Large Hardon Collider

[foopy]

Everyone (and by "everyone" I mean "Psion") seems to be ignoring the fact that I did in fact try to explain this to Max in previous threads. As I pointed out earlier, this is an old argument that he just decided to bring up again. I did everything you're saying a good scientist should do. I explained my points in detail, just like you wanted. Max has already posted tons of evidence to support my point, so it doesn't even make sense for me to post it since it's already there. What more do you want from me? Do you want me to go back and copy/paste all my old arguments? Every time he brings this up, I'm obligated to repeat myself over and over again? Just because you're too lazy to go back and read them doesn't mean they don't exist. Max already posted a link to the thread, you just haven't bothered reading it.

If a scientist had to repeat themselves every time someone brought up an old argument they've already had, scientists would be too busy telling us over and over again that dinosaurs existed to actually get some real work done. Go find a scientist and tell him the Earth is flat. I guarantee that he wont argue with you long. And if he does, come back a year later and I bet he wont argue with you a second time. He'll just tell you to go read a book/look it up yourself/jump off a bridge/etc.

(just saying, some scientist do have to repeat themselves over and over. to creationist in particular.)

[Woozie]

MaxTeem absolutely does not give a shit about the facts and is hardset on pushing either his crank agenda, misinformation, or hell, usually a mix of both.

And here's something else you need to consider, Psion. I've been dealing with Max for years and he really doesn't want to learn at all. If you've been reading BG for a while and have seen my posts, you know that I'm more than willing to explain anything anyone asks in as much detail as I can. Things are different when it comes to Max because of the way he is. To go back to my analogy, let's say you've already argued with that same professor many times before over other things where you clearly didn't know your stuff and have proven that you are not willing to learn. He'd have a lot less patience with you when you came in claiming the world was flat. That same professor would be much more willing to deal with other students, but he'd be tired of you in particular.

[Woozie]

(just saying, some scientist do have to repeat themselves over and over. to creationist in particular.)

I guess you're right. My statement was incorrect. But I'm sure you don't hold it against those scientist who choose not to argue these things, especially if they've already argued it before. And especially if the person in particular that they're arguing with is known to be very stubborn (like a WBC member).

[Yugl]

And here's something else you need to consider, Psion. I've been dealing with Max for years and he really doesn't want to learn at all. If you've been reading BG for a while and have seen my posts, you know that I'm more than willing to explain anything anyone asks in as much detail as I can. Things are different when it comes to Max because of the way he is. To go back to my analogy, let's say you've already argued with that same professor many times before over other things where you clearly didn't know your stuff and have proven that you are not willing to learn. He'd have a lot less patience with you when you came in claiming the world was flat. That same professor would be much more willing to deal with other students, but he'd be tired of you in particular.

Apparently, most teachers are bad though.

[foopy]

I guess you're right. My statement was incorrect. But I'm sure you don't hold it against those scientist who choose not to argue these things, especially if they've already argued it before. And especially if the person in particular that they're arguing with is known to be very stubborn (like a WBC member).

lol, i wasn't trying to pin a "gotcha" moment on you. i just immediately thought of poor old dr. dawkins when i read your post.

your current approach is the more productive thing to do. try to educate, but move on when confronted with stubborn idiocy, and apply your time more important things. like the hexagon on saturn!

[Kaylia]

Max's problem, in my opinion, is that he never admits when he's wrong. At least, not that I can ever remember. If you can't admit you are wrong about something, you aren't very likely to learn from it and become better at it. This is where the lack of any higher education hurts him, he doesn't have a teacher to grade him on what he does or knows right and wrong.

I always admit when I'm wrong, but thankfully, such thing never happen!

But seriously, I don't think Max thinks he is wrong. When you're dealing with counterintuitive stuff like relativity and QM, it become very difficult to use your intuition to solve everything, and unless you write down your problem with mathematics, the chance of doing a big mistake is high.


I'm sure that any students in maths and physics came across problem they thought would be easy, but ended up smacking their head for a few days. I'm sure everyone woke up in the middle of the night with "the" solution, only to realize 30 minutes later it made no freaking sense. Putting too much faith in your brain is a very bad idea. It works most of the time, but not always.

[Woozie]

lol, i wasn't trying to pin a "gotcha" moment on you. i just immediately thought of poor old dr. dawkins when i read your post.

your current approach is the more productive thing to do. try to educate, but move on when confronted with stubborn idiocy, and apply your time more important things. like the hexagon on saturn!

Obligatory:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100706.gif

I will side with Psion on this...kinda. I find it hard to believe that someone who is willing to dedicate his life at finding the truth would look down on other who're genuinely trying to understand.

I know this wasn't specifically aimed at me, but I think we all know that if Max genuinely was trying to understand, I'd be more than willing to explain it in incredible detail. I do this with pretty much anyone who asks questions that I'm capable of answering. That's pretty much one of the main purposes of this thread.

On a side note, it might be interesting for Woozie and a couple other of you physicists to do a series of physics posts, going from the utmost of physics basics and working your way up to more complicated ideas, like if you were explaining to a 10 year old. That way it could be a great thread not only for science related news, but also a way for people like me who have no understanding of physics other than the most basic math like algebra to grasp more of the news that goes on in this thread. I for one would consider it a godsend since I haven't done physics in almost a decade, and I'd love to brush up and maybe get ahead before I take more physics classes, probably starting in autumn. I know, I know, google it and read some books, but I've never managed to learn very well from just reading a book, human interaction and demonstration is how I learn best.

I actually think this is a pretty good idea. Another idea I've had before was that we should somehow edit the first post of this thread with links to specific discussions that have happened over the course of this thread. Of course, that would mean someone would have go to back and reread this entire thread, and no one wants to do that. But we've had some really good discussions about many things (the kind of stuff people often worry about) and people often come in here asking the same questions because there's no way they're going to read through the thread to find where it was asked before (I mean, sure, they can use the search tool but sometimes you may not know what to search for and it's easier to just ask).

For reasons mainly related to our lack of free time, though, it's just easier to wait for someone to ask a question and then answer it instead of writing a series of explanations about different topics. Everyone in this thread is very willing to answer and explain anything that is asked. You mentioned that there are things you'd like to know about. Do you have any specific questions?

[Psion]

Right now I'd like a good site on science info, myself. I had originally tried livescience.com bu then realized there wasn't anything interesting on there that you couldn't find elsewhere, and science20.com seemed promising at first but after reading a bunch of crap articles, including yet another fearmongering post about how japan's nuclear reactor incident is another Chernobyl, in contrast to Kryssan and others posting very useful information in the earthquake thread that is free of that fox news bullshit, I need something new that is actually full of useful, unbiased information about the latest in scientific discoveries.

And sadly woozie, I don't really have specific questions I want to know about, because it's been so long since I've done physics its pretty much all gone from me. I don't even have a real foundation to build on, or a place to start from. Though perhaps some of the basics of quantum physics might help, but I'm not sure how that can work when I can't even remember what normal physics was like. I hear all these terms flying around too like Newtonian physics and have no clue what they mean other than hunches. I mean, how many types of physics are there? :D

[Eliseos]

Obligatory: But we've had some really good discussions about many things (the kind of stuff people often worry about) and people often come in here asking the same questions because there's no way they're going to read through the thread to find where it was asked before (I mean, sure, they can use the search tool but sometimes you may not know what to search for and it's easier to just ask).

I've found that the search algorithm used by most forums (this included) don't really do a good job at returning results, and it's often difficult to find what you are looking for.

[Eliseos]

I need something new that is actually full of useful, unbiased information about the latest in scientific discoveries.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

[Kaylia]

I know this wasn't specifically aimed at me, but I think we all know that if Max genuinely was trying to understand, I'd be more than willing to explain it in incredible detail. I do this with pretty much anyone who asks questions that I'm capable of answering. That's pretty much one of the main purposes of this thread.

I was most definitively not talking about you here lol. I just don't believe scientist in general can afford being arrogant or selfish when it comes to sciences. It will do more harm than good (ie: string theory!)

[Psion]

Hey, don't diss my favorite cluster of hypothesisis! (dear god what is the plural of hypothesis?) It's my get out of earth and onto an alternate universe full of adventure free card!

[Qalbert]

hypotheses

[Psion]

God damn you and your lack of sense, English language.

[foopy]

i have a question!

very simple for you guys to answer, but it mind fucks me when i try to think about it:

starting with the twin paradox, i understand what conclusion that yields. a twin comes back 5 years later, everyone he knows is dead and its now the year 3000.

then i tried to alter that thought experiment a bit, and this time i sent both twins speeding off of earth, but one from the north pole, the other from the south pole.

they look out their window and see the earth disappear at nearly the speed of light as they accelerate to .99c. while the brothers fly away at 1.98c from each other? would it appear to each brother that their counterpart is breaking the speed of light? and even if they couldn't "see" each other, or communicate in any way, wouldn't each of them simply "know" they are defying the speed of light with respect to each other? BLARG BRAIN HURTS.

i may have an additional follow up query, depending on what i learn. thanks!

edit: obviously i made up the numbers, but i hope the concept of what i'm trying to portray is clear.

[Pirian]

hypotheses

I think it's spelled hippopotamus

[foopy]

I think it's spelled hippopotamus

[Eliseos]

i have a question!

very simple for you guys to answer, but it mind fucks me when i try to think about it:

starting with the twin paradox, i understand what conclusion that yields. a twin comes back 5 years later, everyone he knows is dead and its now the year 3000.

then i tried to alter that thought experiment a bit, and this time i sent both twins speeding off of earth, but one from the north pole, the other from the south pole.

they look out their window and see the earth disappear at nearly the speed of light as they accelerate to .99c. while the brothers fly away at 1.98c from each other? would it appear to each brother that their counterpart is breaking the speed of light? and even if they couldn't "see" each other, or communicate in any way, wouldn't each of them simply "know" they are defying the speed of light with respect to each other? BLARG BRAIN HURTS.

i may have an additional follow up query, depending on what i learn. thanks!

edit: obviously i made up the numbers, but i hope the concept of what i'm trying to portray is clear.

Nah, the twins would perceive the other at going much faster than they are going, but still less than c. Instead of one appearing to go .9c, he might go .99999c (I made up the numbers, but you get the point). You wouldn't ever see anything move faster than c. Two photons traveling away from each other would both measure the other traveling at c as well.

[foopy]

Nah, the twins would perceive the other at going much faster than they are going, but still less than c. Instead of one appearing to go .9c, he might go .99999c (I made up the numbers, but you get the point). You wouldn't ever see anything move faster than c. Two photons traveling away from each other would both measure the other traveling at c as well.

hmmm. simple enough.

while they would measure each other to be going .99999c and it would be impossible to "measure" anything above c, they would intuitively KNOW they are.

furthermore, say after a year of traveling, they stopped and measured how far apart they are from each other, wouldn't the data conclude that they had to be going faster than the speed of light with respect to each other? or would fuckin time dilation length contraction "fix" the observed data, and still yield sub-SoL speeds achieved? FUKKKK MY BRAINSIDFOUSHF*

[Eliseos]

Time dilation would fix the discrepancy, yeah. Pretty much everything involved with near-speed of light speeds involves some form of Lorentz transform. Distance, time, speed, energy, etc.