CERN - Large Hadron Collider Experiment

[anart]

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.

Rather interesting to 'watch' you strike out because what you've written in this thread wasn't supported. Please take a moment to read the forum rules, aggressive or denigrating behavior is not allowed here and people who persist in such behavior will be removed.

 

[Hasanuddin]

Apologies. Actually, I had read the forum rules, and I do not feel as if my words were of a personal nature. Rather, it is those who I quoted using biased words such as "tarred&feathered" and "disinformation sites" who are guilty of denigrating others without evidence. Both of those labels are opinion-based and therefore unscientific. Pointing out the action was not meant to denigrate, rather it was meant to try to get discussion on a more scientific evidence-backed track.



That was the whole point of that particular post. The question of the safety of LHC and the risk to the planet is not the place for bravado. This is an extremely serious question. The fundamentally the question is between two competing needs: scientific advancement versus public safety. A wrong decision (either way) could have huge deleterious consequences: don't turn it on (yet there actually isn't a risk) and you incur huge opportunity costs; or, turn it on (and the really is a danger) and everyone dies in a manmade apocalypse.



Because this is such an important question, it must be debated. Most importantly, that debate must be impartial, with evidence, and scientific. Looking back over this thread, that is not what I see. This observation is not made to be either aggressive or denigrating. To me, I see several like-minded individuals (pro-LHC/anti-alarmist) who are patting each other on the back and slinging mud at people not present to defend their positions.


I disagree with them. The potential risk to society outweighs the opportunity cost of stopping LHC

 

[anart]

Apologies. Actually, I had read the forum rules, and I do not feel as if my words were of a personal nature. Rather, it is those who I quoted using biased words such as "tarred&feathered" and "disinformation sites" who are guilty of denigrating others without evidence. Both of those labels are opinion-based and therefore unscientific. Pointing out there action was not meant to denigrate, rather it was meant to try to get discussion on a more scientific evidence-backed track.

No, actually, if a website is called a disinformation site on this forum, that is because there is a LOT of evidence to back that up. It is not opinion - it is stating fact.

This forum has neither the time nor the inclination to get you up to speed on what is and what is not a disinformation site - that data can be found freely be reading many in-depth discussions on this forum about such things. It is up to you to do the work necessary to understand more fully the conversation.

You continue to insult this forum and make vague statements about LHC, while linking to another website instead of discussing it here.

In short, it appears you are here with an agenda, which is contrary to the purpose and spirit of this forum.

If you have data you can present CONCISELY here - or even a theory that you can present and back up with data here - concisely and clearly without further denigrating this forum, then you are welcome to do that.

And if you are capable of getting up to speed on the topic of disinformation and cointelpro so as to contribute and not distract, then you are welcome to stay. If not, it is time for you to move along.

 

[John G]

Honestly, it sounds like a discussion between Steelers and Packers fans. Lots of bravado and rah-rah, but very little substance.

I was born in Pittsburgh so I'll take the Steelers side.

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.

That Crothers discussion had to do with an article that appeared on this website that did have a relation to this discussion so there was a short discussion about Crothers, I don't think that is a problem. I presented the mainstream view related to Crothers, no idolization by anyone of anybody. These are just discussions of recent news with some countering ideas mentioned.

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... 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.

That you need a new model to be worried is probably going to make people less worried. You are in a tough position, it is rather hard for any physicist to convince any other one, that's just the way things are. You would certainly need more math than is in that link. I personally like stable Planck mass black holes that are stable against growing larger or smaller. These are ideas of people like Tony Smith and Paola Zizzi (former students of David Finkelstein and Roger Penrose). Why I like the idea is related to the overall particle physics of Tony Smith and overall cosmology of Paola Zizzi, so I would probably have to understand your overall view of physics not just the black hole part and I don't know if I could do that in a reasonable amount of time (I've spent thousands of hours at Tony Smith's site). Your overall way of writing does make me cringe a bit, though I have seen good things in the writing of people who overall give me the creeps a little. For example: Conclusion #40: The Tunguska event was a nearEarth encounter with an MBH. Besides going against the hypothesis of this forum (Taurid Complex), having that in your paper seems over the top as does Conclusion #46: God intends for us to protect the Earth, e.g., divert projects that could extinguish all life.

 

[Hasanuddin]

Dear anart,

Ouch. There were no insults intended by my words. I come with no hidden agenda. I am simply against placing the lives of every human at risk, so that a select few can gamble in the name of science. There is nothing “vague” about the risk. The fact is that there have been multiple papers written that bring forward the idea that the design of LHC could result in black-hole formation.

The big question is whether or not such synthetic black-holes will be stable. The pro-LHC camp maintains that black-holes spontaineously evaporate. Although they do not have physical evidence of this occurring, they do have equation-based proofs and computer models. The pro-safety camp maintains that the lack of physical evidence to support the “harmless evaporation” argument is enough to call into question that whole argument. Besides, equations can be flawed and computer models can be used to demonstrate fantasy.

Yes, I am advancing a new model—but that is not an unrelated agenda. According to the new Dominium hypothesis (gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter) mini black-holes ultimately are predicted, and become the explanation for the recording of “Dark Matter.” In our galaxy, those mini black-holes would be made of antimatter and therefore avoid contact with matter-rich areas like Earth. Long story short, mini-black-holes will be stable.

Add the papers that predict LHC’s ability to potentially create mini-black-holes with the Dominium’s prediction of their stability and you get an unjustifiable level of risk.

 

[Hasanuddin]

Dear John G,

I’m glad to hear that you considered the model that I am advancing. You are correct on many levels:

1: I was not worried at all about LHC until this new model was created.
2: The model does lack math. The reason is because it is one giant Aristotilean syllogism. The rules of the syllogism are extremely tight. For this reason many people feel that deduction cannot prove anything new—this model proves that concern incorrect.
3: Sorry about the writing style. The book was written for the lay-readership. Once the part of the model predicting the stability of black-holes was established I had to make a choice: proceed on a traditional route or cut a maverick route. The peer review process potentially takes years. If LHC truly is a danger then we don’t have that amount of time. Therefore my primary target is the lay-readership. (I also chose this route because of what you said, “it is rather hard for any physicist to convince any other one.”)
4: Conclusion #40 and conclusion #46 are both ancillary. Cut off both, and the model still stands and it still predicts that mini-black-holes will be stable.

(5: I’d also cheer on the Steelers.)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Because this is such an important question, it must be debated. Most importantly, that debate must be impartial, with evidence, and scientific. Looking back over this thread, that is not what I see.

Isn't "scientific debate" an oxymoron?

Ouch. There were no insults intended by my words. I come with no hidden agenda.

Emotional involvement and trying to "debate" based on this is already an agenda, even if you are not doing it consciously.

I am simply against placing the lives of every human at risk, so that a select few can gamble in the name of science.

Well let's start at the barebones fact that every single thing we do is a risk. So it is not a matter of there existing a risk - because there never is a time when there is no risk, but just what is this risk.

The fact is that there have been multiple papers written that bring forward the idea that the design of LHC could result in black-hole formation.

Are these papers available online, and if so, do you mind providing the links?

The pro-safety camp maintains that the lack of physical evidence to support the “harmless evaporation” argument is enough to call into question that whole argument.

But that in and of itself does not constitute evidence to the contrary either.

Besides, equations can be flawed and computer models can be used to demonstrate fantasy.

Yes, for both sides.

Long story short, mini-black-holes will be stable.

Don't forget what you said though, "equations can be flawed and computerm odels can be used to demonstrate fantasy." So, how do we determine where is the fantasy and where is the truth? Does your paper have physical evidence - if not, should it not too be called into question? And more importantly - what can *we* do about this if we have no proof one way or another?

Add the papers that predict LHC’s ability to potentially create mini-black-holes with the Dominium’s prediction of their stability and you get an unjustifiable level of risk.

Are mini-black-holes bad? What about the papers that predict the opposite and say that the risk is justifiable? Do those exist? And again, how do you intend to stop this experiment from happening? Why are you trying to convince this forum - we have nothing to do with this experiment, shouldn't you be going to those directly involved and presenting your papers to them? Or maybe call the media and try to do it that way?

And do you mind providing the links to any and all papers that you are referring to?

 

[Telperion]

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.

Now I'm certainly not a physicist and I don't pretend to be one but the main reason I brought this topic up is because of your statement above. It's been interesting to hear certain views about who is and who is not reputable and which theory is bogus and which is not however at the end of the day it comes down to this - trusting self absorbed and ego maniacal scientists with our collective future is a bad idea. Their track record so far is not so great. And no one can say with certainty whether or not an artificially created black hole will be stable, that much is clear. Should we risk it? Every so called advance has drawbacks and hidden costs that seem to outweigh the benefits and become almost exponential with the progression of technology. Take for example something as 'simple' as lead. This harmful substance can be found in paint, batteries, children's toys, decorative enamel, almost everywhere.

Lead is found particularly in older appliances, but also in printed circuit boards, solders, and paints, varnishes and enamels used on newer appliances.

_http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2003/04/17/lead030417.html

_http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/electricals/majorapplicances/index.html

But the scientists have told us it's safe, so hey forget about it. Please. I am interested in hearing other people's views and I respect those who may have differing or contrasting thoughts however my primary view that the LHC is extremely dangerous and a waste of money has not been swayed by what has been offered in this thread.

 

[Hasanuddin]

every single thing we do is a risk. So it is not a matter of there existing a risk - because there never is a time when there is no risk, but just what is this risk.

Yes, science is all about risks and exploring the unknown. The Curies were poisoned by their own experiments. Aboveground nuclear testing has been linked to a spike in infant leukemia. What is different here is how the risk is spread. In the past it has ben the scientist/explorer who was at risk. The worst-case risk scenario is that a stable black-hole is formed that continuously feeds on Earth-matter until it is all been accreted

Are these papers available online, and if so, do you mind providing the links?

These are just a few of the papers:
1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001. February 28, 2003.
2.. A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes, Adrian Kent, CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105. Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204. Available at: _http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009204.pdf.
3.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics, Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010.
4.. CERN to spew black holes, Nature October 2, 2001.
5.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28, 1999 W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek.
6.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps, Kip S. Thorne, Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X. Original title: Black holes and times warps. 1994 Norton. New York.
7.. Centre de la Terre, Science & Vie N 1042. Gallate 2004.

So, how do we determine where is the fantasy and where is the truth? Does your paper have physical evidence - if not, should it not too be called into question? And more importantly - what can *we* do about this if we have no proof one way or another?

The new Dominium model is a deductive syllogism with a very small number of primary premises. Yes there is proof for these premises. This a giant syllogism, which if you're interested, you might consider reading. However, I understand that this forum must be concise, and it would take a long time to lay out everything in one post. If after reading the model you have specific questions, I'll happily reply.

And again, how do you intend to stop this experiment from happening? Why are you trying to convince this forum - we have nothing to do with this experiment, shouldn't you be going to those directly involved and presenting your papers to them? Or maybe call the media and try to do it that way?

Why not try to convince you? We are all interconnected, aren't we? The book is being sold, the abridged versionis being downloaded and shared, discussion is taking place. Will this be enough? Who knows. Six degrees of separation. If this model is correct, all six degrees need to be covered. If it is incorrect, the same should happen so that someone can actually locate a flaw with either its premises or deduction, so LHC can proceed

 

[anart]

The book is being sold,

Just curious if this is your book that 'is being sold' --- that you are trying to sell here?

 

[Hasanuddin]

Dear anart,

I believe you misunderstand my intent. As I mentioned earlier, once it became clear that the model indicated that mini-black-holes are stable, a maverick route was chosen. It was published as a book to maximize reach in a minimal amount of time.

Commercial distribution is just a form of communication in a society such as our own. My goal is to get word of this model out to as many people in as many ways as possible with the hope that there will be a planet for future generations to live on. If the model is correct and LHC does manage to generate mini-black-holes then we are all in very grave danger. If that happens money will mean nothing. For this reason I have dipped into my retirement accounts to send this book out for free to several hundred people so far. If I was trying to "sell books" then why would I continually post links to a free download: _http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/u56srb That download can be easily copied and sent off to friends.

No, the reason I post links to the free download, made the book available, or even post to this forum is so that people will consider the new model. Ideally, some will read it. If the model is correct, maybe those who read it will be inspired to take action. If enough action is taken, perhaps LHC can be diverted and we can all be spared apocalypse. Conversely, if the model is flawed, I want to know ASAP. All that would mean is that I wasted time and resources--but the children would be safe, and I could once again consider a future where they have children.

By the way, the new model does suggest a way to retool LHC so that it can be turned on safely: have it do the same experiments with accelerated antiprotons rather than protons. If MBH are formed, they would be the “harmless” dark-matter variety, not the voracious Earth-eating kind.

 

[anart]

It was published as a book to maximize reach in a minimal amount of time.

Ahhh - so it is your book that you are promoting. Maximizing reach would entail releasing it, in full, for free in all available venues. From your earlier statement:

the abridged version is being downloaded and shared

...only the abridged version is being provided free of charge - a bit of a 'taster' is it?

All that would mean is that I wasted time and resources--but the children would be safe, and I could once again consider a future where they have children.

Apologies, but it's quite apparent that you aren't doing it 'for the children' - though I certainly appreciated the laugh.

Whether your 'new model' is even vaguely related to objective reality or not (and I've seen no indication whatsoever that it is) - your agenda here is quite clear at this point - as is your intent - and it would have served you better had you been honest and upfront about it from the beginning.

 

[dant]

It seems to me, that you might be trying to "sell" the concept that we ought to do
something as if to stop the LHC from proceeding. Who is to say that anything has
to be done if at all? Isn't your (emotional) fears coming into play here that you feel
compelled to act and in a direct or indirect way? Are you willing to "take up arms" and
fight against the PTB and their plans as 3D being that we are? Are you playing directly
into the PTB plans?

If you read the SOTT site/forums and related articles posted therein, you might see
the possibility that we might be transitioning into a "new earth", but before that happens,
calamity has/will occur, there has/will be "hurried movements" by the PTB, along
with "unusual weather", followed with comentary/asteriod bombardment, followed with
"attacks" from "outside and inside" sources, all during and up to the point of "the changes
to come" and towards 4D realities as a natural consequence?

LHC may or may not matter at all. Are we not aware of many possibilities of the modes of
"attacks", and may it take many forms? Is it up you each one of us to become aware and
take the proper steps towards our spiritual evolution and adjust where necessary and at
the right moment? Perhaps the best mode of approach might be as the C's say:
"Wait and see"?

FWIW

 

[Telperion]

Perhaps the best mode of approach might be as the C's say:"Wait and see"?

Well clearly we have few other options than this where the LHC is concerned, especially since many people are not even aware of it's existence. In addition, most are not aware that a potentially dangerous experiment is being financially supported by almost every major world government.

Are you willing to "take up arms" and fight against the PTB and their plans as 3D being that we are?

Power concedes nothing without a demand; the American Revolution, French Revolution, Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage Movement and other revolutions/movements prove this to greater and lesser extents. The status quo will remain the status quo as long as fear, helplessness and shoulder shrugging are our only response to seemingly insurmountable odds.

[edited by moderator]

 

[anart]

Telperion, I realize you were speaking hypothetically, but it is of paramount importance that one does not suggest illegal/violent actions on this forum.