Scientific Forums


Pages: (148) « First ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... 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
Ski
Posted: Aug 23 2008, 06:04 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17-April 08

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 3


Thanks again, Rpenner.

I'm not quite sure I understand the danger presented in the scenario. Is it basically saying that a MBH could accrete matter and emit harmful HR, which is why it is a local, rather than global risk? What about this quote?:

QUOTE
Moreover, for another independent reason, the exclusion of mBHs that threaten
to accrete Earth by G & M cannot be considered definite in general (section
5).


And is it saying that we wouldn't be able to detect this radiation from neutron stars/white dwarves?

Sorry for all of these questions, but this is how I learn smile.gif
Top
rpenner
Posted: Aug 23 2008, 08:21 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5771
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


Ski, Rainer Plaga uses the formulas of G & M, which assumes no radiation from the black hole to claim that the D=5 holes grow rapidly to 1 kg and claims the 1 kg holes would act as eternal matter-energy converters inside the Earth, despite that this invalidates the calculations of G & M that they would grow quickly. Further, the D=5, 1 TeV case is excluded because such black holes are very sticky and cosmic rays would already cause them to form continuously. No white dwarf could last even a century if Plaga was right.

But Plaga isn't close to right, since the metastable black holes of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0110255 cannot grow to 1 kg at Earthly densities.


--------------------
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
prometheus
Posted: Aug 23 2008, 09:54 AM


Annoyed by you.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: 1-November 07

Positive Feedback: 78.26%
Feedback Score: 103


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)
Straw man argument.  His quote is out of context and it's not a general statement (it's specific to one case).

That quote is relevant because it takes the currently accepted theory that predicts black holes, applies them to the LHC and predicts the LHC will not produce them. What's out of context about that?

  • "In fact, according to the conventional gravitational theory of General Relativity proposed by Einstein, many of whose predictions have subsequently been verified, there is no chance that any black holes could be produced at the LHC, since the conventional gravitational forces between fundamental particles are too weak."


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

You're lying (taking cues from Prometheus, are we?).  I've already provided a quote from the authors of the LSAG report wherein they state the LHC will likely create black holes.

You have done no such thing. The LSAG report never says black holes are likely, because they are not.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

How can someone you think is that wrong about physics, be qualified to assess the safety of the LHC?

This is irrelevant to the safety of the LHC. The question of whether the LHC will produce black holes does not constitute an argument for the danger of the LHC. One must demonstrate they will accrete matter at a high enough rate to destroy the earth in it's lifetime and that the MBH will not disappear via the Hawking process. I think I can speak for rpenner when I say that he agrees with the LSAG committee on these points, which you have yet to refute.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

There are plenty of arguments that refute this opinion.  I've provided many myself.  You still haven't told me where all the neutron stars in the oldest observable galaxy went.  Planets we find aplenty.  Neutron stars?  Oh, look there's one, two, maybe a handful or so known to exist.  They should be everywhere by now, and they should be much easier to find than extra-solar planets.

Neutron star is created by stellar collapse -> Neutron star accretes matter up to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit -> Neutron star collapses to form a black hole. Not that I see how this is relevant to the danger of the LHC

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

Baloney.  I and others have clearly stated they're a good candidate for dark matter, which is indeed stable.

Stated and provided good evidence for are very different things. I can state that my grandmothers treacle tart is a good candidate for dark matter but that doesn't make it true. According to current theory, black holes are not stable so they can't be dark matter. Prove me wrong.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

Right.  I wouldn't argue against this.  In the specific case of GR,  they are indeed improbable.  Of course, we all strongly suspect there has to be more to this than GR...

Firstly, GR is not a "specific case," it's the currently accepted theory of gravity, and secondly, black holes at the LHC are not "improbable," they are impossible.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

No, it's not.  Their arguments are once again based on the accretion rates in dense matter objects.  ...dense matter objects of which they didn't bother to explain the apparent scarcity!

It's essentially all fantasy.  They don't know the properties of the black holes, so they make lots of assumptions. ...assumptions designed to forward their stated goal of proving there's no danger.
    R. Plaga (in regard to the Giddings & Mangano paper):
    "I further question that their risk analysis is complete for the reason that it excludes plausible parameter ranges from safety consideration without giving a sufficient reason. The reasons why Giddings & Mangano drew very different general conclusions are found to be of a methodological rather than scientific nature."


rpenner's remarks on Plaga's track record is relevant here. Basically, he seems to like writing controversial papers so much the no one will collaborate with him. You're assertion that "they don't know the properties of the black holes," is wrong. We know a lot about black holes from GR, which is why we know the LHC won't produce them.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2008, 05:01 AM)

I guess you don't read much.

rpenner has been active in this topic since the early pages. I have too and your "contentions," are getting so watered down you'll be asserting that the LHC will be using too much electricity before long.

To repeat these, which you seem to have missed:
  • what does a divergence look like? What do you mean by "map a cone intrinsically?"
  • Do you understand what a vector is or did you just use the word to make your posting sound a bit more technical?
  • [CP symmetry breaking] doesn't [violate conservation of energy]. If it did then CP symmetry breaking (a local gauge symmetry) would somehow break invariance under time translations (a global spacetime symmetry) and it doesn't. Can you provide an argument rather than saying "yes it does?"
  • Why have you started using the phrase "straw man" (11 times in the previous post) when 1) you have hardly ever used it before and 2) you clearly don't understand the concept of a straw man argument. You've accused me of providing a straw man argument 8 times in the previous post, none of which were correct. That's not a very good hit rate is it?


--------------------
Hac in hora sine mora corde pulsum tangite. - O Fortuna from Carmina Burana

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: - Isaiah 10:28
Top
Trippy
Posted: Aug 23 2008, 10:41 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (prometheus @ Aug 23 2008, 09:54 PM)
Neutron star is created by stellar collapse -> Neutron star accretes matter up to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit -> Neutron star collapses to form a black hole. Not that I see how this is relevant to the danger of the LHC

Not only that, but they're only visible for a relatively short phase of their lives, and under relatively special circumstances.

Both of which have been explained to Ubavontuba repeatedly.

Ubavontuba seems to be of the opinion that the 'lack' of neutron stars constitutes proof that dark matter is made of micro black holes and that the micro black holes are stable and that they're capable of consuming a neutron star, in it's entirety, over short time frames.


--------------------
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
rpenner
Posted: Aug 23 2008, 10:10 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5771
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


QUOTE (rpenner @ Jun 29 2008, 12:03 AM)
...
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 28, 2008 -- A Summons is executed with respect to CERN (but no clearly stated authority)
May 30, 2008 -- Scheduling conference between parties.
June 16, 2008 -- Scheduling conference with Judge.
June 17, 2008 -- Deadline for CERN to respond if it is a person
June 20, 2008 -- LSAG publishes "Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions", SPC endorses it. Two others publish: "Astrophysical implications of
hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes"
June 24, 2008 -- Deadline for DOE to respond to complaint. -- They moved to dismiss and moved for summary judgment.
June 30, 2008 -- Wagner/Sancho reveal CERN Summons was served and file for default.
July 1, 2008 -- Court clerk filed entry of default based of Wagner/Sancho request
July 27, 2008 -- Deadline for CERN to respond if it is a governmental agency
August 5, 2008 -- Wagner/Sancho file for permanent injunction versus CERN
August 11, 2008 -- Wagner/Sancho refile with additional signatures
August 13, 2008 -- Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson decide that this is too much fun to pass up and file legal papers
August 13, 2008 -- The Swiss Ambassador points out (rightly to my thinking) that CERN has not yet been legally served -- showing that Sancho and Wagner love wasting money
August 15, 2008 -- Deadline for Wagner and Sancho to respond to DOE motion to dimiss. This deadline was missed. EPIC FAIL.
August 19, 2008 -- Wagner proves he is still alive by filing useless documents opposing having to face the words of Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson. Sancho is nowhere to be seen.
August 22, 2008 -- A document claiming to be the late response, signed again only by Wagner, trickles in to the DOE. But this has not appeared in court and may never be allowed in.
August 22, 2008 -- Deadline for DOE to respond to Wagner and Sancho -- they point out that by not responding, Wagner and Sancho have failed to rebut any of the reasons for the requested dismissal, and as it is unopposed it should be granted, including dismissing the case against CERN.
September 2, 2008 -- Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. A great time to visit Hawaii if you want to see the US Justice System. (Date subject to change, Force Majure, IANAL, etc.)

September 25, 2008 -- Hearing on permanent injunction versus CERN
... 
QUOTE
On June 24, 2008, Federal Defendants United States Department of Energy ("DOE") and the National Science Foundation ("NSF") filed their "Combined Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment," Dkt. No. 14, and supporting materials, see Dkt. Nos. 15-20. On June 25, 2008, this Court set a hearing on Federal Defendants' Motion for September 2, 2008. Dkt. No. 21. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, Plaintiffs' opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion was due on or before August 15, 2008. See L.R. 7.4 ("An opposition to a motion set for hearing shall be served and filed not less than eighteen (18) days prior to the date of hearing."). Although Plaintiffs had almost two months to prepare and file a response to Federal Defendants' Motion, and have been actively filing other materials in this case (see Dkt. Nos. 22-25, 28-34), Plaintiffs failed to file or serve any opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion by their August 15 deadline.

(At the same time that Federal Defendants were preparing to file this reply, the United States Attorneys Office in Hawaii received by U.S. mail a copy of a 27-page brief--purporting to be in opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion--dated August 20, 2008, postmarked August 21, 2008, and signed only by pro se Plaintiff Walter L. Wagner. This brief does not appear on the Court's docket, and to Federal Defendants' knowledge has not been filed. In the event that this brief is filed and appears on the Court's docket in the future, Federal Defendants will respond appropriately. Federal Defendants are unaware, however, of Plaintiffs seeking or obtaining leave from the Court to file its brief out of time.)

Plaintiffs' failure to respond to Federal Defendants' Motion by their August 15 deadline leaves Federal Defendants' arguments that Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed unrebutted. Federal Defendants' Motion demonstrates, among other things, that Plaintiffs' claims should be rejected because Plaintiffs lack standing, Plaintiffs' claims are moot, and Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. These defenses are dispositive of Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) ("Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.") (citations omitted). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12( b )(1), "[o]nce the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction." Savage v. Glendale Union High School, Dist. No. 205, Maricopa County, 343 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989)). By failing to respond to Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a timely manner, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of overcoming the presumption that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims.

Similarly, Plaintiffs' failure to respond in a timely manner to Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs' claims regarding construction of the Large Hadron Collider are barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), dictates that, in the alternative, summary judgment should be granted in favor of Federal Defendants. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(g), Plaintiffs are deemed to have admitted the facts set forth in Federal Defendants' "Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment," Dkt. No. 16. See L.R. 56.1(g) ("For purposes of a motion for summary judgment, material facts set forth in the moving party's concise statement will be deemed admitted unless controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party."). Federal Defendants' uncontroverted facts demonstrate that Plaintiffs' cause of action, if any, accrued more than six years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Therefore, even if the Court had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims, Plaintiffs' claims regarding construction of the Large Hadron Collider are barred by the statute of limitations.

As set forth in Federal Defendants' June 24, 2008 "Combined Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment," Dkt. No. 14, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims, and Plaintiffs' claims regarding construction of the Large Hadron Collider are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs have failed to challenge or rebut any of the arguments in Federal Defendants' Motion in a timely manner. Federal Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court grant Federal Defendants' Motion, dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, and enter a final judgment terminating this litigation.

(Federal Defendants note that Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a default judgment against Defendant CERN, Dkt. Nos. 28-29. Because the Court must ensure it has jurisdiction prior to entering a default judgment, Federal Defendants respectfully suggest that the Court should consider staying briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment until after the Court decides Federal Defendants' Motion, which seeks dismissal of the entire case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.)

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of August 2008.


--------------------
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: Aug 24 2008, 02:02 AM


Grand Puba
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (prometheus @ Aug 23 2008, 09:54 AM)
That quote is relevant because it takes the currently accepted theory that predicts black holes, applies them to the LHC and predicts the LHC will not produce them. What's out of context about that?

  • "In fact, according to the conventional gravitational theory of General Relativity proposed by Einstein, many of whose predictions have subsequently been verified, there is no chance that any black holes could be produced at the LHC, since the conventional gravitational forces between fundamental particles are too weak."

Straw man argument. You're describing a position that only superficially resembles the point in contention.

The point in contention was based on this question: Are you still contending that micro black holes can't be made in the LHC at all?

QUOTE
You have done no such thing. The LSAG report never says black holes are likely, because they are not.

Straw man argument. This is a misrepresentation of my position. You're describing a position that superficially resembles my actual view but is easier to refute, and then you're trying to attribute that position to me.

I never said the LSAG report says black holes are likely. I stated the authors of the LSAG report state the LHC will likely create black holes.

QUOTE
This is irrelevant to the safety of the LHC. The question of whether the LHC will produce black holes does not constitute an argument for the danger of the LHC. One must demonstrate they will accrete matter at a high enough rate to destroy the earth in it's lifetime and that the MBH will not disappear via the Hawking process. I think I can speak for rpenner when I say that he agrees with the LSAG committee on these points, which you have yet to refute.

Sorry. In a case where the physics have the potential to endanger the world, you have to have your top minds assessing the circumstances. Otherwise, it boils down to nothing more than a guess. Therefore your support of the LSAG report, is nothing more than support for a guess ...by people you disagree with on the fundamental physics of the case! Can you say: "House of cards."

QUOTE
Neutron star is created by stellar collapse -> Neutron star accretes matter up to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit -> Neutron star collapses to form a black hole. Not that I see how this is relevant to the danger of the LHC

Where's all this accretion matter coming from?

QUOTE
Stated and provided good evidence for are very different things. I can state that my grandmothers treacle tart is a good candidate for dark matter but that doesn't make it true. According to current theory, black holes are not stable so they can't be dark matter. Prove me wrong.

I've previously provided references on this. Look 'em up.

QUOTE
Firstly, GR is not a "specific case," it's the currently accepted theory of gravity, and secondly, black holes at the LHC are not "improbable," they are impossible.

Says the guy who used gravitons to prove a hypothesis. Prometheus, you're nothing more than a lying buffoon.

QUOTE
rpenner's remarks on Plaga's track record is relevant here. Basically, he seems to like writing controversial papers so much the no one will collaborate with him. You're assertion that "they don't know the properties of the black holes," is wrong. We know a lot about black holes from GR, which is why we know the LHC won't produce them.

Says the guy who used gravitons to prove a hypothesis. Jeez. And here you planned to make me "look wrong." This is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel!

QUOTE
rpenner has been active in this topic since the early pages. I have too and your "contentions," are getting so watered down you'll be asserting that the LHC will be using too much electricity before long.

My contentions are, and have always been, rock steady and consistent.

QUOTE
To repeat these, which you seem to have missed:

Apologize for your numerous lies and stop the practice of using straw man arguments and lying, or we will go no further.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 24 2008, 02:33 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Aug 24 2008, 02:15 AM


Grand Puba
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Trippy @ Aug 23 2008, 10:41 AM)
Not only that, but they're only visible for a relatively short phase of their lives, and under relatively special circumstances.

Both of which have been explained to Ubavontuba repeatedly.

Dude, extrasolar planets aren't visible, and yet they find them readily enough.

QUOTE
Ubavontuba seems to be of the opinion that the 'lack' of neutron stars constitutes proof that dark matter is made of micro black holes and that the micro black holes are stable and that they're capable of consuming a neutron star, in it's entirety, over short time frames.

Straw man argument. This is an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 24 2008, 02:23 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Top
Trippy
Posted: Aug 24 2008, 03:23 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 02:15 PM)
Dude, extrasolar planets aren't visible, and yet they find them readily enough.


Strawman argument.
Appeal to Ignorance.

Extrasolar planets are also extraordinarily difficult to detect.
Extrasolar planets are also only detectable under specific very special circumstances, using very specialized equipment.
We simply expect there to be (in numbers) many more planets then neutron stars in this galaxy.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 02:15 PM)

QUOTE (Trippy @ Aug 23 2008, 10:41 PM)
Ubavontuba seems to be of the opinion that the 'lack' of neutron stars constitutes proof that dark matter is made of micro black holes and that the micro black holes are stable and that they're capable of consuming a neutron star, in it's entirety, over short time frames.
Straw man argument. This is an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position.


Falsehood. You have made each of these claims, and related them to one another. More to the point, you have been doing so since 2005.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Oct 10 2005, 09:45 AM)
RealityCheck,On "wholesale destruction:"  I've used this very argument to suggest that black holes cannot accrue enough mass to be stopped by the Earth.  They would be highly non-reactive at their normally high relative velocities (similar to neutrinos).  It is the man-made slow ones that are of concern, not naturally occurring fast ones.

Perhaps you are right... natural mini black holes do swarm the galaxy (I've suggested them as a possible cause of dark matter).  However, they are so tiny and so fast that they are virtually non-reactive.  They therefore can't accrue mass or change their momentum (except by gravity).

Eric


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Feb 10 2006, 03:23 AM)

QUOTE (Upisoft @  Feb 9 2006, 12:22 PM)

Do you really think that we're able to create energies that aren't normally produced in our Sun? Do you really think that these "ultrahigh energy accelerators" could create black hole? Single particle black hole?
Where are the black holes that our Sun(or any star) produces according your theory. Why our Sun is not destroyed by them


Because they are created with so much relative momentum that they either fly away into the galaxy's central black hole, or to the outer reaches of the galaxy where it's called, "Dark Matter."


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Feb 11 2007, 09:08 PM)

QUOTE (Alphanumeric)
Obviously my explaination went over your head. I didn't imply the breaking of momentum conservation. My entire point was that the increased density of the neutron star means more particles slam into the black hole, slowing it down and capturing it with higher probability. A bullet will go through jelly because the intermolecular bonds aren't strong enough to change the momentum of the bullet. The internal bonds of steel though are. Just like the Earth might not stop a black hole, but a neutron star is much more likely to, precisely considering momentum conservation.

And I agree with this. I've stated many times that the neutron star count seems quite low. I'm just saying that it's not likely to happen at such a rate that we wouldn't see any neutron stars as you would implicate. I'm simply saying that they must be moving relatively slow in regards to the neutron star to be captured.


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Feb 11 2007, 07:04 PM)
And, as I've already pointed out, neutron stars seem to be overwhelmingly outnumbered by ordinary stars.  So, where do all the stars go when they die?  Where are all the neutron stars leftover from the first two generations?  What about all the ones that should have already formed in this generation?  It's hypothesized that many of the enormous gamma-ray bursts are caused by collapsing neutron stars, so why are they collapsing into blackholes?


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Nov 13 2006, 06:30 PM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck @  Nov 11 2006, 09:57 PM)
I would point out that many ULTRA-HIGH-ENERGY 'head on' cosmic ray collisions BETWEEN EQUALLY/UNEQUALLY ENERGETIC cosmic rays would be slightly off-centre so that, while they still introduce sufficient energy-density in the 'event centre' to produce ALLEGED NBH, their ANGULAR MOMENTUM as a result would 'bleed' much LINEAR MOMENTUM; which would ensure 'trapping' and 'interacting' capabilities as per your 'worst' scenario.

I disagree with this as a general principle because matter inhabits such a small proportion of space. The possibility that this happens at just the right place, at just the right time, with the exact properties needed to enable capture, seems quite improbable. It might happen, but I think it'd likely be rare. As I've said before though, we can't know that this isn't a precursor to numerous astronomical events. Perhaps this is the trigger that causes neutron stars to collapse and radiate those amazing gamma-ray bursts.


This post has been edited by Trippy on Aug 24 2008, 03:24 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
Trippy
Posted: Aug 24 2008, 04:08 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (RealityCheck @ Aug 24 2008, 03:32 PM)
.
Hi Trippy, everyone.

Some of those quotes and uba's responses make it sound as if I allow for one moment that Micro Black Holes CAN form AT ALL!

Please, everyone, remember my science-based arguments that lead to the conclusion that NO MICRO BLACK HOLES CAN FORM AT ALL in the first place IN ANY SCENARIO....let alone 'exist' as STABLE features!

I considered scenarios (IF they could form) that served to demonstrate that, and to falsify uba's claims. That's all, hehehe.

Just wanted to make that clear for newbies and occassional surfers-by. Cheers!

RC.

I know, I was just including the relevant parts of the post that Ubavontuba was replying to in an effort to retain context.


--------------------
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: Aug 24 2008, 05:55 AM


Grand Puba
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Trippy @ Aug 24 2008, 03:23 AM)
Strawman argument.
Appeal to Ignorance.

Extrasolar planets are also extraordinarily difficult to detect.
Extrasolar planets are also only detectable under specific very special circumstances, using very specialized equipment.
We simply expect there to be (in numbers) many more planets then neutron stars in this galaxy.

Their visible lifespan is significantly long, that should there be as many claimed, they should be readily detectable. Even after they're no longer visible, they remain detectable in other frequencies.

QUOTE
Falsehood.  You have made each of these claims, and related them to one another.  More to the point, you have been doing so since 2005.

Straw man argument. This is still an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position. I never once claimed these ideas are "proof" of anything. However, they may be indicative.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 24 2008, 06:04 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Top
Trippy
Posted: Aug 24 2008, 06:16 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 05:55 PM)
Their visible lifespan is significantly long, that should there be as many claimed, they should be readily detectable.  Even after they're no longer visible, they remain detectable in other frequencies.


Incorrect. Radiating at any frequency requires special circumstances, either the presence of a binary partner, a source of infalling matter, or a young neutron star - becaus ethe radiation of electromagnetic energy requires the input of some other form of energy.


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 05:55 PM)
Straw man argument.  This is still an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position.  I never once claimed these ideas are "proof" of anything.  However, they may be indicative.


INcorrect,

It would only be a strawman if I had inaccurately represented any of your claims, or attributed claims to you that you had not done.

As the quoted posts prove, I have done neither (thus making your accusation of strawman a falsehood).


--------------------
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: Aug 24 2008, 06:45 AM


Grand Puba
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Trippy @ Aug 24 2008, 06:16 AM)
Incorrect. Radiating at any frequency requires special circumstances, either the presence of a binary partner, a source of infalling matter, or a young neutron star - becaus ethe radiation of electromagnetic energy requires the input of some other form of energy.

Incorrect. This is only applicable to X-ray emitting neutron stars. By themselves, they're normally visible in the radio spectrum.
    Wikipedia:
    A radio-quiet neutron star is a neutron star that does not seem to emit radio emissions like most other neutron stars.

    Most neutron stars are pulsars, and emit radio radiation.
    (bolds added)

QUOTE
INcorrect,

It would only be a strawman if I had inaccurately represented any of your claims, or attributed claims to you that you had not done.

As the quoted posts prove, I have done neither (thus making your accusation of strawman a falsehood).
    Wikipedia
    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).
You deliberately overstated my position.


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Top
Trippy
Posted: Aug 24 2008, 07:20 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 06:45 PM)
You deliberately overstated my position.

This would only be true if you did not state any of the things I said you stated.

As demonstrated by the fact that I can quote you as having made each of those statements, I have not deliberately overstated your position.

Unless you're claiming you didn't make one or more of those posts.


--------------------
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: Aug 24 2008, 08:22 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 06:45 PM)
Incorrect. This is only applicable to X-ray emitting neutron stars. By themselves, they're normally visible in the radio spectrum.
    Wikipedia:
    A radio-quiet neutron star is a neutron star that does not seem to emit radio emissions like most other neutron stars.

    Most neutron stars are pulsars, and emit radio radiation.
    (bolds added)

Right..

So you're countering a peer reviewed article with a wikipedia article that provides no references in this regard?

Nice 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: Aug 24 2008, 07:09 PM


Grand Puba
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (Trippy @ Aug 24 2008, 07:20 AM)
This would only be true if you did not state any of the things I said you stated.

As demonstrated by the fact that I can quote you as having made each of those statements, I have not deliberately overstated your position.

Unless you're claiming you didn't make one or more of those posts.

Once again, this is a straw man argument which overstates my position. You stated:
    QUOTE Trippy @ Aug 23 2008, 10:41 AM
    Ubavontuba seems to be of the opinion that the 'lack' of neutron stars constitutes proof that dark matter is made of micro black holes and that the micro black holes are stable and that they're capable of consuming a neutron star, in it's entirety, over short time frames.
I responded:
    QUOTE ubavontuba @ Aug 24 2008, 05:55 PM
    Straw man argument. This is still an informal fallacy based on a misrepresentation of my position. I never once claimed these ideas are "proof" of anything. However, they may be indicative.
Therefore, your statement is overstating the level of credence I give the pointed observations I've made. It's a straw man argument.


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Top

Topic Options Pages: (148) « First ... 115 116 [117] 118 119 ... Last »

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use