Notices
Results 1 to 54 of 54

Thread: Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud

  1. #1 Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Taxpayers should hold our spendthrift government responsible for wasting more than $500 Million of our money on a $10 Billion Super Collider experiment to smash protons at light speed in order to find other dimensions.

    $10 Billion would be better spent on cancer research rather than spending it on scientists trying to find how the "Big Bang" came about and if other dimensions exist. Transcendologists can answer those questions for free.

    Here is a challenge to all popes, priests, clergy, rabbis, and religious leaders; if you believe that past prophets have interacted with the spiritual dimension, how can the below account be denied?

    Finding Nearest Openings To Several Parallel Universes

    The ultimate bending space and time results in finding the opening to the nearest parallel space and time. According to advanced researchers in physics, there are several parallel universes. These universes are so different in their perception that with conventional physics we can never find where they are and how they exist. The concept of accelerating to speed much higher than light can take us to these parallels universes through an opening in our vicinity. You do not have to travel a thousand light years into a black hole to go there; that is just one of the ways to approach the parallel universes. Our mind and spirit has the psychic power that can make us travel through the nearest opening into the parallel universes.

    Those who have experienced near death experiences move into these parallel universes through the tunnel with a while light at the end of the tunnel. All of those who had near death experience report similar happenings. How can this be explained with physics? Our spirit or soul is a source of electromagnetic energy that can infinitively amplify it if needed. Inner satisfaction of a soul results in elevation of this energy. It is also true that we move into these parallel universes using intense electromagnetic flux with the help of dark energy, we just do not know how to do that. The problem is that if we try to do it using physical means we encounter a situation that is infinitely impossible to achieve.

    Accelerating through a black hole or applying dark energy in a suitable manner in the immediate vicinity theoretically can take us to the parallel universe. A much better way is to traverse to the parallel universe is through our inbuilt psychic power. When our spirit is allowed freedom through death or through transcendental meditation, the unleashed electromagnetic flux creates the miracle - it finds an immediate opening to the parallel universe within close vicinity. Religious prophets in various religions as well as those who have experienced near death have experienced these parallel universes; most of them report part of oneness and tranquility. They also report of completeness of knowledge. Will we eventually find the electromagnetic fields that run this universe?

    Other parallel universes may not work the same way and that is the reason that what is energy or spirit in this universe is part of tranquility and eternity in another universe. A transcendologist from the USA has now verified this. When he had a near-death experience in 1956 at age fifteen his soul traveled into a higher-level parallel universe. What happens to us after death has now been made clear. He twice repeated this experiment in 2001 when he placed his body in stasis and used his psychic power via transcendental meditation to again access this parallel universe where spiritual life thrives. Some researchers believe that parallel universes exist in our immediate vicinity.

    See http://transcendentalists.org to learn more about this weird experiment.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Having read the first sentence I have one word for you....

    Bollocks.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I agree death to physics! Long live biology!



    Edit: The rest of what he said is nonsense though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Bring it on Biology! Round one.... :P
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 It'll Fizzle To a Dribble. 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Supposed results are anticipated within a month on the LHC.

    IMHO, if no results are seen within several years, the whole contraption will be taken apart and reassimilated in space. In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics. Scientists will claim that their lame-brained ideas will have more validity if the experiments are done in outer space. Within ten years and after another ten billion dollars is spent the LHC project will be scrapped.

    The alternative is that the proton explosion causes the energy within the black mass to engulf the entire LHC tube.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    A round of applause for Mr kkawohl, for somehow finding the words to bring an international scientific experiment into the religion sub-forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic
    Having read the first sentence I have one word for you....

    Bollocks.
    I'll second that.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    A round of applause for Mr kkawohl, for somehow finding the words to bring an international scientific experiment into the religion sub-forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaotic
    Having read the first sentence I have one word for you....

    Bollocks.
    I'll second that.
    They are closely related...an attempt to prove bollocks.

    The LHC wants to determine the god particle....religion incorrectly claims to know God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Not for the first time I wish we had pseudo-religion forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    Those who have experienced near death experiences move into these parallel universes through the tunnel with a while light at the end of the tunnel. All of those who had near death experience report similar happenings. How can this be explained with physics?
    try taking some ketamine (horse tranquiliser), or DMT.

    ketimin gives you the k-hole trip, which is pretty much the tunnel your refering to. while DMT is more likely to cause out of body experiences.

    by some cosmic-coincidence, DMT is the chemical your brain releases when you die.

    i really think you need to make the distinction between altering your perception of reality, and altering other peoples perception of it.

    the universe doesn't change just because you perceive it differently.

    this fact really slaps you in the face when your comming down off any of these drugs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    the universe doesn't change just because you perceive it differently...this fact really slaps you in the face when your comming down off any of these drugs.
    I've never experimented with any drugs so I can't agree or disagree.

    But since you seem to know so much about it...will using my right hand until it turns red give me a high?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    I've never experimented with any drugs so I can't agree or disagree.
    luckily, since you have no real power, thats inconsiquencial

    actually, all that statement means is you cant disagree.

    and if you disagree with that...
    you would feel right at home in a church. free from the big-bad logic monster.

    and as for your question, i hope for your own sake your not religious, cause you just bought one sure plan ticket to hell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    I've never experimented with any drugs so I can't agree or disagree.
    luckily, since you have no real power, thats inconsiquencial

    actually, all that statement means is you cant disagree.

    and if you disagree with that...
    you would feel right at home in a church. free from the big-bad logic monster.

    and as for your question, i hope for your own sake your not religious, cause you just bought one sure plane ticket to hell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Taxpayers should hold our spendthrift government responsible for wasting more than $500 Million of our money on a $10 Billion Super Collider experiment to smash protons at light speed in order to find other dimensions.

    $10 Billion would be better spent on cancer research rather than spending it on scientists trying to find how the "Big Bang" came about and if other dimensions exist.
    It's an investment in basic research that can pay off later in ways that no one can imagine today. You say you would rather spend money on things like diseases. Many of the most effective drugs were designed with computers. Computers use semiconductor microchips, which can only be designed if you have a good knowledge of quantum physics. But when quantum physics was being developed in the early 20th century, no one imagined computers (much less using them to help cure diseases). Similarly, it's entirely possible that we will learn things from the LHC that will lead to major advances in areas that no one can anticipate.

    The rest of your post is too ridiculous to respond to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    ...it's entirely possible that we will learn things from the LHC that will lead to major advances in areas that no one can anticipate.

    The rest of your post is too ridiculous to respond to.
    Only because this is a religion thread...was the above way-out theory compared to the fallacies of the LHC. Ridiculous?...absolutely. You can fool some of the people some of the time...but to spend $10 billion on a pipe dream...means there are too many stupid, foolish people in this world. When fantacy supercedes reasoning in science it is identical to religious irrationality.

    The challenge also is to the pope, priests, clergy, rabbis, and religious leaders to bring about religious rationality...bring religions closer to science...before mankind annihilates itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    ...as for your question, i hope for your own sake your not religious, cause you just bought one sure plan ticket to hell.
    Did you miss the smiley face?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    redrighthand wrote:
    ...as for your question, i hope for your own sake your not religious, cause you just bought one sure plan ticket to hell.


    Did you miss the smiley face?
    oh don't think i took offence.

    red right hand is a reference to 'gods vengeful hand'. in the poem 'paradise lost'. ... so you kinda accused god of jacking off ...good luck
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    You can fool some of the people some of the time...but to spend $10 billion on a pipe dream...means there are too many stupid, foolish people in this world. When fantacy supercedes reasoning in science it is identical to religious irrationality.
    You have not explained why it is a "pipe dream." Frankly, I doubt that you even understand what the LHC was built to investigate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    You have not explained why it is a "pipe dream." Frankly, I doubt that you even understand what the LHC was built to investigate.
    The LHC (“Large Hadron Collider“) and is the most expensive and prestigious non-military scientific endeavor ever. Hadrons (protons) are to be hauled against each other at 14 times the power of the previous generation of accelerators and 7 times the maximum energy ever achieved (2.000 Giga-electron-Volts). An unexplained natural threshold (called the electro-weak unification barrier) will be surpassed for the first time. This excites string theorists – perhaps the most sophisticated brand of theoretical physicists – since they have a way to predict that even these minuscule energies (compared to the Planck energy thought necessary before) will be sufficient. Mini black-holes could then arise for the first time in history. Black holes possess a new property (lack of evaporation). In such a case it is the most rational thing for the world to convene a scientific conference to discuss the joint implications before the experiment is allowed to become overcritical.

    There exists another dismal possibility: that the experiment proceeds and no mini black holes are found. This profoundly distinguishes the present situation from Trinity and Eniwetak (the first atomic fission and fusion explosions which fortunately did not engage the atmosphere). While the probability of a dismal outcome is perhaps no greater this time than it was in the previous instances (“1 percent“), it will not be possible to return to business as usual after the event, this time around: the danger will not be over once the scientists declare that their attempt to produce mini black holes has failed since they found no trace of them.

    It is Dr. Stephen Hawking's pet project. He is famous and creative, and he is hoping to win his first Nobel prize if he can prove that Hawking Radiation is real. But his theories often tend to be disputed or found incorrect. Hawking Radiation theory may prove to follow this trend also.

    Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference. See http://www.lhcfacts.org/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Einstein also said that "God" may very well be the "energy" that is in all matter and energy, that cannot be separated from matter/energy. I submit that what mankind calls God is the pure energy and spiritual intellect of the spiritual existence. Physical contact with the spiritual existence is an impossibility.

    Logic to the point where it is accepted as being logical to the one who accepts its logic is arrived at through the deductive reasoning process by the one who desires to have his logic be accepted as being logical. The question arises: If a person believes that his spirit has received evidence of a spiritual existence, logic would preclude that this is possible, but if a spiritual existence exists can it be logical or is it only logical to the one who has experienced it and therefore believes it to be so?

    My stance is that any interpretation of any physical contact with the spiritual is a misinterpretation. Our spirit is the only one capable of interacting with the spiritual realm or dimension. This spiritual experience is often indecipherable by the human mind which also often misinterprets its meaning, hence we have various religions and beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Gobbledegook. I take it you are not using logic in any of the conventional, formal senses, but in a vaguer, hand waving way that equates to 'sort-of-seems-like-a-good-idea'.

    Somewhere along the way you seem to have decided that because some people are referring metaphorically to the Higgs boson as a 'God particle', that this whole LHC experiment is essentially a spiritual adventure. Did I get that wrong? If so, what are you waffling about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Somewhere along the way you seem to have decided that because some people are referring metaphorically to the Higgs boson as a 'God particle', that this whole LHC experiment is essentially a spiritual adventure. Did I get that wrong? If so, what are you waffling about?
    No spiritual adventure; logical.

    Sadly, the majority of mankind has manipulated the meaning of God for their own benefits. Let’s assume that God is the energy that has generated matter and life (Einstein) and is the sustaining cause (second order) of everything in the universe. http://everythingforever.com/ If the LHC, via proton fission, discovers the beginning of the universe, it reinforces creationism and God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Somewhere along the way you seem to have decided that because some people are referring metaphorically to the Higgs boson as a 'God particle', that this whole LHC experiment is essentially a spiritual adventure. Did I get that wrong? If so, what are you waffling about?
    No spiritual adventure; logical.

    Sadly, the majority of mankind has manipulated the meaning of God for their own benefits. Let’s assume that God is the energy that has generated matter and life (Einstein) and is the sustaining cause (second order) of everything in the universe. http://everythingforever.com/ If the LHC, via proton fission, discovers the beginning of the universe, it reinforces creationism and God.
    This makes absolutely no sense. You don't know the results and neither does the physicists, this is a new chapter in science and we don't know what we might find. Maybe we find what we predicted, or maybe we discover something new. Maybe this research reveals nothing or maybe it changes the world forever. And I also don't see why the discovery of how the universe began reinforces creationism and God, perhaps you would like to elaborate here?

    You seem to be jumping to conclusions. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    You seem to be jumping to conclusions. :?
    I think (s)he is jumping to a concussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    ...I also don't see why the discovery of how the universe began reinforces creationism and God, perhaps you would like to elaborate here?

    You seem to be jumping to conclusions. :?
    Creation is the act of creating or causing to exist; specifically, the act of bringing the universe or this world into existence. The big bang is the theoretical explosion that created the universe. The LHC, in minute form, is attempting to recreate the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Is LHC The Super Collider Or The Super Dud 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    You have not explained why it is a "pipe dream." Frankly, I doubt that you even understand what the LHC was built to investigate.
    The LHC (“Large Hadron Collider“) and is the most expensive and prestigious non-military scientific endeavor ever....
    Ha. I accuse you of not really understanding what the LHC was built to investigate, and you respond by simply cutting and pasting text from http://www.lhcfacts.org/ . Yeah, way to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    God is whatever one wants him or it to be; it's like having a magic comforter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Creation is the act of creating or causing to exist; specifically, the act of bringing the universe or this world into existence. The big bang is the theoretical explosion that created the universe. The LHC, in minute form, is attempting to recreate the big bang.
    You, Sir are so full of it, it's not even funny. There is no intention to recreate the BB at the LHC. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    It is Dr. Stephen Hawking's pet project. He is famous and creative, and he is hoping to win his first Nobel prize if he can prove that Hawking Radiation is real. But his theories often tend to be disputed or found incorrect. Hawking Radiation theory may prove to follow this trend also
    Well, I can imagine that Hawking follows the experiments at the LHC very closely but this is in no way, shape or form his "pet project". If there will be a Nobel prize awarded for the theoretical framework it will most likely go to Peter Higgs for predicting the existence of a scalar field that - by interacting with all particles except photons - give matter the property we call "mass". All publications from CERN will have all names ommited, so if there will be a Nobel prize for the practical work it will go to the collective at CERN.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    You, Sir are so full of it, it's not even funny. There is no intention to recreate the BB at the LHC. Period.
    You, Sir are uninformed. Google http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ig+bang+theory

    The Nobel prize would go to Dr. Stephen Hawking's if he can prove that Hawking Radiation is real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    kkawhol, there is a very important distinction between recreating the Big Bang and recreating (the energy levels present) a few moments after the Big Bang. The media are to be condemned for - yet again - favouring drama over accuracy, which has doubtless contributed to your confusion in the matter. No attempt will be made to recreat the Big Bang. Period. (A period is a grammatical singularity!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    kkawhol, there is a very important distinction between recreating the Big Bang and recreating (the energy levels present) a few moments after the Big Bang.
    The experiment will replicate conditions in the moments immediately after the birth of the universe, known as the Big Bang. Tests at Cern today may result in black holes being created; on CERN's own web site they admit this. For the first time, the electro-weak unification barrier will be breached and no one is absolutely sure what will happen.

    The probability of them finding what they are looking for is near zero. But there is a tiny chance of success. Hence, my question, "Is LHC The Super Collider Or The $10 Billion Super Dud?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    The experiment will replicate conditions in the moments immediately after the birth of the universe, known as the Big Bang. Tests at Cern today may result in black holes being created; on CERN's own web site they admit this.
    Read my lips!!!!! The experiment will replicate energy levels, it will not replicate the Big Bang. No one is denying that black holes may be created, but these will be so small they will not have any chance to grow and should evaporate almost at once.

    Your assessment of the odds of success are ignorant since you have virtually no idea of what they are trying to find.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    The experiment will replicate conditions in the moments immediately after the birth of the universe, known as the Big Bang. Tests at Cern today may result in black holes being created; on CERN's own web site they admit this.
    Read my lips!!!!! The experiment will replicate energy levels, it will not replicate the Big Bang. No one is denying that black holes may be created, but these will be so small they will not have any chance to grow and should evaporate almost at once.

    Your assessment of the odds of success are ignorant since you have virtually no idea of what they are trying to find.
    Read my lips!!!!!and think!!!!I stated above, "The experiment will replicate conditions in the moments immediately after the birth of the universe, known as the Big Bang.

    Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference

    1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime according to a new theorem in the Schwarzschild metric (“Â-theorem“) [1].

    2) Black holes are effectively uncharged because of the Â-theorem [1]. Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black holes (or point-shaped). Hence nonpointshaped mini-objects exist already. This makes mini black holes much more likely.

    3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the earth: “miniquasar principle“ [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened – perhaps down to “50 months.“ This contrasts with the “50 million years“ obtained assuming linear growth by BBC-Horizon [3] and CERN’s analogous “5 billion years“ [4].

    4) CERN [4,5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as claimed [1], equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast cosmic-ray protons colliding with planetbound protons. This is correct. However, there remains a fundamental difference: only the man-made ones are “symmetrically generated“ and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec) can take residence – in contrast to the almost-luminal speeds of their natural cousins.

    5) CERN‘s counterargument could still hold true for more compact celestial bodies than the earth – such that their lifetimes would be drastically reduced in defiance of observation if mini black holes exist. A quantitative bound can be derived from this argument: Take white dwarfs first. They are 105 times denser than earth while being the same size. Hence their cross-section for a mini black hole passing-through is by a factor of 105 greater than earth‘s. They remain safe if no more than 104 eating-type collisions with a quark await a fast natural mini black hole entering them (so it can pass through). Why? Because the energy of 14.000 GeV pumped into two colliding protons at CERN is 14.000 times the rest mass of a proton (1 GeV). Therefore a mini black hole born of two quarks (one from each proton) likewise has about 14,000 times the rest mass of a quark. Hence by momentum conservation, only about 14,000 (104) collisions with a resident quark can be survived by a fast natural mini black hole of the LHC energy without losing its almost-luminal speed. If this bound applies to white dwarfs, no more than about 0.1 collisions must await a CERN mini black hole on its first passage through the earth. This estimate appears plausible.

    6) The just-obtained number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process of point (3) is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at almost-luminal speeds. The by very many orders of magnitude shorter collision intervals let this prediction appear justified.

    7) Finally, neutron stars have a by another factor of 109 greater density than white dwarfs. Since they are a thousand times smaller, they are a million times more susceptible. But they are protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so mini black holes can pass without friction. The superfluidity extends to the “inner crust“ [6].

    In order to exclude that man-made mini black holes endanger the earth, it will be necessary to falsify the first of the 7 points, or if this is not possible the second, and so forth. Until this task has been solved, no one can shoulder the responsibility to give the “green light“ to the LHC‘s crossing the 2.000 GeV barrier, as this is currently planned to do within a few weeks. It thus appears that only an immediate safety conference can save the LHC experiment.

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

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the earth: “miniquasar principle“ [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened – perhaps down to “50 months.“ This contrasts with the “50 million years“ obtained assuming linear growth by BBC-Horizon [3] and CERN’s analogous “5 billion years“ [4].
    Well the problem with this argumentation is this: the same theory that predicts the generation of BHs is the exact same that derives that the BHs will in fact "evaporate" (let's use this term for brevity sake) . If you say that theory is wrong in predicting the evaporation, how can you be so absolute positively shure that those BHs are created in the first place? It's like saying: the first law of thermodynamics is true, but because I dislike the consequences of the second law (no perpetuum mobile and other quirky stuff) I say the second law does not hold true. And the 50 month threshhold, well this is taken exactly from the Roessler "papers" and he has corrected himself, saying that it might also be 50 years or 500 years. This was just a couple of days ago.

    However, there remains a fundamental difference: only the man-made ones are “symmetrically generated“ and hence dangerous.
    What the heck???? What the hell is the difference between "symmetrically generated" (whatever goobledygook this is) and naturally occuring. BTW....as far as I remember a sigularity is ALWAYS symmetrical.

    And about the BB re-enactment. This was already done in the RHIC at Brookhaven National Lab. Well, a Quark-Gluon plasma that is. I had the great honor to get a tour around those facilties when I was working at the NAtional Synchrotron Light Source at Stony Brook. And Mr Wagner, who by trade is a biologist and no phyiscist already claimed that this will end the world in 2001. As far as I am concerned, the world is still here.

    And you seem to be awfully familiar with the Nobel Prize comittee's proceedings. I said: "..it is most likely that Higgs will get the Nobel prize" You claim absolute certainty that Hawkings will get it. Allthoug the work done by Higgs is more fundamental than Hawking's and more important to the standard theory. Well whatever

    The just-obtained number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process of point (3) is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at almost-luminal speeds. The by very many orders of magnitude shorter collision intervals let this prediction appear justified
    Just take a look at the word "pre-supposes" and "appear". There is no intuition in physics and also no democracy. There is data and there is "wrong" and "right"
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    POOF...THE SUPERDUD HAS FIZZLED OUT. :wink:

    IMHO, if no results are seen within several years, the whole contraption will be taken apart and reassimilated in space. In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics. Scientists will claim that their lame-brained ideas will have more validity if the experiments are done in outer space. Within ten years and after another ten billion dollars is spent the LHC project will be scrapped.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    POOF...THE SUPERDUD HAS FIZZLED OUT. :wink:

    IMHO, if no results are seen within several years, the whole contraption will be taken apart and reassimilated in space.
    Yeah, right...........
    Weight of ISS: 400 metric tons
    Weight of ATLAS detetctor (one out of four): 7000 metric tons, go figure the costs.


    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics.
    We need instruments that are able to detect x-rays and Gamma-radiation that is supposed to be a result of dark matter particles when they anihiltae each other. This can be accieved using insatrumewnts like GLAST or XXM-Newton.
    And it proves that you have no understanding of the science involved. None like in: "You would not recognize science if it bit you in the ass"

    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Scientists will claim that their lame-brained ideas will have more validity if the experiments are done in outer space. Within ten years and after another ten billion dollars is spent the LHC project will be scrapped.
    Wow, we have a regular psychic here on this board. And one who is smarter (or let's out it this way: more ignorant) than all the people involved in the LHC research
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    And it proves that you have no understanding of the science involved. None like in: "You would not recognize science if it bit you in the ass" watch your language Super Spud, I realize that English is confusing for you, but try being civil...if civility is possible for you.
    Wow, we have a regular psychic here on this board. das gibt Dir Zitterbewegung? And one who is smarter (or let's out it this way: more ignorant) than all the people involved in the LHC research
    it's like the analogy of the rolling stone

    So tell me Dr. Einstein, how is it that....gravity ripples across the universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics...if instruments like GLAST or XXM-Newton can't explain them?....apparently your intellect is superior, so this question should be simple for you.

    On the serious side, your, and many others, intellect is far superior to mine...my observation (not psychic) is that of common sense...too many cooks spoil the soup...and if too many scientists support an improbable theory, something stinks in Denmark....or in Switzerland.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    The experiment will replicate conditions in the moments immediately after the birth of the universe, known as the Big Bang. Tests at Cern today may result in black holes being created; on CERN's own web site they admit this. For the first time, the electro-weak unification barrier will be breached and no one is absolutely sure what will happen.

    The probability of them finding what they are looking for is near zero. But there is a tiny chance of success. Hence, my question, "Is LHC The Super Collider Or The $10 Billion Super Dud?"
    Ah, so you concur with the ignorant and ill-informed? Why would you agree with the kooks if you admit you have no idea what's going on here and assume you do based on common sense? Your assessment of probabilities is obviously irrelevant.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Your assessment of probabilities is obviously irrelevant.
    Probably...or probably not...relevancy or irrelevancy in determined by the result and the observer. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Probably...or probably not...relevancy or irrelevancy in determined by the result and the observer. :wink:
    Yes, so let those who know what they're doing observe the results, and ignore those who don't, rather than propagating their diatribe.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Probably...or probably not...relevancy or irrelevancy is determined by the result and the observer. :wink:
    Yes, so let those who know what they're doing observe the results, and ignore those who don't, rather than propagating their diatribe.
    What results...the LHC is closed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Pessimist. The LHC is temporarily closed. Results will come a few months later than anticipated.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Pessimist. The LHC is temporarily closed. Results will come a few months later than anticipated.
    Or not....I would rather have spent TEN BILLION DOLLARS on something tangible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Fortunately for science, then, you're not in charge.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    And it proves that you have no understanding of the science involved. None like in: "You would not recognize science if it bit you in the ass" watch your language Super Spud, I realize that English is confusing for you, but try being civil...if civility is possible for you.
    Wow, we have a regular psychic here on this board. das gibt Dir Zitterbewegung? And one who is smarter (or let's out [typo: read PUT] it this way: more ignorant) than all the people involved in the LHC research
    So tell me Dr. Einstein, how is it that....gravity ripples across the universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics...if instruments like GLAST or XXM-Newton can't explain them?....apparently your intellect is superior, so this question should be simple for you.
    So now, the fact that we do not know certain things proves what exactly? And instruments do not explain anything. They measure things. The explanation is done by the people doing the measurements. This again proves that you have no understanding of the scientific apporach. You just parrot some buzzwords and repeat the same old tired hogwash.
    And for someone who is not able to formulate even one sentence in a foreign language you really are a condescending prick. And I am being civil, you deserve a more severe flaming to begin with.
    I am able to communicate in two more langauges, so how about you?


    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    On the serious side, your, and many others, intellect is far superior to mine...my observation (not psychic) is that of common sense...too many cooks spoil the soup...and if too many scientists support an improbable theory, something stinks in Denmark....or in Switzerland.
    The problem is: common sense dos not get you far when it comes to science. Let me ask you this: if you have two spaceships with approximately the same mass on the same low earth orbit but spaced 25 miles apart in the direction of their movement. How do you catch up to the leading spaceship with the trailing spaceship? Activate the acceleration boosters?
    And your common sense tells you that particles can not tunnel through a solid barrier. And still, it can happen. It can be measured.

    And you say if too many scinetists agree, then the theory they agree about has to be wrong? Now that's certainly a new one in the line of ....ahemmm...."thoughts" of LCH-bashers.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    [quote="Zitterbewegung"]
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    And your common sense tells you that particles can not tunnel through a solid barrier. And still, it can happen. It can be measured.

    And you say if too many scientists agree, then the theory they agree about has to be wrong? Now that's certainly a new one in the line of ....ahemmm...."thoughts" of LCH-bashers.
    Scientists MAY be wrong.

    If particles can tunnel through a solid barrier, what would keep the particles from tunneling through the walls of the LHC?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Scientists MAY be wrong.
    True, but at least they'll keep working at it until they get it right.

    You, on the other hand, are dead wrong and are doing nothing to work on getting it right.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Scientists MAY be wrong.
    True, but at least they'll keep working at it until they get it right.

    You, on the other hand, are dead wrong and are doing nothing to work on getting it right.
    Again? when you make a factual statement without the facts, you are factually incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Again? when you make a factual statement without the facts, you are factually incorrect.
    OK What "facts" have been presented that are incorrect, exactly?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Again? when you make a factual statement without the facts, you are factually incorrect.
    OK What "facts" have been presented that are incorrect, exactly?
    You said, "You, on the other hand, are dead wrong and are doing nothing to work on getting it right."....this is factually incorrect....it is an opinion, not fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    You said, "You, on the other hand, are dead wrong and are doing nothing to work on getting it right."....this is factually incorrect....it is an opinion, not fact.
    It is a fact because YOU have demonstrated it to be fact, I had nothing to do with it. Simple, really.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    If particles can tunnel through a solid barrier, what would keep the particles from tunneling through the walls of the LHC?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    If particles can tunnel through a solid barrier, what would keep the particles from tunneling through the walls of the LHC?
    Not enough energy to escape the potential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    If particles can tunnel through a solid barrier, what would keep the particles from tunneling through the walls of the LHC?
    ´The solid wall. And what would change if some particles slammed into the collider walls (which they actually won't anyway)? Nothing. We just convert kinetic energy to thermal energy.
    Again you prove your absolute ignorance when it comes to physics. You have an oppinion and you are hell bent to ignore anything that proves you wrong.

    And about the "I want something tangible for 10 billion dollars"-bit...... How about four weeks of "bringing peace and democracy to the middle east as well as destroying weapons of mass destruction" a.k.a. the Iraq war. Jupp, that's right, it costs an average 10 billion dollars to keep the war-machines up and running. WOW now that's something worth spending a fortune on. And this is an ongoing effort to waste some more money.
    Oh, and I almost forgot, the genius plan to pump another 700 Billion Dollars up the asses of some greed Banksters in order to avoid the bancruptcy of a whole economy. And this is just because the americans did not see the necessity to somewhat restrain the greed of a handful of crooks. And you freak about something that costs a fraction of this amount and you have no clue about?? WOW, this is american ignorance par excellènce.
    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
  •