Richard, There you go again. This is getting us nowhere. I used to teach special education, and I'd have the same type of discussions with kids who had a 40 I.Q...they would insist that their spelling of a word was the correct one despite my greater authority telling them differently.
It was very VERY endearing in them, but it sucks to see it in you. Go here: this SCIENCE site will educate you as to your errors -- if you read it that is. I'm through with being your mentor. http://tinyurl.com/2e7xrj This article handles ALL the issues that you've been wrong about in your last few threads. Good luck. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > <richardhughes103@> 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. > > >
