I have an old book that is a collection of the old column "The Amateur Scientist" from Scientific Americans in the fifties and sixties. One article is "A Homemade Atom Smasher" which is a particle accelerator made using a Van de Graaff static electricity generator. The book also has "A Homemade X-Ray Machine".

Ah, the good old days.

Upvote for a scientist spouting irrelevancies and illogic like a religious apologist.

He first refers to the 1958 Space Act like its directives are gospel that everyone just accepts.

Then all the rest of it is either:

• meaningless ("You know, at some point, you gotta look up"; "They're the ones that make tomorrow come"; "Heroes are made"),
• unverifiable ("We have known that those nations who make those investments lead the world."),
• xenephobic ("I see the most powerful particle accelerators in some other country, the fastest trains are built by Germany and are running in China right now"), or
• wrong and illogical ("Teachers come and go, 'cause I go to the next grade."). Seriously? He's knocking teachers because they only teach you for one year? WTF!!!!
  
  And he finishes the the biggest logical turd, "How much would you pay for the Universe?", as if NASA is going to go to UniverseMart and buy it, or as if the Chinese are going to buy it then we can't have it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  
  Maybe NASA is a worthy institution to support, but none of this is an appeal to logic. My guess is he was speaking in a red state and was purposefully appealing to emotion only, trying to tap into their religious fervour.

You'd've thought that a particle accelerator would've had a lightning conductor and some fuses.

We've found out only a bit more about how it works (Electromagnetism) since this video. Most of the knowledge comes from our particle accelerators. (We've found particles that specifically carry the force, which combine into atoms, then elements, then molecules, and so on...)

Even if we explain how everything works (we figure out gravity's connection, what makes energy into mass) we're still left with origin answers. If you understand Quantum Mechanics w/QED (and as Feynman would say it that, "You don't!") you might allow some to see that "perhaps" we were created from nothing, it just required time.

This is something that we can "conceive" and "imagine". Understanding has definitions with clear boundaries, were as the Universe it seems may only be something that is only "conceivable" until It can define Itself.

/(Being able to "define" itself could be a term to subjectively describe Humanity.)(Or Aliens...)

-- (edited in) --
The only thing the "ICP" added to that speech is that they're correct, but only if the question was asked by a serious mind. Otherwise, they show their complete and utter lack of any knowledge we've had available--to them--since before they were born. It's a parody (almost dark irony; new *tag?) only in the sense of how ridiculously rampant this type of thinking is; in the common populace. It's more ironically sad (as above), in a lot of ways. Their video shows (atleast in their city school zone) how ineffective our teaching methodology/funding is. (Not the teachers; more society and the structure of learning. Teachers tend to be the only glue holding anything together. I've had more than enough first hand knowledge and/or witnessing.)

I could add on forever. The Teachers are willing to change and many bend over backwards; paying for NEW texts (sometimes buying new texts so they don't use some text that has been broken by another state), materials (chemistry, biology, music, etc... pay the most -- unless you're an elementary teacher...then you pay 1/10 your paycheck, if you care for your kids). IT'S not the teachers and the children will go with the flow. There needs to be an ideological change in how kids are taught. I'd go with a college type. Small classes, higher budgets, good training for teachers. Consequences that will make a bully STOP, and if they don't make sure there are classes to help them and if necessary the parents as well. (Yes, parents should be able to be pulled from work.) On staff Doctors/Psych to always help (I know some are starting this). Apprenticing. Not holding a kid back in all areas cause they suck at one. I could go on for awhile longer. Some of this might require us to demobilize the military/industrial complex. Look at how well they can teach "children/teenagers with no hope" into a Tier One Operator, SOC etc...

/Didn't mean to be so long, but as you can see, the "ICP" really bug me.

A hand is one thing. How about stickin your head in a particle accelerator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski

The problem with this video is that it presents a political standpoint as cold science, yet the data upon which the point is based are deeply flawed.

For example, the claim that muslims make up 20% of the world but that muslims only account for 1% of peer-reviewed papers is incongrous; many muslims don't live in muslim countries, but their scientific output is ignored. By the same reckoning, Jews are bad scientists because Israel only produces a relatively small number of patent applications per year (about 100,000 in 2002, compared to 250,000 for Turkey and about the same number granted as Saudi Arabia, for example). Once you put it in those terms, the absurdity of this cherry-picking should become apparent - jews have the highest nobel prizes per capita of any ethnic group, but that fact is ignored by this rather convenient form of analysis. Incidentally, Turkey apply for much more patents per capita per head than the US, for example, so does that mean you'll admit you're wrong?

Quote: "If you can show me a country that practice a sincerely devout version of islam while soaring in reason, philosophy scientific advances, free speech, human rights, equality, freedom, tolerance and justice you might have had some reason to say the correlation is bullshit and the argument is just simplistic prejudice" - don't bother replying, just winding you up.

Furthermore, the article fails to take into account other factors that could contribute to this scientific underachievement: for example, how Islamic countries compare to other countries with similar GDPs? A few contributors have claimed that islamic countries are rich, but this is not actually true. The islamic state with the highest GDP is Kuwait(followed by UAE) - both of these countries have about the same average income as that bastion of richess, um, Ireland. Most of the others are in the poor house: Oman and the Saudis pull in the same as the Greeks, and the rest straddle Ukraine. Hardly money to burn on particle accelerators.

Of course religion is overtly obstructive to scientific progress - just google 'texas school board'; that's not the point made in this video, probably because the main determinant of scientific prowess is actually how much money you spend on it.

Speaking of scientific lucidity, all of the stats I cited were from Gapminder.org, who dredged them from UN reports.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Americans will invent it?
Hahahahah!


Why is that funny?
Some good ones, in chronological order:
Suspension Bridge,Refrigeration,Morse code
Steam Shovel, Vulcanized Rubber, Motorcycle,
Phonograph, Cash Register, Solar Cell,
Photographic Film, Skyscrapers, Radio,
Zipper, Tractor, FINALLY coming to the 20th century...
Air conditioning, Airplane, AC plugs and sockets,
Supermarket, Liquid Fuel Rocket, Frozen Food,
Particle Accelerators, FM, Digital Computer
, Microwave Oven, Transistor,
Mobile Phone, Supersonic Aircraft, Video Games,
Cable TV, CPR, HDD,
Industrial Robots, Videotape, LASER,
Carbon Fiber, Weather Satellites, GPS,
Heart Transplant, Cordless Phones, CDs,
Airbags, Lunar Module, WAN, PCs,
Microprocessors, Floppy Disks, Email,
Digital Cameras, Ethernet, MRI,
BBS, Internet (not WWW), Space Telescope,
DVRs, Composite Aircraft...whew that was fun. Thanks for egging me on, troll, and if you use any of the above, thank an American!

Weird. Next you're going to tell me Israel's a major contributor to humankind's scientific progress, and their particle accelerator is a scientific device, rather than a puppy-grinder.

About the particle beams - couldn't you just have a charged hull, then the beam would be repelled? Or you could even divert it into your own particle accelerator and shoot it back at 'em

"Religious" implies being part of a larger belief structure. Supernatural beliefs (ghosts, souls, universal consciousnesses) are not necessarily religious. I'm mainly concerned with what (if any) evidence is considered in forming a belief. Atheism is generally seen as applying to a belief in god(s), though I personally extend it to any belief which cannot be tested or observed. Believing something is possible is different than believing it is true.

Likewise, believing somethings are more likely than others, is different than holding no belief at all. If anything, I'm probably closest to a Deist, or some such. You are right however, I should have used a term like personal "spiritual" beliefs.

I will gladly answer this question, but given the nature of the question I must first ask you to define "consciousness". My answer will depend on your definition. I do not believe in "free will", if that helps any.

And this is exactly my point about any deity. Until you define the term, I'm agnostic. There is a simple reason why, depending on how you define the term, my answer would change.

If it makes no predictions then I'm not sure what we would be testing. If it cannot be tested then I wouldn't elevate it to the level of relativity or quantum mechanics. Still, I'm not sure how a particle accelerator of that magnitude would prove the existed of god(s).

It can be tested, just with a particle accelerator a quadrillion times more energetic than the LHC. For all utilitarian purposes, it's untestable.

>> ^bmacs27:
Ok, first of all, there needs to be a distinction drawn between participation in an organized religion, and personally held religious beliefs.

"Religious" implies being part of a larger belief structure. Supernatural beliefs (ghosts, souls, universal consciousnesses) are not necessarily religious. I'm mainly concerned with what (if any) evidence is considered in forming a belief. Atheism is generally seen as applying to a belief in god(s), though I personally extend it to any belief which cannot be tested or observed. Believing something is possible is different than believing it is true.


Psychologic, you mentioned voices in your head. How about consciousness? Do you guys believe that exists? What's your evidence? Is it voices in your head? Better yet, do you believe that anyone else has consciousness? Why isn't that like believing in unicorns?

I will gladly answer this question, but given the nature of the question I must first ask you to define "consciousness". My answer will depend on your definition. I do not believe in "free will", if that helps any.


P.S. If you are waiting for unique predictions made by string theory, you're going to have to wait until we can build particle accelerators the size of Pluto's orbit. If you can build that, there is a God.

If it makes no predictions then I'm not sure what we would be testing. If it cannot be tested then I wouldn't elevate it to the level of relativity or quantum mechanics. Still, I'm not sure how a particle accelerator of that magnitude would prove the existed of god(s).

Ok, first of all, there needs to be a distinction drawn between participation in an organized religion, and personally held religious beliefs. There is a HUGE distinction there. I was referring specifically to the latter. I do believe in some sort of "universal consciousness". What I believe in does not fit neatly into any particular definition of God that anyone has presented to me, but it certainly is closer to a concept like God than a concept like NO God. Thus, I consider myself agnostic, rather than atheist. Such a belief, as with string theory, is completely consistent with the observable universe. Granted, it makes no unique predictions, but neither does string theory.

Psychologic, you mentioned voices in your head. How about consciousness? Do you guys believe that exists? What's your evidence? Is it voices in your head? Better yet, do you believe that anyone else has consciousness? Why isn't that like believing in unicorns?

P.S. If you are waiting for unique predictions made by string theory, you're going to have to wait until we can build particle accelerators the size of Pluto's orbit. If you can build that, there is a God.

P.P.S. With regards to the ridicule theism receives: As a scientist, I'd like to see the level of debate elevated on the side claiming to represent science. Further, as an agnostic, I'd appreciate it if you didn't shunt the movement by misrepresenting the beliefs of agnostics. You get nowhere by claiming we're all closet atheists. Instead you inspire me to rail back against your claims, and become a theist sympathizer.

He made a great point that most particle accelerators are in hospitals making isotopes for cancer medication. Next time someone hates on the LHC you can mention that little nugget.

Reminded me of the trace lines in a particle accelerator. Some oddly symmetrical spirals there.

The book (and now movie) Angels & Demons is built around the premise that someone (CERN and a random particle accelerator) managed to:

A. Create enough anti-matter to make a visible amount, or, a big blob of anti-matter. Kinda hard when collisions produce single atoms. Especially if you know what Avogadro's Number means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_number

B. Separate that anti-matter from the rest of the atomic mess that would result from the actual generation of the anti-matter.

C. Contain that anti-matter without allowing it to touch any other matter, including pesky matter such as air, tables, containers of any kind, etc. In the book they solve this by creating magical vacuum containers with perfect magnetic fields that suspend the anti-matter in the exact center without allowing it to move in any direction. Since anti-protons would be negatively charged, I suppose that's a technical problem, not a theoretical one.

Anyway, I think Billy has his work cut out for him.