Science can (and has) pushed back some of the minor beliefs of religion. But I don't think anything will end religion. Religion will adapt. Just think of the simple example of the age of the Earth. Not long ago rational people believed the Earth might only be around 6000 years old. Now only the extreme nutters believe this, while the mainstream religious folks have just adapted. Religion has the luxury of being able to flip a belief from literal to metaphorical at will to protect itself. It will survive.

This post was edited by Azrad on Mar 27 2010 05:31pm

i have a friend who is a hopeless fundamentalist, and is also very bright. i would say he is smarter than me in most senses. but he believes the world is 6,000 years old. how does he accept scientific findings along with religion? he believes before "noah's flood" there was a layer of water in the atmosphere that came crashing down, after this layer of water was cleared from the air, radio carbon dating dramatically changed, throwing off scientists worldwide. w t f.

I'd bet your friend is engaging in double think. But I suppose this really isn't a very harsh criticism, since we are all guilty of it from time to time. I once read an interesting story about some Texas prospector who had a degree in Geology and was a young Earth creationist (believed the Earth to be 6000 years old). According to the story he said he when he is looking for oil he has found that it helps to pretend the Earth is billions of years old. But once he goes home to his family he no longer has to pretend, and can go back to believing it is 6000.

This post was edited by Azrad on Mar 27 2010 05:59pm

the first collision happened yesterday at LHC! most likely black holes were created, we will know in a few days. the test was a huuuuge success and only took a few hours of failed attempts compared to days or weeks with other, smaller accelerators. cant wait to read the findings, not that i will understand even half of it.

I think it should be kept running, due to mainly the fact that it might give an arguable explanation for the double slit experiment by measuring the effects of the pilot wave, if at all anything. Or so tells me my phys teacher. I'd like to wit the experiment explained. That would be the shiz, black holes are worth the risk even though there isn't one.

The double slit experiment is explained. You (being a human being) just do not like the explanation (understandably so).

This post was edited by Azrad on Apr 1 2010 01:42am

[x] Yes

Actually "chatted" about it for a few, with a guy at the Oak Ridge, American Museum of Science and Energy and we both were in agreement, that the black hole argument was as "out there" as Einstein's concern that the atomic bomb would cause an entire Earth wide nuclear chain reaction.

It's a good thing, people like Enrico Fermi actually do the math.

the most annoying part is that most people dont even realize that this isnt the only hadron collider. ignorance is one of the greatest tragedies

If anyone says "No", we should shut down all Soda machines, too. They pose more of a threat then the LHC, and cause a multitude of deaths each year.

after searching a few different subjects, i found this to be the most informative and up to date. ZOMG GRAPHS! you can review the data collected, see a schematic of the collider, etc:
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/