alexdore993 said:
A few other threads have dealt with the question of, will the Hadron Collider result in a black hole, and the end of the earth? The poll results indicated that no, many people think that nothing will happen when the particles are eventually collided.
(Note: they were scheduled to collide today, but delayed due to numerous injunctions filed by skeptics.*)
However the topic draws a more serious and contentious issue, should the Hadron Collider be allowed to be tested if it poses any threat, or we are unsure about the possible consequences?
I think no. I think that there need to be limits to scientific exploration. Even if the chances of the world being destroyed are 0.00005%, the chance still exists. How can one excuse putting the lives of others at jeopardy without their consent.
It's one thing to commit suicide, it's another to commit mass murder, or at the very least manslaughter.
(As they, in all likelihood, do not intend on having negative results.)
*Just to note, an edit here, it seems that it was in fact technical difficulties not the numerous injunctions which delayed the Hadron Collider's run. How positive are scientists that there are no risks, when these same scientists have more than triple checked the machine and still make mistakes in its construction? Some of the students of science on the forum, dismiss the discerning views of a skeptic, and alas one not studying science! In the end though, scientists have been proven wrong many times before, global dimming, Arrhenius' theory of acids etc. Never however have the consequences of a mistake been so high.
The majority of your posts in this thread are exceedingly stupid, you are talking about an issue of which you have no idea. Just a few methods in which you demonstrate your attempt to create a philosophical thread on the nature of scientific exploration, and fail, hard. You present falsehoods as fact to purport your argument that there are objectionists to the LHC's use who "stopped [it's functioning] by numerous injunctions", then, once you actually look at the facts you realise you are plain wrong and attempt to play it down, Oh! Just a little note! I was just kinda completely wrong and blurting blatant misinformation to support my uninformed position! Don't mind me!
It might appear to be only a side issue from the question posed by your thread, but the fact that you quote incorrect information so confidently to confirm your view undermines your argument.
More importantly, the theme of your thread, the failisophical "If it poses a threat, is it worth the risk?" is completely incorrect in this case by the
fact that the LHC provides no threat.
Taken from a review on the safety of such a machine,
"We analyze macroscopic effects of TeV-scale black holes, such as could possibly be produced at the LHC, in what is regarded as an extremely hypothetical scenario in which they are stable and, if trapped inside Earth, begin to accrete matter. We examine a wide variety of TeV-scale gravity scenarios, basing the resulting accretion models on first-principles, basic, and well-tested physical laws. We argue that cases with such effect at shorter times than the solar lifetime are ruled out, since in these scenarios black holes produced by cosmic rays impinging on much denser white dwarfs and neutron stars would then catalyze their decay on timescales incompatible with their known lifetimes. We also comment on relevant lifetimes for astronomical objects that capture primordial black holes. In short, this study finds no basis for concerns that TeV-scale black holes from the LHC could pose a risk to Earth on time scales shorter than the Earth's natural lifetime. Indeed, conservative arguments based on detailed calculations and the best-available scientific knowledge, including solid astronomical data, conclude, from multiple perspectives, that there is no risk of any significance whatsoever from such black holes."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381
In essence it is similar to what Trefoil says, the report also finds that the sun will burn out before an effect such as this would occur, however minimal the effects are anyway. So I'm thinking we are pretty safe. but omg dere is stil a chance! No.
The substance of your thread, by admission from someone who "admittedly doesn't do Physics" is completely rebuked when compared with scientific findings of those who have studied it as a passion, and devoted their lives, and livelihoods, to it. I think I know who I'll be believing...
alexdore993 said:
I am just worried and many people on this forum are arrogant oppressors.
And to a further extent, your evidently misinformed position pretty much negates any questions you pose. In regards to the limits of experimentation, "I think no". Sure you are entitled to your opinion, but when faced with the facts and the certainty of safety in regards to this scientific experiment in particular, it is clear that you are wrong. And no this isn't "arrogant oppression" of your views in the way that an atheist might undermine the position of a Creationist with science, where there are still unanswerable questions. This is contrasting concrete scientific fact of research according to the laws of the universe, with your year 12, non-scientific hypothesis. You are wrong, that's not being arrogant or oppressive, it's just fact.
You can take that view towards scientific exploration obviously, but using the LHC as the basis for your argument is stupid and shows how misinformed you are.
alexdore993 said:
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.
I thought you were talking about the issue of the danger in scientific experimentation and risking human life...no wait, my mistake, because that position was confronted you are taking the whole, "wEll u arnt takin my view in2 account, there4 you are arogant n opressiv".
alexdore993 said:
Though I will admit that it would appear, that a clear majority or scientists believe that there are no risks.
Wait, what? I thought the guy that said that this was the concensus within the scientific community was obviously displaying "idiocy"?
alexdore993 said:
Yes, but the difference is, I choose to use a phone knowing the risks. I would choose to drive, knowing the risk.
I don't choose to allow a Hadron Collider to be run even though it could concern me... though admittedly, as has been pointed out, a majority of scientists say there isn't.
You pretty much contradict your basic argument against the LHC as a possibility of being dangerous again here, further emphasising how misinformed you are on the topic, so the posts which tell you to shut up and tell you that you are a moron, are pretty much correct, not "drivel" evidently.
Yeah.
