Be sure to view the page source, too.
Again with the jokes.
Supposedly the scientists that detonated the first nuclear bombs were worried that they might ignite the whole atmosphere, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Enrico Fermi, or so it goes, was even taking side bets as to the odds of it happening.
What the fuck is funny about the world ending? Anyone who’d joke about that and brush off those who are genuinely concerned about it with more flip remarks, I’d think, would be an exceptionally callous person.
Why so serious? It hasn’t happened yet. The odds of you having a gnat’s-ass chance of preventing our ultimate doom (in whatever form it may entail) is rather small (zero, even.) So why waste time worrying about something that’s completely outside your sphere of influence? It’s a waste of calories. Unless you’re developing a new diet regimen, in which case, carry on.
Hakuna matata.
So, are you ever going to bother to react to any of the points raised? I’m slowly beginning to suspect that you’re just winding everybody up.
Do you oppose refrigeration experiments too ? As Spider Robinson pointed out in one of his novels ( credit where credit is due ), while we haven’t gone near creating more energetic conditions than nature produces on a regular basis, we DO produce regions colder than have ever existed in nature. If the LHC worries you so much, logically cryogenics should panic you more, since the cryogenics experiments enter genuinely new territory.
In one of these many, many, many threads someone has already point out that the ignition of nitrogen was discounted and Fermi took bets 'cause he was a humourous bastard.
There IS a Black Hole button:
http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/389982537/large-hadron-collider-has-black-hole-button
Bless 'em. 
I didn’t joke, I answered your questions and provided lots of collateral material.
If you choose to ignore that to protect your narrow-minded chicken-little ideas that the world is shortly to end, I cannot help you.
Apparently it needs to be repeated: there was no risk of igniting atmosphere. Early, when our understanding of nuclear physics was incomplete such possibility was taken into account. But by the time they constructed nuclear bomb it was totally ruled out. These guys knew what they were doing. It was just a joke! A joke!
That’s not it!
Here it is.
Argent Towers and The Controvert, I have to wonder, having followed this thread and made my layman’s contribution, whether you guys actually think that the LHC confers any significant danger to the cosmos. Or, for that matter, anybody who isn’t sticking their gonads directly into the beamline.
The following has been said countless times over;
[ul]
[li]The energies involved in the proton collisions are much, much less than those of naturally occurring phenomena that occur countless billions of times each moment. These massive subatomic interactions generally result in bupkis unless you’re an expensive detector array specifically designed to hunt for the aftermath.[/li][li]None of these collisions have destroyed the universe for a myriad of reasons, again, many of which have been explained to the limitations of the armchair expert.[/li][li]There is nothing fundamentally different between the LHC’s particle collisions and the seventy-jazillion that just took place while I typed this.[/li][/ul]
and, perhaps most importantly;
[ul]
[li]The supposed risk of cataclysm is certainly an artifact of scientific language. The media does this kind of crap all the time.[/li][/ul]
What, exactly, is the problem here? You both seem just to be sticking your fingers into your ears and chanting whenever somebody tries to explain themselves, then going ‘well, okay. so tell me why the universe won’t end, again?’
Judging from Argent Tower’s repeated LHC threads and his ‘The Manhattan Project Scientists Were Worse Than Hitler’ thread, I’m guessing a general Ludditic distrust of science.
Most of it is likely crappy science reporting mixed in with a belief that science is filled with certainties. And I mean this not specifically for Argent or Controvert but as a more general expectation in the public at large.
For anyone looking for an easily understood explanation of the LHC, check out this article by Brian Greene.
If you don’t understand the science, how do you know that the doomsayers’ claims are actually scientific and not just some made up bullshit? For that matter, how can you know that the refutations are not perfectly valid either? I mean, I can string some science words together and claim that the adiabatic pressure of lepton probability clouds shows a decrease in electromagnetic wavelength polarization, therefore suppressing the strong nuclear force and disrupting all matter in the universe. Does it mean anything? No.
Of course it means something ! It means we need to reconfigure the deflector dish to emit an inverse phase meson wave, resulting in a dampening of the the electromagnetic wavelength polarization of the universal Higgs field. And thereby, save the cosmos !
Or, somebody who was certain, along with his colleagues with whom he made the bet, that such a scenario could not occur. And who had the knowledge of physics to back up that certainty.
But, others have made this point, and there’s no indication you’ve actually paid attention to them, so I doubt you’ll pay attention to my post either.
But just in case… FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME OF ASKING, why do you cherry-pick what physics you believe in? The physics that tells us there’s a small chance of forming micro-black holes IS THE SAME physics that tells us they pose no threat to the Earth. If you don’t trust that they’ll pose no threat, why in the name of Cthulhu do you even worry that they’ll be created in the first place?
Yes. Jokes. We are making them. At this point in the continued dialogue with you, there is little else we can realistically do.
I think what’s gonna happen is that this thread will sink into the nether regions of this forum, only to be replaced by a nearly identical one in a few weeks, before collisions start, without so much as an acknowledgement of the points and arguments from this one (or all those that came before it). :rolleyes:
There’s a table with two pistols on it. Someone says, “these pistols are mechanically identical. However, one of them is guaranteed to be unloaded, and the other has a 99.9 percent chance of being unloaded, but…we can’t make any guarantees. Now, you are going to pick up one of these pistols, point it at your temple and pull the trigger. Which one is it going to be?”
Putting aside the basic tenet that one should always assume any pistol is loaded unless he has inspected the chamber and magazine himself, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this guy forcing me to make the choice is completely honest, and that what he says is definite truth. Why wouldn’t I “cherry pick” the pistol that’s guaranteed to not be loaded?
Better safe than sorry, right?
If any scenario as dire as the WHOLE WORLD ENDING is posited by any serious group of physicists - even if I don’t understand the physics - I’m going to have to come down on the side of those who would be concerned. The way I see it, it needs to be proven beyond a SHADOW of a doubt before I’m going to trust the guys to push the button. Until that can be proven - guaranteed - I’m against it.