The authority which physics has is not vested in authority figures like priests and kings, but rather in the public record of all human observation. Wagner does not get to claim physics authority from being near physics, at a minimum he would have to do physics in order to have a scientific claim and the goodness of that claim would be evaluated on the basis of the physics, not the man. No -- He graduated Berkeley with a degree in Botany. He was employed by a Berkley astrophysicist to examine some photographic plates. He was referred to in the initial research paper based on those plates and later the conclusions of that paper were rejected by the original authors. He was for some five years (1979-1984?) a technician at a VA hospital who did paperwork on their radiation safety protocols. He never advocated based on a model of dangerous phenomena and never performed any meaningful calculation. His greatest known achievement in the field of science publishing was a letter to the pop-science magazine Scientific American on page 8 in July of 1999. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/letters-1999-07/ His mathematical absurdities included the claim that because European nations did not contribute US Dollars towards construction and operation of the LHC, the US contributions amounted to more than 10% of the funding of the LHC, or as he put it in court filings 100% of the US Dollars Sections VI and VIII of Wagner's appellate brief filed as docket 6 in the 9th circuit, case 08-17389 on February 6, 2009 Page 14: "There are no other sources of US Dollars for the project other than the federal government, which therefore constitutes 100% of the US Dollar involvement, though roughly estimated at 10% of the total budget if the Euro contribution from co-defendant CERN were converted into Dollars." (underlining in original) Page 18: "It is misleading to examine only the US involvement as a percentage of the total project [after converting the Euro budget into dollars]. The federal govenment is the only contributor of US Dollars [the remaining contribution is in Euros], ..." (underlining, italics and square brackets in original) https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.ca9.08-17389 and he evaluated his five years at the VA hospital as "probably" starting federal service before that of an appellate judge evaluating his arguments June 17, 2010, Honolulu near 9:14 am http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2010/06/17/08-17389.wma (about 14 minutes in) and if only two outcomes are possible, the odds of either happening must be 50%, a ridiculous claim fairly lampooned on the April 30, 2009 episode of The Daily Show. http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hzqmb9/large-hadron-collider (video probably not available outside the US) God help us all, if he actually attempted math at the level required for publication. Wagner is bad at law also, because even though I told him he failed, even though the Swiss consulate told him he failed, he ignored our warnings that he failed to do the most basic thing in a lawsuit -- properly notify the party being sued that they need to show up in court. In Docket 37, the appellate panel explained this again: But the best argument dismissing Wagner's claims is Wagner who never cared enough about his own claims about existential risk to do the lawsuit properly, then or now.
No toad. I never said "I'm sure there may be an error in it", I simply said what if we are missing something. Why else would all these people be ranting raving for caution. Any time I am presented a piece of evidence against the LHC, I bring it here because RPenner is the most capable of debunking or explaining why it is erroneous. I am not against the LHC, I just want to see both sides of the argument. To be completely frank you haven't added any evidence to the discussion, so other than calling me a troll you have been totally insignificant.
You are more than likely correct, I appreciate the time and effort you and Rpenner and Q have taken in responding logically. This is once again not my expertise so anything that could spell disaster is usually magnified in my head.
You should get some personal help with that. Not from a website. You should also consider that there are more stupid crazies who shout and rant louder than the smart sane folks, and make a rational judgement based on that. Do you think Jerry Falwell really talks to God? Get a grip. Logic and math go together, but logic doesn't have to be mathematical. Common sense should be your guide.
rpenner answered your concerns so you go to questioning the integrity of the scientists working at CERN for a further reason to troll this thread. Knowing nothing is a good reason to quit worrying about stuff you don't seem to want to know anything about. You're an illiterate crank. The answer to your concerns is in the scientific literature for the experiments you're worried about. Or you could just go with rpenner.
I should probably post something to go with this but am really too tired to think. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/05/europe/hadron-collider-restart/index.html Large Hadron Collider: World's biggest physics experiment restarts.
But the point I raised re stars and Neutron stars we do have a relatively good understanding of. Before the first Atomic bomb was built in the Manhatten project, one of the points raised was the possibility of setting the Earth's atmosphere alight. It seems we got through that OK, many times over. I have a few "friends" [tic mode on] on this forum, who see me as a "science cheer leader" and do what they can to focus on negativity, pessimism, and also scare mongering to try and take the focus away from science and the knowledge that it obtains for us. These same friends refute BHs, try and invalidate SR/GR, fight against the certainty of Evolution, and other nonsensical stuff as 9/11 being an inside job, and Apollo being faked. There stupidity on and off this forum knows no bounds. Take what they say with a large grain of salt. The scientific disciplines, and the scientific methodology means that it is self correcting and changing as more and more data and knowledge is gained. As a layman myself, I openly admit that I need to have faith in science and its methodology. The alternative is taking notice of religious fanatics, alternative hypothesis pushers with delusions of grandeur, and the down and out total nut cases and others with agendas and baggage. "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith" Max Planck: That's not to say of course that amateurs like you and I should not apply reason....But part of that reasoning is listening and standing on the shoulders of the scientific giants and what they have already obtained for us.
This is a false statement. The total energy is not that of a nuke (obviously). The energy of each collision is far higher than the processes of a nuclear bomb.
Correct. Solar core temperatures are estimated to be quite a bit lower than the LHC. "Despite its intense temperature, the peak power production density of the core overall is similar to an active compost heap, and is lower than the power density produced by the metabolism of an adult human. The Sun is much hotter than a compost heap due to the Sun's enormous volume." Likewise, the average nuclear density of the sun is relatively low, about 150 times the density of water in the very center of the interior, with an overall density about 5.5. The average collision energy in an exploding star is a bit higher than non-exploding stars, but still well below the LHC." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(density)
Even though you wouldn't answer my question I was pretty sure you're the individual rpenner discusses in post 81.
This is very similar to the argument that was made by the RHIC people in 1999. They argued that they were simply replicating what occurs in nature, in which somewhere/sometime two high-Z (gold-like) cosmic rays would collide head on at equal or greater energy than the RHIC (which is true). Therefore the RHIC was safe. Any dangerous strange matter (nuclei containing strange quarks) that would be formed from such natural collisions would be 'swept up' by nearby stars, and if they were dangerous along the lines of theory (causing nearby matter to be absorbed in a runaway nuclear fusion process), we would see it by a huge excess of supernova. Since there is no such huge excess, ergo, any such strange matter produced would be safe. I pointed out the obvious fallacy of that argument to them; namely that theory suggests that low-Z strange nuclei are radioactive, and decay away into harmless nuclei in a few microseconds to minutes/hours, and therefor would not be available to be 'swept-up' by nearby stars, converting them into supernovae. The RHIC people then recalled that safety paper, and wrote a new one, removing that argument. In its place they suggested that creation of strange nuclei was 'highly unlikely'. Since then, they've been announcing the production of very low-Z strange nuclei (which presumptively decay away). http://www.science20.com/news_articles/have_strange_baryons_been_found-142927 Theory suggests that, contrary to LHC representations, increasing the energy of the collision will increase the number of quarks produced, not produce the same number but higher-temperature quarks, allowing for even larger combinations of re-assembled quark combinations which would include two or more strange quarks. That is why they have a full detection chamber set aside for detection of strange matter, even while publicly proclaiming it is 'extremely unlikely' that they will produce such strange matter. That is, of course, the same argument of Wilczek et al. in their affidavit, which is contradicted by the recent RHIC data. Of course, we've seen LHC scientists jump on a bandwagon before, in their quest for 'new physics', such as proclaiming they'd discovered super-luminal neutrinos, rather than proclaiming they had some kind of technical difficulty that they couldnt' find. Some of us have suggested ways of proving safety, such as launching an AMS (which we did) to see if strange matter might exist naturally (it might), but to-date no such evidence of benign strange matter has been produced.
Which part? You seem confused! That is basically what I said! The above is true only if you are talking about per particle energies. As you said above, the total energy is obviously less than that of a nuke!... Which is what I said...
It was implied (or so it seemed) that the "energy levels" were the energy/nucleon. If that was not what you meant, my apologies. Yes. The LHC collisions in any one run are about the same (total) as two trains colliding head-on. High enough for the need to have a good quality beam-dump (http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/components/beam-dump.htm), but not high enough to take out the city.
Walter you came in late and seem to have not taken the time to understand the discussion, as a whole! You keep comparring apples and oranges. Yes there were posts including some of mine that were referring to total energies, while as far as the LHC is concerned and as rpenner cleared up, the per particle or even per parton energies are what is important, when discussing what is going on in LHC collisions. So yes there is a higher per patron energy density in a LHC proton-proton collision than the per particle energy density in a nuke or a star or a super nova..., but a far higher total energy in the latter three than an LHC collision of any sort. That was all already clarified in the discussion.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm sure you are not that silly to really believe that. I would say it had far more to do with journalistic driven, sensationalistic headlines. After all it was the same LHC scientists that also discovered the real apparent cause of the false reading.
Both sides? That sounds like intelligent design supporters demanding equal time to "both sides" of the evolution/I.D. "controversy" (which just doesn't exist except in the minds of the religious I.D.iots).
One experiment two errors. One technical one judgement. The resolution of these errors was in the scientific method. The OPERA experiment had nothing to do with the LHC. The OPERA signal originated from CERN. I think that was the CERN involvement. Cranks always exaggerate to cover up their lack of scholarship on a subject.
