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

:ROTFLMGDAO:

This is just too funny - I've simply restated what Prometheus stated to, and i've demonstrated it mathmatically, and you pull out this gem?

Comedy genius.

Don't be an idiot, they're an analog, to demonstrate a point - saying that we weren't talking about tomatoes at the time is nothing more then a distraction.

And yet you've provided nothing better.

That's rich, coming from you.

What part of 'within a few miliradians of head on' do you have trouble understanding? Don't believe me? Do the maths yourself.

Sin(Theta)=6,500/(0.999999X3*10^8)

It's that simple. Highschool Trig.

No U!

Yes, we are. I made it clear, right from the start that I was discussing two cosmic rays colliding in the earths upper atmosphere. This is pure dishonesty and obfuscation from you.

Ubavontuba, Consistency be thy name.

First you argue that it can't happen, that it has not happened, and then you suggest it could be responsible for teh formation of teh asteroids. First you state that my assertion that you think that stable microblack holes pose a significant risk over life spans less than the expected lifespan of the sun, then you go and pull out this Gem?

Ditto.

Uh, yeah.

Hardly.

In order to better keep the conversation accessible to the general audience.

I vote in every single election ...even the small, local ones.

I started this thread to publicly express my concerns. I didn't start the thread to prove I'm a mathematician.

I've always maintained it's the physicist's duty to prove the LHC is safe, not mine to prove it's dangerous. If it's so easy for me to poke holes in your/their contentions with just a few verbal barbs, then what does that say for the strengths of your/their arguments?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 21 2008, 10:01 PM

All these are gravitational resonance orbit 'traps' for 'debris' that was around when the solar system 'coalesced/formed' and interacted/impacted and 'aggregated' into what we see now. The remaining 'debris' is 'trapped' (with occasional pertubative escapees) within these resonance orbits between The sun/inner planets and Jupiter/outer planets orbital 'dance'.

Or are you saying that the Oort Cloud of cometary debris is also likewise the result of your imaginary MICRO bh's.

And anyway, such imaginary Micro bh's would merely create 'bigger' MICRO bh's, not 'explode' a planet/body into asteroids/comets pieces.

Obviously, it is just pure speculation on your part, without even considering what would happen IF Micro bh's were possible (which they aren't, of course....since they are IMAGINARY no matter HOW one looks at it scientifically/logically).

.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Sep 21 2008, 09:54 PM

No it's you being clueless.

You used the wrong equation.
And you thought the complaint had to do with the form of the equation.
But it had to do with the incompleteness of the equation you used.

You did not understand Prometheus's objection.

Hooray, more honesty.

Prove it.

So you say.

Irrelevant - I raised it as an analogy of your behaviour, not as a claim that you indulged in this behaviour.

And yet you reject every argument that might assuage your fears out of hand. Why is that? Do you enjoy being afraid? Or Miserable?

This is like me telling you that it's your duty to prove that you're not a child molestor.
The possibility exists, the possibility exists that you're lying when you deny it. Therefore, unless you can prove it's true, we should lock you away to keep the world safe, until you can prove otherwise.

Besides, as Alphanumeric has pointed out many times, the possibility exists that every time you turn your computer on, every time you inhale, you could trigger some sort of catastrophic chain reaction that will destroy the earth.

And yet you continue posting, and you continue breathing. Why is that again?

Refusing to aknowledge an error does not make you right.

I'm so smart

rethinker Posted on: Oct 23 2007, 11:38 PM

I think they will start it, and like all big projects, it will fail to launch.
Then the punch lists will start showing up.

Another delay will then put it into 2008 where the next test fails.

I think maybe in 2010 a real test may show up. AT this point people will complain about the money the money the money the money.


And today's news


[URL= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/science/...rss&oref=slogin ]shut down[/URL]

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

1996 -- US Department of Energy first funds conceptual work with regard to the LHC
1998 -- DOE began funding LHC construction
1999 -- NSF began funding LHC construction
December 8, 1997 -- the US officially gets involved with CERN in the LHC project
January 1, 1999 -- Agreement for ATLAS components signed
March 1, 1999 -- Agreement for CMS components signed
May 14, 1999 -- Wagner sues in California to shutdown the RHIC
September 28, 1999 -- "Review of Speculative 'Disaster Scenarios' at RHIC"
March 3, 2000 -- Wagner sues in New York to shutdown the RHIC
May 26, 2000 -- Wagner's New York case is dismissed
June 18, 2001 -- Wagner's California case is dismissed
February 28, 2003 -- "Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group"
2004 -- Deadline to challenge DOE funding of LHC expires under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).
2005 -- Deadline to challenge NSF funding of LHC expires under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).
January, 2007 -- Commissioning of the LHC began
March 7, 2007 -- US completes deliver of US-made accelerator components to CERN
September 18, 2007 -- US transfers title to US-made accelerator components to CERN
September 30, 2007 -- All US funds for building ATLAS and CMS spent.
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 dismiss. 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. Part of Wagner and Sancho's case has been dismissed. The Judge has had enough of sloppy filings and orders the parties to observe the rules. I hope that means the end of Walter filing his exhibits in non-photo-copy-blue. The Nobel Laureates are told to either find a legal reason to inject relevant facts into the case or butt out. I was wrong when I assumed that the judge was going to rule on all the issues at the trial -- I presume this means we are going to learn at some future date the details of the reasoning process. A transcript of the 55 minutes meeting was prepared but it may be illegal to post it in unredacted form until December.
September 5, 2008 -- US argues against the requested default judgment against CERN, pointing out some of the things I have related and many more. Did you know that French is not legal in US court without a certified translation, and likewise, English is not legal in any part of Switzerland. Just one of the pesky details which competent people have to deal with while doing great things. Of course, competent people figure this stuff out beforehand. The US takes pains to reveal that neither Wagner nor Sancho is competent to make any of their claims.
September 9, 2008 -- Judge Kevin Chang requests that Wagner and Sancho address possible violation of Rule 4(f) and the Hague Convention which the Government raised
September 12, 2008 -- Wagner requests and gets a continuance of the hearing on default judgment.
September 14, 2008 -- My original guess of Wagner and Sancho's deadline to rebut the US reply to their motion to dismiss. But it falls on a Sunday and that means ....
September 15, 2008 -- Government objects that Wagner got the continuance without notification to defendants and is getting additional time to reply while the Government was under a strict schedule.
September 17, 2008 -- Wagner and Sancho file their response and yet another affidavit about a new fictitious danger.
September 18, 2008 -- Wagner goes on a trip to Utah. Judge Chang orders that Wagner file reply by September 23 (moot!?) confirms new hearing date of October 14, and clarifies that the hearing is just on default judgment, not any sort of injunction versus CERN.
September 19, 2008 -- Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson want back in as Amici Curiae -- now I have their autographs!
September 19, 2008 -- Wagner and Sancho try for the third time to properly file a motion for a permanent injunction and yet another affidavit. I am critical of their use of unattributed quotes which is contrary to the practice of both science and law and the general goofiness of the reasoning.
September 23, 2008 -- Conan O'Brian parodies Wagner's concerns.
September 25, 2008 -- Original date for hearing on default judgment versus CERN
October 10, 2008 -- Wagner returns from Utah -- about this time the LHC was supposed to start physics runs, but transformers and quenches have probably set this back to 2009.
October 14, 2008 -- Hearing on default judgment versus CERN
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

Update to timeline of Wagner/Sancho vs. US DOE, NSF and CERN
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hid.../case_id-78717/

I think I found Ubavontubas Alma mater:

User posted image: User posted image

Angry Gauchos of Morón, Trippy promises to buy you a steak and beer should you track him down. He didn't really mean it.

http://www.unimoron.edu.ar/

Yes, I meant no offense to anybody on this forum from UM by associating you with Ubavontuba.

And yes, if you manage to track me down, there will be much Beer and Steak offered in recompense.

Hey, be nice to Argies!...Those are my ancestors you're talking about.

Here's where I clinched this argument last time: ubavontuba Posted: Jun 18 2008, 04:34 AM

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.

Wiggle all you want. You lost this argument already. You asked for the more general form of m = E/c². You didn't ask for the general dispersion relation form of the equation (the relativistic energy-momentum equation).

Uh, because my grammar isn't always perfect (duh).

You didn't even get that the article was talking about the kinetic energy in rest mass, did you?

Fine. Make a paper cone from a flat piece of paper, without modifying the flatness of the paper. Let me see you do that, and I'll concede the argument.

Why bother. You've just essentially admitted you don't know what my contentions are and you don't know what you're arguing about.

In the best theory of gravity we have (GR), gravity is not a force.

How would you know? You've demonstrated that you can't even access them!

I told you about it at the time. Have you forgotten?

Uh, string theory is an attempt to develop a "theory of everything" that's applicable to all physical models. GR is a proven theory and is generally applicable to all currently testable physical models. Cosmology is the study of the physical mass and energy of the cosmos (obviously, about as real as physics models get).

Honestly, you should be ashamed to use first person pronouns and "physicist" in the same sentence.

Uh, blogging is a legally recognized form of publishing.

Yes, and I just proved you're a liar and a fraud ...again!

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 25 2008, 05:42 AM

So are you denying you believe in magical fairies called "gravitons?"

Oh, so you now admit you do believe in magical fairies called "gravitons."

Really, I don't see the point of your argument.

Uh, then why'd you use it?

It seems you're misunderstanding some very basic grammatical terms.

I'm simply stating Prometheus asked for the most general form of m = E/c².