if they were going to build the future circular collider anyway, what was the point of building the lhc?they could have made all the discoveries they did on the lhc on the fcc, and they could have saved billions in costs and construction wtf?that was money not well spent
>>17009830Well you better make sure that next time you invest into a collider it's going to be appropriate sized for your specific demands then.
>>17009830Proof of concept. They wouldn't have been able to get the money for LHC if not for the results from previous accelerators and the same is true for the FCC had nothing been discovered with LHC first. When they build a collider that encircles Mars, you'll be back here asking why they wasted money on the Australian Ring Collider.
>>17009830It's not about the science, it's about the grift of wasting money. Why build one collider when you can build several? Most "scientists" are just midwits that need make-work jobs and are just concerned with sucking funds from tax payers and investors. They will just keep building bigger colliders and grifting more money, for generations to come.
>>17009901WE CARRY THE FLAME
>>17009833We should just use the Earth like we did during Argus and Operation Fishbowl. Argus worked pretty well...well enough we did it again at a megaton scale. Also apparently well enough that we risked doing an atmospheric test during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Bluegill Triple Prime), probably because Starfish Prime confirmed a lot of what the AEC gleaned during Argus (Cristofilos Effect works).
>>17009830Why is there the assumption that those particles exist anywhere other than in the collider and why is there the paradigm that smashing together were the best legitimate paradigm for making claims and theories about matter as matter contrasting that with the way that galileo or someone like that would construct physical material theories out of reference frames or frames of reference or someone like that?
