backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 202 comment(s) - last by typo101.. on Oct 8 at 4:23 AM


The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will go online next week, unlocking the universe's great mysteries. Many are fearful it might create a disaster. According to the world's top scientists these fears are not justified.  (Source: EPA)
Despite death threats, fears, and anger among some people worldwide, the LHC's scientists plan to continue with its opening undeterred

The $8B USD Large Hadron Collider will go online next week, becoming the world's most powerful particle accelerator.  It promises answer to some of the universe's most elusive questions.  Among these is the nature of the legendary Higgs boson, a particle long theorized but never observed, which is thought to determine how much things weigh.  The collider, which consists of 7 TeV proton beams harnessed by electromagnets to collide within a 27 km (17 mi) circular tunnel, is expected to unlock many other mysteries such as the differences between matter and antimatter.

However, despite its great promise, many people worldwide have protested the construction of the particle accelerator, believing it could end the world.  Many are fearful that the collider could spawn black holes, which they worry could devour the Earth.  The creators of the LHC, some of the world's foremost scientists, say such concerns are unfounded and convey a lack of understanding about the project.

According to Professor Brian Cox of Manchester University, the public animosity is so severe that American Nobel prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has received death threats.  Professor Cox, typically sedate, adds irritatingly, "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t---. "

James Gillies, the LHC head of public relations says he's gotten calls from people literally sobbing and asking him to halt the project.  He states, "They phone me and say: ‘I am seriously worried. Please tell me that my children are safe.’"

While some merely beg Mr. Gillies to convince them that the world is not going to end when the LHC is turned on, he says other take a angrier stance.  He states, "There are a number who say: 'You are evil and dangerous and you are going to destroy the world.'  I find myself getting slightly angry, not because people are getting in touch but the fact they have been driven to do that by what is nonsense. What we are doing is enriching humanity, not putting it at risk."

There have also been numerous legal attempts to thwart construction, none of which have succeeded.  Doomsday predictors argue that there is a small but serious chance the LHC will breed a cataclysm that could kill the world.  Since 1994, when the project was first envisioned, they have fought it.  They frequently quote Our Final Century?: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? - written by Lord Rees, astronomer royal and president of the Royal Society  The only problem is that Lord Rees says his book is not being quoted accurately, stating, "My book has been misquoted in one or two places.  I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study."

Scientists have patiently explained to those concerned many times that the most recent research shows that cosmic rays hitting the Earth daily have more powerful particle collisions than the LHC would.  Thus the added danger of the collider is negligible according to an updated 2003 study from the LHC Safety Assessment Group.  It dispels worries that the reactor might create a deadly black hole.  It concludes, "Nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth - and the planet still exists."

While the reactor could produce black holes, according to physicists, they would be tiny and would not be capable of growing.  The study states, "Each collision of a pair of protons in the LHC will release an amount of energy comparable to that of two colliding mosquitoes, so any black hole produced would be much smaller than those known to astrophysicists."

Further, the LHC will be incapable of producing possibly dangerous strangelets, based on experimental information gathered at the Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider, New York.

However, despite the world's top scientists confident in the system's safety, and the news media constantly seeking to sooth public concerns on the topic, many still remain vocally opposed to the project.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 10:12:00 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Many are fearful that the collider could spawn black holes, which they worry could devour the Earth
The hadron collider will generate micro black holes, perhaps as many as one a second. But calculations show these will evaporate in an unimaginably short period of time.

In all candor, those calculations *could* be wrong, and the black holes could persist. Even still, the amount of time they would take to "eat up" the Earth would be measured in the tens of millions of years. You have to propose silly extralinear effects to get any sort of real-time risk.

So there is a risk. About as likely as everyone in the US being simultaneously struck by lighting -- all 300,000,000 of us at once. I'm not losing any sleep over either scenario.

From a historical perspective, this isn't the first time we've taken such a chance. Before the "Trinity" H-Bomb test, some people worried the ultra-high temperatures and pressures wouldn't simply stop with the fuel in the bomb itself, but ignite the entire Earth into a mini star.

Quite obviously, they were wrong there as well.




RE: Slight correction
By DrKlahn on 9/8/2008 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 5
If they employ a Mr. Gordon Freeman at the facility then we've got something to worry about!


RE: Slight correction
By MrWho on 9/8/2008 11:47:34 AM , Rating: 3
So the so-called "resonance cascade" could be, in fact, caused just by two colliding particles in a particle accelerator?

Cool! But if that's so - who's real-life Doctor Breen?

And boy oh boy, do I want to meet Alyx! :p


RE: Slight correction
By DEVGRU on 9/10/2008 10:21:14 AM , Rating: 4
F*** Alyx, I want to meet DOG!


RE: Slight correction
By shin0bi272 on 9/11/2008 8:55:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
F*** Alyx,


exactly!


RE: Slight correction
By WTFiSJuiCE on 9/11/2008 5:24:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Cool! But if that's so - who's real-life Doctor Breen?


I don't know, but for some reason I think he'll have Dick Cheney's face.


RE: Slight correction
By MrPoletski on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Slight correction
By realneil on 9/8/2008 5:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ha-Ha! Maybe he really could save us all,.......


RE: Slight correction
By plinkplonk on 9/8/2008 6:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
correction, we have nothing to worry about if gordon's on the job, using his crowbar he'll take down those black holes immediately!


RE: Slight correction
By bubba551 on 9/9/2008 2:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
maybe the whole world will end in 60 seconds.

Blah, blah, blah, Mr. Freeman


RE: Slight correction
By Fleeb on 9/15/2008 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Slight correction
By kayronjm on 9/8/2008 10:40:42 AM , Rating: 5
Ditto. Even these days, some people's level of stupidity is stunning.


RE: Slight correction
By SiN on 9/8/2008 6:06:24 PM , Rating: 5
hello!


RE: Slight correction
By kayronjm on 9/9/2008 9:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
Hello to you too, hahaha.


RE: Slight correction
By nah on 9/8/2008 10:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
show these will evaporate in an unimaginably short period of time.


Just exactly how do black holes 'evaporate ' ? Do they also exhibit this behaviour in outer space, and if so at what rate ? Also what is the ' unimaginably short period of time ' it will take for them to do so--a picosecond,a femtosecond ?


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 5
> "Just exactly how do black holes 'evaporate '"

Hawking Radiation. In fact, if the LHC proves this, Stephen Hawking will probably finally get his Nobel.

The speed at which a black hole evaporates is inversely proportional to its mass. Macroscopic black holes trap mass much faster than they lose it from radiation, and thus persist. Quantum-size black holes (the ones from the LHC will be much smaller than even a proton) will evaporate on the order of a femtosecond.


RE: Slight correction
By nah on 9/8/2008 11:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hawking Radiation. In fact, if the LHC proves this, Stephen Hawking will probably finally get his Nobel.


So it's not proven yet-


RE: Slight correction
By s12033722 on 9/8/2008 12:32:47 PM , Rating: 5
The same theory which posits the creation of black holes also predicts evaporation due to Hawking Radiation. Thus, if you choose to be worried about black hole formation, you also have to accept the fact that they will evaporate. If you dispute that they will evaporate, no problem, because if that's true then they won't be formed in the first place. Either way, much ado about nothing.


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 1:43:02 PM , Rating: 5
That's not quite correct. Chandrasekhar initially proposed the theory of singularities long before anyone considered the possibility they might radiate. We have experimental evidence for black holes, but none for Hawking radiation. There is certainly the slim possibility that Hawking was wrong, and black holes can exist but not radiate.


RE: Slight correction
By GolaGuy on 9/8/2008 2:24:38 PM , Rating: 5
I find your lack of faith... disturbing.


RE: Slight correction
By kondor999 on 9/12/2008 10:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
LMAO. I love it.


RE: Slight correction
By Parhel on 9/12/2008 10:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chandrasekhar initially proposed the theory of singularities long before anyone considered the possibility they might radiate.


Possibly his greatest work after Super Troopers.


RE: Slight correction
By brphysics on 9/8/2008 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone interested in this topic should read "The Black Hole War: My Battle to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" by Leonard Susskind. He discusses in detail the mechanics of black hole formation and evaporation in a way that is understandable by the amateur physicists. It is available at audible.com also.


RE: Slight correction
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 1:15:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In fact, if the LHC proves this, Stephen Hawking will probably finally get his Nobel.


No he won't. Al Gore will hop in, claim to have supported it all along, make a crappy movie about how black holes are the source of our doom, and steal it from him.


RE: Slight correction
By GolaGuy on 9/8/2008 2:18:13 PM , Rating: 5
Brilliant!!!!! We are all doomed... (Does that mean I still have to pay my credit card bill?????)


RE: Slight correction
By 67STANG on 9/8/2008 3:00:35 PM , Rating: 5
Don't be silly.. he'll say in invented the LHC.


RE: Slight correction
By ZmaxDP on 9/8/2008 3:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Here here - now THAT is funny...


RE: Slight correction
By JonnyDough on 9/10/2008 3:07:20 AM , Rating: 5
Great, we could have a 3fer! (a 3 fer one)

Put Al Gore, ManBearPig, and filter the carbon in our atmosphere into the black holes to fill them up and walla. No more problems!

I might also add the presidential candidates, Britney Spears, Oprah, Hugh Jackman (actually I like him as Wolverine) and my Toshiba HD-DVD player which doesn't seem to be getting any more firmware updates to fix the freeze ups when I watch DVDs(provided I get a refund).

The list could also include but is not limited to: NVidia drivers, ball point pens, bearded women, the current U.S Patent System, cancers of various types, privatized banking, the health care system, taxation, the 911 commission, just about all EPA plans for biofuels, and of course, Chinese censorship of the Olympics. Did I miss anything?


RE: Slight correction
By typo101 on 9/13/2008 2:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, did you just say "walla" instead of "viola"? Do you also happen to eat "freedom" fries?


RE: Slight correction
By MamiyaOtaru on 9/15/2008 2:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
What does an oversize violin have to do with any of this?


RE: Slight correction
By typo101 on 10/8/2008 4:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
AHAHA I just noticed this today! I didn't choose this username for no reason, as you can tell.


RE: Slight correction
By JonnyDough on 9/10/2008 3:09:33 AM , Rating: 5
Great, we could have a 3fer! (a 3 fer one)

Put Al Gore, ManBearPig, and filter the carbon in our atmosphere into the black holes to fill them up and walla. No more problems!

I might also add the presidential candidates, Britney Spears, Oprah, Hugh Jackman (actually I like him as Wolverine) and my Toshiba HD-DVD player which doesn't seem to be getting any more firmware updates to fix the freeze ups when I watch DVDs(provided I get a refund).

The list could also include but is not limited to: NVidia drivers, ball point pens, bearded women, the current U.S Patent System, cancers of various types, privatized banking, the health care system, taxation, the 911 commission, just about all EPA plans for biofuels, and of course, Chinese censorship of the Olympics. Did I miss anything?


RE: Slight correction
By mod8843 on 9/8/2008 5:37:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Hawking Radiation. In fact, if the LHC proves this, Stephen Hawking will probably finally get his Nobel.


So, in the best case, Stephen Hawking gets his Nobel. In the worst case, Earth goes to hell. Sounds like a good deal for everyone!


RE: Slight correction
By nvalhalla on 9/8/2008 10:52:42 AM , Rating: 1
Ah, but this is only the beginning. First it was the atomic bomb, then the H bomb, now the LHC. Mankind's thirst for power knows no end and soon they will develop the Solanite bomb, exploding the sun and destroying the universe.

You're stupid, stupid!


RE: Slight correction
By Obujuwami on 9/8/2008 3:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Wait....was that....Judges ruling...

I think that was sarcasm! *GASP*


RE: Slight correction
By nvalhalla on 9/8/2008 6:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Go ahead, rate me down. We are all worried about what will happen in the future, for that is where will spend the rest of our lives. Future events such as these will effect you, in the future!


RE: Slight correction
By tehbiz on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Slight correction
By nvalhalla on 9/8/2008 11:01:30 PM , Rating: 5
No one likes my "Plan 9" references? I thought they were fitting...


RE: Slight correction
By TheKoz on 9/9/2008 4:22:11 AM , Rating: 2
I was damn impressed personally. You can't knock a classic.


RE: Slight correction
By quickk on 9/8/2008 12:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
The LHC won't produce micro black holes. The required energy is much larger than what can be attained in the LHC. To produce micro black holes at LHC energies requires the existence of extra spatial dimensions (which are purely theoretical at this point).


RE: Slight correction
By GolaGuy on 9/8/2008 2:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, someone based in reality.... If we could harness that kind of power, we would all be driving flying cars and living like the Jetsons....


RE: Slight correction
By MrPoletski on 9/8/2008 4:00:20 PM , Rating: 3
My car flies (when I meet hump backed bridges)


RE: Slight correction
By Josett on 9/8/2008 6:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it also depends on the number of extra [spatial] dimensions.

I'd urge anyone interested on this matter to have a look at this paper, first:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0954-3899/35/11/1150...


RE: Slight correction
By Shadowself on 9/8/2008 1:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
Masher... it's all statistics. That's the fallback of quantum mechanics. Therefore you cannot accurately say that the LHC will create micro black holes. The statistics calculations indicate a very high likelihood of micro black holes that have a very high likelihood of lasting an extremely small fraction of a second. The same statistics shows that there is an extremely small likelihood of a macro black hole being created that has an extremely small likelihood of lasting for an easily measurable time -- but it is still non zero.


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
True enough.


RE: Slight correction
By DarthKaos on 9/8/2008 2:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think the weirdest thing that could happen would be if micro black holes were produced that did not evaporate. Instead they would be stuck within Earths orbit going back and forth through the planet turning it into Swiss cheese killing random people and animals until it finally did evaporate.


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 2:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly the plot of Hogan's 1979 novel "The Two Faces of Tomorrow".


RE: Slight correction
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/8/2008 5:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
I have heard this theory before, that any black hole created would some how remain in place earth would continue on its orbital path without it. Why would you not assume that gravitational forces wouldn't just give it the same trajectory as anything else on the earth?

If you do suggest that it would just "sit" in our orbital path, wouldnt this be contradictory to the idea that the universe is expanding, and that our galaxy and position in it is also constantly changing?


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 6:37:36 PM , Rating: 3
No one is suggesting the black hole would just "sit there". It would be subject to the same gravitational forces as any other object. The difference is that, once pulled to the earth, it wouldn't stop at the surface, but continue on down to the core, accelerating all the way. Once there, it would continue onward, converting its kinetic energy into potential, until it reached the same height it started at.

So in effect, it would be "orbiting" inside the earth, occasionally passing just outside it.


RE: Slight correction
By Ralos on 9/8/2008 3:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
What is the minimal mass (or, how many particles) does it takes to be called a black hole, all other conditions satisfied?


RE: Slight correction
By AnnihilatorX on 9/9/2008 10:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
A black hole is defined to be a collection of matter or energy that exhibits extreme gravity effects that even light particles (photons) cannot escape the event horizon.

I do not know quantitatively though.


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 11:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "What is the minimal mass (or, how many particles) does it takes to be called a black hole, all other conditions satisfied? "

A black hole is driven more by density than by mass-- it has to have a high enough density to create an event horizon. However, very small black holes evaporate much faster than they accrete mass, and are thus temporary.

The smallest possible black hole would be one with a radius of one Planck length, a unit thought to be the smallest possible length of anything in the universe. Interestingly enough, the Planck length is itself derived from the concept of black holes...any object smaller than the Planck length could only be measured with particles with a wavelength so small (and thus an energy so high) that they would themselves instantly collapse into black holes themselves.

For a permanent black hole generated by the collapse of a star, I believe the minimum mass is about twice the mass of our sun.


RE: Slight correction
By JoeBanana on 9/9/2008 4:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it's non-zero. But think of it differently. There is also a chance that all inhabitants of US get struck by a lightning but you don't see anyone worrying about that.


RE: Slight correction
By GolaGuy on 9/8/2008 2:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
Are you kidding?!?!?!? Is it not typical of mankind to believe our minuscule actions on this planet could have such far reaching consequences. (Unless you count "global warming", which is another discussion...) Perhaps it is more ego on mankind's part to believe that we as species could harness such power as to create a "black hole". I, for one, seriously doubt it. We are yet to cure the common cold. Hell, we can't even get Americans to vote. For anyone to believe we could make a "black hole" to swallow the Earth, has been watching too much Star Trek... (Now go back to playing your video games...) I needed that laugh.


RE: Slight correction
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 12:12:33 AM , Rating: 3
Mankind is a funny thing. We are very akin to wishful thinking.

On one hand, we think that we can do no harm to earth. Yet here we are wondering if global warming is real and if we caused it. We made an island disappear with a hydrogen bomb. We've created deserts with deforrestation. We've helped animals become extinct and changed entire ecosystems with the introduction of foriegn species.

On the other hand, we believe that we have the ability to cause mass destruction, yet the universe will exist in chaos without time just as it always has.

Somehow though, I can't forget the lesson of the guy that discovered gunpowder. Upon his discovery he was blown to bits...


RE: Slight correction
By Xavitar on 9/13/2008 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mankind is a funny thing. We are very akin to wishful thinking.

Statements such as this are akin to jibba jabba.


RE: Slight correction
By SlyNine on 9/11/2008 2:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
Go back to 100BC with your video games and you would be burnt for being a witch, or celebrated as a god.

You're arrogant for thinking your can, ignorant for thinking you cannot. But take a look around your modern world, communicating with people on the other side of the planet instantly, landing on the moon.

My problem is, they have colliders already, just at a smaller scale. Is their something about the size of this one that makes it different somehow. Does it have to do with trying to collapse the Hex field in to a piratical?


RE: Slight correction
By jay401 on 9/8/2008 3:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
So if you create a black hole, right, but it's really really small but also persisting, what would happen if you wave your hand through it?
THAT is the kind of science that would interest me.


RE: Slight correction
By JonnyDough on 9/10/2008 11:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure you didn't wave your head through a black hole?


RE: Slight correction
By Josett on 9/8/2008 3:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The hadron collider will generate micro black holes, perhaps as many as one a second.


Could you back it up with some data, please?

Thanks.


RE: Slight correction
By JTankers on 9/9/2008 9:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hawking Radiation has been debunked.

Physicists who re-examined Hawking Radiation in the last decade determined that micro black holes do not evaporate. Their papers conclude:

"black holes do not radiate"[1]
"the effect [Hawking Radiation] does not exist."[2]
"infinitely delayed Hawking radiation" [3]

Dr. Rössler, a physicist famous for invention of Chaos theory's Rössler Attractor and for founding Endophysics, calculates exponential micro black hole growth (years or decades to consume the planet).[3]

If the Large Hadron Collider WILL create micro black holes, then the odds of danger might be... possibly... a probability?

[1] xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Do black holes radiate?. Prof. Dr. Adam Helfer (2003)

[2] arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137, On the existence of black hole evaporationyet again, Prof. VA Belinski (2006)

[3] www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINI BLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto Rössler (2008)


RE: Slight correction
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 11:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
A. Hawking radiation hasn't been "debunked".

B. Rossler isn't a physicist. You can call him a biochemist, an "interdisciplinarian" or, somewhat less kindly, a fruitcake.

C. His 'fame', such as it is, derives from his opposition to the LHC, not from any outstanding contribution to academia.


RE: Slight correction
By croc on 9/10/2008 12:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
One assumes you have the data to back up the claim of 'will generate black holes'?

As to the Trinity explosion, as I recall most of the scientists felt it was a risk, but a small one. Some of the scientists felt that the risk was quite large. End result? Physics theory was advanced another step.

The LHC is in the same class of un-knowable theory. Once it is actually used, we'll know more, and probably with no disasterous consequences.


Another fun game?
By Fnoob on 9/8/2008 9:53:33 AM , Rating: 4
Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t---. (sic)"

Fill in the blank :

turd? total dumbass? tripped out tree hugger?

WTF did he really mean?




RE: Another fun game?
By dreddly on 9/8/2008 10:00:24 AM , Rating: 5
twat


RE: Another fun game?
By burritocream on 9/8/2008 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
Taint


RE: Another fun game?
By mezman on 9/8/2008 3:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
Probably was twat. 'Twat' is a very English term of derision.


RE: Another fun game?
By icanhascpu on 9/8/2008 5:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking "twit" but i like yours better.


RE: Another fun game?
By nugundam93 on 9/9/2008 6:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
i like "twat" better.

oh wait, that didn't sound right. o_0

LOL!


RE: Another fun game?
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 12:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
All of the above posts show the intellect of the young children that post here on DT. Those that aren't kids, are likely lame old men who failed to have a family life but dedicated their life to meaningless careers.

Grow up.


RE: Another fun game?
By Spuke on 9/11/2008 4:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
You associate with these children and lame old guys by participating in these threads. Pot, meet kettle.


RE: Another fun game?
By JonnyDough on 9/15/2008 2:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, you replied to me. What does that make you? T-Bagged? The "Pot, meet kettle" thing is so overused on these forums. Give it a rest. It wasn't that witty in the first place, and it's older than the gold rush. Were you one of the above posters? I'm not going to check and don't bother responding. You associate me with one of these people that care about the morons on the net. But you see, I don't care. Idiot, meet ANYONE.


RE: Another fun game?
By papabear27 on 9/8/2008 10:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking "twit" myself. I guess this is a good time to make my peace and prepare for the end.


RE: Another fun game?
By SlipDizzy on 9/8/2008 10:47:59 AM , Rating: 5
I'm kind of hoping they create some sort of black hole that will eventually suck in the entire planet but at some insanely slow rate... maybe like 10,000 years. I think that would definitely speed up space travel and it would be cool to throw stuff in the black hole. It'll be like a tourist attraction!


RE: Another fun game?
By BZDTemp on 9/8/2008 11:56:22 AM , Rating: 5
LOL It would certainly solve some waste problems.

Talk about THE place to get rid of nuclear waste, political opponents, ex-wifes, Florida ballots, ET-cartridges, red ring 360's, Hummer's, the other sock/glowe, WMD and it's the perfect place you lost your home work.


RE: Another fun game?
By dlr on 9/8/2008 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
If it landed in your belly button maybe it would keep the lint out.


RE: Another fun game?
By JediJeb on 9/9/2008 2:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm just think of the weight loss possibilities of it being in your belly button.


RE: Another fun game?
By TechLuster on 9/9/2008 5:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is my favorite post in DT history.


RE: Another fun game?
By blppt on 9/9/2008 8:06:05 AM , Rating: 3
"...and it would be cool to throw stuff in the black hole. It'll be like a tourist attraction!... "

ROTFLMAO! Thats the funniest thing I've read this week....

Hey, maybe this black hole will solve our waste problems....we can just line up the dump trucks and dump our used condoms and such into some other dimension. Take that, interdimensional SUCKERS!!!!


RE: Another fun game?
By tobba on 9/9/2008 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. And maybe that ll even make earth interesting for aliens... they´ll be like:

"Hey, lets's go to Earth, I heard they have a black hole!"

"Seriously? Sure... But isn't that one of those backwater planets? They'll probably bother us with lot's of questions about our technology and stuff.."

"Yeah, but they have a BLACK HOLE!"

"Oh... all right."

:P


RE: Another fun game?
By TeXWiller on 9/10/2008 10:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and it would be cool to throw stuff in the black hole. It'll be like a tourist attraction!

Sorry, there would be a sing "Please Don't Feed The Hole!"


RE: Another fun game?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 4
And why did Jason improperly use "sic" for a word that was editorially disguised?


RE: Another fun game?
By amanojaku on 9/8/2008 10:14:27 AM , Rating: 5
Because he's a t---?

Sorry, Jason, but a setup is a setup. :-)


RE: Another fun game?
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/8/2008 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 3
You're right, I am "a tall (guy)."

But I'm not "a thug " ;)


RE: Another fun game?
By KaiserCSS on 9/8/2008 11:51:52 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but that was just terrible. I would recommend sticking with articles. Come to think of it, those aren't very good either.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. :/


RE: Another fun game?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 1:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
<sigh> Yet here you are, reading and commenting on his article.

Sometimes I think more people that complain about Jason read his articles than those who do not..


RE: Another fun game?
By amanojaku on 9/8/2008 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. :/


Is that what she said?


RE: Another fun game?
By oTAL (blog) on 9/8/2008 10:08:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t---.

tool!


RE: Another fun game?
By MrPoletski on 9/8/2008 6:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
lemme just say it, TOTAL RETARD.


RE: Another fun game?
By kellnertd on 9/8/2008 11:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
I bet they spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express......


RE: Another fun game?
By NaSnake on 9/8/2008 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna have to say tool.


RE: Another fun game?
By Shadeydave on 9/8/2008 11:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking "tard"... but that's not very Euro.


RE: Another fun game?
By sk8josh on 9/8/2008 12:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say 'Tard'

why would they censor 'twit'?


RE: Another fun game?
By TylerMalone on 9/8/2008 12:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Come on now people!!! get your minds in the gutter!

T W A T

Defined as he meant : a fathead, a man who is a stupid incompetent fool

Censored for alternate definition: *unt, obscene terms for female genitals Sounds like "kunt"


RE: Another fun game?
By rklaver on 9/10/2008 12:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
Tard!


Bible Thumpers and Chicken Littles
By amanojaku on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bible Thumpers and Chicken Littles
By AntiM on 9/8/2008 10:22:05 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, probably the same people that thought the world would end with the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1. If if were possible for the world to be destroyed as a result of the collision of a few subatomic particles, it would probably have been destroyed a few billion years ago.


RE: Bible Thumpers and Chicken Littles
By porkpie on 9/8/2008 10:43:17 AM , Rating: 4
"bible thumpers"? At my office the only guy complaining about the collider is a left-wing enviro-nut. He's got the idea its going to generate radiation or be used to build bigger nuclear bombs or something like that. I can't make heads or tails out of what he says normally.