Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ End Of The World?

Posted by: sigma7 Sep 11 2008, 10:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T745HXduHY

hey guys. Did anyone hear about the black hole experiment they are going to do in october. They are planning to make a blackhole on EARTH and they say there is a 1 out of 50 million chance that the world will get sucked in. WTF. Y r scientists risking the world for a freaking experiment that is not necesserily important at this time? Is neone else afraid because I am.

Wuts ur take on it?

Posted by: superize Sep 11 2008, 10:29 PM

QUOTE (sigma7 @ Sep 11 2008, 11:26 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T745HXduHY

hey guys. Did anyone hear about the black hole experiment they are going to do in october. They are planning to make a blackhole on EARTH and they say there is a 1 out of 50 million chance that the world will get sucked in. WTF. Y r scientists risking the world for a freaking experiment that is not necesserily important at this time? Is neone else afraid because I am.

Wuts ur take on it?


I heard that they were going to remake the big bang but anyway its stupid to risk this much on a experiment

Posted by: MickeM Sep 11 2008, 10:33 PM

They finished one of these experiments yesterday or the day before. We're still alive but. I feel like I'm being pulled away by a strong force...... . .. . .. .. .. . .

tongue.gif

QUOTE (sigma7 @ Sep 11 2008, 11:26 PM) *
Is neone else afraid because I am.

Not the least afraid of this experiment. Nukes and the people who owns them scare me a lot more.

Posted by: Canis Sep 11 2008, 10:33 PM

I was sitting in class yesterday, with my fingers in my ears.. Just waiting for the bang. But no... tongue.gif

Posted by: Duncan Sep 11 2008, 10:36 PM

They aren't making a blackhole. It is just a possible outcome. I say go for it. I'd rather the human race die striving to learn rather than due to something like global warming.

Posted by: Ajmurrell Sep 11 2008, 10:40 PM

QUOTE (sigma7 @ Sep 11 2008, 10:26 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T745HXduHY

hey guys. Did anyone hear about the black hole experiment they are going to do in october. They are planning to make a blackhole on EARTH and they say there is a 1 out of 50 million chance that the world will get sucked in. WTF. Y r scientists risking the world for a freaking experiment that is not necesserily important at this time? Is neone else afraid because I am.

Wuts ur take on it?



I've been following it quite a bit, because I'm a little bit of a physics geek biggrin.gif, but the danger levels are so very small. Most of the negative press about dangers are more along the lines of doomsayers/cult type remarks. Like how the world is going to end in 2012... You'd think they'd have better things to do if they really believed that they had so little time left!

Oh well, personally I hope they don't find this Higgs boson particle they're searching for. Proves modern physics got something wrong, and increases the interest in workin out what!

Hawking himself has put a bet on that they won't find it smile.gif

Posted by: fkalich Sep 11 2008, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (sigma7 @ Sep 11 2008, 04:26 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T745HXduHY

hey guys. Did anyone hear about the black hole experiment they are going to do in october. They are planning to make a blackhole on EARTH and they say there is a 1 out of 50 million chance that the world will get sucked in. WTF. Y r scientists risking the world for a freaking experiment that is not necesserily important at this time? Is neone else afraid because I am.

Wuts ur take on it?


Probably nothing will happen. But I don't believe anyone can possibly calculate the risks when they are doing things that have never been done before, all based on theory.

People are very naive about trusting the scientific community. When the first Atomic Bomb was being built, there was a scare that it might engulf the Atmosphere. But then the calculations said this was impossible. But when they blew off teh first test, one of the Scientists said he got scared, he thought at first it was doing that, spreading out and engulfing the atmosphere. So my question is, if they were so sure it was safe, why did he get scared?

I am convinced the danger here is MUCH more than 1 in 50 million. Anyone who has that much confidence in calculations based on mathematical theories, on experiments man has never done before, with forces we don't fully understand, is a total PINHEAD.

But I am not going to worry about it. I bet death by being sucked into a black hole is a painless death.

Posted by: DeepRoots Sep 11 2008, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 11 2008, 10:54 PM) *
I bet death by being sucked into a black hole is a painless death.

Is that a theory based off of something that has never happened before?

Posted by: MickeM Sep 11 2008, 11:06 PM

QUOTE (DeepRoots @ Sep 12 2008, 12:00 AM) *
Is that a theory based off of something that has never happened before?

laugh.gif nothing more, just lol laugh.gif

Posted by: Duncan Sep 11 2008, 11:09 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 11 2008, 10:54 PM) *
I am convinced the danger here is MUCH more than 1 in 50 million. Anyone who has that much confidence in calculations based on mathematical theories, on experiments man has never done before, with forces we don't fully understand, is a total PINHEAD.


I'd rather trust their calculations rather than your opinion. I'd love the world to be sucked into a black hole. What a way to go.

Posted by: jacmoe Sep 11 2008, 11:19 PM

QUOTE (Duncan @ Sep 11 2008, 11:36 PM) *
I say go for it. I'd rather the human race die striving to learn rather than due to something like global warming.

Well put! smile.gif

In fact, I think this is the most intelligent remark I've seen in a long, long while. wink.gif

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Sep 11 2008, 11:22 PM

I heard about it , they are trying to simulate a big bang and some specific particle..They say results will come in 2010 smile.gif Will be an interesting outcome smile.gif

p.s. I hope they don't manage to make a black hole smile.gif

Posted by: Gus Sep 11 2008, 11:22 PM

I think that any experiment has its risks... When someone injects a virus into a mouse, is it possible that the virus will mutate and than exterminate whole human life? Well, it is possible but very very unlikely.

I was a little bit worried, before I actually read more about it. 1 over 50 million is probably a wild guess. And whoever did it would likely overestimate a lot so that he has less chances of being wrong and being the culprit of human life extermination...
So, as far as probability goes I would not be worried at all.

Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Sep 11 2008, 11:24 PM

That accelerator cannot make a black hole, it is a complete nonsense. It accelerates particles and with trivial amounts of energy, compared to a making of a black hole. So...rest assured..

BTW I find the accelerator opening quite an exciting thing, I love breaking new grounds in tech! smile.gif

Posted by: FrankW Sep 11 2008, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (DeepRoots @ Sep 11 2008, 11:00 PM) *
Is that a theory based off of something that has never happened before?


The odds are that it has happened before, just not around here.
Perhaps the LHC, or Large Hadron Collider, will provide us with answers to questions that we have not been able to answer until now. I'm not sure of the relevancy of the questions that scientists at CERN are wanting answered where the average person is concerned. But, I do find it exciting.
If we are going to be obliterated by some cosmic force, guess what? There ain't a damn thing we can do about it. But, we must continue to explore because that is our nature. Sometimes we're going to be "playing with fire". I say, go for it.

Posted by: Déjà vu Sep 11 2008, 11:51 PM

QUOTE (jacmoe @ Sep 11 2008, 03:19 PM) *
Well put! smile.gif

In fact, I think this is the most intelligent remark I've seen in a long, long while. wink.gif


I actually agree with you guys on this...

Posted by: fkalich Sep 11 2008, 11:57 PM

QUOTE (Gus @ Sep 11 2008, 05:22 PM) *
I think that any experiment has its risks... When someone injects a virus into a mouse, is it possible that the virus will mutate and than exterminate whole human life? Well, it is possible but very very unlikely.

I was a little bit worried, before I actually read more about it. 1 over 50 million is probably a wild guess. And whoever did it would likely overestimate a lot so that he has less chances of being wrong and being the culprit of human life extermination...
So, as far as probability goes I would not be worried at all.


I don't disagree Gus. And you are correct, the two biggest dangers are Nukes, and emergence of a virus with the characteristics that will wipe out maybe a billion of us.

But I don't trust the scientific community. Money is involved. Egos are involved. Careers are involved. To scientists one thing matters more than all else. Continued funding. BTW, I worked for 5 years as a NASA consultant. Minor role, but I met a lot of scientists. I am not pulling this out of my ass. If loss of funding is a possibility, they get real quiet, just like anybody else.

Posted by: Fran Sep 11 2008, 11:58 PM

Best part of it is that if those doomsayers are finally right... we won't have to listen to them saying "I told ya!!" laugh.gif

Posted by: FrankW Sep 12 2008, 12:01 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 11 2008, 11:57 PM) *
I don't disagree Gus. And you are correct, the two biggest dangers are Nukes, and emergence of a virus with the characteristics that will wipe out maybe a billion of us.

But I don't trust the scientific community. Money is involved. Egos are involved. Careers are involved. To scientists one thing matters more than all else. Continued funding. BTW, I worked for 5 years as a NASA consultant. Minor role, but I met a lot of scientists. I am not pulling this out of my ass. If loss of funding is a possibility, they get real quiet, just like anybody else.


Does that mean if I pull a mini black hole out of my ass, I can get some funding?

Posted by: fkalich Sep 12 2008, 12:22 AM

QUOTE (FrankW @ Sep 11 2008, 05:37 PM) *
The odds are that it has happened before, just not around here.
Perhaps the LHC, or Large Hadron Collider, will provide us with answers to questions that we have not been able to answer until now. I'm not sure of the relevancy of the questions that scientists at CERN are wanting answered where the average person is concerned. But, I do find it exciting.
If we are going to be obliterated by some cosmic force, guess what? There ain't a damn thing we can do about it. But, we must continue to explore because that is our nature. Sometimes we're going to be "playing with fire". I say, go for it.


Perhaps with 6 billion people going on 12, and most probable scenarios for the future (wrt the ability to even feed them) being pretty bleak, perhaps there are bigger fish to fry?

Science in the past has has some practical purpose, so real way that it helped man. This does nothing. I have read probably as much on modern Physics as most here I am sure. But it just is kind of useless. I can't think of any scientific efforts in the past that even approach the level uselessness of this research.

I don't think at this stage of the game, that this is the area scientific minds should be focused on. Things are going to get really rough in real ways (such as food) in the next decades, those are the areas they should be focused on. They can worry about whether we have 11 dimensions or not in the 22nd century I figure, but for now, I think they should focus on trying to get us though the 21st.

Posted by: The Uncreator Sep 12 2008, 12:49 AM

Well the Hadron Collider has already been used without creating a blackhole, I doubt it will happen, The physics only really work out in theory for the blackhole on earth, I know its "Possible", But still its way more unlikely anything bad will come of it.

The Atom Smasher Is Your Friend smile.gif

Posted by: FrankW Sep 12 2008, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 12 2008, 12:22 AM) *
Perhaps with 6 billion people going on 12, and most probable scenarios for the future (wrt the ability to even feed them) being pretty bleak, perhaps there are bigger fish to fry?

Science in the past has has some practical purpose, so real way that it helped man. This does nothing. I have read probably as much on modern Physics as most here I am sure. But it just is kind of useless. I can't think of any scientific efforts in the past that even approach the level uselessness of this research.

I don't think at this stage of the game, that this is the area scientific minds should be focused on. Things are going to get really rough in real ways (such as food) in the next decades, those are the areas they should be focused on. They can worry about whether we have 11 dimensions or not in the 22nd century I figure, but for now, I think they should focus on trying to get us though the 21st.

I don't disagree with you. Read the third sentence I wrote. When I say we should "go for it", I'm referring to supporting the spirit of exploration, albeit in a way that serves a practical purpose.
I'm with you, I can't see spending begillions of dollars on studying the mating habits of the pink-assed baboon or some such nonsense, just to fund some geeks who are afraid of working hard for a living...but, what can ya' do?

Posted by: VinceG Sep 12 2008, 02:35 AM

Whatever happens in our 7(?) layers of atmosphere is much more intense than whats being calculated in the LCH. Nothing is going to happen. Besides, its awesome that there doing this. I'm sure the scientist are not gonna make something that could potentially destroy the planet. What's gonna be the outcome of that if you risk all human life forms?

Posted by: fkalich Sep 12 2008, 04:26 AM

QUOTE (VinceG @ Sep 11 2008, 08:35 PM) *
Whatever happens in our 7(?) layers of atmosphere is much more intense than whats being calculated in the LCH. Nothing is going to happen. Besides, its awesome that there doing this. I'm sure the scientist are not gonna make something that could potentially destroy the planet. What's gonna be the outcome of that if you risk all human life forms?


Based on what I have seen first hand on a 7 billion dollar project.....

To think that those in the scientific community would not take chances totally unacceptable to the rest of humanity is wrong thinking. They have great jobs. Often low pressure. Often a lot of fun. And good pay. They live in great places, where if they lost the job, they could not find another one there. Certainly not as good. They have families. A small chance of destruction of the planet is one thing, a big chance of losing the job, having to sell the house and find a job in another city for the wife and 3 kids is another. And between the two, they will take the small chance of destroying mankind.

They won't take a 25% chance. But they will take a heck of a bigger chance than 1 in 50 million. I don't believe the 1 in 50 million crap. To the extent they do anything that cannot be demonstrated to occur in nature frequently without destructive effects, the risk is unknown. I go back to my Atomic bomb test. If scientists totally bought into the "I did the calculations and clearly this is impossible" bit, why was the one guy scared when it went off that the atmosphere was being engulfed.

IF they do any novel experiment that they have not been able to clearly observe in nature, one that is based only on calculations, a lot of them will try to hide it, but when they still find themselves breathing, they will given an inner sigh of relief.

But I don't know if they will be able do do anything like that. With all the crap on internet, it is hard to find. And even having read books on it, it is still hard to know the answer to that. I have heard that they won't, but I am not certain of that. I would like to be certain, but nobody here will be able to tell me that, no matter what their position. And that tells you something.

QUOTE (VinceG @ Sep 11 2008, 08:35 PM) *
Whatever happens in our 7(?) layers of atmosphere is much more intense than whats being calculated in the LCH. Nothing is going to happen. Besides, its awesome that there doing this. I'm sure the scientist are not gonna make something that could potentially destroy the planet. What's gonna be the outcome of that if you risk all human life forms?


you are the one how may be able to answer my question, but that was not enough, just you saying that. What are your references for that? Do you have something solid and tangible to back it. That is the only real concern, are they going to do anything that does not occur frequently in nature, based only on untested theory. Because if they do that, they are into the unknown, and risk calculations are just guess work then.

Posted by: Ajmurrell Sep 14 2008, 04:03 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 12 2008, 04:26 AM) *
Based on what I have seen first hand on a 7 billion dollar project.....

To think that those in the scientific community would not take chances totally unacceptable to the rest of humanity is wrong thinking. They have great jobs. Often low pressure. Often a lot of fun. And good pay. They live in great places, where if they lost the job, they could not find another one there. Certainly not as good. They have families. A small chance of destruction of the planet is one thing, a big chance of losing the job, having to sell the house and find a job in another city for the wife and 3 kids is another. And between the two, they will take the small chance of destroying mankind.

They won't take a 25% chance. But they will take a heck of a bigger chance than 1 in 50 million. I don't believe the 1 in 50 million crap. To the extent they do anything that cannot be demonstrated to occur in nature frequently without destructive effects, the risk is unknown. I go back to my Atomic bomb test. If scientists totally bought into the "I did the calculations and clearly this is impossible" bit, why was the one guy scared when it went off that the atmosphere was being engulfed.

IF they do any novel experiment that they have not been able to clearly observe in nature, one that is based only on calculations, a lot of them will try to hide it, but when they still find themselves breathing, they will given an inner sigh of relief.

But I don't know if they will be able do do anything like that. With all the crap on internet, it is hard to find. And even having read books on it, it is still hard to know the answer to that. I have heard that they won't, but I am not certain of that. I would like to be certain, but nobody here will be able to tell me that, no matter what their position. And that tells you something.



you are the one how may be able to answer my question, but that was not enough, just you saying that. What are your references for that? Do you have something solid and tangible to back it. That is the only real concern, are they going to do anything that does not occur frequently in nature, based only on untested theory. Because if they do that, they are into the unknown, and risk calculations are just guess work then.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

Now I'm aware that this is a Wiki article and thus may not be as reliable as you'd wish for, but check the external links section, most notably here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray.

You'll see that a particle of estimated energy around 3.2x1020 eV has been recorded, which is far beyond what the LHC can produce.

I also found this video, which is a little to technical for my understanding, but it talks about current technological man created eV charged particle levels, compared to cosmic ray energy. http://www.telescopearray.org/movies/wmp250k.wmv

Not sure if any of that helped you, I don't pretend to know much about it, but I find it all very very interesting smile.gif

Posted by: Muris Varajic Sep 14 2008, 01:03 PM

Science is like that,sometimes less risky,sometimes more risky.

I do support experiments like this one cause there are many
different theories on how the universe was "born" etc.
"Black Hole" still sounds pretty scary and I hope it'll all go smooth
without any major consequence. mellow.gif

Posted by: Nazgul Sep 14 2008, 01:12 PM

QUOTE (The Uncreator @ Sep 12 2008, 01:49 AM) *
Well the Hadron Collider has already been used without creating a blackhole, I doubt it will happen, The physics only really work out in theory for the blackhole on earth, I know its "Possible", But still its way more unlikely anything bad will come of it.

The Atom Smasher Is Your Friend smile.gif


smile.gif. I agree.

It IS possible, but come on... rolleyes.gif No one should be afraid of this. That would be quite freaky if the world suddenly disappeared, wouldn't it? huh.gif

Posted by: Caelumamittendum Sep 14 2008, 01:55 PM

QUOTE (Nazgul @ Sep 14 2008, 02:12 PM) *
smile.gif . I agree.

It IS possible, but come on... rolleyes.gif No one should be afraid of this. That would be quite freaky if the world suddenly disappeared, wouldn't it? huh.gif


You wouldn't notice it, as it would take 1/20 of a second wink.gif

By the way... they haven't "crashed" the two yet, that is still to happen. And if that creates a black hole, that black hole is going to be so small that it will die again before it can "eat" anything.

Posted by: Matt23 Sep 14 2008, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (Caelumamittendum @ Sep 14 2008, 01:55 PM) *
You wouldn't notice it, as it would take 1/20 of a second wink.gif

By the way... they haven't "crashed" the two yet, that is still to happen. And if that creates a black hole, that black hole is going to be so small that it will die again before it can "eat" anything.



Yeh i theres a 1/50 000 000 chance they'll make a black hole and that black hole will most probably be so small it will die before it can get bigger anyway. Personally i just think the papers are trying to make a story and theres hardly any risk of the world being sucked into a black hole.

Posted by: Rooks Sep 14 2008, 02:32 PM

Well, knowing that a black whole is created when stars burn out their "fuel", and implode under their own massive gravity creating a ball the size of 0,01 mm in diameter but still amassing the same weight; confining everything surrounding into this mass-paradoxy-like vortexfield.

I'm not very concerned about CERN using the "massive" weight of about 500u and bashing a few particles together.. Yea there's a probability that antimatter in extremely little quantitude will exist in fragments of a nanosecond.

I'm more afraid of accidently tripping over a leprechaun going out my front door, and bashing my head into the curb killing me

( least the black hole thing will sound more cool on my tombstone)

If it DID happen, imagine being an astronaut looking at earth just going down the drain.. "haha good I'm not down the-....

Posted by: MickeM Sep 14 2008, 02:41 PM

The only one on earth capable of creating a black hole is Chuck Norris, he just have to kick real hard and fast in the thin blue air, crushing the atoms into such mass a black hole appears.

No scientists, only Chuck Norris. And as far as I know he's not involved in this project, it's beneath him.

Posted by: SonofDestiny Sep 14 2008, 02:44 PM

I read in the newspaper that an Indian girl got so scared about this, she killed herself the night before the experiment. Such a shame..

Posted by: Skalde Sep 14 2008, 02:54 PM

If this is true, I doubt that the experiment was the only reason.

Posted by: mjsteps Sep 14 2008, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 12 2008, 12:22 AM) *
Perhaps with 6 billion people going on 12, and most probable scenarios for the future (wrt the ability to even feed them) being pretty bleak, perhaps there are bigger fish to fry?

Science in the past has has some practical purpose, so real way that it helped man. This does nothing. I have read probably as much on modern Physics as most here I am sure. But it just is kind of useless. I can't think of any scientific efforts in the past that even approach the level uselessness of this research.

I don't think at this stage of the game, that this is the area scientific minds should be focused on. Things are going to get really rough in real ways (such as food) in the next decades, those are the areas they should be focused on. They can worry about whether we have 11 dimensions or not in the 22nd century I figure, but for now, I think they should focus on trying to get us though the 21st.



Well I"ll chime in for no good reason except to ask "Perhaps some questions are not to be answered"?
Or " Perhaps some answers are not to be questioned"?

Take a look at topics such as global warming. For every 100 hundred cases made there are two hundred to refute such claims. Take a look at whether the universe is expanding or is it contracting? are we moving forward in time or perhaps we are moving backwards. These topics make guitar look easy.

Mjsteps



Posted by: JVM Sep 14 2008, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (Matt23 @ Sep 14 2008, 09:29 AM) *
Yeh i theres a 1/50 000 000 chance they'll make a black hole and that black hole will most probably be so small it will die before it can get bigger anyway. Personally i just think the papers are trying to make a story and theres hardly any risk of the world being sucked into a black hole.


I think its a very solid idea that more so than scientific risk taking this is an issue of media sensationalism (be it on a rather small scale, however, it is present everywhere in varying doses).

Posted by: Jesse Sep 14 2008, 04:49 PM

I think in 2012 the world will change... Dont know how.. doomsday? the rapture? revelation? I dont know;D Mayas calender ended on 12 12 2012 so.

Posted by: unreal Sep 14 2008, 06:22 PM

I think that the story with 'creating black holes' was first initialized by some scientists that wanted to boost funding for the project, because they needed a good catchphrase. Seems the media turned that plan back on them.

It's angering though that even though all the estimations I have seen do not predict any danger at all, but the fear that is created is real, and there are many people who are or were really scared, and I have read some quite ridiculous stories about the end of the world in newspapers, some even cursing the whole physics community for playing with all our lives.
That is something I don't see, the LHC is not a machine that is qualitatively different from previous colliders, and everything that can happen in there, has already happened so many times (for at least 4 billion years now) in our atmosphere, or in the atmosphere of the sun or the other planets, for that matter, and still, there are no black holes in our solar system.
The only difference is, in the LHC, they are able to measure the outcomes of strong collisions, while they couldn't do that in the atmosphere of the earth because they don't have control there.

But I also want to quote a friend of mine here who said: No matter what's true or not, a civilization that ends it's existence by creating their own black hole at least has some style wink.gif.

Posted by: Nemanja Filipovic Sep 14 2008, 06:33 PM

I am shore every thing will go as planed.And we will haw the answers to all the questions here asked.

Posted by: fkalich Sep 14 2008, 10:27 PM

QUOTE (Nemanja Filipovic @ Sep 14 2008, 12:33 PM) *
I am shore every thing will go as planed.And we will haw the answers to all the questions here asked.


Well, I am only sure because collisions occur at much greater energies do occur frequently in the upper atmosphere. It is not powerful enough to worry about. If it were, if it really could perform experiments that we do not see occurring in nature around us without catastrophic results, you would have cause for concern.


Why would you consider it so far fetched that a civilization reaches a point where it has technology capable of destroying a little corner of a Galaxy, because they did not know what they were dealing with? Because they were arrogant and thought they understood things better than they really did. Scientists have always thought they understood things better than they really did. Here is a good book for the layman on that kind of thing.

http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221428551&sr=8-1


But I don't think we have to worry, yet. Not with this pop gun. But I do believe that they are moving in that direction.

Posted by: FrankW Sep 15 2008, 12:54 AM

The only question I want answered is, how is this thing relevant to the benefit of Mankind? I'm not saying it isn't, I don't know enough about it. I just want to know if the billions of dollars being spent on this thing will give us answers that will help us move forward in some meaningful way.
It's supposed to answer questions concerning the Big Bang Theory. How does that ultimately benefit all of us? If it does, good, otherwise, it's just another wild goose chase at the expense of the taxpayer...

Posted by: FrankW Sep 15 2008, 02:45 AM

QUOTE (The Uncreator @ Sep 12 2008, 12:49 AM) *
Well the Hadron Collider has already been used without creating a blackhole, I doubt it will happen, The physics only really work out in theory for the blackhole on earth, I know its "Possible", But still its way more unlikely anything bad will come of it.

The Atom Smasher Is Your Friend smile.gif


I think that the odds of this thing creating earth eating black holes is a lot more remote than us being struck by a giant hemmorhoid from space. ..there's some real planet killers floating around out there...

Posted by: Rolls Sep 15 2008, 03:07 AM

Wait until they start building these things in space. It is going to look like Halo for sure! What about the $4 billion spent on this machine....is it going to help us find free energy, help solve poverty, do anything besides possibly solve someone's curiosity on how the universe was created? BLAH

Posted by: Nemanja Filipovic Sep 15 2008, 03:20 AM

QUOTE (Rolls @ Sep 15 2008, 04:07 AM) *
Wait until they start building these things in space. It is going to look like Halo for sure! What about the $4 billion spent on this machine....is it going to help us find free energy, help solve poverty, do anything besides possibly solve someone's curiosity on how the universe was created? BLAH

free energy is a great idea,but,I dont think that the interests of the big companies will let that happend.
Nikola Tesla had the similar idea,and even solution,but nothing came out of that.But it would be great.

Posted by: Smikey2006 Sep 15 2008, 05:33 AM

we have free energy.. its called the sun.. we just need to harvest it.. MORE SOLAR! anyways im sure that nothing bad will come from this collider. Stephen Hawking has said that the probability of black holes is soo small.. and even if they were created they would disappear.. thing about how they are created in the first place stars collapsing on themselves.. and even this process takes thousands of years.. our miniscule blackhole couldn't find enough matter quickly enough to get very large.. i think the whole black hole thing is just doomsayers wanting to freak people out.. the funny thing is it has worked on alot of people. I have no idea what the hydrogen collider is going to teach us (im sure we will learn so much that the average person wont understand what we are learning) but i look forward to some collisions and i look forward to reading what is really going on smile.gif

Posted by: Jesse Sep 15 2008, 07:19 AM

:| Didn't think some of you knew so much bout physica:| Im in my 4 year from 6 years highschool. And I dont have physics anymore.. YES!:D

Posted by: mjsteps Sep 15 2008, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (FrankW @ Sep 15 2008, 12:54 AM) *
The only question I want answered is, how is this thing relevant to the benefit of Mankind? I'm not saying it isn't, I don't know enough about it. I just want to know if the billions of dollars being spent on this thing will give us answers that will help us move forward in some meaningful way.
It's supposed to answer questions concerning the Big Bang Theory. How does that ultimately benefit all of us? If it does, good, otherwise, it's just another wild goose chase at the expense of the taxpayer...



HERE IS THE BENEFIT: TO EMBRACE THE SECULAR HUMANISTS POINT OF VIEW.

Posted by: Nemanja Filipovic Sep 15 2008, 10:27 AM

QUOTE (Smikey2006 @ Sep 15 2008, 06:33 AM) *
we have free energy.. its called the sun..

Well sed my friend,and I agree,Sun is probably the best energy source.

Posted by: fkalich Sep 15 2008, 11:58 AM

QUOTE (Jesse @ Sep 15 2008, 01:19 AM) *
:| Didn't think some of you knew so much bout physica:| Im in my 4 year from 6 years highschool. And I dont have physics anymore.. YES!:D


I have not seen any evidence than anyone here but myself has read extensively on the subject, just sounds mostly like BS artists throwing around buzz words.

I don't care about black holes, or what Hawking said. I read his book twice. What I care about is that the history of science is a history of unforeseen side effects, due to scientists not fully understanding what they were dealing with. Both of the Curies had radiation poisoning. Marie died of cancer, her husband would have, but he had an accident that killed him first. Issac Newton has 40 times the level of Mercury in his hair than a corpse should have. Who was the chemist who used to taste his chemicals, I forget. They never were sure what killed him. You find case after case in history where scientists performed experiments where they did not fully understand what they were dealing with, of the dangers involved.

I doubt anything happens here. But considering the clearly bizarre and strange nature of the Universe (not even considering parallel universes) if you think mankind can go gung ho into experiments dealing with forces we do not fully understand, and that there is not the potential of some time bomb being set off that nobody even comprehends at this time, you are clearly a historical illiterate at best, and possibly a pin head.

I know the argument, they are not doing anything that is not occur in nature all the time around us. Well probably.
But it is things like this, where maybe somebody missed something, and no, you are doing something different, there is some difference. There certainly is a difference between a super cooled tube and the upper atmosphere.

I am not worried, simply because generally the worst things you think might happen, don't happen. But I am not naive enough to think that any cutting edge experimentation with unimaginable powers such as this, into the unknown, could not be full of unforeseen risks. LIke a cockroach who only sees on ground, and says "it is safe", and does not see the crow swooping down.

QUOTE (Nemanja Filipovic @ Sep 15 2008, 04:27 AM) *
Well sed my friend,and I agree,Sun is probably the best energy source.


Solar can never make a dent. I saw as study in college. They could cover the state of arizona with panels, and it would not be that significant. You have to have solar where there is little cloud cover. It is not possible for this to be significant for many decades. Nor can wind. Nor will Fusion for at least a century.


QUOTE (mjsteps @ Sep 15 2008, 04:02 AM) *
HERE IS THE BENEFIT: TO EMBRACE THE SECULAR HUMANISTS POINT OF VIEW.


You bring up something critical, but I don't know if you are connecting certain dots.

There are some serious fundamentalists out there. Who have written that if it takes a few billion dead to accomplish their aims, so be it.

What do you think happens if the mass of mankind really does get pulled out of the primitive mythology and superstition that most live in today? If these people see their world crumbling, and their strategies falling apart, and they feel they have their backs up against the wall? They will have big nukes by then, bank on it. What if it reaches a point that they feel it is wrath of God time?

You are not going to pull everyone out of mythology, some will die first, and maybe take a lot of you with them.

Like it or not, the mythological view society has of existence is what keeps society stable. You might move to a new stability eventually. As the French did after the Revolution. After enough heads were lopped off. And after the Napoleonic wars left a generation dead. Or as Russia did, after Lenin and Stalin killed 20 million, and Adolf killed another 20 million.

Posted by: unreal Sep 15 2008, 01:13 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 15 2008, 12:58 PM) *
I have not seen any evidence than anyone here but myself has read extensively on the subject, just sounds mostly like BS artists throwing around buzz words.

With all respect to your knowledge and expertise in that field (and this is not meant ironic or sarcastic, I can see you really dig into these matters more deeply than the average person), it seems to me that
QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 15 2008, 12:58 PM) *
I doubt anything happens here. But considering the clearly bizarre and strange nature of the Universe (not even considering parallel universes) if you think mankind can go gung ho into experiments dealing with forces we do not fully understand, and that there is not the potential of some time bomb being set off that nobody even comprehends at this time, you are clearly a historical illiterate at best, and possibly a pin head.

and

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 15 2008, 12:58 PM) *
There certainly is a difference between a super cooled tube and the upper atmosphere.

and

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 15 2008, 12:58 PM) *
But I am not naive enough to think that any cutting edge experimentation with unimaginable powers such as this, into the unknown, could not be full of unforeseen risks. LIke a cockroach who only sees on ground, and says "it is safe", and does not see the crow swooping down.

also contain lots of buzz words, that are not fully substantiated. There unfortunately is no proof up to date for the existence of parallel universes (even though i really like the theory predicting this) and of course the supercooling of the tube doesn't have anything to do with the state of the particles inside, so there might not be so much of a difference at all. And unimaginable powers? Sorry, but what they do there can clearly be quantified (And: I don't work for CERN nor am I in any way affiliated smile.gif ).

I agree though, that unforseen effects have turned up over and over in history, there is no 100% safe experiment. To shut down any future experiment based on these facts though, would be contrary to human nature imho, exploration is one of the main driving factors in many people's lives. A good piece of caution is required everywhere.

Posted by: FrankW Sep 15 2008, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (mjsteps @ Sep 15 2008, 10:02 AM) *
HERE IS THE BENEFIT: TO EMBRACE THE SECULAR HUMANISTS POINT OF VIEW.


What the hell is that supposed to mean?

CODE
name='fkalich' post='258840' date='Sep 15 2008, 11:58 AM']I have not seen any evidence than anyone here but myself has read extensively on the subject, just sounds mostly like BS artists throwing around buzz words.


The Chill Out Room is supposed to be a place where people can BS, laugh, and yeah, possibly learn something. It's hard to learn from someone though, who is arrogant and sarcastic in nature. You lost me after your first sentence.

Posted by: Rolls Sep 16 2008, 02:40 AM

QUOTE (FrankW @ Sep 15 2008, 12:33 PM) *
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

CODE
name='fkalich' post='258840' date='Sep 15 2008, 11:58 AM']I have not seen any evidence than anyone here but myself has read extensively on the subject, just sounds mostly like BS artists throwing around buzz words.


The Chill Out Room is supposed to be a place where people can BS, laugh, and yeah, possibly learn something. It's hard to learn from someone though, who is arrogant and sarcastic in nature. You lost me after your first sentence.



wow, nice.....but is this chillin' haahhaha

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 16 2008, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (FrankW @ Sep 15 2008, 03:33 PM) *
The Chill Out Room is supposed to be a place where people can BS, laugh, and yeah, possibly learn something.


Very true - so lets all chill and not start shouting at each other and being rude to other individuals.

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: Jesse Sep 16 2008, 01:39 PM

Go tony with his Italic writing .. YEEEHAW!

Posted by: Muris Varajic Sep 16 2008, 01:48 PM

That's just our good old Fkalich,
he writes like that but I'm sure he had no bad intense whatsoever. smile.gif

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 16 2008, 03:37 PM

Jesse - I use bold italics when I'm posting with my moderator's hat on wink.gif. So my post is literally to ask everyone to chill it before I have to take action cool.gif .

And I think you're spot on there Muris smile.gif - my intervention wasn't aimed at him btw.

Back on topic:
Personally I agree with much of what fkalich says concerning the predictability of a 'novel' event. By its very nature as novel it is not forecastable. By its very nature as novel it is no better 'known' and 'understood' from within a scientific paradigm then from within any other paradigm..

A numerical valuation is based on a comparison of similarity - a 'difference in degree' as Gilles Deleuze calls it (and before Deleuze Leibniz). A novel event has no precursor, nothing to compare it with; everything that we understand and know is different to what is novel fundamentally as the later is a 'difference in kind' to what 'is'. To put a numerical value on the likelihood of a novel event occurring is absurd. As fkalich says he is as well placed as anyone else, including scientists, to make such a prediction because none of us have any better position to act as a basis for arbiter of truth and value of a novel event. Humanity do not have an Archimedian point from which to judge. That science has done so reflects both the paradigm that it currently exists within and, relatedly, how science believes generally that everything is reducible to a difference in degree within a limited mathematical infinity.

On how absurd it is - I contend that the chance is not 1 in 50 Million but 1 in 50,000,001. Phew the world is now a safer place rolleyes.gif .

Cheers,
Tony


BTW - Fkalich was the quote you referred to in your first post the one from Robert Oppenheimer when he witnessed the Trinity Atomic Bomb test, 'I am become death, the destroyer of worlds'? That is, if memory serves me correctly, the 'father' of the A Bomb who also originally thought that Atomic energy would provide for free, clean, sustainable energy but later recanted on this and lobbied long and hard against...

Posted by: fkalich Sep 16 2008, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (Muris Varajic @ Sep 16 2008, 07:48 AM) *
That's just our good old Fkalich,
he writes like that but I'm sure he had no bad intense whatsoever. smile.gif


Muris has a good read.

I figured this out yesterday. I think this is interesting. A person should really try to understand Relativity before that other stuff. Actually I think you have to look at a lot of it mathematically, no other way.

I never fully understood why you could not go faster than the the speed of light. Why the equation E=mc^2 implied you approach infinite mass when you do so. Turns out, the equation does not imply that. Einstein went back to Newton mechanics for that. Maybe some math guy out here will say "elementary my dear fkalich" but I find this interesting. An object's energy in E=mc^2 does not mean just nuclear energy. It means all energy, ncluding Kinetic. I had assumed E was just nuclear energy. I expect most others also have that false assumption.

The key is this formula which tells you that as speed approaches infinity, the Kinetic energy approaches infinity. E_k = \frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}} - m c^2 .

So going back to E=mc^2, we flip that around, m= E/c^2. Well as we approach the speed of light, we know from above the E goes to infinity, so M must also go to infinity.

What always threw me was the speed of light (c^2) in the formula. It has no significance here at all for that equation, it is a constant, and just is ignored as you go to infinity. No matter how big, the biggest number you can imagine is insignificant as you approach infinity.

Now I was trying to figure out why gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. General Relativity is grounded in that. Turns out nobody knows, it is not a matter of theory. It is an assumption, because that is just the way it always appears. Einstein just assumed it.

I read a lot on this kind of thing. Books. Wikipedia helps to supplement this. Probably nothing bad happens in the next few years. But the time may come. I don't trust scientists like most people seem to. Anymore than politicians or anyone else. I think that confidence is misplaced. You can't always count on a whistle blower to show up.


Someone above said they don't believe in parallel universes. See, the concept of space itself is just connected with matter. Without matter, there is no space. It is not like there is this space and all this matter in it like a box. Space is tied to matter, without matter, there is no space. In the beginning with the singularity, what was there? You can't even say there was nothing. This stuff gets real weird. I am just speculating here, but I don't think we would think of them exactly as parallel. That is probably a bad term for it. Matter creates its own space. That does not mean 2 Universes are side by side in a spacial sense. I would think that on this level, the laws of physics as we know them all break down, you can't look at these things in terms of the laws of physics that rule our universe. At least that seems reasonable to me. Just be glad anti-fkalich has not joined GMC forum.

Posted by: Jeff Sep 16 2008, 03:54 PM

Me - No time for a black hole just yet. I am still working on Marcus Lavendell's lessons. When those are complete I will be ready to leave this planet. Well, actually I would like to hit the Taco Bell drive through first and get a number 1 (Burrito Supreme, Taco Supreme + Large Mountain Dew) to take with me. Since we don't really know what's in these black holes, I may get hungry! biggrin.gif

Oh yeah, gotta charge the iPod too.

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 16 2008, 04:01 PM

Jeff - do we really know what's in a Taco Bell either (and perhaps more importantly would we ever really want to know wink.gif )?

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: fkalich Sep 16 2008, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 09:37 AM) *
BTW - Fkalich was the quote you referred to in your first post the one from Robert Oppenheimer when he witnessed the Trinity Atomic Bomb test, 'I am become death, the destroyer of worlds'? That is, if memory serves me correctly, the 'father' of the A Bomb who also originally thought that Atomic energy would provide for free, clean, sustainable energy but later recanted on this and lobbied long and hard against...


I love that quote. Most of those scientists were pretty high minded ethically, but it was hard to resist working with the top minds on the top project in the world.

The guy who said that was an Italian I think, or an Italian name.

My oldest brother said to me one time, he feels we should not have dropped it, because it has left that image of that singular mushroom as the image people have of what we are dealing with. That they just don't really conceive of magnitude the destructive power of what they are dealing with. If they did, they would work harder to try and get rid of these things.

Posted by: Jeff Sep 16 2008, 04:18 PM

QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 10:01 AM) *
Jeff - do we really know what's in a Taco Bell either (and perhaps more importantly would we ever really want to know wink.gif )?

Cheers,
Tony


That's the beauty of it, Tony! You see, the three things that would survive are 1.) Taco Bell food products, 2.) Twinkies and 3.) cockroaches! I am thinking that consuming Taco Bell get's you the food and cockroaches all at once. And, nothing can destory a Twinkie. Plus, they all taste great! biggrin.gif

Posted by: fkalich Sep 16 2008, 04:23 PM

QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 10:01 AM) *
Jeff - do we really know what's in a Taco Bell either (and perhaps more importantly would we ever really want to know wink.gif )?

Cheers,
Tony


I am sure they don't want you to know. I am a serious label reader now, always read the nutritional info anymore. It means I won't eat a lot, and I just hope I did not do to much damage from past junk I ate.

Cheese is the hardest to cut down on. But wow, saturate fat levels, it don't take much with cheese. That is sad.

But that is why God created mushrooms and bell peppers and corn and carrots sauted in just a little canola oil with onions and garlic, and just one tablespoon of steak sauce in it. If you work on it, you can make healthy yummy stuff.

We have a grocery store that has pretty good fresh salmon, I go at night and get the stuff they have to sell in the next few days, they mark down the price. Still good. That is why God created salmon, because that way you don't have to eat beef. Rarely eat beef anymore. <sound of cheering cows clapping>

edit: forgot to mention the black pepper in the recipe. a lot of pepper.

we need a healthy food GMC recipe thread.

QUOTE (Jeff @ Sep 16 2008, 10:18 AM) *
That's the beauty of it, Tony! You see, the three things that would survive are 1.) Taco Bell food products, 2.) Twinkies and 3.) cockroaches! I am thinking that consuming Taco Bell get's you the food and cockroaches all at once. And, nothing can destory a Twinkie. Plus, they all taste great! biggrin.gif


you know there are 4 cockroach types in the US

1) Waterbugs...people call them that. They are asian cockroaches
2) German...little brown ones
3) American cockroach...big and brown

there is another, but it is in the far south I think, like Florida. Forget the name. Just so you know what you are eating when you eat processed meat and fast food.

When I used to eat fast food, I always was realllll nice to the people serving me. Real respectful. I feared them.

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 16 2008, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 16 2008, 03:08 PM) *
... If they did, they would work harder to try and get rid of these things.


Difficulty there fkalich is, as with the wind in Pandora's Box, once out of the box there is no undoing it. Even if we removed all atomic weaponry and destroyed the information on how to build them there would still be some individuals who would want to re-create it knowing that it had already been done before.

Also, sadly some people work with the best intent but - as you said early in the thread - that intention is perverted by others, be they individuals or institutions and so too much scientific endeavor is put to ill use...

Since we can't ever undo history it perhaps becomes even more important to learn from it. Sadly, to my mind at least, and despite all our protestations to be 'enlightened' we don't. To do so would require of us a much more fundamental paradigm shift than that between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics.

Cheers,
Tony


Off topic again (sorry all)

Never eaten a Taco Bell - or Twinkie - in my life Jeff so I guess I'll just have to die never knowing wink.gif .

It's one thing I love about the bit of Spain that I live in - fast food is freshly made tapas and there isn't a Golden Arch (or any permutation like it on fast food) for miles smile.gif . Same as fkalich I sort of prefer my food fresh and identifiably part of the food chain cool.gif .

Cheers,
Tony

ps what is a Twinkie? Sounds pretty yeucky to me laugh.gif .

Posted by: Andrew Cockburn Sep 16 2008, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 16 2008, 10:49 AM) *
I never fully understood why you could not go faster than the the speed of light. Why the equation E=mc^2 implied you approach infinite mass when you do so. Turns out, the equation does not imply that. Einstein went back to Newton mechanics for that. Maybe some math guy out here will say "elementary my dear fkalich" but I find this interesting. An object's energy in E=mc^2 does not mean just nuclear energy. It means all energy, ncluding Kinetic. I had assumed E was just nuclear energy. I expect most others also have that false assumption.
...


This stuff I love ...

The way I look at it is that as mass increases to infinity, using that famous Newtonian equation "f=ma", if force remains constant, acceleration decreases until you are microscopically close to the speed of light, acceleration is infinitesimal, even if you increase F hugely - if you end up with infinite force and infinite mass, we don't have the mathematics to understand what that means, but they likely cancel out somehow and you still don;t get to the speed of light.

Another "aha" moment in relativity for me was the realization that any objects velocity is always C - its just that an object at rest uses all of that velocity to progress through time. As velocity through space increases, it borrows velocity from the time dimension meaning that time moves slightly more slowly, giving rise to time dilation.

Posted by: Jeff Sep 16 2008, 05:17 PM

QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 10:42 AM) *
Off topic again (sorry all)

Never eaten a Taco Bell - or Twinkie - in my life Jeff so I guess I'll just have to die never knowing wink.gif .

It's one thing I love about the bit of Spain that I live in - fast food is freshly made tapas and there isn't a Golden Arch (or any permutation like it on fast food) for miles smile.gif . Same as fkalich I sort of prefer my food fresh and identifiably part of the food chain cool.gif .

Cheers,
Tony

ps what is a Twinkie? Sounds pretty yeucky to me laugh.gif .


Sorry for being off topic again as well, since I started it.. Anyway this is all you need to know about Twinkies http://www.twinkiesproject.com/ and yeah they are bad for you! laugh.gif
I agree about the fast food. It's really more of a joke on my part too. I prefer fresh foods!

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 16 2008, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Jeff @ Sep 16 2008, 04:17 PM) *
Sorry for being off topic again as well, since I started it.. Anyway this is all you need to know about Twinkies http://www.twinkiesproject.com/ and yeah they are bad for you! laugh.gif
I agree about the fast food. It's really more of a joke on my part too. I prefer fresh foods!


laugh.gif Thanks Jeff, I think wink.gif . I particularly like the 'rapid oxidation test' laugh.gif.

I really shouldn't have asked though and now, just like the wind in Pandora's box or the image of the A bomb explosion, I can't ever forget ohmy.gif . laugh.gif

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: blindwillie Sep 16 2008, 08:39 PM

QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Sep 16 2008, 06:03 PM) *
This stuff I love ...

The way I look at it is that as mass increases to infinity, using that famous Newtonian equation "f=ma", if force remains constant, acceleration decreases until you are microscopically close to the speed of light, acceleration is infinitesimal, even if you increase F hugely - if you end up with infinite force and infinite mass, we don't have the mathematics to understand what that means, but they likely cancel out somehow and you still don;t get to the speed of light.

Another "aha" moment in relativity for me was the realization that any objects velocity is always C - its just that an object at rest uses all of that velocity to progress through time. As velocity through space increases, it borrows velocity from the time dimension meaning that time moves slightly more slowly, giving rise to time dilation.

This simply isn't true and everyone can prove it by simple experiments. If I sitt perfectly (infinitly) still I will get infinitly bored and I will move infinitly slow through time. But if move around and am very active, maybe even hyper active, and have tons (see? mass matters) fun I will move much faster through time. Science. BAH!

(But I must admit that was very interesting and I found logic in it. I never heard that one before)

Posted by: blindwillie Sep 16 2008, 09:07 PM

Darn Andrew! You got me hooked on this.

That implies something I've been thinking. How to define time. That time is the fourth dimension.
Time differs from the others as you can't quantify time. Time doesn't have a physical attribute you can measure. You can only compare time against an imaginary graded axis and only in one dimension.
Because time is another dimension! It runs through and surrounds all the other three dimensions.

Time is just a distance from somethings birth to it's cease to exist. Time is totally relative. If there is nothing, there is no time.

I'm onto something now. Or going nuts. I hit the showers now, that usually helps.

/edit: hmmm... yes. I've got the basics figured out now.

Posted by: MickeM Sep 16 2008, 10:33 PM

QUOTE (blindwillie @ Sep 16 2008, 10:07 PM) *
Darn Andrew! You got me hooked on this.

That implies something I've been thinking. How to define time. That time is the fourth dimension.
Time differs from the others as you can't quantify time. Time doesn't have a physical attribute you can measure. You can only compare time against an imaginary graded axis and only in one dimension.
Because time is another dimension! It runs through and surrounds all the other three dimensions.

Time is just a distance from somethings birth to it's cease to exist. Time is totally relative. If there is nothing, there is no time.

I'm onto something now. Or going nuts. I hit the showers now, that usually helps.

/edit: hmmm... yes. I've got the basics figured out now.

Bartender, I'm having whatever these guys are having! cool.gif

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 16 2008, 11:24 PM

Perhaps Willie - following Henri Bergson - there is more than one time. There's the clock time that marks the minutes and hours and that science uses to measure and record. There's a subjective time that we experience that you acknowledge - sitting bored in my chair the experience of '1 second' has an infinitely long duration compared with 2 hours playing in the garden with my daughter.

But also from Bergson 'both' these 'times' are part of Time (capital 'T' to mark its transcendent quality) as Time that contain all that is, was and will be - including all potentialities. As all potentialities Time is more like a river and what we talk of about as 'time' (clock or subjective) is at best only a very small part of that. As a river it's also one where we cannot see the start, the end or even either bank. At best we have a vague understanding of what it is and a very vague understanding of why it is. It's transcendental to us - beyond us and our understanding and control. In such terms it is arguably not that there is no time but that we don't understand Time - it is too much for us.

Further as transcendent Time as what was, is and will be etc is outside 'time' for Time Everything is present - all pasts, all futures, all presents, all possibilities. Everything exists as potential and what is at issue is how 'easy' it is to get from one potential to the next - some 'jumps' are more difficult and require more 'energy' to actualise than others but nothing is impossible. The further a possibility is from your 'present' state the harder it is to realise/actualise - but not impossible. Some states of being are more likely. BUT none are impossible. Time here isn't a linear flow (as with clock time, and even subjective time) but more an open constellation of points of stability. You can go in any 'direction' and any 'distance' provided you can overcome the potential energy required. BTW -As an open constellation it isn't just past, future, present but ALL pasts, futures, presents - parallel Universes/times etc

In regard to their being nothing - that's a somewhat different spin on it - and perhaps a little less nihilistic, though some will still perhaps see this as nihilistic: rather than there is nothing (which is a very Sartrean argument - why is there anything rather than nothing) and more a case of Kierkregaard: find a meaning for your existence whilst faced with a potential of nothing or do nothing. In terms of time we could also rethink this in terms of Nietzsche's 'eternal return'. If anything that you do was to be returned to you infinitely then what would you do? Choose wisely. Think 'Groundhog day'.

Heidegger (if we can set aside his politics) had an interesting spin on Time and Being as Being only given and received because of Time. Being is present in and through Time and Time and time is only realised by Being when being reaches beyond itself because of time to achieve its Being as potential.

Or somewhat differentially - we reach our potential through time as our ability to become better than ourselves. To 'transcend' marks us as human and requires time. Without time we are nothing. Time however requires us to conceive it as Time. (cf Nietzsche - 'man is a bridge' ie a potential.) A cat is a cat is a cat. A human baby carries all the hopes, desire and wants of its parents and the potential to be all of these, or different and/or something more but only if it lives it's life which requires Time... (cf Heidegger's Sein und Zeit and later works where he goes over and develops and matures his argument - something I haven't done any justice to...)

Anyway - it's up to you what, if anything you take from the above. I'm just summarising, paraphrasing and simplifying. My main point is that in philosophy, unlike science, there is more than a single unified concept of time and these have not been adequately addressed by science.



Cheers,
Tony

QUOTE (MickeM @ Sep 16 2008, 09:33 PM) *
Bartender, I'm having whatever these guys are having! cool.gif


Meet me in the Restaurant at the end of the Universe mate and I'll stand you one wink.gif

Posted by: blindwillie Sep 17 2008, 07:44 AM

Haha! You guys are crazy. Or at least one of us is crazy and it might not be any of you... smile.gif

Thanks Tony. Very interesting sum up.
You guys have studied stuff. Whish I had as these things interest me, but I'm just trying to use my own twisted logic.
I've heard about some of the guys you mention, some not. I've heard the general talk about Einsteins theories but never studied them.
Just trying to make my own conclusions.
My take is that Einstein was on to something but some conclusions are just too far fetched. Either he is not telling us everything or he is missing important pieces.
Some things that disturbs me are speed of light, is it constant or not? I doubt it is.
Time. What is time?

After Andrew's post I started to think (leaving the philosophical aspects aside for now) of time as an attribute of every existing object. Just like mass, speed, energy and such. Something that reminds of electromagnetical fields in it's nature. When two objects interact their "timefields" flow through each other and effects both objects. Have to think more about that.

The philosophic side then.
We can't interact with time. We can only observe and experience a fraction of time. Time is always (and never?). Something like the river you talked about. If we move away really fast from earth we could observe another part of time because of the "slowness" of lights speed. The "denseness" of light "thins" out with distance because it radiates from one point and spreads in all directions so the same amount of light occupies a bigger space. Just like a gas, or magnetism. Does time "thin" out?

So, is there different kinds of time? That too was a new one to me.
I'm not sure of that. We sure percieve time differently.
The other types of time, apart from the clock time, yes, we percieve them but do the exist? And if they do, is it time? Maybe we need other names for them because they represent something completly different? Hard to say since I haven't defined the concept "Time" yet smile.gif Clock time is just our attempt to understand and measure time but how do we measure something we don't know the nature or characteristics of? What properties and rules that apply to it?
We can only look at a piece of time (that have already passed) and say "Hey! Look! That was one second!".
Is clock time an attemt to measure aging/decay/changes? You where talking about something similar too earlier?

Things that make me go "Hmmmm..." tongue.gif

If I ever meet you Micke I'll mix up a grogg for you and we'll have a blast. biggrin.gif

/edit: "volume" didn't feel right. replaced it with "denseness".

Posted by: Jesse Sep 17 2008, 08:20 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 16 2008, 04:49 PM) *
Muris has a good read.

I figured this out yesterday. I think this is interesting. A person should really try to understand Relativity before that other stuff. Actually I think you have to look at a lot of it mathematically, no other way.

I never fully understood why you could not go faster than the the speed of light. Why the equation E=mc^2 implied you approach infinite mass when you do so. Turns out, the equation does not imply that. Einstein went back to Newton mechanics for that. Maybe some math guy out here will say "elementary my dear fkalich" but I find this interesting. An object's energy in E=mc^2 does not mean just nuclear energy. It means all energy, ncluding Kinetic. I had assumed E was just nuclear energy. I expect most others also have that false assumption.

The key is this formula which tells you that as speed approaches infinity, the Kinetic energy approaches infinity. E_k = \frac{m c^2}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}} - m c^2 .


So going back to E=mc^2, we flip that around, m= E/c^2. Well as we approach the speed of light, we know from above the E goes to infinity, so M must also go to infinity.

What always threw me was the speed of light (c^2) in the formula. It has no significance here at all for that equation, it is a constant, and just is ignored as you go to infinity. No matter how big, the biggest number you can imagine is insignificant as you approach infinity.

Now I was trying to figure out why gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. General Relativity is grounded in that. Turns out nobody knows, it is not a matter of theory. It is an assumption, because that is just the way it always appears. Einstein just assumed it.

I read a lot on this kind of thing. Books. Wikipedia helps to supplement this. Probably nothing bad happens in the next few years. But the time may come. I don't trust scientists like most people seem to. Anymore than politicians or anyone else. I think that confidence is misplaced. You can't always count on a whistle blower to show up.


Someone above said they don't believe in parallel universes. See, the concept of space itself is just connected with matter. Without matter, there is no space. It is not like there is this space and all this matter in it like a box. Space is tied to matter, without matter, there is no space. In the beginning with the singularity, what was there? You can't even say there was nothing. This stuff gets real weird. I am just speculating here, but I don't think we would think of them exactly as parallel. That is probably a bad term for it. Matter creates its own space. That does not mean 2 Universes are side by side in a spacial sense. I would think that on this level, the laws of physics as we know them all break down, you can't look at these things in terms of the laws of physics that rule our universe. At least that seems reasonable to me. Just be glad anti-fkalich has not joined GMC forum.
You probably know what Im gonna say HOLY *********

Posted by: fkalich Sep 17 2008, 08:51 AM

QUOTE (Andrew Cockburn @ Sep 16 2008, 11:03 AM) *
This stuff I love ...

The way I look at it is that as mass increases to infinity, using that famous Newtonian equation "f=ma", if force remains constant, acceleration decreases until you are microscopically close to the speed of light, acceleration is infinitesimal, even if you increase F hugely - if you end up with infinite force and infinite mass, we don't have the mathematics to understand what that means, but they likely cancel out somehow and you still don;t get to the speed of light.

Another "aha" moment in relativity for me was the realization that any objects velocity is always C - its just that an object at rest uses all of that velocity to progress through time. As velocity through space increases, it borrows velocity from the time dimension meaning that time moves slightly more slowly, giving rise to time dilation.



this thread is getting hard. I was reading Tony below and I am taking a brain break to ask a question. This throws me. Ok, as in the thought experiment. A person is on a moving train, and a beam a flashlight is turned on at the other end of the car. Someone else on the ground with the train approaching. When the beam of light reaches the guy on the train, it will have traveled a shorter distance than it will have traveled from the perspective of the person standing off the train. As the speed of light is a constant, this implies that time has slowed down for the guy on the train, relative to the guy off the train. So time slows for those moving relatively faster.

But here is where I still get thrown. As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?

QUOTE (blindwillie @ Sep 17 2008, 01:44 AM) *
but some conclusions are just too far fetched. Either he is not telling us everything or he is missing important pieces.
Some things that disturbs me are speed of light, is it constant or not? I doubt it is.
Time. What is time?


I used to do what you are doing there. It made some studies difficult for me, I would get stuck. Relativity has been shown to be correct in the universe. It works. It explains things. It is a model that always takes you to the right place. That is the way you have to look at it. It does not explain things on the sub atomic level. Quantum physics does that. And that is just as strange. In that the Quantum model electrons move from spot to spot but in doing so, they do not pass between the two spots. It would be like you moving yourself from the chair to the sofa, but never being on the floor. Just you vanish from the sofa, and you are then in the chair. These theories sound strange but observations confirm them to explain things.

Today Physicists are trying to unify the two theories. Well some feel they have. But up to now, they have no evidence that they are correct. They hope that the new experiments we have talked about will give them some answers.

But the point is, General Relativity and Quantum Physics all give correct answers in the real world. That is just the way it is. Nobody has yet come up with anything to show them to be incorrect. Of course somebody will. Just as up to a certain time, Newtonian laws were not disproved by anything.

Theories are not reality, they are our best explanation of reality. Which is what I was getting at and Tony was also saying, one day we will find out that we did not understand things as well as we think we do, and we may find that out the hard way at some future date.


QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 16 2008, 05:24 PM) *
Anyway - it's up to you what, if anything you take from the above. I'm just summarising, paraphrasing and simplifying. My main point is that in philosophy, unlike science, there is more than a single unified concept of time and these have not been adequately addressed by science.


you made me work, but very interesting. time to get out wikipedia and read more on some of that stuff. my oldest brother was into all that, so I heard all the names, and read a bit, but wikipedia is great for the lazy guy, some articles are quite good.

I don't disagree on the time thing. I doubt relativity has a firm hold on that forever, and that eventually man will discover that, no, it was not that simple, just as they did with Newton. I say simple tongue in cheek. A person has to either be a serious math guy, or work hard at it to understand Relativity. A lot of Physicists never bought into it. And Einstein never bought into Quantum theory, even though it was experimentally consistently correct.

Posted by: blindwillie Sep 17 2008, 10:03 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 09:51 AM) *
this thread is getting hard. I was reading Tony below and I am taking a brain break to ask a question. This throws me. Ok, as in the thought experiment. A person is on a moving train, and a beam a flashlight is turned on at the other end of the car. Someone else on the ground with the train approaching. When the beam of light reaches the guy on the train, it will have traveled a shorter distance than it will have traveled from the perspective of the person standing off the train. As the speed of light is a constant, this implies that time has slowed down for the guy on the train, relative to the guy off the train. So time slows for those moving relatively faster.

But here is where I still get thrown. As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?


This is getiing fun, hehe.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Stuff like the above quote makes me go "Iiiiik! This doesn't compute!"
Another thought experiment, which Andrew inspired, and now it gets heavy:
In any given moment everything is moving at the speed of light. This makes sense in another way. There will always in any given time be light moving away from the place we are. From where we view ourselves. Even if we percieve we are not moving, relatively we are. We can change viewpoint and look at ourselves from the particle moving away from us or from a planet besides us and we will percieve that it is us moving away from the particle at the speed of light.

Now.
If, by that, everything is constantly moving through space at the speed of light, what is speed? Everything is moving at the same speed. If so we could define a new "origo" for speed and say speed of light is "Speed 0", the reference. Since speed of light is constant (?) it confirms that everything is moving at Speed 0. Since everything then moves at Speed 0, the same for everything, what is speed? You can't deviate from Speed 0 since the speed of light, Speed 0, is constant.

There is no need for speed!

/edit: Forgot to sum this up:
Would that make speed just a one dimensional vector giving a direction?
Speed could be measured as angles?

Posted by: tonymiro Sep 17 2008, 10:59 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 07:51 AM) *
... As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?

...


One response - and it's the one leveled by Bergson to Einstein - is that Einstein's General Relativity Theory isn't relative enough. (Bergson was a contemporary of Einstein and the two exchanged views.) To whit your example fkalich underscores the Lorentz transformation paradox (the one about twins where one goes off in a faster than light spaceship and the other remains on earth so the two age at different rates...) Bergson's contention is that Einstein implicitly preferences one twin in order to demonstrate the paradox. In so doing he isn't relative enough as neither should be preferenced and hypostasised. For full relativity there is no preference and no objectified position from which to observe the paradox from within Time. The accusation is of course that Einstein slides into science's paradigm of a belief in objectivity. For Bergson the only fulcrum from which to observe objectively exists outside Time - a transcendental position held only by God and not one that we can adopt.

That there is no objective position within Time in order to study it rather implies that 'subjective time' and 'clock/scientific time' are at best minimal abstractions of Time. At worst a human conceit and nothing to do with Time at all. In either case you can't get to a better understanding of Time using either concept as your ground. Thus one conclusion we might draw from this is that we really don't know anything (much) about Time - hence all the on-going arguments, debates and theories wink.gif . Doesn't however stop us trying though smile.gif.

An understanding of Time becomes a major issue (at least within philosophy) given Heidegger's contention that Time operates as the originary ground of Being. And this is why, despite all the problems with trying to understand Time, it is important that we attempt to understand It - we know nothing fundamental of ourselves without reference to Time even though we don't understand Time (So as Sartre said 'Man is an empty passion') . If you want to understand, at least phenomenologically, what being is then it requires passim an attempt to understand what grounds Being. To uncover/reveal - or more precisely to allow Time to reveal itself and appear - requires (phenomenologically) that we do not impose upon it our conceits. In that sense we should not presume what Time is but allow it to reveal itself in its own terms and only from that givenness may we then aperceive Time. Bleh, horrible, dense stuff this bit - very reliant on Husserl, Heidegger and even Jean-luc Marion - and as such pretty opaque. An over simplification is that what we think is Time carries all of our prejudices and beliefs and really is thus only our prejudices and beliefs rather than what Time is - we are so blind that we cannot see.

Interestingly there have been somewhat of a resurgence of interest in Bergson in the last decade both within philosophy and in some areas of science. Some cosmologists have gone so far as to revisit the Lorentz issue and also argue for a relativity theory beyond Einstein's that in many aspects are pretty close to Bergson.

Again I'm over simplifying and perhaps distorting the argument somewhat as it's many years since I 'read' either science or philosophy properly.

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Sep 17 2008, 11:08 AM

I'm a huge fan of fringe science. I read about stuff into it all the time. Nanotechnology is really interesting also.

I eat fast food a lot also but I don't care what I eat to be honest as I get lots of exercise. I have fast food 3 days a week and healthy home cooked meals the other 4 days with fresh ingredients. When I go to stay in London my relatives own an allotment so I get really fresh veg smile.gif

Posted by: unreal Sep 17 2008, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 09:51 AM) *
But here is where I still get thrown. As movement is just relative, we can just as easily say that the train is standing still and rather that the earth is moving under it, that the speed of the guy on the ground is greater than that of the guy on the train. In that way of looking at it, would imply time slowing down for the guy on the ground. Anyone who can set me straight on this?


I think the very trick about resolving this paradox is, that clocks cannot be simply compared when they move with respect to each other. To make a real clock comparison (in the sense that we are used to in everyday life), the two guys have to be at rest to each other, that means, the train has to stop at some point again.
Here comes the crucial point: velocities are relative, meaning, nobody can say 'i am at rest and the other is not', but accelerations are something absolute, because they go along with a force. And these accelerations are different for the guy in the train and for the guy on the ground, and they distinguish them, and lead ultimately to the 'younger twin' who was on the train.
So while the train is going, either of the two guys is right about saying: the clock of my brother/sister twin is going slower than mine, but at that time the clock times are just not comparable, they are only comparable when the clocks are at rest with respect to each other, and then the paradox is resolved.

Posted by: fkalich Sep 17 2008, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (unreal @ Sep 17 2008, 05:50 AM) *
I think the very trick about resolving this paradox is, that clocks cannot be simply compared when they move with respect to each other. To make a real clock comparison (in the sense that we are used to in everyday life), the two guys have to be at rest to each other, that means, the train has to stop at some point again.
Here comes the crucial point: velocities are relative, meaning, nobody can say 'i am at rest and the other is not', but accelerations are something absolute, because they go along with a force. And these accelerations are different for the guy in the train and for the guy on the ground, and they distinguish them, and lead ultimately to the 'younger twin' who was on the train.
So while the train is going, either of the two guys is right about saying: the clock of my brother/sister twin is going slower than mine, but at that time the clock times are just not comparable, they are only comparable when the clocks are at rest with respect to each other, and then the paradox is resolved.


Excellent! So you are saying we can look at it as one or the other is impacted by force, in an absolute sense. experiencing acceleration, and thus change in relative velocity. That moves me ahead.

I am not sure about the not being able to compare clocks unless they are at rest. Take for example, a space ship going very fast to a spot in space. . It radios back to earth the time. Now since the speed of the waves is a constant, earth will be able to figure the time it takes the waves to travel to them (knowing the distance), so can compare it to earth clocks.




QUOTE (tonymiro @ Sep 17 2008, 04:59 AM) *
One response - and it's the one leveled by Bergson to Einstein - is that Einstein's General Relativity Theory isn't relative enough. (Bergson was a contemporary of Einstein and the two exchanged views.) To whit your example fkalich underscores the Lorentz transformation paradox (the one about twins where one goes off in a faster than light spaceship and the other remains on earth so the two age at different rates...) Bergson's contention is that Einstein


good stuff, including the things I don't show. I am going to look further into the names you mention.

even though I sort of get the explaining from "unreal", still, I get what you are saying. It goes back to maybe the theory works for our needs so far, and we can't it not working, that does not mean we have a final answer.

QUOTE (OrganisedConfusion @ Sep 17 2008, 05:08 AM) *
I'm a huge fan of fringe science. I read about stuff into it all the time. Nanotechnology is really interesting also.

I eat fast food a lot also but I don't care what I eat to be honest as I get lots of exercise. I have fast food 3 days a week and healthy home cooked meals the other 4 days with fresh ingredients. When I go to stay in London my relatives own an allotment so I get really fresh veg smile.gif


I eat something with more fat content maybe once a day. Basically I keep my intake of things under the US FDA recommended allowances for fats, saturated fats and salt. You blow by those so fast with fast food. But once in awhile I pig out. I don't worry so much about cholosterial intake, as my understanding is you don't need to, ingesting it is not really a problem, your body does not just store it. It creates it due to fats, especially saturated fats (or trans fats, always be on the lookout for those).

I exercise also, but that does not work forever, when you reach a certain age.

Also, there is sort of a good feeling you get from denying yourself. People used to do that. They would not eat all the time, and you would see old movies of people really getting hungry, and then eating dinner. But today we tend to just eat whenever we feel like it, or snack, and never really experience that. There is something to be said for denying yourself a bit like that, as people used to before plentiful snacks.

Posted by: sigma7 Sep 17 2008, 10:49 PM

i am confused haha

Posted by: unreal Sep 18 2008, 07:59 AM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 17 2008, 05:31 PM) *
I am not sure about the not being able to compare clocks unless they are at rest. Take for example, a space ship going very fast to a spot in space. . It radios back to earth the time. Now since the speed of the waves is a constant, earth will be able to figure the time it takes the waves to travel to them (knowing the distance), so can compare it to earth clocks.

What I mean by 'not being able to compare clocks' is that for the guy in the space ship as well as for the guy on earth it will seem that the clock of the respective other person will be slower than their own clock. So they could argue forever about who is right, and both are.
Of course one can always compare clocks, but when the clocks are moving with respect to each other, the 'absolute' question 'whose clock is slower now' does not make sense, that question always has to be asked from some observer's position which can be moving or not with respect to either or both of the clocks. At least the theory of relativity doesn't give us an answer to that question. But you have answered this issue in your example already, when you said it could be compared to _earth_ clocks, taking the observer's position on earth.
Hope this makes sense, otherwise correct me please.

Posted by: fkalich Sep 18 2008, 10:22 AM

QUOTE (unreal @ Sep 18 2008, 01:59 AM) *
What I mean by 'not being able to compare clocks' is that for the guy in the space ship as well as for the guy on earth it will seem that the clock of the respective other person will be slower than their own clock. So they could argue forever about who is right, and both are.
Of course one can always compare clocks, but when the clocks are moving with respect to each other, the 'absolute' question 'whose clock is slower now' does not make sense, that question always has to be asked from some observer's position which can be moving or not with respect to either or both of the clocks. At least the theory of relativity doesn't give us an answer to that question. But you have answered this issue in your example already, when you said it could be compared to _earth_ clocks, taking the observer's position on earth.
Hope this makes sense, otherwise correct me please.


I would not correct you. good responses. as you know, it is something you can go on and on with.

On the subject of unforeseen consequences, I was reading about telepathic sub atomic particles, which nobody understands, how they communicate with each other over distances instantaneously, so speed of light limit does not apply. And the mystery of all this, and it just reinforced my view that as man continues to push the envelope, he is bound sooner or later to step on a time bomb that he did not even know was out there.

Here is a good example, this one man is responsible for more environmental damage than is imaginable of one person, both the ozone destruction, and the high concentration of lead in the air we breath. I wonder if the fact that all of us are breathing 400 times the concentration of lead that man used to breath, and the Alzheimer's epidemic are connected. I have not read anything on it, but it is not like they can run studies with controls, all of us are breathing it.
And even today, much of the world continues to use the fluorocarban's and lead in gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

I don't feel sorry for how this guy died, I think it was a fitting end, considering the destruction he caused.

edit: if anyone is interested in that link (some with more morbid curiosity might be) you have to cut and paste it. The forum software does not like something about the characters in the address. I may sound mean saying he met a fitting end, but I can't help it, the guy did so much damage to the earth.

Posted by: fused Sep 21 2008, 04:10 PM

I'd love to capture one of those mini black holes, house it in a magnetic field and place it on the mantel above my fireplace.
Would be great for conversation at parties and if you tell someone DON'T TOUCH THAT and they do, well, they won't ever do it again... Would suck them inside and now you'd have a black hole with one of your friend inside it...on you mantel above your fireplace.

I WANT ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: kaznie_NL Sep 21 2008, 04:53 PM

It has broken down again... delay was 2 months or more!!

Posted by: sigma7 Sep 21 2008, 05:12 PM

ugh wuts even the point if it doesnt even work right

Posted by: Canis Sep 21 2008, 05:49 PM

I bet it worked, and a significant part of the machine got dragged into a black hole ph34r.gif

Posted by: sidewas lightning Sep 21 2008, 11:36 PM

If scientists are going to cause the end of the world with an EXPERIMENT, I'll be pretty ticked off. They shouldn't be messing with stuff they don't know about.

I just pray nothing happens like that, ever.

I hate end of the world predictions. Life's too short anyways.

Posted by: Antonio23 Sep 22 2008, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Sep 12 2008, 12:22 AM) *
Perhaps with 6 billion people going on 12, and most probable scenarios for the future (wrt the ability to even feed them) being pretty bleak, perhaps there are bigger fish to fry?

Science in the past has has some practical purpose, so real way that it helped man. This does nothing. I have read probably as much on modern Physics as most here I am sure. But it just is kind of useless. I can't think of any scientific efforts in the past that even approach the level uselessness of this research.

I don't think at this stage of the game, that this is the area scientific minds should be focused on. Things are going to get really rough in real ways (such as food) in the next decades, those are the areas they should be focused on. They can worry about whether we have 11 dimensions or not in the 22nd century I figure, but for now, I think they should focus on trying to get us though the 21st.


very well said

Posted by: Smikey2006 Sep 23 2008, 05:48 AM

this thread has caused either my brain to swell and therefore hurt or a large chunk to have fallen off and therefore hurt. Talk of time is like speaking of math, i believe it is simply something we have created to ease our minds, it is simply a way of caluculating what has occured. Its harder to percieve that time is not moving. The hands on clocks move in circles endlessly and we only watch them because we like to know how many moments have passed until we must be somewhere or do something. I concider this stuff fascinating but not relivent to my life enough to bother with losing sleep over it. or to attempt and read to figure out more. I urg the main posters on this thread to keep posting so i can read smile.gif I heard the collider broke again, and of course.. the rumours that they created a blackhole and therefore shut it off have begun swirling. I want to see some results so we can know whats really going on biggrin.gif

Posted by: Ivan Milenkovic Sep 23 2008, 11:07 AM

Fkalish:
Perhaps with 6 billion people going on 12, and most probable scenarios for the future (wrt the ability to even feed them) being pretty bleak, perhaps there are bigger fish to fry?

Science in the past has has some practical purpose, so real way that it helped man. This does nothing. I have read probably as much on modern Physics as most here I am sure. But it just is kind of useless. I can't think of any scientific efforts in the past that even approach the level uselessness of this research.

I don't think at this stage of the game, that this is the area scientific minds should be focused on. Things are going to get really rough in real ways (such as food) in the next decades, those are the areas they should be focused on. They can worry about whether we have 11 dimensions or not in the 22nd century I figure, but for now, I think they should focus on trying to get us though the 21st.


This is true man, but I don't think this experiment is bad for humanity, we need this machine in order to understand the world we are living in and perhaps even to change it to better. Regarding world hunger, there are other important issues as well on Earth that needs to be addressed quickly. Military and Oil industry are one of the biggest destroyers of our world today, and they are spending billions and billions of dollars in the process of destroying it, while this experimenting is relatively cheap and helpful, compared to that.






Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)