God Particle Found, But Does Anyone Care?

[ender516]

I think Arthur C. Clarke once said something like: "If an elder scientist says something is possible, he is almost always right. If he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."

[Woodruff]

For someone so arrogant, I would expect you to understand the basic definition of the term "modern".

You're welcome to keep playing semantics all day, but please do it with someone else.

You seem to be the one doing it, to be honest.

I didn't miss anything. If you don't think the potential interests the military, you don't understand the military. And if they're interested in the potential of the thing, then they are interested in the thing. This is all really very basic.

Good job not responding to the rest of my point and quoting me out of context. I'll repost the whole point for you, since you think ignoring it is the way to go:

I cut out portions of the quote because they didn't later the point. I believe that over-quoting is stupid. However, since you want to play stupid forum-games...

You cannot create antimatter more than one atom at a time, and therefore you will have to make a bomb one atom at a time. It's also extremely expensive to make...as in "holy fucking shit, that costs a ton" expensive. I'll quote the part of wikipedia that you ignored:

A milligram of antimatter will take 100,000 times the annual production rate to produce.(or 100,000 years)[2] It will take billions of years for the current production rate to make an equivalent of current typical hydrogen bombs.[3] For example, an equivalent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb will take half a gram of antimatter, but will take CERN 2 billion years to produce at the current production rate.

Go ahead and tell me that the military is interested in it. The spokesperson mentioned in the article only talked about its potential, a key part that you must've missed.

Again, IF THE MILITARY IS INTERESTED IN IT'S POTENTIAL, THEN IT IS INTERESTED IN IT. It's really quite basic. See, your over-quoting didn't change anything.

I would expect someone so arrogant to have the intelligence necessary to properly quote in a forum. Obviously, I overestimated that.

I didn't say anything that required quoting because I didn't quote anything.

Really? Because you're still not properly attributing the quotes in your statements. Perhaps you don't have the intelligence to go along with your arrogance.

Also, you must've ignored my point again so I'll put it up again for you so you can respond to it:

The "no u" argument fails here.

That's all you're doing. Even worse, you're just re-hashing your previous "no u" statements. This is ridiculous.

I'm telling you this now: dark energy and dark matter are not things that can be weaponized. You're going to disagree, so let me explain why you're wrong:

It's great that you can quote a website about what we do know about these things, but the FACT OF THE MATTER is that we DON'T know that much about them. To make a statement as succinct as "they cannot be weaponized" is stupid beyond belief.

Brilliant! I still don't believe you understand a bit of what you're talking about. I think you go to websites, try to read up on them a little bit, and pretend that you understand it.

You're not much of an armchair detective, are you? Allow me to make a claim of the same level as yours: you're a pink unicorn in a closet that leads to Narnia. Don't get my point? Here it is: baseless assumptions meant as insults only make you appear stupid.

At least I have enough knowledge to understand that fusion can be used in weaponry.

Those weapons are pretty efficient in their purpose, actually.

I thought it was obvoius that I was talking about industrial usage.

I thought it was obvious we were speaking of the military being interested in modern physics.

Because the United States has never done anything that would be considered illegal under the terms of their treaties in order to gain an upper hand. Just saying.

The past is nonindicative of the present or future. Please stop making arguments based on your ignorance.

This may well be the most ignorant thing you've ever said, but it does tie together a lot of your ignorant misconceptions into one broad statement, as follows:

You seem to want to pretend that despite the fact that the United States government has done things illegally in the past, that's not an indication that they MIGHT do something illegal in the future. That's ludicrous, even if you believe completely in the goodwill and loving devotion of the United States government.

You seem to want to pretend that scientific "facts" don't change such that just because we currently don't have a way of using antimatter or dark matter as a weapon, then we never will. Well, that was certainly said about nuclear energy at one point also.

I'm still waiting for you to sound more intelligent instead of more arrogant. Regardless, I'M not the one that is going to be building it. I am quite certain, however, that the military has the ingenuity to do so if they deem it worthwhile.

I'm waiting on you to prove your point, which you have not done. My point is that it is impossible to create an antimatter bomb, and you just can't fucking see it. The frontier of physics has no practical applications because of the very nature of particle physics and saying otherwise just makes you wrong. You're either stupid, you just can't read, or you're trolling me. Regardless of your issue, I suggest that you do some research into the subjects you're trying to discuss with me.

Scientists must be embarrassed to have you around arguing in their favor. You are literally devoid of logical thought. I find it extremely unlikely that an ACTUAL scientist would make the sort of gaffes that you are in this thread.

[Phatscotty]

the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.

[GreecePwns]

What does the media have to do with religion? What incentive does the media have in being anti-religion?

[Phatscotty]

What does the media have to do with religion? What incentive does the media have in being anti-religion?

Do you know of many pro-religion mainstream media outlets?

[GreecePwns]

The media has no incentive to take a staunchy pro or anti religion bias except for reaching out to certain demographics in order to increase ratings. If you're going to insist that "the media" is out to destroy religion, then you've got your head 10 feet in the sand.

Edit: Fox News is very much pro-religion.

[Phatscotty]

The media has no incentive to take a staunchy pro or anti religion bias except for reaching out to certain demographics in order to increase ratings. If you're going to insist that "the media" is out to destroy religion, then you've got your head 10 feet in the sand.

Edit: Fox News is very much pro-religion.

nobody said anything about the media being out to destroy religion. Don't go Woodruff on me man. The closest to that is this one example of the God Particle, which makes up .000001% of all media topic matter.

The mainstream media is secular overall. I don't watch FOX enough to know if they are pumping pro-religion articles or trying to brainwash people into becoming religious, so can you provide a few examples?

[vodean]

ok, this is WAAAAAYYY off topic. but oss, seriously. come on.

at current rates, ya, anti-matter is useless for weaponry. not only are we not making any significant amounts of it, but we cannot control it, because when matter comes into contact with antimatter, they are destroyed, releasing energy.

BUT

in the future, we WILL be able to use anti-matter as a weapon. IF

1. we are able to produce it in large amounts. this is the easy part. ya, we will have to make it one particle at a time, but with 1,000 machines making 1,000 particles 1x per second, thats 1,000,000 particles every second. and thats possible, even today. the reason CERN does not make particles that fast is that

Spoiler

CERN DOES NOT MAKE ANTIMATTER!!!
in fact, CERN only undergoes certain types of controllable particle collisions. only collisions that are well-understood, and therefore easy to monitor.

we could use other particle collisions at other energies to make more antimatter faster.
2. if we use a fundamental force that impacts all matter the same way, such as gravity (see back on topic ), we could contain the antimatter we create, and use it for controlled explosions and weapons, etc. that might be tough, but its possible.



and actually, almost all media is very anti-religion. fox being the exception, yes. but all the others still promote the god particle as a "HA! Bitches, your politics are wrong because you are religious, see?".

and your wording clearly shows that even if you disagree with woodruff, you appreciate his anti-conservative stance

[GreecePwns]

the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.

Destroy was a wrong word, fine. But why would they want to "promote [th]is as a subconscious victory over religion?"

[Woodruff]

the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.

This seems like a patently ludicrous suggestion to me. You really sound like my nutjob cultist sister here.

[Phatscotty]

the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.

Destroy was a wrong word, fine. But why would they want to "promote [th]is as a subconscious victory over religion?"

because the media is secular, and the media is predominantly liberal. I have never said that it was the primary goal, but I believe there is something to my statement.

There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that. anyone who would not take advantage of the subliminal implication that is available with the "god particle" is wasting an opportunity to push their agenda. I know I am not the only one who thought of this.

[Woodruff]

ok, this is WAAAAAYYY off topic. but oss, seriously. come on.

at current rates, ya, anti-matter is useless for weaponry. not only are we not making any significant amounts of it, but we cannot control it, because when matter comes into contact with antimatter, they are destroyed, releasing energy.

BUT

in the future, we WILL be able to use anti-matter as a weapon. IF

1. we are able to produce it in large amounts. this is the easy part. ya, we will have to make it one particle at a time, but with 1,000 machines making 1,000 particles 1x per second, thats 1,000,000 particles every second. and thats possible, even today. the reason CERN does not make particles that fast is that

Spoiler

CERN DOES NOT MAKE ANTIMATTER!!!
in fact, CERN only undergoes certain types of controllable particle collisions. only collisions that are well-understood, and therefore easy to monitor.

we could use other particle collisions at other energies to make more antimatter faster.
2. if we use a fundamental force that impacts all matter the same way, such as gravity (see back on topic ), we could contain the antimatter we create, and use it for controlled explosions and weapons, etc. that might be tough, but its possible.

and actually, almost all media is very anti-religion. fox being the exception, yes. but all the others still promote the god particle as a "HA! Bitches, your politics are wrong because you are religious, see?".

and your wording clearly shows that even if you disagree with woodruff, you appreciate his anti-conservative stance

I'm curious as to what your last sentence means. I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you said, but that last line threw me completely. Where did oss_spy indicate that he appreciated "my anti-conservative stance" and what IS an "anti-conservative stance" regarding the argument that oss_spy and I were having?

I'm not trying to get on you, at all...you just completely lost me with that one line.

[notyou2]

the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.

Destroy was a wrong word, fine. But why would they want to "promote [th]is as a subconscious victory over religion?"

because the media is secular, and the media is predominantly liberal. I have never said that it was the primary goal, but I believe there is something to my statement.

There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that. anyone who would not take advantage of the subliminal implication that is available with the "god particle" is wasting an opportunity to push their agenda. I know I am not the only one who thought of this.

The battle between science and religion has been going on forever, just ask Galileo who was imprisoned by the catholic church, who then apologized 500 years later stating that in fact Galileo was correct.

Science will continually be proven to be right over religion that was written 1200 to 2000 years or more ago.

One domino at a time.

[Woodruff]

There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.

I will deny it. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about religion. Some scientists are religious personally. Some people who are religious have a problem with science, and those few are usually having a problem with it because they believe that science takes away some of their power/influence in using religion.

But there is no battle at all between science and religion, as they are not competing philosophies...they don't intersect. One is based on faith and one is based on verifiability. Any "battle" is taking place only in the mind of the ignorant.

anyone who would not take advantage of the subliminal implication that is available with the "god particle" is wasting an opportunity to push their agenda. I know I am not the only one who thought of this.

There is no subliminal implication there.

[Phatscotty]

There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.

I will deny it.

Well, anyone except Woodruff. I guess he thinks religion and science have been 2 peas in a pod for the last 4 centuries.

[Woodruff]

There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.

I will deny it.

Well, anyone except Woodruff

Which part of my statements do you disagree with? (You know...the parts you snipped.)

[GreecePwns]

There is no battle between science and religion. Atheism and religion, maybe, but not science.

Science says what happens based on observations. It doesn't say how it all came to be outside of what we know through experimentation and theories derived from observation. It doesn't attack religious institutions, religious institutions simply react passionately and blindly to things that can be construed by atheists as disproving their belief.

The religious should stop wasting their time fighting what actually happens, and continue fighting with atheists over what made it happen.

Both religion and atheism are ridiculous. They're attempts to explain something that no one can know at the current moment.

[Army of GOD]

Yea, I would think that scientists themselves are probably the most..."passive"...when it comes to battling religion.

Scientists could care less what everyone believes personally. All they care about is finding the truth of the universe. Or, that's what they should care about, I think.

[patrickaa317]

Yea, I would think that scientists themselves are probably the most..."passive"...when it comes to battling religion.

Scientists could care less what everyone believes personally. All they care about is finding the truth of the universe. Or, that's what they should care about, I think.

That is how it SHOULD be. Unfortunately their results are slightly dependent on who is funding their projects. Obviously there are exceptions to the other way as well so don't assume that I speak of all scientists doing this.

[Phatscotty]

Wasn't there something about the world being flat, and not round....something about the sun revolving around the earth, and not the other way around.....something about the earth being 30,000 years old, and not billions of years?

does anyone admit that there was a battle or conflict between religion and science in the past? and when did it end?

[Woodruff]

Wasn't there something about the world being flat, and not round....something about the sun revolving around the earth, and not the other way around.....something about the earth being 30,000 years old, and not billions of years?

does anyone admit that there was a battle or conflict between religion and science in the past? and when did it end?

Everything that you note in the first part of your post is simply the advancement of science. Some religious people attacked scientists for that. That in no way relates to a battle or conflict between religion and science, rather it relates to those who were using religion as their power base trying to desperately hold onto power by hiding science.

[Maugena]

the uber-secular mainstream media hypes the name god-particle because they want to promote is as a subconscious victory over religion.

Hudurrrrrrrr

Woodruff, stop feeding the troll, plox.

[Maugena]

On a side note, I never really thought of this, but... I suppose Minnesota is like the Texas of the north huh? (Politically speaking.)

[Woodruff]

On a side note, I never really thought of this, but... I suppose Minnesota is like the Texas of the north huh? (Politically speaking.)

I've never thought that, to be honest. I'm not sure there is any state that's particularly comparable to Texas as regards the combination of conservatism, religion and the ability to exert influence.

[BigBallinStalin]

There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.

I will deny it. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about religion. Some scientists are religious personally. Some people who are religious have a problem with science, and those few are usually having a problem with it because they believe that science takes away some of their power/influence in using religion.

But there is no battle at all between science and religion, as they are not competing philosophies...they don't intersect. One is based on faith and one is based on verifiability. Any "battle" is taking place only in the mind of the ignorant.

There's a science v. religious (Christian predominantly) "battle" on the issue of stem cell research.