"From now on we are no longer looking for the Higgs - we are measuring its properties. This is the happiest day of my life"

79 תגובות

1. Hello Eddie, I don't understand the complaint. None of your comments have been tampered with. It is possible that the technical system is not able to handle the tens of thousands of records and loses responses. No one is doing anything to you on purpose.

2. To the administrator of the "Hidan" website

   I follow the articles and the report on the "Hidan" website with great sympathy and sometimes I also post my comment on it

   Much to my astonishment, I found that my name was deleted or messed up above my comments/articles containing explained and empirical scientific reference, in this case I was referring to the lack of dawn in the early announcement of the discovery of the God particle (Higgs particle)

   My name above my words was deleted, while my references to me were also disrupted, paid talkbacks responded to my words which are all scientific even if someone disagrees with them, but their response included personal insults and slanders against me as if this is a political dispute and not a scientific matter. I am asking the administrator of the science site to lend a hand to maintain the purity and scientificity of this site, if it is possible to correct and be precise in noting my name on the comments, this is not because I am looking for respect, but because there is a consistent line here in every type of media and communication to do thwarting actions whenever a person with The identity of a social leader or a member of the Mizrahi community writes a scientific article, this is racism for its own sake, I have no shadow of a doubt that the hand of the science system is not in the matter, but now that I have written I would like to correct it, and if it is possible to conduct an inquiry as to who is behind the disruptions, I would like to thank you. Eddie Malka,

3. Eddie Malka.

   I agree with you that the particle they found at Cern is not necessarily a Higgs particle. All the enthusiasm and early crowning of this particle is a sloppiness of physics.

   In order to prove that the new particle is a Higgs particle - it is necessary to prove _experimentally_ that it is a mass generator for all the _standard particles_ ("the standard particles" here are the particles included in the standard model). What is not experimentally proven is not a valid physical model, but only a hypothesis.

   So far, as far as has been published, it has not been proven that the new particle generates mass in any of the standard particles. It was with great difficulty that its own mass was estimated (there are actually currently two estimates regarding the mass of the new particle, which indicates the great difficulty in experiments that will prove that it is a mass generator).

   I am not referring to the rest of your words here.

4. Ladi, read, don't read, I really don't care.
   So on the one hand we have a grumpy, paranoid (social revolution? are behind political figures??) and angry Eddy who claims that Professor Elam Gross, for example, is lying with a determined face and on the other hand a huge community of scientists who think the opposite of him. That community is made up of scientists who only want to contradict each other and therefore, just as the entire scientific world pounced on the claim that a faster-than-light neutrino was found, they pounce on the claim that the Higgs was discovered. Meanwhile, they have not published articles that contradict the claim written in this article.
   In relation to Hitler, I responded to Ilanit's claim regarding the extent of his secularism.
   As for Thomson, they also asked him why anyone would care about this particle
   https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-boson-for-coctail-parties-0607123/
   (somewhere in the middle)
   This is a similar question to your annoying question. If you remove your paranoid screen for a second and assume that the Higgs particle is also found, then this is a confirmation of the standard model, which until now has been theoretical. A tremendous achievement for the scientific community.

5. to "who responds well"

   This is the power of the internet, people who are gullible and devoid of any shred of intelligence get involved in things they have no idea about, and throw mud when they are confident in their misjudgment behind anonymity.

   As all the readers of this website have seen, I identify myself and sign my words with my full name "Edi Malka" and also give my email address and the address of the Israel News 1 website that I edit.

   Whereas you, who are the one who reacts at a level that is far below zero, hide behind the pretentious name you chose for yourself where there is no intellectual definition that can be compatible - even if you fully acknowledge the poor level at which you express yourself -

   I usually do not respond to people at your level, and hence I will not respond to you even if you write the biggest nonsense, but since it is a topic that is very important to me and many people in the world are being misled about it and it is the "discovery" or the discovery of the "Higgs particle" then I allowed To myself do the pleasant duty and say goodbye to you in any respect.

   I'm afraid you have no idea that physics is easy, therefore, I understand that the superficial and ignorant response you wrote against my scientific criticism regarding the Higgs particle, is made for other reasons that are all invalid and extraneous to the discussion itself.

   Most likely there are negative people behind you, perhaps political, who assigned you the task of harming and slandering anyone who supports the social revolution, especially if he is an educated person.

   Rest assured that we in the social revolution will find the way to locate the weeds and keep them away
   To areas of culture that will only harm and bother people at their level, that is, yours
   If you have an ounce of courage, identify yourself like me by your full name and state your argument, if you have any at all, we can examine you in the public eye, expose and present your ignorance.

   You didn't just run away from the subject of the discussion to other topics like "Hitler for example" and you didn't just jump - in your response to the statement - to the topic of the electron.

   A-propo, they never asked the discoverer of the electron for what purpose it could be used", because the electron existed even before Hawking's singularity and before everything.

   It's all a figment of your imagination and the semantic manipulations you do with words and concepts you have no clue about, all to hide your ignorance.

6. To "Eddie who responds well"

   This is the power of the internet, people who are gullible and devoid of any shred of intelligence get involved in things they have no idea about, and throw mud when they are confident in their misjudgment behind anonymity.

   As all the readers of this website have seen, I identify myself and sign my words with my full name "Edi Malka" and also give my email address and the address of the Israel News 1 website that I edit.

   Whereas you, who are the one who reacts at a level that is far below zero, hide behind the pretentious name you chose for yourself where there is no intellectual definition that can be compatible - even if you fully acknowledge the poor level at which you express yourself -

   I usually do not respond to people at your level, and hence I will not respond to you even if you write the biggest nonsense, but since it is a topic that is very important to me and many people in the world are being misled about it and it is the "discovery" or the discovery of the "Higgs particle" then I allowed To myself do the pleasant duty and say goodbye to you in any respect.

   I'm afraid you have no idea that physics is easy, therefore, I understand that the superficial and ignorant response you wrote against my scientific criticism regarding the Higgs particle, is made for other reasons that are all invalid and extraneous to the discussion itself.

   Most likely there are negative people behind you, perhaps political, who assigned you the task of harming and slandering anyone who supports the social revolution, especially if he is an educated person.

   Rest assured that we in the social revolution will find the way to locate the weeds and keep them away
   To areas of culture that will only harm and bother people at their level, that is, yours
   If you have an ounce of courage, identify yourself like me by your full name and state your argument, if you have any at all, we can examine you in the public eye, expose and present your ignorance.

   You didn't just run away from the subject of the discussion to other topics like "Hitler for example" and you didn't just jump - in your response to the statement - to the topic of the electron.

   A-propo, they never asked the discoverer of the electron for what purpose it could be used", because the electron existed even before Hawking's singularity and before everything.

   It's all a figment of your imagination and the semantic manipulations you do with words and concepts you have no clue about, all to hide your ignorance.

7. Eddie,
   So you wrote a post, well done. There is no point in commenting on most of the nonsense you presented (well then you don't believe, as if it is a matter of faith) but I will refer to the scientific importance in a light allegory to another particle that you are not supposed to believe in the existence of the electron: they asked the discoverer of the electron, what would be possible to do with the discovery, it is not really He knew how to answer, and lo and behold, all of our lives today are based on manipulations of the electron, so in addition to being a first-class scientific intellectual discovery of humanity and physicists, who knows, maybe we will know how to manipulate the Higgs field and be able to cancel gravity locally

8. Plagiarism?

   Those who claim that the Higgs particle has been discovered are lying with a determined forehead, well after the efforts and investments of a replica?

   The research to discover the missing particle involved enormous efforts and investments, the scientists built in Sarn (Geneva) the largest and most powerful accelerator in the world, the accelerator was installed inside a circular tunnel 27 kilometers long, the tunnel itself was set at a depth of one hundred meters underground.
   .
   Using the accelerator, the vanishing particle scientists accelerated masses of protons to a speed very close to the speed of light
   And so they increased their mass up to 7.500 times.

   At the same time identical masses of protons were accelerated in the opposite direction in order to create a powerful collision between the masses of the accelerated protons.

   According to the scientists' view, the Higgs particle may be found and revealed in the "remnants of the collision between the protons".

   I reject the argument regarding the existence of the particle on the one hand, and I reject with both hands the publication about the discovery of the particle.

   I express protest and rebellion against the premature announcement of the discovery of the particle.

   Even if innovative results are obtained as a result of a powerful collision between protons, there is no possibility and no tools in the hands of the science of physics to distinguish and identify with certainty the Higgs particle and to prove its supposed "role" in front, in creating a "mass field"

   There is no doubt that accelerating protons and creating a collision between them with such intensity and speed as they did in Sarn, caused physical events that have not been observed until today.

   A. This is the first time such a powerful particle accelerator has been operated.
   B. This is the first time (except in a hydrogen bomb event) that protons have been accelerated to such a speed.
   third. This is the first time a collision between protons has been created.

   I don't dispute that, there is no doubt that proton collisions at such a speed and intensity "disintegrated" some of the protons.
   And according to the law of conservation of matter and energy it is possible that unidentified products were observed in front.

   But it will stick to us that what the scientists "saw" as the particles born of the collision, the quarks, was not the quarks, and many arguments can be made about the truth of their reality as defined.

   What, in fact, are the criteria according to which the scientists distinguished from the publishers of the age of the particle, between the exposure of quarks whose existence is already accepted in the science circle, so what distinguishes the quarks from the Higgs particle?

   "In the greatest" and "in the smallest" human scientists have long since reached the limit of their capacity and the limitations of the tools that allow man to observe.

   To this day, the scientists (in the field of astrophysics) do not understand anyway, it has not yet been proven that the Big Bang event
   He left from a certain point of origin and sent, while creating a three-dimensional circular space, consisting of a point of origin and the expansion space.

   I have already published in articles or comments, my version that the Big Bang event is a pulsar phenomenon, (repeated explosion) and not a single and unique explosion, because otherwise it has no existence in time, neither as cause nor as caused.

   If the universe started its way of expansion from the point of origin of the big bang, that is, from a single point explosion into space, then the way of expansion must be: - creating a spherical space, while dispersing matter and energy into this spherical space that is gradually expanding while creating an overall outline of a spherical shape.

   There were already those who drew the universe as an oval space (ellipse) based on what? Because of this it was necessary to establish and prove that the universe has rotational momentum.

   In connection with determining the age of the universe according to the "Hubble fixation" (and utilizing the principles of the Doppler effect and the red shift), if this insight was correct, we first of all needed to know exactly where the starting point of the big bang was, and therefore where our galaxy (Milky Way) is located in relation to the starting point.

   Hubble's big mistake:- for every galaxy that is moving away from us with increasing speed, there should be a galaxy "behind us" whose speed is relatively small.

   How could they determine the age of the universe and/or its diameter as long as the scientists did not know and did not indicate a point from which the bang event set off, how do you know if the distant galaxies are collapsing or approaching the point of origin of the bang.

   People may not want to see the connection between my criticism of the big bang insight and my criticism of the early publication of the "discovery of the Higgs boson".

   The connection here is the limitations of man to understand, phenomena related to the "biggest" (macro) (the limits of the universe) that man is not, despite the argument about the fixation of grief, unable to quantify (from the root of quantity) and between the smallest, (micro) which includes a large inventory of pretentious interpretations that Some of them are constructed fixations that are assimilated fictitiously while relegating them to so-called empirical models, in which man tries to understand and explain his large and small environment.

   The same criticism with similar arguments I voiced and published on the quantum theory, the quanta only exist in the minds of certain people from the front of science, even a. Einstein opposed and refuted the existence of quantum mechanics in his letter to Niels Bohr.

   The scientists involved in publishing the sensational news about the discovery of the God particle, unfortunately, simply deviate from the scientific truth.

   The scientists from Seren steer the physical research into the realm of thinking conclusions and interpretations, they do not present any proven thesis, they are so eager to discover the God particle, that every argument becomes kosher in their eyes.

   There is no doubt that meeting a powerful collision between masses of protons flying in opposite directions, disintegrates some if not all of the protons participating in the collision, and generates new material and energetic states, but this innovation is limited at this stage only to the knowledge that protons have disintegrated, period.

   There is nothing new about the breaking up of protons in itself, because it has already been close to seventy years since nuclear chain reactions took place in which airborne neutrons penetrated protons and broke them up. If the Higgs particle had existed, it would have been discovered and revealed in the fundamental studies conducted by the scientists of the world in the field of nuclear weapons, since there is no dispute that the accelerator Bassern was unable to accelerate anything with a force approaching one in a hundred thousand and more than the force of a hydrogen bomb explosion.

   The most outrageous thing is the argument of Saren scientists and populist advertising, as if the particle had already been discovered and all that remains now is to describe and understand it well.

   A necessary hallmark of the revelation of the God particle, according to Higgs's view, is the disclosure of a "mass field"/energy phenomenon. We have not heard a word in the populist publications about the shreds of signs for the disclosure of such a "mass field"/energy following the so-called disclosure of the particle.

   The chance of a definite identification of a particle mass field with man's current scientific tools is equal to the chance that man will succeed in building an aircraft that will travel at a speed exceeding the speed of light and will also build tools that will protect the fragile human body and allow him to survive the physical reality that holds that any object that approaches the speed of light will lose its rest mass and break down into its smallest components.

   By the way, what scientific importance does the discovery of such a particle have at all?

   If the scientists don't pay attention, then the theory about the God particle and the publication about its discovery, in the meantime, are supposed to dismantle and classify the quantum theory, and the concepts of entities smaller than an electron, a neutron and a proton.

9. No problem O we will not rule out the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

10. All in all, I wanted to say that you should not take anything for granted and do not rule something out just because it cannot be proven that it does not exist. [=

11. To the well-responder, O and the sleeping summer
    I suggest you carefully read Prof. Moshe Kva's article
    :https://www.hayadan.org.il/kave-on-science-and-religion-060706/
    To understand the position and relationship between science and God

12. to the dawn of the sleeping ones
    I proved about Hitler that he was not an atheist and all the quotes I brought support this.
    We will have another discussion about Mother Teresa who was a religious fanatic who loved poverty and not the poor, who built many churches in her name and who strongly opposed the only thing that lifts communities out of poverty and that is the advancement of women's status.
    Thank you for agreeing with me about God, just tell that to O who with a roll of the eyes and sweet lips wants to bring God into science.
    Congratulations on the new discovery

13. "So you will wake up from your sleep and move to the lighted room."

    Thank you for your sincere concern for whoever it may be from the 'sleeping summer'.. to wake up from sleep in time there are alarm clocks, - thank God, or the spaghetti monster whoever it is..
    Well: after we've exhausted the fascinating discussion about Hitler's theological belief, would it please you to spare us unnecessary 'off-topic' comments and let them return to the 'Higgs' topic..
    Good Day

14. To respond:
    Hitler worked to suppress the churches:
    Hitler waged his struggle against the churches in a number of ways. He created an oversight mechanism for the churches. He waged an ideological struggle against the Christian faith - he tried to present it as stupid and false. Hitler also used terror and intimidation and put many priests into concentration camps.
    As a result of these measures, all opposition from the churches to Hitler's rule almost disappeared. Hitler even signed an agreement - "Concordat" - with the Catholic Church in Germany, and put a Nazi priest at its head, who swore allegiance to Hitler.
    So let's take Hitler out of the equation, because he does not represent any religion but his own religion. which is also his mind.
    In the same way, I will ask why you are not talking about Mother Teresa, who founded the Order of Missionaries of Charity that helped tens of thousands of people, is she not really defined as a Catholic nun who represents Christianity.
    The Church's behavior in World War II is not a subject of discussion here because it was driven by self-interested considerations that stemmed mainly from fear and preserving the lives of its priests, as I have proven to you.
    You also wrote:
    "Bring proof, I'll believe in fun."
    God's existence can only be accepted through faith. Faith is not a blind leap into the darkness, but entering a lighted room step by step where - 90% of the people are already standing.
    So maybe you will wake up from your sleep and move to the bright room.

15. Unbelievable how page after page devoted to the triumph of science in the form of the discovery of the Higgs turns into a fruitless discussion about whether or not Hitler was an atheist, as if it matters anything about the Higgs and the triumph of science.
    And yet, because I'm not ready to let a lie win:
    Rabbi Nachman Mazran
    So you found some quote from a song that the Hitler Youth sang. Did I claim that reality was simple and that the Nazis were just using Catholic Christian doctrine? No. So how dare you claim that my claim is on a biased basis, when several proofs have been presented here regarding the use of Catholicism by Hitler and the Nazis including an apology from the Catholic Church (however weak) regarding their behavior in the Second World War. The fact that your worldview is so warped that you claim here that the church acted properly and ignore its apology. delusional Do you really think they apologized because Hitler only used the symbols of the Christian Church??? delusional It takes the church decades to apologize for something. The reality is complex and the Nazis did add pseudo-scientific claims against the Jews, but to claim that Hitler was an atheist is already too much. He was a Christian, he wrote in his book that he was doing God's will (several times), his people were mostly active Christians and thus, religion, religion is the one that allows such immoral acts.

    about o,
    With you, the situation is lost because facts are not something that is important to you, but nevertheless: Hitler's entire base is a Catholic Christian base, as I wrote and brought forth. Everything you write is your opinion which is based on nothing and nothing and even less, on lies: if Hitler writes in his book that he is carrying out God's will, it exactly means that he was motivated by religious motives and to write otherwise is a lie. Were these the only motives, who cares? I refuted the claim that he was an atheist. I base it on evidence. Hitler's first pact was with the Catholic Church and he knew why. The church in its Torah knew why it determined that Hitler's birthday would be a holiday and why it did not call for the boycott of his book and read above everything I wrote about his connection to Catholicism. Religion is the first pillar of his doctrine and without religion, none of this would have happened.
    Hence, according to the evidence and not according to your baseless claims, Hitler was not an atheist and certainly not a secular humanist

    For those who still don't understand what atheism is:
    Atheism is not a belief system but rather a denial of belief without evidence. I sit quietly and observe the world and then a religious person comes and claims the existence of God. I the atheist, unlike the hesitant agnostic, say: I don't believe you, bring evidence. Since religion is based on faith there is no evidence that can be brought and therefore the atheist still does not believe in the existence of God. Bring proof, I'll believe it with pleasure.

16. "To say that Hitler was motivated by religious reasons and that he was crazy is far from what is written in the history books!"
    Just to close this story,

    I don't have the source but from Wikipedia:

    "..and in the religion section of the identity card, everyone who joined the Nazis had to convert from a Christian to a believer in God. Hitler believed in the supreme providence that destined him for the position he took on and saw in several events that happened to him, such as the saving from the assassination of his life, as evidence that the supreme providence preserves his life."

    Apparently Hitler had a problem with the Jewish element in everything related to Christianity, atheism has nothing to do with it..

    Anyway, this whole thing has nothing to do with the Higgs boson

17. O

    You don't seem to understand yet.

    This is not "the science that builds technologies that destroy the world" and against it comes the religion that tries to root moral values.

    Start by learning what evolution is.

    The war exists between all creatures on KA.

    The war that is common to all is the war for resources.

    Any excuse can be used as a strategy/tactic in war, and by any body.

    The fact that Hitler was wrong does not change a thing from the fact that religion commands primitive, mostly immoral, and non-essential laws.

18. Father, when you associate beliefs with a person on a biased basis, it is a mistake that needs to be corrected, and I will quote
    A few words from the procession song will illustrate how much Hitler really was not a Catholic Christian
    A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History)
    We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
    Away with incense and Holy Water,
    The Church can go hang for all we care,
    The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

19. O. Enough with the argument. Hitler was a Catholic Christian. The fact that the religious propaganda presents him as an atheist is a problem for the religious Christians who wanted to disown him. It is a fact that the church cooperated with him, and you are invited to read Natan Alterman's poem in the cries of our children in the shadow of the gallows.

    If you don't mind, please direct the discussion to the issues really related to the article.
    my father

20. Got it, agree.

21. R. H.,
    By correction I meant the First World War.
    The response was intended for responses regarding Hitler.
    I didn't understand what you meant at the end, I'd appreciate it if you could explain.

22. For those who still didn't understand: I showed here that Hitler and the Nazis waged war by using religion, and specifically, the Christian religion, and of course, while adding arguments drawn from science, such as race theory which are not scientific since the secular claim that all humans are equal is a moral claim.
    To summarize and remind, there was a reference to Hitler as an atheist, and I completely contradicted this claim, however, this page is supposed to be early for the celebration of the discovery of the Higgs, one must not let the delusional forget this, and then came from the eyeballs and the candy of the lips and in spoiled Hebrew something about a more correct use of money (that is, It's a shame that the accelerator was built) except that if he was in charge of budgeting, there would be no scientists in the world but only rabbis and he continued to ramble on about his philosophy of bringing God into science.
    Religion is the biggest hate engine ever invented and I say again, don't let the delusional win. Respond, of course on this site

23. O

    I wasn't here for hours, I just came in and already I find out that you wrote more nonsense.
    Look, no need to wait.
    I can already tell you what you wrote down.

    Note:
    You wrote more nonsense.

    Now, it is clear to me that you did not understand what I wrote.
    And you should know that none of this was meant for you either.
    And you didn't have to correct line 6 from the end either.
    But it was right that you would, if you had corrected line 1 at the beginning.
    You wrote "the first war (not religion)". What? War of Gilgamesh? Look I don't remember everything since then, after all it's been a few years.
    (By the way, just so you know, just for general knowledge, if you succeed in deciphering the messages written here, just if you suddenly feel like understanding or not just like that if you want then you will know: every technological development/use of tools created new strategies in the war (which existed anyway Among humans as it also exists in other creatures - only that with them it is called differently).

24. Message pending
    Correction of line 6 from the end:

    And we did not touch at all on the motives of the first war (not religion), which were directly affected by technological progress, which included the use of chemical weapons.

25. To say that Hitler was motivated by religious reasons and that he was crazy is far from what is written in the history books!

    First of all, even if it were proven that Hitler was insane, it does not explain the atrocities committed by the people under him. Extreme people sometimes, immoral people sometimes, but many people, just people with different logic, not crazy.

    To say that Hitler acted from a religious motive is the opposite of reality, the wars were directly caused by the Nazi ideology which, among other things, advocated for animal welfare for the genetically developed race of man - the Irish race. There is a strong use of science here for the purpose of explaining the ideology. And the thinking is clean and distorted logic (distorted due to the use of lies and propaganda).

    He didn't start the wars and destruction because God told him, nor because Christianity is the only religion, he was actually an ally of the Japanese and fought and conquered Christian countries! And even if you took religion out of the equation, you would get the same result.

    Even if Hitler expressed some kind of sympathy for religion (when he was elected to power), this does not mean that he was motivated by a religious principle, in fact he says no, and in the future also opposes religion, and the church! Newton also sympathized with religion and in fact most of his works were about religion! This does not detract from his being a great scientist, since this is the situation at that time, and the probability that you would not have believed in God in his time and reached his achievements is low. The chance that if you were German you would not be in favor of the Nazis or the Communists (probably Nazis) is low.

    As I mentioned, the atomic bombs (which were used for warlike terrorism), the experiments on humans and the technologies for destruction, and the war took place on a (distorted) scientific basis.

    It can be clearly seen that Hitler acted in the opposite way to religion and even shows what would have happened if there was no religion (the wars were for resources and logical reasons without morality).

    And we did not touch the war at all (not religion), and chemical weapons were used in it.

    An extreme person will do such acts whether he believes in religion or not. Extremism is the key to religion or science.

    These are the facts, and even if you deny them, and claim the opposite, it will not drop the responsibility on religion, just as the responsibility is not on science. The claim that the misuse of science is the fault of the people is parallel to the case of religion.

    I am horrified that I have to remind you about World War II and the Holocaust.

26. For the alarm clock:
    What is not clear? Someone here, bothered to explain to you that Hitler himself used religious reasons, what do you need more than that?.. Indeed who cares what he was thinking inside when he feels comfortable using religion itself..
    Regarding the lawbreakers wearing the kippah: this is exactly the problem... in our primitive regions (parts of the State of Israel, Egypt, Iran, maybe Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) people need religion as a moral social support, when in practice it produces extremism and instability, take them and compare them to countries with Separation of religion from a country such as: Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Sweden, and more..
    You may not care that we remain a stable and sane country (as well as nothing from this site apparently) but there are people who care.

27. one that responds well

    I see that you discover how oppressive and annoying and exhausting it is to teach those who do not want to learn.

    My advice: don't get upset because of someone else's stupidity. If he's stupid that's his problem, it shouldn't bother you.

    (There used to be someone who would COPY PASTE his comments, as answers, to the comments of such poor religious people. This would silence them for a while. Today he is not found, so what remains is a continuation of the same stream of comments from delusional religious people who write nonsense in the name of religion on the website scientific to try to convert erring souls).

    Don't get excited about it. (Even laugh. at them. like I do sometimes). Hope I helped.

28. To one who responds well:
    You write:
    "Everything that Hitler represented is only externally interesting. Who cares what he was thinking inside."
    For the purpose of discussing and deciding on Hitler's motives, it is definitely important to understand what his internal motives are,
    After all, it is known to the outside world that murderers come to court wearing a black cap on their head
    So do they really represent the values ​​of the religion?
    On the contrary, they expect some compassion from the public in the name of the religious values ​​they "represent" to the outside.
    Anyone who commits human crimes under the authority of religion is as if he owns the funds of the altar, and therefore all cruel tyrants will try to get the backing of religion, in order to gain the sympathy of the public and derive the power and legitimacy for their actions from there.

29. Claiming that Hitler was insane (psychologically) is without scientific basis.

    The claim that people did terrible things under the auspices of religion, and the claim that Nazis did terrible things under the auspices of science (race theory, experiments on humans, the superior and inferior races contributed more than religious motives), is the same analogy.
    By the way, don't forget to activate the atomic bombs.

    In both claims it is neither the fault of religion nor the fault of science. but the fault of the situation.

    Religion as a unit has contributed to humanity. and in internal units improved the situation. If all people had the same religion (one unit), the goal of religion would be fulfilled - order. But the situation is that there is more than one faction and people misuse it and attribute their actions to their religion. Although at the moment it does not improve and prevents progress. But this does not mean that it was not necessary and that it should be unequivocally eliminated today.

30. The use of Hitler is unnecessary, even if Hitler was an atheist in his views,
    This does not apply to atheists in general.

    Atheism is 'not theism', you cannot put two atheists under the same generalization,
    Simply because unlike religious people, who claim to follow the same path, which is correct according to their religion,
    Atheist people go their own way, and they don't have a unified structure like in religion,
    The only thing two atheists have in common is the mere casting of doubt on the existence of any god and that's it.

    I'm also pretty sure any atheist you ask him what he thinks of Hitler
    He will tell you without a second thought that Hitler is a madman.

    But the real question is, will he really believe it in his black heart from atheism.. (lol)

31. Rabbi Nachman Mazran,
    are you kidding me right? This is already too much!!! Are you seriously not getting my point?
    1. I will come down to your level for a moment and ask: are you defending the position of the Christian Church in the Second World War? Are you serious?
    So read:
    http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N13/bvatican.13w.html
    The church itself apologized and if you don't live in our world, then I'll just remind you that it's very rare for the church to apologize for something and even here it took more than 50 years until an apology
    2. I am not interested in the church's position, and here I return to my point, which is the answer to Avivit: all the information I wrote (the mentions of Mein Camp, the belt of the Nazi soldiers, active Christian participation of Nazi masses, Hitler's birthday as a Vatican instruction), including the link and the information in Blackie The passer, absolutely true so don't tell me Hilter is secular or acted like a secular humanist, please.
    3. Everything that Hitler represented is only outwardly interesting. Who cares what he was thinking inside.

    I return to my point: I intervened in the discussion after someone here was embarrassed about the financial "waste" of the project (after something had already been discovered, what a joke), rolled his eyes and babbled nonsense about bringing God into science.
    People, don't stay indifferent to this madness

32. To one who responds well:
    You are really shooting yourself in the foot, with all the information about Hitler in the link you sent on Wikipedia it says:
    the Church was quite hostile and its bishops energetically denounced the "false doctrines" of the Nazis. Its opposition weakened considerably in the following years [after the Concordat] [-] Cardinal Bertram developed an ineffective protest system [-] Resistance..remained largely a matter of individual conscience. In general they [both churches] attempted merely to assert their own rights and only rarely issued pastoral letters or declarations indicating any fundamental objection to Nazi ideology.”[3]
    The church came out against the Nazi doctrine because it attacked the weak, so in the name of which religion did Hitler carry out his extermination of peoples, this is really propaganda for its own sake, before you respond well, you should check your sources in depth
    What Hitler represented externally is not necessarily what he thought in his heart.

33. from the sleepy summer,
    I completely disagree with the ancient man issue because morality is not something absolute. The closest thing to something absolute is the golden rule (do not do to your friend what is hateful to you) and even this rule is not perfect.
    What is clear is that in the last two thousand years, religion has committed countless immoral acts, and immoral acts are done in its name (crusades, suicide terrorists, cutting off the genitals of a male baby).
    Everything else you wrote about the concept of religion is white noise. According to you, you are judged by God every second both when you sleep and after death, therefore by definition, everything you do is as a result of fear or a desire for reward. It is never really moral.

    In any case, my discussion here started after they discovered (probably) the Higgs particle and someone then remembered to cry that money was being invested in it and that it was worth bringing God into science - again, it's white and infectious noise

34. I used it
    To observe a mitzvah out of aspiration to be one with the Creator out of awe and respect for his self and his infinity, out of love and not fear -

    but then I took an arrow to the knee

35. For one who responds well:
    You asked how I know that the ancient man lived at a much lower level of morality than people living today according to religious values:
    The answer is very simple, that when there is no framework of laws then there are no restrictions and when there is no reward and punishment mechanism then there is no deterrence and everyone will do what they want.
    Even if you take a small child and educate him without a framework of moral imperatives, he would not know the difference between good and bad and you can see many cases of such children in today's television programs.
    You wrote: "The fact is that an action as a result of fear or expectation of reward is never moral..."
    When you understand the concept of religion correctly, you will understand that there is no fear here, but rather seeing that it is a completely different concept
    To observe mitzvot out of aspiration to be one with the Creator out of awe and respect for his self and his infinity, out of love and not fear - and this is the concept that many religious people also miss and therefore the impression is created that religion is a primitive mechanism that instills fear among the public - but it is not so

36. In my opinion O, you are not being completely honest with us. Because you are clearly coming from a place of naivety about religion,
    and attributes to religion as a movement, much nobility and necessity.
    But it's also clear that your curiosity and your philosophy come from a genuine place and not a bad one.

    As for the hypotheses you are trying to flood here, I don't think the answer can be answered here, or at all,
    You have an attraction to the fringes of science, the place where only wild and far-reaching hypotheses and thoughts currently exist.
    When you talk to the 'Hidan' crowd, who are mostly rationalistic people, you are actually portrayed as some kind of religious person who comes to dig for them. There are many sites that will be happy to take these ideas and develop them into purple chakras and guardian angels.

    In the eyes of the German people, Hitler was a Catholic Christian. He himself said that he was doing God's work.
    On the belt buckle of every Nazi officer was written 'Gott mit uns' (God with us)

    http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/148444/1069962.jpg

    Hitler may not have been religious at heart, but the same can be said about the Pope
    and Maimonides. What is certain is that he used religious propaganda to attract the religious public.

37. Ilanit,
    Hitler, wrote several times in Mein Kampf the fact that he was doing God's work
    The first agreement Hitler made was with the Christian Church. Mein Kampf was presented to the Christian Church, and they did not blacklist it for books, and it must be remembered that the Christian Church is the number one organization in this matter.
    On the belt of every soldier in the Wehrmacht was written "In God our women trust" and about 40% of the WAP-SS were active Christians. Hitler's birthday was a holiday in the teaching of the Christian Church.
    You are welcome to read:
    http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-2.html

    או
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

    There was one Nazi who was expelled from the Christian Church and his name was Goebbels. Goebbels was expelled from the Christian Church, because... because his wife was a Baptist (or something like that) and God forbid because of his part in the Holocaust
    I'm sorry, this is not secularism

    Stalin was a dictator who turned himself into a god, performed a cult of personality, abolished Darwinism and created a biology for himself with the help of Lysenko to suit him and the party. Call it whatever you want, he was not a humanist secularist.

    O,
    Science contributes nothing, people do. Science doesn't make weapons, people make weapons. People use this weapon to eliminate other people who believe in a god other than them.
    The people who created the atrocities including Hitler and including Stalin, as I wrote, were not secular but religious people or those who used a mechanism like religion to produce control over the masses. Humanistic secularists they were not.
    Beyond that, today religion is certainly only going backwards and only hinders and produces people like you who try with lip service to tattoo the great scientific enterprise and for some reason introduce God into science (???).

38. Sorry, I take back the firmness with which I said the last comment, science has contributed a lot to medicine. And I will clarify that against it (science) I meant the weapons that were developed.

    And I also agree with the last opinions.

39. I have a response pending.
    Anyway,

    Although science advances the world, it is debatable how much it contributes to something else outside of its field. As mentioned, science has also contributed to some atrocities directly.

    Personally, when I think about the future, I'm happy that I'm alive today, but maybe this is my fixation. And I would also be happy to live before the great wars (from a technological point of view. Most of the other changes such as equality - a result of philosophy).

40. As far as I know, Stalin and Hitler were not religious at all, and they are responsible for the greatest of the atrocities that took place in the last century

41. from the sleepy summer,
    how do you know?
    The fact is that acting out of fear or expecting reward is never moral and specifically, religion created and creates atrocities and is the number one enemy of science

42. For one who responds well:
    The claim that all religions are the opposite of morality and are bad is a poor cliché of Dawkins, who is the new guru of atheists.
    This is one big bullshit, because if there was no religion, then there would be another system of laws that is not necessarily better, on the contrary, before there were religions in the world, the cavemen would have behaved like animals, at a much lower moral level than the most extreme religion there is, not to mention tribes Cannibals that have nothing to do with religion.

43. blackie,
    Negative, I haven't watched the clip yet, and I know there's no way I've seen it.

    one that responds well,
    I have never voted for any party that is currently waging a war on infiltrators. Although you should remember that the problem is highlighted only in recent times. Yet.

    I agree with you that many subhuman things happened under the auspices of religion and God. And like I said, right now I can't testify for myself that I'm more satisfied that God existed. I mean my logic says he isn't, and I hope I'm wrong.
    If so, I think that a "supreme" being can exist under the definitions of science.

    The world is developing, partly thanks to scientists and science (also philosophy), and nowadays not because of religion. It also prevents progress. At the same time, these laws were written to create order at that time and it worked in those days, and the central ones are if the moral norm exists.

    Look, I'm aware of what I mean, and even if you think I made a slap, then I probably either didn't phrase it properly, or you didn't understand.

44. All religions are the opposite of morality and are evil. Real evil. All religions receive an order from God and therefore every action a religious person does is either afraid of God (and a rabbi) or expecting a reward from God and therefore it is the opposite of morality, let's not talk about all the atrocities that religions have done and are doing over the years.

    I have never voted for any party that is currently waging a war on infiltrators. Are you ready to make a similar claim?

    What nonsense you write, how many self-contradictions, it's just embarrassing, but I'm not ready to abandon this arena to you. I'm glad you're commenting here because then people can see what a mess we're in.

    Blackie is absolutely right, you are indeed a troll. And I urge everyone to enter and comment and not abandon the arena to pseudo-intellectuals.

    With the help of science, we will win

45. User O is clearly some kind of lite troll who came here to practice arguing with atheists, but it should be noted that he is polite and willing to listen and answer.
    In my wanderings on YouTube I accidentally stepped on the following video, which brings up O's arguments, one by one.
    I suspect he went on a troll rampage after watching this movie-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thM3SHCXP0o

46. one that responds well,

    I took into account everything you wrote (and I read every line in a heartbeat) about how I act or think - you were not right in one detail! Trust me I do and will do enough. Chances are you care more about people in Africa than I do. And I don't have to prove anything to you.

    Regarding religion, I wrote that most religions amount to (what they have in common) is moral values ​​of not doing bad. Moral values. If you think differently then maybe you have different values ​​maybe something else is missing. According to the response, it is interpreted that you are an interested person.

    I did not say that most scientists sit and read the philosophy of science.
    I have already said several times that God does not have to be read as something that cannot be refuted, or as something "supernatural" and it just depends on the definition.

    Well, I would quote you everything you wrote and explain to you sentence by sentence, if I really thought you were trying to understand, but stop! You don't understand what I explained and you probably won't. And those who did understand will see what I explained - about you.

47. O
    Wow, what nonsense and at what levels. I am so glad that for a moment my father did not think of censoring you, so that everyone could also read the opinions of people like you and understand why we are so low in the various rankings of the education system.

    Where to start?
    Nothing you wrote has anything to do with the philosophy of science, and who cares about that philosophy anyway? Most scientists don't sit and read philosophy of science. but are busy doing science.

    further,
    I think today I read the biggest nonsense one can ever read in this field: your delusional attempt to introduce God into science. If there is a number one rule in science, it is that science does not work with things that cannot in any way be disproved. Read, not believe

    further,
    A generic and banal rambling of the blindness of scientists. Wow you discovered America. Scientists are people and like everyone, they sometimes make mistakes. Fortunately, the scientific method, in which every scientist wants to defeat his colleagues in order to become famous (and also to be remembered for generations), is the one that advances humanity. Religion, by definition, is one big blindness, in which no generation is allowed to contradict the previous generation. It's quite the opposite of science.

    Indeed, here is the place to also write about the feasibility of the project, although it's a bit funny now to complain about it, on this holiday, but actually, you didn't do it because you're really worried about the hungry in Africa, but because you're bothered by the discoveries of science, which are slowly pushing the The feet of the terrible religion from our lives. Are you worried about Africa? I am willing to bet that you are voting for one of the right-wing parties that use Nazi rhetoric and are currently deporting infiltrators. I'm not saying we should have let them in but I guess you're not really losing sleep over sending them back to the hungry continent. If I'm right, and you're not one of the volunteers trying to help the infiltrators get a meal, you're a hypocrite.

    You are welcome to insert any philosophy you want, indeed, the late Karl Popper applauds the level of philosophy you demonstrated.

    Did you blame me for putting things in your mouth? is that so? Unless there's another zero, sorry one O, so here's what you wrote:

    "And back to Africa. Most religions boil down to one thing - the morality of most people, the one that also exists with you. Right and wrong. Everyone knows that. And many think that it is necessary to observe morality even if one does not believe in religion.
    So how is it that it is so obvious, and right now people are dying in Africa (also in Israel!)? Each of us can save an entire family right now! If God exists, I don't think he cares how much money you have, how much you have achieved in life, but what you did with it. And if there is no sleep, then this particle is also worth nothing except a predetermined destiny.

    The point is not that with the same amount of money we could save a few more families for a limited time. But maybe we could solve the problem and investigate problems that are more - urgent - for humanity at the moment." End quote

    So here, some nonsense in these two paragraphs you wrote. Most religions are anti-moral and immoral and here, with lip candy you are trying to divert a scientific project that only he and his ilk can help humanity for more urgent goals??? Religion is the one that made Africa the way it is and if there is anything that can help them, it is science and science, it is projects like this.
    Want to release money to help Africa and solve urgent problems for humanity? Call to stop the flow of huge budgets to religious institutions, you will personally deny the state the ability to pay salaries to rabbis. see you.

48. one that responds well,

    Admittedly, what I wrote is related to philosophy, but it falls within the philosophy of science. The main thing I wanted to express is the problematic nature of people's fixation, a fixation that may lead to mistakes. And I tried to show that God can also be included in science. If you can't understand it from my words then that's your problem.

    Although it is about scientific discoveries, the site is related to science in general, so it is not impossible and even very logical that I write a review of the project itself in terms of priorities and budget, because there is no other place to write it.

    I probably should have introduced less philosophy and opinions, after all fixed people can't put up with it and listen to others.

    Let me remind you that some of the greatest scientists in history were also involved in philosophy and creativity much more than quantitative thinking.

    I did not underestimate the discoveries or the human progress through technology, you wrote most of your message in your opinions about me that are obviously not true and claims that I wrote things that I did not write. And while criticizing that I give an opinion. You are the one who sounds dark here from the days when they got sick from hearing that the earth is not the center of the universe.

    By the way, if you expect them to respect your words, start by respecting the responses of others. It may be that you understand more than me\are more right than me\"smarter" than me, but the way you react does not vote in your favor.

49. The Higgs particle explains the existence of Superman and the Flash. Now we understand how they can fly and run at tremendous speed although there is still no explanation for moving beyond the speed of light, this is the next step.

50. This is not the place to dwell on what you hope for and no one cares what you hope for. It's funny that you don't even try to understand: the ability to interweave a question or a sentence in Hebrew, such as what is the meaning of our existence here, does not make the sentence more than a jumble of words. This is nonsense. It's like asking what color candy is. The concept of sweet has nothing to do with color and it doesn't matter how much pseudo-science you put in or how pseudo-intellectual you try to sound. If it's easier for you, then wondering about the meaning of the universe is equivalent to asking what the color of 5 is or what the triangle is thinking about. This is nonsense. We have gathered here to rejoice in the scientific discoveries, to hope that new theories will come out of it, and you are talking nonsense about God, about the hungry in Africa. The reason for the hunger in Africa is the religion that treated them as inferior to humans and turned them into slaves and if I am not mistaken, your holy Torah did not abolish slavery but on the contrary, it allows slavery.
    You sweetly try to belittle these discoveries (let's help Africa???) but these discoveries are the only ones that saved humanity from poverty and hunger. After the discovery of the electron, the discoverer was asked what could be done with it and of course he did not think that anything could be done with it, and today, our entire culture is based on the electron. Who knows what we can do with the new understanding of the Higgs particle, but the ones who will make the breakthroughs will be the scientists, the physicists, the engineers. Certainly not the rabbis and dark people like you.
    I put my trust in the readers and call them to respond and not leave the arena to O and Amnon Yitzhakim

51. atheist,

    You are wrong, I want there to be a God, so I hope he exists, that doesn't mean I believe in him. And that's philosophy.

    And no, unequivocally, I'm not talking about drugged people, I'm talking about facts: when parts of the brain are connected, there are cases when people will see something like music, painting, color as mathematical/another sense. While color is self-evident to you, it is relative to others, as is the concept of sweet, but you only know one thing, and therefore no other things are possible. You're the one who's missing the point here, you can't accept something unfixed, but you won't understand it for that very reason. Get out of the box.

52. O
    The hash is celebrating. People under the influence of drugs can see a lot of things that doesn't make it real. You simply refuse to get the point: the concept of sweet has nothing to do with color and therefore this question is nonsense. I didn't even ask what color the taste that sugar produces (even though it's nonsense again) but because of your strange need to try to argue the whole Shabbat argument with pseudo-science that neuroscientists might be able to in the future and blah blah blah

    You want there to be meaning, so God invents you and pollutes a forum of scientific information with pseudo-scientific gibberish. Science formulates theories after it has evidence, not because it wishes for things.

    The only thing that hinders science is religion. It is religion that hinders science.

    And I wish that what will be discovered is not the Higgs but something much more surprising

53. atheist,

    In the brain, areas that are responsible for color can also relate to areas that are responsible for another emotion. So that some people will see a certain color as an emotion, others will see a musical piece as a mathematical graph. You may not be able to, but in relation to certain people it is really not insignificant.

    For a moment I did not argue, whether science or religion is progressing or not, but because of a fixed view, as an inability to understand images, science moves slower than its potential.

54. Why even bring together science and religion
    All because of a mistake by Newton who did not understand why the stars do not collapse into our solar system and since then coined the concept of the god of gaps in which he followed Laplace's answer to the matter of gravity.

55. There is proof in the Gemara that 4000 years ago the Kabbalistic rabbis saw the Higgs boson.

56. O
    Another bunch of nonsense.
    Regarding brain research. Sweet, which is a description of taste, has no color, so the question is nonsense
    Beyond that, you wrote all kinds of generic sentences with strange syntax: blindness of scientists, etc. blah blah blah. The point is that science is advancing and religion is going backwards. Who is blind here?

57. Dear father I just wrote a joke.
    After all, it is impossible to ignore the divine irony, and the unoriginal reactions of everyone who hears the joke, which are always the same and unoriginal:
    It was called God Damn particle, but some newspaper editor decided to change it to God particle
    And now all the editors of all the newspapers in the world are not able to return the name of the particle to the original name of the particle since it was not his name but part of a sentence that was said about him.

    The big question that needs to be asked now is whether the name divine particle is attracted to the Higgs and not left by an even more divine particle which is also of course a boson?

    And did we really get closer to understanding the concept of God following the discovery or did we move away from it?

58. Gil n.

    No you are not alone
    Conspiracy theories also have a place
    I just hope that in the appropriate ratio of 95% 5%
    for the sake of truth

    : )

59. atheist,

    The main thing I am criticizing here is that scientists sometimes did see what they wanted to see. For example, you see in my response what you want to see. Many smart people (not cynicism) use their brains more effectively than others because they skip over what they have already thought about, and may in their blind thinking repeat a mistake. Some call it going too far.

    By the way, according to brain research, you can ask what color is sweet. And some will see the color when they taste the flavor.

    Now let's get back to the topic I started with, it's likely that right now you're reading this with disdain, that is, drawing a conclusion about me, based on some comments I wrote, which should save you resources, but may also disrupt your judgment.

    I hope we will hear conclusive evidence soon, if the Higgs particle exists.

60. Hello everyone

    Am I the only one who has the feeling that the particle was found, just because they decided it was time for it to be found?

    That the statement about the discovery came to justify an investment of 9 billion dollars in the particle accelerator?

    "Evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson was discovered", what about proofs?

    I am full of reverence and gratitude to the people involved in the craft, but in my humble opinion the conduct
    In the announcements about the formation of the universe in general and the announcement about finding the missing particle in particular
    are not scientific but romantic.

61. O

    What a bunch of nonsense
    Others may be able to carve their way through the ramblings you wrote, but I will only address one point you wrote
    "I conclude from this that it is better to bet on the existence of God and hope that he exists (beyond the effects)"
    Effects?

    What you wrote is nonsense. Although Hebrew allows for such a syntax, this inference is nonsense. It's like asking what color candy is. nonsense
    Science does not reach conclusions because it hopes something will happen, it takes evidence and produces theories.

    People who infer something exists because they like the consequences are religious or detached from reality/delusional

62. I think Elam Gross claimed that currently they are no longer looking for the Higgs, they are measuring the
    His features then since he is one of the calibers out there maybe you should give the benefit of the doubt
    that we found the Higgs.

63. And I see in this discussion, beyond agreement/disagreement, the ability to cooperate, listen and improve.

64. G.W. , Blackie,

    I really appreciate the constructive feedback!

    I understand how problematic it is to sort out what I wrote (after all, that's my job), and I'm sorry for hurting people's brains.
    I wrote the text as a response to previous comments from the last time. I hope I can improve.
    Also, I'm not religious, and I don't have a rabbi, I'm trying to decipher things with you, and according to the statistics, I'm probably wrong a lot.

    In any case, I started by saying that everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and hence my words further on. And indeed you did so [=

    People clarified their position regarding religion/God (does not exist), and regarding the particle (which does exist).
    I didn't mean that you shouldn't jump to conclusions in the sense of thoughts/theories (it's even good to do that), but not to state that there is a particle or there is no God (facts) without unequivocal proof, and an arrangement of concepts, as well as taking things with limited liability.

    As Blackie pointed out, I wrote that everyone will call God differently. Some will call it "someone big with a beard who shoots lightning", and some will call it "meaning" (for example: unambiguous good and bad for everyone\a path that must be followed\higher morality), and some will say "remorse/fraud". If the whole world is particles and result and reaction, and there is nothing beyond (there is nothing unnatural) - there is no meaning, if you commit genocide now. The only meaning this will have is physical (the example of the butterfly effect) and maybe it will create an alien society in the next pulse of the parallel world.

    And I think right now that maybe God -doesn't exist-(in the material sense) but -there is God-. As you can say that a phase does not "really" exist. I spoke earlier about God as a science, as an approach according to which there is no deviation from logic.

    And if everyone calls him differently, and some will call him "the perfection of the universe", then there remains a question of the involvement of this God.

    Then I come to the possibility that God is involved in the world in a way that destroys its integrity (something unnatural/crossing the Red Sea), I say (and maybe wrong) that maybe there is something that is beyond logic and that it is impossible to measure something like that with the help of logic.

    Now the way it seems to me, if there is no God (meaning/blah blah blah), it doesn't matter if humanity will exist for another million years or until the end of 2012 and in what way. Because they will all die in the end (our computers will fail) and that means nothing, nothing meaningful will be left of it. "No one will care where we are and where we got to."

    I conclude from this that it is better to bet on the existence of God and hope that he exists (beyond the effects).

    So if you think that there is more chance that our planet will be destroyed by global warming before we can use the knowledge that the Higgs exists, you should consider coordinating global cooperation first in this direction. If there is still a danger that the energy resources will run out, and the modern world will fall as a result of a disaster\ war\ new world order\ alien invasion\ a great flood, the research for these issues should be prioritized.

    And if we have -morality-, and we decided not to repeat the case in which the powers knew about the Holocaust, and did not act, we should act differently, and help Africa, among other things.

65. In my opinion this is just another particle and not the first particle of matter, we still have a long way to go in finding the divine particle...
    I really hope that in the end this research will ensure that all people in the world will always be happy,
    Because if not that, then what is the curiosity of a few scientists worth compared to a whole world of sick and unhappy sufferers that the large amount of money from the experiment comes at their expense like a lot of money that is thrown away in vain.
    Good luck humanity hope that humanity will arrive before the end of humanity.

66. choose the horror (engraving+religion)

    get your shit together man, your post is so full of contradictions it hurts my brain.

    Examples:
    "Regarding religion, as I said, it is not wise to jump to conclusions.
    Without God (something that definitely doesn't make sense) the word has no meaning. Then there is no point in talking."

    You say it's unwise to jump to conclusions about religion, and a line later writes vomit of letters and syllables
    which really has no meaning, because the sentence is not even structured normally for humans to understand it.
    While you, yourself, jump to the ultimate conclusion that it is 'something absolutely illogical' that we exist without God.

    You then claim the definition of God for you - God is the physical phenomena of the world:
    "So what am I thinking right now? I think God doesn't exist, I think there is a God. Those universal laws we call science.”

    Thank you very much indeed, dear priest, that you are ready to appropriate to your church the work of science for generations,
    The same science that took away so many believers from religion. And finally will take them all too.

    But in any case, in the next paragraph you argue for the traditional definition of God as a big man with a beard in the sky "If God is sleeping, I don't think he cares how much money you have, how much you have achieved in life, but what you have done with it."

    So which one is your belief?
    God is a humanoid being with desires and punishments?
    Or is it another word for the word 'nature'?

    The really fun part in my opinion about the word 'God' is that everyone defines it a little differently,
    It is an amorphous and flexible word like 'emotion' and 'love'.

    I can tell you what comes to my mind when I hear the word God:
    A lie that is easy to believe. An illusion that the human mind likes, like a pyramid scheme, is likely to result
    From the desire to beat the opponent, and the fear of dying a random and insignificant death.

    Just don't send me to your rabbi please.

67. Hello O, unfortunately I could not understand how your response refers to the news, but I read it and thought about it several times. I wanted to briefly refer to some parts of it:
    .

    "
    And regarding religion, as I said, it is not wise to jump to conclusions.
    Without God (something that definitely doesn't make sense) the word has no meaning. Then there is no point in talking. Everything you chose to do now is determined by the order of action and reaction of the substances and energy in and outside your body over the years. No matter when the world ends, not all people are equal, and there is no good and bad. You can stop now!
    I think every person, whether they believe in God or not, should hope that he exists."

    Assuming that it is indeed not wise to jump to conclusions, why did you jump to conclusions? For example, the conclusion reached with the framed article that "it doesn't make sense that there is no God", and also that the word "meaning" has no meaning without God.

    In addition some entity can exist but not involved - at least not in direct connection with another entity. Does this necessarily make the qualities that another entity exhibits "insignificant"? And what is meant by "meaning"? As far as I understand, meaning is the information that some entity represents (a black hole has meaning? And in relation to what?), so let's say it is the same "properties that another entity reveals".
    So if we are dealing with meaning, it is better to first define entities such as "meaning" and "God" as premises of origin.

    "So what am I thinking right now? I think that God does not exist, I think that there is a God.”

    It is not clear whether you think in the dimension of contradiction or you think in the dimension of duality. I'm a bit confused, X thinks there is no Y, or X thinks there is Y?

    "Those universal laws we call science. No one has said unequivocally that it directly affects the world. Even the other way around! They say that there is, they say that he is not "he", not a being, something enormous, unimaginable. The only question that remains is whether or not directly involved. And everyone will call him differently."

    First of all, to the best of my knowledge the "laws" (probably you mean the so-called "laws of nature") are not "science", and science is not the same "laws". There is confusion between concepts here that may indicate a lack of knowledge or basic understanding of these concepts. Regarding the continuation of things, what is meant by "directly"? And in relation to what?

    "And back to Africa. Most religions boil down to one thing - the morality of most people, the one that also exists with you. Right and wrong. Everyone knows that. And many think that it is necessary to observe morality even if one does not believe in religion.
    So how is it that it is so obvious, and right now people are dying in Africa (also in Israel!)? Each of us can save an entire family right now! If God exists, I don't think he cares how much money you have, how much you have achieved in life, but what you did with it. And if there is no sleep, then this particle is also worth nothing except a predetermined destiny.

    The point is not that with the same amount of money we could save a few more families for a limited time. But maybe we could solve the problem and investigate problems that are more - urgent - for humanity at the moment."

    How do you determine what is more "urgent" and what is less "urgent" for humanity? And why should it be done? At the beginning of your words you wrote that you suggest not jumping to conclusions. I reflect this to you as things for observation and thought...

68. GOD DAMN PARTICLE

    GOD PARTICLE ..

    MISTAKE 🙂

69. Anat, it was written in the articles - "Originally, the particle was called "The God Damm Pracitle", that is, the cursed particle, only someone accidentally omitted the "Damm"..."
    Apparently it is called that because it is a particle that is quite difficult to find, or rather - it was difficult to find it (if indeed the particle found is the Higgs boson).

70. It has already been explained a million times that the name divine particle originated from an embarrassing mistake. There is nothing more divine in it than quarks and electrons

71. In research that will last many years, thousands of atheists discovered the divine particle
    Let me chuckle

72. Spelling error in the formula:
    E is equal to M times C squared.

73. I would appreciate it if you read my response carefully, (=

    I agree with Judith's words about arrogance. Arrogance makes people make unsubstantiated statements. be reckless A person who aspires to be read rationally, should also put security and fixation aside.

    Nitzan Levy asked "What is a particle"? I believe, most of you thought, that this is a basic question. indeed so. But no one answered. why?

    And I expanded, will we reach a situation where there will be an end, a basis, for matter? Is that elementary particle a shape/circle of matter, as we know from everyday life? What does this circle consist of? When does a particle stop being matter? When it has no mass/weak force? I think that a good option is for them to understand in the end that every basic particle consists of a certain energy/phenomenon in space.

    And regarding religion, as I said, it is not wise to jump to conclusions.
    Without God (something that definitely doesn't make sense) the word has no meaning. Then there is no point in talking. Everything you chose to do now is determined by the order of action and reaction of the substances and energy in and outside your body over the years. No matter when the world ends, not all people are equal, and there is no good and bad. You can stop now!
    I think every person, whether they believe in God or not, should hope that He exists.

    And as Pascal calculated, we'd better bet on it existing.

    So what do I think right now? I think God doesn't exist, I think there is a God. Those universal laws we call science. No one has said unequivocally that it directly affects the world. Even the other way around! They say that there is, they say that he is not "he", not a being, something enormous, unimaginable. The only question that remains is whether or not directly involved. And everyone will call him differently.

    As Einstein thought, God is in the harmony of the world.

    Don't read the words literally, you all need to also leave room for the option that there are things that are beyond logic. That faith is not related to logic, therefore there is no point in arguing, if it is logical that God changes.
    Are you smart enough to put your ego aside and think about it? (=

    and back to Africa. Most religions boil down to one thing - the morality of most people, the one that also exists with you. Right and wrong. Everyone knows that. And many think that it is necessary to observe morality even if one does not believe in religion.
    So how is it that it is so obvious, and right now people are dying in Africa (also in Israel!)? Each of us can save an entire family right now! If God exists, I don't think he cares how much money you have, how much you have achieved in life, but what you did with it. And if there is no sleep, then this particle is also worth nothing except a predetermined destiny.

    The point is not that with the same amount of money we could save a few more families for a limited time. But maybe we could solve the problem and investigate problems that are more - urgent - for humanity at the moment.

74. As a scientist, I can say that I opened a bottle of 50-year-old whiskey that was bought the day it was decided to establish the accelerator for the purpose of the search, I don't think that the particle is "divine", but rather the courage, determination and persistence of the scientists who studied this field for so many years, in their honor I raise a glass in salute And I say - good luck and all the best!!!

75. The budget is pooled resources of the countries that are part of the project - including Israel, and funding from the European Union.

76. Great article. Thanks for the explanation, but I would also like to know who is behind the experiment, and where does the huge budget come from?

77. I only know the name because of the Big Bang program, what does it mean "medicine to lose weight". sounds interesting

78. Fascinating.. what a thing it is

79. They finally found our damned Higgs "the fattening particle".
    Now all that's left is to find a medicine that will reduce the mass and then everything will be perfect.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.