It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does it feel to know that when they fire CERN, you will be dead?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
When man made the nuclear bomb, he figured he could take an atom and split its nucleus to release energy. Well, that worked. It did just fine and releases energy fast or slow depending on the nature of man.

Now, man is trying to create energy in the opposite manner, by creating a miniature 'black hole' at the new CERN collider. What they wish to do is to accellerate a proton fast enough to fuse it with another particle so that the two then become one particle and the net energy is the summation of the two in the same space.

But the error of this is that in quantum mechanics, a particle cannot be measured in both quantity and quality at the same time. You can either see it and not measure its value or you can measure its value and not see it, but you cannot have both at the same time.

What this does is to create a particle that is the anti-particle, or something that is two particles in the same space, which can only be done once.

When this happens, you are creating a chain reaction in the opposite direction which consumes its fuel (matter) from the inside out, or a black hole.

This reaction is like a nuclear reaction in reverse and will consume all matter and try to place it into one particle very quickly.

Consider an attempt at creating just one tiny black hole as man creating a suicide bomb capable of devouring everything in the known universe in a single instant.

Nice thoughts, huh?

Do you really think we ought to be testing this considering our track record of making careless mistakes?




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I have mixed feelings on the matter.

On one hand, it could mean major breakthroughs in science. On the other, the end of our planet as we know it. They did say that a nuclear bomb could destroy the world too, and that didn't stop them.

I think that if we want to continue to advance ourselves and our technologies, we have to take risks. It's just human nature to push the limit.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
I have mixed feelings on the matter.

On one hand, it could mean major breakthroughs in science. On the other, the end of our planet as we know it. They did say that a nuclear bomb could destroy the world too, and that didn't stop them.

I think that if we want to continue to advance ourselves and our technologies, we have to take risks. It's just human nature to push the limit.


True, they did have fear mongers saying atom splitting would be the end of us, but that is because they didn't understand the nature of dividing and multiplying.

With the atom, you are using a known quantity of substance as fuel to divide itself until it expends all its energy, thus nuclear chain reaction.

With fusion, you take particles and force them to occupy the same space, which is a chain reaction in the opposite sense. It take one particle and attracts everything else to it, by one simple summation.

I think that is actually the true sum of all our fears and is probably something that will bring the pale horse of armageddon.

If anything, if there is some holy grail that they understand then it would at least remove all the light in the world or something seriously messed up.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ben91069]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Sounds like a lot of hype to me...

CERN created anti-matter years ago. I'm still here. Of course, I could be the anti-me. Perhaps the whole planet is actually the anti-Earth.....

[edit on 19-3-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The chances of a micro black hole from the LHC destroying the Earth are extremely slim. There's a bit of an explanation here...

www.livescience.com...

And for clarification.... CERN is the organization in charge of the LHC. It's not the name of the particle accelerator itself.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by GrayFox]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
99.9% of scientists agree that nothing bad will happen. And now, with this BASIC assessment, you can call us all dead? Uh huh. Second, there are many super massive blackholes out there. They don't destroy the universe in a single instant.



The theory is that the black holes will disapate in nothing, and to be frank, I am quiet happy that science is progressing. Are YOU?

[edit on 19/3/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Well wouldn't it just fill up? I mean you can only shove so much matter into a singularity before the singularity fills up right?

Otherwise ill be dead and eh cool enough for me.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
99.9% of scientists agree that nothing bad will happen. And now, with this BASIC assessment, you can call us all dead? Uh huh. Second, there are many super massive blackholes out there. They don't destroy the universe in a single instant.



The theory is that the black holes will disapate in nothing, and to be frank, I am quiet happy that science is progressing. Are YOU?

[edit on 19/3/2008 by C0bzz]


Ahhhhhhhh, which is why I placed it in the chit-chat forum, so I can say any preposterous thing I want now can't I?

Besides, scientists are like economists - and you know everything they have told us, right?

[edit on 19-3-2008 by ben91069]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
if something goes horribly wrong, i doubt you'll be able to care. as long as i get squished into an infinitely small space along with everyone else on the planet, and fast enough that the nerve signals for "ouch" never register, then i'm good.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ben91069
 


I doesn't matter what forum it is in. If you're going to post claims that go against all of the modern scientific community, then you're going to have something to back it up rather than a basic assesment. And when 100% of scientists say exactly the same thing, it shows they must be pretty damn sure of what they're doing.

Scientists are nothing like economists.




[edit on 20/3/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I don't have to back it up with science if it is in faith. See?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
oh shesh, now don't get all uppity over black holes and such, whats with all the fussin and the fudin?

If C0bzz is right nothing will happen and we will have gained a little knowledge of our universe.

If ben91069 is right you to will be really really close really really quickly so it won't matter.

So it's a win win situation.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I don't have to back it up with science if it is in faith. See?




Ha!!

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. You have faith in the .1% of scientists who believe the world will 'implode' when the accelerator goes live. This isn't the type of thing that you rely on faith for. This is science, pure and simple. You can't just have 'faith' that gravity works differently than it does.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by ben91069
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I don't have to back it up with science if it is in faith. See?




Ha!!

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. You have faith in the .1% of scientists who believe the world will 'implode' when the accelerator goes live. This isn't the type of thing that you rely on faith for. This is science, pure and simple. You can't just have 'faith' that gravity works differently than it does.


Look I am backing up my right to post this message in chit-chat based on faith in what fusion means to me as a sign.

Whether it creates a black hole is not really the point, because I don't think we should be doing it if there is even a remote possibility that something could go amiss.

But, that's for you to decide.

Fission uses a quanitified measure of fuel to consume itself internally, while fusion uses all the immeasurable fuel that is available externally to consume everything. How would you control a fusion reaction if its fuel is outside of itself? That's putting a lot of faith in science and for what purpose?

It won't be for free energy as long as the minds that financed that gig are wanting to exploit it.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
if something goes horribly wrong, i doubt you'll be able to care. as long as i get squished into an infinitely small space along with everyone else on the planet, and fast enough that the nerve signals for "ouch" never register, then i'm good.


As long as I get squished into a singularity with the cute lass from class then I don't mind one bit if it all goes wrong at CERN...it'll save me a wedge of time and £'s on that dating nonsense and get straight to the point



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
As long as I get squished into a singularity with the cute lass from class then I don't mind one bit if it all goes wrong at CERN...it'll save me a wedge of time and £'s on that dating nonsense and get straight to the point


I love women, but I wouldn't want to be 'that' close to them.




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join