Europe leaps ahead on physics frontier

Science (and the Scientific Method) is based on observable phenomena. Creationism is not observable phenomena and neither is whatever religious/humanist set of BELIEFS people may happen to subscribe in their lives. Creationism is pushed as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution based on the "premise" that the theory is not proven fact. Well, it IS a theory but at least it has observable facts and until we have better facts it is the best we have. Creationism on the other hand is based on BELIEFS and therefore cannot be compared to evolution (apples to oranges). ============================================================================================ I hate to be brief, but what came first: Darwin, or religion? You speak of it as if evolution was "thought up" before Christianity. And anyways, what religion was it that founded America? Give it some thought people. Take aaallllll the time you need. Offence intended.

Dear speak English or get out;

Please go get a dictionary and look up the letters you typed. I only recognized one or two as English. The rest are either speaking in tongues or misspelled. What is a,.Incriasing latinos? I won't even mention your use of grammar as there is none. This is what I mean by not taking responsibility for your own actions, or in your case confusing the topic of dwindling brain power with your racist views. Or is this a demonstration of how our schools educate? ============================================================================================
No, it would seem that you've given the perfect example. The ability to look past the point of what someone is saying and straight at any mistakes he/she made is astounding. And not in a good way mind you. People refuse to accept that the challenged can be just as right as they are. And it's all because challenged people are shunned at schools.

To translate what the person in question said:
It isn't the damn president's fault that kids would rather watch TV than do algebra! And the guy can't really come to your house and turn off your TV for you can he?

I'm going to ask the one question that no scientist can answer. And I'm going to get laughed at and told that scientists are trying to find out now. And no one is going to understand my point because the school systems are teaching them not to. But still;

What was there at the beginning?

And how could there be a beginning? Something must have not had a beginning or else there wouldn't be anything to make everything. I understand that this thought is beyond what the human mind can comprehend, but still. It all revolves around faith. The only difference between ours and yours is that ours has a reward behind it.

Interesting question. But certainly your answer doesnt answer it. If there was nothing there to begin with yet science says there has to be something to create the big bang, okay. But for you to say that nothing is there and then all of a sudden nothing created everything, that is just as far fetched. God is a reference,, no real facts that he / she / it exists, no physical form even though and I believe I quote right " Created man in thine own image " yet God is not supposed to have a physical form . As far as the reward,, that is what you have been told, no proof that it exists either. I wonder if my hypothesis / future theory on Santa Claus will work out. Most children around the world believe in Santa Claus, adults do not because they have learned he doesnt exist. Now,, if the children are raised in a supportive environment with : their government, schools, parents and other adults enforcing the idea that Santa Claus is real. then we take those children when they reach adulthood, teaching and enforcing their children who then teaches their children and we do this over a couple thousand years. Does Santa become real ? If the idea of Santa is supported by the general population around the world, does Santa take on a life of his own. Will we see people looking at shooting stars and saying, there goes Santa on his sleigh. The children picking up on the idea and as they get older passing it on ? I believe it could happen. If Santa had the same support and backing, if the people that you consider influential reminded you every day of Santa and encouraged you to teach your children about Santa. Interesting thought huh ? Funny thing is,, they are both stories,, yet one got support,, the other one didnt.

The world is passing us by. Most of the world doesn't even care what we think. They are no longer third world countries. They lead the way now. They are cutting edge. We are becoming xenophobes. You know how long it takes to get foreign scientists to teach in the U.S. or even become citizens? Getting passports, background checks, etc... for someone who can potentially build a weapon has become prohibitive in the U.S. since 9/11? We don't promote scientific study in school and now we don't have enough scientists to get us ahead. Japan or India doesn't have a problem hiring our graduates.

sheep2slaughter, You started to prove me right when you started talking about Santa Clause. I know that Christianity has been around longer than the idea of evolution. But the people who didn't want to believe that they weren't the boss of everything liked this new idea. It "proved" that God didn't exist. But in reality those people are still looking for proof.

And I wasn't trying to say that nothing made something. I was saying that there had to have been something without a beginning. As in it was always there. And this "God atom" that these people are trying to find is ridiculous. It makes Christianity sound like trigonometry as apposed to multiplication and division. And normally people try to explain the complex because there is more proof to be found. But really there is only more proof because it is over complicated. Or at least usually.

And you couldn't give me any unquestionable facts that God doesn't exist. Or that there was a big bang. Science is just as much a reference as Christianity.

Large Hadron Collider

I believe that the basic premise behind the LHC is flawed in its inception. The LHC is going to smash together elements at near light sppeds to generate new particles that were present at the moment of the Big Bang. Not even close.

At the moment of the Big Bang a large amorphous something was created. According to present knowledge, it took thousands of years for electrons, neutrons, quarks and other particles to form. After particle formation, matter held light captive for additional thousands of years. Only then did the expansion of matter and light result in our present state of the universe with its myriad elements.

The scientists say that by colliding protons and other elements, that they will generate elements that were present at the moment of the Big Bang. Wrong:

(1) A the moment of the Big Bang there were no elements. They took thousands of years to evolve.

(2) Colliding protons together may indeed create new short lived elements, but who is to say that the collision of protons/evolved-matter, now is going to create elments that were present just after the Big Bang. That is like saying you can smash together 2 Cadillacs(Proto Universes) to create a new Universe, and then take the resultant pieces of the smashed cars, smash them together again and learn how to build new Cadillacs. There is no way you can smash together the resultant car pieces and learn how to make plastics, refine steel, create molds and stamp metal by this method. This method cannot be used to determine the origins of automobile production or the creation of the short lived particles that evolved long after after the Big Bang.

(3) The universe we live in now is the result of particles having evolved out of the amorphous something at the time of the Big Bang. We are now being told that our present day particles can, at the time of a collision, produce short lived particles that were the building blocks of our present catalog of elements. By what reasoning ? By our own present understanding our present particles took thousands of years to evolve, and now we are being told, by people whose purpose it is to have a new collider, that they are the result of extremely short lived elements at the instant of the Big Bang. By our present understanding of the universe, there were no elements at the moment of the Big Bang. They took thousands of years to evolve. Short lived particles may have evolved after the Big Bang, and resulted in the elements we have now, but even their creation was the result of evolution over a long period of time. What needs to be understood is what the amorphous something was/was composed of, at the moment of the Big Bang and how elements evolved from that amorphous something.

(4) Smashing together of particles now, to know what happened at the instant of the Big Bang, makes no sense, unless when you smash together these present particles, and then you wait for thousands of years to see what does evolve.

(5) What does make sense is to dissassemble the currrent atomic structures, and protons, electrons, quarks and other elements to determine their present causes of operation, and from this deduce the original modes of creation/operation.

(6) We should not be lied to, and told that elements were created at the time of the Big Bang when we already know differently. Lying to get what you want is what little children do and has no place in professional science.

The LHC is a lie in its inception, and a deception of the public-at-large. The spending of large amounts of money for this machine, to determine the types and operation of very short lived particles, resulting in an understanding of the operation of our universe at the instant of the Big Bang, is an enormous lie. And someone owes the public an apology for such a grand and ostentatious lie.

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&vid=89873fa0-2f97-4587-9a12-7b8a171873c7

This is why scientist are leaving for Europe

Guys, this thing is going to blow up!!! Think Atlantis. I am glad it is not here in America.

It would implode -.-

Isn't extremely self-centered for us to demand that U.S. be first in everything? If we are going to be in a world economy shouldn't we share the success?

Remember the very scientists that are telling us we are destroying the earth, are also contributing to that destruction only in a more massive scale. How? The big bang experiment is nothing more then a selfish method to make a point costing billions of dollars while people in the world are starvings, and in need of medicine and course for decease.

This massive machine will alter the Axel orbital gravitation pool of the earth sanding our planet ether into the sun or on a collision course with a planet, promote earthquakes, hurricane's, super-maga-sunamies and the loss of out atmospheric pressure formed of oxygen.

I do not need to be a scientist to see a catastrophe coming in less then 10 years, i can make predictions when i am looking at Hippocrates like scientist. smart but Hippocrates.

Tony

It is funny one poster pointed out that the more eductated, the more likely to vote democrat. Perhaps it should be the more indoctrinated as many of our college professors are tenured socialists with high paying pulpits from which to preach. I think the more educated, the more likely one is to become a libertarian. One who is educated can see through the BS that both major parties regurgitate day in and day out promising a "better" life for americans.

Yes, life does seem to be getting better! Democrats have figured out a multitude of ways to con the people into depending on big government with social welfare, socialised medicine and restrictive laws to protect the emotionaly fragile and habitualy offended. Republicans haved hoodwinked us into believeing that we need them to keep us safe and snug in a life that has never been guaranteed to be safe by trampling our rights with presidential decrees and surveilance.

The libertarian, who can be anything from a mechanic to an astrophysicist, sits back and watches the preachers and congregation of both parties march themselves to the brink of destruction. We realise that we can and have done better without big government to prop us up or give us direction.

So, you have the right to believe what you wish but when it all comes down to the final curtain, we shal see who was the more educated. The men and women who blindly followed the dictates of their parties to disaster, or the men and women who knew better and prepared for the coming collapse of this nation by eschewing party politics, living their lives as they saw fit and becoming self reliant as opposed to dependent upon the drug that is government.

Remember the very scientists that are telling us we are destroying the earth, are also contributing to that destruction only in a more massive scale. How? The big bang experiment is nothing more then a selfish method to make a point costing billions of dollars while people in the world are starvings, and in need of medicine and course for decease. ============================================================================================
Will they even make that point?

Whoisme do you even know what the goals of this project are? Or the potential advancements in technology are that could occur?
The technological benefits are well worth the cost of the experiment and the majority of the money is coming from other countries and not the US so it's not like it's coming out of your wallet.
By increasing our understanding of particle physics it'll allow us to create mass data storage devices with a lot more capacity then what we have now, potential quantum computing technology, super-secure and super fast data communication, potential to make leaps and bounds in energy technology, better medical imaging technology and cancer treatment.
So much for those scientist being so selfish how dare they try to make it possible to make so many massive advancements in technology.

Just get rid of all money, currencies and dollars, then you'll find that everything is affordable.

Whoisme do you even know what the goals of this project are? Or the potential advancements in technology are that could occur?
============================================================================================ Indeed I do.
And there are many that I agree with. Such as new energy sources, hopefully waste disposal, high definition will hopefully be called fuzzy when we've applied the new knowledge, radiation therapy will get a big bonus, and my personal favorite; waterless toilets!
But it is the base moral behind the project that I highly disagree with. It takes a foolish man (or women) to try to disprove the existence of God. If you read all of my past arguments on the subject you'd see why I say this. But your too busy disproving people without any facts aren't you?

One of the more promising theories on that question is that there was no beginning, once something exists it always exists and there is no real past,present or future because every moment in time is happening and always happening, and all exists within a single point.
============================================================================================
How did the single point come to be?

Not a one. Sorry.

But hey, it's nice to see that not all the people who post in the science section are stuck in their own heads. (Compliment intended)

There was a time when Americans and the ilk that founded our nation was enamored with the idea of discovery for the sake of discovery. We went into space just to see if we could. We still go but are hesitant to push the envelope. People have lost that sense of something greater than themselves outside of all that religious hocus pocus and dogmatic hogwash. Just to let you religious folks know, I'm speaking of something greater within the realm of REALITY. We fail to challenge our children because we don't want to hurt their self esteem. Meanwhile, we're all too stupid to remember that true self esteem is earned through accomplishment and achievement. We tell our stupid kids how smart they are and our smart kids not to pick on or offend the dumb ones because we'll hurt their feelings. Our kids are mere shadows or us as we are our parents and they their parents. There is a distinct reason for the rise of evanlegical christianity in this country. History shows that the more prominent the role of religion in any society or geographical region the more that society or region stagnates regarding cultural pursuits like art and educational pursuits such as science. Mankind itself has risen and fallen with the rise and fall of religion. Christianity trumpeted the decline and the end of the Roman empire. Catholic Christianity resonated througout the dark ages as the most prolific and influential political voice in the world. Muslim hordes raided and changed the course of many civilizations including nations like Spain. Of course, the middle east is still mired in it's religious zealotism and we see the results in the lack of progress and the proliferation of ignorance. The only thing that saved Western civilization was the Rennaisance in Europe which opened enough minds to discovery to cause some to finally question the role of religion and it's necessity. THANK GOD, lol. But, the US as it has seemed to decline in recent years has seen many turn to the parade of televangelists sporting expensive suits and a mostly positive almost used car salesman like message of positive thinking only slightly free of the old traditional "hell fire and brimstone" of the early evangelicals. The message is still the same. Nothing else matters but our beliefs and they should not be questioned or you risk damnation. Why would any large group of people want to discover anything outside of their belief system when that discovery may call into question some if not all of their beliefs? This movement coupled with a profound decline in our educational system, the selfishness of much of our citizenry, and the apathy of many has been the source of our scientific decline. Not to mention the mass influx of "Bannana Republic" cultures who are just as scietifially inclined as anybody with the equivalent of a 5th grade education in the US. We've lost it in more ways than science. We've lost our nerve and our backbones with it. WE could have been the ones starting the Atom Smasher but it was stopped by the Gov. of Texas for what were predominantly religious motivations.