beecee

What revolt? The LHC has now been operational for many years without any mishap, and given us great knowledge of the sub atomical world, as well as great discoveries like the Higg's particle. And obviously it is far from being small with a 27 kilometer main ring. More info and facts to be found here, including the operational safety..... https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider/safety-lhc extract: "LSAG reaffirms and extends the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern. Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies. The LSAG report has been reviewed and endorsed by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee, a group of external scientists that advises CERN’s governing body, its Council". So again, no, no BH's created at all. https://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/faq/black-hole.html The creation of black holes at the Large Hadron Collider is very unlikely. However, some theories suggest that the formation of tiny 'quantum' black holes may be possible. The observation of such an event would be thrilling in terms of our understanding of the Universe; it would also be perfectly safe. Two types of black hole Black holes form in space when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. They are so dense that the gravity they exert is such that not even light can travel out of them. Speculations about black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons. These are microscopic - or quantum - black holes. Scientists are not at all sure that quantum black holes exist. extract: What if collisions at the LHC produced a black hole? The creation of a quantum black hole at the LHC would be very surprising, but very exciting indeed. It would allow physicists to learn about nature’s most elusive force – gravity. Remember: particle collisions happen all the time in nature, and we're all still here. If you would like to read up more on the safety of the LHC, there is more information here. In essence, any quantum or microscopic BH possibly created, would decay instantly to various particles via a process known as Hawking radiation.

A correction...Mini/microscopic/quantum BH's are still hypothetical and none have ever been seen, or obviously created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

No, I am a retired Maintenace Fitter/Machinist/Welder who is interested in science and read a few reputable publications re BH's and Hawking Radiation, and my mathematical prowess is abysmal. Hawking Radiation assumes a very likley scenario re BH evaporation without any crossing of the EH from inside to outside. That is a concrete absolute. Plus the very nature of the beast means we willl probably never be able to observe Hawking Radiation. Nothing but nothing ever escapes a BH by crossing the EH. You need proper professional peer review. I'm not cut out or qualified to conduct that, but we do have some good people on this site that may give you a better idea of any validity or otherwise, in what you claim. Not 100% certain, but the LHC if it did, or has created any BH's, would only be quantum or microscopic BH's anyway, and any Earth destroying possibility is near zero. My first reply post was to essentially say, that you must know thoroughly the physics/cosmolgy you are trying to invalidate, before ever attempting to come up with a new hypothetical.

Great! Do some research into physics and maths and then tell us what you have.

Einstein simply put together the current theoretical knowledge and data of the time, along of course with his own intuition to come up with SR/GR. Remember what another great scientist said 250 years earlier?..."I see as far as I do because I stand on the shoulders of giants" Albert did the same.

https://phys.org/news/2021-05-chinese-cargo-spacecraft-docks-orbital.html Chinese cargo spacecraft docks with orbital station: An automated spacecraft docked with China's new space station Sunday carrying fuel and supplies for its future crew, the Chinese space agency announced. Tianzhou-2 spacecraft reached the Tianhe station eight hours after blasting off from Hainan, an island in the South China Sea, China Manned Space said. It carried space suits, living supplies and equipment and fuel for the station. Tianhe, or Heavenly Harmony, is third and largest orbital station launched by China's increasingly ambition space program. The station's core module was launched April 29. The space agency plans a total of 11 launches through the end of next year to deliver two more modules for the 70-ton station, supplies and a three-member crew. more at link...

Only after the fifth beer. 😉 The game that they say is played in heaven? another myth!😁 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pIyMSda2t4&t=80s

Personal contentment, as the name suggests is personal. I was as content as one could be last night after my team the Sydney Roosters, despite a huge injury and suspension toll, thumped the Canberra raiders in the greatest game of all [rugby league] I'm in total awe when I look into the night sky and understand that much of what I observe is explained by science, and I find contentment as a result of that scientific knowledge. But seriously, why should science address personal contentment? I'm always happy and content [for obvious reasons] when my wife is happy and content within her choice of singing in her choir and interacting within her church group. Science concerns itself with fact and theory based on the scientific method of the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, based on what we see and observe. Religion can help to create a decent ethical framework [but often does the opposite] to live one's life. 😊 Poor old Georgy Pell was certainly atrocious in that exchange as well as devoid of any actual knowledge. His advisers in letting him take part in such an interview/debate were derelict in their duty...real cringe worthy stuff. As was the climate debate between Brian Cox and that other fool denier.

I'm looking forward to it. On my awareness, gee thanks! Let me do some thinking on that though.😉

Yes, you are probably correct. But it does take two to tango, and I dare say we will never get all on both sides to cease fire. Yes, correct again on my choice of words...thanks.

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. But we also know that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck level. Physicists today don't accept any singularity as defined by infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature....The only obvious singularity is one that is defined by where our known laws and GR fail us, that is at the quantum/Planck level. Accepting this more correct knowledge re BH's, logically then it can be suggested that we do have a surface of sorts, at or below the quantum/Planck level. I also am not sure about your claim that physicists are focusing on what might be wrong with QT...we know that both despite being still approximations, do a damn good job withing their parameters of applicability. Finally comment with regards to Neutron stars and BH's and compressability, the two things that determine that are EDP [Electron Degeneracy Pressure] white Dwarf stars, NDP [Neutron Degeneracy Pressure] Neutron stars and when that is exceeded we get a BH. So in answer to that is it predicts total further collapse when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, but fails us at the quantum/Planck level, where as mentioned we might have a surface or conglomeration of matter in an unknown state.

I'm well aware you are aware of it. 🙂My point was to convey the fact generally speaking, that while we are uncertain of the exact pathway, Abiogenesis is still the only scientific theory we have for the emergent of life. Sometimes that fact is lost or misinterpreted by some people. And an excellent post, thanks.

Not as yet...It is lengthy and I have been a busy little beaver. I do have it ear marked though for Sunday, after I take the better half to church. 😉 And I don't believe I was being semantic. But I havn't nor do I go out to sink their boat, unless they are soap boxing/preaching to me, or are erroneously rebuking science. Not sure if you are aware, but I have been married for 43 years, my first and only marriage, and my Mrs is highly religious...I tolerate that, and in fact in some circumstances, encourage her with certain charitable scenarios she undertakes with relation to her church. Why, I even allow her church choir to our place about once every 3 months or so, for choir practice, and while I remove myself during their practice session, I quickly join them later for a bilo or two or three of yaqona [kava] The choir is from the local Fijian community. A cynical person could say I am taking advantage of the situation.😉

The possibility of Earth based abiogenesis and Panspermia may have operated together? But yes, you do have a valid point..The pertinent question though is not "whether life came about and arose through chemical processes" that's a scientific given, but simply which pathway was followed to produce the first life, speaking universally.

I had a similar problem with an esky, and filled up with diluted bleach and left for more then a week. It worked!

In time, possibly. Smallpox for example has been eradicated...Polio also I think.

That which science is trying to model as close as possible. Scientific truth comes about by applying the scientific method, observing and experimenting, and generally is always open for change if need be. That is far different from religious truth. Because the scientific method is based on logic and reason, rather then Iron age legend and myth. It is [science] a discipline in eternal progress. Yes agreed to the first part. The second part is truth "can be" just that as science advances. Generally of course, science gives us great approximations of the truth [Newtonian and GR]...and on other occasions it has revealed and/or stumbled on the truth [The Earth being an oblate spheroid for example...or Pythagoras' theorm]... Other times, it's probably way off, and waiting for further observational/experimental data to arrive closer to this truth or a reasoanble approximation thereof..

Never been to a religious forum, nor a flat Earth forum. Each to there own.😉 I accept that what we obtain in science, through the scientific methodology, is evident enough to accept the current models, knowing that through that same methodology, it should approach closer to the "truth" then anything else. And sometimes our scientific modeling may accidently reveal this truth and/or reality, or at least a good approximation thereof.

Agreed.

Then we are basically in agreement. 😉 Yes, I remember, and perhaps I stated my position more clearly in that thread in about the fourth or fifth post. Yes, agreed, but isn't morality also sometimes shaped by religious ideologies? And doesn't also sometimes religion can even improve that morality...eg: Fijians before the invasion of western culture and Christianity were cannibals. Now their society is near wholly based and driven by religion, and they remain probably the most friendly gregarious race on Earth. And then of course we also have extremism on both sides of the dial, that make that so called moral stance a joke.eg: Trump a great example of one side of that extremism, and sometimes political correctness on the other side, which I won't go into at this time. Good point! and an example of what I see as extremism driven by political agenda, as well as extreme religious agenda, sprinkled with the dust of stupidity. On that dear Sir, you have my total agreement! Along with of course his speaking/teaching manner...cool, calm, collected, and in the most dulcet tones imaginable. The greatest educator of our time. David Attenborough is not that far behind imo. Of course they do! As I believe I have said many times...my only beef with religious people, are generally the fanatics that sometimes infest science forums, arguing/preaching/soapboxing against science and the scientific methodology.

As others have mentioned, FTL travel is never possible. But a "perception" of moving FTL maybe viable by exploiting a loophole in what Einstein's relativity tells us. Nothing with mass can ever travel at or exceed light speed. Light of course has zero mass, as does the space around a proposed FTL space ship. Perhaps a sufficiently advanced civilisation, could create a "bubble" of space around such as ship, whereas then it is the space that is moving at light speed or FTL and not actually the ship. The physics behind Einstein's relativity is that the faster anything with non zero mass goes, the more energy is required to push it. To reach "c" would require an infinite amount...and as Spock would say, an highly illogical concept.

Pretty sure Krauss in one of the other interview Q+A videos, mentions that the seemingly good side of religion, as per the 10 commandments for example, does not have a monopoly on those qualities and ethics, rather that those qualities and ethics are more endowed with science in fact, as science and the scientific method is based on truth and reality, and how democracy would not be able to function without the basis of scientific pronciples and fact, rather then the myth portrayed in a mythical book written by peasents during the Iron age....the very first answer by Krauss in the second video of this thread. At best, it simply puts religion in some "isolated" respects, on a level with science. There is also comments with regards to the term "Atheist", and the pidgeon holing of people with that term, [Atheist] simply because he or she expresses the scientific methodology and the principles of science. Personally I reject that label. Again, I would urge others to take the time to watch the Q+A videos in particular, and the logical succint replies to some of those questions, against real Idiots, as per the first video and Brian Cox and the stupid stupidity he needed to slap down. I see what is generally termed as the "rise of the new Atheist" as jargon by so called critics. An extract from the following seems to support my view on that..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism "In a 2010 column entitled "Why I Don't Believe in the New Atheism", Tom Flynn contends that what has been called "New Atheism" is neither a movement nor new, and that what was new was the publication of atheist material by big-name publishers, read by millions, and appearing on bestseller lists"

Reason being of course is that over smaller scales, gravity decouples us from the larger scale expansion rates, and on even smaller scales [such as planets, stars, you and me] the EMF's and strong and weak nuclear forces overcome expansion.

Latest News: https://phys.org/news/2021-05-china-mars-rover-roaming-red.html In this artist's rendering made available by the China National Space Administration (CNSA) on Saturday, May 22, 2021, China's Zhurong rover is depicted on the surface of Mars. China's first Mars rover has driven down from its landing platform and is now roaming the surface of the red planet, China's space administration said Saturday. Credit: CNSA via AP