LHC danger, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html

Give me a break. You (or another rpenner user) have already admitted I'm right on several of my key points. Trippy even proved the main one himself, in this very discussion.

Which is relevant to my own arguments how?

Talk about being nutty. How can any reasonable person think subjective and libelously associated arguments like this are factually relevant?

Just being curious: Are you a woman "rpenner" user?

Actually, it's working. How else might you explain CERN e-mailing me twice, stating the new safety analysis is coming soon, yet not produce it?

We'll see.

Which is relevant because...?

You do know they never claimed to be either lawyers or prisoners, don't you?

It's not my statement.

I have no connection with this case, beyond a hope it succeeds.

You need to confer with the prior "rpenner" user(s) who've already corroborated some of my contentions.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 17 2008, 04:32 AM

Give me a break. You blatantly stated prejudice is okay. It isn't.

Get real. No you haven't. You state it's inconsistent, and then show a formula for energy without ever addressing relativistic mass!

Again, get real. I can call it whatever I want. "kinetic energy," Relativistic mass," "Boogly woogly," or whatever. It's simply semantics.

Would you state invariant (rest) mass is equivalent only to invariant (rest) energy? Obviously, this must be the case. Therefore "kinetic energy" must not be real energy (using your logic) anymore than relativistic mass isn't real mass. We should call it something else too!

Wait! I have it! Let's call relativistic mass "kinetic energy," and let's call kinetic energy "relativistic mass!" See? Totally consistent.

Liar. There were two! One you skipped over entirely, and one you gave a non-answer to. Here they are again:

In this regard, the first question that comes to me is:
100+ years ago, would you have told Albert Einstein that his work wasn't Newtonian enough?

Imagine! If Einstein had been restricted to only using Newtonian concepts and Newtonian math, where would we be today?

Ask Trippy for the proof. I'm sure he'll be happy to provide it.

Ha! (incredulity)

So now you'd call Einstein a liar?

Depends on which parabola (section) you're talking about.

Try holding a straight edge to it. You'll find it's only truly (more or less) straight in lines that pass through the apex.

See, you think math is reality. Einstein knew better.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Einstein.

No, it cannot. Quantum uncertainty prevents it. I thought you said you knew this stuff!

Then I'm flattered indeed, for it was I that told you to show some intellectual integrity and admit you're wrong first (quite some time ago). Did you forget?

They have kinetic energy, a.k.a. relativistic mass.

Give me a break! It's a different name for the same thing! You're argument amounts to: "It's not logically consistent if it's called blugle, it has to be trog."

You don't have this problem with "relativistic mass" either.

I thought you said you read this thread. Didn't you see where Trippy proved it?

You'd call Einstein a liar?

Wow. You've really muddled this issue. Read it again.

See there? You're a pedant, through and through.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 17 2008, 06:08 AM

Give me a break. You (or another rpenner user) have already admitted I'm right on several of my key points. Trippy even proved the main one himself, in this very discussion.

No-one believes you. No-one can state what your key points are. You have made this exact same unsubstantiated claim before, but never with evidence. I am giving you the best break of all: I'm asking you to support your own claim. When you use middle management press tactics of trying to avoid answering the question, this just makes you look like an petty coward instead of someone who is capable of answering basic human questions.

Because you rely on him as an authority, when in fact your continued endorsement of Rössler demonstrates your personal inability in this field. Rössler is the one who jumped into the venue -- as so he is judged by the rules of venue. A more capable man would not have made such mistakes.

And the chain of facts and logic which led you to this statement are where? Nothing I have written is libelous when it is true.

"Soon" shares much meaning with "not yet." None of that addresses the issue of "[t]he stop-the-LHC nutcases are becoming increasingly irrelevant as time marches on." The mere fact that you are waiting makes you irrelevant. The mere fact that Wagner and Sancho never filed for a temporary injunction renders them waiting and irrelevant. CERN is not waiting.

Ah. Finally a simple prediction. Naturally, you can't make a meaningful prediction, like predicting the outcome of the case.

Ah, an actual claim of fact. Indeed, Luis Sancho is no type of lawyer. And Walter Wagner's claim of a "graduate degree in law (1978)" does not a lawyer make. But as I was comparing them to self-taught prisoners who don't have the benefit of any graduate degree, and as they have specific expectations of this court case and as Walter Wagner has both that graduate degree (so he should have a basic outline of what he should have been learning these last 30 years prior to showing up in court) and court experience, my pejorative comments on their ridiculously poor showing remain.
* In addition, Walter Wagner publically solicited funds to persue this lawsuit. It was highly irresponsible for him to represent himself pro se unless he functioned at a level equivalent to a lawyer in the appropriate field(s) of law.

Challenge to Ubavontuba and/or Trippy and/or anyone else: Refute or prove this statement with citations.

It's not my statement.

No, it is not your statement. (If you will note, I clearly cited who wrote it and when. I even hyperlinked to an index page of all the court filings.) It was and is my challenge to get you and/or other readers to operate in the fact-based, evidence-based world of science and the courts. Was Walter Wagner telling the truth when he wrote this statement to the judge?

You need to confer with the prior "rpenner" user(s) who've already corroborated some of my contentions.

And your evidence of these alleged other users is what? If it's my inability to hyperlink to the documentation of your claims, you seem to share the exact same inability.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 17 2008, 05:52 AM

Which serves to prove that you're not the same rpenner as before. If you were, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. It wasn't too long ago that rpenner "yourself" referred to them directly. Have "you" forgotten?

I'm not sure you're human. Lately, you've been behaving a lot like AlphaNumeric. You've been quite inconsistent in your ability to retain the content and context of the conversation.

Besides, don't you remember me stating how you've only proven that I've been consistent throughout, after you re-posted my original concerns?

I do not rely on him as an authority and I've never endorsed him! In fact, very recently I expressed dismay in regards to his work.

Are you really this vacant?

You've repeatedly tried to pin the statements others have made on me. That's libelous.

Actually, the first time they said, "a few weeks." That was five months ago. I think that very much exceeds "a few weeks," don't you?

Then they are criminally negligent for proceeding without the updated safety analysis, they commissioned.

How dumb are you? "We'll see." is not a prediction of an outcome for an event beyond the implication that we'll be here to make an observation.

Which is relevant to me because...?

How much, "I'm not involved with the case." do you need to read before you understand I'm not involved with the case?

It's his statement then to prove, not mine. Why don't you ask him? Asking me is irrelevant.

If it's important to you, why don't you refute or prove his statement with citations, yourself?

It's your inability to retain the content and context of the conversation that makes it apparent.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 17 2008, 07:00 AM

You claimed that the CERN physicists are deliberately ignoring errors in QFT. I pointed out that the models they work on are freely available and that huge numbers of people learn about them every year.

You said that physicist are 'discouraged' from addressing these issues. So you imply a conspiracy within the community. You must assume I'm in on it then. You must also assume that conferences and talks about analysing experiments to find deviations from the Standard Model are just to maintain this conspiracy.

I'm explaining why your claims reduce to paranoid delusions.

I thought you didn't like it when people just posted insults. And yet you aren't above it yourself. Your entire post is nothing but "So what?". You don't address anything I actually said. Are you struggling to be able to think about it and give a coherent response.

Besides, I've proven I can engage in relevent discussion. And if you want proof I'm a physicist : This is me.

Yet whenever someone debunks your claims with detailed evidence, like Rpenner just did, all you can do is ignore it. Why aren't you able to stand up to such posts and givew a detailed explaination and derivation of your claims? It would seem you can't explain your errors in a way which isn't trivially falsified.

And you continue to lie. How many times have you said that and how many times have people said "No, we haven't". Your main point is that CERN will be a real threat to the Earth. Noone agrees with you.

And yet you continue to tell us we said we agree with you. Are you a compulsive liar? You must be to try to tell us that we agreed with you but continue to disagree with you in every post we make.

It's funny you say we cannot keep ontopic when you accuss me of being a chat bot and Rpenner of being someone else using the same account.

Your hypocrisy is pathetic.

I proved nothing to support any of your arguments.

It's already been pointed out to you that the 2003 publication does not consider the scenario of the earth capturing a cosmic ray blackhole, therefore your objections are irrelevant - your objecting to a point that was never raised.

You've objected to the idea of micro blackholes with thermalized velocities, even though more then one method for such to happen has been illustrated for you.

There's been papers linked for you that discuss methods by which microscopic blackholes might be captured by the earth, Jupiter, or the sun.

It's been shown to you that even though collisions between cosmic ray particles might be rare, with the frequency that they hit the earth, that collisions resulting in products stationary (or nearly so) in the earths frame should occur relatively regularly.

It's been shown that even if worst comes to worst, should a blackhole fall to the earths core, that even with the pressures and densities encountered, that it would take billions of years for such a blackhole to simply double its weight.

Calling on me to back up your arguments is cretinous at best, and completely dishonest.

In short? Back up your own arguments you lying little creep.

Stop testiculating, and put your money were your mouth is.

For what its worth, I can verify that this is Alphanumeric - having inadvertantly stumbled across his identity in my bumblings across the net.

You search for difficult decisions of simple problems, therefore you else are not true scientist.

I've shown my position with mathematics. That is the way physicists work.

The argument goes like this: I state the important property of relativistic mass for the argument, namely that it varies. Then I show a Lorentz scalar cannot vary. Then I show mass is a Lorentz scalar and hence relativistic mass cannot be a mass. All rigorously with mathematics. Anyone who wants to see this can PM me with an email address and I'll send it to them.

I'm going to ignore the fact that this argument is incredibly disingenuous and stare straight ahead. By calling it mass you are assuming that relativistic mass has properties of mass. It doesn't. Photons have relativistic mass but if they had mass they could not travel at c, so it's clear that relativistic mass is not mass. It's a misnomer .

The rest energy of something is mc^2 where m is the invariant mass. Yes, you are right on this.

I have no idea why "my logic" states this. I can only assume you made it up. Kinetic energy is energy, because it behaves like energy.

If you want to confuse yourself even more than you are already, go right ahead.

There's no question. You are just trying to be smart.

Quite clearly rhetorical. I would have asked him is his work consistent.

Rhetorical

I didn't ask for a proof. I asked for a citation.

Einstein is not the only physicist you know. He was completely wrong about quantum mechanics and other things probably. On this subject, no is the answer to your question though.

No. A cone is flat. Your intuition fails.

Think of how you make a cone. You get a flat piece of paper and cut a section out of it so that the angle about the point is less than 2 Pi. This is a conical singularity. The rest of the surface is completely flat. There are no effects of curvature because it's not curved.

Maths is the only way to describe a great number of effects in physics. Relativity has some of them. Remember we haven't even touched on GR, which is an incredibly formal piece of mathematics based on work by Riemann and Ricci amongst others. Yo can't understand GR without understanding differential geometry.

We aren't talking about quantum mechanics. We've been talking for the last 5 pages at leat about classical special relativity which doesn't contain the uncertainty principle. You have shown for the nth time that you don't understand what you're talking about.

And I believe I showed you why I was not wrong. You haven't seemed to grasp that the best way to argue is to prove the other person wrong. It just seems to get more and more personal from you.

As I stated above, relativistic mass is a misnomer, because it doesn't behave like mass. You can call it whatever you like but it's misleading to say the least.

I'm beginning to wonder why I bother. Relativistic mass is not mass because it doesn't have the correct properties.

You clearly don't know about relativity.

Citation please. Published work is the best.

I rather doubt it. I'd certainly question the context of your quote.

You're coming across as a throughly ridiculous person. You have show you can't argue on science so it descends into a pointless debate about semantics and who said what. Talk to me about physics!

I understand relativity, both special and general. I'm doing cutting edge research in a top UK university which you can't do if you are just a pedant. What are your credentials?

The results of the June 16 scheduling conference are over. In a seven-minute conference where Wagner and Sancho literally "phoned it in" Trial is scheduled for June 16, 2009.

Timeline (future dates subject to change by order and/or stipulation):

March 21, 2008 -- Complaint filed. Case assigned.
April 25, 2008 -- A Summons is executed with respect to DOE (but none of the other listed defendants, esp. CERN.)
May 30, 2008 -- Scheduling conference between parties.
June 16, 2008 -- Scheduling conference with Judge.
June 24, 2008 -- Deadline for DOE to respond to complaint.
November 14, 2008 -- Deadline to File motions to Join/Add Parties/Amend Pleadings (Plaintiff advised the court that they will amend the complaint and request for a Jury Trial. Mr. Watson stated that he will oppose both.)
January 14, 2009 -- Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
December 15, 2009 -- Deadline for Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosures
January 14, 2009 -- Deadline for Defendant’s Expert Witness Disclosures
February 23, 2009 -- Deadline for Settlement Conference statements
March 2, 2009 -- Settlement Conference before KSC
March 18, 2009 -- Deadline to File other Non-Dispositive Motions
April 17, 2009 -- Discovery deadline
April 28, 2009 -- Deadline for Final Pretrial Statement
May 5, 2009 -- Final Pretrial Conference before KSC
May 19, 2009 -- Deadline to Exchange Exhibit and Demonstrative aids
May 26, 2009 --

• Deadline to File Motions in Limine
• Deadline to File Final witness list
• Deadline for Stipulations re: Authenticity/Admissibility of Proposed Exhibits
• Deadline to File Deposition Excerpt Designations

June 2, 2009 --

• Deadline to File opposition memo to a Motion in Limine
• Deadline to File objections to the Exhibits
• Deadline to File Deposition Counter Designations and Objections
• Deadline to File Trial Brief
• Deadline to File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law

June 5, 2009 -- Final Pretrial Conference before District Judge Helen Gillmor
June 16, 2009 -- Non-jury trial on June 16, 2009 before HG

The scheduling order follows with an explicit spelling out of the most likely stumbling blocks to these plaintiffs:

When did I state that?

Then why have they made such obvious errors (that even you corroborated).

I said CERN scientists were ordered not to publicize their opinions, nothing more.

No. I state, CERN scientists were ordered not to publicize their opinions.

I only suspect you're a chatbot. I don't think you have an ability to conspire.

How'd you get there?

You've already corroborated my main contention, yourself!

Nothing you said was relevant, or coherent.

Ha! (incredulity)

That's not proof of anything. Do you even know what it means to say, "proof?"

How stupid are you? Rpenner wasn't talking about my claims! Rpenner was going on and on about other people!

You corroborated them yourself, numerous times! So did rpenner.

Lots of times. I've repeatedly linked back to them. How can you be so forgetful?

See? Proof you can't retain the content and context of the conversation. This isn't my main point at all. Let's see you guess again.

That's not true.

Actually, I've shown time and time again that you've lied everytime you've made a statement like this. Would you like to place a wager on it?

These are the hypotheses which best fit the observations.

Ha! (incredulity)

How stupid are you? This isn't even the point.

No, you're raising an irrelevant point I never objected to.

Ha! (incredulity)

Again, ha! (more incredulity)

Strike three!

Trippy, give it a rest. You've also lost the content and context of the conversation. Only, I don't think it's because you're a chatbot or a different user. I think the reason is much more fundamental.

What better strategy is there than to use your adversaries to win the battle for you?

But you worked so hard and for so long on the problem. Don't you want your efforts to be recognized?

Now that's a meaningless statement, if ever there was one. Exactly what are you trying to say?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 18 2008, 02:26 AM

Chatbots have to appear to have an identity. It's called a back story.

AlphaNumeric's been so consistently inconsistent, I'd have to see him typing on the keyboard with my own eyes (for an extended period of time) for me to believe he's a real person.

Well said! ...okay, not so well said ...but rather, hear, hear! (hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!")

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 18 2008, 02:44 AM

In what way are ubavontuba and/or dimazin worthy judges of who is or isn't a "true scientist?"

dimazin rejects physics observations and experiments from 1620 on as well as the first chapters of every high school physics textbook, and ubavontuba operates in a world without evidentiary support. Neither is capable of sustained logical or mathematical development of a subject, and neither is experienced in comparing theory to experiment.

When we seek evidentiary support, ubavontuba acts like he's offended to disguise the fact that we've caught him lying in public. We've been waiting since March 2006 for ubavontuba to talk physics rather than just his fears. Instead of getting smarter, he gets angrier, which is non-productive.

I wish you would remind us by quoting where you made this physics argument and linking to where either AlphaNumeric or I "conceded" to it. I simply have no recall of such an event.

Yes, I do. I said that even if you assume that these are producing black holes at a rate of one per second, less than 20 per year would be at less than escape velocity. Further, an unstable object can't be called "captured" if it decays in less than 1/2 orbit.
I don't know how misquoting me is supposed to convince me.

I brought facts. Some, you agreed with. Are you not "an expert in the field?"

I remember you linked to speculative articles. Other than the human details of who wrote what, I don't think I learned anything from you. Perhaps you could refresh my memory by linking to the place where you brought the overlooked physical facts to the table.

I know no such thing. For one, you don't name or point to the argument or the falsification. The claim you make refers to subjects which exist only in your head, so it is unclear to the rest of us.

Like the question of a mechanism where even 50 billion hypothetically stable 2 TeV black holes might pose a risk to real estate values?

Which proves that either

• you don't think its likely that LHC poses a danger to the world, or
• you now believe what we told you two years ago that no one on this board has anything to do with LHC planning, or
• you have a very wacked sense of what constitutes a proper use of your time and resources.

I don't believe I said that, anywhere.
I don't believe anyone will think I said that unless you link to it.

If it is frame-dependent, then it is not inherent.

Which safety analysis? Where is it? What theory do you mean? Where is this demonstration of inconsistency?