Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiments

  1. #1 The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiments 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    63
    A CERN study indicates no danger for earth,but its arguments are incomplete. The reasons why they are incomplete are discussed here:
    http://physicsnewsandpress.blogspot....-particle.html


    Fausto Intilla
    (Inventor-scientific divulgator)
    www.oloscience.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Fausto Intilla
    A CERN study indicates no danger for earth,but its arguments are incomplete. The reasons why they are incomplete are discussed here:
    http://physicsnewsandpress.blogspot....-particle.html

    What bothers me is that there are no such things as black holes. Not one bit of real scientific evidence was put forth to show they exist, as a black hole. And that they are not just large bodies in space. Emitting a dark energy blocking the natural, whitish haze behind the planet.

    They have just been talked up, to a form of reality in the world of science, or science fiction world.

    They are almost like outrageous headlines in the Star or Enquirer tabloid magazine.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    William I have come to realise it is pointless trying to dissuade you from your seemingly shameless ramblings.

    Shut up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    How are BHs moving at a speed >0 different from stationary BHs??

    How would a BH aquire a charge?

    Why is a collision between a cosmic ray diferent from a collision in the LHC?
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiment 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    What bothers me is that there are no such things as black holes. Not one bit of real scientific evidence was put forth to show they exist, as a black hole. And that they are not just large bodies in space. Emitting a dark energy blocking the natural, whitish haze behind the planet.

    They have just been talked up, to a form of reality in the world of science, or science fiction world.

    They are almost like outrageous headlines in the Star or Enquirer tabloid magazine.
    c'mon man, do you have to oppose EVERY fact in the world of science!
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiment 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    63
    What bothers me is that there are no such things as black holes. Not one bit of real scientific evidence was put forth to show they exist, as a black hole. And that they are not just large bodies in space. Emitting a dark energy blocking the natural, whitish haze behind the planet.
    They have just been talked up, to a form of reality in the world of science, or science fiction world.
    They are almost like outrageous headlines in the Star or Enquirer tabloid magazine.
    Sincerely,
    William McCormick

    The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very
    poor kind of thing... Anyone who expects a source of power from the
    transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine... We hope in the
    next few years to get an idea of what these atoms are, how they are
    made and the way they are worked
    ”.


    (twelve years later, the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima discovered at their expense what the atom was capable of).
    This is a fragment of an article which appeared on a British newspaper
    on the 12th of September 1933, in which Ernest Rutherford
    expressed his disapproval upon the possibility of gathering energy
    from the atomic nucleus.
    Fausto Intilla
    (Inventor-scientific divulgator)
    www.oloscience.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Fausto Intilla
    What bothers me is that there are no such things as black holes. Not one bit of real scientific evidence was put forth to show they exist, as a black hole. And that they are not just large bodies in space. Emitting a dark energy blocking the natural, whitish haze behind the planet.
    They have just been talked up, to a form of reality in the world of science, or science fiction world.
    They are almost like outrageous headlines in the Star or Enquirer tabloid magazine.
    Sincerely,
    William McCormick

    The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very
    poor kind of thing... Anyone who expects a source of power from the
    transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine... We hope in the
    next few years to get an idea of what these atoms are, how they are
    made and the way they are worked
    ”.


    (twelve years later, the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima discovered at their expense what the atom was capable of).
    This is a fragment of an article which appeared on a British newspaper
    on the 12th of September 1933, in which Ernest Rutherford
    expressed his disapproval upon the possibility of gathering energy
    from the atomic nucleus.
    That fellow was totally correct.
    The power comes from ambient radiation.
    We can harness ambient radiation with a million fold potential and light weight equipment.

    The bomb that exploded over Hiroshima weighed in at under a half ton and used ambient radiation. As do all bombs.

    The large 8,900 pound bomb was a poison pill. Similar to the one the Japanese launched over the United States, by ballon.

    Atoms have no power in them, even if you could stop ambient radiation they would just expand, away.
    They do have the ability to create diodes that can harness some of the ambient radiations power to deliver blast much larger then Hiroshima. The Hiroshima bomb is a toy. To ambient radiation specialists.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I have to agree with Zitterbewegung. How is the LHC any different from the solar winds and cosmic rays impacting the upper atmosphere (except that we can watch what happens in the LHC)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I have to agree with Zitterbewegung. How is the LHC any different from the solar winds and cosmic rays impacting the upper atmosphere (except that we can watch what happens in the LHC)?
    I believe the LHC is actually weaker than those cosmic rays, which is one reason to not worry too much about the LHC being dangerous. There was a thread on this awhile back, maybe someone could find it and revive it...
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    I believe the LHC is actually weaker than those cosmic rays, which is one reason to not worry too much about the LHC being dangerous. There was a thread on this awhile back, maybe someone could find it and revive it..
    The only difference is the energy (an order of magnitude higher for the cosmic rays than anything the LHC can crank out even under the best of conditions). And well, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are still up there somewhere and not devoured by MBHs.

    Anyway, my question remains: What`s the difference between moving (mind you, not rotating) and stationary Black Holes??
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9
    For the sake of argument.

    If you consider other theories and such, the biggest one that jumps at me is the String Theory.

    Consider the String Theory in which in place of quarks that lie at the base of atoms lie "strings". In String Theory, it allows for the existence of extra-dimensional warping/existences. In theory, the Strings exist in 10-dimensional space-time with a single string having enough boundary to encompass an entire universe.

    Now then, consider the LHC. When the two protons collide and disperse, the Strings at their base are released. A new dimensional space may, in theory, may be opened up, supposing your belief in String Theory is true. On that one string, a new dimension is opened up.

    A) It's dangerous and opens a dimensional rift tearing the universe asunder. (This and the LHC Black Hole thing going around I guess are what is making people wary of it)

    B) A separate dimension/universe is formed in that one instant. (Supposing you believe String Theory, this doesn't seem that far off)

    C) Everything blows up. (lol, the end)

    Now then, supposing B is true above, it would provide a plausible explanation for the Big Bang Theory saying that we, this universe, is existing in a single instant when a String is released, perhaps from another extra-dimensional race who made their own LHC and their proton collision is what we consider our Big Bang. This also goes along with the theory of String Theory in which this universe is just one, among others, that exist parallel with a possible higher dimensional existence above our own. This also provides theory for an infinite dimensional theory, but that seems a little far fetched.

    Honestly, I don't believe the LHC is going to have any disastrous effects on our universe/dimension. However, I do believe in String Theory and do believe that the existence of a new dimension at that single moment is a possibility. I see this as a possibility at playing God in essence. Only time will tell when the moment of impact finally occurs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinMasaki
    For the sake of argument.

    If you consider other theories and such, the biggest one that jumps at me is the String Theory.

    Consider the String Theory in which in place of quarks that lie at the base of atoms lie "strings". In String Theory, it allows for the existence of extra-dimensional warping/existences. In theory, the Strings exist in 10-dimensional space-time with a single string having enough boundary to encompass an entire universe.

    Now then, consider the LHC. When the two protons collide and disperse, the Strings at their base are released. A new dimensional space may, in theory, may be opened up, supposing your belief in String Theory is true. On that one string, a new dimension is opened up.

    A) It's dangerous and opens a dimensional rift tearing the universe asunder. (This and the LHC Black Hole thing going around I guess are what is making people wary of it)

    B) A separate dimension/universe is formed in that one instant. (Supposing you believe String Theory, this doesn't seem that far off)

    C) Everything blows up. (lol, the end)

    Now then, supposing B is true above, it would provide a plausible explanation for the Big Bang Theory saying that we, this universe, is existing in a single instant when a String is released, perhaps from another extra-dimensional race who made their own LHC and their proton collision is what we consider our Big Bang. This also goes along with the theory of String Theory in which this universe is just one, among others, that exist parallel with a possible higher dimensional existence above our own. This also provides theory for an infinite dimensional theory, but that seems a little far fetched.

    Honestly, I don't believe the LHC is going to have any disastrous effects on our universe/dimension. However, I do believe in String Theory and do believe that the existence of a new dimension at that single moment is a possibility. I see this as a possibility at playing God in essence. Only time will tell when the moment of impact finally occurs.
    Interesting. So if a new dimension were created, and I'm supposing it would be undetectable to us, would it essentially be the big bang that starts another universe? That seems to be what you're saying. If so, I suppose the question then is how it evolves from its original form into 10 dimensions (if all universes are consistent in this respect), and if it contains matter (and if so, where does it come from?). Any ideas? This may be appropriate for a new thread, actually.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    What bothers me is that there are no such things as black holes. Not one bit of real scientific evidence was put forth to show they exist, as a black hole. And that they are not just large bodies in space. Emitting a dark energy blocking the natural, whitish haze behind the planet.

    They have just been talked up, to a form of reality in the world of science, or science fiction world.

    They are almost like outrageous headlines in the Star or Enquirer tabloid magazine.
    c'mon man, do you have to oppose EVERY fact in the world of science!

    Black holes are not a scientific method fact, by a long shot, at least not with the crazy gravity holes they are claimed to be.

    They are just very large planets. That block the excited gases, haze, created by half of an infinite universe. You are just looking at darkness very far away. The light, as you know obscures darkness. That gives you the strange effects at the edges.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinMasaki
    For the sake of argument.

    If you consider other theories and such, the biggest one that jumps at me is the String Theory.

    Consider the String Theory in which in place of quarks that lie at the base of atoms lie "strings". In String Theory, it allows for the existence of extra-dimensional warping/existences. In theory, the Strings exist in 10-dimensional space-time with a single string having enough boundary to encompass an entire universe.

    Now then, consider the LHC. When the two protons collide and disperse, the Strings at their base are released. A new dimensional space may, in theory, may be opened up, supposing your belief in String Theory is true. On that one string, a new dimension is opened up.

    A) It's dangerous and opens a dimensional rift tearing the universe asunder. (This and the LHC Black Hole thing going around I guess are what is making people wary of it)

    B) A separate dimension/universe is formed in that one instant. (Supposing you believe String Theory, this doesn't seem that far off)

    C) Everything blows up. (lol, the end)

    Now then, supposing B is true above, it would provide a plausible explanation for the Big Bang Theory saying that we, this universe, is existing in a single instant when a String is released, perhaps from another extra-dimensional race who made their own LHC and their proton collision is what we consider our Big Bang. This also goes along with the theory of String Theory in which this universe is just one, among others, that exist parallel with a possible higher dimensional existence above our own. This also provides theory for an infinite dimensional theory, but that seems a little far fetched.

    Honestly, I don't believe the LHC is going to have any disastrous effects on our universe/dimension. However, I do believe in String Theory and do believe that the existence of a new dimension at that single moment is a possibility. I see this as a possibility at playing God in essence. Only time will tell when the moment of impact finally occurs.
    Interesting. So if a new dimension were created, and I'm supposing it would be undetectable to us, would it essentially be the big bang that starts another universe? That seems to be what you're saying. If so, I suppose the question then is how it evolves from its original form into 10 dimensions (if all universes are consistent in this respect), and if it contains matter (and if so, where does it come from?). Any ideas? This may be appropriate for a new thread, actually.
    Yeah, think I should open a new thread for this.

    Anyway, an idea I've got is that the string itself naturally exists as a 10-dimensional normality, it always was, always will be. This seems a little absurd and laughable, but since the knowledge of multi-dimensions is still lost upon us, I consider it a possibility, but one of the possible dimensional quality components of this deca-dimensional object is the ability to exist within one's self. I guess a modern day myth that is more easily recognizable is an out of body experience in which your consciousness, which resides within your own self, leaves its parent body but is still a part of it simultaneously. Anyway, if you consider this is a possible dimensional existance, the 10-dimensional string is the only universal constant.

    As for how matter comes to exist within this micro-universal fold, I don't have any reasonable explanation that I can convince myself of. It might not be my mystery to solve.


    Black holes are not a scientific method fact, by a long shot, at least not with the crazy gravity holes they are claimed to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    They are just very large planets. That block the excited gases, haze, created by half of an infinite universe. You are just looking at darkness very far away. The light, as you know obscures darkness. That gives you the strange effects at the edges.
    There are a couple of scientific ways that black hole detection can be done. Not saying that a black hole is a gravity hole in space, it is more of a gravity well. By Eintstein's theory of relativity, the denser and massive an object gets, the greater it's gravitational strength.

    A black hole, in theory is a star which went supernova or something and left it's core behind. Now a star's core post-supernova is ultra dense and massive, some of which form neutron stars when the star's protons and electrons fuse due to the pressure and gravity. Neutron stars are small, incredibly so, but ultra dense. Due to the density of the star, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the gravity on the star will be tens of thousands that of Earth's.

    If a neutron star were to be so dense that it effected galactic bodies to the point where light couldn't escape its gravity well, you have a black hole. Surrounding gasses being swirled around the gravity well become more and more condensed due to gravity and friction increases. This rapid friction generates massive radiation which we can detect via x-ray telescopes. Now why radiation can escape the well while light can't is another topic, but that's a widely accepted definition and description of what a black hole is and the detection of them.

    Light rays act as both waves and particles and have been proven to slow in various substances. In superfluid liquid, (Helium-4 or -3, for example) light was found to slow to only 17 meters per second rather than it's normal 299 million meters per second. Despite this effect the superfluid had on light, radiation could pass through as easily as in a static environment. Radiation acts simply as a wave rather than as a particle state like light does.

    It is also proven that gravitational bodies do effect light where light bends around them to a degree. Because of such, if you say a super dense neutron star (aka black hole) existed with a super massive gravity well, light wouldn't be able to escape it while the radiation from the surrounding colliding forces falling into the gravity well would.

    Oh and if you say anything about the lack of proven fact about neutrons (neutron stars), we can just say they are immensely dense white dwarf stars which have been proven as well. What really matters is that the star's core become so dense that it's gravity effects things around it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinMasaki
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinMasaki
    For the sake of argument.

    If you consider other theories and such, the biggest one that jumps at me is the String Theory.

    Consider the String Theory in which in place of quarks that lie at the base of atoms lie "strings". In String Theory, it allows for the existence of extra-dimensional warping/existences. In theory, the Strings exist in 10-dimensional space-time with a single string having enough boundary to encompass an entire universe.

    Now then, consider the LHC. When the two protons collide and disperse, the Strings at their base are released. A new dimensional space may, in theory, may be opened up, supposing your belief in String Theory is true. On that one string, a new dimension is opened up.

    A) It's dangerous and opens a dimensional rift tearing the universe asunder. (This and the LHC Black Hole thing going around I guess are what is making people wary of it)

    B) A separate dimension/universe is formed in that one instant. (Supposing you believe String Theory, this doesn't seem that far off)

    C) Everything blows up. (lol, the end)

    Now then, supposing B is true above, it would provide a plausible explanation for the Big Bang Theory saying that we, this universe, is existing in a single instant when a String is released, perhaps from another extra-dimensional race who made their own LHC and their proton collision is what we consider our Big Bang. This also goes along with the theory of String Theory in which this universe is just one, among others, that exist parallel with a possible higher dimensional existence above our own. This also provides theory for an infinite dimensional theory, but that seems a little far fetched.

    Honestly, I don't believe the LHC is going to have any disastrous effects on our universe/dimension. However, I do believe in String Theory and do believe that the existence of a new dimension at that single moment is a possibility. I see this as a possibility at playing God in essence. Only time will tell when the moment of impact finally occurs.
    Interesting. So if a new dimension were created, and I'm supposing it would be undetectable to us, would it essentially be the big bang that starts another universe? That seems to be what you're saying. If so, I suppose the question then is how it evolves from its original form into 10 dimensions (if all universes are consistent in this respect), and if it contains matter (and if so, where does it come from?). Any ideas? This may be appropriate for a new thread, actually.
    Yeah, think I should open a new thread for this.

    Anyway, an idea I've got is that the string itself naturally exists as a 10-dimensional normality, it always was, always will be. This seems a little absurd and laughable, but since the knowledge of multi-dimensions is still lost upon us, I consider it a possibility, but one of the possible dimensional quality components of this deca-dimensional object is the ability to exist within one's self. I guess a modern day myth that is more easily recognizable is an out of body experience in which your consciousness, which resides within your own self, leaves its parent body but is still a part of it simultaneously. Anyway, if you consider this is a possible dimensional existance, the 10-dimensional string is the only universal constant.

    As for how matter comes to exist within this micro-universal fold, I don't have any reasonable explanation that I can convince myself of. It might not be my mystery to solve.


    Black holes are not a scientific method fact, by a long shot, at least not with the crazy gravity holes they are claimed to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    They are just very large planets. That block the excited gases, haze, created by half of an infinite universe. You are just looking at darkness very far away. The light, as you know obscures darkness. That gives you the strange effects at the edges.
    There are a couple of scientific ways that black hole detection can be done. Not saying that a black hole is a gravity hole in space, it is more of a gravity well. By Eintstein's theory of relativity, the denser and massive an object gets, the greater it's gravitational strength.

    A black hole, in theory is a star which went supernova or something and left it's core behind. Now a star's core post-supernova is ultra dense and massive, some of which form neutron stars when the star's protons and electrons fuse due to the pressure and gravity. Neutron stars are small, incredibly so, but ultra dense. Due to the density of the star, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the gravity on the star will be tens of thousands that of Earth's.

    If a neutron star were to be so dense that it effected galactic bodies to the point where light couldn't escape its gravity well, you have a black hole. Surrounding gasses being swirled around the gravity well become more and more condensed due to gravity and friction increases. This rapid friction generates massive radiation which we can detect via x-ray telescopes. Now why radiation can escape the well while light can't is another topic, but that's a widely accepted definition and description of what a black hole is and the detection of them.

    Light rays act as both waves and particles and have been proven to slow in various substances. In superfluid liquid, (Helium-4 or -3, for example) light was found to slow to only 17 meters per second rather than it's normal 299 million meters per second. Despite this effect the superfluid had on light, radiation could pass through as easily as in a static environment. Radiation acts simply as a wave rather than as a particle state like light does.

    It is also proven that gravitational bodies do effect light where light bends around them to a degree. Because of such, if you say a super dense neutron star (aka black hole) existed with a super massive gravity well, light wouldn't be able to escape it while the radiation from the surrounding colliding forces falling into the gravity well would.

    Oh and if you say anything about the lack of proven fact about neutrons (neutron stars), we can just say they are immensely dense white dwarf stars which have been proven as well. What really matters is that the star's core become so dense that it's gravity effects things around it.
    That is what they tell you about black holes. They tell you something exists that cannot exist and for some reason it sells like hot cakes. I often run into great opposition talking about the old all electron universe. Used to isolate the elements up to 86. Very precisely I might add. Sometimes the all electron universe, never existed, other times it is to silly to discuss, after its apparent discarding. Yet it was written about long before and long after its end. Sometimes there were Universal Scientists other times there were not.

    In fact these occurring and disappearing bits of history, occur or disappear, in direct relation to my world proving new science a fraud.

    One day I was catching hell, and said jokingly, I believe this effect is caused by the new particle the Bozac particle. And do you know about five people wanted to know how big it was, how much it weighed, how did it spin. And if I have some formulation for it. I was almost physically sick. Seeing grown ups falling for imaginary particles.

    Everything could already be done, without neutrons, even reaching other solar systems in 17 months. All with the all electron universe understanding. Computers were working just fine with the all electron universe.

    Suddenly World War Two stopped the teaching of the atom. And it was stated publicly, with a fear factor including pictures of mushroom clouds. That, if our children were to learn the atom, it could fall into others hands and end America and the free world.

    Meanwhile other countries like Russia already had it as well. But did not want their citizens to have it either. Many would have used it on the English and American alley Joseph Stalen. A man who killed more Jews then Hitler.

    It is written that we were not going to be allowed to know the secret of the atom.
    They really said we are not going to be allowed to know the atom anymore. Because we already knew how to make fission bombs long before World War Two or the Manhattan project. We made them without radio active materials. They are very small and very light weight.

    So I guess it really just comes down to what sells. The Roman games sold in Rome. However I suspect that higher goals were possible.

    There are only three dimensions, Length, Width, Height. Everything else is Sci-Fi writing.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    When you say that light traveled at 17 meters a second, through some form of helium. You are incorrect. The rays that created the light passed right through the helium. Or it would have exploded.

    The experiment just showed that it took a very long time to excite the helium to give off light. Or show that rays capable of making it give off light were present and passing through just fine.

    There are no neutrons. Just electron sub-atomic particles.

    What carried the light from the excited helium, also passed right through the helium and brought you a picture of what took place.

    This is how the original scientists understood the function of light. And the human eye, an electrical metering device.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/mrbill/mrbill.html


    As a welder, I watch very bright arcs all day sometimes. I use proper equipment. And this equipment allows me to see right through an arc. That means that whatever is behind the arc, is still there still sending information that can penetrate an ARC. An arc that will cause instant eye damage, without proper equipment.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    how do electrons make neutrons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    how do electrons make neutrons?
    They don't. Don't listen to him, he is the resident crackpot.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    I know I know i don't have many posts, but i read these forums quite a lot. I was actually curious how William could explain an electrically neutral particle with electrons. I've heard him say time and time again that neutrons dont exist, and so i wondered what his explanation was.

    I apologise because i realise that he will probably turn it into some conspiray theory or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    how do electrons make neutrons?


    Lets take a look at the myth of neutrons. At first they were the size of protons or a single hydrogen atom. They had no charge. And really could not interact at the time of their invention, with the rules that applied at the time. Because at that time things moved because of charge. And because sub-atomic particles did not touch one another. That is why they were not accepted for so long.

    How far could a hydrogen atom be hurled through air, air that is made of larger elements, atoms of much larger size? Not very far.

    I mean I could send hydrogen gas at amazing pressures across a room. Or perhaps even one block away. But that is about it. In space they might have enough velocity and lack of resistance in a light hydrogen vacuum to go a mile. But that would be about it.

    So the neutron and all its phony associations are just that.

    Electron radiation is happening. It explains anything you have the time and interest to explain. Neutrons just confuse and hinder life.


    I use Benjamin Franklin's understanding of the electric particle, called the electron today, to explain it. Ambient radiation can deposit electrons in an area that contains a diode. Matter can positively accelerate electrons away from an area.

    The time an electron spends in one spot, increases the amount of EMF (electromotive force) it is capable of delivering.

    Very slow moving electrons caused by matter that has become a diode, cause a bomb.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Everything else is Sci-Fi writing.
    You mean like your writing?

    By what you just stated. You are saying that "Yes, schools taught about the atom. Yes, they acknowledged it. Yes, to all these things." It's just it was made illegal or whatever else to teach them. Regardless of whether it was made illegal, immoral or whatever else, there was a time when it was legally taught and recognized as total fact.

    This means it doesn't matter what you may have been taught, there was a teaching that was accepted that followed these laws. A 3-dimensional world is fine, as that is what we see and live in. It's being closed minded to the possibilities that is what is frowned upon. In schools nowadays they teach that as long as you have a dream, you can turn it into reality. Schools don't teach kids to be autonomous robots programmed to accept only what is feasible.

    It doesn't matter if it is just fantasy and dreams, as long as there is a goal, like finding what else is in space or transmitting words and speech through the air that can be received miles away, if it is what someone thinks is possible, you have no right to say otherwise. There was a time when having satellite communication and the thought of sending a man to the moon was ludicrous and imagined as impossible. It is possible now. Scientists in the past were ridiculed because of what they thought was possible, now we have present day technology, nano-machines, artificial limbs, robots and human exoskeletons.

    You speak of original scientists. Today's teachings in medicine, astronomy, physics, dynamics and all sorts of other fields all originated from what 'original scientists' believed. Their specifics beliefs were then reviewed numerous times over by other scientists and refined. You don't take a gallon of raw oil and put it in your gas tank, it needs to be refined and treated before it becomes what is used today.

    Discovery of this technology and other scientific finds which were all thought of as blasphemy, for lack of a better word, but it is now present day fact. So please keep your closed minded world to yourself and let us live in ours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9
    Is it just me or did William ignore my little thing about black holes. I'm saying regardless of if its a black hole or not, if a neutron star (labeled) is dense enough to the point where its gravitational pull can effect light, it is labeled as a black hole.

    As for being incorrect about light being slowed, you are incorrect in assuming I was incorrect. Research things a bit better before saying anything about them.

    http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot...-lene-hau.html
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Super...er-57774.shtml
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05493.html

    Hell, here's a colloquium that was written about it

    http://www.phys.uvic.ca/office/semin...u_09_13_06.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinMasaki
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Everything else is Sci-Fi writing.
    You mean like your writing?

    By what you just stated. You are saying that "Yes, schools taught about the atom. Yes, they acknowledged it. Yes, to all these things." It's just it was made illegal or whatever else to teach them. Regardless of whether it was made illegal, immoral or whatever else, there was a time when it was legally taught and recognized as total fact.

    This means it doesn't matter what you may have been taught, there was a teaching that was accepted that followed these laws. A 3-dimensional world is fine, as that is what we see and live in. It's being closed minded to the possibilities that is what is frowned upon. In schools nowadays they teach that as long as you have a dream, you can turn it into reality. Schools don't teach kids to be autonomous robots programmed to accept only what is feasible.

    It doesn't matter if it is just fantasy and dreams, as long as there is a goal, like finding what else is in space or transmitting words and speech through the air that can be received miles away, if it is what someone thinks is possible, you have no right to say otherwise. There was a time when having satellite communication and the thought of sending a man to the moon was ludicrous and imagined as impossible. It is possible now. Scientists in the past were ridiculed because of what they thought was possible, now we have present day technology, nano-machines, artificial limbs, robots and human exoskeletons.

    You speak of original scientists. Today's teachings in medicine, astronomy, physics, dynamics and all sorts of other fields all originated from what 'original scientists' believed. Their specifics beliefs were then reviewed numerous times over by other scientists and refined. You don't take a gallon of raw oil and put it in your gas tank, it needs to be refined and treated before it becomes what is used today.

    Discovery of this technology and other scientific finds which were all thought of as blasphemy, for lack of a better word, but it is now present day fact. So please keep your closed minded world to yourself and let us live in ours.
    If kids accept law makers they don't have any good dreams being fulfilled, coming their way. They have a nightmare coming.

    If the kids could learn correctly, or were allowed to learn correctly, about the three dimensions, that do exist, and can be proven.
    Three dimensions that contain an infinite possibility already. With almost no real restrictions to amazing dreams. They would not have to create a phony cyber world, with phony dimensions, to take them away from the sickening reality of phony multi-particle science/law makers.

    Short of time travel that not only does not make sense, but would make life cheaper then what it is now. We can do anything. I mean anything.

    You shouldn't be putting gasoline in a vehicle with American individuals in it. We have perpetual motion. And it can be made safe.

    These young kids shouldn't be dreaming. They should be achieving. We have had total science for almost one hundred years. Many were afraid to even bring it forward with law makers in charge. But it was done a hundred years ago. And it is going in reverse.

    If you leave retards in charge, you will end up with a bunch of retards.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinMasaki
    Is it just me or did William ignore my little thing about black holes. I'm saying regardless of if its a black hole or not, if a neutron star (labeled) is dense enough to the point where its gravitational pull can effect light, it is labeled as a black hole.

    As for being incorrect about light being slowed, you are incorrect in assuming I was incorrect. Research things a bit better before saying anything about them.

    http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot...-lene-hau.html
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Super...er-57774.shtml
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05493.html

    Hell, here's a colloquium that was written about it

    http://www.phys.uvic.ca/office/semin...u_09_13_06.pdf
    You are claiming that the black holes are stars. I say they are very large planets. Or were when I learned about them. We learned that the light in the light gases of space, would encroach into the black rays from a very large planet or body. And give that wavy effect around the edges of the large body.

    There is no such thing as a neutron star. No collapsing in on itself. What you are talking about would just create a bomb, and it would be dispersed.

    No big bang theory either.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You are claiming that the black holes are stars. I say they are very large planets. Or were when I learned about them. We learned that the light in the light gases of space, would encroach into the black rays from a very large planet or body. And give that wavy effect around the edges of the large body.
    So are you saying that there is no such thing as advancement in knowledge? That things that something before is a universal constant and will never be looked at nor revised in the future? You are talking past sense, what you learned in the past. Is it not possible for the advancement of knowledge from then to now?

    People were taught before that it was flies around raw meat that caused sickness. We have found since then that it is the raw uncooked meat itself that causes illness. Science and technology follow along that same pattern. What was once believed as something may actually be something else that just hasn't been discovered yet. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't make it a nonsensical fantasy.

    Tell me, does the universe still revolve around the earth as man once believe and was taught? Is the world still flat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Port Saint Lucie, Florida
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    how do electrons make neutrons?
    Actually I'm familiar with an explanation for that, postulated by Gabriel LaFreniere. See the following link:

    http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_protons.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenchi
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    how do electrons make neutrons?
    Actually I'm familiar with an explanation for that, postulated by Gabriel LaFreniere. See the following link:

    http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_protons.htm
    That is an interesting link. I dont know enough about gluonic fields to know if it stand up to rigourous analysis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Food for Black Holes 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Middleton WI
    Posts
    2
    Have you read this article:
    http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/

    "early famine makes it even harder to imagine how these black holes could have swelled to billions of times the Sun's mass soon thereafter."

    I suspect that black holes feed on the same "stuff" that is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion... the very mysterious dark energy...

    BigCrash.org
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: Food for Black Holes 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by JTankers
    I suspect that black holes feed on the same "stuff" that is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion... the very mysterious dark energy...
    At this stage I think speculation by amateurs (and I apologise if you are not one) is probably just as valid as speculation by professionals (and I apologise if you are one :wink: ).

    I think the time is ripe for a paradigm shift. Should be interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiment 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Middleton WI
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Fausto Intilla
    A CERN study indicates no danger for earth,but its arguments are incomplete. The reasons why they are incomplete are discussed here:
    http://physicsnewsandpress.blogspot....-particle.html
    Excellent article.

    And CERN's SPC Committee's validation report contains a disclaimer of empirical evidence of safety from micro black holes, which appears to imply... "conceivable danger":

    Quote "this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation" - CERN's SPC Committee
    http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/acc...0&confId=35065

    Unfortunately there are no reasonably irrefutable arguments that I am aware of for the safety of creating micro black holes with velocities too slow to escape Earth.

    Three strongly disputed assumptions… Micro Black holes are created or not, decay or not, grow slowly or not. (disputed by PHD's in Math, Physics and other Theoretical Sciences)

    Have you seen this funny music video: You Prefer Your Collider
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1L2xODZSI4

    LHCFacts.org
    http://www.lhcfacts.org
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Google the "oh-my-god" particle. This was a particle from outer space detected in the 1990ies shwooshing in at 3.2 (+/- 0.9) 10^20 eV. The LHC particles get accelerated to 10^14 eV. The people who are familiar with math couldn't help notice this is a factor of 1,000,000 or in words: one million.

    So now someone explain to me why a particle collsion with feeble 2 x 10^14 eV like generated by two beams of protons smashing into each other is supposed to generate MBHs and something with an energy 1million times higher (I can't help it, just have to mention this ) won't? That's the Weeny of the LHC, extremely high energies allthough they pale in comparison to Mommy Nature. And only at those extreme energies there is the theoretical possibility to create MBHs. Mind you, faint theoretical possibility, not certainty that something like strangelets or MBHs could be created - assuming lots of theories and speculations are correct. And even assuming those particles are rare - I mean they are not detected every day - those particles had fourandahalf billion years to create MBHs not only on earth but also on the gas-giants with cross sections around 20 times larger than earth. Last time I checked Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus were still up there happily circling the sun.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Ol' Will 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1
    Seems like everyone is hating on William, but the guy seriously needs to think through things more before he starts chatting up. He agrees fully with scientific mainstream- of the turn of the last century.

    First, about the existance of black holes, Openheimer's theories were kind of proved right durring the Manhatten Project. I know you think that fission only produces radiation, and that atom bombs are only an HE bomb packed with Silica or what-have-you, (that is actually a dirty bomb, not an atomic bomb), but Einstein could not even argue Openheimer off the black hole theory (Openheimer's theories on particle physics are tied to both). Again, I know you think that there are only three dimensions, again, that theory has been long lost. There is a little thing called redshift you should really look into. Redshift was the major problem Einstein could not get around when arguing against black holes. Mass compressed space, and that's a fact. That's why we have gravity (gravitons may help, too, but I'm guessing you don't believe in Dark Matter either). At the point in which mass becomes to great for a given volume, that mass is infinately redshifted. I don't know if it connects to some other plane or dimension, but its a matter of basic physics that the dang thing exists.
    Chief, I'm just a dumb gunsmith, and I can figure this stuff out. It doesn't take a genius to understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Ol' Will 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by danieleveld
    Seems like everyone is hating on William, but the guy seriously needs to think through things more before he starts chatting up. He agrees fully with scientific mainstream- of the turn of the last century.

    First, about the existance of black holes, Openheimer's theories were kind of proved right durring the Manhatten Project. I know you think that fission only produces radiation, and that atom bombs are only an HE bomb packed with Silica or what-have-you, (that is actually a dirty bomb, not an atomic bomb), but Einstein could not even argue Openheimer off the black hole theory (Openheimer's theories on particle physics are tied to both). Again, I know you think that there are only three dimensions, again, that theory has been long lost. There is a little thing called redshift you should really look into. Redshift was the major problem Einstein could not get around when arguing against black holes. Mass compressed space, and that's a fact. That's why we have gravity (gravitons may help, too, but I'm guessing you don't believe in Dark Matter either). At the point in which mass becomes to great for a given volume, that mass is infinately redshifted. I don't know if it connects to some other plane or dimension, but its a matter of basic physics that the dang thing exists.
    Chief, I'm just a dumb gunsmith, and I can figure this stuff out. It doesn't take a genius to understand it.
    It is so simple that most scientists should be shot for Treason. The current scientists cannot even correctly label a garden hose and electron flow. What was thrown out was the truth.

    The only thing proven was that American officials promised to keep the atom a secret from students. Either you believe your officials, and believe they have the authority. Or you need to stop your officials and take away their authority.

    I was told in school by a professor of science that in fact, science had ended. And that a form of counterintelligence would become the teachings to new students.

    This coincided with the attack by the government against Grumman Aero Space. You may note that Grumman could put us on the moon. No other company has been able to since.
    Grumman used the all electron universe to do it.

    Kids are not learning science. Red shift is nonsense.
    You have electrons and you have what electrons can do. You have matter, matter is made of balls of electrons, in infinite numbers. And you have the structures the the balls of electrons create and what those structures can do.

    All the rest is an intoxicated, scholarly attempt to look intelligent through confusion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Ol' Will 
    Alc
    Alc is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by danieleveld
    Seems like everyone is hating on William, but the guy seriously needs to think through things more before he starts chatting up. He agrees fully with scientific mainstream- of the turn of the last century.

    First, about the existance of black holes, Openheimer's theories were kind of proved right durring the Manhatten Project. I know you think that fission only produces radiation, and that atom bombs are only an HE bomb packed with Silica or what-have-you, (that is actually a dirty bomb, not an atomic bomb), but Einstein could not even argue Openheimer off the black hole theory (Openheimer's theories on particle physics are tied to both). Again, I know you think that there are only three dimensions, again, that theory has been long lost. There is a little thing called redshift you should really look into. Redshift was the major problem Einstein could not get around when arguing against black holes. Mass compressed space, and that's a fact. That's why we have gravity (gravitons may help, too, but I'm guessing you don't believe in Dark Matter either). At the point in which mass becomes to great for a given volume, that mass is infinately redshifted. I don't know if it connects to some other plane or dimension, but its a matter of basic physics that the dang thing exists.
    Chief, I'm just a dumb gunsmith, and I can figure this stuff out. It doesn't take a genius to understand it.
    It is so simple that most scientists should be shot for Treason. The current scientists cannot even correctly label a garden hose and electron flow. What was thrown out was the truth.

    The only thing proven was that American officials promised to keep the atom a secret from students. Either you believe your officials, and believe they have the authority. Or you need to stop your officials and take away their authority.

    I was told in school by a professor of science that in fact, science had ended. And that a form of counterintelligence would become the teachings to new students.

    This coincided with the attack by the government against Grumman Aero Space. You may note that Grumman could put us on the moon. No other company has been able to since.
    Grumman used the all electron universe to do it.

    Kids are not learning science. Red shift is nonsense.
    You have electrons and you have what electrons can do. You have matter, matter is made of balls of electrons, in infinite numbers. And you have the structures the the balls of electrons create and what those structures can do.

    All the rest is an intoxicated, scholarly attempt to look intelligent through confusion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    You mention all of these professors who tell you all of this stuff, and you mention a lot of things to do with electrons, are you actually trying to tell us that every single thing is made from purely electrons alone, PROVE IT. If that is how it really is, no scientific theory ever got a second look without proof, im pretty sure pythagorus didnt just suddenly think "oh a^2+b^2=C^2" He figured it out by drawing a triangle, and drawing a square on each edge, and measuring the areas in the sand.
    Atleast supply us with one of the names of these "original scientists" who obviously have everything figured out already.


    Yes the electron was the first sub-atomic particle ever discovered, but it certainly isnt the only one, and it certainly wont be the last.

    Your all electron universe theory really has so many flaws. you really should look at it in great detail and realise that youve wasted 700+ posts passing this on.

    Modern physics works, and modern physics will continue to work until something better outdates it, or disproves it... kind of like the all electron universe was disproven and replaced with modern physics as it is today.

    By all means, if you can disprove any of the great scientists of the past, i don't know i think your crazy enough to attempt to disprove that the earth is the accepted shape it is right now.

    Your living in the past bill, the earth isnt flat atop a tower of infinite tortoises, get with the times, and actually take a bit of time to learn about the particles which are being discovered all around us. You know i don't think its anything to do with the fact that you don't beleive in any of this "modern science mumbojumbo" i think its purely because either you dont understand... you werent taught it in school "back in the day" or you're just plain lazy for not taking a true interest in the subject.

    It is fine and dandy to have a theory! everyone is entitled to it, its like your opinion to the scientific community on how you view the world, some people are right, other aren't.

    But on the other hand, it is a completly different story to try and force a theory upon someone, especially when you have no proof. Schools today may all conform to a curriculum about how the universe works, because that is what is generally accepted. There is nothing stopping people like "you" seeking out their own theories about how the universe works, thats what makes a scientist. But with no evidence of it, its just plain moronic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Ummmm.....just for all those Doomsday Prophets. Another interesting tidbit to chew on: even if - and remeber this is a big IF - MBHs are created in the LHC....how do you explain that we exist today? "Why" you ask? Well, the LHC is designed to mimic a quark-gluon plasma like it existed a couple of thousand years after the BB. So if there were sustainable BHs created and gobbling up everything in sight we should also not be here today as those BHs would then have prevented stars from forming at this stage of the universe's development.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •