Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] End Of The World?

Veevs

Recommended Posts

Veevs Uefa Europa League

Veevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In one of those moods tonight I guess.. which one of the following has got the least ammount of press in the modern world?

The Mars landing, first man to walk on the moon, first pictures of Venus, Hubble space telescope... or our new big bang experiment?

Which one of of the above is the most expensive by a multiple of at least 4 (given inflation etc)?

Yep the trial of the mini big bang wins hands down as the most expensive and scariest of the lot :) lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
BiggusLaddus Premier League

BiggusLaddus

Posted
Posted
I think that the whole thing is brilliant. If it works then we all learn more about the origins of the universe. Isn't that interesting?

Playing devils advocate - why do we want to know the origins of the universe? What use is it to us living here now? Would it not be better to put all the time, effort and money spent on this project into protecting what we have now and preserving it for our children and grandchildren and future generations?

If mankind had always thought like that then we would still be living in caves moaning about how hard it is to drag square rocks and the taste of cold food.

It might not bring us any benefits at all and any benefits it does bring will probably be unexpected side effects. Did the first astronomers set out to map the stars to allow sailors to travel all over the globe? Or did they do it because it was there to be done and the navigation benefits came later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BiggusLaddus Premier League

BiggusLaddus

Posted
Posted
I don't think inventing the wheel or starting a fire put the planet at risk though, did it?

Although some people think that the discovery of fossil fuels did. Mind you, what would our holidays be without it?

Nor did splitting the atom, but it was thought at the time that it might. Maybe our greater understanding in the future will show that this also had no real risk.

If you think that early man would have seen natural fires before and witnessed the destruction that they caused, he/she would have to be very brave to deliberately start one of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veevs Uefa Europa League

Veevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Nor did splitting the atom, but it was thought at the time that it might. Maybe our greater understanding in the future will show that this also had no real risk.

If you think that early man would have seen natural fires before and witnessed the destruction that they caused, he/she would have to be very brave to deliberately start one of their own.

Blimey biggus how can you compare the use of fire to recreating the same explosion that created the universe (albeit on a smaller scale)....

Ok science took a risk with splitting the atom, and a rather large number of people died because of the testing of the first atomic devises.. but recreating the big bang.. even early experiments in the 4km long tunnel created tempretures 300million times the heat of the center of the sun.. there is not really much comparison between a Nuclear explosion and the explosion that created our galaxy!!!

If you where to compare the two a nuclear explosion would be the less than a grain of sand in comparison to the big bang being the size of our planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majiball World Cup

Majiball

Posted
Posted

It is different scale isn't it Veevs, The big bang in miniature form, Mmmm.

Its the micro black holes that put the willies up me, one lot say no chance the other say maybe. Not really keen to see those on earth, but we always have the theoretical Hawking's radiation to solve that problem. Then there's all the other little things that potentially could come along monopoles strangelets. Given that they can't even build the thing properly because they got basic math wrong, they do not exactly inspire confidence.

Do they not also have plans for an even bigger one, and then plans for a step up again, the mind boggles. I would love to see a grand unification theory, it would revolutionise us. Perhaps they'll do the decent thing and let us all know a day or so before they turn it on, so we can get our last wishes in.

They got the math completely wrong with splitting the atom as well, why because they had only theory/idea's to base it on. They also say that our current physics does not comprehend nor include these experiments, guesswork with no foundation on a scale never even percieved before good stuff.

Anyways I've ordered a cuban cigar off the net today hopefully I'll have time to light it, should it go pear shaped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BiggusLaddus Premier League

BiggusLaddus

Posted
Posted
Blimey biggus how can you compare the use of fire to recreating the same explosion that created the universe (albeit on a smaller scale)....

If you read it again you will see that I'm not. I'm saying that it was/must have been seen at the time as a very big risk.

An explosion can only be as large as the amount of matter exploding anyway (bloody hell that reads badly) and they are only throwing tiny tiny particles at each other so there isn't really very much there to explode.

And I don't think that we are at too much risk from any micro-blackholes. Wouldn't the earth have to shrink to the size of a cricket ball to become a stable black hole? If that is the case, how small would these ones be with only a couple of particles to be formed from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veevs Uefa Europa League

Veevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It is different scale isn't it Veevs, The big bang in miniature form, Mmmm.

Its the micro black holes that put the willies up me, one lot say no chance the other say maybe. Not really keen to see those on earth, but we always have the theoretical Hawking's radiation to solve that problem. Then there's all the other little things that potentially could come along monopoles strangelets. Given that they can't even build the thing properly because they got basic math wrong, they do not exactly inspire confidence.

Do they not also have plans for an even bigger one, and then plans for a step up again, the mind boggles. I would love to see a grand unification theory, it would revolutionise us. Perhaps they'll do the decent thing and let us all know a day or so before they turn it on, so we can get our last wishes in.

They got the math completely wrong with splitting the atom as well, why because they had only theory/idea's to base it on. They also say that our current physics does not comprehend nor include these experiments, guesswork with no foundation on a scale never even percieved before good stuff.

Anyways I've ordered a cuban cigar off the net today hopefully I'll have time to light it, should it go pear shaped.

Good idea.. better go shopping for my Cuban cigar..

Been trying to think of a good response or work out if you are being sarcastic lol.. but failed.. Berkenstein (Hawkings theory) theory btw wont help.. its nothing to do with a counter measure to the accidental creation of black holes (We have no theory for fixing those)..

I like to look at it this way.. no one knows what will happen because its never been done before and just because scientists aint found an experiment that destroys the world yet (or we would not be talking about it), does not mean this one isn't that experiment.. Play with fire and get burn't.. play with the unknown and get the unknown.. In this case we are trying to create the biggest explosion ever known.. now tell me that's a good idea?

right I am off to play half life and doom then watch event horizon again..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majiball World Cup

Majiball

Posted
Posted
And I don't think that we are at too much risk from any micro-blackholes. Wouldn't the earth have to shrink to the size of a cricket ball to become a stable black hole? If that is the case, how small would these ones be with only a couple of particles to be formed from?

We don't even know how they are formed we have theories buts that all, they theorise that cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere can form them, put have no proof. The also theorise that they evaporate in flashes of radiation, but its all theory. The greatest minds at one point said the earth was flat that the sun set in the sea, Theory is all well and good but its often found to be wrong.

We have never found one, we have no clue what will happen. What happens if they form and two become one and so on and they don't evaporate as Hawking theorises.

Its not about the earth becoming a black hole but one forming here on earth. However unlikely it is we don't have a scooby how they are formed and if so what happens to one. Although Hawking is a genius of that there is no doubt, he has been wrong before. They have also suggested it could create/expose extra dimensions, amongst other little gems.

Scientists are arguing with scientists over this with such verosity they are taking them through the courts saying we do not know enough to attempt this experiment, the risk is too great. If it works great if it all goes completely wrong then what who knows. Too many if's for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veevs Uefa Europa League

Veevs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If you read it again you will see that I'm not. I'm saying that it was/must have been seen at the time as a very big risk.

An explosion can only be as large as the amount of matter exploding anyway (bloody hell that reads badly) and they are only throwing tiny tiny particles at each other so there isn't really very much there to explode.

And I don't think that we are at too much risk from any micro-blackholes. Wouldn't the earth have to shrink to the size of a cricket ball to become a stable black hole? If that is the case, how small would these ones be with only a couple of particles to be formed from?

You are contradicting yourself mate.. "An explosion can only be as large as the amount of matter exploding anyway" so enlighten me.. what is involved in a nuclear explosion.. ? Is the explosion directly proportional to the matter involed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majiball World Cup

Majiball

Posted
Posted
Been trying to think of a good response or work out if you are being sarcastic lol.. but failed.. Berkenstein (Hawkings theory) theory btw wont help.. its nothing to do with a counter measure to the accidental creation of black holes (We have no theory for fixing those)..

What exactly is this radiation then???

Sorry Biology's more my area, and not near work for a week or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bodrum_blue League One

bodrum_blue

Posted
Posted
If mankind had always thought like that then we would still be living in caves moaning about how hard it is to drag square rocks and the taste of cold food.

It might not bring us any benefits at all and any benefits it does bring will probably be unexpected side effects. Did the first astronomers set out to map the stars to allow sailors to travel all over the globe? Or did they do it because it was there to be done and the navigation benefits came later?

Thats exactly my point. Mankind did not sit back and say "I wonder how caves were formed, lets try to recreate the formation of caves". They looked forward for something better to either solve a problem or improve their lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.