Large Hadron Collider ‘to shut down for a year’
 

Looks like we will have to wait until 2012 for the end of the world as we know it because of it unleashing a black hole, 2012 marking the end of the world maybe true then :yelrotflm


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/l...or-a-year.html

Yeah i hate it when that happens.

Thats funny :yelrotflm

5 billion pounds of investment thwarted by a bird and a baguette

Disappointing, I have been a follower of this project for some time.
I am very keen to see it at full strength in 2012.

Yeah, I too am sick of life :nana:

Dont stress, they'll never get it to work - its being sabotaged by the future!!

http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...-1225788270808

just for the conspiracy theorists among us. They are trying to replicate the big bang. Now Stephen Hawkings has proved that the universe is constantly expanding, and will do so for all time, what to say that if the LHC is able to sucessfully produce a big bang even, that it will not continue to exand just as the origional big bang, effectively destryoing everything we know? Just a thought....

Perhaps those ancient Myans are correct after all??

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11291110

Perhaps I should go to the bank and have a chat about refinancing for that Yellow Ferrari I have always wanted... :yelrotflm

Waste of time should be building flux capacitor's and flogging them off at harvey norman's instead..

you've got to wonder at the conspiracy theorists who believe what they heard about a collider from a priest instead of the scientists who built it.
FYI, a 100W globe burning for 1 hour = 2.2 x 1024 electron volts WOW! thats 2.2 Trillion TeV or 2.2 Trillion Trillion electron volts

"Please explain"?

Haha, "spectacular failure".

Should be "Epic fail".

A child riding a pushbike to school every day generates more energy than a Phase 3 GTHO doing a quarter mile run.

I just want to know how CERN is the acronym for European Organisation for Nuclear Research.

To be honest, if it doesn't involve cloning dinosaurs then wtf is the point?

CERN started out as Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, or the European Council for Nuclear Research. :mrsparkle

Just to clarify, they are trying to create conditions exactly like there were just after the big bang, it would be impossible for them to actually replicate the big bang.

The whole thing seems like a massive waste of money to me. The "big bang" has only ever been a theory that has never (and almost certianly will never) be proven.

:yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm

Oh... holy c*** :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm

Compose myself. :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm :yelrotflm

That is the single greatest thing I have read this year.

Not if it is the extra polarising model :yelrotflm :yelrotflm

Dyslexic Nymphomaniacs are looking forward to the large hardon collider reproducing the big bang.

sure thing, pauline
my point is that it's not as extreme as some people seem to thing it is. 7 trillion electron volts is about a 700W.

this guy explains it better than i ever could.
http://www-bd.fnal.gov/public/electronvolt.html

nah forget it, there is no future in time travel...

Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire

In Europe, most people do not speak English as their first language (just like USA :))

*WARNING - SCIENCE LESSON*

The Big Bang is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. People seem to confuse the two, especially with respect to the theory of evolution (really the theory of natural selection).

A hypothesis is basically an educated guess. This guess can be supported or refuted, based on experimental evidence. Lay people often take this definition to apply for the word theory as well.

A theory is the explanation of a set of observable facts. A hypothesis/set of hypotheses can become a theory if there has been found no evidence to disprove it by many independent groups of researchers AND if it can make predictions about other related phenomena.

The big bang and evolution are theories, certain aspects of each of the theories are considered fact e.g. testable predictions (science), this observable data is what the "theory" is based on. Although neither have been proven fact, certain data is made fact, the theory has just not been fully proven, but yes a hypothesis is supported by evidence we assume is true.

A number of people in the US (think George Dubbya) don't speak English as their first language.

Sort of.

Yes, theories are used to explain observable facts. They are also used to make testable predictons. A hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence is known as a fact. A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futyuma

In science we can't ever call a theory a fact, that just isn't the way it works. And only in Maths can we really have "proofs". You just have your terminology a little bit off. I can easily use the case of evolution to explain the terminology nuances.

We have the fact of evolution - fossil record, experiments done on mice and bacteria in many experiments, the case of the Galápagos finches, fruit flies etc.

We also have the Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is a series of interconnected statements that are the best possible means of explaining how the facts of evolution occur. This theory makes accurate predictions and is capable of explaining all of the facts of evolution. This does not make it proven, it only says that it is the best current means we have of explaining the facts.

Finally, we have Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis, all examples of hypotheses made to explain the facts of evolution. These hypotheses were discarded because they made incorrect predictions and did not explain the facts of evolution to a high enough degree.

Agreed.
Except on the bacteria, as this is micro-evolution (bacteria mutates and changes, but always remains bacteria) not macro evolution (where an organsim evolves to a new creature/species).
The galapagos finches (are you referring to Darwins finches??) is more a matter of variation within a species, e.g lengths of birds beaks than evolution.
Not sure on the fruit flies? Are you referring to how scientists do genetic experiements on the fruit flies because of the short time each generation takes?