TheeGoatPig
There is no R in my name
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Posts
- 13,163
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you say. But remember, time-wise, one can fall into a black hole indefinitely. Maybe we're falling into it now and just don't know itSonofagun...we made it.![]()
So you say. But remember, time-wise, one can fall into a black hole indefinitely. Maybe we're falling into it now and just don't know it![]()
(Fair Use Excerpt)
GENEVA, September 10 (RIA Novosti) - Scientists successfully fired the first beam of protons round a vast underground tunnel below the Swiss-French border on Wednesday, in a test run of a multi-billion dollar experiment to shed light on the origins of the universe. (Video)
[...]British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking earlier told the BBC he had bet colleagues 100 dollars that the elusive particle will not be found.
"I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of 100 dollars that we won't find the Higgs," he said.[...] [...]Ahead of the test, LHC Russian coordinator Viktor Savrin said unless the Higgs boson is found, no larger device would ever be built.
"I do not think it is realistic to build a larger accelerator on a similar scheme, nobody is likely to venture to do that," Savrin said.[...]
I know it's perverse, but I really hope Hawkins wins his bet. There would just be something ironically funny about a $5.3 billion dollar fuck-up. Money that could have / should have been used directly for research into other areas that would have been much more beneficial to mankind.
$2.7 trillion of annual spending ( by the way, that's $2,700,000,000,000 for the numerically challenged )
Question: will we all temporarily be very, very, very, very tall? Or does that depend on where we're standing in relation to the black hole?
That's 2.7 billon in real numbers.
I think this is to do with the experiment in some way but can someone explain how they actually know that most of the matter in the universe is undetected? Like ninety odd percent?
If my extremely vague understanding is correct: maths say there is more matter than can be detected.
Maths also says the big bang doesn't account for the mass of the universe.
Could it be that they have the maths wrong?
Apparently the calculations have been verified by observations that back it all up. This article explains that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Thankyou for that. But it still says 'phlogisten' to me.
Swiss doughnut no matter how large is going to get rid of me.
Og
I have to plead ignorance here. The word is not mentioned in the article or dictionary.com. Did you mean phlogiston? Even then, I'm still in the dark. Sorry...
However it's spelled yes.
Apparently early experimenters wondered what actually burned when something burned.
I'm not sure if this is a correct example but it's how I remember it.
Allowing for water loss (which can be collected) the weight of a completely burned matchstick is exactly that of an unburned matchstick. So what is it that burns? Early scientists came up with 'phlogisten' (or phlogiston) which had to contain mass (to be able to burn) but which must also be completely weightless.
They didn't have energy conversion or sublimation in those days so they surmised something.
That's sounds a hell of a lot like dark matter to me.[/QUOTE[/I]
I don't even have a Bs.C. so I have absolutely no right to be dogmatic about this, but.. I've been told/read that matter is never lost -- it just becomes another substance. Boiled water becomes steam, etc. Could it be that the matchstick becomes carbon, while the water in the stick becomes steam or water vapor? Bear in mind that I barely have a high school grasp of physics... I'm just guessing here. When it comes to quantum physics I have to rely on those who are far more intelligent than I could ever hope to be.
However it's spelled yes.
Apparently early experimenters wondered what actually burned when something burned.
I'm not sure if this is a correct example but it's how I remember it.
Allowing for water loss (which can be collected) the weight of a completely burned matchstick is exactly that of an unburned matchstick. So what is it that burns? Early scientists came up with 'phlogisten' (or phlogiston) which had to contain mass (to be able to burn) but which must also be completely weightless.
They didn't have energy conversion or sublimation in those days so they surmised something.
That's sounds a hell of a lot like dark matter to me.[/QUOTE[/I]
I don't even have a Bs.C. so I have absolutely no right to be dogmatic about this, but.. I've been told/read that matter is never lost -- it just becomes another substance. Boiled water becomes steam, etc. Could it be that the matchstick becomes carbon, while the water in the stick becomes steam or water vapor? Bear in mind that I barely have a high school grasp of physics... I'm just guessing here. When it comes to quantum physics I have to rely on those who are far more intelligent than I could ever hope to be.
Yes, that's right (we don need no stinking degrees) but those early scientists didn't know about matter conversion so they had to invent phlogisten to make their equations add up. Seems to me that these scientists are missing something too and are just calling it dark matter.
He already did.
Last year something went horribly wrong with a freezer and the beam melted something and it all came to a grinding (and very expensive) halt.
They said at the time it would be October 09 before they got it back up again.
Incidentally, I though Phlogiston was the old word for Oxygen.
The largest and most complex machine ever built, huh? "Murphy" will have a field day!