Sunday, September 28, 2008

College

College is interesting. I attended lectures for three out of my four classes. My writing class looks intense; everyone is extremely smart and makes some excellent comments while we discuss our reading. We have tons of reading for that class. It's crazy. I sure hope I can end up with a solid B in that class, but we'll see. 

The math teacher is weird. He jumps around and acts kind of like a little kid. He's like Mr. Chen, except a bit more grown up. 

The physics teacher didn't show up because he's working on the LARGE HADRON COLLIDER!!!!! It's currently broken (thus postponing the end of the world by a couple of months). Apparently he's a really cool professor who actually tries to have his 400+ students learn the material. I'm hoping Dr. Nelson prepared me well. 

I haven't gone to History of Film yet. We'll see on Wednesday. The lectures are 3 hours long and the discussions are 2 hours 0_0. I know one person in it from Wilderness Orientation though, so it'll be fun I guess. Oh and I heard the teacher is kind of insane. We'll see. 

I went to 2 sports events, Men's water polo and Women's volleyball. I painted myself for the water polo game, which was fun. I lost my voice cheering for volleyball. I also saw the last 30 minutes of Men's soccer, but I won't count that. I'm going to make it a goal to see at least one of every sports event at college during my 4 year tenure. 

That's about it. I really need to shoot somebody with my air bazooka though...

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Wilderness Orientation

So the past weekend, I went to this thing at UCSD called Wilderness Orientation, which is part of this organization on campus called Outback Adventures. There, I went on a canoeing trip on the Colorado River. It lasted 4 days, and I didn't get to shower at all during it. Well, I'm pretty much going to summarize the 4 days. 

Day 1:
I left my house to the airport at 5:45 am. My family and girlfriend and her mom saw me off, which was pretty cool. Then the plane landed and I took a shuttle to the UCSD campus. There, I was greeted by some people with Outback Adventures shirts. As more people arrived, we were taking to this climbing wall on campus, which was hella sick. I tried climbing this one without using my legs, and I got about halfway before my hands started to hurt and I fell off. After everyone arrived, we sat down and the head woman, Lindsay, introduced herself and seperated us into groups. I was in the Canoeing B group, so I met the people in it. They were interesting. The guy to girl ratio was about 1:2, which was a little bizarre but I got used to it. We then packed our stuff and headed down to the Colorado River in vans. The trip took about 5 hours, during which I slept and evesdropped on this fat woman next to me talking to these people behind her. It was actually pretty interesting. The woman was extremely smart, as were the people in the back. These next 4 years will be very competitive...=[.
We got off the van 5 hours later, where our group settled down. We learned about leaving no trace behind (meaning don't throw garbage on the ground), and then we ate, set up our sleeping bags, and went to sleep.

Day 2: 
I got lots of bug bites, but whatever. I changed out of my shorts and put on trunks. I wore this same tshirt/trunks outfit for the rest of the trip. Disgusting. We then ate breakfast, and then we packed up all our gear and set off canoeing. 
It was ok. I was partnered with this asian girl named Audra, and she was ok. I was a bit stronger than her, so I tended to control the boat more. We paddled for like 6 hours until we hit this little camping spot. There were several families there with a big boat and several trailers, and they were bbqing and drinking beer. One drunk woman almost drowned. It was quite amusing. 
We ate lunch, swam around, did some teambuilding stuff, and then ate dinner and went to bed. 

Day 3: 
I got more bug bites. I got out of my sleeping bag and packed up. We went canoeing again, but this time for only an hour. Then we got off and ate lunch. Then we did this thing called a solo where we basically find a tree and sit in its shade for 6 hours reflecting on life. It was pretty boring. There were insects everywhere, and I spent most of the time fighting them off. I also threw rocks at nearby trees, which discouraged me because my aim sucked. So after 6 hours of that we ate dinner and went to sleep. 

Day 4:
So we woke up and packed up our gear and went canoeing. It was like 4:30 in the morning, so we got to see the sunrise. It was very...bright? We got off about 6 hours later and took a van back. We spent most of the time listening to disney songs. Then we got off and we cleaned our gear for like 2 hours and then we finally showered. I got to put on new clothes and be clean, which was awesome. We then went to the beach and ate food. I played some Ultimate Frisbee, and I found out I was extremely out of shape because I gassed easily during the running. I'll be working on that. I ate a lot of ice cream there. Then we got back and slept. 

Day 5: 
Out group leaders toured us around campus and we filled out surveys to tell the Outback Adventures how awesome/crappy our leaders were. When we got back, everything was officially over, so I packed up and went to the hotel. 


Well that's about it. I was hoping I'd get something useful out of writing this, but I guess I didn't...

Friday, September 12, 2008

Best starting 7 water polo team I could come up with

Now, I guess nobody really knows or cares about water polo, but I DO! So out of boredom I decided to create a list of starters that I'd have on my dream team. Here are them in descending order of ability IMO. It goes in order of name; postition; year I'd want him from; country.

7. Alessandro Calcaterra; 2 meter man; 2008; Italy



So who is this guy:
Well he was only the top scorer in the 2008 Beijing Olympics! He had 27 goals in 8 games, an average of 3.375!!! Granted, a bunch of them were 5 meters and a lot were against not-so-strong teams, but seriously, if you screw up on 2MD one tiny bit or if your drop isn't fast enough, he'll score. No joke. The fact that he scored in all 8 of his Olympic games is a testament to that. 

Pros:
He's a tough player. He's big and can set against anybody, and he's hard to contain, as evidenced by how he's one of the few in the last olympics who scored in every game. Hell, he was put on the Olympic All-Star team despite his team placing 9th out of 12. He's physical, and he gets the job done. If Italy had more guys like him, they'd totally win more games. 

Cons:
He's physical. This gets him into trouble a lot. While he was the Olympic leader in goals, he was also the Olympic leader in offensive fouls (I think). He's rough, and he gets called for brutalitities and misconduct fouls a lot. If he could tone it down some, it would be pretty close to perfection.

6. Aleksandar Sapic; Driver; 1996-2008; Serbia



So who is this guy:
Well, he is arguably the best offensive player in the world. He led his team to 3 consecutive medals, was the high scorer in 2 of his Olympics and second high scorer in the past 2008 one. He's a phenominal shooter, and pretty much if you foul this guy outside the 5, he'll score. Oh, and he's married to a widowed Russian mafia bride. BADASS!!!! 
Despite this, I wasn't sure if I should put him on this list, but I figured the pros outweighed the cons. You'll see why below. 

Pros:
Well he has a bullet hard shot, he reads goalies well, he's huge and dominating, and he's pretty smart overall. He's definitely a great player.

Cons:
His attitude. He knows he's a good shooter, and he tends to think he's a one-man show. His behavior after Serbia lost to USA in the semi-final game exhibits this. He pissed off his fellow goalie/teammate Denis Sefik so much that Sefik punched him in the face and threw him down some stairs, causing Sapic to break his leg and miss the bronze medal game. Also, Sefik broke his hand, rendering him unable to compete for the medal as well. And Serbia solidly trumped Montenegro 6-4 to claim the bronze medal WITHOUT Sapic, which says quite a lot. Sure, he's a great player, but he needs to realize that everyone around him is also great. Also, despite being dominant, he can get shut down by competent defense. A perfect example of this was in the final rounds of the last Olympics; Sapic managed to score only 1 goal in 2 games against great opponents. Against weaker teams like China, Sapic can unload and score 9 goals, but he can usually only pull of 1 or 2 against the likes of Spain or USA.  

5. Tony Azevedo; Driver; 2000-2008; USA




So who is this guy:
He's currently the best player on the USA men's roster. He's also considered (by Americans) to be the best player in the world (I would respectfully disagree, but he is frigging amazing). His list of water polo accomplishments are astounding. He starred on his high school team for four years, gaining All-American acollades each of his 4 years and being CIF SS player of the year for 3 years. For those who don't know, CIF SS is the toughest water polo conference in the nation, and being the best player in it as a sophmore is no easy feat. He ended up with 423 goals during his four year tenure (which is about 106 goals per season on an average of about 30 games, about 3 or 4 goals per game). He was so good that he made the junior national team, and he was the top scorer at the World Championships on that team. He was so good that he then made the senior national team when he was 17 years old, and then he was so good that he was named to the Olympic team when he was 18. And not only that, he was so good that he scored 13 goals at the Olympics as an 18 year old.  WOW! And this was before he went to college. Definitely one of, if not THE best high school players ever. 

He got a full ride scholarship to Stanford, where he then became the most dominant player in college history, winning the prized Peter Cutino award for 4 STRAIGHT YEARS!!! For those who don't know, it's given to the top college player in the nation. He smashed the previous Stanford scoring record and ended up with 332 goals during his 4 years. 

After college, he played an important role on the US national team, scoring 15 goals in the Olympics. He's then won tons of MVP accolades and has scored a shitload of goals, all of which (at the moment) culminated in a silver medal at the recent Beijing Olympics. Oh, and he netted 17 goals in that tournament, including 4 in the Championship game against Hungary. FYI scoring 4 goals in a game is like scoring more than 20 points in basketball. 

Pros:
Well, he didn't win all those awards just out of the blue. He's FUCKING GOOD. He's quick, he's smart, he gets open for shots, and he's a hard worker. Leading a not-as-talented team of Americans to silver is pretty amazing. 

Cons:
HIS PENALTY SHOTS. He's great and smart on the field, but his penalty shots are usually pretty bad. Obviously this isn't that big of a deal because you can just have Sapic take the penalty shots, but this is a pretty big weakness. He's a great player, but not necessarily the best shooter. Still though, 17 goals in an Olympics despite not being the best shooter is a great accomplishment. 

4. Gergerly Kiss; Utility; 2000-2008; Hungary



So who is this guy:
He's one of the best, most versitile lefties of the decade. 'Nuff said. 

Pros:
Well, obviously he's a lefty, so he's special in that regard. He's solid all around with a Hungarian shot. He's smart, and he knows how to step up. Watching the Athens Olympic gold medal final, Kiss was the one keeping them in the game at the start with 3 goals in the first quarter. Without Kiss, the team wouldn't have had the momentum to come from behind and win that game against Serbia-Montenegro. Also, being a great player on a team of great players has taught him the value of teamwork over dominating one-man-shows. Oh, and Kiss is a remarkably good 2 meter man, so in case Calcaterra gets kicked out or something, Kiss would be a good backup.

Cons:
Some games, he can be really laggy, sort of relying on his teammates. Can't blame him though because Hungary has so many great players. But for him to be the best player he can possibly be, he needs to consistently step up and score some goals. 

3. Tibor Benedek; Driver; 1992-2008; Hungary



So who is this guy:
He's also a member of the Hungary team that won 3 straight gold medals. In 1992, he actually tied Estiarte in goals, which is no easy feat. Since then, his country has churned dominating tournament performances, and each Olympics Hungary seems to be THE team to beat. He's also been a significant impact on the Hungarian team for 5 straight Olympics. CRAZY!!!

Pros:
This steroid infused guy is big, strong, smart, and a good shot. He's also left handed, and he's arguably better than Kiss at the perimeter, although he's not as versitile. 

Cons:
Well, he got in trouble like 10 years ago because of steroids. I think he's gotten better with getting away with it now, but if he screws up like that, it'll kind of suck. But overall, he's been astounding as a player. His only weaknesses would be the same as with Kiss, as in not stepping up as much as he should. But overall, he's a pretty dominant perimeter player. 

2. Craig Wilson; Goalie; 1984-1992; USA

(I couldn't find a picture of him. SORRY!!!)

So who is this guy:
Well all teams need a goalie, and Craig Wilson is arguably the best goalie in recent Olympic history. He was the top blocker in all 3 Olympics he competed in, and he helped team USA earn 2 back-to-back silver medals. 

Pros:
Well, he's pretty much everything you'd expect a goalie to be. He blocks, he commands defense, he makes good passes, and he makes good steals. He's great at reading shooters, and he blocks everything you'd expect him to and makes some amazing blocks you'd expect to go in. This is about as good as a goalie can get. 

Cons:
Well, a brick wall in front of the cage would obviously have been better...

1. Manuel Estiarte; Driver; 1980-1996; Spain




So who is this guy:
Of course this list won't be complete without the best water polo player of all time. Estiarte competed in a record six Olympics, and he was top scorer in 4 of them. In his fifth, his team won a gold medal, and he competed in his last one when he was 39. He scored a record of 127 goals during those six olympic tournaments, and he entered his first Olympic competition at age 18 and ended up the top scorer with 21 goals. Seriously, he makes Azevedo look like a preschooler learning how to swim for the first time.  
And get this: he did all this despite being 5'8 and 145 pounds. This is in a sport where the average Olympic player is 6'3 and 200 pounds. WOW!

Pros:
EVERYTHING! He's got a bullet hard shot, he swims very fast, he plays smart...he's pretty much everything you'd dream of in a player. Defenders knew back then that when you went up against Spain, the last person you wanted getting the ball was Estiarte. Man this guy could SCORE. But the thing that put this guy above everyone else was his heart. Inarguably, during a game, he had more heart than anybody else on the field. That's why he was consistently a dominant force during his games. Estiarte proved that it's not the size of the man, but the size of his heart that controls one's destiny. 

Cons:
It's hard to criticize the best player in the history of the sport. Obviously his size would be considered an issue, but that didn't seem to faze his scoring ability. In fact, it sort of helped him, since it made him quite a bit more nimble than the average player. His one flaw that he eventually corrected was learning to depend on his teammates. In 1996, despite not being the top scorer of the Olympics, his team won gold. To put that in perspective, his previous 4 Olympics, he was the top scorer, but the closest he ever got to winning was a silver medal in 1992, and he hadn't won a single medal before then. Just goes to show that a one man show cannot win Olympic tournaments. Team efforts are far more effective. Look at Hungary; you can't really point to a stand-out on their team because of the depth and teamwork they exhibit. They're ALL amazing players, and none of them are greedy; they all try to help each other score. Once Estiarte got used to that, his team won, which says a lot about how to succeed in the sport. Anyways, that's pretty much his only potential flaw, and he definitely fixed it when it counted. 


Well, anyways, that's my list. Of course teams have more than seven players, so here would be my next six to complete my dream team Olympic roster:

8. Tamas Kasas; Driver; 1996-2008; Hungary
9. Peter Biros; Driver; 2000-2008; Hungary
10. Georgios Afroudakis; 2 meter man; 1996-2008; Greece
11. Guillermo Molina; Driver; 2004, 2008; Spain
12. Terry Schroeder; 2 meter man; 1984-1988; USA
13. Alexander Tchigir; Goalie; 1992, 2004, 2008; Germany

With that, I'm pretty sure my team would beat your team. 

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Large Hadron Collider

So I decided to start being a loser and read up on this thing called the Large Hadron Collider (I'm going to call it LHC from now on). I don't know why, but I think the cracked.com article about 5 experiments that could end the world tuned me into it. And get this, 3 of those experiments had to do with this LHC thing. 

So what exactly is the LHC? It's a particle accelerator. A VERY BIG particle accelerator. It's basically an underground tube that goes in a circle 17 miles in circumference and goes through 2 or 3 countries. Here are some pictures: 


BEHOLD!!

That's pretty cool-looking


Sweeet


Those are some pretty nice pictures, aren't they...well what exactly do you do with this thing? Well, that machine enables you to shoot little tiny protons around in 17 mile long circles pretty fast. And by pretty fast, I mean close to the speed of light. To put that in perspective, the protons will be able to circle the whole 17 mile long thing 11,000 times every second. Now scientists decided to mount not one, but two of these proton guns onto this thing. And they decided shooting these protons in opposite directions would be the best way to go. Their goal is to have these two protons traveling at the speed of light to collide. Yes, scientists thought that smashing two protons really, really, REALLY hard would yield some interesting results. 

Now, why exactly would they want to do this? Well, I want to let you guys know in advance that I got about half of my information from this sickass video:
Seriously, it simplifies particle physics to an absurd degree. I got the rest of my information from Wikipedia, which is actually pretty tough to understand. 

So where was I? Oh yeah, why would they build this thing...well this is a pretty complicated story. So we live on the planet Earth. Earth is part of this big thing called the solar system, and this solar system is part of this even bigger thing called a galaxy (our galaxy is known as the Milky Way). Then there's this thing called the Universe, which encompasses a several billion or trillion of galaxies. So this Universe thing has been measured to be expanding. How? Well scientists used telescopes and measured the relative placement of stars and other stuff over a period of time. The Hubble was put to very good use I guess. So now we have an expanding Universe, right? Well, then intuitively if we go back in time, the universe will gradually shrink until it's smaller than the smallest thing you can ever conceive, right? Ok...so how did this thing start expanding? Well scientists theorized this event that happened about 13.7 billion years ago called the Big Bang. Since all the energy you can possibly think of was stuck into that tiny little itty bitty space, it became unstable, and thus exploded and kept expanding and expanding. Thus the Universe was formed. W00t!!!


The UUUUUNIVEEEEERRRRSSSEEEE!!!



Well, after a while, scientists discovered some funky stuff about this Universe thing. One is this basic physics law you learn in 8th grade about how the sum of the energy in a closed system is constant.  According to this law, energy can't be created or destroyed; it is merely changed into a different form. This is called the conservation of energy. It makes intuitive sense when you think about it too. When you hit a table, you transfer energy to the table, causing it to shake. Thus you're changing the kinetic energy of your hand into kinetic energy exhibited by the table. A lot of energy is dissipated as heat, which also makes sense because when you rub your hands together, your hands get hotter. 

Now, physicists want to believe that the total energy in the Universe is zero because the Universe is pretty much the biggest closed system ever. Well, behold! Einstein's theory of relativity: E=MC^2. I'm no expert on relativity, so don't ask me the details on it, but basically that equation shows that energy is proportional to mass. Stuff that has mass is generally referred to as "matter," and since there is a conservation of energy, there has to be something that is the opposite of matter, which scientists dubbed "anti-matter." Now you may be thinking to yourself "huh?" and to tell you the truth, that's exactly what I'm thinking now as well. Wow, physics is WEIRD! But wait, it gets even weirder. Apparently, there is a plethora of matter, but very little anti-matter (and by very little, I mean the ratio is like a billion particles of anti-matter to a billion and one particles of matter). "Why this is the case?" you may ask. Well basically...uh...nobody knows. That's where this bigass machine comes in handy. Scientists hypothesize that if we smash two protons together really really REALLY hard, it will simulate a big bang. Since we believe that all matter arose from the big bang, we should theoretically be able to see anti-matter as well. 

Great. We now have a gigantic $6 billion machine that smashes protons together so we can find anti-matter. That's totally worth $6 billion...right? Well, maybe, but there are other uses for it. Perhaps the most scientifically significant one is finding this thing called the Higgs boson. 

To describe this, I'll have to go back again to basic particle physics. So we're all made of molecules, and these molecules are made of atoms, and these atoms are made of smaller things called electrons, protons, and neutrons. And then protons and neutrons are made up of these things called quarks, which are so small it hurts my brain to even mention them. And there are different types of quarks (up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, *insert random name* quarks, etc.), each of which can produce different kinds of matter. Well, how do these things interact with each other? That is, how do different forces cause these subatomic particles to interact? Well, physicists and mathematicians developed a model for this, called the Standard Model. This Standard Model encompasses all the subatomic particles that they could discover (top quarks, strange quarks, photons, etc.) and describes what exactly they do. Pages upon pages of math were used to derive exactly how everything reacts at this subatomic level. However, a problem arose. 

Before I can tell you what the problem was, I'm going to have to explain the basic structure of the Universe. So everything around us has 4 forces interacting with everything else: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. In case you didn't pay attention in your chemistry classes, the strong force is what holds protons together in atoms. The weak force causes beta decay, which is a type of radioactive decay where atoms degrade to lesser atoms. The electromagnetic force refers to the effects of magnets and charges on particles, and gravity is, um, what causes us to fall to the ground. 

Now, the Standard Model is remarkably consistent when explaining the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force, but when you try to factor in gravity, the model collapses. Well, that really sucked, especially when mathematicians and physicists spend god-knows how many hours deriving it. Scientists spent quite a while scratching their heads over this problem. Then one day this guy named Peter Higgs came up with a convenient solution. 

In order for gravity to exist, you need something with mass. You need matter. Well, these subatomic particles are pretty small, so small that the equations in the Standard Model treated them as massless point particles. However, while some of them are (like the photon), a bunch of them aren't (like the top quark). Higgs concluded that there was something that was giving these particles their mass. And then he did what all scientists yearn to do; he named the thing after himself. He called it a Higgs field. Apparently, it's spread throughout the Universe, and as particles like the up quark pass through it, it slows down and starts attaining mass. Yeah, it does sound like something some weirdo made up in 2 seconds, but that's what theoretical physics pretty much is like. Now, all fields require particles to create it. This makes sense; magnetic fields require magnets (or electromagnets), and electric fields require charged particles. So this new particle that makes this Higgs field was creatively called the Higgs Boson. Another valid question would be "What's a boson?" to which I shall respond "You don't want to know." If you do though, they're these itty bitty particles that obey Bose-Einstein statistics, which basically means that if numerous bosons have the same energy, they will occupy the same space. This means if you were a boson and your friend was a boson and you both had the same energy (I don't know, maybe from eating chocolate bars?), you two would exist in the same spot. Hard to image? I agree. I warned you that you didn't want to know. 

Scientists feel that this Higgs Boson is the thing that connects the Standard Model with general relativity, which would be good for all physics. Apparently, by smashing two protons together really really REALLY hard, this elusive particle should appear immediately. Of course, particle physics isn't that simple because the Higgs boson has so much mass that it is incredibly unstable and degenerates into other Standard Model particles after a fraction of a second. Well THAT totally blows, right? Well scientists are determined to detect it, and they planned ahead. They believe that they’ll be able to detect it based on the other Standard Model particles that this elusive boson degenerates to. This is kind of like after a human gets cremated, you’d analyze the ashes to determine that person’s hair color.

Well, on the bright side, if this Higgs Boson is discovered, all of physics can be united. People have been trying to simplify the Universe to basically one line for thousands of years, and with this tiny itsy bitsy (but very heavy) boson, they hope to come up with a theory of everything. There are already theories of everything (string theory, M theory), but they're pretty much all mathematical (not to mention a bunch of the string theories contradict each other, but that's another story). It'll be cool if they can actually make a theory of everything that is derived from direct observation. THAT would be worth $6 billion. One thing that sucks though is that if scientists don't see this Higgs Boson, they'll know there's something wrong with the Standard Model, and then the next couple of years will be spent inventing new physics. Welcome to science. 

There are some other things this machine wants to find as well. There's so much stuff and so many forces in the Universe that scientists want to try and explain. Considering how insignificant and small we are, they've done a reasonably good job. One thing they can't explain though is how the planets and stars act in terms of their gravitational behavior. Their calculations based on what we know suggest one thing, but their observations suggests another. Well, scientists have no idea what's causing this gravitational effect, so they're calling it Dark Matter. What is dark matter? Again, nobody knows. That's why it has such an ominous name. But hopefully they'll be able to see it with this new particle accelerator they built. After all, it pretty much fills the entire Universe and causes stars and planets to interact the way they do, so there's no reason for us not to see it.

The last thing I'll get to is gravity. As stated earlier, it's the weakest intermolecular force of the four. Why is this exactly? Well some scientists theorize that maybe in OUR three dimensions, this force is weak, but maybe if you go on to look at other dimensions, you'd see different. Whoa what? There are other dimensions? Apparently so. M theory suggests that the Universe is a biiigggg massless membrane that vibrates in 11 dimensions. So scientists think that they might be able to indirectly see the effects of gravity in other dimensions. Interesting stuff. I'm pretty sure there's more to this machine than 4 things, but I really don't know (or understand) anything else. 

So why exactly am I typing this up? I don't know, I guess because I'm a loser with no life. Oh, and this thing could potentially END THE WORLD. 

Wait what? You mean we could all die when this thing turns on? Well no...actually yes, that's exactly what I mean. There are a couple ways the world could end.

Some stuff in the Universe that are pretty scary are these things called black holes. There are incredibly dense gigantic pieces of matter that have so much of a gravitational force that not even light can escape from it. That's why it's black. In fact, they're so massive that the ENTIRE MILKY WAY GALAXY REVOLVES AROUND ONE. The smallest black hole that we know of is the primordial black hole, and that has the amount of mass as the moon despite being about .1 MILLIMETERS BIG. Seriously, imagine the moon being compressed into something smaller than the tip of a needle. The moon itself has enough gravitational force to cause tides, and this is despite it being a few million miles away. Imagine something as massive as the moon that is less than a millimeter in diameter right here on earth. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you that the relationship between gravitational force and distance is inverse squared, which basically means F=k/(r^2) where k is some constant. Now if this black hole was, say, in a lab on the earth's surface, that r value turns to ZERO, and when a denominator is zero, the whole function turns to infinity. This means we have something pulling on the earth with a force of INFINITY. If this theoretically happened, the earth would get sucked into a hole .1 mm in diameter, and theoretically we'll all be dead. 

So if these two protons collide and manage to form the big bang, there could perhaps be an off chance that it might possibly maybe create a black hole that could totally screw up our day. Now I did see a video where this woman working on the LHC assured the audience that this will not happen, but you should've seen the look on her face when she said it. Man, that sure wasn't encouraging. It's probably because everyone knows that there at least is a slight possibility of certain death (although slight probably means 1:10^10^10^a googol^a googolplex, fairly good odds against it), and if the experiment just happens to be that one off chance, we're all doomed. 

So we have the potential of earth getting sucked into a black hole that's smaller than a pinpoint, but is that really it? You probably think I'm kind of paranoid, right?

Well I probably am, but there are other things to worry about, like Strange Matter. This type of matter is basically a soup of up quarks, down quarks, and strange quarks, and it can be used to create relatively large quark stars (which are about a mile wide) or very small strangelets (which are aobut the size of nuclei). The thing about strangelets is that it caused scientists to come up with this Strange Matter Hypothesis, which states that since strange matter is far more stable than normal nuclei, all the atoms around us can convert to strange matter. This is usually triggered naturally over the course of billions of years, but it can also occur if strange matter comes in contact with ordinary matter. This means that if strangelets come in contact with you, your atoms will turn into strangelets, and you will eventually turn into Strange Matter. Well, how is Strange Matter produced? High energy collisions, which is exactly what this LHC is going to do. 

But don't worry. High energy collisions happen in the atmosphere all the time because of the cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, right? Well, yes, but those cosmic rays take a little while to actually reach us (on the order of billions of years). So, some scientists think that the only reason that we don't notice anything is because whatever strangelets are created have already decayed into something that won't turn the rest of the earth into Strange Matter by the time they hit our atmosphere. Perhaps if you have some of this stuff around for just a short enough time, it could react with other atoms and turn the earth into something that we can't even visualize. This is bad. 

Fortunately though, most scientists think this hypothesis is faulty. They also think that the Universe is made by a big membrane that vibrates in 11 dimensions, but that's beside the point. 

Then there's the idea of recreating the big bang. Seriously, a UNIVERSE formed from it. There was a huge explosion and matter and antimatter erupted. Is recreating the big bang really that good of an idea? Seriously, nuclear bombs explode when ONE ELECTRON hits ONE Uranium atom, causing it to break into lesser atoms which hit more Uranium atoms, releasing tons of heat as a result. Is causing an explosion that STARTED time really the best idea?

If you've managed to read this far, you're probably either asleep or thinking something along the lines of "You're a retard with no life. And it's not like this machine gets turned on tomorrow or anything, so we have time to enjoy life." Well, if you're thinking that, you would be wrong, because this machine actually does get turned on tomorrow. Let me say that again, this machine that can cause the end of the world in several different ways GETS TURNED ON TOMORROW. Sure, the particles won't be colliding that fast at the start, but the scientists will speed up the particles over several months, which only means the end of the world will be postponed. 

Well I thought it would be a good idea to get to know the thing that might possibly kill me soon. And if you read this blog article, you'd know too. Anyways, if you're one of the few people who actually read this, thanks for your attention. I'm off. Later.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Troll 2

One evening, I was in a hotel room with my friend when we decided to watch some movies. The first was called Troll, which was pretty dull despite having a decent premise and some hilarious lines. Then we watched Troll 2, and it was an experience unlike any other I have ever encountered.

There is not a single competently made scene in the movie. Every single line delivery was horrible. Every single bit of acting was garbage. Every single plot point was ridiculous. I have never seen a movie fail so hard in every single way; most movies at least have one redeemable or halfway decent quality about them, but this one doesn't. The movie was like a bunch of the worst scenes from bad horror movies strung together. I've seen stage musicals played by 5 year olds that were more compelling. As you're watching it, when you don't think the movie could possibly get any worse, it does.

For these reasons, the movie is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. If any one element had been a little bit better, the film would just be bad and dull. With Troll 2 however, it's so bad it reaches some kind of iconic status. My friend and I could not stop laughing. I definitely laughed harder at this movie than I have at most comedies I've watched. For this reason alone, the movie is awesome and should be viewed by every member of the human race.