Originally posted by inimalist
you have actually confused the argument for a black hole forming with strange matter forming
No, I haven't. You have.
which is covered in the PDF I linked
Which I have proved can be disputed.
and its not an insult,
Bull and shite.
I feel you have been denied something wonderful
What, the dematerialization of all I know and love?
Originally posted by Toku King
No, I haven't. You have.
no, you quite actually have
black holes would be formed because of the energy created in the collision. The more quarks, the faster it would consume matter equal to its charge, and the faster it would dissipate.
an abundance of quarks would allow 3 S (strange) type quarks to bond, creating strange matter. There is no reason to think this would occur, however, as these types of collisions happen constantly throughout our atmosphere and solar system, and we have yet to observe strange matter.
Originally posted by Toku King
Which I have proved can be disputed.
you proved nothing, you made an incorrect statement
I'd be grateful if you could give a credible link to what you are talking about.
And, since you did read the PDF, answer me this:
Given that identical collisions of greater strength happen more times on the moon each day than we would create in 10 years.... I guess I just want your comment on that... Why isn't the moon strange matter or a black hole?
Originally posted by inimalist
no, you quite actually haveblack holes would be formed because of the energy created in the collision. The more quarks, the faster it would consume matter equal to its charge, and the faster it would dissipate.
an abundance of quarks would allow 3 S (strange) type quarks to bond, creating strange matter. There is no reason to think this would occur, however, as these types of collisions happen constantly throughout our atmosphere and solar system, and we have yet to observe strange matter.
you proved nothing, you made an incorrect statement
I'd be grateful if you could give a credible link to what you are talking about.
And, since you did read the PDF, answer me this:
Given that identical collisions of greater strength happen more times on the moon each day than we would create in 10 years.... I guess I just want your comment on that... Why isn't the moon strange matter or a black hole?
I really don't need to reply at this point, since you have to know yourself that you're wrong on all of that.
Seriously, stop arguing. Black Hole=Bad. All of what you said is exactly from that article, all of which I have replied to in one sentence.
The quark bonds can stabilize black holes as much as they can make strange matter.
wow
thats remarkably immature
its wonderful you don't feel the need to reply, as you are conceding that I am correct by not even defending your position.
you have made a flagrant display of your close minded ignorance of science, and I'm sure most people reading through this will see that almost immediately.
feel free to make a proper rebuttal. One, hopefully, where you explain how an abundance of quarks would lead to a stabilized black hole, as I and the world renown physicist, Victor Stenger, who wrote the PDF, do not believe this to be the case. While my authority on the matter is probably not much, his should be, and might require you to say more than "I dun think he smart, duhhhh"
Originally posted by Toku King
The quark bonds can stabilize black holes as much as they can make strange matter.
obviously im dumb, so explain it in a way even I might understand
(and for the record, it is not the gluons which bond the quarks that create strange matter, but the combination of 3 strange quarks. quark bonds don't make strange matter, but far be it for me to correct the obvious shorthand you were using for quantum chromatography)
Originally posted by CaptainStoic
The tests should be conducted off the planet. They really have no right to conduct tests as iffy as these on earth... where should they go? Maybe they should test smaller scale models and compare data for a couple more decades to see what the results will truly be.
Fractions of a percent that something largely harmless might be created are hardly "iffy". Besides if the LHC really was going to create a planet destroying black hole it wouldn't matter if they ran the test on Saturn's moons, we'd be screwed.
Even scientists at CERN have said they are uncertain what will happen.
So quoting Hawkings and other scientific "experts" is rather pointless, as this is like opening a door to a whole new area of investigation.
Seeing as humans have a hunger for knowledge, maybe our actual point of existence is to experiment and search for the "why" in an experimental way.
A proverb comes to mind (chinese I think)
"A turtle has to stick its neck out if it is to move forwards"
Originally posted by Toku King😂 so we would re-materalize in a different dimension right kewl just like star trek! all the advancements that can be made in our grandchildrens lifetimes from these experiments will be kewl for them...there is no stopping the LHC...as little as I know about this stuff the petition I signed only had about 700 signatures..lol..they are either doing a great job on keeping it quiet or the majority of the scientific community that understands this stuff is NOT worried....and only people like myself who dont know signed it..lol...but I knew this when I signed it...I had to sign it "knowing it wasnt enough to matter" just in case we all have 20 years of pain before death as time supposedly slows down when getting sucked into a black hole so I could tell every scientist I meet getting sucked in "I TOLD U SO F***ERS!"..lol
What, the dematerialization of all I know and love?
Originally posted by inimalist
however, there are very few at CERN who share the same panicked rhetoric we have seen here.nobody is saying there is no risk. However, the risks should be informed by the science, and not by fear mongering.
Good point, however seeing as the scientists themselves arn´t certain whats going to happen should they be so positive about it even though they can have a better "educated guess" than most people.
Just looked this up on the net, after my friend's started buying into the hysteria. Here's a pretty nice criticism of the black hole argument - http://blogs.indystar.com/geek/2008/09/large_hadron_co.html
Originally posted by AngryManatee
The Large Hardon Collider fires on Wednesday, people! Prepare for the end!Not to mention: The whole black hole arguement was made by a man named Walter Wagner, who made the same arguement concerning the Brookhaven RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) in 2005. And look, we're still here!
😆 half life goes online tomorrow then, bet get some weapons ready, looking forward to being badly influenced by video games. 😆