Red Raven

Well remove the question of a 'god' from the world and we may well achieve your goal. And to put 5 billion in context its less than a dollar for every person in the world. The spin offs and benefits that will come from this will pay everyone back many times over. or as the BBC puts it.

The truth will always prevail so I shall continue to be (subtly) optimistic . I have no background in any kind of physics but I too was excited by this mornings achievement. It really could be the start of new dawn of understanding and despite all the popular complaints of cost I think this experiment is one of the most important adventures the human race has ever embarked on.

Simple answer is yes, when answered within the normal restraints of how we humans view the world around us. Outside of that those narrow restraints then the question it's self is flawed. Who created the particles that created the particles that created the nothing - round and round we can go - the artificial stop point of a 'creator' is a deeply flawed theory. The further back you go the more complex and more 'perfect' a creator must be which demands probabilities so massive that even an infinite universe is not big enough. And am I surprised - no. Disappointed - yes.

It's not only very unlikely any collision will take place today and probably not for a few months. It's even more unlikely and if I am to be so bold laughably silly to think this experiment will bring about the end of the earth. Watching News24, which is of mixed quality, I do find it very odd indeed that an expert who is a particle physicist can also claim to be Christian theologist as well - sorry but thats just as daft as the end of the world stories. It's like a captain of a ship who regularly plots courses across oceans and seas yet still believes the earth is flat.

Not quite at the right scale but this piece of technology being used in Australia could irrigate every fringe of every continent and produce electricity at the same time. http://www.ceto.com.au/home.php

All they're doing is observing what happens, or doesn't happen, naturally. It's an essential and important step towards the understanding of the underlying physical laws that govern everything.

I better restock on the baked beans and make a new tin foil hat then.

Seems the end of the world didnt arrive after all. :lol:

Now those 'evil' scientists have said the technology can be used to improve internet speed. It's really awful this progress malarkey. :lol: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7557280.stm

:o Only if you try to be less cynical. It would be sad world if nothing was invented and developed because someone 'evil' may use it. Reminds me of the silly argument for banning kitchen knives because someone may use them to kill - was the inventor of the kitchen knife evil?

There would be huge benefits from such a development. The technology works on bending light around corners which has huge potential not just in getting to light into areas not previously possible but being able to see around corners etc. etc. Also imagine how useful it is to be invisible to high level radiation - all possible with this invention. Let the scientists do what they do best and that's discover things.

True but much cheaper on land and the farmer gets an additional rent income.

I agree. Think broader about the applications. I live in the Lake District and there are a lot of people very much against wind turbines because they 'dont look nice' - imagine this technology applied them and how much happier the protestors would be.

It's un-natural to fly. Should we stop that?

Any indications or predictions of sulphur content?

Good question and I really don't know. In an attempt to see why at the time I looked at the history of science, particularly when natural philosophy became modern science around the time of Francis Bacon. What I did find was a fault in the 'new' inductive logic which replaced the deductive logic of natural philosophy. What I am certain of though is that there is no conspiracy, maybe mass hysteria. <_<

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the hard time Jim Hansen got in the 80's when he first claimed he had found evidence of AGW. Here's somthing I wrote back on 1992 about it all: The Bush administration added; This changing of Hansen’s testimony became the centre of a large scale public debate with Hansen in the middle. As Hansen had been in the press the year earlier over something he had said the members of the opposing camp did not believe the Bush administration had acted unfairly. On June the 23rd of 1988 Hansen made his famous “99% confident” speech. In front of the Senate Energy Committee, television cameras and journalists he said; All very good for the journalists and exactly what the environmentalists wanted to hear. But as a scientist he had gone too far. Hansen claimed that “the greenhouse is here”, although most of his colleagues and fellow researchers are not so sure. Michael Schlesinger, at Oregon State University questions Hansen’s confidence,’ Tim P Barnett an oceanographer at Scripps Institution of oceanography; At a conference on climate at Amherst, Massachusetts, it was said; W. S. Broecker in Hansen’s defence claims that Scientists like the attention the greenhouse effect is getting on Capitol Hill, but they shun the reputedly unscientific way their colleague James Hansen went about getting that attention. Was this declaration straight from the heart or was it a cold calculated manoeuvre, made in order to encourage the inherent scepticism within all scientists? The climatological research world was now looking to prove Hansen wrong, to put him down and discredit him, but in so doing they may turn up the evidence which can be described as “99% confident.” The theory of AGW has had a tough ride over the years - to say that it has not gone through rigourous testing is, quite frankly, nonesense.

I have to agree with that. If there is a conspiracy (which i don't believe there is) why on earth would that conspiracy's aim be to call for dramatic changes to our carbon based economy. It's surely in government and big industry interest to fight for the other side (ie the none AGW side).

It's getting cold! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7512586.stm

100,000hp is a little larger than even the american sized truck.

Who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400772.html http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/245 http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html http://www.physorg.com/news134314354.html http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...7626&page=0 ...and on and on and on. To argue against the science of AGW is a valid one but to also argue that C02 is harmless in all contexts is not only naive but blatantly wrong - even the ardent anti-AGW scientists do not propose such a view.

That's a whole different argument. Whether AGW is happening or not a world with increased C02 and a warmer one has the potential to devastate the planet as we know it. Increased C02 means more acidic oceans, more acidic oceans means less life in them. A warmed world means a change in rainfall patterns, which in turn means areas now providing food may no longer be able to and with such large immovable populations we now have the consequence is unthinkable. Come on Bluecon present a valid counter argument

It is - nothing to do with any safety concerns. And if quantum theory/M theory is right some of these 'new' particles are not containable in the realms of our perceived reality.

It's common sense to avoid certain risk. But taking risks is what being human is all about - it's what drives our development as a species. The experiment at the LHC is all part of that development. There is a very very small risk that something bad will happen but the insights that may be gained of the complexities of the universe are so great the risk is well worth taking. http://www.lhcountdown.com/ Is this count down correct? Various other sites seem to suggest that collision doesn't take place until August.