Rick Deckard
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Location
- UK
World's most-wanted particle – has been discovered
- Thread starter Rick Deckard
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
You find stuff like this worthy of celebrating?, scientists that haven`t got a clue what happens after recreating a billionth of a second after the universe was created, a reminder of some of their overlooked after affects..........
1). Asbestos - Asbestosis.
2). Octane fuel engines - Ozone layer, Acid rain, lead poisoning before the lead was removed from petrol.
3). Mobile phones - Brain cancer.
4). Smoking - Respiratory diseases.
5). Aerosol cans - CFC`s.
6). Laptops - Infertility.
7). Nuclear power - Infertility, deformities.
8). Untested Pharmaceuticals - Dependencies, Major organ failures, deformities - Thalidomide an early morning sickness suppressor for the early stages of pregnancy, is a good example here.
These are just a few from the top of my head, excuse me if I find man trying to recreate the beginning of time nothing to celebrate, with his past track record of unforeseen after affects, how the hell this sort of experiment is allowed to happen is beyond me.
1). Asbestos - Asbestosis.
2). Octane fuel engines - Ozone layer, Acid rain, lead poisoning before the lead was removed from petrol.
3). Mobile phones - Brain cancer.
4). Smoking - Respiratory diseases.
5). Aerosol cans - CFC`s.
6). Laptops - Infertility.
7). Nuclear power - Infertility, deformities.
8). Untested Pharmaceuticals - Dependencies, Major organ failures, deformities - Thalidomide an early morning sickness suppressor for the early stages of pregnancy, is a good example here.
These are just a few from the top of my head, excuse me if I find man trying to recreate the beginning of time nothing to celebrate, with his past track record of unforeseen after affects, how the hell this sort of experiment is allowed to happen is beyond me.
Rick Deckard
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Location
- UK
Yeah. I would like to know how the universe came to exist.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It is far better allowing the scientists to satisfy their curiousity by playing with their "toys", rather than have them putting their energies into developing ever more destructive weapons.
All the above examples are from where commercial outfits sought to make profits out of scientific discoveries, and where further research that finds negative long term effects is buried as it would prevent a profit being made, or render valueless the capital investment.
Scientists have long accepted that smoking causes cancer, but the big tobacco companies didn't like this, so they tried to find scientists they could persuade to keep running more tests until a result more favourable to the industry came out. It's not much different with the drug companies, who after spending a fortune on the latest miracle cure, do not want it derailed by the discovery of inconvenient long term side effects.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Location
- UK
was a great result for these scientists at Cern
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
To understand how matter is created, we then understand ourselves much better. We already know where acid rain comes from, and global warming is no mystery. These discoveries at CERN enlighten us, and can only lead to more discoveries. I hope it helps motivate young people to pursue a career in the sciences.
azzagirt
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Location
- Great Southern Land.
he he ..My daughter is a 1st yr commerce student at university and has recently got her first serious boyfriend..He is a 3rd yr uni student studying science..nice choice!! wink , wink...and a nice young man at that.. 
wtg science...
wtg science...
It's only described as a "Higgs like" so far, more observations are needed to tell whether it behaves exactly according to theory or if it shows exotic properties. Fascinating regardless and a new boost for physics!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
The problem is that so many scientific discoveries have been (ab)used by the military.....who is to say that this one won't bring about a new age of horrifying weapons that make nukes look like backyard firecrackers?
I just hope this is one that bodes well for the human race.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Actually that was my first thought too although I confess I don't really fully understand the significance of this discovery. Need to do more reading.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Location
- Texas
It's too bad most cosmological theories are based an flawed assumptions, bad science and personal egocentricities, compounded negatively by quests for funding, governmental involvement and ideological 'prizes' to be won. Always remember, just because you can stuff it in the hole, its doesn't mean it belongs there...Having mathematicians try and unravel the universe is like having Monet paint your house, you will both end up being unhappy with the result. There has never been a time in human history where there is more to mistrust and doubt about the mainstream scientific establishment as now, and boy is that saying something! Don't worry folks, the well funded just found a four leaf clover and it is NOT the manual to the Universe...lucky for us ;-)
Particle and nuclear physics is kind of half assed pet hobby of mine.
We've been picking away at the atom for a few decades now and the research has spawned technologies that we use every day that wouldn't exist without it. Not the least of which is the MRI machine and the cooling systems used to cool the MRIs. This technology is a direct offshoot from the study of the atom and the machines used to research it. But everything from medical technology to computers to nuclear power and superconductive materials are all offshoots of this research. The list goes on and on. It's not just what we discover about the origin of the universe, it's every thing else we discover along the way.
As for the Higg's field, everything I've read makes sense and seems logical enough even though none of it has actually been proven. I agree with Peter Higgs who postulated the existence of the "Higgs" field back in the 60s since I can't see any other reason for energy to have "mass" without it either and Einstein's theory of relativity ties in with that theory (the energy = mass" part, obviously) Einstein's theory on gravity being the result of bent space bugs the hell out of me. I've tried to make it work but for me it just doesn't. I have my own theories about that.
The good thing about science is that no matter how long we've accepted a theory, that doesn't mean that tomorrow someone won't come up with a better one.
We've been picking away at the atom for a few decades now and the research has spawned technologies that we use every day that wouldn't exist without it. Not the least of which is the MRI machine and the cooling systems used to cool the MRIs. This technology is a direct offshoot from the study of the atom and the machines used to research it. But everything from medical technology to computers to nuclear power and superconductive materials are all offshoots of this research. The list goes on and on. It's not just what we discover about the origin of the universe, it's every thing else we discover along the way.
As for the Higg's field, everything I've read makes sense and seems logical enough even though none of it has actually been proven. I agree with Peter Higgs who postulated the existence of the "Higgs" field back in the 60s since I can't see any other reason for energy to have "mass" without it either and Einstein's theory of relativity ties in with that theory (the energy = mass" part, obviously) Einstein's theory on gravity being the result of bent space bugs the hell out of me. I've tried to make it work but for me it just doesn't. I have my own theories about that.
The good thing about science is that no matter how long we've accepted a theory, that doesn't mean that tomorrow someone won't come up with a better one.
Last edited:
You just said a whole lot of nothing.
If you have a better theory than any one that is accepted today you're more than welcome to share it.
Last edited:
Nukes are actually kind of a fluke. There's only one isotope of one element out of all the naturally occuring elements that happen to dump out two neutrons when you split it. Those two neutrons split two more atoms and those two dump out 4 and those 4 dump out 8 and in a split second you're splitting a billion atoms. It makes a big boom.... And some nasty radiation.
But the discovery of the Higg's boson really would just prove what we've already suspected since the 60s. I wouldn't be scared of it.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Location
- Texas
Oh, I'm not 'scared' of the higgs...it doesn't really mean much to me at all in fact. They'll keep finding new cogs and widgets the more stuff they fling together at faster speeds. It should keep the funding alive. As far as theories, I do have some but I won't share just yet. Just to note, one can be quite wrong about something and still glean useful information from it and create wonderful bits of technology with it. Does it trouble you at all that after all this time and all these accepted theories, not one scientist the world over, living or dead, can use these theories to explain where gravity comes from? From where it derives its 'energy' to do 'work'?
Modern science puts an atomic clock on a plane, flies it about the earth, and then states boldly that TIME HAS SLOWED...compared to other 'stationary' ones. Time is irrelevant by the way. Meaningless other than allowing our little brains to order things coherently. If I stuck you in a magic bubble and instantly slowed down every last bit of your matter to a standstill and kept you there for 10 years and then let you out, you'd swear you traveled through time! Of course you did no such thing, but it sure would seem like it to you wouldn't it? My point is, relativity is not 'real' and matters not. I can't really say anymore right now.
Hmm. Here's a nugget I think will be ok. Have you heard how calorie restriction allows animals (and people) to greatly expand their life expectancy? This isn't related at all except as a analogy of sorts. 'Moving around less' in a matter of speaking would have the same effect. Not in a sedentary lifestyle way, think in terms of particles and energy. Or...if you had something akin to that magic bubble whereby you were no longer taxed in the same way...or something like that.
Modern science puts an atomic clock on a plane, flies it about the earth, and then states boldly that TIME HAS SLOWED...compared to other 'stationary' ones. Time is irrelevant by the way. Meaningless other than allowing our little brains to order things coherently. If I stuck you in a magic bubble and instantly slowed down every last bit of your matter to a standstill and kept you there for 10 years and then let you out, you'd swear you traveled through time! Of course you did no such thing, but it sure would seem like it to you wouldn't it? My point is, relativity is not 'real' and matters not. I can't really say anymore right now.
Hmm. Here's a nugget I think will be ok. Have you heard how calorie restriction allows animals (and people) to greatly expand their life expectancy? This isn't related at all except as a analogy of sorts. 'Moving around less' in a matter of speaking would have the same effect. Not in a sedentary lifestyle way, think in terms of particles and energy. Or...if you had something akin to that magic bubble whereby you were no longer taxed in the same way...or something like that.
Actually I'm in the process of using these theories to explain gravity but Einstein worked on his theory for 10 years. I've been a few months so give me a little leeway. lol
Does it trouble me? No. It doesn't trouble most physicists either because these are "theories." Any real scientist will tell you that anything that can't be recreated under controlled tests with a positive reoccurring result can't be called fact. Theories have changed many times over the centuries and they'll probably change again but the Higgs field, Einstein's relativity, Gravity, these are the best theories we have today.
You do realize that time has been proven to slow when speed increases I hope? Why do you think they have to recalibrate the clocks on satellites daily? The satellites that we use for the earth's GPS system are travelling at about 14,000 kph around the earth. The atomic clocks on each one of (I think 24) satellites move slower than they would if they were stationary. If they weren't adjusted constantly to accommodate the decreased time speed due to the increased velocity your GPS would be off by about an accumulating 10 kms a day.
Hmm. Here's a nugget I think will be ok. Have you heard how calorie restriction allows animals (and people) to greatly expand their life expectancy? This isn't related at all except as a analogy of sorts. 'Moving around less' in a matter of speaking would have the same effect. Not in a sedentary lifestyle way, think in terms of particles and energy. Or...if you had something akin to that magic bubble whereby you were no longer taxed in the same way...or something like that.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but not moving around wouldn't have much effect other than making you fat and lazy. (I'm lazy, I'm still working on fat.) When you talk about time variation due to velocity no person is going to move fast enough by any means we have to travel to make any sort of difference. Even the 14,000 kph satellites are only making a time difference of nanoseconds. Unless you can figure out a way to travel at a million kph you're not going to "see" much effect. Remember for time to "stop" you would have to travel at the speed of light. That's almost 300,000 kilometers per SECOND and multiply that by the 3600 seconds in an hour.
Rick Deckard
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Location
- UK
I just wanted to say there's a big difference between the general word 'theory' and hypotheses and 'scientific theory'. Wiki can explain it better than me in the quote below:
"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative."
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Probably everyone knows that already, but I didn't realise the difference until I got more interested in science.
Also not to be confused with a theorem which is a mathmatical statement proven to be true based on other proven statements.... or something like that.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
It took Higgs 40-odd years to see the particle - good job he wasn't attempting sapphires and wilds on BDBA freespins.........
It took Higgs 40-odd years to see the particle - good job he wasn't attempting sapphires and wilds on BDBA freespins.........
When Peter Higgs heard they spent 9 billion dollars building the Large Hadron Collider at Cern to look for the "Higgs" boson he probably looked around and said "Um... I was only joking, man."
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
Pretty cool IMO.
Skiny, if you get that gravity thing figured out, could you let my breasts know?
Skiny, if you get that gravity thing figured out, could you let my breasts know?
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Location
- Out Of Town
trust you JasI didn't say I would be able to control it.
Besides, most women get offended when I get caught talking to their breasts.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Coincidentally, the movie
Physics always goes... zoom .... over my head, but I am strangely fascinated by it. I just hope they really have found what they say they have and it doesn't turn out like... what was it? .... oh! ... cold fusion.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
(both Antonio Banderas and Sam Elliot are in it... *swoon*) was on TV yesterday afternoon. The movie has a lot of little sideways 'insider' references scattered thru... easter eggs if you will, for the physics nerds. Physics always goes... zoom .... over my head, but I am strangely fascinated by it. I just hope they really have found what they say they have and it doesn't turn out like... what was it? .... oh! ... cold fusion.
I was kind of hoping our new friend was going to come back. I can answer more of his post and see if he's around.
Humans didn't "invent" time. Time is a byproduct of change. Humans only found ways to measure it but it's always existed. Everywhere in the universe there is a passing of events and time is simply one event preceding the next. Newton's second law of thermodynamics basically says that everything moves toward a higher state of entropy. That is a higher state of disorder. This is partly due to the degradation of energy and partly due to the sheer odds of it happening. If you turned off everything in a room, no TV, no lights, no telephone, left the room and closed the door, time still exists in that room because everything in that room still moves toward a higher state of entropy. It might take a hundred years or it might take a thousand but eventually the paint will peel, the steel will rust and then erode, the desk will decay. Eventually that room and everything in it will turn to dust. Time exists whether we do or not.
As for the "Odds of it happening" part, if you build a sand castle and leave eventually the wind and the rain will erode the ordered state of the sand and it will fall to a lower state of order (higher state of entropy) but there is no law in physics that says the wind can't blow your sand across the beach and have it land in the shape of a new sand castle. There is no law that says the wind can't blow your sand across the beach and place your sand in a more ordered state than you put it when you built your castle but the odds of it happening are pretty slim. But rest assured, if humans ceased to exist the universe wouldn't need us to put things in order. Time marches on.
If you stuck me anywhere for 10 years under any circumstances I would have "travelled through time." Although if you brought all of my "matter" to a standstill my electrons would stop spinning, spiral into my protons and cancel each other out (I'm assuming the protons would become neutrons and the electrons, neutrinos?) At any rate, I'd be in a hell of a mess.
We are travelling through time as I type this. If we weren't nothing in the universe would ever change. We can travel slower through time and faster through time but we have to move forward. Everything has to move forward in time. If I bust a window with a baseball I can't bust the window first and then throw the ball. Cause has to precede effect. The universe can't exist any other way.
I'm assuming by "relativity isn't real" you mean general relativity? I've said I can't agree with Einstein's "reason" for gravity but his math works. I'm nowhere near smart enough to argue with his formulas and I don't have to because they work and I wouldn't pretend to be able to argue with him about space and time. As I stated before, objects like atomic clocks have been proven to move slower in time relative to how fast they move through space. I can't disagree with something that we know happens.
Humans didn't "invent" time. Time is a byproduct of change. Humans only found ways to measure it but it's always existed. Everywhere in the universe there is a passing of events and time is simply one event preceding the next. Newton's second law of thermodynamics basically says that everything moves toward a higher state of entropy. That is a higher state of disorder. This is partly due to the degradation of energy and partly due to the sheer odds of it happening. If you turned off everything in a room, no TV, no lights, no telephone, left the room and closed the door, time still exists in that room because everything in that room still moves toward a higher state of entropy. It might take a hundred years or it might take a thousand but eventually the paint will peel, the steel will rust and then erode, the desk will decay. Eventually that room and everything in it will turn to dust. Time exists whether we do or not.
As for the "Odds of it happening" part, if you build a sand castle and leave eventually the wind and the rain will erode the ordered state of the sand and it will fall to a lower state of order (higher state of entropy) but there is no law in physics that says the wind can't blow your sand across the beach and have it land in the shape of a new sand castle. There is no law that says the wind can't blow your sand across the beach and place your sand in a more ordered state than you put it when you built your castle but the odds of it happening are pretty slim. But rest assured, if humans ceased to exist the universe wouldn't need us to put things in order. Time marches on.
If you stuck me anywhere for 10 years under any circumstances I would have "travelled through time." Although if you brought all of my "matter" to a standstill my electrons would stop spinning, spiral into my protons and cancel each other out (I'm assuming the protons would become neutrons and the electrons, neutrinos?) At any rate, I'd be in a hell of a mess.
We are travelling through time as I type this. If we weren't nothing in the universe would ever change. We can travel slower through time and faster through time but we have to move forward. Everything has to move forward in time. If I bust a window with a baseball I can't bust the window first and then throw the ball. Cause has to precede effect. The universe can't exist any other way.
I'm assuming by "relativity isn't real" you mean general relativity? I've said I can't agree with Einstein's "reason" for gravity but his math works. I'm nowhere near smart enough to argue with his formulas and I don't have to because they work and I wouldn't pretend to be able to argue with him about space and time. As I stated before, objects like atomic clocks have been proven to move slower in time relative to how fast they move through space. I can't disagree with something that we know happens.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
I wonder how forthcoming CERN would be if they have by accident, stumbled upon `The Devil Particle`, as in all aspects of scientific equations - `For every positive side there is also it`s negative`.
How very re-assuring that as expected they have discovered something new, but as of yet -fck knows what.
There is no religion in science. Most scientists really dislike the term "God Particle" since the Higgs field has nothing to do with religion. I really should research where that term came from.
Now if you're talking about an "anti-Higgs boson" that would be the same as discovering a Higgs boson since one wouldn't exist without the other.
I suspect the term "God particle" has something to do with the Higgs field creating matter which isn't really what it does anyway. It gives energy mass. Mass and matter aren't the same thing. It's kind of a long story but it has more to do with the fact that not all energy can travel at the speed of light (photons can) and not all energy has mass (photons do not) yet in reality there's no reason for any energy to have mass or not travel at the speed of light without the Higgs field or something doing basically the same job.
Photons are light, by the way.
Discovering any new elementary particle would be no more dangerous than discovering the first dozen and would still be considered a scientific breakthrough.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
There is no religion in science. Most scientists really dislike the term "God Particle" since the Higgs field has nothing to do with religion. I really should research where that term came from.
Now if you're talking about an "anti-Higgs boson" that would be the same as discovering a Higgs boson since one wouldn't exist without the other.
I suspect the term "God particle" has something to do with the Higgs field creating matter which isn't really what it does anyway. It gives energy mass. Mass and matter aren't the same thing. It's kind of a long story but it has more to do with the fact that not all energy can travel at the speed of light (photons can) and not all energy has mass (photons do not) yet in reality there's no reason for any energy to have mass or not travel at the speed of light without the Higgs field or something doing basically the same job.
Photons are light, by the way.
Discovering any new elementary particle would be no more dangerous than discovering the first dozen and would still be considered a scientific breakthrough.
I`m all for new discovery, no problems there
. But, let`s say for arguments sake that when Nature/Science/Physics/Biology/Maths/History/English/French/Drama/Music/Joseph Smith/The Smiths/Smiths Crisps/Odin/Thor/TS/TSII/BDBA/Fruitee`s/Vinylweatherman/God created the Universe, it was not down to a man made invention buried somewhere between Geneva/Switzerland but an entirely different concept that would be impossible to recreate for a main reason being-there would be no need to recreate it, once done it is done.So along steps man, and not happy with discovering new particles he has to go one better and starts splitting them or firing them into each other at nigh on the speed of light, afaik there are three basic elements of the Universe - Mass, Matter, Dark Matter. how long did it take man to do this experiment after finishing creating LHC, RHIC, Tevatron?, at least three years, what were they doing for three years?, running tests as to all possible outcomes maybe?, did these tests foresee a threefold result instead of one?.
Has man unwittingly just stumbled across one of the fundamental cosmological issues of modern astrophysics, the associated "missing mass problem", and if so, what next?.
The missing mass problem has been around since the 60s. That's when Peter Higgs postulated that there is a field that some energy interacts with and some does not. It's not just a matter of some energy having mass. The faster energy travels the more mass it has. This is basically why nothing but light travels at the speed of light. The more mass an object has (a particle for instance) the more energy it takes to accelerate it, the more it's accelerated, the more mass it gains, eventually it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it before it reaches lightspeed.
It may be never be possible to actually detect the Higgs field itself. Only the force carrier between the particle and the field might be detectable. I might have my own view of the Higgs field but in my mind trying to contact the higgs field might be like tying a carrot in front of a donkey. But that's a whole other story.
But I'm sure you can smash all the hadrons you like, the elementary particles that fly off already existed before they were part of the group. I'm pretty sure no harm could come of it.
Also they have been using basically the same method to look for the Higgs boson long before they built the LHC at Cern. The other Hadron Colliders (I think one is in the US) weren't powerful enough though. The LHC is huge.
These may not be the most scientific answers but I'm just popping stuff off the top of my head. I just got off work. I'm lazy.
It may be never be possible to actually detect the Higgs field itself. Only the force carrier between the particle and the field might be detectable. I might have my own view of the Higgs field but in my mind trying to contact the higgs field might be like tying a carrot in front of a donkey. But that's a whole other story.
But I'm sure you can smash all the hadrons you like, the elementary particles that fly off already existed before they were part of the group. I'm pretty sure no harm could come of it.
Also they have been using basically the same method to look for the Higgs boson long before they built the LHC at Cern. The other Hadron Colliders (I think one is in the US) weren't powerful enough though. The LHC is huge.
These may not be the most scientific answers but I'm just popping stuff off the top of my head. I just got off work. I'm lazy.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
Aha, got ya, think of the Kestle run in less than four parsnips (I think that`s what he said, might have been turnips though)
.I`m just one of those old fashioned guys that would love to see more good for the world type discoveries, like a cure for sagging breasts
.I read on one website the term “God particle” originated with a 1993 book by U.S. Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman about the history of particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?
I also read on another website the first draft was called "The Goddamn Particle" but was cut back by the publisher to God Particle, fearful that "goddamn" would be offensive.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
After my last few days of obliviousness I have a vague recollection of actually speaking to God and was permitted to ask him one question, so, I duly asked him what I believe to be the most important question possible......
`Hey God, wassup, nice place you have here?`.
"Hi Roy, your question please".
`Ooops sorry, my bad, okay here it comes, the Duck Billed Platypus, wtf is all that about man?".
"Well Roy, think back to when you were young and playing with a Lego or Meccano construction set, and when you had built the respective item there were always a few bits and pieces left over, does that answer your question Roy?".
`Yes God tyvm`.
"Anything else I can help you with Roy?".
`Mmm, now you mention it, yes there is, women`s breasts and gravity`.
"Goodbye Roy".
`Ohhh, laters God`.
Sorry girls, I tried
.
`Hey God, wassup, nice place you have here?`.
"Hi Roy, your question please".
`Ooops sorry, my bad, okay here it comes, the Duck Billed Platypus, wtf is all that about man?".
"Well Roy, think back to when you were young and playing with a Lego or Meccano construction set, and when you had built the respective item there were always a few bits and pieces left over, does that answer your question Roy?".
`Yes God tyvm`.
"Anything else I can help you with Roy?".
`Mmm, now you mention it, yes there is, women`s breasts and gravity`.
"Goodbye Roy".
`Ohhh, laters God`.
Sorry girls, I tried
.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
this is god,/ Roy [through R C] i gave you peeps implants so you wouldn't fall off the globe
Damn, I thought that aspect was down to me wearing boots with magnetic Blakey`s in and always doing my damn-est to walk on steel
.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
I just figured god created the boob/gravity relationship as a polite cue to women that if they have to lift their bobs to place them on the bar top then it was time to stop trolling college bars
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
I just figured god created the boob/gravity relationship as a polite cue to women that if they have to lift their bobs to place them on the bar top then it was time to stop trolling college bars
I strongly believe that when Newton discovered gravity (Sitting under an apple tree reading Ye Olde Playboy) the apple was a sign intended to be an early form of cosmetic implant, but, alas, Newton completely misread this sign, and the rest they say is History
.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2004
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario - Canada
I've just come to the realization of how truly dumb I am. 
Actually Newton knew exactly what was happening to women's breasts. It says so in Newtons second law of thermodynamics. Everything moves to a higher state of entropy. (Lower state of order.)
The underwire bra was created specifically to regain some of that earlier state of order.
The underwire bra was created specifically to regain some of that earlier state of order.
If I was Leon Lederman my next draft would have been called "The Goddamn Publisher."
Then I would have sent that to the goddamn publisher.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
I think the conservation of momentum - a falling object follows the path of least resistance (unless you`re WTC1/WTC2/WTC7 on 9/11/2001 ofc) can be questioned regarding a lithe nimble 18 year old with very firm and pert breasts, as these will most definitely head back Northwards once released without hitting anything at all whilst travelling Southerly, thus creating the `Jiggle` affect.
From this day forward the new particle will be known as "Higg`s Bosom`.
From this day forward the new particle will be known as "Higg`s Bosom`.
I've just come to the realization of how truly dumb I am.
I suspsect you're a lot less interested than you are dumb. You really have to enjoy stuff like this to read enough to get a real handle on it. Specially when you can find so many conflicts in theories and different opinions.
An example of that would be Newton's first law of physics. Objects in motion remain in motion unless acted on by another force.
The Higgs field is everwhere and all objects with mass interact with it keeping them from moving at the speed of light. So why does anything remain in motion? They're acted on by another force.
Similar threads
