Yes, it will.

No, it won't.

From what I've been reading there are two singular viewpoints on this, and both are quite extreme. One is "you scientists have not done enough research, you're going to kill us all".

The other is "I'm a scientist. You're wrong and I'm right. My research proves it"

If you're not up-to-date, the LHC (large hadron collider) basically speeds up two molecules of matter up to light speed, smashes them together, and observes what happens. (simulating the conditions of the beginning of the universe, before everything formed into atoms of electrons and elements since it was too hot, I believe?)

My understanding is that a black hole is a point of infinite(?) density, and smashing two things together at light speed could well create a point of insanely high density.

I don't think this thing should be quite active until they've proven (later than one 2003 check) quite clearly to non-physicists such as myself that there is no chance that the black holes are going to get larger and suck us all in. After that, go ahead. I just want more of an explanation than "Hey, it might make some black f***ING holes... But I'm a scientist and they won't hurt you"

James Gillies, a CERN spokesman, suggests this is rubbish in this response to the New Scientist: "The LHC will start up this year, and it will produce all sorts of exciting new physics and knowledge about the universe." It's no threat at all, he says: "A year from now, the world will still be here." The LHC is actually designed to probe the boundaries of physics, and while a 2003 safety study did conceed that micro black holes or magnetic monopoles may be formed, they would be short-lived and offer no threat.

Can anyone tell me how a black hole just disappears?

I don't think this thing should be quite active until they've proven (later than one 2003 check) quite clearly to non-physicists

I don't think they should have to prove anything to sensationalist and paranoid non-physicists.

Basically since non-physicists wouldn't actually understand a freaking word being said since they have such limited knowledge of the scientific method, much less the field of this research, the terminology or anything about it whatsoever apart from it "sucking things in".

Basically let physicists do the physics.

That's a bit like saying "I'm not going to tell you how this apple drops to the ground because you wouldn't understand me."

Asking questions and being cautious about something someone hasn't explained to you doesn't mean you're paranoid, quite the opposite.

Asking questions and being cautious about something someone hasn't explained to you doesn't mean you're paranoid, quite the opposite.

No by all means, ask questions. Questions are excellent and good to ask, as education is quite an important part of our lives.

But you can't pretend to understand the implications of something better than someone who has been studying the field into excruciating detail for most of their life, and ask them to stop for a second. Sure for something more direct and easier to apply (like a nuclear bomb), the implications and motives are crystal clear and should be discussed for the good of everyone.

But here we're talking about fundamental physics research. The amount of education needed to understand the tiniest aspect of the field is insane, and unlike engineering it isn't just a huge list of rules-of-thumb. The results and procedures are repeatable and if one scientist could prove another wrong (in the context of some catastrophic prediction like "omg blackhole"), he would in a heartbeat as it would attract publicity and funding and advance their career, not to mention being good to correct a faulty model.

Basically all I'm saying is that unless you know something that they don't, there's no point trying to interfere :)

Discuss all you like, but just accept that 95% of what is said is likely very wrong and would result in multiple physicist eye-rollage at newb mistakes and incorrect assumptions. (Think of TF2 pros lol-ing at newb engineers building sentries facing the wrong way :P)

last edited by parabol at 00:30:01 30/Apr/08

omg its like a real version of half life maens

No it won't.

Black holes have a reputation for being destructive since the ones we know and love tend to be freaking massive. Like the one (probably) at the centre of our galaxy.

Black holes don't have to be incredibly massive though, if you have a (relatively) small amount of mass crammed into a extremely small space you can curve spacetime enough to get an event horizon. The relation between mass and radius of a black hole can be calculated using the Schwarzchild radius, which from memory is something like r = sqrt(2GM/c^2).

The thing is, to work out the gravitation pull of a black hole from outside its event horizon, you can use Newton's laws. Or Einstein's GR if you need it to fifty decimal places. This means the black holes created by the LHC will be about as gravitationally destructive to the Earth as a tennis ball.

i totally agree with parabol... the knobs making the claims that the lhc's saftey is unproven are swimming in a sea of ignorance. heh @ calling neutron stars 'strange stars'. crackpots.

we can understand the morale and ethical implications just as well, probably better than, a physicist, because we aren't swayed by the research outcome only by what should and should not be done.

blindly trusting scientist with their proven track record of f***ups is irresponsible. there needs to be balance, people uninterested in the outcome need to provide checks.

agreed with natslovR and just because they're experts at their field doesn't mean that accidents don't happen.

A pyrotek could be an expert at playing with fireworks but there's still a chance he could blow up a park full of people.

I wouldn't have a clue either way, but in principle I agree with natslovr

I agree with Natslovr too, scientists turning theory into practice for the first time doesn't always work out how they expect it to :)

Even if it does, who cares? You won't be around to bitch about it.

you make an excellent case for getting away with murder, let's hope crims don't get wind of this

I never thought I'd ever see a resonance cascade, let alone create one!

just what are the morale & ethical implications of creating a higgs bosun? :P because that is what the lhc is for.

People that say the LHC will kill us are probably the same that;

- think global warming is happening
- oil reserves are drying up
- drive a hybrid
- tried to extinguish the torch
- think QLD shouldn't have DST

So in summary, they are wrong and crazy scientists are right just like this one;

http://www.math.psu.edu/nbrown/1955_doc_a.jpg

If he can make a time machine that doesn't destroy us then a tiny piece of dense matter that has a huge gravitational pull so that nothing can escape (including light, hence black) should be fine.

we can understand the morale and ethical implications just as well, probably better than, a physicist, because we aren't swayed by the research outcome only by what should and should not be done.

"Just as well", sure .. again for something like the atomic bomb that has a single purpose and consequence that scientists and non-scientists can equally talk about.

But better than a physicist? Now that's just lame. People are perfectly comfortable dismissing scientific *observation* when it's inconvenient for them. ie, given evidence of a probable chance of human-caused climate change .. "oh noes but what about my SUV! the scientists must be wrong because how could humans ever have an impact on a planet this big, it's all part of a natural cycle and the sun is getting hotter. Oh and I read on news.com.au that a tiny pocket of the earth got colder* so global warming is proven wrong full stop!". (* = despite being part of the climate change prediction).

So given non-scientists' "track-record" of responding to important situations (regardless of whether climate change is caused by humans or not), I can't say I particularly trust them much when it comes to anything remotely technical. Emotion and the need for the status-quo always dominate, even against overwhelming evidence. Not only do they lack the experience in the area being discussed, but they would also lack the analytical skills to be able to form a coherent, logical and valid argument. No offence intended to them, it's their life choice to stay away from technical matters. And hey, I don't understand half the techno-babble that physicists make anyway, but I know well enough that they know their s***.

A pyrotek could be an expert at playing with fireworks but there's still a chance he could blow up a park full of people.

The fact that you even try to compare a pyro to a physicist is just amazing. The environment of a physics lab is usually so damn controlled that you wouldn't even be able to get proper results if you weren't doing everything by the book and have everything 110% calculated and planned before even stepping into the lab. On the other hand a pyro can still make fire without planning, which is where the pyro danger exists. A valid analogy is telling a pyro that he can't light a match while swimming at sea because he might set the world on fire.

You guys have watched/played too much half-life, Hulk, Spiderman, the Flash. Seriously wtf.


last edited by parabol at 11:15:50 30/Apr/08

They are trying to identify them, not create one. I think even if we lose switzerland and france its a small price to pay for scientific advancement.

Oh and they aren't really doing anything new with the lhc, its everything they have been doing for years just with more power (1Tev+)

That's a bit like saying "I'm not going to tell you how this apple drops to the ground because you wouldn't understand me."

It's it more like saying "if you let this apple drop to the ground, it will destroy the earth"?

I cannot wait til they turn this motherf***er on!

They are trying to identify them, not create one. I think even if we lose switzerland and france its a small price to pay for scientific advancement.

ahahahah

There must be a middle ground - we can't have a group of people given license to do as they will because they are the only people who can fully comprehend it. That's just not how our world works (or should), and it is actually against the interests of scientists.

A big part of the study of the History and Philosophy of Science covers this material. In order for science to be successful it must be able to be translated to layman's terms so that the public can be assured and trust in the science.

Without trust in the scientific method then the credibility of the work done by scientists erodes. At its extreme, a breakdown of the trust between the mad scientists and the public could result in the sabotage or destruction of expensive widgets like the OP's black hole generator or its creators.

See: Luddites. See: Galileo. See: eleventy billion historical references to what happens when the public loses faith in the eggheads.

last edited by Hogfather at 11:35:21 30/Apr/08

I trust science to do the right thing more than I trust our various world powers and their nuclear weapons. I suspect the latter is much more likely to kill us all.

In order for science to be successful it must be able to be translated to layman's terms so that the public can be assured and trust in the science.

Exactly. Also people like Feynman really went a long way to get people interested in the scientific approach and to look a bit deeper into the reality they exist in. Not that physics is the one true or correct approach, but it is by nature our best guess at the workings of the universe and it's hardly possible to talk about reality (or the meaning of life) without at least reading up on or acknowledging it.

The main unfortunate thing is that most people have no interest whatsoever in anything remotely technical unless it's exciting in some way, hence many modern science documentaries are 80% eye-candy and animations and "woosh" sounds :(

last edited by parabol at 11:47:02 30/Apr/08

I just hope they can build a Stargate soon.

scientists have failed many times to show they are aligned with the wider community (stem cell research. cloning. medical trials in africa. gm food). they take the exact view you hold, that the community can't debate these issues because the issues are too technical also known as the 'you are stupid'/luddites defence.

well, as long as scientists continue to require public funding, and until they are in the majority and can write their own laws they will have to acknowlege that some in our community feel that a fertilised egg is life and should be treated with the respect that entails, that cloning may have unsavoury aspects, that if you see that medication is working you shouldn't be withholding it from dieing patients because they are your control group, and that their may be implications to adding a little fish gene to tomatos just to trick consumers in to thinking old fruit is still fresh.

sure I am too stupid to understand the complicated processes involved in getting a fish and a tomato to make sweet, sweet, love (lots of cheap alcohol i'm sure), but it doesn't mean that scientists should be able to do it without review and consultation.

But better than a physicist? Now that's just lame. People are perfectly comfortable dismissing scientific *observation* when it's inconvenient for them. ie, given evidence of a probable chance of human-caused climate change .. "oh noes but what about my SUV! the scientists must be wrong because how could humans ever have an impact on a planet this big, it's all part of a natural cycle and the sun is getting hotter. Oh and I read on news.com.au that a tiny pocket of the earth got colder* so global warming is proven wrong full stop!". (* = despite being part of the climate change prediction).

yeah, cos the entire scientific community is absolutely in unison on that call, and it's _only_ general riff raff labour types that resist

but it doesn't mean that scientists should be able to do it without review and consultation.

I don't think they flipped a coin when deciding whether or not to build this thing. Have you seen it!?! It's bigger than an Xbox!

I think that's EXACTLY what they did

scientists have failed many times to show they are aligned with the wider community

Again I must point out that the "wider community" has shown very little concern for humanity, it's mainly just everyone fending for themselves and their own beliefs. They only act when they're forced or it's too late.

but it doesn't mean that scientists should be able to do it without review and consultation.

They do get reviews and need to consult, and they should always! No argument there. Luckily it's usually reviewed by people who have a firm scientific background, no necessarily in that field, but enough to know when to be alarmist/paranoid or to ask for a second opinion from another specialist before granting the funding. Remember, much of the funding comes from organisations/institutions who need concrete, safe outcomes for publicity or for commercialisation options.

Also all that cloning stuff, I am also against it until there is much, MUCH more discussion, as the whole basis of cloning focuses on humans (or animals) themselves .. not a bunch of subatomic particles colliding harmlessly under the eyes of many, many physicists double-checking each other. You'll probably find some of those doing much of the cloning have been banned for illegal activities and have to move to other countries with more relaxed laws. They don't really get peer reviewed either (much of their publicity is through sporadic and sensationalist press releases), so they aren't even practising science properly.

Regarding stem cell research, the arguments against are pretty weak. Religion this, religion that.

last edited by parabol at 12:04:15 30/Apr/08

(stem cell research. cloning. medical trials in africa. gm food)

Stem Cell research is restricted to cell lines that were established long ago. It is illegal to harvest embryonic stem cells willy nilly, there is a huge amount of red tape to go through if you need a fresh batch, and chances are slim that you would be allowed.

Cloning of Humans is banned. The use of animal cloned bits in humans is restricted. Dunno abuot medical trials in Africa, and GM foods are restricted and only hippies are against GM foods anyway.

All this is because of the 'wider community' bitching about it and also the internal scientific community bitching about it. So it isn't like Scientist can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

It can be frustrating for research scientists to be shut down because of a political group having no clue, it goes both ways.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 12:05:47 30/Apr/08

yeah, cos the entire scientific community is absolutely in unison on that call

Who said they are. There are both arguments for and against. It doesn't matter to me as my main concern is that there is a significant chance of it (climate change due to humans) being true, which is enough for me to take it seriously instead of delaying action until there is 100% irreversible proof.

Again, the consequences of doing nothing and acting too late are far, far worse than taking action now and finding out it wasn't us that was the cause. But then again we won't be around when the full effects are due to kick in so who cares right? 4WDs all the way ..

Stem Cell research is restricted to cell lines that were established long ago. It is illegal to harvest embryonic stem cells willy nilly, there is a huge amount of red tape to go through if you need a fresh batch, and chances are slim that you would be allowed.

Restriced by whom? There is no global authority on this, just regional world Governments making an indiviual stand. Its happening rght now in less regulated parts of the world.

Cloning of Humans is banned. The use of animal cloned bits in humans is restricted. Dunno abuot medical trials in Africa, and GM foods are restricted and only hippies are against GM foods anyway.

A human will be cloned, it is only a matter of time. That's the big problem with science, there is enough people who believe more in can we than should we that anything that can be done probably will.

Why shouldn't we clone people and do hardcore stem cell research? Opponents of stem cell research seem to think its going to lead to people having babies en masse only to carve them out and toss them in the trash to get a couple of cells from them or something.

Learning more about everything is how we got where we are today. I'm all for cloning and all for stem cell research, because both of them have the potential to teach us more about how the human body works and means we might have a better chance of curing horrible diseases and fixing all sorts of problems.

I can quote jurassic park too!

Lex: I'm a hacker!
Tim: That's what I said: you're a nerd.
Lex: I am not a computer nerd. I prefer to be called a hacker!

Lex: It's a UNIX system! I know this!

A human will be cloned, it is only a matter of time. That's the big problem with science, there is enough people who believe more in can we than should we that anything that can be done probably will.

That's the PROBLEM with science?!?!?!? I would have said "that's what is AWESOME about science"!

The "can we" attitude tried to get stomped on Back In The Day when the various religious organisations tried to stamp out things like belief that the earth was round and stopped people from trying to THINK about anything so they could more effectively be controlled. They're trying it again now with evolution, because they see it as a threat to their revenue model or something.

I predict a followup post to this will be something like "well, what about the Nazi scientists that were trying to learn about the brain and did all those horrible experiements". Yes, but most scientists aren't amoral f***heads like the Nazis were.

There's always going to be some crazy thing you can just make up trying to point out that people can do horrible things in the name of science - but seriously, more people do horrible things in the name of God, or Allah, or the inner voice that tells them to lock people up in their basement and do horrible things to them.

Who said they are. There are both arguments for and against. It doesn't matter to me as my main concern is that there is a significant chance of it (climate change due to humans) being true, which is enough for me to take it seriously instead of delaying action until there is 100% irreversible proof.

so how is it a case of scientists vs non-scientists? it's not, which was my point

This thread shouldn't turn into a thread about cloning. Trog's only for cloning because he wants his very own Bruce Willis.

He wants a Bruce Bana clone of himself.

yeh, let's keep this thread about the unfounded paranoia of theoretical micro black holes that may (or may not) be a possible (or impossible) side effect of the intended lhc experiment, thx. :D

If the scientists were smart, they'd post on QGL asking what to do instead of doing all those silly calculations.

Damn GM plants, they kill the Monarch butterfly!

Actually that's a fairly irresponsible thing to say....

Based on these studies, the researchers believe that the overall impact of GM corn pollen on Monarch butterfly populations will be close to zero, especially when compared with other agricultural practices such as land clearing, or the use of chemical insecticides, which kill most insects regardless of whether they are pests.

Link.

Anyone that knows about the story I'm referring to knows how sensationalist opposition to science (or anything 'unknown') can be. Unfortunately scientists get in trouble for making overreaching claims while 'interest groups' etc generally don't, so these sort of scientist vs public debates are very rarely a level playing field. That's something people need to keep in mind when looking at the rhetoric in these arguments.

Chakas, no offense, but do you know ANYTHING about genetic modification? It sounds like you're just making stuff up.

It's true, I threw random words at the screen and it almost made sense. That's good enough as far as I'm concerned.

if theyd have said the lhc would open several gateways to hell it would have been much more exciting than black holes, and it also would have been hilarious watching all of the christians (and other religions who might believe in hell) come out acting like authorities on the matter

I trust science to do the right thing more than I trust our various world powers and their nuclear weapons. I suspect the latter is much more likely to kill us all.

Chicken and the egg.

If the scientists hadn't made said nuclear weapons, then the world powers wouldn't have them to use.

Which is the real progenitor of the nuclear threat.

If the scientists hadn't made said nuclear weapons, then the world powers wouldn't have them to use.

Well, the advent of the nuclear bomb was just a side effect of our understanding of physics. But yep, that's a good point - better understanding and better technology leads directly to better weapons. But hopefully enough understanding will one day obviate the need for such weapons.

I've actually seen the letter (or a copy of the letter) in Hiroshima that the group of scientists most directly responsible for the bomb sent to the President; its pretty creepy - it's basically along the lines of "because of this new branch of physics that we're starting to understand, we reckon we could build some ridiculously f***-off powerful new bomb". I didn't seem to take a photo of it but I'm sure it's on the interweb somewhere, and it's a good read.

trog I was fascinated by all those transcripts at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Really interesting and eerie stuff.

Yep, amazing stuff, especially reading it there. I think this is the letter I was talking about.

it's basically along the lines of "because of this new branch of physics that we're starting to understand, we reckon we could build some ridiculously f***-off powerful new bomb"

I thought the motivation behind the letter was to get the US to build the [inevitable] bomb before the Germans did .. not just because they could.

Or is that what you're saying?

you thought?
what do you mean by that? that those were your thoughts as you read the letter just now, or you've had some previous exposure to it and some additional information surrounding it as well?

taking the letter on it's own merit and not having read anything else about it ever, I'd say 'no'

or you've had some previous exposure to it and some additional information surrounding it as well?

Yeah previous exposure. After having read some books on Einsten and recently one of Feynman's books (The Pleasure of Finding Things Out) .. that's pretty much what the drift was: beating the Germans as fast as was humanly possible. If they just wanted to build a bomb because they could, I doubt they would have rushed to get it done ASAP.

it just stands to reason that the more we discover about the way the universe is, the more we will know about how to destroy it. but what are people curious about atomic & subatomic particals & consequently the makeup of the universe, to do? stay ignorant for fear of discovering a better bomb?

full speed ahead i say! :D

If they just wanted to build a bomb because they could, I doubt they would have rushed to get it done ASAP.

I find that hard to believe, personally



off topic now I guess but what's being referred to here? japan invading china or germany invading czechoslovakia? or all the activity by germany/italy and japan in general?

Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations.

I find that hard to believe, personally

Well read up on it more then (from different sources) :)

Everything I've read about it hinted at a huge sense of urgency, even if you ignore their opinions or excuses about why they built the bomb.

Google: Manhattan Project, it was definitely a race against the clock to beat the Germans (and possibly Japan, though I think their efforts to do it were token if even extant)

I meant I find it hard to believe that a nation's administration would be casual about attaining such technology. It seems naive to put it down to just trying to beat someone else to it.

Well, they weren't casual about it at all - it was a huge massive effort, and the (perceived) risk of not doing was that Germany would do it first and reverse their fortunes in the European theatre.

Also, going to the moon was pretty much just a case of the US wanting to beat Russia! That was probably an even bigger and more expensive project than building the A-bomb.

I'm not saying they were casual! I'm responding directly to this:

If they just wanted to build a bomb because they could, I doubt they would have rushed to get it done ASAP.

also:

and the (perceived) risk of not doing was that Germany would do it first and reverse their fortunes in the European theatre.

germany was already well under way to doing this, they'd already reneged on at least two former treaties and made several moves in europe including annexing austria and czech - without an atomic bomb.

plus the US essentially sidelined ww2 until japan attacked them, didn't they?

I played Company of heroes once.

I rekon the world will end with it imploding on itself, and this thread will still survive

Along with Keith Richards.

If we don't explore the inner workings of the Universe, we'll never be able to order a rib fillet with wine at the End of it.

http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF115-Hug_Bot.jpg



last edited by dRanged at 18:46:09 01/May/08

http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org

A good read, if you can make any sense out of it.

These geezers put the risk of a MBH at 7-10% which according Adrian Kent is unacceptable!

If it does create a MBH I don't think those in charge will mention it anyway.. ohwell

I remember a LEXX episode where the crew ended up in the dark universe and found earth. they laughed coz species X9sj2(humans) is a dead end of evolution where they always kill themselves when they reach a certain level of technology and create a blackhole by accident. classic stuff

Had to be bumped:

i cant take it seriously with the british accent

they do too much good comedy for me to believe this guy is serious

I'm all for the 'better safe than sorry' approach when it comes to potentially killing us all.

Religion?

IN MY THREAD?!?!


But seriously, that vid almost made me break into tears of laughter trog.

Great find.

aha trog that video was priceless.


also can anyone please explain why CERN scientists would have any incentive to potentially destroy the world that they themselves inhabit? surely if there were some credible threat it would have been brought up by now by another scientist... academics get off on proving each other wrong.

the whole claim that they can destroy the world seems a little comic book-ish to me.

That would be funny if it wasn't for how serious he was, and that people will actually believe that garbage.

also can anyone please explain why CERN scientists would have any incentive to potentially destroy the world that they themselves inhabit?

Didn't you watch the video??? It's because they are harbingers of hell.

haha nice find trog :P guy either needs to get a decent night sleep or lay off the opiates. the funniest bit is how he says "a schoolboy knows a black hole is a collapsed star!@!...but" kinda puzzled look "it has incredible mass blah blah" .... cept as should also be obvious... a micro black hole wouldn't have a large mass, that's what makes it 'micro' :p

lols @ the van allen belts frying bacon too .... s'awesome.

hey wasnt this activated the other day, on the 15th?

it couldn't have been if we're still here

http://www.lhcountdown.com/

seems it was suppose to happen on the 15th but its been pushed back for another 50day or so. They should be injecting the first beam by mid June and the first collision is to take place 2 months later

Also: Large Hardon Collider

last edited by d[o_0]b at 18:13:07 19/May/08

booyah was right!!!!

FREEMASONS DO CONTROL THE WORLD

haha, well, that was bizarre

how do people come up with this stuff?

Oh noes the year 2k!

but he found numbers of things that match up with other numbers of things!! 33 coutries helped build it, 33 levels in the freemasons, how could that be a coincidence?

CERN has now reviewed the experiment including producing a plain english summary with external scientific review. You can read a summary of the report and the full report, here. In summary of the summary, way bigger collisions are observed all the time IRL and nothing bad happens.

also can anyone please explain why CERN scientists would have any incentive to potentially destroy the world that they themselves inhabit?

people risk their lives all the times. i don't see why a scientist can't risk his life. 1% chance of world destruction 30% chance of ground breaking physics discovery might look like a good bet from the scientist's POV.

just let them activate it ffs. The people that are scared of it are the ones that were worried about the y2k bug.

see this is why placing a facility like this on mars is a good idea, that way when they open the gates for the aliens we can send the rock in to take em out!

heh, if it does make a blackhole starting it on mars isn't really going to save earth.

^ wow you're smart thanks for pointing that out.

see this is why placing a facility like this on mars is a good idea, that way when they open the gates for the aliens we can send the rock in to take em out!

heh, if it does make a blackhole starting it on mars isn't really going to save earth.

Yeah, we all saw Doom2, the demons make it to earth regardless...

heh, if it does make a blackhole starting it on mars isn't really going to save earth.

so you'll have a black hole with the mass of mars in mars` orbit... which will affect earth differently to the way mars does now in what way?

Yeah, we all saw Doom2, the demons make it to earth regardless...

yeah but all you have to do is put a bullet through john romeros head and its sorted

And just how are you planning on walking through the wall first?

so you'll have a black hole with the mass of mars in mars` orbit... which will affect earth differently to the way mars does now in what way?

Are black holes affected by gravity at all?

people risk their lives all the times. i don't see why a scientist can't risk his life. 1% chance of world destruction 30% chance of ground breaking physics discovery might look like a good bet from the scientist's POV.

I think you'll find that scientists aren't so cavalier with the lives of others as, say, politicians or religious types

how cavalier would you say they were, on a scale of a little bit to a lot?

I would say they are about 0.5 cavalierotrons

I don't think that's even a valid measurement - can we just stick to the proper scale

how many apples is 0.5 cavalierotrons ?

That would be minimal apples.

I don't think the nazi scientists in wolfenstein/half-life/many others were 0.5 cavalierotrons.

And if what they say about video games leading to violence is true then these stereotypical mad scientist dudes must be true also.

I'd say about 6 cavalierotrons.

And I can't wait for them to fire it up. But isn't there already another one nearby but not as big? Like can't they just say: Well we have this other one and have been using it for ages but we're all still in 1 bit. Correct me if I am wrong but I was sure they had another.

Its OK, if it does cause a black hole then everyone will blame Kevin Rudd for it anyway. After all, he single handedly is to blame for everything wrong in the world including inflation, the US sub prime fallout, chinas earthquake and the philippine ferry accident

And petrol prices !

Never mind that our petrol is 3 times cheaper then the UK...

Its OK, if it does cause a black hole then everyone will blame Kevin Rudd for it anyway. After all, he single handedly is to blame for everything wrong in the world including inflation, the US sub prime fallout, chinas earthquake and the philippine ferry accident

Lol so true!

was reading the paper today at how the fuel prices/lack of action by rudd is so bad.

I mean lol we have it pretty cheap as it is, and its hardly a prime ministers fault that the cost of oil is sitting at around $137? compared to last years $97?

bring on the black hole!