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.

 

Scientists Not So Sure 'Doomsday Machine' Won't Destroy World

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The way I see it, is that there isn't much more bad that humans can do to this planet, so why not kick the thing into gear and get out of the way. If the scientists are correct, we all benefit from the knowledge. If they are wrong and it triggers a Earth eating black hole, the economy benefits! We won't have to worry about stimulus packages and bailouts and we'll finally get closer together! What a win-win situation for all.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
reply to post by optimus primal
 


I am fully aware of what you are saying. Also, maybe some of the top in field think Dr. Hawkings is an uneducated idiot, as he also believes that CERN can produce black holes. Of course, in his exact words...there is a less than 1% chance of it happening, but he thinks it can, as well as other scholarly scientists and physicists who are apparently "uneducated". As I have said before, with all things...when there is no substantial fact...it's always, "my academics against yours."

Hawkings Bet On CERN

Hawkings Again

You get the idea

This "God particle" has not be found yet. Although, there is conceptual and some substantial findings, but it still remains inconslusive.

Oh, and to some of the supposed "thinkers" here on ATS, even the people at CERN have said, it does not simply reproduce what is "already in nature." It's purpose is to also produce energy that has only been produced by the Big Bang so far. It's not simply "clashing particles together." There is more to it than that.

And a video I just find interesting.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by sdrawkcabII]


perhaps you have misread what i posted. i didn't say that hawking didn't think micro singularities couldn't happen.

YOU stated that he said we wouldn't learn anything from it. which according to the articles YOU posted is a blatant lie.

Also, as per the quote i posted from stephen hawking, he thinks it's safe. meaning any micro singularities that may be created will in no way threaten the planet or us.

I also have no idea why you're putting uneducated in quotes as if i somehow insinuated the dissenting scientists calculations on the minutely possible micro singularities are idiots. I didn't. however you , yourself, seem to be uneducated about this "world wide danger" you're so concerned about. and asked that you educate yourself by reading from the link i provided.

Lastly, these particles clashes that will take place in LHC DO happen every day , every second of every day, in the visible universe. while the scope, they hope, will be similar to the big bang it will be nowhere near as powerful. It will not produce energy on the scale of the big bang, again you've misunderstood what you've read.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This whole thing makes me thing of one of my favorite scenes from Dumb and Dumber:

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


Thanks for the info Rren and Eaganthorn. I checked out that link on probability and almost gave myself an anurism. Actually the whole concept of everything being discussed is much more clear to me then ever. I'm not sure but I think I actually learned something. I knew there was a dispute over what would happen when the LHC was actually working and I found a couple of things interesting at the time but never in detail like its being discussed here. I can't wait for that thing to get going now. Who knows the theory of everything might be on the way. Some really cool quote I found reading up on that very theory as a by product of the mind bending stuff you guys had me looking at:

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

Thats damn near scary. Just keep the above quote in mind then link that together in your mind with what is being done with quantum based computers and the roadrunner computer doing 1 quadrillion calculations per second (petaflop) and you have possibilities that are out of this world literally.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I just read that Hawkings stuff, and I disagree with the forming of Black Hole as said before, it would only look like Black Hole and act like Black Hole for micro second.
There is not enough mass involved to perpetuate it's continuation.

Hawkings would be happy if the made a Black Hole, he thinks he would get Noble Prize for his Hawkings Radition, this thing won't make a Black Hole.

A Black Hole is a massive gravity well with a singularity at center, there might be gamma radition shooting out as in crunches every thing together, but I don't believe in Hawkings radition.
Hawkings needs Hawkings radition to prove his open universe theory.
But at same time he speak of parallei universes, with everything that you could not even think of occuring in these parallel univeres.
He put his foot in mouth because these parallel universes would not happen in open universe.
In Hawkings open universe theory the universe has a beginng but no end.
Hawkings is wrong the universe is closed, Garvity is King and will rule once the Black Holes come into full play
Wait till he finds out that light was traveling faster in beginning than now, throw out all those figures

[edit on 29-1-2009 by googolplex]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
Was it Stephen Hawkings who believes we will learn nothing from this, as well as many other well recognized, well established and well informed scientists and physicists? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question.


I'm going to answer it, because that's completely fallacious.

And it's Hawking. You don't even know who it is you're talking about.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I have been reading the posts on this topic for a while now, and just had to point something out. I have been coming across a lot of posts about how a single person has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than the LHC experiment going wrong and destroying the world. This seems to always be "countered" by someone saying that a lightning strike would kill one person, while the LHC could theoretically kill everyone, and that that is not in any scientist's hands to mess with. But if you think about it, do the people who say the LHC shouldn't be run because of the risk really care about everyone else in the world, besides maybe their loved ones? After they die (say, by that possible lightning strike, meteor strike, or bad ham sandwich), does anything else that happens really apply to them anymore? (This is not an insult to anyone, by the way, it is just human nature to only really care about the one's that matter to you personally.) I'm sure that what I'm saying sounds unclear (Things always sound better in your head than on paper), but what I'm getting at is this: The LHC experiment may very well kill everyone, but you are taking a greater risk in simple day-to-day living. The fact that the LHC may kill everyone more likely than not does not matter to anyone, because the vast majority of the people that it would kill were not even known or personally cared about by you (again, the "you" does not mean that this is directed at anyone in particular). And like I said, once you are dead nothing that happens on Earth applies to you anymore.... so comparing how a lightning strike would kill one person at a time while the LHC could kill everyone seems rather irrelevant to me.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
I took what you wrote (seems you've repeated it here) as 'anything that can happen, will happen'. That's not a scientific statement but a philosophical one (philosophers use maths too.) Hence the links I provided. I'm only an interested amateur so if you have anything to the contrary I'd appreciate any links or citations you may have.

It appears that we agree on several levels. But I am sorry that I have been unclear at articulating the above concept to you. It isn't that I’m endorsing the idea that anything that can happen, will happen, no, no, far from it. And you are correct to categorize that concept as a philosophy.

What I am saying is that anything, once imagined, has an obtainable mathematical value in the sense of a calculative probability, even if that probability is near impossible to calculate and is smaller than 0.0^googol (googol (googol)) 0 01% which happens to be the approximant probability of witnessing green pigs flying unassisted while NOT listening to Pink Floyd and jogging literally on the dark side of the moon in the company of all five members of the Beatles, eating lemon Jell-O, Saturday.

Basically, it’s not going to happen in this universe, in this dimension, during this lifetime, but since you have now imagined it, it does exist in at least some form and resolves a possibility, however infinitesimally small, in some as yet undiscovered arena of some as yet undiscovered dimension and or undiscovered universe. The really cool part is trying to figure out an applicable formula to mathematically resolve that probability.

But I do admit that the probability of the LHC destroying the world may be slightly higher than the pig thing.

As far as what info to give you to start understanding the concept and how to use it, there are literally tons of info to examine, if you are interested, I would suggest researching: Laws of Quantum Probability, Law of Total Probability, Saul Youseff and Exotic Probability, Goodman-Nguyen-van Fraassen Algebra in Extended Probability Functions, Deductions from Conditional Knowledge. Its all good!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 
I see it spelled both ways I did spell it Hawking but then saw it spelled Hawkings? Is that many or possessive?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 
Oh I see now it is Hawkings plural, I forgot about all the other Hawking in the parallel universes so it is Hawkings.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Awesome, jackflap, awesome! The thing I am most looking forward to is the redefinition of dark matter and black holes. In the past couple years there has been a new rumble in physics concerning these two things. Granted, Higgs boson and Hawkins Radiation are fascinating, but I believe the big break though will be the black hole and dark matter.

The reason for my statement emanates from the most recent information from space. It was previously thought that black holes were some what rare throughout the universe, but it has recently been learned that a black hole exists in the center of every known spiral galaxy. The star systems closest to these dark centers are orbiting the “hole” at near light speeds. The closer they are to the center, the faster they move and the really cool part is that those systems on the very edge of a black hole are just shy of light speed. The same speed that the particles will collide inside the LHC, when once again operational.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Did I say immediate?


No, I DID. I would have used quotes if you did.



My mouth doesn't like spewing crap, so don't put your words in it.


No that would be YOU doing that to ME




But yes, the human race will benefit from these experiments. A greater understanding of physics will lead us to new energy sources and inventions, which will in turn lead to thousands of different technologies that will help the human race.


yes the cookie cutter axiom for all of Science silly ideas fetish, fables and foibles



: “We are dumb-founded that we missed some very simple balance of forces. Not only was it missed in the engineering design but also in the four engineering reviews carried out between 1998 and 2002 before launching the construction of the magnets.”

The machine, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), aims to recreate the conditions of the Big Bang, when the universe is thought to have exploded into existence about 14 billion years ago. However, the November start-up may now have to be delayed until next spring.

Dr Lyn Evans, who leads the accelerator construction project at Cern, the European organisation for nuclear research, said the explosion had been potentially very dangerous.


Mmmmm this is just another harmless "mistake" I guess.




I never said I could "whoop anyone's anything."


Again, I never said you did and is why I said "Like those who" drawing on an off the cuff analogy. Unless of course, you you want to make a federal case out of claiming I was saying you are drunk and thinking you can whoop everyones ass.

I would simply say how would I know?

Riiiight I wouldn't.

but if you want to cast me out of context as some presumptuous dolt, I suppose that is your style then



Way to make a whole bunch of sense. Would you care to go try and pass English class before attempting entire paragraphs? It would help. In the meantime, I'm going to pick out the bits and pieces that are legible and respond to that:


Awe don't veil your ad-hom response in such sugar coated crap when you can just say it like you obviously intended and tell me you think I'm stupid. Just know that what you think of me in that regard, is none of my business because I really don't give a ratz azz.



Furthermore, you have no reason, cause, or justification for implying that I'm a drunk driver.


Now I know it isn't my composition but your comprehension that needs help. If you want to make that out of what I said BE MY GUEST but it is like the past three or four attempts at putting words in my mouth, patently false.



I understand you may not have been calling me one. I honestly have no idea. It just seems like that might be what you were trying to say. Did my comment about causing accidents hit too close to home or something?


Not at all but you're right that I wasn't calling you one but wrong about assuming it was something you said that hit too close to home.

So before you start flattering yourself with the "Impact" I may have had from something you said, nothing you said had such an effect.

I submit it is your own desperate attempts to cast me as someone LIKE that or perhaps because YOU are like that yourself you think everyone else is, I can only speculate



No, actually, my argument makes perfect sense. If putting other people at risk is bad, regardless of how small the risk is, then stop driving.


It's one thing to take risks, it's another to flirt with disaster.

I have read some more about this project however and will concede that my fears were premature and it seems a bit unfounded regardless of the accident I used in my external quote.

Save this post as a keepsake, trust me, anytime someone can actually say what I just did is very rare these days on ATS. Most won't make concessions or admit to being wrong about a damn thing no matter HOW much evidence you have to the contrary.

My biggest concern is, I just hope they don't find some off the wall applications that can be used for some new military weapon of mass destruction. Has that crossed your mind at all? If so what conclusions if any?

Take Care



[edit on 30-1-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

I have read some more about this project however and will concede that my fears were premature and it seems a bit unfounded regardless of the accident I used in my external quote.

Save this post as a keepsake, trust me, anytime someone can actually say what I just did is very rare these days on ATS. Most won't make concessions or admit to being wrong about a damn thing no matter HOW much evidence you have to the contrary.
Take Care


Admitting when you are wrong isn't amazingly rare but i will commend you for it. However the hell you gave people in this thread to reach this conclusion is rather awful. I mean you seemed to take an immediately antagonistic stand and attacked peoples character rather often when they simply showed the issues.

I can respect you saying you've read more and realise your fears were slightly hyped, this is understandable. However i hope in future you won't immediately jump down the throat of anyone countering what you say with such zeal. We all get heated about topics, but it's best to stick to the information provided and not attack the poster.

All the best.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Admitting when you are wrong isn't amazingly rare but i will commend you for it. However the hell you gave people in this thread to reach this conclusion is rather awful. I mean you seemed to take an immediately antagonistic stand and attacked peoples character rather often when they simply showed the issues.


No sorry guy,, the only hell I have seen going on here is the remarks YOU have been making to everyone else for not being "as science savvy as you think YOU are" and the tone you said it in for instance when you quoted me using that anger icon saying I was so angry, when it was YOU and YOUR own quote using the anger emoticon I used in a post depicting YOUR anger and disapproval of reaper.

So if I sound a little angry now, it would be about your misrepresentation.




I can respect you saying you've read more and realise your fears were slightly hyped, this is understandable. However i hope in future you won't immediately jump down the throat of anyone countering what you say with such zeal. We all get heated about topics, but it's best to stick to the information provided and not attack the poster.


Let me ask you something smart guy, just what was the provocation for all this alleged anger jumping down throats? Or do you think I just jump down throats for no reason?

Do you represent what you have said or not? Then that is why you think I am attacking YOU and not your posts. Do I know you? Have I ever seen you? NO I have not but I have seen your condescending posts and I stand by my statements about your posts. (NOTICE I didn't say "you" and your posts) so if you want to take that personally be my guest but before you go spotting the speck in my eye, take the log out of your own.

It is the reason I felt yours didn't warrant an apology. Johnmike, someone who has praised many other posts I have made is the only one who has taken the time to actually answer my questions and other than his being critical about black holes (something I never even brought up in my post) he was the only one that actually made sense to me when all you have done is call people ridiculous and silly having nothing but contempt for them while not once answering their questions. If you think making sarcastic comparisons and anecdotes is answering them I suggest you read Johnmikes post to me and you will see the difference.

Everything I have said about YOUR posts is true, you DO mock people and even when they admit they were wrong, you don't even have the class and good graces to just leave it be, NOOooOOO you got to diminish that with even more reasons to invalidate the gesture by suggesting it happens so much more than I said it does saying I was helllish in what seems you mistake as my making an apology.

When I am admitting I am wrong does NOT mean I have anything to apologise for. Being wrong is something we have ALL been guilty of but most would agree, admitting it is not something seen here very often and I can count on one hand how many I have ever seen do it.

No you don't notice questions much less care about the concerns anyone may have about this. No you just make sweeping remarks in an "I'm smarter than you are, nya nyaaa" form of self puffery without once answering any of the major concerns.

EXAMPLE:



My biggest concern is, I just hope they don't find some off the wall applications that can be used for some new military weapon of mass destruction. Has that crossed your mind at all? If so what conclusions if any?


That was what I said in the last part of my post. You know, the only part you don't criticize and didn't care about answering either.

Did I mention that was my biggest concern?

Yes yes I think I did, nice of you to notice everything BUT that.

You just pick out what you can diminish and mock just like you did with that last post I made and just like I have proven is the only thing you are about.

When it comes to apologies, the only one I think should be making them is YOU.




[edit on 30-1-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Cool post ImaginaryReality1984. If you take a breath and step back a moment to look at the big picture, the differences everyone had seem small compared to what you can now grasp about the potential of the project. I for one am amazed that I gleaned a real understanding (or at least in my mind) of the LHC. I now know that there is a miniscule chance of this thing devouring the world. (Even if it was a big chance I'd say fire it up though. Just look at the thing, how can't you want it to run?) I also know that there is a much bigger chance of discovering and inventing things that are beyond anything one can put into words. I wish they would hurry up and change the spark plug or whatever it is they gotta do to it and get it running. Just think what the late greats would do with this kind of potential. Newton, Einstein. They would be drooling about this. They would also be turning over in the grave if someone or somebody pulled the plug on this oppurtunity.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Its said the little blackholes can combine to create a big mother blackhole, so longer the experiment the grater the blackhole i suppose. It no suprise we live in the fabric of space and space in ours. It could pop up anywhere, if you get my drift



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
How much mass is needed to create a singularity with a very small surface? When two particles hit eachother in the collider I assume they will just break up to show their secret ingredients. So how could a tiny object with a monster mass arise?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

My biggest concern is, I just hope they don't find some off the wall applications that can be used for some new military weapon of mass destruction. Has that crossed your mind at all? If so what conclusions if any?



Every discovery eventually leads to creating or improving some new weapon. Every new discovery in metallurgy lead to knew swords, new discoveries about fire lead to new bombs, new information about biology leads to new ways to kill things.

The problem isn't with the science, nor is it the experiments scientists do. The threat isn't the quest to discover new things about the world around us The problem is with mankind and our insatiable need to conquer each other.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spac-boy
Its said the little blackholes can combine to create a big mother blackhole, so longer the experiment the grater the blackhole i suppose. It no suprise we live in the fabric of space and space in ours. It could pop up anywhere, if you get my drift


who says that? no one i've ever heard of says that. even if that was possible, mini singularities would have to be created within micro seconds of each other for that to happen, and since that's not how the LHC works, again impossible.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
A Black Hole is a massive gravity well with a singularity at center, there might be gamma radition shooting out as in crunches every thing together, but I don't believe in Hawkings radition.

Says someone who doesn't even know who Stephen HAWKING is.


Did you even take college level calculus-based physics at all?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join