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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Rawr.what a nice thing to read at school. Yes I'm just a teenager but from my opinion this is complete nonsense the quote 'curiosity killed the cat is true' of course were all curious to see what happens we want to k ow more about the universe! I love learning about the universe its an absolute beautiful yet deadly mystery! So do I wantto know what happens?yes. Am I afraid? Hell yea! I want to graduate highschool dammit LOL and get married and grow old and die in anpeaceful manner. If it does create a black hole that wipes out the earth,we die. Therefore what we learned would be useless because were dead -__-




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by jtma508
Yea, but they were saying the same thing during the Manhattan Project. Some scientists believed it was possible that the fission reaction they were about to trigger would create a black hole that could destroy the earth.


That's a bad argument.

You're essentially saying, that yes, the world didn't end during the Manhattan Project...however, what you're failing to realize is that we created the means to end the world with the Manhattan Project.

This particle collider might not end the world, but what if it creates the means to end the world?

The world?

Heck if it we achieved the possible means of creating something like a black hole with this would it mean not only could we end the world we might even take out part of our galaxy with it lol



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Grog have idea! Grog rub stick with stick, see what happen.

Thag say no! No rub stick! Might do black hole!

Grog think that silly. Stick no make black hole. Stick rub on stick all of time. Grog only want SEE stick rub on stick, see what happen!

But Thag say might do black hole!

Grog tell you, no black hole! Just stick and stick, and maybe fire!

BUT FIRE MIGHT DO BLACK HOLE!

No black hole Thag! Watch!

*ten minutes later.*

Grog, I Thag was wrong. You find good thing, you find how make fire!

Grog try to tell Thag. See what Grog made!

Yes, Thag learn less... wait! What Grog doing now?

Grog making square rock into round rock, see what happen! Grog think round rock might be wheel!

NO! ROUND ROCK MIGHT DO BLACK HOLE!!!


Rather than flame this thread on my very first post, [I mean the scientist in the OP article said "We conclude that ... the growth of black holes to catastrophic size DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE." (caps added)] I'd just like to thank mattifikation for the above.

Thank you!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
If this does not work surely there is someone out there that can figure a way to rip large hole in the fabric of space, time.
Come on people think, we can rip hole then look at the internal clock works of space, time, just don't to clossssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn


LHC has been covered time and time again and because someone at Fox News has reported on some more of the same dribble that has been previously settled, life again has been breathed into this hapless miscarriage.

I see nothing new being discussed here that hasn’t been said in the vast multitude of previous posts on this subject, other than Fox News has finally discovered a “scientist” that supports the gloom and doom scenario that has long since been debunked, and of course the above mentioned member with the free power comment.


This *is* new (it's the whole reason they published their findings). The original ('duration') numbers were off (by about one second). There's no need for the scare quotes around scientist (their PhDs are in the relevant field(s)). These scientists don't support "the doom and gloom scenario" which you would know had you read the paper they published on arxiv (here, again, is the .pdf) or had just simply read their conclusion which FOX quoted in the Op article.

Have fun fishin'

[edit on Thu Jan 29 2009 by Rren]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Yes this must happen all day long in the sun, these thing won't be big enough to last but very short time. Notice I didn't say all night and day?

[edit on 29-1-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Maybe this is where other blackholes in the universe have started. Dumbass scientist on other worlds dabbling in something they don't totally understand



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GiantKilr
 


Good point GiantKilr. Just think if it was our parallel universe. (Not sure if I spelled that correctly) Here we are debating the whole thing and wondering if something catastrophic would happen if they can get it running. Only to find out that is how we came to exist in the first place. I forget who, but in a couple posts back, a scientist (iI believe anyway he seemed to know what he was talking about) said that if it can be imagined then there is a mathematical probability that it is true. Awesome concept. Where has the ATS forums been all my life? I have been bottling these ideas up in my head too long. Refreshing really.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 




Its not science, per se, but philosophy.



Possibility, Actuality, Probability and Necessity

a) As acknowledged - there is a difference between flying bird and flying pig. It cannot be a difference of possibility (there are no degrees of possibility; both are equally thinkable) - so the difference can only be of probability. Things are more or less probable; probability does `have degrees'. Nothing can be `a little bit possible' any more than a woman can be a little bit pregnant - but things are slightly or highly probable.

b) Probability is not a `logical notion' (in the way that possibility and actuality are); it is a `psychological notion'. It is intelligible only in terms of our expectations of what will occur.

We can, therefore think of the probability of X being so (in somebody's view) as ranging from .001% to 99.999%. We do not want to say 100% because to assert 100% probability would be to assert an actuality - and it is at least odd to call the actual `probable'.

Nor can we say it ranges from NIL. Every possibility must have some degree of probability - or it would not be possible. We cannot assert both that it might be the case and that there is no probability that it is the case.


[...snip]


So, what we utter categorically is never what must be the case. No state of affairs (actuality) can be a necessity since it must be a possibility. What we utter (categorically) is what we believe to be the case, which is why believing is the next topic for us to consider.



If interested, also see (the long version): Interpretations of Probability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


[edit on Thu Jan 29 2009 by Rren]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
Well wise there's also the possibility that in less than an hour we'll all be dead from gamma radiation from a nearby star exploding. Would you like to move underground just in case?

The ridiculous fearmongering about the LHC needs to end. So does the misuse of terms from physics like phase transition...


[edit on 27-1-2009 by optimus primal]


Oh please...stop. Apparently, there are a lot of "scientist" out there that lack common sense.

A star is being born, dying and exploding all the time. We have no control of that, do we? But, if we have control of making something that could possibly reduce this Earth, all that occupy it and all that surrounds it, even if it's a 0.0000001% chance, do you think we should do it? I don't mind gays, or suicidal folks that only do things that interfere with their lives and their lives only. I have a problem with drunk drivers, people speeding and smokers who blow their second hand smoke into my face. 0.0000001 is a VERY small chance. But guess what, I don't know about you, but on this world, in this life...things with VERY small chance happen. In fact, things with VERY small chance happen a lot. And if you really want to look at it with numbers. You can say, things with VERY VERY small chance happen in this universe all the time. Do you have any idea of how many planets are out there that support life? Great, you do! Well, wrap your mind around this...

Do you know the chances of an asteroid hitting us and wiping us out? Probably one every few million or billion years. The chances are small. But, it happened already...and who knows how many more times before that. So now, imagine the numbers...the amount of planets out there, occupied by life...and that, almost every several seconds, an asteroid is taking that life away. You want to deal with numbers? When something that is very unlikely to happen, happens to you, it's called very bad luck. Just so happens that very bad luck exists.

See all those billions and billions of planets that may exist with life on them? Well, some of them lose that life...because small numbers exist. "Research and scientific development" is no excuse to jeopardise the lives of billions, even if it is a very small possibility. Because, as you fully know, small posibilities happen ALL THE TIME in this universe. Not to mention, life is the most ironic thing ever created. Don't give it a reason to test how ironic it can be, because the results can be very, very surprising.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by sdrawkcabII]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sdrawkcabII
 


so all these scientists lack common sense because they think that an extremely small chance of microsingularites lasting less than a second poses no danger and still want to go through with an experiment that will almost certainly have far reaching benefits in every field connected to it? And i might add, that as the article only references three out of thousands involved it's hardly something to get up in arms about...even considering that those three as stated don't believe it poses any real danger.

wow.

thankfully the advancement of our species isn't up to people with attitudes like yours. my whole point with that scenario was that there's a small chance that many catastrophic, life-ending events could happen at any moment and that that's no call to just sit in a cave wishing the world were a better place. the LHC, one way or another, is going to change how we view the universe and, as i said, have far reaching consequences in every related field, both knowledge-wise and technologically. it's sad you're so afraid of that.

edited to add: we've already created something that can reduce the planet to ash. they're called nuclear weapons. they've been around awhile...heard of em? cause last time i checked we were all still alive...no nuclear holocaust today i guess.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by optimus primal]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


Originally posted by Rren
This is new. The original ('duration') numbers were off (by about one second). There's no need for the scare quotes around scientist (their PhDs are in the relevant field(s)). These scientists don't support "the doom and gloom scenario" which you would know had you read the paper they published on arxiv (here, again, is the .pdf) or had just simply read their conclusion which FOX quoted in the Op article.
Have fun fishin'

Excellent, another thinker. Glad to see you, I stand corrected and thank you for the read.

Admittedly, I hadn’t bothered reading that paper because of the headline and now that I have read through it I can return to say that the idea of someone being frightened by this is still completely unwarranted, like it always has been. And while the discrepancy of time in which a black hole should theoretically dissipate as described by these three scientists may or may not exist, it should be noted that they appear to be in an unchallenged minority and that the discrepancy is actually far less than a second, a fraction of a second. None the less, they should report their theory as they see it as all good scientists do.

I am surprised to see Fox take this type of move on the topic, a fearful spin, if you will, but some would suggest that I shouldn’t be all that surprised. I’ve made the necessary correction and removed the quotes from “scientist” and put them where they belong as I do agree with your point. Good catch!!

The scientists are real, but the idea of a black hole being created and gobbling up the earth is still residing in the probability range of lunacy and was not the focus of their paper. I do expect to see a new definition of what a black hole truly is as well as a new definition for dark matter in the coming months.

And speaking of probability, yes there is an entire philosophy based on the interpretation of probability which gets into many interesting theories, but calculating mathematical equations of probability does not mandate ANY absence of science but instead, that philosophy encompasses all forms of science, some of which were not even considered during the formation of theoretical and linear computations of probability.

In the context of which I wrote earlier, that there is a calculable range of probability for any idea once conceived, is, and has been a valid point of science even since the turn of the last century whereas concepts like Phenomenology began to receive mainstream acceptance. Over the years, science has been forced to write and rewrite not only it’s calculable theories and formulas of probability, but the terminology used to describe them.

BTW, fish aren’t biting, at least not by Pier Park or the base.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Oh, I am not afraid of the possible negative results.

Death is not what's bothering me about this, because frankly, when I die...it won't bother me; I'll be dead. Life is what bothers me, not death.

However, what gives them the right to mess with other peoples' lives! They're not messing with mine alone, but with you, your family, my neighbour, my neighbours' dog, dogs, insects, plants, fungus, flowers, bacteria...they are messing with things, that by themselves are far more important than what we may learn with this machine. Life is far more important than what we may learn with this machine. And, if there is a chance, regardless of how small that chance is, that what they are doing could disrupt life, or...in a worse case, end it entirely, then I say...common sense prevails.

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.

With any act of science, or knowledge rather, it's usually a "your word against mine" when nothing is known as fact. So, 3 people came forward and said that these scientists who know it all, are probably very wrong with the life of these possible black holes. I already showed you how small numbers are very, very important. 3 can be a very big number. A black hole lasting just 1 second longer than it should is very important. In fact, the majority of the world once thought they lived on a flat piece of land. And 1 person proved to them they were dead wrong. Do not talk to me about the significance of numbers, however big or small those numbers may be.

What's even more interesting, is the fact that we fully do not know much about black holes. There is much about them that remains a mystery. It would even be more ironic if we learnt more about black holes with this technology than what we set out to learn about.

I love science and technology, in fact, without it...I won't be a PC technician, music producer or computer graphic designer. My problem is not with science and what we may gain, my problem is with human curiosity and what we may loss; a loss that could be the biggest loss in history(no pun intended). Personally, I do not think anything severe would happen, because the chances are very small. That's my personal feeling on the matter. But, that does not mean that I like the idea of taking such risks. Because, I know too well that...with life...well...you just never know. Life has a funny way of laughing in your face, when you're expecting to be the one laughing.

Let me ask you something, and please, answer me, and if you feel the need to, give a reason for your answer. If you possessed billions of dollars, would you use that money in a way that it surely benefits human beings, or use it to create something that may possibly tell you secrets of the universe, but...there is also a possibility of destroying this planet and all who reside in it? If you choose the latter, do you think losing all life, as well as a planet fully capable of supporting life really worth the risk, even if the risk may be very small?

Basically, I'm asking, is the risk worth the reward, especially knowing that the reward may be absolutely nothing?

Also, I want you to keep something in mind. Remember, the 1st time you drive drunk and speed, you may not die, or may not even get into an accident, but everytime you do it, you increase the chances of having an accident. This machine is not meant to be used once. Keep that in mind when you answer me.

Thank you.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by sdrawkcabII]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sdrawkcabII
 


you really don't get it do you? you hear "black hole" and "small chance" and all the sudden you come to the conclusion that those operating the LHC are suddenly gambling with the lives of 6 billion people. that's rediculous.

here i'll quote to you exactly what those who study and are going to be operating the LHC have to say about micro blackholes. you know the people who've studied this for their entire adult lives?


Microscopic black holes

Nature forms black holes when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. Speculations about microscopic black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons, each of which has an energy comparable to that of a mosquito in flight. Astronomical black holes are much heavier than anything that could be produced at the LHC.

According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects. Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays. Whilst collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays, one can still demonstrate their safety.

The specific reasons for this depend whether the black holes are electrically charged, or neutral. Many stable black holes would be expected to be electrically charged, since they are created by charged particles. In this case they would interact with ordinary matter and be stopped while traversing the Earth or Sun, whether produced by cosmic rays or the LHC. The fact that the Earth and Sun are still here rules out the possibility that cosmic rays or the LHC could produce dangerous charged microscopic black holes. If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth.

However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.


source

you're obviously not very aware of what you're talking about in regards to this "safety issue". please read up. it's like being afraid of the boogie man.

edited to add: as for your question i'd go ahead with LHC as it will surely benefit humanity. and the chances it will destroy our planet are so small as to be absurd and a childish fear of the dark mentality.


second edit, because the ex option seems to have deleted spacing between paragraphs...silly internet.
[edit on 29-1-2009 by optimus primal]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by optimus primal]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
also i'd like a source for stephen hawking saying he didn't think we'd learn anything from LHC. I've never read or heard that he said that anywhere. Lies don't make good friends



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sdrawkcabII
 


funny thing about that page i just sourced to you, i hadn't even noticed this. here's some quotes about the LHC safety. i think you might recognize the name of one of them.



"To think that LHC particle collisions at high energies can lead to dangerous black holes is rubbish. Such rumors were spread by unqualified people seeking sensation or publicity." Academician Vitaly Ginzburg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Lebedev Institute, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences




"The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University



"I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations." Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University


once again source



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
This is exactly why the uneducated common man should not attempt to divine the meanings of scientific papers and articles.
Most people lack critical thinking skills and common sense. They see a phrase or word they understand, and start jumping to conclusions based on their current base of knowledge. Which is usually nothing.

As some of the other posters have pointed out, this machine will do nothing that does not already happen in nature. It will just allow the scientists to accurately measure what they couldn't easily measure beforehand.

ATS is supposed to be a suppository of great thinkers, but almost every thread you see these days is filled with people who ignore facts that do not gel with their view. Lazy thinkers who sensationalize things to earn ATS points and esteem. It seems like the average user is Embracing Ignorance and Denying Reason.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Thinkmore]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
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. 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 proven 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." Its 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: Optimus, you did not answer my question.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by sdrawkcabII]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn

Excellent, another thinker. Glad to see you, I stand corrected and thank you for the read.


No problem. "It takes a big man to admit ..." as they say.


None the less, they should report their theory as they see it as all good scientists do.


And, of course, that's what they have done. If they're wrong their peers will publish accordingly (doubtful, they're not saying anything fanciful or 'out there' and the paper is relatively short and mostly equations (ie., not assumptions or theories... which is their bread-n-butter, so to speak)


I am surprised to see Fox take this type of move on the topic, a fearful spin, if you will, but some would suggest that I shouldn’t be all that surprised. I’ve made the necessary correction and removed the quotes from “scientist” and put them where they belong as I do agree with your point. Good catch!!


Cool. To be 'fair' FOX is only doing what most science reporters do; sensationalizing their titles. It's a real problem (just visit any of the online science news sites or, if you prefer, I can provide several examples.) They want those clicks and views... they all seem to do it. Sad but true. It's rampant. Can't recall how many debates I've seen that turned out to be moot due to inaccurate science reporting.








In the context of which I wrote earlier, that there is a calculable range of probability for any idea once conceived, is, and has been a valid point of science even since the turn of the last century whereas concepts like Phenomenology began to receive mainstream acceptance. Over the years, science has been forced to write and rewrite not only it’s calculable theories and formulas of probability, but the terminology used to describe them.


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.




BTW, fish aren’t biting, at least not by Pier Park or the base.



Sorry about your luck. We have a Pier Park and a couple bases here too (Panama City Beach.)

Regards.

[edit on Thu Jan 29 2009 by Rren]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The LHC was made to create large amounts of anti matter.This is to be used as fuel for a light speed craft.This craft is for the elite govenments.They will accelerate at light speed around the earth for a few months to avoid the coming disasters that will end life on earth.When they return hundreds of years will have past on earth and it will be safe and able to support life once again.On second toughts maybee not.It still won't work though.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join