Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about we worry about the billions of private AND government member states that fund CERN, who in turn are running experiments that may or may not provide technology that will exponentially tighten the grip the Military-Industrial Complex has on the globe? And in turn, will facilitate trillions to be dumped into the MIC.
But let me get my tin foil hat out...because the MIC was in no way birthed from Einstein pushing against boundaries. I'm crazy for even prognosticating such things.
What are you rambling on about now? The US is not a "member state" of the CERN initiative. Primary government sponsors of cern are part of the European Council for Nuclear Research.
The largest contributor is the U.K. and that's only 147 million (nice try on the billion)
Then there is the fact that the CERN laboratory is one of the most sophisticated marvels of engineering ever created and the research they do is paramount to answering the questions your complaining about not knowing the answers to. or not. or W/e the heck your talking about at this point.
Military-industrial complex? What is this austin powers? Is Dr. Evil going to skype Obummer on a big screen and demand "one bee-lee-on doh-lars" or else he's going to release the laser beam?
You should most certainly put your tin foil on today.
Last edited by Sigequinox; 01-28-2014 at 12:51 PM..
What are you rambling on about now? The US is not a "member state" of the CERN initiative. Primary government sponsors of cern are part of the European Council for Nuclear Research.
The largest contributor is the U.K. and that's only 147 million (nice try on the billion)
Then there is the fact that the CERN laboratory is one of the most sophisticated marvels of engineering ever created and the research they do is paramount to answering the questions your complaining about not knowing the answers to. or not. or W/e the heck your talking about at this point.
Military-industrial complex? What is this austin powers? Is Dr. Evil going to skype Obummer on a big screan and demand "one bee-lee-on doh-lars" or else he's going to release the laser beam?
You should most certainly put your tin foil on today.
You're right. I'm babbling. CERN was a component in a conglomerate that brought us the internet. And since CERN is based out of Europe, it's just common sense to understand we would never use any technology afforded by them.
The hell was I thinking?
01-28-2014, 12:46 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
The video posted by Shiloh1 features not a scientist, but a mathematician who is also a young-earth creationist (his anti-science views that have been thoroughly debunked by actual scientists are why he lost his job as a university professor).
Please cite where Crothers is a young-earth creationist. Instead of attacking him why not deal with his points. Have you read the dialogues between him and those who hate him - it is a shame that they treat someone like this while failing to give answers to his points that have any merit. It is you who seem to be closed minded and at all cost trying to save a sacred cow - BHs.
Quote:
And the thunderbolt project wasn't founded by a scientist and doesn't include much in the way of science, it's mythology (literally, it is based on mythology) founded by a guy (David Talbot) with a B.S. in political science who writes about mythology and alternative history.
The Project has plenty of scientist despite being founded by a non-scientists. This is beside the point - another irrelevant tactic.
You're right. I'm babbling. CERN was a component in a conglomerate that brought us the internet. And since CERN is based out of Europe, it's just common sense to understand we would never use any technology afforded by them.
Please cite where Crothers is a young-earth creationist. Instead of attacking him why not deal with his points. Have you read the dialogues between him and those who hate him - it is a shame that they treat someone like this while failing to give answers to his points that have any merit. It is you who seem to be closed minded and at all cost trying to save a sacred cow - BHs.
The Project has plenty of scientist despite being founded by a non-scientists. This is beside the point - another irrelevant tactic.
Yea, I have come to nothing but dead ends finding anything about him being a YEC. I assume that because he rails against principles regarding the Big Bang Theory that people just assume him to be. I can't even find anything suggesting he subscribes to intelligent design. I think he is just a dude who wants to see some discipline from a field that have really folded inside their own brains.
For anybody that is interested. Here are all of his papers. Decide if he is a quack for yourselves.
Except there is nothing scientific about what the field does. Theories need to have rational explanations, sound testability and tangible evidence. Physics is the study of OBJECTS, not concepts. QT has redefined the context of words and explanation. Observe means to "interact with" and that "observation" can be taken place by an inanimate object, not a human. All events attempted to be measured are totally random until observed and once they ARE observed, you only get one half of the equation.
The bottom line is they have shown that something is happening that gave us some awesome stuff. And they have made no strides into understanding what it is. The "experimentation" half of things here is nothing but a pile of steaming rhino dung. It's trying to observe and measure a dice roll...but like, with a trillion dice.
All these QT dudes matter will be recycled a billion times over and they will still be jumping down these rabbit holes.
Theories are offered AS rational explanations. Theories are based on tangible evidence. The fact that some of these theories aren't immediately testable is why it's THEORETICAL physics. There are several theories that can explain what we can observe, but we are constantly pushing the boundaries of what we can see/observe, and as we push those boundaries, new questions emerge, that require that the theories explaining the phenomena be modified to match up with the tangible evidence/observations. That's what science and the empirical method is.
We've made great strides understanding the world and the universe around us. And scientists will never stop debating the theories. Scientists will never stop testing the theories. Scientists will never stop revising the theories as we learn more. Scientists will never stop applying the theories to produce meaningful and real technologies that change the way humans relate to the world. When Marie Curie and her daughter were transporting X-ray machines around the battlefields in France, they didn't understand fully the science they were using. They only understood that it could be used. When cavemen first used fire at their caves, they didn't understand the science of fire, they only understood they could use it. They saw a phenomena around them, and realized it could be used. And we don't fully understand the nature of black holes, and how we might use them. But we're using science to add to our observations of black holes, and we're learning more and more, and one day we will probably use them in some capacity, be it travel, or be it waste disposal. Theoretical science is the branch of science that sees and wonders. Applied science sees and uses. And we all benefit from both.
Theories are offered AS rational explanations. Theories are based on tangible evidence. The fact that some of these theories aren't immediately testable is why it's THEORETICAL physics. There are several theories that can explain what we can observe, but we are constantly pushing the boundaries of what we can see/observe, and as we push those boundaries, new questions emerge, that require that the theories explaining the phenomena be modified to match up with the tangible evidence/observations. That's what science and the empirical method is.
We've made great strides understanding the world and the universe around us. And scientists will never stop debating the theories. Scientists will never stop testing the theories. Scientists will never stop revising the theories as we learn more. Scientists will never stop applying the theories to produce meaningful and real technologies that change the way humans relate to the world. When Marie Curie and her daughter were transporting X-ray machines around the battlefields in France, they didn't understand fully the science they were using. They only understood that it could be used. When cavemen first used fire at their caves, they didn't understand the science of fire, they only understood they could use it. They saw a phenomena around them, and realized it could be used. And we don't fully understand the nature of black holes, and how we might use them. But we're using science to add to our observations of black holes, and we're learning more and more, and one day we will probably use them in some capacity, be it travel, or be it waste disposal. Theoretical science is the branch of science that sees and wonders. Applied science sees and uses. And we all benefit from both.
Actually, a scientific hypothesis is something that cannot be tested. Scientific theories can be tested. That is the distinction. For example, Einstein's theory of General Relativity can be, and has been, tested on numerous occasions (even today), and it still holds up - so far. But string theory and M-theory are actually both hypotheses since neither can be tested (at least not with the technology we have at our disposal.).
Since what Hawking is proposing can never be tested, it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific theory.
Why are countries still being coerced to dump BILLIONS of dollars into this junk that is absolutely going nowhere?
So, black holes were proven with empirical evidence. But now they actually aren't and if they ARE in fact what we believe them to be...we might learn something from them, or not.
What a freaking waste of money.
It's almost as bad as Global Warming/Climate Change.
If Hawking wants to impress me, he can build an engine to get us off of this Earth.
On a brighter note.....science is self-correcting....
Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.
In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.
Firstly, Hawking doesn't say there are no such things as Singularities.
The only thing he's done is resurrect the concept of the apparent and event horizons (which never really went away, they were just thought to be coincident).
Singularities are a product of General Relativity, which has empirical evidence that supports General Relativity (and we use the principles in GPS). That being so there are various astronomical observations we've made that show massive gravitational bodies that are not visible. This being the case that GR has evidence supporting it's principles, that the theory predicts the existence of singularities, and that we have observable evidence of the universe behaving as if said prediction existed, then if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Einstein believed that at the event horizon "information" was "lost" because whatever entered the event horizon could never be reclaimed. This contradicts with quantum theories' belief that information is perpetual, thus Hawking developed the theory of Hawking Radiation to resolve the contradiction.
Moreover Quantum Theory itself while it has branches that are purely theoretical, has specific applications, and you used one to write the post on this forum, so we have two options, either consider we're right for the wrong reasons (and those wrong reasons keep giving us things that work, like diodes, BJT and FET transistors, LED's, laser diodes, solar panels, and now quantum computers, etc.), or just right enough for things to work according to the theoretical construct.
If you consider Quantum Theory as bogus, what is your explanation for the observed dualities of electrons and photons? If you're going to say something is wrong, one presumes that you consider something else right, what do you think is right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin_Muzik_NJ
You're right. I'm babbling. CERN was a component in a conglomerate that brought us the internet. And since CERN is based out of Europe, it's just common sense to understand we would never use any technology afforded by them.
The hell was I thinking?
If CERN was a component in the JANET system (which is what you're discussing) then didn't CERN actually produce something of benefit? Your initial complaint was that experimentation in these fields does not produce anything of tangible benefit. However your posting implies that one of the things of tangible benefit that has arisen from CERN is the internet, what else has arisen from that research that you don't consider of benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of attacking him why not deal with his points. Have you read the dialogues between him and those who hate him - it is a shame that they treat someone like this while failing to give answers to his points that have any merit. It is you who seem to be closed minded and at all cost trying to save a sacred cow - BHs. 
