Shared publicly  - 
 
SCIENSE • PHYSICS • The Large Hadron Collider ( :
Info, Last News ► goo.gl/kXx6q • Pic: © Chappatte • www.globecartoon.com
263
97
Sergei Agarkoff's profile photoYoung Mucci's profile photoPatrick Armstrong's profile photoAlrick Gisiger's profile photo
32 comments
 
Physicists have strange habits: once per 5-6 billions of years they gathers together to build another LHC...

У физиков-ядерщиков есть давняя традиция: каждые 5-6 миллиардов лет они собираются и строят БАК.
Translate
 
Looking at a blood picture of the holy noob......and it's name was Higgs-Boson and not God neither Allah....but hey!!!without,no fast internet,no this and that.That fucker is a mystery.And Planck was right after all,we try to look at something we can't see,or something like that,on this moment.like we are sunblinded underground creatures....with a rayban on ur skull.
 
chissà cosa stanno cercando al CERN ..... boooooo .....
Translate
 
I admire the humor here and actually this is just the smallest part of the real truth I think. Practically many responses could come from every place in the close or distant space every day, or even inside us. Just we don't know that...
 
+Scott Chatfield Glad you were able to understand! Nowadays, Google translate takes off the language barrier too! ;-)
 
everybody follow me on twitter @marquesemucci
 
particle: Stop the peeping.
 
Эх, если б они знали, во сколько нам обошёлся километр МКАДа!
Translate
 
you know, God particle is actually shortcut from "goddamn particle". But editor refused this name, so it was shortened to "god particle". Hm. Another water for mill of stupid religious arguments.
 
+Petr Mazak Why "stupid religious arguments"? Cience never denied the existence of god. If you do, you are going against any cientific metodology. No one could, 'till now, prove the non-existence of god. So, why are you saying that the religious felling is "stupid"?
 
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to enter atheist/religious discussion in this thread (+TECHNICS ► is not page about this), so I will ignore that part about science (here and now, at least)
About the merit of your question: you made one serious mistake: I did not say that all religious argumentation is stupid, I sad that calling it "god particle" instead of "goddamn particle" leads to stupid religious argumentation. That's quite different statement.
I'm active atheist and I have encountered many different kind of argumentation in behalf of religion - both smart and stupid, both superficial and complex (well, both about atheistic argumentation). And unfortunately, many defenders of religion often twist some facts or quotations and use it in their favor - like "scientists also believe in God, actually they are looking for "God particle", and they know something so it has to mean something, right?". It's annoying, I have nothing personal against believers in general, but idiots can drive me crazy.
 
+Petr Mazak There is no argumentation. There is only points of vision. Saying that god exist or not, both are right, cause it's degree of conscience, forms of viewing the reality. So, when is said that the cientists are looking for god, it's not wrong, cause god is, beiyond any religious belief, just the principle of existence, independent if you believe in Adam and Eve or Ganesha, or if you are Atheist. "God" is just a term that is sinonimous to "Search". Like cience, the logic behind the aparent chaos of universe. Just that.
 
... I'm not going to enter atheist/religious discussion in this thread (+TECHNICS ► is not page about this)
You asked me what I meant and I gave you an answer. Like it or not, that was what I meant and that is my point of view, which I'm not going to discuss here.
sorry.
Find me elsewhere, if you want.
 
+petr masak again, you didnt understand. I'm not discussing here. You are the one that is discussing. I'm just saing that you should not do it, cause cience do not deny god. So, we can talk about god with naturality here.

Sorry if I was not clear.
 
...ok, sorry, I really misunderstood you obviously. Well, but I would make the same note about any other relevant group, not just religious defenders ("green" eco-fundamentalist for example). It was simply complain about consequence - when scientists use some term in a way which is non-harming in their area, but it causes problems in discussions in other area.
 
huh, I really don't know who you just +mentioned, but it wasn't me :)
Add a comment...