Just Plain Insanity

[WanderingLands]

Recently, I came across an article called "'God Particle' could destroy the universe", where Stephen Hawking is 'warning' the public that the supposed Higgs Boson particle 'discovered' by the scientists at CERN could become unstable and somehow destroy the universe as we know it. The entire article is a complete sham, and is nothing more than another publicity stunt by Stephen Hawking to obviously sell books, and as well as to deceive the audience into this mystifying fantasy that's unfortunately posed as 'science'. The proof is right here, when Hawking had admitted that it was 'highly theoretical', and that the article then blatantly stated that it's 'unlikely to happen any time in the near future'. Just read the article for yourself:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/09/ ... -universe/

So we are worrying about some 'particle' that was 'discovered', mainly by theoretical physics and mathematics. Because of this, we don't even know about this particle or how it relates to anything, and yet we are getting these news stories about a warning that it could destroy all of existence. This is obviously nothing but a promotional stunt, and a distraction from especially the real issues that are going on in this world (Ukraine, Middle East, etc.).

[Ginkgo]

Recently, I came across an article called "'God Particle' could destroy the universe", where Stephen Hawking is 'warning' the public that the supposed Higgs Boson particle 'discovered' by the scientists at CERN could become unstable and somehow destroy the universe as we know it. The entire article is a complete sham, and is nothing more than another publicity stunt by Stephen Hawking to obviously sell books, and as well as to deceive the audience into this mystifying fantasy that's unfortunately posed as 'science'. The proof is right here, when Hawking had admitted that it was 'highly theoretical', and that the article then blatantly stated that it's 'unlikely to happen any time in the near future'. Just read the article for yourself:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/09/ ... -universe/

So we are worrying about some 'particle' that was 'discovered', mainly by theoretical physics and mathematics. Because of this, we don't even know about this particle or how it relates to anything, and yet we are getting these news stories about a warning that it could destroy all of existence. This is obviously nothing but a promotional stunt, and a distraction from especially the real issues that are going on in this world (Ukraine, Middle East, etc.).

WanderingLands, take no notice of the Fox article is is garbage. This would have to be one of the worst attempted reporting of a scientific event imaginable. If you read the article you will notice it is quotes out of context. Even worse, it is quotes out of context taken from second and third sources.

This type of article represents an abomination of science reporting. The discovery of the Higgs is old news now, it didn't create any black holes that swallowed up the universe. The Nobel Prize has been handed out.

[WanderingLands]

WanderingLands, take no notice of the Fox article is is garbage. This would have to be one of the worst attempted reporting of a scientific event imaginable. If you read the article you will notice it is quotes out of context. Even worse, it is quotes out of context taken from second and third sources.

This type of article represents an abomination of science reporting. The discovery of the Higgs is old news now, it didn't create any black holes that swallowed up the universe. The Nobel Prize has been handed out.

I don't see anything information that would confirm this assertion, and as a matter of fact I see this same story and same context as I scam across the Google search engine.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=go ... se&start=0

[Ginkgo]

WanderingLands, take no notice of the Fox article is is garbage. This would have to be one of the worst attempted reporting of a scientific event imaginable. If you read the article you will notice it is quotes out of context. Even worse, it is quotes out of context taken from second and third sources.

This type of article represents an abomination of science reporting. The discovery of the Higgs is old news now, it didn't create any black holes that swallowed up the universe. The Nobel Prize has been handed out.

I don't see anything information that would confirm this assertion, and as a matter of fact I see this same story and same context as I scam across the Google search engine.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=go ... se&start=0

The links provided within the article.

[Ginkgo]

I agree it is a sham, but a media induced sham.

If we make our way though the links and ignore the BS we will eventually come across Hawking talking in context in the "Starmus" address. Hawking is actually talking about the ultimate fate of the universe and the amount of energy required to bring about that fate.

This is the problem with the interweeb. You need to spend a lot of time tiptoeing through the BS in order to find a source that approaches some semblance of accuracy. The whole idea of interweeb articles is to mislead.



P.S.

Arising, I am really starting to appreciate the significance of the term,"interweeb"

[WanderingLands]

I agree it is a sham, but a media induced sham.

If we make our way though the links and ignore the BS we will eventually come across Hawking talking in context in the "Starmus" address. Hawking is actually talking about the ultimate fate of the universe and the amount of energy required to bring about that fate.

This is the problem with the interweeb. You need to spend a lot of time tiptoeing through the BS in order to find a source that approaches some semblance of accuracy. The whole idea of interweeb articles is to mislead.



P.S.

Arising, I am really starting to appreciate the significance of the term,"interweeb"

You say that all of this is media induced sham, excluding Hawking as the pusher of this, and yet you say that he's 'talking about the ultimate fate the of the universe and the amount of energy required to bring about that fate'. What is this 'fate' then, if it's not the end of the Universe?

[Skip]

.... What is this 'fate' then, if it's not the end of the Universe?

Of course it's the end. Everything that begins must also end. What's your problem with this?
For an accessible overview try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfs1BAn7gI0

[WanderingLands]

Of course it's the end. Everything that begins must also end. What's your problem with this?
For an accessible overview try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfs1BAn7gI0

The idea that the Universe is 'ending' and that it 'has to end' just because 'everything that begins must also end' is completely illogical. For one, even if everything in this Universe does die out as they begin, you cannot possibly say that the Universe would simply die out, because the concept of 'nothingness' is completely unimaginable due to it pertaining to absolute nothing. As there is always something to replace the 'old thing', there must be something that 'perpetuates' eternally, which makes an argument philosophically for an eternal Universe, or at least some form of eternal existence.

Scientifically, the idea that the 'Universe is ending' is often most entirely based on dubious theories such as black holes, Higgs Boson, 'warped Space-Time', etc., with also mathematics to (barely) back it up (on top of that, saying that it can be 'unexpected'). The idea that a Universe would somehow collapse and destroy itself contradicts the conservation of energy, and also contradicts the fact that the Universe works (in the mechanistic aspect) in a mathematical way (look at the cycles of planets and stars, the seasons), which means that it cannot make room for 'black holes' or unstable particles like the so-called 'Higgs Boson'.

[Skip]

....you cannot possibly say that the Universe would simply die out, because the concept of 'nothingness' is completely unimaginable due to it pertaining to absolute nothing.

If that makes ending impossible, then it also makes beginning impossible. Thus, the statement "if beginning then ending" is exactly as logical as "if no ending then no beginning". What would be illogical is a statement like "what began cannot end". Anyway, the limits of your imagination do not govern Einstein's or Hawking's.

As there is always something to replace the 'old thing', there must be something that 'perpetuates' eternally, which makes an argument philosophically for an eternal Universe, or at least some form of eternal existence.

I'm okay with that, too, but it doesn't stop speculation as to how either state could be/ could have been achieved.

....it cannot make room for 'black holes' or unstable particles like the so-called 'Higgs Boson'.

Maybe it doesn't need to "make room"; maybe they were there all along.... along with a host of other 'unimaginable' things that we don't know about yet or will never learn about. Little human minds don't determine the contents of the universe.

[WanderingLands]

If that makes ending impossible, then it also makes beginning impossible. Thus, the statement "if beginning then ending" is exactly as logical as "if no ending then no beginning". What would be illogical is a statement like "what began cannot end". Anyway, the limits of your imagination do not govern Einstein's or Hawking's.

The exact solution then is that the Universe would have to eternally exist, binded by an energy that somehow 'perpetuates' itself. Also, I'm not talking about imagination; I'm talking about science here.

I'm okay with that, too, but it doesn't stop speculation as to how either state could be/ could have been achieved.

True - but speculation can have its limits, such as having to discern what is actually true from what is just conceptualized.

Maybe it doesn't need to "make room"; maybe they were there all along.... along with a host of other 'unimaginable' things that we don't know about yet or will never learn about. Little human minds don't determine the contents of the universe.

None of those things exist in the Universe, and it has been disproven by many scientists, that at least think for themselves and not for the establishment's approval.

[Skip]

Then you won't be watching that National Geographic video. Hokey-dokey.

[Ginkgo]

I agree it is a sham, but a media induced sham.

If we make our way though the links and ignore the BS we will eventually come across Hawking talking in context in the "Starmus" address. Hawking is actually talking about the ultimate fate of the universe and the amount of energy required to bring about that fate.

This is the problem with the interweeb. You need to spend a lot of time tiptoeing through the BS in order to find a source that approaches some semblance of accuracy. The whole idea of interweeb articles is to mislead.



P.S.

Arising, I am really starting to appreciate the significance of the term,"interweeb"

You say that all of this is media induced sham, excluding Hawking as the pusher of this, and yet you say that he's 'talking about the ultimate fate the of the universe and the amount of energy required to bring about that fate'. What is this 'fate' then, if it's not the end of the Universe?

The fate is the end. The word "fate" just implies that no one know how it will end. We can use different terminology if you like.

[Ginkgo]

Of course it's the end. Everything that begins must also end. What's your problem with this?
For an accessible overview try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfs1BAn7gI0

The idea that the Universe is 'ending' and that it 'has to end' just because 'everything that begins must also end' is completely illogical. For one, even if everything in this Universe does die out as they begin, you cannot possibly say that the Universe would simply die out, because the concept of 'nothingness' is completely unimaginable due to it pertaining to absolute nothing. As there is always something to replace the 'old thing', there must be something that 'perpetuates' eternally, which makes an argument philosophically for an eternal Universe, or at least some form of eternal existence.

Scientifically, the idea that the 'Universe is ending' is often most entirely based on dubious theories such as black holes, Higgs Boson, 'warped Space-Time', etc., with also mathematics to (barely) back it up (on top of that, saying that it can be 'unexpected'). The idea that a Universe would somehow collapse and destroy itself contradicts the conservation of energy, and also contradicts the fact that the Universe works (in the mechanistic aspect) in a mathematical way (look at the cycles of planets and stars, the seasons), which means that it cannot make room for 'black holes' or unstable particles like the so-called 'Higgs Boson'.

I think we need to be careful and not conflate ideas. The fact that the universe will end doesn't have to be based on science alone, it can be an apriori assumption. No one can project with observational evidence, mathematics, or any other reasoning method as to the ultimate outcome.

There will always be a groups of scientists that support their pet theory. At this stage the observational evidence leans towards the idea that we will eventually be living in a heat dead universe.

[Arising_uk]

I thought it was the 'Goddamm' particle but got shortened by the press or someone.

[Ginkgo]

I thought it was the 'Goddamm' particle but got shortened by the press or someone.

Yes, I think that is correct. It was an invention of the media.