What on earth is this? You're not integrating properly, E=mv^2/2 is the correct formula for classical kinetic energy No, Electromagnetic methods do not give us E=mc^2, those are relativistic methods. I agree that they are based on electromagnetism, but it's dishonest to say that that's the important part of the method. No, E=gmc^2 relativistically (where g is gamma, the Lorenz factor, which is 1 at rest and infinite at the speed of light). For relative speed c, E is undefined (in practice infinite). Classically, it would be E=mv^2/2 + mc^2. At no point does energy go down with increasing speed. Classically, higher energies mean more energetic collisions. Particles passing through each other is not classical in any way. Not sure what you mean here, possibly because you start arguing from a point which I disagree with, but I agree that he ran through the maths, and it didn't fit together until he added a particle. As mentioned earlier, a few of those v's should be c's. All that the CERN guys are claiming is that we ran through the maths again and saw that this particle should decay into other particles, and we found some of those. The Higgs particle in itself is not that important, it is merely an excitation in the Higgs field. However, that would mean that the Higgs field exists, and that is sort of a big deal, that's what really gives us mass. The analogies to the Higgs field are numerous and not very good, so I would stay away from trying to explain it. This was the repeat experiment. Two separate experiments, 5.8 fb-1 of data, 5.9 sigma. This is considered proof. You may, of course, hold yourself to a higher standard than science in general, but there's really no point in that.
and why does a boson have mass? can you tell me how many bosons (measure) to finish making gold from lead? And then, how many bosons in a buckey ball?
dude... you're sharp ie... it means, energy is based on the 'speed' (the error of today's phsics) again, almost perfect relative desciptions are based on a frame, then the field equation define the potential (again, based on speed (it's underlying constant)) of the reference, in relation to the measured system. It is a method for einstein to show the energy 'state' of a system relative to an environment. what is the particle? that is the issue. now the 'field' is defined by a particle? this is where the evidence divides from the physics the standards held to some are inconsistent with nature. So YES, i do hold myself to a higher standard. The current model is wrong and the reason is, that energy is defined by speed. Particles observed within the accelerator are protons from hydrogen and from there forth the additions to the energy state are manmade creations and not breaking mass down to constituents. And the additions of energy to the mass being spun around is from the field (flux lines) that they are cross during the cycle. Think of how electricity itself is transformed in the globes power grids. Dont let anyone tell you that spinning particles is breaking them down to their constituents because that is bull
