CERN - Large Hadron Collider Experiment

PepperFritz

The Living Force
dant said:
The C's repeatedly tells us that everything is one giant playground, and this is a freewill universe. In short: 'anything goes'. They also remind us that is it not where you are that is important, but rather, who you are and what you do? Finally, in a round-about-way, they tell us, that it is the soul that is
important, not the body. Many References, but here is a few....
Dant: Thank you so much for such an excellent post and review of what the C's have to say on these matters. Just what I needed at the moment....
 

John G

The Living Force
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Based on what I know about black holes, they need a tonload of mass and energy to get created - something a huge star can provide. So unless they can pull crazy amounts of mass/energy out of nowhere, I don't see how they're going to create a black hole of any significance.
The smallest a conventional black hole can be is 2 × 10−8 kg (the Planck Mass). The LHC can't even make one that tiny . For the LHC to make a black hole, one needs to invoke a very wild (the authors know it's very likely not true) model where the Planck size effectively becomes a lot smaller to where the LHC can make a black hole. It would be a very short lived as well as very small black hole. So to have a real black hole problem you need to start with a very very likely wrong model, pick parts of it to be correct, parts of it it to be wrong, throw out some other generally well accepted ideas and pretend things happen faster than they really happen and that somehow they haven't been a problem yet over billions of years, then you could get that instant no earth scenario. I'm not worried. I do though actually think of the Planck mass black hole as the most stable thing there is but it doesn't grow or shrink (this is part of Tony Smith's physics model).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
 

dant

The Living Force
Note: Before reading, Google: "Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law" to
get a handle on the differences.

1) _http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

From John G, Wiki, it says:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Wiki said:
Under standard theories, such an energy to produce a micro black hole is orders of magnitude greater than that which can be produced on Earth in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (maximum about 1.4 × 104 GeV), or detected in cosmic ray collisions in our atmosphere. It is estimated[citation needed] that to collide two aggregates of fermions to within a distance of a Planck length with the currently achievable magnetic field strength would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the aggregates on track. Even if it were possible, any collision product would be immensely unstable, and almost immediately disintegrate[citation needed].
 

Russ

Jedi Master
I have to admit I am still concerned about what they're messing with there, and in other places. I guess its just because I don't really know what they're doing, or what its all going to be used for. Also, its the whole idea of the planet being wiped out in 7 mins, you know, from reading these posts, I can accept its less likely than I thought it was at first, but still, I hope they're right. I would also still stand by my rant about the public being more involved with science, and more educated. But I suppose its not really possible on this planet at least, in this day and age.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
I may be off, but I see 2 general lines of thought in this thread:

On the one hand we have scientists who experiment with potentially dangerous things without necessarily having a complete understanding of what they are doing and what the results will be. This we know has generally always been true. It was true during first nuclear bomb testing, it is true when they are creating synthetic viruses in labs, it is true when they are working on creating artificial intelligence, it's just the way things have always been. Setting the reasons for why it is this way aside for a moment, I don't know how dangerous this latest gadget is because I don't have enough understanding of what is being done - but I completely understand and agree with those who object to scientists doing things that they don't understand and potentially endangering everyone in the process. Because then we're being subjected to risks without being given a choice in the matter. What if the nuclear bomb really did react with the atmosphere and blow everyone up? Isn't it extremely selfish and arrogant to subject an entire planet to unnecessary danger? Nukes were never "necessary". Artificial viruses are not "necessary".

But the other line of thought is - should we be worried if we don't have enough data to even know if there is any danger at all? For example, does anyone have proof that a camera does *not* trap your soul? If not, why then are we not afraid of cameras? Probably because there is no evidence that they trap souls. So then why should we be afraid of this latest gadget if, similarly, there is no evidence that it is dangerous? Just because someone made a website about it and uses the words "dimension" and "black hole" in their unsupported opinion of what they think might be happening, does not have anything to do with danger or reality for that matter.

So while I do agree that it's "wrong" to subject the whole world to danger, I also think we should see evidence of there being a danger before raising an alarm. Otherwise, how are we different from those that raise the alarm when cameras were being invented about the possibility that a camera could steal your soul?
 

dant

The Living Force
SOA said:
So while I do agree that it's "wrong" to subject the whole world to danger [...]
Why is it "wrong" to subject the whole world to "danger"? Isn't both "wrong" and
"danger" subjective terms? As 3D STS entities, do we *think* we have to intervene
because we feel that we have "to protect the universe because it cannot protect itself"
in violation of the law of free will?

Do you think STO entities will intervene on "disasters" and violate the law of free-will?

Did STO stop Kantek from blowing up? Did STO stop the Lizards from doing what
they do? Did STO stop galaxies from imploding, blackholes, novas, and a myriad
of natural "disasters" from occurring or to continue? Aren't we told that physicality
is, but an "illusion"?

Are we replacing faith with fear because we are allowing subjective thoughts to
replace objective knowledge/truths?

OSIT
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
So while I do agree that it's "wrong" to subject the whole world to danger, I also think we should see evidence of there being a danger before raising an alarm. Otherwise, how are we different from those that raise the alarm when cameras were being invented about the possibility that a camera could steal your soul?
Agreed, but I only take issue with the camera analogy because it seems to be trivializing the damage that could be done by a physics experiment gone awry, an experiment invoking forces not clearly understood simply for the purposes of observation - and potentially/probably for the purposes of creating some kind of weapon (if history serves as any kind of example). Granted, the quicktime animation on Misunderstoodscience showing the planet being swallowed up by a black hole is cheesy but it's simply to illustrate a point. I mean, it could technically happen the same way a camera could technically steal your soul if you believe that the eyes are the window of the soul. In any case it's hard to prove how dangerous something is or is not until it adversely affects some group of people and therein lies the problem. With a camera, the risk is much much lower or at least not so clearly defined. But with the tech we have today...ummm, it's a little unnerving to think that scientists could be playing russian roulette.

Incidentally I was reading last night in 'The Secret History' the section discussing involutionary versus evolutionary processes and how involution is exhibited by man becoming more and more mechanical as a sign of his regression... I found this to be very interesting and thought provoking...I was wondering whether the increase of technology into the realm of actually being able to change/affect our reality will one day lead to our 'ultimate regression' - nonexistence (in our current form at least, and I mean, I'm rather attached to this form at the moment and would rather not part with it just yet lol)
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
dant said:
Why is it "wrong" to subject the whole world to "danger"?
Cuz you're not the only one living here?

dant said:
Isn't both "wrong" and "danger" subjective terms?
That's why I put it in quotes. By "wrong" I mean it is arrogant and selfish and lacking empathy, osit.
dant said:
As 3D STS entities, do we *think* we have to intervene
because we feel that we have "to protect the universe because it cannot protect itself"
in violation of the law of free will?
I didn't say that we have to intervene, just said it was "wrong".

dant said:
Do you think STO entities will intervene on "disasters" and violate the law of free-will?
No, but you said it yourself - it's still a "disaster". They're not going to pretend it's something it isn't.

dant said:
Did STO stop Kantek from blowing up? Did STO stop the Lizards from doing what
they do? Did STO stop galaxies from imploding, blackholes, novas, and a myriad
of natural "disasters" from occurring or to continue? Aren't we told that physicality
is, but an "illusion"?
We're told a lot of things. If somebody attacks your kids or family in front of you, do you stand there contemplating the law of free will and that it's all just an illusion?

dant said:
Are we replacing faith with fear because we are allowing subjective thoughts to
replace objective knowledge/truths?
I'm just trying to call it as I see it. I have faith that things will be as they will be, that all is lessons, and that the universe will always take care of itself. But that doesn't change the fact that I still think it's "wrong" to let emotionally-deficient scientists put science ahead of their concern for the survival of the human race.

I do think it's wrong. However, right now, I just can't bring myself to worry about it. If things were different, if we were not owned by a bunch of psychopaths (hyperdimensional and mundane alike), I may voice my concern about people with an undeveloped emotional center playing with fire. But ironically, because we're faced with a cunning deviant control system, a runaway mainstream science project seems highly unlikely.

I'd be much more worried about the intentional use of science and technology to brainwash, poison, and destroy us - because we KNOW that this is happening, it's not in the realm of conjecture at this point.

And again, if we weren't in such a highly controlled environment, if things were different, this would be on my radar screen. But just not now, not with the way things are. Similarly, I can't worry about something like pollution and "cleaning up the planet" when a much bigger pollution (of our minds) is going on.

Edit: Just want to add that the phrase "military industrial complex" alone makes this project a big joke in comparison. As I have mentioned, if you're gonna worry about it, I'd start first from all the black budget underground projects going on, all the experiments, all the secret and not-so-secret tests of all kinds of weapons and gadgets that you know they do, you just don't know anything about the details. Why would you ignore all of that or think it is all "benign" or "safe" for some reason - and only this particular mainstream experiment, of all things, is dangerous?
 

dant

The Living Force
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
dant said:
Why is it "wrong" to subject the whole world to "danger"?
Cuz you're not the only one living here?
Seems you are deflecting the question? I am not concerned so much as what happens to me
(physically), because all that happens (at least in my perspective) is that everything is a natural
progression for learning and discovery?

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
dant said:
Isn't both "wrong" and "danger" subjective terms?
That's why I put it in quotes. By "wrong" I mean it is arrogant and selfish and lacking empathy, osit.
But I would venture to guess that your phrase: "wrong" could be viewed as subjective? For example,
the Kantek experience may serve as a lesson to all so that perhaps history might not be repeated? Or
taken another way: that souls do have the collective power to wrath utter destruction if taken in the
manner as described? Maybe to some it is: "wow!", or to others: "Whoa!", and yet to others: "oh man,
what utter lunacy!", and others: "what RIGHT do they have... [fill in the blanks]" Even though, physical
things were most likely destroyed, but I perhaps their soul still remain other than perhaps karmic burdens
but as with other souls, may recycle again? I can venture to guess that there is a lot more going on than
we are capable of imagining? The reason I brought this up, is that I am constantly reminded of STO's
responses to Laura when she says: "that's awful!" (or something like that) to which they sometimes
say: "subjective.", or "that is your perception"?

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
dant said:
As 3D STS entities, do we *think* we have to intervene
because we feel that we have "to protect the universe because it cannot protect itself"
in violation of the law of free will?
I didn't say that we have to intervene, just said it was "wrong".
But what might be interesting here is, you stated: 'it was "wrong"' - which means you feel it in your gut
(emotionally?), and my question is, if you so object to it so strongly, what can/will you do about it? It
is almost as if you are objecting to it, as if "this must not be allowed" - and you state: "I didn't say that
we have to intervene", so what does this mean?

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
dant said:
Do you think STO entities will intervene on "disasters" and violate the law of free-will?
No, but you said it yourself - it's still a "disaster". They're not going to pretend it's something it isn't.
But, by "disasters", what if I meant - is it is not necessarily a 'disaster' but perhaps to serve as some
sort of a lesson we do not understand, so I leave this "up in the air", because I do not have an answer
for this.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
dant said:
Did STO stop Kantek from blowing up? Did STO stop the Lizards from doing what
they do? Did STO stop galaxies from imploding, blackholes, novas, and a myriad
of natural "disasters" from occurring or to continue? Aren't we told that physicality
is, but an "illusion"?
We're told a lot of things. If somebody attacks your kids or family in front of you,
do you stand there contemplating the law of free will and that it's all just an illusion?
Perhaps, but then "the devil is in the details". If "they" were attacking my family - would I simply
step in front, stick out my hand, and "Just Say NO!"? BOOM! I drop dead and they finish off my
family anyway. Or are "they" strapping me down with guns and knives pressed against me, perhaps
raping, mutilating, or feeding on me? Did we not learn that "they" will do things against our will and
body and we are powerless (they are stronger than us) to stop "them", to do anything at all about it?
Hmm. Isn't that what we do to our 2D "friends"?

Seems to me, I would be very emotionally upset indeed, but what can I DO about it? Call upon the
almighty creator and say: "blast them to hell!", or "Forgive them, they do not know what they do", or
say: "Hail Mary, full of grace...", or "Our Father, who art in...", or "GIVE ME POWER TO OVERCOME!
using "mind power", OR "Buddha, Buddha, Buddha" three times? Think that will work? Maybe
not. Maybe it is just our time to go, and to begin the next phase of our karmic lessons?

But the C's say: "Knowledge Protects. Ignorance Endangers".
and I am remind to what Laura asked about 'defending ourselves", to which they replied:
"Knowledge is all you need"? I am sure some of "us" will struggle with this.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
dant said:
Are we replacing faith with fear because we are allowing subjective thoughts to
replace objective knowledge/truths?
I'm just trying to call it as I see it. I have faith that things will be as they will be, that all is
lessons, and that the universe will always take care of itself. But that doesn't change the fact
that I still think it's "wrong" to let emotionally-deficient scientists put science ahead of their
concern for the survival of the human race.
You use: "emotionally-deficient scientist", but I would venture to guess that there may also
be "emotional" scientist also in on it, they are perhaps "just curious, but blinded by greed"?

Also, perhaps Gurdjieff had a lot to say about emotions - and how we ought to "manage" it
in the sense that we need objective truths to overcome emotions due to chemical influences
that might be misleading? I am reminded of "Mr. Spock" for some reason. Somewhere in
the other threads in this forum, I seem to recall something that even "emotionally-deficient"
beings do not seek their own destruction - "they" want to LIVE too and not just destroy it all,
but they "screw up" too, no different from "emotional" souls?

By "human race", are you specific to mean Earth? Isn't the human race bio-genetically created by
Orions, scattered "everywhere" and besides just Earth?

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
I do think it's wrong. However, right now, I just can't bring myself to worry about it. If things
were different, if we were not owned by a bunch of psychopaths (hyperdimensional and mundane
alike), I may voice my concern about people with an undeveloped emotional center playing with fire.
But ironically, because we're faced with a cunning deviant control system, a runaway mainstream
science project seems highly unlikely.
And perhaps we simply need to be aware of it as we already are(?) and there is yet more lessons to
come? The cycle has not completed just yet. Wait and see?

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
I'd be much more worried about the intentional use of science and technology to brainwash, poison,
and destroy us - because we KNOW that this is happening, it's not in the realm of conjecture at this point.
Hence more lessons to come...

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
And again, if we weren't in such a highly controlled environment, if things were different, this would be on
my radar screen. But just not now, not with the way things are. Similarly, I can't worry about something
like pollution and "cleaning up the planet" when a much bigger pollution (of our minds) is going on.
Ok.... no comment.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Edit: Just want to add that the phrase "military industrial complex" alone makes this project a big joke in
comparison. As I have mentioned, if you're gonna worry about it, I'd start first from all the black budget
underground projects going on, all the experiments, all the secret and not-so-secret tests of all kinds of
weapons and gadgets that you know they do, you just don't know anything about the details. Why would
you ignore all of that or think it is all "benign" or "safe" for some reason - and only this particular
mainstream experiment, of all things, is dangerous?
Keep in mind the lessons of the Atlanteans. They make us all look like Neanderthals by comparison
according to the C's - and it seems to me, they were much more in to experimentation and much more
destructive by far of what we "Neanderthals" could so, and yet, the Universe still "turns".

Also keep in mind: "they will fail", according to the C's....

Please understand that I am sincere, seeking objective truths best as I
can, not trying to be manipulative.

FWIW and OSIT
Dan
 
H

hungrig

Guest
Keep in mind the lessons of the Atlanteans. They make us all look like Neanderthals by comparison
according to the C's - and it seems to me, they were much more in to experimentation and much more
destructive by far of what we "Neanderthals" could so, and yet, the Universe still "turns".

Also keep in mind: "they will fail", according to the C's....

Please understand that I am sincere, seeking objective truths best as I
can, not trying to be manipulative.
Wow, lets just do nothing then, and see if they fail-.
 

dant

The Living Force
hungrig said:
Keep in mind the lessons of the Atlanteans. They make us all look like Neanderthals by comparison
according to the C's - and it seems to me, they were much more in to experimentation and much more
destructive by far of what we "Neanderthals" could so, and yet, the Universe still "turns".

Also keep in mind: "they will fail", according to the C's....

Please understand that I am sincere, seeking objective truths best as I
can, not trying to be manipulative.
Wow, lets just do nothing then, and see if they fail-.
Really? Is the answer that simple? Perhaps. Maybe being an observer
is all that is needed, so as long as one is sincere in seeking objectiive
knowledge/truths and that is all that is needed?

Perhaps, this is what the C's are telling us?
 
H

hungrig

Guest
Really? Is the answer that simple? Perhaps. Maybe being an observer
is all that is needed, so as long as one is sincere in seeking objectiive
knowledge/truths and that is all that is needed?

Perhaps, this is what the C's are telling us?
What? Then you Are doing something. But that is just the 'starter'!
When I said 'nothing', I meant that the "they will fail" is kind of manipulating.
And the word nothing really means 'nothing'. Observing and seeking the truth, is something.
 

dant

The Living Force
hungrig said:
Really? Is the answer that simple? Perhaps. Maybe being an observer
is all that is needed, so as long as one is sincere in seeking objectiive
knowledge/truths and that is all that is needed?

Perhaps, this is what the C's are telling us?
What? Then you Are doing something. But that is just the 'starter'!
When I said 'nothing', I meant that the "they will fail" is kind of manipulating.
And the word nothing really means 'nothing'. Observing and seeking the truth, is something.
Good point. I guess what I meant was 'taking action before obtaining the facts'?

Perhaps I was not clear. I thought I was quoting what the C's said regarding the
aims of the "PTB/Lizard's" goals of conquest and preventing 3D's from reaching 4D?
 
H

hungrig

Guest
Good point. I guess what I meant was 'taking action before obtaining the facts'?
Well I have done that in disscusions ect with friends, it never ends up good! :)

Perhaps I was not clear. I thought I was quoting what the C's said regarding the
aims of the "PTB/Lizard's" goals of conquest and preventing 3D's from reaching 4D?
Yep, probably you did. No offense. But could you re - quote that.

My opinion: What their 'failure is or is not, is not important' But if we are not 'doing' [the work] , we will fail!
If not, we maybe become like them or worse?

So if a "zombie" reads the C' s comment they may be like:
"Ok, They will fail, I don't need to do anything!, not even do what they call 'seek the truth'."

..or they maybe not. It could be manipulating either way in their decision.

Maybe the C's meant they will fail, when we choose to do- the work.
I don't know, I am just assuming as an example.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
dant said:
Seems you are deflecting the question?
I guess then I don't understand what the question was, as I wasn't deflecting it intentionally, I answered how I understood the question.

dant said:
But I would venture to guess that your phrase: "wrong" could be viewed as subjective?
Yes, sorry for not being more clear right away, but I hope my previous post is sufficient to explain what I meant by "wrong" though. Just meant it is lacking in empathy.

dant said:
But what might be interesting here is, you stated: 'it was "wrong"' - which means you feel it in your gut
(emotionally?), and my question is, if you so object to it so strongly, what can/will you do about it?
I don't object to it nearly as strongly as to other things that I think are much more important and bigger problems, which is what I was trying to say in my last post. And in light of these problems, I don't really see any reason to "do something about it".

dant said:
It
is almost as if you are objecting to it, as if "this must not be allowed"
There is an STO way to object too. This is what SOTT does. It's not about allowing or not allowing, but trying to see what's going on and informing others.

dant said:
- and you state: "I didn't say that
we have to intervene", so what does this mean?
Please see above response.

dant said:
But, by "disasters", what if I meant - is it is not necessarily a 'disaster'
Well similarly, when I said "wrong" I did not mean it in the subjective way that you understood it to be. Perhaps it's best we both try to avoid using shortcuts and be as clear as possible.

dant said:
If "they" were attacking my family - would I simply step in front, stick out my hand, and "Just Say NO!"? BOOM! I drop dead and they finish off my family anyway.
While the devil is in the details, I think you are focusing on the trees and not the forest here. Let me say it this way - people are banned from this forum when they break the rules. The idea of "free will" and "all is illusion" does not prevent this from happening, and it ought not to, otherwise we'd not be able to do anything or help anyone, this forum would be nothing but noise. Similarly, you would most likely try your best to resist someone who is attacking your family. I'm not saying HOW you would resist, or if it is possible to resist at all - that depends on the situation. But in general, would you not do your best to find a way to resist it and stop it if you can?

dant said:
Maybe it is just our time to go, and to begin the next phase of our karmic lessons?
We cannot know whether it is "our time to go" or not at any particular moment. But if free will exists, even partially, then we have at least some say in when it is our time to go based on what we do.

dant said:
and I am remind to what Laura asked about 'defending ourselves", to which they replied:
"Knowledge is all you need"? I am sure some of "us" will struggle with this.
Knowledge is only useful if you apply it though.

dant said:
You use: "emotionally-deficient scientist"
I mean with undeveloped emotional center. Being "emotional" doesn't mean your emotional center is developed, osit.

dant said:
Somewhere in
the other threads in this forum, I seem to recall something that even "emotionally-deficient"
beings do not seek their own destruction - "they" want to LIVE too and not just destroy it all,
but they "screw up" too, no different from "emotional" souls?
I think you're again misunderstanding what I meant, I'll try to be more clear.

dant said:
Also keep in mind: "they will fail", according to the C's....
I may be wrong, but I am getting the impression that you're putting a little too much faith into what the C's said and not enough in yourself. "They will fail" must be understood in the context of "the future is open", which is also something the C's often say. This, to me at least, means that the former statement is simply a probability - and the future depends on our actions.

dant said:
Please understand that I am sincere, seeking objective truths best as I
can, not trying to be manipulative.
I don't think you are being manipulative at all, I just think we have some issues communicating clearly and understanding one another, but nothing we can't correct with some effort, osit.
 
Top Bottom