Introduction
If you were living in a box this past week, you may not have heard the announcement by CERN that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) over in Europe has found evidence with 99.9999042% certainty of the long-theorized (since the 1960s) Higgs Boson. Big news in particle physics, probably the biggest news in science all week, if not month, possibly year.
Unfortunately for those of us who deal with pseudoscience, the Higgs Boson is popularly known as the “God Particle” — especially in the media. Which of course means that the young-Earth creationists have to comment on it.
Background
Okay, I’m going to assume here that if you’re reading this blog, you already know the jist of what’s going on. So I’m not going to go into a lengthy background, rather I’m just going to summarize:
- The Standard Model of Particle Physics explains a lot but we don’t really know what “gives” particles any sort of mass. We know stuff has mass — I’m reminded of that every morning when I attempt to get out of bed.
- The Higgs field was theorized in the 1960s to be a field that particles interact with that give them their mass.
- The Higgs field is carried by / transmitted by / etc. the Higgs boson (the boson being a type of fundamental particle. This was predicted by and is a requirement of the Standard Model.
- The Higgs boson was the last fundamental particle that was only in theory and hadn’t been yet observed.
And the results this past week are of the decay products that would be required from the Higgs boson, so by back-tracking those decay particles, they have the discovery of the Higgs.
Standard Model predictions found to be accurate, Higgs boson found, therefore Higgs field confirmed and we know why things have mass.
Since mass is a fundamental property of matter, and the Higgs field is commonly said to “give” particles mass (when it’s really a quantum interaction between the pervasive field and the particles), it has been deemed to be known as “The God Particle.”
That’s really about it.
Comic Sans
I suppose a very brief interlude needs to be made to discuss the Comic Sans font. Let’s be frank: It’s a stupid font that most people hate. It is childish. It was designed to be for dialog bubbles in comics (“Comic” in the name). It should never ever ever be used in anything professional.
Do people use it in professional settings? Yes. I’ve seen presentations at conferences that are written in Comic Sans. My friggin’ advisor made our entire poster for a conference in Comic Sans font. I gave him hell for it.
The media presentation at CERN for this discovery this week was done in Comic Sans. They should not have done it in Comic Sans. I don’t think there’s any excuse for this because any press officer worth anything would have told them to change the font. Period.
Does it change the results? No. I’m reminded of when a gay kid came out in his blog and it was all basic early 2000s formatting with plain background, plain text, nothing else. All his friends on Facebook gave him hell not for coming out, but for the 1990s HTML coding he used to do it. So let’s get beyond the stupid font the CERN folks used.
Creationists Respond
As most would probably expect for a particle physics news item, many people in the so-called “mainstream media” invented all sorts of things that the “God Particle” could do, though most didn’t. Many things could be taken out of context to lead people to false conclusions about what the Higgs boson “does,” and they’re ripe for quote mining.
And as we would expect, with something called the “God Particle,” every single creationist outlet I read had some reaction to the announcement this week.
In general, though, I was okay with what they wrote (apart from the whole, “True knowledge can only come from a literal reading of God’s Word!” part). The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International all had articles that were basically saying the same thing: (1) Don’t believe the hype that with this discovery we now know all the deepest darkest mysteries of the universe, (2) “God Particle” is a misleading name, (3) it doesn’t have anything to do with the origins of the universe, (4) Praise Allah Jesus.
Final Thoughts
In my own opinion, the reporting by the young-Earth creationists on this matter is not bad, nor is it very distorted at all. They’re really just trying to reassure their followers that this discovery (which they can’t dismiss) in no way affects their faith in their god. And I’m okay with that.
Exposing PseudoAstronomy 
I was under the impression that they thought that god was bigger than that.
Comment by Mick — July 13, 2012 @ 3:02 am |
You’re actually wrong about how it got the name “god particle” Someone who was writing about the Higgs Boson, their name escapes me, wanted to title their book “The god damn particle!” but the editor wanted him to change it to something less offensive hence, “the god particle”
Comment by badahiploopapakahip — July 26, 2012 @ 2:57 pm |
Let’s assume that this universe should be formed through Big Bang theory. Questions have to be raised. Why is it that Big Bang theory could create perfect galaxies that a planet would revolve around another instead of the danger that anyone of the planets would crash with another easily and that would cause the earth not to be in secure position? For instance, the moon always revolves around the earth and it would not crash it and the distance between them remains constant. The same is for the earth to the sun. How could Big Bang theory be able to create these perfect galaxies unless there is one behind that controls all the planets that causes perfect galaxies to be formed. For religious people, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Muslims, call it as God.
For instance, if this world would be formed in random order through the Big bang theory, the following events would appear: The earth might be formed too near the sun and to cause many inhabitants to be hurt; or the earth might be flying everywhere in the universe without guidance due to these be formed in random order through Big Bang theory; or the sun might well be formed stagnant in one place and leaving the earth to fly everywhere among the galaxies so much so that all the inhabitants might not be able to enable sunlight; or the earth might fly everywhere or even worse, the danger to hit against the sun; or etc. What if the earth would be formed too far from the sun, all the inhabitants would be in the darkness for 24 hours. Currently, all the galaxies in this world seem to revolve around the sun instead of the other way round. It seems to be that there must be some kind of supernatural being controls it. Religious people call it, God.
If the universe would be created from Big Bang theory, the above is the likeliness of the world since nothing is controlling it and everything is formed in random or messy order. The whole universe would be disorganized and one could find hard to determine which planet was rotating against which.
From the above, it would come to the conclusion that Big Bang theory is unrealistic
Comment by zuma — August 17, 2012 @ 5:59 pm |
The reasons why the data that have been gathered for red shift and blue shift from the observation of galaxies through the use of telescope might not be served as a guide that the world would be expanding:
a) The accuracy of the telescope that has been used to determine whether the galaxies would be in red shift and blue shift in order to conclude that the galaxies would moving away or towards the earth could be in question. In short distance of viewing an object, the telescope could identify accurately the change of the size of planet from big to small or small to big so as to give signal whether it should be in blue shift or red shift. However, if the object is placed very far away from telescope, the object that is shown in the screen on the telescope would be very small. The telescope might turn up to show one signal as a result of its inability to identify the accuracy of change of size of the object as if that all the galaxies are moving far away from the earth. Or in other words, it might have given wrong signal that the world would be expanding due to the inaccuracy of the telescope since it might be accurate in short distance with a big object and yet it might not be accurate if if would be in very small and tiny object that would appear on the screen when it would be placed many miles far away from the earth. Thus, the accuracy of the telescope might be in question since it has not been tested whether it could be accurate when objects would appear to be very tiny and small on the screen..
b) The telescope might have been tested on earth to be accurate in short distance and yet it has not been tested from one galaxy to another so as to determine whether it is still accurate to measure the movement of object in the galaxies that is located in many miles far away from the earth.
c) If you would blow a balloon, all the substances in the balloon would be shaken and vibrated. Even if they would be creatures inside the balloon, all the creatures would feel the strong pressure, i.e. wind, pulling them towards the corner of this balloon. Why is it that we that are on earth would not feel the pressure that the earth would be expanding? As we know if we blow the balloon, all the things in the balloon would fly away and would turn up to be in messy order. Question has to be raised. Why is that the air would still remain on earth despite the great pressure that has caused galaxies to advance as a result of expanding? No matter the pressure would externally influence as a result of the world expanding, nothing has affected the earth and it seems to be that something is controlling the earth to make it a secure place. Religious people call it, God.
d) If you blow a balloon, all the substance would go travel towards the corner of this balloon. Let’s use blowing balloon to explain the galaxies. Let’s assume that you blow from the Mars, you would certainly see blue shift as well as red shift since some galaxies would move towards the earth from Mars. If you would blow from the sun, the same, you would still see some galaxies moving towards the earth since there are some galaxies from the sun would move towards the earth from the sun. However, if you would blow from the earth as a centre outwards, you would then see all galaxies would be moving far away from the earth. Now question has to be raised. The assumption that all galaxies would have been moving far away from the earth seems to presume that the earth would be stagnant and all galaxies would be advancing away from the earth. As the earth would turn up to be the centre of the universe, it turns up that a person would view from any side of the earth would turn up to be that all galaxies seem to moving away from earth. This seems to be weird and irrational.
The reliability of data gathered from scientist that the world would be expanding is in question.
Comment by zuma — August 17, 2012 @ 6:00 pm |
The word, universe, as mentioned below refers to the entire system that is made up of many galaxies instead of a galaxy by itself.
Big Bang Theory assumes that galaxies are advancing towards the edge of the universe as a result of the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be in this entire universe:
a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
b)It is rational to assume that our galaxy is in accelerating speed in which many galaxies would be moving far away from us. As a result of it, it reflects red shift. However, as our galaxy would be travelling faster than other galaxies, there would be a likeliness that our galaxy would overtake other galaxies that are moving ahead of us towards the corner of universe and that would reflect unavoidably blue shift. As our galaxy gets closer to those galaxies that are moving ahead of us since our galaxy is accelerating, those galaxies that are behind us would show red shift and those that are ahead of us in which our galaxy would overtake them soon as a result of accelerating, would show blue shift. Thus, it is inevitable to have red shift as well as blue if our galaxy is in the midst of those galaxies to advance towards the corner of the universe.
From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
Let’s assume that our earth would be stagnant in the centre of the universe, the above events would not occur since we would only see red shift instead of blue.
To presume that our earth would be in the centre of the universe and all other galaxies would be advancing away from us, is rather irrational and not justifiable.
The above have caused us to question whether it is accurate to use light from the star that is run through a spectrophotometer so as to determine whether it is red shift or blue for the determination whether the universe would be expanding.
Comment by zuma — August 17, 2012 @ 6:02 pm |
Let’s presume that spectrophotometer could be a reliable source to be used to detect all galaxies would be advancing further away from the earth. It might not give any sufficient reason that this entire universe would be expanding on the condition if our universe has already been extended into infinity. If our entire universe has already been extended up to infinity in the beginning of the creation of this universe or somewhere later, the red shift that is reflected in spectrophotometer nowadays could only reflect the advancement of galaxies and it would not imply the further expansion of universe since the space of the universe has already been extended in the infinity without any end initially and needed not to been extended further currently.
Some might have pointed out that the website below, has computed the size of the universe to prove that there could be a boundary of this universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151 The formula that they use to compute the size of the universe is by means of the basic 184K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion years age of the universe. The above computation is based upon the assumption that the universe would be expanding. As the assumption that the space might not be extended fully and it assumes that the extension of space would progress accordingly with the age of universe as well as the speed of light, the computation of the size of the universe has been done by using the age of the entire universe to be multiplied by the speed of light that travels in space. Now a question has to be raised. If this world would have already been extended to infinity initially, it is inappropriate to use the speed of light to be multiplied by the age of this universe so as to compute the size of the universe since this universe itself would have already been developed into infinity without boundary in the very beginning.
From the above explanation, it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially in the very beginning.
Comment by zuma — August 17, 2012 @ 6:02 pm |
The following are the various methods that are adopted by scientists to assess the age of the earth:
a)Using sea composition to compute the age of the earth:
Scientists used sea composition to derive the age of the earth. This method has its derivation from Edmond Halley (1656-1742). In his opinion, the rain would have dissolved all salt from the ground and would bring down to the sea with the assumption that there would be no salt in the sea initially.
In 1910, George F. Becker found the age of the earth to be between 50 and 70 million years by means of salt clock method.
However, the measurement by means of seawater composition does not give an accurate age of the earth on the condition if the sea might have been formed initially with much salt in the beginning. If that would be so, it is irrational to measure sea composition to determine the age of earth since much salt would have been in the sea already during its creation.
b)Lord Kelvin in 1862 did compute the age of earth through the estimation of the coolness of the earth from its original molten state in which he concluded that the age of the earth was between 20 to 400 million years ago.
However, its assumption that the earth would be in the molten state might not be accurate on the condition if the earth would have been formed in solid state initially instead of in molten. If that would be so, the computation of the age of this earth that is by means of the computation of the time taken for earth to be cooled down would not be reliable.
c)Erosion method: The assessment of the age of the earth is by means of the observation with presumption that erosion would take place at about 1 ft every 5,000 years. With this method, they assess Canyon would start out flat and it would take 30,000,000 years for the Colorado river to erode 600 ft of the Grand Canyon.
The computation above suffers a shortfall with the assumption that it would start up flat. What if the place does not start up flat or it would be that the place has already been created nearer to current condition in the beginning of its creation, the computation would not give the accurate period of erosion.
Another query is why the erosion rate should be consistent at 1 ft every 5,000 years and not 1 ft every 4,000 years or otherwise.
Thus, the computation of the earth by means of erosion method would be subjective and not reliable.
d)Using radiometric dating methods to compute the age of the earth:
The derivation of radiometric dating methods or radioactive dating methods came in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay product, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as half-life.
Using this technique, scientists could analyze the rock to assess the age of the earth through uranium and lead, plug those values along with the half-life into a logarithmic equation. They have arrived with the conclusion that the age of the earth should be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.
However, what if both the parent isotopes, i.e. Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, Thorium-232,Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36, Carbon-14, Uranium-234 and Thorium-230, that have been commented by Scientists to be the products (daughter) of Neodymium-143, Strontium-87, Osmium-187, Hafnium-176, Lead-208, Lead-206, Argon-40, Lead-207, Boron-10, Argon-36, Nitrogen-14, Thorium-230, and Radium-226 respectively, might have co-existed in the beginning of the world during its formation, it is erroneous to comment that there would be relationship among them and to use them to assess the decay rate of half life in order to use it to compute the age of the earth or fossils since all these materials might have been created ever since the beginning of the earth. As that could be so, it is erroneous to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years.
Comment by zuma — August 24, 2012 @ 6:35 am |
The following are the extracts to show the orderliness of the galaxies.
a)The formation of each new galaxy would follow the same pattern that each orbits around its own centre base:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy, The second paragraph of the subtitle, Galaxy, mentions with the phrase, each orbiting their galaxy’s own center of mass. Or in other words, when a first galaxy was formed in this universe in the beginning, it orbits its own centre of mass despite their irregular shapes of design. When the second galaxy was formed, the same pattern would appear that each would orbit each own centre base. And so on and so forth. For instance, if the first galaxy would be generated by Big Bang theory, it would not be possible that each galaxy would orbit each own centre base from the beginning ever since the first galaxy was generated. Indeed, the first galaxy, that would be formed, would be moving in the mess with disorderly manner without guidance instead of orbiting its own centre base if nothing would be controlling the formation of the universe. The outcome (that each galaxy would not be created in such a nice manner that each would orbit its own base) is there would be a possibility that the stars or planets or whatever within each galaxy, that were created, would fly all around the universe without guidance and even to the extent that the stars or planets or whatever in each galaxy, would crash with each other to cause ultimate devastation of the universe so much so that our earth would turn up to be not in secure place. How could Big Bang Theory be able to create the first galaxy in the beginning so much so that it could orbit its centre base especially nothing should have existed before? How could Big Bang theory be able to create the second galaxy to follow suit the first galaxy to oribt its centre base?
The orderliness of the formation of galaxies ever since its first formation to be that each would orbit each own centre mass, gives the signal that something must have existed in the creation of the universe. Religious people call it God.
b)Each time when a new galaxy has formed, the same pattern would occur that something would hold this galaxy together so that it would not turn the whole universe into a mess and scientists call it to be gravitational force.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph of the category, Milky Way from the above website:
In 1750 the English astronomer Thomas Wright in his An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, speculated (correctly) that the galaxy might be a rotating body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk
If nothing would control the entire universe, there would not be any force that would hold the entire galaxy to be in perfect order when a new galaxy would form. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess that it would not give any warranty that it would orbit its own centre of mass. When the second set of galaxy was formed in the beginning, it would not give any warranty that the universe would hold these two sets of galaxies together in continuity. And so on and so forth. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess in hitting against each other. The second set of galaxy, that would be created, would be worse than the first without revolving around its own centre of mass but flying around the universe with random order and nothing would hold these two together. And so on and so forth. There must be something that is in control for the creation of this universe. Religious people call it God.
c)When a new spiral galaxy is formed, spiral arms would rotate its own centre with angular velocity. Despite there would be some step-back to alter its own velocity, it would still return to its original velocity and yet the same pattern, angular velocity, maintains to beautify the universe. Besides, most importantly it would return to its own velocity whenever something has caused it to accelerate its speed.
The following is the extract from third paragraph under the sub-title of Spirals in the same website address as mentioned above:
In spiral galaxies, the spiral arms do have the shape of approximate logarithmic spirals, a pattern that can be theoretically shown to result from a disturbance in a uniformly rotating mass of stars. Like the stars, the spiral arms rotate around the center, but they do so with constant angular velocity…As stars move through an arm, the space velocity of each stellar system is modified by the gravitational force of the higher density. (The VELOCITY RETURNS TO NORMAL after the stars depart on the other side of the arm.)
If the spiral galaxy was created by Big Bang theory, it would not give any warranty that the first creation of the existence of spiral galaxy would result in velocity to return to its original speed after its acceleration due to some influence before. What if the spiral galaxy would not return to its original velocity, the spiral galaxy would keep on increasing its speed whenever it is influenced by external factor. The whole spiral galaxy would turn up to be in disaster since it keeps on increasing its speed non-stop since forever increasing speed would cause the heat to rise up and even be burnt up eventually.
The above show that the nature reflects the existence of God.
Comment by zuma — September 3, 2012 @ 10:37 pm |
Could Big Bang Theory exist in the very beginning to create something out of nothing? Indeed nobody has ever existed prior to the creation of this universe. Big Bang Theory is just a wild imagination from scientists that this universe could be created through it since nobody has eye-witness about its existence for the creation of this universe. As Big Bang Theory mentions that this universe was used to be very small and very dense in the beginning, the mass and/or energy and/or protons and/or other particles that are within this tiny universe to trigger off Big Bang Theory would have limited volume. As the mass from universe in the beginning that would work under the Big Bang theory would slowly release the mass from it, it would turn up to be big universe and not so dense. No matter how the mass or energy or particles(,i.e. protons and etc.), that would be released from this tiny universe under the Big Bang Theory, there would come to a point of time in which nothing would be left in it as a result of the entire releasing of mass to its surrounding. Thus, it would come to a time that the universe would no more keep on expanding since the universe that works on Big Bang Theory has released all its mass to its surrounding. Unless the thing or the small universe that would trigger off Big Bang Theory in the very beginning would create more mass of space by itself so as to replenish the mass that has been released from it, there would be no way for Big Bang Theory to create mass of space unceasingly to cause the unceasing expansion of universe especially the law of conservation of mass and energy in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass, states that the mass and energy could not be created. How could Big Bang Theory support that this universe would keep on expanding as if that the mass of space could keep on producing without ceasing? As mass could never be created by itself, the total mass of matter and/or energy and/or particles and/or protons in the thing or universe in the beginning (that would generate Big Bang Theory) would have the same mass as all the mass of all stars and planets among all the galaxies in this current and sophisticated universe since the mass could never be created as stated in the law of conservation of mass and energy. How could this little universe (that would have existed in the very beginning with the capability to trigger off Big Bang Theory) have the same amount of mass and these include all the stars and planets that are among all the galaxies in this modern world? When Big Bang theory mentions that the universe could be very dense, could the density of the rocks among all the planets and stars in this entire universe be lower than the very high density of the space or whatever in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory? As there are more than billions of planets and stars in this current universe and the density of rocks in each planet is higher than anything else especially the very high density of space in the universe that would create Big Bang Theory in the beginning, how could the density of the space in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory be greater than the rocks of all the planets and stars in this universe and yet the size of that universe would yet be very small then? If you would add up all the mass of planets and stars of different galaxies in this world, it would form a gigantic ball and the outlook would be many times bigger than our galaxy and it would not be a very tiny universe as mentioned in Big Bang Theory. To generate the same amount of mass of all the stars and planets for different galaxies in this modern universe, the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory in the beginning must have the same mass and it should be in gigantic size as many times as bigger than our galaxy especially the weight of a planet is many times as heavy as the very high density of space. As the universe that would generate all the stars and planets for different galaxies in the beginning should be in gigantic size, how could Big Bang Theory supports that that universe would be small and very dense especially the law of conversation of energy and mass states that mass and energy could not be created? Is it true that the thing that would have existed in the very beginning for the generation of Big Bang Theory could be very dense in nature? This theory seems weird in the sense that how the small little thing or so-called, universe, could be very dense. If you take a balloon to blow air on it and try to suppress its expansion so as to make the air in it to be very dense, it would explode. Thus, if the thing or the so-called, very small universe, that would have generated Big Bang Theory would turn up to be very dense, that thing or universe would explode itself since it would be under hard pressure. If you take a box and blow air in it so as to make it dense, it would reach a stage that no air could enter into the box when the air in the box has been filled up. How could it be possible for the thing or the universe that would have existed in the very beginning to be very dense so as to generate Big Bang Theory since explosion would occur within a limited space? What would have caused the thing or the so-called, universe, to be very dense in the first place? It is irrational to assume that the thing that would exist in the very beginning would release all its masses continuously non-stop until eternity for the fact that mass and energy could never be created under the law of conservation of mass and energy. As mass and energy could not be created by itself, how could the Big Bang Theory produce mass of space continuously as the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could never be created by itself? As mass and energy could not be created by itself in the thing that would have existed since the beginning, it would cease to increase in its mass when all the elements that would be within the Big Bang Theory have run out till nothing is left inside. Yet in reality what scientists have mentioned about Big Bang Theory is the forever increasing of mass of space in this universe. The forever increasing in the space expanding gives the implication that the assumption that the thing that would have been initiated with Big Bang Theory has been proven to be wrong since how could mass or energy be created itself when the law of conservation of mass and energy mentions that mass and energy cannot be created in the first place? A simple conclusion has to be made here. How could the Big Bang Theory generate mass of space forever to allow its continuous expansion when the law of conservation of matter states that matter or energy could never be created? If the reply is that Big Bang Theory could generate more mass of space through the work of space and time, the result would turn up to be contradictory with the law of conservation of matter that states that matter and energy could never be created. Big Bang Theory supports the continuous expansion of space. Is there any mass in the space? Yes, there is. The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state, under the sub-title, Vacuum State: (According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”, and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.” According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.) As the phrase, vacuum state…contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and PARTICLES that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that the space that is in vacuum state is never empty since it contains electromagnetic waves as well as particles that pop into and out of existence. Or in other words, the increase in space could cause the increase of electromagnetic waves as well as those particles that would pop into and out of existence in the space that is in vacuum state. Is there any mass for particles or electromagnetic wave? The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson, under the sub-title, Higgs boson: (The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Higgs boson is predicted to exist for theoretical reasons, and may have been detected by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. If confirmed, this detection would prove the existence of the hypothetical Higgs field—the simplest of several proposed mechanisms for the breaking of electroweak symmetry, and the means by which elementary particles acquire mass. The leading explanation is that a field exists that has non-zero strength everywhere—even in otherwise empty space—and that PARTICLES ACQUIRE MASS when interacting with this so-called Higgs field…) As the phrase, particles acquire mass when interacting with the so-called Higgs field, is mentioned in the extract above, it gives the implication that there is mass among particles. The title, Mass of an Electromagnetic Wave, in the website address, http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0041v2.pdf, has spelt out that there is mass for electromagnetic wave. As there are particles as well as electromagnetic wave in the space in vacuum state and yet it has been proven above that there is mass among particles as well as electromagnetic wave, it would come to the conclusion that the particles in space that are in vacuum state have mass. As the expansion of this universe implies the increase in space results in the multiplication of particles as well as the increase in electromagnetic wave, the entire mass of this universe would increase simultaneously. Thus, the expansion of universe would lead to the entire increase of mass. As the Big Bang Theory supports the expansion of this universe would lead to the entire increase of mass of space and yet the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could not be created, how could this theory be reliable since it supports forever increasing of mass of space as if that the mass could be created even though it could not? Big Bang Theory supports that the expansion of the universe is in slow pace ever since the beginning. Discuss. The following is the extract from the 7th paragraph after the question, Is this universe expanding faster than the speed of light?, in the website address, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575: (If we use the definition of distance given above (and only if we use this definition and no other), then the Hubble constant tells us that for every megaparsec of distance between two galaxies, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometers per second….) As the phrase, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometer per second, is mentioned above, it implies that this universe would have been expanding in a fast speed at 71 kilometre per second instead of in slow pace. As Big Bang Theory suggests a continuous expansion of this universe ever since its creation and it maintains such a high speed constantly at 71 kilometers per SECOND, the mass of space that it would have been generated must be many times bigger than the thing or the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory. How could this be possible for the mass that would be generated would be many times more than its original mass when the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created? Big Bang Theory is itself unreliable and contradictory. The Big Bang Theory seems illogical especially its derivation would be from very tiny point. The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, The Big Bang, in the website address, http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html: (The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.) The phrase, The universe began…with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point, as mentioned above seems irrational and illogical since how this very tiny point could hold the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of space, planets, stars, comets and etc. of this modern universe especially the law of conservation of matter and energy states that mass cannot be created. Big Bang Theory is itself contradictory and unscientific.
Comment by zuma — September 15, 2012 @ 6:14 am |
Higgs Boson / “God Particle” -2012 Science news is actually a 150+ year old discovery by a different name ………………Infinite Intelligence….Steve Meyer / New Thought Movement / HolisticDNA
The Sixth Sense Activation Sequence – GROUNDBREAKING New Book in 2012!
“New Thought promotes the ideas that “Infinite Intelligence” or “God” is ubiquitous, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and “right thinking” has a healing effect…” Wikipedia
Steve Meyer
HolisticDNA@gmail.com
Comment by The God Particle (@God_Particle_) — September 19, 2012 @ 8:44 am |
Zuma.
Despite your… rant… being rather old, I still have to insist you better stop overspicing your every single meal with nutmeg. Either that or you’re the weirdest kind of Poe I ever read in a blog comment. Either way, I in fact do appreciate your wild associative skills and if you actually started to read up all the things you’re… ranting about… you could do a great job at screenwriting. Or so. Experimental movies of some kind maybe.
Comment by onechordbassist — February 6, 2013 @ 2:55 am |