QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 6 2007, 07:51 AM)
What are you blithering on about now?
I smell a cop out.
What relevance do the SABOT rounds have to do with the density/feeding rate topic that I posed?
Answer: None what so ever.
Where did I request an apology over the discarding SABOT rounds?
Answer: I didn't.
I know it's hard, but try and stay on topic.
And no, I was correct about observers co-moving with the center of mass.
You're just trying to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about that argument, just as you're trying worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the conservation of energy and your thought experiment about dropping asteroids from infinity.
Oh, and (if) I was wrong about the primary mode of operation of discarding SABOT rounds, that doesn't mean it isn't an effect that is taken into account - and in fact I have come across more then one reference that suggested it is a definite factor that is taken into account.
You repeatedly fail to understand.
You repeatedly fail to demonstrate anything remotely resembling good faith.
And I am getting bored with banging my head against a brick wall (as are, I am sure, Alphanumeric and Rpenner).
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about the SABOT rounds?
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about the observer co-moving with the center of mass?
I smell a cop out.
What relevance do the SABOT rounds have to do with the density/feeding rate topic that I posed?
Answer: None what so ever.
Where did I request an apology over the discarding SABOT rounds?
Answer: I didn't.
I know it's hard, but try and stay on topic.
And no, I was correct about observers co-moving with the center of mass.
You're just trying to worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about that argument, just as you're trying worm your way out of admitting you were wrong about the conservation of energy and your thought experiment about dropping asteroids from infinity.
Oh, and (if) I was wrong about the primary mode of operation of discarding SABOT rounds, that doesn't mean it isn't an effect that is taken into account - and in fact I have come across more then one reference that suggested it is a definite factor that is taken into account.
You repeatedly fail to understand.
You repeatedly fail to demonstrate anything remotely resembling good faith.
And I am getting bored with banging my head against a brick wall (as are, I am sure, Alphanumeric and Rpenner).
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about the SABOT rounds?
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about the observer co-moving with the center of mass?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 7 2007, 06:19 PM)
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about the observer co-moving with the center of mass?
Because I was correct about Observers being able to co-move with the center of mass, and I have given you several examples where we can define observers co-moving with the center of mass.
And why should I admit to anything, when you still haven't admitted that you were wrong over in the conservation of momentum thread with your thought experiment.
Because I was correct about Observers being able to co-move with the center of mass, and I have given you several examples where we can define observers co-moving with the center of mass.
And why should I admit to anything, when you still haven't admitted that you were wrong over in the conservation of momentum thread with your thought experiment.
So basically, what you are saying, Ubavontuba, is that you're not in a rotating reference frame that is co-moving with the earths center of mass, that when you get in your car and drive, you're not comoving with the cars center or mass, and that when you get up and walk around you're not comoving with your own center of mass?
Gee, life must be tough in your world.
Gee, life must be tough in your world.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 6 2007, 09:25 AM)
The 'vacuum' is replete with 'plasmon sea' and other 'energy-mass' background particles/phenomena beyond OUR 'scale/detector' range; but NOT beyond the 'range of interaction' of any putative 'nano-holes' that would 'inhabit' THAT SMALLER SCALE of UBIQUITOUS 'vacuum processes/energy'. Your assumptions, of what a nano-hole would or would-not be 'eating' and how often, is speculative; because we have no reason to suppose that the 'vacuum' IS 'empty' at that scale.
I disagree. There's nothing with significant mass/energy.
Time is of little relevance in this circumstance. The scales are too incongruous.
Time is of little relevance in this circumstance. The scales are too incongruous.
We are still talking of Cosmic rays and other suitably energetic particles? If so, then are you 'dismissing' that these particles BATHE practically UBIQUITOUSLY our part of the observable universe with 'collisions/products' whose 'events' we CAN observe in Earth's upper atmosphere?
The earth is unimagiably humungous, in proportion.
How many are passing through a square meter at any one time? How many in a square millimeter? How many in the breadth of an atom? How many...
How many are passing through a square meter at any one time? How many in a square millimeter? How many in the breadth of an atom? How many...
Not to mention all the other probable 'events' of suitable 'geometry/frequency etc. in our galactic sun/planetary systems? Do you maintain that NOT ONE sutable collision of energetic particles has EVER occurred in the lifetime of our sun or EACH of the NEARBY stars we observe now? I don't think that contention is tenable given the time and numbers involved.
I do.
There should be whole galaxies full of nothing but dead and ancient dwarf stars.
They should exist in abundance everywhere (particularly locally, as this is the oldest part of the universe we can perceive).
There should be whole galaxies full of nothing but dead and ancient dwarf stars.
They should exist in abundance everywhere (particularly locally, as this is the oldest part of the universe we can perceive).
Even the 'present' numbers of neutron stars would be huge. They SEEM 'rare' to anyone who doesn't realise that WE can only 'see' those few that are (for us) FORTUITOUSLY ORIENTED so that their north/south polar 'JETS/BEAMS' intersect OUR 'position' HERE. The numbers of neutronstars' whose 'signal' MISSES us is statistically much greater than you realise.
We see them lots of different ways.
Could it have been one collapsing neutron star?
Could it have been one collapsing neutron star?
Besides, with all the 'current' binary/trinary normal-star-neutron-star 'pairs/triads', it is only statistical common sense that earlier generations/combinations have since been caused to merge by 'orbital energy loss' and 'perturbation' destabilisation-collisions caused by earlier star-system/galactic interaction/mergers. You apparently still fail to allow for TIME and INEVITABILITY of the processes that produced the 'CURRENTLY' OBSERVED state of the astronomical energy/mass phenomena/distribution.
Looking out into the distance of space and time, we are inevitably in the oldest portion of the universe we can perceive. Why isn't our third generation galaxy littered with them?
Sure, it's possible. I've said that before. It'd just be extraordinarily rare.
Sure, it's possible. I've said that before. It'd just be extraordinarily rare.
Then you may be missing something. I suggest you 're-do' them anyway.....just in case! hehehe.
You've yet to point out a new consideration.
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
What/where, exactly, is the "stretch", mate?
The fact that you think since neutron stars exist, that's proof enough that micro black holes can't exist.
Your lensing hypothesis in relation to dark matter galaxies.
Your lensing hypothesis in relation to dark matter galaxies.
Is THIS what you refer to?
I was referrring to that and the first paragraph in that section:
I disagree. There's nothing with significant mass/energy.
QUOTE
You omit to COMBINE that available 'mass/energy' with the available 'time'. Together, these things ARE 'impressive' in terms of probability of collisions/growth of (putative) nano-holes.
Time is of little relevance in this circumstance. The scales are too incongruous.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You omit to COMBINE that available 'mass/energy' with the available 'time'. Together, these things ARE 'impressive' in terms of probability of collisions/growth of (putative) nano-holes. |
Time is of little relevance in this circumstance. The scales are too incongruous.
We are still talking of Cosmic rays and other suitably energetic particles? If so, then are you 'dismissing' that these particles BATHE practically UBIQUITOUSLY our part of the observable universe with 'collisions/products' whose 'events' we CAN observe in Earth's upper atmosphere?
The earth is unimagiably humungous, in proportion.
QUOTE
And that our 'local share' would be only a minuscule portion of the likely humongous total of such events throughout our solar system?
How many are passing through a square meter at any one time? How many in a square millimeter? How many in the breadth of an atom? How many...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And that our 'local share' would be only a minuscule portion of the likely humongous total of such events throughout our solar system? |
How many are passing through a square meter at any one time? How many in a square millimeter? How many in the breadth of an atom? How many...
Not to mention all the other probable 'events' of suitable 'geometry/frequency etc. in our galactic sun/planetary systems? Do you maintain that NOT ONE sutable collision of energetic particles has EVER occurred in the lifetime of our sun or EACH of the NEARBY stars we observe now? I don't think that contention is tenable given the time and numbers involved.
I do.
QUOTE
My bad, mate! I should have made it more clear that I was referring to the type/cycle of the exploded 'source' stars leaving the neutronstar remnant. These type I, II and III generation stars and their subtypes and their associated life spans/cycles would 'distribute' OVER the ages many 'generations' of 'neutronstar' remnants. Over those same ages there is plenty of time for galactic/stellar/gas-cloud 'interaction/merging'....so only the LATEST 'generation' of neutron stars would NOW be 'still free'.
There should be whole galaxies full of nothing but dead and ancient dwarf stars.
They should exist in abundance everywhere (particularly locally, as this is the oldest part of the universe we can perceive).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My bad, mate! I should have made it more clear that I was referring to the type/cycle of the exploded 'source' stars leaving the neutronstar remnant. These type I, II and III generation stars and their subtypes and their associated life spans/cycles would 'distribute' OVER the ages many 'generations' of 'neutronstar' remnants. Over those same ages there is plenty of time for galactic/stellar/gas-cloud 'interaction/merging'....so only the LATEST 'generation' of neutron stars would NOW be 'still free'. |
There should be whole galaxies full of nothing but dead and ancient dwarf stars.
They should exist in abundance everywhere (particularly locally, as this is the oldest part of the universe we can perceive).
Even the 'present' numbers of neutron stars would be huge. They SEEM 'rare' to anyone who doesn't realise that WE can only 'see' those few that are (for us) FORTUITOUSLY ORIENTED so that their north/south polar 'JETS/BEAMS' intersect OUR 'position' HERE. The numbers of neutronstars' whose 'signal' MISSES us is statistically much greater than you realise.
We see them lots of different ways.
QUOTE
We DO 'see' it happenning. I read a recent report (don't remember where) about a probable 'gamma burst' whose energy/radiation 'profile' is what would be expected from 'merging'-neutronstar events.
Could it have been one collapsing neutron star?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We DO 'see' it happenning. I read a recent report (don't remember where) about a probable 'gamma burst' whose energy/radiation 'profile' is what would be expected from 'merging'-neutronstar events. |
Could it have been one collapsing neutron star?
Besides, with all the 'current' binary/trinary normal-star-neutron-star 'pairs/triads', it is only statistical common sense that earlier generations/combinations have since been caused to merge by 'orbital energy loss' and 'perturbation' destabilisation-collisions caused by earlier star-system/galactic interaction/mergers. You apparently still fail to allow for TIME and INEVITABILITY of the processes that produced the 'CURRENTLY' OBSERVED state of the astronomical energy/mass phenomena/distribution.
Looking out into the distance of space and time, we are inevitably in the oldest portion of the universe we can perceive. Why isn't our third generation galaxy littered with them?
QUOTE
Your comment ignores where I have repeatedly pointed to the probable numbers/instances where AT LEAST ONE suitably energetic collison PER extreme gravity or massive body MUST have occurred, due to the reasons also often pointed out. Your 'conservation of momentum' argument only has 'purchase' for those collisions that do NOT have the necessary geometry/energy profile. That does NOT have any purchase for those FEW collisions that DO----where momentum IS conserved BUT RELATIVELY LOW with respect to nearby large/extreme 'trapping' mass/gravity bodies.
Sure, it's possible. I've said that before. It'd just be extraordinarily rare.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your comment ignores where I have repeatedly pointed to the probable numbers/instances where AT LEAST ONE suitably energetic collison PER extreme gravity or massive body MUST have occurred, due to the reasons also often pointed out. Your 'conservation of momentum' argument only has 'purchase' for those collisions that do NOT have the necessary geometry/energy profile. That does NOT have any purchase for those FEW collisions that DO----where momentum IS conserved BUT RELATIVELY LOW with respect to nearby large/extreme 'trapping' mass/gravity bodies. |
Sure, it's possible. I've said that before. It'd just be extraordinarily rare.
Then you may be missing something. I suggest you 're-do' them anyway.....just in case! hehehe.
You've yet to point out a new consideration.
QUOTE
Any 'nova' (star formation) or 'supernova' (star explosion and forming neutron star OR macro black hole) will sent a 'blast' of shed material at relativistic velocity that will 'compress' the former 'ambient' and slow 'solar wind' particles. These collisions are strong enough to fporm ULTRA-HIGH TEMP shockwave 'shells' of CONCENTRATED material. The collisions of energetic otgoing particles from the explosion will meet INNUMERABLE previously INCOMING cosmic rays etc. The energies at the innumerable 'particle collision' events would practically GUARANTEE that nano-holes would be produced IF they COULD be produced AT ALL by 'free collisons'. The star remnant would be bathed in relatively low momentum nano-holes that would make EVERY nove/supernova IMMEDIATELY end in a black hole....with no cance for neutron stars to 'survive' its immediate nano-hole environment of the parent star's own making.
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Any 'nova' (star formation) or 'supernova' (star explosion and forming neutron star OR macro black hole) will sent a 'blast' of shed material at relativistic velocity that will 'compress' the former 'ambient' and slow 'solar wind' particles. These collisions are strong enough to fporm ULTRA-HIGH TEMP shockwave 'shells' of CONCENTRATED material. The collisions of energetic otgoing particles from the explosion will meet INNUMERABLE previously INCOMING cosmic rays etc. The energies at the innumerable 'particle collision' events would practically GUARANTEE that nano-holes would be produced IF they COULD be produced AT ALL by 'free collisons'. The star remnant would be bathed in relatively low momentum nano-holes that would make EVERY nove/supernova IMMEDIATELY end in a black hole....with no cance for neutron stars to 'survive' its immediate nano-hole environment of the parent star's own making. |
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
What/where, exactly, is the "stretch", mate?
The fact that you think since neutron stars exist, that's proof enough that micro black holes can't exist.
QUOTE
Which part, exactly, do you doubt, uba?
Your lensing hypothesis in relation to dark matter galaxies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which part, exactly, do you doubt, uba? |
Your lensing hypothesis in relation to dark matter galaxies.
Is THIS what you refer to?
I was referrring to that and the first paragraph in that section:
QUOTE (RealityCheck+ Nov 3 2007, 11:15 PM)
Now, repenner, AlphaNumeric, Trippy and others have been kind enough to take the trouble to provide the 'number crunching' for most of these and other scenarios....for which, many thanks from all here!
I think any fair assessment of this and the other thread discussion/input supports the my and others' contention that:
- it is not possible for such holes to BE formed AT ALL by cosmic/LHC 'free' (non-gavitaionally constrained) 'collision events'.
Sorry. Using Rpenner's, AlphaNumeric's and other's debates from this forum as evidence against me is doing just that. From where do you think they derive their opinions? From mainstream science of course. Do you really think they can think independently? Look how hard it is for me to get them to admit I'm right on any one point. It takes mounds of argument!
Either I'm right in my contentions because I'm right, or I'm not. Argue on the material strengths and weaknesses of my contentions, not on general opinions.
Sorry. Using Rpenner's, AlphaNumeric's and other's debates from this forum as evidence against me is doing just that. From where do you think they derive their opinions? From mainstream science of course. Do you really think they can think independently? Look how hard it is for me to get them to admit I'm right on any one point. It takes mounds of argument!
Either I'm right in my contentions because I'm right, or I'm not. Argue on the material strengths and weaknesses of my contentions, not on general opinions.
Have you arrived at any particular estimate as to the type/number of any such 'might be' exceptions?
In an infinite universe with infinite numbers of astronomical objects, it's likely to happen occassionally. However, the odds of it happening to one particular body (like the earth) is unlikely in the extreme.
In that case, it's so unlikely to happen as to be irrelevant.
In that case, it's so unlikely to happen as to be irrelevant.
I too see no reason why they cannot form. And the probable/likely statistical availability/inevitability cosmos-wide of the necessary natural energy/mass 'ranges' and suitable particle collision geometries/locations/frequencies is sufficient to ensure they WOULD form and grow (IF they CAN be formed/grow AT ALL).
I'll leave you and others here to discuss such 'speculative' things if you are so inclined and have the time (but I am/do not).
I don't think it's speculative. It happened. It's a taste of what's to come.
What if it's not, and you're wrong?
What if it's not, and you're wrong?
Seriously though, there comes a point when one must follow the most logical/self-evident trail AND MOVE ON once the 'conclusion' is reached according to the facts/observations/logics involved in my analysis. Since I do NOT depend, unlike most physicists on BOTH 'sides' of this debate, on HIGHLY esoteric/speculative 'arguments/assumptions', then I have confidence in my conclusions. BUT, there are NO certainties in life, love and exploration. We live and die by every individual/collective decision we make that has important/overarching consequences. The LHC endeavour decision is one of these. And since I see the futility (the 'whys' of which I have explained in a previous post), I make a decision about the eguments for and against...and then move on to things I CAN help 'control/stop/initiate'.
I think it's evident that their safety arguments are invalid.
What if you're wrong?
I think any fair assessment of this and the other thread discussion/input supports the my and others' contention that:
- it is not possible for such holes to BE formed AT ALL by cosmic/LHC 'free' (non-gavitaionally constrained) 'collision events'.
QUOTE
If so, I was only DIRECTLY referring to past conversations/stances IN YOUR THREADS to date that had a DIRECT and relevant BEARING/HISTORY of what I and others have ALREADY RESPONDED/INPUT 'in answer' to your OWN 'contentions'. Please see that such reference to 'history of debate' HERE is NOT the same as referencing a 'cheersquad of pysicists' not directly involved in our exchanges HERE. So no 'preaching' intended...merely trying to forestall any 'they said' and 'the others said' appeal to 'speculative authorities/groups on EITHER 'side'. No offence meant....merely indicating my 'loners' anathema of 'groups' of any kind when it comes to the assessment of information/situation on the 'self-evident' objective logics/observations that should stand or fall on their own merits and not subject to 'speculative' support/attack by one school or other that I do not subscribe/belong to...by choice. I hope I have clarified this to your satisfaction, uba? Again, no offense intended, mate!
Sorry. Using Rpenner's, AlphaNumeric's and other's debates from this forum as evidence against me is doing just that. From where do you think they derive their opinions? From mainstream science of course. Do you really think they can think independently? Look how hard it is for me to get them to admit I'm right on any one point. It takes mounds of argument!
Either I'm right in my contentions because I'm right, or I'm not. Argue on the material strengths and weaknesses of my contentions, not on general opinions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If so, I was only DIRECTLY referring to past conversations/stances IN YOUR THREADS to date that had a DIRECT and relevant BEARING/HISTORY of what I and others have ALREADY RESPONDED/INPUT 'in answer' to your OWN 'contentions'. Please see that such reference to 'history of debate' HERE is NOT the same as referencing a 'cheersquad of pysicists' not directly involved in our exchanges HERE. So no 'preaching' intended...merely trying to forestall any 'they said' and 'the others said' appeal to 'speculative authorities/groups on EITHER 'side'. No offence meant....merely indicating my 'loners' anathema of 'groups' of any kind when it comes to the assessment of information/situation on the 'self-evident' objective logics/observations that should stand or fall on their own merits and not subject to 'speculative' support/attack by one school or other that I do not subscribe/belong to...by choice. I hope I have clarified this to your satisfaction, uba? Again, no offense intended, mate! |
Sorry. Using Rpenner's, AlphaNumeric's and other's debates from this forum as evidence against me is doing just that. From where do you think they derive their opinions? From mainstream science of course. Do you really think they can think independently? Look how hard it is for me to get them to admit I'm right on any one point. It takes mounds of argument!
Either I'm right in my contentions because I'm right, or I'm not. Argue on the material strengths and weaknesses of my contentions, not on general opinions.
Have you arrived at any particular estimate as to the type/number of any such 'might be' exceptions?
In an infinite universe with infinite numbers of astronomical objects, it's likely to happen occassionally. However, the odds of it happening to one particular body (like the earth) is unlikely in the extreme.
QUOTE
I too was referring to natural capture events...as I have described more than once over these threads.
In that case, it's so unlikely to happen as to be irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I too was referring to natural capture events...as I have described more than once over these threads. |
In that case, it's so unlikely to happen as to be irrelevant.
I too see no reason why they cannot form. And the probable/likely statistical availability/inevitability cosmos-wide of the necessary natural energy/mass 'ranges' and suitable particle collision geometries/locations/frequencies is sufficient to ensure they WOULD form and grow (IF they CAN be formed/grow AT ALL).
I'll leave you and others here to discuss such 'speculative' things if you are so inclined and have the time (but I am/do not).
I don't think it's speculative. It happened. It's a taste of what's to come.
QUOTE
What if this is all a dream?
What if it's not, and you're wrong?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What if this is all a dream? |
What if it's not, and you're wrong?
Seriously though, there comes a point when one must follow the most logical/self-evident trail AND MOVE ON once the 'conclusion' is reached according to the facts/observations/logics involved in my analysis. Since I do NOT depend, unlike most physicists on BOTH 'sides' of this debate, on HIGHLY esoteric/speculative 'arguments/assumptions', then I have confidence in my conclusions. BUT, there are NO certainties in life, love and exploration. We live and die by every individual/collective decision we make that has important/overarching consequences. The LHC endeavour decision is one of these. And since I see the futility (the 'whys' of which I have explained in a previous post), I make a decision about the eguments for and against...and then move on to things I CAN help 'control/stop/initiate'.
I think it's evident that their safety arguments are invalid.
QUOTE
Conventional Fusion Power 'break-even' has been 'anticipated' for longer than I care to think. I place no store in 'anticipations' by others. I will make my OWN assesments about everything of import/moment. THAT's what 'loner' scientists DO! hehehe. And, surprise surprise.....I do NOT expect nano-holes to form/grow as a result of gravitationally unconstrained 'transient events' in the LHC! hehehe.
What if you're wrong?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 6 2007, 12:11 PM)
How is a gravitational potential any different to another potential? From the point of view of the particle it's just a barrier. The fact it's gravity makes no difference.
It's different because it robs massless particles of energy, and particles with mass would need the right momentum to escape. Just crossing the event horizon doesn't ensure escape.
It's different because it robs massless particles of energy, and particles with mass would need the right momentum to escape. Just crossing the event horizon doesn't ensure escape.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 7 2007, 09:52 PM)
So basically, what you are saying, Ubavontuba, is that you're not in a rotating reference frame that is co-moving with the earths center of mass, that when you get in your car and drive, you're not comoving with the cars center or mass, and that when you get up and walk around you're not comoving with your own center of mass?
Gee, life must be tough in your world.
How's any of that analogous to the system in question?
Gee, life must be tough in your world.
How's any of that analogous to the system in question?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 09:10 PM)
How's any of that analogous to the system in question?
Stay on topic man.
I didn't say they were analgous to the system in question.
You claimed that you could not define an observer as being co-moving with the center of mass, I have now given you half a dozen practicle examples where it is possible to define an observer moving with the center of mass of a system.
You have claimed that fat and lazy doesn't work, but it does a car hitting a stationary object in such a way that it gains mass slows down by an amount directly proportional to the mass gained - it becomes fat and lazy.
Stay on topic man.
I didn't say they were analgous to the system in question.
You claimed that you could not define an observer as being co-moving with the center of mass, I have now given you half a dozen practicle examples where it is possible to define an observer moving with the center of mass of a system.
You have claimed that fat and lazy doesn't work, but it does a car hitting a stationary object in such a way that it gains mass slows down by an amount directly proportional to the mass gained - it becomes fat and lazy.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 8 2007, 05:50 PM)
I didn't say they were analgous to the system in question.
Then what's the point?
No I didn't.
No I didn't.
I have now given you half a dozen practicle examples where it is possible to define an observer moving with the center of mass of a system.
So? They aren't isolated. Big whoop.
Say that again. That was funny.
Then what's the point?
QUOTE
You claimed that you could not define an observer as being co-moving with the center of mass,
No I didn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You claimed that you could not define an observer as being co-moving with the center of mass, |
No I didn't.
I have now given you half a dozen practicle examples where it is possible to define an observer moving with the center of mass of a system.
So? They aren't isolated. Big whoop.
QUOTE
You have claimed that fat and lazy doesn't work, but it does a car hitting a stationary object in such a way that it gains mass slows down by an amount directly proportional to the mass gained - it becomes fat and lazy.
Say that again. That was funny.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 7 2007, 06:19 PM)
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about the observer co-moving with the center of mass?
Uhhh, yeah you did, and whether or not the system is isolated is irrelevant (in terms of observers co-moving with the center of mass).
Uhhh, yeah you did, and whether or not the system is isolated is irrelevant (in terms of observers co-moving with the center of mass).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
I disagree. There's nothing with significant mass/energy.
You 'know' this as an incontrovertible 'fact'?
Consider the SCALE that putative nano-holes would 'inhabit'. Consider WHERE and from which SCALE our 'macro-scale' FEATURES (energy/mass 'particles/waves) arise and subside. WE at our 'scale' detect and 'recognize' certain effects at OUR scale that are merely THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG when it comes to mass/energy. And if nano-holes 'eat' at that super-tiny scale, it would eat the energy/matter 'components' AS WELL AS the 'source' material/energy 'reservoir' from which all macro-scale energy/matter 'features' arise and subside back to. Don't dismiss out of hand the UNDERLYING STRUCTURE/ENERGY/MASS of the so-called 'vacuum', uba....because THAT is 'the world' such putative nano-holes WOULD be part of, hehehe.
Time is of little relevance in this circumstance. The scales are too incongruous.
Time is NEVER "...of little relevance..." when dealing with vast numbers of particles and permutations.
The earth is unimagiably humungous, in proportion.
That doesn't seem to make sense as written, uba. Can you clarify the relevance of your reply there to MY point that you quoted? Thanks.
How many are passing through a square meter at any one time? How many in a square millimeter? How many in the breadth of an atom? How many...
Again you keep missing the point I've made now and many times before. It is not the 'particular instance, but rather the OVERALL PERIOD of time and the probability of such a collision occurring AT LEAST ONCE near a massive/extrem body OVER THE WHOLE 'lifetime' of that body. TRANSIENT 'measuremets' in short terms mean nothing; only OVERALL EVENT COUNTS over the long terms mean everything when it comes to such things I was referring to.
I do.
I await your substatiating/supporting argument for your opinion on that score.
There should be whole galaxies full of nothing but dead and ancient dwarf stars.
They should exist in abundance everywhere (particularly locally, as this is the oldest part of the universe we can perceive).
What we see is the result of past inter and intra galactic interactions and 'settling' into 'still disturebed' (elliptical/ragged galaxies), 'resonant' (equilibrated-interaction groups) of intermediate sizes/forms) and 'settled' spiral galaxies. And many star clusters and 'gravity-interaction/perturbation' stellar/nebulae material in 'trails' and 'mixed generations'. SPIRALS would be the most COMMON form of galaxies in older 'volumes' like our own group.
And the generations of stars within them would reflect the INTERACTING HISTORY of the groups' stars/features.
That is what we observe. And there ARE plenty of 'spent' dwarf stars and 'spent' red giant stars and all sorts in between. What we observe is also a result of PREVIOUS (now dispersed/drawn apart/collapsed) LOCAL STAR CLUSTERS/GROUPS interactions and cataclysmic/collision/perturbation 'recycling' events LOCALLY within the 'arms/accretion disc locations. It's not as 'cut and dried' and 'simplistic' as you seem to think it is, mate!
We see them lots of different ways.
We 'see' neutron stars IF they have 'visible companions' that 'wobble' and/or are seen to be 'streaming' material into the neutronstar's gravity well.
We also 'see' them IF their polar 'beams' are fortuitously oriented such that they 'intersect' our observation point HERE.
Otherwise there are MANY MANY times MORE probable numbers EVEN 'NOW' that are NOT within our observational scope/capability/possibility.....simply because they may be 'lone' neutron stars and/or 'UNfortuitously oriented' everywhere BUT in our direction; and/or may not be CTIVELY FEEDING at all, and so have a faint/negligible 'polar-jet' signal that doewsn't reach us; and/or they may be too OLD and hardly rotate so that whatever signal they may have is virtually not 'precessing' enough for us to get a 'blink' at all in our lifetime so far. Do the math yourself between those that we miss and those that we can observe AT ALL. Surprise!hehehe.
Could it have been one collapsing neutron star?
IIRC, one neutron star does not have the 'energy output' or 'energy/radiating profile' to fit the gamma ray type/distribution in time/spectrum. And if it was a neutron star 'swalloing a star 'whole', again, the output 'signature' would be different. And if TWO neutron stars collide, there would be a temporary window where BOTH stars are mutually ripping at each other gravitationally before final union (which would 'open up' their inner energy/pressure to 'escape' from otherwise 'closed' sphere' neutron star energy/mass traps.....and would produce an unusaul 'signal' profile of gamma ray burst/streams/energies.
Looking out into the distance of space and time, we are inevitably in the oldest portion of the universe we can perceive. Why isn't our third generation galaxy littered with them?
See above comments and reasons why they probably DO 'litter' our astronomical skies....and why we CAN'T SEE most of them for the reasons given I pointed to already.
Sure, it's possible. I've said that before. It'd just be extraordinarily rare.
And like I said many times before: It only takes ONE over the LONG lifetimes of the massive/extreme bodies/nebulae to do the job! hehehe. See the real point there?
You've yet to point out a new consideration.
That's what you think? Oh well, I'll leave that to your assumed level of perspicacity on that score, uba!
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
And again you miss the point. It's not the 'average energy' but the INDIVIDUAL particles' energies IN that 'average distribution. Some particles have low/lower energies than others; BUT some have HUMONGOUS energies at the upper end of that energy distribution....and all it takes is ONE suitable-energy/geometry collision between just TWO oppositely travelling particles to turn EACH AND EVERY nova event into a bh forming event such that NO neutron stars would be observed AT ALL (now or ever). The fact that we DO see neutron stars supports my contention that such nano-holes CANNOT FORM at all. Period. Because internal collisions and external collisions (between incoming energetic cosmic rays and energetic outgoing star-explosion particles would in BOTH cases doom all such explosions to produce bh type extrem 'features' such that no neutron stars would be the 'remnant' at all, ever. See the point there?
The fact that you think since neutron stars exist, that's proof enough that micro black holes can't exist.
I have put my straightforward cogent arguments more than once for my conclusion. You have yet to counter with equally straightforward cogent arguments for your contrary position that ANSWERS DIRECTLY and substantively the observable/logical evidentiary points in my favour.
Your lensing hypothesis in relation to dark matter galaxies.
That was only one hypothesis. I really am not 'bothered' to go into the question further at this time so as to eliminate/identify all the unlikely/likely ones, hehehe! Have YOU any opinion on the matter yourself, mate?
I was referrring to that and the first paragraph in that section:
.....
Sorry. Using Rpenner's, AlphaNumeric's and other's debates from this forum as evidence against me is doing just that. From where do you think they derive their opinions? From mainstream science of course. Do you really think they can think independently? Look how hard it is for me to get them to admit I'm right on any one point. It takes mounds of argument!
Either I'm right in my contentions because I'm right, or I'm not. Argue on the material strengths and weaknesses of my contentions, not on general opinions.
I only mentioned their 'assistance in number crunching'. That is self-explanatory. I have not depended on any of their 'conceptual/authority' arguments. If you will recall all our conversations, it is I that have presented most of the unusual but TELLING observational/logics examples that I depend on for MY inputs. I do not myself 'depend' or 'defer' to any others' inputs/contributions. I merely pointed out that some of MY examples have been put into 'mathematical' analyses terms. That's all, mate. I do NOT call on them as a conceptual/logical 'cheersquad' to 'support' me or 'decry' you on my behalf. They are number crunchers. That's all. If you have any problems with their numbers, that's between you and them. I'm not fussed either way except to the extent that they HAVE participated in YOUR threads as I have....and the 'conversation' is bound to 'overlap' with our own exchanges from time to time. That's unavoidable, and fair enough to allude to as part of the conversation HERE, don't you think?
In an infinite universe with infinite numbers of astronomical objects, it's likely to happen occassionally. However, the odds of it happening to one particular body (like the earth) is unlikely in the extreme.
I think you continue to misunderstanding the point being made on that score. It doesn't matter whether it happens at a 'particular time' (NOW, last millennia, or LATER)...it ONLY matters that it is INEVITABLE for each and every extreme/massive body GIVEN TIME and NUMBERS and PROBABILITIES involved PER SE. I don't CARE whether it is this second or instant; only that it WILL happen given the observable/logical evidence/processes extant over the lifetime of this part of the universal volume/epoch.
In that case, it's so unlikely to happen as to be irrelevant.
You express this opinion based on what reasoning/justification, precisely?
I don't think it's speculative. It happened. It's a taste of what's to come.
Like I said before, I don't depend on others' SPECULATIVE INTERPRETATIONS of ESOTERIC/QUESTIONABLE so-called 'happenings'. The ways to interpret what was supposedly 'seen' are various and questionable at this stage. Which is why I ALSO DON't depend on the 'safety arguments' EITHER for MY analysis/conclusions. For ME, the 'establishment arguments' you doubt are just as NON SEQUITUR as YOUR arguments which THEY doubt. I am not 'in that game'. I reach a conclusion on more concrete considerations (as you will know by now, hehehe).
What if it's not, and you're wrong?
That was to point out that the retort "what if you're wrong" PRESUPPOSES that NO-one can ever BE 'right'. I have put to you such straightforward/readily supportable arguments to show that I am confident I am right and you are wrong. So until you shake my conviction (based NOT on 'esoterics and speculatives such as both you and others on both sides are basing YOUR arguments on) that I am right according to OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT observation/logics, then it is YOU that I can confidently consider in error. I do not question your right to argue....but there comes a point where unless you have something more, then it is probably you that are wrong (hehehe....that's just returning the favour, mate! Cheers!).
I think it's evident that their safety arguments are invalid.
I don't care WHAT 'their' arguments are. I'm putting my OWN perspective/assessment on the points raised by yoyu and others here. I wish you luck in proving their arguments wrong.....but I don't give you much hope of proving the LHC dangerous....since I have put my case that NO such nano-holes CAN ever BE produced in that 'free-collision' manner'. So for ME at least, 'your' and 'their' argument over what was argued FOR the safety of LHC is a NULL POINT as regards what I use to reach MY OWN conclusions as to LHC likelyhood of producing such things.
What if you're wrong?
And what if the dream repeats ad nauseum, heh! That approach (of "what if you're wrong") does nothing to lessen the validity of MY conclusions.
In any case, I'm not wrong in thinking that no amount of esoteric/speculative argument at this stage will stop LHC from going ahead (for the reasons I put in earlier posts). The only thing that MIGHT stop it is the TECHNOLOGICAL/FINANCIAL snafu/failure to 'deliver as advertised', hehehe.
Cheers uba, everyone!
RC.
.
You 'know' this as an incontrovertible 'fact'?
Consider the SCALE that putative nano-holes would 'inhabit'. Consider WHERE and from which SCALE our 'macro-scale' FEATURES (energy/mass 'particles/waves) arise and subside. WE at our 'scale' detect and 'recognize' certain effects at OUR scale that are merely THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG when it comes to mass/energy. And if nano-holes 'eat' at that super-tiny scale, it would eat the energy/matter 'components' AS WELL AS the 'source' material/energy 'reservoir' from which all macro-scale energy/matter 'features' arise and subside back to. Don't dismiss out of hand the UNDERLYING STRUCTURE/ENERGY/MASS of the so-called 'vacuum', uba....because THAT is 'the world' such putative nano-holes WOULD be part of, hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
Time is of little relevance in this circumstance. The scales are too incongruous.
Time is NEVER "...of little relevance..." when dealing with vast numbers of particles and permutations.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
The earth is unimagiably humungous, in proportion.
That doesn't seem to make sense as written, uba. Can you clarify the relevance of your reply there to MY point that you quoted? Thanks.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
How many are passing through a square meter at any one time? How many in a square millimeter? How many in the breadth of an atom? How many...
Again you keep missing the point I've made now and many times before. It is not the 'particular instance, but rather the OVERALL PERIOD of time and the probability of such a collision occurring AT LEAST ONCE near a massive/extrem body OVER THE WHOLE 'lifetime' of that body. TRANSIENT 'measuremets' in short terms mean nothing; only OVERALL EVENT COUNTS over the long terms mean everything when it comes to such things I was referring to.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
I do.
I await your substatiating/supporting argument for your opinion on that score.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
There should be whole galaxies full of nothing but dead and ancient dwarf stars.
They should exist in abundance everywhere (particularly locally, as this is the oldest part of the universe we can perceive).
What we see is the result of past inter and intra galactic interactions and 'settling' into 'still disturebed' (elliptical/ragged galaxies), 'resonant' (equilibrated-interaction groups) of intermediate sizes/forms) and 'settled' spiral galaxies. And many star clusters and 'gravity-interaction/perturbation' stellar/nebulae material in 'trails' and 'mixed generations'. SPIRALS would be the most COMMON form of galaxies in older 'volumes' like our own group.
And the generations of stars within them would reflect the INTERACTING HISTORY of the groups' stars/features.
That is what we observe. And there ARE plenty of 'spent' dwarf stars and 'spent' red giant stars and all sorts in between. What we observe is also a result of PREVIOUS (now dispersed/drawn apart/collapsed) LOCAL STAR CLUSTERS/GROUPS interactions and cataclysmic/collision/perturbation 'recycling' events LOCALLY within the 'arms/accretion disc locations. It's not as 'cut and dried' and 'simplistic' as you seem to think it is, mate!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
We see them lots of different ways.
We 'see' neutron stars IF they have 'visible companions' that 'wobble' and/or are seen to be 'streaming' material into the neutronstar's gravity well.
We also 'see' them IF their polar 'beams' are fortuitously oriented such that they 'intersect' our observation point HERE.
Otherwise there are MANY MANY times MORE probable numbers EVEN 'NOW' that are NOT within our observational scope/capability/possibility.....simply because they may be 'lone' neutron stars and/or 'UNfortuitously oriented' everywhere BUT in our direction; and/or may not be CTIVELY FEEDING at all, and so have a faint/negligible 'polar-jet' signal that doewsn't reach us; and/or they may be too OLD and hardly rotate so that whatever signal they may have is virtually not 'precessing' enough for us to get a 'blink' at all in our lifetime so far. Do the math yourself between those that we miss and those that we can observe AT ALL. Surprise!hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
Could it have been one collapsing neutron star?
IIRC, one neutron star does not have the 'energy output' or 'energy/radiating profile' to fit the gamma ray type/distribution in time/spectrum. And if it was a neutron star 'swalloing a star 'whole', again, the output 'signature' would be different. And if TWO neutron stars collide, there would be a temporary window where BOTH stars are mutually ripping at each other gravitationally before final union (which would 'open up' their inner energy/pressure to 'escape' from otherwise 'closed' sphere' neutron star energy/mass traps.....and would produce an unusaul 'signal' profile of gamma ray burst/streams/energies.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
Looking out into the distance of space and time, we are inevitably in the oldest portion of the universe we can perceive. Why isn't our third generation galaxy littered with them?
See above comments and reasons why they probably DO 'litter' our astronomical skies....and why we CAN'T SEE most of them for the reasons given I pointed to already.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
Sure, it's possible. I've said that before. It'd just be extraordinarily rare.
And like I said many times before: It only takes ONE over the LONG lifetimes of the massive/extreme bodies/nebulae to do the job! hehehe. See the real point there?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
You've yet to point out a new consideration.
That's what you think? Oh well, I'll leave that to your assumed level of perspicacity on that score, uba!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
And again you miss the point. It's not the 'average energy' but the INDIVIDUAL particles' energies IN that 'average distribution. Some particles have low/lower energies than others; BUT some have HUMONGOUS energies at the upper end of that energy distribution....and all it takes is ONE suitable-energy/geometry collision between just TWO oppositely travelling particles to turn EACH AND EVERY nova event into a bh forming event such that NO neutron stars would be observed AT ALL (now or ever). The fact that we DO see neutron stars supports my contention that such nano-holes CANNOT FORM at all. Period. Because internal collisions and external collisions (between incoming energetic cosmic rays and energetic outgoing star-explosion particles would in BOTH cases doom all such explosions to produce bh type extrem 'features' such that no neutron stars would be the 'remnant' at all, ever. See the point there?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
The fact that you think since neutron stars exist, that's proof enough that micro black holes can't exist.
I have put my straightforward cogent arguments more than once for my conclusion. You have yet to counter with equally straightforward cogent arguments for your contrary position that ANSWERS DIRECTLY and substantively the observable/logical evidentiary points in my favour.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
Your lensing hypothesis in relation to dark matter galaxies.
That was only one hypothesis. I really am not 'bothered' to go into the question further at this time so as to eliminate/identify all the unlikely/likely ones, hehehe! Have YOU any opinion on the matter yourself, mate?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
I was referrring to that and the first paragraph in that section:
.....
Sorry. Using Rpenner's, AlphaNumeric's and other's debates from this forum as evidence against me is doing just that. From where do you think they derive their opinions? From mainstream science of course. Do you really think they can think independently? Look how hard it is for me to get them to admit I'm right on any one point. It takes mounds of argument!
Either I'm right in my contentions because I'm right, or I'm not. Argue on the material strengths and weaknesses of my contentions, not on general opinions.
I only mentioned their 'assistance in number crunching'. That is self-explanatory. I have not depended on any of their 'conceptual/authority' arguments. If you will recall all our conversations, it is I that have presented most of the unusual but TELLING observational/logics examples that I depend on for MY inputs. I do not myself 'depend' or 'defer' to any others' inputs/contributions. I merely pointed out that some of MY examples have been put into 'mathematical' analyses terms. That's all, mate. I do NOT call on them as a conceptual/logical 'cheersquad' to 'support' me or 'decry' you on my behalf. They are number crunchers. That's all. If you have any problems with their numbers, that's between you and them. I'm not fussed either way except to the extent that they HAVE participated in YOUR threads as I have....and the 'conversation' is bound to 'overlap' with our own exchanges from time to time. That's unavoidable, and fair enough to allude to as part of the conversation HERE, don't you think?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
In an infinite universe with infinite numbers of astronomical objects, it's likely to happen occassionally. However, the odds of it happening to one particular body (like the earth) is unlikely in the extreme.
I think you continue to misunderstanding the point being made on that score. It doesn't matter whether it happens at a 'particular time' (NOW, last millennia, or LATER)...it ONLY matters that it is INEVITABLE for each and every extreme/massive body GIVEN TIME and NUMBERS and PROBABILITIES involved PER SE. I don't CARE whether it is this second or instant; only that it WILL happen given the observable/logical evidence/processes extant over the lifetime of this part of the universal volume/epoch.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
In that case, it's so unlikely to happen as to be irrelevant.
You express this opinion based on what reasoning/justification, precisely?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
I don't think it's speculative. It happened. It's a taste of what's to come.
Like I said before, I don't depend on others' SPECULATIVE INTERPRETATIONS of ESOTERIC/QUESTIONABLE so-called 'happenings'. The ways to interpret what was supposedly 'seen' are various and questionable at this stage. Which is why I ALSO DON't depend on the 'safety arguments' EITHER for MY analysis/conclusions. For ME, the 'establishment arguments' you doubt are just as NON SEQUITUR as YOUR arguments which THEY doubt. I am not 'in that game'. I reach a conclusion on more concrete considerations (as you will know by now, hehehe).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
What if it's not, and you're wrong?
That was to point out that the retort "what if you're wrong" PRESUPPOSES that NO-one can ever BE 'right'. I have put to you such straightforward/readily supportable arguments to show that I am confident I am right and you are wrong. So until you shake my conviction (based NOT on 'esoterics and speculatives such as both you and others on both sides are basing YOUR arguments on) that I am right according to OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT observation/logics, then it is YOU that I can confidently consider in error. I do not question your right to argue....but there comes a point where unless you have something more, then it is probably you that are wrong (hehehe....that's just returning the favour, mate! Cheers!).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
I think it's evident that their safety arguments are invalid.
I don't care WHAT 'their' arguments are. I'm putting my OWN perspective/assessment on the points raised by yoyu and others here. I wish you luck in proving their arguments wrong.....but I don't give you much hope of proving the LHC dangerous....since I have put my case that NO such nano-holes CAN ever BE produced in that 'free-collision' manner'. So for ME at least, 'your' and 'their' argument over what was argued FOR the safety of LHC is a NULL POINT as regards what I use to reach MY OWN conclusions as to LHC likelyhood of producing such things.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 07:52 AM)
What if you're wrong?
And what if the dream repeats ad nauseum, heh! That approach (of "what if you're wrong") does nothing to lessen the validity of MY conclusions.
In any case, I'm not wrong in thinking that no amount of esoteric/speculative argument at this stage will stop LHC from going ahead (for the reasons I put in earlier posts). The only thing that MIGHT stop it is the TECHNOLOGICAL/FINANCIAL snafu/failure to 'deliver as advertised', hehehe.
Cheers uba, everyone!
RC.
.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 8 2007, 08:52 PM)
Big explosions generally disperse their energy thoughout the mass. Cosmic ray collisions fall under the same restraints I've outlined previously. They'd have to be impossibly perfect. It might happen, but it'd be very rare.
Even under those restraints, because of the share volume of cosmic rays bombarding the earth at any one time, they are far more common then you are leading anyone to believ, as I have pointed out, complee with verifiable numbers (if you care to try and figure out the working which I haven't detailed).
Even under those restraints, because of the share volume of cosmic rays bombarding the earth at any one time, they are far more common then you are leading anyone to believ, as I have pointed out, complee with verifiable numbers (if you care to try and figure out the working which I haven't detailed).
QUOTE (RealityCheck+ Nov 9 2007, 02:40 AM)
You 'know' this as an incontrovertible 'fact'?
Consider the SCALE that putative nano-holes would 'inhabit'. Consider WHERE and from which SCALE our 'macro-scale' FEATURES (energy/mass 'particles/waves) arise and subside. WE at our 'scale' detect and 'recognize' certain effects at OUR scale that are merely THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG when it comes to mass/energy. And if nano-holes 'eat' at that super-tiny scale, it would eat the energy/matter 'components' AS WELL AS the 'source' material/energy 'reservoir' from which all macro-scale energy/matter 'features' arise and subside back to. Don't dismiss out of hand the UNDERLYING STRUCTURE/ENERGY/MASS of the so-called 'vacuum', uba....because THAT is 'the world' such putative nano-holes WOULD be part of, hehehe.
It's all about energy density.
Yes it is. What you're talking about can't happen. The chaos of the universe will rearrange things long before then.
Yes it is. What you're talking about can't happen. The chaos of the universe will rearrange things long before then.
That doesn't seem to make sense as written, uba. Can you clarify the relevance of your reply there to MY point that you quoted? Thanks.
We were talking about the likelihood of a perfect cosmic ray to cosmic ray collision. You were trying to crowd the field by stating the whole earth gets bombarded a lot. The earth is irrelevant to the likelihood that two cosmic rays might inhabit the same space at the same time with the right relative absorption cross sections, momentums and kinetic energy.
The odds of it happening during the lifetime of any one particular astronomical body is infinities within infinities. It (generally speaking) can't happen that way.
The odds of it happening during the lifetime of any one particular astronomical body is infinities within infinities. It (generally speaking) can't happen that way.
I await your substatiating/supporting argument for your opinion on that score.
Same as above. The odds of it happening weighs heavily against.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
And the generations of stars within them would reflect the INTERACTING HISTORY of the groups' stars/features.
So you'd expect.
Define "plenty." What is their ratio compared to ordinary stars?
Define "plenty." What is their ratio compared to ordinary stars?
What we observe is also a result of PREVIOUS (now dispersed/drawn apart/collapsed) LOCAL STAR CLUSTERS/GROUPS interactions and cataclysmic/collision/perturbation 'recycling' events LOCALLY within the 'arms/accretion disc locations.
They've found evidence of stars as old as 13.2 billion years, in our galaxy.
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
We 'see' neutron stars IF they have 'visible companions' that 'wobble' and/or are seen to be 'streaming' material into the neutronstar's gravity well.
That's two ways.
You're only thinking of pulsars. Some (new, hot ones) can be seen visibly, older ones are found with x-ray or ultraviolet observations, and some can even be seen visibly with Hubble's Faint Object Camera.
You're only thinking of pulsars. Some (new, hot ones) can be seen visibly, older ones are found with x-ray or ultraviolet observations, and some can even be seen visibly with Hubble's Faint Object Camera.
Otherwise there are MANY MANY times MORE probable numbers EVEN 'NOW' that are NOT within our observational scope/capability/possibility.....simply because they may be 'lone' neutron stars and/or 'UNfortuitously oriented' everywhere BUT in our direction; and/or may not be CTIVELY FEEDING at all, and so have a faint/negligible 'polar-jet' signal that doewsn't reach us; and/or they may be too OLD and hardly rotate so that whatever signal they may have is virtually not 'precessing' enough for us to get a 'blink' at all in our lifetime so far. Do the math yourself between those that we miss and those that we can observe AT ALL. Surprise!hehehe.
They should be of sufficient number to be readily observed, even if we could only find a small percentage of them.
Neutron stars come in varying masses. Maybe it was a big one.
Neutron stars come in varying masses. Maybe it was a big one.
See above comments and reasons why they probably DO 'litter' our astronomical skies....and why we CAN'T SEE most of them for the reasons given I pointed to already.
They should be common enough to be easily spotted.
And like I've said before, it's not likely to happen at all.
And like I've said before, it's not likely to happen at all.
That's what you think? Oh well, I'll leave that to your assumed level of perspicacity on that score, uba!
You only think you're presenting new material because you're currently thinking of it. I've argued these points before with others.
Or, maybe it makes it very difficult for neutron stars to form, and thus we've only found eight (older, isolated ones).
Or, maybe it makes it very difficult for neutron stars to form, and thus we've only found eight (older, isolated ones).
I have put my straightforward cogent arguments more than once for my conclusion. You have yet to counter with equally straightforward cogent arguments for your contrary position that ANSWERS DIRECTLY and substantively the observable/logical evidentiary points in my favour.
I disagree. You’re assuming every neutron star forming event would have to end in a black hole catastrophe. Couldn't a few survive (like maybe the few we've identified?)?
Only wildly speculative notions.
Only wildly speculative notions.
I only mentioned their 'assistance in number crunching'. That is self-explanatory. I have not depended on any of their 'conceptual/authority' arguments. If you will recall all our conversations, it is I that have presented most of the unusual but TELLING observational/logics examples that I depend on for MY inputs. I do not myself 'depend' or 'defer' to any others' inputs/contributions. I merely pointed out that some of MY examples have been put into 'mathematical' analyses terms. That's all, mate. I do NOT call on them as a conceptual/logical 'cheersquad' to 'support' me or 'decry' you on my behalf. They are number crunchers. That's all. If you have any problems with their numbers, that's between you and them. I'm not fussed either way except to the extent that they HAVE participated in YOUR threads as I have....and the 'conversation' is bound to 'overlap' with our own exchanges from time to time. That's unavoidable, and fair enough to allude to as part of the conversation HERE, don't you think?
It's fair to quote as a source, but not to use as a pressure tactic.
Define your parameters. Why do you think it's inevitable for every massive body? What's your definition of, "a massive body?"
Define your parameters. Why do you think it's inevitable for every massive body? What's your definition of, "a massive body?"
You express this opinion based on what reasoning/justification, precisely?
Did you not read the previous response?
Based on what "concrete considerations?" Is it wise to rely so heavily on your interpretation? Is your interpretation infallible?
Based on what "concrete considerations?" Is it wise to rely so heavily on your interpretation? Is your interpretation infallible?
That was to point out that the retort "what if you're wrong" PRESUPPOSES that NO-one can ever BE 'right'. I have put to you such straightforward/readily supportable arguments to show that I am confident I am right and you are wrong. So until you shake my conviction (based NOT on 'esoterics and speculatives such as both you and others on both sides are basing YOUR arguments on) that I am right according to OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT observation/logics, then it is YOU that I can confidently consider in error. I do not question your right to argue....but there comes a point where unless you have something more, then it is probably you that are wrong (hehehe....that's just returning the favour, mate! Cheers!).
So you've made up your mind? You can't be swayed by argument?
I hope you're right!
I hope you're right!
And what if the dream repeats ad nauseum, heh! That approach (of "what if you're wrong") does nothing to lessen the validity of MY conclusions.
It's called contingency planning. They don't expect any particular cruise ship to sink, but they put lifeboats on them anyway.
Besides, I think I've made a decent case above against your conclusions. Why are Neutron stars so rare?
Or the voices of lots of people.
Consider the SCALE that putative nano-holes would 'inhabit'. Consider WHERE and from which SCALE our 'macro-scale' FEATURES (energy/mass 'particles/waves) arise and subside. WE at our 'scale' detect and 'recognize' certain effects at OUR scale that are merely THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG when it comes to mass/energy. And if nano-holes 'eat' at that super-tiny scale, it would eat the energy/matter 'components' AS WELL AS the 'source' material/energy 'reservoir' from which all macro-scale energy/matter 'features' arise and subside back to. Don't dismiss out of hand the UNDERLYING STRUCTURE/ENERGY/MASS of the so-called 'vacuum', uba....because THAT is 'the world' such putative nano-holes WOULD be part of, hehehe.
It's all about energy density.
QUOTE
Time is NEVER "...of little relevance..." when dealing with vast numbers of particles and permutations.
Yes it is. What you're talking about can't happen. The chaos of the universe will rearrange things long before then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Time is NEVER "...of little relevance..." when dealing with vast numbers of particles and permutations. |
Yes it is. What you're talking about can't happen. The chaos of the universe will rearrange things long before then.
That doesn't seem to make sense as written, uba. Can you clarify the relevance of your reply there to MY point that you quoted? Thanks.
We were talking about the likelihood of a perfect cosmic ray to cosmic ray collision. You were trying to crowd the field by stating the whole earth gets bombarded a lot. The earth is irrelevant to the likelihood that two cosmic rays might inhabit the same space at the same time with the right relative absorption cross sections, momentums and kinetic energy.
QUOTE
Again you keep missing the point I've made now and many times before. It is not the 'particular instance, but rather the OVERALL PERIOD of time and the probability of such a collision occurring AT LEAST ONCE near a massive/extrem body OVER THE WHOLE 'lifetime' of that body. TRANSIENT 'measuremets' in short terms mean nothing; only OVERALL EVENT COUNTS over the long terms mean everything when it comes to such things I was referring to.
The odds of it happening during the lifetime of any one particular astronomical body is infinities within infinities. It (generally speaking) can't happen that way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again you keep missing the point I've made now and many times before. It is not the 'particular instance, but rather the OVERALL PERIOD of time and the probability of such a collision occurring AT LEAST ONCE near a massive/extrem body OVER THE WHOLE 'lifetime' of that body. TRANSIENT 'measuremets' in short terms mean nothing; only OVERALL EVENT COUNTS over the long terms mean everything when it comes to such things I was referring to. |
The odds of it happening during the lifetime of any one particular astronomical body is infinities within infinities. It (generally speaking) can't happen that way.
I await your substatiating/supporting argument for your opinion on that score.
Same as above. The odds of it happening weighs heavily against.
QUOTE
What we see is the result of past inter and intra galactic interactions and 'settling' into 'still disturebed' (elliptical/ragged galaxies), 'resonant' (equilibrated-interaction groups) of intermediate sizes/forms) and 'settled' spiral galaxies. And many star clusters and 'gravity-interaction/perturbation' stellar/nebulae material in 'trails' and 'mixed generations'. SPIRALS would be the most COMMON form of galaxies in older 'volumes' like our own group.
Irrelevant
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What we see is the result of past inter and intra galactic interactions and 'settling' into 'still disturebed' (elliptical/ragged galaxies), 'resonant' (equilibrated-interaction groups) of intermediate sizes/forms) and 'settled' spiral galaxies. And many star clusters and 'gravity-interaction/perturbation' stellar/nebulae material in 'trails' and 'mixed generations'. SPIRALS would be the most COMMON form of galaxies in older 'volumes' like our own group. |
Irrelevant
And the generations of stars within them would reflect the INTERACTING HISTORY of the groups' stars/features.
So you'd expect.
QUOTE
That is what we observe. And there ARE plenty of 'spent' dwarf stars and 'spent' red giant stars and all sorts in between.
Define "plenty." What is their ratio compared to ordinary stars?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is what we observe. And there ARE plenty of 'spent' dwarf stars and 'spent' red giant stars and all sorts in between. |
Define "plenty." What is their ratio compared to ordinary stars?
What we observe is also a result of PREVIOUS (now dispersed/drawn apart/collapsed) LOCAL STAR CLUSTERS/GROUPS interactions and cataclysmic/collision/perturbation 'recycling' events LOCALLY within the 'arms/accretion disc locations.
They've found evidence of stars as old as 13.2 billion years, in our galaxy.
QUOTE
It's not as 'cut and dried' and 'simplistic' as you seem to think it is, mate!
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's not as 'cut and dried' and 'simplistic' as you seem to think it is, mate! |
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
We 'see' neutron stars IF they have 'visible companions' that 'wobble' and/or are seen to be 'streaming' material into the neutronstar's gravity well.
That's two ways.
QUOTE
We also 'see' them IF their polar 'beams' are fortuitously oriented such that they 'intersect' our observation point HERE.
You're only thinking of pulsars. Some (new, hot ones) can be seen visibly, older ones are found with x-ray or ultraviolet observations, and some can even be seen visibly with Hubble's Faint Object Camera.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We also 'see' them IF their polar 'beams' are fortuitously oriented such that they 'intersect' our observation point HERE. |
You're only thinking of pulsars. Some (new, hot ones) can be seen visibly, older ones are found with x-ray or ultraviolet observations, and some can even be seen visibly with Hubble's Faint Object Camera.
Otherwise there are MANY MANY times MORE probable numbers EVEN 'NOW' that are NOT within our observational scope/capability/possibility.....simply because they may be 'lone' neutron stars and/or 'UNfortuitously oriented' everywhere BUT in our direction; and/or may not be CTIVELY FEEDING at all, and so have a faint/negligible 'polar-jet' signal that doewsn't reach us; and/or they may be too OLD and hardly rotate so that whatever signal they may have is virtually not 'precessing' enough for us to get a 'blink' at all in our lifetime so far. Do the math yourself between those that we miss and those that we can observe AT ALL. Surprise!hehehe.
They should be of sufficient number to be readily observed, even if we could only find a small percentage of them.
QUOTE
IIRC, one neutron star does not have the 'energy output' or 'energy/radiating profile' to fit the gamma ray type/distribution in time/spectrum. And if it was a neutron star 'swalloing a star 'whole', again, the output 'signature' would be different. And if TWO neutron stars collide, there would be a temporary window where BOTH stars are mutually ripping at each other gravitationally before final union (which would 'open up' their inner energy/pressure to 'escape' from otherwise 'closed' sphere' neutron star energy/mass traps.....and would produce an unusaul 'signal' profile of gamma ray burst/streams/energies.
Neutron stars come in varying masses. Maybe it was a big one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| IIRC, one neutron star does not have the 'energy output' or 'energy/radiating profile' to fit the gamma ray type/distribution in time/spectrum. And if it was a neutron star 'swalloing a star 'whole', again, the output 'signature' would be different. And if TWO neutron stars collide, there would be a temporary window where BOTH stars are mutually ripping at each other gravitationally before final union (which would 'open up' their inner energy/pressure to 'escape' from otherwise 'closed' sphere' neutron star energy/mass traps.....and would produce an unusaul 'signal' profile of gamma ray burst/streams/energies. |
Neutron stars come in varying masses. Maybe it was a big one.
See above comments and reasons why they probably DO 'litter' our astronomical skies....and why we CAN'T SEE most of them for the reasons given I pointed to already.
They should be common enough to be easily spotted.
QUOTE
And like I said many times before: It only takes ONE over the LONG lifetimes of the massive/extreme bodies/nebulae to do the job! hehehe. See the real point there?
And like I've said before, it's not likely to happen at all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And like I said many times before: It only takes ONE over the LONG lifetimes of the massive/extreme bodies/nebulae to do the job! hehehe. See the real point there? |
And like I've said before, it's not likely to happen at all.
That's what you think? Oh well, I'll leave that to your assumed level of perspicacity on that score, uba!
You only think you're presenting new material because you're currently thinking of it. I've argued these points before with others.
QUOTE
And again you miss the point. It's not the 'average energy' but the INDIVIDUAL particles' energies IN that 'average distribution. Some particles have low/lower energies than others; BUT some have HUMONGOUS energies at the upper end of that energy distribution....and all it takes is ONE suitable-energy/geometry collision between just TWO oppositely travelling particles to turn EACH AND EVERY nova event into a bh forming event such that NO neutron stars would be observed AT ALL (now or ever). The fact that we DO see neutron stars supports my contention that such nano-holes CANNOT FORM at all. Period. Because internal collisions and external collisions (between incoming energetic cosmic rays and energetic outgoing star-explosion particles would in BOTH cases doom all such explosions to produce bh type extrem 'features' such that no neutron stars would be the 'remnant' at all, ever. See the point there?
Or, maybe it makes it very difficult for neutron stars to form, and thus we've only found eight (older, isolated ones).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And again you miss the point. It's not the 'average energy' but the INDIVIDUAL particles' energies IN that 'average distribution. Some particles have low/lower energies than others; BUT some have HUMONGOUS energies at the upper end of that energy distribution....and all it takes is ONE suitable-energy/geometry collision between just TWO oppositely travelling particles to turn EACH AND EVERY nova event into a bh forming event such that NO neutron stars would be observed AT ALL (now or ever). The fact that we DO see neutron stars supports my contention that such nano-holes CANNOT FORM at all. Period. Because internal collisions and external collisions (between incoming energetic cosmic rays and energetic outgoing star-explosion particles would in BOTH cases doom all such explosions to produce bh type extrem 'features' such that no neutron stars would be the 'remnant' at all, ever. See the point there? |
Or, maybe it makes it very difficult for neutron stars to form, and thus we've only found eight (older, isolated ones).
I have put my straightforward cogent arguments more than once for my conclusion. You have yet to counter with equally straightforward cogent arguments for your contrary position that ANSWERS DIRECTLY and substantively the observable/logical evidentiary points in my favour.
I disagree. You’re assuming every neutron star forming event would have to end in a black hole catastrophe. Couldn't a few survive (like maybe the few we've identified?)?
QUOTE
That was only one hypothesis. I really am not 'bothered' to go into the question further at this time so as to eliminate/identify all the unlikely/likely ones, hehehe! Have YOU any opinion on the matter yourself, mate?
Only wildly speculative notions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That was only one hypothesis. I really am not 'bothered' to go into the question further at this time so as to eliminate/identify all the unlikely/likely ones, hehehe! Have YOU any opinion on the matter yourself, mate? |
Only wildly speculative notions.
I only mentioned their 'assistance in number crunching'. That is self-explanatory. I have not depended on any of their 'conceptual/authority' arguments. If you will recall all our conversations, it is I that have presented most of the unusual but TELLING observational/logics examples that I depend on for MY inputs. I do not myself 'depend' or 'defer' to any others' inputs/contributions. I merely pointed out that some of MY examples have been put into 'mathematical' analyses terms. That's all, mate. I do NOT call on them as a conceptual/logical 'cheersquad' to 'support' me or 'decry' you on my behalf. They are number crunchers. That's all. If you have any problems with their numbers, that's between you and them. I'm not fussed either way except to the extent that they HAVE participated in YOUR threads as I have....and the 'conversation' is bound to 'overlap' with our own exchanges from time to time. That's unavoidable, and fair enough to allude to as part of the conversation HERE, don't you think?
It's fair to quote as a source, but not to use as a pressure tactic.
QUOTE
I think you continue to misunderstanding the point being made on that score. It doesn't matter whether it happens at a 'particular time' (NOW, last millennia, or LATER)...it ONLY matters that it is INEVITABLE for each and every extreme/massive body GIVEN TIME and NUMBERS and PROBABILITIES involved PER SE. I don't CARE whether it is this second or instant; only that it WILL happen given the observable/logical evidence/processes extant over the lifetime of this part of the universal volume/epoch.
Define your parameters. Why do you think it's inevitable for every massive body? What's your definition of, "a massive body?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you continue to misunderstanding the point being made on that score. It doesn't matter whether it happens at a 'particular time' (NOW, last millennia, or LATER)...it ONLY matters that it is INEVITABLE for each and every extreme/massive body GIVEN TIME and NUMBERS and PROBABILITIES involved PER SE. I don't CARE whether it is this second or instant; only that it WILL happen given the observable/logical evidence/processes extant over the lifetime of this part of the universal volume/epoch. |
Define your parameters. Why do you think it's inevitable for every massive body? What's your definition of, "a massive body?"
You express this opinion based on what reasoning/justification, precisely?
Did you not read the previous response?
- In an infinite universe with infinite numbers of astronomical objects, it's likely to happen occasionally. However, the odds of it happening to one particular body (like the earth) is unlikely in the extreme.
QUOTE
Like I said before, I don't depend on others' SPECULATIVE INTERPRETATIONS of ESOTERIC/QUESTIONABLE so-called 'happenings'. The ways to interpret what was supposedly 'seen' are various and questionable at this stage. Which is why I ALSO DON't depend on the 'safety arguments' EITHER for MY analysis/conclusions. For ME, the 'establishment arguments' you doubt are just as NON SEQUITUR as YOUR arguments which THEY doubt. I am not 'in that game'. I reach a conclusion on more concrete considerations (as you will know by now, hehehe).
Based on what "concrete considerations?" Is it wise to rely so heavily on your interpretation? Is your interpretation infallible?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like I said before, I don't depend on others' SPECULATIVE INTERPRETATIONS of ESOTERIC/QUESTIONABLE so-called 'happenings'. The ways to interpret what was supposedly 'seen' are various and questionable at this stage. Which is why I ALSO DON't depend on the 'safety arguments' EITHER for MY analysis/conclusions. For ME, the 'establishment arguments' you doubt are just as NON SEQUITUR as YOUR arguments which THEY doubt. I am not 'in that game'. I reach a conclusion on more concrete considerations (as you will know by now, hehehe). |
Based on what "concrete considerations?" Is it wise to rely so heavily on your interpretation? Is your interpretation infallible?
That was to point out that the retort "what if you're wrong" PRESUPPOSES that NO-one can ever BE 'right'. I have put to you such straightforward/readily supportable arguments to show that I am confident I am right and you are wrong. So until you shake my conviction (based NOT on 'esoterics and speculatives such as both you and others on both sides are basing YOUR arguments on) that I am right according to OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT observation/logics, then it is YOU that I can confidently consider in error. I do not question your right to argue....but there comes a point where unless you have something more, then it is probably you that are wrong (hehehe....that's just returning the favour, mate! Cheers!).
So you've made up your mind? You can't be swayed by argument?
QUOTE
I don't care WHAT 'their' arguments are. I'm putting my OWN perspective/assessment on the points raised by yoyu and others here. I wish you luck in proving their arguments wrong.....but I don't give you much hope of proving the LHC dangerous....since I have put my case that NO such nano-holes CAN ever BE produced in that 'free-collision' manner'. So for ME at least, 'your' and 'their' argument over what was argued FOR the safety of LHC is a NULL POINT as regards what I use to reach MY OWN conclusions as to LHC likelyhood of producing such things.
I hope you're right!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't care WHAT 'their' arguments are. I'm putting my OWN perspective/assessment on the points raised by yoyu and others here. I wish you luck in proving their arguments wrong.....but I don't give you much hope of proving the LHC dangerous....since I have put my case that NO such nano-holes CAN ever BE produced in that 'free-collision' manner'. So for ME at least, 'your' and 'their' argument over what was argued FOR the safety of LHC is a NULL POINT as regards what I use to reach MY OWN conclusions as to LHC likelyhood of producing such things. |
I hope you're right!
And what if the dream repeats ad nauseum, heh! That approach (of "what if you're wrong") does nothing to lessen the validity of MY conclusions.
It's called contingency planning. They don't expect any particular cruise ship to sink, but they put lifeboats on them anyway.
Besides, I think I've made a decent case above against your conclusions. Why are Neutron stars so rare?
QUOTE
In any case, I'm not wrong in thinking that no amount of esoteric/speculative argument at this stage will stop LHC from going ahead (for the reasons I put in earlier posts). The only thing that MIGHT stop it is the TECHNOLOGICAL/FINANCIAL snafu/failure to 'deliver as advertised', hehehe.
Or the voices of lots of people.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 10:27 PM)
We were talking about the likelihood of a perfect cosmic ray to cosmic ray collision. You were trying to crowd the field by stating the whole earth gets bombarded a lot. The earth is irrelevant to the likelihood that two cosmic rays might inhabit the same space at the same time with the right relative absorption cross sections, momentums and kinetic energy.
Not when you take into account the sheer number of cosmic rays passing through a given volume of space, which is the point that I was trying to demonstrate with my calulations, or at least one of them anyway. When you take into account the share number of cosmic rays passing through a given volume with a given geometry, something that might otherwise be improbable becomes almost inevitable.
Not when you take into account the sheer number of cosmic rays passing through a given volume of space, which is the point that I was trying to demonstrate with my calulations, or at least one of them anyway. When you take into account the share number of cosmic rays passing through a given volume with a given geometry, something that might otherwise be improbable becomes almost inevitable.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 11 2007, 09:52 AM)
Not when you take into account the sheer number of cosmic rays passing through a given volume of space, which is the point that I was trying to demonstrate with my calulations, or at least one of them anyway. When you take into account the share number of cosmic rays passing through a given volume with a given geometry, something that might otherwise be improbable becomes almost inevitable.
Not at this scale. They're too tiny.
Not at this scale. They're too tiny.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 10:27 PM)
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
I doubt the veracity of this claim, mostly because Wikipedia lists 7 radio-quiet neutron stars, and I have open in another window a catalog of 113 binary Pulasrs (which are Neutron stars).
I notice that one of the things you're leaving out is why Old Neutron Stars are hard to detect - even though myself, and others have tried to point this out to you - it's not that we've only found 8 because they're rare, we've only found 8 because they're hard to see. Because they are old, they have lost a lot of their energy, and because they're isolated, the only thing that accretes onto them is the interstellar medium, so, we've spotted 8 of them, because they're faint and hard to see, it really is that simple.
Here's a paper that addresses the challenfes in spotting them, and makes some modifications to models to bring their predictions inline with observations. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journ.../37446/sc0.html
Here's a carnegy-mellon paper that addresses the possibility that a certain type of GRB may be because of the merger of old binary neutron stars.
http://www.ociw.edu/news/news_item.2006-04-05.2383142809
Meanwhile, here's an Arxiv paper that estimates that there are around a billion old neutron stars in our galaxy alone, and that takes into account the magnetic field decaying over a period of a billion years.
So basically, the problem is this - it isn't that they aren't there. They are, and in larg numbers, the problem is that they're only readily detectable during a short span of their lifetime because of the way they loose their energy, after that, they're about as easy to detect as a 12 billion year old white dwarf, or a black hole with nothing to eat.
So, once again, we can see that your claims are wrong.
I doubt the veracity of this claim, mostly because Wikipedia lists 7 radio-quiet neutron stars, and I have open in another window a catalog of 113 binary Pulasrs (which are Neutron stars).
I notice that one of the things you're leaving out is why Old Neutron Stars are hard to detect - even though myself, and others have tried to point this out to you - it's not that we've only found 8 because they're rare, we've only found 8 because they're hard to see. Because they are old, they have lost a lot of their energy, and because they're isolated, the only thing that accretes onto them is the interstellar medium, so, we've spotted 8 of them, because they're faint and hard to see, it really is that simple.
Here's a paper that addresses the challenfes in spotting them, and makes some modifications to models to bring their predictions inline with observations. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journ.../37446/sc0.html
Here's a carnegy-mellon paper that addresses the possibility that a certain type of GRB may be because of the merger of old binary neutron stars.
http://www.ociw.edu/news/news_item.2006-04-05.2383142809
Meanwhile, here's an Arxiv paper that estimates that there are around a billion old neutron stars in our galaxy alone, and that takes into account the magnetic field decaying over a period of a billion years.
So basically, the problem is this - it isn't that they aren't there. They are, and in larg numbers, the problem is that they're only readily detectable during a short span of their lifetime because of the way they loose their energy, after that, they're about as easy to detect as a 12 billion year old white dwarf, or a black hole with nothing to eat.
So, once again, we can see that your claims are wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 11:01 PM)
Not at this scale. They're too tiny.
Unmitigated Bull.
We've been over this already.
Not only that, but you seriously expect us to believe that while (you claim) that two cosmic ray protons are too small to collide (Even though they have to collide within miliradians of head on, and length contraction only applies in one direction) BUT Something which has a collision cross section 10,000 times smaller is going to destroy the earth?
Surely even you must be able to see the contradiction in these claims.
Unmitigated Bull.
We've been over this already.
Not only that, but you seriously expect us to believe that while (you claim) that two cosmic ray protons are too small to collide (Even though they have to collide within miliradians of head on, and length contraction only applies in one direction) BUT Something which has a collision cross section 10,000 times smaller is going to destroy the earth?
Surely even you must be able to see the contradiction in these claims.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 11:01 AM)
Not at this scale. They're too tiny.
Head on proton collisions are easy, we've both built many machines to do such things and all around us in Nature we see such collisions.
The aura in the North and South polar regions is the result of electrons and protons slamming into the atmosphere. Cosmic rays produce vast quantities of muons which make their way to the Earth's surface. The Moon, literally, glows with muons created by the bombardment of cosmic rays onto it's surface.
We have even seen cosmic rays with energies trillions of times higher than the LHC or humans will ever be capable of creating. They are everywhere. And they interact a lot.
And now, as Trippy says, you're claiming they are too tiny to be considered? Yet you're complaining about microsingularities which are billions of times smaller?!
Head on proton collisions are easy, we've both built many machines to do such things and all around us in Nature we see such collisions.
The aura in the North and South polar regions is the result of electrons and protons slamming into the atmosphere. Cosmic rays produce vast quantities of muons which make their way to the Earth's surface. The Moon, literally, glows with muons created by the bombardment of cosmic rays onto it's surface.
We have even seen cosmic rays with energies trillions of times higher than the LHC or humans will ever be capable of creating. They are everywhere. And they interact a lot.
And now, as Trippy says, you're claiming they are too tiny to be considered? Yet you're complaining about microsingularities which are billions of times smaller?!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 11:01 PM)
Not at this scale. They're too tiny.
I realized something else that makes this statement even funnier, and even more ridiculous.
So, basically, you're claiming that in space protons are too tiny to collide head on (or close enough to it) to generate a nearly stationary (WRT Earth) black hole, but, for some reason we can collide them in the laboratory?
I realized something else that makes this statement even funnier, and even more ridiculous.
So, basically, you're claiming that in space protons are too tiny to collide head on (or close enough to it) to generate a nearly stationary (WRT Earth) black hole, but, for some reason we can collide them in the laboratory?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
It's all about energy density.
Did you understand what I pointed out?....ie, that at that nano-scale in space-time, ALL the energy IN that spacetime would be in 'intimate contact' with it's 'event horizon', since such a nano-hole would essentially BE 'part' of that underlying 'spacetime' phenomena?
Besides, your contention of there not being enough energy density (in nano-scale "empty space") negates your OTHER contention that there WOULD be the necessary energy density at the nano-scale in Earth-occupied space......since, at the nano-scale of any putative nano-hole, that Earth-occupied space is EFFECTIVELY EMPTY SPACE when considering the difference in scale and collision-crossection magnitude between such nano-holes and any surrounding COMPARATIVELY GROSS 'features' like electrons etc.
See, uba? You can't have it both ways:
- either your putative nano-hole CAN eat at that nano-scale, in which case ALL the underlying-scale 'vacuum energy/mass IS 'available food' for it....
- OR it CANNOT 'eat' at that micro-scale, in which case ALL the MACRO 'space' mass/energy 'features' are effectively and practically FOREVER BEYOND its 'event-horizon' cross-section which inhabits a scale that is far far below than the world of electrons etc.
Pick one or the other, mate! hehehe.
Yes it is. What you're talking about can't happen. The chaos of the universe will rearrange things long before then.
That appears a very 'confused' reply at best, uba. You say time is irrelevant and THEN go on to say that the universe will re-arrange things LONG BEFORE then. Doesn't "long before" imply "long duration"? And doesn't "chaos" imply AMPLE 'probabilities and permutations where anything that is not expressly forbidden is practically INEVITABLE given the 'particle' numbers and 'chaotic' permutations and 'long' epochs of duration (time)?
I think you just 'made' MY point there, uba! Cheers!
We were talking about the likelihood of a perfect cosmic ray to cosmic ray collision. You were trying to crowd the field by stating the whole earth gets bombarded a lot. The earth is irrelevant to the likelihood that two cosmic rays might inhabit the same space at the same time with the right relative absorption cross sections, momentums and kinetic energy.
Hehehe, the 'field' is 'crowding' ITSELF, uba-----I am merely observing the process. And the example of the numbers/geometry of cosmic ray probable suitable hits near Earth is merely used as an INDICATOR of the larger-picture UBIQUITY and PROBABILITY in the case of EVERY extreme/massive body in the observable universe.
THAT is the point, mate...and NOT that the Earth is the ONLY place that is being considered when determining the OVERALL and UNIVERSE WIDE likelyhood of your/others' still-putative nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. See? Forget about Earth. Look at the more TELLING astronomical bodies/scenarios and 're-do' your 'figuring' as to what is or is not unlikely/irrelevant.
While you're at it, take a look at the various 'creationists' arguments against 'evolutionary' probabilities/likelyhoods that DO eventuate DESPITE those arguments (much like your own here) that 'evolution cannot happen' because it is UNLIKELY. THEY don't allow for INNUMERABLE permutations involving countless 'contacts' in myriad 'environments' over unimaginable duration/time.
AND YET we observe the 'impossible' RESULTS everyday of those 'unlikely/irrelevant' processes/factors! Or are you suggesting that 'life' is unlikely despite random/environmental 'happenstances' involving time/probability/permutations involving innumerable 'particles'?
The odds of it happening during the lifetime of any one particular astronomical body is infinities within infinities. It (generally speaking) can't happen that way.
That's like saying that NO 'individual' living thing can EVER be 'mutated' by 'converging' probabilities. And yet not ONE of us is 'spared' from at least ONE of our genetic atoms/molecules being HIT.
You have to stop thinking 'local/instantaneous' and think 'globally/epochally', mate. Nature doesn't do what YOU think is 'proper' at any ONE 'moment'. It will do whatever probability/environment DICTATES....and do it as often and as inevitably as possible unless it is strictly 'forbidden'. IS the universe 'forbidden' from doing these things by any 'laws' I have never yet heard of, uba?
Same as above. The odds of it happening weighs heavily against.
What do 'odds' calculations have to do with it? As I have pointed repeatedly, UNIVERSAL UBIQUITY and the corresponding INEVITABILITY involved makes 'nonsense' of any 'odds' for this or that thing happenening here or there at any particular time/place/body.
You miss the point again: If nano-holes CAN be created so, and CAN exist AT ALL so, then according to the obvious and non-esoteric/non-speculative observations/processes, 'suitably' high-energy-particle collisions WILL happen EVERYWHERE that counts...inevitably....given the time/chaos/energy-levels/numbers involved. Which would make what we 'see' NOW all about us 'impossible' because all bodies would be almost immediately eaten by your putative nano-holes before such massive/extreme bodies even got to BE massive/extreme in the first place.
Irrelevant
Relevant. The point being that all those humongously EXTREME/ENERGETIC chaotic processes that produced what we see NOW are the result of EPOCHAL TIME and MYRIAD INTERACTIONS that would produce zillions (ie, lots and lots and lots, hehehe) of 'suitable' collisions for PUTATIVE nano-hole production near EVERY one of those extreme/massive 'bodies' produced over that duration/volume.
An 'eminently obvious' point for your consideration here, uba:
The observed universe was EVEN MORE CROWDED earlier on; involving even MORE EXTREME MATTER-ENERGY DENSITY/CHAOS than 'now'. Meaning MORE FREQUENT/ENERGETIC 'suitable collisions' in that 'earlier' environment that would make untold masses of nano-holes (if they exist/form at all). Which maens there should BE NO stars/galaxies at all NOW, if such nano-holes CAN be so readily and ubiquitously created by 'free collisions'......because all matter would have been 'eaten' and 'unavailable' to form what we see 'now'. See?
So you'd expect.
Then you agree that such 'high-energy stellar interactions (collisions/navae/supernovae etc) would be likely to involve myriad particles/events that would lead to nano-holes IF such things could form at all in free-collisions between high energy particles as would be present APLENTY in the epochs/interactions involved in that 'interactions history' you now admit "..you'd expect.."?
Define "plenty." What is their ratio compared to ordinary stars?
I'll leave you to research that for yourself...and then come back and tell me if such things are NOT 'common' enough to indicate a long duration/history in the universal volume which you NOW above admit is "...you'd expect..".
The point is that such bodies reflect great HIGH ENERGY/MASS 'events' whose 'visible' massiveness shouldn't 'survive' IF nano-holes CAN form by 'free collisions'...which I maintain they cannot....simply by observing that the variety of MASSIVE/EXTREME bodies processes that are the results of LONG evolutionary/interaction HISTORY could not exist because they would have been 'eaten' and turned into black holes by your (and others') much feared but STILL SPECULATIVE nano-holes.
They've found evidence of stars as old as 13.2 billion years, in our galaxy.
So what? There is plenty of 'recycled' matter/energy from the humongous quasar jets that would have EARLIER been active in local and distant volume/history.
And there is plenty of 'resonant/remnant' matter/volumes in the vast expanses where early hydrogen/helium stars could form/collect. Just look at the various 'star clusters' well out in the gagactic hemispheres. And the hydrogen clouds streaming from our OWN galaxy's 'central feature'.
All as "...youd' expect...", wouldn't you say, uba? Given the TIME and CHAOS and PERMUTATION involving uncountable myriads of 'particles' and 'collisions' and 'misses', hehehe. No?
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
Draw a 'radials' spread from EACH of the possible neutron star locations. NOW, how many of those radials HIT us here? See how many MISS us? So any pulsar neutron star whose polar jets are NOT somewhere along those FEW radials that may hit us here would NOT be visible to us.
Then there are the 'too faint' ones that we don't 'detect' irrespective of poles orientation along ANY radial.
Then there are the neutron stars that are NOT 'pulsar' simply because they have stopped spinning/feeding.
So think about it. Like I said before, ONLY those FEW that have visible companions, or are 'feeding', or are ORIENTED fortuitously and have a signal and so on, will be 'seen' by us. The numbers 'unseen' by us is HUGE....and just because we can't get to 'observe' them FROM HERE doesn't mean they are NOT 'out there', hehehe. See?
You're only thinking of pulsars. Some (new, hot ones) can be seen visibly, older ones are found with x-ray or ultraviolet observations, and some can even be seen visibly with Hubble's Faint Object Camera.
Like I said, those that are still feeding or recent (and still haven't consumed their nearby energy/mass sources) may BE 'detectable' to us. The larger number of older ones (4-13billion years old) will have become 'unseeable' where they are 'pulsars' UNfortuitously aligned so that their polar jets would NOT hit US here NOW....and the radials for NONfortuitous radials vastly outnumber those radials that are fortuitous. Then there are those that are too old and solitary (like me! hehehe) to radiate enough of ANYTHING to 'bother' our detectors here, however they are oreinted. No?
They should be of sufficient number to be readily observed, even if we could only find a small percentage of them.
You say "...should..."? Please present the logic/process/numeric reasoning that leads you to think we should observe MORE than we do. Keep in mind what I have said so far (above/earlier) about the 'hit/miss' possibilities and the 'duration/types' involved where neutron stars lifetimes/stages/orientations are concerened. Thanks.
Neutron stars come in varying masses. Maybe it was a big one.
A SINGLE neutron star becoming a black hole would not produce the energy 'signal profile' because the 'collapse' would NOT be so 'messy' as in the case of parent stars BECOMING neutron stars/black holes. You see, the neutron star is ALREADY the 'collapsed core' of the parent star....and so would have NO 'intermediate-collapse' pahse LOSSES from an 'outer envelope' that would give such a signal as in the ordinary 'formation' type messy process. A LONE collapsing neutron star, no matter HOW LARGE before becoming a bh, would die a 'relatively quiet' death. Only a 'composite' event involving great infalling mass addition OR collision with ANOTHER massive/extreme body (another neutron star, dwarf star, ordinary star AND EVEN ANOTHER BLACK HOLE) would have the ENERGY/MESSINESS to send any signal AT ALL that could reach us HERE so far away.
NOTE again please: Just before 'union', any neutron star colliding with another neutron star (OR a black hole) would have its 'gravity-symmetry' UNBALANCED and TIDALLY STREAMED towards the more massive/extreme body/gravity well. In the intervening space/period before union, all sorts of RADIATION can escape either that could NOT have escaped tbefore from their formerly SYMMETRICAL or tidally undisturbed gravity well. Hence the unusual signal profile that would be different from other scenarios.
They should be common enough to be easily spotted.
Please see above (and earlier posts) on what can and cannot BE 'spotted' and why.
And like I've said before, it's not likely to happen at all.
Hehehe. how likely is the likelyhood that your estimate of "...not likely..." will win out over natures epochal/particulate/energetic armoury? Not ruddy likely, I would say. I'd back nature every time, mate!hehehe.
You only think you're presenting new material because you're currently thinking of it. I've argued these points before with others.
Or is it YOU that only think that? The relevance/logics/concepts of MY arguments/points have NOT depended on your discussions with others. And your addresses to my points/concepts have more than once missed the point. Repetition is inevitable if you keep on missing my points. Which is probably why you think that way. If you had NOT missed the points I am trying to get across, then of corse we would be discussing old stuff. BUT, since you seem to be missing my pointys, those points are 'as new' as they ever were....until you really address them without opinions and speculations. I deal with observables and logics and natural time/numbers/event ranges and probabilities. I don't deal with either your or anyone e;se's 'esoteric/speculative' approach. Which is why BOTH you and others, as far as the self-evident points I have put indicate, are arguing over something that can only form/exist in your (both sides) imagination. Self-evidently, according to what we see in our astronomical skies. Cheers to you both; and have fun with that non sequitur 'debate', hehehe.
Or, maybe it makes it very difficult for neutron stars to form, and thus we've only found eight (older, isolated ones).
I think that in your fixation on their supposed 'rarity' (which they are not....since Neutron Stars etc CAN form....and nature just luuurves repetition!), you miss the point that since Neutron stars exist AT ALL, then NO nano-holes from energetic 'free collisons' can form or eat...or they would have done so at EVERY NEUTRON STAR FORMATION EVENT.
In which case they would not just be 'rare' as you maintain (but I continually point to why they are not), there should be NONE AT ALL, and not just 'rarely', hehehe. See?
I disagree. You’re assuming every neutron star forming event would have to end in a black hole catastrophe. Couldn't a few survive (like maybe the few we've identified?)?
Given the energies/probabilities/permutations and particle numbers involved in the EXPLOSION/IMPLOSION processes, how many do you think would survive IF your (and others') speculated nano-holes COULD be formed from free collisions in such tumultuous events providing plenty of opportunity for 'suitable' geometry/energy for even ONE PER NEUTRON STAR at time of formation?
Only wildly speculative notions.
Hehehe. Reminds me of other 'wildly speculative notions' that most people on both 'sides' of the LHC debate have put forward. For instance, that nano-holes can form at all in gravity-unrestrained/uncontained 'free particle collision' conditions. Now THAT's one humongous speculation if ever there was one! hehehe.
It's fair to quote as a source, but not to use as a pressure tactic.
That's a given. No argument. I wouldn't do the latter.
I merely pointed to the calculations that others HERE have done DIRECTLY involving the scenarios I put forward in our discussions HERE. No more. No less, mate.
However, when you said that many physicists disagreed with me, did you not intend that as a pressure tactic? If you did not, then this part of our conversation can be put to bed as 'resolved' to our mutual satisfaction, eh? hehehe. Cheers!
Define your parameters. Why do you think it's inevitable for every massive body? What's your definition of, "a massive body?"
Please don't start being disingenuous with me, uba. You know perfectly well the interaction energy/numbers 'parameters' and the extreme 'bodies/gravity' scenarios involving the probabilities and permutations that lead to 'inevitability' in the natural way of things AS OBSERVED and ALREADY MORE THAN ONCE pointed out to you in my posts recently and throughout our discussions in this and other LHC threads. If you miss again the points/parameters already given repeatedly, it will become an exercise in futility to continue our discussions. No?
Did you not read the previous response?
I didn't miss it, mate! hehehe. I simply didn't read anything in it to support/justify the opinion expressed by you then. I still don't read any such thing even now.
Consider: You miss the point again; simply because....
I'm NOT saying that the Earth's survival to date is the TELLING thing AGAINST 'free collision' nano-holes forming.....I'm saying that the REST OF THE OBSERVABLE BODIES/PHENOMENA universe wide iswhat INEVITABLY and self-evidently mitigates against ANY so-formed nano-holes that you fear will eat the Earth. See?
My points come from EVERYTHING ELSE, and THEN approach the question of LHC likelyhood of producing ANYTHING that THE UNIVERSE could not ALREADY be producing 'in spades' from the earliest evolutionary stages to 'NOW'. See?
Why should I bring the Earth into it...except as 'sampling field' or 'indicator' of what nature is providing IN ABUNDANCE all the time all over (cosmic rays and energetic explosions/implosions) which in certain INEVITABLE circumstances collide in the manner, energy/mass-density and geometry that would be produced (if they were possible at all) in sufficient quantities near every massive/extreme body/gravity so as to ensure that NONE of what we NOW see would BE here for us to see.
Based on what "concrete considerations?" Is it wise to rely so heavily on your interpretation? Is your interpretation infallible?
I rely on what nature lays out before me.
I dio NOT rely on your/others' wild speculations and esoteric arguments that would have nano-holes being formed AT ALL in such gravity-unconstrained free collision scenarios.
I know which apparoach I would trust to deliver the 'real' conclusions (as opposed to the 'fun' but irrelevant ones).
I'm not interested in 'the game' when it becomes absurdly based on 'imagined' happenings invoked by EITHER 'side', hehehe.
So you've made up your mind? You can't be swayed by argument?
Please present some which address directly and logically those points/scenarios I have raised. I will happy to be persuaded if they are sufficient unto the task of convincing ne that:
- nano-holes can be produced at all by free collisions; and
- nature is NOT capable of producing same repeatedly, ubiquitously and in vast numbers so that they would NOT destroy massive/extreme bodies/features we do observe NOW.
That's all, mate. I wait for more than you have put to date regarding MY scenarios/points. Good luck...(for all our sakes....IF your arguments DO persuade and I then think you are right, hehehe).
I hope you're right!
Nature is blithely unconcerned with whether I'm right or not. Nature merely IS and DOES. I merely observe and come to the self-evident conclusion. I'll leave the 'politics' and 'ego' and 'speculative/esoteric' stoushing to those that have a taste for that sort of 'arguing over impondrables' and such like 'imaginary happenings' (like nano-holes coming from free collisions! hehehe).
It's called contingency planning. They don't expect any particular cruise ship to sink, but they put lifeboats on them anyway.
Shall we make contingency plans for THE END OF THE UNIVERSE too?
There comes a point where reality rules and concentrate on things that ARE CLEAR AND PRESENT dangers...like global warming and energy crunch and water supply and overpopulation/pollution etc etc etc.
There's enough to be spending our political/moral force on without wasting them on nano-holes that nature proves CANNOT be formed in free collision scenarios.
That's my stance. Take it as you will, mate!
Besides, I think I've made a decent case above against your conclusions. Why are Neutron stars so rare?
Please see my earlier (and by now exhaustive/repeated) comments on this aspect.
Or the voices of lots of people.
Lots of people who cannot even agree on the esoteric science/speculations surrounding these matters? Since, as nature vividly demonstrates through our telescopes, NO nano-holes can form via 'free collision' unrestratined/uncontained by gravity in the 'event space'. So I don't particularly see any "...voice of lots of people..." ON EITHER SIDE having a sound enough basis to change LHC proceedings.....(except my voice pointing out that the 'expected' nano-holes will never eventuate in such a manner?....in which case they may re-do their 'speculations/expectations' to be more in line with the observable evidence all around us, hey!hehehe).
Cheers uba, everyone. Please forgive any typos and such....my vision is a little blurry and cause of not a little pain and discomfort during these long posts!
Good luck to us all, in many areas of local/global concern at the moment!
RC.
.
Did you understand what I pointed out?....ie, that at that nano-scale in space-time, ALL the energy IN that spacetime would be in 'intimate contact' with it's 'event horizon', since such a nano-hole would essentially BE 'part' of that underlying 'spacetime' phenomena?
Besides, your contention of there not being enough energy density (in nano-scale "empty space") negates your OTHER contention that there WOULD be the necessary energy density at the nano-scale in Earth-occupied space......since, at the nano-scale of any putative nano-hole, that Earth-occupied space is EFFECTIVELY EMPTY SPACE when considering the difference in scale and collision-crossection magnitude between such nano-holes and any surrounding COMPARATIVELY GROSS 'features' like electrons etc.
See, uba? You can't have it both ways:
- either your putative nano-hole CAN eat at that nano-scale, in which case ALL the underlying-scale 'vacuum energy/mass IS 'available food' for it....
- OR it CANNOT 'eat' at that micro-scale, in which case ALL the MACRO 'space' mass/energy 'features' are effectively and practically FOREVER BEYOND its 'event-horizon' cross-section which inhabits a scale that is far far below than the world of electrons etc.
Pick one or the other, mate! hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Yes it is. What you're talking about can't happen. The chaos of the universe will rearrange things long before then.
That appears a very 'confused' reply at best, uba. You say time is irrelevant and THEN go on to say that the universe will re-arrange things LONG BEFORE then. Doesn't "long before" imply "long duration"? And doesn't "chaos" imply AMPLE 'probabilities and permutations where anything that is not expressly forbidden is practically INEVITABLE given the 'particle' numbers and 'chaotic' permutations and 'long' epochs of duration (time)?
I think you just 'made' MY point there, uba! Cheers!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
We were talking about the likelihood of a perfect cosmic ray to cosmic ray collision. You were trying to crowd the field by stating the whole earth gets bombarded a lot. The earth is irrelevant to the likelihood that two cosmic rays might inhabit the same space at the same time with the right relative absorption cross sections, momentums and kinetic energy.
Hehehe, the 'field' is 'crowding' ITSELF, uba-----I am merely observing the process. And the example of the numbers/geometry of cosmic ray probable suitable hits near Earth is merely used as an INDICATOR of the larger-picture UBIQUITY and PROBABILITY in the case of EVERY extreme/massive body in the observable universe.
THAT is the point, mate...and NOT that the Earth is the ONLY place that is being considered when determining the OVERALL and UNIVERSE WIDE likelyhood of your/others' still-putative nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. See? Forget about Earth. Look at the more TELLING astronomical bodies/scenarios and 're-do' your 'figuring' as to what is or is not unlikely/irrelevant.
While you're at it, take a look at the various 'creationists' arguments against 'evolutionary' probabilities/likelyhoods that DO eventuate DESPITE those arguments (much like your own here) that 'evolution cannot happen' because it is UNLIKELY. THEY don't allow for INNUMERABLE permutations involving countless 'contacts' in myriad 'environments' over unimaginable duration/time.
AND YET we observe the 'impossible' RESULTS everyday of those 'unlikely/irrelevant' processes/factors! Or are you suggesting that 'life' is unlikely despite random/environmental 'happenstances' involving time/probability/permutations involving innumerable 'particles'?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
The odds of it happening during the lifetime of any one particular astronomical body is infinities within infinities. It (generally speaking) can't happen that way.
That's like saying that NO 'individual' living thing can EVER be 'mutated' by 'converging' probabilities. And yet not ONE of us is 'spared' from at least ONE of our genetic atoms/molecules being HIT.
You have to stop thinking 'local/instantaneous' and think 'globally/epochally', mate. Nature doesn't do what YOU think is 'proper' at any ONE 'moment'. It will do whatever probability/environment DICTATES....and do it as often and as inevitably as possible unless it is strictly 'forbidden'. IS the universe 'forbidden' from doing these things by any 'laws' I have never yet heard of, uba?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Same as above. The odds of it happening weighs heavily against.
What do 'odds' calculations have to do with it? As I have pointed repeatedly, UNIVERSAL UBIQUITY and the corresponding INEVITABILITY involved makes 'nonsense' of any 'odds' for this or that thing happenening here or there at any particular time/place/body.
You miss the point again: If nano-holes CAN be created so, and CAN exist AT ALL so, then according to the obvious and non-esoteric/non-speculative observations/processes, 'suitably' high-energy-particle collisions WILL happen EVERYWHERE that counts...inevitably....given the time/chaos/energy-levels/numbers involved. Which would make what we 'see' NOW all about us 'impossible' because all bodies would be almost immediately eaten by your putative nano-holes before such massive/extreme bodies even got to BE massive/extreme in the first place.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Irrelevant
Relevant. The point being that all those humongously EXTREME/ENERGETIC chaotic processes that produced what we see NOW are the result of EPOCHAL TIME and MYRIAD INTERACTIONS that would produce zillions (ie, lots and lots and lots, hehehe) of 'suitable' collisions for PUTATIVE nano-hole production near EVERY one of those extreme/massive 'bodies' produced over that duration/volume.
An 'eminently obvious' point for your consideration here, uba:
The observed universe was EVEN MORE CROWDED earlier on; involving even MORE EXTREME MATTER-ENERGY DENSITY/CHAOS than 'now'. Meaning MORE FREQUENT/ENERGETIC 'suitable collisions' in that 'earlier' environment that would make untold masses of nano-holes (if they exist/form at all). Which maens there should BE NO stars/galaxies at all NOW, if such nano-holes CAN be so readily and ubiquitously created by 'free collisions'......because all matter would have been 'eaten' and 'unavailable' to form what we see 'now'. See?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
So you'd expect.
Then you agree that such 'high-energy stellar interactions (collisions/navae/supernovae etc) would be likely to involve myriad particles/events that would lead to nano-holes IF such things could form at all in free-collisions between high energy particles as would be present APLENTY in the epochs/interactions involved in that 'interactions history' you now admit "..you'd expect.."?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Define "plenty." What is their ratio compared to ordinary stars?
I'll leave you to research that for yourself...and then come back and tell me if such things are NOT 'common' enough to indicate a long duration/history in the universal volume which you NOW above admit is "...you'd expect..".
The point is that such bodies reflect great HIGH ENERGY/MASS 'events' whose 'visible' massiveness shouldn't 'survive' IF nano-holes CAN form by 'free collisions'...which I maintain they cannot....simply by observing that the variety of MASSIVE/EXTREME bodies processes that are the results of LONG evolutionary/interaction HISTORY could not exist because they would have been 'eaten' and turned into black holes by your (and others') much feared but STILL SPECULATIVE nano-holes.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
They've found evidence of stars as old as 13.2 billion years, in our galaxy.
So what? There is plenty of 'recycled' matter/energy from the humongous quasar jets that would have EARLIER been active in local and distant volume/history.
And there is plenty of 'resonant/remnant' matter/volumes in the vast expanses where early hydrogen/helium stars could form/collect. Just look at the various 'star clusters' well out in the gagactic hemispheres. And the hydrogen clouds streaming from our OWN galaxy's 'central feature'.
All as "...youd' expect...", wouldn't you say, uba? Given the TIME and CHAOS and PERMUTATION involving uncountable myriads of 'particles' and 'collisions' and 'misses', hehehe. No?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Sure it is. It's simple arithmetic. What percentage of stars eventually become neutron stars? Most type two supernovae (about 1.4 to about four solar masses) eventually become neutron stars, right? How many have there been in 13.7 billion years? There should be millions of them, of varying age, in our own galaxy (the oldest observable galaxy). We should see them, or their effects, everywhere. So far, I think we've found eight isolated (no supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations) neutron stars. Scientists only expect "dozens." source
Draw a 'radials' spread from EACH of the possible neutron star locations. NOW, how many of those radials HIT us here? See how many MISS us? So any pulsar neutron star whose polar jets are NOT somewhere along those FEW radials that may hit us here would NOT be visible to us.
Then there are the 'too faint' ones that we don't 'detect' irrespective of poles orientation along ANY radial.
Then there are the neutron stars that are NOT 'pulsar' simply because they have stopped spinning/feeding.
So think about it. Like I said before, ONLY those FEW that have visible companions, or are 'feeding', or are ORIENTED fortuitously and have a signal and so on, will be 'seen' by us. The numbers 'unseen' by us is HUGE....and just because we can't get to 'observe' them FROM HERE doesn't mean they are NOT 'out there', hehehe. See?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
You're only thinking of pulsars. Some (new, hot ones) can be seen visibly, older ones are found with x-ray or ultraviolet observations, and some can even be seen visibly with Hubble's Faint Object Camera.
Like I said, those that are still feeding or recent (and still haven't consumed their nearby energy/mass sources) may BE 'detectable' to us. The larger number of older ones (4-13billion years old) will have become 'unseeable' where they are 'pulsars' UNfortuitously aligned so that their polar jets would NOT hit US here NOW....and the radials for NONfortuitous radials vastly outnumber those radials that are fortuitous. Then there are those that are too old and solitary (like me! hehehe) to radiate enough of ANYTHING to 'bother' our detectors here, however they are oreinted. No?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
They should be of sufficient number to be readily observed, even if we could only find a small percentage of them.
You say "...should..."? Please present the logic/process/numeric reasoning that leads you to think we should observe MORE than we do. Keep in mind what I have said so far (above/earlier) about the 'hit/miss' possibilities and the 'duration/types' involved where neutron stars lifetimes/stages/orientations are concerened. Thanks.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Neutron stars come in varying masses. Maybe it was a big one.
A SINGLE neutron star becoming a black hole would not produce the energy 'signal profile' because the 'collapse' would NOT be so 'messy' as in the case of parent stars BECOMING neutron stars/black holes. You see, the neutron star is ALREADY the 'collapsed core' of the parent star....and so would have NO 'intermediate-collapse' pahse LOSSES from an 'outer envelope' that would give such a signal as in the ordinary 'formation' type messy process. A LONE collapsing neutron star, no matter HOW LARGE before becoming a bh, would die a 'relatively quiet' death. Only a 'composite' event involving great infalling mass addition OR collision with ANOTHER massive/extreme body (another neutron star, dwarf star, ordinary star AND EVEN ANOTHER BLACK HOLE) would have the ENERGY/MESSINESS to send any signal AT ALL that could reach us HERE so far away.
NOTE again please: Just before 'union', any neutron star colliding with another neutron star (OR a black hole) would have its 'gravity-symmetry' UNBALANCED and TIDALLY STREAMED towards the more massive/extreme body/gravity well. In the intervening space/period before union, all sorts of RADIATION can escape either that could NOT have escaped tbefore from their formerly SYMMETRICAL or tidally undisturbed gravity well. Hence the unusual signal profile that would be different from other scenarios.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
They should be common enough to be easily spotted.
Please see above (and earlier posts) on what can and cannot BE 'spotted' and why.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
And like I've said before, it's not likely to happen at all.
Hehehe. how likely is the likelyhood that your estimate of "...not likely..." will win out over natures epochal/particulate/energetic armoury? Not ruddy likely, I would say. I'd back nature every time, mate!hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
You only think you're presenting new material because you're currently thinking of it. I've argued these points before with others.
Or is it YOU that only think that? The relevance/logics/concepts of MY arguments/points have NOT depended on your discussions with others. And your addresses to my points/concepts have more than once missed the point. Repetition is inevitable if you keep on missing my points. Which is probably why you think that way. If you had NOT missed the points I am trying to get across, then of corse we would be discussing old stuff. BUT, since you seem to be missing my pointys, those points are 'as new' as they ever were....until you really address them without opinions and speculations. I deal with observables and logics and natural time/numbers/event ranges and probabilities. I don't deal with either your or anyone e;se's 'esoteric/speculative' approach. Which is why BOTH you and others, as far as the self-evident points I have put indicate, are arguing over something that can only form/exist in your (both sides) imagination. Self-evidently, according to what we see in our astronomical skies. Cheers to you both; and have fun with that non sequitur 'debate', hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Or, maybe it makes it very difficult for neutron stars to form, and thus we've only found eight (older, isolated ones).
I think that in your fixation on their supposed 'rarity' (which they are not....since Neutron Stars etc CAN form....and nature just luuurves repetition!), you miss the point that since Neutron stars exist AT ALL, then NO nano-holes from energetic 'free collisons' can form or eat...or they would have done so at EVERY NEUTRON STAR FORMATION EVENT.
In which case they would not just be 'rare' as you maintain (but I continually point to why they are not), there should be NONE AT ALL, and not just 'rarely', hehehe. See?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
I disagree. You’re assuming every neutron star forming event would have to end in a black hole catastrophe. Couldn't a few survive (like maybe the few we've identified?)?
Given the energies/probabilities/permutations and particle numbers involved in the EXPLOSION/IMPLOSION processes, how many do you think would survive IF your (and others') speculated nano-holes COULD be formed from free collisions in such tumultuous events providing plenty of opportunity for 'suitable' geometry/energy for even ONE PER NEUTRON STAR at time of formation?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Only wildly speculative notions.
Hehehe. Reminds me of other 'wildly speculative notions' that most people on both 'sides' of the LHC debate have put forward. For instance, that nano-holes can form at all in gravity-unrestrained/uncontained 'free particle collision' conditions. Now THAT's one humongous speculation if ever there was one! hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
It's fair to quote as a source, but not to use as a pressure tactic.
That's a given. No argument. I wouldn't do the latter.
I merely pointed to the calculations that others HERE have done DIRECTLY involving the scenarios I put forward in our discussions HERE. No more. No less, mate.
However, when you said that many physicists disagreed with me, did you not intend that as a pressure tactic? If you did not, then this part of our conversation can be put to bed as 'resolved' to our mutual satisfaction, eh? hehehe. Cheers!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Define your parameters. Why do you think it's inevitable for every massive body? What's your definition of, "a massive body?"
Please don't start being disingenuous with me, uba. You know perfectly well the interaction energy/numbers 'parameters' and the extreme 'bodies/gravity' scenarios involving the probabilities and permutations that lead to 'inevitability' in the natural way of things AS OBSERVED and ALREADY MORE THAN ONCE pointed out to you in my posts recently and throughout our discussions in this and other LHC threads. If you miss again the points/parameters already given repeatedly, it will become an exercise in futility to continue our discussions. No?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Did you not read the previous response?
- In an infinite universe with infinite numbers of astronomical objects, it's likely to happen occasionally. However, the odds of it happening to one particular body (like the earth) is unlikely in the extreme.
I didn't miss it, mate! hehehe. I simply didn't read anything in it to support/justify the opinion expressed by you then. I still don't read any such thing even now.
Consider: You miss the point again; simply because....
I'm NOT saying that the Earth's survival to date is the TELLING thing AGAINST 'free collision' nano-holes forming.....I'm saying that the REST OF THE OBSERVABLE BODIES/PHENOMENA universe wide iswhat INEVITABLY and self-evidently mitigates against ANY so-formed nano-holes that you fear will eat the Earth. See?
My points come from EVERYTHING ELSE, and THEN approach the question of LHC likelyhood of producing ANYTHING that THE UNIVERSE could not ALREADY be producing 'in spades' from the earliest evolutionary stages to 'NOW'. See?
Why should I bring the Earth into it...except as 'sampling field' or 'indicator' of what nature is providing IN ABUNDANCE all the time all over (cosmic rays and energetic explosions/implosions) which in certain INEVITABLE circumstances collide in the manner, energy/mass-density and geometry that would be produced (if they were possible at all) in sufficient quantities near every massive/extreme body/gravity so as to ensure that NONE of what we NOW see would BE here for us to see.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Based on what "concrete considerations?" Is it wise to rely so heavily on your interpretation? Is your interpretation infallible?
I rely on what nature lays out before me.
I dio NOT rely on your/others' wild speculations and esoteric arguments that would have nano-holes being formed AT ALL in such gravity-unconstrained free collision scenarios.
I know which apparoach I would trust to deliver the 'real' conclusions (as opposed to the 'fun' but irrelevant ones).
I'm not interested in 'the game' when it becomes absurdly based on 'imagined' happenings invoked by EITHER 'side', hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
So you've made up your mind? You can't be swayed by argument?
Please present some which address directly and logically those points/scenarios I have raised. I will happy to be persuaded if they are sufficient unto the task of convincing ne that:
- nano-holes can be produced at all by free collisions; and
- nature is NOT capable of producing same repeatedly, ubiquitously and in vast numbers so that they would NOT destroy massive/extreme bodies/features we do observe NOW.
That's all, mate. I wait for more than you have put to date regarding MY scenarios/points. Good luck...(for all our sakes....IF your arguments DO persuade and I then think you are right, hehehe).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
I hope you're right!
Nature is blithely unconcerned with whether I'm right or not. Nature merely IS and DOES. I merely observe and come to the self-evident conclusion. I'll leave the 'politics' and 'ego' and 'speculative/esoteric' stoushing to those that have a taste for that sort of 'arguing over impondrables' and such like 'imaginary happenings' (like nano-holes coming from free collisions! hehehe).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
It's called contingency planning. They don't expect any particular cruise ship to sink, but they put lifeboats on them anyway.
Shall we make contingency plans for THE END OF THE UNIVERSE too?
There comes a point where reality rules and concentrate on things that ARE CLEAR AND PRESENT dangers...like global warming and energy crunch and water supply and overpopulation/pollution etc etc etc.
There's enough to be spending our political/moral force on without wasting them on nano-holes that nature proves CANNOT be formed in free collision scenarios.
That's my stance. Take it as you will, mate!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Besides, I think I've made a decent case above against your conclusions. Why are Neutron stars so rare?
Please see my earlier (and by now exhaustive/repeated) comments on this aspect.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 11 2007, 09:27 AM)
Or the voices of lots of people.
Lots of people who cannot even agree on the esoteric science/speculations surrounding these matters? Since, as nature vividly demonstrates through our telescopes, NO nano-holes can form via 'free collision' unrestratined/uncontained by gravity in the 'event space'. So I don't particularly see any "...voice of lots of people..." ON EITHER SIDE having a sound enough basis to change LHC proceedings.....(except my voice pointing out that the 'expected' nano-holes will never eventuate in such a manner?....in which case they may re-do their 'speculations/expectations' to be more in line with the observable evidence all around us, hey!hehehe).
Cheers uba, everyone. Please forgive any typos and such....my vision is a little blurry and cause of not a little pain and discomfort during these long posts!
Good luck to us all, in many areas of local/global concern at the moment!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 11 2007, 10:30 AM)
I doubt the veracity of this claim, mostly because Wikipedia lists 7 radio-quiet neutron stars, and I have open in another window a catalog of 113 binary Pulasrs (which are Neutron stars).
Yeah, throughout the whole universe! That's 113 in at least a hundered billion galaxies with hundreds of billion stars in each! That's awful good proof they're common alright! (sarcasm)
RC mentioned a couple of ways they can be observed, I mentioned a few more. They aren't completely invisible.
RC mentioned a couple of ways they can be observed, I mentioned a few more. They aren't completely invisible.
Here's a paper that addresses the challenfes in spotting them, and makes some modifications to models to bring their predictions inline with observations. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journ.../37446/sc0.html
Baloney. That paper only rationalizes their observational rarity. It's also doesn't address the question of why we've never seen them traversing through relatively dense galactic clouds where'd they light up nice and bright.
Binary systems are much more common than most people think. We should see lots of binary systems with just one neutron star. Why are they so few? Because they're rare!
Binary systems are much more common than most people think. We should see lots of binary systems with just one neutron star. Why are they so few? Because they're rare!
Meanwhile, here's an Arxiv paper that estimates that there are around a billion old neutron stars in our galaxy alone, and that takes into account the magnetic field decaying over a period of a billion years.
So, where are they?
As common as they supposedly are, we should see them or their effects everywhere.
As common as they supposedly are, we should see them or their effects everywhere.
So, once again, we can see that your claims are wrong.
Once again, observation matches ubavontuba's predictions.
Yeah, throughout the whole universe! That's 113 in at least a hundered billion galaxies with hundreds of billion stars in each! That's awful good proof they're common alright! (sarcasm)
QUOTE
I notice that one of the things you're leaving out is why Old Neutron Stars are hard to detect - even though myself, and others have tried to point this out to you - it's not that we've only found 8 because they're rare, we've only found 8 because they're hard to see. Because they are old, they have lost a lot of their energy, and because they're isolated, the only thing that accretes onto them is the interstellar medium, so, we've spotted 8 of them, because they're faint and hard to see, it really is that simple.
RC mentioned a couple of ways they can be observed, I mentioned a few more. They aren't completely invisible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I notice that one of the things you're leaving out is why Old Neutron Stars are hard to detect - even though myself, and others have tried to point this out to you - it's not that we've only found 8 because they're rare, we've only found 8 because they're hard to see. Because they are old, they have lost a lot of their energy, and because they're isolated, the only thing that accretes onto them is the interstellar medium, so, we've spotted 8 of them, because they're faint and hard to see, it really is that simple. |
RC mentioned a couple of ways they can be observed, I mentioned a few more. They aren't completely invisible.
Here's a paper that addresses the challenfes in spotting them, and makes some modifications to models to bring their predictions inline with observations. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journ.../37446/sc0.html
Baloney. That paper only rationalizes their observational rarity. It's also doesn't address the question of why we've never seen them traversing through relatively dense galactic clouds where'd they light up nice and bright.
QUOTE
Here's a carnegy-mellon paper that addresses the possibility that a certain type of GRB may be because of the merger of old binary neutron stars.
http://www.ociw.edu/news/news_item.2006-04-05.2383142809
http://www.ociw.edu/news/news_item.2006-04-05.2383142809
Binary systems are much more common than most people think. We should see lots of binary systems with just one neutron star. Why are they so few? Because they're rare!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here's a carnegy-mellon paper that addresses the possibility that a certain type of GRB may be because of the merger of old binary neutron stars. http://www.ociw.edu/news/news_item.2006-04-05.2383142809 |
Binary systems are much more common than most people think. We should see lots of binary systems with just one neutron star. Why are they so few? Because they're rare!
Meanwhile, here's an Arxiv paper that estimates that there are around a billion old neutron stars in our galaxy alone, and that takes into account the magnetic field decaying over a period of a billion years.
So, where are they?
QUOTE
So basically, the problem is this - it isn't that they aren't there. They are, and in larg numbers, the problem is that they're only readily detectable during a short span of their lifetime because of the way they loose their energy, after that, they're about as easy to detect as a 12 billion year old white dwarf, or a black hole with nothing to eat.
As common as they supposedly are, we should see them or their effects everywhere.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So basically, the problem is this - it isn't that they aren't there. They are, and in larg numbers, the problem is that they're only readily detectable during a short span of their lifetime because of the way they loose their energy, after that, they're about as easy to detect as a 12 billion year old white dwarf, or a black hole with nothing to eat. |
As common as they supposedly are, we should see them or their effects everywhere.
So, once again, we can see that your claims are wrong.
Once again, observation matches ubavontuba's predictions.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 11 2007, 10:35 AM)
Unmitigated Bull.
Truth.
Apparently not well enough for you to understand.
Apparently not well enough for you to understand.
Not only that, but you seriously expect us to believe that while (you claim) that two cosmic ray protons are too small to collide (Even though they have to collide within miliradians of head on, and length contraction only applies in one direction)
Tell you what Trippy. Choose a gun. I'll choose a gun. Let's stand behind protective armor 100 yards apart and start shooting at each other's bullets. How many will hit? How many will fall exactly in the middle between us? By the way, you chose an M-16 and I chose a 9mm handgun.
Have you forgotten? It was David who killed Goliath.
Have you forgotten? It was David who killed Goliath.
Surely even you must be able to see the contradiction in these claims.
Not at all.
Truth.
QUOTE
We've been over this already.
Apparently not well enough for you to understand.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We've been over this already. |
Apparently not well enough for you to understand.
Not only that, but you seriously expect us to believe that while (you claim) that two cosmic ray protons are too small to collide (Even though they have to collide within miliradians of head on, and length contraction only applies in one direction)
Tell you what Trippy. Choose a gun. I'll choose a gun. Let's stand behind protective armor 100 yards apart and start shooting at each other's bullets. How many will hit? How many will fall exactly in the middle between us? By the way, you chose an M-16 and I chose a 9mm handgun.
QUOTE
BUT Something which has a collision cross section 10,000 times smaller is going to destroy the earth?
Have you forgotten? It was David who killed Goliath.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BUT Something which has a collision cross section 10,000 times smaller is going to destroy the earth? |
Have you forgotten? It was David who killed Goliath.
Surely even you must be able to see the contradiction in these claims.
Not at all.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 11 2007, 10:51 AM)
Head on proton collisions are easy, we've both built many machines to do such things and all around us in Nature we see such collisions.
I didn't say they never happened. I said:
Muons aren't black holes.
Muons aren't black holes.
We have even seen cosmic rays with energies trillions of times higher than the LHC or humans will ever be capable of creating. They are everywhere. And they interact a lot.
With what? How is this relevant?
NOW you talk about Trippy's claims? Give me a break!
Besides, cosmic ray collisions in free space aren't analogous to micro black holes.
I didn't say they never happened. I said:
- "We were talking about the likelihood of a perfect cosmic ray to cosmic ray collision... [Where the] two cosmic rays might inhabit the same space at the same time with the right relative absorption cross sections, momentums and kinetic energy.
QUOTE
The aura in the North and South polar regions is the result of electrons and protons slamming into the atmosphere. Cosmic rays produce vast quantities of muons which make their way to the Earth's surface. The Moon, literally, glows with muons created by the bombardment of cosmic rays onto it's surface.
Muons aren't black holes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The aura in the North and South polar regions is the result of electrons and protons slamming into the atmosphere. Cosmic rays produce vast quantities of muons which make their way to the Earth's surface. The Moon, literally, glows with muons created by the bombardment of cosmic rays onto it's surface. |
Muons aren't black holes.
We have even seen cosmic rays with energies trillions of times higher than the LHC or humans will ever be capable of creating. They are everywhere. And they interact a lot.
With what? How is this relevant?
QUOTE
And now, as Trippy says, you're claiming they are too tiny to be considered? Yet you're complaining about microsingularities which are billions of times smaller?!
NOW you talk about Trippy's claims? Give me a break!
Besides, cosmic ray collisions in free space aren't analogous to micro black holes.
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 11 2007, 11:09 AM)
.... The only thing too tiny is your para-handicapped omega grade mind! .... stubborn blithering pile of senility.
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? More importantly, CAN you add anything relevant to the discussion?
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? More importantly, CAN you add anything relevant to the discussion?
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 11 2007, 05:21 PM)
I realized something else that makes this statement even funnier, and even more ridiculous.
So, basically, you're claiming that in space protons are too tiny to collide head on (or close enough to it) to generate a nearly stationary (WRT Earth) black hole, but, for some reason we can collide them in the laboratory?
Yes. In the laboratory, we choose the location, energies, vectors, particles, and volume (duh).
So, basically, you're claiming that in space protons are too tiny to collide head on (or close enough to it) to generate a nearly stationary (WRT Earth) black hole, but, for some reason we can collide them in the laboratory?
Yes. In the laboratory, we choose the location, energies, vectors, particles, and volume (duh).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 14 2007, 07:32 PM)
Yeah, throughout the whole universe! That's 113 in at least a hundered billion galaxies with hundreds of billion stars in each! That's awful good proof they're common alright! (sarcasm)
RC mentioned a couple of ways they can be observed, I mentioned a few more. They aren't completely invisible.
Baloney. That paper only rationalizes their observational rarity. It's also doesn't address the question of why we've never seen them traversing through relatively dense galactic clouds where'd they light up nice and bright.
Binary systems are much more common than most people think. We should see lots of binary systems with just one neutron star. Why are they so few? Because they're rare!
So, where are they?
As common as they supposedly are, we should see them or their effects everywhere.
Once again, observation matches ubavontuba's predictions.
No, not in the whole universe, in our galaxy.
Sheesh
Yes, they can be observed, under a narrow range of circumstances for a short portion of their life span.
How do you know we've never seen them? Cite your source.
Visible neutron stars are rare, I notice you've ignored the fact that one of the papers I've cited predicts something like a billion in our galaxy alone.
Where are they?
Neutron stars are visible for about a billion years (I think that was right), after which they wind down enough to not be visible.
And no, not neccessarily. ONce again. How visible do you think a black hole is if it isn't feeding?
You're really grasping at straws here, and besides, which is it.
On one hand you're claiming that not even Neutron stars can slow down cosmic ray black holes enough to capture them, somethign you've claimed negates the cosmic ray argument.
And now your saying because we've catalogued 113 Neutron stars in our own galaxy that somehow this means that they're being eaten by micro black holes?
Sheesh. Get a grip man, and make up your mind.
Not that it matters, you're still wrong.
RC mentioned a couple of ways they can be observed, I mentioned a few more. They aren't completely invisible.
Baloney. That paper only rationalizes their observational rarity. It's also doesn't address the question of why we've never seen them traversing through relatively dense galactic clouds where'd they light up nice and bright.
Binary systems are much more common than most people think. We should see lots of binary systems with just one neutron star. Why are they so few? Because they're rare!
So, where are they?
As common as they supposedly are, we should see them or their effects everywhere.
Once again, observation matches ubavontuba's predictions.
No, not in the whole universe, in our galaxy.
Sheesh
Yes, they can be observed, under a narrow range of circumstances for a short portion of their life span.
How do you know we've never seen them? Cite your source.
Visible neutron stars are rare, I notice you've ignored the fact that one of the papers I've cited predicts something like a billion in our galaxy alone.
Where are they?
Neutron stars are visible for about a billion years (I think that was right), after which they wind down enough to not be visible.
And no, not neccessarily. ONce again. How visible do you think a black hole is if it isn't feeding?
You're really grasping at straws here, and besides, which is it.
On one hand you're claiming that not even Neutron stars can slow down cosmic ray black holes enough to capture them, somethign you've claimed negates the cosmic ray argument.
And now your saying because we've catalogued 113 Neutron stars in our own galaxy that somehow this means that they're being eaten by micro black holes?
Sheesh. Get a grip man, and make up your mind.
Not that it matters, you're still wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 14 2007, 08:03 PM)
Truth.
Apparently not well enough for you to understand.
Tell you what Trippy. Choose a gun. I'll choose a gun. Let's stand behind protective armor 100 yards apart and start shooting at each other's bullets. How many will hit? How many will fall exactly in the middle between us? By the way, you chose an M-16 and I chose a 9mm handgun.
Have you forgotten? It was David who killed Goliath.
Not at all.
No, it's still unmitigated bull, and just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.
First of all, the problem is incomplete, there's two or three crucial pieces of information missing from the problem to make it solvable, they're slightly different problems, and second of all, none of the bullets will fall in the middle because a 9mm hand gun has a different muzzle velocity from an m-16 assault rifle, and I wouldn't waist my time with that piece of junk anyway, I'd use an H&K CAWS-12, or an AK-47.
So what, now you're invoking the bible in defense of your argument? You're invoking an unproven and largely unprovabl mythical story from a work of fiction in defense of your weak attempts at scientifc discussion?
I'm sorry if basic stats and trig go over your head, maybe you should take some time out from your housie games, go to your local highschool and take a refresher course.
Apparently not well enough for you to understand.
Tell you what Trippy. Choose a gun. I'll choose a gun. Let's stand behind protective armor 100 yards apart and start shooting at each other's bullets. How many will hit? How many will fall exactly in the middle between us? By the way, you chose an M-16 and I chose a 9mm handgun.
Have you forgotten? It was David who killed Goliath.
Not at all.
No, it's still unmitigated bull, and just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.
First of all, the problem is incomplete, there's two or three crucial pieces of information missing from the problem to make it solvable, they're slightly different problems, and second of all, none of the bullets will fall in the middle because a 9mm hand gun has a different muzzle velocity from an m-16 assault rifle, and I wouldn't waist my time with that piece of junk anyway, I'd use an H&K CAWS-12, or an AK-47.
So what, now you're invoking the bible in defense of your argument? You're invoking an unproven and largely unprovabl mythical story from a work of fiction in defense of your weak attempts at scientifc discussion?
I'm sorry if basic stats and trig go over your head, maybe you should take some time out from your housie games, go to your local highschool and take a refresher course.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 14 2007, 08:29 PM)
Yes. In the laboratory, we choose the location, energies, vectors, particles, and volume (duh).
The maths is the same in both cases.
The collision cross section is the same in both cases.
You just refuse to aknowledge that it can be calulated and quantified because you desperately need to cling to some shred of your argument with an almost pseudo-religous dogmatism.
You've got nothing, every single one of your arguments has been systematically disproven by maths, science, and figures, the fact that your 'sources' support my figures (I've seen you throwing around some of Fengs figures, who's an XLD advocate) should tell you something, especially when you have claimed that those figures are wrong.
You actually have no clue what you're talking about.
The maths is the same in both cases.
The collision cross section is the same in both cases.
You just refuse to aknowledge that it can be calulated and quantified because you desperately need to cling to some shred of your argument with an almost pseudo-religous dogmatism.
You've got nothing, every single one of your arguments has been systematically disproven by maths, science, and figures, the fact that your 'sources' support my figures (I've seen you throwing around some of Fengs figures, who's an XLD advocate) should tell you something, especially when you have claimed that those figures are wrong.
You actually have no clue what you're talking about.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 11 2007, 11:58 PM)
Did you understand what I pointed out?....ie, that at that nano-scale in space-time, ALL the energy IN that spacetime would be in 'intimate contact' with it's 'event horizon', since such a nano-hole would essentially BE 'part' of that underlying 'spacetime' phenomena?
I understood.
No. It's about energy density. Do you really think the energy density in compressed heavy metals is analogous to the energy density of empty space?
No. It's about energy density. Do you really think the energy density in compressed heavy metals is analogous to the energy density of empty space?
See, uba? You can't have it both ways:
Yes, I can.
Vacuum energy? When you power a lightbulb with vacuum energy, get back to me.
However, I think you might recall that I have previously suggested they might grow in a vacuum (albeit, very slowly).
Vacuum energy? When you power a lightbulb with vacuum energy, get back to me.
However, I think you might recall that I have previously suggested they might grow in a vacuum (albeit, very slowly).
- OR it CANNOT 'eat' at that micro-scale, in which case ALL the MACRO 'space' mass/energy 'features' are effectively and practically FOREVER BEYOND its 'event-horizon' cross-section which inhabits a scale that is far far below than the world of electrons etc.
Black holes eat energy, regardless of size.
I like both.
I like both.
That appears a very 'confused' reply at best, uba. You say time is irrelevant and THEN go on to say that the universe will re-arrange things LONG BEFORE then. Doesn't "long before" imply "long duration"? And doesn't "chaos" imply AMPLE 'probabilities and permutations where anything that is not expressly forbidden is practically INEVITABLE given the 'particle' numbers and 'chaotic' permutations and 'long' epochs of duration (time)?
I think you just 'made' MY point there, uba! Cheers!
I said that in an infinite universe in infinite time, it'd probably happen. Did you miss it?
I don't think you understand how big space is.
I don't think you understand how big space is.
THAT is the point, mate...and NOT that the Earth is the ONLY place that is being considered when determining the OVERALL and UNIVERSE WIDE likelyhood of your/others' still-putative nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. See? Forget about Earth. Look at the more TELLING astronomical bodies/scenarios and 're-do' your 'figuring' as to what is or is not unlikely/irrelevant.
I have. Neutron stars are apparently quite rare, as I'd suggested before I verified the fact.
Evolution happens. It's inevitable.
Evolution happens. It's inevitable.
AND YET we observe the 'impossible' RESULTS everyday of those 'unlikely/irrelevant' processes/factors! Or are you suggesting that 'life' is unlikely despite random/environmental 'happenstances' involving time/probability/permutations involving innumerable 'particles'?
Life only started once (so far as we know) in the entire history of the earth. It's never been duplicated. It might be so rare an occurrence that's it's conceivable that we're alone.
That's not the same at all. Being hit is easy. A perfect collision in the gravity well of a massive body is not.
That's not the same at all. Being hit is easy. A perfect collision in the gravity well of a massive body is not.
You have to stop thinking 'local/instantaneous' and think 'globally/epochally', mate. Nature doesn't do what YOU think is 'proper' at any ONE 'moment'. It will do whatever probability/environment DICTATES....and do it as often and as inevitably as possible unless it is strictly 'forbidden'. IS the universe 'forbidden' from doing these things by any 'laws' I have never yet heard of, uba?
It's generally forbidden by laws you have heard of. You just need to understand the laws.
Which is an irrelevant point of view. The universe isn't of sufficient age to think in terms of infinte time.
Which is an irrelevant point of view. The universe isn't of sufficient age to think in terms of infinte time.
You miss the point again: If nano-holes CAN be created so, and CAN exist AT ALL so, then according to the obvious and non-esoteric/non-speculative observations/processes, 'suitably' high-energy-particle collisions WILL happen EVERYWHERE that counts...inevitably....given the time/chaos/energy-levels/numbers involved. Which would make what we 'see' NOW all about us 'impossible' because all bodies would be almost immediately eaten by your putative nano-holes before such massive/extreme bodies even got to BE massive/extreme in the first place.
Most of space is empty. Most of your collisions would happen in empty space. Conservaton of momentum saves the ordinary matter from the (speculatively)accumulated dark matter.
Some galaxies have apparently been eaten by dark matter.
Maybe your points are more valid than you know.
I disagree. That's also obviously not the case.
I disagree. That's also obviously not the case.
An 'eminently obvious' point for your consideration here, uba:
The observed universe was EVEN MORE CROWDED earlier on; involving even MORE EXTREME MATTER-ENERGY DENSITY/CHAOS than 'now'. Meaning MORE FREQUENT/ENERGETIC 'suitable collisions' in that 'earlier' environment that would make untold masses of nano-holes (if they exist/form at all). Which maens there should BE NO stars/galaxies at all NOW, if such nano-holes CAN be so readily and ubiquitously created by 'free collisions'......because all matter would have been 'eaten' and 'unavailable' to form what we see 'now'. See?
It's thought that might be the origin of dark matter.
That's not what I said. I merely agreed that the present reflects the past.
That's not what I said. I merely agreed that the present reflects the past.
I'll leave you to research that for yourself...and then come back and tell me if such things are NOT 'common' enough to indicate a long duration/history in the universal volume which you NOW above admit is "...you'd expect..".
As I expected, neutron stars are apparently very rare. One per billions is the apparent ratio.
I've already explained that the conservation of momentum also tends to protect dense matter objects (though probably not as effectively). Some are bound to survive.
I've already explained that the conservation of momentum also tends to protect dense matter objects (though probably not as effectively). Some are bound to survive.
So what? There is plenty of 'recycled' matter/energy from the humongous quasar jets that would have EARLIER been active in local and distant volume/history.
And there is plenty of 'resonant/remnant' matter/volumes in the vast expanses where early hydrogen/helium stars could form/collect. Just look at the various 'star clusters' well out in the gagactic hemispheres. And the hydrogen clouds streaming from our OWN galaxy's 'central feature'.
All as "...youd' expect...", wouldn't you say, uba? Given the TIME and CHAOS and PERMUTATION involving uncountable myriads of 'particles' and 'collisions' and 'misses', hehehe. No?
It is as I'd expect. No more, no less.
As prevelant as you claim they should be, they should be readily apparent in a number of ways throughout the galaxy and the local star clusters.
As prevelant as you claim they should be, they should be readily apparent in a number of ways throughout the galaxy and the local star clusters.
Like I said, those that are still feeding or recent (and still haven't consumed their nearby energy/mass sources) may BE 'detectable' to us. The larger number of older ones (4-13billion years old) will have become 'unseeable' where they are 'pulsars' UNfortuitously aligned so that their polar jets would NOT hit US here NOW....and the radials for NONfortuitous radials vastly outnumber those radials that are fortuitous. Then there are those that are too old and solitary (like me! hehehe) to radiate enough of ANYTHING to 'bother' our detectors here, however they are oreinted. No?
They're detectable lots of ways. Why don't we see lot's of star/neutron star binary systems for instance? We've found lots of extraterrestial planets. Where are all the neutron star systems that should exhibit an even greater (more easily detected) wobble?
I just did.
I just did.
A SINGLE neutron star becoming a black hole would not produce the energy 'signal profile' because the 'collapse' would NOT be so 'messy' as in the case of parent stars BECOMING neutron stars/black holes. You see, the neutron star is ALREADY the 'collapsed core' of the parent star....and so would have NO 'intermediate-collapse' pahse LOSSES from an 'outer envelope' that would give such a signal as in the ordinary 'formation' type messy process. A LONE collapsing neutron star, no matter HOW LARGE before becoming a bh, would die a 'relatively quiet' death. Only a 'composite' event involving great infalling mass addition OR collision with ANOTHER massive/extreme body (another neutron star, dwarf star, ordinary star AND EVEN ANOTHER BLACK HOLE) would have the ENERGY/MESSINESS to send any signal AT ALL that could reach us HERE so far away.
I disagree. Any collapse is bound to be messy and the conservation laws would cause it to expel huge amounts of energy. Haven't you ever seen the dust rising from an imploding building?
Maybe we haven't seen one of those yet. How many regular stars do we see colliding (which far outnumber neutron stars)? How do these nuetron stars and other dense collapsed stars find each other so easily?
Maybe we haven't seen one of those yet. How many regular stars do we see colliding (which far outnumber neutron stars)? How do these nuetron stars and other dense collapsed stars find each other so easily?
Please see above (and earlier posts) on what can and cannot BE 'spotted' and why.
Please see above why they should. Eight? Give me a break!
I think it happens, it's just not as common as you think it should be.
I think it happens, it's just not as common as you think it should be.
Or is it YOU that only think that? The relevance/logics/concepts of MY arguments/points have NOT depended on your discussions with others. And your addresses to my points/concepts have more than once missed the point. Repetition is inevitable if you keep on missing my points. Which is probably why you think that way. If you had NOT missed the points I am trying to get across, then of corse we would be discussing old stuff. BUT, since you seem to be missing my pointys, those points are 'as new' as they ever were....until you really address them without opinions and speculations. I deal with observables and logics and natural time/numbers/event ranges and probabilities. I don't deal with either your or anyone e;se's 'esoteric/speculative' approach. Which is why BOTH you and others, as far as the self-evident points I have put indicate, are arguing over something that can only form/exist in your (both sides) imagination. Self-evidently, according to what we see in our astronomical skies. Cheers to you both; and have fun with that non sequitur 'debate', hehehe.
I've addressed your points, but it'd be much easier if you used less verbage.
I disagree. Neither of your models (neutron stars are common, or they can't exist at all) fits the observed evidence. My contentions do.
I disagree. Neither of your models (neutron stars are common, or they can't exist at all) fits the observed evidence. My contentions do.
Given the energies/probabilities/permutations and particle numbers involved in the EXPLOSION/IMPLOSION processes, how many do you think would survive IF your (and others') speculated nano-holes COULD be formed from free collisions in such tumultuous events providing plenty of opportunity for 'suitable' geometry/energy for even ONE PER NEUTRON STAR at time of formation?
I never said they would form in this event. That's your hypothesis. I'll only concede that they might.
There's evidence that they can. The fireball at the RHIC came pretty close.
There's evidence that they can. The fireball at the RHIC came pretty close.
That's a given. No argument. I wouldn't do the latter.
I felt that you did.
I didn't see any reference to specific calculations.
I didn't see any reference to specific calculations.
However, when you said that many physicists disagreed with me, did you not intend that as a pressure tactic? If you did not, then this part of our conversation can be put to bed as 'resolved' to our mutual satisfaction, eh? hehehe. Cheers!
Fair enough.
I wasn't being disingenuous. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of your meaning.
I wasn't being disingenuous. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of your meaning.
I didn't miss it, mate! hehehe. I simply didn't read anything in it to support/justify the opinion expressed by you then. I still don't read any such thing even now.
Consider: You miss the point again; simply because....
I'm NOT saying that the Earth's survival to date is the TELLING thing AGAINST 'free collision' nano-holes forming.....I'm saying that the REST OF THE OBSERVABLE BODIES/PHENOMENA universe wide iswhat INEVITABLY and self-evidently mitigates against ANY so-formed nano-holes that you fear will eat the Earth. See?
My points come from EVERYTHING ELSE, and THEN approach the question of LHC likelyhood of producing ANYTHING that THE UNIVERSE could not ALREADY be producing 'in spades' from the earliest evolutionary stages to 'NOW'. See?
Why should I bring the Earth into it...except as 'sampling field' or 'indicator' of what nature is providing IN ABUNDANCE all the time all over (cosmic rays and energetic explosions/implosions) which in certain INEVITABLE circumstances collide in the manner, energy/mass-density and geometry that would be produced (if they were possible at all) in sufficient quantities near every massive/extreme body/gravity so as to ensure that NONE of what we NOW see would BE here for us to see.
That's like asking, why haven't all the stars run into each other and why haven't all the galaxies collapsed into black holes? The conservation laws that prevent such a catastrope also prevent the other.
So then you are saying your interpretation is infallible.
So then you are saying your interpretation is infallible.
Please present some which address directly and logically those points/scenarios I have raised. I will happy to be persuaded if they are sufficient unto the task of convincing ne that:
- nano-holes can be produced at all by free collisions; and
- nature is NOT capable of producing same repeatedly, ubiquitously and in vast numbers so that they would NOT destroy massive/extreme bodies/features we do observe NOW.
That's all, mate. I wait for more than you have put to date regarding MY scenarios/points. Good luck...(for all our sakes....IF your arguments DO persuade and I then think you are right, hehehe).
I've done that. You just don't want to believe it, so you don't.
Then why do the observations of nature defy your concepts, but match mine?
I understood.
QUOTE
Besides, your contention of there not being enough energy density (in nano-scale "empty space") negates your OTHER contention that there WOULD be the necessary energy density at the nano-scale in Earth-occupied space......since, at the nano-scale of any putative nano-hole, that Earth-occupied space is EFFECTIVELY EMPTY SPACE when considering the difference in scale and collision-crossection magnitude between such nano-holes and any surrounding COMPARATIVELY GROSS 'features' like electrons etc.
No. It's about energy density. Do you really think the energy density in compressed heavy metals is analogous to the energy density of empty space?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Besides, your contention of there not being enough energy density (in nano-scale "empty space") negates your OTHER contention that there WOULD be the necessary energy density at the nano-scale in Earth-occupied space......since, at the nano-scale of any putative nano-hole, that Earth-occupied space is EFFECTIVELY EMPTY SPACE when considering the difference in scale and collision-crossection magnitude between such nano-holes and any surrounding COMPARATIVELY GROSS 'features' like electrons etc. |
No. It's about energy density. Do you really think the energy density in compressed heavy metals is analogous to the energy density of empty space?
See, uba? You can't have it both ways:
Yes, I can.
QUOTE
- either your putative nano-hole CAN eat at that nano-scale, in which case ALL the underlying-scale 'vacuum energy/mass IS 'available food' for it....
Vacuum energy? When you power a lightbulb with vacuum energy, get back to me.
However, I think you might recall that I have previously suggested they might grow in a vacuum (albeit, very slowly).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - either your putative nano-hole CAN eat at that nano-scale, in which case ALL the underlying-scale 'vacuum energy/mass IS 'available food' for it.... |
Vacuum energy? When you power a lightbulb with vacuum energy, get back to me.
However, I think you might recall that I have previously suggested they might grow in a vacuum (albeit, very slowly).
- OR it CANNOT 'eat' at that micro-scale, in which case ALL the MACRO 'space' mass/energy 'features' are effectively and practically FOREVER BEYOND its 'event-horizon' cross-section which inhabits a scale that is far far below than the world of electrons etc.
Black holes eat energy, regardless of size.
QUOTE
Pick one or the other, mate! hehehe.
I like both.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pick one or the other, mate! hehehe. |
I like both.
That appears a very 'confused' reply at best, uba. You say time is irrelevant and THEN go on to say that the universe will re-arrange things LONG BEFORE then. Doesn't "long before" imply "long duration"? And doesn't "chaos" imply AMPLE 'probabilities and permutations where anything that is not expressly forbidden is practically INEVITABLE given the 'particle' numbers and 'chaotic' permutations and 'long' epochs of duration (time)?
I think you just 'made' MY point there, uba! Cheers!
I said that in an infinite universe in infinite time, it'd probably happen. Did you miss it?
QUOTE
Hehehe, the 'field' is 'crowding' ITSELF, uba-----I am merely observing the process. And the example of the numbers/geometry of cosmic ray probable suitable hits near Earth is merely used as an INDICATOR of the larger-picture UBIQUITY and PROBABILITY in the case of EVERY extreme/massive body in the observable universe.
I don't think you understand how big space is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hehehe, the 'field' is 'crowding' ITSELF, uba-----I am merely observing the process. And the example of the numbers/geometry of cosmic ray probable suitable hits near Earth is merely used as an INDICATOR of the larger-picture UBIQUITY and PROBABILITY in the case of EVERY extreme/massive body in the observable universe. |
I don't think you understand how big space is.
THAT is the point, mate...and NOT that the Earth is the ONLY place that is being considered when determining the OVERALL and UNIVERSE WIDE likelyhood of your/others' still-putative nano-holes CAN form AT ALL. See? Forget about Earth. Look at the more TELLING astronomical bodies/scenarios and 're-do' your 'figuring' as to what is or is not unlikely/irrelevant.
I have. Neutron stars are apparently quite rare, as I'd suggested before I verified the fact.
QUOTE
While you're at it, take a look at the various 'creationists' arguments against 'evolutionary' probabilities/likelyhoods that DO eventuate DESPITE those arguments (much like your own here) that 'evolution cannot happen' because it is UNLIKELY. THEY don't allow for INNUMERABLE permutations involving countless 'contacts' in myriad 'environments' over unimaginable duration/time.
Evolution happens. It's inevitable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While you're at it, take a look at the various 'creationists' arguments against 'evolutionary' probabilities/likelyhoods that DO eventuate DESPITE those arguments (much like your own here) that 'evolution cannot happen' because it is UNLIKELY. THEY don't allow for INNUMERABLE permutations involving countless 'contacts' in myriad 'environments' over unimaginable duration/time. |
Evolution happens. It's inevitable.
AND YET we observe the 'impossible' RESULTS everyday of those 'unlikely/irrelevant' processes/factors! Or are you suggesting that 'life' is unlikely despite random/environmental 'happenstances' involving time/probability/permutations involving innumerable 'particles'?
Life only started once (so far as we know) in the entire history of the earth. It's never been duplicated. It might be so rare an occurrence that's it's conceivable that we're alone.
QUOTE
That's like saying that NO 'individual' living thing can EVER be 'mutated' by 'converging' probabilities. And yet not ONE of us is 'spared' from at least ONE of our genetic atoms/molecules being HIT.
That's not the same at all. Being hit is easy. A perfect collision in the gravity well of a massive body is not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's like saying that NO 'individual' living thing can EVER be 'mutated' by 'converging' probabilities. And yet not ONE of us is 'spared' from at least ONE of our genetic atoms/molecules being HIT. |
That's not the same at all. Being hit is easy. A perfect collision in the gravity well of a massive body is not.
You have to stop thinking 'local/instantaneous' and think 'globally/epochally', mate. Nature doesn't do what YOU think is 'proper' at any ONE 'moment'. It will do whatever probability/environment DICTATES....and do it as often and as inevitably as possible unless it is strictly 'forbidden'. IS the universe 'forbidden' from doing these things by any 'laws' I have never yet heard of, uba?
It's generally forbidden by laws you have heard of. You just need to understand the laws.
QUOTE
What do 'odds' calculations have to do with it? As I have pointed repeatedly, UNIVERSAL UBIQUITY and the corresponding INEVITABILITY involved makes 'nonsense' of any 'odds' for this or that thing happenening here or there at any particular time/place/body.
Which is an irrelevant point of view. The universe isn't of sufficient age to think in terms of infinte time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do 'odds' calculations have to do with it? As I have pointed repeatedly, UNIVERSAL UBIQUITY and the corresponding INEVITABILITY involved makes 'nonsense' of any 'odds' for this or that thing happenening here or there at any particular time/place/body. |
Which is an irrelevant point of view. The universe isn't of sufficient age to think in terms of infinte time.
You miss the point again: If nano-holes CAN be created so, and CAN exist AT ALL so, then according to the obvious and non-esoteric/non-speculative observations/processes, 'suitably' high-energy-particle collisions WILL happen EVERYWHERE that counts...inevitably....given the time/chaos/energy-levels/numbers involved. Which would make what we 'see' NOW all about us 'impossible' because all bodies would be almost immediately eaten by your putative nano-holes before such massive/extreme bodies even got to BE massive/extreme in the first place.
Most of space is empty. Most of your collisions would happen in empty space. Conservaton of momentum saves the ordinary matter from the (speculatively)accumulated dark matter.
Some galaxies have apparently been eaten by dark matter.
Maybe your points are more valid than you know.
QUOTE
Relevant. The point being that all those humongously EXTREME/ENERGETIC chaotic processes that produced what we see NOW are the result of EPOCHAL TIME and MYRIAD INTERACTIONS that would produce zillions (ie, lots and lots and lots, hehehe) of 'suitable' collisions for PUTATIVE nano-hole production near EVERY one of those extreme/massive 'bodies' produced over that duration/volume.
I disagree. That's also obviously not the case.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Relevant. The point being that all those humongously EXTREME/ENERGETIC chaotic processes that produced what we see NOW are the result of EPOCHAL TIME and MYRIAD INTERACTIONS that would produce zillions (ie, lots and lots and lots, hehehe) of 'suitable' collisions for PUTATIVE nano-hole production near EVERY one of those extreme/massive 'bodies' produced over that duration/volume. |
I disagree. That's also obviously not the case.
An 'eminently obvious' point for your consideration here, uba:
The observed universe was EVEN MORE CROWDED earlier on; involving even MORE EXTREME MATTER-ENERGY DENSITY/CHAOS than 'now'. Meaning MORE FREQUENT/ENERGETIC 'suitable collisions' in that 'earlier' environment that would make untold masses of nano-holes (if they exist/form at all). Which maens there should BE NO stars/galaxies at all NOW, if such nano-holes CAN be so readily and ubiquitously created by 'free collisions'......because all matter would have been 'eaten' and 'unavailable' to form what we see 'now'. See?
It's thought that might be the origin of dark matter.
QUOTE
Then you agree that such 'high-energy stellar interactions (collisions/navae/supernovae etc) would be likely to involve myriad particles/events that would lead to nano-holes IF such things could form at all in free-collisions between high energy particles as would be present APLENTY in the epochs/interactions involved in that 'interactions history' you now admit "..you'd expect.."?
That's not what I said. I merely agreed that the present reflects the past.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you agree that such 'high-energy stellar interactions (collisions/navae/supernovae etc) would be likely to involve myriad particles/events that would lead to nano-holes IF such things could form at all in free-collisions between high energy particles as would be present APLENTY in the epochs/interactions involved in that 'interactions history' you now admit "..you'd expect.."? |
That's not what I said. I merely agreed that the present reflects the past.
I'll leave you to research that for yourself...and then come back and tell me if such things are NOT 'common' enough to indicate a long duration/history in the universal volume which you NOW above admit is "...you'd expect..".
As I expected, neutron stars are apparently very rare. One per billions is the apparent ratio.
QUOTE
The point is that such bodies reflect great HIGH ENERGY/MASS 'events' whose 'visible' massiveness shouldn't 'survive' IF nano-holes CAN form by 'free collisions'...which I maintain they cannot....simply by observing that the variety of MASSIVE/EXTREME bodies processes that are the results of LONG evolutionary/interaction HISTORY could not exist because they would have been 'eaten' and turned into black holes by your (and others') much feared but STILL SPECULATIVE nano-holes.
I've already explained that the conservation of momentum also tends to protect dense matter objects (though probably not as effectively). Some are bound to survive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point is that such bodies reflect great HIGH ENERGY/MASS 'events' whose 'visible' massiveness shouldn't 'survive' IF nano-holes CAN form by 'free collisions'...which I maintain they cannot....simply by observing that the variety of MASSIVE/EXTREME bodies processes that are the results of LONG evolutionary/interaction HISTORY could not exist because they would have been 'eaten' and turned into black holes by your (and others') much feared but STILL SPECULATIVE nano-holes. |
I've already explained that the conservation of momentum also tends to protect dense matter objects (though probably not as effectively). Some are bound to survive.
So what? There is plenty of 'recycled' matter/energy from the humongous quasar jets that would have EARLIER been active in local and distant volume/history.
And there is plenty of 'resonant/remnant' matter/volumes in the vast expanses where early hydrogen/helium stars could form/collect. Just look at the various 'star clusters' well out in the gagactic hemispheres. And the hydrogen clouds streaming from our OWN galaxy's 'central feature'.
All as "...youd' expect...", wouldn't you say, uba? Given the TIME and CHAOS and PERMUTATION involving uncountable myriads of 'particles' and 'collisions' and 'misses', hehehe. No?
It is as I'd expect. No more, no less.
QUOTE
Draw a 'radials' spread from EACH of the possible neutron star locations. NOW, how many of those radials HIT us here? See how many MISS us? So any pulsar neutron star whose polar jets are NOT somewhere along those FEW radials that may hit us here would NOT be visible to us.
Then there are the 'too faint' ones that we don't 'detect' irrespective of poles orientation along ANY radial.
Then there are the neutron stars that are NOT 'pulsar' simply because they have stopped spinning/feeding.
So think about it. Like I said before, ONLY those FEW that have visible companions, or are 'feeding', or are ORIENTED fortuitously and have a signal and so on, will be 'seen' by us. The numbers 'unseen' by us is HUGE....and just because we can't get to 'observe' them FROM HERE doesn't mean they are NOT 'out there', hehehe. See?
Then there are the 'too faint' ones that we don't 'detect' irrespective of poles orientation along ANY radial.
Then there are the neutron stars that are NOT 'pulsar' simply because they have stopped spinning/feeding.
So think about it. Like I said before, ONLY those FEW that have visible companions, or are 'feeding', or are ORIENTED fortuitously and have a signal and so on, will be 'seen' by us. The numbers 'unseen' by us is HUGE....and just because we can't get to 'observe' them FROM HERE doesn't mean they are NOT 'out there', hehehe. See?
As prevelant as you claim they should be, they should be readily apparent in a number of ways throughout the galaxy and the local star clusters.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Draw a 'radials' spread from EACH of the possible neutron star locations. NOW, how many of those radials HIT us here? See how many MISS us? So any pulsar neutron star whose polar jets are NOT somewhere along those FEW radials that may hit us here would NOT be visible to us. Then there are the 'too faint' ones that we don't 'detect' irrespective of poles orientation along ANY radial. Then there are the neutron stars that are NOT 'pulsar' simply because they have stopped spinning/feeding. So think about it. Like I said before, ONLY those FEW that have visible companions, or are 'feeding', or are ORIENTED fortuitously and have a signal and so on, will be 'seen' by us. The numbers 'unseen' by us is HUGE....and just because we can't get to 'observe' them FROM HERE doesn't mean they are NOT 'out there', hehehe. See? |
As prevelant as you claim they should be, they should be readily apparent in a number of ways throughout the galaxy and the local star clusters.
Like I said, those that are still feeding or recent (and still haven't consumed their nearby energy/mass sources) may BE 'detectable' to us. The larger number of older ones (4-13billion years old) will have become 'unseeable' where they are 'pulsars' UNfortuitously aligned so that their polar jets would NOT hit US here NOW....and the radials for NONfortuitous radials vastly outnumber those radials that are fortuitous. Then there are those that are too old and solitary (like me! hehehe) to radiate enough of ANYTHING to 'bother' our detectors here, however they are oreinted. No?
They're detectable lots of ways. Why don't we see lot's of star/neutron star binary systems for instance? We've found lots of extraterrestial planets. Where are all the neutron star systems that should exhibit an even greater (more easily detected) wobble?
QUOTE
You say "...should..."? Please present the logic/process/numeric reasoning that leads you to think we should observe MORE than we do. Keep in mind what I have said so far (above/earlier) about the 'hit/miss' possibilities and the 'duration/types' involved where neutron stars lifetimes/stages/orientations are concerened. Thanks.
I just did.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You say "...should..."? Please present the logic/process/numeric reasoning that leads you to think we should observe MORE than we do. Keep in mind what I have said so far (above/earlier) about the 'hit/miss' possibilities and the 'duration/types' involved where neutron stars lifetimes/stages/orientations are concerened. Thanks. |
I just did.
A SINGLE neutron star becoming a black hole would not produce the energy 'signal profile' because the 'collapse' would NOT be so 'messy' as in the case of parent stars BECOMING neutron stars/black holes. You see, the neutron star is ALREADY the 'collapsed core' of the parent star....and so would have NO 'intermediate-collapse' pahse LOSSES from an 'outer envelope' that would give such a signal as in the ordinary 'formation' type messy process. A LONE collapsing neutron star, no matter HOW LARGE before becoming a bh, would die a 'relatively quiet' death. Only a 'composite' event involving great infalling mass addition OR collision with ANOTHER massive/extreme body (another neutron star, dwarf star, ordinary star AND EVEN ANOTHER BLACK HOLE) would have the ENERGY/MESSINESS to send any signal AT ALL that could reach us HERE so far away.
I disagree. Any collapse is bound to be messy and the conservation laws would cause it to expel huge amounts of energy. Haven't you ever seen the dust rising from an imploding building?
QUOTE
NOTE again please: Just before 'union', any neutron star colliding with another neutron star (OR a black hole) would have its 'gravity-symmetry' UNBALANCED and TIDALLY STREAMED towards the more massive/extreme body/gravity well. In the intervening space/period before union, all sorts of RADIATION can escape either that could NOT have escaped tbefore from their formerly SYMMETRICAL or tidally undisturbed gravity well. Hence the unusual signal profile that would be different from other scenarios.
Maybe we haven't seen one of those yet. How many regular stars do we see colliding (which far outnumber neutron stars)? How do these nuetron stars and other dense collapsed stars find each other so easily?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NOTE again please: Just before 'union', any neutron star colliding with another neutron star (OR a black hole) would have its 'gravity-symmetry' UNBALANCED and TIDALLY STREAMED towards the more massive/extreme body/gravity well. In the intervening space/period before union, all sorts of RADIATION can escape either that could NOT have escaped tbefore from their formerly SYMMETRICAL or tidally undisturbed gravity well. Hence the unusual signal profile that would be different from other scenarios. |
Maybe we haven't seen one of those yet. How many regular stars do we see colliding (which far outnumber neutron stars)? How do these nuetron stars and other dense collapsed stars find each other so easily?
Please see above (and earlier posts) on what can and cannot BE 'spotted' and why.
Please see above why they should. Eight? Give me a break!
QUOTE
Hehehe. how likely is the likelyhood that your estimate of "...not likely..." will win out over natures epochal/particulate/energetic armoury? Not ruddy likely, I would say. I'd back nature every time, mate!hehehe.
I think it happens, it's just not as common as you think it should be.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hehehe. how likely is the likelyhood that your estimate of "...not likely..." will win out over natures epochal/particulate/energetic armoury? Not ruddy likely, I would say. I'd back nature every time, mate!hehehe. |
I think it happens, it's just not as common as you think it should be.
Or is it YOU that only think that? The relevance/logics/concepts of MY arguments/points have NOT depended on your discussions with others. And your addresses to my points/concepts have more than once missed the point. Repetition is inevitable if you keep on missing my points. Which is probably why you think that way. If you had NOT missed the points I am trying to get across, then of corse we would be discussing old stuff. BUT, since you seem to be missing my pointys, those points are 'as new' as they ever were....until you really address them without opinions and speculations. I deal with observables and logics and natural time/numbers/event ranges and probabilities. I don't deal with either your or anyone e;se's 'esoteric/speculative' approach. Which is why BOTH you and others, as far as the self-evident points I have put indicate, are arguing over something that can only form/exist in your (both sides) imagination. Self-evidently, according to what we see in our astronomical skies. Cheers to you both; and have fun with that non sequitur 'debate', hehehe.
I've addressed your points, but it'd be much easier if you used less verbage.
QUOTE
I think that in your fixation on their supposed 'rarity' (which they are not....since Neutron Stars etc CAN form....and nature just luuurves repetition!), you miss the point that since Neutron stars exist AT ALL, then NO nano-holes from energetic 'free collisons' can form or eat...or they would have done so at EVERY NEUTRON STAR FORMATION EVENT.
In which case they would not just be 'rare' as you maintain (but I continually point to why they are not), there should be NONE AT ALL, and not just 'rarely', hehehe. See?
In which case they would not just be 'rare' as you maintain (but I continually point to why they are not), there should be NONE AT ALL, and not just 'rarely', hehehe. See?
I disagree. Neither of your models (neutron stars are common, or they can't exist at all) fits the observed evidence. My contentions do.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think that in your fixation on their supposed 'rarity' (which they are not....since Neutron Stars etc CAN form....and nature just luuurves repetition!), you miss the point that since Neutron stars exist AT ALL, then NO nano-holes from energetic 'free collisons' can form or eat...or they would have done so at EVERY NEUTRON STAR FORMATION EVENT. In which case they would not just be 'rare' as you maintain (but I continually point to why they are not), there should be NONE AT ALL, and not just 'rarely', hehehe. See? |
I disagree. Neither of your models (neutron stars are common, or they can't exist at all) fits the observed evidence. My contentions do.
Given the energies/probabilities/permutations and particle numbers involved in the EXPLOSION/IMPLOSION processes, how many do you think would survive IF your (and others') speculated nano-holes COULD be formed from free collisions in such tumultuous events providing plenty of opportunity for 'suitable' geometry/energy for even ONE PER NEUTRON STAR at time of formation?
I never said they would form in this event. That's your hypothesis. I'll only concede that they might.
QUOTE
Hehehe. Reminds me of other 'wildly speculative notions' that most people on both 'sides' of the LHC debate have put forward. For instance, that nano-holes can form at all in gravity-unrestrained/uncontained 'free particle collision' conditions. Now THAT's one humongous speculation if ever there was one! hehehe.
There's evidence that they can. The fireball at the RHIC came pretty close.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hehehe. Reminds me of other 'wildly speculative notions' that most people on both 'sides' of the LHC debate have put forward. For instance, that nano-holes can form at all in gravity-unrestrained/uncontained 'free particle collision' conditions. Now THAT's one humongous speculation if ever there was one! hehehe. |
There's evidence that they can. The fireball at the RHIC came pretty close.
That's a given. No argument. I wouldn't do the latter.
I felt that you did.
QUOTE
I merely pointed to the calculations that others HERE have done DIRECTLY involving the scenarios I put forward in our discussions HERE. No more. No less, mate.
I didn't see any reference to specific calculations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I merely pointed to the calculations that others HERE have done DIRECTLY involving the scenarios I put forward in our discussions HERE. No more. No less, mate. |
I didn't see any reference to specific calculations.
However, when you said that many physicists disagreed with me, did you not intend that as a pressure tactic? If you did not, then this part of our conversation can be put to bed as 'resolved' to our mutual satisfaction, eh? hehehe. Cheers!
Fair enough.
QUOTE
Please don't start being disingenuous with me, uba. You know perfectly well the interaction energy/numbers 'parameters' and the extreme 'bodies/gravity' scenarios involving the probabilities and permutations that lead to 'inevitability' in the natural way of things AS OBSERVED and ALREADY MORE THAN ONCE pointed out to you in my posts recently and throughout our discussions in this and other LHC threads. If you miss again the points/parameters already given repeatedly, it will become an exercise in futility to continue our discussions. No?
I wasn't being disingenuous. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of your meaning.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please don't start being disingenuous with me, uba. You know perfectly well the interaction energy/numbers 'parameters' and the extreme 'bodies/gravity' scenarios involving the probabilities and permutations that lead to 'inevitability' in the natural way of things AS OBSERVED and ALREADY MORE THAN ONCE pointed out to you in my posts recently and throughout our discussions in this and other LHC threads. If you miss again the points/parameters already given repeatedly, it will become an exercise in futility to continue our discussions. No? |
I wasn't being disingenuous. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of your meaning.
I didn't miss it, mate! hehehe. I simply didn't read anything in it to support/justify the opinion expressed by you then. I still don't read any such thing even now.
Consider: You miss the point again; simply because....
I'm NOT saying that the Earth's survival to date is the TELLING thing AGAINST 'free collision' nano-holes forming.....I'm saying that the REST OF THE OBSERVABLE BODIES/PHENOMENA universe wide iswhat INEVITABLY and self-evidently mitigates against ANY so-formed nano-holes that you fear will eat the Earth. See?
My points come from EVERYTHING ELSE, and THEN approach the question of LHC likelyhood of producing ANYTHING that THE UNIVERSE could not ALREADY be producing 'in spades' from the earliest evolutionary stages to 'NOW'. See?
Why should I bring the Earth into it...except as 'sampling field' or 'indicator' of what nature is providing IN ABUNDANCE all the time all over (cosmic rays and energetic explosions/implosions) which in certain INEVITABLE circumstances collide in the manner, energy/mass-density and geometry that would be produced (if they were possible at all) in sufficient quantities near every massive/extreme body/gravity so as to ensure that NONE of what we NOW see would BE here for us to see.
That's like asking, why haven't all the stars run into each other and why haven't all the galaxies collapsed into black holes? The conservation laws that prevent such a catastrope also prevent the other.
QUOTE
I rely on what nature lays out before me.
I dio NOT rely on your/others' wild speculations and esoteric arguments that would have nano-holes being formed AT ALL in such gravity-unconstrained free collision scenarios.
I know which apparoach I would trust to deliver the 'real' conclusions (as opposed to the 'fun' but irrelevant ones).
I'm not interested in 'the game' when it becomes absurdly based on 'imagined' happenings invoked by EITHER 'side', hehehe.
I dio NOT rely on your/others' wild speculations and esoteric arguments that would have nano-holes being formed AT ALL in such gravity-unconstrained free collision scenarios.
I know which apparoach I would trust to deliver the 'real' conclusions (as opposed to the 'fun' but irrelevant ones).
I'm not interested in 'the game' when it becomes absurdly based on 'imagined' happenings invoked by EITHER 'side', hehehe.
So then you are saying your interpretation is infallible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I rely on what nature lays out before me. I dio NOT rely on your/others' wild speculations and esoteric arguments that would have nano-holes being formed AT ALL in such gravity-unconstrained free collision scenarios. I know which apparoach I would trust to deliver the 'real' conclusions (as opposed to the 'fun' but irrelevant ones). I'm not interested in 'the game' when it becomes absurdly based on 'imagined' happenings invoked by EITHER 'side', hehehe. |
So then you are saying your interpretation is infallible.
Please present some which address directly and logically those points/scenarios I have raised. I will happy to be persuaded if they are sufficient unto the task of convincing ne that:
- nano-holes can be produced at all by free collisions; and
- nature is NOT capable of producing same repeatedly, ubiquitously and in vast numbers so that they would NOT destroy massive/extreme bodies/features we do observe NOW.
That's all, mate. I wait for more than you have put to date regarding MY scenarios/points. Good luck...(for all our sakes....IF your arguments DO persuade and I then think you are right, hehehe).
I've done that. You just don't want to believe it, so you don't.
QUOTE
Nature is blithely unconcerned with whether I'm right or not. Nature merely IS and DOES. I merely observe and come to the self-evident conclusion. I'll leave the 'politics' and 'ego' and 'speculative/esoteric' stoushing to those that have a taste for that sort of 'arguing over impondrables' and such like 'imaginary happenings' (like nano-holes coming from free collisions! hehehe).
Then why do the observations of nature defy your concepts, but match mine?
QUOTE (->