Comments:Large Hadron Collider reaches milestone

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

If there isn't a button just below here that says "Start a new discussion", trying waiting a few seconds and then clicking this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Comments from feedback form603:35, 18 April 2010
Comments from feedback form1620:19, 16 April 2010
Wow!3523:33, 15 April 2010

Comments from feedback form

lol

84.250.158.199 (talk)11:53, 11 April 2010

I am laughing too. The boys at the Hadron collider don't understand high school math.

BeerDrinker (talk)18:10, 11 April 2010

Suggestion for you. Maybe you should review your math.

Mikemoral♪♫00:10, 15 April 2010
 

I had trouble understanding the Hadron collider logic. I went to the pub and drank six twenty ounce glasses of beer, six glasses of rye and ginger ale, two Beam me up Scotties, three TKO's (Tequila, Kalua and Ouzo), two straight shots of Tequila and sucked on a lemon until things became clear.

They are trying to say Pi is equal to four. The General Assembly of Indiana passed a bill stating Pi was equal to four in the year 1897. If you go back four centuries, Pope Gregory XIII removed ten days from the Gregorian calendar on October 4 1582. The next day was October 15th 1582. Year one was October 4 1583 or 314 years before Pi was changed to four.

BeerDrinker (talk)21:25, 17 April 2010

Do you even know wth your technobabble means?

Who says pi equals 4?

Mikemoral♪♫21:41, 17 April 2010

The author David H. Ahl in his book 'The TRS-80 Model 100 and NEC PC-8201 Idea Book, page 60.

By the way, Pi * sqrt(Phi)=4

BeerDrinker (talk)03:26, 18 April 2010

You have to use 2 decimal place accuracy for Phi=1.62 and Pi=22/7

BeerDrinker (talk)03:35, 18 April 2010
 
 
 
 
 

Comments from feedback form

the force of seven mosquitos?

84.56.30.81 (talk)08:55, 11 April 2010

Its actually much more impressive then it sounds, since atoms and stuff have very low mass. It takes a very large amount of energy to move something the mass of a mosquito compared to moving something at the same speed if it has a mass of an atom.

Bawolff 04:49, 12 April 2010

If you want impressive, how about the painter's paradox at the bottom of this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn

The inside is bigger than the outside.

If a scientist wants to know how old a tree is, he would have to count the rings outside the bark!

BeerDrinker (talk)16:47, 12 April 2010

Well the surface area (infinite) is bigger then the volume, which is a bit different then saying the inside is bigger than the outside. Still weird paradox, however theres lots of weird things when you consider idealized mathamatical objects. (If it existed in real world...)

Bawolff 20:45, 13 April 2010

The paradox is based on a portion of the equation Y=1/x, and is infinite as you say.

Check this out.

Man=Man

1=Man*1/Man

Lat Man = x

1=x *1/Man

Lat 1/Man=Y

1=x*y

y=1/x

The infinite surface area fits inside a Man.

BeerDrinker (talk)14:58, 14 April 2010

wtf is lat in you equation? (not to mention there are several other problems with your reasoning, but I'll start there).

Bawolff 15:10, 14 April 2010
 
 
 
 
 

Truly, we are messing with powers beyond our understandin here!

77.250.25.84 (talk)08:30, 1 April 2010

Erm... 7 lil bugs really isnt that much is it ? :S

92.43.64.69 (talk)11:03, 1 April 2010

I agree with 77.250.25.84 (great name btw). This reminds me of a Lovecraft story. The one with the cosmic horrors, terrifying vistas, and humans who can barely even begin to comprehend them. Does anyone know which one I'm referring to?--66.110.243.247 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

66.110.243.247 (talk)12:11, 1 April 2010
 

The amazing thing is that the energy is condensed into a size about a million million times smaller than a mosquito.

Juliancolton | Talk12:46, 1 April 2010

All they will prove, is Einstein's equation E=mc^2, where Time and Distance are perpendicular.

At the origin, the God particle = m

m = E/c^2

c = meters/seconds

m = E/(meters/seconds)

when seconds are = 0, then mass = invisible speck

the Time domain fits inside an invisible speck.

when meters are = 0, then mass=infinity

Infinity * cos(0) = infinty

today the entire universe fits inside an invisible speck.

Infinity * cos(90)= zero

All they will find is a 90 degree angle.

BeerDrinker (talk)21:52, 1 April 2010

So little optimism.

There is hope these ultra-high energy experiments will get us closer to reconciling relativity and quantum theory.

Brian McNeil / talk22:35, 1 April 2010

Quantumn theory and relativity are simple to reconcile with 3D anamorphic art.

Quantumn theory involves light, E=hf and is vertical.

Relativity involves time and is horizontal.

Frequency = 1/Time

Time and Distance are perpendicular, therefore distance is a frequency and is perpendicular.

Division of two numbers produces a 90 degree phase shift as shown by E=mc^2.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/283204027_5247242acb_o.jpg

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line and therefore linear.

The slope of a line = rise/run = y/x

If we take a small slice or derivitive, we get dy/dx

Therefore y/x=dy/dx

ydx=xdy

0=xdy-ydx

If you find the area or integral of an invisible speck, you will get 2Pi*r^2.

This is a double ellipse or a cylinder in a circle.

Also, the contour integral of nothing is 2Pi*i, where i=sqrt(-1).

This is a pole in a circular path. i.e. 90 degree shift producing 3D.


Also, Kepler's equation for planetary orbit has no origin.

r=1/(1+aCos(theta))

The left side of the equation does not equal the right side of the equation at the origin.

This puts the earth in two places at the same time.

There are two equal and opposite proofs to Kepler's equation.

Proof 1: Involves solving the vector r=rr

using a mathematical trick where, r1=bold print r2=italic r3=subscripted

Proof 2: Involves solving the vector r=r/r

This produces a double ellipse and violates the rule of differentiable vectors.

A differentiable vector exists IFF and only IFF it is differentiable over the entire domain.


Also, the second law of thermodynamics says entropy increases going forward in time and decreases going backward in time. If we trace back to the big bang, entropy is zero.

In other words, the universe was already assembled.

BeerDrinker (talk)00:29, 2 April 2010