Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

well ... 2 things
1 i am not a disaster theorist (nay a chicken little of any sect or creed)
2 i am infact entertaining the concept that there is an "unknown" and as much as i am not adverse to experimentation on people i am also not adverse to experimentation on our dimension given certain safety precautions.

NOTE if anyone has issue with me suggesting it is ok to use people as test subjects just do a little study into psyche medication and anti depressants and see how much study in informed consent feild trials go on to establish a level of informed consent as far as short term and long term effects are concerned.(my conclusion = a vast proportion[majority] of psychiatric patients are infact test subjects who have not been informed of the true depth of study and efficacy of the drugs they are being given)
anywho...moosing along...

while i do understand Kurros a little information can be a dangerous thing for the nay sayers and the terrorists, what strikes an odd chord with me is the current scientific community stand on paranormal events and how even things as basic as psychic phenomena do not seem to be listed as experienced events of unknown value.

should we really be attempting to fold time and space or seek the blue prints to matter creation when we are yet to define a set of morals and ethics that control the consequential effect to non consenting bystanders ?

admittedly science should not be bothered with moral and ethical debate, only with what is possible and what is not possible in the striving to seek greater knowledge, however we both know the frailties of man is something that has dogged technology and our leaders are simply(more often than not) a exaggerated ego of our peers with less empathy to get a job done where the minorities are ignored to service the larger whole.

i appreciate your your response on the issue and note your even handed calm and mediated response to my posts in spite of my rabble rousing style of multi cross theory debate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i missed a point i was going to make...(and digressed from as i often do)
if we (as sciency type peoples) experience something then we need to be able to record it so it is logged.
IF there is pressure to conform to certain things like the ufo issues and all the surrounding character assassinations and soo forth that encompass these types of things then we can not expect people to report all the facts.

what we do not want is things being dismissed because they are predisposed to be defined as impossible or at odds with someones pre paid study.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well these things are matters of personal experience and totally unreproducible. Science is only concerned with things that can be checked by anyone given appropriate equipment and skill.

If ethics is your main concern I'd be more worried about the huge investment governments make in the research and development of weapons of war. Compared to this the LHC budget is pitiful.
But ok, as for there not being a "set of morals and ethics controlling the consequential effects to non-consenting bystanders", CERN commissioned 2 inquiries into doomsday scenarios and both came back saying we'd be fine. Its absurd to think that they would sit on information which suggests the world could be destroyed, for political reasons or whatever, because I'm sure they don't want the world destroyed either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The continued presence of the likes of Jupiter or our sun seem to be even stronger evidence, since they have surely undergone orders of magnitude more collisions than the earth AND have much, much higher escape velocities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My my, clearly you have a chip on your shoulder if you launch into such a response when someone comments that you're spouting nonsense. Mind you, your coherent did actually go up slightly, probably because you weren't attempting to talk about physics, which is obviously beyond your grasp. For instance, \(E=mc^{2}\) is not true for moving particles.

Did you actually waste time making that picture yourself?

 

it has already happened, >>>news here <<<

i think your missing my point of moral/ethical absolutes
no one has made a collider before and the first time they use it they will still record the data.
just like ufo's they can still record the data.

lets say i found a way that matter is created or a cross over/doorway to a parallel universe...
if i expereinced it once should it not be recorded ?

you see here is the problem where egos and personal beliefs get in the way.
A "true" scientist reports and records and is not fussed with proving something to anyone else.

what i think most have completely lost sight of is the completely corrupted ego of the average person and the completely corrupted ethics of the average R&D company.

admittedly i too have knowledge that would save lives but would never give it away for free and am quite happy to sit by and watch people die for lack of it like aids drugs and other issues around the world.
however... why on earth would i be considered any more abhorrent than a company which demands profit ?

i will go soo far as to say i know soo much about the human mind and psychology i actually observe people suffering on a daily basis and i know how to help them so they will not suffer soo much and achieve bigger and better things in life etc... go on to be better parents etc etc...

you see the reality is that the average person has no grasp of this god like reality at all and they can not comprehend the reality of the moral and ethical position. they are primarily consumed by ego and greed.

this is basically the same realm that a "true" scientist exists in.
devoid of egos and greed, just a pure drive to achieve new science and discovery.

its a funny thing as i was thinking about the questions raised in the debate "You do not need to "Support the Troops"

as i was thinking about how the usa is not proposing war against countries that have sharia law.
yet sharia law is no less barbaric than torturing prisoners.

you see all along this debate was never about science.
it was always about morals and ethics.

 

That was just the LHC guys getting excited about getting the beam to go the whole way around the tunnel, its a long way off starting collisions at 14 TeV energies.

Of course people have made colliders before, we've had them since the 30s or so. The point is anything the LHC discovers will be able to corroborated by future experiments, assuming the thing works correctly. The same cannot be said for ufo sightings.

If only you experience it and no-one can reproduce it, then nobody will care.

Actually this is exactly what they should be concerned with, if they can't provide good evidence that their reports and records are correct then they aren't doing good science. This can be hard a lot of the time which is why claims of new discoveries need to be checked by independent parties.

I generally have more faith in the character of scientists than "average people". Besides there are strong legal requirements in most countries on the way research is conducted, especially when hazards to people exist.

It is only research or development done by private companies that you could consider similar to this. Government funded research done in institutions like universities is made freely available through academic journals (except for the journal accessing fee of course).

You are claiming some kind of knowledge of the "god like reality" of the human mind and psychology or whatver, and yet think you are not ego driven?

Scientists are like everyone else, and they are each motivated to do science by different things. They are of course not devoid of ego and greed, because they are not buddhist monks. I'm not really following your point at all here, these various statements are not forming a very clear picture.

This doesn't seem relevant

Well actually the OP was claiming that there was a possibility of creating a supernova at a collider, which one can refute through scientific arguments.
Morals and ethics should guide our actions, but morals and ethics should be guided by logic and reason. I could come up with some highly speculative theory which claims that whenever you make toast, there is a 1 in 500 billion chance that it will ignite the atmosphere and kill us all. Does this then mean that people should be banned from making toast? My theory would be refuted as quickly as LHC doomsday scenarios, but you don't seem to care about that, so you should agree we can no longer make toast.

 

This is proof you're simply making things up as you go along and have no physics knowledge. The LHC is built at CERN in the tunnel which was previously taken up by the collider known as LEP. CERN want to get working as soon as possible so that the collider Tevatron at FermiLab, near Chicago, doesn't find the Higgs boson first. Then there's the SLC at SLAC (Stanford), HERA in Germany, RHIC at Brookhaven.

Perhaps its quicker I just give you the first Google hit when you type in 'list of particle colliders', : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics

Wow, that took sooooo long to find, no wonder you didn't know about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN AND FERMILAB


Statistically speaking, Type Ia Supernovae are distinguished by having
much greater luminosity at point of maximum light and they are of around
1.40 solar masses or less and also show no presence of hydrogen at maximum
light as well. Should this be caused via a transition towards de Sitter
space then there should be no alteration of hydrogen towards calcium or
other elements in deflagration of Supernova Type Ia. Other types of
supernovae of I Types show presence of helium at time of maximum light.
Should there be exemplars of greater mass levels for Type Ia supernovae
this would again illustrate the artifical nature, e.g., high-energy
physics experimentation generation of a transition towards de Sitter
space. This indicates that CERN as an experimental configuration should generate a Type Ia Supernova thus supporting the work of Albert Einstein and the generalization of the Generalized Theory of Relativity
by Willem de Sitter.

http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Supernovae Type&btnmeta=searc
h%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060920_supernova_atypical.html

Please note there is now a limited time frame to bring this supernova generation to the attention of the director of CERN
where the time of onset is now this November, 2009. May we offer our services to offer to present or debate the forthcoming destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host nearby stars via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova. Please contact at: dixon at hawaii.edu

http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Where there is no evidence of either helium or hydrogen at maximum light for Type Ia supernova this would further support the hypothesis of a transition towards de Sitter space. This is evidence of a statistical nature.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996PASJ...48...51S
Title: Type-Ia Supernova SN 1995D in NGC 2962: Optical V, R, and I Band
Photometry and Spectra, Sadakane, K., Yokoo, T., Arimoto, J.-I., Matsumoto, K., Honda, S., Tanabe, K., ,
Journal: Publ. of the Astronomical Society of Japan, v.48, p.51-57.
Bibliographic Code: 1996PASJ...48...51S

It may be noted in this connection that there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Supernovae Type Ia, which indicates that the companion star for this model is statistically unlikely since most stars are are of an hydrogen dominant order. This observation supports the the origin of these supernovae via a transtion towards de Sitter space or other highly energetic flux. Please note:

The Golden Standard Type Ia Supernova 2005cf: Observations from the
Ultraviolet to the Near-Infrared Wavebands
Wang, X.; Li, W.; Filippenko, A. V.; Foley, R. J.; Kirshner, R. P.;
Modjaz, M.; Bloom, J.; Brown, P. J.; Carter, D.; Friedman, A. S.; Gal-Yam,
A.; Ganeshalingam, M.; Hicken, M.; Krisciunas, K.; Milne, P.; Silverman,
J. M.; Suntzeff, N. B.; Wood-Vasey, W. M.; Cenko, S. B.; Challis, P.; Fox,
D. B.; Kirkman, D.; Li, J. Z.; Li, T. P.; Malkan, M. A.; Moore, M. R.;
Reitzel, D. B.; Rich, R. M.; Serduke, F. J. D.; Shang, R. C.; Steele, T.
N.; Swift, B. J.; Tao, C.; Wong, D. S.; Zhang, S. N.

For the generation of Type Ia supernova thermonuclear explosion explanations have been proposed, none of them have withstood modern testing.
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com...hermonuclear.h
tml
Thus the formation of a transnsition towards de Sitter space may be considereed as a viable alternative
explanatory framework. Before we take the imprudent action of testing additional energies at CERN or yet again at the Fermi Nationional Acclerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, more theoretical research should be employed to verify the safety of this research in highest-energy physics or all is lost.

An educational presentation may be provided also:
https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/co...1010/Education
Paul W. Dixon is responsible for this presentation, Copyright 2009 Paul W. Dixon.

Consider the parameters for universe formation as being similar
to that for Type Ia Supernova generation as being very small and
vastly energetic. This may be philosophically difficult to comprehend
yet essentially vital for survival!

The parameter space of inflationary cosmology is seen in the estimate of chaotic expansion theory of the universe beginning at ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, point origin of the Universe with total duration of expansion of 10^-35 seconds or thereabouts. Here the region of expansion no bigger than 10^-33 cm yielding with simultaneous inflations to reach the observable size of our Universe at l<~10^28 cm .. (Andrei Linde, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, La Tex Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990, p39) Andrei Linde is the leading authority in this important work at the Department of Physics at Stanford University.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503203v1.pdf

Should we consider the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature as predictive of the abundance of living forms with some of them attaining the capacity to
transfer themselves to our location in the universe, what can account for their absence? We may note in this connection that there is only a short delay before a transition towards de Sitter space at CERN, Fermilab or other high-energy physics experimentation has generated a Type Ia Supernova as demonstrated in this thread. The frequency of Type Ia Supernova in the observable universe would then signal the termination of these technically advanced civilizations. A technical experimental mischance may then occur before the members of the respective civilizations are philosophically ready to accept this possibllity.

The approach of the transition towards de Sitter space at Fermilab
with the ongoing increase in luminoisty is seen:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/tevlum.html
with these energies are now equivalent to those found at the point
origin of the universe. i..e. "The Big Bang."

We need to consider the increased evidence of water on Mars and the possibilty of water
on other planetary bodies as the source of life as well as intelligent life thus supporting the hypothesis
that other creatures much like ourselves can be a source of Type Ia Supernovae.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7919113.stm

It is generally agreed that the the Large Hadron Collider will provide an
empirical test for the formation of transition towards de Sitter space.
The collisional energetcis are much greater that those tested in the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia Illinois.

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being built in a circular tunnel 27 km
in circumference. The tunnel is buried around 50 to 175 m. underground. It
straddles the Swiss and French borders on the outskirts of Geneva.

The first beams were circulated successfully on 10th September 2008.
...fortunately on 19th September a serious fault developed damaging a
number of superconducting magnets. The repair will require a long
technical intervention which overlaps with the planned winter shutdown.
The LHC beam will, therefore, not see beam again before September 2009.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam."

The competing hypothesis which is considered even more objectionable than the transition towards de Sitter space is given in the False Vacuum solution to the Einstein de Sitter equations. Yet as can be seen in this formulation high-energy physics experimentation may serve as a trigger for this most untoward event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Please note in this regard that the transition towards de Sitter space is well-known in the cosmological literature. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p8377167602421t1/

An affidavit regarding the contingency of a Type Ia Supernova has been submitted as part of the legal action to bring a moratorium against such an experimental mischance.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-78717/
Many thanks for the happy birthday wishes!!!

With the additional energies available at the LHC in CERN, it may also be possible to test the competing hypothesis of forming a transition to the lower condition in the Einstein de Sitter Universe. Following the formation of this transition, our Universe would drain off into the lower energy condition. This should be of a lesser probabilty of occurence yet it is still considered as a possible outcome to this research.

Please note: http://professordixon.blogspot.com

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed at the accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is 362.37 E30.
In scientific notation, this 362.37 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 362.37 x 10 to the 41st power electron volts (362.37 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish.

Please note that the return flight of the Columbia shuttle was not halted because of the false belief that the the foam shards could not cause a life threatening defect in the aerodynamic properties of the shuttle.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSN30568874

As a fictional work, the novel Anathem remarks on scientists tinkering with what they do not understand. To quote from the journal Nature, "Anathem is a shrewd exploration of what might happen if the fear of scientists meddling with things they were never meant to know becomes entirely justified." with space-time itself included in the list of potential problem areas.
(Jennifer Rahn, Imprisoned by intelligence, Neal Stephenson, Anathem, Opinion Nature, 456, 7221, 27 November 2008, 447-447)

It may be noted in this connection that the term Anathem refers to an ecumenical curse of severe proportions. This may be understood to mean that we are expected to take extreme exception with predjudice to the work of those who would destroy us and our children through this meddling.

Tycho Brahe's supernova, now identified as a Type Ia Supernova, shows those characteristics as predicted by the model expected in supernova from experimentation. A large Supernova has been generated leaving behind a type G star such as is found in our solar system. (Andrea Pastorello, Astrophysics, Echo from an ancient supernova, Nature 456, 7222, 4 December 2008, 587-589) The technique of light echoes was used for this identification of an historical object.

As noted in Chang, J.,et al., An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300-800 GeV (Nature, 456, 7220, 20 November 2008, pp. 362-365) could be tapping into "muti-dimensional spaces with potenially important implications for our understanding of the Universe." Similarly, we may postulate that Type Ia supernovae are expressing the energetics of an n-dimensional space
whose properties may be understood with further study.

Please note that while the Type II Supernovae have origin in 10 or more solar mass objects Type Ia Supernovae have origin in objects of some 1 solar mass.
It may be noted in this connection that the smaller massed Supernova give rise to deflagration of some 10 billion solar luminosities whilst the larger objects give rise to some 1 billion solar luminosity deflagration objects. This difference may lend support that the energetics of Type Ia Supernovae is created via an aperture formed towards de Sitter space. As also noted in this connection, there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Type Ia Supernovae thus making it statistically unlikely that they have reached the Chandrssekhar limit by accretion from a nearby solar object.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

The formation of Type 1a Supernovae is dependent on them reaching the Chandrasekhar limit of greater than 1.4 solar mass to implode into a Supernova according to current theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

Yet there is evidence that the Type !a Supernova can form at one solar mass
or less thus contradicting current theory and thus supporting the alternate theory where Type Ia Suoernovae may be formed via the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.
Probing Dark Energy with Supernovae
by Sebastian Ihle
9.6.2006

As noted in our sciforums discussion, there are a number of competing hypotheses. An empirical investigation is under way at CERN in the LHC.
Should we generate a Type Ia Supernova, this will confirm the existence of a
highly energetic topologically cobordant continuum termed de Sitter space.
So far, the astrophysical theoretical generalizations of the generalized theory of relativity have been confirmed at the 100% level. The world's largest experiment may yet create a tragic confirmatiion of Albert Einstein's theory.

Please recall that the energies now proposed for the LHC at CERN will be some 7 times greater that those employed at FERMILAB. As is well-known, the energies in use at FERMILAB approximate those predicted for those found at the point origin of the Universe. Thus even from a Common Sense perspective we may penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space
thus releasing the force of Type Ia Supernova on our planet with the increaased energies to be employed at the LHC. Please note:

Philosophy and Common Sense (Frances)

"Not every philosophy professor takes philosophy seriously in the sense
that she thinks that some purely philosophical theories that go against
common sense have a good chance to be true. These philosophers respect
anti-commonsensical theories, in that they admit such theories are very
important in the pursuit of philosophical understanding. But they also
think that there is no real chance that they are true. If you have a valid
argument based not on scientific but purely philosophical reasoning, and
that argument concludes with something against cross-cultural and timeless
common sense, then at least one of the premises isnt true, or so they say.
It might be tremendously difficult to identify the mistaken premise, but
we can start our investigation off assuming that our assumption that the
conclusion is false is safe. These philosophers take philosophising
seriously, of course, but they dont take seriously the idea that purely
philosophical (so not empirical, not mathematical) theories have a good
chance at overthrowing parts of common sense."

A videotaped presentation of this statement is under preparation. Link to this will be provided as soon as it is made ready. This should provide a more interesting source. We welcome any suggestions you may have in this connection for illustrative material. Please let us know what Malcolm Perry would indicate regarding the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space via highest-energy physics experimentation.

Highest energy physics is an empirical science as noted below. We may then discover through experimentation the answer to our theoretical questions
which are then derived from observation. Should the ongoing LHC at CERN produce the Higgs boson and field, this would then be a major victory for the Standatrard Model in Physics. Should we note the generation of a Type Ia Supernova, this will further confirm the current record of 100% successful predictions of the Generalized Theory of Relavity of Albert Einstein. These energies to be generated at CERN are those energy levels seen some 10^-9 - 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the point origin of the Universe. Experimentally we note that these energies are deemed sufficient for the testing of these hypotheses.

Please access this webpage for a thorough update on the LHC at CERN.

http://www.lhcdefense.org/

Generation of Type Ia Supernova via a transition to de Sitter space may be added to this description as a consequence of highest energy physics experimentation.

There has been a brief hiatus introduced from now until April or thereabouts for the reactivation of the LHC at CERN. We should consider all possible alternatives before this gravely irresponsible experiment begins anew.

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 and professional incompetence. We may discover the Higgs boson and field and yet create a perforation in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space and create a Supernova. The tentative date for the onset of the collisional actions at CERN is now around May 1, 2009.

From the LHC Machine Outreach

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam.

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed per example at the US accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is
288.89E30.
In scientific
notation, this 288.89 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With
a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the
energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 288.89 x 10 to the 41st
power
electron volts (288.89 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest
energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th
power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an
intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish as this undergoes a vast increment at CERN.

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)


It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical
energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological
model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative
of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy
of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential
existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived
by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de
Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron
volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de
Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon
the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of
de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3
, converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation.
This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the
sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this
order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in
the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an
immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a
public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor
R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms
smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of
universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter
space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De
Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming
an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this
formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach
in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus
releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere,
the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter
space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger
for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the
accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed,
and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to
relativistic cosmology.

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 shown 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

 

Sorry to cut out most of your post, but not relevant to my reply.

We've not had colliders since the 1930s. That was when Lawrence invented the first cyclotronic accelerator, using two "D"s in a magnetic field, with an increasing electric field accelerating protons in ever larger circles until they exited and hit a fixed target. We use similar devices every day in our nuclear medicine laboratories to accelerate protons and have them hit O-18 targets [extracted from normal O-16 water, as O-18 is about 0.20% of natural O], to which they stick, ejecting neutrons, creating F-18. We then extract that F-18 and inject it into our patients and watch for the positron annihilation radiation. [F-18 is a 1.830 hour T-1/2, emitting positrons as a beta emission with E of 635 KeV (and there is some electron-capture decay as well)]. The positron annihilation radiation is emitted only a few mm from where the positron is emitted from the F-18, as they rapidly decelerate then annihilate [sometimes first forming 'positronium'] when they 'encounter' an electron. The mass of those two particles (electron and positron) is converted into two 511 KeV photons traveling in opposite direction.

Improvements in accelerator technology continued. Eventually, a point of 'diminishing returns' in hitting fixed targets was reached, due to the relativistic effect [i.e. the energy was used to move the fixed target [usually higher-Z nuclei; or also protons as H atoms in plastics, etc] at high relativistic speed, instead of being available for increasing particle production. Thus, the idea to collide two beams into each other became necessary, so that all of the energy of the beams could be used for new-particle production. AlphaNumeric (AN) is correct about the colliders - there are now lots of them, and the LHC replaced the LEP that was housed in the same tunnel until circa 2000, when it was removed. But by increasing the mass of the beam significantly [the LEP used light-weight electrons and positrons; the LHC would use proton beams or Lead nuclei beams], and using higher magnetic fields with improved super-conducting magnets, a huge increase in collisional energy becomes possible. Thus, the LHC would become the highest energy collider, surpassing the Fermilab's proton/antiproton collisions with its intended proton/proton beams; and surpassing the RHIC's Gold/Gold collisions with its intended Lead/Lead beams. That increased energy of the collision opens up new windows for observational physics to confirm or deny various theories of experimental physics.

But that is also where the concern lies: Some of the theories of colliding Lead beams posit that "strangelets" could be formed; and those theories have not been fully refuted. The 'cosmic ray' argument is not wholly applicable, because cosmic rays are not known to have such high-Z particles in them at those higher energies -- only at much lower energies. That information might change with provable discoveries via the Pierre Auger cosmic ray detector - but that has not happened as of yet.

Other theories of colliding proton beams posit that "microblackholes" might be formed. Again, the cosmic ray argument is not wholly applicable. In nature, cosmic rays that would strike earth of LHC comparable COM energies are so fast that the product microblackhole [if such even can be created - there is good argument that it is all a fictional fantasy by Hawking that microblackholes even exist or are creatable], if it were created, would have a near-relativistic speed relative to earth, and zip right through our planet in about 1/4 second, harmlessly escaping before interacting; whereas the LHC would produce a few that would become gravitationally trapped, endlessly orbiting through our planet, continuously interacting and growing larger. A "neutron-star" argument was devised to get around that, but it assumes that near relativistic microblackholes are not "slippery" at relativistic speeds, as suggested by Roessler might be the case. If they are not slippery, then the argument might be valid [there are other reasons why it might still not be valid]. If they are slippery, then it is invalid. This is loosely analogous to neutron interactions with nuclei. At slow [thermal] speeds they are 'sticky' and the nucleus is said to have a high-Barn cross-section. At fast [near relativistic] speeds the nuclei can have a very low-Barn cross section, allowing the neutron to zip past almost as if the nucleus was not even present, requiring huge thicknesses of material for shielding purposes for shielding of fast neutrons. Different nuclei [i.e. different N and Z] have widely varying cross sections at different neutron speeds, but generally slow neutrons are sticky, and fast ones are not so sticky. But this is only a loose analogy because the interaction processes would be entirely different for neutrons compared to microblackholes.

As to your UFO argument - I suspect that if hundreds of people simultaneously observed a "UFO" and took video pictures, and the people were 'reputable', that would suffice for 'proof'. But you are right, it would not be something we controlled in a laboratory.

 

When and where was the first collider that accelerated proton beams to relativistic speeds and collided the beams? Do the protons actually increase in mass or is that just fiction?

I don't understand "high-Barn cross-section" or the difference between high and low Barn cross-section. Please explain.

 

how funny !
where is all your scientific definitions ?
"what-ever" is not a scientific term.

trying to muddy the water around something that may not go well with your constant need to try and prove every single thing i say wrong.
hahahahahahaha
too funny Captain debunker 1st class.

you see if you were any good at debunking (which is quite obvious why you are in here) you would have done a few other things which i wont tip you off for.
but good try anyway.

 

I said "or whatever" because I don't know what the heck you were talking about. Your posts are sounding more and more like the ravings of a madman, I am sorry to say.

Walter - Admittedly I used the term "collider" fairly loosely, but as you said the early ones still "accelerate protons and have them hit O-18 targets", which would be a legitimate thing to call a collision I think. The collision energies weren't high enough to create new particles, sure, but the process wasn't much different. And of course the LHC will have the highest collision energy to date, that's the whole point. Again you made a point that cosmic rays can not be used as an argument for safety:

But you did not address my question:

Is this indeed what you are saying? That a 14 TeV collsion involving a stationary target would be fine, but what the LHC intends to do is not?
And as Nasor sensibly pointed out, this distinction further makes no sense because even if the stationary target version is safer on Earth, it would not be safer on Jupiter or the
Sun because these objects have much stronger gravitational fields than Earth does, meaning that cosmic ray micro-black-holes should have destroyed them long ago, even if the Earth could be safe from them. I'll address the stranglet concerns later.


Dixon - Stop posting such large blocks of text, nobody reads them.

 

Out of all the "LHC will kill us" nonsense I think this is actually the easiest one to refute. The early universe was very hot and at some point there was a soup of quark and gluons, a quark-gluon plasma (this is the point of making a collider that can produce QGP - so we can study the properties of something that existed early in the universe's evolution).

In a QGP there are roughly equal amounts of the different flavours of quarks and as the universe cools there is a phase transition to the more familiar bound states of baryons and mesons that we observe today. The point is that if it were energetically favourable for strange matter (or any other type of exotic matter) to form over baryons and mesons then that's what we would be made of now, or indeed we would observe it - we don't therefore it is not going to be produced at the LHC.

We don't observe any evidence for micro black holes, or any evidence that MBH's are stable so saying that the cosmic ray argument is not valid is being extremely economical with the truth. If MBH's did pose a threat to astronomical bodies like the earth then we would have observed this kind of thing happening and we haven't. You say that there are arguments about lots of things but very rarely actually tell us what they are. If something is a fictional fantasy then tell us why and provide evidence in the form of peer reviewed articles. Otherwise I suspect it's all empty rhetoric. Also, Otto Rössler has been largely discredited in the physics community, since he has no background in physics and no publications on any of the subjects he's trying to pontificate about. Most of his rubbish can be traced back to the fact that he doesn't understand general relativity which is not surprising since he's a medic, not a physicist.

So stop scaremongering - You're the group that's killing people, not the LHC.

 

that is a good point and first time I have noted it here.

 

You do not understand. Paul is going for four records:

(1) longest running thread.
(2) largest stored volume of any thread.
(3) most repetitive thread.
(4) least rational content / post by OP of any thread.

My money is on Paul to claim all four.

 

"normal" never achieved anything great.

funny the difference between you and i and how we each value life and achievement.

the lucky thing is you and i are free to think that and live that way.

was the nazis experimenting on the jews a bad thing ?
if you could go back and stop it would you ?
even though it would cost hundreds of thousands of lives for which the medical break through have saved ?

would you commit genocide against the German people to prevent them ?

while your locked up in your game of semantics the big moral questions go unanswered... just as you hope to avoid them.

the debate was never about "can they" but "should they" and you have absolutely NO evidence WHAT SOO EVER to support why they should.

 

'Colliders' customarily refer to colliding beam particle accelerators. 'Accelerators' customarily refer to beams that strike fixed targets. Or so the convention has developed. But yes, they both accelerate particles from zero to near light speed.

And no, high-E cosmic rays would produce near-relativistic products even if striking the sun, etc., and would zip on through [in the case of the sun, it would take about 30 seconds or thereabouts at about 0.999+c]. Consequently, they would not become gravitationally bound. So yes, the LHC Safety Assessment Group [LSAG] had to take that into consideration after it was brought to their attention as a novel concept [novel to them (Blue Team), not to us (Red Team)]. In doing so, they came up with the "neutron star" argument discussed briefly above.

And as to the quark-gluon-'plasma' [it is actually now believed to be a 'liquid' not a 'plasma'] at the start of the Big Bang - no one knows for certain how that expansion began, and so it remains theoretical, which is in large part the 'purpose' of the LHC to recreate similar conditions of energy density. Yes, some theory suggests that strangelets could not form under those conditions. But there are valid proposals to search for them in the debris of the collisions at the LHC. I did not make those proposals - other scientists did. So are we to pick and choose which theories to believe to suit our preconceived notions of safety? There are other considerations which become even more involved than in a general discussion such as here. One idea, for example, could be that all matter started out as rapidly expanding strange matter [i.e. small strangelets all flying away from each other], with the strangelets small and radioactive. They then decayed into normal matter, but relatively far apart nucleons moving apart [i.e. hot]. The LHC would instead possibly create a larger strangelet [from a larger initial chunk of matter], which would have a longer half-life, giving it a long enough time to interact with cold matter [i.e. not moving away from it] surrounding it. Personally, I can not tell which of those theories is correct, nor have I seen anyone 'prove' that it is impossible to create strangelets. Hence, the desire for caution and safety. Suggestions have been made to look for strangelets in nature. If they could be found, that would prove that aspect of safety. And, that is equally valid physics research for which Nobels could be awarded, knowledge advanced, etc., but with utmost safety. I don't see any reason to rush the LHC when there are so many avenues of physics research left open, which would provide great advances in science and knowledge without risk.

And yes, it appears that Dixon's thread has become a catch-all for other LHC ideas other than his own.

 

You still didn't answer my question.

It's hardly been rushed, they've been planning and building the thing for the last 14 years. Sorry I haven't answered more thoroughly but I don't have time right now.

In my (perhaps biased) opinion, fundamental research into the nature of the universe and our place in it is the sole justification for human existence. What greater long-term goal could we as a species possibly have?

Of course the governments don't fund this kind of research because of that, they fund it because in the past research into nuclear and particle physics has yeilded great fruits, particularly in medical applications, but these days the benefits have reached nearly every field of science and technology, particularly from the invention of the synchrotron, which of course is used for high-resolution imaging and spectroscopy aside from colliders. (admitted the early motivation was to build the atomic bomb, but the field has progressed a long way since then, and indeed segmented into many sub-fields).
So it is impossible to say exactly what benefits will come from the LHC, but you can bet that one day they will be worth a lot to society.

 

i will freely admit you have probably 3 or 4 to the power of knowledge that i have on this feild so obviousely would need to do some months targeted study to catch up to participate in the fundermental equational questions, however algorithms are not my forte at all, psychology is.

what seems fairly apparent is the level of technology that already exists that is outside the moral control of most of society.
look at the smacking children debate.
such a simple concept yet people are vastly divided.

there is vast amounts of technology in between the fundamental mechanics of the universe and how to dig a hole in the ground that have been stifled for decades if not centuries.
why now and who is controlling it for whos benefit ?

look at food and water distribution in the world.
look at malaria and aids drugs

1 group of people claiming to have moral absolute authority over the rest of the world when they wont even over thrown a corrupt government like the countless ones in Africa and Asia.

do you see my point ?

we already have the technology to feed the world and house them.
but the corrupt control this power and others wont exercise their power to do away with the corruption.

what type of god is this playing god over who ?

 

Good point. I'd comment more but must hurry down to the local loony bin with my tape recorder.

I will screen my subjects to be more efficient. First question is: "What do you associated with Newton?"

Only those who reply: A fig newton is a good tasting fig and cookie bar will be worth my time to tape. - I certainly don't want to waste my time with one who knows anything about physics.

Here is your first question, ripleofdeath, made while waving my extra tape cassette in front of you: "What do you associated with Maxwell?"