Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Conspiracy to destroy the world?
Options
-
29-03-2008 4:58pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
Mahatma coat wrote: »I'm really surprised meself that theres not waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more panic about this thingy, it has the capacity to * create a black hole in the middle of Switzerland
* Conjecture, may actualy be utter bollox
It will create a black hole, but only a little one which will dissipate. Hopefully!
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Might, not will. It might create a black hole, although even that is considered unlikely.
For the paniced in the room...the HLC will generate energy levels lower than those present when neutrinos charge through our atmosphere (and planet) - an event which happens more-or-less constantly.
I remember Buzz Aldrin talking about seeing strange lights flying through the apollo capsule at night time(sleep time). Turns out they were neutrinos passing through the capsule and the astronauts - although scientists had no idea what effect they would have had on the bodies of the astronauts.
Isn't it also true that at the time of the atomic bomb trials that many scientists believed it was possible that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction which would destroy the world?
Fear of new scientific advances is part of the human condition it would seem. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't it also true that at the time of the atomic bomb trials that many scientists believed it was possible that splitting the atom would cause a chain reaction which would destroy the world?
Not exactly.
From my understanding of events, one (or possibly two) of the scientists involved in the early stages of the Manhattan project put forward the idea that there was an outside chance that an atomic explosion could cause a chain reaction which would ignite the atmosphere. The same person subsequently produced a paper, showing that this was an impossibility, long before work on an actual bomb ever started.
Apparently, the possibility (but not the refuting proof) was mentioned to someone else. Wikipedia says it was Arthur Compton. Compton, or whoever it was, bought into the possibility, without ever doing research on it, and like so many things, it became a sort of rumour that refused to die.
Its a bit like today, we hear people every so often telling us that in the 70s or 80s, there was a scientific consensus that earth was going through global cooling, and that a new ice-age was imminent. Its not true, but has enough grains of truth in it that the story never goes away.
Unquestionably. It also seems to be part of the human condition to believe that the scientists doing research know enough to discover things, but only people who aren't experts on the relevant research can be trusted to tell us whether its safe or not.Fear of new scientific advances is part of the human condition it would seem.
It would be a bit like trusting your doctor to diagnose an illness, but only trusting your local gossips to tell you if the suggested treatment was safe.0 -
-
Well, there may or may not, have been any scientific consensus, but there certainly was a whole lot about it on TV, and in the press at the time. I know, I was thereIts a bit like today, we hear people every so often telling us that in the 70s or 80s, there was a scientific consensus that earth was going through global cooling, and that a new ice-age was imminent. Its not true, but has enough grains of truth in it that the story never goes away. 0 -
Well, there may or may not, have been any scientific consensus, but there certainly was a whole lot about it on TV, and in the press at the time. I know, I was there
I was there too, and I fully admit that there was a whole lot about it in the non-scientific media, but that's kinda my point.
Scientists were generally agreed that there was a need for further study, and that there was a possibility that aerosol-based cooling would prove to be of greater effect than greenhouse-gas effects, and that this would combine with what appeared to be a cooling effect, which could lead to an imminent ice age. Of course, "imminent" in their terms was something like "anywhere inside 10,000 years".
This was picked up by any amount of media and sensationalised at the time into there being a very real possibility that we were very possibly on the verge of an ice-age which could start any day now.
This, in turn, is looked back on today, with the notion that because of the sensationalist media, there was some degree of scientific consensus that we were on the verge of an "any day now" ice age, and that global cooling was a reality.
We see the same with the Manhattan project. There's a kernel of truth, that was seized upon and sensationalised by the media, and this sensationalised account has since been attributed to the scientists rather than the media, and turned from "consideration of the possibility" to "belief it will come to pass".
There was no widespread scientific consensus in the 80s regarding global cooling .
There was no widespread scientific fear in the days of the Manhattan project that an atomic bomb would cause a chain-reaction killing everyone.
In both cases, there were small numbers of scientists doing what scientists should do....seriously considering these possibilities given that there were hints that such outcomes could come to pass.
Their consideration was sensationalised as conclusions. Given that most people only ever read the popular (as opposed to the technical) media, they have no idea what the reality was.
Similarly, the question as to whether or not the LHC could cause mini-black holes has been seriously considered. The worst-case scenarios have been looked at, and evaluated. Now, some guy in Hawaii has ignored the conclusions and instead decided that the consideration of the possibilities somehow implies that they can/could come to pass. With enough media coverage, it'll become another 'scientists seriously believed it would destroy earth, and went ahead anyway' myth over time.0 -
-
-
Advertisement