Scientific Forums


Pages: (148) « First ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 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
Trippy
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 12:37 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (rpenner @ Mar 29 2008, 12:26 PM)
QUOTE
The odds of disaster increase in accordance with the energy of the experiment.
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.

QUOTE (rpenner @ Mar 29 2008, 12:26 PM)
QUOTE
How much more would it cost to replace the earth?
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 wink.gif.

QUOTE (rpenner @ Mar 29 2008, 12:26 PM)
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 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


--------------------
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
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 02:45 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1968
Joined: 6-October 07

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


EDIT.

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


--------------------
Suck my dіck, PissOrg fυcking forums!

Proud recipient of negative feedback from: Samantha Hildreth, DavidD, on2thiests, einstienear, PJParent001, Dibedy, StevenA, ubavontuba, inQZtive, •SHEOL•, ArchAngel, Mr. Robin Parsons... Quick, get on the list before it's too late!
Top
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 03:05 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1968
Joined: 6-October 07

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Mar 28 2008, 04:32 AM)
That's because in GR, gravity is "the curvature of space." (duh)

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?

QUOTE
Yes, but it's not a force in GR.

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!

QUOTE
Yes, it is.  It's not a force in GR, period.  It's space-time geometry.

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.)

QUOTE
Meaning, you haven't a clue.

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

QUOTE
I couldn't find any valid arguments.

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?

QUOTE
You obviously don't have a clue how gravity works in GR, do you?  It's not a force and space-time curvature!

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

QUOTE
Evidently, you can't read.  They generally do indeed state it's not a force in GR.

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

QUOTE
I said it's not a classical force in regards to GR, not that it's not classical at all.

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

QUOTE
The facts and references support me, they do not support you.  I win.

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

QUOTE
I've been quite civil (as opposed to the likes of you) throughout.  RC just can't accept it, that I don't buy into his personal beliefs.  That's his problem, not mine.

Bullsh*t.
QUOTE
Can't argue the science, so instead you'd criticize the personality? How very typical.

QUOTE
Talk about junk science!

QUOTE
You're the one that's been intertwining and confusing the issues with that primordial black hole paper and its "black holes with a mass of approximately 10^15g."

QUOTE
Meaning, you haven't a clue.

QUOTE
You obviously don't have a clue how gravity works in GR, do you?

QUOTE
Evidently, you can't read.

QUOTE
The facts and references support me, they do not support you. I win.

QUOTE
Just like nothing you said violated the conservation of momentum in the collision scenario, eh?

QUOTE
You were discussing the stupid paper you referenced and trying to associate the assumptions therein with micro black holes, in general.

QUOTE
Yeah. I tried to warn him off. It makes me sad.

QUOTE
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you.

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

QUOTE
Double Ha! (Ha! Ha!)

QUOTE
It is reflective of your intelligence that you either refuse to accept all of the references I provided and even all of the references AlphaNumeric provided (which actually backed my assertions), or you're just incapable of understanding them.

QUOTE
I don't recall this. Show it to me again.

QUOTE
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR!

QUOTE
Then you better start demonstrating it, 'cause so far, you've lost every single physics argument with me.


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.

QUOTE
Go ahead.  But to be fair and balanced, please include a complete list of your own.

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.

QUOTE
You mean, just me, Albert Einstein, and numerous authoritive references (including AlphaNumeric's own citations).

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.

QUOTE
Heck the strongest reference AlphaNumeric could come up with to supprt his case was nothing more than a blog posting!  Even then, it was quite hedgy.

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?

QUOTE
Because of the aforementioned childish antics.  Why do you have warnings, and I don't?

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.

QUOTE
I'm not popular?  Is that the best scientific evidence you can muster?

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!!! laugh.gif
Why is it that you need every little bit of subtext in my post spelled out to you? Are you an Aspie?

QUOTE
No you don't.  You obviously aren't being objective.

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

QUOTE
Every single hypothesis I've presented is based on "mainstream physics."  It's your inability to understand the physics that makes you think otherwise.

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.

QUOTE
And that's supposed to be being objective?  Give me a break!

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


--------------------
Suck my dіck, PissOrg fυcking forums!

Proud recipient of negative feedback from: Samantha Hildreth, DavidD, on2thiests, einstienear, PJParent001, Dibedy, StevenA, ubavontuba, inQZtive, •SHEOL•, ArchAngel, Mr. Robin Parsons... Quick, get on the list before it's too late!
Top
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 03:23 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1968
Joined: 6-October 07

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


QUOTE (Trippy @ Mar 28 2008, 07:37 PM)
Unless of course Slartybartfast happened to include a 'human negligence' clause in his warranty, in which case it could be free wink.gif.

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


--------------------
Suck my dіck, PissOrg fυcking forums!

Proud recipient of negative feedback from: Samantha Hildreth, DavidD, on2thiests, einstienear, PJParent001, Dibedy, StevenA, ubavontuba, inQZtive, •SHEOL•, ArchAngel, Mr. Robin Parsons... Quick, get on the list before it's too late!
Top
slasher1975
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 05:46 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 26-October 07

Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 3


Top
TheDoc
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 05:48 PM


KIDNEYS
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2808
Joined: 6-March 08

Positive Feedback: 55.56%
Feedback Score: 128


QUOTE (slasher1975 @ Mar 29 2008, 05:46 PM)
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?! ph34r.gif


--------------------
Member of Forum Mafia
Send PM ·
Top
Trippy
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 06:06 PM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


Everything on that page sounds oh so very familiar.


--------------------
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
Kles
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 07:03 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 25-March 08

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE ("From the comments")
"Too late.  Even before it has finished, the Large Hadron Collider has created the strange *****, which threatens to turn every other thing on this planet into strange morons in a runaway chain reaction."


biggrin.gif
Top
rpenner
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 07:25 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5709
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


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
QUOTE
Luis Sancho
PO Box 411
Honomu, HI  96728
808-964-5535
pro se
Luis Sancho has NO Lawyer. This bodes not well.
QUOTE
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Luis Sancho is a citizen of Spain, with legal residence in the United States and Hawaii.
2. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Walter L. Wagner is a citizen of the State of Hawaii.

How can two pro-se plaintiffs align their interests in court if neither is acting as the other's lawyer?
QUOTE
3. At all times herein mentioned defendant United States Department of Energy [hereinafter DOE] is a federal agency with operations in the State of Hawaii.
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.
QUOTE
4. At all times herein mentioned defendant Fermilab is a federal laboratory with operations in Chicago, Illinois and Geneva, Switzerland at the LHC.
5. At all times herein mentioned defendant National Science Foundation [hereinafter NSF] is a federally chartered agency for distributing federal funds to recipients, including defendants herein.

This dispute in no way concerns the federal funds actually distributed to Luis Sancho and Walter Wagner.
QUOTE
6. At all times herein mentioned defendant Center for Nuclear Energy Research [hereinafter CERN] is a European agency with operations in Switzerland and France.

Where is the authority for the U.S. court to act on CERN?
QUOTE
7. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the names or locations of Doe Defendants 1-100.
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.
QUOTE
11. The machine is scheduled to operate by colliding high-energy beams of protons [Hydrogen nuclei] or Lead nuclei into each other.  The resultant collision of the two atoms traveling in opposite direction and then colliding head-on is designed to release a large amount of energy, and fracture the atoms into more fundamental particles, as well as create novel particles from the abundance of energy present.
Right here we have the direct effect of the action of the federal regulations -- some atoms are going to get smashed.
QUOTE
12. Various competing theories of physics predict various outcomes from these collisions, with no agreement amongst physicists as to what the outcome will be.
This is a misuse of the technical jargon "theory" -- at best you have competing hypotheses.
QUOTE
13. In addition to fracturing the atoms into smaller, more fundamental particles, some of the competing theories predict that the outcome will be a rearrangement of the more fundamental particles, or creation de novo from the abundance of energy present, or both, into novel forms, which include the following descriptive particles from those theories:
a ) Strangelets: Under this theory, the original constituents of the atom [“up” quarks and “down” quarks] will recombine with newly created “strange” quarks to form a new, more stable form of matter called a “strangelet”.  Its enhanced stability compared to normal matter would allow it to fuse with normal matter, converting the normal matter into an even larger strangelet.  Repeated fusions would result in a runaway fusion reaction, eventually converting all of Earth into a single large “strangelet” of huge size.
b ) Micro Black Holes: Under this theory, the compression of the two atoms colliding together at nearly light speed will cause an irreversible implosion, forming a miniature version of a giant black hole, the remnant of a collapsed star.  Like its much larger cousin, a miniature black hole would not emit light, and any matter coming into contact with it would fall into it and never be able to escape.  Eventually, all of earth would fall into such growing micro-black-hole, converting earth into a medium-sized black hole, around which would continue to orbit the moon, satellites, the ISS, etc.
c ) Magnetic Monopoles: Under this theory, the high energy of the collision would be converted into two massive particles known as north and south magnetic monopoles.  Each would carry a fundamental unit of magnetic charge.  Such particle might have the ability to catalyze the decay of protons and atoms, causing them to convert into other types of matter in a runaway reaction.

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.
QUOTE
14. The above theories, and other theories showing potential adverse consequences, have been well articulated in various scientific publications.  No absolute refutation of the adverse scenarios that have been described has yet been articulated, though efforts have been made, and it has been suggested by defendants that the ‘risk’ of the adverse scenarios is small.  Those efforts were perfunctory “safety reviews” which purported to prove the falsity of the adverse scenarios by indirect means.  However, fundamental flaws were existent in those “safety reviews” and pointed out to defendants by plaintiffs.  As a result, another “safety review” is currently underway by the defendants.  The current safety review is known as the LHC Safety Assessment Group [LSAG] Safety Review.  It was initially scheduled for completion by January 1, 2008, but defendants have delayed its release, and it has not yet been released to the public for review by the science community at large, as promised [see Exhibit “A” of affidavit of Walter L. Wagner].
Since when is absolute refutation required? Where is that standard articulated?
QUOTE
15. Plaintiffs and their associates are experts in physics and other fields of science, technology and ethics who are capable of reviewing and analyzing such safety reviews for flaws or errors.  Plaintiffs and some of their associates have filed in support of this complaint various affidavits detailing some of the safety flaws and ethical flaws in safety review currently evidenced.  Plaintiffs and their associates require a minimum of four to six months time to review the LSAG Safety Review, as well as the relevant scientific literature, in order to determine whether defendants’ most recent pending LSAG Safety Review is once again fundamentally flawed, or satisfactory in addressing the safety issues in accordance with generally accepted standards in science, technology and industry.
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.
QUOTE
16. Defendants are obligated under the National Environmental Policy Act [hereinafter NEPA] to include either an "Environmental Assessment" [EA] if there is a "finding of no significant impact" [FONSI], or a full "Environmental Impact Statement" [EIS] if there is no FONSI, and to do so in a timely manner so impacted parties have a meaningful opportunity to respond.

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:
QUOTE (Code of Federal Regulations @ Title 40, Section 1502.3)
Statutory requirements for statements.
As required by sec. 102(2)© of NEPA environmental impact statements are to be included in every recommendation or report.

On proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

But "affecting" has a special meaning:
QUOTE (Code of Federal Regulations @ Title 40, Section 1508.3)
Affecting.
Affecting means will or may have an effect on.

Luis Sancho hang their entire case on this word "may"
But they ignore the term "effect" which also has a very specific meaning.
QUOTE (Code of Federal Regulations @ Title 40, Section 1508.8)
Effects.
Effects include:
( a ) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
( b ) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.
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.


--------------------
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
rpenner
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 08:09 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5709
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


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?


--------------------
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
Trippy
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 10:19 PM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (rpenner @ Mar 30 2008, 08:25 AM)
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.

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.


--------------------
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
Kles
Posted: Mar 29 2008, 10:24 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 25-March 08

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 9


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
Top
rpenner
Posted: Mar 30 2008, 01:22 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5709
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


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


--------------------
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
Trippy
Posted: Mar 30 2008, 02:17 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


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


--------------------
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
Trippy
Posted: Mar 30 2008, 02:20 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (Kles @ Mar 30 2008, 11:24 AM)
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!

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.


--------------------
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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use