Klaynos Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 And I assume you mean, Bad Astronomy and Universe Today, hardly any better 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. You've not given references. It'd be more embarrassing for the LHC staff who know it's safe. And the guy brining the case is already a laughing stock frankly, he's brought these cases before and lost them, I'm told.
Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 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.
Hypercube Posted May 23, 2008 Author Posted May 23, 2008 Yeah, he did try to stop particle accelerators before, and lost. Notice how Graviphoton dodged my question about why they are worried at all if his figures or 33 TeV are correct.
Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 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.
ydoaPs Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 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. Not too unlike the Cdesign Proponentsists.
Klaynos Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 Nothing, it just reminded me, and he said if there's anything anyone thought should be added then we should mention it... Of course if you'd like to answer?
swansont Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 I'm closing this temporarily pending my chance to review the last few hours of posts. Tempers seem to be running a little high. OK, reopened. Administrative notes, i.e pay heed: While there wasn't any out-and-out flaming, I think the comments were getting a little snarky and were definitely unnecessary. I have removed several posts that were not adding anything to the conversation. If someone asks for references, it does not mean posting a quote gathered from some nebulous source. Links to actual peer-reviewed papers are preferred (not paywalled if possible), or at least web sites with the relevant material. If you don't have a link, give some information about where it came from — Books, if you must, but try and be specific (page numbers). It's your job to back up what you claim, and shouldn't be up to anyone else to chase down the material you offer as support. ——— Science notes: 10^33 TeV is an outrageous claim. I suspect, given the context, it was likely from a number referring to the luminosity of the beam, which is a measure like flux: how many particles per unit area per unit time you have. The 33 TeV claim is suspect, given the origin of it: one of the complainants in the LHC lawsuit, and someone who doesn't work at Fermilab. A psychology professor, according to reports I've seen (see how easy it is to link to relevant material?) "Go look it up on the website" is insufficient. As to the earlier claims. I was offered up Chapter 13 of Greene's "Elegant Universe," among others. No, there's nothing there I can see that makes a claim that an electron is a black hole, or supports that statement. These references need to be posted here, not PM'd to me. Everyone gets to rebut. I don't have the other two books.
Sayonara Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 The moral of this thread is that "what if, what if, what if" is not a very compelling argument. Closed because I don't believe any further posts of value can be expected.
Recommended Posts