Large Hadron Collider
-
let me get up to speed here, we have the Father, the son, the holy spirit and now the divine particle too?
-
it's ridiculous to put this experiment in space, this has less chance of destroying the earth than the atomic bomb, and that was not tested in space at all and they knew for certain that it is very destructive.And the other hand that would have been virtually impossible and would have cost hundreds of billions , which would have really been a waste of money.
-
money does count is it ?
money can not justify the action.
it should have been investigated before under more aspects. -
Some time you have to stop theorising and just go out on a limb and do it, it's what makes us human and they spent 20 years making this project possible how many more years would you have them checking calculation for a very safe procedure, it's like spending 10 days just prepairing to cut your nails.
-
I dont think many countries would throw hundreds of millions of euros in to the project if there hadnt been some serious investigation first.
-
@unknownuser said:
The suicides have already begun... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26641652/
This really is just sad that people will by into this "big bang" theory thinking it is going to destroy the earth...This is an example of Darwinism, clearly not fit enough to survive.
(or maybe she just wouldn't marry the groom selected for her so honour dictated...._ -
@unknownuser said:
it's what makes us human
it's like spending 10 days just prepairing to cut your nails.
well there are also humans who likes to cut their nails every day without waiting.
I mean it is their daily_life thing they like.
and so, at least, better to ask them if they do mind, no ?what i say is that it should have been consulted.
-
solo, yes.
-
Another sad naive shortsighted ignorant (who clearly has no understanding of the full impact of the cost of dogfood on the planet):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7603257.stm
. -
If we would leave every decision to be made by the masses we wouldn't get any research done, do you feel you understand quantum mechanics? Ordinary peopel can't vote on things they can't fully understand.
Toxic I have a question, what could a quantum mechanics specialist do to stop world hunger or climate change? -
well,
I am not going to convince you.
I´ll just bet nothing is going to be discovered but the need to change the way science is been held.
and i believe someone has bet 70 euros. -
@unknownuser said:
If we would leave every decision to be made by the masses we wouldn't get any research done, do you feel you understand quantum mechanics? Ordinary peopel can't vote on things they can't fully understand.
Toxic I have a question, what could a quantum mechanics specialist do to stop world hunger or climate change?Marian,
That's my point exactly - how can you support something that you do not understand? Do you understand fully what has been initiated today?
It strikes me that those of you so in favour of scientific research formulate your support in a completely unscientific way, without real knowledge of the subject, minimal research and and only a theoretical promise of practical benefit. If any scientist where to support a theory on this basis he would be rediculed in the intellectual community.Also, clearly you did not read or understand the point made in the article.
-( But then he is only the previous chief scientist of the UK so he probably could have nothing of merit to contribute to the discussion.)But I tend to agree with you: The quantum mechanics specialists will contribute nothing to stop world hunger, climate change, malaria, aids or any of the major challenges we are faced with.
-
Look at it this way - if the collider does cause a black hole or some other event that destroys the Earth, it will solve all our problems.
-
I'm in favour of it because it doesn't cost as much money as the us military, it increases our knowledge, that's always a plus, and developed technologies we could soon use, i don't see the problem you have with this project, i bet there are other more ridiculous and useless projects out there that don't get your attention, because they are not that important but still eat up money, those are the one you need to battle with, and about the black hole stuff.....i have read articles on the net it's true, and i do undertand basicly what they are doing....and it doesn't seem to me to be dangerous, if i'm wrong i'll give you 100 bucks.
And because specilaist don't contribute to solving those problems now we should do what? Solving those problems you talked about are the job of politicians mostly, they have plenty of money, most of it is not going to reasearch by the way,....it seems to me that political campaigns are more ridiculous than these experiminents, they are totally useless and the amounts of money used for a bunch of guys are just crazy.
As i stated above and said in previos post the US army alone eats up hundreds of billions of dollars and nobody commented on that, you guys seem to be ok with it.....the US uses money like it's always in a war, and do soldier contribute to solving those issues? -
It's not a question of supporting something you don't understand. It's a question of why you would not want to support scientific research.
The whole idea of either/or...LHC or climate change is totally bogus. It's not a question of money; it's a question of political and personal will. You could save at least as much money by the populations of the participating countries not indulging in buying pointless expensive, commercialised greetings cards for every invented occasion under the sun. That in itself amount to $billions over the 10 years it's taken to construct the accelerator. This could be done without robbing one part of scientific research to pay for another. But will they? Of course not.
Toxic, you accuse those of us who support this project of being unscientific...yet you are the one who is taking the media-twisted opinion of one man and holding it up against the opinion of tens of thousands of others. Sir David King isn't even a physicist, he's a chemist. Moreover he's always had a bee in his bonnet about climate change. He's been at loggerheads with the US government over that for years...it's most outspoken critic.
Even more than that, he wasn't making the either/or accusation you suggest. He only made a passing reference to CERN; his main point was that more scientific focus needed to be placed on practical problems regardless of what else was going on. If you actually listen to what he said rather than falling into the trap set by the article...of setting him up as a critic of the CERN project...you'll realise that he was simply asking for comparable funding for those areas he regards as priorities. He never said anything about such funding being taken away from other "blue sky" areas of science. In fact he flatly denied that right at the beginning of the audio clip
-
@unknownuser said:
It's french : Any of you guys ever own a Peugeot?
A peugeot was rustic and robust: difficult to stop it, unweary...
so be very suspiciously
Its not a sparkle that I see here?
Play with fire is a boy's game
"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" François Rabelais 1494 1553
"Science without conscience is just soul's destroy" -
@toxicvoxel said:
@unknownuser said:
But I tend to agree with you: The quantum mechanics specialists will contribute nothing to stop world hunger, climate change, malaria, aids or any of the major challenges we are faced with.
Just a single counter-example, albeit from a slightly different 'useless' bit of scientific research'; without an understanding of special relativity we couldn't have a functional GPS system. A functional GPS system allows us to measure a lot of quite useful things more easily than other wise. Amongst other things, combined with satellite photos it provides useful information on fertiliser/pesticide use and crop health, which in turn aids keeping people alive. I find that a generally useful thing.
We don't know exactly what might come from the research being done with the LHC. That's why it's called research. I think you'll find that research in general has provided pretty spectacular payback. After all, without a lot of past history, you quite possibly might have died of measles or meningitis or polio in childhood due to a lack of medical research. You wouldn't have a computer to access the internet that wouldn't be there and there wouldn't be any power to operate it anyway. You would be short on food because there wouldn't be any serious agricultural science. You wouldn't have... well anything. Except possibly a miserable life of scratching an existence, crushed under religion, ignorant of any possibility of a better life.
-
@unknownuser said:
Toxic, you accuse those of us who support this project of being unscientific...yet you are the one who is taking the media-twisted opinion of one man and holding it up against the opinion of tens of thousands of others.
I'm not sure what your point is Alan. Do you mean that my inclusion of the article in my post is 'unscientific' or that the point of view in the article is 'unscientific'? Maybe you would like to restructure your argument so I can understand your point. (But then I had difficulty understanding the connection you made between the Nasa space program and the cost of dogfood too.)Where did I suggest that he was making the either/or argument?! I think your eagerness to contradict me is undermining your judgement.
If you watched the television interview today you will know that the underlying theme to his argument is that the challenges of global warming requires a reorientation in thinking from everybody in every sphere of life , and that he was making a call on the scientific community to make a simmillar shift in focus in this regard. He was also calling on top students contemplating a carreer in the field of qp to reconsider their focus and apply their minds in areas that represent current challenges instead. That is something I can understand and support.
I am dissapointed that you would distort his position in the way that you do, as if he is some lone vigilante on a personal crusade. I'm not sure who the tens of thousands are that you refer to but I think you will find that there are many more who shares and supports his point of view. -
Heres the retort to the original article you posted toxic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7608803.stm
Makes quite an interesting read.
-
My point is quite simple. There are tens of thousands of scientists involved in the project at CERN in one capacity or another. One must assume that they actually support what they, themselves, are doing.
You cite a single scientist who makes a statement in Liverpool that the media seem to think they can get some mileage out of in terms of a counter view and then accuse us of being unscientific in prefering to believe the viewpoint of thousands of specialists over the opinion of one man...who is not a specialist.Of course I will find many scientists who support his point of view...I support his point of view to some degree. I have supported his view for years against those that claimed there was no such thing as global warming. What I don't support is the slant that the media have put on his address....which had very little to do with what is going on in Geneva. It's a complete red herring.
Your whole argument on this thread has been one that this is a complete waste of time and that the money could be spent better elsewhere.
@unknownuser said:
If you think that this experiment will explain 'how the universe works', you are decieving yourselves.
Perhaps you'd like to supply your academic credentials for that statement? You challenged others for theirs.
@unknownuser said:
Circumstantial evidence gentlemen. Demonstrate to me that you have a technical understanding of what is going on today.
Or are you supporting an idea that you do not understand?@unknownuser said:
There is something wrong in this world when we spend billions on finding answers to problems that don't exist when real issues go unattended.
What's that if it's not an either/or argument?...and if you don't think Brian King is supporting that argument, why mention him?
My argument is perfectly straightforward. I can't understand why you have such problems with it. Put simply; why cut back and denigrate any area of scientific research when there are far more laudable and lucrative things you could cut back on instead...like the arms spending that Marian mentioned?
Advertisement