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

You claimed that the CERN physicists are deliberately ignoring errors in QFT. I pointed out that the models they work on are freely available and that huge numbers of people learn about them every year.

You said that physicist are 'discouraged' from addressing these issues. So you imply a conspiracy within the community. You must assume I'm in on it then. You must also assume that conferences and talks about analysing experiments to find deviations from the Standard Model are just to maintain this conspiracy.

I'm explaining why your claims reduce to paranoid delusions.

I thought you didn't like it when people just posted insults. And yet you aren't above it yourself. Your entire post is nothing but "So what?". You don't address anything I actually said. Are you struggling to be able to think about it and give a coherent response.

Besides, I've proven I can engage in relevent discussion. And if you want proof I'm a physicist : This is me.

Yet whenever someone debunks your claims with detailed evidence, like Rpenner just did, all you can do is ignore it. Why aren't you able to stand up to such posts and givew a detailed explaination and derivation of your claims? It would seem you can't explain your errors in a way which isn't trivially falsified.

And you continue to lie. How many times have you said that and how many times have people said "No, we haven't". Your main point is that CERN will be a real threat to the Earth. Noone agrees with you.

And yet you continue to tell us we said we agree with you. Are you a compulsive liar? You must be to try to tell us that we agreed with you but continue to disagree with you in every post we make.

It's funny you say we cannot keep ontopic when you accuss me of being a chat bot and Rpenner of being someone else using the same account.

Your hypocrisy is pathetic.

I proved nothing to support any of your arguments.

It's already been pointed out to you that the 2003 publication does not consider the scenario of the earth capturing a cosmic ray blackhole, therefore your objections are irrelevant - your objecting to a point that was never raised.

You've objected to the idea of micro blackholes with thermalized velocities, even though more then one method for such to happen has been illustrated for you.

There's been papers linked for you that discuss methods by which microscopic blackholes might be captured by the earth, Jupiter, or the sun.

It's been shown to you that even though collisions between cosmic ray particles might be rare, with the frequency that they hit the earth, that collisions resulting in products stationary (or nearly so) in the earths frame should occur relatively regularly.

It's been shown that even if worst comes to worst, should a blackhole fall to the earths core, that even with the pressures and densities encountered, that it would take billions of years for such a blackhole to simply double its weight.

Calling on me to back up your arguments is cretinous at best, and completely dishonest.

In short? Back up your own arguments you lying little creep.

Stop testiculating, and put your money were your mouth is.

For what its worth, I can verify that this is Alphanumeric - having inadvertantly stumbled across his identity in my bumblings across the net.

You search for difficult decisions of simple problems, therefore you else are not true scientist.

I've shown my position with mathematics. That is the way physicists work.

The argument goes like this: I state the important property of relativistic mass for the argument, namely that it varies. Then I show a Lorentz scalar cannot vary. Then I show mass is a Lorentz scalar and hence relativistic mass cannot be a mass. All rigorously with mathematics. Anyone who wants to see this can PM me with an email address and I'll send it to them.

I'm going to ignore the fact that this argument is incredibly disingenuous and stare straight ahead. By calling it mass you are assuming that relativistic mass has properties of mass. It doesn't. Photons have relativistic mass but if they had mass they could not travel at c, so it's clear that relativistic mass is not mass. It's a misnomer .

The rest energy of something is mc^2 where m is the invariant mass. Yes, you are right on this.

I have no idea why "my logic" states this. I can only assume you made it up. Kinetic energy is energy, because it behaves like energy.

If you want to confuse yourself even more than you are already, go right ahead.

There's no question. You are just trying to be smart.

Quite clearly rhetorical. I would have asked him is his work consistent.

Rhetorical

I didn't ask for a proof. I asked for a citation.

Einstein is not the only physicist you know. He was completely wrong about quantum mechanics and other things probably. On this subject, no is the answer to your question though.

No. A cone is flat. Your intuition fails.

Think of how you make a cone. You get a flat piece of paper and cut a section out of it so that the angle about the point is less than 2 Pi. This is a conical singularity. The rest of the surface is completely flat. There are no effects of curvature because it's not curved.

Maths is the only way to describe a great number of effects in physics. Relativity has some of them. Remember we haven't even touched on GR, which is an incredibly formal piece of mathematics based on work by Riemann and Ricci amongst others. Yo can't understand GR without understanding differential geometry.

We aren't talking about quantum mechanics. We've been talking for the last 5 pages at leat about classical special relativity which doesn't contain the uncertainty principle. You have shown for the nth time that you don't understand what you're talking about.

And I believe I showed you why I was not wrong. You haven't seemed to grasp that the best way to argue is to prove the other person wrong. It just seems to get more and more personal from you.

As I stated above, relativistic mass is a misnomer, because it doesn't behave like mass. You can call it whatever you like but it's misleading to say the least.

I'm beginning to wonder why I bother. Relativistic mass is not mass because it doesn't have the correct properties.

You clearly don't know about relativity.

Citation please. Published work is the best.

I rather doubt it. I'd certainly question the context of your quote.

You're coming across as a throughly ridiculous person. You have show you can't argue on science so it descends into a pointless debate about semantics and who said what. Talk to me about physics!

I understand relativity, both special and general. I'm doing cutting edge research in a top UK university which you can't do if you are just a pedant. What are your credentials?

The results of the June 16 scheduling conference are over. In a seven-minute conference where Wagner and Sancho literally "phoned it in" Trial is scheduled for June 16, 2009.

Timeline (future dates subject to change by order and/or stipulation):

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 30, 2008 -- Scheduling conference between parties.
June 16, 2008 -- Scheduling conference with Judge.
June 24, 2008 -- Deadline for DOE to respond to complaint.
November 14, 2008 -- Deadline to File motions to Join/Add Parties/Amend Pleadings (Plaintiff advised the court that they will amend the complaint and request for a Jury Trial. Mr. Watson stated that he will oppose both.)
January 14, 2009 -- Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
December 15, 2009 -- Deadline for Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosures
January 14, 2009 -- Deadline for Defendant’s Expert Witness Disclosures
February 23, 2009 -- Deadline for Settlement Conference statements
March 2, 2009 -- Settlement Conference before KSC
March 18, 2009 -- Deadline to File other Non-Dispositive Motions
April 17, 2009 -- Discovery deadline
April 28, 2009 -- Deadline for Final Pretrial Statement
May 5, 2009 -- Final Pretrial Conference before KSC
May 19, 2009 -- Deadline to Exchange Exhibit and Demonstrative aids
May 26, 2009 --

• Deadline to File Motions in Limine
• Deadline to File Final witness list
• Deadline for Stipulations re: Authenticity/Admissibility of Proposed Exhibits
• Deadline to File Deposition Excerpt Designations

June 2, 2009 --

• Deadline to File opposition memo to a Motion in Limine
• Deadline to File objections to the Exhibits
• Deadline to File Deposition Counter Designations and Objections
• Deadline to File Trial Brief
• Deadline to File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law

June 5, 2009 -- Final Pretrial Conference before District Judge Helen Gillmor
June 16, 2009 -- Non-jury trial on June 16, 2009 before HG

The scheduling order follows with an explicit spelling out of the most likely stumbling blocks to these plaintiffs:

When did I state that?

Then why have they made such obvious errors (that even you corroborated).

I said CERN scientists were ordered not to publicize their opinions, nothing more.

No. I state, CERN scientists were ordered not to publicize their opinions.

I only suspect you're a chatbot. I don't think you have an ability to conspire.

How'd you get there?

You've already corroborated my main contention, yourself!

Nothing you said was relevant, or coherent.

Ha! (incredulity)

That's not proof of anything. Do you even know what it means to say, "proof?"

How stupid are you? Rpenner wasn't talking about my claims! Rpenner was going on and on about other people!

You corroborated them yourself, numerous times! So did rpenner.

Lots of times. I've repeatedly linked back to them. How can you be so forgetful?

See? Proof you can't retain the content and context of the conversation. This isn't my main point at all. Let's see you guess again.

That's not true.

Actually, I've shown time and time again that you've lied everytime you've made a statement like this. Would you like to place a wager on it?

These are the hypotheses which best fit the observations.

Ha! (incredulity)

How stupid are you? This isn't even the point.

No, you're raising an irrelevant point I never objected to.

Ha! (incredulity)

Again, ha! (more incredulity)

Strike three!

Trippy, give it a rest. You've also lost the content and context of the conversation. Only, I don't think it's because you're a chatbot or a different user. I think the reason is much more fundamental.

What better strategy is there than to use your adversaries to win the battle for you?

But you worked so hard and for so long on the problem. Don't you want your efforts to be recognized?

Now that's a meaningless statement, if ever there was one. Exactly what are you trying to say?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 18 2008, 02:26 AM

Chatbots have to appear to have an identity. It's called a back story.

AlphaNumeric's been so consistently inconsistent, I'd have to see him typing on the keyboard with my own eyes (for an extended period of time) for me to believe he's a real person.

Well said! ...okay, not so well said ...but rather, hear, hear! (hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!")

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 18 2008, 02:44 AM

In what way are ubavontuba and/or dimazin worthy judges of who is or isn't a "true scientist?"

dimazin rejects physics observations and experiments from 1620 on as well as the first chapters of every high school physics textbook, and ubavontuba operates in a world without evidentiary support. Neither is capable of sustained logical or mathematical development of a subject, and neither is experienced in comparing theory to experiment.

When we seek evidentiary support, ubavontuba acts like he's offended to disguise the fact that we've caught him lying in public. We've been waiting since March 2006 for ubavontuba to talk physics rather than just his fears. Instead of getting smarter, he gets angrier, which is non-productive.

I wish you would remind us by quoting where you made this physics argument and linking to where either AlphaNumeric or I "conceded" to it. I simply have no recall of such an event.

Yes, I do. I said that even if you assume that these are producing black holes at a rate of one per second, less than 20 per year would be at less than escape velocity. Further, an unstable object can't be called "captured" if it decays in less than 1/2 orbit.
I don't know how misquoting me is supposed to convince me.

I brought facts. Some, you agreed with. Are you not "an expert in the field?"

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 know no such thing. For one, you don't name or point to the argument or the falsification. The claim you make refers to subjects which exist only in your head, so it is unclear to the rest of us.

Like the question of a mechanism where even 50 billion hypothetically stable 2 TeV black holes might pose a risk to real estate values?

Which proves that either

• you don't think its likely that LHC poses a danger to the world, or
• you now believe what we told you two years ago that no one on this board has anything to do with LHC planning, or
• you have a very wacked sense of what constitutes a proper use of your time and resources.

I don't believe I said that, anywhere.
I don't believe anyone will think I said that unless you link to it.

If it is frame-dependent, then it is not inherent.

Which safety analysis? Where is it? What theory do you mean? Where is this demonstration of inconsistency?

No you haven't, and what's this got to do with you stating prejudice was okay?

You still don't get it. Relativistic mass and mass aren't the same thing.

What? You haven't heard of momentum? Come on! Get real already.

And relativistic mass has mass-like properties.

What? Is this too complicated for you?

There were two perfectly valid questions. I even included the question marks and everything. Avoiding them is not answering them. It actually implicates you.

Consistent with what?

Sure, It's rhetorical, but it's still a valid question for consideration. What makes you think it's okay to have this attitude now, but not then?

Still, a valid and relevant consideration. Where would we be if people like you had won the day?

Proof isn't as good as a citation? Are you really a scientist?

But you are accusing Einstein of lying (by implication).

You're an idiot. It's only flat in the context of the two-dimensional surface of the paper relative to the singularity (like I said, lines that pass thought the apex). It's curved into three dimensions (actually, this is a fair representation of Einstein's space-time curvature). If it wasn't curved, light wouldn't scatter upon being reflected from the surface (supposing it's perfect).

Here's an experiment for you: Place your cone on the floor. Now, step on it. Did it change? If so, it's not flat (in the higher dimensional sense).

You're so lost in the math, you think it's more real than reality! That's funny!

Now class, let's make a loop with only one side! Ha! Ha! Ha!

The cone example already touches on GR (as I indicated, above).

Bullocks that. You wanted me to say yes and then you would've used the uncertainty principle against me. Otherwise you'd have used the term mass, rather than particle.

We've been talking about the term relativistic mass, which has nothing to do with mass (or particles) being at rest.

I showed you dozens of examples of professional physicists recently using the term relativistic mass, and yet you refused to acknowledge the fact of it. You also refused to acknowledge the obvious implication: Using the term doesn't mean someone doesn't know physics.

In short, I repeatedly proved you wrong. You're just too dense to know it.

It does behave like mass. You've just demonstrated my case! This is why physicists missed the implications of the cosmic ray's momentum in regards to black hole formation!

It's as real as potential energy is real. Both have to interact with something to become apparent.

A humorous examination: We're on an asteroid, hurtling toward another. Quick! Plug your lamp into the asteroid to extract the KE potential!

Wait! Another asteroid just bumped our intended target out of our path! Crap it! The lights went out!

You clearly don't understand even simple concepts.

So you're admitting you lied?

Then look it up.

I've asked you repeatedly to drop the horse crap. It's you that initiates and sustains it.

You're once again demonstrating you're a pedant (intellectual snob)! Can't you just discuss the science?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 18 2008, 04:38 AM

CERN physicists, you claim, are ordered to not publish their results. Therefore someone in the physics community is deliberately ignoring errors in their work.

You are bending the truth. I corroberated that their explaination needed elaboration. I didn't not corroberate that they were wrong about the safety of the LHC.

Then there exists a conspiracy to supress the truth in the physics community.

Or what do you call a secret argreement to hide the truth?

If we're ordered to not publish our results about the 'truth', why do we bother having conferences about the opposite of 'the truth'?

That's a lie. Where did I say "The LHC is a danger"? Go on, link to the post.

You claim I'm a chatbot. I link to my personal website. Proof I'm a real person, or do you think chatbots are PhD students and are paid to teach quantum mechanics to undergrads?

Do you understand what 'proof' is? How is that not proof I'm not a chatbot?

It's funny that you think you're somehow rising above simple name calling and irrationality.

I've already challenged you to get your work published. Why did you ignore that wager?

Come on, link to a post. You keep saying "I've done it time and time again" but you haven't. You simply have stated time and again you've done it. But where's the link? Where's the post?

Liar, are you saying you never claimed that the conservation of momentum meant that any collision products would be travelling too fast to be captured by the earth, thus invalidating CERN's cosmic ray argument?

More testiculation. You have yet to disprove this claim. You have yet to do more then say "you're wrong"

More testiculation. You have yet to disprove this claim. You have yet to do more then say "you're wrong"

More testiculation. You have yet to disprove this claim. You have yet to do more then say "you're wrong"

Liar. See above.

I reiterate. Backup your own arguments with your own posts, and your own work you lying cretin.

Because you do not understand it, does not render it meaningless.

For your illumination, seeing as how you're obviously too thick to figure it out for yourself.

Testiculation

Note the first entry.

A definition which quite accurately sums up your posts and behaviour on this thread so far.

A true scientist knows that science is about discovery and truth, not popular opinion.

Baloney! I've provided more evidence in the form of authoritative references than everyone else, combined.

You're the one that's incapable of sustaining a coherent and logical argument.

You're the one (actually I think it was a male rpenner user) that didn't realize how stupid your "black hole as massive as a mountain" argument was.

What? You can't read? I've provided more evidentiary support than anyone else. All you do is play these insipid word games like you're doing here. Grow up.

Are you an idiot? Didn't you see where I stated to prometheus that my purpose here was to express my concerns about the LHC?

Besides, I've talked way more physics than you.

Ha! (incredulity).

I wish you and AlphaNumeric would retain the content and context of the conversation.

If I present an example again, will you remember it into the future?

How is stating they might be captured a misquote? It's not a quote, it's a reiteration. My only point was that capture was likely. You essentially agreed. I never expressed a number, except in response to yours.

Oh brother! I'm not going to be your memory.

Q: How many rpenner users does it take to change a light bulb?

A: They can't remember!

That's funny. You and AlphaNumeric consistently corroborated my contentions. I'd be glad to prove it, if you made it worth my while.

Why don't you explain why you refused to back up Trippy's collision model?

I've already explained a possible mechanism.

Wow. Could you have taken that farther out of context?

Oh please. We've already been here and I've already done that.

Don't be stupid. It's a general statement based on practical application. Did you miss the word: "normally?"

There's two main analysis. One on the RHIC from 1999 and one on the LHC from 2003.

This is a public page: link 1

This is the RHIC paper: link 2

This is the LHC paper: link 3

Bookmark them so I don't have to do this again.

Special relativity, mostly.

Trippy proved it (with the help of ThePeanut). Remember? It's at the end of the part where you refused to support his contentions.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 18 2008, 06:56 AM