"God Particle" DISCOVERED Today!

[HoldOrFold]

The Large Hydron Collider finally found the Higgs Boson today! Checked out the following site:http://stellarinsights108.blogspot.c...iscovered.html

It shows the mundane chart of the discovery, and of course Uranus Square Pluto with Pluto rising with a full moon in Geneva (where the LHC is).

Can we tell from the mundane chart what the future implications of this tremendous discovery could be?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by HoldOrFold

The Large Hydron Collider finally found the Higgs Boson today! Checked out the following site:http://stellarinsights108.blogspot.c...iscovered.html

It shows the mundane chart of the discovery, and of course Uranus Square Pluto with Pluto rising with a full moon in Geneva (where the LHC is).

Can we tell from the mundane chart what the future implications of this tremendous discovery could be?

While viewing the article you provided a link to HoldOrFold - I found the following CRUCIAL sentence within the article:

QUOTE:

"More work will be needed to be certain that what they see is a Higgs, however"

fwiw numerous discussions on this issue have been featured in the media in recent weeks and IMO the consensus is that there is no certainty whether what has been observed in Geneva is the elusive Higgs Bosun subatomic particle - or not

[HoldOrFold]

You shouldn't be referring to THAT article to determine whether it was found or not. That's for the mundane chart, not the science.

You can google it...

Or Look at the News:
The Telegraph: Higgs Boson: scientists 99.999% sure 'God Particle' has been found



*ed*Discoveries have to pass the sigma test getting up to 5 sigma to be classed as a discovery, and it's 5 sigma! Your quote from my astrology link is probably confusing the fact that a lot more work needs to be done to determine the behavior of the Higgs Boson, not that a lot more work needs to be done to see if it is the Higgs Boson.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by HoldOrFold

You shouldn't be referring to THAT article to determine whether it was found or not. That's for the mundane chart, not the science.

You can google it.. Or Look at the News:
The Telegraph: Higgs Boson: scientists 99.999% sure 'God Particle' has been found

*ed*Discoveries have to pass the sigma test getting up to 5 sigma to be classed as a discovery, and it's 5 sigma! Your quote from my astrology link is probably confusing the fact that a lot more work needs to be done to determine the behavior of the Higgs Boson, not that a lot more work needs to be done to see if it is the Higgs Boson.

Lets look at the evidence, the Telegraph article you linked to HoldOrFold clearly states:

“Although their results are said to be strong enough to claim an official discovery, the scientists will avoid doing so because they remain unsure whether the particle they have found is indeed the Higgs”

However, that's not all!! The New York Times has more to say: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/sc...pagewanted=all

THE FOLLOWING IS A 99 WORD EXTRACT FROM NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

“Dr. Heuer and others said it's too soon to know for sure whether the new particle, which weighs 125 billion electron volts, one of the heaviest subatomic particles yet, fits the simplest description given by Standard Model theory that has ruled physics for the last half-century, or whether it is an impostor, a single particle or even the first of many particles yet to be discovered. For now, some physicists are calling it a “Higgslike” particle.

'It’s great to discover a new particle, but you have find out what its properties are,' said John Ellis, theorist at CERN”

fwiw IMO HoldOrFold - a “Higg's-like” particle requires verification. Of course it is an important moment, however as the New York Times article clearly states the newly discovered sub-atomic particle may 'be an imposter'

[HoldOrFold]

Okay, I see your point... I believe I read that there's a 1 in 3.5 million chance of it not being the Higgs Boson like particle. But from a historical standpoint this would be the day we look back at to define the discovery of this new fundamental particle whether it's called the Higgs Boson or not.

My original question was regarding the mundane chart of this massive discovery and future implications.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by HoldOrFold

Okay, I see your point... I believe I read that there's a 1 in 3.5 million chance of it not being the Higgs Boson like particle. But from a historical standpoint this would be the day we look back at to define the discovery of this new fundamental particle whether it's called the Higgs Boson or not

This is an historic occasion for science, definitely - tens of billions has been spent on the search so its good news.

Why it is called the 'God Particle'... According to online sources: “The Higgs Boson is known as the "God particle" because it is (1) deemed to exist everywhere, (2) determines the nature of matter but (c) is not easy to define”

IMO Regarding future implications, it means scientists shall now refine their search

[gen6k]

TO clue some of you in.

The Higgs boson is a theoretical subatomic particle that escapes reality by vacuuming through multiple dimensions. It is assertained to be the molecular constitient of gravity itself thus is heavier than any thing in existence since it gives mass to it, and paradoxically it is also light (nonexistant). The Higgs boson in some theories is said to cover every single plot of spacetime, even the empty space, thus calling it the "God Particle".

In quantum mechanics, the Higgs boson bypasses some of the distinctions of quantum locality, thus being an interlude between other distances instead of being directly linked with various phantasmic apparitions. It has something to do with the distinction of hidden variables or not.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by gen6k

TO clue some of you in.

The Higgs boson is a theoretical subatomic particle

The Higgs boson cannot itself be directly seen even with the most sophisticated scientific equipment... its presence can only be inferred

[HoldOrFold]

Originally Posted by gen6k

TO clue some of you in.

The Higgs boson is a theoretical subatomic particle that escapes reality by vacuuming through multiple dimensions. It is assertained to be the molecular constitient of gravity itself thus is heavier than any thing in existence since it gives mass to it, and paradoxically it is also light (nonexistant). The Higgs boson in some theories is said to cover every single plot of spacetime, even the empty space, thus calling it the "God Particle".

In quantum mechanics, the Higgs boson bypasses some of the distinctions of quantum locality, thus being an interlude between other distances instead of being directly linked with various phantasmic apparitions. It has something to do with the distinction of hidden variables or not.

Fascinating, thank you. I haven't read about any of those surreal properties except that it is the constituent of gravity like you say. I hope we hear a lot more about the Higgs and related discoveries in coming years or hopefully months.

[dr. farr]

In a way this reminds me of the 1992 discovery of "dark matter" and the subsequent 1995 discovery of "dark energy"; these concepts, and the Higgs "particle", have much in common, and are some of the reasons arising from comtemporary science, for my attitudes and outlooks regarding space, as being a pleroma and an "active" factor (there is much metaphysical, esoteric and philosophical material regarding this concept or outlook regarding the nature of space, but the objective results of advanced science relative to dark energy, dark matter, Higgs "particle", seem-so far-to be quite resonant with this space-as-pleroma/energy idea, which goes back to the most ancient times; these considerations of mine regarding the nature of space, are the basis of why I regard the tropical signs-divisions of the circle of the sky, ie, of space-as "active" factors-rather than as a neutral or passive matrix-in my outlook on astrological delineation)

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

In a way this reminds me of the 1992 discovery of "dark matter" and the subsequent 1995 discovery of "dark energy"; these concepts, and the Higgs "particle", have much in common, and are some of the reasons arising from comtemporary science, for my attitudes and outlooks regarding space, as being a pleroma and an "active" factor (there is much metaphysical, esoteric and philosophical material regarding this concept or outlook regarding the nature of space, but the objective results of advanced science relative to dark energy, dark matter, Higgs "particle", seem-so far-to be quite resonant with this space-as-pleroma/energy idea, which goes back to the most ancient times; these considerations of mine regarding the nature of space, are the basis of why I regard the tropical signs-divisions of the circle of the sky, ie, of space-as "active" factors-rather than as a neutral or passive matrix-in my outlook on astrological delineation)

Nevertheless dr. farr IMO it remains incontrovertible that the Tropical Zodiac is a mathematical abstraction at odds with some of the less abstruse 'scientific facts' - i.e. the Tropical Zodiac ignores earth's orbit around Sun because it is based on the idea that Earth is stationery in space while being orbited by Sun. As a theoretical construct the mathematical abstraction of the Tropical Zodiac is far removed from the actual situation of earth and its orbit of the sun as well as earth's relation to the constellations and groups of stars in the sky

[dr. farr]

Actually, looking at theoretical concepts regarding the tropical zodiac expounded by David Rouell, Carl Payne Tobey, and others, the tropical zodiac has nothing to do at all with the sky, and everything to do with the projection and modulation of EARTH energies-ie, the tropical signs are (according to this hypothetical model) projections of the Earth into surrounding space, the signs being kind of like "window panes" of the Earth, which then modulate the incoming planetary and stellar energies for those living upon the Earth-actually, this model (which has been much more fully elaborated by others, such as Rouell and Tobey), is very appealing to me as the "modus operandi" of the tropical signs, and resonates closely with my own ideas about the nature of space.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Actually, looking at theoretical concepts regarding the tropical zodiac expounded by David Rouell, Carl Payne Tobey, and others, the tropical zodiac has nothing to do at all with the sky, and everything to do with the projection and modulation of EARTH energies-ie, the tropical signs are (according to this hypothetical model) projections of the Earth into surrounding space, the signs being kind of like "window panes" of the Earth, which then modulate the incoming planetary and stellar energies for those living upon the Earth-actually, this model (which has been much more fully elaborated by others, such as Rouell and Tobey), is very appealing to me as the "modus operandi" of the tropical signs, and resonates closely with my own ideas about the nature of space.

dr. farr - I entirely agree with your contention that "the Tropical Zodiac has nothing at all to do with the sky" - thanks for clarifying your opinion

[HoldOrFold]

On topic, the astrology for the discovery is textbook. Pluto (deep probing) square Uranus (Eureka! I found it / revolution) with the Full Moon (shining light / trigger) conjunct Pluto becoming Full just as it's rising in Geneva. Fascinating.

Something I've been thinking about recently is how Pluto is in Capricorn here conjunct the Full Moon. The deep probing of Pluto is focused in Capricorn, the sign of structure, order and manifestation. The Higgs Field gives mass to things, it slows down subatomic particles which would otherwise be zipping around the speed of light. How very Saturnian (Capricornian), the way it slows things down to give them mass and manifestation! Pluto/Full Moon in Capricorn seems very fitting here.

[dr. farr]

Originally Posted by HoldOrFold

On topic, the astrology for the discovery is textbook. Pluto (deep probing) square Uranus (Eureka! I found it / revolution) with the Full Moon (shining light / trigger) conjunct Pluto becoming Full just as it's rising in Geneva. Fascinating.

Something I've been thinking about recently is how Pluto is in Capricorn here conjunct the Full Moon. The deep probing of Pluto is focused in Capricorn, the sign of structure, order and manifestation. The Higgs Field gives mass to things, it slows down subatomic particles which would otherwise be zipping around the speed of light. How very Saturnian (Capricornian), the way it slows things down to give them mass and manifestation! Pluto/Full Moon in Capricorn seems very fitting here.

Thought provoking post! Thanks!

[waybread]

Originally Posted by gen6k

TO clue some of you in.

The Higgs boson is a theoretical subatomic particle that escapes reality by vacuuming through multiple dimensions. It is assertained to be the molecular constitient of gravity itself thus is heavier than any thing in existence since it gives mass to it, and paradoxically it is also light (nonexistant). The Higgs boson in some theories is said to cover every single plot of spacetime, even the empty space, thus calling it the "God Particle".

In quantum mechanics, the Higgs boson bypasses some of the distinctions of quantum locality, thus being an interlude between other distances instead of being directly linked with various phantasmic apparitions. It has something to do with the distinction of hidden variables or not.

Just curious, gen6k, how a particle "escapes reality"? Is there a physics of "phantasmic apparitions"? Wouldn't "hidden variables or not" somehow sum up virtually everything?

[piercethevale]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Nevertheless dr. farr IMO it remains incontrovertible that the Tropical Zodiac is a mathematical abstraction at odds with some of the less abstruse 'scientific facts' - i.e. the Tropical Zodiac ignores earth's orbit around Sun because it is based on the idea that Earth is stationery in space while being orbited by Sun. As a theoretical construct the mathematical abstraction of the Tropical Zodiac is far removed from the actual situation of earth and its orbit of the sun as well as earth's relation to the constellations and groups of stars in the sky

Quite to the contrary...IMHO.. I believe it addresses it! It consistently demonstrates that it's all about the relative to 'Where it all began' ...r.e. the "Thema Mundi". The only problem with that is the 'Hellenists' didn't have a clue as to what the arrangement was in the beginning which was further complicated by those of the post periods through the 'Dark Ages' and the 'medieval era' up to and including most in the present.
A lot of astro physicists subscribe to the theory that all the Planets of our present Solar System were created at once from a huge spew of matter by our Sun that was a singular occurrence that deposited 'globs' of matter in a straight line from the Sun which eventually cooled and became the various amalgamations that we today call the Planets. This in effect is stating that the Sun, Mercury and Venus were all three in the same Sign and degree of the 'abstract' we call the Zodiac and Mars and all Planets beyond it were all in the exact opposite Sign and degree relative to our own Earths' position.
The Kabbalists' have a legend that the first day of the Earths creation is that day we presently consider to be the the beginning of Autumn.
I know of the fact that most are of the belief that there were no seasons on this Earth originally as the axis of the Earth wasn't at a tilt to the ecliptic in the beginning nor was it at a tilt for many millennia, perhaps even eons, and then that is precluded by the notion... 'Relative to where'?
The many ancient legends of esoteric sources that speak of the Earth shifting and flipping over, reversing its' rotation, the Sun rising where before it had set all need to be kept on the table of evidence to consider...as in THIS court even hearsay and innuendo need to be examined.
I myself, presently, have much for reason to believe that in the beginning of the very first civilizations on this Planet the great majority of land mass and human population was in the Southern Hemisphere. Why? you may ask. It's because of the way we construct charts the abstract concept of what a chart represents and the more recent revelation I received that one can read the Zodiacal symbols in either direction [Bonifide symbols, that is...he only set I can attest to, personally, being those known as the "Sabian".}
I'm not going to 'draw' it out for all of you with an explanation here though. It is too difficult for me to attempt to do with words... it's times like these I wish my verbal skills weren't half that of my math and mechanical/spatial.
If I ever get my computer savvy up to par and obtain the necessary software or programs I may attempt an animated video to explain this concept... I have a strong hunch at least a couple/few of the forums members can 'get it' in the mean time or without one just from what I've given here in this post.
Hint. Think how you would construct a chart to be in abstract representation of ones position on the globe if you were in the Southern Hemisphere and the Earth did rotate differently...and also think of, 'if the Earth rotated in the present direction.
...and remember, that presently, when it's Autumn in the North it's Spring in the South... catch my drift?

I believe Dr. Farr's assessment to be a one worthy of further consideration. I myself am presently entertaining the notion that all of the precepts and influences attributed to Astrology are in fact emanating from our own Sun ..from the center of our Solar System outwards...rather than the present notion which is basically the opposite.

[dr. farr]

Just quickly remarking on one of PTV's ideas:there is a considerable amount of literature which locates "Atlantis" as today's Antartica, which of course would place "beginnings" in the Southern hemisphere...now I myself have not come any where near a final personal outlook regarding this, but I certainly do not dismiss this Atlantis=Antaractica material, and I continue to ponder it!

[waybread]

dr. Farr, I think this is highly unlikely. Are you familiar with the geologic theory of continental drift?

[piercethevale]

I agree... I don't believe it could have been "Atlantis" but I do definitely believe it was inhabited in a very distant past.
I assume you guys are familiar with the "Piri Reis" map of Antartica?

[gen6k]

whatever the basis of our three dimensional space is (classical forces and its makeup) is not the basis for anything exterior to three dimensional space. it could have some implicate or super-explicate order inter-relations, but overall everything detected within a certain range of phenomena is pretty much a-symmetrically in mid air within this space. which means that quasi-superimplica such as the gravitron which must exist prior to classical and quanta (mass) forces, but it doesnt say anything about the nature of the super-implicate. its derived from "interference" patterns and basically second nature experimentation and theories. which means that either gravity or our so called consituient basis functions at an apparitional level within a sizable consort of itself, and is included in other radical variations outside of threedimensional space. thus the interactions between quanta/classical forces and the super-explicate order could arrive from a hologram of the same basis (buddha), or there could be infinite dimensionality or something of that sort in entirely penetrable natures that are interweaved by ricci flow type things im not sure.

well basically there are some theories that account for these types of "space philosophies" based on for example, gravity ossilating arbitrarily outside of newton/einstein.

well my arguement against classical/quantum mechanics junction is infinite difference or space inbetween them, but some people think its reducible to one constituent theory. so yeah i would say hidden variables is infinite space. cause its easy to go from a bunch of jumbled subatomic particles, but how do you get to the continuum hypothesis/p-space of the "actual structuralization" of classical mechanics. highly complex harmonics or whatever.

yeah theres tons of phantasmic apparitions (the link between quanta, or basically the actual nature of it), sparticles, branes, dimensions, etc.

another link that was made was the function of black holes in terms of stripping particles down in to theoretical points, or that was one of the things that existed in both quantum theory and relativity. but when you dig down in to miniscule levels the nature of time changes where it gets all random and phenomena is cloudy, unsizable, hard to measure.

[waybread]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Just quickly remarking on one of PTV's ideas:there is a considerable amount of literature which locates "Atlantis" as today's Antartica, which of course would place "beginnings" in the Southern hemisphere...now I myself have not come any where near a final personal outlook regarding this, but I certainly do not dismiss this Atlantis=Antaractica material, and I continue to ponder it!

Well, Antarctica has some competition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locatio...es_of_Atlantis

And then there is the geology of plate tectonics, continental drift, and Pangea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea

gen6k, thanks for trying to explain things.... I think....

[dr. farr]

Well, one thing about the Atlantis/Antartica hypothesis is that is does not require a large landmass (unaccounted for in plate tectonic theories) to have sunk/disappeared: Antartica is still there!

Of course there have have dozens of locations speculated regarding Atlantis: but the more recent literature regarding the Antartical connection-either as the "historical" Atlantis OR, instead, as the seat of an ancient advanced civilization-has been quite intriguing to me, and has led me to consider this as a possibility.

[piercethevale]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Well, one thing about the Atlantis/Antartica hypothesis is that is does not require a large landmass (unaccounted for in plate tectonic theories) to have sunk/disappeared: Antartica is still there!

Of course there have have dozens of locations speculated regarding Atlantis: but the more recent literature regarding the Antartical connection-either as the "historical" Atlantis OR, instead, as the seat of an ancient advanced civilization-has been quite intriguing to me, and has led me to consider this as a possibility.

Well you should know me well enough by now Dr. Farr to know how obsessed I am with the Edgar Cayce material. He did say the complete destruction and sinking of Atlantis took about 60,000 years ending around 12,000 BC after having been in existence some 140,000 years prior to the first cataclysms [if I recall correctly...but I'm not too far off, regardless...]. That much time having passed since I wouldn't be surprised to hear any finding as to why the landmass can't be accounted for...[not to say that I have heard that it can't be.]
I have a pretty strong conviction it's right where Cayce said it is...bottom of the Atlantic, between the Azores and Bimini.
I have to admit, though, that the shape of the Continent of Antarctica is very much like the descriptions of Atlantis that I've run across in many a source.[although I don't recall Edgar ever making any mention of the shape of Atlantis himself.]
...but I do totally agree with you that Antarctica was most very likely the home to an ancient and advanced civilization.

[waybread]

Dr. Farr, I am going with the card-carrying geologists on this one.

There is so much pseudo-science on the Internet these days. I don't think you will find anyone with serious earth science credentials arguing against plate tectonics today. The fossil evidence, for one thing, points to the existence of Pangea.