Graviphoton

We time travel every day we jump into our cars, or go on the train.

Ok. Here's the rub. Even if the LHC hasn't reached that level, it sure will progressively. So their is still an unseen danger. Happy now.

Yes i know. Its full of idiots and crackpots who don't know the first thing about physics, never mind astrphysics. references to what he said, which was what was meant.

Put it this way. I find it highly unlikely that their core arguement be wrong, expecially when going to court. It would be a professional embarrasment on their behalfs. Now, i will not answer again in this thread. I gave you references, and even contacts... and you all keep pressing me for the holy grail. Find it yourself.

I mean come on. Why are you pressing me about the knowledges validity. Its not me who's trying to stop your precious collider from being in operation. I gave you his e-mail contact, now i am going to leave it at that.

No, i didn't get it from BAUT. Now, speak to Dr Dixon about the energies, because i dare say it cannot be false, since he is using the arguement in court.

Femilab is yet to update their page. Now, i'm not an idiot, and i don't appreciate being called one. Listen to this: ''The current energy levels at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have been increased from 1.2 TeV to 33 TeV (trillion electron volts) for the the Tevatron 2 trials scheduled for this March or April 2001. Please check the Luminoisty Webpage at Fermilab to verify this enormous increase. Clearly, this is enough energy to access those energies resident in de Sitter space thus produing a supernova. This is termed a Type Ia supernova and is used as a standard candle for distance estimates in observational astonomy. Even though research is often risky this is an unacceptable risk since supernova production will destroy everthing out to a perimeter of some 50 light years. Please contact me at <dixon@hawaii.edu> for further information. Go to: ( Paul Dixon Supernova) on Google.com or (Paul W. Dixon supernova) as well to check various webpages on this topic. Yours sincerely, Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D. Supernova from Experimentation'' Now, even though i do not believe this, theory, it still states the energy difference. Now if you are having problems with me, contact him for yourself. Not 10^33TeV... I'm doing so much work, i'm getting mixed up. By work, i mean i am doing several things at once, with a child screaming in one ear.

No, i don't how to. Maybe one day my course will cover it. But for reference, ''Baby Univeses and Black Holes'' ''In fact, we can make a photon travel faster than light for a very short period of time using the uncertainty principle...'' Stephen Hawking I would presume, that information has the same qualities as well under the correct circumstances. Also, Fred Wolf makes a reference to Hawking, [before] Hawking retracted his arguement about black holes... ''And energy and mass might not be the only thing to move into other universes. Hawking also says information too can leak.'' Parallel Universe

Good question. I guess we couldn't know, unless we jumped into one for ourselves. The information could leave the black hole moving for a short perdiod of time at superluminal speeds. This can be done using the uncertainty principle.

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Also, if that is the level of your arguement, i can also counter by saying: The universe was thriving in primordial micro black holes, but are diluted due to inflation. The same kind of theory which answers for magnetic monopoles.

This won't be long, and not too complicated. It was said that things could move into black holes and enter other universes. But this violated the information paradox, which states a thing cannot simply move out of this universe, because that information would dissappear entirely... Then in 2004, in july, Stephen Hawking restracted his theory, now saying that things cannot move into other universes, but instead, the information is mangled, and through a process of quantum tunelling, the information is spat back out. ... Before Hawking made his claim, and lost his bet, it was also known that if other universes existed, if a tachyon for instance, moved through a black holes and entered another universe, it was said that an antitachyon would come in from the other univese and enter our own. ... I ask Is it then not possible for two universes to exchange information, so long as the information exchanged is simultaneous and identical? If so, then information can leave the universe, because it is quickly replaced by an incoming information. ... Just a thought really...

I'll tell you what, i will consult another physicist who works in the area of cognitive science, and ask whether he believes that a model of the brain requires non-classical physics, and if i was wrong, i will hold my hands up. Then it will be scientific, in the sense you mean yes?

The energies are sufficient to create black holes... more than enough now. So how can anyone say we are 100% safe? The ignorance, not so much from you, but in general is astounding. They hold to equations which have never been observed or experimented with... equations that are supposed to allow hawking radiation, ect ect. What if it doesn't radiate away its energy? Speculative, i know... just as speculative as the nature of black holes.

I know i never gave any work, because it isn't my work. If you want a reference, you will need to ask Dr. Wagner, who has published some of his work on sciforums. However, the energies required to create black holes in the lab with a mass of about 22 micrograms we would need about 10^16 TeV just to produce it... and guess what. The Fermilab can now reach 10^33 TeV... so watch this space Yes, but i never went into details. A theory using science, whether speculative or not, mathematically enhanced, or retarded, it is still a theory using scientific conjecture, and in definition, is a scientific theory, so long as it is rigorous in what it claims,and not over-speculative, basing things on hard science. Now, this is what Brian Greene has done. And i disagree with wiki. It hasn't been debunked, as in dead. It is still alive, because Greene hasn't retracted his statements. It is also considered by many physicists in the field to be an experimental way to probe black holes.

Look, A scientific theory is a theory which makes a conjecture on science Simple

''In fact, i claim your very proposal is bogus'' No, i take that back. It was your choice of words. It sounded as if you where saying it would have a non-zero value which would be arbitrarily small. After looking at the first website, it seems that the value is actually 0... It also seems i didn't understand what you where trying to say in the OP. It wasn't very clear, to be fair to me. But now understanding what you are getting at, i retract what i said, and actually agree.

Because it is simply not enough to say on-off binary processesors can excite a self-reflecting system like a human. In fact, considering the amount of computers in the world now, with no artificial intelligence arising from them, is evidence alone that consciousness is more complex that on-off binary codes. One reason might be because of perhaps superpositining laws. No longer does consciousness not act in binary codes, but it hasa value which is between 1 and 0... A computer by definition thats works in this process, would be the long sought after quantum computers. The brain has reached a state, where its atoms and molecules are pivotal to awareness. This cannot be achieved through technological mechanics alone. And no, the operations of the mind, ''the computation'' as you put it, is very different to that of a computer. Its also universally-accepted that the human brain is more powerful as well than that of a boolean logic and processors.

Is it so increadible that the mind requires non-classical physics? What i find increadible is any theory which states it doesn't, considering we know that quantum behaviour of the non-classical kind must be in operation within the brain, and builds up any effects of the psyche... ...avoiding answering the brain as such, will itself lead to an incomplete, and quite nessesery flawed model of brain activity. And mooey is right. We don't actually know what causes consciousness. Nueronal activity is a theory, which has good experimentation... but it is not enough to say ''we know'' what causes consciousness. ''Again - isn't this the same as saying that a cockroach is operating by quantum mechanics because the sub molecular particles do?'' YES!!! BINGO!! I made this arguement already in a different form.

First, according to quantum physics, any black hole does not have an upper limit of size, but it must have a lower limit: The planck length. This is why th electron can be a black hole. I think you will find the event horizon problem is just one of many problems physicist Brian Greene can remove. Klaynos Rubbish? Maybe you have read this claim many times. I have also read that white holes are still indeed [possible], and whilst black holes may exist, it is only logical to assume their time-reversed counterpart. Without them, its one-sided, and puts doubt on the black holes existence. Now Swanson, i think its only fair that you remove the warning, because you applied it as a warning against theories not acceptable. I've shown it is mainstream check wikipedia: Is the Electron a Black Hole? You will find it tells you about the history of idea, and some of its implications. I have to admit, i'm quite surprised you rallied to giving me a warning, without asking me first. Wasn't very wise was it? I'm not one of these trolls like zephir who makes claims that are totally unsupported. I give my work more credit than that. Fanghur Actually, Dr Wagner is a friend, and i know he has made these lawsuits. I agree with him. So there you go. And please, for the second time. The Cosmic Ray Collision arguement has been overthrown and accepted by the LHC scientists. Leave that to rest please, and stop keeping using it. (suffice to say), i may not agree for the same reasons as his counterpart Dr Dixon. It seems to me that exciting supernovae of type la is just far too much for me to believe in. However, both their principle states my own: We don't know whether the equations are sound, therefore, how can we be 100% sure nothing bad can happen? This is what people ignore, and show how ignorant they are.

Mooey is 99% correct. The universe, according to carefull calculations, finds overwhelmig evidence that our cosmoc is indeed... open...

Then this was wrong then from the start---- and not necesserily from my advantage, if there was one/

I have worked out, concpetually, that the poles change is randomized, and not specific, due to the electromagnetic magnitude. Of course, I have nothing HARD-SCIENTIFIC that can back this up, other than the magnitude of electroforce be less and less as time goes on,which, according to physics must happen, as spacetime expands.

Wrong. I can show math that speaks of time as an invariance with space, which means... to talk about time, is to also talk about space.

Very diplomatic. Very wise. I will. Can i create a last thread on consciousness that addresses his incongruity?

There is no definate value, only approxamtions. One is 45 billion years. Tipler has one that calculates trillions of years