Was the Discovery of Higgs Boson God Particle Actually the World's Most Successful Conscious Intention Experiment?
From: http://wakeup-world.com/2012/07/12/was-the-discovery-of-higgs-boson-god-partial-actually-the-worlds-most-successful-conscious-intention-experiment/
QuoteThe recent discovery of the Higgs particle — the "God" particle — will go down in the history of science as one of the greatest discoveries ever made. But what was discovered, exactly? Was it a discovery of a "particle" that grants mass to other elements of matter, or was it the discovery that thousands of scientists focusing on a large data set of seemingly random events can successfully skew the results of the data into a 5-sigma level of apparent statistical significance?
In other words, was the Higgs discovery actually the greatest intention experiment ever conducted? This is not a casual question. It reaches into the very nature of science itself and begs the question: Can human-run science ever truly be conducted independent from an observer? The answer, of course, is no. The subsequent question then becomes critical: Do observers alter the outcomes of scientific experiments even without any intention of doing so?
More at link.
What do You think?
Hi Amaterasu,
Conscious intention? Maybe. It does seem to me that there was some ambiguity in the announcement. Here's a related article that question the validity of the discovery that does make sense and brings up some valid questions:
'On the other hand, a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly observed scalar resonance.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171611/Is-God-particle-impostor-Scientists-claim-signal-Large-Hadron-Collider-Higgs-all.html
I do wonder why, if it is the particle that gives us mass, why such high energy was required to make it show itself? Shouldn't we be awash in Higgs's since everything we can observe has mass???
COSMO
I agree, COSMO. And what concerns Me is the whole "standard model," which I don't think is right, with a propensity for believing Dr. LaViolette's SQK offers a better model, and the "big bang" taken on faith. I con't think there was a "big bang."
The fact that this particle They found is "lighter than expected" leaves Me wondering just how They then can assume it IS the particle They claim it is. If it fails to have all the properties, then it's something else.
But They (the PTB) have reasons to maintain the standard model as the prevailing view. It prohibits free energy and hides many things that other models, like SQK, show as possible. (SQK predicts the Biefeld-Brown Effect...)
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 13, 2012, 08:07:43 PM
I agree, COSMO. And what concerns Me is the whole "standard model," which I don't think is right, with a propensity for believing Dr. LaViolette's SQK offers a better model, and the "big bang" taken on faith. I con't think there was a "big bang."
The fact that this particle They found is "lighter than expected" leaves Me wondering just how They then can assume it IS the particle They claim it is. If it fails to have all the properties, then it's something else.
But They (the PTB) have reasons to maintain the standard model as the prevailing view. It prohibits free energy and hides many things that other models, like SQK, show as possible. (SQK predicts the Biefeld-Brown Effect...)
Cosmo and you are right, Amy, it was a sort of desperation move to make the investors and scientists there feel warm and fuzzy, but anything that lasts a biilionth of a second is basically a random occurence to me, and SQK still rules, no matter what.
I also think if they found this to last so short a time, which particle will they start to search for next, and how big will that collider be?
Cern...a hole in the ground that sucks those precious euros away!
If you subscribe to the standard model, its like living in a house without electricity or running water....primitive at best..sorry einstein!:(
Protecting jobs? You bet!
Le
Protecting jobs - AND the idea that there is no such thing as overunity.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 13, 2012, 10:40:51 PM
Protecting jobs - AND the idea that there is no such thing as overunity.
There is no such thing as over-unity...it is a term designed to mislead.
A Waterwheel produces energy from a river..is that over-unity ?? No it is not....But once constructed it is free energy.
A Hydro-electric dam produces power from a reservoir..is that over-unity ?? No it is not....But once constructed it is free energy.
A device that taps the reservoir of energy in which we reside....is that over-unity ?? No it is not....But once constructed it is free energy.
Cosmic...
Perhaps it is semantics, but I define "unity" as the point at which usable energy input equals usable energy output. If usable energy output exceeds usable energy input, the result is overunity. So extracting unusable energy and converting it to usable energy IS overunity. As I define it and as I understood unity to be defined...
So technically, the unusable energy in flowing water, extracted and converted into usable energy by a hydro-electric dam IS overunity. By that definition.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
So technically, the unusable energy in flowing water, extracted and converted into usable energy by a hydro-electric dam IS overunity. By that definition.
Flowing water that runs over a turbine at a dam (a turbine is simply a waterwheel transferring energy from one form to another)
Electricity is not generated/created/collected from the water. It is the act of water falling from what we call gravity that turns that water wheel... which in turn spins a magnet within a core of copper wires that produce that electricity
At each step of the way there is loss in friction... so the original potential energy in that falling water is higher than the usable energy output
Overunity is defined as getting MORE usable energy than the POTENTIAL you started out with
You cannot change the definition to suit a premise, without confusing the issue
Gravitational potential energy
"Gravitational energy is the potential energy associated with gravitational force, as work is required to elevate objects against Earth's gravity. The potential energy due to elevated positions is called gravitational potential energy, and is evidenced by water in an elevated reservoir or kept behind a dam. If an object falls from one point to another point inside a gravitational field, the force of gravity will do positive work on the object, and the gravitational potential energy will decrease by the same amount."
Kinetic energy
"The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest."
Electricity generation
'Electricity generation is the process of generating electric energy from other forms of energy.
The fundamental principles of electricity generation were discovered during the 1820s and early 1830s by the British scientist Michael Faraday. His basic method is still used today: electricity is generated by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet."
Not ALL the potential energy flowing over a dam is harnessed Only a small portion passes through the turbines
Not only that but if you put 10 more dams downstream you can utilize even more of the potential energy but no ALL that is available
So what you are doing is CONVERTING Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy to Electrical Energy
The end produce is a lot less that what you started with
Fair enough, z. So I guess there is no such thing as overunity then. [shrug] Fine by Me. Semantics, right.
In Northern Canada they have a river that they could build 10 such tiered dams without major damage to the eco system. It would merely create a series of lakes along the same river for wildlife, fishing and recreation. The location is deep in the wilds
Well they offered this to power hungry USA all they needed to do was pay for the transmission lines
They built one dam... 50% of that power is discharged into the ground because there is no where to send it :o
If they would build a hydrolysis plant on site, they could use all that FREE and EXTRA electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which would REALLY tap that POTENTIAL energy in water itself
Hydrogen and Oxygen is what the Shuttle uses to launch... lots of energy there all FREE once the plant is built
And the polution? Well when Hydrogen 'burns' it merely recombines with oxygen to form water... it doesn't actually BURN the oxygen or the hydrogen It just combines them back to water, releasing (violently) that stored POTENTIAL energy provided by that FREE and EXTRA electricity that split that water
Yes the 'smoke' on Shuttle liftoff is WATER VAPOR
And thus a closed cycle.. no loss no waste
As to protecting jobs? All the free energy in the world will be USELESS if you don't have a job to pay for the devices that use it, or a home to put those devices in :D
And I don't trust no stinking ROBOT to do everything for me... ya can't trust them
And humans being what they are if everything was free and robots did all the work, humans would become apathetic... no drive, no incentive to create, no need to get up off the couch because that robot maid will get your beer and pizza for you
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2012, 03:18:01 AM
Fair enough, z. So I guess there is no such thing as overunity then.
Well jury is out on that :P
But if there is by that definition, it is more likely that extra energy is coming from SOMEWHERE be it the aether or even another dimension :D
Your right semantics :D Its a common problem when dealing with the terms 'free energy' and 'anti gravity'
But it is a HUGE problem... because the misuse of those term by the CT community and the impression of the public, is WHY mainstream science runs away from anything associated with those terms
If we ever hope to have success, it needs to be CLEARLY defined
My wood stove provides FREE energy... My trees grows without needing me to water it (deep roots to water table) Three 30 foot mulberries that grow like weeds. POTENTIAL energy stored in that wood
I have to add a little energy.. in the form of work ie cutting the wood, by hand or chain saw
But after a few hours I have a years supply of FREE energy for heating and cooking outside on the firepit and for camping
It IS all semantics and it is all relative
I have plans for make it yourself solar panels :D
Thinking of making a thread in PWM's area now that I have time again....
my I think I can here a pin drop
::)
Now I need to cut that grass... maybe a robot for that I would consider :D
Lawnbot
Robot Mower Clips Grass On Its Own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ES-hrYorY
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/lb3500.jpg)
QuoteiRobot may own the market for autonomous indoor cleaning devices, but when it comes to taming that wild jungle you call a backyard, the new king of the hill may well be the LawnBott LB3500. This fourth-generation LawnBott from Kyodo America improves upon its predecessors in nearly every category: even though it weighs ten pounds less than the entry-level LB2000, it offers up a greater coverage area, increased cutting width, greatly improved incline climbing capability, longer runtime, and best of all, a Bluetooth radio for programming or direct control by cellphone. Of course, all these high-end features don't come cheap, and when the LB3500 does come to market (date: unknown), we imagine that it's gonna cost a good deal more than the current high-end, $2,500 LB3200. Check out the gallery below for some more angles.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/lawnbott-lb3500-offers-bluetooth-control-stylin-rims/So cheer up
The BOTS ARE ALREADY HERE :P
Quote from: zorgon on July 14, 2012, 03:27:32 AM
As to protecting jobs? All the free energy in the world will be USELESS if you don't have a job to pay for the devices that use it, or a home to put those devices in :D
And when the need for money dissipates...You can have all the devices and homes You want - and with EG, even a flying home or two. [grin]
QuoteAnd I don't trust no stinking ROBOT to do everything for me... ya can't trust them
Hey, You won't have to have any robots if'n You don't want them... You can scrub Yer toilet Yersef. [grin]
QuoteAnd humans being what they are if everything was free and robots did all the work, humans would become apathetic... no drive, no incentive to create, no need to get up off the couch because that robot maid will get your beer and pizza for you
I disagree. I know MANY who would build robots, create music, get People together to create movies, research, do archaeology, travel, paint pictures, throw parties, learn, teach, go to parties, go fishing... Would YOU really sit on Your butt and do nothing if You could do anything You wanted? The only reason virtually ALL the couch potatoes are couch potatoes is because They can't afford to do what They WANT to do. Can't afford education, can't afford to go camping, can't afford to make sculptures, can't afford to build a prototype of the invention sitting in Their heads and can't afford to pay for a patent...
Geez. Really, z. Guaranteed People would be doing things that delight Them and NOT be couch potatoes.
But... We have veered radically off topic here. What do You think of the idea that the "Higgs boson" is seen in the data because of the affect of expectation on the quantum level?
Bingo, Amy...they were expecting it and got it...the same example of when they look for the particle on the panel behind the two slit experiment, and then see that particle as they expected it...and when they dont look, it goes haywire!
I wonder if they have thought that the Higgs that appeared in the data really ever went away?
Could it still be right where it occured, and waiting to be found?
Do they even know what it might look like, as they cant observe it anyways? I dont care how great the data is, these particles will always be ahead of our instruments. A billionth of a second isnt enough to convince me. :-\
Or could it have become subquantum, and split into more particles which arent even measurable with the equipment they have?
Also the event they measured could have been a blink into a black hole, which opened and swallowed, then closed around the Higgs before it could even become itself. 8)
Does that sound nuts? :o
And yes, my Roomba 560's love to clean my hardwood floors for me everyday, but I still have to empty clean and maintain them...something i actually enjoy! Those Bots rock! :)
Cheers!
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2012, 04:29:36 AM
But... We have veered radically off topic here.
Off topic? Due you require our services?
::)
Naw, I don't mind, really. [smile] It's all good.
We'll be back on topic and I like the discussion. Thanks though. [smile] [wink]
Quote from: Littleenki on July 14, 2012, 05:23:36 AM
Bingo, Amy...they were expecting it and got it...the same example of when they look for the particle on the panel behind the two slit experiment, and then see that particle as they expected it...and when they dont look, it goes haywire!
I wonder if they have thought that the Higgs that appeared in the data really ever went away?
Could it still be right where it occured, and waiting to be found?
Do they even know what it might look like, as they cant observe it anyways? I dont care how great the data is, these particles will always be ahead of our instruments. A billionth of a second isnt enough to convince me. :-\
Or could it have become subquantum, and split into more particles which arent even measurable with the equipment they have?
Also the event they measured could have been a blink into a black hole, which opened and swallowed, then closed around the Higgs before it could even become itself. 8)
Does that sound nuts? :o
And yes, my Roomba 560's love to clean my hardwood floors for me everyday, but I still have to empty clean and maintain them...something i actually enjoy! Those Bots rock! :)
Cheers!
And don't forget, Dave... It doesn't look like what They were looking for based on math and theory. It's some lighter particle. How can They say... "It's close... It's not the same... But... THAT'S IT! EUREKA!"
And I would like a robot that did the cleaning and then took the garbage out. [grin]
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2012, 06:33:18 AM
And don't forget, Dave... It doesn't look like what They were looking for based on math and theory. It's some lighter particle. How can They say... "It's close... It's not the same... But... THAT'S IT! EUREKA!"
And I would like a robot that did the cleaning and then took the garbage out. [grin]
Amaterasu, well put. My thoughts exactly! Close enough for government work is what we used to say!!!
And...I too want an Irobot vacuum!!! Would be great for cleaning up after my four footed fury pack!!! (3 dogs)
Thanks for the reference to SQK, I just ordered a used copy from Amazon. $30 I wish there was an E version. I'll read it and get back to ya! :)
Cosmo
COSMO, that is a phrase My dad always used! I have been know to use it M'self! He was in aerospace as an electrical engineer...
I think it's mighty fishy that They decided to "prove" the theory right with such shoddy evidence. Disgusting, really.
Quote from: COSMO on July 14, 2012, 07:19:37 AM
...Thanks for the reference to SQK, I just ordered a used copy from Amazon.
Did you use the link over there? --->
;D 8)
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2012, 07:43:07 AM
COSMO, that is a phrase My dad always used! I have been know to use it M'self! He was in aerospace as an electrical engineer...
I think it's mighty fishy that They decided to "prove" the theory right with such shoddy evidence. Disgusting, really.
Yes, talk about a rush to judgement! Now, as far as I understand, a boson has a particle/wave duality. So just exactly what are they proving if the standing wave nature of a particle in an aether is valid? The Higgs field is supposed to pervade the entire universe, and it's where particles get their mass via the Higgs, so it sounds like an aether/ether theory of sorts to me. It is interesting how mainstream physics dances around the use of aether/ether. They avoid it like it is little green men from mars! Oh yeah...they dance around that one too!!! lol
A51Watcher....oh crap....plz forgive the newbie, I'll definitely remember to use that link next time!
Cosmo
I think the aether is a definite - and includes a LOT of energy. And - I don't know if You read My thread on The End of Entropy (that's social entropy, ala Jeremy Rifkin's seminal work, Entropy) - but add free energy and th3e need for money dissipates. And since money is what gives TPTB power over Others...THEY don't want free energy in this world!
Here's the link to My thread:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=657.0
Things in science will make a LOT more sense if You understand that relationship... money/power (over Others)/energy are three forms of the same thing - like ice/water/steam.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2012, 08:57:11 AM
I think the aether is a definite - and includes a LOT of energy. And - I don't know if You read My thread on The End of Entropy (that's social entropy, ala Jeremy Rifkin's seminal work, Entropy) - but add free energy and th3e need for money dissipates. And since money is what gives TPTB power over Others...THEY don't want free energy in this world!
Here's the link to My thread:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=657.0
Things in science will make a LOT more sense if You understand that relationship... money/power (over Others)/energy are three forms of the same thing - like ice/water/steam.
Yes, good thread! Totally agree. The aether is piratically limitless energy potential. I have been thinking for some time that TPTB have had Tesla tech for almost 100 years now and maybe longer. They are the same ones that control the fossil fuel industry, the world banking cartel, wall street, the media and our political system. What have they accomplished with it given their resources and all that time??? It would seem like ET wouldn't it! And by containing that knowledge, they maintain their power and control at the expense of the quality of life of the entire world. That is a great tragedy.
Cosmo
Oh, it's definitely ET, with duped "satan" worshipers in the top spots reaping the material benefits. Divided in this way, They keep Us conquered.
ET - at least that faction - has no compassion. THEY don't care about the suffering They cause. They just want to maintain control. That is why free energy has been hidden and suppressed. But I figure, with enough of Us going for it, ignoring the "science" as They write it, seeing through such farces as announcing the "Higgs boson..." They WILL lose control.
More info on the Higgs:
Concerning CERN: Cliff Burgess on the discovery of the Higgs boson
Normally we think of the vacuum as just being the thing that has nothing in it. But Peter Higgs, and others, proposed instead that the vacuum is a physical thing which has physical properties, with which elementary particles can interact. There is an energy associated with this interaction, which we interpret as the particle mass due to Einstein's relation E=m c^2. At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence that this picture of the vacuum having physical properties is right. They did so by exciting a wave in the vacuum, which in their experiment looks like a new type of particle. Can you elaborate on just what the so-called "God particle" is? First off, everybody in the business calls it the Higgs particle and cringes just a bit when it is called the "God particle". What makes it important is that it shows that there are waves in the vacuum. You can think of the whole picture as an analogy where elementary particles are replaced by fish. Suppose you were interested in the properties of fish and how they move and why some fish move faster than others given the same amount of effort. This would be very hard if you did not understand what water was. In order to understand properly the motion of fish, you must first also understand the environment through which they move.
Now, those who study fish never doubted the existence of water because, unlike the fish, scientists do not live in it. If you were the first to propose that water existed, it might be a harder sell since everyone would take it for granted. The acid test would be to move the water, or to excite a water wave, since that would show that there was something "there" besides just fish. So the radical theoretical proposal is that we are all moving through a medium, and it is the properties of this medium that partially control the behaviour of elementary particles. Again the acid test is to perturb the vacuum and excite a wave in it. This is what the experiments at CERN seem to have done for the very first time.
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cern-cliff-burgess-discovery-higgs.html
OK, orange it is, but I will share that I am color blind! Hope it's more readable.
Fish in a medium, water! Waves in the vacuum!!! EVERYTHING is connected in this "water". Can we just quit calling it a vacuum?????? OK, is it just me or does this sound suspiciously like an ether theory??? lol
By the way, E=m c^2 is just for a particle at rest. I don't think that is a natural state, the ether is in constant motion so there is more energy present than the equation indicates, and that energy is how we will travel to the stars. Maybe we should just call it water? How about the universal ocean of creation? lol
Cosmo
So basically, They proved there is an aether (whatever the description of it is...). Well, many of us had deduced that the aether exists, but I guess it's cool to have CERN provide the proof. Still, why have They called this aether wave a "Higgs Particle?" When it did not have the calculated properties of said particle?
And I call it a plenum. The root of "vacuum" means empty; the root of "plenum" means full.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 17, 2012, 04:28:47 AM
So basically, They proved there is an aether (whatever the description of it is...). Well, many of us had deduced that the aether exists, but I guess it's cool to have CERN provide the proof. Still, why have They called this aether wave a "Higgs Particle?" When it did not have the calculated properties of said particle?
And I call it a plenum. The root of "vacuum" means empty; the root of "plenum" means full.
Well, it is called the Higgs Field, and the point of interaction with other particles that theoretically gives rise to mass is called a Higgs Boson, and a boson is a particle that can have the property of a particle and a wave.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/360-2/
I kinda get it. So the Higgs particle is the smallest possible Higgs wave, and a Higgs wave is a ripple in the Higgs field. You got it.
Yeah, still sounds like an aether/ether theory to me too. :) The Gnostics called it the pleroma, which also means fullness.
Cosmo
Ah, the pleroma...
QuoteYeah, still sounds like an aether/ether theory to me too. The Gnostics called it the pleroma, which also means fullness.
Cosmo
Aslso, the hermetica calls the aether, the ALL. Seems everyone has name for it, and if cern had called PRC, we couldve saved them a crapload of money and time!LOL!
Cheers!
Same root as "plenum," which would be the latin version, I do believe.
So, ok. If bosons have both particle and wave behavior... Doesn't that make ALL particles bosons? Seems to Me that that's what quantum mechanics tells Us, n'est pas?
And I really do think They are confirming an aetheric plenum/pleroma. [smile] Still think SQK is more on the mark.
Here is some more info in the Higgs and another reference to a 2 dimensional geometry:
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/hrdmtfch.jpg)
The sudden breaking of symmetry plays a fundamental role in physics, in particular for the description of phase transitions that change the whole state of a system. One example is the spontaneous alignment of the atomic magnets in a ferromagnetic material that is cooled down below the Curie-temperature. Being governed by such a "global order", the system can be excited to a collective oscillation, in which all particles move in a coordinated way. If the collective behaviour follows the rules of relativity, a special kind of oscillation can develop, a so-call Higgs excitation (named after the British physicist Peter Higgs). Such an excitation plays a key role in the standard model of elementary particles, where it is called a Higgs-particle. Also, solid state-like systems can exhibit Higgs excitations, if the collective motion of the particles obeys rules that resemble those of the theory of relativity. However, the detection of Higgs excitations is usually rather difficult, because the excitations typically decay in a short time. Moreover, they are expected to be especially short-lived in very flat, so-called low-dimensional systems and it has been a subject of theoretical debate whether they are observable at all in such geometries. Now, a team of physicists from the Quantum Many-Body Division of the Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics together with theory colleagues from Harvard University and the California Institute of Technology succeeded in experimentally identifying Higgs excitations in a two-dimensional system of ultracold atoms (Nature, July 26, 2012). "We are excited to study phenomena close to absolute zero temperature that usually occur at the highest energies", Prof. Immanuel Bloch, leader of the Division, explains
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-07-higgs-absolute.html#jCp
Waves in a 2 dimensional geometry....the Higgs field still sounds like an ether theory to me.