gunther_bumpass: Liquid helium? Helium's a gas, smart guy. Otherwise balloons wouldn't float.


Whoah - helium water balloons!

I just blew your mind...

Acid Stuphole: PerilousApricot: Epiphany: WhyteRaven74: Also we damn well know

Why do we "damn well know", because Hawking said so? Check this out:

"Hawking was in the news in July 2004 for presenting a new theory about black holes which goes against his own long-held belief about their behaviour"

Yeah, I'm believing that guy because 6 years ago he assured me he was right "this time!"

I shouldn't feed this, but whatever...

Suppose, for a moment, that everyone else is wrong and hawking radiation doesn't exist, and slamming particles together at 14TeV causes blackholes which will swallow up the earth.

How do you reconcile that supposition with the fact that cosmic rays regularly have energies of 1,000,000,000 TeV, and strike the earth at a rate of ~1,000,000 per second per meter squared?

It is a contradiction to assume that 14TeV protons will create an earth-destroying black hole but then also notice that cosmic rays with energies millions and billions of times greater energy striking the earth at a rate billions of times more frequently than we can produce ... hasn't eaten the earth yet.

/fed the troll...

[citation needed]

Fed the troll? Fed it what - whargarbll?

The energies striking the planet as "cosmic rays" (using the quaint 60s reference - did you mean solar wind?) hit the insulating blanket of magnetism and bleed off at the poles as rather spectacular electric discharge displays (e.g. aurora borealis) and in no way can it be compared to impacting beams of protons at any energy level. You're comparing apples to oranges.

No, I didn't mean solar wind, I would've said solar wind if I meant it.

Cosmic rays (which is a bad term for them, I admit, but history has a tendency of making poor choices) are *highly* energetic particles. Some of them can be created directly in processes like the sun, others can be the product of gamma rays from far away striking the interstellar medium and transferring momentum to whatever matter is hanging out there (usually protons)

You're right, the lower energy particles will be bent by the earth's magnetic field, but anything with a decent amount of energy won't be curved by the B field and will strike the earth's atmosphere with a significant amount of energy. much much much more than we could produce here on earth. As an example of proof of this, we can see a shower of relatavistic muons cascading down from the sky with the right equipment. Those muons are collision byproducts of cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere and raining down on us.

The weak particles that are able to have their paths bent by the magnetic field form the aurorae (is that how you plural that?), but that's really only a fraction of what comes down to us. I don't have my books with me, so I can't give dates, but a lot of our early research in to high-energy physics basically meant making a detector and either putting it in a really high hotair balloon or sitting it on the top of a mountain.

basically, we get rained down with retardedly high energy particles all the time. if it were possible to eat the earth with it, it would've happened by now.

The 2008 accident fully loaded nacho from Taco Bell caused one tonne of helium methane to leak into the tunnel cab of my vehicle and resulted in a series of "quenches" (actually that is a perfect word...) QUENCHES and a 40m Swiss franc (£24m) ($12US)repair dry cleaner bill.

FTFY.. or for me

pwhp_67: gunther_bumpass: Liquid helium? Helium's a gas, smart guy. Otherwise balloons wouldn't float.


Whoah - helium water balloons!


at a liquid helium wet-t-shirt contest.
The nipples will be SO HARD.

gunther_bumpass: WhyteRaven74: gunther_bumpass: How do you even weigh something like that?

Simple, you know the volume of liquid helium involved, you know the density of liquid helium, even with a pen and paper you can find the answer very quickly.

Liquid helium? Helium's a gas, smart guy. Otherwise balloons wouldn't float.

God, people are idiots today.

Is that like liquid oxygen?

Snarfangel: Snarfangel: I hope they realize how much work they are putting my future self through to keep it from going online.

Oh well, back to my moon cubicle.

This is Snarfangel from timeline X23. Avoid the fish at lunch today.

Yes, I know. I had the lasagna.

/obscure?

Oh god, not another one!

Where in time am I now....?

SLADE: Freem

I submit Exhibit A into evidence:

/hot like a case of headcrabs

Kimpak
Dammit, are we ever going to see this thing go full power?

Is it over 9000 yet?

Interesting that they plan to take 2012 off from those hard core science duties... you know, just to tweak the thing.
Maybe for shiats and giggles they'll fire it up on the morning of 12/21/2012 to wallow in the medias spotlight.

//I'm calling in sick that day anyway.

Damn it, is Fark showing posts from back in 2010 AGAIN?! What the hell is wrong with this site?!

PerilousApricot: Acid Stuphole: PerilousApricot: Epiphany: WhyteRaven74: Also we damn well know

Why do we "damn well know", because Hawking said so? Check this out:

"Hawking was in the news in July 2004 for presenting a new theory about black holes which goes against his own long-held belief about their behaviour"

Yeah, I'm believing that guy because 6 years ago he assured me he was right "this time!"

I shouldn't feed this, but whatever...

Suppose, for a moment, that everyone else is wrong and hawking radiation doesn't exist, and slamming particles together at 14TeV causes blackholes which will swallow up the earth.

How do you reconcile that supposition with the fact that cosmic rays regularly have energies of 1,000,000,000 TeV, and strike the earth at a rate of ~1,000,000 per second per meter squared?

It is a contradiction to assume that 14TeV protons will create an earth-destroying black hole but then also notice that cosmic rays with energies millions and billions of times greater energy striking the earth at a rate billions of times more frequently than we can produce ... hasn't eaten the earth yet.

/fed the troll...

[citation needed]

Fed the troll? Fed it what - whargarbll?

The energies striking the planet as "cosmic rays" (using the quaint 60s reference - did you mean solar wind?) hit the insulating blanket of magnetism and bleed off at the poles as rather spectacular electric discharge displays (e.g. aurora borealis) and in no way can it be compared to impacting beams of protons at any energy level. You're comparing apples to oranges.

No, I didn't mean solar wind, I would've said solar wind if I meant it.

Cosmic rays (which is a bad term for them, I admit, but history has a tendency of making poor choices) are *highly* energetic particles. Some of them can be created directly in processes like the sun, others can be the product of gamma rays from far away striking the interstellar medium and transferring momentum to whatever matter is hanging out there (usually protons)

You're right, the lower energy particles will be bent by the earth's magnetic field, but anything with a decent amount of energy won't be curved by the B field and will strike the earth's atmosphere with a significant amount of energy. much much much more than we could produce here on earth. As an example of proof of this, we can see a shower of relatavistic muons cascading down from the sky with the right equipment. Those muons are collision byproducts of cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere and raining down on us.

The weak particles that are able to have their paths bent by the magnetic field form the aurorae (is that how you plural that?), but that's really only a fraction of what comes down to us. I don't have my books with me, so I can't give dates, but a lot of our early research in to high-energy physics basically meant making a detector and either putting it in a really high hotair balloon or sitting it on the top of a mountain.

basically, we get rained down with retardedly high energy particles all the time. if it were possible to eat the earth with it, it would've happened by now.

There's still no correlation between the LHC and your example. The LHC beams collide. The particles "raining down on our heads" are not colliding....? Granted a large amount of energy strikes the earth (and the magnetic field) regularly....but collisions?

gunther_bumpass: WhyteRaven74: gunther_bumpass: How do you even weigh something like that?

Simple, you know the volume of liquid helium involved, you know the density of liquid helium, even with a pen and paper you can find the answer very quickly.

Liquid helium? Helium's a gas, smart guy. Otherwise balloons wouldn't float.

God, people are idiots today.

You would be one of them....helium stored under pressure becomes a liquid that boils off to becoma a gass again as the pressure is released.

/silly twat

Maybe turning it on will cause a flash-sidways like in "Lost"...Lindeof and Cuse really ARE evil geniuses

NightOwl2255: WhyteRaven74: Acid Stuphole: impacting beams of protons at any energy level.

*facepalm* Cosmic rays are most often highly energetic protons....

What a moron, right? Hell, even Wally Pipp knew that cosmic rays are most often highly energetic protons.

Reading comprehension isn't your long suit....? Right? His reference and mine are wholly different - the key word your looking for here is "impacting" - the protons from the "cosmic rays" are impacting....what? The earth or the magnetic field surrounding the earth. In the LHC they are impacting....other beams of protons. See the difference? What "cosmic rays" are composed of is not in dispute.

/now STFU and GBTW

Acid Stuphole: The particles "raining down on our heads" are not colliding....?

What happens when a cosmic ray strikes the atmosphere and what happens to protons in the LHC is the same ting as far as physics is concerned. The exact circumstances may differ, but in terms of what happens, same thing. In fact high energy physicists, the people behind the LHC, have spent lots of time building detectors to detect the products of cosmic rays.

+1 Subby, and +5 to the mod who scrambled the posts.

rcf1105: It's true that 0.56 isn't a particularly strong correlation, but it could still be a significant correlation if the sample size is large enough.

K, first of all, p value is not a "correlation." Correlation is covered by, among other things, the pearson coefficient r. p in this context is, concisely, the probability of type 1 error. Otherwise known as the probability of a false positive.

Second, your p value will presumably drop as you increase your sample size, as you're becoming more certain that the small difference between your groups is actually significant. What's nice about p values is that they are size-independent; importantly, you can gauge significance without having to worry about sample size, means, SDs, etc.

Thus, p=0.56 is always not significant. Increasing the sample size could lead to significance, yes, but this would mean that your p value drops to <0.05 in the process.

I subjected my Wife's black hole to bombardment by my super hardon collider last night.

It is wonderful to see such a clear demonstration that nobody here has a clue what high energy small particle science is all about.

Buy Microsoft!

Don't buy that house in 2005

WhyteRaven74: Acid Stuphole: The particles "raining down on our heads" are not colliding....?

What happens when a cosmic ray strikes the atmosphere and what happens to protons in the LHC is the same ting as far as physics is concerned. The exact circumstances may differ, but in terms of what happens, same thing. In fact high energy physicists, the people behind the LHC, have spent lots of time building detectors to detect the products of cosmic rays.

See - you're not the only one capable of feeding the trolls.

Golden Ace: Buy Microsoft!

Don't buy that house in 2005

Damn got this too late. have to try again.

One of the theories is our future race is coming back
to sabotage the collider to save the world from a black hole.

But if there was a black hole created then there would be no
future race.

Therefore either the collider just sucks up europe or an
alien race comes back to save our pitiful butts before it happens

/thinking out loud
//I want to believe!

Impudent Domain: I subjected my Wife's black hole to bombardment by my super hardon collider last night.


The small bang theory...

Please attend to the problems I've found with LHC, revealed in next message here.

pwhp_67 Quote 2010-03-10 05:28:52 PM
Impudent Domain: I subjected my Wife's black hole to bombardment by my super hardon collider last night.


The small bang theory...

Heh, big enough for me, that's all that matters.

I drunk what: fuzzwell: Am I the only one who reads it as "Hard-on" collider?

i usually go with hardon collander, but whatever floats your boat

so has this thing worked yet, or are they trying to say that it has basically failed and we haven't learned anything new?

mrshowrules: Any microscopic black hole it created would be unstable and disappear.

so exactly how many black holes have we created thus far that gives the info needed to make such an observation?

Don't need to. It's pretty basic understanding of Black Hole theory that lends to the belief that you get no black holes, at least not permanent ones, from the LHC. In order for a mass to actually make a black hole, it has to be really massive, as in many times larger than our sun. the idea that you could make a black hole in a collider is based on the energy that goes into the collision, but because of its relatively small mass, it won't be stable and won't hold together.

In theory, though, those tiny black-holes could yield even more energy than the mass that would be initially sucked into them because, for a few milliseconds anyway, some particles would get sucked in and converted to energy under conditions that are astounding, to say the least.

So, a millisecond black hole could yield maybe 5, maybe 10 times the energy from the particles that went in than those particles might otherwise yield.

If you do want to see a worst-case scenario, though, you can go here

Journal addendum.

There's somebody hanging in space out there, and he's naked.

I'm not sure I want to know what that's about.

Oil hit anus yeti?

/Freaking out

CygnusDarius: Snarfangel: I hope they realize how much work they are putting my future self through to keep it from going online.

Oh well, back to my moon cubicle.

Lucky you, I got stuck working on Duke Nukem Forever... We're at 2095 by now.

Wait... I'm gonna work in 3D-Realms!?.

Impudent Domain: I subjected my Wife's black hole to bombardment by my super hardon collider last night.

Yeah, well I did that next month, how the hell do I get out of here??

LHC broken? Never mind, you can still mess with the universe by filling a Klein bottle with superfluid helium.

Acid Stuphole: gunther_bumpass: WhyteRaven74: gunther_bumpass: How do you even weigh something like that?

Simple, you know the volume of liquid helium involved, you know the density of liquid helium, even with a pen and paper you can find the answer very quickly.

Liquid helium? Helium's a gas, smart guy. Otherwise balloons wouldn't float.

God, people are idiots today.

You would be one of them....helium stored under pressure becomes a liquid that boils off to becoma a gass again as the pressure is released.

/silly twat

Not Quite

stupid euro socialists can't do anything right...

/america fark yea

Acid Stuphole: gunther_bumpass:God, people are idiots today.

You would be one of them....helium stored under pressure becomes a liquid that boils off to becoma a gass again as the pressure is released.

/silly twat

becoma my gass and I'll slap that hadron right outta your mouth.

WhyteRaven74: for anyone wondering the density of liquid helium is .125g/mL, so one mili-liter weighs an eighth of a gram. Or in slightly easier t deal with terms, one liter of liquid helium weighs 125 grams or 4.4 ounces. Or just over a quarter of a pound, a liter of water weighs a bit over 2 pounds.

But the real question is, if I drink it, will my voice sound all high pitched?

tinyarena: Torrentius: Torrentius: If I'm reading this in the past, don't stop on our way to work to get coffee today. It tastes like crap and is cold.

Just get it at the office and save yourself the trouble.

ravenlore: loathable cockroach: Matt Smith was great as The Doctor, he had a superb run with Moffat. Not happy about how it ended, but what can you do, other than go back in time and change events?

Why aren't you in the Angels thread?

Or why won't you be?

Crosshair: Epiphany: They don't even know how to put the farking thing together (yet they claimed to), yet they are sure it won't create a black hole that will destroy the earth. Theoretical Science is the biggest joke of the last 100 years.

The LHC is a one-of-a-kind machine. They aren't mass producing them. The final version is also the beta version. No way to see some of these bugs until you build the thing.

Flogster: Jubeebee: Misleading headline is misleading. They'll be running experiments for the next two years, upgrade it for a year, and then run world destroying experiments afterwords.

Did you miss the point of the headline, or did I miss your point?

/I'm sure particles from the future have explained it all to me yesterday.

Donnchadha: minnesotaboy: Delightfully tachyon, yet unrefined.

Purplebuzz: fuzzwell: Am I the only one who reads it as "Hard-on" collider?

Yeah, you're cutting edge like that.

Pardon my noobishness but
You are all responding to comments yet you are at the top of the thread???
Where are the other Farkers posting???

/thanks for the help

The timestream is in flux; they are responding to posts that haven't happened yet.

mrshowrules: They say that it can't create a black hole. Any microscopic black hole it created would be unstable and disappear.

They also said it would work. If built correctly, up to specs, and run correctly it probably can't make any earth destroying black holes. However, this is not the case.

Torrentius: I hope this is another time jump thread!

/gives doe-eyes to mods

Apparently it is, as it keeps jumping to the top of the que...

nerds...