Today night the physicists-criminals from CERN accelerated p

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:34:59 +0100, "John" <John@yabadabadooo.com> wrote:

My philosophy is simple. If the world has ended and all is destroyed -
I won't worry about it. And if the world is not destroyed and all is
the same - I still won't worry about it.

If the world is not destroyed and all is the same, it doesn't mean that you
don't have a reason to be worried...Unless you just don't care about
anything
going on around you?

What if you can prove that the experiments conducted at CERN can
destroy the world? Will you worry about it then??

PS: I'm not saying that the people who are against the CERN experiments
are right, but I applaud that they care...

Now there is a classical leftist weenie attitude; intent is more important
than results. Because the intent is pure, results don't matter.

 

[Uncle Al]

Magnetic wrote:
[snip]

RHIC collides ions. That creates HOT quark gluon plasma.
Now LHC collides protons. In non-central inelastic collisions it can
tear out of a Dirac sea a COLD crystals of strange matter and
antimatter:
[snip 140 lines of crap]

"Cosmo-atmospheric" crystals would have huge velocities in the Earth
atmosphere. As a result the particles of atmosphere would have TeV
energies in the reference systems of these crystals. These energies
are thousands times bigger than the specific binding energy of lambdas
in crystals. That will lead to destruction of "Cosmo-atmospheric"
crystals.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/104
<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100304/full/news.2010.108.html>
http://arxiv/abs/1003.2030

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

 

[Uncle Al]

Baron wrote:

Sjouke Burry Inscribed thus:

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/19/10 3:43 AM, Magnetic wrote:
Today night the physicists-criminals from CERN accelerated protons
to the record energy 3.5 TeV per beam. At the regions of collisions,
probably, the rays were on skew lines (two lines that do not
intersect but are not parallel). It is not excluded that there were
accidental collisions of protons.



The LHC temps are many orders of magnitude below those
of the very early universe. Even cosmic rays are 6-12
orders of magnitude greater than the LHC.

About a hundred people have tried to confuse M with facts.
It does not work.
He is like a maniak blind to all arguments and info.

He's a prat !

For one letter more you can add two syllables and crosshairs
targeting: He's an idiot. Ignorance can be educated, stupidity is
forever.

DIVERSITY! QED.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

 

[WangoTango]

In article <4ba4dd14$0$279$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
John@yabadabadooo.com says...

PS: I'm not saying that the people who are against the CERN experiments
are right, but I applaud that they care...
Well, that's the important thing, now isn't it? The science behind a

thing doesn't matter, it is the warm fuzzies that make the world go
'round........
WOW!

 

[spamrebuff]

I thought this nut was talking about a Large *Hardon* Collision.

 

[rickman]

On Mar 19, 4:31 pm, Nicolas Bonneel <nbonn...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

WangoTango wrote:
In article <MPG.260d9604645d433c989...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
W...@somewhere.invalid says...
In article <347753b0-85f2-4025-be1f-
47a943c9f...@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, magnetic.t...@yandex.ua
says...
[...]
If the collapse was switched, then most probably tomorrow morning all
people will start to cosmos.
I don't think "cosmos" is a verb.

Besides, if Hawking is correct, miniature black holes are not black, and
would in fact be very hot, and very short lived, as they quantum
evaporate.  The universe if full of collisions every second, and 'it' is
still here.

and even during its life, the small black-hole can only absorb matter
within its Schwarzschild radius. Which is "small" for a "small" backhole.
Everything outside is attracted in the same way as if it was not a
blackhole. If the blackhole has 100 tons of matter in a very small
volume, it would not attract me more than the building next to me which
weighs much more (and which basically almost doesn't attract me at all).

There is one difference. The small black hole will not be stopped by
anything. So gravity would pull it toward the center of the earth; on
its way it will undoubtedly encounter more matter which crosses the
event horizon making it bigger. So if it doesn't instantly
vaporize... AND isn't contained in the field of the accelerator, it
will travel to the center of the earth, oscillating back and forth
many times eating tiny wormholes (the earthworm type, not the StarTrek
type) through the earth. If the center of the earth is liquid, these
wormholes will collapse and the consumption of the earth will continue
from the center out.

On the other hand, if Hawking is right, these black holes may exist
for such a short time that they are still confined in the accelerator
when they expire. After all, the fact that they are black holes does
not mean they aren't still protons. They will continue to follow the
curve of the magnetic fields they exist in.

Rick

 

[Magnetic]

If I had an access to the start-button of a rocket with nuclear war-
head I would push it and I would direct it on Geneva.

Why? Am I crazy?

No! Those physicists of CERN are crazy.

To kill million of people with 100% probability is much more humane
than to wait the moment then CERN physicists would kill 6 700 000 000
people with 50% probability.

Dear people of Geneva, you are idiots, crazy on money. You are
criminals because you hosted the Snake in your city. CERN must by
ruin. CERN physicists and other physicists all over the world must be
punished if they did not understand yet the deadly danger of LHC.

 

[Martin Brown]

John wrote:

My philosophy is simple. If the world has ended and all is destroyed -
I won't worry about it. And if the world is not destroyed and all is
the same - I still won't worry about it.

If the world is not destroyed and all is the same, it doesn't mean that you
don't have a reason to be worried...Unless you just don't care about
anything
going on around you?

There have been delusional nutters claiming the world is going to end
for as long as anyone can remember. Very occasionally they are right in
some restricted sense - like Cassandra for instance in ancient Troy.

What if you can prove that the experiments conducted at CERN can
destroy the world? Will you worry about it then??

Iff I could prove it then yes. But some half baked lunatic nutters on
Usenet with delusions of adequacy is not going to cut the mustard.
Natural cosmic ray events with many times the energy have already
occurred in the vicinity of the Earth. The difference here is that at
CERN we can instrument them and see all the bits that come flying out.

Someone once unkindly described HEP as trying to understand the workings
of a pocket watch by smashing pairs of them together.

I just hope they do observe something new and interesting at these
energies. It is a huge investment to make only to be told - well we need
another one with twice the energy. But that is one likely outcome.

PS: I'm not saying that the people who are against the CERN experiments
are right, but I applaud that they care...

But they are hopelessly misguiding and so can be safely ignored.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Magnetic wrote:

If I had an access to the start-button of a rocket with nuclear war-
head I would push it and I would direct it on Geneva.

Why? Am I crazy?

No! Those physicists of CERN are crazy.

To kill million of people with 100% probability is much more humane
than to wait the moment then CERN physicists would kill 6 700 000 000
people with 50% probability.

So, you are criminally insane and dangerous to the general public.

--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

 

[Tim Wescott]

Magnetic wrote:

If I had an access to the start-button of a rocket with nuclear war-
head I would push it and I would direct it on Geneva.

Why? Am I crazy?

No! Those physicists of CERN are crazy.

To kill million of people with 100% probability is much more humane
than to wait the moment then CERN physicists would kill 6 700 000 000
people with 50% probability.

Dear people of Geneva, you are idiots, crazy on money. You are
criminals because you hosted the Snake in your city. CERN must by
ruin. CERN physicists and other physicists all over the world must be
punished if they did not understand yet the deadly danger of LHC.

Please share this sentiment with your local police force, so they know
how patriotic (and safe!) you are. Especially if you're planning any
travel to Switzerland.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Tim Wescott]

rickman wrote:

On Mar 19, 4:31 pm, Nicolas Bonneel <nbonn...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
WangoTango wrote:
In article <MPG.260d9604645d433c989...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
W...@somewhere.invalid says...
In article <347753b0-85f2-4025-be1f-
47a943c9f...@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, magnetic.t...@yandex.ua
says...
[...]
If the collapse was switched, then most probably tomorrow morning all
people will start to cosmos.
I don't think "cosmos" is a verb.
Besides, if Hawking is correct, miniature black holes are not black, and
would in fact be very hot, and very short lived, as they quantum
evaporate. The universe if full of collisions every second, and 'it' is
still here.
and even during its life, the small black-hole can only absorb matter
within its Schwarzschild radius. Which is "small" for a "small" backhole.
Everything outside is attracted in the same way as if it was not a
blackhole. If the blackhole has 100 tons of matter in a very small
volume, it would not attract me more than the building next to me which
weighs much more (and which basically almost doesn't attract me at all).

There is one difference. The small black hole will not be stopped by
anything. So gravity would pull it toward the center of the earth; on
its way it will undoubtedly encounter more matter which crosses the
event horizon making it bigger. So if it doesn't instantly
vaporize... AND isn't contained in the field of the accelerator, it
will travel to the center of the earth, oscillating back and forth
many times eating tiny wormholes (the earthworm type, not the StarTrek
type) through the earth. If the center of the earth is liquid, these
wormholes will collapse and the consumption of the earth will continue
from the center out.

On the other hand, if Hawking is right, these black holes may exist
for such a short time that they are still confined in the accelerator
when they expire. After all, the fact that they are black holes does
not mean they aren't still protons. They will continue to follow the
curve of the magnetic fields they exist in.

If the edge-case version of string theory that they're hoping to prove
is right the black hole will be smaller than a proton. If Hawking is
right, it'll evaporate before it has a chance to encounter any other matter.

It's highly unlikely that the particular version of string theory that
they're invoking will be right (it calls for the wrapped-up extra
dimensions of string theory to be much bigger than most other string
theories).

And string theory itself is based on the same conclusions and logic that
lead Hawking to deduce that black holes must evaporate -- so if the
unlikely edge-case string theory that says these will happen is right,
then the chances that Hawking radiation _won't_ take care of it is just
about practically nil.

OTOH, the chance that Magnetic is a raving lunatic or a troll is very
high, and the fact that he's making terrorist threats against Geneva is
absolutely uncontrovertible.

So you want to believe a terrorist?

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Baron]

Michael A. Terrell Inscribed thus:

Magnetic wrote:

If I had an access to the start-button of a rocket with nuclear war-
head I would push it and I would direct it on Geneva.

Why? Am I crazy?

No! Those physicists of CERN are crazy.

To kill million of people with 100% probability is much more humane
than to wait the moment then CERN physicists would kill 6 700 000 000
people with 50% probability.


So, you are criminally insane and dangerous to the general public.

He wants attention !

By spouting his insane predictions and people responding, he gets what
he craves.

As far a I'm concerned he should be institutionalized for his own
safety !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Magnetic]

OTOH, the chance that Magnetic is a raving lunatic or a troll is very
high, and the fact that he's making terrorist threats against Geneva is
absolutely uncontrovertible.

So you want to believe a terrorist?

Idiot!

If you want to live, beat physicists.
Ruin CERN.
Write to Geneva and plead the citizens of Geneva to block the
entrances to LHC.

Otherwise we all will be killed by CERN’s criminals in some of nearest
days.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ru.html

 

[rickman]

On Mar 22, 2:28 am, Magnetic <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote:

OTOH, the chance that Magnetic is a raving lunatic or a troll is very
high, and the fact that he's making terrorist threats against Geneva is
absolutely uncontrovertible.

So you want to believe a terrorist?

Idiot!

If you want to live, beat physicists.
Ruin CERN.
Write to Geneva and plead the citizens of Geneva to block the
entrances to LHC.

Otherwise we all will be killed by CERN’s criminals in some of nearest
days.

I wonder if they are going to make a disaster movie about this? BLACK
HOLE, The End of the World!, coming to a theater near you!


I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
more powerful than the collisions at CERN. If so, why can't they
study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
they seek answers to. Even if it does provide some insight, it will
be obsolete in what, five, ten years? Then they will be wanting to
build a new one that circles the globe, right?

I just can't see the point of pouring so much money into a project
that will likely raise more questions than it answers...

A scientist was giving a lecture on cosmology to a mixed audience.
Afterwords a little old lady approached him and told him that he was
wrong. Asking what he was wrong about, she replied that the Earth was
actually supported on the back of a very large turtle. Amused by this
idea he asked what the turtle was standing on. She replied that it
was standing on the backs of four other turtles. In turn he asked
what these turtles were standing on. Her reply, still more turtles...
this went on for a couple more rounds until the scientist asked again
and the lady replied, "Tut, tut young man! You can't fool me! It's
turtles all the way down!"

The CERN LHC is just going to show us the next level of turtles.

Rick

 

[gil_johnson]

On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
more powerful than the collisions at CERN.  If so, why can't they
study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
they seek answers to.  Even if it does provide some insight, it will
be obsolete in what, five, ten years?  Then they will be wanting to
build a new one that circles the globe, right?

Rick

The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
long - Gil

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/22/10 1:28 AM, Magnetic wrote:

If you want to live, beat physicists.
Ruin CERN.
Write to Geneva and plead the citizens of Geneva to block the
entrances to LHC.

You will certainly die, but it will probably be from smoking,
high blood pressure and drinking, not scientific study of the
very early universe.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

rickman wrote:

On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:



I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
more powerful than the collisions at CERN. If so, why can't they
study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
they seek answers to. Even if it does provide some insight, it will
be obsolete in what, five, ten years? Then they will be wanting to
build a new one that circles the globe, right?
Rick
The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
long - Gil

For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...

Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?

Rick
They want to know about the whichness of why

and unscrew some of the secrets of nature.

 

[rickman]

On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:



I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
more powerful than the collisions at CERN.  If so, why can't they
study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
they seek answers to.  Even if it does provide some insight, it will
be obsolete in what, five, ten years?  Then they will be wanting to
build a new one that circles the globe, right?

Rick

The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
long - Gil

For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...

Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?

Rick

 

[Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.]

On Mar 19, 1:43 am, Magnetic <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote:

Today night the physicists-criminals from CERN accelerated protons to
the record energy 3.5 TeV per beam. At the regions of collisions,
probably, the rays were on skew lines (two lines that do not intersect
but are not parallel). It is not excluded that there were accidental
collisions of protons.

If the collapse was switched, then most probably tomorrow morning all
people will start to cosmos.

Today is March 23, and I personally am not in "cosmos".

When making idiotic predictions, do what Nostradamus did: don't
predict anything within your lifetime, predict 500 years ahead. And be
imaginative.

 

[PD]

On Mar 22, 10:56 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...@earthlink.net> wrote:



On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
more powerful than the collisions at CERN.  If so, why can't they
study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
they seek answers to.  Even if it does provide some insight, it will
be obsolete in what, five, ten years?  Then they will be wanting to
build a new one that circles the globe, right?

Rick

The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
long - Gil

For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...

Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?

The LHC is not an experiment. It is a facility. It is a machine that
is capable of answering many questions. The big questions it MUST
answer include figuring out what happens at the 1 TeV energy scale. We
have only the Standard Model that has been tested so far, with superb
success, but we KNOW that the Standard Model breaks at this energy
scale, and something else has to kick in. There are a number of really
promising guesses as to what that something else is, and each of these
will be compared to experimental measurements to see which is the best
fit. It is also possible that none of them will fit, and we'll see new
phenomena that will point in the direction of a "something else" not
yet considered.

Rick