Is This The Beginning Of The End Of The Standard Model?

[pantheory]

Is This the Beginning of the End of the Standard Model.

 

In physics the Standard Model generally refers to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. This theory proposes the existence of fundamental forces of nature which include the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear forces and their characteristics, as well as a classification system for all the known and theorized subatomic particles.

 

The article, link below, mentions potential theoretical problems that may result from recent data concerning the alleged theoretical Higgs boson. Although technical, the article explains potential problems with the current observations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

 

Scroll down in the article to:  Is This the Beginning of the End of the Standard Model.

 

 

Dec. 16, 2015: Was yesterday the day when a crack appeared in the Standard Model that will lead to its demise?  Maybe. It was a very interesting day, that’s for sure ……………. ………

 

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/

 

There have been many proposed criticisms and alternatives to the Higgs boson almost as soon as its discovery was announces:

 

http://www.universetoday.com/116139/bicep2-all-over-again-researchers-place-higgs-boson-discovery-in-doubt/

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle-physicists/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_Model_Higgs

 

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html

 

….you can draw positive or agnostic conclusions.  It’s hard to draw entirely negative conclusions… and that’s a reason for optimism.

Six months or so from now — or less, if we can use this excess as a clue to find something more convincing within the existing data —

.........................................we’ll likely (say) “R.I.P.” again (and) …. bury this little excess (anomaly), or (bury) the Standard Model itself?

(parenthesis and bold added)

 

 

the above quote is also from the subject link.

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/

 

Cautionary Note of frivolity for lurkers:  Because this or that science theory gets replaced by a supposed better theory does not increase the likelihood that instead god did it. 

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

[pantheory]

 

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with one of your criticisms. Before I saw your post I changed my wording.

 

Instead of:  "As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards."

 

The wording was changed to: "As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects."

 

The above wording change I think is more accurate since there have been a lot of important physics and related technology that was created in the last 100 years; the list is long. As to cosmology, separate from astronomy, I think today's cosmology in its entirety greatly detracts from science since I believe the Big Bang model will eventually be entirely discarded. This idea mirrors similar quotes from Michael Disney and a number of other theorists.

 

Your second problem concerning a balanced picture of these subjects, I have left it to others to point out the supposed merits of the mainstream theories in these subjects. As I said, I can start a posting in other areas of science, most of which I agree with. I think I make my postings clear whether something is mainstream or contrary to it. As you may have noticed I only report on published scientific papers by others and/or what is reported in the science news. They are not my own ideas, but they probably have similarities to my own ideas and writings if I post them.  I try to pick writings that have some agreement with my own theories and which also could be an interesting topic for discussion. Only when asked do I explain my own theories in brief. My response in postings is directly related to questions or comments within posted links, papers, articles, or postings by others. 

[Joshpantera]

And why?

 

What's the point of saying this over and over again? 

 

Does it have anything to do with proselytizing anti-mainstream theory? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with one of your criticisms. Before I saw your post I changed my wording.

 

Instead of:  "As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards."

 

The wording was changed to: "As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects."

 

The above wording change I think is more accurate since there have been a lot of important physics and related technology that was created in the last 100 years. The list is long.

 

Your second problem concerning a balanced picture of these subjects, I have left it to others to point out the supposed merits of the mainstream theories in these subjects. As I said, I can start a posting in other areas of science, most of which I agree with. I think I make my postings clear whether something is mainstream or contrary to it.

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

You appear to have moderated your words in such a way as to dilute the first problem.

 

However, the second one remains.

You've reinterpreted the issue of balance to mean mainstream vs. contrarian - which is not all what I meant, nor what I referred to.  I clearly described the issue of balance as relating ONLY to mainstream science, where a balanced view of it's historical successes and it's problems is given.  Now, I'll repeat the question in a slightly modified form, so that it's abundantly clear that I'm NOT talking about mainstream vs. contrarian.

 

How do you propose to resolve the issue of your personal bias causing you to present a negative and unbalanced view of modern mainstream physics and cosmology, where you focus only on their problems?

 

Please answer.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with one of your criticisms. Before I saw your post I changed my wording.

 

Instead of:  "As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards."

 

The wording was changed to: "As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects."

 

The above wording change I think is more accurate since there have been a lot of important physics and related technology that was created in the last 100 years; the list is long. As to cosmology, separate from astronomy, I think today's cosmology in its entirety greatly detracts from science since I believe the Big Bang model will eventually be entirely discarded. This idea mirrors similar quotes from Michael Disney and a number of other theorists.

 

Your second problem concerning a balanced picture of these subjects, I have left it to others to point out the supposed merits of the mainstream theories in these subjects. As I said, I can start a posting in other areas of science, most of which I agree with. I think I make my postings clear whether something is mainstream or contrary to it. As you may have noticed I only report on published scientific papers by others and/or what is reported in the science news. They are not my own ideas, but they probably have similarities to my own ideas and writings if I post them.  I try to pick writings that have some agreement with my own theories and which also could be an interesting topic for discussion. Only when asked do I explain my own theories in brief. My response in postings is directly related to questions or comments within posted links, papers, articles, or postings by others. 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

I just noticed that you also changed my words from, "there seems to be a twofold problem" to "your second problem", changing my neutral emphasis to one where it appears that I'm the one with a problem.

 

Please stop making these changes and quote me verbatim in future!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with one of your criticisms. Before I saw your post I changed my wording.

 

Instead of:  "As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards."

 

The wording was changed to: "As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects."

 

The above wording change I think is more accurate since there have been a lot of important physics and related technology that was created in the last 100 years. The list is long.

 

Your second problem concerning a balanced picture of these subjects, I have left it to others to point out the supposed merits of the mainstream theories in these subjects. As I said, I can start a posting in other areas of science, most of which I agree with. I think I make my postings clear whether something is mainstream or contrary to it.

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

You appear to have moderated your words in such a way as to dilute the first problem.

 

However, the second one remains.

You've reinterpreted the issue of balance to mean mainstream vs. contrarian - which is not all what I meant, nor what I referred to.  I clearly described the issue of balance as relating ONLY to mainstream science, where a balanced view of it's historical successes and it's problems is given.  Now, I'll repeat the question in a slightly modified form, so that it's abundantly clear that I'm NOT talking about mainstream vs. contrarian.

 

How do you propose to resolve the issue of your personal bias causing you to present a negative and unbalanced view of modern mainstream physics and cosmology, where you focus only on their problems?

 

Please answer.

 

 

Bumped for Pantheory to answer the question.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with one of your criticisms. Before I saw your post I changed my wording.

 

Instead of:  "As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards."

 

The wording was changed to: "As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects."

 

The above wording change I think is more accurate since there have been a lot of important physics and related technology that was created in the last 100 years. The list is long.

 

Your second problem concerning a balanced picture of these subjects, I have left it to others to point out the supposed merits of the mainstream theories in these subjects. As I said, I can start a posting in other areas of science, most of which I agree with. I think I make my postings clear whether something is mainstream or contrary to it.

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

You appear to have moderated your words in such a way as to dilute the first problem.

 

However, the second one remains.

You've reinterpreted the issue of balance to mean mainstream vs. contrarian - which is not all what I meant, nor what I referred to.  I clearly described the issue of balance as relating ONLY to mainstream science, where a balanced view of it's historical successes and it's problems is given.  Now, I'll repeat the question in a slightly modified form, so that it's abundantly clear that I'm NOT talking about mainstream vs. contrarian.

 

How do you propose to resolve the issue of your personal bias causing you to present a negative and unbalanced view of modern mainstream physics and cosmology, where you focus only on their problems?

 

Please answer.

 

 

Bumped for Pantheory to answer the question.

 

 

Note again, these are not my assertions regarding new-topic threads. I post links concerning someone else's views, usually a renowned practitioner in the same field,  in a paper or article. My comments concern those views, and replies to comments by others. My postings are subject-related and identified to let the reader know if these are my views alone, or if they are also views of others in the related field, in which case the others are usually identified. Often my statements are backed up by additional links.

 

Anyone else can also explain the mainstream view they prefer or their own views or any variation thereof. Often there are many variations of the mainstream view, or alternative mainstream theories, concerning cosmology and modern physics.

 

For the same reasons those posting mainstream assertions and/or related links are not obligated to also explain views concerning the numerous alternative-mainstream theories,  the Big Bang model is a good example.

[Joshpantera]

The end? 

 

Point made that there are people who question standard model oriented theories like inflation? 

 

Why continue? 

 

Is there some pressing need to keep posting other people's problems with inflation in order to some how validate your own theorizing? I wonder why so many threads must be made to keep bringing up again and again various scientists who don't like or agree with inflationary models?

 

You've become the Jehovah's Witness of the Science and Religion forum, Forrest. 

 

Is that what you really want? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

This is the third thread you've started in the last week or so to focus on major problems in mainstream physics and cosmology.

No problem.  Science should always be subjected to the most rigorous criticism and it should be thoroughly tested and checked.  

However, I wonder if you will also be starting up any threads that give due credit to the many major successes of mainstream physics and cosmology?

 

I ask, because when writing about these matters, I strive to give a balanced view, highlighting not just where mainstream science has been successful, but also where it has problems.

As you know, I place a great deal of store in the views of Peter Woit (  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/  ) and often refer to his criticisms of cosmology and physics.  

Doing this lends balance to what I write, so that I don't only express unequivocal support for certain issues and certain theories, but also point out their problems.

 

Therefore, can we expect you to do likewise and to write posts that give mainstream physics and cosmology their due recognition?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think that is a valid request concerning non-physics science.  You seem to beat me and many others to the punch concerning the most up-to-date science news in many cases.  Since most of science I agree with outside the fields of modern physics and cosmology, I could certainly try to find other interesting mainstream supported postings that I agree with. I have in the past commented on such postings by others but did not post them in the first place. I can stay away from those assertions that I might disagree with so that I won't feel obliged to post comments of disagreement.

 

Sometimes months go by without my finding a single article or paper which I consider worthy of posting. It just so happened that in the last couple of weeks I found three such articles in cosmology and physics that I agreed with, the most ever in recent history. Granted these articles are contrarian based.

 

As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards. In astronomy when an article is based upon findings without proposing theoretical implications, then I could be interested. Yes,  I could post science that I disagree with, but I don't think you would want my comments and maybe asserted evidence to support my disagreement. Two such reports come to mind. One was on the supposed finding of gravity waves and the other was on the supposed discovery of the Higgs. In one or more other forums I posted negatively on both of these asserted findings.

 

 

Then there seems to be a twofold problem, Pantheory.

 

Firstly, the problem of disagreement between your belief that physics and cosmology have had no major successes in the past century - and the well-documented historical facts that they have.

 

Secondly, the problem of your anti-establishment bias causing you to present a purely negative and unbalanced view of these sciences, where you focus only on their problems.

 

So how do you propose to resolve these twin issues?

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with one of your criticisms. Before I saw your post I changed my wording.

 

Instead of:  "As to modern physics and cosmology, there is little that I think has been accomplished in the past 100 years of so . To the contrary I believe these theories and practitioners have dragged these sciences backwards."

 

The wording was changed to: "As to modern physics and cosmology, there have been many wrong theories IMO posited in the last 100 years of so which have dragged these sciences backwards in many aspects."

 

The above wording change I think is more accurate since there have been a lot of important physics and related technology that was created in the last 100 years. The list is long.

 

Your second problem concerning a balanced picture of these subjects, I have left it to others to point out the supposed merits of the mainstream theories in these subjects. As I said, I can start a posting in other areas of science, most of which I agree with. I think I make my postings clear whether something is mainstream or contrary to it.

 

 

Very well, Pantheory.

You appear to have moderated your words in such a way as to dilute the first problem.

 

However, the second one remains.

You've reinterpreted the issue of balance to mean mainstream vs. contrarian - which is not all what I meant, nor what I referred to.  I clearly described the issue of balance as relating ONLY to mainstream science, where a balanced view of it's historical successes and it's problems is given.  Now, I'll repeat the question in a slightly modified form, so that it's abundantly clear that I'm NOT talking about mainstream vs. contrarian.

 

How do you propose to resolve the issue of your personal bias causing you to present a negative and unbalanced view of modern mainstream physics and cosmology, where you focus only on their problems?

 

Please answer.

 

 

Bumped for Pantheory to answer the question.

 

 

Note again, these are not my assertions regarding new-topic threads. I post links concerning someone else's views in a paper or article. My comments concern those views, and reply to comments by others. My postings are subject related and identified to let the reader know if these are my views alone, or if they are also views of others in the related field, in which case the others are usually identified. Often my statements are backed up by additional links.

 

Anyone else can also explain the mainstream view they prefer or their own views or any variation thereof. Often there are many variations of the mainstream view, or alternative mainstream theories, concerning cosmology and modern physics.

 

For the same reasons those posting mainstream assertions and/or related links are not obligated to also explain views concerning the numerous alternative-mainstream theories,  the Big Bang model is a good example.

 

 

Pantheory,

 

I'm as familiar with Matt Strassler's blog as you are and what you are doing is trawling thru it and selecting the small percentage of his stuff that focuses on the problems with physics and cosmology.

 

The bulk of what he writes is clearly and unequivocally in support of mainstream science and he is not a contrarian by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Thus, in this forum you are presenting a slanted and biased view of his position by performing this kind of selection.

 

In a similar way, you trawl thru many science websites and blogs, carefully selecting stories and articles that focus only on the problems of mainstream physics and cosmology.

 

And then you post them here.

.

.

.

That, my friend, is personal bias and a person of integrity and honesty would not leave it others to present the other side of the argument.

 

They would feel morally and ethically bound to do the right and proper thing and present a balanced view of the issue.

.

.

.

So, in future, will you correct what you post for your personal bias and bring some much needed balance to your posts?

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

Almost all of my selections concerning a new-thread topic, come from science news websites. I rarely read Matt Strassler's website, but agree with you that it is a good one and maybe I should read it more often. If I find interest in a paper or article and think it might be a good discussion I post it. I try to pick something of interest for the science vs. religion forum, and try to add a religious to it when I think I can fit it in. Titles that also somehow relate to religion I prefer, like this theory or that theory that might require "faith" for its consideration since the science, according to theorists, can't be tested. Examples would be: string theories, many or most multiverse theories, many or most quantum theories etc. therefore they cannot be science based upon the definition of science excluding unsupported hypothesis. Being primarily untestable is one of the prime requisites of pseudo-science, another indication is that a theory is not based upon observations.

 

It's often difficult to explain the mainstream positions since there are often many versions of it and sometime little or no over-all consensus amongst theorists and practitioners . The Big Bang is an example, quantum theory is another, Inflation theory is another, string theory is another, etc.

 

Also, this is not the only place that I post science related papers, articles, science news, etc. In most cases in science forums I post material that I think show problems with theory.

 

One of my primary concerns, believe it or not, is that members here are not indoctrinated in anything including science dogma, and that belief should have little to do with their opinions concerning science.

 

As you well know many of the people in this forum strongly believed in religion at one time.  I think we can agree that all religions are BS and that some religions can damage some believers, as well as they might help others. We don't like religions because all bibles are ridiculous and obviously wrong, aside from hurting most believers by training them to be believers rather than thinkers

 

People that once were hurt by religion, I think, are more susceptible to science dogma. Some have substituted their belief in religion for a belief in science. My mission is to have them be interested in educating themselves so that belief has little to do with their opinions in science. I would hope that none will be disillusioned by the twists and turns of science over time, when theories are totally discarded and replaced which I think will be the case for the Big Bang model(s), for instance.  So my mission is to present logical science ideas, when such ideas conflict with seemingly illogical theories. Often these are mainstream models. 
 

 

So, in future, will you correct what you post for your personal bias and bring some much needed balance to your posts?

 

 

Not a bad idea but the word "correct" is not the correct word to use since my postings are always "correct," to my knowledge, with supporting links presented. But I think this is also the main problem with mainstream science models. Counter-balance information is seldom given. You take the lead on presenting balanced postings in this sub-forum, concerning alternative ideas and balance, and then if it seems right to me I can follow your lead. In any case I will consider what you have said, observe your postings, and maybe learn something new concerning my style of postings

[pantheory]

The end? 

 

Point made that there are people who question standard model oriented theories like inflation? 

 

Why continue? 

 

Is there some pressing need to keep posting other people's problems with inflation in order to some how validate your own theorizing? I wonder why so many threads must be made to keep bringing up again and again various scientists who don't like or agree with inflationary models?

 

You've become the Jehovah's Witness of the Science and Religion forum, Forrest. 

 

Is that what you really want? 

 

You've become the Jehovah's Witness of the Science and Religion forum, Forrest.

 

You're pretty good with humor

 

When I was on my journey studying religions, about age 15, I studied many.  Jehovah's Witnesses was one of the religions I studied. I was an atheist already by that time but I found the "Witnesses" religion, as they call themselves,  interesting in that they take the bible quite literally. They do not believe in a 6,000 year-old Earth because that is not in the bible literally, but they do believe that only 144 thousand people total will go to heaven since they assert that that is in the bible literally. The balance of the unworthy will be slain where "the blood that is shed will run knee deep through the streets", and the worthy people will live on a perfect Earth after the second coming of Christ, according to their belief. 

 

This is why I find almost all religions interesting but ridiculous.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

Almost all of my selections concerning a new-thread topic, come from science news websites. I rarely read Matt Strassler's website, but agree with you that it is a good one and maybe I should read it more often. If I find interest in a paper or article and think it might be a good discussion I post it. I try to pick something of interest for the science vs. religion forum, and try to add a religious twist when I think I can fit it in. Titles that also somehow relate to religion I prefer, like this theory or that theory requires "faith" science according to theorists the theories can't be tested. Examples would be: string theories, many or most multiverse theories, many or most quantum theories etc. therefore they cannot be science based upon the definition of science excluding unsupported hypothesis. Being primarily untestable is one of the prime requisites of pseudo-science, another indication is that a theory is not based upon observations.

 

It's often difficult to explain the mainstream positions since there are often many versions of it and sometime little or no over-all consensus amongst theorists and practitioners . The Big Bang is an example, quantum theory is another, Inflation theory is another, string theory is another, etc.

 

Also, this is not the only place that I post science related papers, articles, science news, etc. In most cases in science forums I post material that I think show problems with theory.

 

One of my primary concerns, believe it or not, is that members here are not indoctrinated in anything including science dogma, and that belief should have little to do with their opinions concerning science.

 

As you well know many of the people in this forum strongly believed in religion at one time.  I think we can agree that all religions are BS and that some religions can damage some believers, as well as they might help others. We don't like religions because all bibles are ridiculous and obviously wrong, aside from hurting most believers by training them to be believers rather than thinkers

 

People that once were hurt by religion, I think, are more susceptible to science dogma. Some have substituted their belief in religion for a belief in science. My mission is to have them be interested in educating themselves so that belief has little to do with their opinions in science. I would hope that none will be disillusioned by the twists and turns of science over time, when theories are totally discarded and replaced which I think will be the case for the Big Bang model(s), for instance.  So my mission is to present logical science ideas, when such ideas conflict with seemingly illogical theories. Often these are mainstream models. 

 

 

So, in future, will you correct what you post for your personal bias and bring some much needed balance to your posts?

 

 

Not a bad idea but the word "correct" is not the correct word to use since my postings are always "correct," to my knowledge, with supporting links presented. But I think this is also the main problem with mainstream science models. Counter-balance information is seldom given. You take the lead on presenting balanced postings in this sub-forum, concerning alternative ideas and balance, and then if it seems right to me I can follow your lead. In any case I will consider what you have said, observe your postings, and maybe learn something new concerning my style of postings

 

Pantheory,

 

I find it quite telling that your 'solution' to the problem of our members being indoctrinated by dogmatic mainstream science isn't to present the full picture to them and let them decide for themselves, but to present them with only what you want them to see.  Now, when I've presented both the successes and problems of physics and cosmology (in threads that you've participated in) you've approved of my doing so.  Yet, for some reason this balanced approach is one that you balk at and, in this thread, refuse to even contemplate.  So I must ask you a serious question.

 

Why is it ok by you when I present both sides of a theory or set of theories, but not ok for me to ask you to do the same thing?

.

.

.

I also happen to know that you have a very low opinion of Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.

Yet what did these Christians strongly advocate in the not so very distant past?  TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.  They wanted both sides of the issue in question to be examined by the target audience.  Now, the target audience in this forum is it's membership and the issue in question is what they will learn about physics and cosmology.  You claim to want to protect them from the dangers of mainstream scientific dogma.  And how do you propose to do this?  REFUSING TO TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.   It's not a little ironic that the very Christians you look down on were happy to let others decide for themselves what to believe... and that you don't want this to happen.

 

Instead, under the guise of being concerned about our members, you take that decision away from them.

You decide in advance what they should see by carefully selecting articles that only show mainstream science in an unfavorable light.  You also refuse to do the very thing that you've complemented me on -  which is to present both sides of the issue.  These actions and attitudes do a disservice to our members.  They should be given the right, the freedom and the opportunity to decide for themselves and they can only do that if given a balanced view of the issue in question.

 

Ironically Pantheory, the very people you hold in such low regard (the YEC's and IDer's) could teach you a thing or two about transparency and giving others freedom of choice.

.

.

.

Lastly...

Once again you've rehashed something I've written to score a point over me.  I asked you before not to do this!

When I used the word correct I wasn't alluding to the exactness or correctness of your knowledge.  Instead I was referring to your personal bias against mainstream science.  The two are not the same!  While your posts can be scientifically and technically correct, they can still display your personal bias.  THAT was what I was talking about.  Restoring balance to your posts by removing the personal bias in them.  I have little doubt that you realized the difference and I therefore conclude that you simply cannot be trusted to treat my words fairly and to handle them with respect.

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

I find it quite telling that your 'solution' to the problem of our members being indoctrinated by dogmatic mainstream science isn't to present the full picture to them and let them decide for themselves, but to present them with only what you want them to see.  Now, when I've presented both the successes and problems of physics and cosmology (in threads that you've participated in) you've approved of my doing so.  Yet, for some reason this balanced approach is one that you balk at and, in this thread, refuse to even contemplate.  So I must ask you a serious question.

 

Instead, under the guise of being concerned about our members, you take that decision away from them.

You decide in advance what they should see by carefully selecting articles that only show mainstream science in an unfavorable light.  You also refuse to do the very thing that you've complemented me on -  which is to present both sides of the issue.  These actions and attitudes do a disservice to our members.  They should be given the right, the freedom and the opportunity to decide for themselves and they can only do that if given a balanced view of the issue in question.

 

 

I said I will follow your lead. If you do not present a balanced picture IMO then I will remind you. If you do, IMO, then I will try to explain what I consider a balanced picture. But also realize that almost everybody's idea of a balanced point of view will be completely different, one from the other.

 

....Once again you've rehashed something I've written to score a point over me.  I asked you before not to do this!

When I used the word "correct" I wasn't alluding to the exactness or correctness of your knowledge.  Instead I was referring to your personal bias against mainstream science.  The two are not the same!  While your posts can be scientifically and technically correct, they can still display your personal bias.  THAT was what I was talking about.

 

 

Realize that I never like to argue, I like to discuss the issues without comments concerning opinions concerning who did what. To your credit IMO this time you are doing a much better job of reducing hostility in your postings.

 

Restoring balance to your posts by removing the personal bias in them.  I have little doubt that you realized the difference and I therefore conclude that you simply cannot be trusted to treat my words fairly and to handle them with respect.

 

 

Again, I respect your honest opinions and expect to follow your lead concerning trying to provide balanced postings concerning different points of view in this science vs. religion forum. I expect it will be more difficult for a mainstream poster to present a balanced point of view since most will have no knowledge concerning alternative theories/ points of view, but If you or other posters do not know other known points of view, If I see these postings, I will try to explain what I know of known alternatives.

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory,

 

Here's another 'interesting' aspect of our dialog in this thread.

 

The integrity and faithfulness with which you cite, quote or relate my words and how you (mis) treat their meaning.

 

Not counting this one, I've made seven (7) posts in this thread.

 

You've rehashed, reinterpreted and changed the meaning of my words three (3) times.

 

Despite the fact that I've asked you twice not to do this.

 

You changed my usage of the word 'balance' from my meaning (successes vs problems) to your meaning (mainstream vs contrarian).

 

You changed my neutral usage of the words 'twofold problem' to read 'your second problem' insinuating that the problem lay exclusively with me.

 

You changed my usage of the word 'correct' (to remove personal bias) to your meaning (exactness of knowledge) insinuating that I was criticizing your abilities.

.

.

.

This is not a rhetorical question Pantheory, so please answer it.

 

If you can't be trusted to faithfully and accurately report my words while I'm carefully watching what you do...

 

...how can you possibly be trusted to faithfully and accurately report the words of non-members who aren't carefully watching what you do?

 

That is, people like Matt Strassler?

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Pantheory,

 

Here's another 'interesting' aspect of our dialog in this thread.

 

The integrity and faithfulness with which you cite, quote or relate my words and how you (mis) treat their meaning.

 

Not counting this one, I've made seven (7) posts in this thread.

 

You've rehashed, reinterpreted and changed the meaning of my words three (3) times.

 

Despite the fact that I've asked you twice not to do this.

 

You changed my usage of the word 'balance' from my meaning (successes vs problems) to your meaning (mainstream vs contrarian).

 

You changed my neutral usage of the words 'twofold problem' to read 'your second problem' insinuating that the problem lay exclusively with me.

 

You changed my usage of the word 'correct' (to remove personal bias) to your meaning (exactness of knowledge) insinuating that I was criticizing your abilities.

.

.

.

This is not a rhetorical question Pantheory, so please answer it.

 

If you can't be trusted to faithfully and accurately report my words while I'm carefully watching what you do...

 

...how can you possibly be trusted to faithfully and accurately report the words of non-members who aren't carefully watching what you do?

 

That is, people like Matt Strassler?

 

You are far too paranoid by making wrong judgements and accusations. If you misjudge me so often then you probably misjudge others similarly. I rarely think anybody is doing wrong to me or make accusations of wrong doing.  I usually ignore it or just think they are not too bright.  I doubt very many lurkers care much about what I or anyone else says in most forums. If they know anything about the subject they will follow the links that you and I post, then consider what is being said. If not they probably won't finish reading the posting anyway.

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory, 

 

Even if I've drawn the wrong conclusions about you misrepresenting my words, the fact is that the changes I described were made to them.

Call me paranoid if you will and apt to overreact.  All I'll say on this matter is that I'm extremely sensitive to having what I write changed in any way, accidentally, unintentionally or otherwise.   I have to go offline now, but tomorrow I plan to suggest an alternative course of action that might be acceptable to both of us.  One that requires a degree of concession and cooperation from both parties.  I hope you'll give it due consideration.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

Pantheory, 

 

Even if I've drawn the wrong conclusions about you misrepresenting my words, the fact is that the changes I described were made to them.

Call me paranoid if you will and apt to overreact.  All I'll say on this matter is that I'm extremely sensitive to having what I write changed in any way, accidentally, unintentionally or otherwise.   I have to go offline now, but tomorrow I plan to suggest an alternative course of action that might be acceptable to both of us.  One that requires a degree of concession and cooperation from both parties.  I hope you'll give it due consideration.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

OK. But since our discussions again have become off-topic please PM me with your request(s). I will be glad to consider any of your ideas if I think they are practical which I expect they will be. Again, please PM me if you want additional or different agreements/ answers from what I have already given.

 

best regards Forrest

[mymistake]

 

Pantheory, 

 

Even if I've drawn the wrong conclusions about you misrepresenting my words, the fact is that the changes I described were made to them.

Call me paranoid if you will and apt to overreact.  All I'll say on this matter is that I'm extremely sensitive to having what I write changed in any way, accidentally, unintentionally or otherwise.   I have to go offline now, but tomorrow I plan to suggest an alternative course of action that might be acceptable to both of us.  One that requires a degree of concession and cooperation from both parties.  I hope you'll give it due consideration.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

OK. But since our discussions again have become off-topic please PM me with your request. I will be glad to consider any of your ideas if I think they are practical which I expect they will be. Again, please PM me if you want an answer different from what I have already stated.

 

best regards Forrest

 

 

 

Maybe instead we should start a thread dedicated to why a certain anti-establishment crusade does not properly represent mainstream science?

[disillusioned]

Are we still doing this? Seriously?

 

The fact that it is called the standard model directly implies that it is not the only model. Of course there are some people who don't think it is correct. In fact, every scientist I've ever known thinks it isn't entirely correct, since it does not explain everything that there is to know. Everyone wants a better theory. And if one came along, it would eventually become the "new standard model". That's why science works.

 

However, the standard model is currently the best and most widely accepted model that we have. Case closed.

[Thought2Much]

Are we still doing this? Seriously?

 

The fact that it is called the standard model directly implies that it is not the only model. Of course there are some people who don't think it is correct. In fact, every scientist I've ever known thinks it isn't entirely correct, since it does not explain everything that there is to know. Everyone wants a better theory. And if one came along, it would eventually become the "new standard model". That's why science works.

 

However, the standard model is currently the best and most widely accepted model that we have. Case closed.

 

I remember reading somewhere that on one level, the confirmation of the discovery of the Higgs boson was actually a disappointment to some of the scientists involved. Why? Because it fit the standard model so neatly, it was boring. The scientists were half-hoping that they'd find something really strange that they'd have to come up with new ideas to explain, something that might make them have to rethink the standard model, but that didn't happen in the case of the Higgs.

 

Many people don't seem to understand this about scientists. Creationists and people like Forrest seem to think that scientists are all staunch defenders of whatever the standard model for their particular discipline is, when in reality, most of them would sell their own mothers into slavery if they could find something that would require a major change to the established theory. They love to be "baffled" (as non-mainstream "scientists" love to describe them). They love a mystery. They love being able to look at data and say... "Wait a minute... huh?" and have to come up with new explanations.

 

To quote Isaac Asimov:

 

 

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'