Comments on: The Presumptions Of Idiots

By: Mena

Mena — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:59:29 +0000

I too am late in answering this…
It sounds like you need some positive input to counter this guy. We get Horizons here occasionally on the Science Channel. I swear that I have seen your husband on something, probably this. Did he do one about string theory or time travel? Either way, I record physics stuff for my mother. She isn’t a scientist in any way and has dyscalculia. She loves physics and we go to Fermilab whenever they have a lecture. She thinks that she is getting Alzheimer’s (she’s not, she’s just on a ton of medication for back problems and a degenerative nerve disorder) and she thinks of this stuff as a way to keep her mind sharp. One of the best things about those shows is that she can understand them. It’s good when it isn’t a rehash of the same stuff over and over because that can get boring but there seem to be a lot of cutting edge physics shows getting made. They are appreciated.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:51:11 +0000

I’m late, as usual, but I’d just like to say that I, for one, really owe a lot to you and Brian and the team of people who “dumb down” science in order to help teach it to people. How the fuck to these people expect *others* to learn or understand (or contribute?!) anything if no one’s going to be around to help them out a bit? Sure, we could all take our time and try to figure it out on our own if we’re really that into it, but making something easily accessible and understandable isn’t EVIL. It’s brilliant. People are such idiots. I don’t understand why they have to nitpick so freaking much.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:10:57 +0000

Adj. nonmoving
1. Not in motion
- unmoving
- Ralph

Just a joke, not an insult.

By: jasmine

jasmine — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:31:27 +0000

Some cosmic rays are gamma ray photons, some are protons; some are more obscure particles. Some cosmic rays come from the sun, some come from the black hole at the centre of the galaxy (including some very exotic particles with very high energies) and some come from extragalactic sources, though these are very rare.

The planet Earth’s velocity relative to the particle is the only thing that matters. There is no difference in energy or collision effects between a car hitting a stationary one and a moving one with the same total momentum; in Newton’s universe, even, velocity and position may not be absolutely deduced.

The total energy of some cosmic ray collisions (the nicknamed “Oh God particle”) is many hundreds of times higher than will be reached in even the LHC.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:40:36 +0000

Mitchell, you’re a good man. I’ve learned alot here on the sidelines, but have some questions. Are the cosmic rays you speak of the gamma rays from the sun? Is the earth and it’s atmosphere to these rays almost equal to a stationary object since it can’t even move a centimeter without getting hit by these cosmic rays? Are cosmic rays the same as Protons?

The reason why I ask these questions is because there is no non-moving proton in the particle accelerator when it’s operational, and the protons are shot at each other at almost light speed.

Just so no one pounces on me, I believe we’re still gona be around after May. :)

Ralph… Buddha, Buddha!

Good quote, Gia!

Gia: Jim, that quote defines how I live my life. Now, you need to define ‘non-moving’. ;)

The Earth is revolving around the Sun at 108,000 kilometres per hour.
The Sun is rotating around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy at about 800,000 kilometres per hour.
And the Milky Way Galaxy is moving towards the centre of our Local Group of Galaxies at about 144,000 kilometres per hour.
And that our Local Group is moving, in relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, at about 1,328,000 kilometres per hour.
And the 13 billion year old Universe itself is expanding at a rate of almost 200,000 kilometres per hour.

My best guess is that between the time I started writing this and now I’ve moved about 30,000 kilometres in relation to the Background Radiation. But in a deep sense you could say that nothing moves at all.

By: mitchell porter

mitchell porter — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:01:13 +0000

Ralph, in those articles, Hawking has not backed away from the hypothesis of black hole evaporation. What he changed his mind about is information loss, the idea that the pre-collapse state of the black hole could not be deduced, even in principle, from the decay radiation. In string theory there is no such information loss, and Hawking agreed once he found his own path to that conclusion.

As for the LHC, Gia already mentioned the real reason why people do not expect the planet to be eaten by black holes from the LHC, and that is that cosmic rays hitting the Earth’s atmosphere already produce more powerful collisions regularly. If stable black holes were produced at those energies, by now, we wouldn’t even be here.

By: giagia

giagia — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:36:22 +0000

Ralph,
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” –Buddha

By: Ralph

Ralph — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:25:38 +0000

Trolling? Gia, if you don’t want me visitng your blog, and I bother you, why do you keep asking me questions? Really.

Yes, you didn’t ask me a question this time, and I wont bother you any longer, that’s unless you pop me with another question.

If I’m blind, Brian should help me see the light, but if you don’t want him to help me open my eyes, my mind, I’ll accept that.

By: giagia

giagia — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:57:08 +0000

Ralph, my comments are set so that if one contains more than (I think) 2 comments it goes into the moderation queue.

I read two of the articles you linked to. They say NOTHING about Hawking saying he’s wrong about radiation, but instead he’s talking about INFORMATION. They are different issues.

I don’t see why you think I’m insulting you. On the one hand you don’t just accept things that people say, on the other hand you don’t seem to want to use your own brain to work things out. You won’t get the answers you need that way. You need to listen to people who know what they are talking about AND use your own brain. Don’t shut down and accept on faith the ramblings from people who don’t know anything.

You seem to be trolling here. Either that or you are so blinded by your beliefs about ‘Hawking Radiation’ that you can’t see a thing.

The longer this go on, the more I suspect it’s the former.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:52:13 +0000

Gia, since we pretty muched guessed you were gona moderate your comments sooner or later, I made a copy of my comment just incase you erased it by mistake. :)

I don’t hate you or Brian, just was hoping he would answer my questions. I wouldn’t then have discovered the articles of Stephen Hawking back tracking on his theory.

What’s that say about Hawking? Was right when he first discovered it, but is now wrong for back tracking on Hawking Radiation because you say so? I don’t mean this in an arrogant way.

I also copied this comment.

Gia: Ralph, please read those articles you linked to properly. Stephen Hawking has not ‘backtracked’. Come on. You have a brain. Use it.