Yeah, I knew that... that's just the stuff floating around earth.

I was talking about stuff coming in from outside... would they be able to detect something 3-15" in diameter moving at 100,000 MPH in time to take evasive action?

I wouldn't think so.

I think the thing is, is that space is so big and empty that the chances if intercepting stuff like that moving around it so small as to not worry about it unless you are in earth orbit (AKA we hit our own s*%#..) or near a known metor area/belt or some sort.. again, the junk sorta groups together in orbits and what not as to not leave a lot of random stuff out there.

And you're saying the theoretical physicists are out there designing and building this stuff?

I have better things to do with my time than spend it "arguing" against mysticism.

There is a real world out there; I live in it.

You had plenty of time to wander in and call me an idiot, along with thousands of other people, yet you don't have time to explain yourself? I would think that you're simple, solid worldview would be extraordinarily easy to define for everyone instead of this "mysticism", yet everyone talks about this "mysticism" and no one talks about your down home country views.

Interesting, isn't it? I also find it laughable that you think that "living in the real world" or "making things" is mutually exclusive from having an understanding of the Universe. Seems that you're one of the only people anywhere who thinks that way.

No, engineers do their evil bidding. That's what I do for a living - turn theoretical physicists dreams into reality. :)

...and to answer one of Heel n' Toe's questions - micrometeoroids strike the shuttle and ISS on occasion. Some parts of the ISS have what they call MMODS or "MicroMeteoroid Orbital Debris Shields". Most of the time it's just layers of thin aluminum to absorb the energy of the impact.

We had a micrometeoroid strike a trunnion (the structural interface between a payload and the shuttle) on a Spacelab Pallet. The trunnion was made of forged titanium. The micrometeoroid vaporized the material and blew right through the "bathtub fitting" portion of the trunnion. Luckily it remained structurally sound enough to survive landing loads. It does happen.

Sooo........ did they start it up or what? We're still here. I think.

I already laid out the basics of my "simple, solid worldview" earlier in this thread. I'll venture to guess that you're so upset thinking that I called "you" an idiot, that you can't see past any of your rage to actually consider any position other than the one you hold -- which is a pretty clear indication you follow some "dogmatic" philosophy.

(And no, I have no intentions of writing a treatise here laying out my complete views, nor explaining experimentation supporting it.)

As for your suggestion that I'm claiming that "'making things' is mutually exclusive from having an understanding of the Universe" -- nothing could be further from the truth. You apparently didn't understand my insult. I was suggesting that you are living in a "fantasy world" with the "physics" you ascribe to. I was suggesting that if you attempted to actually use your claimed principles to build something in the real world, your principles would fall apart -- what you built, would not work.

(That's why many theoretical physicists stay hidden away in universities or working on obtuse government funded projects; they can spend a lot of time playing around with a lot of esoteric theories and never have to tie those theories to the real world and build stuff that actually works!)

about the LAST thing we want, is for him "to explain himself"

No, you did call me an idiot or a con man. Neither is acceptabel in modern society, yet you insist on defending your own rotten actions.

Treatise? You are showing how little you trust your own claims, for if they were as established and strong as you claim, and my world view as fragile and fake as you claim, then you should be able to shoot it down with ease. Instead, you hide.

So, now I a lying con man idiot who cannot build something? You're not winning any points here.

If you would have just said in your very first post "I'm not a big fan of theoretical physicists because they are esoteric and don't really produce much of anything" then I'd be agreeing with you completely! However, that's NOT what you said...instead, you made some absurd unqualified statements about something you don't even begin to understand. I bet you wish that time was bi-directional now, huh?

Yes, it's making collisions. It's at low power (lower than other accelerators are working at) for right now. It'll ramp up over the next 12 months or so to it's full Universe destroying level.

Or, it'll break because some theoretical physicist probably had something to do with it's design.

I have the feeling that parts of being an engineer on that project may be insanely cool... but I also have the feeling that dealing with the physicists would be insanely annoying.

1) Things don't move through open space at such speeds.
2) Interplanetary space is amazingly empty. I mean, you cannot comprehend how empty it is.
3) Eventually, a space craft will encounter something that will punch through the wall, and the people inside will die a miserable painful death. I'll make sure that none of your tax money was involved in that specific craft.

So I didn't read the last two pages because you guys/girls are boring and debating a relatively boring subject. (does that make it interesting?)

BUT, someone (yet to be named) is confusing/arguing over particle physics theory with newtonian physics references.

In the end, they are called theories for a reason. Hopefully the collider will make my future 911 faster and be able to sustain 2g midcorner on snow tires. Maybe even allow me to drive in 4 dimensions - although that will probably be limited to some unobtainable carrera GT type model :)

competentone,

Physics defines the workings of the physical universe in mathematical terms. The advancement of physics depends on unbiased pursuit of the mathematical model best supported by experimentation. I mention General Relativity because E = mc^2 was theoretical until we split the atom. The math of Quantum mechanics necessitated theoretical particles which only later we detected. I could go on.

I admit some theories are 'out there' but that's more a criticism of the scientific method (which is essentially guess-and-check) than any branch of Physics. Hypothesis -> experimentation -> confirmation. It's unrealistic to suggest these guesses should always be correct and unfair to criticize unintuitive guesses as many times they've proven to be correct. Theories, correct and incorrect, are necessary for progress in any scientific field.

Maybe competentone needs to know what additions to the solid world physics has initiated or given.

Or, what is it in a tangible hands-on way will the HSC reveal or create for us?

Does Wayne have enough database storage to accommodate that list?

The LHC? It will have no hands on contributions to society. It's purely going to verify or destroy a few key theories. It's Big Science, no question there, and it's purely educational. However...those key theories that it will (hopefully) verify do have extensive hands on contributions. The Standard Model is used all over the place, and verification of the energy of the Higg's Boson is one of the last missing pieces of the Inflationary Big Bang.

No one acted like this when they verified the top quark at Fermilab. This is the exact same thing, just scaled up a bit in size and price.

Yes, I meant LHC.

Now, what would be the advantage of knowing the Big Bang theory? What can we benefit from understanding how the universe began?

We cannot benefit from it. It's purely knowledge for it's own sake. That's an important part of humanity, and it's one of the key questions that has driven mad for tens of thousands of years, but the Big Bang will not help, hurt, or change society.

Now, the merging of the 4 fundamental forces at ultra-high energy, that might be useful. It'll be important to at least understand that mechanism if we expect to get anywhere with large scale fusion power, or interstellar drives (not warp drives, but cold fusion driven drives using interstellar hydrogen). Also, learning how high energy states change might give us a new form of superconductors. Quantum computing? Um, maybe more, but I just got the word to go home early, so we'll never know...

:p

omg.......I'm embarrassed for you guys. You are soooooo boring.