next »

[mghq]

as all of you should heard recently there has been a particle accelerator fired.
Well it is said that the world could implode if something goes wrong.
What in the world were they thinking trying to re-enact "The Big Bang Theory."
Post your thoughts

[Ðaz]

Humans are curious, scientists are curious about science. No one is absolutely sure as to how the universe started, and of course most non-religious scientists will strive to prove the big bang theory right. Will it prove it right? I don't know. What if it does? Does that mean religion is pointless? Not necessarily. What if God (Or your religious identity of choice) decided to create the universe with the "big bang"? And I don't know about the world imploding or a black hole spawning, oh well. Foolish man killed themselves after all eh?

[robleyd]

There is a fair bit of talk on this also at http://www.110mb.com/forum/empty-t35750.120.html;topicseen

[antimatter15]

Yeah, I think the other thread should be continued

[Primefalcon]

I'm honestly getting sick of this uneducated fear mongering

[antimatter15]

I'm honestly getting sick of this uneducated fear mongering

Fear is fun.

[Keith]

this is what i think...
if we die we die, live life to the fullest. if they kill all of us, at least they will win a Nobel Peace Prize (no more fighting), World Record (most people killed by one machine).

honestly, if they think they can recreate the "big bang" which is a theory, they is no way we can prove anything, i dont care what "scientist" say, we will never know what happens tell we see it happen...

[mghq]

Really religion plays such a big role in science. Ow well i ain't ofraid. We just have to wait till that day

[TeamYankee]

Well, they've fired the main beams of the LHC  but not as an actual collision test.
That will come next 

They'll send 2 packets of charged protons in each direction around the ring, each seperated by magnetic fields, accelerate them to about just under 20kms below the speed of light. At that speed they'll travel around the 27kms circumference 11,000 times per second.

At the right moment they'll divert the beams to cross and whammo.. impact in a blaze of particles. Hopefeully one or more will be the Higgs boson. (Google it)

To be honest..there is nothing to fear about it all. The impact involves collosal energies.. but only aout the same as the energy used when cosmic ray particles collide in the high upper atmosphere. This goes on every minute or every hour...  no black holes raining from the sky so far!!

Even if a micro black hole is observed, the smaller the black hole, the quicker it evaporates into a shower of exotic particles. We're talking sub nanoseconds here..  picoseconds.

This shower of particles is the signature showing that a black hole has been made. It's highly probably that this will never happen as the LHC just isn't big enough!!!  Maybe the next generation one will do it... 

[nonstopthinker]

wht abt pollution here? we r talkin nuclear science...

abt religion n science..albert einstein said right "riligion withoit science is lame and science without religion is blind!"

Also there are no "religion-less" scientists as sumbody put it..as all die saying "Oh my God!"

*Peace without nuclear - its disastrous

[ariarinen]

this is what i think...
if we die we die, live life to the fullest. if they kill all of us, at least they will win a Nobel Peace Prize (no more fighting), World Record (most people killed by one machine).

honestly, if they think they can recreate the "big bang" which is a theory, they is no way we can prove anything, i dont care what "scientist" say, we will never know what happens tell we see it happen...

They are not recreating Big bang but the minutes after.

Theory is a testable model based upon a fact.

It will prove how all base elements was created and and prove that all H in the sun was created instantly.

wht abt pollution here? we r talkin nuclear science...

abt religion n science..albert einstein said right "riligion withoit science is lame and science without religion is blind!"

Also there are no "religion-less" scientists as sumbody put it..as all die saying "Oh my God!"

*Peace without nuclear - its disastrous

Its harmless and nuclear science has to be one of the safest ever it only suffers from bad rep from hippies and communist and treehugers that dose not understand anything about it and live out of fear just like dose who are scared about CERN     

[dwbgraphics]

that's the coolest thing I have seen

personally I don't believe in the "big bang" theory or evolution, but I don't tell others they have to share my view. That's what makes us humans and different than all other species of the world. (hey look i just disproved the evolution theory, apes can't have beliefs)

I believe in God and believe there is room for creationists and scientists to work together. (I don't however believe in religion)

[Mop (Gb)]

Have you seen the WebCams?

[nonstopthinker]

when i said there nuclear science was bad, it had two meanings.

1. Pollution aspect - example Chernobyl. who can predict another Chernobyl incident is not on the way threatening hundreds of generations together ..if anything like that happens with LHC, it would be a doomsday. Much larger scale.

2. Military aspext- countries can never be safer anymore. You could see a nuclear world war ghost flying in the air...its possible...i mean common guys, its too dangerous, we are killing our own children. Remedy? Quit nuclear . Spend on more creative things - maybe nanoscience or aerospace...

[ariarinen]

when i said there nuclear science was bad, it had two meanings.

1. Pollution aspect - example Chernobyl. who can predict another Chernobyl incident is not on the way threatening hundreds of generations together ..if anything like that happens with LHC, it would be a doomsday. Much larger scale.

2. Military aspext- countries can never be safer anymore. You could see a nuclear world war ghost flying in the air...its possible...i mean common guys, its too dangerous, we are killing our own children. Remedy? Quit nuclear . Spend on more creative things - maybe nanoscience or aerospace...

1. RBMK-1000 are very old design and it was more less human error witch led to the outcome, if they would have canceled the drill they would not had that problem. And the other thing is that RBMK are basically a juiced up version of AM-1 witch dates back to the early 50´s and the RBMK was made cheaply but on the expense of safety, the more expensive VVER would have been a much better choice. But today most RBMK´s are closed down only 4-5 left and they have all been updated.

LHC can´t do that at all, its a big magnet nothing else   

And you can´t compare dose old reactor with new EPR (European Pressurized water Reactor).

And Coal and oil has probably killed more people and inured even more 

2. Nuclear weapons are a peacekeeper  There a plenty of money to go around for dose other things  LHC would not be practical to make it in to a weapon and the cost would be to high that thing has cost about high 5 to 6 billion euros  that´s more then most nations spend on defenses     
     

[nonstopthinker]

when i said there nuclear science was bad, it had two meanings.

1. Pollution aspect - example Chernobyl. who can predict another Chernobyl incident is not on the way threatening hundreds of generations together ..if anything like that happens with LHC, it would be a doomsday. Much larger scale.

2. Military aspext- countries can never be safer anymore. You could see a nuclear world war ghost flying in the air...its possible...i mean common guys, its too dangerous, we are killing our own children. Remedy? Quit nuclear . Spend on more creative things - maybe nanoscience or aerospace...

1. RBMK-1000 are very old design and it was more less human error witch led to the outcome, if they would have canceled the drill they would not had that problem. And the other thing is that RBMK are basically a juiced up version of AM-1 witch dates back to the early 50´s and the RBMK was made cheaply but on the expense of safety, the more expensive VVER would have been a much better choice. But today most RBMK´s are closed down only 4-5 left and they have all been updated.

LHC can´t do that at all, its a big magnet nothing else   

And you can´t compare dose old reactor with new EPR (European Pressurized water Reactor).

And Coal and oil has probably killed more people and inured even more 

2. Nuclear weapons are a peacekeeper  There a plenty of money to go around for dose other things  LHC would not be practical to make it in to a weapon and the cost would be to high that thing has cost about high 5 to 6 billion euros  that´s more then most nations spend on defenses    
    

u must be kidding...nuclear weapons a peacekeeper?? see the news sometimes if ur not used to..and abt the cost..wealthy countries would love to spend on nuclear to rule the world..imagine the profits then..10 fold!

[ariarinen]

when i said there nuclear science was bad, it had two meanings.

1. Pollution aspect - example Chernobyl. who can predict another Chernobyl incident is not on the way threatening hundreds of generations together ..if anything like that happens with LHC, it would be a doomsday. Much larger scale.

2. Military aspext- countries can never be safer anymore. You could see a nuclear world war ghost flying in the air...its possible...i mean common guys, its too dangerous, we are killing our own children. Remedy? Quit nuclear . Spend on more creative things - maybe nanoscience or aerospace...

1. RBMK-1000 are very old design and it was more less human error witch led to the outcome, if they would have canceled the drill they would not had that problem. And the other thing is that RBMK are basically a juiced up version of AM-1 witch dates back to the early 50´s and the RBMK was made cheaply but on the expense of safety, the more expensive VVER would have been a much better choice. But today most RBMK´s are closed down only 4-5 left and they have all been updated.

LHC can´t do that at all, its a big magnet nothing else   

And you can´t compare dose old reactor with new EPR (European Pressurized water Reactor).

And Coal and oil has probably killed more people and inured even more 

2. Nuclear weapons are a peacekeeper  There a plenty of money to go around for dose other things  LHC would not be practical to make it in to a weapon and the cost would be to high that thing has cost about high 5 to 6 billion euros  that´s more then most nations spend on defenses    
    

u must be kidding...nuclear weapons a peacekeeper?? see the news sometimes if ur not used to..and abt the cost..wealthy countries would love to spend on nuclear to rule the world..imagine the profits then..10 fold!

No western country has been in war with each other since ww2, you can do it already you would not need LHC for that. Poor installable country's like Pakistan/North Korea are much worse cos you don´t know what they gonna do. 

And by the way I watch the news many times a day its one of my favorite tv shows   

[manicgames]

Have you seen the WebCams?

OMG THE BLACK HOLE!

LOL! 

[nonstopthinker]

Have you seen the WebCams?

lol 

[pifreak]

I thought it was pretty cool and am excited to see if they find anything interesting out.