Large Hadron Collider
 

news post:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...?startindex=80

read through the comments afterwards also, quite a few of them are hilarious, and some are just faiiiil

I seriously doubt that it is going to destroy the entire universe and am generally for it
could the $10 billion be spent for something better? probably. Still if the experiment is successful who knows what technological advances we will then have.

I love the fact that one of the physicists used the word "twat" to describe naysayers. I imagine he's totally fed up with all of the doomsdayers saying it'll be the end of the world. I wonder if he's going to be any sort of reprimand for saying that to a member of the press.

I thought the big bang was a theory. The article makes it sound like the big bang is a fact.

And what happens if it is fail. Does it then disprove the big bang theory?

That's because the article was written for European audiences that aren't trying to shoehorn ancient superstitions into modern education. Observational evidence points to what is colliqually called the "Big Bang" as being the best model avaliable. Trust me, if you wish to create a different model of the beginning of time/space, by all means do so...but you'd better be packin' evidence.

there is no evidence for the big bang.

It takes more faith with no evidence to believe the big bang theory than to believe in God and the creation theory.

There is no real evidence for the big bang theory... thus why they call it a theory and not fact.

The last time I saw a building explode it didn't create a city.

Do you really want to go down this road?

The statements you've made simply aren't valid. No evidence? I could bury you with links, if you'd like, or you could go down to a library and read up for yourself. Hell, even Wiki is good enough in this instance as a good introductory lesson and that's far from any of the academic papers published on the matter. Could something possibly throw the idea on its head? Of course its possible, that's the beauty of science. It corrects its flaws over time. It would take a MOUNTAIN of evidence, however, none of which you've provided. That's what it takes to get rational people to go along with an idea...proof. Observation, tests, results.

You should also acquaint yourself with how the term "theory" is used in a layman's sense and in an academic/scientific sense. By your assertation, if I drop a pencil, it just MIGHT fly up into the air of its own volition, since gravity is only a theory.

actually last time i heard gravity could be observed and tested therfor proven. The big bang is a theory that can not be proven. There is no concrete evidence to the fact that the big bang actually happened.

I can easily go down this road and show just as much scientific proof that can show that the big bang theory and the billions of year old earth is not possible.

take for instance the fact that nothing can be created from nothing. But that is exactly what the big bang theory wants you to believe. A large ball of mass condensed upon itself exploded into billions of stars and planets.

But it doesn't take a mountain of evidence to believe in the big bang theory cause there is no evidence.
But where did the big ball of mass come from. Who has proven that you are able to create something from nothing? Show me the scientist that has proven this.

For instance scientists (the same sort of people that believe in the big bang) have discovered that the sun is shrinking five feet an hour. If the sun was around 20 billion years ago it would be so lare that it would be touching the earth. Thus pulling the earth into the sun and poof no more earth.

I'd like you to show me the claims that the "Big Bang" says that something came from nothing. Since there were no observations done at the instant time/space started, the possibilities of what the condition of our universe was before that crucial moment will probably remain in the realm of theory and philosophy. The Big Bang is what happened to the universe AFTER things were set in motion. For all intents and purposes, however, the topic about what happened "before" time started is moot, as before is a term relative to time, which hadn't yet existed. The fact that you think this means "nothing comes from nothing" shows you're obviously not familiar with what it actually means, but knowing your particular persuasion, that's not entirely uncommon. I'm sure you've been fed a steady diet of anti-science rhetoric from your local pulpit. These concepts aren't exactly the easiest to understand and can be a bit counter-intuitive.

There are some mysteries left to the universe, of which the earliest moments are included. It is tests like the LHC that help us understand how it could have happened. Its entirely possible we won't get the results that are expected. Many turning points in scientific thought have come from these "Eureka!" moments.

For a primer on the "Big Bang", I'll suggest this to start out:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Its a good primer for those not versed in the sciences.

As for your "shrinking sun" claim, all I can Google off hand are creationist sites touting it...in what journal was it published? Or do you happen to have a link to a site that cites sources?

I am getting SO SICK of hearing of this thing. People on 4chan fueled the internet rumor of it destroying the universe. I have a lot of /b/tard friends who keep posting articles on it on myspace, and in their blogs, and IMing me about it.

I mean seriously... if there was that high of a risk that the world world would be destroyed just for research (from what I hear its to help find the nucleus or something in an atom?), I'd just think "Screw it...". These are professionals who know what they are doing. They know the risks.