[windigo]

Not capable of causing an earthquake or tsunami ? Tesla's tower in NY in the 1910s was used in a test firing. The result was an electrostatic discharge from the ionosphere...... It leveled a 20 mile radius crater out of the Russian countryside.....

This was technologically possible over 100 years ago..... It would be child's play to recreate that power with modern technology.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by painintheneck

Ive saw past the year 2070.

Great, ...maybe people can stop going on about 2012 then. :roll: lol


Nat xxx

[Warwick]

No, not capable of creating an earthquake (tsunamis always being a bi-product of some underwater earthquake, or massive landslip/slide into or under water).

Being familiar with Tesla's famous device (I love a good spark!), there is no way any of his theoretical weapons and patents could have caused destruction at a distance, or have directed and projected 'deadly energy' at a target. It is possible his high energy devices may have intensified auroral activity high in the atmosphere, but no way were they to blame for the Tunguska event in 1908, an explosion high in the air reckoned to be rge equivakent of many megatons of TNT.

One of his coils did severely damage a power station, but only because it hadn't been designed to deliver massive power to such a gigantic inductive load. He was using hair-raising (literally) amounts of electrical power, but really only converting it into artificial lightning - impressive to see and hear, but no more harmful than Nature's own versuin (and a lot less powerful).

I think there has been some confusion concerning Tesla and 'directed weapons', judging by his patents he was investigating the possibilities of remote controlled torpedos and airships, not high energy electrical devices. Anything to do with that was earlier on, an EMP type reaction to induce sparks in the magazines of ships and aeroplanes... something quite easy to defend against, whether from onboard, natural static or 'enemy induction'.

The RAF investigated the development of a 'death ray' of some sort (probably tempted by rumours of Tesla's experiments), but soon abandoned it and developed RADAR instead - a sensible decision, which no doubt saved us from defeat in 1940. Despite great hopes, and fantastic ambitions, no reliable, manageable and deployable 'death ray' has ever been developed that can't be stopped by tinfoil, mirrors or a sheet of lead. Laser pulses can of course punch through several feet of armour, but the equipment producing them is hardly hand portable, never mind the battery pack! I daresay in time such things will be developed, there seems to be an endless desire for novel ways of killing and destroying each other, and limitless budgets to finance such research... but this is no easy matter, it has been dreamed of by scientists and the military for a good century, with little success.

[MauJo]

The LHC: It is WAY TOO SOON for the human race to dabble with experiments of this nature.
There is a very, VERY small risk that, if created, a mini-black hole will not evaporate instantly.
Which could lead to a very big problem for this planet.
Why are a few physicists allowed to decide the LHC experiments are an acceptable risk for the rest of us?
I think the proposed experiments are certainly wonderful, but shouldn't be done here; they should be done somewhere else, like Mars, for example. Don't risk our entire planet Earth! As soon as we can build a collider on MARS then we can do these experiments. So we are not going to be ready for a long, long time.
How many psychics out there foresee a tragic planetary end after the LHC does its experiments?

[Warwick]

I agree that if there were any chance of the LHC causing a catastrophe, it should never have been built at all. This would have saved many £££$$$billions and vital material resources, which could have been spent on guaranteed 'safe' projects, such as space telescopes etc, which can 'watch' these sort of phenomena sucking things in, destroying stars, creating X Rays and so forth, at a safe distance (preferebably in another galaxy).

The arrogance of some scientists is quite breathtaking, almost on a par with the discredited theologians they have supposedly replaced. When it comes to 'risk assesment' however, they are normally very carefully scrutinised and controlled, by themselves and the institutions they work for, and by a useful 'second line', dependent on goverments and industries which control the purse strings, and abhor bad publicity. Even so, when it comes down to it, the curiousity and competitive nature of many scientists can lead to a certain amount of recklessness, especially when driven by the dubious incentives of fame, rivalry, jealousy and (worst of all) financial reward.

History is littered with tragic tales and horror stories, where science and greed led to terrible casualties, when in a hurry and improperly supervised or regulated. What may be 'worth the risk' to pioneering scientists and engineers, has certainly not been worth it to those who they killed, maimed and harmed in their quest for 'progress'. The worst cases of all involve publicity seeking, greedy, ruthless maniacs like Edison... fortunately these sort of people would get nowhere today.

We are, on the whole, far more thoughtful, careful and considerate nowadays, when it comes to invention and experimentation. Sadly, that is mainly because of tragic lessons learned in the past... even more sadly, ones that cost a lot of money, rather than mere lives. The LHC is of course designed to improve our knowledge of high-energy particle physics, which begs the question, if those designing the thing know so much already, they can assure us it is safe, why do they need the thing in the first place?

Being 'a scientist' myself, I did have a look at the possible dangers involved, and was content that the thing wouldn't start another Big Bang, or produce a black hole I would ever have to worry about (it's only a few hundred miles from the house, best to check up I thought). Mind you, what do I know? My maths is awful, I'd never make a Particle Physicist... like everyone else, in such areas, I have to go on what those who do understand tell me... which in the end means having to trust them. I am prepared to do that, just as I trust those who design, operate and maintain the aircraft, trains, ships, cars and fairground rides which I risk my life on - you can't check everything, there is always some risk, I choose to take a chance.

Only when the risk is unnecessary or potentially catastrophic do I object... and there is one particular area of science that really frightens me. that is genetic engineering, and genetic manipulation... a subject we don't fully understand, and probably never can or will. The potential for disaster is enormous, the equipment required to produce it plentiful and easily available. I have few worries about nuclear weapons or physics experiments, compared to my unease about the possibility of an accidentally - or deliberately - produced disease, which would make the Black Death look like a mild cold!

A quick look at some of the dubious maniacs involved in the potentially lucrative area of cloning and fiddling with embryos, is enough to make anyone shudder...

[Debee]

What a load of rubbish!

If that guy could see into the future, why isn`t he a millionaire? MMmmmmm, lets think why not.

With regards to the experiment...............come on people, don`t you think they`ve already done this!

Do you really think the public really get to know anything first - NO!

UFO`S have been landing here since the 1950`s, and they still say they don`t exist - grow up and smell the coffee.

[Warwick]

I suppose you are right Deebee... nobody can reliably 'see into the future'. If they could, as you say, they'd be lottery winners twice a week... or would they?
Maybe some millionaires can do this, but keep quiet about it - I know I would!
OTH, think what a curse it would be to foresee everything, but not be able to do anything about it - which is an essential requirement for being able to truly 'see into the future'. If I could, and foresaw myself being killed in a car crash say, I wouldn't drive on the day in question, therefore what I saw was NOT the future...

[Debee]

Thats very true and an interesting way of looking at it.

[Thantos]

Even if we tear the fabric of space-time, or create a dangerous black hole that destroys the planet 1- we wouldn't have to worry about it because it would be so quick we wouldn't feel a thing, and 2- would it really be such a bad thing? I mean humans being gone. Sounds like the best thing to happen to the universe in a long time if you ask me. We've made advances in harnessing energy in so many ways that, in reality, fossil fuels are, and have been for a while, obsolete, but we can't get our heads out of our greedy asses long enough to realize that as long as we still have currency, and the central banking system, we will never actually advance as a race. We will end up wiping ourselves off the face of the planet long before we can truly understand anything, because to the big money jerks of the world, a few extra in the pocket is much more important than life on the planet. Once again, my only problem with that, because it is inevitable, is that we will be taking most, if not all, of the beautiful things on this earth with us when we leave. . . Just like us isn't it? To take it all with us? Greedy greedy humans.