CERN Page 16

Been busy busy so haven't been on much. Can anyone confirm after the BSG meet up. Is Sooty's avatar actually of him? If so he's not what I expected.

I get a pink blob with a pointy penis coming out of his head.

You?

Quote: Griff @ September 11 2008, 12:28 AM BST

It's getting there... only another few iterations to go.

View original

I'm on the case.

Quote: roscoff @ September 11 2008, 12:28 AM BST

Been busy busy so haven't been on much. Can anyone confirm after the BSG meet up. Is Sooty's avatar actually of him? If so he's not what I expected.

View original

No, that's a pig wearing some lipstick.

Quote: Griff @ September 10 2008, 11:48 PM BST

Aaron is obviously

.

View original

Quote: sootyj @ September 10 2008, 11:48 PM BST

I once looked over Lenny Henry's fence, he had a dug a big pit to make into a fish pond.

So I've seen a Black's Hole.

View original

Quote: Griff @ September 10 2008, 11:49 PM BST

Sooty of course would be

View original

Quote: Griff @ September 11 2008, 12:30 AM BST

I get that Angelfire logo.

View original

Me too.

Quote: Aaron @ September 10 2008, 1:12 PM BST

I actually heard something similar the other day. Can't for the life of me recall what it was, but I just remember sitting here thinking "No... Did he really just say that? That's not a real word, just a colloquialism!"

View original

It wasn't BoJo saying "fantabulous" was it?

No, we're all used to Boris's quirks and turns of phrase. This was an actual reporter, and as I was paying enough attention to be able to notice, probably on a fairly important story too.

Ok. Fantabulous is ok for the BSG. At least that's consistent with prezunctly.

Can I just derail this slightly to point out to everyone that a scientific theory doesn't mean it is just a guess?

In everyday use the word theory means a speculation or conjecture. But in science it means a model of what happens that explains the known facts, can be tested and also used to make predictions. Things don't actually become scientific theories until they are generally well understood and supported by experimental observation etc.

So, someone saying, "I think the moon is made of green cheese," would be a hypothesis which would need supporting data from experiments or be able to explain known data. Saying, "I think atoms aren't actually solid but are mostly empty space," is a theory because it explains an observed fact (Gold foil experiment) and makes a prediction which can be tested - relevant to this thread in that it could be tested once particle accelerators were invented.

It's pretty rare for a proper scientific theory to be thoroughly debunked. Usually what happens is that they are refined or expanded upon or where there are conflicitng theories, quite often another underlying explanation that encompasses both is found.

I guess what I'm saying is that a scientific theory is our current best explanation for something which covers all the known facts and gives us pointers of what else to look for

The theoretical predictions and the observed data point to black holes existing. What we don't know is exactly how they work. We can theorise - again based on what we observe and what we already know of the Universe with reasonable confidence of being correct. (Spending 5 billion quid and 20-odd years building the LHC is a good indication of the level of confidence that can be had in these things!)

Mind you, black holes are so extreme that there is still a chance that they are much weirder than expected and it could be that quantum mechanics and general relativity BOTH break down within them.

And getting back on track: Apparently I am sometimes like Manny from Black Books.

Very well explained!

Has anyone listened to The Genuine Particle? I thought it was quite good, and an amusing twist at the end of the story.

I missed that last night. I'm probably going to Listen Again it this evening.

Hawkings only confused me.

If these collisions occur all around us, all the time, then we surely cannot be recreating the much-trumpeted conditions a billionth of a second after the Big Bang but simply any old thursday, at 16:03?

Hawkings can't argue from both sides. If they're recreating the moments after the Big Bang, these collisions can't be happening now because they were specifically dependent on the intense conditions existing directly after the Bang.

But if these collisions happen now in ordinary universal conditions, why spend £5 billion recreating conditions that aren't needed for these types of collisions?

Ha!! Eat that Hawking!!!

Slagg's on the case.

Quote: SlagA @ September 11 2008, 6:33 PM BST

Hawkings only confused me.

View original

Is it the voice box?