(LHC)Large Hadron Collider endangers earth

This new experiment thats going to take place MAY 2008 (which was originally suppossed to take place Nov 2007 but got posponed because of an accident where a huge magnet broke off due to mathematical mistakes by the physicists) has to potential to put our whole planet and way of life in danger. It has been theorised and agreed by the physicists at CERN that mini black holes could potentially be created by the LHC , but they theorise that will be tiny and will just evaporate , however , there is also the possibility that they will not. If a mini black hole were to be created and it doesnt evaporate by hawkings radiation (which it's existance is actually debatable) , then a mini black hole has the potential to grow and by swallowing all matter around it , which means the earth. This experiment has the potential to create a black hole that will swallow the earth and everything in it, why is this experiment being allowed to take place ?

And on top of that , the LHC cost 6 billion dollars to make. All this danger is just to find the higgs , a theoretical particle which physicists say exists in a effort to explain how energy somehow turns into matter/mass. But is finding this out really worth risking our planet and the live's of every single human alive ? Is scratching the where do we come from itch that important ? Well to most of us , of course not , some could care less , we are alive , and enjoy living our lifes , many of us have families , and spending our time with them is more than enough to satisfy our being. Is it ethical to have a few individuals decide for the whole world weather or not the risk for this experiment is worth taking ?
Shouldnt the people have a say in weather or not we want our scientists conducting such dangerous experiments ? What benefit will come from finding the higgs ? The LHC goes on in May 2008 , there is less than a month to stop it , but it shouldnt be allowed to continue. Spread the word.


LHC (Large Hadron Collider) Homepage
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Risk evaluation of the LHC
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm

Videos of the LHC Facility as well as some explaining what it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvEK5uZXpZU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9XotvwgnaY

LOL

There are so many "if"'s n that ths call for acton, ran out of "i"'s and "f"'s for this sentance!

Did you know that the same theories that predict the existance of mini black holes also state that everywhere in a constant state of mini black hole production and evaporation? What the LHC is doing is no different than what Quantum Mechnics states is happening right now in your body!

Lol - I guess there always will be some people which won't like a project you're running...

But well as I know a professor who worked / works on the LHC a bit I can ensure you that he's not eagerly looking forward to being sucked into a black hole... ^^

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Isn't that what they are aiming at?

who sais hawking radiation was questionable?

Will this experiment end like the game half-life?

ok sorry.


ps edit. I dont bother much, humans will be ending up destroying almost the entire world by themselves, im still more affraid that some countries will decide to push the RED BUTTON sending nuclear ICBMs on each other THAN this 6 billion test that pretty much can fail and nothing happens.

Or suck everyone into nothingness.

Great! I always wanted to see the "other side"

Maybe we all end up in a giant Biergarten with hot stipper babes....

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

awesome, maybe there are Jedi´s and Sith beating the crap of each other in middle of the streets. Yeah, its better to be sucked to another dimension rather than die in a nuclear holocaust.

There are some true words but more "not" true words.....
A black hole must have an appointed size (i dont know what size it have to be)
to "grow" up! The "mini" - black hole ist not a black hole like the black holes in our space. there ar some differenz. A "mini" black hole exist only for some milli seconds. A real black hole exist billions-trillions years ;-)

...oh and dont forget... a black hole is not a black hole.
A real black hole is only a pool of matter. The weight of this "matter" is big as it absorb the light! So it look like a "hole". So the effekt is:
- absorb light
- deform the space structure
- and maybe it deform the "time"

it attrackts light and deforms the time-space continuum. why are you guys questionning proven physical theories? large black holes such as quasars have an extremely long lifespan. this is due to their giantic mass. a black hole loses mass through hawking radiation, which is emitted from the event horizon (no radiation can escape gravity from within the event horizon). when the hole has lost all its mass, it will simply disappear. the smaller the hole, the faster it will collaps due to weight loss. so, this tiny little hole will of course be very dangerous with its lifespan of some nanoseconds.

Yes.... but nobody can guarantee this. The scientist speculate about this "theory"..... but we will se what a small black hole can do
or not can do

And you write about "time". Do you know what time is? What is the differenz of 2 object with the same attributes (size, weight, and so on...)?
Only the position in space is not the same. So what is the differenz....
-> think about it and tell me if you have found an answere....

greetings

Contrary to what you seem to think, these people know exactly what they are doing. Man, people are scared easily these days... the youtube poster doesn't really know what he's talking about. No offense, but did you even bother to look at his other 'doomsday' movies and conspiracy stuff to check his non-existent credibility?

Well the problem arises when you realise that scientists actually DON'T know what they are doing , for if they did , they wouldnt need to conduct the experiments. One of our big flaws is blindly believing they know everything. Let me put things into perspective for you , we have no idea what causes gravity , can you believe that , they just dont know , they dont know what causes lightning (if you dont believe me do some research on it), They just discovered a new planet in 2003, their "standard model" just doesnt add up (by their own account) ,this people dont know as much as you all think they do, i've looked into their "theories" , and most are not much more than observations. They are looking for the boson higgs , a theoretical particle which plays some role in creation of mass , this particle was thought up , to make their model fit more properly, however , there is ZERO evidence of it's existance , which is the main purpose of this big experiment , in which more than likely they will find nothing. To the guy saying mini black holes dissapear , when have we seen this happen ? You say they are different than the big black holes and that the big black holes have been hehre for trillions of years , yeah , but they originated sometime from somewhere , we dont know how black holes behave , in fact , black holes were only accepted as being abundant some years ago , we still have no idea of what they are , we've just come to understand they are everywhere in our universe and play an important role (there's a massive one in the center of every galaxy) .

But dont be fooled by what you read (yeah mini black holes just evaporate) LOL , there is no prove that happens , it could happen , but it could as well just grow. They've also said the machine has the potential to create a black hole every second , there's also the posibility of black holes joining , and growing. If you think about that they actually know (very little , almoost everything is speculation) , then you realize the real chance of a black hole evaporating to a black hole growing and swallowing the earth is 50/50. Here are some links to articles discussing what happened with their fist test of the lhc.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=particle-collider-magnet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6522189.stm
You so blindly believe this people know what will happen when dealing with the unknown when they make simple mistakes designing a machine with components we're familiar with ?

You have to be INSANE to just believe creation of mini black holes and strangelets post no threat , or be seriously brain washed by the science community. After much research of many many things science related , I came to the conclusion that we really dont know much about anything , most everything is observations and theories , so you shouldnt just believe something because you see it in a book , it could just be an accepted idea , rather than fact.

The hole is a lie!

Yeah, they need the black holes to develop a secret portalgun :0 noone can stop this project!

I can't imagine a better way of death than being swallowed by a black hole. I think, this is the best way of death at all...

Well actually the experiment is done to get a clue on that. It also isn't some kind of "well let's do this and that and look what will happen" (because you wouldn't get 6 billions for that ) but it's about creating a theory you can somewhat proof (at least when it comes to maths and hints form other known factors) and then do a prediction. If you're lucky you one day may see an actual experiment where you have your prediction for and look if the supposed event is going to happen...

Concerning the panicing this reminds me of that TU24 meteor which passed us in January or something. There were quite some funny predictions saying that like in the tunguska event there will be total havoc and giant emp storms around the world killing all the computers and grand scale destruction. Here you have a nice video about it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1_Y6L9-VmK8&feature=related#

And maybe also look at this good "Anti-thesis": http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fXpfE_D20

In fact I see no difference between this and the LHC story. Someone takes the facts of what's going to happen and totally exaggerates it and adds nonsense arguments. At least I have seen no argumentation which says here at this point of the calculation they made a mistake because [bla bla bla]. You just hear someone picking up the description of the procedure and adds in a drama-drama what if theory without giving any arguments at all. Wormholes, Black-Holes and such are nice terms but if you really wan't to argue about them you should have a bit more than Star-Trek niveau where you throw around some fancy words but give no in-depth details. Especially of someone believes that omg they are going to let the earth being sucked by a black hole I'd do everything to make my position and arguments clear...

Unfortunately that's not more than a list of hearsaying and someone adding in a lot of drama but no single real argument...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

The only thing getting sucked into a black hole is the six billion dollars wasted on this folly....

Ken

Countries over the whole world pay a share to CERN. CERN is not only searching for this last missing boson (HIGGS boson), they also search for new ways of making energy, and I'm sure they do lots more. This 6 billion dollars divided over a large amount of countries over the world isn't that much, definately not if you imagine that projects in CERN may bring solutions to the big problems we will inevitably face in the future.

And I know you mostly said it as a joke, I just wanted to make a point here for no reason :P.

I said they know what they are doing. I did not say they know everything, nobody knows everything. Science ís gaining knowledge by experiments and that's exactly what they do.



I could be wrong, but it's an accepted theory... I'm not quite sure but I don't think it has been proven yet that black holes even exist....

Ok- lets calculate some easy stuff:

The gravity of a "dead" planet .... must have 6000000000000000000000 tons multiplied by 330000 tons.
Now we take einsteins "ABC"
E=m*c² (energie = mass * lightspeed²)
The Energie to create a "black" hole (its not a hole in real) must be 1,4 * (600000000000000000000 tons * 330000 tons)²
So the Energie that Quadron have to "create" minimum must be:
E= 1,4 * (6000000000000000000000 tons * 330000 tons) * 299792458 m/s²
I think we dont have a reactor or generator that can "create" this energie
We have to burn our sun our planet the moon, our saturn, and so on, to have "enouth" energy to create a black hole. And there are some more thinks about black holes. There are black energy and black matter and so on...
and at the end we know, that we dont know anything.
Oh... i have calculate the energie -> E = 2,491349355^44 tons*m/s²

And there is some more to know: some scientist say:
everywhere and every time (on our planet and in space) exists "mini" black holes.
You know, in our space are many little matter's with an unbelievable speed. And somthimes they crash with an other matter. And for a short time exists a little black hole

Whaaat? Ummm excuse me but it's because a scientist knows exactly how little they know that they do experiements.



Which is exactly a flaw that most scientist don't share. If we did know everything, THEN there would be no need for experiments!




Damn! Newton, Einstein, and my own two feet are liars, liars I tell you! We do know what causes gravity: mass. Plain and simple. Come Einstein, and now energy can cause it. What more do you want? Mass and Energy cause gravity. There. One step closer to knowing everything!




A fellow researcher! Fantastic! Nothing I hate more than a person that makes observations about a field they have not had any training or put any serious (ie: multi hour) thought into it. Phew... thank god you aren't one of "those"!




Am I the only one to whom this makes sense? I don't know something, there is no evidence for it, so I go seek it out? Maybe it's just me then....



ROFLMAO A great man once said:



And they may well find nothing, but I assure you they will not walk away with nothing.



So we are ignorant as to whether BH behave or even exist... okday, no problem...




Oh wait no, we are ignorant about BH, but this website isn't. Is that your point? Let me see if I get it:

1) No one understands anything about BH.
2) Thus when these things that may or may not exists may or may not occur on the LHC, nobody will be able to tell what they will do.
3) But these websites DO know what they will doand thus we shouldn't do it.
4) But the 10,000 physicist also know what they will do and thus we should.

What is a girl to do? LOL


Look, we either don't understand BH and thus non of us can legitimate say that the experiment shoulnd't go on... after all, you can't base your actions on things you don't fully understand, right? But on the one side you have 10,000 who claim that all is good and on the other 5,10, 100 people who are basically using the basic uncertainty of any experiment, of any action, to take the worst case scenerio. Sorry, but in this case I will go with the democracy (even if they are MY democracy)

(This post brought to you by Guinness, the un-official sponsor of this forum)

i said this some people already, but they rather want to believe they are gonna die instead of believing what maslone1 said.

I didnt say a black hole would be created , this was stated by other physisists questioning the safety of the experiment. I'm all for experiments and trying to find out a little more about or being , but not if it's potentially deadly to mankind. But I didnt come up with the theory of the black holes , Physisists did , and the people at Cern actually agree that mini black holes might be created as part of the experiment, this is from their mouths. And fastlane , no one knows what causes gravity , mass is just a theory , if you really research it , you will see that there are mixed views , and no one really knows for sure. The theory of relativity is just that , a theory , although a good one , which has stood many tests , it's still lacking in places , as the professor Higgs himself has stated " The standard model doesnt add up" , you see that fastlane , DOESNT ADD UP , again , from their mouths. Gravity is a problem for physisists because it's such a weak force in comparison to the others , it doesnt make sense , and they surely dont know what causes it , even mass , they dont know what causes mass , or it's gravity , and this they clearly state , maybe you need some more research fastlane.

yep, i have to agree, all your computations make sense to me. especially the numbers which seem to lose zeros on their way through your calculation. or the gravity which you give in square tons. where does that 1,4 without any measure come from? and even though you've given us einstein's formula correctly you now calculate the energy to create a black hole with 1,4 times the wrong gravity you calculated first hand multiplied with c? but not that you could type these few numbers correctly into your calculator, no. weird that your result is even smaller than the 6000... thingy you used above. let's burn our planet the moon.

and black energy or black matter do also start with "black" and thus must have to do something with black holes, you're correct here.

fastlane seems to be the only one with knowledge about physics or science in general in this thread (i'm sorry if i oversaw someone). no, i'm not saying that i knew everything, but i say that these scientists who invented these formulas and theories actually do know much better than you. even though these theories are... yeah, theories, they're not at all questionnable but have small faults which make them not fit to every situation. but they do explain stuff well in the environment which they are created for. nobody would doubt, that the speed of a car with acceleration a for time t is given via v=a*t. but even this formula is wrong for very high speeds. but you're trying to fool us with weird and incoherent drivel and all your scare stories... don't you have better things to do?

glad we've abandonned the rating system,
joey.

Quoting fastlane69.

It's OK. You're probably not alone. I'm pretty sure that there are other bona fide card carrying madman walking in circles, chanting and making sense of 'business strategy', greed, envy, notoriety, ambition, games played by those that think and what not.

Ah yes, well some of us might not know the difference.


Are you playing a scientist which knows exactly how little you don't know about type scientist here?


OK. How?


Well, I've looked around, and it seems, here, on the right occasion, any sort of logic may do, so:
Either way, I'm tacking 'fault' to 'we' on that one, and no soul which exists, existed, will exist, did not and shall not ever exist, could have or can legitimately refute such reasoning, and that includes myself, because I said and say so


.

Quoting Why_Do_I_Die (maybe it's how...)

For the same reason some individuals play the lottery?
Perhaps, there might be a few or more, which could claim that a good many other outcomes are probably less dark in nature, and suck less, by comparison.

more relevant questions here could be:
*What can be done to favor optimal earth -> 'black hole' contact for this event?
*How can we make this happen?
*Impossible? Think positive.
--Can we get this black hole earth swallowing gig done in such a short time?
--He11 yes, we can.
*Why is May the perfect month for 'black hole earth swallowing'?

Quoting Quadraxas.

Perhaps, you can forgive them, if they cling to hope, blind or sugary as it may be.
Some of us were only 6-12 yrs of age, when we first had dreams of a full-scale, near instantaneous termination event.

Hopes of total sterilization on a planetary scale, or greater, have sparked us since childhood, and kept us burning ever since.
Worlds conclude, but hope, that is a different ma..., OK, well here, not so much.

Quoting fastlane69.

Unfortunately, still the excuses for me, may be, insanity and stupidity.

Heres a little something to go over....

From NZHerald.co.nz, science tab.

It is not everyday that someone's name becomes inextricably linked with God. But it is not everyday that someone comes up with a theory that could help to unify the many disparate forces of the universe.

All the more strange, then, for the man behind the sub-atomic "God particle" to be an unassuming grandfather living in modest retirement in one of the more sedate districts of Edinburgh.

Professor Peter Higgs, 78, is a theoretical particle physicist, and it took him 20 years before he could even bring himself to call the God particle by its more scientific name - the Higgs boson. Up to that point, he preferred the more prosaic term, "scalar boson".

He still squirms when people refer to it by the deified moniker coined many years ago by a colleague. He first formulated the theory behind the sub-atomic particle named after him in the 1960s, and for almost half a century it has remained as elusive as stardust. That could all change later this year, however, when one of the world's biggest experiments is switched on deep beneath the Alpine meadows on the Franco-Swiss border, the home of the European Centre for Nuclear Research (Cern) near Geneva.

Within a 27km-long, underground ring, atom will be smashed into atom at something approaching the speed of light. The machine, called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is designed to produce energy levels expected to be powerful enough to shake out the elusive Higgs boson from its seemingly inescapable prison within the atomic nucleus.

The Higgs is just one of the discoveries that the LHC is expected to make. The team of physicists behind the project believes the LHC will produce a jewel box of discoveries that will light up the infinitesimally small world of sub-atomic physics.

"The actual discovery of the Higgs boson, if it happens, is only one part of the programme. There is vastly more for the machine to do," Professor Higgs said.

"I'm most excited, for instance, about the possible identification of super-symmetry particles - symmetrical particles of the particles we already know."

Super-symmetry refers to the "grand dance" of particles in the universe. We know about a dozen sub-atomic particles, with exotic names such as quark, lepton and neutrino. Yet for every kind of particle, there may a super-symmetrical partner.

The trouble is, we can only see one of the partners in each dancing couple, with the "significant others" remaining invisible.

If super-symmetry is confirmed by the LHC it will help scientists towards the ultimate goal of a unified theory for the fundamental forces of nature - in particular the force of gravity which so far lies outside the realm of the forces known at the quantum level of the sub-atomic particle.


"The reason it's exciting is that I'm interested in a unified theory of forces, in particular quantum gravity," Professor Higgs said.

Although long retired from research, he still possesses a child-like wonder of the world which we cannot see but which is so critical to some of the most important questions at the centre of our understanding of creation, the universe and the end of time.

Professor Higgs spent much of the weekend seeing the LHC for the first time, before it is sealed in preparation for the switch-on in a few months.

"The sheer scale of the detectors is overwhelming. It's far more impressive than anything you get out of photographs," he said.

The detectors in question are four huge underground instruments, some as big as a gothic cathedral, which will act as microscopes to identify a Higgs particle in the fraction of a split second it takes to make an appearance before it disappears.

Professor Higgs said he is 90 per cent certain the LHC will find his particle when it reaches its full working potential, perhaps in a year's time. If the machine does find the Higgs, it will cap an extraordinary career for the mathematician, given he first proposed the idea more than 40 years ago as a young theoretical physicist at the University of Edinburgh.

It will also solve one of the most pressing problems in science because the Higgs boson lies at the heart of matter itself. In particular it is supposed to explain why objects have mass and while some phenomena - such as light - do not.

Professor Higgs was the first to propose the theory that the reason why objects have mass is because they interact with an invisible field, now called the Higgs field. Heavier particles interact more strongly, whereas photons (light particles) do not interact at all. Without this Higgs field, everything - from proton to planet - would be as insubstantial as a light beam.

When Higgs first came up with the idea, few people took him seriously and even the then editor of a leading physics journal - who was based at Cern - thought it was too conjectural to be published.

"At the time I started this work, it was rather an unfashionable thing to be interested in, certainly on this side of the Atlantic ... my colleagues thought I was a bit of an idiot," Professor Higgs recalled.

Four decades later, Cern is in pole position in the race to be first to find the Higgs although its advantage has been eroded. The LHC should have opened three years ago but, as with all big engineering and construction projects, it was dogged by delays.

Meanwhile, another atom smasher at the Fermi Laboratory in the United States may have come close to solving the problem. Professor Higgs said the Fermi Lab scientists may have already done it, but may not yet be in a position to prove it because the critical evidence may still be locked up in data obscured by background noise.

But time is running out for the Fermi Lab as the giant, supercooled magnets at the LHC are prepared for their task.

The amount of supercooling involved is stupendous - when it is fully operational, the LHC will be the coldest place in the known universe.



The immense energies involved in making the atomic collisions happen have already generated unwelcome publicity for the LHC.

Some scientists have suggested that they may generate mini black holes, which have led others to suggest that these black holes could somehow merge to form a larger, destructive entity that could swallow up the entire earth.

"The black hole business has become rather inflated," said Professor Higgs, irritated by the suggestion that the LHC could become an unwitting doomsday machine.

"Even the theorists who are suggesting that mini-black holes are things that could be produced are not predicting black holes large enough to swallow up chunks of the universe. I think the publicity has rather got out of hand and some people have misunderstood it."

Hysteria aside, Professor Higgs seemed pleased that so many people outside the rarefied world of particle physics and cosmology are taking an interest in what will happen at Cern.

He is certain that something awesome is about to happen. .

"I'd be very puzzled if it wasn't discovered ... If you don't have something like a Higgs boson ... if it's not that, what the hell is it?

"If it's not found, I no longer understand what I think I understand," he said.

And if it is found? "I shall open a bottle of something."

SEARCH ENGINE

* Scientists are searching for sub-atomic particles using an underground accelerator called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

* By smashing particles together at near light-speed in the $2 billion laboratory researchers aim to simulate conditions at the time of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago.

* The machine is designed to produce energy levels powerful enough to shake out the elusive Higgs field - an invisible force which gives mass to the universe and makes life possible - as first argued by physicist Peter Higgs 40 years ago.

Sorry Joey for my bad calculation and my bad english too
It was a "quicky"- calculation to demonstrate what i mean.
And i think it doesnt matter how much "0" there are (20 or 21).
I multilplied it with 1,4 because a sun must have the the weight of our sun multiplied with 1,4. Our sun is to "small" to becomes a black hole.
And i didn't have the right pocket-calculator to calculate a bigger number
... so please forget the calculation in detail.
And black - they say black because they dont know if this exist or how it exist. It is not a color - its only an expression. Oh and about the tons....
calculate this: tons is an expression of energie -> what are you learning in school -> (tons*1.000)/9,81


In real... i do not care about this theme. We cant change what the scientist wanna do or what cind of experiments they do. I am more afraid of an asteroid, or an terrorist. So this is my last post to this theme.

Your in right Joey - we dont know about this physics, you also dont know about and the scientist only wanna know how it all works.

So have a nice day, and dont cry if the black hole get us

Actually, this is an excellent way to view every scientific experiment. It's just that in an experiment, the scientist has some control over the odds and while no new experiment is 100% certain, it's petty darn close.


So to the dooms dayers I present the following:
Is it "impossible" that something terrible will happen at the LHC? No. Nature is a bitch goddess and always has nasty surprises up her sleeve (just ask Madam Curie).
Is it "probable" then? No. All the theories and evidence point away from it.


To put it in perspective:
Is it "impossible" that something terrible will happen in your bedroom tonight? No. There are a number of deadly and harmful things that can happen in your bedroom any and every night.
Is it "probable" then? No. You've taken every measure to ensure that the bedroom is isolated and safe from harm.

Hence, if you want to stop the LHC, then I suggest you also not walk into your bedroom at night!




Here in the USA, that month is February... it's even designated "National Black History month" in honor of BHs everywhere...

From what I heard from a man who studied physics and astronomy for years (but doesn't keep track anymore to the newest inventions that much), he says that it's close to impossible for a mini black hole to swallow the earth in 15 years.

A mini black hole is so small that, when reaching the center of the earth, the atoms are way too far away for it to suck them up, and will decay for 100% certainty before it sucked enough matter to keep growing (this doesn't mean that it wont ever happen, but percentages can't have a floating point and must be rounded to the nearest round number )

So, I do believe he knows what he is talking about, and it sounds very very logical. I have my answer.

A theory is as close as ANYONE can get to knowledge. There is no "knowing" in the sense that you are using it. I can tell you all about Newton's Law, graviton, stress energy tensors, renormalization theory, the chandrashekar limit ofthe blackhole formation, and Hawking radiation... But I fear that would not be enough for you.

Newton knew why gravity occurred; Einstein expanded it. It is a theory but a theory which held up for hundreds of years... That at the close to truth. In any of us are going to get.



This is strictly false among the scientific community. Among these people, people that have dedicated their entire lives to the subject, there is a singular view of mass gravity and is globally accepted.

Among the nonscientific community however I agree. These are people that spend maybe a few hours every week on the Internet or at the library, and yeah they have a thousand theory, all contradictory, all with no evidence.



Relativity is no more lacking the Newton laws were... they may be amended when new knowledge comes to light, but within the confines of the regime they applicable, it is one hundred percent accurate.

Of course, I'm always up for new knowledge. If you would present me where relativity is lacking, we can discuss this at length. But lacking that evidence, I will presume that you are merely the victim of hearsay and don't actually believe that relativity is broken.




I've met Professor Higgs and talked at length with him. He never once stated that the Standard model is wrong, merely that there are unanswered questions of which every scientist is aware. Need I remind you that this is exactly what happened with Newton's laws and Einstein... something "didn't add up" and it lead to new physics. Hence, as Progessor Higgs state, something doesn't add up in the SM and this will lead to new physic, but not invalidate the standard model out right.



A problem? It is what is is... we're cool with it!




What causes mass? Right there you are proving that your research is flawed. Mass isn't caused by anything. Causeing is a dynamic effect; mass is static.

What creates mass? That is a valid question and we know that the answer is energy from the Big Bang coalessing into hydrogen atoms and these H atoms are cooked and processed by stellar forces to make all the other elements.

As to what causes gravity, I ask you directly: what kind of proof would YOU need to prove anything? I don't believe this exist, because as I said above, you do not have a solid understanding a theory versus knowledge versus truth and that you yourself do not know what proof you need.



I am more than happy to put up my research credentials on this matter next yours. But I don't think a lack of research is at issue here but rather a poor understanding of the fundamental physics terms that you are using to make your assertion. If you truly understood the scientific method, theory, hypothesis... if you understood the scientific use of the word model, knowledge, experiment, and regime of applicability, you would know the fact that there is no physicists that knows any truths nor claims to; rather we claim only to know strong probabilities of behavior based on past observation and then we make testable predictions based on these probabilities and past observation.

As to the LHC, there we have THEORIES based on CENTURIES OF PAST OBSERVATION that tell us that the experiment is SAFE. There is always the chance for unpredicatble bahaivour such as WORM-HOLES, BLACK-HOLES, OR ASS-HOLES being created in the experiment, but these are so low probability as to be negligable and not worth considering (see my "bedroom" example above).

WHY_DO_I_DIE,
BTW, if the LHC turns on and nothing happens, does that mean you are wrong, Why, or is there another explanation for why we are still alive? I just want to make sure we are clear on this... that if the LHC is turned on and no BH, then your basic assertions (or belief in others assertions) is wrong, right? If not, then you would have to have a reason why the LHC is on and no BH.

Fastelane, you are making my day bashing why_do_i_die..

Thanks!

Well, it would take a few years before we will notice something is eating the earth from the inside, so I suggest to come back here some time later to fight out who won :P.

"Lecturing" perhaps... not bashing. I think the problem is that some people actually want this idiotic doomsday theory to be true.... I wonder why.

Well if it turns on and nothing happens of course I would be wrong , and very happy to be wrong , and looking forward to what the lhc finds.
"Newton knew why gravity occurred" , No he didnt , and thats a fact , thats where einstein came in with relativity , newton however, understood gravity and how it affected everything in the world. But we are still babies when it comes to knowledge and technology , many of us seem to forget we've only had electricity for a couple hundred years . We know very little , and most is observation , and theory , just like the bosson higgs , as said in a previous post , his fellow physisists laughed at the idea of it in the begining. And to this day there is zero evidence of it , as in fact , it's something that guy thought up.
Here is his statement
"I'd be very puzzled if it wasn't discovered ... If you don't have something like a Higgs boson ... if it's not that, what the hell is it?
"If it's not found, I no longer understand what I think I understand,"
Did you read that , thats statement means that he might not understand anything, since he believes the bosson higgs exists while it might not and things might be completely different than whats understood and accepted right now. So dont talk like you really know what your talking about fasstlane , Higgs himself admitted he might not know what he talks about.

I think this thread could maybe be moved to "Hilbert" where such discussion belongs better. Anyway here is my 2 c.

I think physicists do not understand gravity at all, but that is not their job. Only God can understand gravity. But Physicists understand how gravity behaves which is not the same as understanding gravity. But they can describe and predict it very precisely.

Thats why they made experiments, for finding out how something behaves. Thats what they are very good in. Of course there can always be surprises in physics, but destroying the world with the large hadron collider is very unlikely. But there were always people who warned of such experiments, for instance there were warnings that landing on the moon could cause the rocket to collide with an invisible sphere between earth and moon and destroy the world.

So we must apply some common sense for judging the dangers and advantages of experiments. Finding the higgs boson is important and an earth eating black hole is extremely unlikely, so I say: Go LHC go!

I agree with you Spirit. Maybe the experiment wont be as dangerous as i read it could be , considering they are recreating the way things were a billionth of a second after the big bang , but wait , the big bang ? LOL. There is really no proof it ever happened , and is in fact a fairly new theory (50 ? 60 ? years). So I guess they are recreating how they imagine things were a billionth of a second after the big bang. Still , they ARE going to be conducting the most powerfull experiment ever done , definately something to keep an eye out for. And hey , if they discover the Higgs , or something else , well , then thats fantastic , there's definately too many questions and too little answers.

I disagree with the first and present the second quote as proof, since the second is exactly what "understanding" means to a physicist... and really to any else. If you understand something, that means you a) know it's facts (describe) b) well enough to use those facts to create new ones (predict).

Put another way, pick any of the following:...



...and you will see that physicists DO understand Gravity.

If it's a fact, then you will have no problem finding a physics text that states "Newton did not understand why gravity occurred". Or put another way, any physics text that states that gravity does not occur because of Mass, which is what Newton's Law of Gravitation states.

And to make it fair, let's agree to take the definition of "understand" from one of these:








------------------------



You put me in excellent company putting me in with Higgs; I thank you! And you are correct, I don't have to talk like I know anything when you do such a great job of making the point for me.

It is perfectly reasonable for him, and myself, to be skeptical of the Higgs and of finding it. Unlike religion, we don't hold on to our saints and angels like dogma... if the Higgs isn't found, it's a big deal for the Standard Model because it has to be re-writtent, but the nuclear reactors aren't suddenly going to stop... the gamma rays won't stop falling... the super kamiokande experiment is not suddently invalid... in short all the SUCCESSES of the SM are not nullified, we were merely mining for new success in the wrong place with the Higgs.

I assert that Higgs and myself DO know what we are talking and like a good scientist, I prove it this way:

a) If I know what I'm talking about, the LHC will not blow up the world.
b) If I know what I'm talking about, the LHC will find a Higss (with 90% confidence)
c) If I know what I"m talking about and the LHC doesn't find a Higss, the experiments will provide insight into why not and in effect, why objects have mass and how do they get it. (100% confidence).

Now then, there is a testable set of hypothesis to show that I know what I'm talking about.

Now then, what are your testable hypothesis that will let us know that YOU know what you are talking about??

The outpointing that other people DO NOT know what they are talking about, thus rendering their hypothesis invalid, relative to him

Sry but I'm praying that it will create a Black Hole that doesn't collapse immediatly which will swallow the Earth. That would be soooo cool...

Actually, what will really happen is that the doorway to the Sidhe will open and we'll have lots a faerie folk zipping all over the place!

aaaand, the expirement will fail, but the energy that is generated by the LHC wont vanish, it will fall on to wide areas of the earth, especially France and Switzerland and there will be some mutants and super-hereos caused by this highly loaded energy. As always happened, mutants will lose their minds and attack human world, thus the LHC-generated superheros have to save the damn world.

Here is the scenario. So, now somebod go and make a "LHC experiment failed game".

(i may suggest something like, expirement is failed, and creatures from another dimension invaded the earth etc. But this is already done in Half-Life)

Yes, i know im not okay. I think im not ok with my mind.

This shiny thread has been featured on the 3DGS-Nerd-Blog weekly review!

http://3dgsnerd.xware-cg.com/?p=52

There is a difference between why and how.

Not to a scientist. The How is the Why. Because a science works from phenomenology, that which we see and touch and can measure, the only tangible thing is the How.

Put another way: the "how" of a subject is scientific and objective, based on observation and experiement; the "why" of a subject is personal and unobjective, based on speculation and ill defined terms.

Example: Mass. We know how it's created and destroyed, how it moves, and how we interact with it. Now ask why it's created, why it's destroyed and why it moves... you can come up with a million reasons why but none of them are testable, none objective, and thus to a scientist none "real".

Try it: take any statement in physics that uses "why" and replace with "how"... you'll see that asking "why" doesn't quite stack up to asking "how":

Why is the sky blue? (Because god intended it that way?)
How is the sky blue? (By the refraction of light from the atmosphere)

Why do the planets revolve around the sun? (Because they felt like dancing?)
How do the planets revolve around the sun? (The Sun's gravity forces the planets into ellipses)


Do you see? "Why" seemingly anthropomorphizes a statement, makes it sound like the object in question has reason and motivation and will and thus does something for a reason. "How" is merely a descriptive statement that ask us pay attention to what we can see instead of the reason for that movement.

YES! Made it to the BIG TIME!!!
WOOT!

After thinking for half an hour for any exceptions, I guess you're right. You can twist every 'why' question into a 'how' one as long as the question does not contain personal preferences.
Well, my knowledge-horizon has been broadened once again, thanx .

'How' is usually the more objective kind of 'why'?

/\
/ \
/ \
|
|
|
|

I'll have what he's having...

Another legendary testDummy post I missed... darn it.

Oh it was good too.. full of extra crazy, a side of non-sense, and a liberal dash of "I don't know what the funk I'm talking about"...

nack

*wonders why testDummy's posts are constantly vanishing as well*

Maybe black holes in the forum?

Oh that's the Hilbert's Forum special function. It creates randomly black holes, which suck in Posts...

BTW: Did I mention, that I like that "I'm online"-Smilie next to my name? It looks exactly like me sitting in front of my PC...

" how ? " questions entail facts related answers, while answers to
" why ? " questions can be twisted by prejudices

Take for example astronomy

" The sun and the planets must turn round the earth because the universe has been created for us, their orbit must be a circle because it is perfect ..."

The direct consequence of " why ?" questions are " the ultimate end " , " the essence " , " the universalis " and similar junks which science has finally swept away

Science hasnt answered anything , ever , so how has it swept away anything ?
Science = New RELIGION
Why ?
Because it requires its "scientists" to believe in MANY theories which have NEVER been proven right , it requires it's members to exersice FAITH in science.
Here's the proof.
Science teaches evolution. Unproven , therefore it cannot be science, yet it's taught in schools and scientists believe in it.
How about the big bang ? Unproven. It's a theory(and fairly new at that). Yet scientists believe it and defend it , however , there is ZERO proof of it ever happenning , hense scientists "BELIEVE" it happened , but cant know as they havnt tested it.
Gravity ?
Electricity ? (can you believe they still dont really know what it is).

Science has transformed itself from science to religion , it used to be science , but now , they have taken it upon themselves to answer all of man's questions , where we came from , what we are , where we are , our purpose (no purpose , just evolved germs , really ?).
The problem is , science has ZERO PROOF of their theories answering this questions , they use a very clever method to get away from actually having to poof this things , they just say it all happenned in billions and billions of years , and it all happened by itself , somehow , from nothing , and for no purpose, yet it happened. Oh yeah , and they have no proof to back up their speculations , yet it's science and it's taught in school. Open your eyes , it's RELIGION , exept instead of teaching god created everything they teach the universe created itself , but they both require the exact same thing , "FAITH"

Wrong and I can prove it.
What do you have in front of you? A computer.
Did that computer just "self assemble"? No. Science built it. Before it existed, there was only a THEORY that such a thing could be built. Now it is reality. Therefore Science has successfully answered the questions "can a computer be built".




That's an ignorant statement. Whenver someone uses the word NEVER, EVER, UNQUESTIONABLY, etc you just KNOW they don't know what they are talking about because here is no such thing as always or never. Scientist believe in ONE theory until that theory is proven wrong. When that theory is proven right over and over, it can be elevated to a law which means it can still be proven wrong, but chances are it never wil,




That's another ignorant statement. I'll just say CMB, Hubble Expansion, Hubble Telescope, COBE, and leave it at that.



Ignorant statement number 3. No I can't believe it because we know everything there is to know about electricity. QED's predictions have repeatedly been proven right to about 20 decimal places... how's that for proof!?



Take a rock. Take a stopwatch. Drop rock. Time fall. Now compare with a) Newton's law of gravitation or b) einsteins special relativity. You will have as much proof as you need.



No arguement here. Religion has traditionally tried to tackle the physical world questions along with the spiritual. ONce the physical world was better understood, religion was no longer needed. So yea, Science has faith BUT BASED ON PROOF AND MALLABLE. That is to say science's faith has to be proven by experiment and it is liable to change... as a matter of fact we EXPECT it to change. This is radically unlike a religion which will not change it's fundamental axioms even in light of everwhelming evidence.

Because your style is to post but not reply, I won't wait for you to try to defend your position... after all you know it is a losing battle in the end. I therefore await your next paragraph or two of ignorance with anticipation!

well it was not my intention to start a new science vs religion discussion

I meant that humanity took thousand years to get rid of " Why ? " questions
It seems so obvious nowadays but it was not like that in the past

Even high educated and brilliant people could not but ask "why?" questions

"That is to say science's faith has to be proven by experiment and it is liable to change."
LOL
fastlane , you just answer things you've read in books or in science publications.

"That's another ignorant statement. I'll just say CMB, Hubble Expansion, Hubble Telescope, COBE, and leave it at that."
Can you tell me how that proofs the big bang ? Hubble proofs there's thousands and probably millions of galaxies , thats all it proves. How is that proof that all those galaxies were made from a little bean smaller than an atom that exploded billions of years ago ? Explain that. CMB , yes , the radiation , there is radiation in space , so scientists took it upon themselves to say it's the left over radiation of the big bang , LOL , really ? So it can also be radiation that exists in the universe and we hadn't founnd right ? Again , manipulating the facts and misleading the people. All that radiation proofs is there is radiation in space , why ? who knows , cause of the bean that exploded ? cause it's a natural phenomenom ? Cause it's part of the universe ? There can be a million explanations for it , but there is in fact ZERO evidence that it is left over from the big bang. COBE , now that one i'm not too familiar with , but i'll look into it.

"gnorant statement number 3. No I can't believe it because we know everything there is to know about electricity. QED's predictions have repeatedly been proven right to about 20 decimal places... how's that for proof!? \:\)"
Yes , we understand it , we use it every day , left and right , but , we dont actually know what it is, and thats a fact , proof me wrong if you can. Movement of electrons is the theory , but in truth they dont actually know , it's not a fact. And if you think that we know everything there is to know about electricity , LOL , then you should really do some more research on it , the fact is , we know very little about it , look into it , and not the science books , were you seem to get all your information from.

"So yea, Science has faith BUT BASED ON PROOF AND MALLABLE."
LOL
So you proof me right , it requires faith , based on proof ? I just proved how it's based on speculation.

I can see you dont fully understand my argument , so I will give you an example to help you see what I mean.

In the early times , we knew there was a sun , and a moon , and the stars , and believed the lord made them for us , thats what religion taught , we didnt know what they were , but we saw them and knew they were there, and believed god made them. Now , we still see the sun , moon , and stars , exept now , we understand more what they are , we know the sun is a star , we know the moon is a planet orbiting our earth (or satelite , to be correct) , and we know stars are suns , but now , scientists , tell us , that god didnt create them , they created themselves , from an explosion , of a tiny bean smaller than an atom (how this bean so small was so powerfull is out of my understanding) , and they teach this in school , and scientists actually believe it, but there is only one truth , WE DONT KNOW WHO OR WHAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Nobody knows, scientists DONT KNOW, understanding what we see more is one thing , but just LISTEN to the theory , they say it all created itself , and they say that because they have no idea how this immense and complicated place we call the universe exists , so they decided , well , i guess it just appeared out of nowhere. LMFAO , you have to be innocent to believe that. And if it hasnt been proven beyond a reasonable doubt , then it's not science, isnt that the purpose of science ? To not require faith , to be 100% proven fact.

The earth and everything in it is made of elements and atoms. FACT. It has been proven . Thats science.

Earth and all the elements that compose it spontanously created themselves after a bean exploded from nothing in the big bang. THEORY. It hasnt been proven , it's a theory trying to explain how everything came to be . Thats religion.

[quote=Why_Do_I_Die
In the early times , we knew there was a sun , and a moon , and the stars , and believed the lord made them for us , thats what religion taught , we didnt know what they were , but we saw them and knew they were there, and believed god made them. Now , we still see the sun , moon , and stars , exept now , we understand more what they are ... [/quote]

...and they refuted the " solar stains " claiming that they were due to a defect of telescope
Since sun has been made by God it must be perfect, religion taught..

you and we cannot be defined as it are abstract concepts.

for gods sake, get down form your high horse and look the reality for once.
you remind me of ullilillia, only far worse than him.

and I surely dont have a problem saying that to your face if you require it so just shut the hell up.

If target is user testDummy:
Quoting Michael_Schwarz.

NO.

Otherwise, bait refused, for the time being.

it goes to you, aswell as whydoidie.

*pokes michael for fun*

Does anyone get excited by reading this?
http://lhc-milestones.web.cern.ch/LHC-Milestones/year2008-en.html


EDIT:
Reading all milestones of CERN on that website is very interesting. Pretty amazing how big the whole organisation is, and after imagening the size of the whole project (I mean, from concept to a huge scaled practical test), it's even more amazing how the whole LHC project is finished within only 14 years.

I'm suprised about our knowledge of civil engineering and logistics every time I read about megaprojects. The projects themselves are awesome for sure, but the way they are realized are at least just as awesome.

So it is your hypothesis that answers are not to be found in books or publications? Then I ask you, what SHOULD I use as reference?





What other books should I read about science if NOT science books? This is oxymoronic.



By itself it is not. This is an important point for you to understand. By themselves, everyone of these facts is devoid of meaning and substance. There is CMB radiation... okay... do you know the history of CMB? Do you know it was discovered years before it was attributed to the Big Bang? It was only when this piece of information fit many others -- like hubble expansion, large scale galactic structure (such as "the great wall"), the values of fundamental parameters, measurements of the current matter to antimatter ratios, measures of matter (and by inference, dark matter) in our current universe -- ALL OF THESE are needed for the big bang. y themselves, each of these is useless... which is why when people like yourselves argue against a theory, they will pick on one aspect of the theory, one piece of data, and harp incessently on how it doesn't prove anything... when in fact they are right, ONE PIECE OF DATA PROVES NOTHING. Don't you see, why_do? If anyone of these facts, ANY ONE, fails to fit the theory, IT'S GONE. IT'S CANCER. WE ELIMINATE IT IMMEDIATELY. And anything that was based on it is modified appropriately. This is the canon of our faith; this is the core of our belief: nothing is absolute; everything is mutable, including our facts and theories... hell expecially those! LOL



Please let me restate what I said above: before you judge a theory or science, make sure you have at least EXPOSED yourself to a majority. Here you are lambasting the Big Bang and yet you are ignorant of some of the most compeling and recent evidence for it! You must be informed if you are going to make such gradiose assertions, you simply must.

Here, if you can trust such a lothesome publication, please reference this for what COBE was about and what is on the horizon for CMB exploration and it's consequences for physics. Granted, it's no LIGO (ah, LIGO... ), but it's still cool! The pictures alone just fire up the imagination!!!

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9902027



What is the difference between "we understand it" and "we don't know what it is"?



You are correct: science doesn't know who or what created the universe.
In fact, science is, IMO, the closest to the truth by adamantly admitting, with all it's scientific rigor, shouting from the top of our ivory towers, that on the topic of "who": we don't know!
So what of it?
We don't need to know as I'll demostrate!

Does it make a difference to a falling apple whether it has fallen because of the exchange of gravitons between teh masses of the Earth and the apple... or because god is pushing it down?
Won't the times to fall be the same under both scenerios?
Won't the final outcome be the same under both scenerios?

Will the electron reactions that govern your computer, predictably, understandably, will they behaive somehow different if there is a "why" and not just a "how"?

You must get this duality clear in your head:

THERE IS NO "WHY" IN SCIENCE, ONLY IN EMOTIONS.
THERE IS NO "HOW" IN EMOTIONS, ONLY IN SCIENCE.

Do not confuse science with emotions ultimate aggragate, religion. They are both trying to answer the same questions but in different camps.
Since they will be, what difference does it matter if we do or do not know who or what is behind the scenes.



You have the wrong idea of what science is about. I would gladly share with you why the above is wrong, but only if you ask. This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, that if you truly believe this, nothing I can say can convince of how we scientist TRULY operate (and I'll tell you right now, it's not in the 100% range...)



First off, nothing is made of elements only atoms. Since you are invoking Aristotlean physics (circa 300BC), thought I'd bring you up to date.

Secondly, sorry chump but you can't have it both ways: either atoms and the big bang are both "facts" or they both aren't since they are both intangible objects which we have indirectly inferred to exist. Or in other words the concept of Atoms and the concept of the Big Bang both share teh same mother, the scientific method, and same stepdad, occam's razor.

Secondly, it has been proven in exactly the same way as the big bang. To whit, no one has ever touched an atom... ever. The only way we know they exist is by doing experiments which we interpret as atoms. And using that interpretation asa foundation has lead to greater adn greater success. It is at this point that we think of atoms as "fact".... when their success ratio is 100% for so long, that its hard to imagine how it could be otherwise. Newton's laws were such a theory... they were at 100% for a long time. Then Einstein noted, there was a 2% difference from his theory and Newtons, a 2% difference in the orbit of mercury I believe, and thus Einstein was proven. And thus now Newton was at 98% and falling but it was that two percent difference in what we thought was absolute (newton's laws) that lead us to a greater understanding of that law and our universe. And now, using this new 2% theory, Relativity, as a foundation has brought us a brave new world!!!!

Now how in the heck is that ANY different that collecting the electromagnetic radiation from the heavens and inferring a big bang, just like we inferred an atom? It is the same: in both cases, we haven't touched the object we refer too, in both cases we infer that object exists though observation, and in both cases if a better theory comes along, these are in the dump right away!

Yeah , well i guess you prove me both right and wrong , depending on angle. I myself am a fan of science , our advancement in technology and understanding is huge , but , I still dont believe in the big bang , the pieces of evidence pieced together are arent enough to come out and say thats how it happened. But I guess you could always argue the , how was god created point. There is definately a lot of mystery within our univere , and though I commend scientists on their effort , i definately dont think they've gotten it right to know. And the biggest flaw in believing everything just happened by itself is , us , intelligence , the big bang would make more sence if the universe was just stars rocks and energy. But it isnt like that , we have this beautifull planet , and us in it , beautifull tree , animals , we have life , and from a statistical point of view (1 planet out of 10 in our solar system has life) , the whole universe must be filled with life. How is it we are this complex beings , science just cant answre that , well as of now it cant, because it doesnt make sence. There is something special about us (and if you dont feel that way about yourself and humans there is definately something wrong with you) that no one can deny.

Then we have the soul , something some people dont believe exists, but if it didnt , we wouldnt be alive , we would be flesh robots, and we arent. So there is still too much unexplained for science to say they know how we came to be , we still cant be explained , and we're here , we can see each other every day.

Joozey wrote
"I'm suprised about our knowledge of civil engineering and logistics every time I read about megaprojects. The projects themselves are awesome for sure, but the way they are realized are at least just as awesome. "

Yes , 6 billion dollars towards one machine will tend to have that effect on people. I said BILLION btw , not million.

In any case , this physisists are a bunch bastards , and here is why , I saw a video of one the members of the project , it's on youtube or google video , it's a mature woman , she starts discribing the project , and the like , and then says something about what we'll get out of it , and the first thing she said , well , we will have a job for 30 years exploring this new particles we find. Thats right , thats exactly what she said , before the boson higgs , before other findings , she said that they would get 30 years work . LOL , so we see the true nature of the project , they are assuring funding for the next 30 years. WOW. What a bunch of deceiving bastards. But in any case , experiment looks fantastic as long as nothing happens to the planet or to any of us, still , caution should be exersiced , specially considering they've already had their first accident .

Oh yeah, scientists have no right trying to make a living. Getting 30 years of solid work should be restricted to politicians and lawyers, you know, good decent folk who don't deceive for a living. Truthfully, if the only reason teh LHC was built was to give a few hundred scientists a job, then how is that any different from every other great human endevour?

"Who hold these truths to be unalianble..." that by revolution we have ensured ourselves a LIFELONG job....

"I have a dream..." that I can just talk and talk and talk forever and that will be my job for life... ooopss, I guess someone thought his "LHC" like project wasn't worth funding...

"To go to the moon and back within our generation..." so that I can stay in office for as long as I can... yikes, didn't work for him either.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody' ahhh how smart... by purposefully keeping the memory low, he assured that there would be a life-long industry for him...


In any case, as you can see, when anyone tries to secure themselves a job, they ultimitely either become a super power, a leader in the technology field.... or get shot!! Wonder which one the LHC will be like??



In 2004, 7 Billion was spent on computer and video games.

7 billion towards video games.
6 billion towards science.
If one is a waste, why isn't the other?

And before you answer be careful; you don't want to give your impression that the real reason you want to support games is that, like those "deceiving bastards", you are just trying to secure a job for the next 30 years!

And every dollar is worth it three times. For science knowledge, engineering experience and for peace sake an international coöperation over the whole globe. Now tell me how religion can beat that.

@testdummy: whatever the reason is for your post removal, I do not plan to get into engineering, I stick with computer science. But I am following the big projects of the world very closely . Transatlantic bridge, space elevator, LHC... I just find it lovely and very interesting to read about them.

"For science knowledge, engineering experience and for peace sake an international coöperation over the whole globe"
You do realize that scientists have built EVERY weapon known to man right ?
You do know scientists created the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb right ?
You do know a new world war could potentially kill EVERY single human in the planet right ?
You do know we have come VERY VERY close to world war 3 in the past 20 years on various occasions right ?
You do see there is enough nuclear bombs in the world to completely erradicate life on earth for thousands of years right ?
ALL OF THIS is the product of the scientists and their "right trying to make a living"
Is that the peace your talking about Joozey ?
You did hear about the Iraq war we just had right ?
Science hasnt brought any peace , it has progressively developed weapons each more powerfull than the last , science has in fact become a tool for destruction. And dont be surprised if this proton beams becomes the weapon of mass destruction of the future , dont forget the governments dont give money for nothing , there is always an interest.
So lets see , what has science done for us.
Well , we have tv , computer , radio , medicine has advance significantly , all this is good , but then , it has also developed every weapon used for war , including the nuclear weapons of mass destruction which all powerfull nations are scared smaller more unstable nations will develop , because they definately are a threat , and can indeed end the life of our planet , the only planet with life we know of.
"Now tell me how religion can beat that."
Well they've never built any atom bombs , and scientists have, and all to put some bread on the table , talk about selling your soul for a couple pennies.
Even Einstein regreted his pursuing of making the bomb , even though I agree the germans would have done it anyway , since they alreayd had the technology.

So as much good as science has done , it has done just as much bad, dont oversee it's darkside.

You do realize that scientists have built EVERY weapon known to man right ?
> The neanderthal man did too, and I heavily doubt they were scientists. Anway, you get my point.

You do know scientists created the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb right ?
> Because the government forced them to. Noone who worked on those two things was neither is proud of what they did. Do you really think they were like "Yikes! Finally we did it! Lets kill some folks with this"? Seriousely?

You do know a new world war could potentially kill EVERY single human in the planet right ?
> Now what does this have to do with what we are talking about?

You do know we have come VERY VERY close to world war 3 in the past 20 years on various occasions right ?
> Again, what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

You do see there is enough nuclear bombs in the world to completely erradicate life on earth for thousands of years right ?
> And AGAIN, what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

ALL OF THIS is the product of the scientists and their "right trying to make a living"
> Ah now I get it. But again, scientists were only the puppets. Governments and military forced them to develop those. And if they didn't, they would have found someone else who would have. Maybe some naturally talented child - "a gift from god" - who would have finished the research. Then what? Should we kill all naturally talented people, just because they are "oh so evil"?

You did hear about the Iraq war we just had right ?
> The weels on the bus go round and round, round and round... And AGAIN, what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

"Now tell me how religion can beat that."
Well they've never built any atom bombs , and scientists have, and all to put some bread on the table , talk about selling your soul for a couple pennies.
> Yes, and they have killed millions(!) of people just because they didnt belive in "their" god. They had bloody crusades to kill the "unbelivers". They burnt people because they were stamped for being witches. MILLIONS of people killed for being stamped as witches, for no reasonable reason. MILLIONS of people killed by the crusades. BILLIONS of people died because the church killed and prosecuted scientists who could have developed a cure for common deseases. REALLY? REALLY? Do you think your beloved oh so holy church is so much better?


I really question if you can look yourself in the mirror. If I'd be you, I wouldn't. I would be too ashamed to.

You do know we have come VERY VERY close to world war 3 in the past 20 years on various occasions right ?

That had nothing to do with scientists actually... sure there were weapons, but it was mainly a direct result of the cold war that was (is?) going on... You can't blame "scientists" as a group for politicians that nearly screwed up big time or at least trying their best to spread fear into people into thinking the big bad Soviet Union is the enemy (wasn't true, the Soviet Union did not want to start a World War III ). After all, it was the US government that sort of wanted to start a war... It's a good thing they listened to some people who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was only a 'matter of time' (that wasn't quite true either, but still... as insane as it is, there were a few times where the USA seriously thought about dropping the bomb.).

You do know a new world war could potentially kill EVERY single human in the planet right ?

Which... as insane as it sounds, is something 'you' guys usually see as something potentially good. You know... the end of days, judgment day, the apocalypse and so on.

"Now tell me how religion can beat that."

Actually that's not difficult at all. Give an example of 1 war that did NOT start because of religion. :P

Are you telling me CERN is the cause of all those wars? or might it perhaps have been religion?

Aside that, the german v3 rocket did start the space race. So not only can good be used for evil, but also vice versa.

@Why_Do_I_Die: (because everybody has to)
While my time at school I came across a very interesting philosophy, a science-philosophy.
Regarding to this philosophy there is no truth as such. No "real truth". We as humans are unable to find the ultimate truth. We may find it but we won't be able recognize it as such. Furthermore there only theories.
Thats all we have. Theories. You cannot say if they are "right" but if they can be proven or falsified.
If a theory proves very often it gets more and more likely to be a good theory, as it can be used to describe "reality" in an acceptable way.
However we, as humans, can never really say that it is right.
Of course if a theory can be falsified, it is indeed wrong and of no use.
But as long as a theory cannot be falsified it is indeed not wrong.

Maybe you should consider to look at science with this kind of perspective.
As long as something is not falsified and as long as it proves itself for a long time it gets more and more likely to be "true".

But as long as a theory cannot be falsified it is indeed not wrong.

Ohh, trust me, he's probably very familiar with that concept... because one of the fundamental reasons why religious people ( I assume Why_Do_I_Die is one) believe in a God, is because their God can't (ever) be falsified.

What else have these scientists done? Oh wait...

- research in advanced medicine
- computer technology (without them, I doubt this conversation would be going on right now..)
- Biology research (how humans and plants work, etc).

There is a huge list....
And - it was a good think we (humans) learned about atomic research, for nuclear power plants, etc..

Just my thoughts
Adoado

"- research in advanced medicine
- computer technology (without them, I doubt this conversation would be going on right now..)
- Biology research (how humans and plants work, etc)"

Yes , nuclear weapons far outweigh any of the good. You dont think so now , but wait till some fall close to where you live , i can assure you your mind would instantly change on the subject.

In any case , we all have the right to believe what we want , but you would have to be a fool to praise science , all it shows is the immense arrogance human beings have developed over the last century of technology , completely denying God , because we are too smart to believe he exists, we are so smart we have found out ourselves how it all happened , it all exploded from nothing . Yes , we are geniuses , we figured out the truth , everything appeard from an explosion from nothing. WOW , you all really believ this ? How powerfull would that bean smaller than an atom have had to be ? And , was that the only one ? Some say it all exploded from nothing , no bean , just nothing exploded , well , why hasnt it happened again in billions and billions and trillions and petrillions of years. Yes , i'm familiar with the way scientists disguice their inability to prove anything , they say it happened over quatrillions of petrillions of trillions of years. LOL.

Btw , to the guy saying I was religious , well , no I'm not , like I said in another post , if I've been to church more than once in my life it's too much. But I do believe in God , I have a brain , and see what the scientists say , and what the religions say , and I see myself , and people , and the world , and it doesnt really take a genious to understand there had to be someone behind out creation , everything just works out so perfect , you have to be a fool not to see that. But like I said, people grow more and more arrogant as time passes , thinking we have all the answers , and in the meantime , all that has been accomplished is the enslavement of mankind (are you going to argue this too ?).
Open your eyes , and understand the world you live in.

No. Sadly, it doesn't...



How do you feel about computers? You like them? You use them? Right, now, how do you feel about computers falling, say on your house or head? Damn those scientists for creating such a deadly instrument, damn you dirty apes!!!

Thus a challenge to you: try to find one weapon that scientists have purportedly created that does not have a positive counterpoint. For example, nuclear energy is easy to dismiss in terms of energy production and radiation therapy; until WWII this was the exclusive line of research and to this day, remain strong fields in nuclear physics research.



According to your own words, science is thus balanced and neither good nor evil, which is just how we like it. But I contend that it's better (or worse for why_do) than that: that scientists actually attach NO morality to their work and thus your labels of "good" and "bad" are your and society's labels and not scientific motivations.

Consider: If scientists are truly the bane of existence, then there has to be one pure representation of this, one pure weapon that has ZERO use outside of killing other human beings. There has to be some evidence that mainstream science (not some 5 or 10 year fad like spirituality or the aether) purposefully was working towards a massive means of destruction and evil; that scientists were untied under the banner of pain and misery and openly or secretly acknowledge that what motivates them is the pain, the glory, the fame, the women, the payoff, the job!!!! Right? Somewhere there has to be evidence of this if what you say is true, right?

My hypothesis is that you can't (or won't; same thing) and thus your latest thesis is wrong: scientists only create things; it's actually society, you, me, and everyone else, that actually uses what scientists create and assigns a morality to it. Again it's about why and how. A gamma ray is not evil; they happen all the time and are constantly falling on the earth. So how then does a gamma ray from Hiroshima become "evil"? Was it it's twin brother somehow? A whole bad side to teh Electro Magnetic family? None of course; it's evil because of the use that society put it to. It is not on the scientists my friend... it's on you and me and everyone else as members of a nationalistic world society right now.



BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSIONS:
1) YOU ARE WRONG IN BELIEVEING THAT A BLACK HOLE CREATED AT THE LHC WILL DESTROY THE EARTH AND TIME WILL PROVE US RIGHT BY MERELY LIVING. This is unarguable since we merely have to wait to see what happens.

2) ASSUMING MY POINT 1 IS CORRECT AND WE LIVE, GIVEN THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON YOU ARE WRONG IS THE SAME REASON YOU USE FOR YOUR OTHER ARGUEMENTS, I SUSPECT THAT AS MUCH AS 80% OF WHAT YOU SAY IS WRONG, IGNORANT, OR OTHERWISE MISINFORMED. This is arguable depending on why_do's further commitment to the forums. However, should he continue posting to Hilberts, then this prediction should come true with ~80% of his content being wrong. Again, no need to argue; time will tell if what happened on this thread (failure) will happen again.

3) THIS IS A MODEL YOU WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO WHY_DO: BEING PROVEN WRONG OVER TIME DUE TO EVIDENCE, DATA, AND EXPERIMENTATION. IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, I ASSURE YOU...no matter how hard you pray, if you continue to use a) common sense as a guide for understanding the physical universe b) the idea that the existence of god makes any difference to the physical universe and c) that scientific theories and methodology are a conspiracy of thought aimed at harming the human race, then point 2 above will be proven true vigorously and vehemently over and over gain... but time will tell.

That is interesting; I wasn't aware this was an actual school of thought. I'm going to have to follow up on it because what you say about "true until proven false" is very much how science works (and ironically, how the USA legal system is supposed to work!)

Science is much more relativistic than thinking in 'true' and 'false', they tend to use 'valid' and 'invalid' instead. Science is looking for truths of course, but you can't prove something to be true, only whether or not a theory is valid for the time being.

The school of thought you are talking about is one of pseudo-scientists, it's from the same nutters that thought of much of the 'What the bleep do we know' philosophy nonsense. (note: philosophy afaik isn't actually interested in figuring out 'truths' or validness of theories.)

Well if we reframe it as you say, then the theory is purporting "valid until proven invalid"... still works...

quoted: PHeMoX

You are right about that, and that is rather what I meant. Shouldn't have used the words "true" and "false", sorry for that.

You all shoud hear how u sound , u fat headed geeks.

You should hear how you sound. You fat headed geek.

Sure. If you run out of arguments just start throwing around with personal insults. (this was directed towards Why_Do_I_Die)

Well thanks anyway for the fun I had reading this topic.

Well , here's for all you science , darwinists and big bangers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL-lB_Nk08U&feature=related
LMAO

Check out the other parts too , very good information.

Arrogant probabilities... I thought I made my position on absolutes clear.

Interesting guy...



Sorry mate... you all can masturbate over history and social events and consipiracy theories and poorly modulated voice overs and what passes for information now a days all you want.

I was just here for the LHC science and if you want to go OOT, then I want to go OUT.

LOL , yeah fastlane , lets just forget all about history , thats still taking place today. There are your heroes , the ones u praise so much.

No problem, I already thought you meant that, but since it's something religious people tend to bend into their own theory about science and so on I'd thought I post anyways. Cheers.



That's happening in the US too, in fact it happens all across the globe and it has nothing to do with science. Those are criminals making money of organs, well that's obviously bad, but it happens everywhere. Dehumanization? Buzzwords... eeck!! Another illusion, because it's far too easy to only look at what's going wrong in this world. :p

Shame on you cavemen of the ancient prehistoric for inventing the wheel! Now the world is doomed by tanks, helicopters and nuclearwaste-transportation vehicles!

Lol, yeah! Shame on God for creating us humans... :p

Yes, lets, since this thread is about the LHC that's happening today and SCIENCE that's happening today and NOT HISTORY that's happening today.

If you want to continue to go Out Of Topic, please do. I've laid out my bottom line predictions and thus there really is nothing more to say on the subject at hand: time will tell.

Here's is a site talking about some of the posotives and negatives of some of our advancements. It's brief , but informative.

http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/index.html

For all the positives there are negatives , now it's up to you to judge weather the positives outweigh the negatives , but with those negatives I think the answer should be clear.

And thus my points are reinforced:
a) Science is not good or evil; it is it's misuse or abuse by society that labels it as such.
b) There is no scientific investigation that does not have a good/positive effect as it's core reason to be even if it degenerates or is used in a bad/negative manner.



A god-fearing ludite; how original. So it is your contention then that advancement should be stopped outright since according to this website they produce more negatives than positives?

"So it is your contention then that advancement should be stopped outright since according to this website they produce more negatives than positives"

Not just that website , i've stated a ton of negatives already.
But wouldnt that be basic logic ? Something does more bad than good , then ? uhhh ? let's keep doing it till we're all dead : )

You cant deny it , science will be our doom , specially with more and more poweful experiments like the LHC , maybe after they will develop a LHBD (Large Hadron Beam of Destruction) , and maybe , just maybe , test it out by shooting it at the sun.

It is wrong to make such experiments withought the outmost approval by all of the worlds people through a voting system , it is wrong for this decisions to be made by the scientists and the politicians they bamboozle, it is wrong for them not to be fully open and honest about every single possibility of disaster , it is wrong to mislead the public for their own self indulgance. This points you cannot argued , it is wrong to handle such delicate things in this manner.

And lets not forget , THEY ALREADY HAD THEIR FIRST ACCIDENT , and from what I read , the scientists were running rampant and scared out of their minds they thinking had messed with something they shouldnt have messed with. But I guess they saw it wasnt a fatal accident , so they continue. Things like this are signs , signs are always arounndu us , we usually ignore them , but they are there. And the nature of the flaw , a simple mathematical miscalculation , that got overseen by many engineers over 4 years , dont you think thats a sign ? It's something that should have been virtually impossible to happen , because of the nature of the project , such care , they have to review this thing like a billion times before making it , but this simple mistake happened , sometimes strange things like this have a meaning to them , it's a bad thing that we usually ignore them.

Very well then. Let's agree to this logic and, quite reasonably IMO, agree that if an course of action does more harm than good, that action should be desisted.

First off, can you adequately quantize the "good" vs. "bad" applications of science and show that bad is a clear winner? For as far as I'm concerned, science has done more good than bad for our society... and I'm willing to show my cards if you take the effort to show yours...

Secondly, assuming tech does in fact do/cause/incite more evil than good, do we then throw out all our technology to date out the window so that there is no possibility of harm though it? Or is there a cutoff point for what technology progress is acceptable and what is not? Is some tech deemed "good" and other "bad" and if so how is that judged? Or as you state, do we vote on what tech stays and what goes?



Very well then. Let's agree to your worldview and stop all further non-democratic scientific experimentation.

Which means that all upteen billion people in the world would have an equal say in what we do, for example, with the LHC. Is this what you are espousing? I'm just trying to understand this point as clearly as possible before we move on.



What's this accident? At least grant me the common decency of posting your references so I don't have to dig them up myself. I'm not denying it's there, I'm just asking for a little discussion forum courtesy or etiquette on your part please.

i think me means this accident:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/03/31/lhc-magnet-test-failure/

but its not black hole causing, infact, it would even prevent the black hole from originating...

http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2007/April/4/87089.aspx

Here are some quotes
"What the analysis shows so far is that something extraordinarily simple was missed in the design. We do many very complex engineering projects successfully that require sophisticated engineering skills and advanced computing tools. We test the complex features we design thoroughly. In this case we are dumbfounded that we missed some very simple balance of forces."
""Not only was it missed in the engineering design but also in the four engineering reviews carried out between 1998 and 2002 before launching the construction of the magnets."

Why_Do_I_Die:
Can you also give solutions for all the problems you sum up?
Do you want the LHC project to be cancelled? And if yes, how would that solve all the problems you mentioned? How can you be sure that the LHC is the cause of the problems, and not something else? Deciding to stop the project costs alot, I mean, ALOT of money. If the problems are still not solved, then you just wasted a few billion dollars.

If you do not wish to cancel it, then why are you summing up all the problems in the first place?

"If you do not wish to cancel it, then why are you summing up all the problems in the first place? "
Well the conversation obviously took itself from the topic , of course the lhc isnt the cause for the other problems mentioned , but all those problems stemed from new technologies created by science which then had adverse effects to our world. Some of which have had to been baned and stopped in order to control the problems they have created.

Do I want to Collider stopped , of course , if there are ANY dangers at all of creating a black hole or strangelets , then yes , I would say it is enough to stop it. Even a 1% chance of this happening would be too much of a risk to take. The problem I have with all this is the Cern people say there's almost no chance of this happening , like 0.000001% , but there's others that say that actually the chance is around 10% to 20%. Now , if I've learned something about people and the world is that people LIE , and twist and manipulate the truth for their own convenience , which leads me to believe the Cern people are just manipulating facts. The Cern employees working on the LHC have all been told to tell the public there is basically zero chance of anything strange happening , even though the chance is actually greater.

Now consider this , the mini black holes that could be created or the strangelets , are all hypothetical , so people tend to just ignore them , but so is the boson higgs , yet they have built a six billion dollar machine to look for it , hoping and believing they will find it, doesnt this make the chance of finding/creating mini black holes and strangelets the same as finding the higgs ? So that means that , in theory , since this is as they themselves call it "unexplored territory" the chances of destroying our world and the chances of finding the higgs are the same , 50/50 , yet we buiilt the machine for it , which means those people MUST believe in strangelets as well , and interdimensions , and must know the risk they are taking , and know that there isnt a zero risk , but more of a 25%(to be fair) risk , yet , they supress all this information because the public would become enraged were they to find out the consequences this experiment could have, let alone that the people payed for it with their taxes.

Yes , thats the world we live in , we pay our taxes to build roads , and have healthcare (which they dont give , you have to get insurance) , and schools , and they take it and build nuclear bombs , secret bases , massive armies , and giant particle colliders with the potential to destroy the world. Wow , talk about having no say in where our money goes.

When there's smoke coming out of the machine it means it's broken and needs to be fixed. Other than that I don't see what kind of signs you are talking about. Experiments really do not go wrong for some magical supernatural reason.



Which is funny, because more people than ever live today thanks to (medical) science, where people that only pray to their Gods usually just die. Talking about signs, eey?



The CERN people are not manipulating any facts, in fact, the whole 'it creates blackholes' theory comes from people that really know little about the whole thing. It's their manipulation of facts you should be worrying about instead, as those people really only want to spread fear for science, technophobia, conspiracy theories, doomsday scenarios and so on.

Cheers

You forgot one thing, chances of generating a black hole is not only priviledged knowledge to CERN. Everyone can do the maths and decide how much chance there is. But if you know how people got to their answers, you might find that their conclusions do not differ at all, rather some just did not fully complete or revealed their search and thus gave false facts, whether it be the CERN scientist or panic-seeding people.

Until you give me the maths that gives the exact chance of a black hole to be generated, there is no reason not to believe CERN scientists other than the lack of your personal trust in today scientists. I have a lack of trust in panic-seeding people, and thats why I vote for CERN, but I do not have the actual prove why it should continue. So neither do you have the prove to cancel it. You named facts, but you did not prove anything. Since the project is already there for 16 years and wont be cancelled, it's up to you to take action now!

You have only one thing left to do; paste the mathematical calculations for chances of a BH here and prove for once and ever that CERN is really dangerous to the existence of our world... or not.

First of all, if we did not have science we would still probably be in the equivalent of the stone age or something similar. Science is not just the big things, like nuclear weapons. How things move, motion - physics - all science. Without science, no cars, no lights, no electricity, no computers, no internet, we would not be able to make strong alloys, etc. The world as we know it would be very different. So say nuclear weapons out way all of this is a bit strange IMHO...



Why not?



What - a world where science has been marked as evil because of one discovery of atomic power/nuclear weapons?

Thanks ^^
adoado

Edit: Sorry, I had not checked the forums for a while and replied based on where it was earlier. I see now that the forum has changed discussion slightly - if so, just ignore my post

Which is why, in polite online discussions, we always put up our references.
Could you post your references for the .0000001% crowd and (to me at least) more importantly the 20% crowd.
Only by knowing where you are getting your information can that information be properly addressed.



Again, the crux to this point is WHO is saying that it's greater. Their knowledge of CERN and Particle Physics must be closely examined if we are to assign any validity to his statement. So again, Why_do, do the polite thing and post your references please.


The chance that Jessica Alba will marry me is very very small... almost nothing. BUT it is hypothetially possible.

Does this mean that the LHC will allow for a probablity of my marrying Jessica Alba? After all, your hypothesis is "if one hypothetical can happen, then EVERY hypothetical can happen", right?



Nonsense. Have you ever traveled? Gotten off a plane in a strange and new city. By your arguemnt, I have entered "nexplored territory" and thus there is a 50/50 chance that I will live or die by your logic.

Your fear of the unknown is showing and gives a lot of insight into your religious beliefs... if I was scared that every action mankind takes would lead to my destruction, if I was scared that things are our of my control, I too would probably be prying to the gods above!



So what of it? Can you prove, scintifically, that either of these are dangerous?

Why_do, you are not a mind reader and you have no science background that I can discern.

How then do you presue to a) read peoples minds and state what they do and do not say, what they lie and tell the truth about, and b)


Come up with wild, unfactual numbers like that?


Why_do: Is it too much to ask of you that if you are stating facts or numbers, that you validate them? In particular, I am interested in your following claims....


Needed: two references, one for the .000001% and the other for the 20%


Needed: a refrence from CERN stating privately that they believe that cause is greater and a reference from CERN stating publically tha they don't believe this


Is that too much to ask?

Hey Micheal, don't encourage Why_do. Let him do his reasearch for himself, dig?



This accident did NOT cause a Black Hole... so why isn't the proof that the LHC is safe? After all, if during abnorma, extreme situations nothing goes bad, what evidence do you present that when it works right it WILL go bad??

Furthermore, if it is your contention that this accident will lead to a Black Holes or the End of the Earth:
You need a causal connection here not just "because there is an accident at point "a" then we can say that we will have black holes at point "z"...

... I'm interested in your opinion on what "c" through "y" are that lead to the end of the world!

I think this falls under the "put up or shut up" category and I couldn't agree more. We are taking the time to present our research and finding to you, Why_do.
We methodically address each of your points by presenting our facts, references, links, and general knowledge.
We have tried to stay clear as much as possible from personal opinions or religious intent as per the topic of the thread.

Do we not deserve the same respect that we afford you, Why_do?
Would it be too much to ask that if you make a mathematical or scientific statemtn, you provide the references for us to follow up on?

Actually, this would be pointless in a way. A 'single' chance, even if it's incredibly near 1, is still no guarantee that it will actually go wrong. Especially if you consider the fact that these kind of issues are always looked upon from a certain paradigm... but there's a chance the paradigm or parts of it is wrong. Two wrongs might result in disaster, two wrongs might result in nothing. It's all the same in the end when it comes to assumptions, estimates and predictions.

By the way, something else... nuclear power is pretty useful for us, as is chemotherapy that already saved quite a few people from cancer. It's not all bad that has come from the "A-bomb" invention,

Cheers

No, it is usefull. You can perform a risk analysis from this. If the result would be higher than, let's say, 0.0001%, then it is an unacceptable risk and the project should indeed be stopped. There is no real line to what is acceptable and not, but if 1% is not acceptable, and 0.00001% is, ánd there are only 2 results (seen what why_do represents us here), then you know the answer soon enough.

The amount of suction found in the forum poll interface appears to be greater than that found in an imagined combination of Earth Black Hole Intercourse (c), and polls referencing that topic, which use the interface?

Concept suggestions for Black Hole Earth Sucking Day (c) T-Shirts are welcome.
(All proceeds will be held until the first day of cosmic intercourse, and donated thereafter.)

Yes, I understand that, but the actual chance itself is probably as arbitrary ( errors in the calculations are possible or a lacking x-factor) as is what people decide based upon it (the latter always being based on a certain paradigm), that's all I'm saying. It might be useful in terms of risk analysis, but basically it's just a number... the actual decisions based upon it can still be "wrong". As I said, a 0.00000001% chance still doesn't mean it won't happen, just like 0.9999999999991% doesn't mean it will happen. You can't say without doubt that it won't or will happen, that's what I've meant.

Cheers

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/black-holes-at-lhc-what-can-happen.html

Thank god I don't have to do the calculations myself. Every concept on this blog is scientifically sound and the few calculations I did check out with his.

The setup:

I love that last line... like a true scientist, he admits that someone (maybe why_do?) will always come up with a opposing point of few based on experimentation and calculation and reason (ok; maybe not why_do...)

The conclusion:

The decisions must be taken only by competent people otherwise it is demagogy rather than democracy
Here in Italy a bunch of imbecilles succeeded in stopping the development of the nuclear power plants through a a voting system
30 years after they have been finally kicked out of the parliament but the country is still paying the cost of these charlatans

"The decisions must be taken only by competent people"
We are all equal my friend , every person's vote should always count as much as the next, sadly , we live in a world were some people "think" they are smarter than others , and think they can decide for everyone, when in reality , this people are not smarter , but are sociopaths with mental delusions , who take advantage of their lack of morals , and respect towards their fellow people , to excuse their behavior and actions, claiming they know better than everyone and whats best for everyone.

Well , I got banned from the forum for 3 days , then I lost my internet , LOL , so I couldnt continue the post till now. I am however going to start a new thread about evolution and creation later on today, because this one did go WAY out of topic.

We are nót equal on making decisions.
Only people who have studied for it (statistics, human psychology, physics, chemics, etc in this case) are qualified to draw the right conclusions build upon solid facts.

If it happens to be a political or ethical matter, then it's concerned for 'us' civilians, and only then your vote counts and has a value. But before a case becomes a political or ethical case it should be qualified as such by independent researchers who have knowledge of relevant information.

If everyone could just vote for anything they want, the world, most likely, becomes a havoc. 90% of the voters do not take every single case in mind and think they vote right while, in fact, they do not.

Prove?
http://www.coniserver.net/ubb7/ubbthread...&gonew=1#UNREAD

Now go count the posts of people changing their vote AFTER JCL gave some more information.

No my friend we are not all equal , this is pure demagogy
A scientist is not the same as a poet
Let the former not to talk about Oratius's metrics and the latter about nuclear power plants

I'll be amazed if you bring anything new to the table. Hasn't this topic been beat (down) to death on these forums?

Why am I not surprised to hear this from you... It's really pure ignorance on your side to think that scientists and people that have actually studied the problems, wouldn't ever know what to do. Their educated guess is a lot more valuable than some manic preacher saying we are all going to die if we don't do whatever he says. God no, not a voting system... please, people are far too easily convinced by religious leaders, maniacs, conspiracies, such a system would be devastating. Sure it sounds nice in theory, but it simply won't work.



This is where you are wrong. We might be equal as human, yes, but there's a good reason why self-proclaimed experts in our societies AREN'T the ones in charge.

In fact, there still aren't enough politicians that really do what was suggested by 'professionals'. No, scientists are like 'advisers' for them... so basically your 'voting system' is in place. Just vote for the politician that comes closest to your beliefs.

I am aware that there probably will be professionals that disagree with eachother and that mistakes can be made because of this, but mistakes are being made anyways.

let me put it this way:

The probability of the LHC creating a black hole that will eat up the entire world is as high as creating a speaking green pig saying "ROFL".

Possible? Yes.
Probable? No.

"We are nót equal on making decisions.
Only people who have studied for it (statistics, human psychology, physics, chemics, etc in this case) are qualified to draw the right conclusions build upon solid facts."

Yes my friend , you should really get a good unbiased history book and read it to see the desicions this so called "qualified decision takers" have taken throughout our time before commenting nonsence. You say withought this people there would be havok ? No man , there would be just people living on earth , which is what we are meant to do. Again , open up ur mind , just a little , and you will see what I mean.

"No my friend we are not all equal , this is pure demagogy
A scientist is not the same as a poet
Let the former not to talk about Oratius's metrics and the latter about nuclear power plants"

And thats a big flaw of this system , who says you need to be a scientist to know about a nuclear plant ? I fully understand how a nuclear reactor works and how nuclear bombs work and how they are manufactured , I am not a scientist , but I understand what this things are , and clearly see their dangers , I dont think you need to be a scientist to figure out if nuclear bombs are safe for us. The problem is most people (like yourself) assume the people in charge will always make the proper decisions for us , when in fact , they mostly do the complete opposite.

If you believe you have no say in what happens in the world , thats fine , thats your stance , I believe we all should have a say , this world is just as much mine as it is the president's or the royal families of the world. I refuse to believe I should submit , you on the other hand seem to accept the place they have given you in life.

"The probability of the LHC creating a black hole that will eat up the entire world is as high as creating a speaking green pig saying "ROFL"."

Well , thats the EXACT same possibility of finding the higgs , yet they believe it's enough possibility to create a 6 billion dollar machine to look for it , how does this not sink into your head ?
Possibility of finding higs and of creating a black hole are THE SAME , EXACTLY THE SAME, you must first understand that , then realize how much money and effort they are putting into the project to understand the real chance of this happening in theory.
However , I do believe the higs is bullshit , so , I guess there isnt too much to worry about.

I now understand this is just another experiment to fuel more money into the physisists , who unlike regular people who work for their bread and butter need the government to feed them with taxpayers money.


"Their educated guess is a lot more valuable than some manic preacher saying we are all going to die if we don't do whatever he says"

I dont wanna get too into this , but if you actually research , and I do mean ACTUALLY RESEARCH all the theories , you will come to the conclusion that the religions are much closer to the truth than the scientists. I will post a topic on this tomorrow or the day after when I have time , but I can assure you , darwinism and evolution are become more and more obsolete as the days go by, oh , and by the findings of scientists themselves to add to the irony.

There could very well be havoc, and this chance is definately much bigger than the LHC generating earth-swallowing black holes.
We are living on this planet right now, and we do not need total world havoc for that to happen. So I don't understand why you would draw that conclusion.

Without even taking the prove I provided from this very forum in concideration, hence just totaly ignore it and aim directly at my 'counter-opinion', this discussion becomes worthless and I hope in real life you keep your strange thoughts only for yourself.

Well, but now we are talking about spending 6 billion dollars, not anymore about creating earth-swallowing black-holes, and THAT is the point actually.

And infact, the probability of finding the Higgs is tremendously higher. But even if we would assume its the same, and lets assume we DONT find the higgs. Then we would find something else.

And to be upright honestly about it. Six billion dollars for finding the answer to life... I think that is still pretty cheap. The answer TO LIFE. The question that bugged humankind since we were crawling in caves. I think it's far more worth than 6 billion dollars.

You don't even (want to) understand how evolution works, let alone how most sciences work. I doubt your opinion would even be remotely useful. Do I approve of scientists working with nuclear reactors? Yes, despite all the risks I do. Whether you like it or not, solving the energy problem in the long run probably has more to do with atomic bombs that you'd understand.



So why don't you blame the people in charge? They are the ones making the wrong decisions, like invading Iraq.... Scientists just give their educated opinions and often this is based on solid evidence. Does this mean scientists can't ever be wrong? Hell no, they don't claim to be omniscient, they aren't Gods.

Besides, I do not assume people in charge will always make the right decisions. In fact, often they won't because a lot of them are selfish, ignorant and we do not exactly vote the most brightest to power... On the other hand, would a person like Einstein be able to run a country? For various reasons, probably not.

To vastly improve the change of making the right decisions, you need to have the combined knowledge of the scientific community, merged into one opinion. You will see that there will often be two sides and there will always be the risk of being wrong.



Depending on your definition of pig, this is clearly impossible. :p



You are being vague and seem to claim that once again science is all wrong and evil. I really doubt you can prove what you claim here. You put too much trust in pseudo-scientists the way I see it.



If wars are worth spending hundreds of billions on... this definitely is far more worth by any definition.

The Crackpot Index
by John Baez



A little background: people like Why_do have been contaminating the internet waves since the days of news net. I say contaminate because they are disrepectful and insulting to those that don't agree with them and merely throw ideas out without thought, research, or followup. Hence in the late 80's I think, Baez, the admin for the physics usenet, came up with this index. It is a convenient way to gauge a persons theory... so here we go!



A -5 point starting credit.


-2 for LHC and Evolution


-4 because there are so many, I'm just going to restrict myself to 2


0 I think there have been but as this has been science and not logic, not going to dig for this one.


-10 LHC and science in general


0 Why_do is not big on thought.... experiments.


LOL I get nailed on this one EVERY TIME.


-5 I think Einstein was brought up?


0


0


0


0


0


0


0


-10 This is Why_do's main arguement if I remember


-10 LOL It's like re-reading this thread.


0


0


0 However, you know that why_do's stance will be of the "suppress" kind so I may have to regrade.


0


0 I don't think why_do ever said it was flawed but merely relied on the above ("it's only a theory") for his arguements


0


0


0


0


0


10 partial credit here for why_do never said exaclty the above, but certainly has alluded to it.


0


0


0


0


40 LOL again, it's eerie how accurate this is.


20 partial credit for while why_do does not claim this to be "his" works, he is a conspiracty nu.... errrmmm... person.


0 It's very close to the point above, so I dont' want to double grade.


20 AGain another partial credit for the allusionns why_do makes to this effect.


20 And finally, partial credit for again, why_do doesn't claim it's "his" but he doesn't offer any TESTABLE predictions for his statements.


At 156 if my math is correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this s not the worst score I've seen. Why_do's saving grace (and shame) is that none of what he says is his: he is merely a "monkey say; monkey do" and repeating what others are saying without doing the work him/her self. But still I think the index does a good job at showing how UNORIGINAL why_do's brand of ignorance is.

Now it all makes sense!!!


I scoured the internet and finally found a shot of Why_Do at work:




A little more digging and I found one of Why_Do working out the chances of the LHC creating a black hole





Finally, here is a little "preview" of Why_Do's upcoming "evolution vs. creationism" post:

Now there, don't get carried away. :p

"Whether you like it or not, solving the energy problem in the long run probably has more to do with atomic bombs that you'd understand."

There are numerous other energy sources which can be exploited , we dont need nuclear energy , nuclear waste is one of the hardest things to dispose of , there are far better solutions , if we spent more time working on alternate energy solutions rather than on making nuclear power plants.

"You don't even (want to) understand how evolution works"

I understand exactly how you say it works , the question is, do you ? Eveverything science has found proves creation right and evolution wrong, and I will put u a tiny example. If you we were to find a city the likes of new york , say , in mars , and we find no people , would you say that this city , buildings , cars , computers , everything , created itself ? Or would you say , oh , an ancient civilisation must have lived here long ago ? Then how can you belive that when you see earth , which is millions of times much more complicated a structure than a city like new york , you see it's life , you see it's massive perfection (earth and our solar system is a system of perfect mathematical equatins and forces , all of which are necessary for us), how can you assume this somehow all created itself ? LOL , you have to be a blind fool to believe that. Science proves it , as fastlane stated , we can calculate this things with great precission , that means the systems in place are systems of incredible pressision , does this sound like something that would be created from an explosion and disaster ? The physics themselves prove the universe and earth were designed , or you dont see this ? For us to be able to measure all this forces , they have to be constant , not an erradic mess which is what we would have in case of the big bang. Well i'm goinng to much into this , I will post a topic later , i will also include references to everything that proves evolution wrong , and in fact , darwin himself would disagree with evolution if he were alive today.

Sorry, but the first thing I thought when he said that was...
"What would it be like for Why_Do to be in charge of a power plant if the world voted for him to do so?"
...since according to his hypothesis he is equally as qualified as any current holder of the job should it be an elected position.

And then, after the natural shudder, the above were the second, third, and fourth things that just naturally derived from that thought!

I could change "why_do" to "any of why_do's hypothetical people with no science background voted into a position that requires scientific knowledge" but the latter was just more concise.

Oh and the crackpot index is something quite handy to have and deploy in any "science" thread.

I agree. And I would further state that you and I can accomplish a lot more following this line of action than anything that will result from the LHC, creation, or evolution. In other words, if this is truly your beleif, this is something that you can definitely "put up or shut up" about because you can make a difference here... but not in any of the other topics you have brought up.




Ahh.. The 'ol "clock on the beach" trick. I knew it; nothing new, nothing new...

Dont worry fastlane , I will post many reference to actual scientists against evolution , I will make sure thehre is enough reference to make even you , one of their most faithfull and devoted believers to question their lies.

I said it before and I'll say it again: I'll be amazed if you bring anything new to the table.

I'm sure I will see "the watch" again, I will meet "pandas", possibly be put into a “black box” and maybe even wedge my way into a "discovery" or two.

I will meet the "creator" but not god,
You will provide "analogies" but not proof,
And I will see "design" but not intelligence.

... *gets coffee*

Numerous other energy sources yes, sources this powerful no. It's not unthinkable that sun energy becomes more and more efficient or that we figure out a different solution. Still, at the moment nuclear energy is the most powerful we have. Why totally discard that fact? There's a lot of room for improvements for sure, I'll give you that.



This is simply not true. Also, it's yet another claim without backing things up.



It makes perfect sense, after all the earth is millions of years old. Life had plenty of time to develop into what it is now. Of course it's complex, still complexity isn't any evidence for creation at all, it doesn't prove anything.



It does not prove that anything was 'designed' at all. It only shows certain rules are in place.



I don't think so, I think he would be amazed by how his ideas have evolved into an even bigger and more precise theory.

"And I will see "design" but not intelligence."
Well you cant have design without intelligence , just like you cant have equations without numbers.

You will provide "analogies" but not proof,

You havn't provided one ounce of proof for evolution , only theories and as u put it yourself "analogies" , no scientific tested proof.

"I will meet the "creator" but not god

The creator is god , you cannot have a creator without god.

You just keep contradicting yourself in your statements , which are actually oxymorons.

Anyone interested in this thread should definately check out this videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-UCo7JQm-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31cRVrKbfSE&feature=related

However , I understand how hard it must be for you fastlane to see things from another perspective , you were TAUGHT evolution , and believe it blindly, if you were taught in school that the moon was in fact made of cheese when you grow you would believe it was a cheese wheel. However fastlane , do this , sit back , and see the videos , then , anylize yourself, look around , feel your heart beat , think about your family , and ask yourself , "an I really a mutated bacteria".

See , no amount of evidence can convince you , like the old saying , there is no blinder than the one who refuses to see, but all you have to do is analyze your own life and existance , to start seeing the truth.

And if you still believe you are a mutated bacteria , you do know that bacteria have no value right ? So what is your life worth if all you are is a pile of bacteria walking around ? Is this what you believe , is this what you believe your children will be when you have some ?

There is no way scientists or physicists can explain life , much less the universe. Life contradicts the big bang , and evolution. If things would have happened like they say , a big bang , there would be chaos , but instead we have harmony (and with incredibly precission), we have order , and we have life , all of those are contradictory to what would have happened with a big bang.

"It does not prove that anything was 'designed' at all. It only shows certain rules are in place."

Oh you are wrong my friend, this arent a couple of rules , it's a massively complicated system encompassed of perfect mathematical equations , from the stars right down to our cells , you have to be purely insane to believe there is no design in the universe or in ourselves. You dont see design in the human body ?
Can you actually look at a person and not see the design ? I would then imagine you look at cars and believe they could create themselves from dirt over millions and millions and trillions of gazzillions of years ? You just cant deny design , just look at the solar system , then look at yourself in the mirror.

And the biggest evolution buster ISSSSSSSSSS.
LOL , that with our billions and billions of years in the evolutionary chain , and all of your advanced science , and understanding of physics and electricity and temperatures and the universe and acoding to scientists knowing how the universe created itself , with all this knowledge , scientists cannot creat A SINGLE living cell from scratch. NOT ONE. How could this possibly be , please explain fastlane , how , if living cells formed from atoms that binded themselves together millions of years ago , why cant we create living cells ? Why cant we replicate this , they say it tooks millions of years because of the odds of certain atoms binding with the appropriate ones , but we now know the composition of the cells , so we can easily put the required "materials" together in a lab , and can even control heat , and have electricity , to recreate conditions they believe migh have caused life to spawn. Yet , it cannot be done , scientists have not been able to do it , even with our own source code discovered (dna) , scientists cannot do it , if we who have intelligence cant do it , can you imagine it happening by itself ?

Here's another problem with evolution , if in millions of years a cell was somehow created , how in the world would it already have a reproducing system ? A cell would be able to just spontanously reproduce as well after being spontanously created ? And if a cell wouldnt reproduce , wouldnt it just die away ? What massive coincidences had there to have been for a cell to #1 survive , and #2 learn to replicated itself.

The holes in the evolution theory are just about the size of the black hole in the center of our galaxy.

Because I have a disease: it's called "trying to stay on topic". As this thread is about the LHC and Physics, you are correct (for once) that I have not discussed Evolution and Biology.



I did. Then I went to the moon and found that to be false. Now I don't. That is science.



I dare say the psychological term for this is "transference", for this applies more to you than me. Or in terms you propose, more people would vote on this to be your attitude and not mine. Thus even by your reasoning it is you who are blind.



That is correct. "Life" is an ambiguous term that has no bearing in science. Evolution (and Science in general) does not make exclusive claims on what is "life" and what is "not"; it merely makes a claim to state how organisms tend to strive to be one step above the cold laws of physics.

The definition of "Life" is not important; whether something is alive, or not, or dead, is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. All that matters is our relationship, how one object relates to another, how I relate to you, how an electron relates to a photon... regardless of the "living" status we ascribe to these concepts.

Sure we can't do it? Not that it doesn't matter. By the time scientists figure out how to create life in a lab, you will simply argue it's even more evidence for your creation theory or that it's not necessarily is the exact same way life was created. You'll never be satisfied with the answers or solutions science provides.



Apparently our scientific knowledge is still too limited and / or technology isn't quite up to the task yet. It doesn't mean we never will be able to recreate life as it once started.



Death is a result of a mutation as well. The first few kinds of cells didn't die off. They mutated or were destroyed perhaps, but they didn't die of 'old age'. That's a fact. Also, the whole reproduction at first didn't exist. It's also the result of mutations. In fact, it's probably the most important mutation the precursor to the first real cell had to go through to make life as we know it possible.

AFAIK, Virus' and bacteria are considered replicators and not alive. This means that to Science, these are molecular combinations whose chemical energy potential leads them to make copies of themselves but don't quite make the cut-off for true life (since they require a ridiculously specific set of conditions to survive and replicate... way beyond what a normal symbiotic relationship would need). Hence, they are clear cut examples of how non-replicating objects can cooperate, coalesce, or otherwise conspire to reproduce their effective energy-conserving strategy.

In other words, at some point the interplay between energy and matter was such that it set up a self-replicating, self-sustaining system without an iota of intelligence or individuality. This is no great mystery BTW... just look at Cellular Automata and "Life"!



Simple: we are not victims of presumption. We don't presume to know everything, we don't presume to have all the answers, and we certainly don't presume to be able to replicate the wonderful, mysterious, complicated artifact that is (by anyone’s definitions) "Life" in the mere 300 some odd year that science has been around! I mean organized religion has been around for about 3000 years... why not give Science the same time-span to make IT'S case?

So of course we can't make life!!!!!!! As I've stated, Life is undefined and thus a horrible candidate for science. Once we get a better grasp on what it means to be alive, then, and only the, will science try to crack that nut. But even then, science is prepared for disappointment. Science doesn't mind. Science is patient and open minded. And if Life truly requires a non-scientific (ie: spiritual) component, I guaran-f'n-tee you that Science will be the first to acknowledge it and bring it into its fold! That's just how we scientists roll!

"Apparently our scientific knowledge is still too limited and / or technology isn't quite up to the task yet. "

But you are saying THIS HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF. Why would we need super advanced technology to create cell that suppossedly binded by itself with the help of nothing and no one ? If that was the case reproducing this effect with our current technology should be cake , however , it isn't, in fact , to this day it's not even possible. Think about what your saying.

I've thought about what I've said a lot. You seem to be stuck on your absolutistic beliefs on how every word scientists say represent some kind of unquestionable truth when it comes to these theories. You don't bother to even accept that we currently do not actually know how life came into existence. Whether with the help of your God or not, there has been a chemical process for sure. There are theories about the conditions under which this is most likely to have happened, but there's not much solid evidence yet to support those theories completely. And obviously, regardless of the definition of 'life' problem as Fastlane more or less mentioned, they haven't succeeded in creating 'life' in a lab yet. Does this mean they won't ever be able to? Hell no. Also, I doubt you would agree that scientists would have created life as it happened back then anyways, as there's always the easy 'rebuttal' of 'that's how man made it, not how it came into existence "aux naturale"'

Lets say you are building a remote controlled aircraft and you've figured out what is required to make it fly (i.e. wings, propeller, engine, light material etc.) , but you can't figure out how to mold a propeller that will actually make it fly... creating life is sort of like that. We know a lot, we just don't know enough.

Also and this may surprise you, life's coming into existence is often looked upon as something that happened because the conditions were right, not as something that happened accidentally and spontaneously without an event of some kind that 'caused' it. If by 'happened all by itself' you mean, the conditions were right for life to come into existence, then yes that's exactly right.

There's no way of knowing (at least at the moment) if those conditions were set by God or by chance (which might have been a lot more inevitable than the word 'chance' suggests). I don't believe there exists anything like God, so it's an easy pick for me.

It happened by itself over 1,000,000's of years. How do you propose to recreate that in 300?

Is anyone else noticing that Why_do is using the same (few) arguments again and again, without any support, backup or proof?

Its like:

Argument 1 - Counter Proof of agument 1 - argument 2 - counter proof of argument 2 - writing "LOL" and randomly saying sensless things - off topic posts about evolution and god - Argument 3 - counter proof of argument 3 - Argument 1...

a lot Time+Low Power=Seconds+a lot Power

This is mainly because it's facts, theories, educated opinions and so on versus opinions based on fear, feelings, emotions and intangible things like 'God' being responsible for things happening around us.

( I'm obviously talking science vs. religion here, so don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to know everything or pretend to be 100% correctly informed on all the various subjects.)

I don't think these kind of discussions really ever end with satisfaction because we are talking way past eachother. We (as in the scientists or people that place science above 'God') do not accept God as a possible theory (or at least this is what religious people tend to think) and they (religious people) think of everything that has but even a little thing to do with science as evil, not trustworthy, incorrect by definition and so on.

"This is mainly because it's facts, theories, educated opinions and so on versus opinions based on fear, feelings, emotions"
But you had put this before
". You don't bother to even accept that we currently do not actually know how life came into existence"
So you are arguing for nothing ? You are fighting for the scientific theory of how life came to existance and then say we dont currently know how it happened ? So which is it , is evolution right and you know or is it wrong because you dont know ? And if you dont know , should we be teaching this as fact ? I think you dont even read what you type , as you have clearly proven my arguments right with that lalst statement.

"Whether with the help of your God or not, there has been a chemical process for sure"
Who's arguing chemical processes ?

"I'm obviously talking science vs. religion here, so don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to know everything or pretend to be 100% correctly informed on all the various subjects."
Well inform yourself better than continue posting , how can you be arguing something your not sure of ?

"do not accept God as a possible theory"
Even if it's the most likely one ?
Even if all science really points to a grand design ?

The real question is , why isnt GOD a possible theory, isn't just as good , in fact better than the other ? If things could have somehow spontaneously generated , and life started from nothing , then it's just as possible than everything was created , and life was crafted by God. But if the theory of a creater is just not possible or accepted by the scientists no matter what , then , is science not a religion rather than science ? Any theory , should be a possible one , because science is suppossed to be searching for the truth through experiments and tests , but the second you say , well we wont even minutely consider god being a possibility , it's the moment you are saying , we are no longer science , we are the science religion , which believes everything began from nothing adn we evolutioned from nothing , it is what we believe , what we teach , and nothing is goinngi to change our minds from that , no amount of proof of design or complexity of life or any findings. That my friend , is religion , and you are a devoted follower, even if you can bring yourself to accept it.

It is absolutely a possible theory, just not a scientific one.

Now show me a repeatable experiement -- with hypothesis, procedure, analysis, and conclusion clearly defined -- to TEST this and it becomes a scientific theory.

Again, your unreasonable bias towards science has blinded you into ignorance.



I actually think this is doing some good for you are catching on! Here's a shocker: SCIENCE IS OPEN TO GOD. Science will accept that there is a creator if and only if as I stated above there is an experiment that proves it so.

Saying it's so from the pulpit,
Reading it's so from a holy text,
Neither of these suffice.

There must be a measurable and repeatable experiment
that any scientist around the world can perform
before Science can accept "God" as a viable scientific axiom.



I see you are better at giving advice than taking it.

No, but they sure are a fun way to practice disarming this dribble for the NEXT time someone has an un-original un-scientific brain fart and decides to post it, talk it, write it, or try to teach it!

Evolution and the 'start of life' are definitely two related things, however they are also two different things. As a relativist I'm always arguing a bit for nothing I guess, because we may have an entirely different view on things in about 50 years or so because of better understanding of how things work. In fact, much has changed already compared to say the paradigms of the 80ies. Problem nowadays are certain pseudo-scientific hypes that are created purely for commercial purposes.



In my opinion common sense suggests to go with what's most likely to have happened and teach that, with the knowledge that it may be somewhat wrong, incomplete and so on. Again, science doesn't claim to have omniscient knowledge. I'm a relativist as you might remember, so in fact I somewhat agree with you that we shouldn't teach things if there's reasonable doubt to believe it may not be true. Obviously this is something that valid for the start of life, it is however not true for evolution. It's still a theory because it's not perfect, however there's really enough evidence to suggest that it's correct.



Well, perhaps I am misunderstanding creationism, but don't you believe in instantaneous creation by some supernatural creature? A being that also want to fool us by putting fossils in the ground and so on, or are your views more modern? I'm kidding around a bit, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of creationists also question the involvement of real chemical processes. Also this fact alone implies that it should be possible to recreate that chemical process. (Even if this ultimately would mean something along the lines of if 'God' can do it once, he can probably do it a million times.)



I don't think it's the most likely one, it is a possibility, but like Fastlane stated not a scientific theory by any means.



No, actually it isn't. First and foremost because the concept of God is an invention of mankind. It's easy to prove this. It's only because of the definition of God that it can't be proven in a scientific way, because you have to 'believe in it' for it to be real, more or less.

In fact, I would challenge you to give a definition of God that's simple yet striking / indicative enough so we eventually really could check he or she 'did create' or 'didn't create' by the time we figure it out. For example, what if it turns out that 'aliens' created us and our universe somehow... would that mean that these aliens suddenly are your God? That would mean there are more Gods... I doubt you would agree to that, or?



Actually that's not true and because of the fact that this is not true, science is not a religion. Accepted are those things we can agree upon. We can't agree upon God, because we can't prove nor disprove him/her/it. In my humble opinion science doesn't deal in illusionary absolutes religions tend to and doesn't promise anything but valid or invalid theories until proven otherwise.

There was a inital creation i call force, you can call GOD. But for sure its not what bible says, about GOD.

There is though a superior to us, anuki, well 2012 will say that the earth will end , and we gonna go for other planet, if out creators ( maybe the one they call god)

So... what would it be in your opinion?



Do you know why they say the world will 'end' on December 21 2012?

It's because the conspirators / doomsdayers think that the Mayans believed the world would end. Thís believe is clearly wrong ( I'm talking about the people that think to know that the Mayans believed the earth would be destroyed or something. )

Mayans were extremely talented astronomers and they simply calculated and derived from their observations that there would be a certain event completed... That event is the wobbling of the earth's axis that happens with cycles of every 26.000 years if I recall correctly.

( However, if I recall correctly current data suggests that the axis is actually decreasing, not increasing, so it won't complete the axis wobble on December 21 2012. Can't quite trust Wikipedia on this though. )

Also, this ending of a 'wobble' cycle doesn't really mean anything. Sure, it may have and probably will have it's impact on our climate, but that's happening quite gradually and is nothing too unusual if you look at earth with a much longer time-scale in mind and it's history.

Picture this; the current angle of the Earth's axis is somewhere around 23.44 degrees, where as this limit they are talking about is 24.5 degrees. However it seems to be decreasing, so it's not hitting any 'boundaries' any time soon.

Well the Doomsday is something completely different , this wobble could definately end our life or not , I'm really not sure about this , and to be truthful the mayans never actually stated 2012 would be the end of the world , it's just where their calendar of events ends , which has caused people to assume it would be the end of the world. It's possible though , considering the Maya people were actually aware of the black hole in the center of our galaxy thousands of years ago when we barely founnd out about it like in 1995 , so their immaculately precise astronomy shouldnt just be discarded , but like I said , the mayan texts never state doomsday to take place in that day , so it could be a bad assumption , we shall see soon though.

"Now show me a repeatable experiement -- with hypothesis, procedure, analysis, and conclusion clearly defined -- to TEST this and it becomes a scientific theory."
Well how many do you need ?


LETS SHOW HOW SCIENTISTS DISTORT THEIR FINDINGS TO PUSH EVOLUTION PROPAGANDA

#1: The left over radiation they found in the universe that propelled the big bang theory over the steady state theory.

Lets anylize this, not long ago , a lot of scientists believed the universe always existed and had always been , they had the steady state theory. Then thorugh scientific experiments they found out something , hey , this is wrong, the universe was actually "CREATED". However , sientists and their affinity to deny God , went ahead and sait this (it's incredible they had the balls to pitch this idea) , yes , the universe was in fact created , but not by god , by "NOTHING". Wow , and doesnt this COMPLETELY contradict some of science basic believes that matter CANNOT be created, yet they say the universe and all matter within created itself. This , to me , is incredible , and more incredible that people believe it when they are in fact beliving in a contradiction , you either believe matter can be created or it cant. But scientists omit the contradiction and just dont mention it , hoping it'll go away. So recap , what did scientist found through experiments , that the universe and earth were CREATED, didnt the bible say that like 3 or 4 thousand years ago ? But of course , bible is very wrong , it wasnt created by a creator or a designer , it was created from nothing and by itself , I guess kind of like our children birth themselves spontanously and have no parents.

#2: DNA

Can you all believe scientists have actually used DNA to push evolution ? Really ? Do you all understand what DNA is ? For those who dont know here is a brief explanation , DNA is our SOURCE CODE. They found it , and I actually commend scientists on such a spectacular finding. They found Gods programming , thats embedded in each of our cells, each cell has a full copy of our source code. Now are you telling me that this code wrote itself ? Really ? And I supposse the code behind the games we create and the code that runs behind windows spontanously generated itself too ? Would you say it's possible for windows to have created itself ? Of course not right , you dont believe it's possible do you ? Yet you believe that our very own source code , our DNA , wrote itself. WOW. How scientists managed to mangle this into being proof of evolution is beyond me. If DNA isnt enough for you , what is ? It's the cells programming , we that understand how computers work and games work , fully understand how programming works , so how can you even consider saying our DNA coded itself ? This is real code , and this code tells each cell exactly what to do , and together , all cells working according their code , they build organs and all the body's functions , from cell to the brain , with the end product being a human being , an elemental flesh machine, to be goverened by a soul at it's command.

Everyone here reading , do see the previous videos I posted , one is arounndo 30 min long and explains all the workings of cells as well as the eye and some others , it really shows our complex design.

So all of science findings point towars a designer , from the physics system that encompasses our solar system , to the inner workings of our cells , EVERY SINGLE scientific finding points to incredible design , NONE points to randomness, yet , the explanation for all this harmony and design is one of chaos and chance , how does this make sense ?

So if we see a computer we should all assume that if we smash some metal together and mabe some glass and throw gasoline on it and light it up and throw a granade to it and explode it we might get a Quadcore dell with dual 30 inch lcd monitors and free internet ? LOL

The theory of evolution is LAUGHABLE at best , scientists could do a lot better exept for 1 little problem , science has PROVED CREATION , so they had to find a way to mangle creation withought a creator , and there it is, the big bang , the creation from nothing , incredible.

Dont forget , the bible clearly states , Satan is a LIAR , a DECEIVER , what more clever deception could he perpertrate than to fool god's people into believing they are nothing , came from nothing , evolved from baceria , then evolved from monkeys , and their life is really worthless , have no soul and no value , this is what evolution teaches , how can you not see that ?

One.



Correct. Pre-Hubble. And very few scientists actually believed this as there were few scientists back then that gave this any thought. Let's say, just to be on the safe side, about 100 scientists around the world in 1950 believed this. Next...



Correct. We found evidence that contradicted the steady state model and suggested a changing model. To day there are thousands of people that believe this model and so far, it's still the leader. Next...



Wrong. We do not as scientists make any claim to know if the universe was created or always was. No experiment designed thus far can tell the difference and thus you get the big "no comment" from us. The Big Bang theory, the successor to Steady State, only makes assertions back up until 10^-47 seconds. Beyond that, there could be a singular creation event or several or something completely alien to our current thoughts.



Wrong. Science makes no such claim and thus neither denys nor accepts God.
Am I getting through to you, McFly?



Correct. I found this disturbing until I did some research. Like any other theory, conservation of energy is purely a local theory. Since there is a whole universe outside our Event Horizon, we are unable at this point to say that this theory applies to the Entire Universe or just our Observable Universe. As you see, Science, unlike other religo-philosophies, is not ashamed to say "I just don't know".



Remember, wrong. Can't build a house of cards without a foundation. Science makes no such claim... next..



Kudos to the Bible. It must have taken real insight and spiritual knowledge to say the universe has begining (alpha) and an end (omega). I mean it's not like there is anything on Earth that could POSSIBLY put that idea in peoples head. It's not like they can just, I don't know, look around the earth and see things being born and dying. Truly, saying the universe was created is a stroke of supernatural genious.




"The watch on the beach" again...
...or "I see design but not intelligence".

DNA is not a computer program. It is horribly naive to think of it that way. That is just the kind of simplistic view that is so common with today's society. We make analogies and if the semantics are right, we assume there must be something there. The mechanisms by which DNA carries this information is poorly understood at best and yet you presume, you, to make gradiose claims?

But check this out! Here is the beauty of science. It is all fair and all loving. If it were a god, I would worship it no doubt because: if somewhere down the line we find that there is an unnatural process that leads to DNA working, then we can point to a designer. In other words as I've stated before, Science doesn't deny god, it's just waiting for the proper experiment

But note, this cannot be something we don't understand (for the answer can be found tomorrow). Oh no. To prove design you have to prove that at one point all our scientific laws command a process to go "right" and in fact it went "left" and with a purpose!



Finally! Your references revealed! ROFLMAO

"Wrong. We do not as scientists make any claim to know if the universe was created or always was"
Wait wait wait , so you are saying scientists DO NOT say the big bang , and explosion from either a tiny bean smaller than an atom or an explosion form nothing created the universe ? So what does it state again ?
From wiki
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[23] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[24] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe."
Yes , very interesting , but , where did all this energy come from ? the heating and cooling ? So they are saying this elements just basically eternally existed pre big bang ?

FACE IT , YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN IT , YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE EXISTANCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND MUCH LESS THE EXISTANCE OF LIFE.

Correct. No one can.



Wrong. If you listen carefully, you'll notice they don't say anything about this at all.



That's exactly what I'm saying. Since there is an (to date) impenetrable veil at 10^-47s, we cannot say if before that time, if behind that veil, there was infinite energy that reduced to finite, zero energy that emerged to finite, the finite energy was always there, or some other exotic energy explanation. The "homogeneously and isotropically [...] energy density" refers to our assumptions of the conditions right at the time of the veil and...



...as a model is subject to change. In fact wikipedia is not up to date on this. Current Cosmology (thanks in part to COBE mentioned prior) almost requires the initial energy denstiy to be non-homogenous and non-isotropic in order for the energy/matter distribution to be what we see today and explain what we see of the CMB.

And I know what's next, Why_Do, since it's in your name: Why is it this or that? Right? That's what you were thinking, I know you, you cheeky munky! Going back to the very first point, we don't know since our how-to only extends to the veil... beyond that, all theories are equally unprovable, thus making God on par with any other explanation scientists can provide as to why the Universe was created. Thus as scientists we work on the time after the veil, in reality, and leave what's behind the veil to others, to fantasy.

Here's another MASSIVE problem with evolution that pretty much gets ignored by the science community. The transitional fossils.
Evolution: All living things in the planet(plants too if you can believe that) came from the same first single living cell that spontanously generated billions years ago. So we should have millions of transitional stages between all life (I do wonder how this animal cell managed to transition to pllant cell which then spawned all plant life). Here is how many we have found. ZERO , thats right ZERO , absolutely none, man I love how strict scientists are about their proof of facts.
So , there should be millions of fossils that show this , where is the dinasours to cats , oh wait , scientists assume all dinasours just died at once , since there are ZERO transitional fossils from dinasours to our animals of today , well isnt that convinient. But we still dont have a cat to tiger , or lion to cat ,whichever way "it happened".

But no fossils , and dinasours just all died at once somehow suddenly , I see , and I'm suppossed to just blindly believe all this ? Thats asking for a lot of faith my man , a lot of faith to belive i'm a giant bacteria with no soul.

Here one proposed whale evolution

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(And on a note , what is the reason for this evolution ? Why would that "mesonychids" turn into a whale ? LOL , again , nonsense.)

Oh yeah , and you would need A TON more transitionos stages , since those are some pretty HUGE leaps the whale is taking.

Even a billion years cant account for all the transitions in the world today , if you look at the graph , that is arounndo 20 to 25 millions years for the whale to become a whale , oh , and dont forget , all gradual steps where this same animal kept changing to whale , well damn , are you saying all animal changes were happening at arounno the same time , so by now we have such a massive array of life ? Again , contradicts itself , the time it would take for 1 single cell organism to evolution into all the life in our planet today wouldl be much more than the time our planet has been orbiting our sun.

Oh yeah , and dont forget all life and dinasours died 65 million years ago , so we dont even have a billion. We have 65 million years for everything to get to where it is now , we just lost a couple billions years of evolution to a comet/asteroid 65 million years ago. But the whale took 25 million , for 1 animal ?

C'mon fastlane , how blind do you have to be to believe this, and again , NO PROOF , other than theories which are basically just ideas people come up with to answer things they dont understand , NO FACTS.

Evolution = OBSOLETE

"Correct. No one can."
Then why is the big bang and evolution taught as fact ?

"Wrong. If you listen carefully, you'll notice they don't say anything about this at all."
Again , you prove science to be deceiving people by omiting facts.

"That's exactly what I'm saying. Since there is an (to date) impenetrable veil at 10^-47s, we cannot say if before that time"
They talk about the bean , which is suppossed to be before everything , maybe now they just dont say it because they might have actually paid attention to what they were saying , lol.

"Correct. No one can.

Wrong. If you listen carefully, you'll notice they don't say anything about this at all.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Since there is an (to date) impenetrable veil at 10^-47s, we cannot say if before that time"

So this are your answers my friend ? Just avoiding the questions ? Thats your science and fact and reasoning ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is too funy , you just fully proved the big bang , when put to the test , collapses. You did not give me one answer , you avoided every one of my points , which are all valid. You my friend , are done.

There was definately a creation of the universe and of the world , a creation science has proven , but it was by God and not a bean smaller than an atom , and much less an explosion from nothingness.

And if scientists have become to embarrassed to say it was a bean , or nothingness , and now say they only know what happened "10^-47s" , then they should admit they have NO IDEA HOW THIS HAPPENED. 10^-47s after , LMFAO , what a way to avoid answering the question, we only know what happened "10^-47s" after , but it was DEFINITELY NOT GOD , maybe a bean , or nothing , or eternal energy , wait wait man , we don't know , something , BUT NOT GOD , anything else.

ROTFLMFAO

This answers are so stupid I wonder how educated people can even consider contemplating them.

Scientists don't say that. Individual scentists may, according to their own personal beliefs, but I am here to "represent" and tell you emphatically that this is your own imagination at work for we do not, as a group, take either stance on god before th BB until such time as we can test it.




Because neither pretend to answer the question you posited.



Saying "I don't know" is ommitting facts? Interesting way of feeding a conspiracy. Scientist don't know what happened before the big bang and they don't know where and how life began. This we make no secret of (as I'm proving now! LOL). But give us time. As I stated before, religion has had 3000 years to make it's case; science 300. Hence let's compare notes in another 2700 years... just to be fair after all.



Really? You've degenerated into this? Taking my explanation as to the current limits of science, openly admitted BTW, as avoiding a question. WOW How sad...



We've admitted to this since day one of the BB theory. You just weren't in class when we did. So we'll say it again: we don't know what happened before the veil. There? So much for the science conspiracy since I've just made public, well, what's been public all along but now MORE public!

Now what? Is science irrevocably destroyed?




Proving once again that your math skills are lacking, these equations are wrong.

Despite the fact that everyone knows that a missing data point do not a theory prove or disprove, this is also a re-worked version of "the watch". I don't understand how that watch could have been made (or that animal evolved), so it must have been a supernatural being! Of course! Good enough explanation for the cavemen, good enough for me!

Post your thread already and let's leave this for LHC and phyiscs, not Evo and Biology.

"Because neither pretend to answer the question you posited."
Yes they do , they claim the big bang and evolution

"Saying "I don't know" is ommitting facts?"
Well they dont say they dont know , they teach children big bang and evolution, thats saying they know, or else they shouldn't be teaching it.

" Scientist don't know what happened before the big bang and they don't know where and how life began"
So what is this big bang theory and evolution theory they teach in schools that scientists defend so fircely ?

"Really? You've degenerated into this? Taking my explanation as to the current limits of science, openly admitted BTW, as avoiding a question. "
Thats exactly what it is , avoiding the question.

"WOW How sad..."
Resorts to emotional attack to avoid the subject and a real answer..

"We've admitted to this since day one of the BB theory"
Well the all powerfull bean is a popular theory scientists have. Thats right , not all powerfull God , all powerful bean, incredible.

"Proving once again that your math skills are lacking, that equation is wrong."
Maybe you need to go back and re-read the thread.

"Despite the fact that everyone knows that a missing data point do not a theory prove or disprove"
I see, so no real proof is needed for a theory to be valid. I love how your science works fastlane , very impressive.

This isnt a little evidence missing , IT'S MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of transitional fossils , again , twisting facts trying to make transition fossils really an irrelevant issue which should be easily overlooked , when in fact it's a HUGE issue which stomps evolution 6 feet under the earth , so you just simply , ignore it. Fantastic work ethics , this is real science man , real facts here backed by solid proof and evidence , great work. LOL
Keep worshiping your all magical bean of creation fastlane , I would much rather believe in the all powerful God.

Do you read what you type ?

I didn't say that at all, nor is that a logical implication from what I did say, but thanks for twisting my words all the same. Shows you care.



What do you think of this diagram?

Is that supossed to be the picture of a transitional fossil ?

I am fully aware of our universe , it's grand scale and complexity, the question is how can you believe all this happened from nothing. You seem to be missing the point. I also dont believe we are the only living organisms in the universe , I believe it's all full of life , I definately dont believe the creation of life was limited to earth.

I also dont see how a picture of the stars proofs the big bang and evolution , wait , seeing a picture of complex cosmic design should be proof of the big bang ? Trying to impress me with our universe's magnifisence ? I'm already impressed by it , so much , I understand the probability of the theories being excreted by the scientists.

Percent of chance the big bang and evolution are fact= 0.(a quatrillion zeros)1%
I'm sorry but that isnt enough for me , and it surprises me it's enough for scientists , LOL.

Your picture = pointless

No. Do you understand what a H-R diagram is?

Make that new thread!

Good point Joozey.
My point is on standby until then.
Do some research on the H-R diagram so that when we do get to it, you'll know what I'm talking about.

The Mayans said that it would be the end of the World as we know it time will no longer exist, we measure time as linear it takes X amount of time to get from A to B "It will not be the end of the world as many others would like to believe" it will just mean that traveling from A to B would be unmeasurable there for it took no time from A to B there for time didn't exist.

"Do some research on the H-R diagram so that when we do get to it, you'll know what I'm talking about."

I will look into it right now , and will post my thoughts on it in the new thread i'll make. Depending on how much reading I have to do for this I might post today or tomorrow ,it's past 3 am so heading to bed soon.

"The Mayans said that it would be the end of the World as we know it time will no longer exist"

I've read a lot on the Doomsday theory , though I dont think I had run into that theory, sounds interesting though. There are many theories on what might happen , some say the polar shift , that might cause the earth's crust to rotate itself over the mantle to realign itself. It's actually a possibilty , but hopefully not , since it would be very bad news for us. Then we have the end of the wobble , and we have the solstice that will align the north pole to the black hole in the center of our galaxy.

I dont know if anything will happen , it could be coincidence , it is possible the Maya people just thought having their events calendar go all the way to 2012 was enough timespan for the calendar , it's the date they calculated all the cosmical alignments were the same as their date of creation. One thing is for sure , there is something VERY strange about the precision the Mayans had in astronomy , they only had their EYES , lol , no hubble , not huge telescopes , and they knew about things that we have barely come to know in the past 10 years, that is INSANE. It is truly unexplainable , it is 100% impossible for this to have been , but they left the evidence engraved in stone , so we can't deny their knowledge.

It is very strange too , that they attributed their knowledge Kukulcan (feathered serpent), their legends tell he taught them medicine , agriculture , astronomy , and about how a civilization works in general. He was believed to have come from the waters , stayed with Mayans for some time , then left again , saying he would return in time. The strange thing is , he is described by the Mayans , and , he is a caucasian bearded man. How could this be ? The Aztecs had that same god as well , exept they called him Quetzalcoatl , but the story is very similar and he is a white bearded male as well.

And the Mayan's arent the only one with this type of god , if you go back as far as you can go , you reach Sumer , and what a strange coincidence , Sumerian gods are caucasian bearded men as well , if you dont know where Sumer is it's in Iraq , we was , it is considered to be the first civilization on earth. They also attributed their knowledge to the gods , and even have an engraved tablet that shows one of the gods giving them their plow for agriculture. This are some of the most puzzling facts archeologists have ran into , and till today many just dont know what to make of them , but there was definately something very strange happening in the past, specially when you consider technically by scientists men have been here for a LONG time (not exactly sure how long at the moment but I think it's over 100,000 years) , and yet , all of a sudden , around 5000 years ago , a civilization emerged , Sumer , and this newly formed civilization had , agriculture , religion , law , traditions , astronomy/astrology , a writing system , language , schools , monetary system , basically EVERYTHING we have today withought technology, well withought electronics , they did have their tools. Sumer and the Mayans and Egyptians are definately surrounded by mystery , and make some of the most interesting subjects of study.

But in short , the Mayan astronomy definately shouldnt just be ignored ,their year calendar is more precise than the one we have in use today , knew about things our astronomers have just come to find recently , and predicted events thousands of years in the future , and with 100% precision, there is , however , no evidence pointing to the Mayans saying the world would end this day.

Well I looked into it some right now and dont see whta it's suppossed to prove.

"Contemplation of the diagram led astronomers to speculate that it might demonstrate stellar evolution"
Might

"In the 1930's and 1940's, with a understanding of hydrogen fusion, came a physically-based theory of evolution to red giants, and white dwarfs. By this time, study of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram did not drive such developments but merely allowed stellar evolution to be presented graphically."
Yes

So what does this prove ?

From what I understood it lets scientists calculate the distance of the star to earth , shows the temperature , magnitude and luminosity of the stars. What does this prove ?

I will look for more information on it tomorrow , but from what I saw right now , it doesnt really show any support for the big bang.

But in turn fastlane , see the movies in the links I posted a couple of days ago , I know you didnt see them , so check them out.

It's nonsense in your eyes because you don't understand anything about evolution. Seriously, natural selection happens because of their habitat, food supply, natural enemies and whether or not you can adapt to changes. Apparently (and DNA proves this as much as it proves that we are evolved from apes), a lot of species survived by changing into quite different species. You should look more into this 'why' question you have and try to understand how evolution works. It's pointless to even discuss this if you don't understand evolution's most basic principal.

Also, why oh why do some whales go look for a beach to crash on (even though that will kill them)? According to some experts it's partly their rudimentary instincts at work from the time when they were more like sea-lions.

Also, they are simply a surviving branch of evolution. Look at sharks, they are such a surviving branch too and extremely successful at it I might add. Biggest difference is that sharks didn't change that much because their environment didn't change that much. Really, not every 'old' species will go extinct by definition.

By the way, you are seeing huge leaps, because you don't realize that evolution is a gradual process. We could show many many many more transitional forms, but all you would do is ask for even more in between. It's pointless, you don't except them as intermediary species anyways.

Cheers

Until baited again properly?

Does the hand of mercy stay your next blow?
Is there wisdom behind a guise of hesitation for knowledge requirements?

HR-diagram: monkey see, monkey do

Ah yes, the white devil travels between spaces now, and desecrates time by playing god, Merlin and Santa Claus to Mayan, Aztec and Sumerian.
All the members of those civilizations went to sit with Arthur in the holy site of Christmas Gehenna. There, as the slaves and flesh toys of new sadistic gods, they learn to advance and suffer.
Have they returned yet?

Indeed, the nature of humanity can be represented by a combination of stenchy notions offered by a member of the species:
The human species supposedly evolved from a strain of modified "armpit bacteria" (term armpit used for effect here) left by an interstellar pest. The pest and bacteria are considered unintelligent by common standards, but by human standards, both possess god-like intelligence.
All three are pests, but in comparison, the human species is barely worth mentioning.

Vain, arrogant, ridiculously conflictive, leeching upon itself, petty and destructive, consumed by greed, ignorance and foolishness, ruled by dumb impulse, bloated ego, and flash assumptions, mired in mindless loops and blind routines, bluntly competitive in its own numbers to no positive affect, easily leashed and sparked by a few of its own, the human species will select itself out easily.

The sooner the better. How can these shells be tolerated for so long?

Through the use of its technology (if it can be called that), the species will produce affects detrimental to the whole of itself and its sphere of influence.
The species is an absurd, but harmless artifact of interstellar pest migration.

The path of order and salvation holds steadfast like the topic here.

Ease up. Go relax. Pick an insect off your associate and eat it. It's fiction.

Please send a notification (memo) if and when the topic returns to:
"Best Black Hole Earth Sucking Day T-Shirt design"
or
*(LHC)Large Hadron Collider
*physics
*Earth <- the endangered species
*large scale end of the world death parties, orgies, sacrifices, etc. with black hole theme

Thanked every thread participant separately and personally in advance for playing secretary and memo distribution specialist.

First of all, generally this whole doomsday theory is an interpretation based on what Mayans might have believed. It's vaguely derived from texts (the Mayan hieroglyphics are multi-interpretable and to be honest, not yet deciphered) and their calculations (the calculations are deciphered entirely).
What they really thought is pretty vague, unclear and probably simply incomplete, especially because the Mayans knew what would happen in terms of astronomy.



Which makes no sense at all because the Mayans knew the 26.000 years wobble was cyclic in nature. They for sure didn't believe in time being reversed or something.

It's not meant to. That's not my point.



Awaiting the new thread...



30mins to an hour of watching your movie vs. the few minutes it took you to google "H-R diagram"... hardly seems balanced, don't you think?
But in all fairness, I'll spend the same amount of time watching your movies as you spent investigation the H-R diagram.
Fair?

Just repost them here (if about LHC) or in new thread (if about Evo) so I can watch them. There is no WAY I'm going to scour through all these posts to find a movie... and then find I'm watching the wrong one! LOL

WTF Testdummy.... this actually made sense!!!!




Save it for the new thread; don't waste your breath here.

Real brave statement... coming at the end of a thread and from anonymous.



(Whistles) Hey! TestDummy! I think your cousin is here! And he's making your comments sound sane!

there a book, GOD Formula, and talks about einstain, that discovered the god message, and why we exists, he proved why we are here, why universe is like this, and what our future will be.

He claims we, humans, are some kind of intermediate objects, that will discovery a way to create the next big bang life, since a big crush will destroy everything, we need to be so smart in the future, that will create such a machine, that when big crush ocoours, it will create simple desviations, during its creation, allowing planets to form, and many other variables, that will make the life possible in some planets, so that all the evolving will turn into inteligence again.


About the.. 2012, well.. mayan ends on 2012, right, but its just not a pole shift, also a planet, already discovered from egypcians, millions ago, and just now, for our Scientists, planet called Nibiru, and will aproach the earth, and will be very bad for earth, tsunamis will come, and earthquakes,...

Thats because the Noe's Ark existed before.. maybe?

And we are the sons of GOD, since mayans, and they are on that planet, we probably have their DNA mixed with other living organisms found on earth. We are maybe an experiment, just that. Thats why UFO's come sometimes, to check if we (like an biologic experiment) are going well..

The first three four words killed your explanation for me, sorry.

[..] There's a book, God (formula) and talks about Jesus, oops I mean Einstein.. [..]

Theres just a book that is all about GOD's formula, which as we all know results into 42. And they used einsteins calculations to figure out the formula... something like that :P

Nothing to do with Jesus, he only became 'around 30' anyway. But I'm heading offtopic myself now

EDIT: Just to put things straight: in the most extreme scenario, jesus did became exactly 42 (7 BC - 36 AC)

New Report: Earth in no danger from LHIC

The last part about magnet explosions, evacuations, injunctions and delays is a nice touch, but not much interest, not much stock, is placed in such samples.

Sample, buy, and eat or don't.
The truth or meat of it, is variably consumed and digested.
It is seemingly just a matter of taste and gain.

here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3381v1.pdf

here are some cool pictures: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html

Physics is b-eau-t-full!

Marvelous piece of engineering ^^

tic tac tic tac...

http://www.lhc.ac.uk/latest-news.html
http://lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch/lhc-first-beam/Welcome.html

BTW, just so the people that think the LHC will destroy the world will know we have been listening, a new safety device was installed at the facility which should completely wipe away any fears you might have:

Push the button!

Indeed, the button is a wonderful success
...hopes...err...fears are all gone.
(Now with less lobotomy.)

Some of the images are quite tasty.

If by some infinitesimal chance the world still just happens to be destroyed on Wednesday, it's fine and dandy.
Wednesday is the perfect day of the week for it.

A mini black hole needs 15 years (verify?) to destroy the world. Of course after 15 years wednesdays will still exist.

No, mini blackholes ... the ones that will be created in or during the process are like all other mini blackholes that come into existence naturally. That means that they can not and will not destroy earth.. they exist for a too short period of time and are simply too small.

The only change of even coming close to the destruction of earth, would be if for some weird reason such a mini blackhole would not disappear almost straight away, but instead grow bigger and bigger.. and then at some point 'swallow' earth.

I don't know how long this then would take, however it definitely depends on the growth-rate of the blackhole.

The chance of this happening is in fact so close to zero that it probably just won't happen... just like all the other dozens of doomsday theories,

Cheers

Yeah I know they exist for too short, I was talking about a mini black hole that had enough energy to sustain. LHC can't reach this amount of energy so it's not something to worry about. Yet if a mini black hole from outer space with enough energy sucks it's way to earth's center, we could see it on the surface in 15 years. (Of course not taken in account the side effects from losing a planet's core ^^).

Wait!
We are swallowed by a black hole since they turned it on, but there´s no difference.

Believe me, I´m a black hole.

Apparently a 16 year old girl has committed suicide because she got so scared about all this and did not want to witness the possible end of the world... Their parents couldn't stop her from committing suicide.

Such a shame!! And shame on the fools that have spread fear. Things like this make me a little bit mad... regardless of whether or not the world is going to end today, tomorrow or after.

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

Ah I planned to paste that too
Here's another one:

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

Ah, its almost 2009 and the world did not end.

Dammit, I guess I'll wait for the disaster of 2012 to occur.

Didn't the lhc got postponed yet again for April or May or something?


Btw, just in case there's still someone who hasn't seen this, check it out.. Rap and physics are compatible.. who knew?

Ah, I thought they had fired it already. Looks like they accelerated protons as a test but didn't collide them. I thought they had done so. Then maybe the world will end before 2012 . . .

Oh and funny video btw. Particle physics is still beyond my comprehension however . . .

Doesn't that video make you research some things even further? It certainly had that effect on me...

Yeah, beams were fired but no collisions... I bet you'll hear it on your local news station when it happens( either that, or satan will break it to us when we all arrive at hell), because it's not every day we transform energy into matter.

True, the doomsday people still can go on for a little bit longer. But firing beams around didn't cause earth changing problems, meaning chances are even lower now that the world will be destroyed.

Cheers