Should we risk creating a black hole?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So..why did he insist on referring to it as if it was some sort of nation or organisation? You see...last time I checked, the world of scientists was anything but unified enough to be considered unified...

They're unified enough to share important information and peer-review data in order to see if it is correct. And not to mention there are oftentimes organizations for different branches of science. So yeah, it is rather unified, which isn't really surprising. You solve things quicker if you have more than one mind working on a problem.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
They're unified enough to share important information and peer-review data in order to see if it is correct. And not to mention there are oftentimes organizations for different branches of science. So yeah, it is rather unified, which isn't really surprising. You solve things quicker if you have more than one mind working on a problem.

So...Science is a unified body...who represents it?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I don't recall saying it failed...

However, if "science is man" then surely it is as divided, self-serving and finite as man?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...Science is a unified body...who represents it?

Jesus. Lol no jk. Really there isn't one person who represents it. Remember that the results we get from scientific research is from many individuals.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Jesus. Lol no jk. Really there isn't one person who represents it. Remember that the results we get from scientific research is from many individuals.

So its not unified.

Represented by humanity and all that, it's humans conquering nature and it's fascinating.

I understand that you're religious and all that, basically - stones and glass houses.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Represented by humanity and all that, it's humans conquering nature and it's fascinating.

I understand that you're religious and all that, basically - stones and glass houses.

lol

I don't think you understand that I'm in no way anti-scientific, nor has anything that I have said in this thread been unscientific.

I just get annoyed when people speak of science as if its a singular organization.

Its not, its the name given to a process of study. Scientists are not all the same, they do not all represent the same ideals or beliefs and they most certainly are not "winning" anything because they are not in competition with anything, competition would make their research unscientific. Most notable scientists tend to be proved right long after they are dead.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
lol

I don't think you understand that I'm in no way anti-scientific, nor has anything that I have said in this thread been unscientific.

I just get annoyed when people speak of science as if its a singular organization.

Its not, its the name given to a process of study. Scientists are not all the same, they do not all represent the same ideals or beliefs and they most certainly are not "winning" anything because they are not in competition with anything, competition would make their research unscientific. Most notable scientists tend to be proved right long after they are dead.

Well it's the theory of disproving something, or proving something, isn't it? That then gets turned into the word 'win', as if there was some kind of battle. It's a very odd thing to be annoyed about, perhaps you ought to chill out a bit and realise that synonyms for 'prove' and 'disprove' expand when used by a consensus.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
lol

I don't think you understand that I'm in no way anti-scientific, nor has anything that I have said in this thread been unscientific.

I just get annoyed when people speak of science as if its a singular organization.

Its not, its the name given to a process of study. Scientists are not all the same, they do not all represent the same ideals or beliefs and they most certainly are not "winning" anything because they are not in competition with anything, competition would make their research unscientific. Most notable scientists tend to be proved right long after they are dead.

Scientists compete with themselves and with one another.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
lol

I don't think you understand that I'm in no way anti-scientific, nor has anything that I have said in this thread been unscientific.

I just get annoyed when people speak of science as if its a singular organization.

Its not, its the name given to a process of study. Scientists are not all the same, they do not all represent the same ideals or beliefs and they most certainly are not "winning" anything because they are not in competition with anything, competition would make their research unscientific. Most notable scientists tend to be proved right long after they are dead.

Yeah.

Here's the thing though. Either Religion is right, and God eventually comes and magically makes everything all pure and good again. Or, religion is wrong, fake, and... via Science we inevitably create something that kills us all. That's if we don't taken out by a meteor or some natural disaster.

You realize that one push of a button would create a nuclear war and annihilate most of the life on this planet, right? One computer virus. One glicth in the system in just the right spot, and it's all over.

And it's hardly "Religion vs. Science", only some parts of it, I.E. Creationism and Evolution. Otherwise Religion and Science co-exist quite well. 😬 I'm religious but I'm not anti-Science. I'm not even anti-creationism. I just think it's just as stupid to think that advances in Science will "invetibly save us all!" as it is to think some all powerful all knowing being will swoop down and end all suffering.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So its not unified.

Is having one main representative considering a requirement for being unified? I mean, how does a group of people working on something not sound unified? Not in a religious manner of course but as in working towards a common task.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Yeah.

Here's the thing though. Either Religion is right, and God eventually comes and magically makes everything all pure and good again. Or, religion is wrong, fake, and... via Science we inevitably create something that kills us all.

You realize that one push of a button would create a nuclear war and annihilate most of the life on this planet, right? One computer virus. One glicth in the system in just the right spot, and it's all over.

And it's hardly "Religion vs. Science", only some parts of it, I.E. Creationism and Evolution. Otherwise Religion and Science co-exist quite well. 😬

Originally posted by hatredcopter
And as for science ending all life, it's a very real possibility, but that's science for you. Hard, real and to the point.

Dude. 😐

I read about this sometime ago, and the court threw the case out stating that the scientist that said that it may destroy the planet was paranoid.

If it happens I just want a little time to catch up with the dummies who threw the switch so I can personally kick em in the nutz!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Everything warps space time by virtue of existing.

But heavier the mass, more it occurs.

And black holes are more or less the most dense things there are.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But heavier the mass, more it occurs.

And black holes are more or less the most dense things there are.

Well...there still is Debbiejo

Originally posted by hatredcopter
I think your wrong. Science is competing every day. It's the flip side of religion who it's competing against, and it's winning by a wide margin. There's room enough for the two at the moment but with the advances we're making with science who knows? Religion hasn't moved forward in 2 thousand years. 😉

For the record Big Bang theory- did a huge amount for religion.

What will they discover next?

Why is this turning into a religious argument. Ghey much?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Yeah.

Here's the thing though. Either Religion is right, and God eventually comes and magically makes everything all pure and good again. Or, religion is wrong, fake, and... via Science we inevitably create something that kills us all. That's if we don't taken out by a meteor or some natural disaster.

You realize that one push of a button would create a nuclear war and annihilate most of the life on this planet, right? One computer virus. One glicth in the system in just the right spot, and it's all over.

And it's hardly "Religion vs. Science", only some parts of it, I.E. Creationism and Evolution. Otherwise Religion and Science co-exist quite well. 😬 I'm religious but I'm not anti-Science. I'm not even anti-creationism. I just think it's just as stupid to think that advances in Science will "invetibly save us all!" as it is to think some all powerful all knowing being will swoop down and end all suffering.

Have you ever considered that at some point in the future, man creates God?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But heavier the mass, more it occurs.

And black holes are more or less the most dense things there are.

The denser the mass, the more it occurs. You can have a nebula that weighs 1000 solar masses, but it won't warp space time very much because it isn't very dense.

A black hole's density is infinite.

Right after class, my mind is so dense, that the very fabric of the universe is very near to tearing. weep