Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Large Hadron Collider

chicky
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2009 5:08:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In class our topic for debate is that the large hadron collioder should be disbanded.
we are the affirtmative
and my main argument is the chance of it crteating black holes and the impact on the environment
heeeelp?
cheers
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 2:38:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/20/2009 5:08:24 AM, chicky wrote:
In class our topic for debate is that the large hadron collioder should be disbanded.
we are the affirtmative
and my main argument is the chance of it crteating black holes and the impact on the environment
heeeelp?
cheers

Then that sucks for you. Because any credible physicist will tell you that the LHC CAN'T create blackholes.

And no, Rush Limbaugh is not a credible scientific source :). Not a credible intellectual source, for that matter.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 8:25:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Abandon the black hole argument. The best argument you have is the expense of the project and maybe human safety issues of some sort, it is a stretch but I can't think of a great reason not to continue work with the collider. I have seen nothing in reference to a harmful environmental impact. Good luck.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 11:30:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The alleged dangers and environmental impact are not credible risks, so the only argument is one of cost. You could try the argument that these are unusually difficult economic times so money should be spent on other things right now. Define "disband" in some squirrelly way that it amounts to putting it in mothballs until the economy is true. It's not a good argument, but probably the best that can be done. You might put in the black hole stuff as something that needs further study. If you have the weak side of a topic, one strategy is to try to take up the opponents time with bogus issues.
giantrobot11
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2009 12:14:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Black holes are singularities in space-time with such great density, thus great mass, thus such a great gravitational pull that not even light can escape it. Black holes are caused by the cores of large stars collapsing in on themselves due to gravity, and these dying stars have to be at least several times the size of the sun. The LHC is not a star, let alone larger than the sun. The LHC will collide atomic particles, and there will not nearly enough sufficient mass to crate a black hole.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2009 6:27:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/22/2009 8:33:00 AM, s0m31john wrote:
It will create antimatter that will be stolen and used in a conspiracy to blow up Vatican City.

Dammit, who leaked my plot to you?
Waldheri
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 1:09:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Perhaps you can argue from a utilitarian position that the costs of this project outweigh the gain. It is a pretty 'pure' scientific experiment, for the sake of knowledge itself. There is no current prospect that the expecte, yielded knowledge will allow for an advancement in technology.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

~ Rule #1 by Isaac Newton in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 1687
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 10:33:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 1:09:45 AM, Waldheri wrote:
Perhaps you can argue from a utilitarian position that the costs of this project outweigh the gain. It is a pretty 'pure' scientific experiment, for the sake of knowledge itself. There is no current prospect that the expecte, yielded knowledge will allow for an advancement in technology.

Like trying to travel to the moon before the Soviets do. And that yielded nothing.
;o)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.