Should the Hadron Collider be allowed? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

Thanks... hmm... Wikipedia, the most reliable source out there.

I'd probably draw the line at eugenics, at jeopardising other people's lives, at putting them at risk. I'd probably draw the line about testing how effective certain poisons are on humans and so on... I'd draw the line at the Hadron Collider.

Actually, when it comes to articles regarding science, Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate for brief overviews (and it requires referencing, so you can usually tell when something's amiss with an article).

 

[Graney]

Why do you people feel the need to oppress dissenting views. You can't contribute to the debate, so you criticise the person.

There's nothing wrong with oppressing ignorant views based on unfounded hysteria. You admit in your first post, you're willfully scientifically illiterate, therefore you're a complete waste of time and your opinion is worthless.

The scientific consensus says the LHC is completely safe.

fin.

 

[Kwayera]

The fact that the Hadron Collider still has mistakes is indicative of the fact that its creators can make miscalculations and mistakes. I am just worried and many people on this forum are arrogant oppressors.

The mechanics of the machine - the most sophisticated machine ever built - don't really have anything do with the physics involved. "Mistakes" in the machinery won't really influence the experiments apart from halting them altogether.

 

[impervious182]

There's nothing to debate about, if you knew anything at all about physics you'd know that the LHC is completely safe. Thanks for expressing to us your amazingly limited knowledge.

Admittedly I don't do physics... last time I checked though theoretical physicist Dr Adrian Kent did. I'm just drawing on the theories of other physicists... But I think you're missing the point, whether or not the Collider is based on false science or not is not what I am arguing. I am basically expressing my incredulous disbelief that nobody listens to other people's views anymore on issues that may or may not concern them.

Also Kwayera, difference noted.

 

[squeenie]

Lol. It was done by kings to ensure there food wasn't poisoned, an experiment... not testing the effect of a specific poison though... just pointing out that I don't think other people's lives should be put on the line on shaky theories.

The fact that the Hadron Collider still has mistakes is indicative of the fact that its creators can make miscalculations and mistakes. I am just worried and many people on this forum are arrogant oppressors.

Yeah, but wasn't all that hundreds of years ago? Times have changed, believe it or not.

Well, of course the LHC isn't perfect. And everyone makes mistakes, right?. Nothing is perfect. Or absolute for that matter.

And I'm worried about the many misinformed people here on this forum. Maybe if you took the time to look through the old LHC thread, you'll see that there is nothing life-threatening about these experiments.

 

[bigboyjames]

if messiah obama approves it, i approve it.

 

[impervious182]

There's nothing wrong with oppressing ignorant views based on unfounded hysteria. You admit in your first post, you're willfully scientifically illiterate, therefore you're a complete waste of time and your opinion is worthless.

The scientific consensus says the LHC is completely safe.

fin.

Please. As soon as you say 'scientific consensus' I know you're an idiot. Also, I didn't say 'scientific illiterate' just physics illiterate.

 

[impervious182]

Yeah, but wasn't all that hundreds of years ago? Times have changed, believe it or not.

Well, of course the LHC isn't perfect. And everyone makes mistakes, right?. Nothing is perfect. Or absolute for that matter.

And I'm worried about the many misinformed people here on this forum. Maybe if you took the time to look through the old LHC thread, you'll see that there is nothing life-threatening about these experiments.

Well, I'm just a product of what I read in the paper.

 

[Kwayera]

Admittedly I don't do physics... last time I checked though theoretical physicist Dr Adrian Kent did. I'm just drawing on the theories of other physicists...

A single theoretical physicist.

Rather like the few biologists that deny evolution, hey?

 

[squeenie]

Please. As soon as you say 'scientific consensus' I know you're an idiot. Also, I didn't say 'scientific illiterate' just physics illiterate.

I'm sorry, but just how is mentioning scientific consensus idiocy?!

 

[squeenie]

Well, I'm just a product of what I read in the paper.

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Please. As soon as you say 'scientific consensus' I know you're an idiot. Also, I didn't say 'scientific illiterate' just physics illiterate.

lol?

you realise it actually IS the general consensus among scientists that the LHC is safe, right?

 

[Kwayera]

I love it how people assume that scientists just "do things" for the sake of it, without rigorous exploration of associated risks and consequences.

This thing has been in the works for years and years, and cost $10bn to build. I rather think the financial stakeholders would have withheld funds if the experiments had even the remotest chance of going "wrong", don't you?

 

[impervious182]

I'm sorry, but just how is mentioning scientific consensus idiocy?!

It's an argument only ever raised to quash opposition. It's claimed there's scientific consensus about human induced global warming, it was claimed there was scientific consensus about global dimming. It was claimed there was consensus about the sun revolving around the earth, and not the other way around. It was claimed there was consensus that the world was flat.

All of these things (except for the first) we now know to be false. Excuse me for being sceptical.

 

[3unitz]

Please. As soon as you say 'scientific consensus' I know you're an idiot. Also, I didn't say 'scientific illiterate' just physics illiterate.

dude seriously, no offence but you've got no idea. if you want to argue for dr. kent at least post his paper / link to his calculations.

 

[Graney]

Please. As soon as you say 'scientific consensus' I know you're an idiot.

There's nothing wrong with citing consensus in an argument.

 

[impervious182]

I love it how people assume that scientists just "do things" for the sake of it, without rigorous exploration of associated risks and consequences.

This thing has been in the works for years and years, and cost $10bn to build. I rather think the financial stakeholders would have withheld funds if the experiments had even the remotest chance of going "wrong", don't you?

After 10 billion dollars I think they'd have what we call a vested interest to see the experiment go ahead.

 

[Kwayera]

After 10 billion dollars I think they'd have what we call a vested interest to see the experiment go ahead.

To even apply for funding, CERN and the scientists involved would have had to produce exhaustive research proposals, including risks associated.

This was settled many years ago.

 

[3unitz]

After 10 billion dollars I think they'd have what we call a vested interest to see the experiment go ahead.

they didnt build the thing then go "so what next guys?"

 

[HalcyonSky]

fucking lol, honestly please stop trying to defend your original post, you're absolutely humiliating yourself.