Conquer Club

Ditocoaf wrote:This is one situation where links to news articles are meaningless. Only reporters who are physicists themselves should do commentary, and the only sources that reporters should use are people directly connected to the project.

It's for people who have no idea what we are talking about. Plus, it doesn't hurt to read them.

Ditocoaf wrote:This is one situation where links to news articles are meaningless. Only reporters who are physicists themselves should do commentary, and the only sources that reporters should use are people directly connected to the project.

not sure about that Dito, good journalists can interpret and put the facts (what there are of them) into compelling and understandable language.

Aside from the small amount of nonsense and pure hyped speculation, i think that there has been some good and useful coverage of this.
Also, without a degree of preposterous supposition, this would not have gained the same level of exposure.

jiminski wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:This is one situation where links to news articles are meaningless. Only reporters who are physicists themselves should do commentary, and the only sources that reporters should use are people directly connected to the project.

not sure about that Dito, good journalists can interpret and put the facts (what there are of them) into compelling and understandable language.

Aside from the small amount of nonsense and pure hyped speculation, i think that there has been some good and useful coverage of this.
Also, without a degree of preposterous supposition, this would not have gained the same level of exposure.

If only the bad journalists were quieter...

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I'd love to see a black hole up close, even if I might be screaming in anguish and panicking.

Ya I think that would be the best way to go. Think about it. You wouldn't really feel anything, and it would be an amazing sight.

You couldn't see a black hole - it doesn't let light out - because the gravity is so strong it even prevents photons from escaping - that's why it's black.

jonesthecurl wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I'd love to see a black hole up close, even if I might be screaming in anguish and panicking.

Ya I think that would be the best way to go. Think about it. You wouldn't really feel anything, and it would be an amazing sight.

You couldn't see a black hole - it doesn't let light out - because the gravity is so strong it even prevents photons from escaping - that's why it's black.

But around it wouldn't it have light? Therefore, you can see where the hole is, just couldn't see what's in it..
I think?

Skittles! wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I'd love to see a black hole up close, even if I might be screaming in anguish and panicking.

Ya I think that would be the best way to go. Think about it. You wouldn't really feel anything, and it would be an amazing sight.

You couldn't see a black hole - it doesn't let light out - because the gravity is so strong it even prevents photons from escaping - that's why it's black.

But around it wouldn't it have light? Therefore, you can see where the hole is, just couldn't see what's in it..
I think?

light bends to it, I think. You can see a black hole if there is a star close to it and you have some device which can track down something. Very vague, I know

jiminski wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:This is one situation where links to news articles are meaningless. Only reporters who are physicists themselves should do commentary, and the only sources that reporters should use are people directly connected to the project.

not sure about that Dito, good journalists can interpret and put the facts (what there are of them) into compelling and understandable language.

And I agree, it definitely can be useful. The main problem that I can see is that if the journalists themselves don't understand the facts in context, no matter how dedicated or integrious a journalist is, the article will be misleading. (I don't hate journalism, however; quite the opposite. While I may be majoring in physics, I'm minoring in journalism.)

Aside from the small amount of nonsense and pure hyped speculation, i think that there has been some good and useful coverage of this.
Also, without a degree of preposterous supposition, this would not have gained the same level of exposure.

I almost think that this shouldn't have the level of exposure that it does. While I'm all for interest in scientific advancement, this isn't exactly interest in the science as much as it is hubbub about some imaginary doomsday device. It might have been better if it were just one of those things that all the physics nerds talk about excitedly while others look on bemusedly at our nerdiness.

Ditocoaf wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:This is one situation where links to news articles are meaningless. Only reporters who are physicists themselves should do commentary, and the only sources that reporters should use are people directly connected to the project.

not sure about that Dito, good journalists can interpret and put the facts (what there are of them) into compelling and understandable language.

And I agree, it definitely can be useful. The main problem that I can see is that if the journalists themselves don't understand the facts in context, no matter how dedicated or integrious a journalist is, the article will be misleading. (I don't hate journalism, however; quite the opposite. While I may be majoring in physics, I'm minoring in journalism.)

Aside from the small amount of nonsense and pure hyped speculation, i think that there has been some good and useful coverage of this.
Also, without a degree of preposterous supposition, this would not have gained the same level of exposure.

I almost think that this shouldn't have the level of exposure that it does. While I'm all for interest in scientific advancement, this isn't exactly interest in the science as much as it is hubbub about some imaginary doomsday device. It might have been better if it were just one of those things that all the physics nerds talk about excitedly while others look on bemusedly at our nerdiness.

I couldn't agree less.
Most people have taken the 'omg it's a doomsday machine' stories with a huge pinch of salt. It's fun, and funny, to speculate, that's all. What HAS captured the public imagination is the largest science experiment and machine ever built - which is where lay journalists fit in.
Only journalists who are physicists should report on this? Does this mean only journalists who are athletes should write about sport? or that only journalists who are criminals should write about crime? If you are studying journalism you should appreciate its capacity and aim to present complex subjects to the public in a captivating and illuminating way. The LHC has captured the public's imagination, and that has been largely down to journalists. if I want someone to explain this machine to me, i'm going to go with the Times, not the head of CERN. Thats what journalists do.

heavycola wrote:I couldn't agree less.
Most people have taken the 'omg it's a doomsday machine' stories with a huge pinch of salt. It's fun, and funny, to speculate, that's all. What HAS captured the public imagination is the largest science experiment and machine ever built - which is where lay journalists fit in.
Only journalists who are physicists should report on this? Does this mean only journalists who are athletes should write about sport? or that only journalists who are criminals should write about crime? If you are studying journalism you should appreciate its capacity and aim to present complex subjects to the public in a captivating and illuminating way. The LHC has captured the public's imagination, and that has been largely down to journalists. if I want someone to explain this machine to me, i'm going to go with the Times, not the head of CERN. Thats what journalists do.

yeap i am in concordance, there are many people who are captivated by this subject; I am one. I have no background in Physics but i have always had a genuine, burning interest in humanities journey of understanding (no matter how transitory). Concepts do not come much bigger than the understanding of everything and this massive experiment may help us leap a little closer. More likely it will simply lead us to more questions but at least we may have closer to the right questions.

That's me, and i would have been engrossed without any of the somewhat tongue-in-cheek, wowing of the masses using tales of cataclysmic chain-reactions. Some of the rest of our populations may not have been so engaged.
Why is this important? Well because an enormous amount of money has somehow been syphoned off into this undertaking without any real fuss! Who honestly knew about this as more than a passing random footnote? A very few i would say; that's dangerous because billions of Pounds, from many nations taxes have been expended.
Firstly - these people deserve to gain some excitement from their money and be included in the process. Secondly - if they are not in some way made aware of the huge importance of this, Scientists in the future may not get away with similar magnificent journeys into the esoteric need for complex, marginal knowledge!

So did we all die or get transformed into another dimension in the wink of a nanosecond without even realizing it?
I sure hope this contraption doesn't effect the CC servers.

Cool Beans!

oVo wrote:So did we all die or get transformed into another dimension in the wink of a nanosecond without even realizing it?
I sure hope this contraption doesn't effect the CC servers.

Cool Beans!

well something fundamental has happened to the universe: oVo has become lucid, witty and playful! *wink .. of a nanosecond*

Also, the WWW was invented at CERN as a way to crunch collider data. No collider, no conquer club. Truly, the implications are massive.

oVo wrote:So did we all die or get transformed into another dimension in the wink of a nanosecond without even realizing it?
I sure hope this contraption doesn't effect the CC servers.

Cool Beans!

I propose a head count just in case we lost someone.

Hands up those that didn't get sucked into a black hole yesterday.

mandyb wrote:

oVo wrote:So did we all die or get transformed into another dimension in the wink of a nanosecond without even realizing it?
I sure hope this contraption doesn't effect the CC servers.

Cool Beans!

I propose a head count just in case we lost someone.

Hands up those that didn't get sucked into a black hole yesterday.

Does listening to The Cure count?

Yay we didnt die.

But now i discovered that if we do die it will be in october.

Hooray!

We have a whole month to act like savages, safe in the knowledge that come October it's all going to end anyway.

It's already ended, we just haven't noticed yet.

The large hadron collider explained

lollo rosso

One of the teories is that we'll all go back in time, far enough that we go back to the big bang.
Then, everything will start over again, Jesus gets killed - or something like that, JFK gets shot, WWII - 6 million jews getting killed all over again, chinese girl got told she was too ugly to sing at the olympics, i start this thread again, i tell everyone this, then the whole thing starts again for eternity.
Enjoy.

While I was readin that I got a strange sense of deja vu...

Maybe its happened already!?

It's the end of the world as we know it.

But I feel fine.

Have they done it already? Anyone know anything new?

*looks at self*

I'm still here... are you?