QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 24 2007, 10:30 AM)
Hi uba.
You misunderstood. I never at any time even intimated that the overall gravitational WELL 'reach' is different from its normal state mass equivalent for ANY black hole of any size. Only its 'GRADIENTS' will be EXTREME near the EVENT HORIZON....and for the imaginary NANO-hole it would be the most EXTREME gradient PROFILE near the horizon because the horizon is so close to the putative central singularity. OK?
That part's fine, but again, why do you apparently think they are more attracted to the central galactic core than any other mass in a similar galactic orbit?
If you're looking only at a discrete particle model. Black holes tend to render mass and eat the raw energy. Therefore, it's all about energy density.
If you're looking only at a discrete particle model. Black holes tend to render mass and eat the raw energy. Therefore, it's all about energy density.
..SNIP...
Rest assured that personally, there are no hard feelings at this end. Just the fatigue of an old sick man! hehehe.
And be assured yourself that I also harbor no hard feelings. It is frustrating when communication fails. I understand your plight.
Don't feel you need to respond further, I just wanted too update the thread.
You misunderstood. I never at any time even intimated that the overall gravitational WELL 'reach' is different from its normal state mass equivalent for ANY black hole of any size. Only its 'GRADIENTS' will be EXTREME near the EVENT HORIZON....and for the imaginary NANO-hole it would be the most EXTREME gradient PROFILE near the horizon because the horizon is so close to the putative central singularity. OK?
That part's fine, but again, why do you apparently think they are more attracted to the central galactic core than any other mass in a similar galactic orbit?
QUOTE
The point was that the imaginary NH's singularity would have to make direct hits with other particles on its 'sharp gradient' horizon if it's going to 'eat' any part of other normal particles all the way from its sub-planck domain.
BUT such a head-on hit is even less likely than cosmic ray head-on hits with anything.
AND near misses any distance at all from the sub-planck scale singularity/horizon sphere will NOT DO...simply because of the speeds of the particles, which are magnitudes GREATER than the ESCAPE VELOCITIES of puny mass in the 'normal reach/extent' of the mass-equivalent GRAVITY WELL of the NH gravity per se.
BUT such a head-on hit is even less likely than cosmic ray head-on hits with anything.
AND near misses any distance at all from the sub-planck scale singularity/horizon sphere will NOT DO...simply because of the speeds of the particles, which are magnitudes GREATER than the ESCAPE VELOCITIES of puny mass in the 'normal reach/extent' of the mass-equivalent GRAVITY WELL of the NH gravity per se.
If you're looking only at a discrete particle model. Black holes tend to render mass and eat the raw energy. Therefore, it's all about energy density.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point was that the imaginary NH's singularity would have to make direct hits with other particles on its 'sharp gradient' horizon if it's going to 'eat' any part of other normal particles all the way from its sub-planck domain. BUT such a head-on hit is even less likely than cosmic ray head-on hits with anything. AND near misses any distance at all from the sub-planck scale singularity/horizon sphere will NOT DO...simply because of the speeds of the particles, which are magnitudes GREATER than the ESCAPE VELOCITIES of puny mass in the 'normal reach/extent' of the mass-equivalent GRAVITY WELL of the NH gravity per se. |
If you're looking only at a discrete particle model. Black holes tend to render mass and eat the raw energy. Therefore, it's all about energy density.
..SNIP...
Rest assured that personally, there are no hard feelings at this end. Just the fatigue of an old sick man! hehehe.
And be assured yourself that I also harbor no hard feelings. It is frustrating when communication fails. I understand your plight.
Don't feel you need to respond further, I just wanted too update the thread.
The following is abstracted from Symmetry, Volume 04, issue 08/09, oct/nov 07 [a joint Fermilab/SLAC publication], from an article entitled "On the trail of COSMIC BULLETS" by Kurt Riesselmann. See also Science, November 9, 2007:
Though not yet completed, the Pierre Auger observatory particle detectors [1500 water tanks of some 3,000 gallons each, lined with photo sensors, spread over some 1200 square miles of Argentine pampas] have recorded about 1,000,000 cosmic rays since January, 2004 when operations commenced. This included about 100 ultrahigh energy cosmic bullets. These are so rare that only one or two might hit each square mile per century.
"In early November, 2007, the Pierre Auger team announced the first results of its efforts to track cosmic bullets back to their sources. They looked at the 27 most energetic cosmic rays, those with energies of more than 57 billion billion electronvolts.
Rather than coming from points scattered across the sky, the tracks of most of these rays led straight back to nearby regions of space that are home to active galactic nuclei -- supermassive black holes at the centers of some galaxies, such as Centaurus A. ...
Active galactic nuclei are a million to billions of times as massive as our sun. ...
As they devour huge amounts of gas, dust, and other matter, they create and eject prodigious amounts of energy and particles. If, as the Auger findings suggest, they are responsible for firing cosmic bullets, they are the most powerful accelerators in the universe ... "
To track the path of the cosmic ray, the observatory has both the detector tanks to record the shower that strikes earth, as well as 24 fluoresence telescopes, housed in 4 buildings, that scan the overhead sky, looking for the faint glow created when billions of particles from a cosmic ray shower interact with nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. By plotting both the impact 'point' of the shower, as well as the fluoresence path, a fairly accurate portrait to within about 0.1 degrees of the path of the cosmic ray particle is created.
The very highest energy ones are only slightly deflected by magnetic fields during their several hundred million year transit [at about 0.9999+ c] from their point of origin in the AGN to earth, such that they still point back to within a degree or two from their place of origin in the active galactic nuclei [AGN].
This is an impressive result, which I anticipate might well become the proven case upon obtaining additional data over a few more years of observation.
---------
I had previously speculated that the highest energy cosmic ray showers might conceivably be caused by the break-up of exotic particles, instead of being caused by high-energy protons [as was the prevailing view]. I suggested that the Pierre Auger would be able to provide an answer to this question, and it appears to have done so. It now appears extremely likely that these highest energy cosmic rays are simply high energy protons ejected by active galactic nuclei [AGN], and are not the result of the break-up of exotic particles. While the results are only preliminary, announced when the probability that the correlation between the AGN and the point-origin source for the cosmic ray occurred by chance had reached the probability of less than 1 in 100, it seems that additional data acquisition will likely continue to decrease that probability. It does not, of course, rule out the possiblity that a portion of the high-E component is caused by the break-up of exotic particles; but rather that most [if not all] of those highly energetic cosmic ray showers derive from AGN produced high-E protons.
This does not necessarily eliminate alternative proposals for a possible 'stellar' mechanism ["cannonball" effect] for acceleration to those high energies for some cosmic rays, but does show that most [if not all] are now likely ejected and accelerated due to the high magnetic fields associated with active galactic nuclei [AGN].
HOWEVER, this result in no way eliminates the major concern that has been expressed, namely the distinction between an "at rest" miniature black hole [MBH] as is proposed to be created at the LHC, and a highly relativistic MBH if created in nature by these ejecta from active galactic nuclei. [Due to their predicted relatively low interaction rate, relativisitic MBH's would zip harmlessly through earth. Only if they quickly "evaporate" would "at rest" MBHs be harmless.]
Instead, what this points out is that we can seek to systematically work to eliminate our concerns [risk management] with proper passive experimentation, such as the Pierre Auger.
While the GLAST satellite is set for launch in the Spring [Autumn in the southern hemisphere], and is designed in part to search for the last 'glow' of a rapidly evaporating MBH, it seems to me that it is unlikely to detect any. Absence of detection, of course, does not mean that they don't evaporate, but instead simply leaves open the question.
It might be suggested that if occasional relativisitic MBHs are created by the impact of these high-E cosmic rays in our upper atmosphere, and they do rapidly evaporate, then perhaps we should be seeking the evaporation signal there, rather than in deep space via the GLAST search for the evaporation signal of more massive MBHs.
By incorporating a third detection mechanism [i.e. a gamma ray detector] at the Pierre Auger, perhaps it would be possible to detect a gamma-ray burst in association with a high-speed cosmic ray track, coming from a single point, rather than the length of the track. [The theory that MBHs "evaporate" show that such a newly-created MBH would only travel well less than 1 mm before "evaporating"].
Incidentally, I use the term "gamma ray" loosely, as does the GLAST reports, etc. In a technical sense, "gamma rays" are only emitted by the nucelus of an atom as it undergoes an energy-level change [such as the 'decay' of Tc-99m to Tc-99], just as technically an "X-ray" is only emitted from the electron orbitals of an atom as they undergo changes in energy levels.
However, loosely, gamma rays can also refer to any energetic photons, such as 511 KeV annihilation radiation of electron/positron annihilation, high-E X-rays, Brehmstrahlung radiation, etc. Thus, the presumption that evaporating MBHs emit both sub-relativistic and photonic particles implies that the photonic particles can be highly energetic, and thus termed "gamma rays".
I expect to soon see other papers in which it is suggested that the Pierre Auger be modified to include gamma ray detectors to search for evaporating MBHs, which might go a long way towards proving the safety of the LHC. Since the northern half of the Pierre Auger project [to be built in Colorado?] has yet to be built, it would seem probable that augmenting the design to incorporate a gamma-ray burst detection mechanism will be suggested.
Anyway, I thought you would find these recent Pierre Auger results to be of interest, if you've not read of them elsewhere. I did.
Other links are readily available if you google "AGN Pierre Auger cosmic ray"
Also, the speed of those high-E cosmic rays was approximately 99.999999999999999999991% c, so the resultant collision products are also quite relativistic.
Incidentally, now that it is near the end of the year, we should look for the promised CERN report. For those not familiar, here's what Dr. Aymar and Dr. Engelen had to say about the report:
"Geneva, 1st October 2007
Dear Dr. Wagner,
Thank you for communicating to CERN your concerns about the 'Operational Safety' of the LHC. We can assure you that CERN takes such issues very seriously.
Earlier this year we mandated a group of experts, not themselves members of the LHC experimental collaborations, to assess safety aspects of LHC operation. This group is mandated to provide by the end of this year a written report, which will be made available to the scientific community and to the general public through the CERN Web pages.
Yours sincerely,
R. Aymar J. Engelen
Director General Chief Scientific Officer"
------------
I trust everyone has had a wonderful Holiday season, and are looking forward to the New Year [2008].
Regards,
Walter L. Wagner
Though not yet completed, the Pierre Auger observatory particle detectors [1500 water tanks of some 3,000 gallons each, lined with photo sensors, spread over some 1200 square miles of Argentine pampas] have recorded about 1,000,000 cosmic rays since January, 2004 when operations commenced. This included about 100 ultrahigh energy cosmic bullets. These are so rare that only one or two might hit each square mile per century.
"In early November, 2007, the Pierre Auger team announced the first results of its efforts to track cosmic bullets back to their sources. They looked at the 27 most energetic cosmic rays, those with energies of more than 57 billion billion electronvolts.
Rather than coming from points scattered across the sky, the tracks of most of these rays led straight back to nearby regions of space that are home to active galactic nuclei -- supermassive black holes at the centers of some galaxies, such as Centaurus A. ...
Active galactic nuclei are a million to billions of times as massive as our sun. ...
As they devour huge amounts of gas, dust, and other matter, they create and eject prodigious amounts of energy and particles. If, as the Auger findings suggest, they are responsible for firing cosmic bullets, they are the most powerful accelerators in the universe ... "
To track the path of the cosmic ray, the observatory has both the detector tanks to record the shower that strikes earth, as well as 24 fluoresence telescopes, housed in 4 buildings, that scan the overhead sky, looking for the faint glow created when billions of particles from a cosmic ray shower interact with nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. By plotting both the impact 'point' of the shower, as well as the fluoresence path, a fairly accurate portrait to within about 0.1 degrees of the path of the cosmic ray particle is created.
The very highest energy ones are only slightly deflected by magnetic fields during their several hundred million year transit [at about 0.9999+ c] from their point of origin in the AGN to earth, such that they still point back to within a degree or two from their place of origin in the active galactic nuclei [AGN].
This is an impressive result, which I anticipate might well become the proven case upon obtaining additional data over a few more years of observation.
---------
I had previously speculated that the highest energy cosmic ray showers might conceivably be caused by the break-up of exotic particles, instead of being caused by high-energy protons [as was the prevailing view]. I suggested that the Pierre Auger would be able to provide an answer to this question, and it appears to have done so. It now appears extremely likely that these highest energy cosmic rays are simply high energy protons ejected by active galactic nuclei [AGN], and are not the result of the break-up of exotic particles. While the results are only preliminary, announced when the probability that the correlation between the AGN and the point-origin source for the cosmic ray occurred by chance had reached the probability of less than 1 in 100, it seems that additional data acquisition will likely continue to decrease that probability. It does not, of course, rule out the possiblity that a portion of the high-E component is caused by the break-up of exotic particles; but rather that most [if not all] of those highly energetic cosmic ray showers derive from AGN produced high-E protons.
This does not necessarily eliminate alternative proposals for a possible 'stellar' mechanism ["cannonball" effect] for acceleration to those high energies for some cosmic rays, but does show that most [if not all] are now likely ejected and accelerated due to the high magnetic fields associated with active galactic nuclei [AGN].
HOWEVER, this result in no way eliminates the major concern that has been expressed, namely the distinction between an "at rest" miniature black hole [MBH] as is proposed to be created at the LHC, and a highly relativistic MBH if created in nature by these ejecta from active galactic nuclei. [Due to their predicted relatively low interaction rate, relativisitic MBH's would zip harmlessly through earth. Only if they quickly "evaporate" would "at rest" MBHs be harmless.]
Instead, what this points out is that we can seek to systematically work to eliminate our concerns [risk management] with proper passive experimentation, such as the Pierre Auger.
While the GLAST satellite is set for launch in the Spring [Autumn in the southern hemisphere], and is designed in part to search for the last 'glow' of a rapidly evaporating MBH, it seems to me that it is unlikely to detect any. Absence of detection, of course, does not mean that they don't evaporate, but instead simply leaves open the question.
It might be suggested that if occasional relativisitic MBHs are created by the impact of these high-E cosmic rays in our upper atmosphere, and they do rapidly evaporate, then perhaps we should be seeking the evaporation signal there, rather than in deep space via the GLAST search for the evaporation signal of more massive MBHs.
By incorporating a third detection mechanism [i.e. a gamma ray detector] at the Pierre Auger, perhaps it would be possible to detect a gamma-ray burst in association with a high-speed cosmic ray track, coming from a single point, rather than the length of the track. [The theory that MBHs "evaporate" show that such a newly-created MBH would only travel well less than 1 mm before "evaporating"].
Incidentally, I use the term "gamma ray" loosely, as does the GLAST reports, etc. In a technical sense, "gamma rays" are only emitted by the nucelus of an atom as it undergoes an energy-level change [such as the 'decay' of Tc-99m to Tc-99], just as technically an "X-ray" is only emitted from the electron orbitals of an atom as they undergo changes in energy levels.
However, loosely, gamma rays can also refer to any energetic photons, such as 511 KeV annihilation radiation of electron/positron annihilation, high-E X-rays, Brehmstrahlung radiation, etc. Thus, the presumption that evaporating MBHs emit both sub-relativistic and photonic particles implies that the photonic particles can be highly energetic, and thus termed "gamma rays".
I expect to soon see other papers in which it is suggested that the Pierre Auger be modified to include gamma ray detectors to search for evaporating MBHs, which might go a long way towards proving the safety of the LHC. Since the northern half of the Pierre Auger project [to be built in Colorado?] has yet to be built, it would seem probable that augmenting the design to incorporate a gamma-ray burst detection mechanism will be suggested.
Anyway, I thought you would find these recent Pierre Auger results to be of interest, if you've not read of them elsewhere. I did.
Other links are readily available if you google "AGN Pierre Auger cosmic ray"
Also, the speed of those high-E cosmic rays was approximately 99.999999999999999999991% c, so the resultant collision products are also quite relativistic.
Incidentally, now that it is near the end of the year, we should look for the promised CERN report. For those not familiar, here's what Dr. Aymar and Dr. Engelen had to say about the report:
"Geneva, 1st October 2007
Dear Dr. Wagner,
Thank you for communicating to CERN your concerns about the 'Operational Safety' of the LHC. We can assure you that CERN takes such issues very seriously.
Earlier this year we mandated a group of experts, not themselves members of the LHC experimental collaborations, to assess safety aspects of LHC operation. This group is mandated to provide by the end of this year a written report, which will be made available to the scientific community and to the general public through the CERN Web pages.
Yours sincerely,
R. Aymar J. Engelen
Director General Chief Scientific Officer"
------------
I trust everyone has had a wonderful Holiday season, and are looking forward to the New Year [2008].
Regards,
Walter L. Wagner
Walter L. Wagner,
Thank you for the update on the cosmic ray detection experiments. I'd be very much interested in seeing that new CERN saferty report too. I'm wondering if it'll be the same discredited hogwash they pawned off before, or if they'll take some of our concerns more seriously this time.
Speaking of which, I was wondering what you know of the Hawking radiation hypothesis? Are you (or someone you know) in a position to analyze it critically? I'm paricularly curious about the kinetic energy potentials of the infalling particle pairs.
Also, what's the LHC's current status?
Would you also be kind enough to post your contact information again?
Thank you for the update on the cosmic ray detection experiments. I'd be very much interested in seeing that new CERN saferty report too. I'm wondering if it'll be the same discredited hogwash they pawned off before, or if they'll take some of our concerns more seriously this time.
Speaking of which, I was wondering what you know of the Hawking radiation hypothesis? Are you (or someone you know) in a position to analyze it critically? I'm paricularly curious about the kinetic energy potentials of the infalling particle pairs.
Also, what's the LHC's current status?
Would you also be kind enough to post your contact information again?
Hi there, I'm new, and I'm going to throw that out right now and get it out of the way.
first time posting, but long time lurking.
I'm concerned about the LHC, then I suppose that is how this thread started.
I have a small point, but I think it embodies the whole argument.
If the LHC can create black holes, (which no one can deny the possibility, after all, these are all theories, and each one has different requirements and thresholds for the formation of a black hole) it should not be turned on and infact has to be stopped by any means necessary.
Does that sound a little extreme? it should, the stakes could never be higher for organized biological life, without getting into the nitty gritty it simply should not be started, also, it needs to be brought into the public eye as far as awareness, I live in the US, and have barely heard of this, and I think CERN prefers this matter to be only relevant to the scientific community.
here is the overall point, the stakes are so high that it simply is illogical, biological life is supposed to have instincts for survival, not potential suicide, no one can deny with a theory that this scenario cannot happen, I don't care what math anyone uses, these collisions at 14TeV are holistically unnatural, allegory to "Cosmic ray models" and other ridiculous so called comparisons have no bearing on what is ACTUALLY going to happen in the LHC, this thing must be dismantled before they generate enough luminousity to do god knows what.
it's not fear of the unknown, it's not ignorance, it's caution, you know caution? it's that little evolved logic that has kept the human race alive as long as it has.
And anyone who uses the RHIC or Tevatron for comparision must not be aware that the LHC is Far more powerful (about 7 times) than any particle accelerator made before ever, thus any r5esult generated by the LHC would have the potential of being far more dangerous, the point is, we should not make this risk.
I can be contacted by anyone who feels similarly who would like to actually do something about this rather than deliberate.
you can reach me at Ebenonce@gmail.com
first time posting, but long time lurking.
I'm concerned about the LHC, then I suppose that is how this thread started.
I have a small point, but I think it embodies the whole argument.
If the LHC can create black holes, (which no one can deny the possibility, after all, these are all theories, and each one has different requirements and thresholds for the formation of a black hole) it should not be turned on and infact has to be stopped by any means necessary.
Does that sound a little extreme? it should, the stakes could never be higher for organized biological life, without getting into the nitty gritty it simply should not be started, also, it needs to be brought into the public eye as far as awareness, I live in the US, and have barely heard of this, and I think CERN prefers this matter to be only relevant to the scientific community.
here is the overall point, the stakes are so high that it simply is illogical, biological life is supposed to have instincts for survival, not potential suicide, no one can deny with a theory that this scenario cannot happen, I don't care what math anyone uses, these collisions at 14TeV are holistically unnatural, allegory to "Cosmic ray models" and other ridiculous so called comparisons have no bearing on what is ACTUALLY going to happen in the LHC, this thing must be dismantled before they generate enough luminousity to do god knows what.
it's not fear of the unknown, it's not ignorance, it's caution, you know caution? it's that little evolved logic that has kept the human race alive as long as it has.
And anyone who uses the RHIC or Tevatron for comparision must not be aware that the LHC is Far more powerful (about 7 times) than any particle accelerator made before ever, thus any r5esult generated by the LHC would have the potential of being far more dangerous, the point is, we should not make this risk.
I can be contacted by anyone who feels similarly who would like to actually do something about this rather than deliberate.
you can reach me at Ebenonce@gmail.com
Ebenonce,
Excellent post! I'm glad people are beginning to understand the stakes. Let's hope we're in time...
Excellent post! I'm glad people are beginning to understand the stakes. Let's hope we're in time...
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 1 2008, 09:27 AM)
I'm paricularly curious about the kinetic energy potentials
There is no such term in physics. Are you making it up ?
There is no such term in physics. Are you making it up ?
QUOTE (OneTequilla+Jan 1 2008, 11:40 PM)
There is no such term in physics. Are you making it up ?
Okay, so I oversimplified.
Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. In this case, gravitational potential energy exists as soon as the particle pair appears above the event horizon. I'm suggesting it converts into kinetic energy for the separated particles accelerating into the black hole.
I'm not seeing any definitions of this potential/kinetic energy in Hawking radiation. I'm particularly interested in how this might affect the supposed negative energy balance of the infalling particles and the subsequent, expected black hole evaporation.
Okay, so I oversimplified.
Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. In this case, gravitational potential energy exists as soon as the particle pair appears above the event horizon. I'm suggesting it converts into kinetic energy for the separated particles accelerating into the black hole.
I'm not seeing any definitions of this potential/kinetic energy in Hawking radiation. I'm particularly interested in how this might affect the supposed negative energy balance of the infalling particles and the subsequent, expected black hole evaporation.
What do black holes evaporate, there isn't word yet to describe the particles, what? They could of all thing evaporate though their electo-magnetic north and south squirt out gravitons that are the life-blood of their phonemic stellar activity/behavior
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 2 2008, 09:16 PM)
Okay, so I oversimplified.
Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. In this case, gravitational potential energy exists as soon as the particle pair appears above the event horizon. I'm suggesting it converts into kinetic energy for the separated particles accelerating into the black hole.
I'm not seeing any definitions of this potential/kinetic energy in Hawking radiation. I'm particularly interested in how this might affect the supposed negative energy balance of the infalling particles and the subsequent, expected black hole evaporation.
You've already had this explained to you elsewhere.
The total energy of the virtual paritcles is zero.
The black hole (if the pair is formed close enough to the event horizon) absorbs the particle with negative energy, and thus looses a small amount of it's total energy (and therefore mass) (or at least that that's one way of looking at it).
And before you start talking about the lack of proof of Virtual particles.
The near field of radio antennas.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or nucleus.
The Casimir effect.
Van der Waals force (which includes a component related to th casimir effect).
Vacuum polarization.
The Lamb shift.
Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. In this case, gravitational potential energy exists as soon as the particle pair appears above the event horizon. I'm suggesting it converts into kinetic energy for the separated particles accelerating into the black hole.
I'm not seeing any definitions of this potential/kinetic energy in Hawking radiation. I'm particularly interested in how this might affect the supposed negative energy balance of the infalling particles and the subsequent, expected black hole evaporation.
You've already had this explained to you elsewhere.
The total energy of the virtual paritcles is zero.
The black hole (if the pair is formed close enough to the event horizon) absorbs the particle with negative energy, and thus looses a small amount of it's total energy (and therefore mass) (or at least that that's one way of looking at it).
And before you start talking about the lack of proof of Virtual particles.
The near field of radio antennas.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or nucleus.
The Casimir effect.
Van der Waals force (which includes a component related to th casimir effect).
Vacuum polarization.
The Lamb shift.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 2 2008, 10:25 AM)
You've already had this explained to you elsewhere.
The total energy of the virtual paritcles is zero.
The black hole (if the pair is formed close enough to the event horizon) absorbs the particle with negative energy, and thus looses a small amount of it's total energy (and therefore mass) (or at least that that's one way of looking at it).
And before you start talking about the lack of proof of Virtual particles.
The near field of radio antennas.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or nucleus.
The Casimir effect.
Van der Waals force (which includes a component related to th casimir effect).
Vacuum polarization.
The Lamb shift.
As usual Trippy, you've misssed the point entirely.
Try again.
The total energy of the virtual paritcles is zero.
The black hole (if the pair is formed close enough to the event horizon) absorbs the particle with negative energy, and thus looses a small amount of it's total energy (and therefore mass) (or at least that that's one way of looking at it).
And before you start talking about the lack of proof of Virtual particles.
The near field of radio antennas.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or nucleus.
The Casimir effect.
Van der Waals force (which includes a component related to th casimir effect).
Vacuum polarization.
The Lamb shift.
As usual Trippy, you've misssed the point entirely.
Try again.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 3 2008, 03:48 PM)
As usual Trippy, you've misssed the point entirely.
Try again.
That's funny.
Old men don't have points.
If you have some point to make, make it, otherwise, just go away.
Try again.
That's funny.
Old men don't have points.
If you have some point to make, make it, otherwise, just go away.
Ubavontuba:
You can contact me at lhcdefense@hotmail.com
Or, go to www.sciforums.com where I post under my own name. You can register, and then PM me there. I check for PMs every few days [sometimes I forget, since I've only had about 20 in some 18 months since I registered there].
The existence of virtual particles was well-predicted by Paul A.M. Dirac, who envisioned the vacuum as being a "sea" of such particles, and from such derived the theoretical existence of positively charged electrons, which he showed should complement negative electrons. These positrons were subsequently discovered in cosmic ray showers, and later shown to be emitted by certain man-made radioisotopes during positive-beta emissions.
Under this theory, which is well established and essentially proven, by inputing energy at the right point in space/time, the virtual particles can be separated into real positive and negative electrons. Likewise, the inverse process would cause a postive and negative electron to be able to coalesce together to release energy [annihilation of the two particles]. This process is done daily in hundreds of Nuclear Medicine departments around the globe, in which positron emitters [manufactured in small medical cyclotrons] emit positrons, which then combine with electrons, releasing two energetic photons going in exactly opposite direction [to conserve momentum]. The photons are then detected by two 'gamma cameras' [scintillators with appropriate PM and electronics], such that the emitter of the positron can then be located in the human body where it was absorbed by the biochemistry of interest. I've been involved in that PET [positron emission tomography] work since the late 1970s. For more information, go to www.snm.org, the Society of Nuclear Medicine's official web site.
By extrapolation, all particles have their anti-particle, and they all exist in a "sea" from which they can be popped into existence by input of energy, or converselly "annihilated" with the appropriate release of energy from the complete conversion of their mass into pure energy [energetic photons].
Under Hawking's theory, he contemplated that if such a virtual pair were to come into existence near the 'event horizon' of a small black hole, that conceivably one of the virtual particles would disappear into the black hole, leaving the other isolated, but now real and not virtual. To conserve mass, the black hole would be required to lose mass. The net effect would be that the black hole would appear to be emitting particles, or "evaporating". His calculations showed that the smaller the mass of the black hole, the faster would be the "evaporation", such that at the tail end of such evaporation process, there would be a sudden 'burst' of particles. This is also equivalent to a "temperature" for the black hole!
The problem is, no one knows if this is true or not. It is theory, and not proven. It appears to me that it could very well be that the 'event horizon' would be required to pull in both virtual particles, and not merely one of them, in which case there would be no net loss of mass of the miniature black hole [MBH].
Thus, creation of any such miniature black hole might be very problematic, if the MBH does not evaporate. While it would appear that it would likely be only minimally reactive when quite small, that too poses a problem.
The "cosmic ray argument" advanced for collider safety relies upon the fact that we have very high speed protons striking our upper atmosphere, and since if they create MBHs, and since we are still here, that implies that either they evaporate or they are relatively non-reactive when so small.
However, if they are relatively non-reactive, and they are travelling at near c following creation, then of course they would be harmless, as they would zip right through earth in 1/4 second much like a neutrino, which rarely reacts when zipping through earth.
Conversely, if they are created "at rest", as proposed for the LHC, they would endlessly orbit through earth, giving repeated opportunity to interact and grow larger. That is a critical distinction between "at rest" MBHs and relativistic MBHs that folks at CERN don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Of course, there are other safety concerns, such as strangelets, but they are too involved for this discussion.
Regards,
Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)
You can contact me at lhcdefense@hotmail.com
Or, go to www.sciforums.com where I post under my own name. You can register, and then PM me there. I check for PMs every few days [sometimes I forget, since I've only had about 20 in some 18 months since I registered there].
The existence of virtual particles was well-predicted by Paul A.M. Dirac, who envisioned the vacuum as being a "sea" of such particles, and from such derived the theoretical existence of positively charged electrons, which he showed should complement negative electrons. These positrons were subsequently discovered in cosmic ray showers, and later shown to be emitted by certain man-made radioisotopes during positive-beta emissions.
Under this theory, which is well established and essentially proven, by inputing energy at the right point in space/time, the virtual particles can be separated into real positive and negative electrons. Likewise, the inverse process would cause a postive and negative electron to be able to coalesce together to release energy [annihilation of the two particles]. This process is done daily in hundreds of Nuclear Medicine departments around the globe, in which positron emitters [manufactured in small medical cyclotrons] emit positrons, which then combine with electrons, releasing two energetic photons going in exactly opposite direction [to conserve momentum]. The photons are then detected by two 'gamma cameras' [scintillators with appropriate PM and electronics], such that the emitter of the positron can then be located in the human body where it was absorbed by the biochemistry of interest. I've been involved in that PET [positron emission tomography] work since the late 1970s. For more information, go to www.snm.org, the Society of Nuclear Medicine's official web site.
By extrapolation, all particles have their anti-particle, and they all exist in a "sea" from which they can be popped into existence by input of energy, or converselly "annihilated" with the appropriate release of energy from the complete conversion of their mass into pure energy [energetic photons].
Under Hawking's theory, he contemplated that if such a virtual pair were to come into existence near the 'event horizon' of a small black hole, that conceivably one of the virtual particles would disappear into the black hole, leaving the other isolated, but now real and not virtual. To conserve mass, the black hole would be required to lose mass. The net effect would be that the black hole would appear to be emitting particles, or "evaporating". His calculations showed that the smaller the mass of the black hole, the faster would be the "evaporation", such that at the tail end of such evaporation process, there would be a sudden 'burst' of particles. This is also equivalent to a "temperature" for the black hole!
The problem is, no one knows if this is true or not. It is theory, and not proven. It appears to me that it could very well be that the 'event horizon' would be required to pull in both virtual particles, and not merely one of them, in which case there would be no net loss of mass of the miniature black hole [MBH].
Thus, creation of any such miniature black hole might be very problematic, if the MBH does not evaporate. While it would appear that it would likely be only minimally reactive when quite small, that too poses a problem.
The "cosmic ray argument" advanced for collider safety relies upon the fact that we have very high speed protons striking our upper atmosphere, and since if they create MBHs, and since we are still here, that implies that either they evaporate or they are relatively non-reactive when so small.
However, if they are relatively non-reactive, and they are travelling at near c following creation, then of course they would be harmless, as they would zip right through earth in 1/4 second much like a neutrino, which rarely reacts when zipping through earth.
Conversely, if they are created "at rest", as proposed for the LHC, they would endlessly orbit through earth, giving repeated opportunity to interact and grow larger. That is a critical distinction between "at rest" MBHs and relativistic MBHs that folks at CERN don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Of course, there are other safety concerns, such as strangelets, but they are too involved for this discussion.
Regards,
Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 3 2008, 03:51 AM)
That's funny.
Old men don't have points.
If you have some point to make, make it, otherwise, just go away.
Watch it with the implied vulgarity.
It has to do with those darn collision models that you never understand. Did you ever read ThePeanut's post? Did you get it?
Old men don't have points.
If you have some point to make, make it, otherwise, just go away.
Watch it with the implied vulgarity.
It has to do with those darn collision models that you never understand. Did you ever read ThePeanut's post? Did you get it?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 3 2008, 08:14 PM)
Watch it with the implied vulgarity.
No idea what you're talking about.
No idea what you're talking about.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 3 2008, 08:14 PM)
It has to do with those darn collision models that you never understand. Did you ever read ThePeanut's post? Did you get it?
Did YOU actually bother reading ThePeanuts post? Or did you stop taking things in when you hit "I'm going to agree with Ubavontuba on this one"?
It says the same thing that I have been saying RIGHT FROM THE START And provided the maths to PROVE a long time ago.
Did YOU actually bother reading ThePeanuts post? Or did you stop taking things in when you hit "I'm going to agree with Ubavontuba on this one"?
It says the same thing that I have been saying RIGHT FROM THE START And provided the maths to PROVE a long time ago.
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Dec 15 2007, 11:44 PM)
Obviously there are two problems here. The observer in the frame co-moving with the centre of momentum of the system sees two protons moving towards each other at the same speed and therefore should not see the resulting micro black hole shooting off in either direction at the same speed as the original proton. Rather they should see a relatively stationary black hole (ignoring by-products that escape from the system) since in this frame the system has zero net momentum by definition - where does the MBH get it's velocity from if it speeds away at almost the speed of light? Also what the co-moving observer sees is being influenced by the frame our other observer is in.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 07:01 AM)
It says the same thing that I have been saying RIGHT FROM THE START
Obviously, you didn't understand his post either! Logically, how can he be agreeing with me and you at the same time? That's just too funny!
He saw the differences in the two arguments, and clearly spelled them out. You should be ashamed that you didn't understand.
Obviously, you didn't understand his post either! Logically, how can he be agreeing with me and you at the same time? That's just too funny!
He saw the differences in the two arguments, and clearly spelled them out. You should be ashamed that you didn't understand.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 08:48 PM)
Obviously, you didn't understand his post either! Logically, how can he be agreeing with me and you at the same time? That's just too funny!
He saw the differences in the two arguments, and clearly spelled them out. You should be ashamed that you didn't understand.
There are one of two possibilities here that answer your stupidity.
1) You don't actually know what you're blithering about - something which has been proven more then once.I wonder if he'll ask for proof this time
2) I might have misinterpreted something in the post.
And, as much as I would like to claim the first, as much as the bulk of proof and occams razor tell me that the first point is the most likely, in this case it's the second.
Although I did notice some glaring inaccuracies in the post, which means one of two things. You're not as smart as you seem to think you are (claiming an erroneous post backs up your assertions) or you're blatantly dishonest (a personality trait you have demonstrated in the past (regarding the conservation of energy) as for which it is, I don't know, I honestly can't decide, it's a tough call, and there's no overwhelming evidence one way of the other. [sarcasm]I know, maybe a tectbook will have the answer[/sarcasm].
He saw the differences in the two arguments, and clearly spelled them out. You should be ashamed that you didn't understand.
There are one of two possibilities here that answer your stupidity.
1) You don't actually know what you're blithering about - something which has been proven more then once.I wonder if he'll ask for proof this time
2) I might have misinterpreted something in the post.
And, as much as I would like to claim the first, as much as the bulk of proof and occams razor tell me that the first point is the most likely, in this case it's the second.
Although I did notice some glaring inaccuracies in the post, which means one of two things. You're not as smart as you seem to think you are (claiming an erroneous post backs up your assertions) or you're blatantly dishonest (a personality trait you have demonstrated in the past (regarding the conservation of energy) as for which it is, I don't know, I honestly can't decide, it's a tough call, and there's no overwhelming evidence one way of the other. [sarcasm]I know, maybe a tectbook will have the answer[/sarcasm].
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 09:15 AM)
There are one of two possibilities here that answer your (observation).
1) You don't actually know what you're (talking) about...
2) I might have misinterpreted something in the post.
And, as much as I would like to claim the first... ...in this case it's the second.
Well, at least you admitted it.
Um, didn't you essentially just do that yourself?
Um, didn't you essentially just do that yourself?
or you're blatantly dishonest (a personality trait you have demonstrated in the past (regarding the conservation of energy)
I've always been honest and consistent.
Obviously, the evidence is that you were wrong in your initial interpretation! What makes you think you're now all of a sudden capable of identifying "glaring inaccuracies?"
Obviously, the evidence is that you were wrong in your initial interpretation! What makes you think you're now all of a sudden capable of identifying "glaring inaccuracies?"
[sarcasm]I know, maybe a tectbook will have the answer[/sarcasm].
Start reading.
1) You don't actually know what you're (talking) about...
2) I might have misinterpreted something in the post.
And, as much as I would like to claim the first... ...in this case it's the second.
Well, at least you admitted it.
QUOTE
Although I did notice some glaring inaccuracies in the post, which means one of two things. You're not as smart as you seem to think you are (claiming an erroneous post backs up your assertions)
Um, didn't you essentially just do that yourself?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although I did notice some glaring inaccuracies in the post, which means one of two things. You're not as smart as you seem to think you are (claiming an erroneous post backs up your assertions) |
Um, didn't you essentially just do that yourself?
or you're blatantly dishonest (a personality trait you have demonstrated in the past (regarding the conservation of energy)
I've always been honest and consistent.
QUOTE
as for which it is, I don't know, I honestly can't decide, it's a tough call, and there's no overwhelming evidence one way of the other.
Obviously, the evidence is that you were wrong in your initial interpretation! What makes you think you're now all of a sudden capable of identifying "glaring inaccuracies?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| as for which it is, I don't know, I honestly can't decide, it's a tough call, and there's no overwhelming evidence one way of the other. |
Obviously, the evidence is that you were wrong in your initial interpretation! What makes you think you're now all of a sudden capable of identifying "glaring inaccuracies?"
[sarcasm]I know, maybe a tectbook will have the answer[/sarcasm].
Start reading.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 10:32 PM)
Well, at least you admitted it.
Um, didn't you essentially just do that yourself?
I've always been honest and consistent.
Obviously, the evidence is that you were wrong in your initial interpretation! What makes you think you're now all of a sudden capable of identifying "glaring inaccuracies?"
Start reading.
More bull devoid of substance.
I will say this much though.
it's because of arrogant little merchant bankers like you that make comments like that, that represent the only reason why I dislike owning up to my mistakes.
You're a ####wit and an idiot.
You're also arrogant and dishonest, you don't know a thing about physics, meanwhile I have demonstrated my knowledge of physics, and other branches of science on this forum on many occasions.
You on the other hand have proven that you're incapable of deriving even classical results, let alone relativistic ones.
Yes, I overlooked the poorly worded aspects of the post the first time I read it, then I went back and read it a little more carefully.
I could point these inaccuracies out to you but:
1) there's no point.
2) you wouldn't understand them.
3) i don't really care.
4. I've got better things to be doing with my time then pointing out obvious insufficiencies to someone who claims to know as much as you claim to know.
And I notice that even though I was blatant about it, the sarcasm was lost on you.
Um, didn't you essentially just do that yourself?
I've always been honest and consistent.
Obviously, the evidence is that you were wrong in your initial interpretation! What makes you think you're now all of a sudden capable of identifying "glaring inaccuracies?"
Start reading.
More bull devoid of substance.
I will say this much though.
it's because of arrogant little merchant bankers like you that make comments like that, that represent the only reason why I dislike owning up to my mistakes.
You're a ####wit and an idiot.
You're also arrogant and dishonest, you don't know a thing about physics, meanwhile I have demonstrated my knowledge of physics, and other branches of science on this forum on many occasions.
You on the other hand have proven that you're incapable of deriving even classical results, let alone relativistic ones.
Yes, I overlooked the poorly worded aspects of the post the first time I read it, then I went back and read it a little more carefully.
I could point these inaccuracies out to you but:
1) there's no point.
2) you wouldn't understand them.
3) i don't really care.
4. I've got better things to be doing with my time then pointing out obvious insufficiencies to someone who claims to know as much as you claim to know.
And I notice that even though I was blatant about it, the sarcasm was lost on you.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 10:02 AM)
...I dislike owning up to my mistakes.
Well, obviously. You get so pissy about it. Have you ever even tried being gracious about it?
God help us.
God help us.
You on the other hand have proven that you're incapable of deriving even classical results, let alone relativistic ones.
Ha! Ha! Ha! You're too funny!
And realizing you were wrong, instead of being gracious, you came back all pissy and vindictive.
And realizing you were wrong, instead of being gracious, you came back all pissy and vindictive.
I could point these inaccuracies out to you but:
But really, you can't.
Not lost, but rather turned back on the source.
Really, why do you, AlphaNumeric and the assorted members of my naysayers have such a hard time simply admitting you're wrong sometimes? It's no big deal. That's how we learn.
I think you'd find that if you were gracious about it, I'd return the grace 10 times! Going on like this just diminishes you!
Well, obviously. You get so pissy about it. Have you ever even tried being gracious about it?
QUOTE
You're also arrogant and dishonest, you don't know a thing about physics, meanwhile I have demonstrated my knowledge of physics, and other branches of science on this forum on many occasions.
God help us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're also arrogant and dishonest, you don't know a thing about physics, meanwhile I have demonstrated my knowledge of physics, and other branches of science on this forum on many occasions. |
God help us.
You on the other hand have proven that you're incapable of deriving even classical results, let alone relativistic ones.
Ha! Ha! Ha! You're too funny!
QUOTE
Yes, I overlooked the poorly worded aspects of the post the first time I read it, then I went back and read it a little more carefully.
And realizing you were wrong, instead of being gracious, you came back all pissy and vindictive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, I overlooked the poorly worded aspects of the post the first time I read it, then I went back and read it a little more carefully. |
And realizing you were wrong, instead of being gracious, you came back all pissy and vindictive.
I could point these inaccuracies out to you but:
But really, you can't.
QUOTE
And I notice that even though I was blatant about it, the sarcasm was lost on you.
Not lost, but rather turned back on the source.
Really, why do you, AlphaNumeric and the assorted members of my naysayers have such a hard time simply admitting you're wrong sometimes? It's no big deal. That's how we learn.
I think you'd find that if you were gracious about it, I'd return the grace 10 times! Going on like this just diminishes you!
ubavontumour,
You've consistently lost each and every dispute with AN, Trippy, rpenner etc ... so why the false delusionary stance?, and one of which is totally illogical, wrong which clearly makes concrete your absolute stupidity, ignorance and unwillingness to even employ the basics of rational decorum.
You're a stubborn idiotic cankerous growth that needs immediate FM surgery.
You've consistently lost each and every dispute with AN, Trippy, rpenner etc ... so why the false delusionary stance?, and one of which is totally illogical, wrong which clearly makes concrete your absolute stupidity, ignorance and unwillingness to even employ the basics of rational decorum.
You're a stubborn idiotic cankerous growth that needs immediate FM surgery.
QUOTE (ubavontumor+Jan 6 2008, 11:20 PM)
Well, obviously. You get so pissy about it. Have you ever even tried being gracious about it?
I think you'd find that if you were gracious about it, I'd return the grace 10 times! Going on like this just diminishes you!
Hmmm, no, it wasn't provoked, not in the slightest *eye roll*
You have yet to show any capability towards grace, or honesty.
And yeah, you can't derive classical results, you've proven it time and again.
Do I need to remind you (again) of the thought experiment you claimed violated the law of conservation of energy?
You claimed I was wrong at each step, and when I fed numbers into the equations and handed it to you on a silver platter, rather then admit you had been wrong, you changed the subject.
Hmmmm... And you wonder why no grace is forth coming.
And I'm going to ignore the rest of the #### you posted in your last post, because it's just more of the same deceitful vindictive BS we've all come to expect from you.
I think you'd find that if you were gracious about it, I'd return the grace 10 times! Going on like this just diminishes you!
Hmmm, no, it wasn't provoked, not in the slightest *eye roll*
You have yet to show any capability towards grace, or honesty.
And yeah, you can't derive classical results, you've proven it time and again.
Do I need to remind you (again) of the thought experiment you claimed violated the law of conservation of energy?
You claimed I was wrong at each step, and when I fed numbers into the equations and handed it to you on a silver platter, rather then admit you had been wrong, you changed the subject.
Hmmmm... And you wonder why no grace is forth coming.
And I'm going to ignore the rest of the #### you posted in your last post, because it's just more of the same deceitful vindictive BS we've all come to expect from you.
QUOTE (Cecil P Abstract+Jan 6 2008, 11:18 AM)
ubavontumour,
You've consistently lost each and every dispute with AN, Trippy, rpenner etc ... so why the false delusionary stance?, and one of which is totally illogical, wrong which clearly makes concrete your absolute stupidity, ignorance and unwillingness to even employ the basics of rational decorum.
Actually, I've won every point. Trippy's all pissed off because I just caught him in a gaff.
My! Such a change from your first post!
My! Such a change from your first post!
ubavontuba,
I'm so glad of your concerns, what the hell do these arrogant maths 'specialists' know about a possible 'real' micro-black hole? All conjecture and 100% unreliable I say.
Worst still is the appalling rudeness shown by other forum members, no respect for someone who actually cares.
Very poor show egg-heads.
Decided to join the mob rather than hold to a higher standard, I see. To bad for you. Spiteful people live such dreary lives.
I wonder if you might have anything relevant to add to the "Replying to Lhc Danger Revisited!" topic?
More importantly, can you add anything relevant?
I doubt it.
You've consistently lost each and every dispute with AN, Trippy, rpenner etc ... so why the false delusionary stance?, and one of which is totally illogical, wrong which clearly makes concrete your absolute stupidity, ignorance and unwillingness to even employ the basics of rational decorum.
Actually, I've won every point. Trippy's all pissed off because I just caught him in a gaff.
QUOTE
You're a stubborn idiotic cankerous growth that needs immediate FM surgery.
My! Such a change from your first post!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're a stubborn idiotic cankerous growth that needs immediate FM surgery. |
My! Such a change from your first post!
ubavontuba,
I'm so glad of your concerns, what the hell do these arrogant maths 'specialists' know about a possible 'real' micro-black hole? All conjecture and 100% unreliable I say.
Worst still is the appalling rudeness shown by other forum members, no respect for someone who actually cares.
Very poor show egg-heads.
Decided to join the mob rather than hold to a higher standard, I see. To bad for you. Spiteful people live such dreary lives.
I wonder if you might have anything relevant to add to the "Replying to Lhc Danger Revisited!" topic?
More importantly, can you add anything relevant?
I doubt it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 08:07 PM)
Hmmm, no, it wasn't provoked, not in the slightest
I merely corrected you on a mistake. You've made similar mistakes, repeatedly. So sue me that I thought it was funny. If you had a sense of humor, you might laugh at your own ineptitude.
You're so angry, you can't recognize it.
You're so angry, you can't recognize it.
And yeah, you can't derive classical results, you've proven it time and again.
Still funny!
From the beginning I stated you didn't understand, I continued stating you didn't understand, and yet you think you understand! Again, funny!
From the beginning I stated you didn't understand, I continued stating you didn't understand, and yet you think you understand! Again, funny!
Hmmmm... And you wonder why no grace is forth coming.
And I'm going to ignore the rest of the #### you posted in your last post, because it's just more of the same deceitful vindictive BS we've all come to expect from you.
And your last statement should make me feel any grace toward you... because?
I merely corrected you on a mistake. You've made similar mistakes, repeatedly. So sue me that I thought it was funny. If you had a sense of humor, you might laugh at your own ineptitude.
QUOTE
You have yet to show any capability towards grace, or honesty.
You're so angry, you can't recognize it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have yet to show any capability towards grace, or honesty. |
You're so angry, you can't recognize it.
And yeah, you can't derive classical results, you've proven it time and again.
Still funny!
QUOTE
Do I need to remind you (again) of the thought experiment you claimed violated the law of conservation of energy?
You claimed I was wrong at each step, and when I fed numbers into the equations and handed it to you on a silver platter, rather then admit you had been wrong, you changed the subject.
You claimed I was wrong at each step, and when I fed numbers into the equations and handed it to you on a silver platter, rather then admit you had been wrong, you changed the subject.
From the beginning I stated you didn't understand, I continued stating you didn't understand, and yet you think you understand! Again, funny!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do I need to remind you (again) of the thought experiment you claimed violated the law of conservation of energy? You claimed I was wrong at each step, and when I fed numbers into the equations and handed it to you on a silver platter, rather then admit you had been wrong, you changed the subject. |
From the beginning I stated you didn't understand, I continued stating you didn't understand, and yet you think you understand! Again, funny!
Hmmmm... And you wonder why no grace is forth coming.
And I'm going to ignore the rest of the #### you posted in your last post, because it's just more of the same deceitful vindictive BS we've all come to expect from you.
And your last statement should make me feel any grace toward you... because?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 7 2008, 11:09 AM)
Actually, I've won every point. Trippy's all pissed off because I just caught him in a gaff.
Utter Bull.
As I have stated elsewhere. Every songle one of my points has been born out by the maths, the physics, and the peer reviewed literature - all bar one, my calculation of the residual velocity of a black hole.
Utter Bull.
As I have stated elsewhere. Every songle one of my points has been born out by the maths, the physics, and the peer reviewed literature - all bar one, my calculation of the residual velocity of a black hole.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 7 2008, 11:30 AM)
From the beginning I stated you didn't understand, I continued stating you didn't understand, and yet you think you understand! Again, funny!
This is just pathetic.
You claimed that two objects falling towards each other from gravitational infinity, somehow defied the law of conservation of energy. Now that this claim has been thoroughly debunked, you claim that I never understood your point.
And yet all you can do is wave your arms about in the air like some sort of epilleptic chicken making noises about how I "don't understand" but not actually backing your claims up with anything with substance.
You've got nothing, give it up.
This is just pathetic.
You claimed that two objects falling towards each other from gravitational infinity, somehow defied the law of conservation of energy. Now that this claim has been thoroughly debunked, you claim that I never understood your point.
And yet all you can do is wave your arms about in the air like some sort of epilleptic chicken making noises about how I "don't understand" but not actually backing your claims up with anything with substance.
You've got nothing, give it up.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 11:09 PM)
Actually, I've won every point.
It's funny (in a pathetic way) that you believe that.
It's funny (in a pathetic way) that you believe that.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 7 2008, 02:09 AM)
Utter Bull.
As I have stated elsewhere. Every songle one of my points has been born out by the maths, the physics, and the peer reviewed literature - all bar one, my calculation of the residual velocity of a black hole.
So now you're stating you were right about ThePeanut's post, the first time?
No wonder you think you're right all the time. You argue from every angle, knowing one of them's bound to pan out!
EDIT: I thought this sounded familiar. A little research finds this:
I have expressed the opinion that I do not believe that a black hole can aborb virtual photons, which is how QFT models the electromagnetic force.
Here you're arguing against absorption...
...and here you're arguing for absorption. Which is it?
Of course I can't argue with you. You argue both sides of the argument yourself, at the same time!
As I have stated elsewhere. Every songle one of my points has been born out by the maths, the physics, and the peer reviewed literature - all bar one, my calculation of the residual velocity of a black hole.
So now you're stating you were right about ThePeanut's post, the first time?
No wonder you think you're right all the time. You argue from every angle, knowing one of them's bound to pan out!
EDIT: I thought this sounded familiar. A little research finds this:
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 16 2007, 06:46 PM)
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 16 2007, 06:39 PM)
I have expressed the opinion that I do not believe that a black hole can aborb virtual photons, which is how QFT models the electromagnetic force.
Here you're arguing against absorption...
QUOTE
You have not cited a single reference that says that blackholes can absorb virtual photons, and what effect that has on the black hole. In fact, last time I checked, the absorption of virtual particles is the process that leads to Hawking radiation in the first place.
...and here you're arguing for absorption. Which is it?
Of course I can't argue with you. You argue both sides of the argument yourself, at the same time!
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 7 2008, 02:14 AM)
You claimed that two objects falling towards each other from gravitational infinity, somehow defied the law of conservation of energy. Now that this claim has been thoroughly debunked, you claim that I never understood your point.
You still have it wrong! That's not it at all!
You couldn't even understand ThePeanut's post. It was as clear as day!
You've got nothing. Give it up, Trippy.
You still have it wrong! That's not it at all!
QUOTE
And yet all you can do is wave your arms about in the air like some sort of epilleptic chicken making noises about how I "don't understand" but not actually backing your claims up with anything with substance.
You couldn't even understand ThePeanut's post. It was as clear as day!
You've got nothing. Give it up, Trippy.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 7 2008, 04:02 AM)
It's funny ...that you believe that.
What points have I lost?
What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
What points have I lost?
What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 7 2008, 06:38 AM)
What points have I lost?
What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
The whole argument You have yet to demonstrate the LHC will be a danger. Every time the argument comes down to computingt specifics, ie quantative stuff, you fail to provide anything, yet 'our side' does.
Then there's your lying about having read a lot of quantum physics textbooks. You couldn't even name one! I can name several I've read off the top of my head! If your memory is so poor you can't even remember names of books, it doesn't bode well for you remembering the specific details within the books, now does it?
But then we know you haven't read any. So you're either a liar or your memory is so bad you can't remember anything about the books!
What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
The whole argument
You have yet to demonstrate the LHC will be a danger. Every time the argument comes down to computingt specifics, ie quantative stuff, you fail to provide anything, yet 'our side' does. Then there's your lying about having read a lot of quantum physics textbooks. You couldn't even name one! I can name several I've read off the top of my head! If your memory is so poor you can't even remember names of books, it doesn't bode well for you remembering the specific details within the books, now does it?
But then we know you haven't read any. So you're either a liar or your memory is so bad you can't remember anything about the books!
More incoherrent babble from Ubavontuba.
And now he's twisting my posts
Of course you wouldn't understand my point re EM fields.
And now he's twisting my posts
Of course you wouldn't understand my point re EM fields.
It is the variation of ideas that is important. According to some thinking a thing may be dangerous given certain conditions, while to another given the same conditions according to their thinking it may not be dangerous.
For one thing the particle accelerator like any particle accelerator is to be operated in the real world and so logically will give one result based not on science or physics but on a real world result. That result can be estimated quite precisely a number of ways using the variety of current theories that exist to make what would appear to be a reasonable prediction of the outcome.
One could argue that science is absolutely correct in what it expects and one could argue that it will explain whatever it gets providing it survives mathematically to say what happened was predictable had all the constants and variables been known at the time.
On the one hand scientific theorizing may be the greatest gateway to new knowledge that there is and on the other hand the bickering and arguing the various outcomes possible based on the reasoning used may make science the most intellectually obstructive device known to humankind.
I favor the second because it is human nature to look for a fight, to argue, dismiss others rudely and quite frankly we have a track record among all the species of being the most able to get a thing wrong. One might just as easily learn accurately from ones tea leaves what will happen as one would due to the state of things as they stand currently.
So for what it is worth according to my theory of six dimension time linked quantum in anti De Sitter space the lost energy is transmitted from one side of the proton to the other side of the proton to emerge at the time and position that it occupies in space time. Curiously enough we are coming up to a time of magnetic pole instability and while time reversal is not a standard model option it would mean the expected return of energy would be through the same proton boundary at an equal time of energy loss from the experiment to the calculated time of time reversal.
So on the off chance in the next hundred years or more the poles change direction due to time reversal then the most important thing would be to know where every bit of waste, of test material and testing equipment every used is. Presumably to know that at some timed point that return of lost energy will be visited on us and to have the material stored in such a way as to provide least or most danger to ourselves ... depending on our then current needs and state of human condition ... as is required.
Just a thought, but of course it is based on yet another one of the many theories one can argue against or dismiss outright depending on your own position at this moment in time, cheers
For one thing the particle accelerator like any particle accelerator is to be operated in the real world and so logically will give one result based not on science or physics but on a real world result. That result can be estimated quite precisely a number of ways using the variety of current theories that exist to make what would appear to be a reasonable prediction of the outcome.
One could argue that science is absolutely correct in what it expects and one could argue that it will explain whatever it gets providing it survives mathematically to say what happened was predictable had all the constants and variables been known at the time.
On the one hand scientific theorizing may be the greatest gateway to new knowledge that there is and on the other hand the bickering and arguing the various outcomes possible based on the reasoning used may make science the most intellectually obstructive device known to humankind.
I favor the second because it is human nature to look for a fight, to argue, dismiss others rudely and quite frankly we have a track record among all the species of being the most able to get a thing wrong. One might just as easily learn accurately from ones tea leaves what will happen as one would due to the state of things as they stand currently.
So for what it is worth according to my theory of six dimension time linked quantum in anti De Sitter space the lost energy is transmitted from one side of the proton to the other side of the proton to emerge at the time and position that it occupies in space time. Curiously enough we are coming up to a time of magnetic pole instability and while time reversal is not a standard model option it would mean the expected return of energy would be through the same proton boundary at an equal time of energy loss from the experiment to the calculated time of time reversal.
So on the off chance in the next hundred years or more the poles change direction due to time reversal then the most important thing would be to know where every bit of waste, of test material and testing equipment every used is. Presumably to know that at some timed point that return of lost energy will be visited on us and to have the material stored in such a way as to provide least or most danger to ourselves ... depending on our then current needs and state of human condition ... as is required.
Just a thought, but of course it is based on yet another one of the many theories one can argue against or dismiss outright depending on your own position at this moment in time, cheers
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 7 2008, 08:53 AM)
The whole argument You have yet to demonstrate the LHC will be a danger.
That was not the intent of my arguments. My intent was to falsify their (CERN's) safety analysis.
Pure deflection, none of which answers the questions:
That was not the intent of my arguments. My intent was to falsify their (CERN's) safety analysis.
- Do you still believe that cosmic ray induced micro black holes (should they be created) must be captured by the earth?
- Do you still believe that CERN's LHC induced micro black holes (should they be created) will never be captured by the earth?
QUOTE
Every time the argument comes down to computingt specifics, ie quantative stuff, you fail to provide anything, yet 'our side' does.
Then there's your lying about having read a lot of quantum physics textbooks. You couldn't even name one! I can name several I've read off the top of my head! If your memory is so poor you can't even remember names of books, it doesn't bode well for you remembering the specific details within the books, now does it?
But then we know you haven't read any. So you're either a liar or your memory is so bad you can't remember anything about the books!
Then there's your lying about having read a lot of quantum physics textbooks. You couldn't even name one! I can name several I've read off the top of my head! If your memory is so poor you can't even remember names of books, it doesn't bode well for you remembering the specific details within the books, now does it?
But then we know you haven't read any. So you're either a liar or your memory is so bad you can't remember anything about the books!
Pure deflection, none of which answers the questions:
- What points have I lost?
- What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 7 2008, 06:07 PM)
More incoherrent babble from Ubavontuba.
I know your babbling is incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory, but what about mine?
You think "twisted" means pointing out your obvious discrepencies? Give me a break!
You think "twisted" means pointing out your obvious discrepencies? Give me a break!
Of course you wouldn't understand my point re EM fields.
That's because it's pure nonsense.
I never claimed either of those. I went into detailed explaination of how gravitational capture of LHC black holes, if they are made, is still very unlikely. Remember me explaining the series of very unlikely events required to you? The universe's configuration has to be in a tiny tiny corner of parameter space. The proton collisions cannot be fine tuned due to parton distribution effects, thus getting precisely balanced collisions to form slower than 11m/s particles is staggeringly unlikely (even in LEP, where they could precisely control lepton collision energies, they never got such results).
Notice I haven't said "It's impossible", just that when you stop viewing things in black and white and take into account quantative results, you find the danger is beyond negligible.
And I never said cosmic ray black holes must be captured. Some will, given their constant creation (if black holes can be formed) and the statistical behaviour over time. Neutrino beams can pass through 50,000 light years of solid lead and come out the other end only losing 50% intensity but we still detect some of them. Now run such an experiment for 4.5 billion years and think of all the black holes which should be captured. Yet we're still here.
So, once again, you misrepresent what I say. If you're doing it deliberately, then it proves you're having to lie to justify your claims. If you're doing it accidentally, it proves you cannot even hold a coherent discussion.
So which is it?
I know your babbling is incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory, but what about mine?
QUOTE
And now he's twisting my posts
You think "twisted" means pointing out your obvious discrepencies? Give me a break!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And now he's twisting my posts |
You think "twisted" means pointing out your obvious discrepencies? Give me a break!
Of course you wouldn't understand my point re EM fields.
That's because it's pure nonsense.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 05:10 PM)
I know your babbling is incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory, but what about mine?
You think "twisted" means pointing out your obvious discrepencies? Give me a break!
That's because it's pure nonsense.
More deflection and misdirection from Ubavontuba.
Hawking radiation occurs when the black hole absorbs one of a pair of virtual particles, effectively providing the energy to boost the other one and make it real.
What I was debating was whether or not a black hole was even capable of absorbing the electric field within an atom as it passed through.
This is the simple point that you have failed to grasp.
As well as lie about, and twist out of context.
Aside form that, all I see is more of the same pathetic schoolyard insults in your post that you deride anybody else for making - even if it is only in your mind.
You think "twisted" means pointing out your obvious discrepencies? Give me a break!
That's because it's pure nonsense.
More deflection and misdirection from Ubavontuba.
Hawking radiation occurs when the black hole absorbs one of a pair of virtual particles, effectively providing the energy to boost the other one and make it real.
What I was debating was whether or not a black hole was even capable of absorbing the electric field within an atom as it passed through.
This is the simple point that you have failed to grasp.
As well as lie about, and twist out of context.
Aside form that, all I see is more of the same pathetic schoolyard insults in your post that you deride anybody else for making - even if it is only in your mind.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 04:47 AM)
- Do you still believe that cosmic ray induced micro black holes (should they be created) must be captured by the earth?
- Do you still believe that CERN's LHC induced micro black holes (should they be created) will never be captured by the earth?
I never claimed either of those. I went into detailed explaination of how gravitational capture of LHC black holes, if they are made, is still very unlikely. Remember me explaining the series of very unlikely events required to you? The universe's configuration has to be in a tiny tiny corner of parameter space. The proton collisions cannot be fine tuned due to parton distribution effects, thus getting precisely balanced collisions to form slower than 11m/s particles is staggeringly unlikely (even in LEP, where they could precisely control lepton collision energies, they never got such results).
Notice I haven't said "It's impossible", just that when you stop viewing things in black and white and take into account quantative results, you find the danger is beyond negligible.
And I never said cosmic ray black holes must be captured. Some will, given their constant creation (if black holes can be formed) and the statistical behaviour over time. Neutrino beams can pass through 50,000 light years of solid lead and come out the other end only losing 50% intensity but we still detect some of them. Now run such an experiment for 4.5 billion years and think of all the black holes which should be captured. Yet we're still here.
So, once again, you misrepresent what I say. If you're doing it deliberately, then it proves you're having to lie to justify your claims. If you're doing it accidentally, it proves you cannot even hold a coherent discussion.
So which is it?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 04:47 AM)
Pure deflection, none of which answers the questions:
What points have I lost?
What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
What points have I lost?
What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?
See the first part of this post.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 04:30 AM)
More deflection and misdirection from Ubavontuba.
How is responding directly to your posts in like form, a misdirection?
How is reposting our previous posts verbatim, twisting them out of context?
How is reposting our previous posts verbatim, twisting them out of context?
Aside form that, all I see is more of the same pathetic schoolyard insults in your post that you deride anybody else for making - even if it is only in your mind.
I return a lot less insults than I get. Mine also tend to be much less caustic.
How is responding directly to your posts in like form, a misdirection?
QUOTE
Hawking radiation occurs when the black hole absorbs one of a pair of virtual particles, effectively providing the energy to boost the other one and make it real.
What I was debating was whether or not a black hole was even capable of absorbing the electric field within an atom as it passed through.
This is the simple point that you have failed to grasp.
As well as lie about, and twist out of context.
What I was debating was whether or not a black hole was even capable of absorbing the electric field within an atom as it passed through.
This is the simple point that you have failed to grasp.
As well as lie about, and twist out of context.
How is reposting our previous posts verbatim, twisting them out of context?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hawking radiation occurs when the black hole absorbs one of a pair of virtual particles, effectively providing the energy to boost the other one and make it real. What I was debating was whether or not a black hole was even capable of absorbing the electric field within an atom as it passed through. This is the simple point that you have failed to grasp. As well as lie about, and twist out of context. |
How is reposting our previous posts verbatim, twisting them out of context?
Aside form that, all I see is more of the same pathetic schoolyard insults in your post that you deride anybody else for making - even if it is only in your mind.
I return a lot less insults than I get. Mine also tend to be much less caustic.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 8 2008, 06:37 AM)
I never claimed either of those.
You argued against the first in that other forum, and only conceded the point after it was corroborated (by others than yourself). Even then, you tried to argue against it by trying to insult me for being banned for presenting it in that other forum.
You vehemently and consistently argued against the second point here, and only conceded after it too was corroborated (again, by others than yourself).
And it took someone else to quantify it, for you to back off.
And it took someone else to quantify it, for you to back off.
Notice I haven't said "It's impossible", just that when you stop viewing things in black and white and take into account quantative results, you find the danger is beyond negligible.
You essentially said repeatedly, that it couldn't happen.
At first, you insisted they'd be captured by the earth, later, you insisted they'd be captured by neutron stars.
At first, you insisted they'd be captured by the earth, later, you insisted they'd be captured by neutron stars.
Some will, given their constant creation (if black holes can be formed) and the statistical behaviour over time. Neutrino beams can pass through 50,000 light years of solid lead and come out the other end only losing 50% intensity but we still detect some of them. Now run such an experiment for 4.5 billion years and think of all the black holes which should be captured. Yet we're still here.
First, show me this 50,000 light years of lead.
Actually, it's you that's misrepresenting what you've said.
Actually, it's you that's misrepresenting what you've said.
See the first part of this post.
So you openly concede that I'm right? The CERN safety argument is therefore falsified?
You argued against the first in that other forum, and only conceded the point after it was corroborated (by others than yourself). Even then, you tried to argue against it by trying to insult me for being banned for presenting it in that other forum.
You vehemently and consistently argued against the second point here, and only conceded after it too was corroborated (again, by others than yourself).
QUOTE
I went into detailed explaination of how gravitational capture of LHC black holes, if they are made, is still very unlikely. Remember me explaining the series of very unlikely events required to you? The universe's configuration has to be in a tiny tiny corner of parameter space. The proton collisions cannot be fine tuned due to parton distribution effects, thus getting precisely balanced collisions to form slower than 11m/s particles is staggeringly unlikely (even in LEP, where they could precisely control lepton collision energies, they never got such results).
And it took someone else to quantify it, for you to back off.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I went into detailed explaination of how gravitational capture of LHC black holes, if they are made, is still very unlikely. Remember me explaining the series of very unlikely events required to you? The universe's configuration has to be in a tiny tiny corner of parameter space. The proton collisions cannot be fine tuned due to parton distribution effects, thus getting precisely balanced collisions to form slower than 11m/s particles is staggeringly unlikely (even in LEP, where they could precisely control lepton collision energies, they never got such results). |
And it took someone else to quantify it, for you to back off.
Notice I haven't said "It's impossible", just that when you stop viewing things in black and white and take into account quantative results, you find the danger is beyond negligible.
You essentially said repeatedly, that it couldn't happen.
QUOTE
And I never said cosmic ray black holes must be captured.
At first, you insisted they'd be captured by the earth, later, you insisted they'd be captured by neutron stars.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And I never said cosmic ray black holes must be captured. |
At first, you insisted they'd be captured by the earth, later, you insisted they'd be captured by neutron stars.
Some will, given their constant creation (if black holes can be formed) and the statistical behaviour over time. Neutrino beams can pass through 50,000 light years of solid lead and come out the other end only losing 50% intensity but we still detect some of them. Now run such an experiment for 4.5 billion years and think of all the black holes which should be captured. Yet we're still here.
First, show me this 50,000 light years of lead.
QUOTE
So, once again, you misrepresent what I say. If you're doing it deliberately, then it proves you're having to lie to justify your claims. If you're doing it accidentally, it proves you cannot even hold a coherent discussion.
So which is it?
So which is it?
Actually, it's you that's misrepresenting what you've said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, once again, you misrepresent what I say. If you're doing it deliberately, then it proves you're having to lie to justify your claims. If you're doing it accidentally, it proves you cannot even hold a coherent discussion. So which is it? |
Actually, it's you that's misrepresenting what you've said.
See the first part of this post.
So you openly concede that I'm right? The CERN safety argument is therefore falsified?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
You argued against the first in that other forum, and only conceded the point after it was corroborated (by others than yourself). Even then, you tried to argue against it by trying to insult me for being banned for presenting it in that other forum.
No, I argued against your claim that cosmic radiation didn't imply the safety of CERN. You really do struggle to grasp what people say. No wonder you always complain.
No, I argued against your claim that cosmic radiation didn't imply the safety of CERN. You really do struggle to grasp what people say. No wonder you always complain.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
And it took someone else to quantify it, for you to back off..
Where? I quantified the phase space that the partons had to be in to reproduce your claim. It was tiny.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
At first, you insisted they'd be captured by the earth, later, you insisted they'd be captured by neutron stars.
And? Still struggling to grasp it I see.
Neutrons stars would capture them better than the Earth. However, if you were right and they were stable and a danger, the Earth would have been destroyed by now. For at least two reasons, black holes would fill the universe with a Boltzmann distribution (as Rpenner pointed out) and thus there'd be black holes in the vicinity of Earth moving closer than escape velocity. Yet we're still here. Secondly, the rate of production of black holes over 4.5 billion years would have resulted in at least 1 black hole being captured. Remember, it only takes 1 to demonstrate your claim. Yet we're still here.
Neutrons stars would capture them better than the Earth. However, if you were right and they were stable and a danger, the Earth would have been destroyed by now. For at least two reasons, black holes would fill the universe with a Boltzmann distribution (as Rpenner pointed out) and thus there'd be black holes in the vicinity of Earth moving closer than escape velocity. Yet we're still here. Secondly, the rate of production of black holes over 4.5 billion years would have resulted in at least 1 black hole being captured. Remember, it only takes 1 to demonstrate your claim. Yet we're still here.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
You essentially said repeatedly, that it couldn't happen.
So now it's not "You literally said" but "You essentially said". Unfortunately I literally said it was fantastically unlikely, not "It's kinda impossible". There's no 'kinda' about 'impossible'.
You're putting your interpretation on a rose tinted memory of yours. But we're already seen that you can't understand what people are telling you.
You're putting your interpretation on a rose tinted memory of yours. But we're already seen that you can't understand what people are telling you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
First, show me this 50,000 light years of lead.
What's the matter, don't understand scattering processes?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
Actually, it's you that's misrepresenting what you've said.
I misinterpreted a post where I outlined the series of unlikely events needed to make your claim true. Note 'unlikely', not 'impossible'.
Come on, if I said it, link to the post. Stop interpreting what I said and show what I said.
Come on, if I said it, link to the post. Stop interpreting what I said and show what I said.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:38 AM)
So you openly concede that I'm right? The CERN safety argument is therefore falsified?
Sweet tapdancing crap, you simply fail to understand, don't you? The two reasons I just outlined demonstrate that the CERN claim isn't false. 
For someone who claims to understand physics, you can't grasp it even when you're spoon fed it!
For someone who claims to understand physics, you can't grasp it even when you're spoon fed it!
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=139507
More than a year ago you quote me saying "It's not 100% confident". You specifically replied to it. Obviously you couldn't understand such a short sentence or you're resorting to lying.
More than a year ago you quote me saying "It's not 100% confident". You specifically replied to it. Obviously you couldn't understand such a short sentence or you're resorting to lying.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 8 2008, 08:23 PM)
How is responding directly to your posts in like form, a misdirection?
How is reposting our previous posts verbatim, twisting them out of context?
I return a lot less insults than I get. Mine also tend to be much less caustic.
Your deceptions are clever, I'll give you that much, but they're deceptions none the less.
The two comments that I made only appear to contradict each other when taken out of context, anything further I've already addressed, and will not address again at this point.
How is reposting our previous posts verbatim, twisting them out of context?
I return a lot less insults than I get. Mine also tend to be much less caustic.
Your deceptions are clever, I'll give you that much, but they're deceptions none the less.
The two comments that I made only appear to contradict each other when taken out of context, anything further I've already addressed, and will not address again at this point.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 8 2008, 08:20 AM)
No, I argued against your claim that cosmic radiation didn't imply the safety of CERN. You really do struggle to grasp what people say. No wonder you always complain.
How do cosmic ray collisions imply the safety of CERN? We've agreed that cosmic ray induced micro black holes would pass right on through the earth in less than a second and CERN ones could linger indefinitely, right? The collision results relative to the earth are totally different! There's no corollary to hang your assumption on.
I was arguing that cosmic ray induced NBHs would never be able to remain in the earth. This fact alone refutes CERN's contention that cosmic ray bombardment implies a safety factor for the LHC.
Their argument is that it's safe because nature does it all the time, at higher energies. This argument is in error.
In their argument, they have completely ignored the very basic physics of the Conservation of Momentum law and how it relates to natural collisions versus the LHC collisions.
Get it? Natural ones must have very high relative momentum, LHC ones could have none. Therefore, they aren't comparable.
And consistently implied that it was so tiny that it essentially wouldn't happen.
And consistently implied that it was so tiny that it essentially wouldn't happen.
And? Still struggling to grasp it I see.
Neutrons stars would capture them better than the Earth.
Explain the physics of that! So far, you've refused.
That's so wrong on so many different levels that I can't believe you said it. It has to do with the conservation of momentum. If they're moving in a similar orbit as the solar system around the galactic core, they'd never catch up. If they're moving faster, they'd pass right on through. Same thing if they're moving slower. Plus, you'd have to account for all the wobbles and changing orbit vectors within the solar system. Not to mention that by forming at very high relative velocities with the galactic mass, most would escape into intergalactic space or fall into the central core. They certainly wouldn't tend to cluster around our galactic orbital altitude.
That's so wrong on so many different levels that I can't believe you said it. It has to do with the conservation of momentum. If they're moving in a similar orbit as the solar system around the galactic core, they'd never catch up. If they're moving faster, they'd pass right on through. Same thing if they're moving slower. Plus, you'd have to account for all the wobbles and changing orbit vectors within the solar system. Not to mention that by forming at very high relative velocities with the galactic mass, most would escape into intergalactic space or fall into the central core. They certainly wouldn't tend to cluster around our galactic orbital altitude.
Secondly, the rate of production of black holes over 4.5 billion years would have resulted in at least 1 black hole being captured. Remember, it only takes 1 to demonstrate your claim. Yet we're still here.
No it wouldn't. The conservation of momentum protects us (see above).
I had it right. You were quite adamant that it was very unlikely to happen. Here's some excerpts (bolds added):
I had it right. You were quite adamant that it was very unlikely to happen. Here's some excerpts (bolds added):
CERN collisions are like cosmic ray collisions, since the momentum is not balanced. If you were familiar with hadronic collisions you'd see this. They act like firing two shotgun blasts at one another. The physics of the situation makes zero momentum end products, in terms of the lab frame, mind bogglingly unlikely. Just another factor you ignore.
And the most energetic collisions (those most likely to form nano-blackholes) are generally the ones with the lowest relative momentum to the lab. As little as zero relative momentum.
Can you find me a paper which describes a collision which resulted in zero momentum in a collider? 'Little relative momentum' might be 0.001% of their original momentum but that's still enough to reach escape velocity. Typical products move at relativistic speeds.
All they need to be is under escape velocity to be of concern. Going both possible ways leaves a velocity spread of about 22.4km/s. That's quite a spread.
It might be to you and me and every day velocities but it's not even 0.1% of the velocity they were moving at and it's less than 0.0001% of the original energy they had.
At room temperature, the energy particles have is about 0.05eV. They move at about 100~500m/s. The LHC will produce more than 10,000,000,000,000 eV in energy. If a particle has even 0.0000001% of that it'll reach escape velocity.
Since energy and velocity do not scale relativistically as they do in Newtonian dynamics, you should work in energy ranges, not velocities. You can half a particle energy and it might only go down by 1m/s at the energies we're talking about.
The energy spread a product must be in is tiny and even then the collision must be of the right kind with all the right momenta forms (transverse and longtitudinal) and between the right particles. And that's assuming the reaction is even possible.
The perfect head on collision is fantastically unlikely, the machine is simply not accurate enough. Even by that tiny chance, the probability of a black hole rather than a particle shower is tiny. The odds keep going against you.
...End excerpts... (bolds are mine)
There's more, but this is more than enough to illustrate my contention.
What's the matter, don't understand relevance?
What's the matter, don't understand relevance?
I misinterpreted a post where I outlined the series of unlikely events needed to make your claim true. Note 'unlikely', not 'impossible'.
Why assume the best case, when the worst case is what needs to be examined with the highest scrutiny?
I did (see above)
I did (see above)
Sweet tapdancing crap, you simply fail to understand, don't you? The two reasons I just outlined demonstrate that the CERN claim isn't false. For someone who claims to understand physics, you can't grasp it even when you're spoon fed it!
No, you are wrong again. The two reasons you outlined are false.
Hi uba!
Holidaying in Mexico, I think.
Gotta go. Cheers!
.
It seems strange then that he answered another posting of mine a day after my post here...
How do cosmic ray collisions imply the safety of CERN? We've agreed that cosmic ray induced micro black holes would pass right on through the earth in less than a second and CERN ones could linger indefinitely, right? The collision results relative to the earth are totally different! There's no corollary to hang your assumption on.
I was arguing that cosmic ray induced NBHs would never be able to remain in the earth. This fact alone refutes CERN's contention that cosmic ray bombardment implies a safety factor for the LHC.
Their argument is that it's safe because nature does it all the time, at higher energies. This argument is in error.
In their argument, they have completely ignored the very basic physics of the Conservation of Momentum law and how it relates to natural collisions versus the LHC collisions.
Get it? Natural ones must have very high relative momentum, LHC ones could have none. Therefore, they aren't comparable.
QUOTE
Where? I quantified the phase space that the partons had to be in to reproduce your claim. It was tiny.
And consistently implied that it was so tiny that it essentially wouldn't happen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where? I quantified the phase space that the partons had to be in to reproduce your claim. It was tiny. |
And consistently implied that it was so tiny that it essentially wouldn't happen.
And? Still struggling to grasp it I see.
Neutrons stars would capture them better than the Earth.
Explain the physics of that! So far, you've refused.
QUOTE
However, if you were right and they were stable and a danger, the Earth would have been destroyed by now. For at least two reasons, black holes would fill the universe with a Boltzmann distribution (as Rpenner pointed out) and thus there'd be black holes in the vicinity of Earth moving closer than escape velocity. Yet we're still here.
That's so wrong on so many different levels that I can't believe you said it. It has to do with the conservation of momentum. If they're moving in a similar orbit as the solar system around the galactic core, they'd never catch up. If they're moving faster, they'd pass right on through. Same thing if they're moving slower. Plus, you'd have to account for all the wobbles and changing orbit vectors within the solar system. Not to mention that by forming at very high relative velocities with the galactic mass, most would escape into intergalactic space or fall into the central core. They certainly wouldn't tend to cluster around our galactic orbital altitude.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However, if you were right and they were stable and a danger, the Earth would have been destroyed by now. For at least two reasons, black holes would fill the universe with a Boltzmann distribution (as Rpenner pointed out) and thus there'd be black holes in the vicinity of Earth moving closer than escape velocity. Yet we're still here. |
That's so wrong on so many different levels that I can't believe you said it. It has to do with the conservation of momentum. If they're moving in a similar orbit as the solar system around the galactic core, they'd never catch up. If they're moving faster, they'd pass right on through. Same thing if they're moving slower. Plus, you'd have to account for all the wobbles and changing orbit vectors within the solar system. Not to mention that by forming at very high relative velocities with the galactic mass, most would escape into intergalactic space or fall into the central core. They certainly wouldn't tend to cluster around our galactic orbital altitude.
Secondly, the rate of production of black holes over 4.5 billion years would have resulted in at least 1 black hole being captured. Remember, it only takes 1 to demonstrate your claim. Yet we're still here.
No it wouldn't. The conservation of momentum protects us (see above).
QUOTE
So now it's not "You literally said" but "You essentially said". Unfortunately I literally said it was fantastically unlikely, not "It's kinda impossible". There's no 'kinda' about 'impossible'.
You're putting your interpretation on a rose tinted memory of yours. But we're already seen that you can't understand what people are telling you.
You're putting your interpretation on a rose tinted memory of yours. But we're already seen that you can't understand what people are telling you.
I had it right. You were quite adamant that it was very unlikely to happen. Here's some excerpts (bolds added):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So now it's not "You literally said" but "You essentially said". Unfortunately I literally said it was fantastically unlikely, not "It's kinda impossible". There's no 'kinda' about 'impossible'. You're putting your interpretation on a rose tinted memory of yours. But we're already seen that you can't understand what people are telling you. |
I had it right. You were quite adamant that it was very unlikely to happen. Here's some excerpts (bolds added):
CERN collisions are like cosmic ray collisions, since the momentum is not balanced. If you were familiar with hadronic collisions you'd see this. They act like firing two shotgun blasts at one another. The physics of the situation makes zero momentum end products, in terms of the lab frame, mind bogglingly unlikely. Just another factor you ignore.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Sep 4 2007, 01:02 PM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 3 2007, 08:13 AM)
And the most energetic collisions (those most likely to form nano-blackholes) are generally the ones with the lowest relative momentum to the lab. As little as zero relative momentum.
Can you find me a paper which describes a collision which resulted in zero momentum in a collider? 'Little relative momentum' might be 0.001% of their original momentum but that's still enough to reach escape velocity. Typical products move at relativistic speeds.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 3 2007, 08:13 AM)
All they need to be is under escape velocity to be of concern. Going both possible ways leaves a velocity spread of about 22.4km/s. That's quite a spread.
It might be to you and me and every day velocities but it's not even 0.1% of the velocity they were moving at and it's less than 0.0001% of the original energy they had.
At room temperature, the energy particles have is about 0.05eV. They move at about 100~500m/s. The LHC will produce more than 10,000,000,000,000 eV in energy. If a particle has even 0.0000001% of that it'll reach escape velocity.
Since energy and velocity do not scale relativistically as they do in Newtonian dynamics, you should work in energy ranges, not velocities. You can half a particle energy and it might only go down by 1m/s at the energies we're talking about.
The energy spread a product must be in is tiny and even then the collision must be of the right kind with all the right momenta forms (transverse and longtitudinal) and between the right particles. And that's assuming the reaction is even possible.
The perfect head on collision is fantastically unlikely, the machine is simply not accurate enough. Even by that tiny chance, the probability of a black hole rather than a particle shower is tiny. The odds keep going against you.
...End excerpts... (bolds are mine)
There's more, but this is more than enough to illustrate my contention.
QUOTE
What's the matter, don't understand scattering processes?
What's the matter, don't understand relevance?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What's the matter, don't understand scattering processes? |
What's the matter, don't understand relevance?
I misinterpreted a post where I outlined the series of unlikely events needed to make your claim true. Note 'unlikely', not 'impossible'.
Why assume the best case, when the worst case is what needs to be examined with the highest scrutiny?
QUOTE
Come on, if I said it, link to the post. Stop interpreting what I said and show what I said.
I did (see above)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Come on, if I said it, link to the post. Stop interpreting what I said and show what I said. |
I did (see above)
Sweet tapdancing crap, you simply fail to understand, don't you? The two reasons I just outlined demonstrate that the CERN claim isn't false. For someone who claims to understand physics, you can't grasp it even when you're spoon fed it!
No, you are wrong again. The two reasons you outlined are false.
Where's AlphaNumeric?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 22 2008, 01:36 AM)
Where's AlphaNumeric?
Hi uba!
Holidaying in Mexico, I think.
Gotta go. Cheers!
.
Hi uba!
Holidaying in Mexico, I think.
Gotta go. Cheers!
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 22 2008, 02:13 AM)
Hi uba!
Holidaying in Mexico, I think.
Gotta go. Cheers!
.
It seems strange then that he answered another posting of mine a day after my post here...
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 23 2008, 08:13 PM)
It seems strange then that he answered another posting of mine a day after my post here...
Never heard of "Limited access" and "Selective Posting" or "Answering the threads that don't bore the #### out of you"?
Never heard of "Limited access" and "Selective Posting" or "Answering the threads that don't bore the #### out of you"?
For anyone interested In discussing the dangers of the LHC I set up a forum at LHC Concerns forum
I'm interested in raising awareness of the subject by any means possible.
I'm interested in raising awareness of the subject by any means possible.
Thanks Ebenonce
I will check it out.
I am interested in the science of it, and in science we need to look at every possibility.
This should include positive and negative aspects of all projects.
I am sure you know the positive side as well as the deep con(crens) of everyone who has worked so hard for this projects reality.
I will check it out.
I am interested in the science of it, and in science we need to look at every possibility.
This should include positive and negative aspects of all projects.
I am sure you know the positive side as well as the deep con(crens) of everyone who has worked so hard for this projects reality.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 16 2008, 09:18 AM)
How do cosmic ray collisions imply the safety of CERN? We've agreed that cosmic ray induced micro black holes would pass right on through the earth in less than a second and CERN ones could linger indefinitely, right? The collision results relative to the earth are totally different! There's no corollary to hang your assumption on.
I was arguing that cosmic ray induced NBHs would never be able to remain in the earth. This fact alone refutes CERN's contention that cosmic ray bombardment implies a safety factor for the LHC.
Their argument is that it's safe because nature does it all the time, at higher energies. This argument is in error.
In their argument, they have completely ignored the very basic physics of the Conservation of Momentum law and how it relates to natural collisions versus the LHC collisions.
Get it? Natural ones must have very high relative momentum, LHC ones could have none. Therefore, they aren't comparable.
The use of the word "never" troubles me. Consider the following scenario. Two cosmic rays approach the atmosphere at shallow angles and from opposite directions. The primary cosmic rays or members of the resulting particle showers collide head on. Some of these collisions would happen to have a small momentum with respect to the Earth. This would happen very rarely but over the course of 4.5 billion years it is bound to have happened a considerable number of times. If it is possible for such collisions to create miniature black holes, then the miniature black holes formed so far have already explored the momentum-space surrounding zero momentum. And yet the Earth remains....
I was arguing that cosmic ray induced NBHs would never be able to remain in the earth. This fact alone refutes CERN's contention that cosmic ray bombardment implies a safety factor for the LHC.
Their argument is that it's safe because nature does it all the time, at higher energies. This argument is in error.
In their argument, they have completely ignored the very basic physics of the Conservation of Momentum law and how it relates to natural collisions versus the LHC collisions.
Get it? Natural ones must have very high relative momentum, LHC ones could have none. Therefore, they aren't comparable.
The use of the word "never" troubles me. Consider the following scenario. Two cosmic rays approach the atmosphere at shallow angles and from opposite directions. The primary cosmic rays or members of the resulting particle showers collide head on. Some of these collisions would happen to have a small momentum with respect to the Earth. This would happen very rarely but over the course of 4.5 billion years it is bound to have happened a considerable number of times. If it is possible for such collisions to create miniature black holes, then the miniature black holes formed so far have already explored the momentum-space surrounding zero momentum. And yet the Earth remains....
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 25 2008, 07:54 PM)
The use of the word "never" troubles me. Consider the following scenario. Two cosmic rays approach the atmosphere at shallow angles and from opposite directions. The primary cosmic rays or members of the resulting particle showers collide head on. Some of these collisions would happen to have a small momentum with respect to the Earth. This would happen very rarely but over the course of 4.5 billion years it is bound to have happened a considerable number of times. If it is possible for such collisions to create miniature black holes, then the miniature black holes formed so far have already explored the momentum-space surrounding zero momentum. And yet the Earth remains....
Save your breath.
I tried that argument with Ubavontuba once upon a time, I even provided the math to back it up - IIRC, it works out that if you should expect such a collision to occur something like every 4 minutes between protons with energies comparable to the lead nucleii that will eventually be pushed around inside the LHC.
Ubavontuba's argument was "But don't you see, it's infinities within infinities, it can never happen, inspite of the fact that I was able to completely quantify all of the factors - and that was assuming that any collision with greater then 50% overlap would cause an MBH to form, at an altitude of something like 80 or 100km - what ever the internationally agreed limit of 'the edge of space' is.
I wish I could remember where I made the post, it was either here or in the hawking radiation thread - I think. Ubavontuba has been whinging about he LHC in that many different places, it's a little hard to recall exactly.
Save your breath.
I tried that argument with Ubavontuba once upon a time, I even provided the math to back it up - IIRC, it works out that if you should expect such a collision to occur something like every 4 minutes between protons with energies comparable to the lead nucleii that will eventually be pushed around inside the LHC.
Ubavontuba's argument was "But don't you see, it's infinities within infinities, it can never happen, inspite of the fact that I was able to completely quantify all of the factors - and that was assuming that any collision with greater then 50% overlap would cause an MBH to form, at an altitude of something like 80 or 100km - what ever the internationally agreed limit of 'the edge of space' is.
I wish I could remember where I made the post, it was either here or in the hawking radiation thread - I think. Ubavontuba has been whinging about he LHC in that many different places, it's a little hard to recall exactly.
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 25 2008, 06:54 AM)
The use of the word "never" troubles me. Consider the following scenario. Two cosmic rays approach the atmosphere at shallow angles and from opposite directions. The primary cosmic rays or members of the resulting particle showers collide head on. Some of these collisions would happen to have a small momentum with respect to the Earth. This would happen very rarely but over the course of 4.5 billion years it is bound to have happened a considerable number of times. If it is possible for such collisions to create miniature black holes, then the miniature black holes formed so far have already explored the momentum-space surrounding zero momentum. And yet the Earth remains....
barakn,
Don't let Trippy fool you. Trippy's never posted a proper response to this. He's made it very clear that he doesn't understand simple collisions (much less relativistic collisions).
Anyway, this can't happen for a number of reasons. First, think about how big space is. What are the odds of it ever happening in just the right place, versus anyplace else?
Next, imagine the particles. What are the odds of two alike particles colliding in just the right place, with just the right absorption cross sections?
Next, imagine the relativistic energy variations. Either particle's motion/energy (relativistic energy with the earthbound observer) can vary infinitely. What are the odds that two will have identical relative energies, at the same time, at the same place, relative to the earth?
Next, imagine the possible vectors these two particles might traverse in order to meet at this particular point. At these energies, the collision must be virtually dead on in order for the collision result to have less than earth escape velocity. Aren't the possible vectors other than dead on virtually infinite?
So this collision must be perfect. So perfect that many trillions of similar collisions must occur in order for one perfect one to become apparent.
So, where's the evidence for this being an everday occurence? We have plenty of evidence of particles colliding with earthbound particles, but what about cosmic ray to cosmic ray collisions?
I can't find any references to it.
In this article it clearly states that high energy cosmic ray collisions are actually rare:
P.S. It's also important to note that this article proposes cosmic ray particle coillisions as posssibly being WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, i.e. dark matter) forming events.
barakn,
Don't let Trippy fool you. Trippy's never posted a proper response to this. He's made it very clear that he doesn't understand simple collisions (much less relativistic collisions).
Anyway, this can't happen for a number of reasons. First, think about how big space is. What are the odds of it ever happening in just the right place, versus anyplace else?
Next, imagine the particles. What are the odds of two alike particles colliding in just the right place, with just the right absorption cross sections?
Next, imagine the relativistic energy variations. Either particle's motion/energy (relativistic energy with the earthbound observer) can vary infinitely. What are the odds that two will have identical relative energies, at the same time, at the same place, relative to the earth?
Next, imagine the possible vectors these two particles might traverse in order to meet at this particular point. At these energies, the collision must be virtually dead on in order for the collision result to have less than earth escape velocity. Aren't the possible vectors other than dead on virtually infinite?
So this collision must be perfect. So perfect that many trillions of similar collisions must occur in order for one perfect one to become apparent.
So, where's the evidence for this being an everday occurence? We have plenty of evidence of particles colliding with earthbound particles, but what about cosmic ray to cosmic ray collisions?
I can't find any references to it.
In this article it clearly states that high energy cosmic ray collisions are actually rare:
- "Cosmic rays with extremely high energies are infrequent..."
P.S. It's also important to note that this article proposes cosmic ray particle coillisions as posssibly being WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, i.e. dark matter) forming events.
Ubavontuba
I didn't. I came to my conclusions on my own.
I didn't. I came to my conclusions on my own.
First, think about how big space is. What are the odds of it ever happening in just the right place, versus anyplace else?
That's a specious argument. It doesn't matter what the odds are elsewhere.
Greater than zero, obviously, or it would be impossible to perform this experiment in the LHC.
Greater than zero, obviously, or it would be impossible to perform this experiment in the LHC.
Next, imagine the possible vectors these two particles might traverse in order to meet at this particular point. At these energies, the collision must be virtually dead on in order for the collision result to have less than earth escape velocity. Aren't the possible vectors other than dead on virtually infinite?
Yes, but the number of possible vectors producing "dead on" collisions is also virtually infinite. What's important is the ratio, a point that seems to have escaped you.
I hope you're not saying something is impossible just because no one has written a paper on it. That would be stupid.
I hope you're not saying something is impossible just because no one has written a paper on it. That would be stupid.
"Cosmic rays with extremely high energies are infrequent..."
But the article you quote says "Hadrons with energies of 10^4 GeV (10,000 billion electron volts) have a flux of about a trillion per square kilometer per year." 10^4 GeV is the same order of magnitude as the LHC collisions. Thanks for making my point for me.
So? That was in reference to the much rarer much higher energy cosmic rays.
QUOTE
Don't let Trippy fool you
I didn't. I came to my conclusions on my own.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Don't let Trippy fool you |
I didn't. I came to my conclusions on my own.
First, think about how big space is. What are the odds of it ever happening in just the right place, versus anyplace else?
That's a specious argument. It doesn't matter what the odds are elsewhere.
QUOTE
What are the odds of two alike particles colliding in just the right place, with just the right absorption cross sections?
Greater than zero, obviously, or it would be impossible to perform this experiment in the LHC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What are the odds of two alike particles colliding in just the right place, with just the right absorption cross sections? |
Greater than zero, obviously, or it would be impossible to perform this experiment in the LHC.
Next, imagine the possible vectors these two particles might traverse in order to meet at this particular point. At these energies, the collision must be virtually dead on in order for the collision result to have less than earth escape velocity. Aren't the possible vectors other than dead on virtually infinite?
Yes, but the number of possible vectors producing "dead on" collisions is also virtually infinite. What's important is the ratio, a point that seems to have escaped you.
QUOTE
So, where's the evidence for this being an everday occurence? We have plenty of evidence of particles colliding with earthbound particles, but what about cosmic ray to cosmic ray collisions?
I can't find any references to it.
I can't find any references to it.
I hope you're not saying something is impossible just because no one has written a paper on it. That would be stupid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, where's the evidence for this being an everday occurence? We have plenty of evidence of particles colliding with earthbound particles, but what about cosmic ray to cosmic ray collisions? I can't find any references to it. |
I hope you're not saying something is impossible just because no one has written a paper on it. That would be stupid.
"Cosmic rays with extremely high energies are infrequent..."
But the article you quote says "Hadrons with energies of 10^4 GeV (10,000 billion electron volts) have a flux of about a trillion per square kilometer per year." 10^4 GeV is the same order of magnitude as the LHC collisions. Thanks for making my point for me.
QUOTE
P.S. It's also important to note that this article proposes cosmic ray particle coillisions as posssibly being WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, i.e. dark matter) forming events.
So? That was in reference to the much rarer much higher energy cosmic rays.
.
Hi jdemchenko, ubavontuba, everyone!
Just to tie up loose ends here for me, I will put one last original point for the consideration of both the LHC supporters and LHC detractors.
Consider what will happen to the 'gravity well' of any putative Micro Black Hole within the Earth's mass....
The Micro-bh's self-gravity 'well' will be COUNTERACTED and 'stretched outwards' by the trillions of times greater-strength gravity of the surrounding 'solid sphere'.
Any 'putative' Micro-bh formed will IMMEDIATELY have its gravity profile stretched BACK into the 'classical' world of 'classical' particles'...and hence the central 'feature' will itself NOT be contained to 'black' densities.
At which point the usual Coulomb/Electromag forces will determine its integrity/interactions with the other classical particles of the Earth mass.
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
Cheers all, I am just about caught up with the many months of other people's posts in Physorg during my protracted illness absence....and am almost ready to resume the TOE/COSMOLOGY stage-II inputs....so good luck and good thinking and see y'all later!
RC.
.
Hi jdemchenko, ubavontuba, everyone!
Just to tie up loose ends here for me, I will put one last original point for the consideration of both the LHC supporters and LHC detractors.
Consider what will happen to the 'gravity well' of any putative Micro Black Hole within the Earth's mass....
The Micro-bh's self-gravity 'well' will be COUNTERACTED and 'stretched outwards' by the trillions of times greater-strength gravity of the surrounding 'solid sphere'.
Any 'putative' Micro-bh formed will IMMEDIATELY have its gravity profile stretched BACK into the 'classical' world of 'classical' particles'...and hence the central 'feature' will itself NOT be contained to 'black' densities.
At which point the usual Coulomb/Electromag forces will determine its integrity/interactions with the other classical particles of the Earth mass.
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
Cheers all, I am just about caught up with the many months of other people's posts in Physorg during my protracted illness absence....and am almost ready to resume the TOE/COSMOLOGY stage-II inputs....so good luck and good thinking and see y'all later!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2008, 05:10 AM)
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
The models that allow for such low energy black holes generally do show they decay quite quickly as Hawking radiation, but they do so spontaneously, not because they are 'stretched outwards' by the surrounding mass.
The models that allow for such low energy black holes generally do show they decay quite quickly as Hawking radiation, but they do so spontaneously, not because they are 'stretched outwards' by the surrounding mass.
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 28 2008, 06:05 AM)
The models that allow for such low energy black holes generally do show they decay quite quickly as Hawking radiation, but they do so spontaneously, not because they are 'stretched outwards' by the surrounding mass.
Hi barakn.
Yeah, I know, mate! But while the 'Hawking Radiation' has been discussed here and elsewhere, it is still 'speculative'.
Whereas I simply put my 'original' argument based on the 'classical' aspects that are NOT 'speculative'.
I try to keep away from both 'sides' usual 'speculative' arguments which always end up in a shouting/insulting match. hehehe.
That is why I disagree with BOTH 'sides'...in that I have classically argued that Micro-holes cannot form or become stable at all in free collisions between particles in LHC (or anywhere 'free')....and I also point out that even if they could, they can pose no danger because of the overwhelming gravity 'stretching' effect of the surrounding Earth mass (as I outlined in my previous post).
Thanks anyway, barakn! Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi barakn.
Yeah, I know, mate! But while the 'Hawking Radiation' has been discussed here and elsewhere, it is still 'speculative'.
Whereas I simply put my 'original' argument based on the 'classical' aspects that are NOT 'speculative'.
I try to keep away from both 'sides' usual 'speculative' arguments which always end up in a shouting/insulting match. hehehe.
That is why I disagree with BOTH 'sides'...in that I have classically argued that Micro-holes cannot form or become stable at all in free collisions between particles in LHC (or anywhere 'free')....and I also point out that even if they could, they can pose no danger because of the overwhelming gravity 'stretching' effect of the surrounding Earth mass (as I outlined in my previous post).
Thanks anyway, barakn! Cheers!
RC.
.
Micro black holes would probably have half-life times like radioactive nucleons and emit radiation as they evaporate/defuse. However who's to say they could hold a positive charge and behave like a very large nucleon?
I wonder, too. A tiny Kerr-Newman BH would probably not form, but I am ignorant.
Just as an aside regarding the formation of a wormhole in energy density and I am assuming zero point energy states.
If the energy density was considered to be a perfect fluid and the charge like a ball bearing shot into an ocean of the stuff ... what do you think would form in the fluid?
I think given that much of the initial energy given to the charge (the ball bearing) was lost into the background (the ocean) you would only see the heated backwash from the tunnel caused by the impact. If you could only see the impact end you might also conclude energy loss.
If the energy density was considered to be a perfect fluid and the charge like a ball bearing shot into an ocean of the stuff ... what do you think would form in the fluid?
I think given that much of the initial energy given to the charge (the ball bearing) was lost into the background (the ocean) you would only see the heated backwash from the tunnel caused by the impact. If you could only see the impact end you might also conclude energy loss.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2008, 05:10 AM)
.
Hi jdemchenko, ubavontuba, everyone!
Just to tie up loose ends here for me, I will put one last original point for the consideration of both the LHC supporters and LHC detractors.
Consider what will happen to the 'gravity well' of any putative Micro Black Hole within the Earth's mass....
The Micro-bh's self-gravity 'well' will be COUNTERACTED and 'stretched outwards' by the trillions of times greater-strength gravity of the surrounding 'solid sphere'.
Any 'putative' Micro-bh formed will IMMEDIATELY have its gravity profile stretched BACK into the 'classical' world of 'classical' particles'...and hence the central 'feature' will itself NOT be contained to 'black' densities.
At which point the usual Coulomb/Electromag forces will determine its integrity/interactions with the other classical particles of the Earth mass.
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
Cheers all, I am just about caught up with the many months of other people's posts in Physorg during my protracted illness absence....and am almost ready to resume the TOE/COSMOLOGY stage-II inputs....so good luck and good thinking and see y'all later!
RC.
.
Just thought I'd point out that the LHC is on the SURFACE of the Earth, and not at its centre; and that any putative Micro-bh produced in LHC (or atmosphere) would have to traverse a great gravity-differential before getting deep enough into the Earth's spherical mass-distribution to experience 'equally-balanced' gravity field effect from all sides. And that long before that 'balance point' was reached, the unequal Earth gravity affecting the Micro-hole on its UNDERSIDE would 'stretch open' any Micro-BH's own gravitational field pattern so that the energy/mass within would not be contained symmetrically...and so expand to ordinary classical densities, charge properties etc etc.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi jdemchenko, ubavontuba, everyone!
Just to tie up loose ends here for me, I will put one last original point for the consideration of both the LHC supporters and LHC detractors.
Consider what will happen to the 'gravity well' of any putative Micro Black Hole within the Earth's mass....
The Micro-bh's self-gravity 'well' will be COUNTERACTED and 'stretched outwards' by the trillions of times greater-strength gravity of the surrounding 'solid sphere'.
Any 'putative' Micro-bh formed will IMMEDIATELY have its gravity profile stretched BACK into the 'classical' world of 'classical' particles'...and hence the central 'feature' will itself NOT be contained to 'black' densities.
At which point the usual Coulomb/Electromag forces will determine its integrity/interactions with the other classical particles of the Earth mass.
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
Cheers all, I am just about caught up with the many months of other people's posts in Physorg during my protracted illness absence....and am almost ready to resume the TOE/COSMOLOGY stage-II inputs....so good luck and good thinking and see y'all later!
RC.
.
Just thought I'd point out that the LHC is on the SURFACE of the Earth, and not at its centre; and that any putative Micro-bh produced in LHC (or atmosphere) would have to traverse a great gravity-differential before getting deep enough into the Earth's spherical mass-distribution to experience 'equally-balanced' gravity field effect from all sides. And that long before that 'balance point' was reached, the unequal Earth gravity affecting the Micro-hole on its UNDERSIDE would 'stretch open' any Micro-BH's own gravitational field pattern so that the energy/mass within would not be contained symmetrically...and so expand to ordinary classical densities, charge properties etc etc.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 28 2008, 02:58 AM)
Ubavontuba
I didn't. I came to my conclusions on my own.
That's a good start. You read like Dallas though. Any relation?
Not really. Supposing it happens regularly, given any certain frequency in the universe. The odds of it happening anywhere at all, are the same. The odds of it happening in any one particular place, is dictated by the average frequency of occurence, divided by the volume of the universe.
If it was particularly frequent, wouldn't space glow?
Not really. Supposing it happens regularly, given any certain frequency in the universe. The odds of it happening anywhere at all, are the same. The odds of it happening in any one particular place, is dictated by the average frequency of occurence, divided by the volume of the universe.
If it was particularly frequent, wouldn't space glow?
Greater than zero, obviously, or it would be impossible to perform this experiment in the LHC.
Hmm. I wonder, did you understand that I was referring to natural, cosmic ray induced occurences, versus directed occurences? It seems hard to imagine that you might've missed the context.
Assuming (for the sake of humor) that you're being flippant, do you also think NASCAR races (another directed occurence) are run regularly on Pluto?
No, it didn't escape me. What percent of all directions can be described by the dead on scenario? It's not only vectors though, it's relative angular momentum too. Perhaps you missed that?
No, it didn't escape me. What percent of all directions can be described by the dead on scenario? It's not only vectors though, it's relative angular momentum too. Perhaps you missed that?
I hope you're not saying something is impossible just because no one has written a paper on it. That would be stupid.
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that this would have to be such a frequent event, that it surely wouldn't have gone unnoticed these past many years.
That sounds impressive, but just how big is a cosmic ray particle in relation to a square kilometer? You might as well state you shot a bullet at the galaxy!
That sounds impressive, but just how big is a cosmic ray particle in relation to a square kilometer? You might as well state you shot a bullet at the galaxy!
So? That was in reference to the much rarer much higher energy cosmic rays.
It's interesting because it's something I predicted independently - some years back. It's also periodically been a central theme in this argument.
I didn't. I came to my conclusions on my own.
That's a good start. You read like Dallas though. Any relation?
QUOTE
That's a specious argument. It doesn't matter what the odds are elsewhere.
Not really. Supposing it happens regularly, given any certain frequency in the universe. The odds of it happening anywhere at all, are the same. The odds of it happening in any one particular place, is dictated by the average frequency of occurence, divided by the volume of the universe.
If it was particularly frequent, wouldn't space glow?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's a specious argument. It doesn't matter what the odds are elsewhere. |
Not really. Supposing it happens regularly, given any certain frequency in the universe. The odds of it happening anywhere at all, are the same. The odds of it happening in any one particular place, is dictated by the average frequency of occurence, divided by the volume of the universe.
If it was particularly frequent, wouldn't space glow?
Greater than zero, obviously, or it would be impossible to perform this experiment in the LHC.
Hmm. I wonder, did you understand that I was referring to natural, cosmic ray induced occurences, versus directed occurences? It seems hard to imagine that you might've missed the context.
Assuming (for the sake of humor) that you're being flippant, do you also think NASCAR races (another directed occurence) are run regularly on Pluto?
QUOTE
Yes, but the number of possible vectors producing "dead on" collisions is also virtually infinite. What's important is the ratio, a point that seems to have escaped you.
No, it didn't escape me. What percent of all directions can be described by the dead on scenario? It's not only vectors though, it's relative angular momentum too. Perhaps you missed that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, but the number of possible vectors producing "dead on" collisions is also virtually infinite. What's important is the ratio, a point that seems to have escaped you. |
No, it didn't escape me. What percent of all directions can be described by the dead on scenario? It's not only vectors though, it's relative angular momentum too. Perhaps you missed that?
I hope you're not saying something is impossible just because no one has written a paper on it. That would be stupid.
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that this would have to be such a frequent event, that it surely wouldn't have gone unnoticed these past many years.
QUOTE
But the article you quote says "Hadrons with energies of 10^4 GeV (10,000 billion electron volts) have a flux of about a trillion per square kilometer per year." 10^4 GeV is the same order of magnitude as the LHC collisions. Thanks for making my point for me.
That sounds impressive, but just how big is a cosmic ray particle in relation to a square kilometer? You might as well state you shot a bullet at the galaxy!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the article you quote says "Hadrons with energies of 10^4 GeV (10,000 billion electron volts) have a flux of about a trillion per square kilometer per year." 10^4 GeV is the same order of magnitude as the LHC collisions. Thanks for making my point for me. |
That sounds impressive, but just how big is a cosmic ray particle in relation to a square kilometer? You might as well state you shot a bullet at the galaxy!
So? That was in reference to the much rarer much higher energy cosmic rays.
It's interesting because it's something I predicted independently - some years back. It's also periodically been a central theme in this argument.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 28 2008, 05:10 AM)
.
Hi jdemchenko, ubavontuba, everyone!
Just to tie up loose ends here for me, I will put one last original point for the consideration of both the LHC supporters and LHC detractors.
Consider what will happen to the 'gravity well' of any putative Micro Black Hole within the Earth's mass....
The Micro-bh's self-gravity 'well' will be COUNTERACTED and 'stretched outwards' by the trillions of times greater-strength gravity of the surrounding 'solid sphere'.
Any 'putative' Micro-bh formed will IMMEDIATELY have its gravity profile stretched BACK into the 'classical' world of 'classical' particles'...and hence the central 'feature' will itself NOT be contained to 'black' densities.
At which point the usual Coulomb/Electromag forces will determine its integrity/interactions with the other classical particles of the Earth mass.
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
Cheers all, I am just about caught up with the many months of other people's posts in Physorg during my protracted illness absence....and am almost ready to resume the TOE/COSMOLOGY stage-II inputs....so good luck and good thinking and see y'all later!
RC.
.
Gravity isn't soluable.
Hi jdemchenko, ubavontuba, everyone!
Just to tie up loose ends here for me, I will put one last original point for the consideration of both the LHC supporters and LHC detractors.
Consider what will happen to the 'gravity well' of any putative Micro Black Hole within the Earth's mass....
The Micro-bh's self-gravity 'well' will be COUNTERACTED and 'stretched outwards' by the trillions of times greater-strength gravity of the surrounding 'solid sphere'.
Any 'putative' Micro-bh formed will IMMEDIATELY have its gravity profile stretched BACK into the 'classical' world of 'classical' particles'...and hence the central 'feature' will itself NOT be contained to 'black' densities.
At which point the usual Coulomb/Electromag forces will determine its integrity/interactions with the other classical particles of the Earth mass.
So not only do I maintain (for the reasons already outlined in my earlier posts) that HIGHLY DYNAMIC 'free collisions' in LHC cannot produce STABLE Black MICRO features in the first place....but ALSO that even if they could, they would NOT be at black density/gravity profile for long owing to the surrounding effects of all the EARTH MASS gravitation in all directions AWAY FROM the central feature/well.
Cheers all, I am just about caught up with the many months of other people's posts in Physorg during my protracted illness absence....and am almost ready to resume the TOE/COSMOLOGY stage-II inputs....so good luck and good thinking and see y'all later!
RC.
.
Gravity isn't soluable.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 29 2008, 05:44 AM)
Gravity isn't soluable.
Please elaborate.
Back tomorrow.
.
Please elaborate.
Back tomorrow.
.
Barakn:
Here's the post I originally made:
Please elaborate.
Back tomorrow.
.
The gravity of a mass in a gravity well isn't diminished by the fact it's in a gravity well. Two stones in free fall, falling toward the earth from space, generally attract each other the same as if there was no earth and they were simply floating in free space.
The exception is; in extreme gravity gradients the stones can be separated by tidal effects. They still attract each other the same, but the tidal effects separate them faster then they can accelerate toward each other.
Here's the post I originally made:
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 28 2007, 04:13 PM)
The other thing that Ubavontubs is either unaware of because he hasn't worked it out for himself, or ignoring is that if you do the calculation, at some specific point in the atmosphere, above the earths surface, if we consider two cosmic ray particles traveling in opposite directions, there's a two windows that are 518 m^2 that is created by the requirment that they meet near enough to head on to cancel their velocity vectors out enough to have a residual velocity less then, or equal to the escape velocity of the earth.
This means, that every day, 1036 of five hundred and ten billion billion cosmic rays that hit the earth could, potentially collide head on, with the energy of the lead nuclei in the LHC, at an angle close enough to head on that the resultant black hole (assuming one is made) has a residual velocity equal to, or less than the earths escape velocity.
Given that the cross sectional area (prependicular to direction of motion) of a proton is 2.51 x10^31 m^2 and the surface area of the earth is 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, then from a distant point source it will only see half of this, IE 255,032,800,000,000 m^2, so the chances of a given proton hitting a specific part of the atmosphere are 1 in 10^45.
When we take into account the size of the windows involved, this tells us that the chances of two protons happening to collide in the earths upper atmosphere, with velocity vectors that just happen to be closely enough aligned to produce a black hole (assuming that's possible) with a residual velocity equal to, or less than the Earths escape velocity, this works out at 1 in 2.5X10^11, this means, given that we have 510,065,600,000,000 collisions with energies on the order of 1150 TeV per day, that we would have to wait approximately 41 seconds for such an event to occur.
So you see? When we put numbers to Ubavontubas objections, they turn out to be absurd.
As you can see, Ubavontuba's assertions about my post are in fact, hot air.
I'm sure you can appreciate the calculated probability - 1 in 10^45, and realize just how miniscule that is, but when you factor into account the sheer number of cosmic rays involved...
This is the point that Ubavontuba has missed, repeatedlyin his derision of these calculations.
Of course - If I'm wrong, so be it, I at least had the gumption to attempt the calculations, Ubavontuba hasn't even done that. In fact, Ubavontuba's first response was "Define perpendicular to the direction of motion".
This means, that every day, 1036 of five hundred and ten billion billion cosmic rays that hit the earth could, potentially collide head on, with the energy of the lead nuclei in the LHC, at an angle close enough to head on that the resultant black hole (assuming one is made) has a residual velocity equal to, or less than the earths escape velocity.
Given that the cross sectional area (prependicular to direction of motion) of a proton is 2.51 x10^31 m^2 and the surface area of the earth is 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, then from a distant point source it will only see half of this, IE 255,032,800,000,000 m^2, so the chances of a given proton hitting a specific part of the atmosphere are 1 in 10^45.
When we take into account the size of the windows involved, this tells us that the chances of two protons happening to collide in the earths upper atmosphere, with velocity vectors that just happen to be closely enough aligned to produce a black hole (assuming that's possible) with a residual velocity equal to, or less than the Earths escape velocity, this works out at 1 in 2.5X10^11, this means, given that we have 510,065,600,000,000 collisions with energies on the order of 1150 TeV per day, that we would have to wait approximately 41 seconds for such an event to occur.
So you see? When we put numbers to Ubavontubas objections, they turn out to be absurd.
As you can see, Ubavontuba's assertions about my post are in fact, hot air.
I'm sure you can appreciate the calculated probability - 1 in 10^45, and realize just how miniscule that is, but when you factor into account the sheer number of cosmic rays involved...
This is the point that Ubavontuba has missed, repeatedlyin his derision of these calculations.
Of course - If I'm wrong, so be it, I at least had the gumption to attempt the calculations, Ubavontuba hasn't even done that. In fact, Ubavontuba's first response was "Define perpendicular to the direction of motion".
Trippy,
I'm glad to see your numbers. I don't think I'll ever see Uba attempt any sort of calculation. I've exhausted my brain this evening and am having a little trouble focusing, but your result comes out roughly what I would have expected. Now of course some of the particles in the cosmic ray showers (versus the parent cosmic ray) will also have the required energy so we could throw them into the equation as well. I'd also expect neutron-proton and neutron-neutron collisions to have higher cross sections because of the lack of repulsive Coulomb force.
I'm glad to see your numbers. I don't think I'll ever see Uba attempt any sort of calculation. I've exhausted my brain this evening and am having a little trouble focusing, but your result comes out roughly what I would have expected. Now of course some of the particles in the cosmic ray showers (versus the parent cosmic ray) will also have the required energy so we could throw them into the equation as well. I'd also expect neutron-proton and neutron-neutron collisions to have higher cross sections because of the lack of repulsive Coulomb force.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 29 2008, 07:01 AM)
Please elaborate.
Back tomorrow.
.
The gravity of a mass in a gravity well isn't diminished by the fact it's in a gravity well. Two stones in free fall, falling toward the earth from space, generally attract each other the same as if there was no earth and they were simply floating in free space.
The exception is; in extreme gravity gradients the stones can be separated by tidal effects. They still attract each other the same, but the tidal effects separate them faster then they can accelerate toward each other.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 29 2008, 09:56 AM)
Barakn:
Here's the post I originally made:
As you can see, Ubavontuba's assertions about my post are in fact, hot air.
I'm sure you can appreciate the calculated probability - 1 in 10^45, and realize just how miniscule that is, but when you factor into account the sheer number of cosmic rays involved...
This is the point that Ubavontuba has missed, repeatedlyin his derision of these calculations.
As I already said:
All that's just from your very first premise, and I hardly even got started!
So you see? When we give even a cursory examination to Trippy's numbers, they turn out to be absurd.
When did I write that? It certainly doesn't seem to be a response to the post you're claiming it's a response to.
Here's the post I originally made:
As you can see, Ubavontuba's assertions about my post are in fact, hot air.
I'm sure you can appreciate the calculated probability - 1 in 10^45, and realize just how miniscule that is, but when you factor into account the sheer number of cosmic rays involved...
This is the point that Ubavontuba has missed, repeatedlyin his derision of these calculations.
As I already said:
- "Trippy's never posted a proper response to this. He's made it very clear that he doesn't understand simple collisions (much less relativistic collisions)."
All that's just from your very first premise, and I hardly even got started!
So you see? When we give even a cursory examination to Trippy's numbers, they turn out to be absurd.
QUOTE
Of course - If I'm wrong, so be it, I at least had the gumption to attempt the calculations, Ubavontuba hasn't even done that. In fact, Ubavontuba's first response was "Define perpendicular to the direction of motion".
When did I write that? It certainly doesn't seem to be a response to the post you're claiming it's a response to.
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 30 2008, 07:42 AM)
I've exhausted my brain...
As I thought... another Dallas/Pupamancur sock puppet. That you missed the context in a simple phrase, flagged you for the dumb chatbot you are. You need new programming.
Try another alias. Maybe you'll fool me next time... NOT!
As I thought... another Dallas/Pupamancur sock puppet. That you missed the context in a simple phrase, flagged you for the dumb chatbot you are. You need new programming.
Try another alias. Maybe you'll fool me next time... NOT!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 31 2008, 07:11 PM)
As I already said:
All that's just from your very first premise, and I hardly even got started!
So you see? When we give even a cursory examination to Trippy's numbers, they turn out to be absurd.
What are you blithering about?
Where are your correct numbers and workings?
Oh right... You don't have any, all you've got is unsubstantiated armwaving.
I, on the other hand, have been able to justify every assumption I've made in my calculations.
- "Trippy's never posted a proper response to this. He's made it very clear that he doesn't understand simple collisions (much less relativistic collisions)."
All that's just from your very first premise, and I hardly even got started!
So you see? When we give even a cursory examination to Trippy's numbers, they turn out to be absurd.
What are you blithering about?
Where are your correct numbers and workings?
Oh right... You don't have any, all you've got is unsubstantiated armwaving.
I, on the other hand, have been able to justify every assumption I've made in my calculations.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 31 2008, 06:54 AM)
What are you blithering about?
Where are your correct numbers and workings?
Oh right... You don't have any, all you've got is unsubstantiated armwaving.
Talk about blithering! Are you now asserting that two cosmic ray particles colliding head on, and subsequently forming a micro black hole, will stop relative to the earth? What about your contention that one cosmic ray particle colliding with the earth, and subsequently forming a micro black hole, will stop relative to the earth?
How can it be both?
As before, you argue from every conceivable angle, hoping one of your assertions is correct. Make up your mind!
Stop it! Stop it! My sides are hurting! You're making me laugh!
Where are your correct numbers and workings?
Oh right... You don't have any, all you've got is unsubstantiated armwaving.
Talk about blithering! Are you now asserting that two cosmic ray particles colliding head on, and subsequently forming a micro black hole, will stop relative to the earth? What about your contention that one cosmic ray particle colliding with the earth, and subsequently forming a micro black hole, will stop relative to the earth?
How can it be both?
As before, you argue from every conceivable angle, hoping one of your assertions is correct. Make up your mind!
QUOTE
I, on the other hand, have been able to justify every assumption I've made in my calculations.
Stop it! Stop it! My sides are hurting! You're making me laugh!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 31 2008, 08:04 PM)
Talk about blithering! Are you now asserting that two cosmic ray particles colliding head on, and subsequently forming a micro black hole, will stop relative to the earth? What about your contention that one cosmic ray particle colliding with the earth, and subsequently forming a micro black hole, will stop relative to the earth?
How can it be both?
As before, you argue from every conceivable angle, hoping one of your assertions is correct. Make up your mind!
Stop it! Stop it! My sides are hurting! You're making me laugh!
the two assertions are not mutually exclusive ya friggan mo, especially when you take into account that i suggested two different mechanisms.
wrt the colliding cosmic rays, i also specified that i only considered collisions with greater then 50% overlap, and pointed out that the collisions would be within a few miliradians of head on.
How can it be both?
As before, you argue from every conceivable angle, hoping one of your assertions is correct. Make up your mind!
Stop it! Stop it! My sides are hurting! You're making me laugh!
the two assertions are not mutually exclusive ya friggan mo, especially when you take into account that i suggested two different mechanisms.
wrt the colliding cosmic rays, i also specified that i only considered collisions with greater then 50% overlap, and pointed out that the collisions would be within a few miliradians of head on.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 31 2008, 07:24 AM)
the two assertions are not mutually exclusive ya friggan mo, especially when you take into account that i suggested two different mechanisms.
How is a relativistic particle colliding with a particle at rest with the earth the same as a relativistic particle colliding head on with an equal and opposite relativistic particle?
You really have no idea why your collision models are useless, do you? So sad...
How is a relativistic particle colliding with a particle at rest with the earth the same as a relativistic particle colliding head on with an equal and opposite relativistic particle?
QUOTE
wrt the colliding cosmic rays, i also specified that i only considered collisions with greater then 50% overlap, and pointed out that the collisions would be within a few miliradians of head on.
You really have no idea why your collision models are useless, do you? So sad...
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 31 2008, 08:27 PM)
How is a relativistic particle colliding with a particle at rest with the earth the same as a relativistic particle colliding head on with an equal and opposite relativistic particle?
You really have no idea why your collision models are useless, do you? So sad...
Actually, I have no idea how you manage to turn you computer on each morning.
But hang on, according to Peanuts post...
You really are a friggan mo, you know that?
The only thing around here that's useless is you.
Besides, you're the one that thinks the mass of the blackhole after the collision is the same as the mass of the particles before the collision (a stance that's blatantly wrong).
And now you're griping about me assuming you were correct and doing calculations?
Sheesh, yet again you contradict yourself.
You really have no idea why your collision models are useless, do you? So sad...
Actually, I have no idea how you manage to turn you computer on each morning.
But hang on, according to Peanuts post...
You really are a friggan mo, you know that?
The only thing around here that's useless is you.
Besides, you're the one that thinks the mass of the blackhole after the collision is the same as the mass of the particles before the collision (a stance that's blatantly wrong).
And now you're griping about me assuming you were correct and doing calculations?
Sheesh, yet again you contradict yourself.
.
Hi uba!
Hi uba!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 31 2008, 05:50 AM)
The gravity of a mass in a gravity well isn't diminished by the fact it's in a gravity well. Two stones in free fall, falling toward the earth from space, generally attract each other the same as if there was no earth and they were simply floating in free space.
The exception is; in extreme gravity gradients the stones can be separated by tidal effects. They still attract each other the same, but the tidal effects separate them faster then they can accelerate toward each other.
Irrelevant to the scenario re putative micro-hole gravity well PROFILE (not 'strength' per se) at the EDGE of the overwhemingly stronger gravity of the Earth gravity mass per se.
Two falling stones attract each other as 'normal' strengthwise, but BOTH their gravity PROFILES are DISTORTED because the OVERWHELMING spacetime CURVATURE is twoards the Earth trillions of times more strongly than towards each other.
After all, that is the REASON WHY the stones FALL towards the Earth more STRONGLY than they 'fall' towards each other....and why, as you say, the 'tides' can occur.
You said it yourself....that is why tides can happen on the Earth even from the MOON, because the gravity PROFILE is CHANGED on the side facing facing the Moon/Earth.
Imagine how strongly the earth/moon gravity PROFILES would be 'extended' towards each other if they were practically touching...and how 'weak' in either direction the curvature would be where the two now-adjacent 'wells' are 'meeting'?
Your 'gravity not soluable' argument/example says NOTHING about the interactions between the gravity WELL PROFILE of the whole Earth mass and the gravity well profile of the putative micro-hole on the surface or 'edge' of the Earth gravity well. Imagine trying to 'contain' an ultra-high ENERGY content 'event' at that gravitational 'weak spot' between the two DISPARATE 'wells'.
Hence your response is irrelevant.
Try again.
PS: Hi again, uba...I see from your continuing argument with Trippy that you're still confused about the 'mass/energy' behaviour/type before and after a collision for putative micro-hole production. I pointed out to you before that the KINETIC (momentum) ENERGIES 'delivered' into an event space cannot remain in that event space unless the collisions are perfectly INelastic...in which case the CONVERSION of that kinetic energy to HEAT/VIBRATIONAL/TURBULENCE ENERGY of the resultant particles will essentially DYNAMICALLY DESTROY the COHERENCE of the colliding masses and produce ordinary 'shrapnel' particles having their own 'splatter' dynamics as a collection of particles that could not have time to 'settle' into any 'extreme' density before being affected by the coulomb/electromagnetic etc forces that FAR FAR OUTWEIGHT in strength any localised 'fractured' gravity profiles attaching to any 'puny mass' size particle....not to mention the respective remnant kinetic energy VELOCITIES attaching to those daughter particles. It's a messy collision, not a nicely symmetrical, massive pre-existing self-gravity-constrained 'event' like the MACRO black hole formation scenarios. Totally different masses, dynamics and outcomes between 'free particle mass' COLLISIONS and 'contained stellar mass' CONTRACTIONS.
PPS: You also still fail to realise that the PARTICLES' ENERGY features in the collision are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater in spatial EXTENSION than any SUB-PLANK SCALE feature you wish to 'concentrate that energy in.....so the energy density can NEVER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE get to BE 'stuffed' into a sufficiently small sub-plank scale to get to be anywhere near 'black' densities' so as to draw in the hugely EXPANSIVE surrounding energy structure/features....let alone have anything like the 'overburden containment mass' weight/pressure forces from the available particle masses that stellar-mass formed MACRO holes DEPEND ON to COLLAPSE the central matter under that overburden weight/pressure force to black densities that THEN draws in the 'overburden' mass as well.
Cheers!
Back tomorrow.
RC.
The exception is; in extreme gravity gradients the stones can be separated by tidal effects. They still attract each other the same, but the tidal effects separate them faster then they can accelerate toward each other.
Irrelevant to the scenario re putative micro-hole gravity well PROFILE (not 'strength' per se) at the EDGE of the overwhemingly stronger gravity of the Earth gravity mass per se.
Two falling stones attract each other as 'normal' strengthwise, but BOTH their gravity PROFILES are DISTORTED because the OVERWHELMING spacetime CURVATURE is twoards the Earth trillions of times more strongly than towards each other.
After all, that is the REASON WHY the stones FALL towards the Earth more STRONGLY than they 'fall' towards each other....and why, as you say, the 'tides' can occur.
You said it yourself....that is why tides can happen on the Earth even from the MOON, because the gravity PROFILE is CHANGED on the side facing facing the Moon/Earth.
Imagine how strongly the earth/moon gravity PROFILES would be 'extended' towards each other if they were practically touching...and how 'weak' in either direction the curvature would be where the two now-adjacent 'wells' are 'meeting'?
Your 'gravity not soluable' argument/example says NOTHING about the interactions between the gravity WELL PROFILE of the whole Earth mass and the gravity well profile of the putative micro-hole on the surface or 'edge' of the Earth gravity well. Imagine trying to 'contain' an ultra-high ENERGY content 'event' at that gravitational 'weak spot' between the two DISPARATE 'wells'.
Hence your response is irrelevant.
Try again.
PS: Hi again, uba...I see from your continuing argument with Trippy that you're still confused about the 'mass/energy' behaviour/type before and after a collision for putative micro-hole production. I pointed out to you before that the KINETIC (momentum) ENERGIES 'delivered' into an event space cannot remain in that event space unless the collisions are perfectly INelastic...in which case the CONVERSION of that kinetic energy to HEAT/VIBRATIONAL/TURBULENCE ENERGY of the resultant particles will essentially DYNAMICALLY DESTROY the COHERENCE of the colliding masses and produce ordinary 'shrapnel' particles having their own 'splatter' dynamics as a collection of particles that could not have time to 'settle' into any 'extreme' density before being affected by the coulomb/electromagnetic etc forces that FAR FAR OUTWEIGHT in strength any localised 'fractured' gravity profiles attaching to any 'puny mass' size particle....not to mention the respective remnant kinetic energy VELOCITIES attaching to those daughter particles. It's a messy collision, not a nicely symmetrical, massive pre-existing self-gravity-constrained 'event' like the MACRO black hole formation scenarios. Totally different masses, dynamics and outcomes between 'free particle mass' COLLISIONS and 'contained stellar mass' CONTRACTIONS.
PPS: You also still fail to realise that the PARTICLES' ENERGY features in the collision are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater in spatial EXTENSION than any SUB-PLANK SCALE feature you wish to 'concentrate that energy in.....so the energy density can NEVER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE get to BE 'stuffed' into a sufficiently small sub-plank scale to get to be anywhere near 'black' densities' so as to draw in the hugely EXPANSIVE surrounding energy structure/features....let alone have anything like the 'overburden containment mass' weight/pressure forces from the available particle masses that stellar-mass formed MACRO holes DEPEND ON to COLLAPSE the central matter under that overburden weight/pressure force to black densities that THEN draws in the 'overburden' mass as well.
Cheers!
Back tomorrow.
RC.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 31 2008, 07:27 AM)
You really have no idea why your collision models are useless, do you? So sad...
You sound very confident. You must have done some calculations that show the probability of such collisions are so low as to never have occurred in the during the lifetime of the planet. I would very much appreciate it if you would post your calculations.
Thank you.
You sound very confident. You must have done some calculations that show the probability of such collisions are so low as to never have occurred in the during the lifetime of the planet. I would very much appreciate it if you would post your calculations.
Thank you.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 31 2008, 04:49 PM)
Actually, I have no idea how you manage to turn you computer on each morning.
With grammar like that, how did you make it through school?
...which you clearly didn't understand...
...which you clearly didn't understand...
You really are a friggan mo, you know that?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what about me?
I know you are, but what about me?
Besides, you're the one that thinks the mass of the blackhole after the collision is the same as the mass of the particles before the collision (a stance that's blatantly wrong).
When did I say that?
You've never assumed I'm correct, and your "calculations" aren't based in reality.
You've never assumed I'm correct, and your "calculations" aren't based in reality.
Sheesh, yet again you contradict yourself.
I know you repeatedly contradict yourself, but what about me?
With grammar like that, how did you make it through school?
QUOTE
But hang on, according to Peanuts post...
...which you clearly didn't understand...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But hang on, according to Peanuts post... |
...which you clearly didn't understand...
You really are a friggan mo, you know that?
I know you are, but what am I?
QUOTE
The only thing around here that's useless is you.
I know you are, but what about me?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only thing around here that's useless is you. |
I know you are, but what about me?
Besides, you're the one that thinks the mass of the blackhole after the collision is the same as the mass of the particles before the collision (a stance that's blatantly wrong).
When did I say that?
QUOTE
And now you're griping about me assuming you were correct and doing calculations?
You've never assumed I'm correct, and your "calculations" aren't based in reality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And now you're griping about me assuming you were correct and doing calculations? |
You've never assumed I'm correct, and your "calculations" aren't based in reality.
Sheesh, yet again you contradict yourself.
I know you repeatedly contradict yourself, but what about me?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 1 2008, 03:12 AM)
Irrelevant to the scenario re putative micro-hole gravity well PROFILE (not 'strength' per se) at the EDGE of the overwhemingly stronger gravity of the Earth gravity mass per se.
It's completely relevant.
Hence the observation they're in a gravity well (implying curved space-time).
Hence the observation they're in a gravity well (implying curved space-time).
After all, that is the REASON WHY the stones FALL towards the Earth more STRONGLY than they 'fall' towards each other....and why, as you say, the 'tides' can occur.
The earth is nothing but a larger stone. The stones also attract the earth. It's only that the earth's mass is overwhelmingly large that it's not easily perceived that way.
So?
So?
Imagine how strongly the earth/moon gravity PROFILES would be 'extended' towards each other if they were practically touching...and how 'weak' in either direction the curvature would be where the two now-adjacent 'wells' are 'meeting'?
Again, so?
That weak spot is only experienced by a third mass. It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
That weak spot is only experienced by a third mass. It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
Hence your response is irrelevant.
Try again.
Ditto.
It seems you still don't grasp the equivalence principal. And I've never stated the collisions wouldn't be messy. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the opposite.
It seems you still don't grasp the equivalence principal. And I've never stated the collisions wouldn't be messy. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the opposite.
PPS: You also still fail to realise that the PARTICLES' ENERGY features in the collision are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater in spatial EXTENSION than any SUB-PLANK SCALE feature you wish to 'concentrate that energy in.....so the energy density can NEVER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE get to BE 'stuffed' into a sufficiently small sub-plank scale to get to be anywhere near 'black' densities' so as to draw in the hugely EXPANSIVE surrounding energy structure/features....let alone have anything like the 'overburden containment mass' weight/pressure forces from the available particle masses that stellar-mass formed MACRO holes DEPEND ON to COLLAPSE the central matter under that overburden weight/pressure force to black densities that THEN draws in the 'overburden' mass as well.
That's the case in GR. I hope that's the end of it. However, in other theories...
It's completely relevant.
QUOTE
Two falling stones attract each other as 'normal' strengthwise, but BOTH their gravity PROFILES are DISTORTED because the OVERWHELMING spacetime CURVATURE is twoards the Earth trillions of times more strongly than towards each other.
Hence the observation they're in a gravity well (implying curved space-time).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Two falling stones attract each other as 'normal' strengthwise, but BOTH their gravity PROFILES are DISTORTED because the OVERWHELMING spacetime CURVATURE is twoards the Earth trillions of times more strongly than towards each other. |
Hence the observation they're in a gravity well (implying curved space-time).
After all, that is the REASON WHY the stones FALL towards the Earth more STRONGLY than they 'fall' towards each other....and why, as you say, the 'tides' can occur.
The earth is nothing but a larger stone. The stones also attract the earth. It's only that the earth's mass is overwhelmingly large that it's not easily perceived that way.
QUOTE
You said it yourself....that is why tides can happen on the Earth even from the MOON, because the gravity PROFILE is CHANGED on the side facing facing the Moon/Earth.
So?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You said it yourself....that is why tides can happen on the Earth even from the MOON, because the gravity PROFILE is CHANGED on the side facing facing the Moon/Earth. |
So?
Imagine how strongly the earth/moon gravity PROFILES would be 'extended' towards each other if they were practically touching...and how 'weak' in either direction the curvature would be where the two now-adjacent 'wells' are 'meeting'?
Again, so?
QUOTE
Your 'gravity not soluable' argument/example says NOTHING about the interactions between the gravity WELL PROFILE of the whole Earth mass and the gravity well profile of the putative micro-hole on the surface or 'edge' of the Earth gravity well. Imagine trying to 'contain' an ultra-high ENERGY content 'event' at that gravitational 'weak spot' between the two DISPARATE 'wells'.
That weak spot is only experienced by a third mass. It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your 'gravity not soluable' argument/example says NOTHING about the interactions between the gravity WELL PROFILE of the whole Earth mass and the gravity well profile of the putative micro-hole on the surface or 'edge' of the Earth gravity well. Imagine trying to 'contain' an ultra-high ENERGY content 'event' at that gravitational 'weak spot' between the two DISPARATE 'wells'. |
That weak spot is only experienced by a third mass. It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
Hence your response is irrelevant.
Try again.
Ditto.
QUOTE
PS: Hi again, uba...I see from your continuing argument with Trippy that you're still confused about the 'mass/energy' behaviour/type before and after a collision for putative micro-hole production. I pointed out to you before that the KINETIC (momentum) ENERGIES 'delivered' into an event space cannot remain in that event space unless the collisions are perfectly INelastic...in which case the CONVERSION of that kinetic energy to HEAT/VIBRATIONAL/TURBULENCE ENERGY of the resultant particles will essentially DYNAMICALLY DESTROY the COHERENCE of the colliding masses and produce ordinary 'shrapnel' particles having their own 'splatter' dynamics as a collection of particles that could not have time to 'settle' into any 'extreme' density before being affected by the coulomb/electromagnetic etc forces that FAR FAR OUTWEIGHT in strength any localised 'fractured' gravity profiles attaching to any 'puny mass' size particle....not to mention the respective remnant kinetic energy VELOCITIES attaching to those daughter particles. It's a messy collision, not a nicely symmetrical, massive pre-existing self-gravity-constrained 'event' like the MACRO black hole formation scenarios. Totally different masses, dynamics and outcomes between 'free particle mass' COLLISIONS and 'contained stellar mass' CONTRACTIONS.
It seems you still don't grasp the equivalence principal. And I've never stated the collisions wouldn't be messy. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the opposite.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PS: Hi again, uba...I see from your continuing argument with Trippy that you're still confused about the 'mass/energy' behaviour/type before and after a collision for putative micro-hole production. I pointed out to you before that the KINETIC (momentum) ENERGIES 'delivered' into an event space cannot remain in that event space unless the collisions are perfectly INelastic...in which case the CONVERSION of that kinetic energy to HEAT/VIBRATIONAL/TURBULENCE ENERGY of the resultant particles will essentially DYNAMICALLY DESTROY the COHERENCE of the colliding masses and produce ordinary 'shrapnel' particles having their own 'splatter' dynamics as a collection of particles that could not have time to 'settle' into any 'extreme' density before being affected by the coulomb/electromagnetic etc forces that FAR FAR OUTWEIGHT in strength any localised 'fractured' gravity profiles attaching to any 'puny mass' size particle....not to mention the respective remnant kinetic energy VELOCITIES attaching to those daughter particles. It's a messy collision, not a nicely symmetrical, massive pre-existing self-gravity-constrained 'event' like the MACRO black hole formation scenarios. Totally different masses, dynamics and outcomes between 'free particle mass' COLLISIONS and 'contained stellar mass' CONTRACTIONS. |
It seems you still don't grasp the equivalence principal. And I've never stated the collisions wouldn't be messy. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the opposite.
PPS: You also still fail to realise that the PARTICLES' ENERGY features in the collision are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater in spatial EXTENSION than any SUB-PLANK SCALE feature you wish to 'concentrate that energy in.....so the energy density can NEVER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE get to BE 'stuffed' into a sufficiently small sub-plank scale to get to be anywhere near 'black' densities' so as to draw in the hugely EXPANSIVE surrounding energy structure/features....let alone have anything like the 'overburden containment mass' weight/pressure forces from the available particle masses that stellar-mass formed MACRO holes DEPEND ON to COLLAPSE the central matter under that overburden weight/pressure force to black densities that THEN draws in the 'overburden' mass as well.
That's the case in GR. I hope that's the end of it. However, in other theories...
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 07:18 PM)
With grammar like that, how did you make it through school?
Oh god, here we go again, you are calling me out on my grammar? That's just ridiculous. Christ on a crutch you ####### #######, when was the last time you tried typing with a three week old infant in one hand? Perhaps more to the point, I have a BA, and a first class MA sitting in the room with me at the moment, both of whom majored in English (one of whom was born in London), both of whom say that specific sentence is grammatically correct, so if you know otherwise, I challenge you to be specific.
Oh god, here we go again, you are calling me out on my grammar? That's just ridiculous. Christ on a crutch you ####### #######, when was the last time you tried typing with a three week old infant in one hand? Perhaps more to the point, I have a BA, and a first class MA sitting in the room with me at the moment, both of whom majored in English (one of whom was born in London), both of whom say that specific sentence is grammatically correct, so if you know otherwise, I challenge you to be specific.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 07:18 PM)
...which you clearly didn't understand...
I'm not the one claiming some of the assumptions inherent in the post are wrong. Apparently I understood it better then you.
I'm not the one claiming some of the assumptions inherent in the post are wrong. Apparently I understood it better then you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 07:18 PM)
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what about me?
Pathetic, and purile. Suites you to a tee.
I know you are, but what about me?
Pathetic, and purile. Suites you to a tee.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 07:18 PM)
When did I say that?
You've stated it many times, I've lost count of how many times you've stated it, it was one of your key point in your conservation of momentum argument about the invalidity of the cosmic ray argument.
You've stated it many times, I've lost count of how many times you've stated it, it was one of your key point in your conservation of momentum argument about the invalidity of the cosmic ray argument.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 07:18 PM)
You've never assumed I'm correct, and your "calculations" aren't based in reality.
More bull. On many occasions I have stated "Even if your correct, the math still goes like this." So what was that you were blithering about me not being in touch with reality? Sheesh, my calculations are closer to reality then any of your arm-waving.
More bull. On many occasions I have stated "Even if your correct, the math still goes like this." So what was that you were blithering about me not being in touch with reality? Sheesh, my calculations are closer to reality then any of your arm-waving.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 07:18 PM)
I know you repeatedly contradict yourself, but what about me?
Pffft, no I haven't (the initial discussion of Peanuts post doesn't count, because i've already explained it to you, more then once.
Ya friggan Mo.
Pffft, no I haven't (the initial discussion of Peanuts post doesn't count, because i've already explained it to you, more then once.
Ya friggan Mo.
Hey don't say pfffffffft, say brrrrrrrrrrrrit coz sleeping PUSSIES say that when woken to the releif of seeing their master.
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 2 2008, 10:52 PM)
Hey don't say pfffffffft, say brrrrrrrrrrrrit coz sleeping PUSSIES say that when woken to the releif of seeing their master.
Another idiot with nothing but hot air to contribute, or so it would seem.
Another idiot with nothing but hot air to contribute, or so it would seem.
TRIPPY dont STEAM your `jock's trap' into a not over what i said. I far from an Idiot, however your proximus entity is in an amBIGuOUS direction to the definition of an idiot. Don't push your luck.
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 2 2008, 11:34 PM)
TRIPPY dont STEAM your `jock's trap' into a not over what i said. I far from an Idiot, however your proximus entity is in an amBIGuOUS direction to the definition of an idiot. Don't push your luck.
Not only is this sentence incoherrent, but it reads like it was typed by my three week old daughter.
"I far from an idiot"?
I'm sorry if english isn't your first language, but if you're going to keep making statements like that...
Not only is this sentence incoherrent, but it reads like it was typed by my three week old daughter.
"I far from an idiot"?
I'm sorry if english isn't your first language, but if you're going to keep making statements like that...
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 2 2008, 10:34 AM)
TRIPPY don't STEAM your `jock's trap' knickers into a knot over what i wrote. I'm far from an Idiot (And I could teach your daugter a few trick QUANTUM), however your proximus entity is in an amBIGuOUS direction to the definition of an miss-understabding idiot. Don't push your luck.
Excuse the typos in my previous post because I could steam your socks of with my coherent English.
Excuse the typos in my previous post because I could steam your socks of with my coherent English.
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 3 2008, 12:02 AM)
Excuse the typos in my previous post because I could steam your socks of with my coherent English.
Steam my socks with your coherrent english?
All you've done so far is show yourself to be an idiot, a liar, and a hypocrit (I call you a liar for altering your own post the way you did, without aknowledging that you had done so, after your errors were pointed out to you). Not only that, but what you changed it to is still wrong
Again, I ask, are you going to show us your mad phyziks skills? Or are you just going to stand around blowing hot air like so many others on this forum?
After all, last time I checked this was physorg not engorg.
Steam my socks with your coherrent english?
All you've done so far is show yourself to be an idiot, a liar, and a hypocrit (I call you a liar for altering your own post the way you did, without aknowledging that you had done so, after your errors were pointed out to you). Not only that, but what you changed it to is still wrong
Again, I ask, are you going to show us your mad phyziks skills? Or are you just going to stand around blowing hot air like so many others on this forum?
After all, last time I checked this was physorg not engorg.
Why does the LHC project bother to smash gold nucleons together? In 1973 we were up-to element 103, I think i read a post we are up-to element 116. Why not smash those elements together in the LHC tho make a `micro-black hole' ???? `God willing' with a poitive charge to capture electrons in energy field shelves making it inert and harmless to the Earth Planet.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 2 2008, 11:08 AM)
Again, I ask, are you going to show us your mad phyziks skills? Or are you just going to stand around blowing hot air like so many others on this forum?
After all, last time I checked this was physorg not engorg.
Blowing hot air? You must be refering to my CAC Thermal Combustion Engine with a very big COC ( Compresed Oxygen Cylinder))
I blow with tremendous force and your mind will blow like butter on the wrong end of of puff the magic DRAGON.
After all, last time I checked this was physorg not engorg.
Blowing hot air? You must be refering to my CAC Thermal Combustion Engine with a very big COC ( Compresed Oxygen Cylinder))
I blow with tremendous force and your mind will blow like butter on the wrong end of of puff the magic DRAGON.
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 2 2008, 06:41 AM)
Why does the LHC project bother to smash gold nucleons together? In 1973 we were up-to element 103, I think i read a post we are up-to element 116. Why not smash those elements together in the LHC tho make a `micro-black hole' ???? `God willing' with a poitive charge to capture electrons in energy field shelves making it inert and harmless to the Earth Planet.
Anyone got a red pen I think we got some editing to do
tho
poitive
Anyone got a red pen I think we got some editing to do
tho
poitive
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 2 2008, 11:41 AM)
Why does the LHC project bother to smash gold nucleons together? In 1973 we were up-to element 103, I think i read a post we are up-to element 116. Why not smash those elements together in the LHC tho make a `micro-black hole' ???? `God willing' with a poitive charge to capture electrons in energy field shelves making it inert and harmless to the Earth Planet.
Because these elements have such short lifetimes and are produced in such small quantities.
This is the only post of yours I could find that was worth replying to.
Because these elements have such short lifetimes and are produced in such small quantities.
This is the only post of yours I could find that was worth replying to.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 2 2008, 06:50 AM)
It's completely relevant.
Hence the observation they're in a gravity well (implying curved space-time).
The earth is nothing but a larger stone. The stones also attract the earth. It's only that the earth's mass is overwhelmingly large that it's not easily perceived that way.
So?
Again, so?
That weak spot is only experienced by a third mass. It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
Ditto.
It seems you still don't grasp the equivalence principal. And I've never stated the collisions wouldn't be messy. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the opposite.
That's the case in GR. I hope that's the end of it. However, in other theories...
Hi uba.
First you respond to my relevant point with this comment.....
Hence the observation they're in a gravity well (implying curved space-time).
The earth is nothing but a larger stone. The stones also attract the earth. It's only that the earth's mass is overwhelmingly large that it's not easily perceived that way.
So?
Again, so?
That weak spot is only experienced by a third mass. It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
Ditto.
It seems you still don't grasp the equivalence principal. And I've never stated the collisions wouldn't be messy. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the opposite.
That's the case in GR. I hope that's the end of it. However, in other theories...
Hi uba.
First you respond to my relevant point with this comment.....
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
The stones also attract the earth. It's only that the earth's mass is overwhelmingly large
And then you respond to my point with this....
And then you respond to my point with this....
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.
And you STILL miss the point about it being ALL ABOUT THE INTERACTIONS OF THE GRAVITY PROFILES.....and NOT the Micro-hole/Earth MASSES per se.
Which makes all your responses confused and irrelevant STILL.
Please think about it all some more...think about the how and the why and the what (and the WHERE especially between a 'micro-hole' and the overwhelming Earth 'wells') the gravity field strengths AND gravity well profiles and gravity 'tidal' and 'lagrangian' resultants would 'be'------FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GRAVITY FIELDS THEMSELVES, as DISTINCT from the perspective of whatever 'masses' which 'create' those fields ....and THEN, after you have thought it all through, come back with more than "..is so!...".....if you can.
OK, mate? hehehe.
Cheers till then! Back tomorrow or next day!
RC.
.
And you STILL miss the point about it being ALL ABOUT THE INTERACTIONS OF THE GRAVITY PROFILES.....and NOT the Micro-hole/Earth MASSES per se.
Which makes all your responses confused and irrelevant STILL.
Please think about it all some more...think about the how and the why and the what (and the WHERE especially between a 'micro-hole' and the overwhelming Earth 'wells') the gravity field strengths AND gravity well profiles and gravity 'tidal' and 'lagrangian' resultants would 'be'------FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GRAVITY FIELDS THEMSELVES, as DISTINCT from the perspective of whatever 'masses' which 'create' those fields ....and THEN, after you have thought it all through, come back with more than "..is so!...".....if you can.
OK, mate? hehehe.
Cheers till then! Back tomorrow or next day!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 2 2008, 09:14 AM)
Oh god, here we go again, you are calling me out on my grammar? That's just ridiculous. Christ on a crutch you ####### #######, when was the last time you tried typing with a three week old infant in one hand? Perhaps more to the point, I have a BA, and a first class MA sitting in the room with me at the moment, both of whom majored in English (one of whom was born in London), both of whom say that specific sentence is grammatically correct, so if you know otherwise, I challenge you to be specific.
How do you turn you computer on? Do you also start you car? Maybe you listen to you music too? So much for your friends' educations. What a shameful waste.
Just for fun, I highlighted some of your more obvious errors in red. Are your English majors taking notes?
I never said that. In fact I told ThePeanut he had it correct. Obviously, this is just you being contradictory again.
I never said that. In fact I told ThePeanut he had it correct. Obviously, this is just you being contradictory again.
Pathetic, and purile.
I know you are, but what about me?
It seems you can't understand anything more mature... I'm just trying to bring it to you.
It seems you can't understand anything more mature... I'm just trying to bring it to you.
You've stated it many times, I've lost count of how many times you've stated it, it was one of your key point in your conservation of momentum argument about the invalidity of the cosmic ray argument.
Evidence?
Not true. You only use the caveat, "If you're correct you must therefore be wrong because..." to bring in a bunch of irrelevant data to support your erroneous contentions.
Not true. You only use the caveat, "If you're correct you must therefore be wrong because..." to bring in a bunch of irrelevant data to support your erroneous contentions.
Pffft, no I haven't (the initial discussion of Peanuts post doesn't count, because i've already explained it to you, more then once.
You do this all the time too! "My contradictions don't count." Give me a break!
I know you are, but what about me?
How do you turn you computer on? Do you also start you car? Maybe you listen to you music too? So much for your friends' educations. What a shameful waste.
Just for fun, I highlighted some of your more obvious errors in red. Are your English majors taking notes?
QUOTE
I'm not the one claiming some of the assumptions inherent in the post are wrong. Apparently I understood it better then you.
I never said that. In fact I told ThePeanut he had it correct. Obviously, this is just you being contradictory again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not the one claiming some of the assumptions inherent in the post are wrong. Apparently I understood it better then you. |
I never said that. In fact I told ThePeanut he had it correct. Obviously, this is just you being contradictory again.
Pathetic, and purile.
I know you are, but what about me?
QUOTE
Suites you to a tee.
It seems you can't understand anything more mature... I'm just trying to bring it to you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Suites you to a tee. |
It seems you can't understand anything more mature... I'm just trying to bring it to you.
You've stated it many times, I've lost count of how many times you've stated it, it was one of your key point in your conservation of momentum argument about the invalidity of the cosmic ray argument.
Evidence?
QUOTE
More bull. On many occasions I have stated "Even if your correct, the math still goes like this." So what was that you were blithering about me not being in touch with reality? Sheesh, my calculations are closer to reality then any of your arm-waving.
Not true. You only use the caveat, "If you're correct you must therefore be wrong because..." to bring in a bunch of irrelevant data to support your erroneous contentions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More bull. On many occasions I have stated "Even if your correct, the math still goes like this." So what was that you were blithering about me not being in touch with reality? Sheesh, my calculations are closer to reality then any of your arm-waving. |
Not true. You only use the caveat, "If you're correct you must therefore be wrong because..." to bring in a bunch of irrelevant data to support your erroneous contentions.
Pffft, no I haven't (the initial discussion of Peanuts post doesn't count, because i've already explained it to you, more then once.
You do this all the time too! "My contradictions don't count." Give me a break!
QUOTE
Ya friggan Mo.
I know you are, but what about me?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 3 2008, 06:07 AM)
I know you are, but what about me?
You're a frigging mo', you frigging mo'.
You're a frigging mo', you frigging mo'.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 2 2008, 09:10 PM)
Hi uba.
First you respond to my relevant point with this comment.....
First you respond to my relevant point with this comment.....
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
The stones also attract the earth. It's only that the earth's mass is overwhelmingly large
And then you respond to my point with this....
And then you respond to my point with this....
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
It's not acting on the micro black hole, or the earth.