QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 26 2007, 11:49 PM)
Nope. I'm using an tautology to get attention, but I have yet to see one physically consistant description on how the LHC might kill us and still cosmic influx has not yet.
So now you're stating the two collision models are the same? Maybe you also think Trippy is right?
So now you're stating the two collision models are the same? Maybe you also think Trippy is right?
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 27 2007, 01:25 AM)
Cosmic rays have energies in the same range as the LHC will be using.
The collisions are the same.
Not relative to the earth, they aren't.
Because the conservation of momentum would cause them to escape.
Because the conservation of momentum would cause them to escape.
There are some on this forum that erroneously claim that the conservation of momentum means that the black holes are travelling at the same speed as the original particle,
To be clear, I never said that. That's something Walter L. Wagner espoused. I've claimed the initial collision will slow them to about half their previous relative velocity (in a model where the two colliding particles are the same).
That's just blatantly wrong, and you know it.
That's just blatantly wrong, and you know it.
And, well, we're still here.
Perhaps only because the conservation laws are saving us. You've yet to explain why a dark matter galaxy, with enough hydrogen to build 100,000,000 stars, can't produce even one.
Totally irrelevant. Your "generosity" not withstanding, no cosmic ray collision could induce a blackhole with less than escape velocity.
The collisions are the same.
Not relative to the earth, they aren't.
QUOTE
One of the arguments for the saftey of the LHC is precisely that - Cosmic rays hit us with energies in the range that the LHC use, at a rate of something like 1 per day per square meter, so they're not exactly rare either.
If the LHC is going to produce black holes, then these collisions should also produce black holes, and well, we're still here.
If the LHC is going to produce black holes, then these collisions should also produce black holes, and well, we're still here.
Because the conservation of momentum would cause them to escape.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the arguments for the saftey of the LHC is precisely that - Cosmic rays hit us with energies in the range that the LHC use, at a rate of something like 1 per day per square meter, so they're not exactly rare either. If the LHC is going to produce black holes, then these collisions should also produce black holes, and well, we're still here. |
Because the conservation of momentum would cause them to escape.
There are some on this forum that erroneously claim that the conservation of momentum means that the black holes are travelling at the same speed as the original particle,
To be clear, I never said that. That's something Walter L. Wagner espoused. I've claimed the initial collision will slow them to about half their previous relative velocity (in a model where the two colliding particles are the same).
QUOTE
ignoring the fact that because the black hole is heavier then the original particle, it must be travelling slower, and in some cases it is, or may be possible for the black hole to have a velocity below the escape velocity of the earth.
That's just blatantly wrong, and you know it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ignoring the fact that because the black hole is heavier then the original particle, it must be travelling slower, and in some cases it is, or may be possible for the black hole to have a velocity below the escape velocity of the earth. |
That's just blatantly wrong, and you know it.
And, well, we're still here.
Perhaps only because the conservation laws are saving us. You've yet to explain why a dark matter galaxy, with enough hydrogen to build 100,000,000 stars, can't produce even one.
QUOTE
To put this in perspective, according to wikipedia, Earth has a surface area of 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, and has been around for 1,643,625,000,000 days (give or take) which gives us a total of 838,356,571,800,000,000,000,000,000 collisions. Even if my calulations of velocity were out, and it required a special geometry that only occured once in every billion collisions to create a black hole with a residual velocity less then 11 km/s (which is another argument that has been forwarded - that it requires a set of virtually impossible circumstances) in fact, I'll be generious, if this alignment occurs only once in every billion billion collisions, that still leaves 838,356,571 collisions that could have produced a black hole - that's over eight hundred million black holes over the course of the earth's history.
Totally irrelevant. Your "generosity" not withstanding, no cosmic ray collision could induce a blackhole with less than escape velocity.
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Oct 27 2007, 06:36 AM)
''One of the arguments for the saftey of the LHC is precisely that - Cosmic rays hit us with energies in the range that the LHC use, at a rate of something like 1 per day per square meter, so they're not exactly rare either.''
This arguement has been falsified.
You are correct!
This arguement has been falsified.
You are correct!
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 27 2007, 08:04 AM)
Only in your imagination. I've been able to demonstrate using at least two different lines of logic how that falsification is in error.
And I've been able to demonstarte that your arguments are false because they violate conservation and causality.
And I've been able to demonstarte that your arguments are false because they violate conservation and causality.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 27 2007, 11:03 AM)
Erroneous seems fair because the LHC is not fundamentally different than the Tevatron or RHIC which have not killed anyone yet.
That's like stating a collision between two toy cars is not fundamentally different than a freeway head-on collision. Obviously, the results are substantially different.
This is incorrect. The burden of proof is on CERN to ensure the public's safety. Their own safety study is in error, therefore it needs to be revisited.
That's like stating a collision between two toy cars is not fundamentally different than a freeway head-on collision. Obviously, the results are substantially different.
QUOTE
The burden of proof is not on CERN to disprove every wild conjecture, and all the arguments at the core have an element of "there might be an energy threshold beyond which collider experiments are fundamentally dangerous to the existence of life on Earth despite the fact that there is a bath of particles of much more energetic particles which not once has been observed to be a problem." The burden of proof is clearly on the party trying to prevent LHC from starting up and as of yet not one capable physicist has shown up.
This is incorrect. The burden of proof is on CERN to ensure the public's safety. Their own safety study is in error, therefore it needs to be revisited.
QUOTE (slasher1975+Oct 28 2007, 03:59 AM)
Thanks Alpha,
What I don't get is if the facts are here that there is no danger, why are some people on this board, who I assume know physics, making such a big contraversy on this matter.
Oh and Rabbit, thanks for the feedback....I will try to learn more so maybe I can change your opinion.
That right there is the problem.
Take Ubavontuba, for example. To read his posts (at a glance at least) it seems like he knows physics.
But when you delve into it he really doesn't, and the more you delve into it, the mor eyou realize he really doesn't. Take for example a thread on the conservation of momentum in the use of a medieval battle flail.
Ubavontuba was debating the conservation of energy in a falling object, starting here (actually, by this point the debate had raged on for a few days). As you can see, I tried explaining to him why he was wrong, and you can see his misconceptions. Eventually I got fedup and showed him the maths in this post to which his response was "But if you feed numbers into equation 28, it will be wrong".
So after some to-ing and fro-ing, mostly because I couldn't see why I should do his work for him, I fed the equation two sets of numbers here and here, and we're STILL waiting for him to admit that he was wrong. Something that I have NEVER seen him do.
Instead he went on some tangent about the mechanism for Hawking radiation, and then tried to convince me to apply a classical result to a quantum mechanical/relativistic system. The simplest answer, AFAIK to the point to the question he answered (as was explained to him) is that over all, the total energy of the system is conserved in the mechanism.
One of Ubavontuba's concerns is that somehow the pressures and temperatures involved at the earths core will 'force feed' the black hole, but what he refuses to aknowledge is that with a little research, and the information stated in this post, and the calculations in this post we can debunk that claim by showing that even at the temperatures and pressures found at the core of the Earth, there's still 99.999997% empty space between atomic nuclei. Ubavontuba seems to object to my use of the phrase "empty space" and he seems to assume that I mean that it is literally empty, even though this is clearly contradicted by the first post that I linked to, where I did the same calculation based on the assumption that atoms behaved as solid spheres (I redid the calculation because I realized that this was a really bad approximation). Based on this calculation, which treats atomic nuclei as solid objects, and the assumption that every collision with an atomic nucleus results in the black hole absorbing an entire proton or neutron (another really bad approximation) here is me performing the calculayion that it would take the black hole one billion years just to double it's mass. Now, bare in mind that's assuming that the entire earth is mad out of material the same density as the core, and that every collision results in a feeding event, and that every feeding event is total - three bad approximations that work significantly in Ubavontuba's favour, and still it's taking one billion years to double the mass of the assumed black hole.
In this post we have Ubavontuba stating the following.
Totally irrelevant. Your "generosity" not withstanding, no cosmic ray collision could induce a blackhole with less than escape velocity.
Did you actually bother to read the part of my post that you quoted?
Obviously not, otherwise you'd realize how irrelevant you objection is.
What I don't get is if the facts are here that there is no danger, why are some people on this board, who I assume know physics, making such a big contraversy on this matter.
Oh and Rabbit, thanks for the feedback....I will try to learn more so maybe I can change your opinion.
That right there is the problem.
Take Ubavontuba, for example. To read his posts (at a glance at least) it seems like he knows physics.
But when you delve into it he really doesn't, and the more you delve into it, the mor eyou realize he really doesn't. Take for example a thread on the conservation of momentum in the use of a medieval battle flail.
Ubavontuba was debating the conservation of energy in a falling object, starting here (actually, by this point the debate had raged on for a few days). As you can see, I tried explaining to him why he was wrong, and you can see his misconceptions. Eventually I got fedup and showed him the maths in this post to which his response was "But if you feed numbers into equation 28, it will be wrong".
So after some to-ing and fro-ing, mostly because I couldn't see why I should do his work for him, I fed the equation two sets of numbers here and here, and we're STILL waiting for him to admit that he was wrong. Something that I have NEVER seen him do.
Instead he went on some tangent about the mechanism for Hawking radiation, and then tried to convince me to apply a classical result to a quantum mechanical/relativistic system. The simplest answer, AFAIK to the point to the question he answered (as was explained to him) is that over all, the total energy of the system is conserved in the mechanism.
One of Ubavontuba's concerns is that somehow the pressures and temperatures involved at the earths core will 'force feed' the black hole, but what he refuses to aknowledge is that with a little research, and the information stated in this post, and the calculations in this post we can debunk that claim by showing that even at the temperatures and pressures found at the core of the Earth, there's still 99.999997% empty space between atomic nuclei. Ubavontuba seems to object to my use of the phrase "empty space" and he seems to assume that I mean that it is literally empty, even though this is clearly contradicted by the first post that I linked to, where I did the same calculation based on the assumption that atoms behaved as solid spheres (I redid the calculation because I realized that this was a really bad approximation). Based on this calculation, which treats atomic nuclei as solid objects, and the assumption that every collision with an atomic nucleus results in the black hole absorbing an entire proton or neutron (another really bad approximation) here is me performing the calculayion that it would take the black hole one billion years just to double it's mass. Now, bare in mind that's assuming that the entire earth is mad out of material the same density as the core, and that every collision results in a feeding event, and that every feeding event is total - three bad approximations that work significantly in Ubavontuba's favour, and still it's taking one billion years to double the mass of the assumed black hole.
In this post we have Ubavontuba stating the following.
QUOTE (Ubavontuba+Sep 6 2007, 05:22 PM)
Wow. Talk about bad math. The relative energy of the colliding particles has no relevance to the relative momentum of the final product with the earth.
Which hopefully everybody with a modicum of intelligence can see is simply wrong.
He started talking about how the empty space wasn't really empty (even though I never actually claimed it was - empty space just happens to be a figurative way of putting it, and the best descriptor I have to describe the volume of space between nucleii, or nuclei and electrons) claiming that the black hole might absorb the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together, or disrupt the strong force, or the weak force. But here, in this post, I calculate just how close the black hole would have to pass to an individual electron to 'block its view' of an iron nucleus and outline the effects of such a thing happening.
I have also provided calculations that suggest that it is possible for cosmic rays to produce micro black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, as a consequence of the conservation of momentum. Not to mention the calulations I posted in this thread about the number of collisions with the earth that are of the same energy as the lead nuclei in the LHC. The purpose of that was because one of Ubavontubas arguments was based on the idea that the only way that a micro black hole could be produced with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth, was if two cosmic rays happened to collide nearly head on, and that the odds against that happening were "So overwhelmingly large we're dealing with infinities" here he refers back to a previous post that he has made suggesting that the probabilities we're dealing with are infinities within infinities, and that the scenario is highly unlikely. But, as I demonstrated with my calulation, over the life time of the earth, we're dealing witha HUGE number of collisions, eight hundred million billion billion, and that's just at 'one' energy, this number only goes up (by quite a bit) if you take into account the collisions with energies more then this, so even if the chances are incredibly slim, we can still expect it to have happened.
Of course, Ubavontuba never actually contemplates any of his claims.
Myself, Alphanumeric, and Rpenner have provided calulations based on accepted physics, numerous citations of papers that back our claims up, we've corrected Ubavontuba a multitude of times, and all Ubavontuba's ever been able to come back with is something to the effect of "I don't like the Hawking mechanism, you're wrong".
It's the same with the majority of arguments against turning the LHC on, as Rpenner once said "They're based on prophecy". There has not been (that I have seen) a single solid argument presented, that stood up to scruitiny, that showed convincingly that we should not turn the LHC on.
First people didn't want the Trinity test because they were afraid it would trigger a devestating nuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere.
Then people made much the same arguments about Bevelac that are being leveled against the LHC.
Our modern society is riddled with fear mongering by people who only partially understand, or have no understanding of what they're talking about. They say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and this is precisely the sort of thing they're talking about.
Which hopefully everybody with a modicum of intelligence can see is simply wrong.
He started talking about how the empty space wasn't really empty (even though I never actually claimed it was - empty space just happens to be a figurative way of putting it, and the best descriptor I have to describe the volume of space between nucleii, or nuclei and electrons) claiming that the black hole might absorb the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together, or disrupt the strong force, or the weak force. But here, in this post, I calculate just how close the black hole would have to pass to an individual electron to 'block its view' of an iron nucleus and outline the effects of such a thing happening.
I have also provided calculations that suggest that it is possible for cosmic rays to produce micro black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, as a consequence of the conservation of momentum. Not to mention the calulations I posted in this thread about the number of collisions with the earth that are of the same energy as the lead nuclei in the LHC. The purpose of that was because one of Ubavontubas arguments was based on the idea that the only way that a micro black hole could be produced with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth, was if two cosmic rays happened to collide nearly head on, and that the odds against that happening were "So overwhelmingly large we're dealing with infinities" here he refers back to a previous post that he has made suggesting that the probabilities we're dealing with are infinities within infinities, and that the scenario is highly unlikely. But, as I demonstrated with my calulation, over the life time of the earth, we're dealing witha HUGE number of collisions, eight hundred million billion billion, and that's just at 'one' energy, this number only goes up (by quite a bit) if you take into account the collisions with energies more then this, so even if the chances are incredibly slim, we can still expect it to have happened.
Of course, Ubavontuba never actually contemplates any of his claims.
Myself, Alphanumeric, and Rpenner have provided calulations based on accepted physics, numerous citations of papers that back our claims up, we've corrected Ubavontuba a multitude of times, and all Ubavontuba's ever been able to come back with is something to the effect of "I don't like the Hawking mechanism, you're wrong".
It's the same with the majority of arguments against turning the LHC on, as Rpenner once said "They're based on prophecy". There has not been (that I have seen) a single solid argument presented, that stood up to scruitiny, that showed convincingly that we should not turn the LHC on.
First people didn't want the Trinity test because they were afraid it would trigger a devestating nuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere.
Then people made much the same arguments about Bevelac that are being leveled against the LHC.
Our modern society is riddled with fear mongering by people who only partially understand, or have no understanding of what they're talking about. They say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and this is precisely the sort of thing they're talking about.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 12:16 PM)
And I've been able to demonstarte that your arguments are false because they violate conservation and causality.
You have shown no such thing.
The only thing that you have shown is that you do not filly understand the physics you continue to dabble in.
You have shown no such thing.
The only thing that you have shown is that you do not filly understand the physics you continue to dabble in.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 12:08 PM)
QUOTE
To put this in perspective, according to wikipedia, Earth has a surface area of 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, and has been around for 1,643,625,000,000 days (give or take) which gives us a total of 838,356,571,800,000,000,000,000,000 collisions. Even if my calulations of velocity were out, and it required a special geometry that only occured once in every billion collisions to create a black hole with a residual velocity less then 11 km/s (which is another argument that has been forwarded - that it requires a set of virtually impossible circumstances) in fact, I'll be generious, if this alignment occurs only once in every billion billion collisions, that still leaves 838,356,571 collisions that could have produced a black hole - that's over eight hundred million black holes over the course of the earth's history.
Totally irrelevant. Your "generosity" not withstanding, no cosmic ray collision could induce a blackhole with less than escape velocity.
Did you actually bother to read the part of my post that you quoted?
Obviously not, otherwise you'd realize how irrelevant you objection is.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 27 2007, 11:48 PM)
That right there is the problem.
Take Ubavontuba, for example. To read his posts (at a glance at least) it seems like he knows physics.
Coming from someone that doesn't understand conservation, or causality.
Actually, the conversation devolved so badly that I gave up on my original point (that being that kinetic energy is relative only when the bodies are actually falling) and went on to the main point I wanted to represent.
Actually, the conversation devolved so badly that I gave up on my original point (that being that kinetic energy is relative only when the bodies are actually falling) and went on to the main point I wanted to represent.
So after some to-ing and fro-ing, mostly because I couldn't see why I should do his work for him, I fed the equation two sets of numbers here and here, and we're STILL waiting for him to admit that he was wrong. Something that I have NEVER seen him do.
I had you "prove" the conservation of energy in falling bodies, to make the point that it's ignored in Hawking Radiation (duh).
And how is the classical result substantively different than GR? If you think it matters, then use GR.
And how is the classical result substantively different than GR? If you think it matters, then use GR.
The simplest answer, AFAIK to the point to the question he answered (as was explained to him) is that over all, the total energy of the system is conserved in the mechanism.
No, not necessarily. One day, other people will see it too.
Again, it's about energy density. Are you trying to say that matter and energy are not equivalent?
Again, it's about energy density. Are you trying to say that matter and energy are not equivalent?
In this post we have Ubavontuba stating the following.
Take Ubavontuba, for example. To read his posts (at a glance at least) it seems like he knows physics.
Coming from someone that doesn't understand conservation, or causality.
QUOTE
But when you delve into it he really doesn't, and the more you delve into it, the mor eyou realize he really doesn't. Take for example a thread on the conservation of momentum in the use of a medieval battle flail.
Ubavontuba was debating the conservation of energy in a falling object, starting here (actually, by this point the debate had raged on for a few days). As you can see, I tried explaining to him why he was wrong, and you can see his misconceptions. Eventually I got fedup and showed him the maths in this post to which his response was "But if you feed numbers into equation 28, it will be wrong".
Ubavontuba was debating the conservation of energy in a falling object, starting here (actually, by this point the debate had raged on for a few days). As you can see, I tried explaining to him why he was wrong, and you can see his misconceptions. Eventually I got fedup and showed him the maths in this post to which his response was "But if you feed numbers into equation 28, it will be wrong".
Actually, the conversation devolved so badly that I gave up on my original point (that being that kinetic energy is relative only when the bodies are actually falling) and went on to the main point I wanted to represent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But when you delve into it he really doesn't, and the more you delve into it, the mor eyou realize he really doesn't. Take for example a thread on the conservation of momentum in the use of a medieval battle flail. Ubavontuba was debating the conservation of energy in a falling object, starting here (actually, by this point the debate had raged on for a few days). As you can see, I tried explaining to him why he was wrong, and you can see his misconceptions. Eventually I got fedup and showed him the maths in this post to which his response was "But if you feed numbers into equation 28, it will be wrong". |
Actually, the conversation devolved so badly that I gave up on my original point (that being that kinetic energy is relative only when the bodies are actually falling) and went on to the main point I wanted to represent.
So after some to-ing and fro-ing, mostly because I couldn't see why I should do his work for him, I fed the equation two sets of numbers here and here, and we're STILL waiting for him to admit that he was wrong. Something that I have NEVER seen him do.
I had you "prove" the conservation of energy in falling bodies, to make the point that it's ignored in Hawking Radiation (duh).
QUOTE
Instead he went on some tangent about the mechanism for Hawking radiation, and then tried to convince me to apply a classical result to a quantum mechanical/relativistic system.
And how is the classical result substantively different than GR? If you think it matters, then use GR.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Instead he went on some tangent about the mechanism for Hawking radiation, and then tried to convince me to apply a classical result to a quantum mechanical/relativistic system. |
And how is the classical result substantively different than GR? If you think it matters, then use GR.
The simplest answer, AFAIK to the point to the question he answered (as was explained to him) is that over all, the total energy of the system is conserved in the mechanism.
No, not necessarily. One day, other people will see it too.
QUOTE
One of Ubavontuba's concerns is that somehow the pressures and temperatures involved at the earths core will 'force feed' the black hole, but what he refuses to aknowledge is that with a little research, and the information stated in this post, and the calculations in this post we can debunk that claim by showing that even at the temperatures and pressures found at the core of the Earth, there's still 99.999997% empty space between atomic nuclei. Ubavontuba seems to object to my use of the phrase "empty space" and he seems to assume that I mean that it is literally empty, even though this is clearly contradicted by the first post that I linked to, where I did the same calculation based on the assumption that atoms behaved as solid spheres (I redid the calculation because I realized that this was a really bad approximation). Based on this calculation, which treats atomic nuclei as solid objects, and the assumption that every collision with an atomic nucleus results in the black hole absorbing an entire proton or neutron (another really bad approximation) here is me performing the calculayion that it would take the black hole one billion years just to double it's mass. Now, bare in mind that's assuming that the entire earth is mad out of material the same density as the core, and that every collision results in a feeding event, and that every feeding event is total - three bad approximations that work significantly in Ubavontuba's favour, and still it's taking one billion years to double the mass of the assumed black hole.
Again, it's about energy density. Are you trying to say that matter and energy are not equivalent?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of Ubavontuba's concerns is that somehow the pressures and temperatures involved at the earths core will 'force feed' the black hole, but what he refuses to aknowledge is that with a little research, and the information stated in this post, and the calculations in this post we can debunk that claim by showing that even at the temperatures and pressures found at the core of the Earth, there's still 99.999997% empty space between atomic nuclei. Ubavontuba seems to object to my use of the phrase "empty space" and he seems to assume that I mean that it is literally empty, even though this is clearly contradicted by the first post that I linked to, where I did the same calculation based on the assumption that atoms behaved as solid spheres (I redid the calculation because I realized that this was a really bad approximation). Based on this calculation, which treats atomic nuclei as solid objects, and the assumption that every collision with an atomic nucleus results in the black hole absorbing an entire proton or neutron (another really bad approximation) here is me performing the calculayion that it would take the black hole one billion years just to double it's mass. Now, bare in mind that's assuming that the entire earth is mad out of material the same density as the core, and that every collision results in a feeding event, and that every feeding event is total - three bad approximations that work significantly in Ubavontuba's favour, and still it's taking one billion years to double the mass of the assumed black hole. |
Again, it's about energy density. Are you trying to say that matter and energy are not equivalent?
In this post we have Ubavontuba stating the following.
QUOTE (Ubavontuba+ Sep 6 2007, 05:22 PM)
Wow. Talk about bad math. The relative energy of the colliding particles has no relevance to the relative momentum of the final product with the earth.
Which hopefully everybody with a modicum of intelligence can see is simply wrong.
Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame!
All the while it's absorbing energy from all directions that supports the atomic structure. It doesn't need to block anything to do this.
All the while it's absorbing energy from all directions that supports the atomic structure. It doesn't need to block anything to do this.
I have also provided calculations that suggest that it is possible for cosmic rays to produce micro black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, as a consequence of the conservation of momentum. Not to mention the calulations I posted in this thread about the number of collisions with the earth that are of the same energy as the lead nuclei in the LHC. The purpose of that was because one of Ubavontubas arguments was based on the idea that the only way that a micro black hole could be produced with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth, was if two cosmic rays happened to collide nearly head on, and that the odds against that happening were "So overwhelmingly large we're dealing with infinities" here he refers back to a previous post that he has made suggesting that the probabilities we're dealing with are infinities within infinities, and that the scenario is highly unlikely. But, as I demonstrated with my calulation, over the life time of the earth, we're dealing witha HUGE number of collisions, eight hundred million billion billion, and that's just at 'one' energy, this number only goes up (by quite a bit) if you take into account the collisions with energies more then this, so even if the chances are incredibly slim, we can still expect it to have happened.
You obviously don't understand probability either. You can't calculate the odds of something happening within an infinity of infinities. The result are always an infinity to one chance of it occuring. So far, I don't think the earth has been here an infinite time, do you?
I've not been wrong. Ask AlphaNumeric if there isn't a much more critical forum where my initial argument on the conservation of momentum was corroborated.
Ask Rpenner if he didn't corroborate that less than escape velocity nano-black-holes are expected from the LHC.
Ask AlphNumeric if he didn't corroborate that YOU misunderstand conservation.
Which hopefully everybody with a modicum of intelligence can see is simply wrong.
Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame!
QUOTE
He started talking about how the empty space wasn't really empty (even though I never actually claimed it was - empty space just happens to be a figurative way of putting it, and the best descriptor I have to describe the volume of space between nucleii, or nuclei and electrons) claiming that the black hole might absorb the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together, or disrupt the strong force, or the weak force. But here, in this post, I calculate just how close the black hole would have to pass to an individual electron to 'block its view' of an iron nucleus and outline the effects of such a thing happening.
All the while it's absorbing energy from all directions that supports the atomic structure. It doesn't need to block anything to do this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He started talking about how the empty space wasn't really empty (even though I never actually claimed it was - empty space just happens to be a figurative way of putting it, and the best descriptor I have to describe the volume of space between nucleii, or nuclei and electrons) claiming that the black hole might absorb the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together, or disrupt the strong force, or the weak force. But here, in this post, I calculate just how close the black hole would have to pass to an individual electron to 'block its view' of an iron nucleus and outline the effects of such a thing happening. |
All the while it's absorbing energy from all directions that supports the atomic structure. It doesn't need to block anything to do this.
I have also provided calculations that suggest that it is possible for cosmic rays to produce micro black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, as a consequence of the conservation of momentum. Not to mention the calulations I posted in this thread about the number of collisions with the earth that are of the same energy as the lead nuclei in the LHC. The purpose of that was because one of Ubavontubas arguments was based on the idea that the only way that a micro black hole could be produced with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth, was if two cosmic rays happened to collide nearly head on, and that the odds against that happening were "So overwhelmingly large we're dealing with infinities" here he refers back to a previous post that he has made suggesting that the probabilities we're dealing with are infinities within infinities, and that the scenario is highly unlikely. But, as I demonstrated with my calulation, over the life time of the earth, we're dealing witha HUGE number of collisions, eight hundred million billion billion, and that's just at 'one' energy, this number only goes up (by quite a bit) if you take into account the collisions with energies more then this, so even if the chances are incredibly slim, we can still expect it to have happened.
You obviously don't understand probability either. You can't calculate the odds of something happening within an infinity of infinities. The result are always an infinity to one chance of it occuring. So far, I don't think the earth has been here an infinite time, do you?
QUOTE
Of course, Ubavontuba never actually contemplates any of his claims.
Myself, Alphanumeric, and Rpenner have provided calulations based on accepted physics, numerous citations of papers that back our claims up, we've corrected Ubavontuba a multitude of times, and all Ubavontuba's ever been able to come back with is something to the effect of "I don't like the Hawking mechanism, you're wrong".
It's the same with the majority of arguments against turning the LHC on, as Rpenner once said "They're based on prophecy". There has not been (that I have seen) a single solid argument presented, that stood up to scruitiny, that showed convincingly that we should not turn the LHC on.
First people didn't want the Trinity test because they were afraid it would trigger a devestating nuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere.
Then people made much the same arguments about Bevelac that are being leveled against the LHC.
Our modern society is riddled with fear mongering by people who only partially understand, or have no understanding of what they're talking about. They say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and this is precisely the sort of thing they're talking about.
Myself, Alphanumeric, and Rpenner have provided calulations based on accepted physics, numerous citations of papers that back our claims up, we've corrected Ubavontuba a multitude of times, and all Ubavontuba's ever been able to come back with is something to the effect of "I don't like the Hawking mechanism, you're wrong".
It's the same with the majority of arguments against turning the LHC on, as Rpenner once said "They're based on prophecy". There has not been (that I have seen) a single solid argument presented, that stood up to scruitiny, that showed convincingly that we should not turn the LHC on.
First people didn't want the Trinity test because they were afraid it would trigger a devestating nuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere.
Then people made much the same arguments about Bevelac that are being leveled against the LHC.
Our modern society is riddled with fear mongering by people who only partially understand, or have no understanding of what they're talking about. They say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and this is precisely the sort of thing they're talking about.
I've not been wrong. Ask AlphaNumeric if there isn't a much more critical forum where my initial argument on the conservation of momentum was corroborated.
Ask Rpenner if he didn't corroborate that less than escape velocity nano-black-holes are expected from the LHC.
Ask AlphNumeric if he didn't corroborate that YOU misunderstand conservation.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 28 2007, 12:01 AM)
You have shown no such thing.
The only thing that you have shown is that you do not filly understand the physics you continue to dabble in.
Right back at you kiddo!
The only thing that you have shown is that you do not filly understand the physics you continue to dabble in.
Right back at you kiddo!
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 28 2007, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Oct 28 2007, 12:08 PM)
Totally irrelevant. Your "generosity" not withstanding, no cosmic ray collision could induce a blackhole with less than escape velocity.
Did you actually bother to read the part of my post that you quoted?
Obviously not, otherwise you'd realize how irrelevant you objection is.
I read it. In it you made a presumption that it could happen one in a billion billion times. This is simply something you made up. It's nowhere near an infinity within infinities. Therefore it's irrelevant.
Did you actually bother to read the part of my post that you quoted?
Obviously not, otherwise you'd realize how irrelevant you objection is.
I read it. In it you made a presumption that it could happen one in a billion billion times. This is simply something you made up. It's nowhere near an infinity within infinities. Therefore it's irrelevant.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
Coming from someone that doesn't understand conservation, or causality.
You arrogant little twit.
I understand conservation and causality. Nothing I have said violates it.
You arrogant little twit.
I understand conservation and causality. Nothing I have said violates it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
Actually, the conversation devolved so badly that I gave up on my original point (that being that kinetic energy is relative only when the bodies are actually falling) and went on to the main point I wanted to represent.
This is BS.
This is BS.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
I had you "prove" the conservation of energy in falling bodies, to make the point that it's ignored in Hawking Radiation (duh).
This is more BS.
This is more BS.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
And how is the classical result substantively different than GR? If you think it matters, then use GR.
No. Why would I bother when you still haven't admitted you were wrong with the classical result, inspite of all of your hot air and bluster.
No. Why would I bother when you still haven't admitted you were wrong with the classical result, inspite of all of your hot air and bluster.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
No, not necessarily. One day, other people will see it too.
Yes neccessarily. And you still have yet to demonstrate where I'm wrong other then to say "I don't like it"
Yes neccessarily. And you still have yet to demonstrate where I'm wrong other then to say "I don't like it"
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
Again, it's about energy density. Are you trying to say that matter and energy are not equivalent?
Show me where I have claimed they aren't. You can't, because I haven't.
Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame!
BS. You did no such thing, and I have neither stated, nor implied no such thing.
Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame!
BS. You did no such thing, and I have neither stated, nor implied no such thing.
All the while it's absorbing energy from all directions that supports the atomic structure. It doesn't need to block anything to do this.
Yes, and if you learned to open your eyes when you read, you'd see that I also gave the example of the (unrealistic) assumption that the (alleged) black hole absorbed everything within 10,000 radii, it would still have a negligible effect.
Show me where I have claimed they aren't. You can't, because I haven't.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
QUOTE
Which hopefully everybody with a modicum of intelligence can see is simply wrong.
Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame!
BS. You did no such thing, and I have neither stated, nor implied no such thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which hopefully everybody with a modicum of intelligence can see is simply wrong. |
Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame!
BS. You did no such thing, and I have neither stated, nor implied no such thing.
All the while it's absorbing energy from all directions that supports the atomic structure. It doesn't need to block anything to do this.
Yes, and if you learned to open your eyes when you read, you'd see that I also gave the example of the (unrealistic) assumption that the (alleged) black hole absorbed everything within 10,000 radii, it would still have a negligible effect.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
You obviously don't understand probability either. You can't calculate the odds of something happening within an infinity of infinities. The result are always an infinity to one chance of it occuring. So far, I don't think the earth has been here an infinite time, do you?
I understand probability. I, after all, am the one that made the calulations. It's you on the other hand that is saying that something is impossible, while providing no evidence or calulations to back that claim up. So you honestly believe that with 510,065,600,000,000 cosmic rays hitting the earth every second from all directions, and travelling in all directions, that it's a confluence of infinities for two of them to hit each other (nearly) head on in the upper atmosphere? That's just laughable.
I understand probability. I, after all, am the one that made the calulations. It's you on the other hand that is saying that something is impossible, while providing no evidence or calulations to back that claim up. So you honestly believe that with 510,065,600,000,000 cosmic rays hitting the earth every second from all directions, and travelling in all directions, that it's a confluence of infinities for two of them to hit each other (nearly) head on in the upper atmosphere? That's just laughable.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
I've not been wrong. Ask AlphaNumeric if there isn't a much more critical forum where my initial argument on the conservation of momentum was corroborated.
You have been. Horribly.
So what, you think the fact that somebody neglected something obvious that negates your argument makes you right? You're whole argument is based on somebody neglecting something obvious. A point that I see you don't go making public. So the people that are involved in CERN overlooked something obvious, but the fact that somebody overlooked something obvious in your argument somehow makes it right? That's laughable at best. People with advanced knowledge occasionaly overlook obvious things when put on the spot.
You have been. Horribly.
So what, you think the fact that somebody neglected something obvious that negates your argument makes you right? You're whole argument is based on somebody neglecting something obvious. A point that I see you don't go making public. So the people that are involved in CERN overlooked something obvious, but the fact that somebody overlooked something obvious in your argument somehow makes it right? That's laughable at best. People with advanced knowledge occasionaly overlook obvious things when put on the spot.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
Ask Rpenner if he didn't corroborate that less than escape velocity nano-black-holes are expected from the LHC.
When have I ever disputed this point? Your getting delusional as well as senile. And as I recall Rpenner said much the same thing as Alphanumeric, that it was possible, but difficult, and would take a deliberate effort, and an extreme amount of accuracy.
When have I ever disputed this point? Your getting delusional as well as senile. And as I recall Rpenner said much the same thing as Alphanumeric, that it was possible, but difficult, and would take a deliberate effort, and an extreme amount of accuracy.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 28 2007, 01:53 PM)
Ask AlphNumeric if he didn't corroborate that YOU misunderstand conservation.
No you arrogant little twit. What he pointed out was that I had misunderstood the process that leads to the creation of black holes. Anybody who reads the thread for themselves can see that I admitted that. Jeez, get a grip old man.
No you arrogant little twit. What he pointed out was that I had misunderstood the process that leads to the creation of black holes. Anybody who reads the thread for themselves can see that I admitted that. Jeez, get a grip old man.
Oh, and for teh record, the figure of eight hundred million billion billion is on the low side, because, AFAIK, the energy spectrum graph that I'm using is for the - I think it's the top of the Troposphere, or the top of the Mesosphere - wherever the collisions between cosmic ray particles and atmospherice molecules occur, but the surface area that I used is for the surface of teh earth, so...
Why is this such a personal issue for some people? Honestly taking a subjective outlook on this CERN thing seems like the way to go. I dont care if people dont agree with me or what I have to say but im not gona start feeding into it by trying to discredit the claim they make over the interent its just not gona work... Anyhow I think we could better spend our efforts trying to credit the work of others and ourselfs instead of finding holes in logic/maths perhaps we should be looking for whats right about someones theory and help them evolve it some more.
I have learned along time ago that if someone starts to pick a fight with you over the interent your best bet is to either change subjects or drop the issue and take your topic to another medium because it just looks awful if you have to defend everything you say in a pointless fight. Even if your right you'll still look like a loser to anyone whos reading the posts...
I have learned along time ago that if someone starts to pick a fight with you over the interent your best bet is to either change subjects or drop the issue and take your topic to another medium because it just looks awful if you have to defend everything you say in a pointless fight. Even if your right you'll still look like a loser to anyone whos reading the posts...
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 27 2007, 10:54 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 26 2007, 11:49 PM)
Nope. I'm using an tautology to get attention, but I have yet to see one physically consistent description on how the LHC might kill us and still cosmic influx has not yet.
So now you're stating the two collision models are the same? Maybe you also think Trippy is right?
Ever since Newton proved that his theory of Universal Gravitation applied equally well to celestial as terrestrial events, science has been working with the empirically justified concept: there is just one physics.
Trippy also believes this.
You arrogant little twit.
Come on. Talk like a grown-up.
You only say that because you don't know any better.
You only say that because you don't know any better.
This is BS.
You don't recall how I continually complained that you and I weren't communicating very well?
Believe what you will (you do anyway).
Believe what you will (you do anyway).
No. Why would I bother when you still haven't admitted you were wrong with the classical result, inspite of all of your hot air and bluster.
Chicken.
To what are you referring?
To what are you referring?
Show me where I have claimed they aren't. You can't, because I haven't.
You infer it all the time by supposing KE isn't equivalent to mass by denying it carries the equivalent momentum.
Yes you have. You think it only slows down relative to the earth.
Only because you assume a fixed absorption rate.
Only because you assume a fixed absorption rate.
I understand probability. I, after all, am the one that made the calulations.
Erroneous assumptions lead to erroneous calculations.
Yes.
Yes.
That's just laughable.
You only feel that way because you don't understand probability.
You only feel that way because you don't understand it.
You only feel that way because you don't understand it.
So what, you think the fact that somebody neglected something obvious that negates your argument makes you right? You're whole argument is based on somebody neglecting something obvious. A point that I see you don't go making public. So the people that are involved in CERN overlooked something obvious, but the fact that somebody overlooked something obvious in your argument somehow makes it right? That's laughable at best. People with advanced knowledge occasionaly overlook obvious things when put on the spot.
It's obvious to me that you keep missing the obvious errors in your assessment.
I didn't say you disputed it. I was merely providing an example of me being right.
I didn't say you disputed it. I was merely providing an example of me being right.
No you arrogant little twit. What he pointed out was that I had misunderstood the process that leads to the creation of black holes. Anybody who reads the thread for themselves can see that I admitted that. Jeez, get a grip old man.
That's not true. Even recently you used "momentum" where you meant "velocity."
Ever since Newton proved that his theory of Universal Gravitation applied equally well to celestial as terrestrial events, science has been working with the empirically justified concept: there is just one physics.
Trippy also believes this.
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 28 2007, 02:19 AM)
Honestly taking a subjective outlook on this CERN thing seems like the way to go.
Science, however, is about objective generalizations of empirical observations.
The other thing that Ubavontubs is either unaware of because he hasn't worked it out for himself, or ignoring is that if you do the calculation, at some specific point in the atmosphere, above the earths surface, if we consider two cosmic ray particles traveling in opposite directions, there's a two windows that are 518 m^2 that is created by the requirment that they meet near enough to head on to cancel their velocity vectors out enough to have a residual velocity less then, or equal to the escape velocity of the earth.
This means, that every day, 1036 of five hundred and ten billion billion cosmic rays that hit the earth could, potentially collide head on, with the energy of the lead nuclei in the LHC, at an angle close enough to head on that the resultant black hole (assuming one is made) has a residual velocity equal to, or less than the earths escape velocity.
Given that the cross sectional area (prependicular to direction of motion) of a proton is 2.51 x10^31 m^2 and the surface area of the earth is 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, then from a distant point source it will only see half of this, IE 255,032,800,000,000 m^2, so the chances of a given proton hitting a specific part of the atmosphere are 1 in 10^45.
When we take into account the size of the windows involved, this tells us that the chances of two protons happening to collide in the earths upper atmosphere, with velocity vectors that just happen to be closely enough aligned to produce a black hole (assuming that's possible) with a residual velocity equal to, or less than the Earths escape velocity, this works out at 1 in 2.5X10^11, this means, given that we have 510,065,600,000,000 collisions with energies on the order of 1150 TeV per day, that we would have to wait approximately 41 seconds for such an event to occur.
So you see? When we put numbers to Ubavontubas objections, they turn out to be absurd.
This means, that every day, 1036 of five hundred and ten billion billion cosmic rays that hit the earth could, potentially collide head on, with the energy of the lead nuclei in the LHC, at an angle close enough to head on that the resultant black hole (assuming one is made) has a residual velocity equal to, or less than the earths escape velocity.
Given that the cross sectional area (prependicular to direction of motion) of a proton is 2.51 x10^31 m^2 and the surface area of the earth is 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, then from a distant point source it will only see half of this, IE 255,032,800,000,000 m^2, so the chances of a given proton hitting a specific part of the atmosphere are 1 in 10^45.
When we take into account the size of the windows involved, this tells us that the chances of two protons happening to collide in the earths upper atmosphere, with velocity vectors that just happen to be closely enough aligned to produce a black hole (assuming that's possible) with a residual velocity equal to, or less than the Earths escape velocity, this works out at 1 in 2.5X10^11, this means, given that we have 510,065,600,000,000 collisions with energies on the order of 1150 TeV per day, that we would have to wait approximately 41 seconds for such an event to occur.
So you see? When we put numbers to Ubavontubas objections, they turn out to be absurd.
Ubavontuba.
It has occured to me why you think that what I have said violates causality, and I'll admit, it took me sitting down and working it out on paper to figure it out.
You're ignoring the Oxygen atom that the cosmic ray is colliding with.
An observer in a reference frame that is co-moving with the cosmic ray (let's call it a proton as that's what we've been dealing with) observes the Proton to be stationary relative to themselves, and so measures the protons rest mass to be equivalent to it's mass, and all the rest of that.
But the energy and velocity of the Oxygen atom are no longer insignificant.
In the reference frame of the co-moving observer, the Oxygen atom has a velocity of (about) 0.9999 c, a mass of about 7.5 TeV, and a total energy of god only knows what, because I can't be bothered working it out. (Give or take binding energy).
So... Once you take the whole system into account...
Believe me or don't, it's up to you, but from the point of view of the co-moving observer you can no longer ignore the total energy of the Oxygen atom that the Proton collides with, which you, in your protestations that I'm wrong, and violating casuality have been doing.
It has occured to me why you think that what I have said violates causality, and I'll admit, it took me sitting down and working it out on paper to figure it out.
You're ignoring the Oxygen atom that the cosmic ray is colliding with.
An observer in a reference frame that is co-moving with the cosmic ray (let's call it a proton as that's what we've been dealing with) observes the Proton to be stationary relative to themselves, and so measures the protons rest mass to be equivalent to it's mass, and all the rest of that.
But the energy and velocity of the Oxygen atom are no longer insignificant.
In the reference frame of the co-moving observer, the Oxygen atom has a velocity of (about) 0.9999 c, a mass of about 7.5 TeV, and a total energy of god only knows what, because I can't be bothered working it out. (Give or take binding energy).
So... Once you take the whole system into account...
Believe me or don't, it's up to you, but from the point of view of the co-moving observer you can no longer ignore the total energy of the Oxygen atom that the Proton collides with, which you, in your protestations that I'm wrong, and violating casuality have been doing.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 28 2007, 02:02 AM)
You arrogant little twit.
Come on. Talk like a grown-up.
QUOTE
I understand conservation and causality. Nothing I have said violates it.
You only say that because you don't know any better.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I understand conservation and causality. Nothing I have said violates it. |
You only say that because you don't know any better.
This is BS.
You don't recall how I continually complained that you and I weren't communicating very well?
QUOTE
This is more BS.
Believe what you will (you do anyway).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is more BS. |
Believe what you will (you do anyway).
No. Why would I bother when you still haven't admitted you were wrong with the classical result, inspite of all of your hot air and bluster.
Chicken.
QUOTE
Yes neccessarily. And you still have yet to demonstrate where I'm wrong other then to say "I don't like it"
To what are you referring?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes neccessarily. And you still have yet to demonstrate where I'm wrong other then to say "I don't like it" |
To what are you referring?
Show me where I have claimed they aren't. You can't, because I haven't.
You infer it all the time by supposing KE isn't equivalent to mass by denying it carries the equivalent momentum.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which I clearly examplified is wrong in the other thread. You think earth is a preferred reference frame! BS. You did no such thing, and I have neither stated, nor implied no such thing. |
Yes you have. You think it only slows down relative to the earth.
QUOTE
Yes, and if you learned to open your eyes when you read, you'd see that I also gave the example of the (unrealistic) assumption that the (alleged) black hole absorbed everything within 10,000 radii, it would still have a negligible effect.
Only because you assume a fixed absorption rate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, and if you learned to open your eyes when you read, you'd see that I also gave the example of the (unrealistic) assumption that the (alleged) black hole absorbed everything within 10,000 radii, it would still have a negligible effect. |
Only because you assume a fixed absorption rate.
I understand probability. I, after all, am the one that made the calulations.
Erroneous assumptions lead to erroneous calculations.
QUOTE
It's you on the other hand that is saying that something is impossible, while providing no evidence or calulations to back that claim up. So you honestly believe that with 510,065,600,000,000 cosmic rays hitting the earth every second from all directions, and travelling in all directions, that it's a confluence of infinities for two of them to hit each other (nearly) head on in the upper atmosphere?
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's you on the other hand that is saying that something is impossible, while providing no evidence or calulations to back that claim up. So you honestly believe that with 510,065,600,000,000 cosmic rays hitting the earth every second from all directions, and travelling in all directions, that it's a confluence of infinities for two of them to hit each other (nearly) head on in the upper atmosphere? |
Yes.
That's just laughable.
You only feel that way because you don't understand probability.
QUOTE
You have been. Horribly.
You only feel that way because you don't understand it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have been. Horribly. |
You only feel that way because you don't understand it.
So what, you think the fact that somebody neglected something obvious that negates your argument makes you right? You're whole argument is based on somebody neglecting something obvious. A point that I see you don't go making public. So the people that are involved in CERN overlooked something obvious, but the fact that somebody overlooked something obvious in your argument somehow makes it right? That's laughable at best. People with advanced knowledge occasionaly overlook obvious things when put on the spot.
It's obvious to me that you keep missing the obvious errors in your assessment.
QUOTE
When have I ever disputed this point? Your getting delusional as well as senile. And as I recall Rpenner said much the same thing as Alphanumeric, that it was possible, but difficult, and would take a deliberate effort, and an extreme amount of accuracy.
I didn't say you disputed it. I was merely providing an example of me being right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When have I ever disputed this point? Your getting delusional as well as senile. And as I recall Rpenner said much the same thing as Alphanumeric, that it was possible, but difficult, and would take a deliberate effort, and an extreme amount of accuracy. |
I didn't say you disputed it. I was merely providing an example of me being right.
No you arrogant little twit. What he pointed out was that I had misunderstood the process that leads to the creation of black holes. Anybody who reads the thread for themselves can see that I admitted that. Jeez, get a grip old man.
That's not true. Even recently you used "momentum" where you meant "velocity."
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 28 2007, 02:14 AM)
Oh, and for teh record, the figure of eight hundred million billion billion is on the low side, because, AFAIK, the energy spectrum graph that I'm using is for the - I think it's the top of the Troposphere, or the top of the Mesosphere - wherever the collisions between cosmic ray particles and atmospherice molecules occur, but the surface area that I used is for the surface of teh earth, so...
It doesn't matter. Any number in relation to infinty is still a one to an infinity. Maybe you don't grasp the concept of infinity?
It doesn't matter. Any number in relation to infinty is still a one to an infinity. Maybe you don't grasp the concept of infinity?
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 28 2007, 02:19 AM)
Why is this such a personal issue for some people?
That's a very god question, indeed!
An excellent suggestion! ...leading to a path of learning.
That's a very god question, indeed!
QUOTE
...perhaps we should be looking for whats right about someones theory and help them evolve it some more.
An excellent suggestion! ...leading to a path of learning.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 28 2007, 02:55 AM)
Ever since Newton proved that his theory of Universal Gravitation applied equally well to celestial as terrestrial events, science has been working with the empirically justified concept: there is just one physics.
Trippy also believes this.
Well there's an evasive answer!
What's the matter, can't commit? Do you believe Trippy is right, or not?
Trippy also believes this.
Well there's an evasive answer!
What's the matter, can't commit? Do you believe Trippy is right, or not?
Ubavontuba.
Clearly I have a firmer grasp on physics then you do.
You are claiming we can ignore the oxygen atom that the proton collides with.
You are claiming that the chances of two protons colliding nearly head on is a confluence of infinities.
You make these claims without any mathmatical or physical justification.
I claim that, at the very least to a good approximation, it is possible to calculate the odds of this happening, and that if you do so, although the odds might work at one in twenty billion, given the number of collisions the earth experiences at this energy, that this results in one such collision every 41 seconds.
Let's examine your claims:
You claim that it is unsafe because the pressures at the core of the earth mean that the blackhole will be force fed. I demonstrated using available data on the density of the core of the earth, that even if the entire earth were a sphere made out of the material at the core, that it would take one billion years for the alleged black hole to simply double it's weight.
You claim that the argument that "Cosmic rays do it all the time and we're still here" is wrong because of the conservation of momentum. I demonstrated twice, using two different particles at two different energies (a Neutrino and a Proton) that it is possible for the black hole resulting from such a collision to have a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth.
You claim that it is impossible for two cosmic rays to collide near enough to head on to produce a black hole with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth. I demonstrated using trignometry and statistics that not only is this possible, it is probable, and we can expect it to happen every 41 seconds.
This is ignoring the fact that every theory which predicts the existence of such small black holes also predicts that they will evaporate as a consequence of Hawking Radiation.
You, Sir, are simply unable to make the admission that you might actually have been wrong, and continue to post insults.
Clearly I have a firmer grasp on physics then you do.
You are claiming we can ignore the oxygen atom that the proton collides with.
You are claiming that the chances of two protons colliding nearly head on is a confluence of infinities.
You make these claims without any mathmatical or physical justification.
I claim that, at the very least to a good approximation, it is possible to calculate the odds of this happening, and that if you do so, although the odds might work at one in twenty billion, given the number of collisions the earth experiences at this energy, that this results in one such collision every 41 seconds.
Let's examine your claims:
You claim that it is unsafe because the pressures at the core of the earth mean that the blackhole will be force fed. I demonstrated using available data on the density of the core of the earth, that even if the entire earth were a sphere made out of the material at the core, that it would take one billion years for the alleged black hole to simply double it's weight.
You claim that the argument that "Cosmic rays do it all the time and we're still here" is wrong because of the conservation of momentum. I demonstrated twice, using two different particles at two different energies (a Neutrino and a Proton) that it is possible for the black hole resulting from such a collision to have a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth.
You claim that it is impossible for two cosmic rays to collide near enough to head on to produce a black hole with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth. I demonstrated using trignometry and statistics that not only is this possible, it is probable, and we can expect it to happen every 41 seconds.
This is ignoring the fact that every theory which predicts the existence of such small black holes also predicts that they will evaporate as a consequence of Hawking Radiation.
You, Sir, are simply unable to make the admission that you might actually have been wrong, and continue to post insults.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 29 2007, 01:33 AM)
Ubavontuba.
Clearly I have a firmer grasp on physics then you do.
Grasping at straws, more like. Why do you think AlphaNumeric and Rpenner won't defend you, even when I taunt them about it?
Most of it, yes. Would you claim that flicking a needle into a haystack would cause the whole haystack to recoil from the blow?
Most of it, yes. Would you claim that flicking a needle into a haystack would cause the whole haystack to recoil from the blow?
You are claiming that the chances of two protons colliding nearly head on is a confluence of infinities.
It is.
I got plenty of justification.
I got plenty of justification.
I claim that, at the very least to a good approximation, it is possible to calculate the odds of this happening, and that if you do so, although the odds might work at one in twenty billion, given the number of collisions the earth experiences at this energy, that this results in one such collision every 41 seconds.
Sure. Go ahead and try.
That's funny. First you say it can absorb enough mass in the first collision to stop it, then you say it can't grow hardly at all. Will you please make up your mind!
That's funny. First you say it can absorb enough mass in the first collision to stop it, then you say it can't grow hardly at all. Will you please make up your mind!
You claim that the argument that "Cosmic rays do it all the time and we're still here" is wrong because of the conservation of momentum. I demonstrated twice, using two different particles at two different energies (a Neutrino and a Proton) that it is possible for the black hole resulting from such a collision to have a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth.
But you just said it couldn't absorb hardly anything!
You pulled irrelevant numbers out of your back side.
You pulled irrelevant numbers out of your back side.
This is ignoring the fact that every theory which predicts the existence of such small black holes also predicts that they will evaporate as a consequence of Hawking Radiation.
Not everyone feels that way. Some even propose that dark matter may largely be comprised of stable nano-black-holes.
It is you that have been posting insults. I'm merely stating my case.
When are you going to admit that you're wrong about the preferred reference frame?
Clearly I have a firmer grasp on physics then you do.
Grasping at straws, more like. Why do you think AlphaNumeric and Rpenner won't defend you, even when I taunt them about it?
QUOTE
You are claiming we can ignore the oxygen atom that the proton collides with.
Most of it, yes. Would you claim that flicking a needle into a haystack would cause the whole haystack to recoil from the blow?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are claiming we can ignore the oxygen atom that the proton collides with. |
Most of it, yes. Would you claim that flicking a needle into a haystack would cause the whole haystack to recoil from the blow?
You are claiming that the chances of two protons colliding nearly head on is a confluence of infinities.
It is.
QUOTE
You make these claims without any mathmatical or physical justification.
I got plenty of justification.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You make these claims without any mathmatical or physical justification. |
I got plenty of justification.
I claim that, at the very least to a good approximation, it is possible to calculate the odds of this happening, and that if you do so, although the odds might work at one in twenty billion, given the number of collisions the earth experiences at this energy, that this results in one such collision every 41 seconds.
Sure. Go ahead and try.
QUOTE
Let's examine your claims:
You claim that it is unsafe because the pressures at the core of the earth mean that the blackhole will be force fed. I demonstrated using available data on the density of the core of the earth, that even if the entire earth were a sphere made out of the material at the core, that it would take one billion years for the alleged black hole to simply double it's weight.
You claim that it is unsafe because the pressures at the core of the earth mean that the blackhole will be force fed. I demonstrated using available data on the density of the core of the earth, that even if the entire earth were a sphere made out of the material at the core, that it would take one billion years for the alleged black hole to simply double it's weight.
That's funny. First you say it can absorb enough mass in the first collision to stop it, then you say it can't grow hardly at all. Will you please make up your mind!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's examine your claims: You claim that it is unsafe because the pressures at the core of the earth mean that the blackhole will be force fed. I demonstrated using available data on the density of the core of the earth, that even if the entire earth were a sphere made out of the material at the core, that it would take one billion years for the alleged black hole to simply double it's weight. |
That's funny. First you say it can absorb enough mass in the first collision to stop it, then you say it can't grow hardly at all. Will you please make up your mind!
You claim that the argument that "Cosmic rays do it all the time and we're still here" is wrong because of the conservation of momentum. I demonstrated twice, using two different particles at two different energies (a Neutrino and a Proton) that it is possible for the black hole resulting from such a collision to have a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth.
But you just said it couldn't absorb hardly anything!
QUOTE
You claim that it is impossible for two cosmic rays to collide near enough to head on to produce a black hole with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth. I demonstrated using trignometry and statistics that not only is this possible, it is probable, and we can expect it to happen every 41 seconds.
You pulled irrelevant numbers out of your back side.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You claim that it is impossible for two cosmic rays to collide near enough to head on to produce a black hole with a residual velocity less then the escape velocity of the earth. I demonstrated using trignometry and statistics that not only is this possible, it is probable, and we can expect it to happen every 41 seconds. |
You pulled irrelevant numbers out of your back side.
This is ignoring the fact that every theory which predicts the existence of such small black holes also predicts that they will evaporate as a consequence of Hawking Radiation.
Not everyone feels that way. Some even propose that dark matter may largely be comprised of stable nano-black-holes.
QUOTE
You, Sir, are simply unable to make the admission that you might actually have been wrong, and continue to post insults.
It is you that have been posting insults. I'm merely stating my case.
When are you going to admit that you're wrong about the preferred reference frame?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 06:11 PM)
That's funny. First you say it can absorb enough mass in the first collision to stop it, then you say it can't grow hardly at all. Will you please make up your mind!
But you just said it couldn't absorb hardly anything!
Most of it, yes. Would you claim that flicking a needle into a haystack would cause the whole haystack to recoil from the blow?
You pulled irrelevant numbers out of your back side.
Now you're grasping at straws.
Two different things. Acreetion and creation are two entirely different processes.
If the haystack was held together by the strong force, perhaps, yes, but the point that you're blatantly ignoring, is that because it's traveling at 0.9999c, in the Oxygen atoms reference frame, the proton weighs 5,000 AMU, so it's hardly insignificant, in fact given that the rest mass of an average oxygen atom is 15.9994 AMU, in the oxygen atoms reference frame, it's being hit by something heavy, and fast moving.
I thought that even you would realize this.
And I didn't pull "irrelevant" numbers out of my backside.
Anybody who can read a graph is capable of working out the impact rate for themselves, the energy spectrum of cosmic rays is well known.
The circumferemce of space is well known.
I chose an altitude of 50 km above the earths surface for the collision point.
I was unable to find the data sow I guessed that an altitude of 85 km is used for the cosmic ray data (This is not unreasonable for the discussion for a bunch of reasons I really can't be bothered going into, because I know that you will simply dismiss them, because inspite of accusations you have thrown against me, you are simply being contrary.
From there, given that we know that we have a margin of error of 11km/s we can calculate the maximum angle from horizontal that the cosmic rays can be.
From there it's a simple application of the Tan function to calculate the angle.
From there, given that we know all the distances involved, it's a simple application of the Tan function to calulate the size of the window that this allows.
We know the average impact rate, so we can calculate how many of the cosmic rays are likely to pass through that space, given that we're dealing with protons, and we know the radius of a proton.
We can then calculate the probability of two protons passing through the same space at the same time, and based on the number of cosmic rays that impinge upon the earths upper atmosphere, we can calculate how often this happens.
So much for pulling numbers out of thin air.
I'm not you.
I don't make things up.
I make claims based on numbers and verified science.
Don't project your own short comings onto me.
I think that maybe Rpenner and Alphanumeric are as sick of your hypocrisy and arguing for the sake of arguing as I am, or maybe they just think that I'm doing a good enough job of dismantling you arguments that they don't feel the need to step in.
In fact, in the past, as a rule of thumb the only time either of them has stepped into my arguments without being invited by me is when I've made an error somewhere.
But you just said it couldn't absorb hardly anything!
Most of it, yes. Would you claim that flicking a needle into a haystack would cause the whole haystack to recoil from the blow?
You pulled irrelevant numbers out of your back side.
Now you're grasping at straws.
Two different things. Acreetion and creation are two entirely different processes.
If the haystack was held together by the strong force, perhaps, yes, but the point that you're blatantly ignoring, is that because it's traveling at 0.9999c, in the Oxygen atoms reference frame, the proton weighs 5,000 AMU, so it's hardly insignificant, in fact given that the rest mass of an average oxygen atom is 15.9994 AMU, in the oxygen atoms reference frame, it's being hit by something heavy, and fast moving.
I thought that even you would realize this.
And I didn't pull "irrelevant" numbers out of my backside.
Anybody who can read a graph is capable of working out the impact rate for themselves, the energy spectrum of cosmic rays is well known.
The circumferemce of space is well known.
I chose an altitude of 50 km above the earths surface for the collision point.
I was unable to find the data sow I guessed that an altitude of 85 km is used for the cosmic ray data (This is not unreasonable for the discussion for a bunch of reasons I really can't be bothered going into, because I know that you will simply dismiss them, because inspite of accusations you have thrown against me, you are simply being contrary.
From there, given that we know that we have a margin of error of 11km/s we can calculate the maximum angle from horizontal that the cosmic rays can be.
From there it's a simple application of the Tan function to calculate the angle.
From there, given that we know all the distances involved, it's a simple application of the Tan function to calulate the size of the window that this allows.
We know the average impact rate, so we can calculate how many of the cosmic rays are likely to pass through that space, given that we're dealing with protons, and we know the radius of a proton.
We can then calculate the probability of two protons passing through the same space at the same time, and based on the number of cosmic rays that impinge upon the earths upper atmosphere, we can calculate how often this happens.
So much for pulling numbers out of thin air.
I'm not you.
I don't make things up.
I make claims based on numbers and verified science.
Don't project your own short comings onto me.
I think that maybe Rpenner and Alphanumeric are as sick of your hypocrisy and arguing for the sake of arguing as I am, or maybe they just think that I'm doing a good enough job of dismantling you arguments that they don't feel the need to step in.
In fact, in the past, as a rule of thumb the only time either of them has stepped into my arguments without being invited by me is when I've made an error somewhere.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 06:11 PM)
When are you going to admit that you're wrong about the preferred reference frame?
Never, because nothing I have said even remotely implies a preferred refference frame.
Never, because nothing I have said even remotely implies a preferred refference frame.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 29 2007, 05:38 AM)
Now you're grasping at straws.
Two different things. Acreetion and creation are two entirely different processes.
They both rely on collision cross sections. Your original "creation" collision has a much smaller cross section than the nano-black-hole. It's two-dimensional, while the black hole's cross section is three dimensional.
Right, heavy, small, dense and fast. Kind of like a bullet. Would shooting a bullet at a haystack cause the whole haystack to recoil?
Right, heavy, small, dense and fast. Kind of like a bullet. Would shooting a bullet at a haystack cause the whole haystack to recoil?
And I didn't pull "irrelevant" numbers out of my backside.
Yes you did. You haven't even begun to realize all of the necessary parameters.
First of all, the cross sections are so tiny that for two to arbitrarily inhabit the same space, in a specific proximity, at any one time is practically an infinity. And this doesn't even include all of the possible intersect angles, velocities, cross sections, spin properties, and whatnot. Do I need to go on?
First of all, the cross sections are so tiny that for two to arbitrarily inhabit the same space, in a specific proximity, at any one time is practically an infinity. And this doesn't even include all of the possible intersect angles, velocities, cross sections, spin properties, and whatnot. Do I need to go on?
I'm not you.
I don't make things up.
I make claims based on numbers and verified science.
Don't project your own short comings onto me.
"Verified science?" You still think an earthbound observer has some special reference to the concept of "slow!"
Actually, they've tried. Did you not notice the easive answer Rpenner recently provided? Apparently that was the best he could muster!
Actually, they've tried. Did you not notice the easive answer Rpenner recently provided? Apparently that was the best he could muster!
In fact, in the past, as a rule of thumb the only time either of them has stepped into my arguments without being invited by me is when I've made an error somewhere.
You did invite them, and they didn't come. I've taunted them, and they still didn't come. Do you really think they'd miss a golden opportunity to slam me?
My greatest disappointment in them is that they'd rather remain silent than step up to the plate and state the truth of it, presumably because they have personal issues with me. Science suffers under biased opinion.
Two different things. Acreetion and creation are two entirely different processes.
They both rely on collision cross sections. Your original "creation" collision has a much smaller cross section than the nano-black-hole. It's two-dimensional, while the black hole's cross section is three dimensional.
QUOTE
If the haystack was held together by the strong force, perhaps, yes, but the point that you're blatantly ignoring, is that because it's traveling at 0.9999c, in the Oxygen atoms reference frame, the proton weighs 5,000 AMU, so it's hardly insignificant, in fact given that the rest mass of an average oxygen atom is 15.9994 AMU, in the oxygen atoms reference frame, it's being hit by something heavy, and fast moving.
I thought that even you would realize this.
I thought that even you would realize this.
Right, heavy, small, dense and fast. Kind of like a bullet. Would shooting a bullet at a haystack cause the whole haystack to recoil?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the haystack was held together by the strong force, perhaps, yes, but the point that you're blatantly ignoring, is that because it's traveling at 0.9999c, in the Oxygen atoms reference frame, the proton weighs 5,000 AMU, so it's hardly insignificant, in fact given that the rest mass of an average oxygen atom is 15.9994 AMU, in the oxygen atoms reference frame, it's being hit by something heavy, and fast moving. I thought that even you would realize this. |
Right, heavy, small, dense and fast. Kind of like a bullet. Would shooting a bullet at a haystack cause the whole haystack to recoil?
And I didn't pull "irrelevant" numbers out of my backside.
Yes you did. You haven't even begun to realize all of the necessary parameters.
QUOTE
Anybody who can read a graph is capable of working out the impact rate for themselves, the energy spectrum of cosmic rays is well known.
The circumferemce of space is well known.
I chose an altitude of 50 km above the earths surface for the collision point.
I was unable to find the data sow I guessed that an altitude of 85 km is used for the cosmic ray data (This is not unreasonable for the discussion for a bunch of reasons I really can't be bothered going into, because I know that you will simply dismiss them, because inspite of accusations you have thrown against me, you are simply being contrary.
From there, given that we know that we have a margin of error of 11km/s we can calculate the maximum angle from horizontal that the cosmic rays can be.
From there it's a simple application of the Tan function to calculate the angle.
From there, given that we know all the distances involved, it's a simple application of the Tan function to calulate the size of the window that this allows.
We know the average impact rate, so we can calculate how many of the cosmic rays are likely to pass through that space, given that we're dealing with protons, and we know the radius of a proton.
We can then calculate the probability of two protons passing through the same space at the same time, and based on the number of cosmic rays that impinge upon the earths upper atmosphere, we can calculate how often this happens.
So much for pulling numbers out of thin air.
The circumferemce of space is well known.
I chose an altitude of 50 km above the earths surface for the collision point.
I was unable to find the data sow I guessed that an altitude of 85 km is used for the cosmic ray data (This is not unreasonable for the discussion for a bunch of reasons I really can't be bothered going into, because I know that you will simply dismiss them, because inspite of accusations you have thrown against me, you are simply being contrary.
From there, given that we know that we have a margin of error of 11km/s we can calculate the maximum angle from horizontal that the cosmic rays can be.
From there it's a simple application of the Tan function to calculate the angle.
From there, given that we know all the distances involved, it's a simple application of the Tan function to calulate the size of the window that this allows.
We know the average impact rate, so we can calculate how many of the cosmic rays are likely to pass through that space, given that we're dealing with protons, and we know the radius of a proton.
We can then calculate the probability of two protons passing through the same space at the same time, and based on the number of cosmic rays that impinge upon the earths upper atmosphere, we can calculate how often this happens.
So much for pulling numbers out of thin air.
First of all, the cross sections are so tiny that for two to arbitrarily inhabit the same space, in a specific proximity, at any one time is practically an infinity. And this doesn't even include all of the possible intersect angles, velocities, cross sections, spin properties, and whatnot. Do I need to go on?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anybody who can read a graph is capable of working out the impact rate for themselves, the energy spectrum of cosmic rays is well known. The circumferemce of space is well known. I chose an altitude of 50 km above the earths surface for the collision point. I was unable to find the data sow I guessed that an altitude of 85 km is used for the cosmic ray data (This is not unreasonable for the discussion for a bunch of reasons I really can't be bothered going into, because I know that you will simply dismiss them, because inspite of accusations you have thrown against me, you are simply being contrary. From there, given that we know that we have a margin of error of 11km/s we can calculate the maximum angle from horizontal that the cosmic rays can be. From there it's a simple application of the Tan function to calculate the angle. From there, given that we know all the distances involved, it's a simple application of the Tan function to calulate the size of the window that this allows. We know the average impact rate, so we can calculate how many of the cosmic rays are likely to pass through that space, given that we're dealing with protons, and we know the radius of a proton. We can then calculate the probability of two protons passing through the same space at the same time, and based on the number of cosmic rays that impinge upon the earths upper atmosphere, we can calculate how often this happens. So much for pulling numbers out of thin air. |
First of all, the cross sections are so tiny that for two to arbitrarily inhabit the same space, in a specific proximity, at any one time is practically an infinity. And this doesn't even include all of the possible intersect angles, velocities, cross sections, spin properties, and whatnot. Do I need to go on?
I'm not you.
I don't make things up.
I make claims based on numbers and verified science.
Don't project your own short comings onto me.
"Verified science?" You still think an earthbound observer has some special reference to the concept of "slow!"
QUOTE
I think that maybe Rpenner and Alphanumeric are as sick of your hypocrisy and arguing for the sake of arguing as I am, or maybe they just think that I'm doing a good enough job of dismantling you arguments that they don't feel the need to step in.
Actually, they've tried. Did you not notice the easive answer Rpenner recently provided? Apparently that was the best he could muster!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think that maybe Rpenner and Alphanumeric are as sick of your hypocrisy and arguing for the sake of arguing as I am, or maybe they just think that I'm doing a good enough job of dismantling you arguments that they don't feel the need to step in. |
Actually, they've tried. Did you not notice the easive answer Rpenner recently provided? Apparently that was the best he could muster!
In fact, in the past, as a rule of thumb the only time either of them has stepped into my arguments without being invited by me is when I've made an error somewhere.
You did invite them, and they didn't come. I've taunted them, and they still didn't come. Do you really think they'd miss a golden opportunity to slam me?
My greatest disappointment in them is that they'd rather remain silent than step up to the plate and state the truth of it, presumably because they have personal issues with me. Science suffers under biased opinion.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 29 2007, 05:40 AM)
Never, because nothing I have said even remotely implies a preferred refference frame.
I've explained it as simply as I could. I don't know what else I can do.
I've explained it as simply as I could. I don't know what else I can do.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 26 2007, 08:04 PM)
It isn't.[/QUOTE]
AlphaNumeric is, as expected of a PhD student, correct.
To the best of the empirical data:
Technically true, but it depends on how you look at it. Conservation of energy holds. Mass and energy are equivalent. I generally use the term, "mass/energy" (as evidenced by the previous posts). I slipped once. You got me.
Binding energy is a factor, and some of the mass can be converted into massless energy (like photons) but the total mass/energy is conserved (in consideration of mass/energy equivalence).
Why is this such a challenge for you? Why do you obscure the facts? Why do you obfucate the truth?
Why is this such a challenge for you? Why do you obscure the facts? Why do you obfucate the truth?
May I suggest getting a degree in experimental particle physics.
Are you offering me a sponsorship?
Are you offering me a sponsorship?
Hey, get real!, this topic should've been called "Replying to LSD Danger Revisited!"
AlphaNumeric is, as expected of a PhD student, correct.
To the best of the empirical data:
- Momentum is conserved.
- Energy is conserved.
- Mass is not conserved in the types of interactions particle physicists call inelastic.
Technically true, but it depends on how you look at it. Conservation of energy holds. Mass and energy are equivalent. I generally use the term, "mass/energy" (as evidenced by the previous posts). I slipped once. You got me.
Binding energy is a factor, and some of the mass can be converted into massless energy (like photons) but the total mass/energy is conserved (in consideration of mass/energy equivalence).
QUOTE
As this is precisely the type of interaction which all the Chicken Little arguments are based on (strangelets, black holes, monopoles, etc.) it is surprising to me that a Trust-My-Physics-We're-All-Gonna-Die fearmonger would remain ignorant of this basic fact about all their disaster scenarios. Clearly you aren't serious about your fearmongering.
Why is this such a challenge for you? Why do you obscure the facts? Why do you obfucate the truth?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As this is precisely the type of interaction which all the Chicken Little arguments are based on (strangelets, black holes, monopoles, etc.) it is surprising to me that a Trust-My-Physics-We're-All-Gonna-Die fearmonger would remain ignorant of this basic fact about all their disaster scenarios. Clearly you aren't serious about your fearmongering. |
Why is this such a challenge for you? Why do you obscure the facts? Why do you obfucate the truth?
May I suggest getting a degree in experimental particle physics.
Are you offering me a sponsorship?
QUOTE
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=277053
Since c is large in ordinary units, when the change is not huge, this non-conservation of mass can be hard to detect which is why Lavoisier's detailed experiments failed to notice it.
Since c is large in ordinary units, when the change is not huge, this non-conservation of mass can be hard to detect which is why Lavoisier's detailed experiments failed to notice it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 08:18 AM)
Are you offering me a sponsorship?
Hey, get real!, this topic should've been called "Replying to LSD Danger Revisited!"
[amusing but vaguely offensive comments cut in the interests of self preservation]
There ARE NO VIOLATIONS IN MY SCENARIO.
From the point of view of an earth bound observer.
The proton and the co-moving observer are moving at 0.9999c
At some point, at some time the proton collides with an oxygen atom with a velocity of 450 m/s.
A Black hole is formed.
That black hole has a residual velocity of around 200 m/s
The oxygen atom continues on it's merry way.
From the point of view of a co-moving observer.
The proton is stationary.
The earth, and the earth bound observer, and the oxygen atom are all trundling along at around 0.9999c
The Oxygen atom collides with the stationary proton, a black hole is formed, and the black hole bounces off the oxygen atom at about 0.9999c
Where PRECISELY is the freaking violation?
I've left the majority of numbers out to keep it easy for you to understand.
There ARE NO VIOLATIONS IN MY SCENARIO.
From the point of view of an earth bound observer.
The proton and the co-moving observer are moving at 0.9999c
At some point, at some time the proton collides with an oxygen atom with a velocity of 450 m/s.
A Black hole is formed.
That black hole has a residual velocity of around 200 m/s
The oxygen atom continues on it's merry way.
From the point of view of a co-moving observer.
The proton is stationary.
The earth, and the earth bound observer, and the oxygen atom are all trundling along at around 0.9999c
The Oxygen atom collides with the stationary proton, a black hole is formed, and the black hole bounces off the oxygen atom at about 0.9999c
Where PRECISELY is the freaking violation?
I've left the majority of numbers out to keep it easy for you to understand.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 07:16 PM)
They both rely on collision cross sections. Your original "creation" collision has a much smaller cross section than the nano-black-hole. It's two-dimensional, while the black hole's cross section is three dimensional.
Yes you did. You haven't even begun to realize all of the necessary parameters.
First of all, the cross sections are so tiny that for two to arbitrarily inhabit the same space, in a specific proximity, at any one time is practically an infinity. And this doesn't even include all of the possible intersect angles, velocities, cross sections, spin properties, and whatnot. Do I need to go on?
This would be why I took the cross sectional area perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Yet more proof you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about.
Yes you did. You haven't even begun to realize all of the necessary parameters.
First of all, the cross sections are so tiny that for two to arbitrarily inhabit the same space, in a specific proximity, at any one time is practically an infinity. And this doesn't even include all of the possible intersect angles, velocities, cross sections, spin properties, and whatnot. Do I need to go on?
This would be why I took the cross sectional area perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Yet more proof you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 29 2007, 05:18 AM)
(SNIP) At some point, at some time the proton collides with an oxygen atom with a velocity of 450 m/s. A Black hole is formed. That black hole has a residual velocity of around 200 m/s The oxygen atom continues on it's merry way. (SNoP)
Are you actually suggesting that a (micro) Black Hole will form from One single proton interacting with an Oxygen atom?? 
You will need to press that particle to past tachyonic speed (FTL)...you know that ........right??
You will need to press that particle to past tachyonic speed (FTL)...you know that ........right??
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 29 2007, 01:16 PM)
You will need to press that particle to past tachyonic speed (FTL)...you know that ........right??
And do you know any theoretical physics? You don't have to push an object to faster than light speed since the energy a particle can carry below light speed is unbounded.
A single electron could carry more energy than a supernova and still be moving at less than the speed of light.
Understand or do we need to spoon feed you the simplest results in relativity?
And do you know any theoretical physics? You don't have to push an object to faster than light speed since the energy a particle can carry below light speed is unbounded.
A single electron could carry more energy than a supernova and still be moving at less than the speed of light.
Understand or do we need to spoon feed you the simplest results in relativity?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2007, 08:23 AM)
And do you know any theoretical physics?
Yes.....You?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2007, 08:23 AM)
You don't have to push an object to faster than light speed since the energy a particle can carry below light speed is unbounded.
Mathematically, but in reality ever seen one....??
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2007, 08:23 AM)
A single electron could carry more energy than a supernova and still be moving at less than the speed of light.
theoretically....but realistically??...You figure?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2007, 08:23 AM)
Understand or do we need to spoon feed you the simplest results in relativity?
Feed away....
Humm theoretically anything that crosses the event horizon of a Black Hole should accelerate past light speed....tachyon speed.....you?
Humm theoretically anything that crosses the event horizon of a Black Hole should accelerate past light speed....tachyon speed.....you?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 29 2007, 02:22 PM)
Yes.....You?
I've already told you what I do and I've proven what I'm capable of. You haven't.
I've already told you what I do and I've proven what I'm capable of. You haven't.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 29 2007, 02:22 PM)
Mathematically, but in reality ever seen one....??
Experimentally, every particle which has ever been accelerated by Man has never broken the speed of light. Even particles with kinetic energies millions of times their rest masses.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 29 2007, 02:22 PM)
theoretically....but realistically??...You figure?
I suggest you learn a bit about how LEP worked.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 29 2007, 02:22 PM)
umm theoretically anything that crosses the event horizon of a Black Hole should accelerate past light speed....tachyon speed.....you?
No, theoretically general relativity has preservation of causality in and around an event horizon. An object falling through an event horizon will always find light overtaking it, it is moving locally slower than the speed of light.
If you want to demonstrate local Lorentz invariance, use veirbein constructions for your metric.
You're demonstrating you don't know the difference between 'local' and 'global' constructs within differential geometry. A common but critical flaw in the understanding of relativity for most people.
If you want to demonstrate local Lorentz invariance, use veirbein constructions for your metric.
You're demonstrating you don't know the difference between 'local' and 'global' constructs within differential geometry. A common but critical flaw in the understanding of relativity for most people.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2007, 09:40 AM)
I've already told you what I do and I've proven what I'm capable of. You haven't.
Rudenesses yes, proved the rest?? to me?? .....no...not even close.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2007, 09:40 AM)
No, theoretically general relativity has preservation of causality in and around an event horizon. An object falling through an event horizon will always find light overtaking it, it is moving locally slower than the speed of light.
As it transits but what about after it is fully past?? how fast then?? after all ....it is known that escape velocity exceeds c
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 28 2007, 02:19 AM)
Why is this such a personal issue for some people?
That's a very [good]question, indeed!
You mean you can't answer this question? You can't say why you have embarked on this multi-year crusade? You can't say why you fear group Z might cause the sky to fall when groups W, X, and Y haven't yet? You can't say why a physics story you invented that actual physicists find no more reasonable than a pipe dream should cause you to post thousands of times despite the obviously nebulous foundation they rest on? Perhaps you should spend some time seeking insight into this question since you haven't yet taken my suggestion to learn some particle physics.
I am not a man of deep introspection, but I know why this is a personal issue to me. I believe in freedom, and as the court system will require of Walter Wagner if he ever files suit (less than 12 months to go!), I require a showing of cause before agreeing that the limitation of someones basic freedom is a good idea. Tearing holes in safety assumptions is not showing cause. The only showing cause is proof that your fears are real and quantifiable. This you cannot do, since not even assuming the XLD people are correct about a 14 TeV black hole having a radius of 0.0001 fermi and assuming (as they do not) that Hawking radiation is completely suppressed by an unknown mechanism leads to a disaster scenario.
So while I am personally attached to the concept of liberty, I am not similarly attached to any particular physical theory beyond what experiment has covered. I have explored a lot but can't find anyway to suggest you might be correct. Others have asked you to demonstrate that millions of 14 TeV objects do, in contrast to my calculations, result in worldwide catastrophe. This, in my opinion, would be the best way to convince physicists or in Walter Wagner's case get a relevant expert (also a physicist) to tell the court that such fears are credible.
But the only way a 14 TeV object poses gravitational danger to a planet is if the conservation of angular momentum does not apply and atoms get sucked in in violation of the mechanics which have been well tested at these energies for centuries, and since your doomsday scenario requires 3 assumptions that throw out everything we know of physics since Newton, I cannot imagine any physicist the court will certify as an expert (and I do not volunteer myself) would find credible.
You mean you can't answer this question? You can't say why you have embarked on this multi-year crusade? You can't say why you fear group Z might cause the sky to fall when groups W, X, and Y haven't yet? You can't say why a physics story you invented that actual physicists find no more reasonable than a pipe dream should cause you to post thousands of times despite the obviously nebulous foundation they rest on? Perhaps you should spend some time seeking insight into this question since you haven't yet taken my suggestion to learn some particle physics.
I am not a man of deep introspection, but I know why this is a personal issue to me. I believe in freedom, and as the court system will require of Walter Wagner if he ever files suit (less than 12 months to go!), I require a showing of cause before agreeing that the limitation of someones basic freedom is a good idea. Tearing holes in safety assumptions is not showing cause. The only showing cause is proof that your fears are real and quantifiable. This you cannot do, since not even assuming the XLD people are correct about a 14 TeV black hole having a radius of 0.0001 fermi and assuming (as they do not) that Hawking radiation is completely suppressed by an unknown mechanism leads to a disaster scenario.
So while I am personally attached to the concept of liberty, I am not similarly attached to any particular physical theory beyond what experiment has covered. I have explored a lot but can't find anyway to suggest you might be correct. Others have asked you to demonstrate that millions of 14 TeV objects do, in contrast to my calculations, result in worldwide catastrophe. This, in my opinion, would be the best way to convince physicists or in Walter Wagner's case get a relevant expert (also a physicist) to tell the court that such fears are credible.
But the only way a 14 TeV object poses gravitational danger to a planet is if the conservation of angular momentum does not apply and atoms get sucked in in violation of the mechanics which have been well tested at these energies for centuries, and since your doomsday scenario requires 3 assumptions that throw out everything we know of physics since Newton, I cannot imagine any physicist the court will certify as an expert (and I do not volunteer myself) would find credible.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 28 2007, 02:55 AM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 27 2007, 10:54 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 26 2007, 11:49 PM)
... I have yet to see one physically consistent description on how the LHC might kill us and still cosmic influx has not yet.
So now you're stating the two collision models are the same? Maybe you also think Trippy is right?
Ever since Newton proved that his theory of Universal Gravitation applied equally well to celestial as terrestrial events, science has been working with the empirically justified concept: there is just one physics.
Trippy also believes this.
Trippy also believes this.
Well there's an evasive answer!
I believe a better description is nuanced. By saying that the only reasonable position to take is that the physics of celestial events is the same physics as terrestrial events, I have clearly said that I either believe this or I believe myself to be unreasonable. Since even insane people believe themselves to be reasonable, I clearly believe this position shared by Newton and Trippy.
I believe a better description is nuanced. By saying that the only reasonable position to take is that the physics of celestial events is the same physics as terrestrial events, I have clearly said that I either believe this or I believe myself to be unreasonable. Since even insane people believe themselves to be reasonable, I clearly believe this position shared by Newton and Trippy.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 12:22 AM)
What's the matter, can't commit? Do you believe Trippy is right, or not?
There's no reason (given) to be offensive. Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth. In the RHIC safety argument, detailed calculations show that the "collision leads to physics changes which expand outward at the speed of light" disaster scenario was completely ruled out by examining the rate at which collisions of similar or higher energy happen in space. Likewise, if your 3 required assumptions are true, not only are space collisions forming (eternal) black holes, but those black holes will fill up space like a gas with a thermal distribution of velocities and there will be some slow ones which violently kill off neutron stars and planets. These assumptions are apparently in contradiction to observation which means that LHC poses no risk at all to the Earth. But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 08:18 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 26 2007, 08:04 PM)
As [no mass conversation in inelastic collisions] is precisely the type of interaction which all the Chicken Little arguments are based on (strangelets, black holes, monopoles, etc.) it is surprising to me that a Trust-My-Physics-We're-All-Gonna-Die fearmonger would remain ignorant of this basic fact about all their disaster scenarios. Clearly you aren't serious about your fearmongering.
Why is this such a challenge for you? Why do you obscure the facts? Why do you [obfuscate] the truth?
Actually, truth is personally important to me. As there is just one physics, truth in physics is accessible to all. Thus my suggestion that you make an effort to get closer to truth and study physics.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 29 2007, 08:18 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 26 2007, 08:04 PM)
May I suggest getting a degree in experimental particle physics.
It's not exactly the same kind of black hole generation. Read this, an easy overview: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20014/1001012.htm
Also this is an easy read: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlig...s_bh/index.html
Finally, this one will be more in-depth: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199
Are you offering me a sponsorship?
I would prefer to spend my limited resources on investments more likely to return benefits to my family and/or people I like. So, the answer is no. Also, I am not gifted in the art of making bribes, and some form of persuasion would probably be needed to enroll you in a relevant program. I am assuming you are at least 30 years old and would be an exceptional admission case. Also, I forget if you stated your residence -- you may not reside near such a university, and relocation costs would be involved. Finally, there is the issue of time. The fall session has already begun and it is not possible to get the coursework done before the argument becomes moot.
Well spoken, as always Rpenner.
Although you, Sir, are entirely too subtle and patient (And here I use 'Sir' with a (goodly) measure of respect).
Although you, Sir, are entirely too subtle and patient (And here I use 'Sir' with a (goodly) measure of respect).
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 30 2007, 06:50 AM)
I believe a better description is nuanced. By saying that the only reasonable position to take is that the physics of celestial events is the same physics as terrestrial events, I have clearly said that I either believe this or I believe myself to be unreasonable. Since even insane people believe themselves to be reasonable, I clearly believe this position shared by Newton and Trippy.
There's no reason (given) to be offensive. Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth. In the RHIC safety argument, detailed calculations show that the "collision leads to physics changes which expand outward at the speed of light" disaster scenario was completely ruled out by examining the rate at which collisions of similar or higher energy happen in space. Likewise, if your 3 required assumptions are true, not only are space collisions forming (eternal) black holes, but those black holes will fill up space like a gas with a thermal distribution of velocities and there will be some slow ones which violently kill off neutron stars and planets. These assumptions are apparently in contradiction to observation which means that LHC poses no risk at all to the Earth. But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
Oh, and thankyou.
To be honest, I do not expect that any reasonable person would ever expect you to say yes or no to specific numbers without the provisions of full workings (including statements of all assumptions).
I will confess to being surrounded by a see of paper which I could scan, but my writing is oft illegible, my workings are more like notes, and jump from place to place.
There's no reason (given) to be offensive. Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth. In the RHIC safety argument, detailed calculations show that the "collision leads to physics changes which expand outward at the speed of light" disaster scenario was completely ruled out by examining the rate at which collisions of similar or higher energy happen in space. Likewise, if your 3 required assumptions are true, not only are space collisions forming (eternal) black holes, but those black holes will fill up space like a gas with a thermal distribution of velocities and there will be some slow ones which violently kill off neutron stars and planets. These assumptions are apparently in contradiction to observation which means that LHC poses no risk at all to the Earth. But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
Oh, and thankyou.
To be honest, I do not expect that any reasonable person would ever expect you to say yes or no to specific numbers without the provisions of full workings (including statements of all assumptions).
I will confess to being surrounded by a see of paper which I could scan, but my writing is oft illegible, my workings are more like notes, and jump from place to place.
.
Hi guys and gals. Haven't much time....
I mention again the common/frequent case of stars collapsing to form NEUTRON STARS.
The inner parts of the former 'normal' star collapses inwards at a significant fraction of lightspeed while the outer parts are exploded outwards
Again, the whole argument on whether or not 'micro' BHs can BE formed AT ALL would be settled....if.....
Someone can explain WHY the SYMMETRICAL/MYRIAD collisions involved in such neutron-star-formation collapse/compression do NOT produce a BH 'every time', because of the 'low net momentum' high-energy particle collisions in such 'largely' SYMMETRICAL cataclysms!
I think that analysing/discussing the neutron-star-formation particle numbers, energy-levels and collision-geometries might provide the OBSERVABLE/LIMITING 'condition/scenario' information that may produce a DEFINITIVE ANSWER that all may agree upon.....simply because the neutron-star 'implosion/explosion' scenario is well studied and NOT subject to 'opinions based on 'esoteric/subjective' theories/speculations.
Cheers, good luck and good discussing everyone!
RC.
.
Hi guys and gals. Haven't much time....
I mention again the common/frequent case of stars collapsing to form NEUTRON STARS.
The inner parts of the former 'normal' star collapses inwards at a significant fraction of lightspeed while the outer parts are exploded outwards
Again, the whole argument on whether or not 'micro' BHs can BE formed AT ALL would be settled....if.....
Someone can explain WHY the SYMMETRICAL/MYRIAD collisions involved in such neutron-star-formation collapse/compression do NOT produce a BH 'every time', because of the 'low net momentum' high-energy particle collisions in such 'largely' SYMMETRICAL cataclysms!
I think that analysing/discussing the neutron-star-formation particle numbers, energy-levels and collision-geometries might provide the OBSERVABLE/LIMITING 'condition/scenario' information that may produce a DEFINITIVE ANSWER that all may agree upon.....simply because the neutron-star 'implosion/explosion' scenario is well studied and NOT subject to 'opinions based on 'esoteric/subjective' theories/speculations.
Cheers, good luck and good discussing everyone!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 30 2007, 01:19 AM)
.
Hi guys and gals. Haven't much time....
I mention again the common/frequent case of stars collapsing to form NEUTRON STARS.
The inner parts of the former 'normal' star collapses inwards at a significant fraction of lightspeed while the outer parts are exploded outwards
Again, the whole argument on whether or not 'micro' BHs can BE formed AT ALL would be settled....if.....
Someone can explain WHY the SYMMETRICAL/MYRIAD collisions involved in such neutron-star-formation collapse/compression do NOT produce a BH 'every time', because of the 'low net momentum' high-energy particle collisions in such 'largely' SYMMETRICAL cataclysms!
I think that analysing/discussing the neutron-star-formation particle numbers, energy-levels and collision-geometries might provide the OBSERVABLE/LIMITING 'condition/scenario' information that may produce a DEFINITIVE ANSWER that all may agree upon.....simply because the neutron-star 'implosion/explosion' scenario is well studied and NOT subject to 'opinions based on 'esoteric/subjective' theories/speculations.
Cheers, good luck and good discussing everyone!
RC.
.
Just an example to get you guys started, hehehe.....
Consider the untold numbers of high-speed/energy particles heading RADIALLY OUTWARDS from such an event.
Then consider the large numbers of 'ambient' GAMMA RAYS and COSMIC RAYS that were 'incoming' prior to that event.
And THEN consider the number and energy of COLLISIONS BETWEEN all those fast/energetic outgoing 'star explosion' particles, and all those fast/energetic incoming 'prior ambient influx' particles.
HOW MANY 'collisions' would involve the collision-energy-density and low-net-momentum to AT LEAST match the possible LHC maximum collisions energy/momentum profiles?
IF SO, would not practically every neutron star have been 'gobbled up' immediately to become a 'MACRO' Black Hole....such that neutron stars should exist only 'relatively briefly'?
In which case, the question begged becomes: If micro black holes can be 'free-collision-formed' AT ALL; and if they can 'grow' AT ALL....THEN how can we explain the 'relatively long lifetimes' of observed neutron stars......given the large numbers of 'LHC-like' micro-hole forming collisions likely occurring during neutron star formation?
OR are neutron stars a form of 'grey-black hole? hehehe.
Anyhow, you get the idea for discussion!
Go to it, and good luck!
RC.
.
Hi guys and gals. Haven't much time....
I mention again the common/frequent case of stars collapsing to form NEUTRON STARS.
The inner parts of the former 'normal' star collapses inwards at a significant fraction of lightspeed while the outer parts are exploded outwards
Again, the whole argument on whether or not 'micro' BHs can BE formed AT ALL would be settled....if.....
Someone can explain WHY the SYMMETRICAL/MYRIAD collisions involved in such neutron-star-formation collapse/compression do NOT produce a BH 'every time', because of the 'low net momentum' high-energy particle collisions in such 'largely' SYMMETRICAL cataclysms!
I think that analysing/discussing the neutron-star-formation particle numbers, energy-levels and collision-geometries might provide the OBSERVABLE/LIMITING 'condition/scenario' information that may produce a DEFINITIVE ANSWER that all may agree upon.....simply because the neutron-star 'implosion/explosion' scenario is well studied and NOT subject to 'opinions based on 'esoteric/subjective' theories/speculations.
Cheers, good luck and good discussing everyone!
RC.
.
Just an example to get you guys started, hehehe.....
Consider the untold numbers of high-speed/energy particles heading RADIALLY OUTWARDS from such an event.
Then consider the large numbers of 'ambient' GAMMA RAYS and COSMIC RAYS that were 'incoming' prior to that event.
And THEN consider the number and energy of COLLISIONS BETWEEN all those fast/energetic outgoing 'star explosion' particles, and all those fast/energetic incoming 'prior ambient influx' particles.
HOW MANY 'collisions' would involve the collision-energy-density and low-net-momentum to AT LEAST match the possible LHC maximum collisions energy/momentum profiles?
IF SO, would not practically every neutron star have been 'gobbled up' immediately to become a 'MACRO' Black Hole....such that neutron stars should exist only 'relatively briefly'?
In which case, the question begged becomes: If micro black holes can be 'free-collision-formed' AT ALL; and if they can 'grow' AT ALL....THEN how can we explain the 'relatively long lifetimes' of observed neutron stars......given the large numbers of 'LHC-like' micro-hole forming collisions likely occurring during neutron star formation?
OR are neutron stars a form of 'grey-black hole? hehehe.
Anyhow, you get the idea for discussion!
Go to it, and good luck!
RC.
.
Ok Iam trying to understand the logic, but I don't know if it's just me but the first time I read this I took it that it is possible to create a black hole at the lhc with bad percussions after and my second read through I understood that it should not be possible.. Anyone like to claerify for me please.
thanks
thanks
QUOTE
Ok Iam trying to understand the logic, but I don't know if it's just me but the first time I read this I took it that it is possible to create a black hole at the lhc with bad percussions after and my second read through I understood that it should not be possible.. Anyone like to claerify for me please.
It's not exactly the same kind of black hole generation. Read this, an easy overview: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20014/1001012.htm
Also this is an easy read: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlig...s_bh/index.html
Finally, this one will be more in-depth: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199
Noone knows if it is possible to form a black hole at the 7 TeV LHC.
Since we have no evidence that they were formed by the 0.2 TeV RHIC, the 0.98 TeV Tevatron or cosmic rays that range up at least 300,000,000 TeV, it seems unlikely.
Even if it is possible to form a gravitationally bound object by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to believe it will be a black hole since conservation of angular momentum and GR theorems about the event horizon do not permit the even horizon to form if the angular momentum is as much as h/4pi.
Even if it is possible to form a black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is every expectation that the result is only metastable, due to a theorem by Hawking which is based on what we do know about space-time and the vacuum.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has more gravity than 14 TeV of mass in any other state.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has an absorbtion cross-section larger than it's geometric cross-section. (Less than 1 nanobarn under the XLD framework. Less than 10^-71 barns in GR.) Therefore it's growth rate will be quite small even at the core of Earth.
Thus, there is no reason to suspect a black hole will form and devour the Earth during the few billion years the sun will be stable and yellow.
Since we have no evidence that they were formed by the 0.2 TeV RHIC, the 0.98 TeV Tevatron or cosmic rays that range up at least 300,000,000 TeV, it seems unlikely.
Even if it is possible to form a gravitationally bound object by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to believe it will be a black hole since conservation of angular momentum and GR theorems about the event horizon do not permit the even horizon to form if the angular momentum is as much as h/4pi.
Even if it is possible to form a black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is every expectation that the result is only metastable, due to a theorem by Hawking which is based on what we do know about space-time and the vacuum.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has more gravity than 14 TeV of mass in any other state.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has an absorbtion cross-section larger than it's geometric cross-section. (Less than 1 nanobarn under the XLD framework. Less than 10^-71 barns in GR.) Therefore it's growth rate will be quite small even at the core of Earth.
Thus, there is no reason to suspect a black hole will form and devour the Earth during the few billion years the sun will be stable and yellow.
Hummm it is also very possible that what would be created is not a Black Hole per-say, but what inhabits the inside of a Black Hole, that would be a 'tachyon sphere' - Particle in this case.
It will disintegrate - quite quickly.....after it appears.
The reason why this is not accepted is the Misuse of light-speed as a final limitation upon time, If Dr. Albert Einstein taught all of us anything, the potential actually lays in c^2
Nice links soundhertz...good reading.
It will disintegrate - quite quickly.....after it appears.
The reason why this is not accepted is the Misuse of light-speed as a final limitation upon time, If Dr. Albert Einstein taught all of us anything, the potential actually lays in c^2
Nice links soundhertz...good reading.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 29 2007, 09:18 AM)
[amusing but vaguely offensive comments cut in the interests of self preservation]
There ARE NO VIOLATIONS IN MY SCENARIO.
You only say that because you don't understand. Why don't you try looking at it from a different perspective and tell me what you think is wrong with my description found in this post.
There ARE NO VIOLATIONS IN MY SCENARIO.
You only say that because you don't understand. Why don't you try looking at it from a different perspective and tell me what you think is wrong with my description found in this post.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Oct 28 2007, 11:19 PM)
If you forget the earth for a moment. Your model is the same as this:
Two protons approach each other at relativistic speeds. Our observer is at rest with one of them. WHAMMO! They collide. Where is the center of gravity for the collision? Does it simply slow to less than 11km/s relative to our observer (as you contend)? What about the (not as yet mentioned) observer riding along with the other proton. Does the center of gravity zing away at the speed of light relative to him? How can that be?
Why does the earthbound observer see a "slowing" (note: "slowing" is relative to him), but the other does not? You're preferring one observer over the other (they don't both see the same thing). The only way they could see the same thing in your case is if the collision result somehow cloned itself and both observers had their own little collision result to watch.
The truth is:
Both observers will see their respective particle mass' accelerated (rearward) by the collision and the incoming mass is respectively decelerated. The inertia of the observers will keep them moving along uniformly, but the collision result will appear to fall behind them (literally accelerate away from them).
There's a strange relativistic effect here though (Walter L. Wagner saw it). It's pretty complicated so you might want to skip this part.
The collision result can appear to move rearward at near light velocity (each observer might think it's following along with the other observer). This is a time dilation/relativistic effect. It's dependent on the relative energy/velocity of the observers and particles before the collision.
This isn't clear. Are you stating that 0.9999c is 450m/s?
Is the oxygen atom moving at 450m/s? Why? Which direction?
Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?
This isn't clear. Are you stating that 0.9999c is 450m/s?
Is the oxygen atom moving at 450m/s? Why? Which direction?
Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?
From the point of view of a co-moving observer.
The proton is stationary.
The earth, and the earth bound observer, and the oxygen atom are all trundling along at around 0.9999c
The Oxygen atom collides with the stationary proton, a black hole is formed, and the black hole bounces off the oxygen atom at about 0.9999c
Black holes do not bounce.
For one, you think black holes "bounce."
For one, you think black holes "bounce."
I've left the majority of numbers out to keep it easy for you to understand.
Thanks. You need to work more on the concepts.
Two protons approach each other at relativistic speeds. Our observer is at rest with one of them. WHAMMO! They collide. Where is the center of gravity for the collision? Does it simply slow to less than 11km/s relative to our observer (as you contend)? What about the (not as yet mentioned) observer riding along with the other proton. Does the center of gravity zing away at the speed of light relative to him? How can that be?
Why does the earthbound observer see a "slowing" (note: "slowing" is relative to him), but the other does not? You're preferring one observer over the other (they don't both see the same thing). The only way they could see the same thing in your case is if the collision result somehow cloned itself and both observers had their own little collision result to watch.
The truth is:
Both observers will see their respective particle mass' accelerated (rearward) by the collision and the incoming mass is respectively decelerated. The inertia of the observers will keep them moving along uniformly, but the collision result will appear to fall behind them (literally accelerate away from them).
There's a strange relativistic effect here though (Walter L. Wagner saw it). It's pretty complicated so you might want to skip this part.
The collision result can appear to move rearward at near light velocity (each observer might think it's following along with the other observer). This is a time dilation/relativistic effect. It's dependent on the relative energy/velocity of the observers and particles before the collision.
QUOTE
From the point of view of an earth bound observer.
The proton and the co-moving observer are moving at 0.9999c
At some point, at some time the proton collides with an oxygen atom with a velocity of 450 m/s.
A Black hole is formed.
That black hole has a residual velocity of around 200 m/s
The oxygen atom continues on it's merry way.
The proton and the co-moving observer are moving at 0.9999c
At some point, at some time the proton collides with an oxygen atom with a velocity of 450 m/s.
A Black hole is formed.
That black hole has a residual velocity of around 200 m/s
The oxygen atom continues on it's merry way.
This isn't clear. Are you stating that 0.9999c is 450m/s?
Is the oxygen atom moving at 450m/s? Why? Which direction?
Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| From the point of view of an earth bound observer. The proton and the co-moving observer are moving at 0.9999c At some point, at some time the proton collides with an oxygen atom with a velocity of 450 m/s. A Black hole is formed. That black hole has a residual velocity of around 200 m/s The oxygen atom continues on it's merry way. |
This isn't clear. Are you stating that 0.9999c is 450m/s?
Is the oxygen atom moving at 450m/s? Why? Which direction?
Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?
From the point of view of a co-moving observer.
The proton is stationary.
The earth, and the earth bound observer, and the oxygen atom are all trundling along at around 0.9999c
The Oxygen atom collides with the stationary proton, a black hole is formed, and the black hole bounces off the oxygen atom at about 0.9999c
Black holes do not bounce.
QUOTE
Where PRECISELY is the freaking violation?
For one, you think black holes "bounce."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where PRECISELY is the freaking violation? |
For one, you think black holes "bounce."
I've left the majority of numbers out to keep it easy for you to understand.
Thanks. You need to work more on the concepts.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 29 2007, 09:23 AM)
This would be why I took the cross sectional area perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Yet more proof you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about.
"...perpendicular to the direction of travel."
Wow.
Yet more proof you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about.
"...perpendicular to the direction of travel."
Wow.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 29 2007, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Oct 29 2007, 12:13 AM)
That's a very [good]question, indeed!
You mean you can't answer this question?.
For myself, it's easy. I'm trying to save the world from a potential catastrophe. Sure, the odds of it happening might be small, but is that a reason to stop? Perhaps you think NASA should stop making contigency plans for a potential ELE impact?
Whose freedom? The few to affect the many without consent?
Whose freedom? The few to affect the many without consent?
and as the court system will require of Walter Wagner if he ever files suit (less than 12 months to go!), I require a showing of cause before agreeing that the limitation of someones basic freedom is a good idea. Tearing holes in safety assumptions is not showing cause.
So if I build a device that may indeed kill you, and I assure you it won't by virtue of erroneous reasoning, I should be free to proceed? Where's the burden of responsibility?
Again, where's the burden of responsibility?
In a court of law, the test is "reasonable doubt." By showing the safety arguments to be erroneous on basic principles, I feel I've met that standard. Were I to sit on a jury listening to similar arguments, about placing an injunction on potentially dangerous chemical manufacturing, I'd vote to sustain the injunction until a better safety standard can be met.
Again, where's the burden of responsibility?
In a court of law, the test is "reasonable doubt." By showing the safety arguments to be erroneous on basic principles, I feel I've met that standard. Were I to sit on a jury listening to similar arguments, about placing an injunction on potentially dangerous chemical manufacturing, I'd vote to sustain the injunction until a better safety standard can be met.
So while I am personally attached to the concept of liberty, I am not similarly attached to any particular physical theory beyond what experiment has covered.
Nor am I.
You've never tried. You've only argued to the contrary with little regard to the truth of it.
You've never tried. You've only argued to the contrary with little regard to the truth of it.
Others have asked you to demonstrate that millions of 14 TeV objects do, in contrast to my calculations, result in worldwide catastrophe.
That's just ridiculous. It can't be demonstrated. It can only be hypothesized. Observational evidence does fit my contentions though. You've still to explain why a dark matter galaxy with enough hydrogen to form 100,000,000 stars, can't form even one.
No physiscist would have the guts to do that. It'd be a career ending move, even if he was eventually proven right.
No physiscist would have the guts to do that. It'd be a career ending move, even if he was eventually proven right.
But the only way a 14 TeV object poses gravitational danger to a planet is if the conservation of angular momentum does not apply and atoms get sucked in in violation of the mechanics which have been well tested at these energies for centuries, and since your doomsday scenario requires 3 assumptions that throw out everything we know of physics since Newton, I cannot imagine any physicist the court will certify as an expert (and I do not volunteer myself) would find credible.
What three assumptions? I'm not the one that predicted black holes can be created in the LHC. I'm not the one that invented the conservation of momentum law. I'm not the only one that that doubts Hawking radiation.
This is an evasion of the question, and you know it. Specifically then, is Trippy right about his collision model? Can black holes bounce? Note: We're talking about a newly forming one in an oxygen atom, not a typical Kerr black hole.
This is an evasion of the question, and you know it. Specifically then, is Trippy right about his collision model? Can black holes bounce? Note: We're talking about a newly forming one in an oxygen atom, not a typical Kerr black hole.
There's no reason (given) to be offensive.
I didn't offend. I merely asked questions. It's your unwillingness to properly answer the questions that causes your misinterpretation.
Show me where Trippy said that.
Show me where Trippy said that.
In the RHIC safety argument, detailed calculations show that the "collision leads to physics changes which expand outward at the speed of light" disaster scenario was completely ruled out by examining the rate at which collisions of similar or higher energy happen in space. Likewise, if your 3 required assumptions are true, not only are space collisions forming (eternal) black holes, but those black holes will fill up space like a gas with a thermal distribution of velocities and there will be some slow ones which violently kill off neutron stars and planets. These assumptions are apparently in contradiction to observation
How so? Dark matter is hypothesized to be just such a gas like substance (WIMPs). "Slow ones" would only be slow relative to the galaxy (not the individual planets and stars where they're hypothetically made). They'd fall into the galactic center (where we find there's a super massive black hole!). Now, isn't that interesting!
Which means you have ignored both observation and fact. Are you really a scientist?
Which means you have ignored both observation and fact. Are you really a scientist?
But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
What a cop-out!
Obviously from above, this isn't true. You're spinning your answers so hard that to call them "truth," would only be marginally accurate.
Obviously from above, this isn't true. You're spinning your answers so hard that to call them "truth," would only be marginally accurate.
I would prefer to spend my limited resources on investments more likely to return benefits to my family and/or people I like.
Oh, so it's personal then?
Ridiculous! I'd even be willing to start in the local junior college (where I already have a 4.0 GPA).
Ridiculous! I'd even be willing to start in the local junior college (where I already have a 4.0 GPA).
I am assuming you are at least 30 years old and would be an exceptional admission case.
Age is irrelevant.
I'm closer than you might imagine.
I'm closer than you might imagine.
Finally, there is the issue of time. The fall session has already begun and it is not possible to get the coursework done before the argument becomes moot
Cop-out.
You mean you can't answer this question?.
For myself, it's easy. I'm trying to save the world from a potential catastrophe. Sure, the odds of it happening might be small, but is that a reason to stop? Perhaps you think NASA should stop making contigency plans for a potential ELE impact?
QUOTE
I am not a man of deep introspection, but I know why this is a personal issue to me. I believe in freedom,
Whose freedom? The few to affect the many without consent?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am not a man of deep introspection, but I know why this is a personal issue to me. I believe in freedom, |
Whose freedom? The few to affect the many without consent?
and as the court system will require of Walter Wagner if he ever files suit (less than 12 months to go!), I require a showing of cause before agreeing that the limitation of someones basic freedom is a good idea. Tearing holes in safety assumptions is not showing cause.
So if I build a device that may indeed kill you, and I assure you it won't by virtue of erroneous reasoning, I should be free to proceed? Where's the burden of responsibility?
QUOTE
The only showing cause is proof that your fears are real and quantifiable. This you cannot do, since not even assuming the XLD people are correct about a 14 TeV black hole having a radius of 0.0001 fermi and assuming (as they do not) that Hawking radiation is completely suppressed by an unknown mechanism leads to a disaster scenario.
Again, where's the burden of responsibility?
In a court of law, the test is "reasonable doubt." By showing the safety arguments to be erroneous on basic principles, I feel I've met that standard. Were I to sit on a jury listening to similar arguments, about placing an injunction on potentially dangerous chemical manufacturing, I'd vote to sustain the injunction until a better safety standard can be met.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only showing cause is proof that your fears are real and quantifiable. This you cannot do, since not even assuming the XLD people are correct about a 14 TeV black hole having a radius of 0.0001 fermi and assuming (as they do not) that Hawking radiation is completely suppressed by an unknown mechanism leads to a disaster scenario. |
Again, where's the burden of responsibility?
In a court of law, the test is "reasonable doubt." By showing the safety arguments to be erroneous on basic principles, I feel I've met that standard. Were I to sit on a jury listening to similar arguments, about placing an injunction on potentially dangerous chemical manufacturing, I'd vote to sustain the injunction until a better safety standard can be met.
So while I am personally attached to the concept of liberty, I am not similarly attached to any particular physical theory beyond what experiment has covered.
Nor am I.
QUOTE
I have explored a lot but can't find anyway to suggest you might be correct.
You've never tried. You've only argued to the contrary with little regard to the truth of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have explored a lot but can't find anyway to suggest you might be correct. |
You've never tried. You've only argued to the contrary with little regard to the truth of it.
Others have asked you to demonstrate that millions of 14 TeV objects do, in contrast to my calculations, result in worldwide catastrophe.
That's just ridiculous. It can't be demonstrated. It can only be hypothesized. Observational evidence does fit my contentions though. You've still to explain why a dark matter galaxy with enough hydrogen to form 100,000,000 stars, can't form even one.
QUOTE
This, in my opinion, would be the best way to convince physicists or in Walter Wagner's case get a relevant expert (also a physicist) to tell the court that such fears are credible.
No physiscist would have the guts to do that. It'd be a career ending move, even if he was eventually proven right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This, in my opinion, would be the best way to convince physicists or in Walter Wagner's case get a relevant expert (also a physicist) to tell the court that such fears are credible. |
No physiscist would have the guts to do that. It'd be a career ending move, even if he was eventually proven right.
But the only way a 14 TeV object poses gravitational danger to a planet is if the conservation of angular momentum does not apply and atoms get sucked in in violation of the mechanics which have been well tested at these energies for centuries, and since your doomsday scenario requires 3 assumptions that throw out everything we know of physics since Newton, I cannot imagine any physicist the court will certify as an expert (and I do not volunteer myself) would find credible.
What three assumptions? I'm not the one that predicted black holes can be created in the LHC. I'm not the one that invented the conservation of momentum law. I'm not the only one that that doubts Hawking radiation.
QUOTE
I believe a better description is nuanced. By saying that the only reasonable position to take is that the physics of celestial events is the same physics as terrestrial events, I have clearly said that I either believe this or I believe myself to be unreasonable. Since even insane people believe themselves to be reasonable, I clearly believe this position shared by Newton and Trippy.
This is an evasion of the question, and you know it. Specifically then, is Trippy right about his collision model? Can black holes bounce? Note: We're talking about a newly forming one in an oxygen atom, not a typical Kerr black hole.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I believe a better description is nuanced. By saying that the only reasonable position to take is that the physics of celestial events is the same physics as terrestrial events, I have clearly said that I either believe this or I believe myself to be unreasonable. Since even insane people believe themselves to be reasonable, I clearly believe this position shared by Newton and Trippy. |
This is an evasion of the question, and you know it. Specifically then, is Trippy right about his collision model? Can black holes bounce? Note: We're talking about a newly forming one in an oxygen atom, not a typical Kerr black hole.
There's no reason (given) to be offensive.
I didn't offend. I merely asked questions. It's your unwillingness to properly answer the questions that causes your misinterpretation.
QUOTE
Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth.
Show me where Trippy said that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth. |
Show me where Trippy said that.
In the RHIC safety argument, detailed calculations show that the "collision leads to physics changes which expand outward at the speed of light" disaster scenario was completely ruled out by examining the rate at which collisions of similar or higher energy happen in space. Likewise, if your 3 required assumptions are true, not only are space collisions forming (eternal) black holes, but those black holes will fill up space like a gas with a thermal distribution of velocities and there will be some slow ones which violently kill off neutron stars and planets. These assumptions are apparently in contradiction to observation
How so? Dark matter is hypothesized to be just such a gas like substance (WIMPs). "Slow ones" would only be slow relative to the galaxy (not the individual planets and stars where they're hypothetically made). They'd fall into the galactic center (where we find there's a super massive black hole!). Now, isn't that interesting!
QUOTE
which means that LHC poses no risk at all to the Earth.
Which means you have ignored both observation and fact. Are you really a scientist?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| which means that LHC poses no risk at all to the Earth. |
Which means you have ignored both observation and fact. Are you really a scientist?
But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
What a cop-out!
QUOTE
Actually, truth is personally important to me. As there is just one physics, truth in physics is accessible to all. Thus my suggestion that you make an effort to get closer to truth and study physics.
Obviously from above, this isn't true. You're spinning your answers so hard that to call them "truth," would only be marginally accurate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually, truth is personally important to me. As there is just one physics, truth in physics is accessible to all. Thus my suggestion that you make an effort to get closer to truth and study physics. |
Obviously from above, this isn't true. You're spinning your answers so hard that to call them "truth," would only be marginally accurate.
I would prefer to spend my limited resources on investments more likely to return benefits to my family and/or people I like.
Oh, so it's personal then?
QUOTE
So, the answer is no. Also, I am not gifted in the art of making bribes, and some form of persuasion would probably be needed to enroll you in a relevant program.
Ridiculous! I'd even be willing to start in the local junior college (where I already have a 4.0 GPA).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, the answer is no. Also, I am not gifted in the art of making bribes, and some form of persuasion would probably be needed to enroll you in a relevant program. |
Ridiculous! I'd even be willing to start in the local junior college (where I already have a 4.0 GPA).
I am assuming you are at least 30 years old and would be an exceptional admission case.
Age is irrelevant.
QUOTE
Also, I forget if you stated your residence -- you may not reside near such a university, and relocation costs would be involved.
I'm closer than you might imagine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, I forget if you stated your residence -- you may not reside near such a university, and relocation costs would be involved. |
I'm closer than you might imagine.
Finally, there is the issue of time. The fall session has already begun and it is not possible to get the coursework done before the argument becomes moot
Cop-out.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 31 2007, 12:15 AM)
Noone knows if it is possible to form a black hole at the 7 TeV LHC.
Since we have no evidence that they were formed by the 0.2 TeV RHIC, the 0.98 TeV Tevatron or cosmic rays that range up at least 300,000,000 TeV, it seems unlikely.
Even if it is possible to form a gravitationally bound object by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to believe it will be a black hole since conservation of angular momentum and GR theorems about the event horizon do not permit the even horizon to form if the angular momentum is as much as h/4pi.
Even if it is possible to form a black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is every expectation that the result is only metastable, due to a theorem by Hawking which is based on what we do know about space-time and the vacuum.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has more gravity than 14 TeV of mass in any other state.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has an absorbtion cross-section larger than it's geometric cross-section. (Less than 1 nanobarn under the XLD framework. Less than 10^-71 barns in GR.) Therefore it's growth rate will be quite small even at the core of Earth.
Thus, there is no reason to suspect a black hole will form and devour the Earth during the few billion years the sun will be stable and yellow.
A true scientific test is to determine if your results are falsifiable. Try arguing it from the other side. If you can't figure out a way to falsify your results, then they are inherently invalid.
Since we have no evidence that they were formed by the 0.2 TeV RHIC, the 0.98 TeV Tevatron or cosmic rays that range up at least 300,000,000 TeV, it seems unlikely.
Even if it is possible to form a gravitationally bound object by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to believe it will be a black hole since conservation of angular momentum and GR theorems about the event horizon do not permit the even horizon to form if the angular momentum is as much as h/4pi.
Even if it is possible to form a black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is every expectation that the result is only metastable, due to a theorem by Hawking which is based on what we do know about space-time and the vacuum.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has more gravity than 14 TeV of mass in any other state.
Even if it is possible to form a stable black hole (or other gravitationally bound object) by slamming parts of two 7 TeV protons into each other, there is no reason to suspect it has an absorbtion cross-section larger than it's geometric cross-section. (Less than 1 nanobarn under the XLD framework. Less than 10^-71 barns in GR.) Therefore it's growth rate will be quite small even at the core of Earth.
Thus, there is no reason to suspect a black hole will form and devour the Earth during the few billion years the sun will be stable and yellow.
A true scientific test is to determine if your results are falsifiable. Try arguing it from the other side. If you can't figure out a way to falsify your results, then they are inherently invalid.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
This isn't clear. Are you stating that 0.9999c is 450m/s?
No. This isn't even implied, except perhaps in your imagination.
No. This isn't even implied, except perhaps in your imagination.QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
Is the oxygen atom moving at 450m/s? Why? Which direction?
What do you think? And the direction is largely irrelevant.
What do you think? And the direction is largely irrelevant.QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?
You're the one that keeps blithering about needles and haystacks.
You're the one that keeps blithering about needles and haystacks.QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
Black holes do not bounce.
No duh. Oxygen atoms also don't 'Trundle merrily along minding their own business' either. What's your point?
No duh. Oxygen atoms also don't 'Trundle merrily along minding their own business' either. What's your point?QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
For one, you think black holes "bounce."
You take that particular aspect of a narrative, and assume it's a literal truth? You really are funny.
You take that particular aspect of a narrative, and assume it's a literal truth? You really are funny.QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
Thanks. You need to work more on the concepts.
No, I don't. I understand them well enough that I can explain them to people that have little or no physics background.
No, I don't. I understand them well enough that I can explain them to people that have little or no physics background.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:13 PM)
"...perpendicular to the direction of travel."
Wow.
What, precisely, is your point here?
Wow.
What, precisely, is your point here?
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 31 2007, 06:22 AM)
No. This isn't even implied, except perhaps in your imagination.
Yes it is (though I knew what you meant and proceeded accordingly).
That's true, but not for the reasons you think.
That's true, but not for the reasons you think.
You're the one that keeps blithering about needles and haystacks.
It's an analogy (duh) to your conception.
You said it, not me.
You said it, not me.
You take that particular aspect of a narrative, and assume it's a literal truth? You really are funny.
You stated it that way, in context.
The blind leading the blind.
Yes it is (though I knew what you meant and proceeded accordingly).
QUOTE
What do you think? And the direction is largely irrelevant.
That's true, but not for the reasons you think.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do you think? And the direction is largely irrelevant. |
That's true, but not for the reasons you think.
You're the one that keeps blithering about needles and haystacks.
It's an analogy (duh) to your conception.
QUOTE
No duh. Oxygen atoms also don't 'Trundle merrily along minding their own business' either. What's your point?
You said it, not me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No duh. Oxygen atoms also don't 'Trundle merrily along minding their own business' either. What's your point? |
You said it, not me.
You take that particular aspect of a narrative, and assume it's a literal truth? You really are funny.
You stated it that way, in context.
QUOTE
No, I don't. I understand them well enough that I can explain them to people that have little or no physics background.
The blind leading the blind.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 31 2007, 06:26 AM)
What, precisely, is your point here?
Define: "...perpendicular to the direction of travel."
Define: "...perpendicular to the direction of travel."
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 07:43 PM)
Yes it is (though I knew what you meant and proceeded accordingly).
No it isn't. You do understand the concept of relative velocity don't you?
No it isn't. You do understand the concept of relative velocity don't you?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 07:43 PM)
You stated it that way, in context.
Oh Bullocks, you're just determined to twist as much as you can out of context in the hope that maybe if you squint your eyes hard enough you might just spot a flaw.
Oh Bullocks, you're just determined to twist as much as you can out of context in the hope that maybe if you squint your eyes hard enough you might just spot a flaw.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 07:43 PM)
The blind leading the blind.
Arrogant ***. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being offensive.
Arrogant ***. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being offensive.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 07:47 PM)
Define: "...perpendicular to the direction of travel."
What part of it precisely do you have trouble understanding that you need defined?
What part of it precisely do you have trouble understanding that you need defined?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 07:43 AM)
The blind leading the blind.
The hypocrisy you're displaying is staggering. Every time you utter something like "The Einstein equations say...." it's painful, because it's so obvious you've never studied such things and you're hoping that a bit of buzzword dropping will make your nonsense seem more credible.
The hypocrisy you're displaying is staggering. Every time you utter something like "The Einstein equations say...." it's painful, because it's so obvious you've never studied such things and you're hoping that a bit of buzzword dropping will make your nonsense seem more credible.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:01 PM)
Why does the black hole absorb so much momentum from the oxygen atom, if the oxygen atom is largely unaffected? How does that work?
The more I read this, the more I want to laugh.
You are he one that insists that the oxygen atom is unaffected as a whole by the collision, and that the incoming proton only interacts with one of the nucleons.
Not me.
The more I read this, the more I want to laugh.
You are he one that insists that the oxygen atom is unaffected as a whole by the collision, and that the incoming proton only interacts with one of the nucleons.
Not me.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2007, 06:11 AM)
A true scientific test is to determine if your results are falsifiable. Try arguing it from the other side. If you can't figure out a way to falsify your results, then they are inherently invalid.
For Walter Wagner's purposes, since he has stated his intention to take legal action, this is an attempt to improperly shift the burden of proof, and will be disallowed by the judge. In a moderated debate, this is a foul. Let me explain.
I have no experimental results, I am generalizing from the experimental results of others, and thus I have a coherent theory.
Yes, it's quite easy to potentially falsify my theory in practice.
For Walter Wagner's purposes, since he has stated his intention to take legal action, this is an attempt to improperly shift the burden of proof, and will be disallowed by the judge. In a moderated debate, this is a foul. Let me explain.
I have no experimental results, I am generalizing from the experimental results of others, and thus I have a coherent theory.
Yes, it's quite easy to potentially falsify my theory in practice.
CODE
Build the LHC, turn it on.
- If I am totally and complete wrong on all points we will die, thus falsifying my physical theory.