Scientific Forums


Pages: (148) « First ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> LHC danger, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html
AlphaNumeric
Posted: Jun 24 2008, 07:27 AM


Professional mathematician
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 10336
Joined: 16-June 06

Positive Feedback: 84.15%
Feedback Score: 420


I guess Ub's unable to quote anything he claims I said and is unable to swallow his pride and say "I was wrong" so he's descending further into hypocrisy by telling me I'm not saying anything relevent. Funny, his entire post is "You're a chatbot, say something relevent". Either he's come off his meds or he's showing his real level of maturity.

The rest of us can continue fighting the cranks in other forums, the credibility of the nay sayers in this thread is gone, Ub has seen to that.


--------------------
The views in the above post are those of its author and not those of the people who educated him through a degree and masters, supervised him or collaborated with him during his PhD, paid him to teach and mark undergraduate mathematics and physics courses or who pay him to do research now.

Any insults, flames or rants are purely the work of the author and not said people or institutions. Cranks are not suffered well.
Top
Trippy
Posted: Jun 24 2008, 07:36 PM


I'm with stupid.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5140
Joined: 9-January 07

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


Ubavontuba prooves yet again that he doesn't understand even basic physics: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22066

No, I'm not claiming to have spotted the only flaw in the thought experiment, but (to me at least) it was the most obvious one.


--------------------
cave et aude
Observe. Predict. Confirm.
Schroedingers Voter: I'm both Left Wing and Right Wing until you ask me a specific question.
"Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable." -Prof. Anon.
High Priest of the Revised Church of Bacchus.
Founder of the Cult if Re-frig-ATOR.
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 04:41 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Euler @ Jun 24 2008, 07:21 AM)
Are you unable to answer the question? If so, this indicates that you don't know the first thing about GR.

Do tell...

Are you unable to post a relevant response? If so, this indicates you don't know the first thing about physics.

Do tell...


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 04:51 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (AlphaNumeric @ Jun 24 2008, 07:27 AM)
I guess Ub's unable to quote anything he claims I said and is unable to swallow his pride and say "I was wrong" so he's descending further into hypocrisy by telling me I'm not saying anything relevent. Funny, his entire post is "You're a chatbot, say something relevent". Either he's come off his meds or he's showing his real level of maturity.

Nothing but mindless blather and deflection. Is that all you have? Why didn't you respond directly to my post? Why didn't you respond directly to the one before that? Why did you miss the chatbot test?

QUOTE
The rest of us can continue fighting the cranks in other forums, the credibility of the nay sayers in this thread is gone, Ub has seen to that.

Why would you say that, in light of the fact that CERN's LSAG committee has essentially validated all of my contentions?

Are you suggesting the CERN scientists have no credibility?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 25 2008, 05:12 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 05:06 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Trippy @ Jun 24 2008, 07:36 PM)
Ubavontuba prooves yet again that he doesn't understand even basic physics: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=22066

No, I'm not claiming to have spotted the only flaw in the thought experiment, but (to me at least) it was the most obvious one.

First of all, this isn't relevant to this thread, and how in the heck did you arrive at that conclusion? I only mentioned it reminded me of something else. There's no defined judgement on the validity of the physics from me.

Secondly, the post before mine already said what you said, much more succinctly.

Third, I put "Woodward effect." and "propellantless propulsion" in quotes to indicate I was saying it with a smirk (to indicate sarcasm).

Fourth, had you asked me, I'd have told you both concepts stink. I long ago discounted the Woodward effect, for the same reason as the poster before me (and you) discounted the questioner's hypothesis.

Fifth, I doubt you even know what the Woodward effect is.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 25 2008, 05:17 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
rpenner
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 05:53 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5830
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


And it's all over but for the crying. The DOE filed papers which indicate that Wagner is untimely and moot and fails to make the case that he deserves to be heard in court. This is the proper fate for argument from personal ignorance when the state of man's understanding has been progressing all the time, and this is the proper disposition when Wagner was at least as ignorant when the Federal decision to fund 38 magnets of LHC was made over eight years before Wagner filed.

Further, as those among us with the capability to parse simple English have learned from reading the 1999, 2003 and 2008 papers -- terrestrial colliders cannot put the Earth at risk. We are far beyond the back-of-envelope calculations which would leave us reasonably sure.

QUOTE (Sworn declaration of Dr. B.P. Strauss @ 2008)
38. Black holes are formed in the Universe when massive stars collapse under their own gravitational pull. Their gravitational energy is so large that they pull in and accrete surrounding matter. Some have speculated that microscopic black holes could be produced at RHIC or at the LHC. While certain theoretical models allow this possibility, these models also show that hypothetical micro black holes, if produced, would have so little mass and energy that they would not be able to pull in surrounding matter. The 1999 RHIC Safety Report observed that because gravitational forces are so much weaker than nuclear forces, a hypothetical micro black hole would not accrete any surrounding nuclear matter. At these scales, the effective nuclear force is at least 10^22 (ten billion trillion times) stronger than the gravitational pull of a micro black hole. Attach. 13 at 2.

39. The 2003 LHC Safety Report reiterated the results of the previous RHIC study on classic black hole production. The 2003 LHC Safety Report concluded that "it is clear that classical gravitational effects are completely negligible for LHC energies and luminosities in the conventional theory of gravity." Attach. 14 at 10.

40. In addition, the 2003 LHC Safety Report also looked at less conventional theories with large new space dimensions. There is no evidence that these unconventional theories arc correct. However, the authors found that even for these theories there was no known accelerator (including the LHC) that could produce a black hole massive enough to be "dangerous." Id. at 11-12. On black hole production, the LHC report concluded that "black hole production does not present a conceivable risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal processes." Id. at 12.

41. The 2008 LSAG Report confirms and further strengthens the conclusions of the previous safety reports regarding the hypothetical production of dangerous microscopic black holes. The 2008 LSAG Report states that even if hypothetical mini black holes were produced at the LHC, some of the physical laws that govern their hypothetical creation would cause them to decay almost immediately. However, the report goes further in exploring the hypothetical dangers of mini-black holes by considering an unphysical scenario with ä stable mini-black hole. The LSAG report states:
QUOTE
One might nevertheless wonder what would happen if a stable microscopic black hole could be produced at the LHC. However, we reiterate that this would require a violation of some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics - which is a cornerstone of the laws of Nature - in order for the black hole decay rate to be suppressed relative to its production rate, and/or of general relativity - in order to suppress Hawking radiation.

Attach. 15 at 8 (citation omitted). Even in the above unphysical case, after presenting arguments based on astrophysical observations, the report concludes that:
QUOTE
To conclude: in addition to the very general reasoning excluding the possibility that stable black holes exist, and in particular that they could only be neutral, we therefore have very robust empirical evidence either disproving their existence, or excluding any consequence of it.

Id. at 9.
...
44. The conclusions of the 1999 RHIC Safety Report have been confirmed by the fact that the RHIC has been operating since 2000 without any "catastrophe scenarios" occurring. In addition, neither the RHIC experiments at BNL, nor the experiments on the Tevatron facility at DOE's Fermilab near Chicago, Illinois, have detected any hints of the existence of strangelets, micro black holes, or magnetic monopoles.

45. I and other scientists within DOE's Office of High Energy Physics have reviewed the analysis of the 1999 RHIC Safety Report, and I am authorized to state that our Office agrees with the report's conclusions. Since release of the 1999 RHIC Safety Report, our office is not aware of a single instance where the report's conclusions have been either contested or rebutted in any particle physics peer-reviewed publication or scholarly forum.

46. I and other scientists within DOE's Office of High Energy Physics have also reviewed the analysis of the 2003 LHC Safety Report, and I am authorized to state that our office agrees with the Report's conclusions. Since release of the 2003 LHC Safety Report, our Office is not aware of a single instance where the report's conclusions have been either contested or rebutted in any particle physics peer-reviewed publication or scholarly forum.

47. I and other scientists within DOE's Office of High Energy Physics have also reviewed the analysis of the 2008 LSAG Report, and of the SPC Report. I am authorized to state that our office agrees with the conclusions of those reports.


That's not just CERN's opinion, or the DOE's opinion, but the opinion of the 20 independent members of the SPC.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleas...8/PR05.08E.html
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?co...=0&confId=35065


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 06:36 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (rpenner @ Jun 25 2008, 05:53 AM)
And it's all over but for the crying. The DOE filed papers which indicate that Wagner is untimely and moot and fails to make the case that he deserves to be heard in court. This is the proper fate for argument from personal ignorance when the state of man's understanding has been progressing all the time, and this is the proper disposition when Wagner was at least as ignorant when the Federal decision to fund 38 magnets of LHC was made over eight years before Wagner filed.

Further, as those among us with the capability to parse simple English have learned from reading the 1999, 2003 and 2008 papers -- terrestrial colliders cannot put the Earth at risk.  We are far beyond the back-of-envelope calculations which would leave us reasonably sure.

Oh baloney! I've clearly demonstrated they didn't know what they were talking about to begin with.

QUOTE (Sworn declaration of Dr. B.P. Strauss @ 2008)

38. Black holes are formed in the Universe when massive stars collapse under their own gravitational pull. Their gravitational energy is so large that they pull in and accrete surrounding matter. Some have speculated that microscopic black holes could be produced at RHIC or at the LHC. While certain theoretical models allow this possibility, these models also show that hypothetical micro black holes, if produced, would have so little mass and energy that they would not be able to pull in surrounding matter. The 1999 RHIC Safety Report observed that because gravitational forces are so much weaker than nuclear forces, a hypothetical micro black hole would not accrete any surrounding nuclear matter. At these scales, the effective nuclear force is at least 10^22 (ten billion trillion times) stronger than the gravitational pull of a micro black hole. Attach. 13 at 2.

This just proves he doesn't understand the basic physics! At what distance from the infinite gravity at the event horizon is he referring to?

QUOTE
39. The 2003 LHC Safety Report reiterated the results of the previous RHIC study on classic black hole production. The 2003 LHC Safety Report concluded that "it is clear that classical gravitational effects are completely negligible for LHC energies and luminosities in the conventional theory of gravity." Attach. 14 at 10.

So an erroneous result piled on another erroneous result is somehow relevant and authoritative? Give me a break!

QUOTE
40. In addition, the 2003 LHC Safety Report also looked at less conventional theories with large new space dimensions. There is no evidence that these unconventional theories arc correct. However, the authors found that even for these theories there was no known accelerator (including the LHC) that could produce a black hole massive enough to be "dangerous." Id. at 11-12. On black hole production, the LHC report concluded that "black hole production does not present a conceivable risk at the LHC due to the rapid decay of the black hole through thermal processes." Id. at 12.

Again, this proves he doesn't understand the physics himself. All he's doing is referring to a (now falsified) document! And, there is evidence the "unconventional theories" are correct. And, lots of physicists anticipate micro black hole production. Is he saying they're all liars?

QUOTE
41. The 2008 LSAG Report confirms and further strengthens the conclusions of the previous safety reports regarding the hypothetical production of dangerous microscopic black holes. The 2008 LSAG Report states that even if hypothetical mini black holes were produced at the LHC, some of the physical laws that govern their hypothetical creation would cause them to decay almost immediately. However, the report goes further in exploring the hypothetical dangers of mini-black holes by considering an unphysical scenario with ä stable mini-black hole. The LSAG report states:

Give me a break. Now, he's quoting an obvious propaganda ploy! (the 2008 report)

QUOTE
One might nevertheless wonder what would happen if a stable microscopic black hole could be produced at the LHC. However, we reiterate that this would require a violation of some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics - which is a cornerstone of the laws of Nature - in order for the black hole decay rate to be suppressed relative to its production rate, and/or of general relativity - in order to suppress Hawking radiation.

Prattle about an unproven hypothesis.

QUOTE
Attach. 15 at 8 (citation omitted). Even in the above unphysical case, after presenting arguments based on astrophysical observations, the report concludes that:

QUOTE 
To conclude: in addition to the very general reasoning excluding the possibility that stable black holes exist, and in particular that they could only be neutral, we therefore have very robust empirical evidence either disproving their existence, or excluding any consequence of it.

"Empirical evidence?" Give me a break! These guys are so slanted I'd be amazed if they could fit through a door!


QUOTE
Id. at 9.
...
44. The conclusions of the 1999 RHIC Safety Report have been confirmed by the fact that the RHIC has been operating since 2000 without any "catastrophe scenarios" occurring. In addition, neither the RHIC experiments at BNL, nor the experiments on the Tevatron facility at DOE's Fermilab near Chicago, Illinois, have detected any hints of the existence of strangelets, micro black holes, or magnetic monopoles.

(sarcasm)Gee, my pop gun didn't hurt you. Let me try this .44 Magnum on you and see what happens.(/sarcasm)

QUOTE
45. I and other scientists within DOE's Office of High Energy Physics have reviewed the analysis of the 1999 RHIC Safety Report, and I am authorized to state that our Office agrees with the report's conclusions. Since release of the 1999 RHIC Safety Report, our office is not aware of a single instance where the report's conclusions have been either contested or rebutted in any particle physics peer-reviewed publication or scholarly forum.

What an idiot. I've clearly falsified the physics of these reports. Just because the general physics community is too chicken to step up, is no reason to presume there isn't a valid argument.

QUOTE
46. I and other scientists within DOE's Office of High Energy Physics have also reviewed the analysis of the 2003 LHC Safety Report, and I am authorized to state that our office agrees with the Report's conclusions. Since release of the 2003 LHC Safety Report, our Office is not aware of a single instance where the report's conclusions have been either contested or rebutted in any particle physics peer-reviewed publication or scholarly forum.

And again. Pure baloney.

QUOTE
47. I and other scientists within DOE's Office of High Energy Physics have also reviewed the analysis of the 2008 LSAG Report, and of the SPC Report. I am authorized to state that our office agrees with the conclusions of those reports.

Gee, why am I not surprised?

QUOTE
That's not just CERN's opinion, or the DOE's opinion, but the opinion of the 20 independent members of the SPC.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleas...8/PR05.08E.html
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?co...=0&confId=35065

That's 21 people then, who are wrong. Science isn't a popularity contest.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 25 2008, 06:38 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
Trippy
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 06:56 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5140
Joined: 9-January 07

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 05:06 PM)
First of all, this isn't relevant to this thread, and how in the heck did you arrive at that conclusion?  I only mentioned it reminded me of something else.  There's no defined judgement on the validity of the physics from me.


If you can't do physics...

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 05:06 PM)
Secondly, the post before mine already said what you said, much more succinctly.


Perhaps, but it failed to explain where the problem lay, it was a pretty generic statement that is essentially true of all perpetual motion devices.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 05:06 PM)
Third, I put "Woodward effect." and "propellantless propulsion" in quotes to indicate I was saying it with a smirk (to indicate sarcasm).


And I care because..?

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 05:06 PM)
Fourth, had you asked me, I'd have told you both concepts stink.  I long ago discounted the Woodward effect, for the same reason as the poster before me (and you) discounted the questioner's hypothesis.


See above.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 05:06 PM)
Fifth, I doubt you even know what the Woodward effect is.


Well, then you'd be WRONG.


--------------------
cave et aude
Observe. Predict. Confirm.
Schroedingers Voter: I'm both Left Wing and Right Wing until you ask me a specific question.
"Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable." -Prof. Anon.
High Priest of the Revised Church of Bacchus.
Founder of the Cult if Re-frig-ATOR.
Top
AlphaNumeric
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 06:59 AM


Professional mathematician
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 10336
Joined: 16-June 06

Positive Feedback: 84.15%
Feedback Score: 420


QUOTE (rpenner @ Jun 25 2008, 06:53 AM)
And it's all over but for the crying.

Nicely put. Ub has descended to the level of children who lie on the floor of supermarkets and beat their hands and fists, screaming, when their parents no longer entertain their whining.

I asked for evidence and links to back up his claims. All I got was deflections and accusations of being a chatbot. Ub cannot even prove he isn't and if the criteria involve an inability to answer direct questions and show understanding, he fails them.


--------------------
The views in the above post are those of its author and not those of the people who educated him through a degree and masters, supervised him or collaborated with him during his PhD, paid him to teach and mark undergraduate mathematics and physics courses or who pay him to do research now.

Any insults, flames or rants are purely the work of the author and not said people or institutions. Cranks are not suffered well.
Top
Euler
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 07:10 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2136
Joined: 28-September 06

Positive Feedback: 72.04%
Feedback Score: 150


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 04:41 AM)
Are you unable to post a relevant response? If so, this indicates you don't know the first thing about physics.

Do tell...

Wow! So you're admitting to not knowing the first thing about GR?

I can't imagine how embarrassing this must be for you! ohmy.gif
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 07:17 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Trippy @ Jun 25 2008, 06:56 AM)
If you can't do physics...

That's a null answer.

QUOTE
Perhaps, but it failed to explain where the problem lay, it was a pretty generic statement that is essentially true of all perpetual motion devices.

I thought it quite nicely defined the problem. I guess you just didn't understand it.

QUOTE
And I care because..?

Trippy proves yet again that he doesn't posses even basic language comprehension skills.

QUOTE
See above.

See above, above.

QUOTE
Well, then you'd be WRONG.

Ooh, like that proves you know all about it. You're a buffoon.


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 07:21 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (AlphaNumeric @ Jun 25 2008, 06:59 AM)
Nicely put. Ub has descended to the level of children who lie on the floor of supermarkets and beat their hands and fists, screaming, when their parents no longer entertain their whining.

I asked for evidence and links to back up his claims. All I got was deflections and accusations of being a chatbot. Ub cannot even prove he isn't and if the criteria involve an inability to answer direct questions and show understanding, he fails them.

Why didn't you respond to the chatbot quiz?


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 07:25 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Euler @ Jun 25 2008, 07:10 AM)
Wow! So you're admitting to not knowing the first thing about GR?

I can't imagine how embarrassing this must be for you!

Wow! So you're admitting to not knowing the first thing about discussing physics?

I can't imagine how embarrassing this must be for you!

Consider all meanings of the phrase: "Discussion forum." Maybe that'll be helpful.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 25 2008, 07:28 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
Euler
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 07:49 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2136
Joined: 28-September 06

Positive Feedback: 72.04%
Feedback Score: 150


Hey, we could do this all day!

Just to remind the readers, ubavontuba has admitted that he doesn't know any GR, and has subsequently been unable to answer this simple question,
Top
Trippy
Posted: Jun 25 2008, 08:14 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5140
Joined: 9-January 07

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Jun 25 2008, 07:17 PM)
That's a null answer.

I thought it quite nicely defined the problem.  I guess you just didn't understand it.

Trippy proves yet again that he doesn't posses even basic language comprehension skills.

See above, above.

Ooh, like that proves you know all about it.  You're a buffoon.

Yet another empty post devoid of anything but drivel.

For the record? I understood the explanation you're reffering to, I simply found it lacking and generic.

And apparently the original poster agreed with me, so...

Again, you prove you're incapable of conducting a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

Also, nowhere did I claim to know all about it, I simply stated that you were wrong in your assumption that I "Don't even know what the woodward effect is".

I know that it's also known as the Mach effect, and that it relates to Mach's principle.

I know it involves the acceleration of electric charges, I know that experimental results suggest that it's capable of producing similar amounts of thrust to Ion engines, and I also know that it appears to violate the conservation of momentum in the same way that driving a car does.

For the record, this represents a summary, rather then the totality of my knowledge.

So you can shove your dishonesty up your **** you pathetic dishonest disgusting lying little cretin.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Jun 25 2008, 08:14 AM


--------------------
cave et aude
Observe. Predict. Confirm.
Schroedingers Voter: I'm both Left Wing and Right Wing until you ask me a specific question.
"Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable." -Prof. Anon.
High Priest of the Revised Church of Bacchus.
Founder of the Cult if Re-frig-ATOR.
Top

Topic Options Pages: (148) « First ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use