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

This is the epitome of bad science! In science, it's never okay to be so blatantly prejudiced.

You're mistaking a fancy for a fact!

Rest mass is invariant. It's always been considered invariant.

Relativistic mass is nothing more than an examination of the kinetic energy from a different point of view. The only thing I'm doing mathematically that you're not is assigning a mass value to the kinetic energy. Why is this so difficult for you? Are you saying the kinetic energy can't vary mathematically?

Why didn't you answer the question? Avoidance, much?

Besides, I too noticed inconsistencies. The CERN safety analysis is inconsistent with theory.

"Fools act on imagination without knowledge, pedants act on knowledge without imagination." -Alfred N. Whitehead

You are a pedant ("A pedant is a person who is overly concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of learning." -Wikipedia).

Not according to him it wasn't:

"A new idea comes suddenly and in a rather intuitive way. That means it is not reached by conscious logical conclusions. But, thinking it through afterwards, you can always discover the reasons which have led you unconsciously to your guess and you will find a logical way to justify it. Intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience." -A. Einstein

Which is the problem I've been talking about! Be consistent. Choose a reference frame and describe what happens relevant to that reference frame only!

You're squirming. It would do a lot for your integrity if you would simply admit that you were wrong.

Mass and energy are synonymous! Didn't you understand the part where I talked about figuring it out on my toes? It's nothing more than another way to look at the kinetic energy.

They don't have rest mass. They have relativistic mass. It's not the same thing. It's just another way of considering the energy and its mass-like effects (like its momentum).

I doubt that. If you understood it as well as you claim, why weren't the inconsistencies in the LHC safety analysis readily apparent to you?

I never claimed that. My claim is it's not intuitive enough for people to recognize their own mistakes.

(By "my," I'm presuming you meant my own reply, and not yours) No. It's still bad, just not as bad as I inferred from your reply.

Thanks. If needed, I shall.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 16 2008, 08:00 AM

Alphanumeric: This thread ceartainly has more then its fair share of testiculation, and it's all from the same corner.

You first (not that I think Prometheus is wrong mind you).

This isn't even an argument. What's your point?

Actually, in a sense it is an argument.

It's a general comparison of the quality of your arguments to the quality of many arguments on the forum.

The specific paragraph(s) that I quoted are typical of a certain class of poster, they all pull out the "You would have called Einstein a crank" or "Gallileo was persecuted to" or "You're too narrow-minded too consider my argument".

Congratulations, you managed to pull two of them out in one paragraph. Want to try for the Trifecta?

Where is the documentation of these alleged inconsistencies, Eric? When I wanted to demonstrate that O.E. Rössler was wasting everyone's time with his misunderstanding of physics, I linked to the pre-print and cited just a sample of factual claims and math that simply could not pass review. There is plenty of evidence that Rössler doesn't use or understand GR and worse, confuses terms and numbers between GR and XLD quantum gravity, and worse still, confuses cross-section with radius. He cites source material but doesn't understand it. And he commits a foul -- he seeks a non-critical forum in which to publish.

http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/...NIBLACKHOLE.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106295
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=335002

Please stop boring us with your vague and unsubstantiated claims. The stop-the-LHC nutcases are becoming increasingly irrelevant as time marches on.
Sancho and Wagner filed their untimely lawsuit and didn't make progress. The would-be-saviors have committed the bonehead error of not even serving the court papers on the National Science Foundation or CERN. They will chat via telephone on June 16 and all of this will go away by June 24, the earliest that the DOE can be compelled to respond.

There are self-taught prisoners who know the Federal courts more competently than these two.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hid.../case_id-78717/ (Pacer subscription and fee required)

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

Kung-fu Super Agent Luis Sancho has been dispatched to the field?

Sancho did not sign this document. Trouble in paradise!?
(Since then, Brian C. Toth has traded this case to another attorney, so don't bother him.)

Is it because they exist only in head due to your failure to comphrehend physics? As such they would be too nebulous to actually describe these alleged inconsistencies because at the detailed explaination they fall apart like cobwebs.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 16 2008, 05:47 PM

rpenner; are you seriously suggesting uba's simply a brainless deranged fool wobbling on the shoulders of boneheaded midgits?

If so, I totally concur.

You call it prejudice. I've shown that my position is consistent.

I've proved what I'm saying with mathematics. It's certainly not "fancy."

It's an inconsistent viewpoint. You can't consistently call energy mass. Kinetic energy can increase (obv.). Mass cannot.

There was no question. Go and look if you don't believe me.

As rpenner says, lets have a chapter and verse quote from published work please.

I don't claim to be a genius, but I do understand what I'm talking about here.

Relativity is a very mathematical theory. You simply cannot get an understanding for it if you don't understand the maths.

I've got a good example of this: Think of a cone, like an ice cream cornet. Would you say that the surface of the cone is curved?

It's not, If you calculate the curvature of a cone you'll find it is flat apart from the tip which is singular. This is a case where intuition fails. There is no other option but to resort to the mathematics.

I'm losing track of your position. You said before that nothing can be at rest. Now you are claiming I am being inconsistent?! What's it to be? Can a particle be at rest or not?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

No they aren't. This is at the heart of your misunderstanding of relativity. Photons have energy but no mass. The must have m = 0 otherwise they would not travel at c. mass is a form of energy, but energy is not a form of mass in general.

Not a logically consistent way, as I've shown.

Photons don't have any sort of mass. Massive particles cannot move at the speed of light so photons must have zero mass. You don't have this problem with the statement "Photons have energy."

Still waiting for chapter and verse on that.

Errors are found by checking the maths. Do you think people looked at Maxwell's prediction that light traveled at c and had the imagination to say that time slows down the faster you go? The results of relativity had largely been derived by Lorentz and others before Einstein came along. His genius was to take Lorentz's work and interpret it physically.

You called my explanation of the lack of rest frame for the photon "inexcusably bad" previously and now you apparently agree with me. I'll repeat: Your credibility would increase vastly if you'd admit you're wrong when you are wrong.

Not to belittle you, but I suspect you will. We haven't even gotten onto the topics relevant to the LHC, QFT and GR and as far as I'm concerned you're showing no more ability than a first year undergraduate. To put that in context, one of the members of staff in the department where I work teaches a class on QFT in curved space that is targeted at first and second year postgraduates. The thesis on Hawking radiation was written as my final year project for my undergraduate degree. I suspect that you'll have trouble with it unless you've taken classes on quantum mechanics and GR at the very least.

What does that have to do with anything I've said?

It seems apparent you still just hit upon and match from keywords. Obviously your programmers still can't make you actually understand the context. So much for artificial intelligence...

So? Again, relevance?

Which is relevant because...?

Again, what's the relevance?

You obviously have no idea which error(s) I'm discussing!

How much money have you?

So? How's that relevant?

Which is relevant to the discussion, how?

By your logic... wait... you don't have any logic! Worse, you can't follow a conversation!

What "conspiracy" are you talking about? Are you really so stupid that you think I was seriously stating there's a conspiracy? Give me a break!

And you're really a mindless chatbot.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 17 2008, 03:37 AM

Get real. You guys are the one's who're always arguing the terminology instead of the content.

And the mindless arguing continues.

*Grabs popcorn.*

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

Which is relevant to my own arguments how?

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

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

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

We'll see.

Which is relevant because...?

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

It's not my statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha! (incredulity)

So now you'd call Einstein a liar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You'd call Einstein a liar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not my statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you really this vacant?

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

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

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

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

Which is relevant to me because...?

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

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

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

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

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