Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Particle Accelerator Moral Issues
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12216
Page 2 of 2

Author:  extremejon09 [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Reminds me of Half-Life.

But seriously, if there's a chance that we something we could do might possibly cause the destruction of all known life in existence, no matter how small that chance is, I don't think we should go through with it.

Author:  ChickenLeg [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

extremejon09 wrote:
Reminds me of Half-Life.

But seriously, if there's a chance that we something we could do might possibly cause the destruction of all known life in existence, no matter how small that chance is, I don't think we should go through with it.


The chances of killing everything on Earth are greater than winning the Powerball 5 times in a row. Or 2.

Still, it's pretty unlikely. Besides, at least everyone will die of the same thing if it does happen.

Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

You're justifying death by saying we'll all die the same way!?!

HERESY!

I seriously don't care if some idiot wants to make a thing that might create a black hole, he can just do it in some other galaxy far, far away.

Author:  ChickenLeg [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wesstarrunner wrote:
You're justifying death by saying we'll all die the same way!?!

HERESY!

I seriously don't care if some idiot wants to make a thing that might create a black hole, he can just do it in some other galaxy far, far away.


Just not near the Cantina band. Or anywhere nesr the Star Wars universe for that matter.

I choose this guy's planetary system, for obvious reasons:

Image

Edit by furrykef: Hinting at swearing is still not allowed. Sorry, buddy.

Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

He's dang ugly.

Author:  furrykef [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

The question is if the gain is much greater than the risk.

Suppose I'm playing Russian Roulette, and the gun's cylinder has one million chambers and one bullet in it. If I pull the trigger, I win a million dollars. If I pull the trigger again -- without spinning the cylinder first -- I win another million dollars, and so on. Would you do it? I certainly would. I'd probably pull the trigger at least a hundred times. To me, that reward would be worth the risk, since even after a hundred trigger pulls, the risk would be so miniscule, and you can do a lot with 100 million dollars. Even if the impossible happened and I got the bullet, the odds were still well on my side, so I'd be content knowing that. I'm a gambler at heart... it's what I do.

I guess when you're talking about black holes, though, you're talking about not only your own life but everybody else's, and not everybody would be willing to accept the same level of risk, particularly considering we don't know that it's a one-in-a-million chance of destruction.

That said, I'm definitely in favor the accelerator, but I think concerns like this might have more weight than we might think at first... remember, we did harness the power of nuclear fission and fusion, processes that this planet has never seen before. It doesn't seem impossible that we'll try to do something that happens to go beyond our control.

- Kef

Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:28 am ]
Post subject: 

The argument in the first post is mad only by those who have no idea how black holes work. A black hole doesn't magically suck things up. It does it the same way Earth does, through gravitational pull. And that's due to mass. So what if they make a "mini black hole"? It'll have such a minuscule mass that it wouldn't be able to do anything.

Author:  Didymus [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:37 am ]
Post subject: 

That's pretty much what I was saying.

Basically, people seem to be panicking over the term "black hole" anyway. And their understanding of a "black hole" is from what they see in sci fi movies. But those phenomena result from huge amounts of mass, say, from a blue giant star, being compressed into a singularity. Of course the gravitation from such an object would be extremely powerful!

Technically speaking, the type of phenomenon created with a particle accelerator in a lab shouldn't be called a "black hole", but simply a singularity. Unless they could somehow cram the mass of a blue giant into that singularity, there's no way it could form a true black hole. But then again, if we were that close to the mass of a blue giant, we'd be crushed by its gravity anyway, even if it weren't compacted into a singularity.

Author:  Shwoo [ Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Dewy wrote:
Shwoo wrote:


That all sounded like paranoid rambling to me.

He's speaking hypothetically.

Author:  Acekirby [ Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ju Ju Master wrote:
The argument in the first post is mad only by those who have no idea how black holes work. A black hole doesn't magically suck things up. It does it the same way Earth does, through gravitational pull. And that's due to mass. So what if they make a "mini black hole"? It'll have such a minuscule mass that it wouldn't be able to do anything.


"Mini black hole" that wouldn't destroy anything, you say?

Image

I approve.

Author:  ChickenLeg [ Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Acekirby wrote:
Ju Ju Master wrote:
The argument in the first post is mad only by those who have no idea how black holes work. A black hole doesn't magically suck things up. It does it the same way Earth does, through gravitational pull. And that's due to mass. So what if they make a "mini black hole"? It'll have such a minuscule mass that it wouldn't be able to do anything.


"Mini black hole" that wouldn't destroy anything, you say?

Image

I approve.


Oh God, I lawled.

Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Image
Do I look like silent death?

Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:48 am ]
Post subject: 

No, you look like a carnival ride. Lol.

Author:  furrykef [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:52 am ]
Post subject: 

You all look like you need some toastpaint.

Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Since we're on the topic of how to approach science that "might destroy all life as we know it", I think I should bring up this point. The men working on the Manhattan Project literally had no clue on what would happen if an atomic device were to go off. Yeah they were still working on it, but they honestly didn't know what would happen when they were done.

Fun fact: at the Trinity Test, the scientists were taking bets right before the test based on when they figured the atmosphere would catch on fire, and different mile radii that would span, ranging from less than a mile to covering the earth.

Obviously the world didn't asplode and we have the nuclear bomb, but also nuclear power and all those loverly deals. It just goes to show that we have been willing before to take some massive risks in hopes of a high payoff in the future.

Author:  Simon Zeno [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:32 am ]
Post subject: 

I bet each and every one of you a billion dollars that the LHC doesn't destroy the universe.

oh that zeno, always with the jokes. somebody shut him up.

Author:  furrykef [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:48 am ]
Post subject: 

Capt. Ido Nos wrote:
Since we're on the topic of how to approach science that "might destroy all life as we know it", I think I should bring up this point. The men working on the Manhattan Project literally had no clue on what would happen if an atomic device were to go off. Yeah they were still working on it, but they honestly didn't know what would happen when they were done.


I don't know about that. They had already witnessed small-scale nuclear reactions before they dropped the bomb at the test site, and no doubt they gathered data from that and figured out exactly how conclusions should be drawn from that data. They had to build a nuclear reactor before they built a nuclear bomb, but they didn't just rush into that, either... they had to build that on previous research as well.

BTW, the book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! has some anecdotes about designing the atomic bomb, as the author, Richard Feynman, was one of the scientists involved. It doesn't go into details about how it all worked or anything, since the book was simply an amusing autobiography, but a lot of it's interesting (and often funny).

- Kef

Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

furrykef wrote:
I don't know about that. They had already witnessed small-scale nuclear reactions before they dropped the bomb at the test site, and no doubt they gathered data from that and figured out exactly how conclusions should be drawn from that data. They had to build a nuclear reactor before they built a nuclear bomb, but they didn't just rush into that, either... they had to build that on previous research as well.

Granted. That's a good point to bring up. Yes, they did know about nuclear reactions, as well as various amounts of previous data in that budding field concerning rates, radiation, half lifes, and whatnot. What I was getting at, though, was that they did not know what would happen with a nuclear explosion. One of those hadn't happened before, the Trinity bomb was the first, hence there wasn't much of a past to base it on, aside reactions, of course, but not any other explosions, per say. But I digress. Black holes, black holes, black holes!

Author:  Duecex2 [ Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

What's a partical accelerator? Seriously, I don't know and wikipedia has too many fi' dolla words.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/