• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
John: 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Amen.
When in doubt, throw Bibles till they go away.

If it works, evidence can be accrued to support it.
If it doesn't, surveys and studies will just as readily show this.

Bible verses wax philosophic about 'earthly' and 'heavenly' things are not really relevant: whether or not acupuncture, homoeopathy, intercessory prayer, etc, work or not is an earthly matter.

Whether you like it or not, we can test it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,320
52,685
Guam
✟5,166,673.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Large Hadron Collider proves the universe was once a liquid
Okay -- let me see if I got this straight.
The world's most powerful particle accelerator smashed together lead nuclei at the highest energies possible, creating dense sub-atomic particles that reach temperatures of over ten trillion degrees. Beyond being awesome, this achievement shows the early universe was actually a liquid.
Am I to assume that this universe started by two lead nuclei smashing together at the highest energies possible?

I don't see the Pb-in-a-glorified-hula-hoop-to-this-universe connection.

I realize lead is a very strong and stable element, but I don't see the connection -- I just don't see it.

I think I'll slam two dictionaries together and see if I can show how the Encyclopedia Britannica got started.

ETA: Oh -- and -- 971
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Okay -- let me see if I got this straight.
Am I to assume that this universe started by two lead nuclei smashing together at the highest energies possible?
Colliding the particles together at those energies turns them into a superhot plasma, which unexpectedly behaves like a liquid. Since the early universe was at those sorts of temperatures, the same events occurred - creating liquid-like plasma. By recreating events that would have occurred during the early stages of the universe, we can see how things behaved.

It's not rocket science.

I don't see the Pb-in-a-glorified-hula-hoop-to-this-universe connection.

I realize lead is a very strong and stable element, but I don't see the connection -- I just don't see it.
Which is probably why you're not a particle physicist at CERN.

I think I'll slam two dictionaries together and see if I can show how the Encyclopedia Britannica got started.
By that one trite analogy, you've single-handedly uncovered the glaring flaw in particle physics that tens of thousands of scientists have overlooked for the past century!

Oh, wait, nevermind. It's just another tornado going through a junkyard.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,320
52,685
Guam
✟5,166,673.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Colliding the particles together at those energies turns them into a superhot plasma, which unexpectedly behaves like a liquid.
Okay, so?
Since the early universe was at those sorts of temperatures...
How do you (or anyone) know?

All you're doing -- (from my perspective, anyway) -- is colliding two Pbs together, then adjusting your computer software to treat the universe according to what happened.

Then they'll report this to the general public, put it in their school textbooks, and expect us to believe it lock, stock and barrel.
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Okay, so?

How do you (or anyone) know?

All you're doing -- (from my perspective, anyway) -- is colliding two Pbs together, then adjusting your computer software to treat the universe according to what happened.

Then they'll report this to the general public, put it in their school textbooks, and expect us to believe it lock, stock and barrel.
Er, are we talking religion here? :p


Seriously though, you would do well to apply the same level of skepticism to your holy book.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Okay, so?
So it's a scientific discovery. Not everything has to have immediate practical world-altering applications. That said, human ingenuity can't be underestimated - who could have predicted what the investigation of electricity has done for us?

How do you (or anyone) know?
Deduction.

All you're doing -- (from my perspective, anyway) -- is colliding two Pbs together, then adjusting your computer software to treat the universe according to what happened.
Naturally.

Then they'll report this to the general public, put it in their school textbooks, and expect us to believe it lock, stock and barrel.
It's generally reasonable to expect rational people to believe something rationally determined - like, say, the existence of atoms.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,320
52,685
Guam
✟5,166,673.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So it's a scientific discovery.
The only 'discovery' is discovering that the heat made lead flow like water -- big deal, I could have told you that.

I think the technical term for it is molten metal.

Like I said, you 'scientists' have to come up with something, or you're going to lose your funding.

Throw the general public a bone -- they'll believe anything, as long as it's wrapped in technojargon.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The only 'discovery' is discovering that the heat made lead flow like water -- big deal, I could have told you that.

I think the technical term for it is molten metal.

Like I said, you 'scientists' have to come up with something, or you're going to lose your funding.

Throw the general public a bone -- they'll believe anything, as long as it's wrapped in technojargon.

Really AVET... plasma is not "molten metal." Melting metal does not ionize it!
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Throw the general public a bone -- they'll believe anything, as long as it's wrapped in technojargon.

I just realized that this is a very good description of what Creation Scientists do for a living. Their MO is to wrap biblical literalism in technojargon and try and peddle it as science to the public and especially to their flocks.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,320
52,685
Guam
✟5,166,673.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Really AVET... plasma is not "molten metal." Melting metal does not ionize it!
Fine -- call it 'plasma' then; and if melting it doesn't ionize it, what did?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,320
52,685
Guam
✟5,166,673.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I just realized that this is a very good description of what Creation Scientists do for a living. Their MO is to wrap biblical literalism in technojargon and try and peddle it as science to the public and especially to their flocks.
Yes, and you know how I feel about that -- don't you?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The only 'discovery' is discovering that the heat made lead flow like water -- big deal, I could have told you that.

I think the technical term for it is molten metal.
Since the lead atoms are so hot they've boiled, I'd like to see you predict that they behave like a liquid...

Like I said, you 'scientists' have to come up with something, or you're going to lose your funding.
They've more than justified the LHC's funding. They just don't have to justify it to you. As you so brilliantly demonstrate, you don't even understand the simplified, for-the-laymen press release - God only knows how you'd cope in an actual financial meeting.

Fortunately, modern governments are well aware of the benefits of funding science for its own sake.

Throw the general public a bone -- they'll believe anything, as long as it's wrapped in technojargon.
So, what, we should stop using accurate

Really AVET... plasma is not "molten metal." Melting metal does not ionize it!
Actually, metals are plasmas, weirdly
tongue.gif
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Targ

Regular Member
Sep 4, 2010
653
19
NSW, Australia
✟23,418.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I just realized that this is a very good description of what Creation Scientists do for a living. Their MO is to wrap biblical literalism in technojargon and try and peddle it as science to the public and especially to their flocks.

You mean like this? I facepalmed after reading three words of the abstract. It does not get any better!
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Colliding the particles together at those energies turns them into a superhot plasma, which unexpectedly behaves like a liquid. Since the early universe was at those sorts of temperatures, the same events occurred - creating liquid-like plasma. By recreating events that would have occurred during the early stages of the universe, we can see how things behaved.
Baloney.

No human being has ever known what the early universe was like. The Big Bang is just a model, and a flawed model no doubt, it's not reality. Speculate all you want but stop trying to fool the public.
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Baloney.

No human being has ever known what the early universe was like. The Big Bang is just a model, and a flawed model no doubt, it's not reality. Speculate all you want but stop trying to fool the public.

Except this is not speculation, this is an attempt to gain experimental checks of the theory.

Go misunderstand science elsewhere, Pigeonaboy.
 
Upvote 0
K

knowledgeIsPower

Guest
Baloney.

No human being has ever known what the early universe was like. The Big Bang is just a model, and a flawed model no doubt, it's not reality. Speculate all you want but stop trying to fool the public.
So you're saying that colliding particles together in the past didn't result in superhot plasma? :confused:

So by that logic gravity never used to exist either and just because we drop a pencil now doesn't mean the pencil will fall to the ground the next time we drop it just because every single time a pencil has been dropped on the Earth in recorded history it has fallen to the ground as a result of gravity. What an enchanted world you live in.

You can't just take the laws of physics and go "meh... doesn't mean it always has worked like that... the laws of physics aren't constant". Either show me some evidence to demonstrate that that stance has even the remotest chance of holding true or hush until you've got something concrete.
 
Upvote 0