[h2 id="post-3520"][font style="font-weight: normal; font-family: Verdana;" size="2"]I love these guys. Anyone who can risk destroying the whole world and not worry about is okay in my book!
[/font][/h2]
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"][font style="font-weight: bold;" size="4"][a class="noline" href="vny!://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/24/scientists-mini-bangs-dangerous-nah/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Scientists: "Mini Bangs" Dangerous? Nah!"]Scientists: "Mini Bangs" Dangerous? Nah![/a][/font]Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider, a 27-km long circular particle accelerator at CERN near Geneva, are excited:[/p] [blockquote][em]"These beams will have the kinetic energy of an aircraft carrier slammed into the size of a zero on a 20p piece," Brian Cox of Manchester University told the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[/em][/p] [em]"We are going to make mini Big Bangs.[/em][/p] [em]"There has never been such a jump in particle physics. It will go into an area that we don't really understand," he added.[/em][/p] [/blockquote] What *exactly* are they trying to do?[/p] [blockquote][em]They hope to create tiny black holes or find extra dimensions in the universe.[/em][/p] Isn't that dangerous?[/p] [p style="font-weight: bold;"][em]They estimate the possibility of accidentally destroying the planet as extremely low.[/em][/p] [/blockquote] Ah, okay then, if you say so! [a href="vny!://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=325&objectid=10400645"]Link[/a][/p][a href="vny!://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=325&objectid=10400645"](//vny!://discoverseattle.net/image/cern_facility.jpg)
[/a] [/p]
I have seen pictures of the Large Hadron Collider when it was still in construction. It's impressive, I can tell you that.
As far as destroying the world is concerned, I am pretty confident that this is never going to happen. They thought the same thing when they exploded the first atomic bomb in Los Alamos in 1944 or 1945. They feared the explosion could, perhaps, set afire the planet's atmospheric layer.
But of course you never know...
If any of you guys have read the John Titor stuff on the web, this is pretty interesting, given that CERN is involved.
Just a quick synopsis for those not familiar with John Titor. He was supposedly a time traveller form the year 2036 that was here to retrieve an IBM 5100 series computer to correct some problem in his time. The computing language that was needed to perform this was only understood by this partiucular type of machine and they had long since disapperared.
John went on to make all sorts of predictions. Most are vague enough that current events can be said to be a fullfillment of his prophecys. Some are just outright incorrect. Still, it makes for interesting reading if you are bored.
Anyway, the reason that the CERN connection is of interest is because 5 years ago when John made his predictions he said that CERN would create microsingularities or mini black holes. This is the technology that he claimed made time travel possible.
[A href="vny!://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/TimeMachine.cfm"]vny!://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/TimeMachine.cfm[/A]
[FONT color=#0000ff][A href="vny!://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6345407"]vny!://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6345407[/A][/FONT]
[FONT color=#0000ff][/FONT]
[FONT color=#0000ff][A href="vny!://www.johntitor.com/Pages/TimeTravel.html"]vny!://www.johntitor.com/Pages/TimeTravel.html[/A][/FONT][A href="vny!://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/TimeMa"][/A]
Raver wrote:
John went on to make all sorts of predictions.
Most are vague enough that current events can be said to be a fullfillment of his prophecys. Some are just outright incorrect.
Still, it makes for interesting reading if you are bored. Anyway, the reason that the CERN connection is of interest is because 5 years ago when John made his predictions he said that CERN would create microsingularities or mini black holes. This is the technology that he claimed made time travel possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a fact that recreating and studying some of the conditions existing in the vast cosmos, such as in the insides of stars, is right now one of the important activities of some big physics labs in the world. So I wouldn't put it past us humans to reach this goal sooner or later. It's probably only a matter of time (no pun intended).
As for John Titor's existence, I thought this had been debunked some years ago ? However the case may be, it does make for interesting reading, if only because it might make some people think about some of the issues, such as the possibility of WW III.
I think you're right about John Titor's existance being debunked. I wanted to include the link to that as well but I can't seem to find it. It seems the internet would rather believe its true.
I can't help thinking that if they did turn their gizmo on and it did destroy the whole world....wouldn't that just be so damn funny?
"Okay, here we go, I'm bringing the black-hole generator online right now and w
TehBorken, even if it would be funny - who would laugh ?
If a tree is falling in a forest but nobody is there to listen, would there be a sound ?
Mutilated Mind wrote:
If a tree is falling in a forest but nobody is there to listen, would there be a sound ?
Of course there would. Sound doesn't depend on a pair of ears present to exist.
TehBorken wrote:
Of course there would. Sound doesn't depend on a pair of ears present to exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you hear the sound ? Do you hear it in the air or in your mind ?
Would you hear it if you had no ears or auditory nerves ?
One has to distinguish between sound and sound waves which are the physical carriers of sound.
Anyway, this is an old little conundrum which I didn't invent myself, I have to admit.
Mutilated Mind wrote:
Where do you hear the sound ? Do you hear it in the air or in your mind ?
In your brain. There really is no such thing as the "mind".
Would you hear it if you had no ears or auditory nerves ?
Of course not. But the sound would still be there.
One has to distinguish between sound and sound waves which are the physical carriers of sound.
Not me.
Anyway, this is an old little conundrum which I didn't invent myself, I have to admit.
There's nothing puzzling about it. The sound is there whether we're there to hear it or not. And no amount of under-graduate metaphysics or insightful pondering will make a bit of difference.
How about this...
If a married man speaks and his wife is not around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Probably. (//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Teasing/12.gif)
kitten wrote:
Probably. (//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Teasing/12.gif) [FONT color=#0000bf](But it won't destroy the world!)[/FONT]
TehBorken wrote:
Mutilated Mind wrote:
Where do you hear the sound ? Do you hear it in the air or in your mind ?
In your brain. There really is no such thing as the "mind".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say so... :)
Would you hear it if you had no ears or auditory nerves ?
Of course not. But the sound would still be there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What sound ? There are sound waves, but tell me where is that sound you are saying is there ?
One of the great paradoxes of life is that silence often speaks louder than sound.
Did you say something ? :P
Mutilated Mind wrote:
If you say so... :)
Yes, I do say so.
What sound ? There are sound waves, but tell me where is that sound you are saying is there ?
Sorry, I just can't parse that sentence into anything meaningful.
TehBorken, the answer is clear - to understand it you need a similarly mutilated mind.
TehBorken wrote:
Yes, I do say so.
----------------------
And according to you, just saying "there is no mind" is enough to make it that way ?
TehBorken also wrote:
Mutilated Mind wrote:
What sound ? There are sound waves, but tell me where is that sound you are saying is there ?
Sorry, I just can't parse that sentence into anything meaningful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe you might need some help here.
"Tell me where is that sound you are saying is there ?" means "please explain to me where that sound is located about which you are saying it exists".
You might also understand it this way : Please inform me about the place where that sound, of which you told me it is there, exists.
Mutilated Mind wrote:
And according to you, just saying "there is no mind" is enough to make it that way ?
Absolutely. (//forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/14.gif)
Mutilated Mind also wrote:
"Tell me where is that sound you are saying is there ?" means "please explain to me where that sound is located about which you are saying it exists".
This sentence should be taken out and shot, lol.
You might also understand it this way : Please inform me about the place where that sound, of which you told me it is there, exists.
Oh, that's easy. Like all sound, it exists in the energy that's being expressed as modulated variations in air pressure. It doesn't require there to be a "listener" for it to exist. The "place" is wherever the energy is being expressed.
It's like a book falling off of a shelf in your home. Does it hitting the floor depend on whether or not you're there to see it?
TehBorken wrote:
Mutilated Mind wrote:
And according to you, just saying "there is no mind" is enough to make it that way ?
Absolutely. (//forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/14.gif) If you disagree, please show me this "mind" of which you speak.
Mutilated Mind also wrote:
"Tell me where is that sound you are saying is there ?" means "please explain to me where that sound is located about which you are saying it exists".
This sentence should be taken out and shot, lol.
You might also understand it this way : Please inform me about the place where that sound, of which you told me it is there, exists.
Oh, that's easy. Like all sound, it exists in the energy that's being expressed as modulated variations in air pressure. It doesn't require there to be a "listener" for it to exist. The "place" is wherever the energy is being expressed.
It's like a book falling off of a shelf in your home. Does it hitting the floor depend on whether or not you're there to see it?
TehBorken wrote:
It's like a book falling off of a shelf in your home. Does it hitting the floor depend on whether or not you're there to see it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I won't go into the remainder of your reply, it's all funny but irrelevant to the issue ; but here you are definitely cheating, would you agree with that ?
Mutilated Mind wrote:
I won't go into the remainder of your reply, it's all funny but irrelevant to the issue ; but here you are definitely cheating, would you agree with that ?
No, I would absolutely not agree with that. I don't need to cheat when it comes to explaining basic physics because it works the same whether or not someone believes in it.
TehBorken wrote:
No, I would absolutely not agree with that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should. :)
I don't need to cheat when it comes to explaining basic physics because it works the same whether or not someone believes in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But still, you do, as you are unsubtly diverting the issue from the sound to the fact itself of the tree having fallen without making it appear this way.
Assignment : read this.
vny!://www.spectacle.org/396/scifi/tree.html
vny!://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_236.html
Mutilated Mind wrote:
But still, you do, as you are unsubtly diverting the issue from the sound to the fact itself of the tree having fallen without making it appear this way.
So you're claiming that in the absence of an observer, physical processes magically change the way they behave? That "sound" doesn't exist unless someone is there to hear it? Don't be silly, I'll lose all respect for you, such as it is.
Assignment : read this.
vny!://www.spectacle.org/396/scifi/tree.html
vny!://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_236.html
Thanks, but I've got plenty of homework to do already. Perhaps you could summarize the articles for us.
OK....this is frightening territory for me. I think I might actually agree with MM.[img style="CURSOR: pointer" onclick=url(this.src); src="vny!://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/f035.gif" border=0]
As I understand it, sound is the result of 'sound waves' vibrating the eardrum. If the eardrums were not present, the waves are without purpose. If you asked a deaf person if they heard the tree fall in the forest, they would say the tree made no sound. He is not lying, nor is he mis-informed. His eardrums are non-functioning. Until that little membrane is present and functioning, there is no sound.
Whether they are heard or not, the sound waves still exist. Even if a deaf person couldn't hear the sond of the falling tree, the impact would be felt.
P.C. wrote: If the eardrums were not present, the waves are without purpose.
That's arguable, but "purpose" has nothing to do with whether or not the sound waves are actually there.
If you asked a deaf person if they heard the tree fall in the forest, they would say the tree made no sound. He is not lying, nor is he mis-informed. His eardrums are non-functioning.
Correct, but that doesn't mean the sound isn't there. If a blind person can't see a sign, it doesn't mean it's not there.
Until that little membrane is present and functioning, there is no sound.
Nope, the sound is there whether or not someone is there to hear it or whether or not someone is deaf.
kitten wrote:
Whether they are heard or not, the sound waves still exist.
Bingo.
TehBorken wrote:
kitten wrote:
Whether they are heard or not, the sound waves still exist.
Bingo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo is it ? Oh my God, I can't believe this.
If I tell you: "this street exists" as a reply to: "is this a street with dangerous traffic ?" I am certainly right but there is nothing interesting about it and if I am trying to look clever with this reply, well...
In a few more words, nobody - nobody at all ever said anything about whether the sound waves exist or not. So if you come galloping on your horse and boldly shouting: "the sound waves exist", I am sorry but I can only tell you to go play elsewhere. I may sound rude but, kitten, I have know you to willfully troll my threads before.
P.C. wrote:
As I understand it, sound is the result of 'sound waves' vibrating the eardrum. If the eardrums were not present, the waves are without purpose. If you asked a deaf person if they heard the tree fall in the forest, they would say the tree made no sound. He is not lying, nor is he mis-informed. His eardrums are non-functioning. Until that little membrane is present and functioning, there is no sound.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that's it. I think that's a very clear and short explanation of what sound basically is.
The whole concept of a sound is based on the perception by human beings of sound waves, i.e. the perception caused by the vibration of their ear drums. So that's the basic definition of sound, based on the original concept. There is a second definition as shown by the Straightdope site, but it's a more recent and a scientific definition as the existence of sound waves has only be known for, what - about 200 years or so ?
Mutilated Mind wrote:
I may sound rude but, kitten, I have know you to willfully troll my threads before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am aware that this is a topic opened by TehBorken.
Mutilated Mind wrote:
but I can only tell you to go play elsewhere.
Well...not to put too fine a point on it, but IMHO he has every right to post here in whatever thread or threads he wants.
I may sound rude but, kitten, I have know you to willfully troll my threads before.
Heaven forbid! I say keelhauling is in order! Now if I could just find a keel to haul him under we'd be all set. (//richedit/smileys/Happy/14.gif)
Mutilated Mind wrote:
Yes, that's it. I think that's a very clear and short explanation of what sound basically is.
That's one definition.
The whole concept of a sound is based on the perception by human beings of sound waves, i.e. the perception caused by the vibration of their ear drums.
Nope, that's just one take on it. According to you, sound doesn't exist without someone or something to hear it...which is really kind of silly no matter how you look at it. Next thing we'll be arguing about whether or not the light in the fridge goes out when you close the door.
Frankly, I'd hoped for better, but this is rapidly becoming a bore and is beginning to fit definition #7 below. Nowhere can I find a definition that states there must be an observer for "sound" to exist.
[span class="hw"]sound[/span][span style="color: blue;" class="pointer" onclick="pw = window.DOH!('vny!://content.answers.com/main/content/pronkey-answers.html', 'PronunciationKey', 'height=585,width=520,resizable,scrollbars');if(pw)(pw.focus();)" onmouseout="status='';return true;" onmouseover="status='Click for pronunciation key';return true;"][span class="pron"][/span][/span][span style="cursor: pointer;" onmouseover="status='Click to hear pronunciation';return true;" onmouseout="status='';return true;" onclick="playIt('vny!://content.answers.com/main/content/ahd4/pron/S0576500.wav')"][/span]
n.[ol][li][ol type="a"][li] Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.[/li][li] Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.[/li][li] The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.[/li][li] Such sensations considered as a group.[/li][/ol][/li][li] A distinctive noise: a hollow sound.[/li][li] The distance over which something can be heard: within sound of my voice.[/li][li]Linguistics. [ol type="a"][li] An articulation made by the vocal apparatus: a vowel sound.[/li][li] The distinctive character of such an articulation: The words [span style="font-style: normal;"]bear[/span] and [span style="font-style: normal;"]bare[/span] have the same sound.[/li][/ol][/li][li] A mental impression; an implication: didn't like the sound of the invitation.[/li][li] Auditory material that is recorded, as for a movie.[/li][li] Meaningless noise.[/li][li]Music. A distinctive style, as of an orchestra or a singer.[/li][li]Archaic. Rumor; report.[/li][/ol]
Well, I didn't look up any actual scientific explanation of sound, but I remember reading an article in OMNI magazine YEARS ago on the very subject.....If a tree falls......................
Sound waves absolutely exsist......but until they bouce off something (our ear drums) they remain merely vibrations. If a person has to be within a certain range to hear a sound, this demonstrates that the eardrums must be present.
A little off subject, but fascinating, is synesthesia. It is an affliction that they call, coloured hearing. There are actually people who see certain colours connected to certain sounds. I think that'd be rather cool.
TehBorken wrote:Next thing we\'ll be arguing about whether or not the light in the fridge goes out when you close the door. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No arguing here, TehBorken. I fully agree the light doesn\'t actually go out. On the contrary, it stays on and you might never have suspected it if I hadn\'t told you, but a bunch of gnomes come out of all nooks and crannies of your fridges and dance around and thumb their noses and stick out their tongues toward you...You\'d never have thought that, eh ?