It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a reply to: tigertatzen
Yes, they have talked about it. Just not about "erasing the planet." You seem to have made that part up.
No. It isn't science at all.
Yes. You made it up. Because you don't even understand it a little bit and it's oh so scary because....black hole. No scientists have made the claim that the Earth could be "sucked up", you made this up:
I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that if Earth got sucked into a black hole, or a powerful strangelet was created or a monopole, the ensuing destruction of the planet would be synonymous with "erasing" it. I am not saying that I believe this will happen, I am simply making a hypothetical suggestion.
We are talking about these people creating a singularity, which has the potential to erase the entire planet from existence, which the scientists at CERN have openly discussed.
So, you accept the theory that says that the LHC could possibly create tiny black holes but reject the same part of it that says there is no danger of the Earth being "sucked into" them. By the same theory (the one that makes your computer work), if the LHC can produce those tiny black holes, so do cosmic rays. What happened to all those tiny black holes?
Everything pertaining to this is theoretical; theoretically, it could happen and, also theoretically, it could be just fine. The only way we'll ever know for sure is if it actually occurs.
Yes. But if you equate "majick" with science your opinion is fallacious.
It most certainly is, but of course you're entitled to your own opinion, same as I am.
Yes. You made it up. Because you don't even understand it a little bit and it's oh so scary because....black hole. No scientists have made the claim that the Earth could be "sucked up", you made this up:
CERN scientists admit that the LHC could produce black holes, but they also say those black holes would be on a subatomic scale and would collapse almost instantly. In contrast, the black holes astronomers study result from an entire star collapsing in on itself. There's a big difference between the mass of a star and that of a proton.
Another concern is that the LHC will produce an exotic (and so far hypothetical) material called strangelets. One possible trait of strangelets is particularly worrisome. Cosmologists theorize that strangelets could possess a powerful gravitational field that might allow them to convert the entire planet into a lifeless hulk.
Scientists at LHC dismiss this concern using multiple counterpoints. First, they point out that strangelets are hypothetical. No one has observed such material in the universe. Second, they say that the electromagnetic field around such material would repel normal matter rather than change it into something else. Third, they say that even if such matter exists, it would be highly unstable and would decay almost instantaneously. Fourth, the scientists say that high-energy cosmic rays should produce such material naturally. Since the Earth is still around, they theorize that strangelets are a non-issue.
Another theoretical particle the LHC might generate is a magnetic monopole. Theorized by P.A.M. Dirac, a monopole is a particle that holds a single magnetic charge (north or south) instead of two. The concern Wagner and Sancho cited is that such particles could pull matter apart with their lopsided magnetic charges. CERN scientists disagree, saying that if monopoles exist, there's no reason to fear that such particles would cause such destruction. In fact, at least one team of researchers is actively looking for evidence of monopoles with the hopes that the LHC will produce some.
Yes. You made it up. Because you don't even understand it a little bit and it's oh so scary because....black hole. No scientists have made the claim that the Earth could be "sucked up", you made this up:
So, you accept the theory that says that the LHC could possibly create tiny black holes but reject the same part of it that says there is no danger of the Earth being "sucked into" them. By the same theory (the one that makes your computer work), if the LHC can produce those tiny black holes, so do cosmic rays. What happened to all those tiny black holes?
Yes. But if you equate "majick" with science your opinion is fallacious.
Yes. You did. Right here:
I never said scientists claimed any such thing.
We are talking about these people creating a singularity, which has the potential to erase the entire planet from existence, which the scientists at CERN have openly discussed.
No. I am saying they are not science. That is the case with all religious belief systems.
Now you're openly mocking my religious beliefs.
No. It is a discussion of things which cannot be demonstrated. It is a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of pin.
Theology itself is a science.
Meh. A bit so. It can be. It can employ the scientific method.
Herbal medicine is a science.
There were particle accelerators in the middle ages? But no, alchemy was not science, it was blind fumbling. "Maybe if I mix this stuff with that stuff..." Apparently you do not actually know what science is.
Alchemy is also a science, and is in fact made possible by the existence of particle accelerators.
I wasn't. I said that "magick" is not science. That's not nasty, it's a fact. I said that you're claiming that it is, is fallacious. It is.
I think perhaps you have a rather skewed view of what Witchcraft actually entails, as do most people who do not understand it. Either way, there is no reason to be nasty about it.
a reply to: tigertatzen
I never said scientists claimed any such thing.
Yes. You did. Right here:
We are talking about these people creating a singularity, which has the potential to erase the entire planet from existence, which the scientists at CERN have openly discussed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Can you show me any scientists (much less from CERN) who have said the LHC could create something which could erase the entire planet from existence?
There were particle accelerators in the middle ages? But no, alchemy was not science, it was blind fumbling. "Maybe if I mix this stuff with that stuff..." Apparently you do not actually know what science is.
You know your computer uses principles of quantum mechanics, right? You know that, if the LHC could produce a micro black hole, cosmic rays are doing so as we speak and have been doing so since pretty much forever, right? What do you happened to all those little black holes?
This is dictionary abuse. Nature is about the natural world, and science is about the natural world.
originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Even science itself is a form of magic. nature is magical, aswell.
Nobody has ever seen a micro black hole but if one is created it is expected to turn into a shower of particles in a tiny fraction of a second. The particles would leave traces in CERN's particle detectors, up to the equivalent of 14 mosquitos in flight's worth, the amount of energy in a 14TeV collision which CERN is now capable of.
with regards to the black holes), what happens to them?
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
magic is about the supernatural, not the natural.
Someone argued that advanced technology might look like magic, especially to someone from a less advanced culture, but it's not really magic.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
Because the truth is dangerous? I agree..
OP this is freaky stuff to put it mildly, and it is probably exactly as the videos are saying.
That face and features are exactly like the image and seems to be an icon already used by CERN. I don't see how that can just be a coincidence. No way.
It is answering their call!
originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Just a reminder, in the end, it is that always that one crazy nut preaching that turns out to be right. [...] What does ATS think?
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
Because the truth is dangerous? I agree..
OP this is freaky stuff to put it mildly, and it is probably exactly as the videos are saying.
That face and features are exactly like the image and seems to be an icon already used by CERN. I don't see how that can just be a coincidence. No way.
It is answering their call!
icon? the shiva?.....techies are natural symbol makers....most of them when younger, lived at home, didn't have a girlfriend, or went to parties...and if they did, they were ignored...they played fantasy games on their devices for hours and hours, instead of being able to play sports, or at least hang and be cool doing something fun with others....symbols??? hell yeah, par for the course for tech people.
Such as?
originally posted by: cooperton
So magic would be a natural phenomenon that is not yet explained by science? If that is true I have magical experiences all the time.
This definition about what exists naturally is true whether we understand the causes of our observations or not.
by definition anything that exists naturally is not supernatural
originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Just a reminder, in the end, it is that always that one crazy nut preaching that turns out to be right. [...] What does ATS think?
Yes, I'm thinking more than 99 times out of 100, or more than 99% of the time that's more likely. There is the one in a thousand though. Before Edward Snowden came along, there were people saying things like Edward Snowden said, but most people thought they were nuts. Then Snowden came along and proved they weren't nuts, so it can happen, but it's rare.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
Sometimes a crazy nut is just a crazy nut, and they end up in a hospital.