| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1great_cthuhlozSep 10, 2008 11:04:01 | Well, the big swiss particle accellerator has been switched on, and we have neither been sucked into a black-hole nor exploded by "strangelets" I wonder if all the people who tried to get a court order on the principle that it would kill us all feel a bit daft now |
| #2spearspikeSep 10, 2008 11:08:45 | Well, the big swiss particle accellerator has been switched on, and we have neither been sucked into a black-hole nor exploded by "strangelets" I don't think it was daft. It was a prudent concern. No one was saying it would absolutely happen. But some people were worried there might be a chance. |
| #3batshidoSep 10, 2008 11:09:18 | Well, the big swiss particle accellerator has been switched on, and we have neither been sucked into a black-hole nor exploded by "strangelets" Likely? No. Just like any religion-born end times prophecy, they'll keep moving the dates and conditions until either a) they die, b) everyone forgets about it or c) it actually happens (nevermind that it hasn't yet in recorded history). I'd guess they're going to pretty closely follow the model that's been set forth by all modern end-times predictors; Predict, proselytize, win converts, be proven wrong, move the goalposts. Why mess with a system that works (figuratively speaking)? |
| #4BloodsoulSep 10, 2008 11:10:48 | So when are they gonna start roasting marshmallows with it? |
| #5solikSep 10, 2008 11:11:01 | Actually, the date was 4 years from now in the first place (according to the black hole guy). I think he's wrong, of course (not that I'm a qualified physicist), but just want to be fair to him. |
| #6_jayne_cobb_Sep 10, 2008 11:14:44 | No one was saying it would absolutely happen. Many people were saying precisely that. The technical term for these people is "moron". |
| #7great_cthuhlozSep 10, 2008 11:14:49 | They had professor Hawkins on the news this morning here He said that the LHC could only create a black-hole if there are other alternate dimentions then, IF it did create a micro-black-hole, it would only last a fraction of a second before it disipated and IF the black-hole doesn't immediatly dissiptate, it would be so small that it wouldn't even be big enough to suck in a single electron He also made the point that the Northern Lights are the exact kind of reaction the LHC is replicating (just in a lab so they can study them) - and, the Northern Lights havn't destroyed the world yet personally, when the worlds cleverest man tells you something is safe, i think you can believe him! |
| #8spearspikeSep 10, 2008 11:14:50 | Likely? No. Except this wasn't a relgiously motivated prediction. There were people in the scientific community, a minority to be sure, who were worried about the consquences of using the machine. I am no physicist. But, given the magnitude of the concern, I would have supported ending the project even if there was only say a .1 percent chance of anything going wrong. It is simply prudent. |
| #9spearspikeSep 10, 2008 11:17:02 | personally, when the worlds cleverest man tells you something is safe, i think you can believe him! But this is all theoretical. And there were other smart people who disagreed with him. Not disapraging his intellect. And I am sure he is likely right. But doesn't seem foolish to mess with this kind of thing, if some scientists are saying there is a chance it could destroy the earth? I respect and believe in science. But I wont just blindly follow science in its pursuit of knowledge when it treads of risky ground. |
| #10great_cthuhlozSep 10, 2008 11:19:06 | When the train was intented, some scientists of the day said it could possibly move so fast that it would ignite the atmosphere and we would all die people have always used predictions of catastrophy to try and hold back science |
| #11batshidoSep 10, 2008 11:20:48 | Except this wasn't a relgiously motivated prediction. There were people in the scientific community, a minority to be sure, who were worried about the consquences of using the machine. I am no physicist. But, given the magnitude of the concern, I would have supported ending the project even if there was only say a .1 percent chance of anything going wrong. It is simply prudent. Sorry, my statement didn't make this clear. I wasn't saying that this was a religiously motivated concern, just that it very closely echoed the approach and concerns voiced in the various end-times prophecies that have been pushed in modern history. As to the danger presented, I heard one physicist liken the odds of the accelerator creating an earth-consuming black hole to the odds of the moon spontaneously phasing through the earth. We as a planet are at a lot more risk from the randomness of quantum physics in general than we are from controlled particle acceleration for scientific research. The fact that this was an issue is purely due to media sensationalism around the project. |
| #12batshidoSep 10, 2008 11:22:20 | When the train was intented, some scientists of the day said it could possibly move so fast that it would ignite the atmosphere and we would all die Similar predictions were made about breaking the sound barrier. Not that there aren't well-founded concerns about the ethical pursuit of scientific discovery, but "we're all going to die randomly if we do this specific thing" is never really one of them. |
| #13spearspikeSep 10, 2008 11:30:45 | Sorry, my statement didn't make this clear. I wasn't saying that this was a religiously motivated concern, just that it very closely echoed the approach and concerns voiced in the various end-times prophecies that have been pushed in modern history. The comparison doesn't hold. These aren't people making end times predictions because they are misreading an ancient religious text. These are scientists voicing real concerns based on sound science. Not saying they are right. But if there is any doubt, prudence should be the governing virtue. And that is still just the view of one physicist. Some thought the chances were larger. There were differences of opinion. And that is why prudence would have been warranted. I understand that any time we do something new, as you pointed out with the sound barrier, there is an unknown factor. There was a time when they thought splitting an atom might create an unstoppable chain reaction. I would argue that however small the chances, we shouldn't risk total destruction of the planet in pursuit of such things. |
| #14jwtSep 10, 2008 11:57:04 | And that is still just the view of one physicist. Some thought the chances were larger. There were differences of opinion. And that is why prudence would have been warranted. I understand that any time we do something new, as you pointed out with the sound barrier, there is an unknown factor. There was a time when they thought splitting an atom might create an unstoppable chain reaction. I would argue that however small the chances, we shouldn't risk total destruction of the planet in pursuit of such things. Just curious. What is your stance on Global Warming? |
| #15spearspikeSep 10, 2008 12:02:48 | Just curious. What is your stance on Global Warming? I believe we should work from a "worst case scenario" position, and take every step we can, even if it causes some economic hardship in the present, to prevent the possibility of the earth becoming hostile to human life. |
| #16jwtSep 10, 2008 12:17:27 | I believe we should work from a "worst case scenario" position, and take every step we can, even if it causes some economic hardship in the present, to prevent the possibility of the earth becoming hostile to human life. Fair enough. Thx. |
| #17batshidoSep 10, 2008 12:21:58 | I would argue that however small the chances, we shouldn't risk total destruction of the planet in pursuit of such things. Things this statement makes you against; Super-sonic flight Fission-based power sources Declaring the solar system to be solar-centric Rail transport Stating out loud that the world is round I'm sure there are more examples, but that's a good short-list. Again, I'm not saying that we should pursue scientific progress without concern for the consequences. Just that we need to recognize that irrational fear of technological advancement is generally just that; irrational. |
| #18MusicOfCreationSep 10, 2008 12:56:52 | Well, the big swiss particle accellerator has been switched on, and we have neither been sucked into a black-hole nor exploded by "strangelets" How do you know we aren't all dead right now? |
| #19ADHadhSep 10, 2008 13:09:13 | How do you know we aren't all dead right now? Hey, maybe the world did explode, but scientists remade it and made us forget the event? |
| #20MusicOfCreationSep 10, 2008 13:21:35 | Hey, maybe the world did explode, but scientists remade it and made us forget the event? You know how supposedly your entire life flashes before your eyes right when you die? Maybe I'm reliving that split second in very excruciating second-by-second detail. |
| #21zombie_babiesSep 10, 2008 14:22:42 | The world is fine. How do I know? You're all figments of my imagination and you're still here so I must be, too. Right? Oh please god tell me I'm right! |
| #22MusicOfCreationSep 10, 2008 14:29:19 | Maybe this isn't my first time being a 24 year old nerd named Justin living in the year 2008. Maybe I'm cursed to relive my entire existence exactly as it occured over and over again until the end of time(which may never occur btw). Maybe I'm going to die a year from now and this will be my hundredth or so time dying in the year 2009 from the exact same cause of death. |
| #23goblin_prideSep 10, 2008 14:31:23 | The world is fine. How do I know? You're all figments of my imagination and you're still here so I must be, too. Right? Oh please god tell me I'm right! I think, therefore you are? It's a bit of a stretch but it works, I suppose. |
| #24zombie_babiesSep 10, 2008 14:51:21 | I think, therefore you are? It's a bit of a stretch but it works, I suppose. Thanks, I feel better now. Right? ;) |
| #25batshidoSep 10, 2008 14:54:31 | Thanks, I feel better now. Right? ;) If we're figments of your imagination, does that make me your sarcastic node of self-doubt? |
| #26ShiftkittySep 10, 2008 14:59:27 | Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! I say we keep smashing particles until we do create a mini-blackhole! I know there were scientists saying that bad things could happen, but there were also scientists back in the 1950's trying to convince us that chlorophyll would make us smell better and do away with bad breath. They put it in toothpaste, deodorant, and almost every other personal hygiene product. What they overlooked was that goats practicaly live on the stuff, and they still stink. |
| #27Cpt_MichaSep 10, 2008 15:07:51 | But this is all theoretical. And there were other smart people who disagreed with him. Not disapraging his intellect. And I am sure he is likely right. But doesn't seem foolish to mess with this kind of thing, if some scientists are saying there is a chance it could destroy the earth? I respect and believe in science. But I wont just blindly follow science in its pursuit of knowledge when it treads of risky ground. I don't know if you knew this or not. Before we even tested the A-bomb there were theories by people that were developing it that there was a slight chance that the bomb in theory could ignite the atmosphere. You have to take in a certain amount of tolerance of what is and isn't acceptable. If there was a 20 percent chance something seriously bad could happen from the use of this particle accelerator (which IIRC don't we already have those?) then yeah, we should probably not do anything with it. If it's less than 1/billionth of a chance of it happening? Probably much safer ground. 1/billionth of a percent? Shoot, almost -nothing- is -that- certain. |
| #28duboisjfSep 10, 2008 15:28:47 | I don't know if you knew this or not. Before we even tested the A-bomb there were theories by people that were developing it that there was a slight chance that the bomb in theory could ignite the atmosphere. You have to take in a certain amount of tolerance of what is and isn't acceptable. If there was a 20 percent chance something seriously bad could happen from the use of this particle accelerator (which IIRC don't we already have those?) then yeah, we should probably not do anything with it. If it's less than 1/billionth of a chance of it happening? Probably much safer ground. 1/billionth of a percent? Shoot, almost -nothing- is -that- certain. ... Well ... who can state what are the odds ? Me ? You ? Scientists ? Will they be able to agree ? Problem is it's impossible to define the odds so we can't decide on that base. |
| #29_jayne_cobb_Sep 10, 2008 15:33:05 | Problem is it's impossible to define the odds No, it isn't. |
| #30batshidoSep 10, 2008 15:50:35 | ... Well ... who can state what are the odds ? Me ? You ? Scientists ? Will they be able to agree ? If we're talking about actual scientific research, it's unlikely that they've made it that far without a very, very good idea of what the odds of world-destroying consequences happening are. The modern scientific community isn't a collection of madmen each trying to out-crazy the next. There are methods, theoretical models and safety protocols employed to avoid destroying the earth. The people who form the basis of the sort of outcry the OP talks about are those just out of the loop as far as new developments. They're close enough to what's going on to be scared of it, and more than self-important enough to decry it as dangerous, but they don't have the whole picture. Nothing happens, from a scientific standpoint, without years of studies and research in the run-up, and the scientists performing the tests know what's going to happen before it does, for the most part. And if they don't know for sure, they've preformed a statistical analysis that tells them what they can expect with what degree of frequency. Not that any of that ever stopped the chicken littles of the world. |
| #31annoyinglizardvoiceSep 10, 2008 15:57:39 | This morning I kinda hoped the world would end, it would have ment I wouldn't have needed to go to work. I later realised that the world was where most of my stuff was, so it was just as well it didn't end. |
| #32PhobosSep 10, 2008 15:57:53 | Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! I say we keep smashing particles until we do create a mini-blackhole! You realize that apart from some logical science experiments, we could do a lot with a mini-blackhole. We could try to bounce quarters into it while playing drinking games, or we could test if that whole Alien and the hole in the spaceship window thing really works. |
| #33zombie_babiesSep 10, 2008 16:03:33 | If we're figments of your imagination, does that make me your sarcastic node of self-doubt? Not exactly. More like the little voice that says "don't ever forget: it's Canadia". :D |
| #34batshidoSep 10, 2008 16:30:47 | Not exactly. More like the little voice that says "don't ever forget: it's Canadia". :D Hmm. It seems I should be taking a more active role in all this. If you start saying "yar" a lot more, don't worry. That's just me kicking your pirate cortex. |
| #35faelar006Sep 10, 2008 17:52:49 | If we're talking about actual scientific research, it's unlikely that they've made it that far without a very, very good idea of what the odds of world-destroying consequences happening are. The modern scientific community isn't a collection of madmen each trying to out-crazy the next. There are methods, theoretical models and safety protocols employed to avoid destroying the earth. Damn, that kind of sucks you know. I definitely think we need a few more mad scientists running around to liven things up a little bit. I mean, without them, how will the human race ever 1) develop superpowers, 2) invent time travel, or 3) become immortal, with our brains existing forever in a jar of cerebrospinal fluid encased in a cybernetic body for locomotion. These "scientists" and their "safety rules" really need to think long and hard about how they're impairing the advancement of the human race! Faelar |
| #36spearspikeSep 10, 2008 18:03:27 | Things this statement makes you against; Rail transport, a round world, and a helio centric solar system, don't really make much sense on that list. In this instance it wasn't irrational fear. Most physicists already acknowledged it could briefly create small black holes. I still don't think it is likely anything would go wrong. But why do you want to chance it? To show how informed you are? I mean honestly I am willing to bet neither of us has much clue about how experiments like this work aside from what we learned in our science requirements at college. And yes, science is very good at predicting the outcomes of its own experiments, but there is always the chance that scientists are wrong about a minor detail. |
| #37werralSep 10, 2008 18:03:59 | So did you guys have fun at teh end of world origes on Tuesday? |
| #38doomsoughtSep 10, 2008 18:08:12 | Idiots... you know who you are, shut up... now to an expert, with links: http://qntm.org/?destroy "Note that black holes are not eternal, they evaporate due to Hawking radiation. For your average black hole this takes an unimaginable amount of time, but for really small ones it could happen almost instantaneously, as evaporation time is dependent on mass. Therefore your microscopic black hole must have greater than a certain threshold mass, roughly equal to the mass of Mount Everest." I haven't heard of them trucking Mount Everest to the accelerator so we don't have to worry about black holes. As for "blowing up the planet", you need 25,000,000,000,000 tonnes of antimatter, double that and you have the mass equivalent of the energy that is needed to destroy the planet. All that thing will do is make funky particles so small that, if they passed though your eye and out the back of your head, you would be none the wiser. |
| #39spearspikeSep 10, 2008 18:11:05 | If we're talking about actual scientific research, it's unlikely that they've made it that far without a very, very good idea of what the odds of world-destroying consequences happening are. The modern scientific community isn't a collection of madmen each trying to out-crazy the next. There are methods, theoretical models and safety protocols employed to avoid destroying the earth. Please stop addressing us as if we are anti-science people with no education. We are just saying caution when conducting an experiment of this nature would have been preferable. We know scientists are not mad men. We know they have methods and procedures. But anyone out of college who has worked in a field that uses hard science, knows it can't predict everything perfectly. And that suprising results sometimes occur. I can only speak from my own experience at a medical journal. But I learned a few things about medicine and side effects. You may do a study that shows there is a 1% in subjects of having kidney failure if they use your product. But the study itself may have excluded segments of the population that would make the chance as high as 20%. It is very difficult to gauge this kind of thing in medicine. A pill that is supposed to have a 1% of side effect A on the general population, could have a 100% chance of having that effect on me. I don't doubt that physicists have gone over all the data, and are very confident that nothing bad is going to happen. After all they wouldn't be conducting the experiment if they thought something bad might. But they could be wrong. And enough people have raised concerns, that I think it would have been worth being more cautious about it. Not just that. But we are at the point where we need to ask ourselves how something this expensive to be produced is going to be used, and what it might lead to. Is it worth the time and effort? Could it lead to the development of new kinds of WMDs? What are the practical applications of the experiment? |
| #40Titanium_DragonSep 10, 2008 18:19:26 | I wonder if all the people who tried to get a court order on the principle that it would kill us all feel a bit daft now They should have felt daft to start out with. The reality is there was no chance at all of it destroying the planet. Gamma ray bursts are far, far more energenic things and they haven't destroyed the universe. The creation of a microscopic black hole is completely harmless, because it would instantaneously decay due to Hawking radiation. There isn't isn't enough energy involved in the machine to cause any issue. FAR FAR FAR greater energies have been released on Earth. This isn't going to kill us if hydrogen bombs, volcanic eruptions, and impacts from space haven't. Heck, we had a planet the size of -Mars- strike the planet. Everyone who understood the principles involved knew it was safe. On those who DIDN'T understand the principles involved didn't. |
| #41doomsoughtSep 10, 2008 19:54:26 | This is physics, not medicine, we are limited by the conservation of energy, (if we were not, such a man who found out would soon be more wealthy than many a nation) |
| #42batshidoSep 10, 2008 20:19:33 | Rail transport, a round world, and a helio centric solar system, don't really make much sense on that list. Actually, they do. The church tried to quash the ideas of heliocentrism and the round earth for fear that their acceptance would anger god and bring about the end times (or at least widespread devastation of civilization). When the train was first introduced, some feared that it's internal combustion process would result in setting the air around it alight, eventually resulting in the suffocation of mankind. In this instance it wasn't irrational fear. Most physicists already acknowledged it could briefly create small black holes. I still don't think it is likely anything would go wrong. But why do you want to chance it? To show how informed you are? I mean honestly I am willing to bet neither of us has much clue about how experiments like this work aside from what we learned in our science requirements at college. And yes, science is very good at predicting the outcomes of its own experiments, but there is always the chance that scientists are wrong about a minor detail. I "want to chance it" because science can't move forward along that axis until we do. If we let the fear of an infinitesimal chance of catastrophic failure keep us from moving forward, then we just stop. Stopping isn't really an option if we want scientific or technological advancement. Please stop addressing us as if we are anti-science people with no education. I wasn't aware that I was addressing anyone in that manner. I think you're reading too much into my posts, again. We are just saying caution when conducting an experiment of this nature would have been preferable. We know scientists are not mad men. We know they have methods and procedures. But anyone out of college who has worked in a field that uses hard science, knows it can't predict everything perfectly. And that suprising results sometimes occur. I can only speak from my own experience at a medical journal. But I learned a few things about medicine and side effects. You may do a study that shows there is a 1% in subjects of having kidney failure if they use your product. But the study itself may have excluded segments of the population that would make the chance as high as 20%. It is very difficult to gauge this kind of thing in medicine. A pill that is supposed to have a 1% of side effect A on the general population, could have a 100% chance of having that effect on me. Medicine isn't an exact science, that's why most of it's advances come through clinical testing. Physics, on the other hand, is. That's why most of it's advances come in the theoretical sense first, then are demonstrated through lab work. There's a major difference between the two. I don't doubt that physicists have gone over all the data, and are very confident that nothing bad is going to happen. After all they wouldn't be conducting the experiment if they thought something bad might. But they could be wrong. And enough people have raised concerns, that I think it would have been worth being more cautious about it. Define "more cautious" in terms that aren't "stop doing it now." Because by your rationale, if we do it we're taking a risk. We can never have perfect information about what will happen, until it actually happens. That's cessation of scientific advancement, and it's not a good thing to do because you're scared of potential outcomes that have a chance of occurring on same order of magnitude as me spontaneously shifting form. Not just that. But we are at the point where we need to ask ourselves how something this expensive to be produced is going to be used, and what it might lead to. Is it worth the time and effort? Could it lead to the development of new kinds of WMDs? What are the practical applications of the experiment? Responsible science means looking at the potential applications of new technology. That has no bearing here, however. These people were scared because the press made a big deal over something that could happen, but by all estimates never actually would. That's not concern over potential applications, that's fear of the unknown. |
| #43lugnut71Sep 10, 2008 20:26:07 | So did you guys have fun at teh end of world origes on Tuesday? I remember the last time the aliens showed up. They made all the scientist get together for forced breeding. |
| #44spearspikeSep 10, 2008 20:29:53 | Actually, they do. The church tried to quash the ideas of heliocentrism and the round earth for fear that their acceptance would anger god and bring about the end times (or at least widespread devastation of civilization). When the train was first introduced, some feared that it's internal combustion process would result in setting the air around it alight, eventually resulting in the suffocation of mankind. You might want to check this one. The end times were the desired outcome of Christianity. So it makes little sense for this to have been their concern. I have never encountered this explanation in any of my history courses. I could be mistaken. But it isn't the usual explanation for the Church's concern over the theory. But, since I don't believe in Christianity. And there is no evidence to support an Angry God theory, I am not concerned and would have supported the helio centric theory. I am talking about reasonable and scientific conncerns. Not worrying because some wacky religious group thinks an angry god is going to obliterate us. |
| #45batshidoSep 10, 2008 20:36:11 | You might want to check this one. The end times were the desired outcome of Christianity. So it makes little sense for this to have been their concern. I have never encountered this explanation in any of my history courses. I could be mistaken. But it isn't the usual explanation for the Church's concern over the theory. You're right, I was misremembering. They were worried that such beliefs being absorbed by the populace would make it impossible to save their souls. Again, though, it was a scientific theory that met with resistance by those who felt it's use and testing would destroy the world (or in this case doom mankind to an eternity of hellfire). But, since I don't believe in Christianity. And there is no evidence to support an Angry God theory, I am not concerned and would have supported the helio centric theory. I am talking about reasonable and scientific conncerns. Not worrying because some wacky religious group thinks an angry god is going to obliterate us. I'm have to ask again; define the methods by which we approach this more carefully that don't involve stopping altogether. If you can't do that, what you're effectively calling for cessation of scientific inquiry into the subject. |
| #46doomsoughtSep 10, 2008 21:07:33 | Take it from a Bible reading Christian, the church is a bad measure of the religion... It actual says in the book, "you aren't good enough" People do stupid stuff, and allot of nonsense comes from techno-babble and science-fantasy. Idiots who didn't pay any attention in class and only skimmed enough to know half of things end up more dangerous to progress. The Romans knew the world was round, flat earth came from the dark ages. And worse superstitions are popping up now. |
| #47zombie_babiesSep 11, 2008 8:28:52 | Hmm. It seems I should be taking a more active role in all this. Umm. Uh oh. I've been sayin' "yar" quite a bit for the last year or two. And I liked doing it. Now that I know it's been you all along, I find ... I ... still like it. It seems like there should be something wrong with that, but damned if I can find it. |
| #48batshidoSep 11, 2008 8:53:20 | Umm. Uh oh. I've been sayin' "yar" quite a bit for the last year or two. And I liked doing it. Now that I know it's been you all along, I find ... I ... still like it. It seems like there should be something wrong with that, but damned if I can find it. Hmm. Then maybe I need to start kicking your *girly squeal and curtsy* node instead. OOC: I went through a period of about a year in college where "yar" replaced "umm," "huh," "what?" etc in my vocabulary. I took "talk like a pirate day" a little to seriously and I think my brain got stuck. |
| #49maulornSep 11, 2008 8:56:35 | Here ya guys go...something to read! http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/24-the-extremely-long-odds-against-the-destruction-of-earth/?searchterm=LHC |
| #50zombie_babiesSep 11, 2008 9:35:47 | Hmm. Then maybe I need to start kicking your *girly squeal and curtsy* node instead. That's not cool. Could you maybe, instead, kick my *charismatic enough to take over the world* node? It's win-win. I get that and you can come along for the ride! OOC: I went through a period of about a year in college where "yar" replaced "umm," "huh," "what?" etc in my vocabulary. I took "talk like a pirate day" a little to seriously and I think my brain got stuck. OOC: OOC? Who the hell is in character? I do like yar, though. I go through spurts of saying it after periods of forgetting about it completely. All it takes is hearin' it once and fuhgeddaboutit. |
| #51gorgosaurusSep 11, 2008 9:58:32 | I'm living at less than 40 miles from the French part of the LHC and I'm still alive ! My brother work at the LHC and he is alive. Nevertheless, the collision between protons has not begun yet... ;) The fact that cosmic rays bombard our planet from time immemorial with an energy superior to that produced by the LHC consolidates me in the idea that we do not risk so much. PS : Sorry for my English |
| #52chapienSep 11, 2008 11:05:31 | Well, the big swiss particle accellerator has been switched on, and we have neither been sucked into a black-hole nor exploded by "strangelets" Hey, there is still December 22 2012 to worry about. if you have no clue what that is, it is when the Mayans predicted the world would end. |
| #53batshidoSep 11, 2008 11:08:46 | Hey, there is still December 22 2012 to worry about. if you have no clue what that is, it is when the Mayans predicted the world would end. It's the end of this incarnation of the earth. It's been a while since I touched the subject, but I believe we're scheduled for a fiery death this time (as opposed to the flood that ended the last cycle). |
| #54maulornSep 11, 2008 11:11:11 | Dec 21 not Dec 22 |
| #55ShiftkittySep 11, 2008 12:26:29 | Figures it would be on my day off! Damn it! What good is the end of the world if you don't get an extra day-off? I feel so gypped! (No offense to any gypsies on this site...) |
| #56shamurai7Sep 11, 2008 12:28:37 | the particle accelerator was switched on but it takes months to get the particlcles to maximum speed for collision...so we have not seen the possibilities yet. on a side note for you religious folks....the earth was intended to be filled by man and made into a paradise like a giant garden of eden... so with that in mind do you really think the earth will ever blow up? if the big guy made it all im sure he can keep it indefinately. |
| #57chapienSep 11, 2008 12:55:52 | It's the end of this incarnation of the earth. It's been a while since I touched the subject, but I believe we're scheduled for a fiery death this time (as opposed to the flood that ended the last cycle). From what I read, this cycle is supposed to end by massive earthquakes... I believe the second cycle ended with fiery death. |
| #58batshidoSep 11, 2008 12:58:39 | From what I read, this cycle is supposed to end by massive earthquakes... I believe the second cycle ended with fiery death. Hmm, looks like I need to brush up on my world-ending mythology. |
| #59chapienSep 11, 2008 13:10:57 | Hmm, looks like I need to brush up on my world-ending mythology. Well, what really sucks is that the world will end 4 days before Christmas >.> I am sure that will ruin everyone's holiday. |
| #60maulornSep 11, 2008 13:49:26 | Mayan Calender syncs with I-ching lol... Sorry to say though there is no end...it is circular... |
| #61jwtSep 11, 2008 14:44:29 | The fact that cosmic rays bombard our planet from time immemorial with an energy superior to that produced by the LHC consolidates me in the idea that we do not risk so much. And yet I still don't have superpowers. |
| #62batshidoSep 11, 2008 14:48:01 | And yet I still don't have superpowers. Have you activated your implant? I thought the same thing until one day I stubbed my toe, and by the time I had my shoe off I was airborne. Try slamming your head into something, that's supposed to work. I'll wait. |
| #63shamurai7Sep 11, 2008 15:21:45 | Have you activated your implant? I thought the same thing until one day I stubbed my toe, and by the time I had my shoe off I was airborne. on that note...i have once tried, seriousy, when no one was watching me, to move objects with my mind... it was a remote control on one occasion, and a pencil on another.... i am still having no success.... some day i will truly discover the force. |
| #64catzoSep 11, 2008 16:14:14 | on that note...i have once tried, seriousy, when no one was watching me, to move objects with my mind... I've heard it works better with lightsbers. So once you've build once of those I think you will have no trouble with the moving of objects. |
| #65BloodsoulSep 11, 2008 17:01:59 | Build one? I found mine in a box of Cracker Jacks! :D And with all of this end of the world talk, am I the only one wanting to listen to R.E.M. now? |
| #66dauthi_overseerSep 11, 2008 19:46:14 | I don't know if you knew this or not. Before we even tested the A-bomb there were theories by people that were developing it that there was a slight chance that the bomb in theory could ignite the atmosphere. You have to take in a certain amount of tolerance of what is and isn't acceptable. If there was a 20 percent chance something seriously bad could happen from the use of this particle accelerator (which IIRC don't we already have those?) then yeah, we should probably not do anything with it. If it's less than 1/billionth of a chance of it happening? Probably much safer ground. 1/billionth of a percent? Shoot, almost -nothing- is -that- certain. It wasn't ignite the atmosphere...the real danger was they didn't know if the reaction would stop or make itself self-sustaining...which would destroy everything in the known universe and more. ;) |
| #67batshidoSep 12, 2008 8:17:42 | It wasn't ignite the atmosphere...the real danger was they didn't know if the reaction would stop or make itself self-sustaining...which would destroy everything in the known universe and more. ;) Which was a fear shared only by those who had no scientific understanding of the stellar production of heat and light. Again, hideously under-informed people trying to stop safe science (well, nuclear energy is theoretically safe, I wouldn't categorize nuclear weapons as anywhere near safe, but the principle is the same). |