The Big Bang!

[themasterrocker]

It doesn't sound like ending world poverty is quite so important to you now, does it

It would be one thing i would do if i was priminister! lol. stuff the power problem, burn renewable sources! instead Gordan Brown thinks planting loads of wind farms in a random place will cut half our power. USE TIDAL POWER!

 

[zen-r]

It would be one thing i would do if i was priminister! lol. stuff the power problem, burn renewable sources! instead Gordan Brown thinks planting loads of wind farms in a random place will cut half our power. USE TIDAL POWER!

Which brings us back to that particle accelerator: If research was allowed to continue there, we may have a better understanding & be able to one day develop nuclear fusion as a cheap, limitless, clean(er) souce of energy (as opposed to current fission reactors which are dirty, expensive & leave lots of dangerous radioactive waste behind).

Ever thought of selling or directly donating your old IT equipment to the poorer countries? There are many recycling centres around which will do this for you.

 

[galaxyAbstractor]

Which brings us back to that particle accelerator: If research was allowed to continue there, we may have a better understanding & be able to one day develop nuclear fusion as a cheap, limitless, clean(er) souce of energy (as opposed to current fission reactors which are dirty, expensive & leave lots of dangerous radioactive waste behind).

Ever thought of selling or directly donating your old IT equipment to the poorer countries? There are many recycling centres around which will do this for you.

ooo that's an interessting view. Never viewed it that way. I totally forgot about fusion and fission, even tho I had the best grade in phsycics, or chemistry, the one that includes nuclear things.

 

[Sharky]

Or donate the money for charity or disease research? I bet all those dollars would be enough to find a cure for cancer or something

All the money that you have ever donated to cancer research charities... it doesn't go to find a cure for cancer. It goes in to looking for drugs to help people with cancer, but not to cure it. Think about it... All the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to want to make something to put themselves out of business!

 

[themasterrocker]

All the money that you have ever donated to cancer research charities... it doesn't go to find a cure for cancer. It goes in to looking for drugs to help people with cancer, but not to cure it. Think about it... All the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to want to make something to put themselves out of business!

Yeah but it means they can move on to something else! Which can possibly make them tons more money than people curing cancer although they would charge loads probs for the cure as well!

 

[peejay]

Sadly, we all need to die of something -and if it isn't cancer, it will be something else. Perhaps, quality of life is the most important thing.

Someone once said that advances in modern medicine have now meant that mankind can live long enough to contract cancer - never a truer word spoken!

The problem is that man is not designed to live anywhere near as long as he does - when it gets down to brass tacks, we are nothing more than animals, whose primarly goal is to breed, and then teach the next generation to do the same thing. That is what nature intended.

Mankind is actually heading very quickly to extinction, simply because we are not evolving - in fact, man is devolving. Survival of the fittest no longer applies - we do everything we can to protect the weaker members of the species, and, combined with the fact that man no longer adapts to his environment, but instead adapts the environment to suit himself, it is a surefire way of ensuring that the gene pool stagnates.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying medicine is a bad thing (after all, I worked in it for 7 years!), but I wonder how many people would live beyond their best before date without medical intervention? However, it also ensures that defective genes are passed on from generation to generation - something that goes against all laws of evolution.

Diabetes is a perfect example of this - I wonder how many diabetics would survive to breeding age without the use of insulin? This is how nature weeds out the defective genes, and makes a species stronger and more resilient - but, instead, man puts a sticking plaster over the problem, and diabetes stays with us.

Many diseases would be wiped out without medical "cures" - and, before anyone suspects I am trying to kill them off , I am among the ones that would no longer be here if it wasn't for modern pharamaceuticals.

Just my 2p

 

[zen-r]

:stupid: Peejay, we are on the same wavelength - you have read my mind!

Another example I often think of, to illustrate the problem is that of glasses (spectacles). They're an ingenious application of technology & have revolutionised & saved the lives of millions over many generations. However, after evolving for millenia to become such an incredible "tool" for our bodies, our eyes now face that very same reverse-evolutionary process that you describe. With glasses, people that otherwise wouldn't have survived very long (unable to see well enough to hunt etc) are now able to survive, have children, & perpetuate the problems with their sight.

Natural evolution stopped for humans a long time ago. But (fortunately) we are not callous enough to let the genetically weak die off through natural causes. Instead, it is our very kindness/ intelligence/ need to save lives which could be our long-term undoing. How long before every member of the human race is totally dependant on glasses, medicine or surgery etc for their survival?

One of the few applications of science which could in the future actually point our physical health back in the right direction is that of genetic manipulation. It is already going on in various small ways today, but the future possibilities are so enormous, ethically questionable, & potentially dangerous for all life on the planet, it is not an area that I personally would be brave enough to tread!

--Deep stuff. Hey, didn't we start out by talking about the Big Bang ? I'm guessing that if you're reading this now "Themasterrocker" then we all survived the experiment, & you can stop worrying (for the moment :naughty: )

-

 

[Dazz]

$4 billion seems to sound about the right amount of money for an experiment of this nature although I have no doubt it could have been put to better use.

My personal theory of the universe and its creation is basically the universe is in a constant state of revolution, big bang then a big crunch a couple of hundred trillion years later followed by another big bang, new universe and so on. Which means if the Swiss are successful in re-creating the big bang they would in fact trigger the next big crunch early by causing a catastrophic gravity collapse which would suck everything in first.

To my mind this is the only theory that sounds realistically plausible so I for one would like to see them succeed in their experiment so that for the few nano-seconds of existence I have left afterwards, I can be smug that I was right and religion was wrong......... Oh yes, all about derailing organized religion lol

 

[peejay]

One of the few applications of science which could in the future actually point our physical health back in the right direction is that of genetic manipulation. It is already going on in various small ways today, but the future possibilities are so enormous, ethically questionable, & potentially dangerous for all life on the planet, it is not an area that I personally would be brave enough to tread!

To be honest, I cannot (at the moment) envisage how genetic modification will be a direct benefit, since unless scientists work out how to change the DNA in every cell of the body simultaneously, then "defective" DNA is still present.

I do have to laugh at those that criticise genetic modification, though, despite the fact that man has been doing it for countless centuries. The only difference is that now it is done in a test tube, rather than simply (and more unpredictably) by selective breeding. After all, cows do not naturally have udders the size of basketballs, but they have been bred that way to produce more milk. Even something as simple as carrots - nature did not intend them to be orange

 

[themasterrocker]

I mean my chemistry teacher started talking about it today and she was saying it is well worth doing it and stuff and i was like you'd rather waste the money then help people? How sad.

 

[zen-r]

I mean my chemistry teacher started talking about it today and she was saying it is well worth doing it and stuff and i was like you'd rather waste the money then help people? How sad.

You're right, it is sad - of YOU to still hold this narrow minded view after all that has been discussed in this thread. Clearly you have learnt nothing! Still, you are telling others how they are wasting money when you happily admit you get lots of expensive "stuff" you don't need in order to survive. Still you tell others how they shouldn't spend the research money & yet the very gadgets you love are the direct result of just this sort of research. Have you given much, if anything, of your own money, stuff, or time to end this poverty you complain of? :thefinger

Anyway, the good news for you is that the threat of our imminent destruction from the collider tests today was a myth. Full-on tests aren't likely to commence for many months. Here's the story ; www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/lhc_day_is_not_today/

....I for one would like to see them succeed in their experiment so that for the few nano-seconds of existence I have left afterwards, I can be smug that I was right and religion was wrong...

I'm sure the religious types would explain the bang as their creator's punishment for humans meddling with things

To be honest, I cannot (at the moment) envisage how genetic modification will be a direct benefit, since unless scientists work out how to change the DNA in every cell of the body simultaneously, then "defective" DNA is still present....

Maybe, but very little DNA is present at conception/ the start of life, & it is thus future generations of people, (other) animals & plants whose path can be most easily altered. And who's to say what unimaginable discoveries in genetics (etc) will be made in the future

...The only difference is that now it is done in a test tube, rather than simply (and more unpredictably) by selective breeding. After all, cows do not naturally have udders the size of basketballs....

I agree whole-heartedly with your view on selective breeding (& am concerned in particular with the harm modern farming has done to animals, their welfare & bio-diversity in general) But I think there is probably a big difference between techniques of the past, which have involved generally small, incremental changes to a species' genetics. Relatively gradual changes such as this allow the planet's eco-system a chance to better adapt & reach equilibrium again. The massive (or subtle but crucially important) changes which could be made to an animal or plant's genetics in the future could cause changes that other life on the planet could never adapt to in time.

.....And so on.........../end of rant (for now :naughty: )
Thanks to everyone who has kept my grey matter stimulated & ticking over for the last day or two!
.

 

[peejay]

I agree whole-heartedly with your view on selective breeding (& am concerned in particular with the harm modern farming has done to animals, their welfare & bio-diversity in general) But I think there is probably a big difference between techniques of the past, which have involved generally small, incremental changes to a species' genetics. Relatively gradual changes such as this allow the planet's eco-system a chance to better adapt & reach equilibrium again. The massive (or subtle but crucially important) changes which could be made to an animal or plant's genetics in the future could cause changes that other life on the planet could never adapt to in time.

Oh, let's be honest - that isn't just restricted to farming - pretty much everything that man has messed around with in the past has now become non viable in relation to the environment. In fact, the other species that has been "domesticated" that can survive in the wild that springs to mind is the cat, and that is only because they seem to have been better than most at avoiding total domestication. For proof of that, why not see how long the average household dog can survive in the wild ....

As for the "Big Bang" experiment, I am in the sector of believing that it is a waste of money, but not because I think the cash should be spent on the poor (not that I would rule that out), but simply that I do not believe that any information the scientists gain from this experiment justifies the enormous outlay, both financially, and as a use of energy (which is becoming an increasingly finite resource.)

From what I understand, the basic idea is to create a tiny black hole, which, since all galaxies are created around a black hole, would therefore prove the big bang theory to be the be all and end all of creation? Unfortunately, the two don't follow, and it would still prove nothing (though would add more weight to the big bang theory.)

The problem is, and as a sidenote, there is always going to be those that believe the world was "created" - and, even if this experiment categorically proved beyond any shadow of doubt that this is where matter originated from within our galaxy, it still leaves a burning question - where did the sub atomic particles come from? While there is still mysteries like that, there will always be those that lean to religion to explain creation.

 

[zen-r]

Succinct : I agree!

Less Succinct : I agree, but............rather than say I don't approve of spending such a large amount on this research, I prefer to say that my understanding of the science is so limited compared to that of the scientists involved, that I will leave the judgement to others better able to evaluate things. What I would say though, is that it's not fair for some people to write off the value of the research from a position of ignorance, & instead say that the money can be used to end poverty & cure cancer! And there is certainly more to the research than just trying to replicate the big bang in order to prove a theory (which, as you say, could never be proven to the satisfaction of everyone anyway).

Finally, let's not forget that occasionally something so important can be learnt or discovered from this type of experiment (new particles, forces, states of matter etc) that not only could it further our understanding of physics, life, the universe, but it could also potentially lead to incredible advances in technology & save or earn the human race vast amounts of money in the future (ie. prove to be money well spent)

But yes, these are all maybe's, & perhaps history will show that the money should have gone elsewhere.

Here's a link to a summary of what the idea is behind the Collider experiments, for those that are interested ;

www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/anton_wylie_lhc
.

 

[themasterrocker]

Jeez, we survived round one? lol. The way our chemistry teacher put it it was going to take a month before we would benefit from it! And to be honest one month of this is a bit stupid. 1 month long experiment? why not do it in one day?!

 

[MarioMaster]

I'm a Christian. I don't believe there was any Big Bang, I just believe that God created the universe. I question if some of these scientists are Christians too, just in it because they like science/they get payed. So far, so good. No black holes yet. I freaked out inside when I heard about this on the news. Then I saw online that there was a 1 in 50-billion chance of a black hole being created. Plus, they can shut it off in less than a second if anything goes wrong. But the question is, will they? You know how curios scientists can be (especially if they put over 9 billion dollars into a science experiment).

 

[zen-r]

...God created the universe.....

I'm tempted to pick up the bait ........but no, I'll leave you to your own views on this one, as you have every right to.

As for the experiment, well if you read the stories in the links I posted, you will see that they are only doing basic tests on the equipment at the moment. The actual major collision apparently isn't scheduled for many months yet. Probably just to keep the nervous types in a wobbly state for as long as possible!

If I was you, I would worry about the bigger & very real threats of day-to-day life (global warming, wars, pollution, genetic modification etc.) Feel free to add to this list :happysad:
.

 

[themasterrocker]

I'm tempted to pick up the bait ........but no, I'll leave you to your own views on this one, as you have every right to.

As for the experiment, well if you read the stories in the links I posted, you will see that they are only doing basic tests on the equipment at the moment. The actual major collision apparently isn't scheduled for many months yet. Probably just to keep the nervous types in a wobbly state for as long as possible!

If I was you, I would worry about the bigger & very real threats of day-to-day life (global warming, wars, pollution, genetic modification etc.) Feel free to add to this list :happysad:
.

Next month the collision is due.
Also

...I just believe that God created the universe...

Well, if this experiment runs and doesn't blow us into 500000 pieces then that will prove that God didn't create the universe because thats the point of this experiment, to prove religions wrong and therefore we'll die anyway because the religions will go to war and cause mass distruction and not sticking to what my R.E teacher says which is to protect the Earth. tbh i think that it just stupid. But you have you're views so if u get proven wrong just don't come looking for me lol

 

[callumacrae]

There is a one in 50000000 chance that we are going to die.

I read somewhere that there is a greater chance that a wormhole will be created and time travellers from the future will come back and visit us.

They are hoping to discover what matter is made of. That is useful.

It didn't cost them anything, it cost taxpayers around Europe.

I don't see what the fuss is about. We're not going to die.

Well, if this experiment runs and doesn't blow us into 500000 pieces then that will prove that God didn't create the universe because thats the point of this experiment, to prove religions wrong and therefore we'll die anyway because the religions will go to war and cause mass distruction and not sticking to what my R.E teacher says which is to protect the Earth. tbh i think that it just stupid. But you have you're views so if u get proven wrong just don't come looking for me lol

But then again, what created the big bang?

I believe in the big bang, and I am a Christian.

 

[kirtik]

£4 billion is cheap? excuse me, that could bring all the 3rd world countries out of poverty. That could pay for all the countries to have clean water. There is a 1 in 50 million chance the world will blow up, What if we're that 50 millionth chance? we get blown sky high for what? a science experiment that blew the world up and killed us all.

*points to American $500 billion defence budget*

Did we die? No. Will we die? Yes, but not because of the LHC.

It didn't cost them anything, it cost taxpayers around Europe.

All of the EU countries contributed, plus these:

Non-Member States currently involved in CERN programmes are: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Lithuania, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam.

€6.4billion spread over That many countries? pah.

 

[themasterrocker]

But then again, what created the big bang?

I believe in the big bang, and I am a Christian.

Particles of atoms exploding made the big bang in the first place. They are reforming this and testing to see if God is real or not because most religions say that God created Earth when there is more science to prove that the big bang created the Earth then God creating the Earth thats why they are running this experiement, however i would risk it to be quiet honest even with the 1 in 50 million chance, I'd still donate all the money to 3rd world countries.