Large Hadron Collider

Is that it?  It looks like a WOMD about to charge up and kick ass.

I say we should collide large hadrons into suspected terrorists, and see what happens.

I say we use the LHC to accelerate terrorists.

I say we use the LHC to accelerate terrorists.

no, they might use their extreme kinetic energy as a new WMD.

At 99.99991% of the speed of light, they'd die horribly before that.

At 99.99991% of the speed of light, they'd die horribly before that.

But their virgins in heaven could help them cause mischief, or they could use wings to aim with.

More like large HARD-ON collider. Amirite, amirite?


~D-Draw

More like large HARD-ON collider. Amirite, amirite?


~D-Draw

Sounds REALLY gay actually lol.

Quote from: Beeper on May 12, 2008, 01:29:16 PM

Quote from: Saint Raist on May 12, 2008, 01:27:56 PM

I love how newspapers like to make an article proclaiming that a bunch of insane scientists just wanna fire it up and see what happens while one "sane" man is suing the government to get it stopped. Lol.

of course, any religious person would do their best to stop it, it scares them to think that their beliefs are becomeing less concrete every day.

No, one scientist that believes a black hole will be created and destroy the earth. Also this will in no way disprove god. Please shut up.

i never said it would disprove god.

the more things we explain with science, the more things we know about, the less we can say 'it must be god' about.

please calm the fuck down

no, a black hole is smaller than a speck of dust, a neutron star is as big as a mountain, a black hole has generated enough gravitation so that at a certain point the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Neutron stars do not become black holes as far as we know.

False. Black holes can be quite large, in fact, scientists have discovered a supermassive black hole somewhere in the center of our galaxy. You're thinking "mini" black holes, which are possibly created by the fluctuation in space-time down at plank-length, where it is also theorized that quantum foam exists/occurs.

Quit posting out of your ass sometimes but more often than not, Raist.

I just hope they find the higgs-boson, and that it solves why some of the constants are exactly what they are.

Me too, when do they fire it up?

Quote from: Saint Raist on May 12, 2008, 02:06:26 PM

no, a black hole is smaller than a speck of dust, a neutron star is as big as a mountain, a black hole has generated enough gravitation so that at a certain point the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Neutron stars do not become black holes as far as we know.

False. Black holes can be quite large, in fact, scientists have discovered a supermassive black hole somewhere in the center of our galaxy. You're thinking "mini" black holes, which are possibly created by the fluctuation in space-time down at plank-length, where it is also theorized that quantum foam exists/occurs.

Quit posting out of your ass sometimes but more often than not, Raist.

Funny thing is that black holes can't logically exist. Lulz. Crazy space magic!

~D-Draw

Eat that, cosmologists! Another win for FE!

Eat that, cosmologists! Another win for FE!

Actually, FE has nothing to do with why black holes can't logically exist. It's a logical conclusion based on Hawking Radiation.

~D-Draw

Yep, another win for FE!

Yep, another win for FE!

I don't think FEers every really liked Stephen Hawkings.


~D-Draw

An now he has motor-neuron disease! Another, if dirty, win for FE! Seriously, when do they fire it up?

Hawking radiation doesn't directly state that black holes can't exist, it predicts that black holes will lose more mass than it will gain and eventually disappear.

May 08.

Hawking radiation doesn't directly state that black holes can't exist, it predicts that black holes will lose more mass than it will gain and eventually disappear.

Right, but logistically, if you apply that to a black hole, where time is, compared to us, nearly at a stand-still, Hawking Radiation would affect the black hole incredibly fast (compared to us, again). So, essentially, black holes CAN exist, and probably do, but in our world, they won't just float there, they'll be rapidly (to us) diminished by Hawking Radiation in minutes or seconds, or fractions of seconds, because of how time moves inside of the hole.

~D-Draw

Quote from: Saint Raist on May 12, 2008, 02:06:26 PM

no, a black hole is smaller than a speck of dust, a neutron star is as big as a mountain, a black hole has generated enough gravitation so that at a certain point the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Neutron stars do not become black holes as far as we know.

False. Black holes can be quite large, in fact, scientists have discovered a supermassive black hole somewhere in the center of our galaxy. You're thinking "mini" black holes, which are possibly created by the fluctuation in space-time down at plank-length, where it is also theorized that quantum foam exists/occurs.

Quit posting out of your ass sometimes but more often than not, Raist.

No, super massive black holes are still the same size. Their event horizons are freaking huge, but they are tiny. From what I've heard though, if hawking radiation occurs, then a black hole never truly forms, because it evaporates off before much time can pass in the black hole.

I'm not posting out of my ass.

Quote from: Tony Stark on May 15, 2008, 11:11:39 AM

Hawking radiation doesn't directly state that black holes can't exist, it predicts that black holes will lose more mass than it will gain and eventually disappear.

Right, but logistically, if you apply that to a black hole, where time is, compared to us, nearly at a stand-still, Hawking Radiation would affect the black hole incredibly fast (compared to us, again). So, essentially, black holes CAN exist, and probably do, but in our world, they won't just float there, they'll be rapidly (to us) diminished by Hawking Radiation in minutes or seconds, or fractions of seconds, because of how time moves inside of the hole.

~D-Draw

No, to us they will last for billions of years. Inside the black hole, they last for a matter of seconds.

Also sorry for my post. I hadn't read past Hara's. But I had to show I wasn't posting out of my ass.

Hawking radiation has never been observed at any black hole candidate, due to low Hawking temperature.

The low temp is probably why the black holes live longer than Hawking radiation would account for, which would be greatly accelerated by the time dilation occurring near the event horizon relevant to us (the black hole should disappear shortly after it's creation from our frame of reference, as pointed out before). This hasn't occurred, which is why I doubt the validity of Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation has never been observed at any black hole candidate, due to low Hawking temperature.

The low temp is probably why the black holes live longer than Hawking radiation would account for, which would be greatly accelerated by the time dilation occurring near the event horizon relevant to us (the black hole should disappear shortly after it's creation from our frame of reference, as pointed out before). This hasn't occurred, which is why I doubt the validity of Hawking radiation.

You have that backwards. A black hole would quickly dissipate in it's own FoR, but would take a long time to disappear in our frame of reference. Time is moving extremely slowly in the black hole, so say if one day passes in the black hole, millions of years have passed out here. In that time hawking radiation takes place constantly, this means that millions of years of hawkings radiation happen in a day for the black hole. (yes the amounts of time were just examples, I have no idea the difference in time.)

Is that it?  It looks like a WOMD about to charge up and kick ass.

I believe you mean a BFG.

You can help the LHC project with by installing the LHC@home program emulating particles accelerating through the 27 km (17 mile)-long LHC to find their orbit stability.

Download: http://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/download.php

More like large HARD-ON collider. Amirite, amirite?


~D-Draw

Warning! Dongs:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/db/Large_hardon_collider.jpg

I made it my sig to end all the pointless "the game" posts.

Sounds like a cool idea for a new game post.

Quote from: Tony Stark on May 15, 2008, 05:58:49 PM

Hawking radiation has never been observed at any black hole candidate, due to low Hawking temperature.

The low temp is probably why the black holes live longer than Hawking radiation would account for, which would be greatly accelerated by the time dilation occurring near the event horizon relevant to us (the black hole should disappear shortly after it's creation from our frame of reference, as pointed out before). This hasn't occurred, which is why I doubt the validity of Hawking radiation.

You have that backwards. A black hole would quickly dissipate in it's own FoR, but would take a long time to disappear in our frame of reference. Time is moving extremely slowly in the black hole, so say if one day passes in the black hole, millions of years have passed out here. In that time hawking radiation takes place constantly, this means that millions of years of hawkings radiation happen in a day for the black hole. (yes the amounts of time were just examples, I have no idea the difference in time.)

I am sorry, you are right. My bad. Tired, forgiveness.