Wrath of Dagon

That was probably before they realized the micro black holes might actually turn out to be stable. Anyway, as we've learned in another thread, just because the odds are that low doesn't mean it can't happen.

What gave me away?

Exactly what I said earlier, except I'm not convinced by their argument about the white dwarves, because you know, they're completely different from earth, like having huge amounts of gravity. Why would anybody here have any reason to drop this topic besides you? We're defending the integrity of science, and in doing so that happens to place us on the side of the truth. WoD, my desire to inform you and prevent argument is tempered by my desire to prevent you from spreading lies and misinformation that other readers might pick up (because lets face it, this is a public forum with many thousands of viewers). That's fine, you started the thread, I was just concerned almost all of the discussion was about LHC safety instead of whatever discoveries they made, I don't mind continuing so long as anyone is responding. Edit: Here's a scientific paper critisizing the white dwarf theory: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v2.pdf I admit I haven't read it yet and relied instead on the summary in my original link. Btw, I recommend those interested read at least the section starting on p845 of the original link,it's very interesting even if you disagree with it.

It would be feeble if anyone could actually contravene any of the relevant facts. Otherwise this is simply an ad-hominem argument.

No one's talking about compression. It's believed that it's possilble that the LHC might produce black holes, that's a fact. I didn't claim it was a scientific article. It does source scientific articles though. Just because you found one thing from Einstein biography that you consider wrong (and irrelevant btw) doesn't make the whole article incorrect. Anyway, I feel I'm taking this thread off topic. Feel free to drop this.

Not in particle physics, it's mostly based on mathematical theories with very little in the way of empirical observation. Anyway, that paper is sourced, feel free to argue with what you don't agree with. The event horizon is the critical thing- a black hole isn't really matter in the classical sense and doesn't 'collide' with stuff as it, theoretically at least, is a single point in space which has no volume at all. The thing it collides with is effectively the event horizon and after that it doesn't matter which way it goes 'cos all roads lead to the singularity. That's especially true for something small that ain't going to attract stuff gravitationally. Exactly what would happen if an event horizon of that size hit anything is a bit of a moot point (since it is exceeding unlikely that they are stable, basically it is one of those conundrums where the best evidence that they aren't is that the universe still exists) as it is smaller than even subatomic particles- as much as giving subatomic particles a volume makes any sense in the first place. It is an interesting philosophical question as to whether having a black hole smaller than a fundamental particle means that energy/matter would escape from it in a non-Hawking sense, but purely theoretical. So your point is what, collision with a black hole wouldn't increase its mass? Or collisions are impossible? As far as being unstable, the LHC people themselves have already admitted the black holes might be stable.

Actually I don't think I've ever claimed to be an expert on any topic, but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions on those topics. You assertion that I'm unwilling to weigh other evidence is unfair, and not backed up by fact. As far as this thread, what I said is that there's a non-negligible possibility that LHC could destroy the earth. Edit: Here's a paper which explains the arguments and provides references, I posted it a while back but it was dismissed with ad-hominem responses: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf

OK, so you're making a judgment of me based on my arguments and those of others that you admit you don't understand. You claim I choose a side and stick with it no matter the evidence, yet it's evidence you apparently don't understand. Has it occurred to you that may be the reason I stick to a side is because I don't make claims unless I'm confident of their correctness, and because the evidence presented against me is either irrelevant or incorrect?

No, and I haven't claimed to be. Why do you keep making judgments about things you yourself admit you don't understand? Because someone throws down some irrelevant numbers you automatically assume they're right without understanding (or even seemingly reading) any of the arguments.

Event horizon has nothing to do with it as I explained. The micro black hole would grow by colliding with other particles, not by attracting them. Thus it would take a really long time, possibly 100's of thousands of years or more. So the fact that nothing happened yet tells you nothing. Only once the black hole grew to a critical size would it start actually attracting particles. Btw Krezack, nice job of personal attacks. I notice you never bother to offer an actual counter argument. As far as you being a member of the scientific community, I'm pretty sure only one of us graduated from a university.

And if it does, we'll never know

Bizarre Creations to close: http://www.vg247.com/2010/11/16/rumour-biz...s-of-200-staff/ Man, used to be so great way back when. But I guess a one trick pony.

Too bad there's no empirical evidence for this. And since you know so much about science, you should know that the derivation of the Hawkins radiation has already been proven to be incorrect. It's probably still true that the micro black holes are unstable, but there is a set of assumptions under which they would in fact be stable, and could grow slowly over time through collisions with other particles, until it reached enough mass to start attracting other particles, at which point it would rapidly grow and consume earth. As far as collisions in upper atmosphere, they don't prove anything, as any black holes formed would move through the earth at near the speed of light, and thus wouldn't have a chance to grow to a dangerous size. The LHC apologia has already moved on to claim that since white dwarves don't get destroyed by cosmic ray collisions, the earth won't either.

'Doh. Not sure why I made that mistake, other than that they're both in the "'80s also-rans" folder in my brain. I'll edit my post for clarity. Also, the deficit increases under W were primarily a result of his tax cuts, which were a campaign promise from back when the economy was still looking rosy and when he still thought "Osama bin Laden" was the punchline to a joke about a camel in Road to Morocco. The wars and security increases sure didn't help, but the tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit are of more import with regard to the long-term federal budget picture. What I'm saying is in that environment deficits weren't a priority, thus they got away with stuff other than strictly wars/security. Under normal conditions, I'd expect a huge outcry over unbalancing the budget, but everyone understood it was inevitable under the circumstances, even though the deficits could've been smaller, but it's a question of the overall narrative rather than the details. How about all of the above?

Yes, science is always right. Edit: Btw, scientists do think it's quite possible that the LHC will create black holes.

First, the man you quoted was Walter Mondale, Dukakis ran against Bush Sr. Second, people do care about deficits, it's just that at times they care about other things more. We've never had deficits this huge. It's quite clear to a lot of people that if we don't do something, the economy will be crushed. Third, the reason Bush and the Republican Congress run up deficits was because of the wars and other extra spending after 9/11. In that environment there were just higher priorities. They'd never get away with unbalancing the budget like that if it wasn't for extraordinary circumstances. Even so, the deficit peaked in 2004 and was declining sharply before the current crisis struck.

May be because some people find it tedious and boring?

I'm 99% sure he was kidding around. We all know that the world will end in December of 2012 anyway. No, I wasn't entirely facetious. I think there is a non-negligible risk involved. The collisions in upper atmosphere leave earth at the speed of light, in the LHC they're nearly stationary and thus will stay on earth. Also those collisions don't involve lead atoms as Zoraptor pointed out.

Didn't a bunch of studies recently come in putting the Universal Health care costs much lower than expected? I want to say it was like 70 billion (which is huge, but way lower than what was originally bandied about.) If anything it's going to be more expensive. Are you thinking about the TARP? And yes, Obamacare is supposed to be UHC, since the idea is to cover everyone. It's just not single payer (i.e. government) healthcare most liberals really wanted.

Well, this is his chance to get behind it, and show what he's made of.

I think it's more like 1.6 trillion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101110/ap_on_...utting_deficits Sounds good to me, probably doesn't have snowball's chance in hell in Congress, which means we're still doomed.

You actually expect developers and publishers to call their audience dumb?

It's clear it was going to be a serious Sci-Fi RPG (of which there are none), also it looks nothing like Mass Effect, which is always a huge plus!

I don't understand why anyone thinks running around in circles looking for a vaguely described location is fun game play. "The bandits are SE of town" Two hours later, under constant attack from the air, "The hell with this game"