Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is there a time element? Yes, I'd say there is.
It would follow the Bekenstein-Hawking relation, which describes the entropy of a BH in terms of a geometry (an area). If this relation is twice as large for extremal BHs as that paper suggests, what happens to the Hawking process, nothing??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's the Safety Paper to do all the calculations for me.

And what you fail to realise is that the LHC needs extra dimensions to make black holes, it cannot make them without them but the size and number of extra dimensions affects the size of the black hole and it's destructive power. So it turn out you don't even understand the concepts if you think all you need to know is the mass.

Duhhh..... what's the beam energy Chuckles? Do I need to draw you a picture.

And as I just explained, you cannot without out it's destructive power without taking into account things far beyond your ability to calculate. Unless you know black hole solutions in 5, 6, 7, .... dimensions?

Well since you like using the usual 4 dimensional space-time (which is wrong anyway for these models) :

14TeV = 2.25E-6 Joules = 2.5E-23 kilograms
R = 2GM/c^2 = 3.70601089E-50 metres

Rough size of the nucleus? I dunno, about 10E-10 metres. 40 orders of magnitude difference. A black hole sees the nucleus like the nucleus sees the universe, there's that much of a huge difference in scales. If R = 2GM/c^2 then the proportionality constant is 2G/c^2, which is 1.5 E-27. Pretty damn small.

Of course (obviously!) this changes with extra dimensions of different sizes. There are papers online which discuss such things, but given you didn't even know about that and you don't understand why extra dimensions come into play, your "It'll kill us in a week!" claim is based on no numbers and a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts. You must feel so proud.

No, because the beams cannot be precisely equalised and even if they could, protons are composite and it's their gluons emitted from quarks which interact and they are not controllable on anything like that level. And even in perfect head on collisions, it's much more likely the products fly off at an angle, you just need the transverse momentum to sum to zero too.

Haven't you ever computed the differential cross section for electron+positron in the centre of momentum frame?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And as I said, the reason I don't bother putting many numbers in is that the Safety Analysis has done that for me. As have plenty of other papers. It's your job to debunk them. You can't even do order of magnitude calculations, while I've shown I can. And you certainly aren't familiar with the specifics of doing calculations for head on (or not) collisions between quantum objects. I am, I could write out the calculations for the differential cross section I just mentioned right now. But given it's 7.50am and I'm going on holiday in a few hours I won't bother. You can find such things in any quantum field theory textbook anyway, not that you'd understand.

So, going to continue whining, avoiding doing things as simple as order of magnitude calculations and showing your general lack of understanding for quantum interactions and multi dimensional black hole processes? I won't be around for about 4 weeks, so you'll be able to post your ignorance and no one will bother to expose it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN

As one of th seven plaintiffs in the District Court in Hawaii, may I offer a formal complaint agasinst Director of CERN Robert Aymar and to John Ellis chief theoretican of CERN to appear in the International Court in the Hague to answer charges of gross negligence in the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As noted in this post, is the formal derivation of the generation of Type Ia Supernova from their experiment following the well-known work of Albert Einstein and his colleague Willem de Sitter in the generalized theory of relativity. The energies in nature do not approximate those found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the pont origin of the Universe without forming a transition towards de Sitter space as noted per exemplar in Type II supernovae and in quasars. Their willingness to proceed with this experiment with full knowledge of this potentiallity consititutes a criminal act of public endangerment. May we request that the good people of Switzerland discontinue power service to CERN until this matter has reached full legal disposition in the International Court in the Hague.

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankind. Children have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.

Update on the research progress at CERN.

End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.

We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers
of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message
will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from
the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/


Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of
last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well
as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects
are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely
certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert
Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of
Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter
L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be
sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of
nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool
down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis
of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation
will commence in June/July 2008. The 7 Tev phase of the research would
then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN as noted above.

Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)

This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shoen here have never been refuted.

From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

The following was accidently posted here instead of in the thread where it belongs in, but I will leave it here also as it, IMHO, relates to a much greater threat to life on Earth than the LHC does. More on this "switch to cooler version of Venus" - a very hot stable state of Earth threat at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2002083&postcount=22

Post 1606 was also written under the impression that I was at that thread (Hence the references in 1606 sucah as " in your long standing thread" etc. in 1606.)

This is exactly what one should expect if the atmosphere is at least two optical depths thick and convection is absent. (More on that soon). Imagine that some spot on surface, "C," (for Cooler) were cooler than others. It would radiate less and have a net gain of thermal radiation from the "others" which are hotter. (This is true regardless of what the absorption coefficient at "C" is, assuming it is non zero, of course.) Via the atmosphere if direct line of sight is prohibited.

If convection is absent, one can think of the surface as being inside an oven which has (or rapidly will achieve by the above radiative transfer abolishment of any spot like "C") uniform loss thru all parts of the "walls." If there were some convection, it too would tend to transport more energy to the atmosphere from spots near spot "C" than spot "C" would convectively send to the atmosphere above "C." Thus, from the atmosphere near and above "C" the atmospheric radiation into "C" would also be bring spot "C" up to the average global surface temperature.

Once the entire surface has the same temperature, the thermal gradient must be the same at least up to the level where the assumption that there are two or more optical depths covering that altitude is invalid. In this lower "oven-interior" zone with ONLY vertical thermal gradients, there can be not convection as for convection to exist some sections of the atmosphere must be going down while others are going up, but with the same, purely vertical, thermal gradients this is impossible, unless there is something going on the surface to disturb the spherical uniformity, such as a volcano or hot lava flow from the interior.

If Earth should get (OR ALREADY HAVE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) greater than unity thermal feed-back loop gain, then I strongly suspect the above logic applies to some surface contacting lower zone of Earth also. I.e. after the oceans have boiled away, say half having escape into space and half remaining as a thick, mainly water steam, atmosphere in at least the lower altitudes, there will be so much IR absorption by H2O molecules at altitudes below the "at least two optical depths" above still altitude that this will be true to quite a high altitude.*

Thus I expect, that should Earth enter this cooler version of Venus stable state, the lower levels of the Hot Earth's atmosphere will, like Venus, be stable and have only a vertical thermal gradient. Surely at some higher altitude, with lower pressures and temperatures it will be possible for the steam to condense. At that altitude rain will form and fall, which evaporates completely well before reaching the surface.

I will use LRA to designate the Lowest Rain Altitude (Where 99.9% of the rain has converted back to steam). Above LRA, there will be convection as the falling rain will cool the atmosphere below it causing it to contract and thus increasing the rain fall there - I.e. the rain will cause growing instabilities, which in turn will drive convection. I think this is somewhat resembles what happens in the sun, but of course rain is not the cause of the convection zone of the sun. I.e. the deeper layers are convection free, spherically symmetric and have only radiative transport of energy (neglecting the very much smaller non-convective thermal conduction).

-----------------
*One thing Humans can take credit for, it they get to some other location than Earth and if Earth does switch to the hot stable (Venus like) state is that we cleaned up most of the mess we earlier had left in low Earth orbit. - I.e. low Earth orbit altitudes will have many orders of magnitude higher atmospheric density and all the wrenches the astronauts dropped etc. will rapidly spiral down and burn up; However, the objects in geostationary orbit may seem very primitive to the first aliens to find them, but at least they will know that life did originate around a star other than their own. -something we can only speculate about.

Now that is what I call "spreading knowledge!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS – Their technology may be advanced enough to switch Earth back to the cooler stable state. They probably came here looking for new lands to occupy as an insurance policy if their sun was nearing the red giant stage. Let’s get up a fund drive to make a big, hollow, tungsten sphere that can survive on the surface to welcome them and tell some things about us. Sounds like a good US government or UN project to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What do you think?

 

To Paul (please read the blue end if thinking of not reading it all):

I have zero concern for several reasons that I have outlined in the long thread you started many years ago that there is any risk that the LHC can produce the Type II supernova you fear, but I do have a slight, very slight, concern that a tiny black hole might be stabilized by some quantum effect (the way all atoms are stabilized against radiative decay that classical theory predicts should occur in tiny fraction of a second) I.e. The Hawking radiation is only theory (highly likely to be true, I think) and it does predict that the rate of mass loss accelerates as the black hole mass decreases. Simple extrapolation of this to the tiny mass (ignoring any possible quantum effects) indicates that the tiny black hole some think the LHC can produce will extremely rapidly disappear in a "terminal flash."

My reasons for reject your Type II supernova are discussed in more detail in your thread but include:

(1) At least a few Type IIs have been observed at such great distance that they occurred shortly after the first generation of stares formed. At that time there was only hydrogen and helium in the universe. There is no way intelligent life forms can even exist if only these two elements are available, much less construct something like the LHC.

(2) If it is possible to "punch thru" to this postulated great energy density in DeSitter space and it has happened many times as you suggest, then why it the universe so cold? (Except for regions near stars) Objects (including spaces exchanging energy) tend to come to a common temperature.

(3) If the Type II supernova are a "punch thru" that ruptures the barrier to DeSitter space, why does the energy flow into our universe terminate? I.e. if the barrier is "ripped" how does it close? This I have called "the Little Dutch Boy" LDB, argument against your fear. Is there some set of LDBs standing guard everywhere on the possible boundary with DeSitter space? (With some supper strong "duck tape" to quickly repair the rip)

I am not an expert, by far, but think the more conventional explanations of Type II supernovas are adequate. The one I like best, as it is easy to understand, is that cosmic hydrogen slowly accumulates by gravity and mutual collisions on the surface of a still warm neutron star. These stars have such huge surface gravity that the highest "mountain" is only a few neutron diameters higher than the surrounding region. Thus the accumulating hydrogen is a spherically uniform "blanket" that can accumulate to great depth. At the bottom of the blanket of Hydrogen, the temperate is steadily increasing as the blanket thickness grows. Eventually the entire blanked becomes a hydrogen bomb which we call a Type II supernova. Now admittedly this may not be the true mechanism ,but at least it is not in conflict with the three above listed reason why your POV is surely false. I.e. there are much more plausible explanations for the existence of Type II supernovas.

I understand that you have a lot personally invested in the Type II supernovas are made by high energy physic experiments, but even so If your concern is for the world's children why not include the not yet shown to be implausible concern I have?

Namely that the safety report did not even consider:

(1) The rate at which a stable tiny black hole might become charged as it passes thru "zillions" of the orbitals (sort of electron clouds) bound to atoms as it travels thru the "solid" Earth. In footnote to post 1566 in your thread, I have outlined how this rate might be computed. It is a very complex calculation averaging over many things, like type of atoms in the Earth, the various "miss distances" (impact parameters) of the black holes trajectory thru the atom, and the various different orbital that exist for each atom, the black hole’s speed (not all created will be traveling at the same speed) the trajectory thru the Earth (not all going even near the center, etc.) and several other things. I can well understand why the safety committee never even attempted to compute the rate at which a tiny black hole will become charged, but I think this is a very important thing to know. I.e. is there a 50/50 chance that it will "eat" one electron on it first pass thru the earth (which takes about 45 minutes) or will it be 100,000 years before a gravitationally bound tiny stable black hole has a 50/50 chance to become charged.

Many of the tiny black holes will be "gravitationally" bound to the Earth as they are formed by colliding beams. Many of course will not be, but have more than Earth escape velocity and we can ignore them an only focus on the ones that may repeatedly oscillate thru the Earth until they do become charged.

(2) Assuming a stable tiny black hole does have one electron's charge then the question is how many passes thru the Earth does it typically make before it "eats" at least one quark (if not a whole proton)? Once it has done this, it will move much more slowly to conserve momentum and soon essentially come to rest at the center of the Earth. (Because moving more slowly it will recharge more rapidly and simple scattering will remove its kinetic energy. Even if it does not rapidly eat another electron, perhaps becuase it ate a positive quark, it now carries 1/3 of a an electron charge and in dense matter that will kill its kinetic energy in less than a meter I think - certainly does for all alpha partices)

(3) Once it is at rest at the center of the Earth, how long before it begins to grow larger? It will need to "eat” a significant fraction of the Earth's core before its own gravity is significant as the pressure at the center of the Earth is enormous and mass will simply come to it by "plastic flow" of the molten core material.

Thus the fact that the safety committee has found that gravitation attraction of the tiny black hole, even if it should be stable, is nothing to worry about (as it will take longer than the lifetime of the sun to grow with this weak gravity and tiny event horizon etc.) is not at all reassuring to me, so long as they continue to ignore the possibility that it could become charged and them have unimaginably greater electrical attraction to the positive nuclei than the extremely weak gravitational attraction to them.

SUMMARY: The safety committee should consider the charging and subsequent more rapid growth than gravity alone can cause. Their analysis was restricted to ONLY a gravitational interaction. (Do not be confused by the fact that Section 5.2 of their report is called a "Coulomb Interaction." This title miss-leads most readers. They only consider the gravitational interaction, not what most people would call a "Coulomb interaction.")

To make it clear that the safety committee must consider the electric interaction with nuclei and not just the very much weaker gravitational interaction, I have constructed the following analogy:

Suppose you were standing between the rails of a railroad track with feet set in mass of concrete and a 100 car long train is coming straight at you at 150mph. On the front of this train there is a flea. (Here the flea is the "tiny black hole's gravity." The train is the "neglected electric force.")

Now someone from the "safety committee" then says to you:
"Do not worry. I have done the calculations correctly in Section 5.2 of my safety report. - Collision with a flea, even at 150mph, is harmless."

 

Agreed...I doubt if they've even paid their bill. It must certainly be astronomical.:shrug:

 

From Paul W. Dixon:

As one of the seven plaintiffs in the District Court in Hawaii, may I offer a formal complaint agasinst Director of CERN Robert Aymar and to John Ellis chief theoretican of CERN to appear in the International Court in the Hague to answer charges of gross negligence in the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN


I assume Paul and Walter are two; just wondering who the other 5 are.

 

Well, they've got to be Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Pluto - and, of course, Goofy!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No that is simply false as I have repeatedly explained to you, even making an analogy to help you understand that the vastly more important electric force as been neglected when they only consider the gravitational interaction (Even though they do CALL it a Coulomb Interaction.)

I refer you to the second half of post 1606 but for your convenience I reproduce the end of post 1606 below.

Surely you can understand a stable* tiny black hole will eventually eat one of the "zillions" of electrons it travels THRU IN EVER METER of it advance inside the Earth and thus become charged in much shorter time than the safety report calculates for it to eat a proton via the gravitational interaction inter action. Not only is the electric force unimaginably greater but also the tiny black hole very rarely will pass THRU any tiny nuclear mass.

I.e. instead of "zillions" of opportunities with each meter of advance, I think it can transit thru the entire Earth many times and never pass THRU even one nucleus. Why do think the safety committee is correct to ignore this much more probable eating of an electron? And then, once it is charged, why is it correct to ignore the much stronger electrical force and assume only the weak gravitational force needs to be investigated? Here is that analogy:

To make it clear that the safety committee must consider the electric interaction with nuclei and not just the very much weaker gravitational interaction, I have constructed the following analogy:

Suppose you were standing between the rails of a railroad track with feet set in mass of concrete and a 100 car long train is coming straight at you at 150mph. On the front of this train there is a flea. (Here the flea is the "tiny black hole's gravity." The train is the "neglected electric force.")

Now someone from the "safety committee" then says to you:
"Do not worry. I have done the calculations correctly in Section 5.2 of my safety report. - Collision with a flea, even at 150mph, is harmless."

------------------
*I am not asserting that it is stable but the assumed "final flash" predicted by simple extension of Hawking's formulae for the rate of mass loss vs. black hole mass MAY not be valid if quantum effects, which surely applied on this tiny scale do stabilize it, as they do all atoms. I.e. the electron orbiting the nucleus does not radiate and spiral into the nucleus as an extension of Maxwell's equations predicts because quantum effects do prevent that "Final Flash" - I know of no argument suggesting that quantum effects cannot possibly stabilize a very tiny black hole is a similar manor. If you do, please refer me to them.

 

Hmm. More likely Harry Vincent, Cliff Marsland, Clyde Burke, Hawkeye and Burbank, I think.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

For years my posts here have shown that Paul's Type II supernova concern is silly. (See brief summary of three different reasons why near start of post 1606.) But until recently, I had a slight concern that Tiny Black Holes,TBHs, IF the LHC can make any, could be gravitationally bound to the Earth IF also stable.* Unlike those made by much higher energy collision of cosmic rays, all of which would still have essentially the speed of light wrt the Earth, some TBHs of the LHC will have less than Earth escape velocity as it has "colliding beams." (Low velocity of center of mass wrt Earth.)

That concern is now zero also. See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2005606&postcount=242
So this is probably my last post in this thread.

Do not worry, Paul will keep it going. He is immune to facts and reason. He does not let them change is mind as I just have. (He has ignored the three independant proofs summarized in post 1606 for years.)
----------------
*Only "slight concern" as neither of these two "IFs" is likely to be true. As discussed in linked post 242 above, at least one is not.

 

Circa 1951-1955, knowledge of the fusion or hydrogen bomb became known. There were tests of it in the Pacific at Bikini Atoll & some other locations.

A small group claimed that the tests would trigger fusion of the hydrogen in the oceans, destroying all life on Earth. That issue attracted more followers than Paul has managed to convince, but it did not have many.

A minimal understanding of fusion dispels any fears of oceanic fusion, while the processes involved in particle accelerators are more difficult to understand. I am surprised that Paul has not attracted more of a following.

 

Prof. Dixon can't be a plaintiff (as of Wednesday) since the only two plaintiffs are Luis Sancho and Walter Wagner, who each represent themselves pro se.

From his March 11 affidavit, we learn that Dixon is a Professor of Psychology and Linguistics. That he has "solved" Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis. That he misspelled the title of his 2003 essay in Bionature.* That Wagner copies from Wikipedia. And that they have no reasonable disaster scenario in mind. They want to take six months after reading the LSAG 2008 Safety report to come up with a bugaboo that has not been addressed yet.

Let me save you the time: "If the LHC is turned on, that will anger the extraterrestrials and we will all die."
to which Scott Aaronson replies: "If the LHC is not turned on, we will lose our rights as intelligent beings and the Earth will be seized as salvage by the same ETs."

*Is that Bionature: The International Journal of Variation, an Indian journal? Why would they publish an article with the title: "Supernovae from Experimentation?" and why wouldn't Dixon cut and paste this title into the affidavit?

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN

Please recall that the activation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the onset of the largest highest-energy experiment so far extant on our planet.
The empirical observation of a Type Ia Supernova will serve as another confirmation of the Generalized Theory of Albert Einstein. This theory, as noted below, has had 100% verifcation in other astrophysical observations.
Let us not be so rash as to further test this theory and lose all that we hold most dear as a sacrifice to the ambitions of ruthless egoism. We may discover the Higgs boson and field and yet create a perforation in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space and creating a Supernova.

As one of the seven plaintiffs in the District Court in Hawaii, may I offer a formal complaint agasinst Director of CERN Robert Aymar and to John Ellis chief theoretican of CERN to appear in the International Court in the Hague to answer charges of gross negligence in the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As noted in this post, is the formal derivation of the generation of Type Ia Supernova from their experiment following the well-known work of Albert Einstein and his colleague Willem de Sitter in the generalized theory of relativity. The energies in nature do not approximate those found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the pont origin of the Universe without forming a transition towards de Sitter space as noted per exemplar in Type II supernovae and in quasars. Their willingness to proceed with this experiment with full knowledge of this potentiallity consititutes a criminal act of public endangerment. May we request that the good people of Switzerland discontinue power service to CERN until this matter has reached full legal disposition in the International Court in the Hague.

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankind. Children have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.

Update on the research progress at CERN.

End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.

We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers
of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message
will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from
the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/


Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of
last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well
as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects
are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely
certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert
Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of
Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter
L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be
sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of
nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool
down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis
of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation
will commence in June/July 2008. The 7 Tev phase of the research would
then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN as noted above.

Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)

This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shoen here have never been refuted.

From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

Prof. Dixon -- I shall never again address you with such respect if I ever see a repeat of this outrageous behavior on your part. Your professorship may be for life, but your reputation in the eyes of others is a fragile thing. Not only was your post ill-suited to the discussion, but it is obviously pre-formatted at some earlier date referring as it does to past events in the future tense and according to a schedule which is many months out-of-date.

In fact, only a typo in the original and the deleted initial paragraph in the second separate it from your earlier post. You do not contest the claim that you are not one of the plaintiffs in the famed Hawaiian case with any relevant fact or cognizant statement. You merely repost your counter-factual assertions.

As a professor of Psychology and Linguistics how would you predict I react to your claims that you have an important argument to make, but pepper the claim with factual errors and dated references and when confronted with these errors, you fail to argue or correct but simply repost with all the intelligence and morals of a mass email advertising campaign?

As Patricia's pro-LHC T-shirt reads: "End it now, Luddite crackpots."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/still_here_world_hasnt_ended.php#comment-1098381

* On the other hand, my previous post does criticize you for the typos in the title of your own article and suggested that you failed to avail yourself of cut-and-paste technologies. Bravo for focusing on the smaller part to the detriment of the larger part.

 

You goofball* - That is needless slur on most Email advertising campaigns. I receive at least a dozen daily and only one**, at most, falls to Paul's level.

You are relatively new here so I will give you a tip:
You do not need to read (again) any part of a post by Paul which is not full screen wide. He does just repost old material as you state, and one can be almost certain that his "left side of screen" only text has appeared many times before.
-----------------
*Private joke.
**It typically is from some African bank exective who needs my help. - He wants to deposit in an account for me the several million dollars of an heirless man, who was killed in an air plane crash, before the inacivity of that deposit in his bank causes it to revert to the state.

 

I disagree slightly. Paul isn't even up to the same caliber as the Nigerian scam artists - which are pretty bad enough.

He fits in MUCH more closely with all the spam mailers attempting to sell sex enhancement drugs, idiotic weight-loss programs and similar garbage that's repeated ad nauseum.

 

BTW if you want to understand how a small black hole could really be a disaster for Earth just passing near the solar system see:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2007951&postcount=6