Thread: May 2008 (LHC) Particle Accelerator - Miracle or Catastrophe?

Originally Posted by wasup

I'd also like to point out that he is saying he doesn't understand how his perception of "Complex scientific discoveries" could have been discoveried by what he believes to be more simple ones. Just because your mind can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's complex (or simple, I suppose).

Furthermore, you should RESEARCH things before you make rather retarded assertions about them.

Let me give you a simplified example that represents the big bang versus the bottom of the ocean.

Over your head, you hear a loud rumbling noise, and a minute later you look up and see a long trail of streamer clouds following it. You can probably figure out that that was a plane, right? In your hand, you have a box. This box is solid titanium, and it completely encases a small piece of paper that had a poem written on it. Get to the poem.

Does it make sense for me to tell you you are "retarded" because you can't get to the box right in front of you. Proximity in time and location is not a prerequisite for scientific apparentness. If you research, you will find the big bang was "discovered" in a similar way: by observing it's after effects, and looking "in the past" (we can actually see light from it that occurred very soon after it, still).

Take this line. ______________x
If you had to describe the line position on X, wouldn't you say it would be _? That is another method basically used by the big bang scientists -- extrapolation. I don't want to make you think it is all guess work though... do some RESEARCH before you make assertions about it. They aren't just throwing ideas out there and claiming they are "100% correct." Simply put, the big bang is an extremely well-researched, documented, and supported theory, and the best one we have.

The people who criticize science the most have no idea how it is is done.

Im not sure if your post was for me. I don't have a penis.

Don't put false notions about me. I was not criticizing science. I was criticizing scientists. There is a difference. Scientists are people. They make mistakes. They have egos. They have biases. They have beliefs. Science is the perpetual discovery of truth through physical means.

You are looking at all the small little details and lacking perspective over what I said. If we do not know about the bottom of the ocean to its fullest, then we do not know about the Big Bang to its fullest. There is no way you can understand everything there is to know about the universe and not know everything there is to know about Earth - as Earth is apart of that universe. This isn't simple versus complex. This is big picture versus little picture and little picture versus big picture. Both pictures are apart of each other. You can't have one without the other. You can't have a complete and full understanding of all there is to know until you understand both.

My comment about them being tards had nothing to do with their scientific discoveries. It has to do with their childish need to play with toys, when they are too immature to consider any hazards that this toy presents. Or that maybe there is something more important that science has a whole should be doing for mankind than playing with this toy.

ok firstly it is wrong to compare the big bang with whats known about the ocean floor if only for the fact that they are completly different fields of research. For example Oceanography, Earth Science and Marine Biological sciences which would most likey be used to study the ocean floors and the creatures which live down there is a very different field of research from Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics and the likes of that stuff.

Although all are sciences they are very different fields so it is possible to be advanced in one field and not so advanced in another also Earth Science is relatively new compared with Physics. Also I dont see what difference it makes that scientists make mistakes that is after all just another step towards the truth is it not?

The LHC is not a toy its a tool on the path to discovery, also people keep talking about hazards. People should remember that the staff there are experts and they know a hell of a lot more then we do. If they think the risks are acceptable who are we to say differently.

Whats more important than this experiment? it could have huge impacts on our world. Also I wounder how many people in the past said stop playing with toys then forget that these toys have made most of what we take for granted these days possible

Originally Posted by mark

Although all are sciences they are very different fields so it is possible to be advanced in one field and not so advanced in another also Earth Science is relatively new compared with Physics. Also I dont see what difference it makes that scientists make mistakes that is after all just another step towards the truth is it not?

The LHC is not a toy its a tool on the path to discovery, also people keep talking about hazards. People should remember that the staff there are experts and they know a hell of a lot more then we do. If they think the risks are acceptable who are we to say differently.

Whats more important than this experiment? it could have huge impacts on our world. Also I wounder how many people in the past said stop playing with toys then forget that these toys have made most of what we take for granted these days possible

I am not asking a scientist who studies the ocean to also study the universe, or putting the two onto the same level comparing what one scientist has discovered or another. I am saying in general science is the study of existence - and can not be put into little boxes where we can say one box is complete and the other isn't. Because the boxes are all the same and influence each other.

Lets imagine that at the bottom of the ocean there is a habitat A with life form A. Except, we don't know about it. Then we discover planet A with the same habitat A. Then we conclude based on what we know on earth, that no life can live on this planet A. Understanding earth is important to understanding the universe, as much as understanding the universe is as important to understanding earth. I'm just a believer in keeping that perspective a reality.

science is for no other than mankind as far as we understand it today. the earth won't stop spinning if we believe its flat. It advances mankind, and has an obligation for mankind therefor. And that has no price or time limit. However, science needs money to advance, it needs funding.

and when I see a giant phallic toy like this, I wonder how many lives could have been saved by science had that funding gone into some other discovery. A discovery like this isn't going to disappear because we didn't discover it right now, IT CAN WAIT. But lives are disappearing by the millions because of suffering and it can't wait for science to get its head out of its ass and put humanity back in the center of scientific discovery.

scientists have put science in that center, and frankly science does not need to discover itself. its not conscious it doesn't care.

"for the advancement of science!"

no no no no..its "for the advancement of MANKIND"

Originally Posted by juroara

I am not asking a scientist who studies the ocean to also study the universe, or putting the two onto the same level comparing what one scientist has discovered or another. I am saying in general science is the study of existence - and can not be put into little boxes where we can say one box is complete and the other isn't. Because the boxes are all the same and influence each other.

Lets imagine that at the bottom of the ocean there is a habitat A with life form A. Except, we don't know about it. Then we discover planet A with the same habitat A. Then we conclude based on what we know on earth, that no life can live on this planet A. Understanding earth is important to understanding the universe, as much as understanding the universe is as important to understanding earth. I'm just a believer in keeping that perspective a reality.

I am not sure I follow what you are saying, that is the perspective. I never said that one box is complete neither has science because there is always more to learn. There is different science involved in understanding Earth compared with a galaxy.

Originally Posted by juroara

science is for no other than mankind as far as we understand it today. the earth won't stop spinning if we believe its flat. It advances mankind, and has an obligation for mankind therefor. And that has no price or time limit. However, science needs money to advance, it needs funding.

yes its true science requires funding but the results more then make up for the costs. Tell me would we be were we are today if we still believed the Earth to be flat, or we had not discovered gravity or quantum mechanics?

Originally Posted by juroara

and when I see a giant phallic toy like this, I wonder how many lives could have been saved by science had that funding gone into some other discovery. A discovery like this isn't going to disappear because we didn't discover it right now, IT CAN WAIT. But lives are disappearing by the millions because of suffering and it can't wait for science to get its head out of its ass and put humanity back in the center of scientific discovery.

scientists have put science in that center, and frankly science does not need to discover itself. its not conscious it doesn't care.

"for the advancement of science!"

no no no no..its "for the advancement of MANKIND"

OK firstly its important you understand that the LHC is not a toy just like a blast furnace, seismograph or any other piece of scientific apparatus. How you figure it to be phallic is beyond me after all it is a large ring and in no way resembles a penis.

I find it highly annoying when people say well how many life's could be saved if science did this or that. You clearly dont realise the restrictions which are placed upon science by society for example stem cell research has huge potential and could possible lead to cure for countless diseases yet science is pestered by stupid members of society who do not understand what they are objecting to. The same goes for GM crops and animals, science has cried out for years about global warming and only now people are beginning to realise the truth of it.

Also suffering has nothing to do with science but outside factors dependent solely on society, you clearly dont understand this experiment. Think about it if we can understand the base forces and particles of the universe then we may be able to use this knowledge to address the problems you are concerned about.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

ETERNITY!!!

Awesome! i like those types of songs, and their beats. Hear them in clubs too...although i've only been to 3 clubs, i'm not a clubber.


BTW science is confusing...goodbye.

Originally Posted by juroara

because there are scientific cults - its called materialism. and there are scientific mind sets that cast out other scientists who don't fit into the mold. then they call those scientists who don't fit into the mold pseudo-scientists.

There are cults of all kinds, but that doesn't make generalizing all groups of people as if they are in said cults any less narrow-minded.

Yes, there are scientific mind-sets that cast out other scientists who don't fit the mold, but these mind-sets are only portions of the scientific community. Your problem is that, whenever you get the urge to badmouth scientists, or science in general, you're never careful enough to make that distinction. You end up using sweeping generalizations (and this case is no exception) which are, in fact, wrong.

Originally Posted by jurora

Im sorry, I dont believe the statement that scientists are people who discover though a scientific perspective. these days, I see agenda. I see bias. I see human ego being the perspective.

Case in point^^ There is that misguided generalization, once again. Think about what you're saying for a moment. In all the scientists, in all the world, you feel that they all follow the an ulterior agenda? You see far too little scientists holding true to what sciences is all about? How many scientists do you see at all, on a day to day basis? I would have to assume that it's not enough to make attacks on all scientists - such as you do - the least bit logical.

Throwing the words "many" or "some" into most of your attacks (or not attacking science in general, as you often do) is the best way to make it more clear that your opinion has any sort of factual base to it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Case in point^^ There is that misguided generalization, once again. Think about what you're saying for a moment. In all the scientists, in all the world, you feel that they all follow the an ulterior agenda?

think about what you are saying about what I said, cause now you are twisting my words. Where there is money, there is agenda. I made no statement that all scientists were backed up by large sums of money. I simply said, I see agenda.

my sweeping generalizations over scientists don't need facts to back them up. . . its an opinion. . . and opinions are based on experiences. . . In this case MINE! I don't think those mind-sets are portions. I think they are the majority. When I see different, I will feel different.

And I don't think science makes anyone smart. I'm sorry to have offended saying retards, but the way I see it just because you're a scientist doesn't mean you can't be a dimwitted idiot. And in this day and age you can't say your opinion of a scientist without pissing someone off, people who hold them to some priestly and pope like status.

People don't hold their parents or their highschool teachers to priestly or pope like status so I wonder how different a conversation would have followed after a generalization about them =b In short I think I struck a bone when I said scientist.



people make generalizations about me EVERYDAY on this forum. yet I dont feel the need to attack them as I understand they are simply talking about how they feel regarding the majority. And they have based that off of their own personal experience and there isnt much you can do about that. I try not to make any generalizations if I feel it would hurt board members, but I didn't think there would be any scientists here to begin with so I didn't care

I do the same to politicians a lot and no one has ever really cared "politicians are idiots". but I didn't strike any bones because a lot of people felt the same

I was making a generalization based on how I feel - uh - I don't know what else to say. Uh, I had a deep interest in biology growing up and considered majoring in it just to study life, but I had a calling to become an artist instead. I mostly watch discovery, national geographic, health, animal planet, and still I don't think scientist = smart.

I don't believe I "attacked" you at all. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm also entitled to my right to disagree with you, and so I did.

No, I'm not a scientist, and that really has nothing to do with the point I was making. I would say the same thing to someone who said "God, I hate cops. Cops are pigs. Cops are scum, yadda yadda." While I have a problem with a lot of cops, I'm at least cognizant enough to realize that not all cops are like that. If I see a cop walking down the street, I don't just automatically assume that cop is an asshole. Some people don't look at things that way, and think that everybody that belongs to a group that that person has a problem with is the same. The point I was trying to make is that, if that was your position, I didn't feel it was a realistic point of view. If you didn't think like that, then you should have been a little more specific in your words.

But, yeah, you're entitled to your opinion, like I said, but I think you should either choose your words a little better or not be so surprised if someone feels your opinion is narrow-minded, and attempts to debate you on it. That's all.

Juroara I remember seeing some kind of quote, about how mankind has never advanced by backing down in fear. Yes there is reason to be worried, but the discoveries may be huge, and are well worth taking the very minimal chance of catastrophe.

I'm currently reading a science fiction book, also about travel in time and space.

But, people actually believe in that in contexts other that science fiction books?

*wormholes, if it was possible to create them just by having a high density of energy in a location in space (which sounds highly implausible to me, but i do not know enough to counter it), would only ever last a fraction of a second due to quantum effects. To hold a wormhole open, which is of a practical size, would require stupendous amounts of energy.
*wormholes allow travel in time only indirectly - they connect two areas of space, and to allow time travel, these two areas, or the two "openings" of a wormhole would have to be in relativistic motion. And never would travel to a time before the wormhole was created be possible.
*no one has ever proved wormholes. They are so far only a theoretical interest. We know almost nothing about spacetime itself.
*The amount of energy density provided by the LHC is not that extraordinary. Naturally existing particles (detected on Earth and called "cosmic rays") have sometimes very high energies. Some naturally existing cosmic ray particles have been found to be around 100 million times the energy density that the LHC will produce. These are ofcourse very unstable, and therefore very rare - but nevertheless existent.

I do not know enough to conclusively counter the possibility of a wormhole connecting us to some distant planet with a more advanced civilization (but not in the future), but anyways this discussion feels like wondering whether "Harry Potter" really could do magic.

Originally Posted by george

I'm currently reading a science fiction book, also about travel in time and space.

But, people actually believe in that in contexts other that science fiction books?

sounds like a interesting book, whats it called? I am not entirely sure what this has to do with LHC but still sounds interesting

They're fantasy books with science fiction in them, by Madeleine L'Engle, "A wrinkle in time", and "A wind in the door".. They're enjoyable, but nothing serious.

Originally Posted by george

They're fantasy books with science fiction in them, by Madeleine L'Engle, "A wrinkle in time", and "A wind in the door".. They're enjoyable, but nothing serious.

nice one, I like that stuff so it could be a good read, would you recommend them?

I would, they're easy reading. It is more like fantasy-science fiction for children though, so don't have too high expectations

The LHC isn't trying to create a wormhole, They're trying to do a lot of things and one of them is creating a black hole.
and i thought in "A wrinkle in time" they use tesseracts to travel.

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

The LHC isn't trying to create a wormhole, They're trying to do a lot of things and one of them is creating a black hole.
and i thought in "A wrinkle in time" they use tesseracts to travel.

We actually have the power/energy to do that now? wow...i must be living in the stone ages under a rock.

I tell you guys what. If the particle exalorator ends up destroying the universe and or earth i ow you guys a coke. On me

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I tell you guys what. If the particle exalorator ends up destroying the universe and or earth i ow you guys a coke. On me

ha ha ha I like that

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

We actually have the power/energy to do that now? wow...i must be living in the stone ages under a rock.

well from what I know this is how it is meant to work.

right a bit of background (I will keep it brief) String and M theory state that there are extra spatial dimensions, 6 infact which are curlled into complext shapes. These dimensions are really tiny and much smaller then the atom.

This theory seems to make sense because it would explain why as a force gravity is so very week (I think its about1 with 36 0's after it weeker then electromagnitism) Now gravity is weak because it leaks through these higher dimensions into ours.

At the point were it leeks in, or were these etra dimensons are expected to be gravity is much stronger then it is everywere else. Now the LHC has much more power then other particle accelorators and so when the paticles collide together its hoped that the particles will get close enough for the stronger gravity at the point of the etra dimensions to interact and cause a black hole with will only last for millie seconds.

Its complex and I dont know how it works but its interesting anyway

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Considering I put Ouroboros in my signature a week or two before this came out... The synchronicity with this was pretty staggering. Nice to know I'm on the pulse...

Ouroboros, CERN, and A Trip Through the Water Door

This means what????

Whatever you want it to mean...

Can anyone say, Half-Life?

That's true, there's no evidence to say that the particle accelerator couldn't tear a rift in the fabric of spacetime into an alternate universe populated by dangerous aliens life forms, whilst also allowing a facist alien megaempire to exploit the rift by pouring through it in their flying battleships before establishing a terrible totalitarian rule over the human race.

Good thinking.

Anyone seen the movie Contact?

Anyone see the parallells?

Anyone a bit worried about religious fanatics?

(Just kidding)



Anyone find that scientists have a sort of condescending view on religion? Thats probably why I wouldn't like to become one, it looks way to gritty when it comes to personal beliefs...

Looks to me like conform to the norm before anyone finds you credible.

Uhhhh many scientists are religious.