[H-GEN] RepRapping in Brisbane!

[Arjen Lentz]

Hi Brendon,

On 01/04/2008, at 4:48 PM, Brendon Higgins wrote:
> On 31/03/2008, at 3:29 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
>> Of course CERN are planning to make a micro-blackhole in Switzerland.
>> While I don't think this is going to be particularly dangerous I do
>> think there should have been more public discussion.
>
> That'd be great, and extremely useful, if the public had the necessary
> knowledge (read: years of study) and experience to understand the  
> subject and
> form an informed opinion.
>
> Unfortunately, this isn't the case. What you end up with in reality  
> is a lot
> of misunderstandings and ill-informed reactionary nonsense. Not from
> everyone, sure, and it'd certainly be cool if this sort of stuff  
> really did
> get some more mainstream exposure, but let's not kid ourselves about  
> the
> consequences.
>
> Arjen Lentz wrote (Mon, 31 Mar 2008):
>> Not sure I like the micro-blackhole either... conceptually yes, made
>> on planet earth no.
>
> Oh, feh. The same theoretical models that predict the creation of a
> micro-blackhole (if the energies used were even high enough) also  
> predict the
> Hawking radiation that would see if evaporate almost instantaneously.
>
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/29/no-the-lhc-wont-destroy-the-earth/
>
> Scientists seldom pursue things they think have a genuine (or, even  
> remote)
> chance of seriously messing up their day in the way that creating a
> sucking-great blackhole would.


The lady first playing with X-rays died of ... yes right.

Do you remember how the first experiments with atomic energy in the US  
were performed?
In a school hall, stacking up various rods and bars. No containment  
whatsoever.

They were all smart people, too. And sometimes they get a hint of  
explorer's arrogance, and the inability to stop once they've gone on a  
certain train of thought and experimentation. The potential benefits  
are worth the personal and even broader risk (in their opinion)...   
this can be highly dangerous. Presuming that scientific explorations  
are subject to self-controls is, IMHO, misguided and has been proven  
false by past events.

I'm not saying that the lay public (including politicians) has  
sufficient understanding of what's going on, but that doesn't mean  
that scientists' own judgement can or should be trusted in this  
context. Their agenda is exploration, which is by nature not always  
safe. One simple cannot and must not have both hats on at the same  
time, as sometimes there's a conflict.

A theory, or part of a theory, can be wrong. They are hypotheses. They  
must to be validated or disproven, lest they remain hypotheses. So...
  1- If the outcomes are KNOWN beforehand, no need to do any  
experiments. Saves time and (literally) energy, right?
  2- The argument "if you believe in the theory underlying micro- 
blackholes you must accept Hawking radiation too" is false.

The debate surrounding this is frought with invalid debating  
techniques. Weeding through those, I don't see a whole lot of actual  
arguments. The link you posted is actually a typical example. That  
court case is interesting in a way, although the court won't have a  
clue on it either.


Cheers,
Arjen.
-- 
Arjen Lentz, Owner @ Open Query (http://openquery.com.au/)
Based in Brisbane, Australia - ph. +61-7-3103 0809
Open Source Experts, MySQL Specialists

Director of OSIA (http://osia.net.au/) Open Source Industry Australia
Australia's industry body for OSS - be counted!