--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Richard, > > > > I'm starting to feel like Ronald Regan over here when I say to you, > > "There you go again." > > > > The Earth is bombarded -- and "bombarded" is exactly the correct > term > > -- by "cosmic particles and rays." These things arrive here at > speeds > > that are so high that the new accelerator you're afraid of is a > > comparatively -- no exaggeration now -- a puny little affair > indeed. > > > > Trillions upon trillions of "stuff-n-bits" bombard our atmosphere > > every second, and most of these collisions are impacts of greater > > "risk" than anything that will happen in the new accelerator -- > which > > is doing "about one" such "bombardment event" per experiment. > > > > The cosmos should have created a new big bang by now, donchatink? > > > > There isn't a physicist on the planet who will disagree with the > above. > > Sorry edg but they all would, I think it's you that needs to > do a bit more reading on this subject. The stuff that hits > earth wouldn't harm us in any way, usually. The odd big one > gets through, talk to the dinos about that. It certainly > wouldn't cause a big bang. And it wasn't what I was refering to. > > What I was refering to was the sort of energy created inside > particle accelerators that hasn't been seen since the big bang. > It really hasn't and we are switching on the biggest this year. > There is a 50 billion to one chance that it will destroy the > universe and create a new one at the same time. Hawking talked > about this partly for amusement and as a thought experiment in > a speech the other day. I don't make this stuff up. I think > it's an intruiging idea, and while it isn't likely (I wouldn't > cancel the pension plan) it is possible. Some people object > to scientists taking chances like this "who gives em the right!" > they say. I say do it, it isn't like it would hurt if it all > goes pear-shaped. > > But just reading New Scientist every week is pointless, > you have to get your mental hands dirty. So what did you > think of my idea about life on planets without a carboniferous > period never evolving beyond a primitive culture because of > lack of resources, energy etc? That's my own contribution to > the debate, and it's good I think. Because without fossil > fuels what could we have done? > > You won't find it on wikipedia yet, but next time I'm hanging > with my physicist and cosmologist mates I'll lay it on em. > They're all Oxford educated and have kept me up to date on > this stuff for twenty odd years now. I know more about > evolution than all of them put together so I'm not surprised > no one ever came up with it before. > > I don't know why you think I don't know what I'm talking about > here, maybe I'm too flippant in my tossing about of ideas. > But I've done a lot of reading on this and it all kind of > hangs about in there, so I never bother with links and stuff, > I just generalise for ease of consumption, maybe that's it.
I want to edit the above coz it makes me look like I think I'm an expert in something. What I mean is I get all the practical upshots and understand the concepts because the scientists who do the work are good at explaining things, it's actually difficult not to get the hang of it if you want to spend twenty years with your head in books about space and stuff. And when I say "I know more about evolution than all of them put together" I'm refering to my physics pals and it's them that tell me this. I'd hate to come over as arrogant, confident I can cope with ;-) > And I know how science works Edg, it's a process of refinement > and experiment, no absolutes. Just the best guess we can make > given the current knowledge. That's what I like about it. > > "There is speculation, there is wild speculation and there is > cosmology" > > I can't remember who said it, but it's true. >
