Anyone ever heard of john titor? go to johntitor.com or wikipedia him.....he talked about CERN creating mini blackholes by accident back in 2000. which is how he says we can time travel in the year 2036 and how he came back in time to do his work for the army. Very interesting stuff. Read all his stuff and look at the army books he had brought back about his time displacement machine......makes ya think. stuff was very detailed.

To be there and to be able to understand all of the math!  I love that.  What is the current level that any colider has gotten up so far.  It was mentioned that LHC can get up to 14 TeV by 2010; will it warm up with something under the 5 TeV that was mentioned?

well S.B. Stein, yes it will start up at the energy of 450 GeV which is 0.45 TeV. as far as what the highest level of energy generated before this one kicks off....im not sure. but even if anything interesting is to happen, it wont be for a while still. at least not until it starts really putting out some power. we arent gonna really see anything interesting and new until it reaches at least 5 TeV

What is this machine suppose to do?

 It is just a 'matter' of 'time', to see which way this race will go! Relatively speaking, I place all my money upon CERN LHC/ALICE, during scheduled 14 TeV full-power heavy Lead (Pb) ion collisions, once financed in 2009!

http://thefifthknight.blogspot.com/

Remember: Follow the 'White Rabbit'!

@ Jamie Williams -- Just thought I'd point out that while a lot of the things on that website are vague and could POSSIBLY have been a COINCIDENTAL hit, that website is a farce.  For example, at one point he says he is 14 in 2012 and that the US Civil War is in it's 7th year... if so, that would mean that the war started in 2005.  Learn to read before you post such stupid things.

What in heavens name are they talking about?  please explain in plain English.  Sounds interesting.

If you study John Titors statements it is very interesting but he says one thing that does not jive.  He states that after 2004 there were no more Olympic games.  In only a few days that will be incorrect.  It tends to make me think it is fradulent.

to the anonymous person that commented on my post....if YOU would have read the site at all, then you would know that he mentioned different world lines. let me break that down for you...that means if it happened in his past, that doesnt mean it will happen in our future. He stated that you cant go back and change your past, when u travel back, it creates a new world line from that time on. now....why dont YOU read before YOU post....thanks

I got to simply ask "why". What difference does the knowledge of subatomic particles even do for us? I understand man's quest for knowledge but dumping billions into a system and a science that provides no real-use benefit seems like a gross waste of time, money and resources. Please stop this nonsence and let's do something PRODUCTIVE as a race.

We have homeless people and starving children and old people and kids in school with out books and proper materials and some kids not even in school and we spend all this money on this . Who gives a crap about this we have lives to live perhaps you all should get one to and a real job there are plenty of them out there.

Aha, I should recap what the Large Hadron Collider is all about:

Over the past 70 years or so, physicists have been smashing atoms and subatomic particles together to study what makes them tick. The analogy has been made to shooting at a nerf ball with a BB gun, and trying to figure out what's inside the nerf ball by seeing how the BBs are deflected and what gets knocked loose.

These particle colliders have been operating at higher and higher energies, and they've been quite useful ... not only because they reveal what we're made of (for example, the discovery of quarks, etc.) but also because the beams have real-world applications (treating cancer, developing stronger materials, mapping internal organs).

The Large Hadron Collider ("hadron" refers to any particle that contains quarks) will be by far the most powerful particle collider to date, achieving energies seven times as high as the previous champion (the Tevatron in Illinois). It's important to remember that collisions far more energetic occur in outer space all the time. You could think of the LHC as the best artificial cosmic-ray simulator we've been able to come up with so far.

So what will it find? We'll go into that in much more depth in a couple of weeks, but in brief, physicists hope to answer some of the puzzling questions that have been unanswerable until now. For example, based on our current understanding of gravity, we know that all the matter we can see is only about 10 percent of all the matter in the universe. Scientists believe the other 90 percent is "dark matter," which may consist of exotic particles that zip through us all the time but have never been detected. The LHC could detect the signatures of such dark matter particles.

Another question has to do with antimatter. Theorists have said that equal parts of matter and antimatter arose in the big bang that gave rise to the universe as we know it ... but theoretically, those equal parts should have annihilated themselves and resulted in pure energy. There must have been something about antimatter that gave it a disadvantage and led to the fact that we hardly ever see antimatter in nature. One of the LHC experiments, LHCb, will address that conundrum.

Another LHC experiment, called ALICE, will seek to re-create the conditions that existed just after the big bang and study the plasma (or fluid) that made up all that was at that time.

Then there's the Higgs boson. As I mentioned above, it's the last particle predicted by the Standard Model that hasn't yet been detected. It is thought to be associated with a field that determines which particles will have mass (like protons) and which particles won't (like photons). It's so important to the way the world works that it's been called the "God Particle."

Theorist John Ellis told me that the Higgs is the "door" leading to new physics that we can't really guess about right now. Determining its characteristics could lead physicists beyond the brick wall they're facing on several fronts.

There are also way-out ideas: If the universe contains extra unseen dimensions, as some theorists have said, the LHC could create microscopic knots of energy that have been dubbed "mini-black holes" (virtually all physicists say they would disappear instantaneously). Some researchers claim that the LHC could create small closed timelike curves ... essentially, microscopic wormholes or time machines. Most physicists say that's pretty much science fiction, but there has been at least one paper written up about the idea:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2696

As far as real-world applications ... well, that can't be predicted right now. But past advances in high-energy physics and engineering have led to new ways to see the universe (like space telescopes sensitive to various wavelengths) and new devices (like PET scanners and MRI scanners in hospitals). The engineering insights gained from the LHC could help other scientists tame fusion power, or discover entirely new sources of energy, or come up with new types of materials or sensors.

We'll delve into this a lot more in the coming weeks, but I did want to give folks a sense of why the LHC is important.

If you want to click through a presentation that explains particle physics step by step, you can check out the Particle Adventure:

http://particleadventure.org/frameless/startstandard.html

hopefully something good will come out of this,and no disaster.maybe inventions,but how much money did and does this cost? what comes out of this ?

to one of the last comments....this money and time is spent so that we can furher understand things that at this time are unknown to us. we are a people that have a constant hunger for knowledge and improving ourselves. This will open new doors to things that we may never know about otherwise [...]

Hey, yes, let's fight world hunger and not spend so much money on things like this. Sounds like a liberal.
If it weren't for science like this, we wouldn't be able to feed the many people we have in this country. Science has brought us agriculture on a wide scale, transportation infrastructure to bring it to customers, technology to cook it, seal it so it doesn't spoil, and refridgerate it so it is available when we need it. Society has always benefited from science. Kids starving and kids not able to go to school is a human problem and always will be. No amount of money will solve certain human traits. Only this type of science will allow invention and development that will benefit mankind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is typically uneducated, ignorant, or has no capacity to understand.

This world would rather destroy itself trying to figure out how we came to be rather than just living. Finding a cure for disease is one thing, this is a total waste of time. We have polluted the Earth, its waterways, its oceans, now we are looking to rocketing trash into space to further pollute it.  Hell, even if we did manage to find another dimension we would screw it up too.

I should also mention that endeavors like the LHC (and the LEP before it) yield technological spin-offs that are not directly related to particle physics. Of course these things might have been developed even if the atom-smashers weren't built, but the colliders gave them an intellectual and financial "push."

For example, one of the researchers at CERN developed a little something called the World Wide Web to keep track of the data generated by the LEP experiment, which preceded the LHC. You literally could not be doing what you are doing right now if it weren't for CERN and Tim Berners-Lee.

The big innovation for the LHC project is a computer networking system called Grid computing. The Grid is the world's biggest example of distributed computing, and it will likely lead to a significant increase in worldwide computing power. That could be applied to areas ranging from climate prediction to molecular-scale fabrication to protein-folding analysis (which could produce a plethora of new medicines) to ... heaven knows what.

Keep your ears tuned for future Grid applications.

in short, if this experiment works, it will prove once and for all that the "big bang theory" is not a theory at all, but what actually created the universe. it will be interesting to hear what religious folks will have to say about that fact, seeings how it disproves the "intelligent design" theory that some think should be taught in our schools.

Sounds like the Higgs-Boson particle is similar to a stem-cell in that the Higgs-Boson seems to be the guide to other particles. A particle DNA !

Some of you need to read this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local_idiot_to_post_comment_on
Research and science investigations have GREATLY benefited humanity despite naysayers always claiming that there are more pressing problems.  Hell with that attitude we would still be eating raw meat.  Don’t waste time trying to start that fire, just find the food and eat.  The knowledge gained works it way through society and ultimately improves standards of living usually with unanticipated benefits.  NRMs were derived from non- medical research programs but have revolutionized diagnosis.  Without further exploration of scientific questions we, as a species, are doomed to stagnation.

In response to ...

> Over the past 70 years or so, physicists have
> been smashing atoms and subatomic particles
> together to study what makes them tick. The
> analogy has been made to shooting at a nerf
> ball with a BB gun, and trying to figure out
> what's inside the nerf ball by seeing how the
> BBs are deflected and what gets knocked loose.
>
> These particle colliders have been operating
> at higher and higher energies, and they've been
> quite useful ... not only because they reveal
> what we're made of (for example, the discovery
> of quarks, etc.) but also because the beams
> have real-world applications (treating cancer,
> developing stronger materials, mapping internal
> organs).

It's fascinating how much is taken for granted in the physics community these days.  The past philosophical discussions of the structure and function of the universe on all levels has over time increasingly taken a backseat to a brute-force, mechanical mindset of doing more of the same (yet, presumably better) and getting as many people as possible on board to agree on the same exact models -- which actually aren't working so great after all at predicting much of anything.  The idea that this approach will be effective in the long run is, oddly enough, at once both absurd and strictly enforced.

How did we get to this point?  Was there a purge of all heretical views?  From http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/Steps.htm:

[quote]

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.

[end quote]

Purge or not, there are good reasons to doubt these colliders.  From David Thomson's "Secrets of the Aether", a good point ...

[quote]

The reader should question whether reductionism should proceed as Zeno's paradox, whereby mere mathematical division reduces systems.  However, if this were the case, what would be the physical principle for mathematically dividing something into infinity?  A human being is an entity.  If we reduce the entity, we find it builds from bodily organs and parts such as heart, liver, skeleton and skin.  We do not say that humans build from smaller humans.  Similarly, the organs build from cells, which have a level of existence that is very different from the organs.  Moreover, the cells build from molecules, which are a more basic order of reality than the cells.  The atoms that make up the molecules are a yet more simplified order of existence than the molecules.  The subatomic particles are yet a simpler order of existence than the atoms.  Moreover, the dimensions that make up the units of subatomic prticles are a still more fundamental order of existence.

[end quote]

It appears as though the concept of reductionism really plays a very minor role in the discipline of quantum mechanics.  Is this really correct?  Is the universe really just a particle zoo?

There are alternative views of what is being observed with colliders.  From David Thomson's "Secrets of the Aether" ...

[quote]

However, the muon, tau, quarks, and other extremely short-lived "observed particles" are merely collision or "unbinding" effects.  The collision effects offer some insights into the process of physics, but are of little more use for quantum structural science than crash tests are for automobile manufacturers.  Although particle accelerators are useful technology, one has to question just how many we need.  It would be far more productive to focus our scientific inquiry on the actual physical structures of stable matter, than to focus too much attention on collision effects.

[end quote]

Properly vetting these sorts of contrarian views and concerns to the public, however, presents a great challenge to groups of scientists who need to fund projects that cost billions of dollars to test their claims.  Why would the public support the construction of such monstrosities if there existed doubt as to whether or not they actually work in the first place?

The public needs to dig deeper than the investigative journalism currently being offered to them.  A good starting place is to start listening to the critics out there.  They actually make some good points that are worth hearing out.

I have three words for the people that don't understand why this is truly an important thing to study...Ignorance Is Bliss. They must be truly happy people.

What would happen if a person could put their hand or a piece of paper or something inside the collided while it was active?  Would the protons just go right through or would they do damage to the item that they come in contact with.

Please, no ignorant commments berating the scientists and professionals working on this project and telling them to get "real jobs". To advance scientifically is to carry out experiments like these, and science has a long history of contributing to the good of humanity (for example, any medical technology). As mentioned by others, it could have innumerable practical appplications as well. Please don't tell me Einstein's equations were useless too, because they didn't directly address world hunger.

14 tev through a piece of metal or a magnetromer may create a reverse in the magnetic pole of gravety and give us a way to go through time with no restrictions electro magtisum is the path maby this will help get there

In response to this ...

> I should also mention that endeavors like the
> LHC (and the LEP before it) yield technological
> spin-offs that are not directly related to
> particle physics. Of course these things might
> have been developed even if the atom-smashers
> weren't built, but the colliders gave them an
> intellectual and financial "push."
>
> For example, one of the researchers at CERN
> developed a little something called the World
> Wide Web to keep track of the data generated
> by the LEP experiment, which preceded the LHC.

Are you suggesting that the collider research is useful regardless of whether or not the science is on track and the experimental results themselves are useful?

Are you trying to tell us that the Internet would have never been developed had we not built colliders?

Whether or not we should be building colliders should depend more on how good the scientific arguments are for quantum mechanics relative to ALTERNATIVE PARADIGMS.  The problem is that if you permit alternative paradigms to even have a voice at all, then you are already undermining the public's willingness to fund these colliders.  If the scientists can't seem to make up their minds on whether or not the thing should work, then the thing in question immediately sounds more risky.

One only has to read the writings of the Electric Universe group in an honest manner to realize that our scientific community's fascination with consensus has led them down a narrow-minded pathway that can now only work with never-before-observed particles, 10 or more dimensions and mathematics that has little basis in reality.  It's time to expand our horizons if we want to move forward.

[ALAN ADDS: Hm, sounds like you have a thing against particle physics as it's usually practiced nowadays. I'll just note (as many others have before) that the Standard Model is one of the most successful (albeit head-spinning) theories in science - building on insights from some of history's best minds (Einstein, Feynman, etc.). As for the Internet, that was created by the Pentagon. It was the World Wide Web that was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN, as a result of the LEP collider experiment. If you remember what the Internet was like before the Web (archie, veronica, gopher, FTP, elm, Usenet, etc.), the distinction between the pre-WWW and the current WWW-enabled Internet should be clear.]

The answer to how we got here and what makes things work is in the first line of this book. Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You liberal idiots whine about hunger, homelessness, etc., you should consider this.  What if, as the result of this experiment, scientists were able to discover a clean, inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels?  What if understanding how matter is constructed led to a safe way to rid the world of greenhouse gasses?  What effect do you think either would have on the world's ills?  Stifling science in the name of solving society's problems is how the soviets did so well in science, and what led to their eventual economic supremecy... oh yeah, that didn't work out so hot for them, did it?

I am a little surprised that more people (or any) haven't even touched on the fact that the LHC was built with the help of theories that Stephen Hawking supplied. The theory was thought solid as a rock, and they began making this machine to investigate what he thought was to be found. That beginning started in 1975. But, after 30 years of having do doubt he was right in his theory, he found that he had miscalculated,and as a result,admitted that he had been all wrong for 30 years...Too late to stop now,was the mentality...i guess. Of course humans make mistakes,that's why pencils have erasers. But to continue down this same path,with flawed theory in hand, they will happily risk everything because "they dont know what will happen" But are very intrested to see what they get. I'm sorry,but if your whole project is based on flawed info, scrap the project. Or not. It's your planet. Here is a link to more info on what is not being told to you: http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm

[ALAN ADDS: I think this is page passes along some misunderstandings ... for example, it says the main purpose of the LHC is to produce antimatter and black holes. That's not the main purpose. One of the instruments will be studying the matter-antimatter balance, and there's a very slight chance that micro black holes will be produced, but neither of these items will be "potentially devastating." Also, the page badly garbles Hawking's views on black holes. For a well-informed and easy-to-understand explanation of the black hole debate, check out Leonard Susskind's book on the subject, "The Black Hole War," which I'm in the process of reading.]

sounds like something I read about in Angels and Demons...I dont know about you folks, but once this project is under way, im going back to meet the 10 yr old version of myself, and tell him about all the bad desicions we have made

Science is the ultimate answer....religion plays no part in any logical way in the creation of the world. Religion explains the greed of a make beleive "god", who cant even pay taxes on his property "churches"...

There is no way proving a Big Bang disproves any Divine Creator. Sneaky Bugger might just have created a Big Bang. Apples and Oranges, folks, to the death. Moreover, the people so upset about a flawed theory are likely of the mind that humans are flawed and therefore so are all of their theories. Which is generally true. We can't have an unflawed theory un til we have real answers. Cant have real answers til we start muckin around with things. Risk vs Gain. Thats the bottom line of the arguement. No one can prove 100% one thing or another. What do you value? What do you dream of? Will this thing help? Is it worth the risk? Most people think along these lines in business and love and all sorts of things/situations. While big, mysterious, and a little scary, this device is no different, nor any less deserving of consideration.

Personally I think its worth it. Rather go down a black hole on accident than burn away in the nuclear spite of human fear.

How can the experts be so sure nothing bad will be generated by this collider, when the reason for building it is that they don't know what it will do?

That John Titor guy is a bunch of bull. Someone had way too much time on their hands. I can't beleive there are people that actually beleive that too. If people are this gullable now, I can only imagine what people will be like in 2036.

OK adam - it's like this:

first off, it's a GIANT THERMOS BOTTLE (insulated VACUUM)

Second - it's VERY VERY C.C.C.cc.c. OLD (1.9 degrees above ABSOLUTE ZERO

So IF there were to be some errant "matter" in there, it would THOROUGHLY screw up the operation.  This is an operation of "very fast parts of atoms" (protons) going round and round until they HIT (smack!) some other atom (the whole atom).  The object is to look at the "pieces that "fly off" - what angles they fly off and what their "lifetime" is (pretty SHORT) and then try to determine the very NATURE of those particles - those "pieces of atoms", those very "building blocks of matter itself"

I'm an engineer and most of it is STILL way over my head

If for a moment one ponders the idea that time might not be so discrete and sequential, while nevertheless being quite continuous, one might suggest that there is a bit of wiggle room in time, such that certain phenomena tend to follow a different but curiously consistent set of rules, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

Observing that one of the primal laws of the universe is that special cases not only are allowed but also encouraged, is it so difficult to imagine conditions in which events occur at in time at speeds which for slower relative observers appear to be considerably faster than the speed of light--specifically to the point of being virtually instantaneous across vast distances on a galactic scale?  

More to the point, if a so-called "black hole" (be it minuscule or immense) meets the necessary criteria for allowing the existence of what one might call a "distorted or convoluted spacetime horizon", then is it such a leap to expect that certain events which have not occurred in our relative timeline in fact occurred quite a while ago in some of these more strange and unusual dimensions of spacetime?

In other words, if the upcoming experiments at the Large Hadron Collider somehow spawn tiny "black holes", then could bits of information travel through spaceime virtually instantaneously through a cosmic pipeline or portal and arrive somewhere in what to us is far distant space where they interact with information that will not become readily available to us based on our current levels of technology until sometime in what we perceive to be our "future", and if so, then one might reasonably expect that we already would have observed a few clues about the future as the consequence of noting anomalies in the behavior of a virtual festival of stellar objects?

Is the information we perceive from our various observations of astronomical objects permanently locked in such a way that everything we will ever perceive in our relative future in fact is entirely predetermined and inviolate?

Probably not . . .

Hence, instead of focusing on what might happen, I suggest it makes a lot more sense to focus on what in the future already has happened toward the goal of determining whether it provides a few clues to upcoming events . . .

Thanks!

Please don't think that all liberals are against the LHC. While I agree that there are very real problems such as hunger and homelessness, I have always thought that science is the way. As stated above, who knows what fantastic energy solutions may result from these experiments? Even if the risks from running these experiments where HUGE, and I'm not saying that they are, life is full of risk. If you're not trying to move forward, you may as well be going in reverse.

Chris Reeve wrote:

"Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

Einstein was wrong about a great many things, he rejected much of quantum physics. There really is no current university teaching Einstein without also including Higgs and a great number of other greats since Einstein. There has been no purge, and the only theories that might get you kicked out of a university are ones that embraced only Einstein and rejected what came after him (i.e. particle physics, quantum theory, and string theory)

Counter to what those of religious and right-wing philosophy want to tell you, science generally works on the basis of peer review. Even if your theory sounds whacky today, as long as you are published and reviewed, eventually the truth of your equations will come to light. There is room for personal opinion, but eventually truth wins out. It scares a lot of people because humans generally fear change, but change comes no matter how you try to stop it.

don't argue with a fool, bystanders may not be able to tell you apart..............

It is great to see the well reasoned responses explaining this device despite the emotion laden concerns of some.  Gives this technical professional pride in all of us.

Folks, I haven't approved some of the comments because they go a little too far over the line in terms of attacking the comments of others. It's a judgment call, and some of the comments I've let through might sound a little bit rough as well. But if you don't see your comment appearing, you may want to rephrase it a bit, addressing the information generally (e.g., "being a fan of Paris Hilton is idiotic") rather than addressing a commenter specifically (e.g., "John Doe, you're an idiot because you're a fan of Paris Hilton").

How much does it cost to ride it and do they expect long waiting lines?

science am bad; stay away from it.  everyone know science am bad.  i am going to go now and try to unlearn some knowledge so i can be like the people who condemn the advancement of knowledge as a bad thing.  those who lack vision deserve to fall into the hole.

It's this kind of science that lets us assume that we'll be not having to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years ... we'll find ways to transmogrify the waste into water or other harmless benficial substance before too long.  If we don't try, that stuff (and there's cubic miles of it) is going to come back with a vengeance!!!

Hey, Elon.  You once said you never lose.  Well, baby, you've lost 3 to Davey Jones.  Should have gone with me back in 2003.

> [ALAN ADDS: Hm, sounds like you have a thing
> against particle physics as it's usually
> practiced nowadays. I'll just note (as many
> others have before) that the Standard Model is
> one of the most successful (albeit head-spinning)
> theories in science - building on insights from
> some of history's best minds (Einstein, Feynman,
> etc.).

How would you know how comparatively successful the Standard Model is without actually permitting yourself to learn about competing paradigms?  Sounds to me like you are too willing to accept the claims of others without listening to the criticism.

Has anybody ever used the Standard Model to create an equation that predicts the values of an elemental characteristic for every single element of the periodic table?  Shouldn't we be able to do that by now if the Standard Model is so great?  David Thomson did just that with his electron binding equation in his Aether Physics Model, but nobody considers him to be "great".  Seems to me that a lot of science these days -- like in the nano-world -- is a lot of fumbling around, twiddling molecules and playing with physical phenomena that are not truly understood.

Are you aware that the HR Diagram for stars can be easily described with simple plasma physics (rather than proposing that stars "age")?  I'm betting not, but you are still confident that it doesn't matter even without reading about it.  That's not very rigorous.

There remain many great unresolved enigmas with the Standard Model if you will just listen to the critics explain them to you.  You don't ever read about them though because you are spending too much time reading just about popular people and popular theories.  That's fine if that is your actual occupation, but it's unfair if you then try to make a statement that also covers those theories you are less familiar with.  How do you know that the competing paradigms do not compare to the Standard Model without even reading about them?

If you guys just forced yourself to do a bit of reading on the side, you will understand the problem better.  Try "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott for starters.  It's such a short book, you could read it in 2 or 3 days.  When you see that there are alternate paradigms that actually can be made to work quite well based upon rock solid laboratory science like plasma physics, then you will start to question the observational interpretations that you're taking for granted at the moment.

(Not trying to take over your space here, so I'll leave it at that ...)

This is an interesting time to be alive. If the missing particle is found, Physics will have very little left for us in terms of discovery. But if it is not found, Physics as we know it will have to be re-written, an exciting idea for me, as I believe that current Physics relies too much on theory and hypothesis. I personally do not believe that the Higgs will be found, but we will see! YES, WE WILL SEE! A VERY EXCITING TIME TO BE ALIVE!

On another note, I would like to discuss the Big Bang. I do not believe that everything originated from a single point of infinite density. You can still have the Big Bang without this theory. Has no one ever thought about two Supermasses colliding?!?! I will use the illustration of a bomb. After a bomb detonates, it resembles what we see in the Big Bang, expansion in every direction. But alot of things happened in order to get the materials into the bomb to preceed the explosion. It seems far more likely that "SOMETHING" preceeded the Big Bang, not nothing as the theory states. Another idea that seems far more likely than the "nothing theory", as I call it, is a white hole or some kind of tear in the fabric of space. The Size and Scale here are unfathomable, which brings me to my next point.

Why do scientists fool-heartedly believe that they can see the entire Universe? We cannot do this. Our size and scale are very limited, and just by saying that what we see is the ENTIRE Universe, is follish, selfish, and quite frankly, unscientific. If anyone has any information to disprove this, I would very much like to hear it, but I currently have not seen anything to bolster, in my opinion, this error of judgement.

To repeat...

Please remember that astrophysicists and the physicists at CERN are often wrong.

And please note that the Big Bang theory is quite wrong (and obviously so).

CNN.com and AP report --

“Scientists plan to hunt for signs of the invisible "dark matter" and "dark energy" that make up more than 96 percent of the universe, and hope to glimpse the elusive Higgs boson, a so-far undiscovered particle thought to give matter its mass.”

The concepts of  “dark matter” and “dark energy” are spurious.  These concepts are based upon the incorrect Big Bang theory.

So what is the purpose of the LHC??  

BTW, is the Energizer Bunny involved in this project?

GOOD LUCK AND HAPPY COLLIDING!!!!!!!!!!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):