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.)

intercourse with black hole single choice
extermination event -> slow n steady Earth BH intercourse is favored	50%, 4 Votes
extermination event -> quickie Earth BH intercourse is favored	50%, 4 Votes
Total Votes: 8 Voting on this poll ends: 10/30/18 10:59

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.