Today night the physicists-criminals from CERN accelerated p

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

I just can't see the point of pouring so much money into a project
that will likely raise more questions than it answers...
Click to expand...
It would be a disaster if it did not.
If you thought that the objective of science was to lock things up and
figure it all out, so that we wouldn't have any more questions to ask,
I'm afraid you've missed the point.
 
On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll>
wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are the only person who understands my questions. The
point is that this is the sort of theoretical research that does not
have a timetable. The questions that are being asked are really the
same questions we have always had and will never have answers to...
because they are unanswerable.

I don't suggest that we should never try to answer unanswerable
questions, I am saying that we need to apportion an appropriate amount
of our efforts to these areas.

I love reading my Scientific American and learning about the structure
of the cosmos, at the enormously huge scales as well as at the
enormously tiny scales. But I don't mind waiting a few more years to
find out that everything we knew was wrong and we now know a new
everything that will be wrong again someday.

This is entertainment, not science. No, I guess in reality, science
really is just entertainment.

BTW, did you feel that just now? I think it was exactly the vibration
a microscopic black hole would make as it breached the magnetic field
of an accelerator and plunged to the core of the earth!

Be afraid... very afraid!

Rick

PS Is Sjouke Burry your real name??? That looks like a name they made
up on SNL.
 
rickman wrote:
On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll
wrote:
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.

I think you are the only person who understands my questions.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am not that person.
I want them to let us all know about the whichness of why
and unscrew some of the secrets of nature for us.
 
On Mar 23, 5:13 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll
wrote:





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.

I think you are the only person who understands my questions.  The
point is that this is the sort of theoretical research that does not
have a timetable.  The questions that are being asked are really the
same questions we have always had and will never have answers to...
because they are unanswerable.

I don't suggest that we should never try to answer unanswerable
questions, I am saying that we need to apportion an appropriate amount
of our efforts to these areas.

I love reading my Scientific American and learning about the structure
of the cosmos, at the enormously huge scales as well as at the
enormously tiny scales.  But I don't mind waiting a few more years to
find out that everything we knew was wrong and we now know a new
everything that will be wrong again someday.

This is entertainment, not science.  No, I guess in reality, science
really is just entertainment.

BTW, did you feel that just now?  I think it was exactly the vibration
a microscopic black hole would make as it breached the magnetic field
of an accelerator and plunged to the core of the earth!

Be afraid... very afraid!

Rick

PS Is Sjouke Burry your real name???  That looks like a name they made
up on SNL.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
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/
 
On Mar 23, 10:13 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll
wrote:



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.

I think you are the only person who understands my questions.  The
point is that this is the sort of theoretical research that does not
have a timetable.  The questions that are being asked are really the
same questions we have always had and will never have answers to...
because they are unanswerable.

I don't suggest that we should never try to answer unanswerable
questions, I am saying that we need to apportion an appropriate amount
of our efforts to these areas.

I love reading my Scientific American and learning about the structure
of the cosmos, at the enormously huge scales as well as at the
enormously tiny scales.  But I don't mind waiting a few more years to
find out that everything we knew was wrong and we now know a new
everything that will be wrong again someday.

This is entertainment, not science.  No, I guess in reality, science
really is just entertainment.

BTW, did you feel that just now?  I think it was exactly the vibration
a microscopic black hole would make as it breached the magnetic field
of an accelerator and plunged to the core of the earth!

Be afraid... very afraid!

Rick

PS Is Sjouke Burry your real name???  That looks like a name they made
up on SNL.
Click to expand...
A few comments.

First of all, the questions are not "unanswerable". Accelerators were
started in the 50's, and the Standard Model did not arise until the
1970's, so how particles behaved must have seemed just as
"unanswerable" in the 1950's and 1960's. But the Standard Model does
answer A LOT. Likewise here, we fully expect that the replacement for
the Standard Model will come at the hands of what we learn at the LHC,
and so it is in no way unanswerable. This does not mean that having an
answer causes further questions to cease. This is what I commented
previously.

Secondly, you characterize fundamental research (that is, research
that is done to find out "why" without so much of an eye to how to
apply it) is entertainment. For interested hobbyists, I'm sure that's
true, just as evolutionary biology might be to doctors or the search
for extrasolar planets might be to geologists. However, it is a
calling to people who are engaged in the work. This kind of R is the R
in R&D. The practical application of what we learn is the D. There is
a reason why R & D go hand in hand. Without R, D dries up after a
while. Without D, there is no practical benefit to the R. If you favor
D, then put yourself in a D profession, but don't question the value
of R if it's not the half you choose to do.

Third, I completely agree that the work should be funded
appropriately. This is precisely what the custodians of our tax
dollars are charged to do, and they ask people NOT ACTIVELY ENGAGED in
the work but who are sufficiently expert to provide advice on
priorities and balances. If you disagree with those priorities and
balances and would like to see more federal money spent on D rather
than R, by all means let your custodian know. I'll remind you that D
is supportable in private industry, because practical applications can
generate profit, but R needs a sponsor -- and this is the reason why
the federal government bears the burden where private industry is
unwilling. (Note this was not always the case.) I'll also remind you
that the LHC is a facility that will engage literally thousands of
physicists, all generating the usual complement of individual output.
So in terms of dollars per produced result, you'll discover that the
LHC is quite economical, compared to the work of solo investigators or
small university research teams.

PD
 
Magnetic wrote:

[...]

Otherwise we all will be killed by CERN?s criminals in some of nearest
days.
Click to expand...
....and when we aren't, just like every other time you claimed we would be?

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/
Click to expand...
 
Magnetic wrote:
Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Think, what can you do to save your own skin, and try to do that –
kill Brian Cox, kill Rolf Heuer! Explode LHC! Bomb Geneva! Otherwise
they’ll kill you.

Ivan Gorelik.
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/
Click to expand...
Well, if it means you'll shut up at least some good will come of it.

You _have_ contacted your local mental health professionals, to let them
know just how evil-crazy these folks are? I'm sure your local shrinks
will have a lot to contribute to your welfare just as soon as you
impress upon them how you feel about this.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
 
Magnetic wrote:
Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
[snip rest of crap]
Click to expand...

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/104
<http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100304/full/news.2010.108.html>
http://arxiv/abs/1003.2030
<http://www.jlab.org/news/releases/2006/hypernuclei.html>

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
 
Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Think, what can you do to save your own skin, and try to do that –
kill Brian Cox, kill Rolf Heuer! Explode LHC! Bomb Geneva! Otherwise
they’ll kill you.

Ivan Gorelik.
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/
 
Magnetic <magnetic.trap@yandex.ua> wrote in news:d71e1b95-c113-46f8-ac61-
d26a68357f58@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
Yes, but we think it's a good thing. I don't know
how you haven't grasped this yet.


--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
 
Michael Moroney wrote:

Magnetic <magnetic.trap@yandex.ua> writes:


Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
He was missing somewhere for a few days. It is fun to see him again.

Now you've gone over the line, soliciting murder. You are no better
than a lowly terrorist. Does anyone know where this Ivan Gorelik is
so he can be reported to the proper authorities before he harms anyone?
Click to expand...
According to the information on his web page, mr. Gorelik is in Ukraine.
He was already visited by authorities; they found him harmless; there is
no cause to lock him.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
 
Magnetic <magnetic.trap@yandex.ua> writes:

Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that you've been saying we'd all be "killed in a couple
of days" for many months now. Hasn't happened. Nor has four billion+
years of cosmic rays killed anyone.

[snip solicitation for murder]

Ivan Gorelik.
Click to expand...
Now you've gone over the line, soliciting murder. You are no better
than a lowly terrorist. Does anyone know where this Ivan Gorelik is
so he can be reported to the proper authorities before he harms anyone?
 
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:hog51k$a17$1@pcls6.std.com...
Magnetic <magnetic.trap@yandex.ua> writes:

Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?

Yes, I understand
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahahaha!
No you don't. A lying shit like you isn't capable of understanding anything.
 
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:56:15 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

According to the information on his web page, mr. Gorelik is in Ukraine.
He was already visited by authorities; they found him harmless; there is
no cause to lock him.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
Click to expand...
Didn't they say the same thing about Jeffrey Dahmer on his first run
in with the law?

For those who don't know of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
 
On Mar 25, 5:42 pm, Magnetic <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote:
Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Think, what can you do to save your own skin, and try to do that –
kill Brian Cox, kill Rolf Heuer! Explode LHC! Bomb Geneva! Otherwise
they’ll kill you.

Ivan Gorelik.http://darkenergy.narod.ru/
Click to expand...
It may be worth destroying the Earth just to remove you from the
Universe.

illywhacker;
 
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:15:03 -0400, Hammy <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:56:15 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

According to the information on his web page, mr. Gorelik is in Ukraine.
He was already visited by authorities; they found him harmless; there is
no cause to lock him.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Didn't they say the same thing about Jeffrey Dahmer on his first run
in with the law?

For those who don't know of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Click to expand...
Or buy the comic! http://www.derfcity.com/store/dahmerpage.html

<disclaimer>
Love his stuff (Derf's, not JD's). Akron... Woo!
</disclaimer>

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
 
Magnetic wrote:

Idiots, we all will be killed in a couple of days.
All!
Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
We understand that you are a paranoid schitzophrenic.

Think, what can you do to save your own skin, and try to do that ?
kill Brian Cox, kill Rolf Heuer! Explode LHC! Bomb Geneva! Otherwise
they?ll kill you.

Ivan Gorelik.
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/
Click to expand...
 
On Mar 25, 1:56 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Moroney wrote:

According to the information on his web page, mr. Gorelik is in Ukraine.
He was already visited by authorities; they found him harmless;
Click to expand...
correction: *mostly* harmless.

(sorry, couldn't resist. that's my favorite line from Hitchhiker)

Somebody should tell him to drink some gorilka with a "shmat sala" and
relax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top