WHEN ARE BRITONS GOING TO BELIEVE IN THEMSELVES?

The remoaners just cannot shut up.  The British people were once confident that they could go it alone.  They can do anything - build complete aircraft, ships, cars, cycles, rockets, satellites, radar.  Why import parts from all over? They can even feed themselves.  The arch remoaner Vince Cable came on the televison this morning decrying just about everything British, speaking in his depressive monotonic voice.  He should be quietly retired.

BRITAIN SHOULD ABANDON ITS COMMITMENT TO CERN'S IMAGINED SCIENCE (5) (Cox and Al-Khahili)

On page 129-131 of Unzicker's book, the Higgs Fake, he makes some comments about what he calls Higgs Infotainment.  After saying that particle physics has no useful output at all, he says that what people don't realise is that Cox is a particle physicist (like those at CERN).   Unzicker describes the following quotes by Cox as verbiage: "the most complex machine ever built"; it found the "genuinely fundamental" Higgs particle, "one of the most important discoveries in the history of science, on equal footing with the electron" and physics is in "a golden age".

But the case of the electron is entirely different from the so-called Higgs particle.  You can affect an electron directly by deflecting its path in a discharge tube with either a magnet or an electric charge.  You can calculate the mass of the electron with a simple calculation. The Higgs boson is said to exist for such a short time that direct action on it is impossible.  It is said to be observed from its by-products.  The by-products are said to mathematically predict the Higgs particle. The abstract, weird Mathematics which they employ are manipulated to get the result they want.  The same applies to the W and Z bosons  and the host of other particles. The masses of these particles are mostly unknown, but the Higgs particle is supposed to 'give' them their mass. How the hell does it do that?  On page 130, Unzicker, says according to Cox, it is "the best example of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" - I ask you, what kind of physicist is this?  Physics should not be done this way. On page 131, Unzicker states: "We need an explanation or even better, a calculation with testable results".  

Also on page 131, Unzicker describes J. Al-Khahili as another expert in pompous talking.  Unzicker quotes Al-khahili: "2012 (the year of the Higgs so-called discovery) promises to be a truly historic year for physics" comparing it to Einstein's "miraculous year" of 1905; the Higgs might be the "key to telling us why these particles are as they are"; the Higgs is a "possible doorway maybe to other particles"; it allows us "to tie down other uncertainties"; "looking in the right direction for other particles"; "being on the threshold of another revolution". This is all pie in the sky when you die.  It is absolute rubbish for a scientist to use such vague and fanciful language, on par with that of Cox.  But they are BBC experts.         

  

SELLING SCIENCE - BRIAN COX

On page 129-131 of Unzicker's book, the Higgs Fake, he makes some comments about what he calls Higgs Infotainment.  After saying that particle physics has no useful output at all, he goes on to say  that what people don't realise is that Cox is a particle physicist (like those at CERN).   Unzicker describes the following quotations by Cox as verbiage: "the most complex machine ever built"; it found the "genuinely fundamental" Higgs particle, "one of the most important discoveries in the history of science, on equal footing with the electron" and physics is in "a golden age".

But the case of the electron is entirely different from the so-called Higgs particle.  You can affect an electron directly by deflecting its path in a discharge tube with either a magnet or an electric charge.  The Higgs particle is said to exist for such a short time that direct action on it is impossible.  It is said to be observed from its by-products.  And the by-products are said to be a mathematical prediction.  Mathematics are manipulated to get the required result.  Physics should not be done that way.  



 

MAY NEVER MENTIONED BRINGING ASSAD TO JUSTICE

In her speech this afternoon May said there was, and had been in the past, plenty of evidence that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons.  If you have the evidence then surely Assad, his colleagues and military leaders must be tried in the Hague even in their absence.  So why hasn't May and her predecessor Cameron sought this before.  It is only the slow drip of witness information out of the Hague that will convict these criminals and bring them to justice.

PUT ASSAD ON TRIAL IN THE HAGUE (WHY RISK WAR?)

Surely it would be better to put Assad on trial in the Hague for war crimes.  Although we may never get him, he would be seen as evil over a long period which would do enormous damage to his reputation. 

BRITAIN SHOULD ABANDON ITS COMMITMENT TO CERN'S IMAGINED SCIENCE (4)

In contrast with the complicated methods of particle physicists, Unzicker says we should keep  physics simple, as Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Shrodinger and Dirac did.  He says that Dirac worried about two elementary particles being a suspiciously complicated model, and Newton's supreme credo was simplicity.  Einstein didn't refer just to his period when he said that laws of nature are unlikely to be true unless they were very simple.  Einstein and his contemporaries disdained any theory with unexplained numbers - nowadays dozens of them are needed to describe the multitude of particles.  All this Unzicker has on  page 12, Chap. 1 of his book The Higgs Fake.  

On page 11, Chap.1, Unzicker states that the current understanding of Nature in the twenty-first century is: "Four different interactions exist in Nature, and the building blocks of the atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons, consist of parts themselves: quarks and gluons.  The quarks show up in six species called "flavours", each of which can appear in three different "colours".  Besides heavy particles there are two other groups, middle-weights and a light sort, consisting of electrons, muons, tauons, and three if not more, corresponding types of neutrinos, not to forget W, Z, and Higgs Bosons.  All these particles not only carry mass and electrical charge, but also so-called "isospin", "charm", "bottomness" and another couple of characteristics which define them.  It would fill several pages if I tried to give you just a rough idea of the underlying notions.  But lets pause for a moment.  Imagine you are visiting another civilisation where a Shaman tells you the above story?"  !!!!!!  

BRITAIN SHOULD ABANDON ITS COMMITMENT TO CERN'S IMAGINED SCIENCE (3)

Also in the Preface (page 8), Unzicker writes: "It is no excuse that, unfortunately, there are other degenerations of the scientific method in the realm of theoretical physics: super-symmetry and string theory which never predicted anything about anything and never will.  It is a sign of the rottenness of particle physics that nobody has the guts to declare the nontestable as nonsense, though many know perfectly well that it is.  They are all afraid of the collateral damage to their own shaky building, should the string bubble collapse.  The continuous flow of public funding they depend so much on requires consensus and appeasement.  However, experimental particle physics is somehow more dangerous to science as a whole, because with its observational fig leaves, it continues to beguile everybody that they are doing science instead of pushing technology to its limits."  

"But the worst thing about the standard model of particle physics is the stalling in the intellectual progress of humankind it has caused.  We need to get rid of that junk to evolve further."  

BRITAIN SHOULD ABANDON ITS COMMITMENT TO CERN'S IMAGINED SCIENCE (2)

In the Preface of his book (pages 7/8) Unzicker says: "Most high energy physicists indeed believe that what they are doing makes sense, but they are unable to disentangle their belief from what they think is evidence.  The more thoroughly one examines that evidence, however, the more frail it becomes.  But above all it is impenetrable.  Only the super-specialized understand their small portion of the data analysis, while a superficial babble is delivered to the public.  This is a scandal.  It is their business, not anyone else's, to provide a transparent, publicly reproducible kind of evidence that deserves the name." 

BRITAIN SHOULD ABANDON ITS COMMITMENT TO CERN'S IMAGINED SCIENCE (1)

I have just read the book three times: The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker.  He puts the boot into particle physics.