Atom Smasher Switched on Tomorrow

Don’t know if this was mentioned but it was on Googles main search page. It has the LHC wrapped around Google sucking it in, pretty funny.

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

Nice webcam feed

Technology is stagnant, bring on the progress

[quote]SSC wrote:
thosebananas wrote:
SSC wrote:
machiajelly wrote:
SSC wrote:

Yeah, you’re right. We should probably also create super soldiers and do our best to develop new nuclear weapons and let the radical Islamists experiment with them.

What do you mean it’s not related - it’s all applied science!

Umm, what?

TURRURISTS GOTTA GET DEM TURRIRISTS IN THE NAME OF AMEIRKA!

Forgive my ignorance about Islam, it’s reasons like you I tend to avoid politics. It was a bad example, but you seem to be dodging answering the point I made. How is endangering our existence justified by science just for science’s sake?

do you walk outside?

your endangering your existence by doing that…

Scott

Didn’t you just agree with me one page ago? They’re called sides, choose one.

Your point is in no way relevant, either. I’m not talking about one person.[/quote]

yep i agreed with you, but i only agreed with what you were in fact being sarcastic about. i i agreed with your post, but im assuming not with what you actually meant.

super soldiers would be cool and should be experimented with

nukes should exist

This Atom Smasher and all the other ones that are about to exist should DEFINATLY exist and do what they need to do.

Thats the side im on. i think you got lost with my sarcastic reponse to your sarcastic post.

And to come back at your “im not talking about one person” defence.

ok, well then should one person be allowed to fly a plane carrying 100’s of people. there is more chance of them suddenly dying, messing up, or even crashing the plane on purpose than there is of this LHC going wrong.

If the smartest people in the world and the inventers of some of the greatest things and theorys say its ok, im with them. not the media.

Scott

Scott

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/5_scientific_theories_that_will_make_your_head_explode

have a read of that aswell…

[quote]thosebananas wrote:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/5_scientific_theories_that_will_make_your_head_explode

have a read of that aswell…[/quote]

That one was pretty crazy, but I really enjoyed the one about the 12 dimensions. Can’t for the life of me remember what it was called, though.

I think the whole point is whether or not you want politicians, or educated people making the decisions about what is or isn’t safe. Because in this cause it seems like all the truly educated people don’t think there is any danger.

As for your example with the “super-soldier” thats different. It in no way affects you or me. I would think that would be more of a civil rights issue for the individual being manipulated. I can also see your argument against allowing that, however, the same science could do things like remove genetic defects, make people smarter and healthier, possibly cure cancer, ect. So who do you think should make that type of decision? The government, the church, take a vote (though the unborn soldiers couldn’t vote)?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the whole point is whether or not you want politicians, or educated people making the decisions about what is or isn’t safe. Because in this cause it seems like all the truly educated people don’t think there is any danger.

As for your example with the “super-soldier” thats different. It in no way affects you or me. I would think that would be more of a civil rights issue for the individual being manipulated. I can also see your argument against allowing that, however, the same science could do things like remove genetic defects, make people smarter and healthier, possibly cure cancer, ect. So who do you think should make that type of decision? The government, the church, take a vote (though the unborn soldiers couldn’t vote)? [/quote]

Being a molecular biologist, I will always side with the scientists… the people I know working in controversial issues are more than knowledgeable about the ramifications and philosophical implications of their studies.

I would never trust a politician nor the church to make scientific judgments by themselves - only in collaboration.

[quote]machiajelly wrote:
I would never trust a politician nor the church to make scientific judgments by themselves - only in collaboration.[/quote]

I think that’s part of the problem. No political involvement means the man in the box isn’t telling people what to think. Maybe CERN should have budgeted for a PR campaign to help ease the fear of those that don’t read books anymore.

[quote]Aggro wrote:
machiajelly wrote:
I would never trust a politician nor the church to make scientific judgments by themselves - only in collaboration.

I think that’s part of the problem. No political involvement means the man in the box isn’t telling people what to think. Maybe CERN should have budgeted for a PR campaign to help ease the fear of those that don’t read books anymore.

[/quote]

Anyone read the book “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis. I kinda see some parallels between C.E.R.N. and N.I.C.E.

So it’s been 2 days and the world hasn’t ended.

So nothing’s wrong?

[quote]Aggro wrote:
machiajelly wrote:
I would never trust a politician nor the church to make scientific judgments by themselves - only in collaboration.

I think that’s part of the problem. No political involvement means the man in the box isn’t telling people what to think. Maybe CERN should have budgeted for a PR campaign to help ease the fear of those that don’t read books anymore.

[/quote]

You can’t educate the uneducable. Try getting into a conversation with someone over a simple topic in physics, like the potential energy of a mass at a certain height above the earth. Their eyes will glaze over within seconds.

It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that scientific studies and their conclusions should not be taken for granted without carefully examining the study parameters and considering what the data can really tell us would in this case bow down to scientists in their “infinite wisdom” when it comes to deciding whether we should risk wiping out the human race.

Why should we “lay people” question doctors, nutritionists, coaches, and other scientists (in the biological, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields) but not physicists? To take it one step further, why should we question any kind of presumably learned authority? Why question priests, economists, businessmen, or even politicians? Surely they have all trained and studied extensively in their field, and presumably are very intelligent individuals and unless we have similar levels of training, experience, knowledge (some of which we may not have access to as “lay people”), and intelligence we cannot hope to question them with good reason. Wouldn’t we be being rather arrogant in those cases too?

Scientists, even physicists, are still imperfect beings with flaws in their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual makeups. Perhaps it is the wise choice to take the risk. Is it the moral choice though? Is it morally fair to leave the lives of billions, not to mention the trillions of dollars in expenses, in the hands of the opinions of a few elites, especially if the billions of people have not consented to this arrangement?

Is science worth it at any cost, even if it loses us our humanity? Is it even worth living then?

I personally do not care that there is atom smashing going on somewhere. I have to die sometime. However, I would never presume to decide that anyone else is or is not expendable, let alone deciding that my curiosity or desire for technological advance is worth sacrificing the lives of anyone else let alone the entirety of humanity.

[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that scientific studies and their conclusions should not be taken for granted without carefully examining the study parameters and considering what the data can really tell us would in this case bow down to scientists in their “infinite wisdom” when it comes to deciding whether we should risk wiping out the human race.

Why should we “lay people” question doctors, nutritionists, coaches, and other scientists (in the biological, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields) but not physicists? To take it one step further, why should we question any kind of presumably learned authority? Why question priests, economists, businessmen, or even politicians? Surely they have all trained and studied extensively in their field, and presumably are very intelligent individuals and unless we have similar levels of training, experience, knowledge (some of which we may not have access to as “lay people”), and intelligence we cannot hope to question them with good reason. Wouldn’t we be being rather arrogant in those cases too?

Scientists, even physicists, are still imperfect beings with flaws in their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual makeups. Perhaps it is the wise choice to take the risk. Is it the moral choice though? Is it morally fair to leave the lives of billions, not to mention the trillions of dollars in expenses, in the hands of the opinions of a few elites, especially if the billions of people have not consented to this arrangement?

Is science worth it at any cost, even if it loses us our humanity? Is it even worth living then?

I personally do not care that there is atom smashing going on somewhere. I have to die sometime. However, I would never presume to decide that anyone else is or is not expendable, let alone deciding that my curiosity or desire for technological advance is worth sacrificing the lives of anyone else let alone the entirety of humanity.[/quote]

If you think you can go read the studies and understand, well enough to judge, whether it’s dangerous then by all means be my guest. I can read and understand nutrition research pretty well, so I feel like I have the right to challenge some conclusions (especially when there are contradictory reports, experts who disagree, and it involves my own body). I’m not saying don’t question things, just that you have to first fully educate yourself on the subject and when you get into regulating science, the uneducated reaction-ists (read politicians) normally end up setting the rules.

There is another side to the argument too. Who are we to decide what someone else can or can’t research? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?

The thing is most people discussing the LHC on this forum (myself included) have a very limited understanding on the work being done.

It would be like forcing any well respected trainer on T-Nation to sit and answer questions from 13 year olds about why NO-Xplode isn’t going to make them huge, only they have to answer the same questions over and over and over again. Isn’t there some point where we’d say “educate yourself and then come discuss the issue”?

That doesn’t mean we should blindly follow anyone, but if you’re going to just come up with 20 different scenarios based on what you saw in a movie, or a video game, or heard on the news and then “run with it” to proclaim the end of the world, should that opinion be given any sort of credibility by the rest of us? Hell I can play the “what if” game all day, doesn’t mean any of it’s going to happen.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’d damn sure trust Stephen Hawking more than a leader of any nation.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that scientific studies and their conclusions should not be taken for granted without carefully examining the study parameters and considering what the data can really tell us would in this case bow down to scientists in their “infinite wisdom” when it comes to deciding whether we should risk wiping out the human race.

Why should we “lay people” question doctors, nutritionists, coaches, and other scientists (in the biological, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields) but not physicists? To take it one step further, why should we question any kind of presumably learned authority? Why question priests, economists, businessmen, or even politicians? Surely they have all trained and studied extensively in their field, and presumably are very intelligent individuals and unless we have similar levels of training, experience, knowledge (some of which we may not have access to as “lay people”), and intelligence we cannot hope to question them with good reason. Wouldn’t we be being rather arrogant in those cases too?

Scientists, even physicists, are still imperfect beings with flaws in their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual makeups. Perhaps it is the wise choice to take the risk. Is it the moral choice though? Is it morally fair to leave the lives of billions, not to mention the trillions of dollars in expenses, in the hands of the opinions of a few elites, especially if the billions of people have not consented to this arrangement?

Is science worth it at any cost, even if it loses us our humanity? Is it even worth living then?

I personally do not care that there is atom smashing going on somewhere. I have to die sometime. However, I would never presume to decide that anyone else is or is not expendable, let alone deciding that my curiosity or desire for technological advance is worth sacrificing the lives of anyone else let alone the entirety of humanity.

If you think you can go read the studies and understand, well enough to judge, whether it’s dangerous then by all means be my guest. I can read and understand nutrition research pretty well, so I feel like I have the right to challenge some conclusions (especially when there are contradictory reports, experts who disagree, and it involves my own body). I’m not saying don’t question things, just that you have to first fully educate yourself on the subject and when you get into regulating science, the uneducated reaction-ists (read politicians) normally end up setting the rules.

There is another side to the argument too. Who are we to decide what someone else can or can’t research? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?[/quote]

So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town? I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.

I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved. There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real. This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.

I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing. Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.

They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.

DB

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that …h? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?

So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town? I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.

I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved. There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real. This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.

I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing. Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.

They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.

DB[/quote]

Once again, I didn’t say, “don’t question”, just educate yourself before questioning (see where you reference what you saw on TV). Maybe they didn’t research an earth swallowing black hole for the same reason they don’t research earthquakes when they build computers, in that it just doesn’t make sense to based on the facts they have.

In your case of a basement nuke, there is a “clear and present danger” so to speak. In fact the whole point of what you were doing would be destructive if it’s a weapon.

My question about who should regulate wasn’t meant to say there shouldn’t be regulation. It really was just a question as to who should be in charge when you decide to regulate.

For some perspective, the budget for the National Science foundation for 2008 was over $6 billion. The Hubble Space Telescope has cost about $4 billion so far. The annual budget of the NIH is over $25 billion.

The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on colliders is really not that outrageous.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It seems ironic to me that the very people who insist that …h? Should the UN start regulating things like stem cell research?

So, if I want to start trying to develop a super weapon in my basement, I should be allowed to, even if it endangers my entire neighborhood or town?

I know this is kind of an absurd example when it comes to CERN because this whole experiment is not being conducted in secret, but there has to be some system of checks and balances when dealing with something like this.

I watched a program on Discovery the other night about the LHC. There were interviews with some of the physicists working on the project. They were not so dismissive as a lot of the people on this thread of some of the risks involved.

There really wasn’t any time devoted to the development of earth-swallowing black holes, but the risk of the whole project being destroyed by runaway electric current - it will use about 21,000 amps - is very real.

This wouldn’t be the first time that a group of physicists had a collective “oh shit” moment either.

I’m not too worked up over the LHC, but the laissez-faire attitude that a lot of you have towards applied science is a little disturbing.

Giving scientists unchecked authority to conduct any experiments they want merely because they are more learned in their area of expertise than the rest of us is not a wise policy, imo, especially when there is a risk, miniscule or not, of mass destruction resulting from their experiments.

They’re called experiments because they don’t know exactly what will happen.

DB

Once again, I didn’t say, “don’t question”, just educate yourself before questioning (see where you reference what you saw on TV). Maybe they didn’t research an earth swallowing black hole for the same reason they don’t research earthquakes when they build computers, in that it just doesn’t make sense to based on the facts they have.[/quote]

What? If you could argue that earthquakes and computers have some tie in with each other, your comparison might make sense.

All of the experts agree that there is the possibility, however minute, that a stable black hole could result. The fact that I watched a tv program and cited it (yes, tv can be a legitimate source) doesn’t mean that it is my only source of education.

Apparently, I have done a little more reading on it since I seem to be the only one on this thread that knows the testing schedule of the LHC.

[quote]In your case of a basement nuke, there is a “clear and present danger” so to speak. In fact the whole point of what you were doing would be destructive if it’s a weapon.

My question about who should regulate wasn’t meant to say there shouldn’t be regulation. It really was just a question as to who should be in charge when you decide to regulate.[/quote]

I don’t think that “clear and present danger” (a legally ambiguous term) should be the test of whether or not to regulate scientific experimentation, but I digress. You didn’t seem to differentiate between “good” science and “bad” science.

Furthermore, it seems you don’t think that politicians and laypeople should be regulating experimentation. If that’s the case, then you are talking about self-regulation by scientists. If self-regulation worked, there wouldn’t be a need for regulation to begin with.

DB

Found this live stream from the CERN headquarters and the parking lot above. This way if anything happens you’ll be able to go ape shit and kill, steel, lie, cheat, and all that other stuff before it destroys your town.

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html