Haha, that had to of been a panic for a second.

If i've got my current theorectical physics right, that would be the big worry. 

I may be totally off though, to be honest i haven't been keeping up as much as I should.

I kinda slowed my physics reading after I came to the realization that it's nearly impossible to explain to other people and that it would probably take a long time before we had any actual proof anyway... and even then we may STILL be wrong.

Interesting corollary.  Though people are harsh about the Copernican system being held down by the church... chances are it would of never been accepted as a mainstream view anyway,

Because the Tychonic system actually explained more about the universe then the Copernican view did based on what we currently knew about the universe.   The Copernican view had some serious flaws. 

For example there was no difference in the mathamtical distance of the stars. 

Which you would expect would change positions relative to themselves like the planets did if the earth rotated around the sun.

Of course, little did we know they DID change... we just had no tools to measure it... and had no idea stars were THAT far away. 

Another being the tides.   The Copernican system under Galeio suggested the tides were caused by the movement of the earth around the sun... and that's why the tides only happen once a day.  (Though they happen twice a day, Galieo tried to play it off as a local difference due to some factors and that everywhere else it had to be once a day.)   It was actually Galieo's centerpiece arguement for why the Copernican system was true and the Tychonican system was false.

It wasn't until like.... I wanna say the 1700's that we developed poweful enough telescopes that made the Copernican view the scientifically correct one.  Despite it being the factually correct one.

A lot of the time I wonder if a lot of these theoretical models will be proven wrong, because just like the Tychonian system it was more a matter of us trying to find a solution for everything, and for us working on reasoning that was completely off base but made sense at the time because we didn't really know anything.

The thing I am worried about is strangelet's forming and everything I have read when scientists were asked if it was possible about them forming they were like "We don't know, maybe, maybe not, we are leaning towards them not forming, but well, we could be wrong..."

I'm pretty sure the scientists involved will have worked out that this won't end the universe.

Or otherwise they're gamblers, which would be amusing.

This rasies some questions.

1. If we made a big bang does this mean we have now created a new universe?

2. Isn't it possible that  this means that our universe was an experiment by some Super Aliens to create a miniature version of their universe?

Just some food for thought.

Didn't you watch MIB?  We are just a marble...

To have worked it out, i think they would have to know the things they are hoping this well let them know.

They didn't create Big Bang itself (or mini version of it), they just created "Big Bang high" temperatures to check how matter acts.

Well they are really using this (and most of the LHC stuff) to confirm current theoretical physics rather than to find new theories.

Isn't that like saying you are throwing a match into a barrel of liquid to confirm your theory that the liquid isn't flamable?

Lots of scientific breakthroughs are found accidently by someone trying to confirm another hypothisis.

It's a bit more precise than that. It's kind of like working out the molecular structure of the liquid, doing the math to find out whether its flammable and then tossing a match in it.

And of course they could find something new, theres just no reason to believe that that something new is going to somehow destroy the human race.