Scientific Forums


Pages: (148) « First ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 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 25 2008, 07:44 AM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Mar 25 2008, 08:33 PM)
Yeah. I tried to warn him off. It makes me sad.

Yeah, because he so totally cuffed you to your chair, held a gun to your head and forced you to reply.


--------------------
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
Moomin
  Posted: Mar 25 2008, 01:23 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 24-March 08

Positive Feedback: 55%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (Trippy @ Mar 25 2008, 07:44 AM)
Yeah, because he so totally cuffed you to your chair, held a gun to your head and forced you to reply.

So why didn't he pull the trigger?


blink.gif


--------------------
Top
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 25 2008, 01:57 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Mar 25 2008, 01:17 AM)
All of which I easily shot down.

Bullsh*t. You NEVER rebutted any of them, you just linked to pages which describe gravity as the curvature of space, to which I responded with the afore-mentioned simple explanation.

QUOTE
Only in the generic sense.

In the generic sense, heat is a force. As is sound. Gravity is a force in the specific sense: The definition of fundamental forces.

QUOTE
Which isn't even a GR claim!

Nor is it DENIED by GR, liar.

QUOTE
I don't recall this.

Of course not. If you remembered all of the valid arguments against your claims, you'd likely have quit posting and gone back to school by now.

QUOTE
Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?

Go read it again, in the last thread we argued in. I'm not going to link to something you already know how to find! It's a fundamental force, period. Both within and without GR. I've shown how it can be both a force and the curvature of space. Unless you think there's some intrinsic reason why matter naturally moves towards areas of high curvature in space. Of course, then you'll have to re-write GR, but then it wouldn't be GR, would it?

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.

More bullsh*t. None of them "backed your assertion" that gravity is not a force in GR. All of them (every single friggan one, dimwit) claimed that gravity is TREATED differently than the other three forces: as the curvature of space.

OH MY GOD!!! I actually understood them!!! Better than you, to boot...

QUOTE
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR!  The correct phrasing is:  It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)

Then why did you claim it's not classical? Do you think there's some hidden message in GR which only you can uncover which quantizes gravity? Or perhaps it's neither classical nor quantized? Maybe it's a new type of force... Is that it?


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

More complete Bullsh*t. Simply claiming you've won an argument doesn't mean you've actually won it. Only a complete m0r0n would think so. (Gasp! another naughty word!) laugh.gif

QUOTE
You have to resort to childish name-calling, baby crap, to even continue!

Well, for that matter, so did RealityCheck, one of the longest-tempered people on this forum! Hell, I dressed him down twice in two different threads and he STILL addresses me civilly. How wrong and dishonest must you have been to set him off so? And why don't you try to show that my argument hinges upon these insults? Or was that just another piece of bullsh*t, flying forth?

QUOTE
See?  You make my case for me!

Recognizing your inherent mental instability proves you right, eh? Quite ironic, really, considering that such a claim actually does more to harm your credibility than help it.
Not to mention your own propensity for insults. Don't even pretend you don't engage in them, or I'll post a list of every single one.


Tell me something, why is it that you have actual physicists, intelligent amateurs, not-so-intelligent amateurs, cranks, and pretty much everybody who knows the first thing about GR on one side, and you (just you) on the other? Why is it that I have a feedback score approaching 100, when yours is approaching -50? Why is my feedback rating over 75% and yours under 50%? I'm offensive. I'm insulting. I'm judgmental, I'm all over this forum (instead of sticking to one or two threads, like you) and I've interacted with just about every member over 600 posts and every newbie in the past several months. I should have far far lower feedback than you, if we were on the same level.
But we're not. I accept mainstream physics and mainstream interpretations of those physics, and I maintain a respectable level of objectivity.

You know, there's an old saying in the south of the US. "If one man calls you a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls you a dog, fight him. But when a third man calls you a dog, buy a flea collar."
RealityCheck is now the third one to have called you a liar, uba.

This post has been edited by BigDumbWeirdo on Mar 25 2008, 02:01 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
Moomin
  Posted: Mar 25 2008, 02:53 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 24-March 08

Positive Feedback: 55%
Feedback Score: 3


Hey BDW, although ubavontuba is clearly deficient in the brain dept and absolutely deserves to be humanely shot through the head, at least he's not as mind-numbingly insane as some real anti LHC idiots like Eric James etc.

smile.gif


--------------------
Top
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 25 2008, 04:01 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


QUOTE (Moomin @ Mar 25 2008, 09:53 AM)
Hey BDW, although ubavontuba is clearly deficient in the brain dept and absolutely deserves to be humanely shot through the head, at least he's not as mind-numbingly insane as some real anti LHC idiots like Eric James etc.

smile.gif

The guy at Fermilabs? I wasn't aware that he'd expressed any... "concerns" over the LHC.
Or do you mean the christian dude on BBC radio?
Regardless, I'm beginning to think uba ranks up there with Kent Hovind and Zecharia Sitchin. And that Ramtha woman, whatever her name is.


--------------------
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
Moomin
  Posted: Mar 25 2008, 04:25 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 24-March 08

Positive Feedback: 55%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo @ Mar 25 2008, 04:01 PM)
The guy at Fermilabs? I wasn't aware that he'd expressed any... "concerns" over the LHC.
Or do you mean the christian dude on BBC radio?
Regardless, I'm beginning to think uba ranks up there with Kent Hovind and Zecharia Sitchin. And that Ramtha woman, whatever her name is.

Outrageous! .... this total ***** is in fact "Eric" - ubavontuba .. so sorry Mr James.

biggrin.gif


--------------------
Top
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 25 2008, 05:11 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


QUOTE (Moomin @ Mar 25 2008, 11:25 AM)
Outrageous! .... this total ***** is in fact "Eric" - ubavontuba .. so sorry Mr James.

biggrin.gif

You must mean the Christian radio guy.
There's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.
Or a comic to entertain the scientists.


--------------------
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
TheDoc
Posted: Mar 25 2008, 06:28 PM


KIDNEYS
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 55.56%
Feedback Score: 128


QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo)
here's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.


Please, don't mention janitors.


--------------------
Member of Forum Mafia
Send PM ·
Top
Trippy
Posted: Mar 25 2008, 06:45 PM


I'm with stupid.
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Mar 25 2008, 06:51 PM)
Rpenner said, there's tens of thousands of atom sized (or larger) black holes, per solar volume, zipping around everywhere? When? I'll have to chastise him for that!

No, he didn't, and neither did I (not that you're in a position to chastise anybody for anything, especially after this goof).

Rpenner's calculation was based on the average density of dark matter in the universe, and your assertion that this dark matter is made up of stable micro black holes.

The paper discusses blackholes with a mass of approximately 10^15g. Many orders of magnitude larger then any blackhole you've maintained is stable and responsible for dark matter.

The atom sized comment, which you've seen fit to take out of context, is in reference to it's event horizon, unless you're going to try and maintain that each molecule of water weighs 2 billion Metric Tons?


--------------------
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
Montec
Posted: Mar 25 2008, 06:55 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 921
Joined: 9-November 05

Positive Feedback: 61.29%
Feedback Score: 19


Hello all

If energy was the sole criteria for the formation of micro black holes then we should be more worried about high intensity pulsed lasers than LHC.

Current pulsed lasers have about 9 joules (if my math is correct) of energy but a 14TeV particle has about 2.24 micro-joules of energy.

Just some more data to make a decision with.

smile.gif



--------------------
Competition is the essence of evolution.
Top
Moomin
  Posted: Mar 25 2008, 07:08 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 24-March 08

Positive Feedback: 55%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (TheDoc @ Mar 25 2008, 06:28 PM)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo)
here's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.


Please, don't mention janitors.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


--------------------
Top
rpenner
Posted: Mar 26 2008, 02:12 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5710
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


Anti-science forces have replaced facts and logical arguments in risk analysis with ignorance, and Pascal's wager.

Actual (simplified) risk assessment for known independent failure scenarios, indexed by i. Each failure scenario has a known cost, c_i, and a known chance of occurring, p_i. When all failure scenarios are equivalent, then the cost can be factored out. The total risk is then the sum of the products of all the known costs and known chances of failure.
Risk = Σ c_i × p_i

Risk assessment is then followed by risk management, where a decision is made. All human endeavors are risky, and so decisions have to be made among these choices:
  • Risk Avoidance -- don't do the risky endeavor at all, do something else -- which is of course risky
  • Risk Reduction -- change the way you do the risky endeavor
  • Risk Retention -- learn to live with risk
  • Risk Transfer -- buying insurance so that there is a backup
The anti-science forces have failed, by all accounts, to demonstrate a non-zero probability of disaster. Anti-science forces have failed for years to demonstrate even how a disaster that kills more than 10 people in Europe is even physically possible using hypothetical laws of physics. LHC has, of course, thousands of mundane risks cataloged and planned for.

But whenever the anti-science forces' fears are mooted by the survival of humanity past goal after goal, they just shift the goalposts. Walter Wagner tried to stop Bevatron, failed; tried to stop Tevatron, failed; tried to stop LHC, and hasn't even gotten as far as with the US colliders. ubavontuba, arguably, hasn't even lived up to that standard.

But anti-science forces are afraid because they don't know. They are apparently also afraid to say they don't know. Years have gone by these forces predicting demise and not convincing even one expert in the field. It is by embracing ignorance, they are forever incapable of bringing actual facts to the table.

Pascal, in a weak contribution to the already weak field of theology, proposed Pascal's wager, a game theory matrix based on a dichotomy of unknown metaphysics with an alleged infinite payoff. But the dichotomy is a false dichotomy, and the payoff matrix is entirely hypothetical. Other weaknesses remain, such as if the Christian God is the one and only God who rewards belief in God, would He reward professions of faith based on incompetent mathematical hucksterism? The inability of anti-science forces to enumerate specific risk scenarios with specific probabilities and costs, renders the whole attempt to manage the risk as moot.

Specifically, just as Pascal assumed one particular form of the Christian God and His motives and intentions, and ignored the fact that his argument was symmetrical with respect to an anti-Christian God, so the anti-science forces ignore the risk of not advancing science. Ironically, we can put an absolute dollar lower bound on that -- the LHC construction budget over years, and the probability of not advancing science if we don't use the LHC is 1. But that's just a lower bound. If the LHC can't be used to do cutting-edge physics, much of the capital costs of the LHC tunnel (which preceded the LHC) would be wasted. The new technologies that went into the LHC won't see their promise fulfilled and the man-hours that went into them will be at least partially wasted.

(Building a LHC in space would be many times more expensive, and might actually kill off the planet by mundane greenhouse effect, poisoning and falling debris.)

And finally, what if the LHC were to reveal something important to the survival of the species? Whether sadistic alien overlords/game show hosts who give Earth once chance to answer a physics question or die, the secret to FTL colonization of the universe, or the secret of good government could all conceivably be learned at LHC. By the arguments of the anti-science forces (who use the same weakness as Pascal) we can't afford not to try find out when stakes are (hypothetically) so high!

That's why unknown risks and unknown probabilities have no place in risk management and that is why the anti-science forces have repeated Pascal's error of arguing positively for a goal based on ignorance.

For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management

This post has been edited by rpenner on Mar 26 2008, 02:12 AM


--------------------
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
Kles
Posted: Mar 26 2008, 02:13 PM


Newbie
*

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

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 9


Hi there,

I'm a layperson in physics with a slight worrying/OCD problem, so naturally the concept of a massive machine destroying the planet sits unpleasantly with me. However, after reading most of these threads, I have to say that only the emotional side of me has any worry now; the intellectual side of me just wants May to get here to put my emotional side at ease.

ubavontuba's arguments are just absurd; never once have I seen him drop so much as a single equation, he seems to nitpick every argument for even the slightest flaw (and if by chance he finds it, he takes it that every single argument against his unsubstantiated points to be false). He seems to have pissed off even the most calm of people.

You know, as a person who likes to look at "paranormal" stuff, I see a lot of total crap and stories that are very obviously not from "paranormal" sources. However, if you study deeply, you'll find some things that are harder to explain away "naturally." However, it all tends to be grouped as "pseudo-science" and, because of that, it's a term I don't like to use in many situations since I think it's unfair.

However, you, sir, are a pseudo-scientist. If you have a legitimate physical claim that you can back up using mathematical equations, go formulate it and submit it to a physical journal or five. Yes, I know, "mainstream scientists" tend to be dogmatic about things that don't fall in to what they believe, but physicists WILL accept a physics paper AS LONG as it's sound. If you have a legitimate claim that can be mathematically verified, you will AT LEAST get the time of day. If you have no math and just physics "buzzwords," then just stop scaremongering. It's very frustrating.

Again, the emotional side of me doesn't want this project to go, even though the risk is basically infinitesimal. I know they're not just going to flip the switch and go to full power, but they're slowly going to power it up and immediately shut down the project if even the slightest problem is detected. I know the thing is probably complete and is being tested right now (part of me wishes the magnet error never occurred so that the real experiment would have been going months ago), and we're still here. I know that the cosmic ray argument is still pretty strong and despite constantly being told that "it has been falsified," I've yet to see the falsification (I've seen a paper on potential loopholes).

Let me just lay something down for you that is my understanding:

Perhaps simply hearing of the potential of "black hole" disturbs you, despite the fact that:
1) the chance of it being created is already extremely low
2) even if it were created, Hawking Radiation (which, while directly not being proven, is tied to other concepts that HAVE been proven) would have to completely fail
3) even if HR did fail, the chance of these incredibly tiny black holes NOT leaving the atmosphere is also extremely low
4) the chance of these tiny black holes being able to "eat" more than almost nothing at all for millions of years

So here are four concepts in physics that are almost certain, that would all have to catastrophically and completely be wrong for it to pose any threat with black holes (strangelets, even less likely).

ubavontuba, for crying out loud, please stop. You are not even wrong. You almost seem to have a strong desire for this thing to pop the planet. I don't know if you'd just be so humiliated to admit that you're wrong, or if you genuinely believe you're right or not, but the fact that two years of being pounded on shows that intellectual reasoning will not work with you. You seem to have a major emotional/ego stake in being right about this, and just won't stop. Just drop it already!

This post has been edited by Kles on Mar 26 2008, 02:25 PM
Top
Kles
Posted: Mar 26 2008, 04:46 PM


Newbie
*

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

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 9


Actually, re-reading a bit, I've realized that ubavontuba won't listen to a damn thing I just said. I've found in online debates, when two sides argue, accusations of the others being liars are usually far too soon - it's usually just a misunderstanding of the situation.

Not here. I'm fairly convinced that uba is wilfully deceiving, distorting and misrepresenting to an almost staggering level. I won't go to the level and suggest that uba has brain damage (as he has not demonstrated that to me) but I will seriously suggest that uba is a psychopath. I'm not joking. From the Wikipedia entry; factor1:

Factor1: Aggressive narcissism

1. Glibness / superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning / manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Shallow
7. Callous / lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
9. Promiscuous sexual behavior

To me, uba has demonstrated all of these things (except for 9. which, quite obviously, we cannot know within this debate). There's another "factor" that lists other social things which are not brought out in the debate but could very well be true as well.

I'm not suggesting this to be a jerk; I'm suggesting this because you show a lot of signs of having some sort of psychological ailment (if not psychopathy/sociopathy) that goes beyond the scope of this debate. Please, go and get help.

(As an off-topic add-on, how come I can't edit my previous post? I really don't like to double post. laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Kles on Mar 26 2008, 05:05 PM
Top
Henry Clerval
Posted: Mar 26 2008, 05:18 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 8-March 08

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 5


QUOTE
That's why unknown risks and unknown probabilities have no place in risk management and that is why the anti-science forces have repeated Pascal's error of arguing positively for a goal based on ignorance.


Exactly.

A good example of the category of known risk here I found elsewhere on discussions related to this subject was walking a tightrope with 10 safety nets below. Yes you could still get hurt.

The unknown risk would be getting eaten by an escaped tiger when you land on the safety net.

Guess which one you would not find measured on my risk assessment?

The type of scaremongering on here carries a much more foreseeable danger than the LHC currently appears to.

mad.gif




Top

Topic Options Pages: (148) « First ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use