Just a quick question; does anyone here know who this guy is and why he claims to be such a go-to guy regarding the safety of LHC? Does he have any credibility whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't Actphasen Otto Rösslers very own site? Is this linked to Achtphasen in any way: pcboux.blog.de/2010/04/13/strategy-to-stop-the-lhc-9th-of-april-2010-by-alf-pretzell-8362244 Eric Penrose's name is mentioned there (just as Sanchos/Wagners) so I guess it isn't a site that governs credibility.
I question whether you're asking an honest question or just spamming in order to bring up, yet again, the same tired boring crap about "OMG the LHC will kill us all!!". If this is the Eric of the LHCConcern forums then he's a hack. Yes, he's put in a touch more effort than even bigger hacks like Walter to at least do a spreadsheet of numbers so to the layperson he might seem to be doing everything 'by the book' but his 'analysis' is superficial. In his 'work' he provides references but he doesn't understand the models he refers to or cites or just ignores. His attempts to look like he's being thorough and accurate is akin to a creationist putting on a white coat and thinking that makes him a scientist. The LHC doom sayers have had plenty of time and opportunity to present coherent informed rational discussion and as Walter Wagner's interview on 'The Daily Show' demonstrates, they are in way over their heads!
It is clear that P.C. Boux is linked to Actphasen. http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/2010/06/22/p1733 But it is unclear if this is by choice or because Actphasen copied without comment P.C. Boux's work. (I don't see an organizing principle for Actphasen, which seems to be a scrapbook and blog kept by Marc Fasnacht.) http://achtphasen.net/bureau/legal.php
I'll admit that it might look like I'm spamming, and that it was ill-adviced to post similar posts at two separate forums, but I can assure you that this is an honest question with no alterior motives. And I apologize for my never ending flood of stupid questions, I'll try to stay away from here and don't bother you guys with my ramble. And yes, being the layman as I am, I admit that I fell for the spreadsheets he presented and automatically thought he actually had a case (and now know that he didn't). Bottom line, I only wanted to ask if this was a guy that had any credentials in physics, and apparently he didn't, so... Case closed=) Feel free to close/remove this thread
(Deleted links because I have too few posts) From what I could gather I would think the latter. Actually, I've changed my oppinion regarding Rösslers involvement too. I think he might have contributed quite a few "articles" to the site, but I also think that Actphasens admins have twisted his words quite a few times to fit their purpose (although not hard to do, since Rössler is close to playing in the same league as Gorelik by the looks of it). One thing I noticed is that all LHC-proponents are keen on namedropping their fellow crusaders just to be able to give the appearance that they are quite crowd "concerned" over this experiment. Actphasen doesn't seem to be an exception=)
Spica and AlphaNumeric I have just by chance discovered this thread via google. I am sure you will both be delighted to know that the mentioned Eric Penrose is a member of this forum (from a year back). AlphaNumeric claims I do not understand the material I claim to represent. I leave to AlphaNumeric to explain where these errors of understanding are. Otherwise I will have to assume this is simply a convenient polemical device to re-assure himself of his comforting certainty. Eric
OMG AN, I remember seeing that Daily Show with the dude that said there was a 50/50 chance that the LHC would destroy the world but I hadn't made the connection that it was Walter Wagner from this forum!! Thanks for that! haha
I have been telling Wagner and all anti-LHC scaremongers, that the lawsuit was baseless and poorly thought out since at least September 2007, before he filed it in March of 2008. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85716 And hello to Eric2. AlphaNumeric said you were "a hack" while I just see a sterile denial of physics as "not good enough." You aren't going to discourage such evaluations unless you engage in a real give-and-take in-depth discussion on one topic. Wagner, for example evaded such discussion for years, and asked me to take my discussion of his physics claims elsewhere which is why I started the above linked thread. Cheers. // Added 4:09 AM: Just saw this quote: “He immediately issued a challenge to a “public debate” because it’s a tactic for trying to put the critic on the defensive without having to defend the tripe on his website with evidence.” http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5219 A free ranging debate allows the intellectually dishonest denier to build up a mountain of untruths (the tactic is often referred to as a Gish Gallop) that puts pressure on the science-based individual to refer to dozens of irrelevant, misguided, unclear or blatantly wrong claims instead of being able to talk about his position. By limiting discussion to a single topic (say, a single specific model of Earth's purported destruction) more progress could be made. // Added: Eric's only other appearance was over a year ago: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85475 (starting on page 2)
The well known anti-LHC'er Walter has been a member here and PhysOrg for a long time and he and I have been through plenty of his arguments, which mirror your own. In an attempt to avoid the issue seen in debating a creationist where we don't pin down something specific to discuss why don't you select your best argument, the one with the most reasoning and evidence, and present it in this thread. Then we'll go from there.
