So if i’m interpreting this article correctly… we have the imprint of a big foot, but no sasquatch?

So if i’m interpreting this article correctly… we have the imprint of a big foot, but no sasquatch?

http://www.newsday.com/news/world/proof-of-god-particle-found-1.3817744

]]>

0 thoughts on “So if i’m interpreting this article correctly… we have the imprint of a big foot, but no sasquatch?”

  1. Well here is the thing..

    The particle can not be seen directly, as it disappears almost as soon as it is created in the collider. However, its existence has been predicted based on the Standard Model, and as such should leave an imprint. They have found the imprint, and it falls within the expected parameters. Therefore they can surmise the existence of the particle. This is huge.

    The Higgs is the last piece needed to complete the Standard Model which is the basis for everything we understand about the Universe. The Higgs is what gives everything else that exists its mass. Without the Higgs, nothing would have mass, and therefore no means of clumping or coalescing into things such as planets, stars, and people.

    ]]>

  2. That really doesn’t inspire my confidence in modern science.   But you know, he probably only as a 9x% confidence interval in his percentage of what is still unknown.

    ]]>

  3. It should, Shaun Burks. It takes great wisdom to recognize one’s own ignorance. Science is happy to call itself what it is, just beginning. We had 6,000+ years of religious paradigm. We’re only a couple of hundred into a scientific one, and depending on where you want to count it from, possibly less. I suspect if we haven’t obliterated ourselves or been otherwise obliterated in 6,000 years, we’ll know quite a lot more. 

    ]]>

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.