CERN - Large Hadron Collider Experiment

[dant]

Thanks SAO, for clarifying, I do understand what you are saying now. But
at the same time I was asking myself questions so as to be clear regarding
perspectives, so that there might be better understandings.

As far as what would I do to defend my family or myself from attacks, I am
not even sure what I might do at that moment. Planning on defense and
acting at that moment may not even be the same.


Moving on!
Dan

 

[GRiM]

Seems almost related.
Scientists Ask Congress To Fund $50 Billion Science Thing
_http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_ask_congress_to_fund_50

WASHINGTON, DC—Top physicists from several major American universities appeared before a Congressional committee Monday to request $50 billion for a science thing that would further U.S. advancement science-wise and broaden human knowing.

 

[Telperion]

Scientists Ask Congress To Fund $50 Billion Science Thing

lol, hilarious!

I wanted to post a more 'mainstream' and accessible explanation of what the LHC is because there seemed to be kind of a digression because of the theoretical nature of what it may or may not be capable of doing. The article also includes some interviews with some 'accomplished' physicists who manage to explain the experiment in a more or less down to earth manner.

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/07/why_a_large_hadron_collider.php

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) currently under construction at CERN is the greatest basic science endeavor in history. Roughly half of the world's particle physicists, 7,000 individuals, make the Collider their workplace. This single-minded group of men and women hails from more than 80 countries. They represent almost every religion and ethnicity on Earth—embodying curiosity, cooperation, brilliance and ingenuity on the grandest scale.

The LHC is a circular tunnel 27 km around, bisected by the Franco-Swiss border. Over 100-billion protons will traverse its pathways at near-light speed, guided by some 9,300 superconducting magnets, each weighing several tons and chilled to temperatures colder than deep space. At four points in the tunnels, the counter-revolving protons are to smash into one another at a rate of nearly one billion per second.

I think the question of whether or not this experiment is safe or not is a moot point because regardless, it seems like it's going to happen. The question seems to be is it a potential risk only for those living in the immediate Franco/Swiss border or for everyone? I'm really not sure but if this is indeed ''the greatest basic science endeavor in history'' probing into the existence of other dimensions etc..., it does seem strange that there is such a veil of silence surrounding it outside of the science world.

The LHC homepage - http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

 

[John G]

Back in 1991 they had started to build the SSC in the U.S. (Texas) but it was cancelled due to funding problems. The SSC would have been even bigger (more energy) than the LHC. The LHC is just a next progression, it's not a huge advance. There are papers discussing extra dimensions using data from existing colliders so that's not a hugely new thing either. It's not a secret thing, particle accelerators in general just aren't overly discussed by the general public.

 

[Hasanuddin]

Is there a possibility that LHC can create black-hole material? The answer is definitely yes. There are a number of papers that have printed on this subject. The first papers came out about ten years ago. There are even preexisting organizations fighting for a postponement of this project so that new concerns can be addressed, as well as the ones that have already defined, can be addressed: risk-evaluation-forum.org, LHCdefence.org, and LifeBoat. Papers that support this conclusion are listed on the first two sites…and there was also an article written in Nature, CERN to spew black holes, October 2, 2001.

If LHC is “successful” in generating man’s first synthetic black-hole material, is there a plan to reverse any black-hole material formed? No. The current hope by proponents of LHC is that nothing will happen that is dangerous. Is this caviler wishful thinking or equation-based prudence? Depends on who you ask—do CERN scientists have a vested interest in having the public lulled into a false sense of safety what hidden agendas to the persons asking important safety concerns have? CERN wishes to protect its $6,800,000,000 European tax-dollar investment, those asking the questions only wish to protect their families, friends, and environment.

Is there a model that suggests that LHC black-hole creations will not safely disappear? Yes, there is a new model that is being advanced that suggests that the basis of the safety assurance arguments is flawed. Debate is fierce of the Scientific American blog being used to advance discussion: _http://science-community.sciam.com/blog/Hasanuddins-Blog/300005039 All are welcome, though it is advised to read the model before entering in discussion. A free download of the model can be accessed following hyperlinks within the SciAm blog

LHC is slated to start up this May. That is only a few more days to take action…assuming they are successful on their first try. Chances are they will not be “successful” on the first try. But as they perfect their machine’s calibrations and increase the injection of bundle size, chances increase. There is still hope that public concern could derail the project and allow for all possible safety risks fully explored.

 

[dant]

Hasanuddin,

What if Backholes/Big-Bang theories are just plain nonsense?

Read this link:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/149563-Big-Bang-Busted-The-Black-Hole-the-Big-Bang-and-Modern-Physics-

 

[dant]

While re-reading the sessions, I came across this:

Q: (T) How can you be STS through STO if STS is imbalance?
A: STO flows outward and touches all including point of origin, STS flows inward and touches only origin point.
Q: (T) Well, they refer in the material that I am reading through, that they are STS through STO. (L) They serve self BY serving others. (T) Is that what they mean?
(L) Yeah. (T) Is that what we're supposed to do, serve ourselves by serving others? (T) Yeah! Because what goes around, comes around. If you serve others then
you get things back. (F) Because when you serve yourself, all there is is an infinite number of individuals serving self. (T) There is no energy exchange, no synergy
within the group; there is no exchange. (F) Everything moves inward. (T) There is no sharing, no growth, there is no nothing. (F) No interconnecting. (T) Right!
There is no learning. (L) In terms of major STS, this may or may not be related, could you tell us the nature of a Black Hole?]
A: Grand Scale STS.
Q: (L) Is it like a being that has achieved such a level of STS that it has literally imploded in on itself in some way?
A: Close analogy.
Q: (T) Possibly an entire civilization of STS?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, maybe a civilization can't do it because that implies working together. It must need to be an individual being.
A: Black Holes are a natural force reflection of Free Will consciousness pattern of STS. Notice that Black Holes are located at center of spiral energy forces, all
else radiates outward.
Q: (L) Now, you say "spiral" energy forces, and you also have said that this wave is a spiral. Is the central point of this wave that is spiraling, a black hole?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is it a radiating wave?
A: All in creation is just that: a radiating wave.
Q: (L) Where does the energy go that gets sucked into a black hole?
A: Inward to total nonexistance.
Q: (L) Well, if a black hole continues to suck stuff in, is it possible that it would eventually suck in the entire creation?
A: No.
Q: (L) Why is that?
A: Universe is all encompassing. Black holes are final destination of all STS energy.
Q: (F) So, does this mean that we, or anyone else who is classified as STS, remains on said path, that we will eventually end up in a Black Hole?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Well, that is pleasant. And what happens to energy that is "total non-existence"?
A: Total non-existance balances total existence. Guess what is total existence?
Q: (L) Well, is it kind of like a balancing force?
A: "God."
Q: (T) Are we talking about the creator god as in the Pleiadians?
A: Not Pleiadians. Prime Creator.
Q: (T) What is the difference between the Prime Creator and "God?"
A: None. As long as you exist, you are of the Prime Creator.
Q: (L) Now, this stuff that goes into Black Holes, that goes into non- existence, is that, then, not part of the Prime Creator?
A: Correct.
Q: (L) How can Prime Creator lose any part of him or itself?
A: Prime Creator does not "lose" anything.
Q: (L) Well, then, how would you describe this energy that was in existence and then is no longer in existence because it has become or gone into a Black Hole?
A: Reflection is regenerated at level 1.
Q: (L) So, this energy goes into a Black Hole and... does it come out on the other side?
A: No.
Q: (L) Does it become like a primal atom?
A: No.
Q: (T) Does it go back into the cycle?
A: No. Reflection regenerates as primal atoms.
Q: (L) So, this energy that is sucked into the Black Holes... what (T) When we put out energy as positive or negative energy, and there are beings on other levels
that feed on this energy, is this true?
A: Yes.

Seems that there are attempts by revisionist to disseminate false
knowledge in regards to blackholes/big-bang by using false math
and a theory (as challenged by Crothers) as opposed to what the
C's are telling us what a blackhole actually is?

Is this just plain manipulation, and are the revisionist plans about
to be exposed for what it is, a fraud?

 

[Telperion]

Seems that there are attempts by revisionist to disseminate false
knowledge in regards to blackholes/big-bang by using false math
and a theory (as challenged by Crothers) as opposed to what the
C's are telling us what a blackhole actually is?

Is this just plain manipulation, and are the revisionist plans about
to be exposed for what it is, a fraud?

From what I've read here black holes are certainly nothing to be trifled with, whatever their origin. Example - Bring the human endeavors of cloning and gene manipulation to a macro-cosmic level and it is easy to see the folly of tampering with forces in the universe we do not completely understand. I would certainly prefer the crrent black hole/big bang theories to be fraudulent because if they're not, and we tamper with or set in motion forces we couldn't possibly understand or control, we're in (deeper) trouble.

Just to clarify, I'm not living in fear of this planet being swallowed buy a literal black hole because it seems that on an emotional and spiritual level this is already happening after a fashion anyway.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Seems that there are attempts by revisionist to disseminate false
knowledge in regards to blackholes/big-bang by using false math
and a theory (as challenged by Crothers) as opposed to what the
C's are telling us what a blackhole actually is?

Can you elaborate? Which false knowledge and false math and theory are you referring to?

From what I've read here black holes are certainly nothing to be trifled with, whatever their origin.

Again, where is the evidence for that? Just because giant cosmic black holes pose a threat does not mean smaller ones pose a threat. Vacuum cleaners suck things in too, but nobody runs from them.

Just to clarify, I'm not living in fear of this planet being swallowed buy a literal black hole because it seems that on an emotional and spiritual level this is already happening after a fashion anyway.

We're all going to die anyway, that's inevitable and only a matter of time. In cosmic terms what's a few months from now or 80 years from now? In my view, life isn't important to maintain for its own sake - it is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Life gives us an opportunity to learn and grow. And if we don't learn and grow, what use are we to anyone, including ourselves? What use is our life? Our destiny is already to die, we all share that. We can't change the inevitable. What we can do is try to give our existence substance - a purpose besides just death. If we fail to give our life a greater purpose, then the purpose of our life IS death. So we have a very short time to figure out if it is possible to be something other than fertilizer, and how it might be possible to become it. Clearly, it is not something we can just "imagine" ourselves to be, though everyone does try.

Only in light of that does it make sense (to me) to wake people up to upcoming events. To help people learn - not just to keep them breathing and eating for its own sake. If we don't use our suffering as a tool to learn about our suffering, what are we suffering for? Then our suffering is pointless - and that only means we will suffer again and again. If we don't use our lives to make something of ourselves other than nothing - what are we living for? We will continue to be nothing until we choose to be something. The trick is how to "choose". We cannot declare it, we cannot just intend it. Because nothing will happen. To make a choice real, we must actualize our choice - and a choice can only have any sort of subtance by Doing. Otherwise it's not a choice, it's imagination.

I think this is why the C's keep reminding us that it is really the soul that matters, not the body. We're not here to learn how to keep ourselves alive, because that's impossible - death is inevitable and we have no control over it. And life is short no matter how many vitamins you take. To me it makes no sense that we're here to do the impossible, which leaves me with the inevitable question - what is possible? Whatever it is, it must be the only thing that matters, and to me it makes all the sense in the world to do everything we can to find it.

Everything that has to do with A influences plus all the material possessions of the world - all utterly and laughingly irrelevant. At best all this may serve as tools to help us find what it is we're looking for that does matter. It seems learning is it - it is the key to all doors, and the only thing that can possibly help us create a substance in our being, the only other way out is death. So life's purpose can only be to be used as a tool to learn - to create something permanent and conscious. If we don't use it as such, our only purpose will be death.

 

[dant]

Seems that there are attempts by revisionist to disseminate false
knowledge in regards to blackholes/big-bang by using false math
and a theory (as challenged by Crothers) as opposed to what the
C's are telling us what a blackhole actually is?

Can you elaborate? Which false knowledge and false math and theory are you referring to?

I mentioned this in the previous thread to Hasanuddin, which refers to Crothers's "BH/BB/Math" challenge
posted in SOTT:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/149563-Big-Bang-Busted-The-Black-Hole-the-Big-Bang-and-Modern-Physics-

The gist of Crothers challenge is that the BH/BB theory rests on a "modified Schwarzschild solution",
provided by David Hilbert for which the terms (of "r") is twisted/manipulated from Schwarzschild's actual
terms as identified in his 1916 memiors that was almost forgotten, collecting dust on a shelf. It appears that
no one at the time or since has bothered to cross-check the actual Schwarzschild solution at all? From
there, the basis of BH/BB was created/formed around this modified solution and has continued ever since.
Crothar is stating that there is NO BASIS for Blackholes and Big-Bang theories because the is no mathematical
solution(s) provided to support it. Has he found "Achilles heel' to the BH/BB theory?

Because Crothers has brought this to the attention to his superiors and many other so-called "experts" in
the field, he has lost his Doctorate sponsorship and quickly became shunned by his University and the current
BH/BB community and through it all, no one has proved Crothers wrong. Is Crothars being denied his
"day in court"?

 

[John G]

The black hole is just fine and living in the Kerr-Newman equations as far as I'm concerned. What the Cs said fits just fine with my understanding of black holes. Big Bang-wise I like Tony Smith's interpretation of Paola Zizzi's model but it is all very consistent with standard Big Bang ideas. Ark commented on that article that the article has shown up on a known disinformation site. I'm not sure what is happening to Crothers is justified, mainstream physics (aka string theory) is just as nutty as many alternative ideas, but that does not mean the alternative idea is always correct. Life on this planet seems like a huge obstacle course, you get past the mainstream nutty ideas and there are plenty of nutty alternative ideas for you.

 

[dant]

John,

For the layman, what does it mean? What Ark said was: "Unfortunately", then
follows with: "The international forum of scientists (ie, not Crothers) has also posted
this document to the website of the Alpha Institute for Advanced Study". To me, it reads like:
"He was basically tarred and feathered, and branded a crackpot"? Is this what Ark is hinting
at? Another point I noticed was the Title of the SOTT article: "Big Bang Busted! (The Black
Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)"

Am I reading into this too closely missing the forest for the trees?

If someone were to claim that the math which supports the theory is rested on mathematical
errors, and gives many examples why he believes so, do you think it wise for the "experts"
to put that claim to rest?

It appears to me, that no one wants to touch on this, to directly refute the claims as nonsense,
and prove why that is? I would have thought that Crothers should have been pointed out "the
errors of his ways", maybe he was, but persisted anyway knowing full well that he is looking
at political/career suicide? Do you think Crothers is fighting back and has thrown the gauntlet?

Somehow it seems that Tony was also similarly "branded" for his theories as well? Apples
and Oranges?

I find this sort of thing rather strange, but maybe this is standard operating procedure amongst
the scientific community?

 

[John G]

The worrying part is that disinformation people are using it and Crothers mentions it being used. Crothers has five papers at that disinformation site. There is certainly some turf protection going on in mainstream physics and certainly some OK people (even if they have not so OK ideas) can get involved with not so OK people.

Tony actually thinks he got branded cause of trying to help someone else who got branded (Tony is a lawyer). I personally think Tony should have got more help from his advisor at Georgia Tech (David Finkelstein) but Finkelstein for whatever reason acted rather strangely towards people who were interested in Tony's ideas (and it's happening again in relation to the Garrett Lisi paper where both Tony and David were thanked).

As for the Hilbert errors, the mainstream opinion seems to be that it enabled Hilbert to accidently find the correct manifold that later improved understanding of differential geometry was able to show in a clear way. The low knowledge of differential geometry effected Schwarzschild too in that it made Schwarzschild fix a value to get rid of a discontinuity that was really just a coordinate effect (in other words Schwarzschild didn't need to fix the value). Essentially it was two men doing the best they could with inferior math tools. Hence most people talk about later people like Oppenheimer, Finkelstein (Tony's advisor), Penrose, Wheeler, etc. for the discovery of the black hole.

http://www.tony5m17h.net/BlackHole.html

 

[dant]

Thank you John, for a clear explanation as to what is going on!
Dan

 

[Hasanuddin]

I’ve got to say that it is amusing to watch you guys go back and forth over obscure theorists has if they were sports figures. At one moment one guys jokes about one theorist being “tarred & feathered” another moment someone else talks about “disinformation” sites. Honestly, it sounds like a discussion between Steelers and Packers fans. Lots of bravado and rah-rah, but very little substance.

The question posed by this thread has to do with LHC, black-holes, and weighing the need for scientific advancement verses risk of a mishap. Although you may disagree, but these threads do not seem very scientific. Honestly I don’t really care which scientists you idolize and which you look down on. Both are just opinions that detract from the discussion. I mean, where is the evidence? Where is the impartiality? Where is the scientific method? Opinions, spin, idolization, and denigration have no true place in a scientific discussion. But we are primates, aren’t we?

I have been presenting a new model and I know of what I speak. The new model has a direct relation to safety and the LHC machine. The model would also overturn many of your rah-rah favorite theories (though some would remain intact.) The reception on my Scientific American blog have been remarkably unscientific—though quite fruitful. Despite the fact that I have supplied links to freely download the model, none of current/past detractors have actually read the model (talk about an enlightened intelligent conversation.) Despite this fact, there have been several detractors who have actually supplied evidence supporting the model in the course of their sparring.

LHC is a safety risk that is too great to be put over the head of all creation. According to my new Dominium model, this claim is made because mini-black-holes are predicted to be stable. If you challenge me on that—cool, —just try to read it first before making assumptions, broadcasting opinions, and posing speculations.