Topic: Nationalization

[Sam Green Racing]

This is turning into another shameless post boost thread

[Ecosse]

What no comments on Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac?
Bill the demon

Too late to save this?

[Sam Green Racing]

It has spiraled out of control and there is a chance that the world may still end in the next few days.

Sam.

[Ecosse]

It has spiraled out of control and there is a chance that the world may still end in the next few days.

Sam.

Here, this thing is starting to die (oops there's that word again) down... let me throw some wood on that fire.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1053091/Meet-Evans-Atom-end-world-Wednesday.html

Interesting thing is that the German scientist mentioned in the piece thinks we might see some kind of event in around four years... and some dooms day predictors claim that even the ancient Mayans (among others?) predicted the end of the world in 2012.

Yeah, and the experiments aren't over yet.

[Rocking-M]

It has spiraled out of control and there is a chance that the world may still end in the next few days.

Sam.

If it doesn't end in the next few days it will end in 2012. That's what the Mayans said anyway.
Well not actually end but the poles are going to shift, the magnetic fields flipflop, the earths crust
will shift, Canada will be tropical, massive emp's from the sun will fry all this high tech wizardry,
but we'll still be wireless in the mountains. We call it hollering. Wait, I already said that. 

[eldar]

Canada tropical? DAMN I HOPE SO! That means a longer riding season for me!

[Pinhead]

Today was only the test phase of the Large Hadron Collider. October 21st is the first day they'll try to smash the protons into each other at 99.999999% of the speed of light.

When in operation, about seven thousand scientists from eighty countries will have access to the LHC. Physicists hope to use the collider to test various grand unified theories and enhance their ability to answer the following questions:

    * Is the popular Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model realised in nature? If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?[14]
    * Will the more precise measurements of the masses of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?
    * Do particles have supersymmetric ("SUSY") partners?[1]
    * Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter?[1] See also CP-violation.
    * Are there extra dimensions, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we "see" them?
    * What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?[1]
    * Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces?

While these questions may be unimportant to you or me, the answers could very well lead us to faster-than-light travel and "Star Trek" type technology. Especially when investigating dark matter/dark energy and gravity waves.

Although, if you ask me, it looks more like a huge nuclear warhead. Thats exactly how a nuke works; you send a few clumps of heavy atoms barreling towards eachother, and when they crash they produce a huge amount of energy. In practice, those clumps of atoms are sent towards eachother using a small explosive at just under the speed of sound. Imaging how much energy could be liberated if those particles were moving more closely to the speed of light....

[Ecosse]

...the answers could very well lead us to faster-than-light travel and "Star Trek" type technology.

AH HAAA!! This supports my well thought out hair brained theory that all these science nerds grew up wanting to be Spock and that this is just their big ego boost and an attempt to go where no man has gone before! I on the other hand wanted to be Capt. Kirk and get lots of alien tail.

[Ecosse]

Although, if you ask me, it looks more like a huge nuclear warhead. That's exactly how a nuke works; you send a few clumps of heavy atoms barreling towards eachother, and when they crash they produce a huge amount of energy. In practice, those clumps of atoms are sent towards eachother using a small explosive at just under the speed of sound. Imaging how much energy could be liberated if those particles were moving more closely to the speed of light....

Actually, I was thinking big nuke bomb thoughts too when they started describing what they were trying to do.

But someone with a bigger hat size than me will, I hope, explain why the two are so completely different. Yeah, the testing in the 1940's didn't light the atmosphere on fire but look at the mess we have now. Again, I refer to Mr. Einstein's quote.

BTW: The US only started working on the bomb because we were convinced Hitler was already on it.

[Markcb750]

Just to keep this informative thread alive, or maybe to avoid sanding engine cases tonight.

Pinhead, You're a little off on the atoms at the speed of sound thing. Sound travels at 750 mph, or 1.25 mps.  The particles in the LHC will be traveling at nearly 186000 mps, a factor of over 10^5, or 100,000:1.


The LHC does not look like a bomb to me, anymore then my 750 looks like a CRV.

FYI...
Fission bombs, like we used in WWII, compress a block of material that is already highly radioactive to the point that a chain reaction of fissions occur due to the collision of sub atomic particles with the nuclei of the atoms within the block of fissionable material.  The velocities involved are related to the speed of sound only to the extent that the compression wave generated by the explosive shell in the "Little Boy" design and the piston impactor in the "Big Boy" design travels through the block of fissionable material at "sonic" speeds. 

Fusion bombs, as we set off on the Bikini Atoll, use a small fission bomb to compress fusionable material to the point that the atoms are close enough to fuse into heavier elements. 

Both release energy predictable by the aforementioned E=MC^2 relationship. Just as Yuasa lead acid batteries do.

This is a simplification, and I could go on with diagrams and other graphics...but I don't want the thought police at homeland security calling me.  You can Goggle it but be aware the thought police love Google and its data mining.


Meandering further...
The LHC will eventually reach energy densities a significant percentage of those predicted to have occurred a few microseconds after our universe when from "nothing" to "something"; at least from our perspective.

But who knows?


This is where such discussions intrude on religion and philosophy, an area where people use these antique belief systems to form a foundation for their understanding of the world.  And why such experiments are often thought of as useless, wasted effort, even blasphemous.

Just to keep it going!

(Well, we could post a nipple per page to keep it going, but that would be surrendering to our base.)

   

[Pinhead]

Just to keep this informative thread alive, or maybe to avoid sanding engine cases tonight.

Pinhead, You're a little off on the atoms at the speed of sound thing. Sound travels at 750 mph, or 1.25 mps.  The particles in the LHC will be traveling at nearly 186000 mps, a factor of over 10^5, or 100,000:1.


The LHC does not look like a bomb to me, anymore then my 750 looks like a CRV.

FYI...
Fission bombs, like we used in WWII, compress a block of material that is already highly radioactive to the point that a chain reaction of fissions occur due to the collision of sub atomic particles with the nuclei of the atoms within the block of fissionable material.  The velocities involved are related to the speed of sound only to the extent that the compression wave generated by the explosive shell in the "Little Boy" design and the piston impactor in the "Big Boy" design travels through the block of fissionable material at "sonic" speeds. 

Fusion bombs, as we set off on the Bikini Atoll, use a small fission bomb to compress fusionable material to the point that the atoms are close enough to fuse into heavier elements. 

Both release energy predictable by the aforementioned E=MC^2 relationship. Just as Yuasa lead acid batteries do.

This is a simplification, and I could go on with diagrams and other graphics...but I don't want the thought police at homeland security calling me.  You can Goggle it but be aware the thought police love Google and its data mining.


Meandering further...
The LHC will eventually reach energy densities a significant percentage of those predicted to have occurred a few microseconds after our universe when from "nothing" to "something"; at least from our perspective.

But who knows?


This is where such discussions intrude on religion and philosophy, an area where people use these antique belief systems to form a foundation for their understanding of the world.  And why such experiments are often thought of as useless, wasted effort, even blasphemous.

Just to keep it going!

(Well, we could post a nipple per page to keep it going, but that would be surrendering to our base.)

   

Which is pretty much exactly what I said, albeit more detailed.

[alltherightpills]

This is where such discussions intrude on religion and philosophy, an area where people use these antique belief systems to form a foundation for their understanding of the world.  And why such experiments are often thought of as useless, wasted effort, even blasphemous.

This is going to open another can'o'worms as Raul likes to say, but...

I find that the people who use science to disprove religion just as ignorant as the people who use religion to disprove science.  The two fields can inform one another, but they are fundamentally different in terms of the questions they are asking and the answers they are providing.  I had a professor once say that religion attempts to answer the question "why" (essentially to find meaning in life) whereas science answers the question "how" (essentially to explain and understand the physical world around us.)  I do think that a lot of religious folks could use a healthy dose of intellectual curiosity/skepticism and the science community could use a healthy dose of intellectual humility.

[74cb750]

i think i'll nationalize electric company, make it go bankrupt and sell the peices to someone that needs energy for their collider.

[Markcb750]

This is where such discussions intrude on religion and philosophy, an area where people use these antique belief systems to form a foundation for their understanding of the world.  And why such experiments are often thought of as useless, wasted effort, even blasphemous.

This is going to open another can'o'worms as Raul likes to say, but...

I find that the people who use science to disprove religion just as ignorant as the people who use religion to disprove science.  The two fields can inform one another, but they are fundamentally different in terms of the questions they are asking and the answers they are providing.  I had a professor once say that religion attempts to answer the question "why" (essentially to find meaning in life) whereas science answers the question "how" (essentially to explain and understand the physical world around us.)  I do think that a lot of religious folks could use a healthy dose of intellectual curiosity/skepticism and the science community could use a healthy dose of intellectual humility.

Interesting...

Science is the self correcting method of trial & error which has advanced our technology to that which we see.  the other two are belief systems that state why things are as they are, and do not seek answers which my alter parts of that belief.

I have never read, nor listened to, any scientist who set out to disprove religion, I have seen experiments expose cracks  in dogma.

I have seen Carl Sagan explain the reality we perceive in terms of the science that supports our technology, which been interpreted by people in a defensive position as an attack. 


We can discuss the effect of greed by scientists, it can have the same effect as greed by a preacher.  The difference is the scientist is subjected to peer review and someone will expose the conflict scientifically.  The preacher who makes himself a millionaire by saying he knows how to set you up a personal relationship with a deity has no such corrective system around him to insure he has delivered gods address.


Just swingin from the vines,
wasting a little time,
tossing stones at glass houses,
then ducking inside mine..

[eldar]

All doom sayers! Remember a couple years ago nasa decided to run an old probe into jupiters atmosphere. The doom sayers came out of the woodwork claiming it would set the atmosphere on fire. Reason being cause there was 50 or 60 pounds of uranium or plutonium onboard.

We nasa said nothing would happen.  Who was right? The disaster freaks or nasa?

As we do not have 2 suns right now, clearly it was nasa.

Also as for the us thinking germany was working on the bomb, they were. AND they were close to completing it.

[Raul CB750K1]

Everybody of you is overlooking the most amazing fact of that gigantic device. 27 km radius, 100m below surface, 10billion dollar to build.

The most amazing fact of it is: how do you convince your government that the outcome of those experiments is worth of 10 billion dollar of taxpayer's money? You know, politicians likes to use public money in those things that will get them more votes. And I don't think the average citizen is very impressed by a large hadron collider.... The most amazing fact is not how hard was it to design or build the thing, but who was able to convince the politicians.


You mentioned Al Gore a few posts behind. Say that the "global warming" is true. Doomsayers say that when the ice melts, the sea level will grow and drown thousand of cities.

When I was in school, I learned that the ice density is 0.9. That is, lower than the water density. For a given weight, ice occupies more space than water, and that's the reason why ice floats, and that's the reason why 90% of ice volume is under the water surface, and 10% is above -or so-.

Archimedes said something in the line that everything into water displaces water, and water exerts a force on it equal to the weight of the displaced water. That is, ice into water receives a lifting force equal to the weight of the submerged ice, had it been water.

So if the north pole is pure ice, floating on the water, and is already displacing water. When it melts, it becomes the same water it is displacing, so the rise in sea level should be 0. Am I wrong??

[Bob Wessner]

Am I wrong??

You theory is correct. However their references to sea levels rising is based upon ice shelves currently sitting on, or supported by land. Antarctica is a prime example. You could toss in glacial retreat also.

[Raul CB750K1]

Am I wrong??

You theory is correct. However their references to sea levels rising is based upon ice shelves currently sitting on, or supported by land. Antarctica is a prime example. You could toss in glacial retreat also.

Yeah, that makes sense. Have they calculated the amount of water evaporated? If the temperature rises, the water evaporation will grow. With a higher air temperature, the dew point will rise too, so there should be more water just floating in the air.

OK, say that the whole Everest melts. If it happens suddenly, there will be a flood. But if it happens gradually, the earth will damp with the water, and make underground streams, that will go God knows where, and evaporate, and rain, and go to the sea, and evaporate again. How big is the ice crust in Antarctica? Say it is a constant 20 feet. If you compare the size of Antarctica with the extension of the sea, 30 feet of ice distributed into a surface that is at least 8 or 10 times bigger -I'm guesstimating here- makes a 3 feet rise in sea level. That would seem as huge, but if you have into account that the sea level is completely uneven, and that there are tides, probably it won't make any difference at all -I seem to remember that the Panama channel has about 40 feet of height difference between Pacific and Atlantic. Maybe the only thing that happens if Antarctica melts is that the tides become smaller.

The Sun is by far the most powerful energy source we have. Not only can make your skin burn during summer, but it also scorches Mercury and Venus. Without the Sun, the Earth would die. No oil underground could make for the lost Sun. So it is hard for me to believe that the byproduct of oil burning -smoke- we can so negatively affect a closed system -Earth and atmosphere- that depends so heavily in the Sun radiation. Even the Sun power is uneven. We can have differences in temperature just because of that.


Can we nationalize the Sun?   

[Bob Wessner]

"With 98% of its surface covered with various forms of snow and ice, it's no wonder that the continent of Antarctica attracts "cold weather" scientists from all over the world. Basically, Antarctica is a snow and ice "factory" with ice depths on the Polar Plateau reaching 15,000 feet (the continent's average ice thickness is 7,000 feet). Thus, one of Antarctica's most important resources is its ice. It is said that Antarctica's ice accounts for 70% of the world's fresh water. Some people have considered towing icebergs from Antarctica to parts of the world in need of fresh water"

[Raul CB750K1]

"With 98% of its surface covered with various forms of snow and ice, it's no wonder that the continent of Antarctica attracts "cold weather" scientists from all over the world. Basically, Antarctica is a snow and ice "factory" with ice depths on the Polar Plateau reaching 15,000 feet (the continent's average ice thickness is 7,000 feet). Thus, one of Antarctica's most important resources is its ice. It is said that Antarctica's ice accounts for 70% of the world's fresh water. Some people have considered towing icebergs from Antarctica to parts of the world in need of fresh water"

Hold on a second. If that's not floating ice, it has to be ice resting on the ground. If the ground is above sea level, ice thickness of 15.000 feet means an ice mountain higher than the highest peak in Spain. Where did all that water come from? It can't be frozen rain because in Antarctica it hasn't rain for centuries -I remember very well the picture of a frozen seal on the ice surface -National Geographic-. The footer said it had been there for at least the previous 200 years!!!!

If the ground level is below sea level, all that ice melting won't simply raise the sea level; it will have to cover the huge hole in the water created by the disappearing ice, am I wrong? So, what counts is the amount of ice actually above sea level, not above ground level -specially, if the ground is below sea level-

[Bob Wessner]

Basically, it's old ice, very old ice.

http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/antarctica.html

You're making me work here, Raul.

We humans, myself included, have trouble grasping the magnitude of various geophysical attributes of our planet. Recently there was quite a stir about passing a "compact" by the Great Lakes States to prevent folks from stealing "our" water. I'm not advocating sending water to Phoenix or Las Vegas so they can water their cactus, but there is enough water in the five Great Lakes to submerge the lower forty eight states under 9 feet of water.

[eldar]

Bob, its not about how much water. No one wants it! I mean have you seen that water? I mean ANYTHING touching michigan is no longer safe for human consumption or use! Not to mention that these lakes touch CANADA! I mean if we could just remove canada and put it into space, we would all be better off!!!

[Bob Wessner]

Bob, its not about how much water. No one wants it! I mean have you seen that water? I mean ANYTHING touching michigan is no longer safe for human consumption or use! Not to mention that these lakes touch CANADA! I mean if we could just remove canada and put it into space, we would all be better off!!!

I also don't own lakefront property. Could you tell?

[magnus72]

ever since they turned that collider on my molecules havent felt right. How about you guys?

Check out the live webcam.

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

[mystic_1]

ever since they turned that collider on my molecules havent felt right. How about you guys?

Check out the live webcam.

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

 

mystic_1