho, hehe..

To all, I regret my grammar is poor. I do use word to check my spell check and grammar, but still stuff happens. Just move on... and post you own wonderous comments. Believe me, I live with my own frustration most of all.

@Greg_NJ, you have a reputation of just insulting me. But more to the point, you do not add any intelligent comments of your own. Your just deliver cheap shots... If anyone looks at your profile the evidence is there. I have a request for you to say something wondrous about this article and wow us all, the PoPSCi readers with you own genius. I gave you a nice introduction now and we are waiting, please do not disappoint. WOW-us! Bu-bye..

@migposada Agreed. except for perhaps how much of secular morality is borrowed capital from Christianity and if it ever fades will be lost and slowly we will revert to the true apathy and lack of virtue that destroyed Rome. Unfortunately the age of Christianity has faded but those years were the best known to western civilization, one of the few times where Christians were actual Christians and we did as we thought. in contrast to the only well documented time where man could be as base as possible with NO authority to report to, the american frontiers of the 17th century. The part where you say society can benefit is a little irrational when you think about it, religion is the guide for the morality that has shaped the world and for the vast majority the guide to the spiritual world, and returning to God is something that any theist desires. In addition morality is irrational without God, not to say it doesn't work but irrational things rarely hold in our society. Out of curiosity please state what the downsides of religions are specifically, just so i can get a window into your mentality.

Nadure Baile,
15-year-old philosopher

Have you ever consider the mystery that surrounds the number 666. Its a feared number or sign. But really what is the concept about? The fact as I understand it, it’s just about symbolism or idols. That a evil and exceptional smart person will show up in the future and speak beautifully and tell you all the things you wish to know and assume signs of idols and paganism. He will not stop at Christian beliefs, no. He will actually influence a large number of religions and ask you to adopt the sign of that religion. And that is the crux of it all. No sign, no words on a page, no language, no religion, anything or symbol or idol can do anything for you. You need to personally understand life, ask questions, like why and how come and truly understand the meanings of things. You cannot get caught up in crosses or figurines or music or clouds or magic or fire of things that shock or amaze you. You as an individual need to find the purpose of life, our dear GOD and all that are meaningful. It’s a real test and it depends on your inner spirit. And there you go. We each are responsible for our own decisions and actions and we will be judge. It is better to die righteous than to die with regret. We all die; die with a meaningful purpose, hope and a future.

non-stop diarrhea of the mouth...

I'm waiting for you to add an intelligent and readable comment also.

@nadur.baile

Well, we can only agree in our disagreement.

Morality was not invented by Christianity, some people have even suggested Jesus was influenced by spiritual movements from the Far East.

My points against religion, in the practical sense and what happens in our real world:

- People follow instructions (do this, don't that) but don't actually make the core concepts of morality and ethics part of them. They are mostly sheeps, vocalizing words without actually reading them.

- The religion itself is designed to forbide any critics, and ignore arguments against their core ideas, all as a method of self-defense.

- Mix a set of believings of actual practical utility, with mythological narrations and ceremonial rites *AND* make people to believe they are all one single thing.

- Does not know its own limits and affects our society in areas not actually of their concern. (For example, in Latin America the catholic church was against *all* methods of contraception for a long time, how many billions we need to be before we stop the "creced and multiplicaos" nonsense).

- Most religions are fighting each other directly or indirectly, because on its core they are mostly concerned about spreading, and any other religion is competence.

So, we have something hermetic, possibly some nice ideas on its core, but a lot of crappy things around, designed to spread and multiply. Please stop.

Why can't we go directly to the good stuff and learn to live together.

This needs an edit button :P

replace "competence" with "a rival".

@Greg_NJ, that's it.... well ok... you need more time and that fine. I do look forward to your promising intelligent useful comments that will inspire others... No you do not have to do it instantly upon demand. But am confident you have a human being have something positive to offer and look forward to it later. I will give you this and please considerate. You do get points for each day you live life and endure it and survive it; in other words, your opinion matters. So if nothing else if you just wish to opinionate you feelings on the article that is ok. Your opinion matters. I like to hear what you feel or know or think you know. Take care and good night. Being a smart ass is easy. I be blunt, I myself can be a smart ass. I like you just voice your opinions about this article and or knowledge.

really guys, quit feeding the trolls and comment on the article, please, cheers

@ Bubbagump. Retroverted Uterus.

I wish there was a way to block all comments from a particular user... *cough* BubbaGump *cough*

@Nadur.Baile,

"much of secular morality is borrowed capital from Christianity and if it ever fades will be lost and slowly we will revert to the true apathy and lack of virtue that destroyed Rome."

There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start...

Okay, got it. Rome adopted Christianity in the 3rd century...Constantine endorsed it and converted to it in the 4th century... every emperor AFTER him was a Christian... and Italy was conquered by the "heathen" barbarians by the end of the 5th century.

Seems like Rome fell apart right when it became good and Christian... ;)

By the way, after the fall of Rome, Europe descends into the Dark Ages where Christianity rules the land. Quite possibly it is the most miserable time in recorded history.

---

"in contrast to the only well documented time where man could be as base as possible with NO authority to report to, the american frontiers of the 17th century. "

Why? Did God lose his ability to be omnipotent and omniscient in the "Wild West"??? Shouldn't he have been the ultimate authority out there?

Your own argument is evidence that society benefits from real live human law enforcement officers... not imaginary friends in the sky who let countless innocent people fall prey to a few sociopaths with guns.

---

"The part where you say society can benefit is a little irrational when you think about it, religion is the guide for the morality that has shaped the world and for the vast majority the guide to the spiritual world, and returning to God is something that any theist desires"

No, your nervous system is the guide to morality. Always has, always will be... 'cause that's how us social creatures have evolved.

That's how religious people are able to judge others as being "truly part of their religion" or not, instead of relying on that persons claims.

When Anders Breivik writes in his manifesto that he will pray to God for strength during his terrorist attacks in Norway, Christians are quick to cry out that "he isn't a real Christian!"

And then go back to stamping Bible verse numbers on rifles for soldiers killing people in Iraq/Afghanistan.

The "morality" has nothing to do with Christianity--it has everything to do with the subconsciousness of the "Christians" and psychology.

That's why it's okay for all of the "Christian" politicians to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brown people in a far away country, and then get teary-eyed about pulling the plug on a human vegetable because they need to "preserve the sanctity of life".

This behavior is not adherent to any notions about morality taught by the religion "Christians" claim to subscribe to... but if you study animal/human psychology/sociology and behavior... then it all fits and makes sense.

The "Christian Morality" argument is the dumbest one to make. Christians are by FAR less moral than atheists/agnostics... if you don't believe me, go look at the incarceration rates for each of those groups.

Ok, let me take a quick stab at the actual article and ignore the rest of the posts.

Ok String Theory relies on muliple dimentions, so, what if these events are spawning particles in any of these other dimentions? If we can't see/perceive these other dimentions, why would we be able to see all possible trajectories taken by the particles in question.

Secondly, we have a limit as to how small we can see right now, what's to say that we are super fragmenting these already small particles into even smaller sets that we are, as of yet, unable to detect. Until we can see the smallest object there is, and into all dimentions it can travel, we cannot rule out super symmetry.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

@beefymclovin
that scenario reminds me of the movie the thirteenth floor.

@Migposada
what you say is true. they make it out to be that if you don't have "god" in your heart and religion than you can never be a good person. i say bs. i know tons of non religious people that are way more nicer and respectful and even spiritual than alot of these so called religious people. i say its all up to the person.

@B.V., I would never dare to edit or remove you comments. You are so amusing. A narcissist is never considered wrong to himself and yes us religious folk are really bad people; simply because we judge ourselves every day. We all consider ourselves sinners. I suppose B.V. you very much the happy narcissist. But the question arises; "Do you have friends and if you have some friends, are they happy with you?"

I don't care to remove your comments from the universe... only wish that they were not displayed to me.

(Not because you challenge my views, but simply because 90% of what you type is unintelligible and I'm tired of having to scroll through it all to read the other comments.)

@BubbaGump,

Like, srsly, ever heard of paragraphs?

@MigPosada

I think you and I are on the same page.

@B.V.

Pretty spot on with the analysis.

@Nadur.Baile

To answer your question, a spiritual person's pursuit is never ended. The same could be said about a true scholar. If you are indeed a true scholar you will never stop trying to learn and except one finite thing. That leads to a narrow, dogmatic outlook which is what defines many religious people (and close-minded scientists: you know, the ones that say 'impossible,' or 'that'll never happen,').

You can not find truth by completing a set of goals. Truth governs all of your preconceptions. You've developed several truths from the time you were a toddler throughout your entire life (however long that may be). For that, truth is transformational and will never be constant throughout your entire life. You tend to seek truth when you find yourself in a place in your life where things are going wrong and you seem to be "lost." Otherwise your truth is naturally prevalent and transforms through knowledge, wisdom (or the lack thereof), and the life experiences from whence these originate.

I believe what I meant to interpret in "the search for truth," is understanding. This is why a spiritual person's pursuit is never ended. Trying to find understanding to the truths you have takes a transformational lifetime. No one person will find the answer (unless they happen to be God incarnate themselves). However, the pursuit of understanding truth (and fact for that matter) is one that we may yet achieve if we continue to work together and allow anything to be possible.

@Greg_NJ,B.V., & madmarv

Take it a little easier on BubbbaGump. This article should be open for discussion topic however someone's intellect is sparked by the story. If you don't have a positive response to someone's post just disregard it like CodeZero did.

Besides, not everyone uses proper English on these comment boards, let alone anywhere on the internet. I myself am guilty of bad grammar.

This mostly comes from people who leave post and do not take the time to proofread and edit for the sake of posting quickly (@BubbaGump: which it would help you to do if you want people to understand you a little better).

Patience will get you insight on someone elses perspective in the grand pursuit of understanding in fact and truth. The lack of patience just might get you cursed out. Please try to be a little more patient with BubbaGump.

@beefymclovin

I like the way you think (Now thoughts of Tron and the Matrix come into play).

@flamers et all,

The difference between Religion and Science:
Philosophy of faith: "We believe because we feel what we say is true and can make rational sense of those beliefs."
and
Philosophy of Science: "We believe because we can predict and test our beliefs, so can others. So far it has come out as expected."

Each person that puts their faith in science feels that the scientific method is true and right, and makes rational sense.

That being said: Talking about faith/religion.

We cannot force someone to believe in what we believe in. We cannot convert them to our faiths. Even of that faith is in the scientific method. We can only explain it, and show them why we believe as we do, they must choose to accept it.

"I can only show you the door."

Faith is neither right nor wrong. It cannot be proven either way, as it is individual and purely based on emotion and rational. Each person has their own take of their religion, their own version of faith, there is no absolute consensus and more importantly no means by which you can create an observation to generate absolute consensus.

Using the Scientific method I can show you how I came to my conclusion, you can validate your observation against mine. In faith, I cannot show you emotions, nor my entire life history (yet), I can only describe what I believe and try to explain why (even though I do not fully understand why myself). I know I believe I am right, and thus you must be wrong. Even wise men know they are right about not always being right.

Since you can neither prove or disprove someones faith, you have choices to make. You can fight about it, even start a war over it. You can accept their views and move on with your life. You could even debate endlessly trying to gain insight into their view and show them insight into your own. You have unlimited number of choices and combinations, just like faith.

My personal preference is to try and debate it in a respectful and appropriate manner. Accepting that you are not debating to change the other party, but doing so to expand your understanding of the world around you. At the end you can walk away having learned something and possibly with a new friend.

A world without diversity, my idea of hell.

@B.V.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

I like it! I love it! I want to learn more of it!

Cool!

Thanks B.V.

Have you ever consider the mystery that surrounds the number 666. It’s a feared number or sign. But really what is the concept about? The fact as I understand it, it’s just about symbolism or idols. That a evil and exceptional smart person will show up in the future and speak beautifully and tell you all the things you wish to know and assume signs of idols and paganism, so you will follow him as a world leader.

The "Devil" or the evil leader in the future will not stop at Christian beliefs, no. This evil leader will be charismatic, charming, intelligent and try to appeal to a broad quantity of religions; telling them all what they want to hear. He will actually influence a large number of religions and ask you to adopt the sign of that religion. And that is the crux of it all. No sign, no words on a page, no language, no religion, anything or symbol or idol can do anything for you in life. You need to personally understand life, ask questions, like why and how come and truly understand the meanings of things. You cannot get caught up in crosses or figurines or music or clouds or magic or fire of things that shock or amaze you.

You as an individual need to find the purpose of life, our dear GOD and all that are meaningful. It’s a real test and it depends on your inner spirit. And there you go. We each are responsible for our own decisions and actions and we will be judge. It is better to die righteous than to die with regret. We all die; die with a meaningful purpose, hope and a future.

You need to always be true to yourself and have a clear understanding of your own beliefs.

@sacridias,

"Philosophy of Science: 'We believe because we can predict and test our beliefs, so can others. So far it has come out as expected.'

Each person that puts their faith in science feels that the scientific method is true and right, and makes rational sense."

I don't agree with that claim. I am one person who does not put "faith" in science, nor claim that it is "true" and "right" as such concepts are less useful to me than the probabilistic approach I take.

The only information I am able to use to understand the world is that which arrives to my brain whether through sensory input from external stimuli, chemistry of my own biology, or foreign chemistry (like drugs).

All of my views about the world are shaped by pattern recognition in all of the data streaming in through these pathways. The most reliable patterns are the ones "most probable" to occur, and the closest to what I would call "facts" and "truth".

For example, every time I have dropped an object with mass on earth, it has fallen. This pattern has been recognized and confirmed so many times that the probability of something else happening is minuscule in my mind... therefore I "place my bets" on it happening again if I drop something.

It has nothing to do with "faith" or "truth" or anything vague and abstract like that... the day an apple flies off when I drop it is the day my internal models of reality become updated to reflect the new data input my mind receives.

If my kid asks me, "Daddy, why is the grass green?" my answer will take the form of many scientific statements and start with, "Well, to the best of my knowledge..."

It will never start with the form preachers take, "IN JESUS NAME AMEN I SPEAK THE LORDS TRUTH..."

Because it takes faith to be 100% sure. It takes logic to be <100%.

@All
I swear I start out intending to write short brief statements, then my mind goes off into bad book writing mode and it becomes a novel. Sorry :D.

@B.V.
I believe the scientific method is the best tool we have for describing the world around us. I also believe that the scientific method cannot be proven true, only rationalized in a philosophical argument.

Math is also based similarly in philosophy, the philosophy of 1, the philosophy of 0, null philosophy, radicals, imaginary numbers. These are all things we describe then accept because they seem to work right. I believe it is important to know what is philosophy and what is based on that philosophy (Hopefully I was right in my examples :D).

If a philosophy is debated or shown wrong, everything based on that must be challenged. So if someone proved the scientific method incorrect, you would have to re-evaluate everything you accept as true in your world.

An alternative that explains everything yet does not require the scientific method.

The world is what the majority accept as true.
The world was flat until people believed it was round. The sun circled the moon until people believed we circled the sun. The reason string theory failed is because most people still believe magnetism and gravity are different. The reason technology works is because people believe it will. As soon at more people believe in UFOs aliens will come down from the skies.

This sounds irrational, but I would bet with little tweaks it could be used to explain the world around me and cannot be proven wrong.

The Christian side of this. In the last 100 years, science is showing strong evidence that creation as describe in the bible is unlikely. Because the Christian religion is based so heavily in the book being true, this means their entire foundation could be wrong. So Christians are fighting hard to preserve what they believe in, because people hate being wrong. Some adopt intelligent design to fix the religion, others claim science must be wrong (While using the spoils of science like laptops and medicine). The Christian faith is going through some serious growing pains where they must adapt. This would be like the scientific method falling apart for them.

This is a science forum, but reality is people have so much on their mind that trying to stick to a topic is hard, especially one that shakes the foundation of some pretty substantial scientific hypotheses about how the universe works.

All I am asking that is instead of flaming because someone sees something differently, accept their beliefs (you cannot change them) and move on. At the very least be respectful, don't stoop to name calling, or things like "Your grammar sucks so you must suck." or "You talk funny and on your profile so you suck." Intelligent people should be able to find better ways (or at least better insults), sometimes we just need to remember we are being watched (by all the people that read this article).

@sacridias,

"So if someone proved the scientific method incorrect, you would have to re-evaluate everything you accept as true in your world."

I don't see how you can prove a method as "incorrect," and, as I've already stated, I do not accept anything as true/false... I only accept things to varying degrees of likelihood.

---

"I believe it is important to know what is philosophy and what is based on that philosophy (Hopefully I was right in my examples :D)."

Philosophy is based on the sensory input humans have evolved to receive.

Or philosophical postulates are based on observations/pattern recognition. Ideas like "true and false are opposites" are based on billions of years of our ancestors distinguishing between two mutually exclusive courses of action and eventually coming to recognize that you can't breathe and swim underwater at the same time, if you eat your apple today, you won't have it tomorrow, etc.

This simple ability of forming associations/predictions based on our perceptions are the foundation of our rationality and logic (and decision making in general).

So... "it is important to know" that whatever your brain thinks up, is caused by the external world providing data with recognizable and consistent patterns (e.g. "stabbing myself in the eye hurts, so it's something I will avoid").

The "philosophy" is just the expression of the patterns your brain has recognized in the world it perceives (that's why a log of ancient Greek philosophy seems ridiculous to us today--we perceive a different world than Aristotle, so we find his philosophical musings on slaves odd).

---

"An alternative that explains everything yet does not require the scientific method.
The world is what the majority accept as true...This sounds irrational, but I would bet with little tweaks it could be used to explain the world around me and cannot be proven wrong."

That claim is proven wrong repeatedly all of the time.

When Columbus tried to sail around the world, the majority of the people in Europe believed the world was flat--yet Columbus did not fall off the edge of the world as they might have told him he would since their beliefs were BS.

When Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, the majority of the world did not believe it to be true (or even know wtf it was, really). Yet, when he tested it, his observations matched his models.

The majority of the Mayans believed that doing stupid dances and sacrifices would appease their gods and bring rain and save their crops... yet they still collapsed from over-farming their land and general overpopulation.

You see, "reality" doesn't really give crap about what most of the people believe...

---

"All I am asking that is instead of flaming because someone sees something differently, accept their beliefs (you cannot change them) and move on."

I've seen many religious people think their way out of the shackles their parents, teachers, priests, and other authority figures have placed on them in the form of religion--often times through the help of a debate with someone already free from the bonds of servitude to non-real entities.

So... actually it's quite possible for those with "beliefs" to change--usually it comes from the realization that they haven't been "seeing things differently" but actually "not seeing" at all.

Once they expand their consciousness to embrace enough of reality, the tricks used to control people thousands of years ago no longer work.

@B.V.

1) From your response, I failed to convey my thoughts in a way you understood.

2) To ensure integrity of knowledge. Columbus believed the world was round, as did most people in his time. The flat earth was a misprint in a British article.

3) We really need to take this debate to a more appropriate forum. I just wanted people to stop name calling, but I enjoy a good debate too much at times.

So if you want to continue, email me at steve@egfbt.com, and I will be more than willing to continue, or offer a more appropriate forum we can debate this topic in.

I don't give out my e-mail address to people I don't know, but would join you on some other forum if you provide a link

Regardless of what Columbus believed, or most of the people alive during his time believed, the earth was the same shape it is today.

This drawing reminds me of a cargo jet that just lost its load of balls of yarn.............

yes the round was always round. but religious figures deny this to this day.

_________________
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri

Year Columbus sailed. 1492

Year Globe was invented. 150 BC by Crates of Mallus in Cilicia.

The first globe of the Old World was constructed in the Muslim world during the Middle Ages.

The oldest existing terrestrial globe was made by Martin Behaim in Nürnberg, Germany, in 1474.

So why was Mr. Columbus sailing again? You all need to go watch this video. Assume the Position with Mr. Robert Wuhl. It's funny, and factual. whereas there is no violence or nudity, there are a few adult words here and there. NSFW as such. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6731102750245618218#

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

Everyones different and its hard for even a judge not to be biased. Some can't help but want to know how stuff works while others are content in with what they do. peace. science. rocknroll

Why Matter Dominates The Universe

A.
Material Objects Seen as Holes in Space by British Scientist
A close examination of the math of quantum mechanics led to the “pre discovery” of antimatter particles in 1930.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/333233/title/Material_Objects_Seen_as_Holes_in_Space_by_British_Scientist_
With statements “Today physicists know that every particle has an antiparticle, but they don’t yet know for sure why matter instead of anti-matter dominates the universe” and “Accepted theories suggest that the big bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter”.
B.
From http://universe-life.com/2011/07/26/higgs-particle/
E=Total[m(1 + D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
The big bang did not create matter or antimatter. Singularity was all the energy-mass of the universe.
Matters and Antimatters are big-bang follow-up evolutionary, circumstantial-accidental expansion collision products.
At 10^-35 seconds since big bang, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance started the energy space texture, the straining of space texture, the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate impansion back to singularity, again.
C.
From http://universe-life.com/2011/06/10/update-comprehension-of-universelife-evolution/
The universe expansion is fueled by the mass-to-energy reconversion.
Eventually, as expansion will slow down, will run out of massfuel, gravity will overcome expansion and initiate impansion back to singularity. The universe is a cyclic array of energy-mass dualism, between nearly all-energy and all-mass poles, under omnipresent gravity.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century) http://universe-life.com/ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479006a.html