Wrong. We don't really know much about Gravity or even Energy for that matter, we only understand their obvious properties, other then that they are both a complete mystery to us. Talking about obvious properties, Mass happens to be a property, but we haven't been able to show anything ground breaking on it, so for the most part its also still a grey-area[FONT=century goth. [/FONT]
Also, If im not mistaken (kinda rusty in Physics, lol) about 50ish years ago scientists tried to research into why certain particles have Mass, for their research they used one of the most popular Theories in particle physics as their basis, the Standard Model. As a result of this, Peter Higgs and some other scientists came up with another Theory that ties with the Standard Model's principles, i believe the theory stated that there is a field that surrounds our cosmos which gives these particles their mass - it was named the Higgs field and in it i think there were tiny particles called the Higgs Boson particles. So once this theory was made it was up to the world's leading team of scientists to prove it. (a lot of things happened) then 50 years later they did a test in the CERN Large Hadron Collider (in 2012) and announced that they found what appears to be an unknown/new particle - there was lot of confusion over this because scientists at CERN said that it was not confirmed to be the Higgs Boson but more of a look-alike Higgs Boson...
Check out these articles:
Now the good news is that you are correct mate!, in 2013 CERN released some info saying that the particle was in fact the Higgs Boson, woohoo!.
...The bad news IMO, however, is that ALL of this research is based on a theory, the theory of the Standard Model, this is the same theory which cant even give a simple explanation as to why there is Gravity, Dark Energy or Dark Matter in the universe. Now you'd think what has this got to do with anything but these 3 things are fundamental to life in the universe, if you have a look on the NASA website, according to them 95% of our universe consists solely of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.....So ask yourself this, why is it that the standard model theory used for this research cannot prove a really large part of our universe, but it can prove that a tiny microscopic particle exists? Well anyway, that's the interesting part (yet confuses the hell out of me), enjoy thinking about it dude. 
^^ Having blabbed on about all of this, lol.....i would like to reaffirm my original statement, does anyone here honestly believe we are capable of understanding the motives/thoughts/nature/whatever of a God who has created all of this, and much much more?
For the record your agnostic view is so ignorantly stated that even an agnostic such as myself is forced to comment in opposition. I can see you googled and attempted to feed me back your understanding of someones understanding in a non-peer-reviewed article, one from a totally illegitimate source, the one saying that it didnt explain gravity and the other form a half illigimate source "howstuffworks.com". Amusing yes, correct? No Annoying? Yes
Mainly because what you quoted was wrong, it's what they call research to validate an opinion you already have its useless. To do research you need an open mind. To show why you should read peer review articles I shall quote for you the leading scientists in the field, and while I do not claim to a physics expert, I am educated as a chemist, and likely understand more about how to understand what I reading in scientific articles than yourself, no offense is meant you seem intelligent enough to get the grasp if you were handed the proper tools, but as it stands you failed to do so.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312008581 said:
The results presented here are consistent, within uncertainties, with expectations for the standard model Higgs boson. The collection of further data will enable a more rigorous test of this conclusion and an investigation of whether the properties of the new particle imply physics beyond the standard model.
I quoted the website, note, this is a peer reviewed website the highest standard among academia is a peer reviewed article. To help interpret, they say thus far it models the attributes of what the Higgs Brosen particle should do. The Higgs Brosen particle is more than what you say is a theory. You use the word theory in the definition of the word Hypothesis, and I do not fault you for this, as in modern colloquialisms theory is equivalent to an hypothesis; however these things are not written in the common tongue they are written by scientists and for scientists. As such a theory is a lot more founded upon than a Hypothesis as you say it is. The higgs brossen particle is not up for debate as to if it exists or not, it is up for minor, and note the stress I am putting on minor here, debate as to if we have located it or not.
Math and Science are interwoven, the Higgs Brossen particle exists, it is a mathematical truth; like the theory of relativity was before we saw the eclipse to prove it, math in some way leads scientists it proves things we cannot yet observe, with extreme accuracy.
When you say it is based on a
theory you show ignorance, when you quote non-peer-review literature you show ignorance. The idea of Higgs Brossen is not famous because we found a particle that does what the math proved out years ago. It is famous because mathematician and scientists around the world proved out the math and agreed years prior to it being found.
I applaud your curiosity, and level of reading to understand the ideas presented in those articles you quoted; however I urge you to do more proper research in the future, it is only through peer reviewed literature that second source discussion can take place. Because if you begin with someones hypothesis and or understanding in their own mind of someone elses peer reviewed work you do end up with as you would call "working form a theory".
And if you take nothing away from this but this, please learn what a scientific theory means. Please above all else the ignorance as to what this means is frustrating.
I was replying to the idiot above who said "this whole gravity is a theory thing made me giggle" when as a matter of fact war lord had said nothing of the kind. Obviously any scientific 'laws' are just theories waiting to be disproven. They may never actually be debunked, but they still can't claim to be anything other than theories... this all generally goes without saying I really didn't think I needed to repeat it. Don't kids learn it in like grade five? I know I did.
Your arrogance is astounding since you look like a retard to anyone in the field of science
