Higgs Boson not discovered?

Since I blasted the alleged "discovery" of the Higgs boson shortly after the announcement of it last year, you might think that I'd be crowing now that some apparently legitimate scientists are also questioning the discovery. Yeah, it's nice that others are now becoming vocal about it. But the group of scientists who have recently begun questioning the discovery are claiming that the alleged Higgs is actually something completely ridiculous that can supposedly explain dark matter. So basically they're saying that it's not the Higgs, but rather it's a telltale of dark matter or dark energy.

BS!

Then there's the story about the scientists who think the GPS system can be used to detect dark matter and dark energy. More BS. The thing in this article that really irks me is the following statement: "'Despite solid observational evidence for the existence of dark matter, its nature remains a mystery,' Derevianko, a professor in the College of Science at the University, said."

What solid observational evidence? The observational evidence doesn't fit the standard cosmological model. The observational evidence doesn't support Currently Accepted Theory. You cannot then fabricate entities such as dark matter and dark energy to explain why your theory doesn't work, and then claim that the observational evidence that undermines your theory is actually solid observational evidence for the entity you pulled out of your butt to save your defective theory! It's complete absurdity!

And so they're going to use the GPS system to detect this completely fabricated entity, dark matter. And when they actually discover discrepancies in the synchronization of the clocks, as outlined in their proposal, instead of taking that as evidence against the validity of Relativity, they'll say it's evidence of dark matter and dark energy.

This is how Science works? Observational evidence doesn't support one theory, so they fabricate an entity to save it, then when one of the methods used to detect said fabricated entity finds evidence that undermines a second theory, they'll use the defect in that second theory to prove the existence of an entity they fabricated to save the first theory. It's completely absurd!

Nobel Prize actually awarded for non-discovery

Given that the Nobel Prize has been awarded for the discovery of the Higgs boson, I want to be one of the lone voices of reason and point out that NO ONE is saying that the Higgs boson has been discovered. Even CERN will only say that the evidence "strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson."

So why is the Nobel Prize being awarded for a non-discovery?

Actually, to be honest, I guess the Prize was awarded merely for the theory that predicts the Higgs boson. But still, in the announcement, the Prize committee says that the theory "...recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted particle..."

Wrong!

I hereby predict that in due course it will be reported that the evidence has turned against the recently discovered particle being the Higgs boson.

So what have I got against the Higgs boson? Absolutely nothing. I just refuse to go along with the propaganda that the Higgs boson has been discovered when no one will come out and say that whatever they found is definitely the Higgs boson. Whatever happened to scientific integrity and honesty?

"Virtually certain" is not certain. If I'm virtually certain that a particular girl will go out with me Friday night, I'm not going to make reservations for dinner until I actually get a "Yes."

I also like how CERN, high on the success of the Higgs "discovery," is now going to turn its attention to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Good luck with that.

Another rant on dark matter

In regard to dark matter, you could say, “Well, astronomers were able to predict the existence of planets in our solar system that had not yet been directly observed, because the unseen planets perturbed the orbits of already-observed planets. It’s the same situation with dark matter. We know its there because it’s perturbing the motion of visible matter in distant space.”

But it’s not the same situation. Where unseen planets are concerned, astronomers weren’t positing the existence of a new form of matter with very unusual properties. They were merely saying, “There should be a planet in this orbit, because the orbit of this other planet doesn’t quite fit theory.” There’s nothing wrong with that type of prediction. But with dark matter, scientists aren’t doing that. They’re saying, “There should be a completely new form of matter with very unusual properties all around us, because the motion of distant matter isn’t behaving according to theory.”

Now, if the planet-hunting astronomers had said, “There should be a completely new form of matter with very unusual properties in this orbit, because the orbit of this other planet doesn’t quite fit theory,” it would be a different story. THAT would be an absurd, unwarranted leap of logic, and it’s precisely the leap scientists are making when they concoct dark matter to patch the hole in their Big Bang theory. 

The reason scientists aren't resorting to everyday, familiar objects to explain the motion of distant matter is because the discrepancies between observed and predicted motions aren't the only problems faced by cosmologists. Dark matter is being invented to explain other discrepancies as well. Ordinary matter won't fit the bill. 

"It’s there, but we just haven’t detected it yet..."

More dark matter nonsense:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/30/new-science-lab-turns-lead-into-solid-gold/

This is one of those news stories that just drives me crazy.

From the article: “They know it’s [dark matter] there by its gravitational pull but, unlike regular matter and antimatter, it’s so far undetectable.”

No, they don’t know it’s there by its gravitational pull. In actuality, observed matter in distant space is not moving as predicted by the standard theory of cosmology, namely the Big Bang theory. They assume it's there by the discrepancy between theory and observation. In regards to this discrepancy between theory and observation, scientists say, “Our theory is correct, therefore there must be something unseen causing matter to move against theoretical prediction. In other words, we know it's there by it's gravitation pull. Ergo, dark matter.”

But any scientist worthy of the moniker should say rather, “Observed matter in distant space is not moving as predicted by the standard theory. Is the standard theory thereby disproved?”

But no. The modern scientist assumes the correctness of his theory, and, in the face of observations which disprove his theory, attempts to save his theory by positing the existence of something that is, and I quote the article, “…so far undetectable.”

From the article: “‘It has to be there because of its effects through gravity, but it also has to have properties that make it very unusual — otherwise, we would have detected it already,’ Lesko said.”

Reading between the lines: “It has to be there, because our theory doesn’t work without it. It’s there, but we just haven’t detected it yet because it’s very unusual stuff.”

Absolutely ridiculous! Scientists have faith, pure and simple, that dark matter exists. They have nothing but faith! They have actual observational evidence that their standard model of cosmology is incorrect, yet they won’t let go of their precious theory because they have faith in the existence of something that has thus far eluded detection.

And yet they laugh at belief in God. Go figure.

Logical reasoning: Visible matter isn't moving according to prediction, therefore the theory used to make predictions may be incorrect. Develop new theory.

Illogical reasoning: Visible matter isn't moving according to prediction, therefore something heretofore undetected (dark matter) is affecting the movement of visible matter. Keep theory, build detectors to detect dark matter.

We know it's there, we just have to build detectors to detect it. Our theory is correct; we just have to find the proof that it's correct.

With dark matter, scientists are starting from the assumption that they're correct, and then going in search of proof of their correctness. Since when does science work this way?!

"It’s there, but we just haven’t detected it yet..." (exact quote from the above article). Funny. A Christian can give the exact same response to a scientist's demand for scientifically acceptable proof of God's existence. Do you think the scientist will accept such a response, or do you think the scientist will laugh the Christian out the door? We already know the answer to that question, don't we?

Why are we not laughing dark matter out the door?

B.S.

B.S.

B.S.

B.S.

B.S.!

Dark matter and dark energy

What does it mean when scientists talk about dark matter and dark energy? It means the Big Bang theory doesn’t fit with observation, and they have to make up stuff (dark energy, dark matter) in order to make the theory fit observation. But dark matter and dark energy are purely hypothetical and ad hoc constructions to save the theory. They’ve never been detected.

“Au contraire, mon frere, dark matter and dark energy have been detected. We know they exist because observation doesn’t fit theory. And observation doesn’t fit theory because dark energy and dark matter are there complicating things.”

The only proof scientists have that their hypothetical dark matter exists is that their theory doesn’t work without it. That’s ridiculous. Bits of visible matter in the distant universe don’t move the way theory says they should, therefore that means dark matter exists. Double ridiculous. Rather than say the theory is disproved by observation, scientists say observation proves the existence of an unseen type of matter and energy. Triple ridiculous.

We know it exists because our theory doesn’t work without it. That’s the proof for dark matter and dark energy.