It's scarrier the original way.

Posted By: migrena

the chance you will win in a lottery are much smaller though somebody always wins

That's not true at all. The reason the Powerball jackpot gets so big is because there isn't a guaranteed winner. Just because something is statistically possible, doesn't mean it has to happen.

i have to say i highly doubt that a 1/5000 or 6250 is great enough for scientists to risk ending the world. As for the car analogy, assuming an average of 1-2 riders per car at a 1/5000 chance of dying (or whatever the number is) the loss of life is 2-4 people every 5000 car rides, as opposed to say...6 billion people every 5000 "car rides" (plus the rest of the world). I definitely see enough risk here to have most sound minded people consider such an experiment impractically dangerous.

I would caution you guys against sounding like environmentalists. they fight progress with ignorance. learn everything about what they are doing before you make an opinion, and until then give them the benefit of the doubt.

if you are concerned you should inform yourself first before flapping your arms and squawking. I'll give you the perfect example:

couple years ago a satellite was being launched into space. This satellite was unusual in one aspect; it's fuel source was plutonium. The environmentalists got wind of this and went completely nuts, flinging their buzz words around such as NUCLEAR, claiming that if the satellite broke up in orbit and reentered the atmosphere it would litter it with radioactive material which would have serious consequences. Of course being environmentalists, all they were concerned with was making alot of noise and winding up the public with sensationalism and words like 'nuclear' to make poeple like you anxious. It never occurred to them to stop and think for just one second. Not only was the amount of plutonium under 2kg, but plutonium is an alpha radiation source which means its particles only travel through about 10cm of air before being absorbed. Oh dear. Now you see what I'm talking about when I say they talk alot of shit and get poeple like you worried about absolutely nothing?

i guarantee you there is a point to their experiment and that there is no risk like a chance the whole world might get destroyed, that is a media crock of shit.

generally i dont mind if they even evaporate one continent, just let it be any but not the one i'm on
that 1:5000 is a good estimation of a chance to create black hole, but as stated in linked articles they would evaporate before we can nitice their existance

it bring no profit to me, so no

You must've read Angels and Demons. Good book.

This isn't really so bad when you put it into perspective. There is a giant black hole behind the nebulae of sagittarius that gobbles up stars and all their planets every day for breakfast. On Earth, you can sleep at night knowing that the planet will most likely be here in the morning and science may finally figure out how to make black holes and fix all our hazardous waste problems once and for all while producing an incredible amount of power.

Think of it: There is enough Hawking power from placing just 1 cigarette butt into a micro-black hole to drive an SUV around the world 3 times!

To be honest, I first heard of AntiMatter the same place that most people head of it… Star Trek.

Now having said that I must state that I am not a “trekkie” although I do enjoy the series (Voyager was my favorite). But like any sane and rational person I started to look into some of the aspects of Star Trek and found that the ideas of Star Trek are very popular and drove scientists to develop what they were seeing. Back in the late 90’s in Australia (I believe) they developed the world’s first transporter. They “beamed” a beam of light across the room. Now that I think about it “the fly” may have been the first movie/TV show of a transporter.

Anyway… (im getting off track here), to me the concept of antimatter made sense, and for the longest time I could not find anything about it other than Sci Fi. Then when the internet really exploded I was able to find info on it and about the same time Popular Science had an article about it, this was back in the late 90’s early 00’s and I have been following it (somewhat) ever since, same with black holes for power generation. Actually the idea of black holes for power generation was brought to my attention when I was a little kid. I read an article that suggested that if we could travel to a black hole and bring it back to earth the power that we could produce using it (black hole) would solve all the worlds’ power problems. The only problem was getting there and harnessing it for transport. Now we have both ideas working for us… even if the practical use of either of them is many years off.

I’ll have to check out the book, sounds like a good read.

You’re kidding right? If the whole earth was swallowed, then the greatness of gullible.info would not be recognized across the planet. We would be just like all of the other websites, lost forever in an infinite black abyss. As for nobody noticing and it not being a big deal, the end of the world is a pretty big event. It doesn't happen every day.

Those smug bastard scientists are either going to get us all killed, or warp Earth into dimension X.

Posted By: Hyper Ballistic

(btw, hewo evwy won! I just signed up in the forums after visiting the site often for 2 months.)

hewo, yourself

My mommy died playing that game

sorry i've got to slap some reality on y'all, but i'm just afraid some people may be taking this too seriously and might be contemplating blowing up the collider's control station or assassinating the scientists involved; so here we go:
for one thing, the existence of microscopic black holes is hotly debated - as compared to regular and supermassive black holes being generally accepted due to einstein's calculations when involving objects over a critical mass which no longer have the energy to hold themselves apart.
and even if they do exist, their miniscule size would cause them to evaporate instantly through hawking radiation, which states that so long as the great hawking wills it it shall be so.

and akula682, the buttered side of toast always lands down, hence buttering the back of the cat, though the problem is that cats will only land on their feet 94% of the time, depending on the mental acuity of the cat. the other 6% of the landings involve the cat landing at any number of angles on their sides, which, since butter melts down [99.7% of the time, at least], the hovercraft will inevitably fail at a rate such that hovercraft crashes would be more common than pet suicides.

Does this mean we have to dismantle our super-duper colider control station destroying ray guns???