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

This is specifically an argument from ignorance combined with a perverse assumption of a threshold effect. It is like comforting parents of a child who got sick and died by telling them God surely would have saved their child if only they had more faith. How much more faith?

So he argues with you that it's a threshold effect, and then castigates me for suggesting that primordial black holes under a certain mass could not be expected to have survived 13.5 billion years, because in his mind that's a threshold effect.

Interesting.

Less than USD 10^40.

Unless of course Slartybartfast happened to include a 'human negligence' clause in his warranty, in which case it could be free .

I think i'm in the same boat - and that includes my miscalculation. The elucidation of the error that I did actually make did nothing to further my understanding of physics, and at least I can say I attempted the calculations and attempted to back up my assertions with something other then armmwaving (and then there's the other calculations i've done which have been born out by the literature).

This post has been edited by Trippy on Mar 29 2008, 12:39 AM

EDIT.

This post has been edited by BigDumbWeirdo on Mar 29 2008, 03:05 PM

In GR, gravity causes the curvature of space. Or would you care to highlight that portion of GR which apparently only you know of which presents a mechanism by which the mere presence of matter and energy causes the curvature of space without any emitted force?

Does anyone else get the mental image of a little kid sticking his tongue out and saying "no, YOU'RE a poopyhead!" every time you re-assert this? It's not doing you any good in ANY sense. Everybody here thinks you're a lying assh*le who knows nothing about physics, and guess what... There's a valid reason why we think so!

Heeeeeeeere we go again... Don't you even have an argument? Or is just repeating yourself over and over the only way you know to win a debate? Unfortunately for you, it's not going to work here. (And likely not under most circumstances either, which makes me wonder about your capacity for intelligence, in choosing such a strategy.)

That doesn't even make any sense, let alone is it witty, or funny.

I could. SO could Trippy (a chemist) and AN (a physicist) and mr_homm (a physics and math teacher) and Euler (a mathematician) and Einstein (a physicist) and Hawkings (a physicist) and Witten (a String Theorist) and Greene (Another string theorist) and Smolin (a quantum loop gravity expert physicist) and Ron (an amateur) and Sapo (another amateur).....
Looks more like the problem is with you, now doesn't it?

This is beginning to sound like a broken record....

You accuse me of being unable to read as you misunderstand what I wrote to you... Ironic.

So it's a quantum force in GR, then?

We need a DJ. This record is certainly broken...

Bullsh*t.

This one one (above) wasn't really offensive, just unbelievably hypocritical.

All of which are quite uncivil things you've said. AND THAT'S JUST THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR POSTING HISTORY! You're so full of sh*t your eyes are turning brown. (Lying isn't very civil, either. To be honest, there's a lot more from your posting history I could have included, but I wanted to be sure that each quote was apparent in it's lack of civility, rather than having to quote in context.)
By the way, the one's I highlighted in blue are the offensive things you said in this very post, right before you claimed to be civil.

You have nothing but spin, do you? Please cite where I have claimed to not insult people. Please cite where I claim to always remain civil. I didn't make such claims, and so proving that I have belied such claims isn't even CLOSE to being relevant.

More bullshit. Show me where Albert Einstein suggested in any scholarly work that gravity not be included in the four fundamental forces any longer, and instead be considered a property of curved space time, exclusively. If you can't find it, then you're demonstrating that ALBERT FRIGGAN EINSTEIN DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH GRAVITY BEING CONSIDERED A FORCE IN THE MOST SPECIFIC SENSE OF THE WORD.

Because no actual scientist has EVER been stupid enough to think that gravity is nothing but curved space. Why would anyone write papers arguing against a proposition that's never been seriously made?

Because I don't stick to just one or two threads. I'm a lot more visible on this site than you. Why can't you answer my question? "Because of the afore mentioned childish antics" doesn't actually answer anything. WHY is your feedback so low, if you know so much about physics, and don't go around insulting people? You SHOULD have a feedback score up there with mine, by all the indications of the feedback system here.

Ummm..... How many people pos mr_homm weekly? He's actually not very popular. But he has a very high feedback rating. Why is that?
BECAUSE HE KNOWS PHYSICS!!!
Why is it that you need every little bit of subtext in my post spelled out to you? Are you an Aspie?

Bullsh*t. Prove that I'm biased against you, for reasons other than the nature of your claims.

BUllshit again. Find me a paper that shows how the mere presence of matter and energy cause the curvature of space, with no intermediate force.

Dear god... You're really dumb, aren't you? You're not just an Aspie, you're actually just dumb...
If you can't see where objectivity lies with respect to that saying, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Ask someone else.

This post has been edited by BigDumbWeirdo on Mar 29 2008, 03:06 PM

Minus shipping and handling, of course. (Towing a planet can be quite costly.)

my my my...lol

And the lawsuit is on

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...823924.aspx?p=0

Perhaps ubavontuba has something to do with this?!

Everything on that page sounds oh so very familiar.

First of all -- I am not a lawyer. I am not even a paralegal.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hid.../case_id-78717/
Tells us that neither side wants a jury. Fortunately, the complaint is posted along with statements.

Going through the complaint.
http://www.wiki1.net/groups/uploads/LargeH...hoComplaint.doc

Luis Sancho has NO Lawyer. This bodes not well.

How can two pro-se plaintiffs align their interests in court if neither is acting as the other's lawyer?

They are desperately trying to keep the Hawaiian court from bumping the suit to a Federal court better suited to handle DOE/Physics/Fermilab/International issues. The court would still seem to have discretion to hand it off if a case were made that another jurisdiction would be MORE appropriate.

This dispute in no way concerns the federal funds actually distributed to Luis Sancho and Walter Wagner.

Where is the authority for the U.S. court to act on CERN?

Quality check. Doe should be DOE. No lawyer, no evidence that they proofread their own complaint. But nowhere is there an argument that this court has jurisdiction.

Right here we have the direct effect of the action of the federal regulations -- some atoms are going to get smashed.

This is a misuse of the technical jargon "theory" -- at best you have competing hypotheses.

All they are saying is that there is no hypothetical physical theory which results in direct environmental impact, but there are guess that "eventually" something bad might happen.

Since when is absolute refutation required? Where is that standard articulated?

Plaintiffs are NOT experts in the relevant fields. Moreover they weakened the cause for complaint -- they are NOT saying that any danger is real -- they are going on a fishing expedition to hunt for typos in the report.

Sigh!
NEPA is not the cited Federal Regulations, but a section of US Federal Code.
NEPA, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. ) US Code, Title 42, Chapter 56, to be specific.

The code of federal regulations is very strict on defining terms. Specifically, the agency MUST file a report if their activities have a foreseeable effect. Guessing is not foreseeing.

We see this by looking at:

But "affecting" has a special meaning:

Luis Sancho hang their entire case on this word "may"
But they ignore the term "effect" which also has a very specific meaning.

Their use of theory (meaning hypothesis), may, and eventually all indicate that the horrific scenarios are not in fact "reasonably foreseeable." They are instead statements of metaphysical belief.

Walter Wagner's past history is relevant to deciding the weight his opinion bears.
Luis Sancho's non-professional complaint indicates how unfamiliar he is with the arena of law.

The Quantum Pontiff's post on the subject.
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/03/oh...are_eatn_my.php

After years of pointless posturing and very scary scenarios backed up only with bad hypothetical physics, the lawsuit to stop CERN was filed on Friday, March 21. A week later, a few bored reporters pick up the story.

New York Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/science/...43d1&ei=5087%0A
Nature (interdisciplinary science journal) story:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyon...se_the_lhc.html

Note that the COMPLAINT says Luis Sancho is a resident of Hawaii.
Walter Wagner is guessing Luis Sancho might live in Barcelona, but in the court papers they tell the judge that he has a US residence.
Maybe Luis Sancho is a hypothetical plantiff?

In fact, if the US legal system is anything like ours, the Plaintiffs have to prove their case - that LHC will destroy us all, beyond all reasonable doubt. Something which (IMO) they can not do.

Meanwhile the defendant only has to prove their case on the balance of probabilities, which I believe the DOE has already done.

Trippy, to be fair, their claim is "only" that the safety report is inadequate and flawed.

Of course, they sure as hell haven't shown that either. All a bunch of "what if" mumbo jumbo and every single physicist at any major university (not to mention almost every amateur) seems to think they're all nuts. I doubt they're all involved in some ridiculous conspiracy.

Also, "Center for Nuclear Energy Research" is what CERN stands for? News to me!

This post has been edited by Kles on Mar 29 2008, 10:32 PM

This got covered in the Register. They are unimpressed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/lh...tanist_lawsuit/

So Ubavontuba's (primary?) supporter is demonstrably a fraudster, and a biologist...

That may be what they're saying in court, however, that's not the entirety of the claims that have been made.

Besides which, the standards of proof remain the same - Wagner still has to be able to proove beyond reasonable doubt that the LHC assessment isn't fair and reasonable, while LHC need only proove on the balance of probabilities that it is.

If I were a betting man, I know where I'd place my money.