Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Tests

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 24 Oct 2007, 15:51

I really don't think there's much to be worried about - they're talking about miniscule, unstable black holes, not the big planet-swallowing variety.

TheModDoctor wrote:What's this junk about this "big bang" ? This MYTH never happened and was just made to divert people from the truth. You want some proof? Go find your Bible and start reading at Genesis 1:1 !!

:huh:

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 24 Oct 2007, 15:58

TheModDoctor wrote:You want some proof? Go find your Bible and start reading at Genesis 1:1

i'm only allowed a set amount of fiction every week... and i have to be honest and admit to preferring contemporary fiction over the more established masterpieces...

TheModDoctor wrote:I don't really think that a single machine would be able to blow up the whole world

probably highly unlikely.. any damage it does do will probably be more insidious... like producing a runaway production of evil pixies, or stale french cheese...

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 24 Oct 2007, 15:59

Let it go, he won't do it again (please don't, then I have to clean up!

)

Post by **KillerByte** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:03

TheModDoctor wrote:This might be a bit off topic...

JFK wrote: The New York Times and International Herald Tribune announced the intentions of a global group of physicists to re-create the environment of the early universe so they can better understand the Big Bang. After a hundred years of theory, discussion, and lab tests, the time has come to test results at a higher level.
What's this junk about this "big bang" ? This MYTH never happened and was just made to divert people from the truth. You want some proof? Go find your Bible and start reading at Genesis 1:1 !!!

But still, the idea about a particle accelerator is interesting, but in my opinion I don't really think that a single machine would be able to blow up the whole world.

Its people like you that believe science and religion can't go together. Who's to say that God did not use the Big Bang as his method of creating the universe. The universe started at a single point, a point of infinite density then it instanlty expanded to occupy an infinite expanse. That in its self is pretty unbelievable, and things like that don't happen by themselves, they take a higher power, a being of infinite complexity and power.

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:09

D3PART3D wrote:Let it go, he won't do it again (please don't, then I have to clean up! )

I see yet another science vs. religion debate looming...

KillerByte wrote:That in its self is pretty unbelievable, and things like that don't happen by themselves, they take a higher power, a being of infinite complexity and power.

According to... You? We don't know exactly how the big bang occurred, but that's no reason to resort to superstition.

Post by **KillerByte** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:18

religion is not superstition. I refuse to get into a religion vs science debate, since i believe in both.

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:20

KillerByte wrote:religion is not superstition.

su·per·sti·tion /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Pronunciation[soo-per-stish-uhn]
–noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Sounds a lot like religion to me!

jee · Post by **jee** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:28

I'm going to be seriously offended if this thread is used as another religion v science fight. Lets just agree to disagree : the big bang is a myth/the Bible is a myth and anything more can be fought over in the proper thread.

TheModDoctor · Post by **TheModDoctor** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:56

Sorry if I turned this thread into a debate, I didn't mean to. I was just making a comment about my beliefs. Sorry again...

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:58

TheModDoctor wrote:Sorry if I turned this thread into a debate, I didn't mean to. I was just making a comment about my beliefs. Sorry again...

No worries, everything turns into a debate around here... Even seemingly innocuous subjects, like headlights...

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:01

Post by **Ron2K** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:01

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Some more information about the project that's worth reading.

jee · Post by **jee** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:27

TheModDoctor - you will learn quickly on this forum that certain things are not debatable *grins*. If you want to be part of that particular debacle, just search the chill section for the relevant thread. Read it from the beginning, and if you want to add something that has not been regurgitated until even the evil pixies want nothing to do with it, Please! new ideas will be totally welcome

(just not in the Saga of the Park Lights, please)

PS Judas, my darlin, my Angel..,. if you call the previous rumblings debate, i seriously think you should visit me for some edumacation...

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 24 Oct 2007, 18:04

jee wrote:PS Judas, my darlin, my Angel..,. if you call the previous rumblings debate, i seriously think you should visit me for some edumacation...

No, not quite a debate unfortunately... It's been a while since there's been a good, original debate around these parts

. I'm always game for some edumacation though

.

JFK · Post by **JFK** » 26 Oct 2007, 09:10

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 26 Oct 2007, 09:15

Judas wrote:
jee wrote:PS Judas, my darlin, my Angel..,. if you call the previous rumblings debate, i seriously think you should visit me for some edumacation...

No, not quite a debate unfortunately... It's been a while since there's been a good, original debate around these parts . I'm always game for some edumacation though .

Wait until you see what I have in store for you

I already know your gameplan, btw...

Lol @ JFK

Post by **Ron2K** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:02

JFK wrote:OK, so what's the speed of dark?

"Dark" isn't a physical entity that actually exists; it's merely a word used to describe the absence of light.

Can't remember where I heard that from.

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:05

Yeah, he knows, it was a joke

Ark · Post by **Ark** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:08

Ron2K wrote:
JFK wrote:OK, so what's the speed of dark?

"Dark" isn't a physical entity that actually exists; it's merely a word used to describe the absence of light.

Can't remember where I heard that from.

If you had physical science in high school, you heard it there!

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:37

Ron2K wrote:"Dark" isn't a physical entity that actually exists; it's merely a word used to describe the absence of light.

the word we're after is 'privative'. much like 'hole' or 'cold', it describes the absence of something, but not a physical entity or property.

Judas · Post by **Judas** » 26 Oct 2007, 12:53

D3PART3D wrote:
Judas wrote:
jee wrote:PS Judas, my darlin, my Angel..,. if you call the previous rumblings debate, i seriously think you should visit me for some edumacation...

No, not quite a debate unfortunately... It's been a while since there's been a good, original debate around these parts . I'm always game for some edumacation though .
Wait until you see what I have in store for you

I'll do my best to ignore the possible ambiguity of that statement! :dontgetit:

I already know your gameplan, btw...

That's quite a feat, since I don't know my gameplan myself yet

.

JFK · Post by **JFK** » 26 Oct 2007, 12:59

Judas wrote:
D3PART3D wrote:
Judas wrote:
jee wrote:
I already know your gameplan, btw...

That's quite a feat, since I don't know my gameplan myself yet .

Eeeeiish, what is up with this game plan???

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 26 Oct 2007, 13:07

Lol, Judas!
You'll see exactly what I mean by gameplan soon, I haven't been this excited since Power Rangers! :biggrin:
oh, I'm good... Incredibly good

Post by **Ron2K** » 26 Oct 2007, 13:44

rustypup wrote:
Ron2K wrote:"Dark" isn't a physical entity that actually exists; it's merely a word used to describe the absence of light.
the word we're after is 'privative'. much like 'hole' or 'cold', it describes the absence of something, but not a physical entity or property.

You learn something new every day.

Prime · Post by **Prime** » 09 Sep 2008, 21:53

Right, So unofficially the World ends tom

I have taken a special interest in this thing because I'm doing second year physics at the mo as part of my electrictronics degree. We started Lagrangian Mechanics today. he he...

So Anyway, more Linkage

Am I the only one super excited????!!!!! The search for the Hex-Boson begins....

PCFormat Forum Archive

Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Tests

Re: Playing God

Re: Playing God

Re: Playing God

Re: Playing God