QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 27 2008, 11:11 PM)
MOND is irrelevant.
MOND can not replicate reltavistic results (hence the existence of TeVeS).
MOND can not replicate gravitational lensing (in fact it doesn't predict it, period) (Hence the existence of TeVeS).
Do you think gravity's extent is infinite?
MOND can not replicate reltavistic results (hence the existence of TeVeS).
MOND can not replicate gravitational lensing (in fact it doesn't predict it, period) (Hence the existence of TeVeS).
Do you think gravity's extent is infinite?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Feb 28 2008, 01:12 PM)
Do you think gravity's extent is infinite?
This comment is irrelevant (therefore my opnion is irrelevant) Gravity being finite in extent (or not) does not address the shortcomings of MOND as a theory.
This comment is irrelevant (therefore my opnion is irrelevant) Gravity being finite in extent (or not) does not address the shortcomings of MOND as a theory.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 27 2008, 09:08 AM)
My problem is that the the error should have been apparent on basic principles, long before the argument reached the resulting crescendo.
Trippy's error was numerical, the application of the basic principles was correct. You got the basic principles wrong!
Trippy's error was numerical, the application of the basic principles was correct. You got the basic principles wrong!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 27 2008, 08:05 AM)
I hardly bother to read this thread anymore (or else I'd have picked up on that mistake when you made it). It's not worth my time going over and over your inability to understand or learn relativity. Like all the cranks here, you believe you can learn physics by reading Wikipedia and that the details are not important..
...says the guy that argues gravity is a force in general relativity.
Really? I don't remember it. Do you have a quote?
Really? I don't remember it. Do you have a quote?
It can certainly add weight to a discussion if there's some logic behind a claim other than "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong".
So that's your argument then? You don't understand general relativity so you therefore think it's wrong to think of gravity as not being a force in general relativity?
So then, shouldn't you be holding Trippy to the higher standard? Or is it that because he agrees with you, you don't hold him to any standard? Are you really studying to be a scientist? ...perhaps a politician, more like?
...says the guy that argues gravity is a force in general relativity.
QUOTE
I'm pretty sure you linked to a paper about how Hawking radiation might not be correct.
Really? I don't remember it. Do you have a quote?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm pretty sure you linked to a paper about how Hawking radiation might not be correct. |
Really? I don't remember it. Do you have a quote?
It can certainly add weight to a discussion if there's some logic behind a claim other than "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong".
So that's your argument then? You don't understand general relativity so you therefore think it's wrong to think of gravity as not being a force in general relativity?
QUOTE
I know that Trippy is able to evaluate what he says. I don't for a second think you're able to do the simple derivation I posted that shows 'm' in E˛=m˛+p˛ is constant.
If you disagree, please derive the fact that the generators of the Lorentz group are antisymmetric. It's 3 lines of work
If you disagree, please derive the fact that the generators of the Lorentz group are antisymmetric. It's 3 lines of work
So then, shouldn't you be holding Trippy to the higher standard? Or is it that because he agrees with you, you don't hold him to any standard? Are you really studying to be a scientist? ...perhaps a politician, more like?
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 26 2008, 05:36 PM)
Oh Bull, I've been admitting for days that the final number for the velocity that was spat out was wrong.
But you haven't admitted that you were wrong about your assertions. The things you described would happen, were wrong. Your contentions defied the conservation laws.
It's relevant because if you did understand it, you would've perceived the error immediately.
It's relevant because if you did understand it, you would've perceived the error immediately.
Gee. I wonder. And no, I would not expect a professor to give high marks for style over content. But I would question any professor that didn't give half marks for 1) Understanding the concepts and knowing which equations to use, and 2) Being able to manipulate those equations correctly - especially when dealing with velocities where calculator error becomes important.
Wow! You must've had easy professors!
The difference is you are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.
The difference is you are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.
As far as landing on my face goes? At leat I got up off the couch. I may have got the magnitude of the change wrong, but you argued against the existence of a change at all (therefore, you were wrong).
When?
It's clearly true. Your contention was clearly ridiculous, which is exactly why rpenner and AlphaNumeric refused to back you up.
It's clearly true. Your contention was clearly ridiculous, which is exactly why rpenner and AlphaNumeric refused to back you up.
Pot... Kettle...
Thank you for demonstrating the point.
Yes, you have.
Yes, you have.
Once again, you're twisting my words out of context (which makes you a liar). I've stated, multiple times that the conceptual error I made was in considering the mass of the (alleged) blackhole.
No, your conceptual error was in assuming that in the case where energy converts to mass, the momentum disapates within the increased mass.
Your contentions were wrong!
Your contentions were wrong!
Arrogant much?
Oh Bull. Just take a moment to think about what you're saying.
Truth.
Admit that your contentions were wrong.
Admit that your contentions were wrong.
Then, you'd be wrong.
Like you?
All of which you got wrong.
All of which you got wrong.
Then say the words "Trippy, you had the right idea, but the numbers themselves were wrong".
Trippy, the premise you first espoused was wrong. You refused to listen to reason and thus made a fool of yourself. You're now compounding the error.
That makes me perceptive.
But you haven't admitted that you were wrong about your assertions. The things you described would happen, were wrong. Your contentions defied the conservation laws.
QUOTE
Hmmm. Let me see... When you're saying "You don't understand the conservsation of momentum" How could understanding the conservation of momentum, and being able to manipulate the numbers possibly be relevant.
It's relevant because if you did understand it, you would've perceived the error immediately.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hmmm. Let me see... When you're saying "You don't understand the conservsation of momentum" How could understanding the conservation of momentum, and being able to manipulate the numbers possibly be relevant. |
It's relevant because if you did understand it, you would've perceived the error immediately.
Gee. I wonder. And no, I would not expect a professor to give high marks for style over content. But I would question any professor that didn't give half marks for 1) Understanding the concepts and knowing which equations to use, and 2) Being able to manipulate those equations correctly - especially when dealing with velocities where calculator error becomes important.
Wow! You must've had easy professors!
QUOTE
Need I point out that you deride other people for making simplifications in their equations? Wassamatta, your own pill too bitter to swallow?
The difference is you are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Need I point out that you deride other people for making simplifications in their equations? Wassamatta, your own pill too bitter to swallow? |
The difference is you are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.
As far as landing on my face goes? At leat I got up off the couch. I may have got the magnitude of the change wrong, but you argued against the existence of a change at all (therefore, you were wrong).
When?
QUOTE
No. It is exactly untrue. And this contention is precisely why I will not simply let it go.
It's clearly true. Your contention was clearly ridiculous, which is exactly why rpenner and AlphaNumeric refused to back you up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No. It is exactly untrue. And this contention is precisely why I will not simply let it go. |
It's clearly true. Your contention was clearly ridiculous, which is exactly why rpenner and AlphaNumeric refused to back you up.
Pot... Kettle...
Thank you for demonstrating the point.
QUOTE
Oh FFS, How many times have I told you, I have never been assuming the COM is attached to the earth. I have never been treating the earth as some sort of preferred reference frame. Get a grip.
Yes, you have.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh FFS, How many times have I told you, I have never been assuming the COM is attached to the earth. I have never been treating the earth as some sort of preferred reference frame. Get a grip. |
Yes, you have.
Once again, you're twisting my words out of context (which makes you a liar). I've stated, multiple times that the conceptual error I made was in considering the mass of the (alleged) blackhole.
No, your conceptual error was in assuming that in the case where energy converts to mass, the momentum disapates within the increased mass.
QUOTE
Oh give over.
No, I'm not admitting my concepts were incorrect. They were correct, I had the right idea, wrong numbers.
No, I'm not admitting my concepts were incorrect. They were correct, I had the right idea, wrong numbers.
Your contentions were wrong!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh give over. No, I'm not admitting my concepts were incorrect. They were correct, I had the right idea, wrong numbers. |
Your contentions were wrong!
Arrogant much?
Oh Bull. Just take a moment to think about what you're saying.
Truth.
QUOTE
Admit my approach was correct.
Admit that your contentions were wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Admit my approach was correct. |
Admit that your contentions were wrong.
Then, you'd be wrong.
Like you?
QUOTE
How about... NOT. And again... Pot... Kettle...
And as far as Prior entanglements (and things you have yet to aknowledge I got correct) How about: Feeding rates, Cosmic ray collisions, and conservation of energy in a falling body for a start.
And as far as Prior entanglements (and things you have yet to aknowledge I got correct) How about: Feeding rates, Cosmic ray collisions, and conservation of energy in a falling body for a start.
All of which you got wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How about... NOT. And again... Pot... Kettle... And as far as Prior entanglements (and things you have yet to aknowledge I got correct) How about: Feeding rates, Cosmic ray collisions, and conservation of energy in a falling body for a start. |
All of which you got wrong.
Then say the words "Trippy, you had the right idea, but the numbers themselves were wrong".
Trippy, the premise you first espoused was wrong. You refused to listen to reason and thus made a fool of yourself. You're now compounding the error.
QUOTE
Oh, so all of a sudden you're the saviour of physics? That makes You, Farsight, TrueRelativity... Hmmm... So many saviours, which one do I believe?
That makes me perceptive.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 26 2008, 05:47 PM)
This is just speshul.
So what you're saying is that the mass of the blackhole is irrelevant when trying to consider the residual velocity of the blackhole with the momentum of the proton before the collision?
Yes.
The black hole mass can vary, dependent on how much energy is disipated in the parton distribution.
Again, you're confusing momentum with velocity. They aren't the same thing.
So what you're saying is that the mass of the blackhole is irrelevant when trying to consider the residual velocity of the blackhole with the momentum of the proton before the collision?
Yes.
The black hole mass can vary, dependent on how much energy is disipated in the parton distribution.
QUOTE
Interesting.
And you claim I don't know what I'm talking about.
And you claim I don't know what I'm talking about.
Again, you're confusing momentum with velocity. They aren't the same thing.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 28 2008, 03:59 AM)
Trippy's error was numerical
.... and uba's was undoubtedly his parents.
.... and uba's was undoubtedly his parents.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 1 2008, 06:46 PM)
But you haven't admitted that you were wrong about your assertions. The things you described would happen, were wrong. Your contentions defied the conservation laws.
It's relevant because if you did understand it, you would've perceived the error immediately.
Wow! You must've had easy professors!
The difference is you are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.
When?
It's clearly true. Your contention was clearly ridiculous, which is exactly why rpenner and AlphaNumeric refused to back you up.
Thank you for demonstrating the point.
Yes, you have.
No, your conceptual error was in assuming that in the case where energy converts to mass, the momentum disapates within the increased mass.
Your contentions were wrong!
Truth.
Admit that your contentions were wrong.
Like you?
All of which you got wrong.
Trippy, the premise you first espoused was wrong. You refused to listen to reason and thus made a fool of yourself. You're now compounding the error.
That makes me perceptive.
You really do like pushing buttons don't you?
I've already admitted to my numerical error(s).
I've explained what I feel compelled to explain about why I got what I got wrong, and didn't immeadiately pick on the errors.
You've had two other people explain to you that I used the correct formulae correctly.
You've already had it explained to you by Rpenner why he wasn't willing to commit one way or the other as to commenting on whether or not I was correct (perfectly reasonable when you take into account that my workings could have included a number of things that I wasn't discussing).
I've explained to you the conceptual error(s) that I made - and yet you persist on telling me where I made my error(s) - as if you had somehow seen the woirking that I haven't offered, or know me better then I know myself.
And the premise I first espoused was not wrong.
The only person making a fool of themselves here is you.
It's relevant because if you did understand it, you would've perceived the error immediately.
Wow! You must've had easy professors!
The difference is you are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.
When?
It's clearly true. Your contention was clearly ridiculous, which is exactly why rpenner and AlphaNumeric refused to back you up.
Thank you for demonstrating the point.
Yes, you have.
No, your conceptual error was in assuming that in the case where energy converts to mass, the momentum disapates within the increased mass.
Your contentions were wrong!
Truth.
Admit that your contentions were wrong.
Like you?
All of which you got wrong.
Trippy, the premise you first espoused was wrong. You refused to listen to reason and thus made a fool of yourself. You're now compounding the error.
That makes me perceptive.
You really do like pushing buttons don't you?
I've already admitted to my numerical error(s).
I've explained what I feel compelled to explain about why I got what I got wrong, and didn't immeadiately pick on the errors.
You've had two other people explain to you that I used the correct formulae correctly.
You've already had it explained to you by Rpenner why he wasn't willing to commit one way or the other as to commenting on whether or not I was correct (perfectly reasonable when you take into account that my workings could have included a number of things that I wasn't discussing).
I've explained to you the conceptual error(s) that I made - and yet you persist on telling me where I made my error(s) - as if you had somehow seen the woirking that I haven't offered, or know me better then I know myself.
And the premise I first espoused was not wrong.
The only person making a fool of themselves here is you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 1 2008, 07:06 PM)
Yes.
The black hole mass can vary, dependent on how much energy is disipated in the parton distribution.
Again, you're confusing momentum with velocity. They aren't the same thing.
Yet more proof you have no idea what you're on about.
The black hole mass can vary, dependent on how much energy is disipated in the parton distribution.
Again, you're confusing momentum with velocity. They aren't the same thing.
Yet more proof you have no idea what you're on about.
QUOTE (Crankoid+Mar 1 2008, 07:15 PM)
.... and uba's was undoubtedly his parents.
I thought there were laws against that sort of thing.
I thought there were laws against that sort of thing.
Gravity.
Finite or infinite in range?
First postulate that would have to be addressed in a real quantum theory of gravity.
Finite or infinite in range?
First postulate that would have to be addressed in a real quantum theory of gravity.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Mar 1 2008, 10:17 PM)
Gravity.
Finite or infinite in range?
First postulate that would have to be addressed in a real quantum theory of gravity.
Irrelevant.
Finite or infinite in range?
First postulate that would have to be addressed in a real quantum theory of gravity.
Irrelevant.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Mar 1 2008, 09:17 AM)
Gravity.
Finite or infinite in range?
First postulate that would have to be addressed in a real quantum theory of gravity.
Solid state blathering imbecile.
Finite or infinite in range?
First postulate that would have to be addressed in a real quantum theory of gravity.
Solid state blathering imbecile.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 1 2008, 06:14 AM)
...says the guy that argues gravity is a force in general relativity.
Schutz, p. 114 Q20.
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
Schutz, p. 114 Q20.
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 1 2008, 06:14 AM)
Really? I don't remember it. Do you have a quote?
Are you now saying you think Hawking radiation is true?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 1 2008, 06:14 AM)
So that's your argument then? You don't understand general relativity so you therefore think it's wrong to think of gravity as not being a force in general relativity?
Schutz, p. 114 Q20.
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
That wasn't really what I was getting at, the relativistic mass of our 1150 TeV proton is simply 1150 TeV (divided by c^2) rather than 4.7 TeV (I assume the relativistic mass is what you were referring to since it is the mass we would measure the proton as having in our reference frame). This is because total energy and relativistic mass are equivalent (as you know).
As usual, Trippy has it all wrong.
The collision energy for the LHC protons is expected to be about 14 TeV, not 1,150 TeV.
The 1,150 TeV collisions they're talking about are lead ions.
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 1 2008, 06:14 AM)
So then, shouldn't you be holding Trippy to the higher standard? Or is it that because he agrees with you, you don't hold him to any standard? Are you really studying to be a scientist? ...perhaps a politician, more like?
Trippy got the concepts right, the algebra wrong. You got the concepts wrong. Despite trying to correct someone else on the concepts. And despite saying it's important to get the concepts right.
Sorry in advance for my poor english...
I'm french , and i'll admit that i don't know much about science...so don't be too harsh on me lol...
I don't have the pretention to know much in that field , however...i do know this...
according to what i heard yesterday on the news (french news that is)...the atlas project will start , may 2008....
I'm gonna make this post as easy as i can for you guys to understand (with my limited english)...PLEASE , read and REPLY...asap...
Are we all fucked ?...
NOW , YES , i know , i sound like a retard....But remember , i'm your average joe , who doesn't know much about science...
Here's a what i know...(correct me if i'm wrong)
1 they're using this thing to prove the Higgs Boson Theory right ? (what if it isn't there ?)
2 this machine can create mini black holes...
3 it can replicate similar conditions seconds after the big bang...
4 they're also using this thing to prove m theory ?
5 chances of earth getting swalllowed by these mini black holes....10 to the minus 40
(in other words , we're safe)
BUT....(and here is why i'm posting this message...)
EVEN THOUGH we know that cosmic rays have much higher energy than those to be used in the LHC (and we're still here , after billions of years)...
What we're creating is under different environement conditions.... it's inside a machine....WHAT IF ?....
is this 10 to the minus 40 odds for real ? how do they calculated this ?
Laugh all you want... I don't care , i just need some comfort because i'm sick and tired of worrying and being paranoid about what will happen on may 2008...
According to this guy called "Walter L. Wagner" , who happens to be a physicist
The odds are not 10 the - 40 but more like 50/50.... he's saying that nobody knows for sure and that it's the LHC is a huge threat...Is this guy a loon ?
Here are his reasons...
1) Black holes are supposed to dissipate via Hawking radiation. However, a new study [Helfner] questions whether Hawking radiation really exists. (Hawking radiation is theoretical, it has never been seen.)
2) A collection of strangelets is supposed to be electrically positive on its surface, and therefore not attract other matter. However, a new study [Peng et al] finds that a collection of strangelets can be electrically negative on its surface.
3) It is claimed that cosmic rays can energy exceeding that of colliders, and they have not caused trouble, suggesting that colliders will not cause trouble either. However, the analogy is not precise. It assumes two things that may not be true. First, cosmic ray center of mass energy exceeding that of colliders has never been measured directly. Measurements that seem to show this are based on showers of secondary particles. Second, the product of a collision between a cosmic ray and an earth particle will always be moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If it has a small capture radius, it will always pass right through earth like a neutrino. The product of a collider collision can (sometimes) be moving at less than escape velocity from earth. If so, it will fall into earth where it will have forever to accrete other matter. Some calculations show rapid accretion.
Are these reasons resonable ? or is this all BS ?...
btw , i've found this forum via sciforums
because of a member of this forum who goes by the name of "AlphaNumeric"
according to him (speaking of walter l wagner )
"If he is the person who posts on PhysOrg under that name, then he is completely clueless and certainly doesn't warrant being called a 'physicist' any more than my postman does."
I damn hope you're right!....
but this guy is a genuine physicist from what i understand....so why is he so preocupied by this ?...
I'm french , and i'll admit that i don't know much about science...so don't be too harsh on me lol...
I don't have the pretention to know much in that field , however...i do know this...
according to what i heard yesterday on the news (french news that is)...the atlas project will start , may 2008....
I'm gonna make this post as easy as i can for you guys to understand (with my limited english)...PLEASE , read and REPLY...asap...
Are we all fucked ?...
NOW , YES , i know , i sound like a retard....But remember , i'm your average joe , who doesn't know much about science...
Here's a what i know...(correct me if i'm wrong)
1 they're using this thing to prove the Higgs Boson Theory right ? (what if it isn't there ?)
2 this machine can create mini black holes...
3 it can replicate similar conditions seconds after the big bang...
4 they're also using this thing to prove m theory ?
5 chances of earth getting swalllowed by these mini black holes....10 to the minus 40
(in other words , we're safe)
BUT....(and here is why i'm posting this message...)
EVEN THOUGH we know that cosmic rays have much higher energy than those to be used in the LHC (and we're still here , after billions of years)...
What we're creating is under different environement conditions.... it's inside a machine....WHAT IF ?....
is this 10 to the minus 40 odds for real ? how do they calculated this ?
Laugh all you want... I don't care , i just need some comfort because i'm sick and tired of worrying and being paranoid about what will happen on may 2008...
According to this guy called "Walter L. Wagner" , who happens to be a physicist
The odds are not 10 the - 40 but more like 50/50.... he's saying that nobody knows for sure and that it's the LHC is a huge threat...Is this guy a loon ?
Here are his reasons...
1) Black holes are supposed to dissipate via Hawking radiation. However, a new study [Helfner] questions whether Hawking radiation really exists. (Hawking radiation is theoretical, it has never been seen.)
2) A collection of strangelets is supposed to be electrically positive on its surface, and therefore not attract other matter. However, a new study [Peng et al] finds that a collection of strangelets can be electrically negative on its surface.
3) It is claimed that cosmic rays can energy exceeding that of colliders, and they have not caused trouble, suggesting that colliders will not cause trouble either. However, the analogy is not precise. It assumes two things that may not be true. First, cosmic ray center of mass energy exceeding that of colliders has never been measured directly. Measurements that seem to show this are based on showers of secondary particles. Second, the product of a collision between a cosmic ray and an earth particle will always be moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If it has a small capture radius, it will always pass right through earth like a neutrino. The product of a collider collision can (sometimes) be moving at less than escape velocity from earth. If so, it will fall into earth where it will have forever to accrete other matter. Some calculations show rapid accretion.
Are these reasons resonable ? or is this all BS ?...
btw , i've found this forum via sciforums
because of a member of this forum who goes by the name of "AlphaNumeric"
according to him (speaking of walter l wagner )
"If he is the person who posts on PhysOrg under that name, then he is completely clueless and certainly doesn't warrant being called a 'physicist' any more than my postman does."
I damn hope you're right!....
but this guy is a genuine physicist from what i understand....so why is he so preocupied by this ?...
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 27 2008, 06:22 AM)
That wasn't really what I was getting at, the relativistic mass of our 1150 TeV proton is simply 1150 TeV (divided by c^2) rather than 4.7 TeV (I assume the relativistic mass is what you were referring to since it is the mass we would measure the proton as having in our reference frame). This is because total energy and relativistic mass are equivalent (as you know).
As usual, Trippy has it all wrong.
The collision energy for the LHC protons is expected to be about 14 TeV, not 1,150 TeV.
The 1,150 TeV collisions they're talking about are lead ions.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 27 2008, 03:34 AM)
Not a useful description, when it acts more like gas than shadow.
Bullet Cluster:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressrelease...06/20060821.htm
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611496
Did you see this Trippy? Rpenner's the one that keeps saying it's similar to a gas, not me.
Why are the dark matter regions so dark? What happened to the ordinary matter that should've been apparent in these regions?
Bullet Cluster:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressrelease...06/20060821.htm
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611496
Did you see this Trippy? Rpenner's the one that keeps saying it's similar to a gas, not me.
Why are the dark matter regions so dark? What happened to the ordinary matter that should've been apparent in these regions?
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 27 2008, 05:24 PM)
So what...
You agree with XLD enough to say that we shouldn't turn the LHC on, but not enough tot hink that these dimensions are inaccessable to the blackholes?
This would be an apparent violation of the conservation of energy. Energy/mass would routinely disappear from the universe in high-energy collisions. The universe would be evaporating!
You agree with XLD enough to say that we shouldn't turn the LHC on, but not enough tot hink that these dimensions are inaccessable to the blackholes?
This would be an apparent violation of the conservation of energy. Energy/mass would routinely disappear from the universe in high-energy collisions. The universe would be evaporating!
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 27 2008, 05:45 PM)
Ubavontuba also argued that Neutrinos couldn't produce blackholes,
When did I say that? Do you have a quote, or are you just making it up as you go along?
When did I say that? Do you have a quote, or are you just making it up as you go along?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 28 2008, 03:59 AM)
Trippy's error was numerical, the application of the basic principles was correct. You got the basic principles wrong!
So, you want to go on record now as stating Trippy's collision scenario was essentially correct? Why now? Where have you been all this time?
Do you think it's perfectly logical to state unequivically that apples fall up into the sky, when you make a math error? Do you think this doesn't violate some basic principles?
Trippy's error was of this magnitude.
So, you want to go on record now as stating Trippy's collision scenario was essentially correct? Why now? Where have you been all this time?
Do you think it's perfectly logical to state unequivically that apples fall up into the sky, when you make a math error? Do you think this doesn't violate some basic principles?
Trippy's error was of this magnitude.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 1 2008, 08:00 AM)
You really do like pushing buttons don't you?
Yours, yeah.
Errors that were too obvious to ignore.
Errors that were too obvious to ignore.
You've had two other people explain to you that I used the correct formulae correctly.
If I state 2+2=5 because I inadvertently pushed a three instead of a two on my calculator, would that excuse me for insisting that the math proves that I'm right? Didn't I use the correct formula?
He wussed out on you. Plain and simple.
He wussed out on you. Plain and simple.
I've explained to you the conceptual error(s) that I made - and yet you persist on telling me where I made my error(s) - as if you had somehow seen the woirking that I haven't offered, or know me better then I know myself.
Can I help it if it's as obvious as the sun in the noon sky?
So now you're again going to argue that the harder something gets struck, the less momentum change it incurs?
So now you're again going to argue that the harder something gets struck, the less momentum change it incurs?
The only person making a fool of themselves here is you.
Only in the mind of fools like you.
Yours, yeah.
QUOTE
I've already admitted to my numerical error(s).
I've explained what I feel compelled to explain about why I got what I got wrong, and didn't immeadiately pick on the errors.
I've explained what I feel compelled to explain about why I got what I got wrong, and didn't immeadiately pick on the errors.
Errors that were too obvious to ignore.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've already admitted to my numerical error(s). I've explained what I feel compelled to explain about why I got what I got wrong, and didn't immeadiately pick on the errors. |
Errors that were too obvious to ignore.
You've had two other people explain to you that I used the correct formulae correctly.
If I state 2+2=5 because I inadvertently pushed a three instead of a two on my calculator, would that excuse me for insisting that the math proves that I'm right? Didn't I use the correct formula?
QUOTE
You've already had it explained to you by Rpenner why he wasn't willing to commit one way or the other as to commenting on whether or not I was correct (perfectly reasonable when you take into account that my workings could have included a number of things that I wasn't discussing).
He wussed out on you. Plain and simple.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You've already had it explained to you by Rpenner why he wasn't willing to commit one way or the other as to commenting on whether or not I was correct (perfectly reasonable when you take into account that my workings could have included a number of things that I wasn't discussing). |
He wussed out on you. Plain and simple.
I've explained to you the conceptual error(s) that I made - and yet you persist on telling me where I made my error(s) - as if you had somehow seen the woirking that I haven't offered, or know me better then I know myself.
Can I help it if it's as obvious as the sun in the noon sky?
QUOTE
And the premise I first espoused was not wrong.
So now you're again going to argue that the harder something gets struck, the less momentum change it incurs?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And the premise I first espoused was not wrong. |
So now you're again going to argue that the harder something gets struck, the less momentum change it incurs?
The only person making a fool of themselves here is you.
Only in the mind of fools like you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 3 2008, 08:39 PM)
[Empty headed nonsense removed for the sake of brevity]
Seriously, I've been over all of this with you already (at least as much as I intend to).
I made a numerical error. Plain and simple, I've already owned my mistake.
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for you to admit your basic conceptual errors around the conservation of energy.
Seriously, I've been over all of this with you already (at least as much as I intend to).
I made a numerical error. Plain and simple, I've already owned my mistake.
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for you to admit your basic conceptual errors around the conservation of energy.
QUOTE (Crankoid+Mar 1 2008, 10:40 AM)
Solid state blathering imbecile.
That doesn't answer the question.
Is gravity's range infinite or finite?
If it drops off to zero instead of approaching zero as an infinite limit, it speaks volumes about it's role in the large scale structure of the universe.
That doesn't answer the question.
Is gravity's range infinite or finite?
If it drops off to zero instead of approaching zero as an infinite limit, it speaks volumes about it's role in the large scale structure of the universe.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 1 2008, 11:16 AM)
Schutz, p. 114 Q20.
You are such a chatbot putz. This isn't even about gravity in general relativity.
Maybe you should heed your own advice!
Maybe you should heed your own advice!
Are you now saying you think Hawking radiation is true?
When did I say that?
This reference is as invalid as the two lecture notes you tried to use earlier. You're still obviously just doing a search for terms, without any comprehension of the subject matter!
Oh well, what more can I expect from a chatbot?
This reference is as invalid as the two lecture notes you tried to use earlier. You're still obviously just doing a search for terms, without any comprehension of the subject matter!
Oh well, what more can I expect from a chatbot?
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
Try reading the next chapter. Can you tell us what it's about? I doubt it!
What concepts are you talking about? You mean the one where Trippy obviously thought relativistic energy had no momentum?
What concepts are you talking about? You mean the one where Trippy obviously thought relativistic energy had no momentum?
You got the concepts wrong. Despite trying to correct someone else on the concepts. And despite saying it's important to get the concepts right.
In what way? Be specific!
You are such a chatbot putz. This isn't even about gravity in general relativity.
QUOTE
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
Maybe you should heed your own advice!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know you've never opened a textbook but try it. |
Maybe you should heed your own advice!
Are you now saying you think Hawking radiation is true?
When did I say that?
QUOTE
Schutz, p. 114 Q20.
This reference is as invalid as the two lecture notes you tried to use earlier. You're still obviously just doing a search for terms, without any comprehension of the subject matter!
Oh well, what more can I expect from a chatbot?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Schutz, p. 114 Q20. |
This reference is as invalid as the two lecture notes you tried to use earlier. You're still obviously just doing a search for terms, without any comprehension of the subject matter!
Oh well, what more can I expect from a chatbot?
I know you've never opened a textbook but try it.
Try reading the next chapter. Can you tell us what it's about? I doubt it!
QUOTE
Trippy got the concepts right, the algebra wrong.
What concepts are you talking about? You mean the one where Trippy obviously thought relativistic energy had no momentum?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Trippy got the concepts right, the algebra wrong. |
What concepts are you talking about? You mean the one where Trippy obviously thought relativistic energy had no momentum?
You got the concepts wrong. Despite trying to correct someone else on the concepts. And despite saying it's important to get the concepts right.
In what way? Be specific!
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 1 2008, 08:06 AM)
Yet more proof you have no idea what you're on about.
Is this the best argument you could muster? I guess that means I win by default.
Is this the best argument you could muster? I guess that means I win by default.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 06:44 AM)
guess that means I win by default.
Guess again.
Guess again.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:44 PM)
Is this the best argument you could muster? I guess that means I win by default.
Wrong again (no surprise there).
Wrong again (no surprise there).
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 3 2008, 08:05 AM)
Seriously, I've been over all of this with you already (at least as much as I intend to).
Well, I guess that means I win by default.
That was only a small part of your mistakes.
That was only a small part of your mistakes.
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for you to admit your basic conceptual errors around the conservation of energy.
Like you'd have the ability to discern such an error to begin with! Give me a break, Mister relativistic mass/energy has no momentum (clue: This was the basis of your compounding errors)!
Well, I guess that means I win by default.
QUOTE
I made a numerical error. Plain and simple, I've already owned my mistake.
That was only a small part of your mistakes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I made a numerical error. Plain and simple, I've already owned my mistake. |
That was only a small part of your mistakes.
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for you to admit your basic conceptual errors around the conservation of energy.
Like you'd have the ability to discern such an error to begin with! Give me a break, Mister relativistic mass/energy has no momentum (clue: This was the basis of your compounding errors)!
QUOTE (Crankoid+Mar 4 2008, 06:50 AM)
-
Again, responding only to the relevant portions of your post...
Drat! You fooled me again. There aren't any relevant portions!
Again, responding only to the relevant portions of your post...
Drat! You fooled me again. There aren't any relevant portions!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 08:08 PM)
Well, I guess that means I win by default.
That was only a small part of your mistakes.
Like you'd have the ability to discern such an error to begin with! Give me a break, Mister relativistic mass/energy has no momentum (clue: This was the basis of your compounding errors)!
Wrong again, on all three counts.
That was only a small part of your mistakes.
Like you'd have the ability to discern such an error to begin with! Give me a break, Mister relativistic mass/energy has no momentum (clue: This was the basis of your compounding errors)!
Wrong again, on all three counts.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 4 2008, 07:23 AM)
Wrong again, on all three counts.
And we have yet another worthy argument from Trippy! (sarcasm)
And we have yet another worthy argument from Trippy! (sarcasm)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 08:35 PM)
And we have yet another worthy argument from Trippy! (sarcasm)
It's about all your arguments are worth
.
It's about all your arguments are worth
.
(edit)
Hi "All"......
Isn't it true, that when a member posts a question , the first 4-6 answers are serious, and the rest is BS?
well, this "article post" is 56 pages long, (according to the time this post is written respectively),
and as soon page one finishes, the rest of ALL the 55 pages are
. Fights
. Jokes
. Harassment
. insults
. assumptions towards one another....
. e.c.t ........
A miracle would be needed for a post of 56 pages long to be filled entirely of actual beneficial posts....(OK, pardon me, at least half of the 56 pages)
OK, i may have over exadurated, there may be an actual post here and there about the subject matter....but there is a considerable amount of "unbenificial" posts.
Its as though you guys just wait for a new question, and use it as your junkyard!!
Isn't it true, that when a member posts a question , the first 4-6 answers are serious, and the rest is BS?
well, this "article post" is 56 pages long, (according to the time this post is written respectively),
and as soon page one finishes, the rest of ALL the 55 pages are
. Fights
. Jokes
. Harassment
. insults
. assumptions towards one another....
. e.c.t ........
A miracle would be needed for a post of 56 pages long to be filled entirely of actual beneficial posts....(OK, pardon me, at least half of the 56 pages)
OK, i may have over exadurated, there may be an actual post here and there about the subject matter....but there is a considerable amount of "unbenificial" posts.
Its as though you guys just wait for a new question, and use it as your junkyard!!
But this is not a new question. This was asked, based on arrogant preconceptions that ubavontuba's intuition is better that all the physics in the world.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2870
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2870
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 7 2005, 05:01 AM)
I just finished watching the tape of "A Brief History of Time" wherein Stephen Hawking explains Hawking radiation. My opinion is that his conclusions are illogical.
This is a gut feeling based on watching a pop-physics video tape.
Physics students, physics Ph.D. students and dozens of physics professors with hundreds of published papers have written replies, and ubavontuba considers all of them to be insufficient to budge his opinion. This is because his fears are not based on science but on the conviction that he was correct over 2 years ago.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/lhc-alarmists.html
He doesn't even understand the simplest extrapolation from his guesses. He disputes that black holes at LHC would prove that GR is wrong about the creation of small black holes. He disputes that if black holes don't die, that would mean that they are eternal.
Both of these are elementary consequences of his disaster scenario in his very first post. His inability to grasp these facts, even if extraordinary alcohol poisoning and cranial trauma were to blame, indicates he has made zero progress in physics in over 2 years of fear mongering. Specifically, Eric (ubavontuba) has not slowed down LHC one hour, he has not gotten one professional to agree with him and he has not grown in understanding of his own disaster scenario. He wants to be right about the end of Earth -- based, I remind you, on the untranslatable signals from his gut -- and he expects to sit at God's right hand side to pass judgment on those professional physicists who didn't listen to his Cassandra-like warnings.
The forum owners collect revenue on every page view, so "spirited debate," even when it grows uncivil, is broadly tolerated. Likewise, ubavontuba, for whatever reason, gains enough from the exchanges to return and post again. While, ubavontuba is almost certainly not the most offensive poster on these threads he starts, his use of bile in his responses to simple observations has left me feeling quite cold towards him.
The correct "professional" thing is to dismiss him from the university for making insufficient progress towards his thesis. But that is not an option, because ubavontuba is not operating at that level. So instead we treat him like someone who perversely gains pleasure from abuse. He thinks he is our future judge, and we treat him like our personal sado-masochistic plaything. In such a manner, ubavontuba, those of us who know physics, and the board owners can all co-exist happily, and for at least one of us, profitably.
(signed) Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
This is a gut feeling based on watching a pop-physics video tape.
Physics students, physics Ph.D. students and dozens of physics professors with hundreds of published papers have written replies, and ubavontuba considers all of them to be insufficient to budge his opinion. This is because his fears are not based on science but on the conviction that he was correct over 2 years ago.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/lhc-alarmists.html
He doesn't even understand the simplest extrapolation from his guesses. He disputes that black holes at LHC would prove that GR is wrong about the creation of small black holes. He disputes that if black holes don't die, that would mean that they are eternal.
Both of these are elementary consequences of his disaster scenario in his very first post. His inability to grasp these facts, even if extraordinary alcohol poisoning and cranial trauma were to blame, indicates he has made zero progress in physics in over 2 years of fear mongering. Specifically, Eric (ubavontuba) has not slowed down LHC one hour, he has not gotten one professional to agree with him and he has not grown in understanding of his own disaster scenario. He wants to be right about the end of Earth -- based, I remind you, on the untranslatable signals from his gut -- and he expects to sit at God's right hand side to pass judgment on those professional physicists who didn't listen to his Cassandra-like warnings.
The forum owners collect revenue on every page view, so "spirited debate," even when it grows uncivil, is broadly tolerated. Likewise, ubavontuba, for whatever reason, gains enough from the exchanges to return and post again. While, ubavontuba is almost certainly not the most offensive poster on these threads he starts, his use of bile in his responses to simple observations has left me feeling quite cold towards him.
The correct "professional" thing is to dismiss him from the university for making insufficient progress towards his thesis. But that is not an option, because ubavontuba is not operating at that level. So instead we treat him like someone who perversely gains pleasure from abuse. He thinks he is our future judge, and we treat him like our personal sado-masochistic plaything. In such a manner, ubavontuba, those of us who know physics, and the board owners can all co-exist happily, and for at least one of us, profitably.
(signed) Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
Regarding the LHC - it is dangerous 
Unless we know EXACTLY what we will make, then it will be creating UNKNOWN particles. With UNKNOWN properties and dangers!
If we DO know what it will make, then why build it in the first place?. Therefore, it does present an unknown level of risk.
The main arguments against the risks we HAVE thought about are a theory by S. Hawking, and 'we won't create negatively charged strangelets'.
I'm looking forwards to the results from the LHC - but just hope that we don't kill ourselves in the process.
The LHC is amazing - looking at the photos of e.g. the size of the Atlas detector, it shows how far human science has come. It is interesting to contrast that with the fact that Europeans (like myself) live in houses, made of heated clay, wood, and rely on the burning of fossil fuels. Our physics research has gone far beyond many other areas, and I hope we haven't tried to reach too far, too soon...
What I hope happens is, that we find a lot of useful information, and then there is a catastrophic particle containment failure when the LHC is near full load, before we get to the stage of destroying ourselves
Unless we know EXACTLY what we will make, then it will be creating UNKNOWN particles. With UNKNOWN properties and dangers!If we DO know what it will make, then why build it in the first place?. Therefore, it does present an unknown level of risk.
The main arguments against the risks we HAVE thought about are a theory by S. Hawking, and 'we won't create negatively charged strangelets'.
I'm looking forwards to the results from the LHC - but just hope that we don't kill ourselves in the process.
The LHC is amazing - looking at the photos of e.g. the size of the Atlas detector, it shows how far human science has come. It is interesting to contrast that with the fact that Europeans (like myself) live in houses, made of heated clay, wood, and rely on the burning of fossil fuels. Our physics research has gone far beyond many other areas, and I hope we haven't tried to reach too far, too soon...
What I hope happens is, that we find a lot of useful information, and then there is a catastrophic particle containment failure when the LHC is near full load, before we get to the stage of destroying ourselves
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 4 2008, 08:58 AM)
But this is not a new question. This was asked, based on arrogant preconceptions that ubavontuba's intuition is better that all the physics in the world.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2870
This is a gut feeling based on watching a pop-physics video tape.
Well, excuse me for trying to make it relevant to the broader audience!
Really? Who? Why didn't they stick it out? Have they no conviction?
Really? Who? Why didn't they stick it out? Have they no conviction?
and ubavontuba considers all of them to be insufficient to budge his opinion. This is because his fears are not based on science but on the conviction that he was correct over 2 years ago.
No, my fears are based on logic and reason, whereas you're now making an emotional appeal.
EDIT: See Trippy? Even rpenner knows I've been nothing, if not consistent.
I've already addressed this. Did you miss it?
I've already addressed this. Did you miss it?
He doesn't even understand the simplest extrapolation from his guesses. He disputes that black holes at LHC would prove that GR is wrong about the creation of small black holes.
When did I say that?
Again, when did I say that?
Again, when did I say that?
Both of these are elementary consequences of his disaster scenario in his very first post. His inability to grasp these facts, even if extraordinary alcohol poisoning and cranial trauma were to blame, indicates he has made zero progress in physics in over 2 years of fear mongering.
Actually, many of my ideas are catching on in mainstream physics. Just last year I pointed out some apparent plagiarism of my ideas in a news article on this very site.
That's a pity. At least I'll know I didn't sit idly by...
That's a pity. At least I'll know I didn't sit idly by...
he has not gotten one professional to agree with him
Bring on the professionals. Let 'em present their arguments. I'm always willing to listen to reason.
It's not my fault you don't understand it.
It's not my fault you don't understand it.
He wants to be right about the end of Earth -- based, I remind you, on the untranslatable signals from his gut -- and he expects to sit at God's right hand side to pass judgment on those professional physicists who didn't listen to his Cassandra-like warnings.
Now you're just creeping me out! Where do you get this stuff?
I'm not the one that's being uncivil here.
I'm not the one that's being uncivil here.
Likewise, ubavontuba, for whatever reason, gains enough from the exchanges to return and post again. While, ubavontuba is almost certainly not the most offensive poster on these threads he starts, his use of bile in his responses to simple observations has left me feeling quite cold towards him.
My use of bile?? These were clearly not "simple observations," rather this was a personal attack perpetrated by you!
I understand this is an emotional issue for you. Many people have invested much of their lives in this experiment. However, history teaches us that doing what's right and thinking you're doing what's right can clearly be at odds.
I understand this is an emotional issue for you. Many people have invested much of their lives in this experiment. However, history teaches us that doing what's right and thinking you're doing what's right can clearly be at odds.
(signed) Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
Nice to meet you.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2870
This is a gut feeling based on watching a pop-physics video tape.
Well, excuse me for trying to make it relevant to the broader audience!
QUOTE
Physics students, physics Ph.D. students and dozens of physics professors with hundreds of published papers have written replies,
Really? Who? Why didn't they stick it out? Have they no conviction?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Physics students, physics Ph.D. students and dozens of physics professors with hundreds of published papers have written replies, |
Really? Who? Why didn't they stick it out? Have they no conviction?
and ubavontuba considers all of them to be insufficient to budge his opinion. This is because his fears are not based on science but on the conviction that he was correct over 2 years ago.
No, my fears are based on logic and reason, whereas you're now making an emotional appeal.
EDIT: See Trippy? Even rpenner knows I've been nothing, if not consistent.
QUOTE
I've already addressed this. Did you miss it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/lhc-alarmists.html |
I've already addressed this. Did you miss it?
He doesn't even understand the simplest extrapolation from his guesses. He disputes that black holes at LHC would prove that GR is wrong about the creation of small black holes.
When did I say that?
QUOTE
He disputes that if black holes don't die, that would mean that they are eternal.
Again, when did I say that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He disputes that if black holes don't die, that would mean that they are eternal. |
Again, when did I say that?
Both of these are elementary consequences of his disaster scenario in his very first post. His inability to grasp these facts, even if extraordinary alcohol poisoning and cranial trauma were to blame, indicates he has made zero progress in physics in over 2 years of fear mongering.
Actually, many of my ideas are catching on in mainstream physics. Just last year I pointed out some apparent plagiarism of my ideas in a news article on this very site.
QUOTE
Specifically, Eric (ubavontuba) has not slowed down LHC one hour,
That's a pity. At least I'll know I didn't sit idly by...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Specifically, Eric (ubavontuba) has not slowed down LHC one hour, |
That's a pity. At least I'll know I didn't sit idly by...
he has not gotten one professional to agree with him
Bring on the professionals. Let 'em present their arguments. I'm always willing to listen to reason.
QUOTE
and he has not grown in understanding of his own disaster scenario.
It's not my fault you don't understand it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and he has not grown in understanding of his own disaster scenario. |
It's not my fault you don't understand it.
He wants to be right about the end of Earth -- based, I remind you, on the untranslatable signals from his gut -- and he expects to sit at God's right hand side to pass judgment on those professional physicists who didn't listen to his Cassandra-like warnings.
Now you're just creeping me out! Where do you get this stuff?
QUOTE
The forum owners collect revenue on every page view, so "spirited debate," even when it grows uncivil, is broadly tolerated.
I'm not the one that's being uncivil here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The forum owners collect revenue on every page view, so "spirited debate," even when it grows uncivil, is broadly tolerated. |
I'm not the one that's being uncivil here.
Likewise, ubavontuba, for whatever reason, gains enough from the exchanges to return and post again. While, ubavontuba is almost certainly not the most offensive poster on these threads he starts, his use of bile in his responses to simple observations has left me feeling quite cold towards him.
My use of bile?? These were clearly not "simple observations," rather this was a personal attack perpetrated by you!
QUOTE
The correct "professional" thing is to dismiss him from the university for making insufficient progress towards his thesis. But that is not an option, because ubavontuba is not operating at that level. So instead we treat him like someone who perversely gains pleasure from abuse. He thinks he is our future judge, and we treat him like our personal sado-masochistic plaything. In such a manner, ubavontuba, those of us who know physics, and the board owners can all co-exist happily, and for at least one of us, profitably.
I understand this is an emotional issue for you. Many people have invested much of their lives in this experiment. However, history teaches us that doing what's right and thinking you're doing what's right can clearly be at odds.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The correct "professional" thing is to dismiss him from the university for making insufficient progress towards his thesis. But that is not an option, because ubavontuba is not operating at that level. So instead we treat him like someone who perversely gains pleasure from abuse. He thinks he is our future judge, and we treat him like our personal sado-masochistic plaything. In such a manner, ubavontuba, those of us who know physics, and the board owners can all co-exist happily, and for at least one of us, profitably. |
I understand this is an emotional issue for you. Many people have invested much of their lives in this experiment. However, history teaches us that doing what's right and thinking you're doing what's right can clearly be at odds.
(signed) Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
Nice to meet you.
I am with much respect with Ubavontuba.
The thing that scares me the most is the micro black holes that may develop of the energy releases, not forgetting of course "strangelets", which consists of light and "moderately light" quarks......
Well, the great scientist Albert Einstein once quoted "Who ever never made a mistake, never tried something new"....
Well, This is a new project, so, something is bound to go wrong.
The thing that scares me the most is the micro black holes that may develop of the energy releases, not forgetting of course "strangelets", which consists of light and "moderately light" quarks......
Well, the great scientist Albert Einstein once quoted "Who ever never made a mistake, never tried something new"....
Well, This is a new project, so, something is bound to go wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
You are such a chatbot putz. This isn't even about gravity in general relativity.
Did you bother to look at the reference?
And if I'm a chatbot, why can I provide answers to the questions while you just have to palm them off?
Did you bother to look at the reference?
And if I'm a chatbot, why can I provide answers to the questions while you just have to palm them off?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
Maybe you should heed your own advice!
Let's see, in my time discussing things with you I've provided links to no less than 4 different Cambridge lecture courses, 2 of which are/were lectured by people who did their PhDs in general relativity under Hawking and have referenced at least 2 enormously popular relativity textbooks. What books have you referenced? You claimed to have read a lot of QM books but you could not name even one. So you remember enough QM from them but you don't even remember their names? 
Do you really think you come off well going down such roads?
Do you really think you come off well going down such roads?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
When did I say that?
Well if you disagreed with the converse. ¬(¬P) => P.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
This reference is as invalid as the two lecture notes you tried to use earlier. You're still obviously just doing a search for terms, without any comprehension of the subject matter!
The book's question, which I copied and pasted here in it's entirity so you could see, specifically says "relativistic force". It also mentions the energy momentum tensor. Not just some components of it, the entire tensor. No mention of a Newtonian limit or approximation, specifically says "relativistic".
And your reply is nothing but "I'm ignoring it". You wanted a reference, I provided one. I bet you didn't even go find the book, did you?
And your reply is nothing but "I'm ignoring it". You wanted a reference, I provided one. I bet you didn't even go find the book, did you?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
Oh well, what more can I expect from a chatbot?
You asked for a reference, I provided. You ignored it. Like you always do.
It would seem that out of the two of us, you are the one on autopilot. Mind you, even a chatbot program would, if it claimed to have read quantum mechanics books, go to www.amazon.com and search for "Quantum mechanics textbook" and paste the first few results here. You couldn't even manage that.
Your lies aren't even very good!
It would seem that out of the two of us, you are the one on autopilot. Mind you, even a chatbot program would, if it claimed to have read quantum mechanics books, go to www.amazon.com and search for "Quantum mechanics textbook" and paste the first few results here. You couldn't even manage that.
Your lies aren't even very good!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
Try reading the next chapter. Can you tell us what it's about? I doubt it!
It's about how gravity alters the nature of inertial frames around objects and then it goes into explaining various experimental results for it. I recognise the first few pages because I read them many times (along with a very similar section in Misner, Wheeler and Thorne) in relation to the experimental evidence for redshifting due to gravity. It then gets quite mathematical by explaining that, as with all non-trivial manifolds, the differential geometry formalism of the theory has to be altered to account for the fact you cannot directly compare tangent spaces at different points. Instead, you have to put in a 'connection', the Christofell symbol, to account for the warping. A similar thing (for precisely the same mathematical reason) occurs in gauge theories in QFT, where the gauge connection ( iA for U(1) and iA_a T^a for non-abelian gauge groups) accounts for the nature of the gauge field.
Is there anything particular you'd like me to expand on?
Is there anything particular you'd like me to expand on?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
What concepts are you talking about? You mean the one where Trippy obviously thought relativistic energy had no momentum?
You know the bit I'm referring to. As I said, I haven't read much of the rest of the thread in detail. I'm certain your lack of understanding and refusal to acknowledge it shows through much clearer than anyone else though.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
In what way? Be specific!
Are you having trouble following the discussion? You corrected Trippy with "It's rest mass", when it wasn't. You got the concepts wrong and never touched the details, as usual.
QUOTE (Aitrus+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
Well, the great scientist Albert Einstein once quoted "Who ever never made a mistake, never tried something new"....
It's been my experience that those people most steadfast in their belief their model is right are the cranks. Just look over in the main forum, people like Farsight are categorical he's explained everything. Ever. And anyone who suggests otherwise is either 'scared' or hasn't read his work.
No mainstream physicist is like that. But there's a difference between "It could happen" and "It's likely to happen". You turning on a light switch could result in a quantum fluctuation which makes the vacuum jump to a new vacuum state. You turning on a light switch could destroy the Earth! Do you stop turning on light switches? I doubt it. Why? Because while it could happen, it's staggeringly unlikely.
Ub's arguments often rest on the black and white "If it's not zero then it's too much". But then he uses light switches. And whenever anyone quantifies the risks involves, he ignores them. Then never provides any quantified work of his own.
If you lived in fear of 'possibly' then you'd never get in a car. You'd never cross the street. You'd never play any kind of sport. But people do, because they have assimilated the risks into their lives or have found the initial worries of others were over the top. I'm 100% certain that in 10 years the doom sayers about CERN will just turn their attention to whatever the next project is. All their arguments will flick over to "The never before attained energy levels!" of this new collider and those who tried to quantify the danger of the 1TeV energy scale will suddenly wave their hands and find it now predicts a danger at 10TeV or 100TeV.
Some people just like whining about things they don't understand. I'm sure more than a few of them are people who wanted to be physicists then found out they sucked at physics and are bitter. That's why people like Ub cannot name a QM book he's read and always refuses to do any calculations. He doesn't know any actual physics. He gets all his information from Wikipedia and the TV version of 'A Brief History of Time'.
Of course if he wants to prove me wrong, I can provide some questions for him to put his physics where his mouth is.
No mainstream physicist is like that. But there's a difference between "It could happen" and "It's likely to happen". You turning on a light switch could result in a quantum fluctuation which makes the vacuum jump to a new vacuum state. You turning on a light switch could destroy the Earth! Do you stop turning on light switches? I doubt it. Why? Because while it could happen, it's staggeringly unlikely.
Ub's arguments often rest on the black and white "If it's not zero then it's too much". But then he uses light switches. And whenever anyone quantifies the risks involves, he ignores them. Then never provides any quantified work of his own.
If you lived in fear of 'possibly' then you'd never get in a car. You'd never cross the street. You'd never play any kind of sport. But people do, because they have assimilated the risks into their lives or have found the initial worries of others were over the top. I'm 100% certain that in 10 years the doom sayers about CERN will just turn their attention to whatever the next project is. All their arguments will flick over to "The never before attained energy levels!" of this new collider and those who tried to quantify the danger of the 1TeV energy scale will suddenly wave their hands and find it now predicts a danger at 10TeV or 100TeV.
Some people just like whining about things they don't understand. I'm sure more than a few of them are people who wanted to be physicists then found out they sucked at physics and are bitter. That's why people like Ub cannot name a QM book he's read and always refuses to do any calculations. He doesn't know any actual physics. He gets all his information from Wikipedia and the TV version of 'A Brief History of Time'.
Of course if he wants to prove me wrong, I can provide some questions for him to put his physics where his mouth is.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 PM)
What concepts are you talking about? You mean the one where Trippy obviously thought relativistic energy had no momentum?
At no point did I claim or imply this.
This is just more spin and BS on your part.
I botched my calculation of γ (Which led to an erroneous γm).
Plain and simple.
The fact that you persist on these ridiculous assertions of yours just goes to show what a dishonest quack you truely are.
At no point did I claim or imply this.
This is just more spin and BS on your part.
I botched my calculation of γ (Which led to an erroneous γm).
Plain and simple.
The fact that you persist on these ridiculous assertions of yours just goes to show what a dishonest quack you truely are.
QUOTE (Aitrus+Mar 6 2008, 07:05 AM)
Well, This is a new project, so, something is bound to go wrong.
No, it's not new, it's been going on for 4.55 billion years, and nothing has gone wrong yet.
No, it's not new, it's been going on for 4.55 billion years, and nothing has gone wrong yet.
Guys be sensible. Look at the Stars like our Sun. How many times in the Suns existence have two atoms smashed together with much more Energy than LHC and even if it created a black hole it didn't/hasn't vacuumed down the Sun to an invisible mini black hole. If MBH happen in the Sun then they would be being force fed matter but they still evaporate. Consider the energy of a solar flare shooting from the Sun interior a million miles long above the surface, that's more energy than LHC.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 7 2008, 01:28 AM)
Did you bother to look at the reference?
Yes, did you?
How does that prove anything? My calculator provides answers too.
How does that prove anything? My calculator provides answers too.
Let's see, in my time discussing things with you I've provided links to no less than 4 different Cambridge lecture courses, 2 of which are/were lectured by people who did their PhDs in general relativity under Hawking...
The contents of which, obviously eluded you.
Also, obviously without regard to their contents.
Also, obviously without regard to their contents.
What books have you referenced? You claimed to have read a lot of QM books...
I did? Maybe I did. I don't remember. Do you have a quote?
So, you admit that I "remember enough QM?"
So, you admit that I "remember enough QM?"
Do you really think you come off well going down such roads?
All that matters is the truth of my contentions. Your attempts to sidetrack the issues in this way are irrelevant, pointless, and irrespective of the science. Are you really studying to be a scientist?
I'm wondering... are you a sock puppet tool being used by the distinguished professors rpenner mentioned? Might that explain your discombobulations?
See? An obvious search for terms, and nothing more. The "relativistic force" it's referring to is based in special relativity, not general relativity. It's actually a problem relating to electromagnetism. It's at the end of a chapter titled: Perfect Fluids in Special Relativity.
See? An obvious search for terms, and nothing more. The "relativistic force" it's referring to is based in special relativity, not general relativity. It's actually a problem relating to electromagnetism. It's at the end of a chapter titled: Perfect Fluids in Special Relativity.
It also mentions the energy momentum tensor. Not just some components of it, the entire tensor. No mention of a Newtonian limit or approximation, specifically says "relativistic".
Again, SR, not GR. Did you not read the preamble?
How so? I clearly indicated that your interpretation is wrong. How could I do that and have ignored it at the same time?
How so? I clearly indicated that your interpretation is wrong. How could I do that and have ignored it at the same time?
You wanted a reference, I provided one. I bet you didn't even go find the book, did you?
You asked for a reference, I provided. You ignored it. Like you always do.
References should be relevant to the question at hand, don't you think?
That's clearly intellectual fraud. Why would you even think to do that? Are you an intellectual fraud?
That's clearly intellectual fraud. Why would you even think to do that? Are you an intellectual fraud?
Your lies aren't even very good!
Apparently, I'm not as accomplished a liar as are you.
How about the part that reads:
How about the part that reads:
Ha, ha, ha! Get real. Would you go on record then as saying that Trippy's interpretation of the collision results was and remains correct, while mine were wrong? Gee, even Trippy doesn't believe that anymore!
Are you having trouble following the discussion where I corrected that misstatement shortly thereafter?
Are you having trouble following the discussion where I corrected that misstatement shortly thereafter?
Yes, did you?
QUOTE
And if I'm a chatbot, why can I provide answers to the questions while you just have to palm them off?
How does that prove anything? My calculator provides answers too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And if I'm a chatbot, why can I provide answers to the questions while you just have to palm them off? |
How does that prove anything? My calculator provides answers too.
Let's see, in my time discussing things with you I've provided links to no less than 4 different Cambridge lecture courses, 2 of which are/were lectured by people who did their PhDs in general relativity under Hawking...
The contents of which, obviously eluded you.
QUOTE
...and have referenced at least 2 enormously popular relativity textbooks.
Also, obviously without regard to their contents.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...and have referenced at least 2 enormously popular relativity textbooks. |
Also, obviously without regard to their contents.
What books have you referenced? You claimed to have read a lot of QM books...
I did? Maybe I did. I don't remember. Do you have a quote?
QUOTE
...but you could not name even one. So you remember enough QM from them but you don't even remember their names?
So, you admit that I "remember enough QM?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...but you could not name even one. So you remember enough QM from them but you don't even remember their names? |
So, you admit that I "remember enough QM?"
Do you really think you come off well going down such roads?
All that matters is the truth of my contentions. Your attempts to sidetrack the issues in this way are irrelevant, pointless, and irrespective of the science. Are you really studying to be a scientist?
I'm wondering... are you a sock puppet tool being used by the distinguished professors rpenner mentioned? Might that explain your discombobulations?
QUOTE
Well if you disagreed with the converse. (P) => P.
The book's question, which I copied and pasted here in it's entirity so you could see, specifically says "relativistic force".
The book's question, which I copied and pasted here in it's entirity so you could see, specifically says "relativistic force".
See? An obvious search for terms, and nothing more. The "relativistic force" it's referring to is based in special relativity, not general relativity. It's actually a problem relating to electromagnetism. It's at the end of a chapter titled: Perfect Fluids in Special Relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well if you disagreed with the converse. (P) => P. The book's question, which I copied and pasted here in it's entirity so you could see, specifically says "relativistic force". |
See? An obvious search for terms, and nothing more. The "relativistic force" it's referring to is based in special relativity, not general relativity. It's actually a problem relating to electromagnetism. It's at the end of a chapter titled: Perfect Fluids in Special Relativity.
It also mentions the energy momentum tensor. Not just some components of it, the entire tensor. No mention of a Newtonian limit or approximation, specifically says "relativistic".
Again, SR, not GR. Did you not read the preamble?
- "4.10 below, we do not study much about electromagnetism, but it has a stress-energy tensor and illustrates conservation laws particularly clearly."
QUOTE
And your reply is nothing but "I'm ignoring it".
How so? I clearly indicated that your interpretation is wrong. How could I do that and have ignored it at the same time?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And your reply is nothing but "I'm ignoring it". |
How so? I clearly indicated that your interpretation is wrong. How could I do that and have ignored it at the same time?
You wanted a reference, I provided one. I bet you didn't even go find the book, did you?
You asked for a reference, I provided. You ignored it. Like you always do.
References should be relevant to the question at hand, don't you think?
QUOTE
It would seem that out of the two of us, you are the one on autopilot. Mind you, even a chatbot program would, if it claimed to have read quantum mechanics books, go to www.amazon.com and search for "Quantum mechanics textbook" and paste the first few results here. You couldn't even manage that.
That's clearly intellectual fraud. Why would you even think to do that? Are you an intellectual fraud?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It would seem that out of the two of us, you are the one on autopilot. Mind you, even a chatbot program would, if it claimed to have read quantum mechanics books, go to www.amazon.com and search for "Quantum mechanics textbook" and paste the first few results here. You couldn't even manage that. |
That's clearly intellectual fraud. Why would you even think to do that? Are you an intellectual fraud?
Your lies aren't even very good!
Apparently, I'm not as accomplished a liar as are you.
QUOTE
It's about how gravity alters the nature of inertial frames around objects and then it goes into explaining various experimental results for it. I recognise the first few pages because I read them many times (along with a very similar section in Misner, Wheeler and Thorne) in relation to the experimental evidence for redshifting due to gravity. It then gets quite mathematical by explaining that, as with all non-trivial manifolds, the differential geometry formalism of the theory has to be altered to account for the fact you cannot directly compare tangent spaces at different points. Instead, you have to put in a 'connection', the Christofell symbol, to account for the warping. A similar thing (for precisely the same mathematical reason) occurs in gauge theories in QFT, where the gauge connection ( iA for U(1) and iA_a T^a for non-abelian gauge groups) accounts for the nature of the gauge field.
Is there anything particular you'd like me to expand on?
Is there anything particular you'd like me to expand on?
How about the part that reads:
- 5.1 On the relation of gravitation to curvature.
Until now we have discussed only special relativity. In SR, forces have played a background role, and we have never introduced gravitation explicitly as a possible force.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's about how gravity alters the nature of inertial frames around objects and then it goes into explaining various experimental results for it. I recognise the first few pages because I read them many times (along with a very similar section in Misner, Wheeler and Thorne) in relation to the experimental evidence for redshifting due to gravity. It then gets quite mathematical by explaining that, as with all non-trivial manifolds, the differential geometry formalism of the theory has to be altered to account for the fact you cannot directly compare tangent spaces at different points. Instead, you have to put in a 'connection', the Christofell symbol, to account for the warping. A similar thing (for precisely the same mathematical reason) occurs in gauge theories in QFT, where the gauge connection ( iA for U(1) and iA_a T^a for non-abelian gauge groups) accounts for the nature of the gauge field. Is there anything particular you'd like me to expand on? |
How about the part that reads:
- 5.1 On the relation of gravitation to curvature.
Until now we have discussed only special relativity. In SR, forces have played a background role, and we have never introduced gravitation explicitly as a possible force.
Ha, ha, ha! Get real. Would you go on record then as saying that Trippy's interpretation of the collision results was and remains correct, while mine were wrong? Gee, even Trippy doesn't believe that anymore!
QUOTE
Are you having trouble following the discussion? You corrected Trippy with "It's rest mass", when it wasn't. You got the concepts wrong and never touched the details, as usual.
Are you having trouble following the discussion where I corrected that misstatement shortly thereafter?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you having trouble following the discussion? You corrected Trippy with "It's rest mass", when it wasn't. You got the concepts wrong and never touched the details, as usual. |
Are you having trouble following the discussion where I corrected that misstatement shortly thereafter?
QUOTE (Aitrus+Mar 4 2008, 07:22 AM)
Well, the great scientist Albert Einstein once quoted "Who ever never made a mistake, never tried something new"....
It's been my experience that those people most steadfast in their belief their model is right are the cranks. Just look over in the main forum, people like Farsight are categorical he's explained everything. Ever. And anyone who suggests otherwise is either 'scared' or hasn't read his work.
In the future, why don't you try responding to other people's posts separately (to avoid any possible confusion)?
We've been over this before. Why are you perpetuating this "scientific" fraud? This would clearly violate causality and conservation. Both of which I've clearly ascribed to in my arguments.
We've been over this before. Why are you perpetuating this "scientific" fraud? This would clearly violate causality and conservation. Both of which I've clearly ascribed to in my arguments.
And whenever anyone quantifies the risks involves, he ignores them. Then never provides any quantified work of his own.
Maybe that's you... By the way, just how fast would a micro black hole have to absorb matter to be captured by a neutron star?
These are individual choices made of informed consent. CERN would expose everyone to a potential danger, without their informed (or any) consent.
These are individual choices made of informed consent. CERN would expose everyone to a potential danger, without their informed (or any) consent.
I'm 100% certain that in 10 years the doom sayers about CERN will just turn their attention to whatever the next project is. All their arguments will flick over to "The never before attained energy levels!" of this new collider and those who tried to quantify the danger of the 1TeV energy scale will suddenly wave their hands and find it now predicts a danger at 10TeV or 100TeV.
Let's hope you're right.
...says the guy that continues to argue that gravity is a force in general relativity.
...says the guy that continues to argue that gravity is a force in general relativity.
Of course if he wants to prove me wrong, I can provide some questions for him to put his physics where his mouth is.
Like how you think gravity is a force in general relativity?
Here's a book for you: Gravitation from the Ground Up (also by Schutz).
It's been my experience that those people most steadfast in their belief their model is right are the cranks. Just look over in the main forum, people like Farsight are categorical he's explained everything. Ever. And anyone who suggests otherwise is either 'scared' or hasn't read his work.
In the future, why don't you try responding to other people's posts separately (to avoid any possible confusion)?
QUOTE
No mainstream physicist is like that. But there's a difference between "It could happen" and "It's likely to happen". You turning on a light switch could result in a quantum fluctuation which makes the vacuum jump to a new vacuum state. You turning on a light switch could destroy the Earth! Do you stop turning on light switches? I doubt it. Why? Because while it could happen, it's staggeringly unlikely.
Ub's arguments often rest on the black and white "If it's not zero then it's too much". But then he uses light switches.
Ub's arguments often rest on the black and white "If it's not zero then it's too much". But then he uses light switches.
We've been over this before. Why are you perpetuating this "scientific" fraud? This would clearly violate causality and conservation. Both of which I've clearly ascribed to in my arguments.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No mainstream physicist is like that. But there's a difference between "It could happen" and "It's likely to happen". You turning on a light switch could result in a quantum fluctuation which makes the vacuum jump to a new vacuum state. You turning on a light switch could destroy the Earth! Do you stop turning on light switches? I doubt it. Why? Because while it could happen, it's staggeringly unlikely. Ub's arguments often rest on the black and white "If it's not zero then it's too much". But then he uses light switches. |
We've been over this before. Why are you perpetuating this "scientific" fraud? This would clearly violate causality and conservation. Both of which I've clearly ascribed to in my arguments.
And whenever anyone quantifies the risks involves, he ignores them. Then never provides any quantified work of his own.
Maybe that's you... By the way, just how fast would a micro black hole have to absorb matter to be captured by a neutron star?
QUOTE
If you lived in fear of 'possibly' then you'd never get in a car. You'd never cross the street. You'd never play any kind of sport. But people do, because they have assimilated the risks into their lives or have found the initial worries of others were over the top.
These are individual choices made of informed consent. CERN would expose everyone to a potential danger, without their informed (or any) consent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you lived in fear of 'possibly' then you'd never get in a car. You'd never cross the street. You'd never play any kind of sport. But people do, because they have assimilated the risks into their lives or have found the initial worries of others were over the top. |
These are individual choices made of informed consent. CERN would expose everyone to a potential danger, without their informed (or any) consent.
I'm 100% certain that in 10 years the doom sayers about CERN will just turn their attention to whatever the next project is. All their arguments will flick over to "The never before attained energy levels!" of this new collider and those who tried to quantify the danger of the 1TeV energy scale will suddenly wave their hands and find it now predicts a danger at 10TeV or 100TeV.
Let's hope you're right.
QUOTE
Some people just like whining about things they don't understand. I'm sure more than a few of them are people who wanted to be physicists then found out they sucked at physics and are bitter. That's why people like Ub cannot name a QM book he's read and always refuses to do any calculations. He doesn't know any actual physics. He gets all his information from Wikipedia and the TV version of 'A Brief History of Time'.
...says the guy that continues to argue that gravity is a force in general relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some people just like whining about things they don't understand. I'm sure more than a few of them are people who wanted to be physicists then found out they sucked at physics and are bitter. That's why people like Ub cannot name a QM book he's read and always refuses to do any calculations. He doesn't know any actual physics. He gets all his information from Wikipedia and the TV version of 'A Brief History of Time'. |
...says the guy that continues to argue that gravity is a force in general relativity.
Of course if he wants to prove me wrong, I can provide some questions for him to put his physics where his mouth is.
Like how you think gravity is a force in general relativity?
Here's a book for you: Gravitation from the Ground Up (also by Schutz).
- Until Einstein, gravity was thought of as simply a force, like the electric force. Einstein described gravity instead as geometry.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 7 2008, 07:56 AM)
Like how you think gravity is a force in general relativity?
Here's a book for you: Gravitation from the Ground Up (also by Schutz).
You are trying to refute a textbook on physics by a quote mined from a popular treatment of physics by the same author?
That's roughly equivalent to trying to rebut a textbook on dentistry by pointing out that the same author wrote a childrens book on why the Tooth Fairy wants you to brush every day.
Here's a book for you: Gravitation from the Ground Up (also by Schutz).
- Until Einstein, gravity was thought of as simply a force, like the electric force. Einstein described gravity instead as geometry.
You are trying to refute a textbook on physics by a quote mined from a popular treatment of physics by the same author?
That's roughly equivalent to trying to rebut a textbook on dentistry by pointing out that the same author wrote a childrens book on why the Tooth Fairy wants you to brush every day.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 7 2008, 08:40 AM)
You are trying to refute a textbook on physics by a quote mined from a popular treatment of physics by the same author?
That's roughly equivalent to trying to rebut a textbook on dentistry by pointing out that the same author wrote a childrens book on why the Tooth Fairy wants you to brush every day.
Apparently, you didn't bother to read my entire post. It seems you missed the part where I discussed the particular reference in question. Read it again.
That's roughly equivalent to trying to rebut a textbook on dentistry by pointing out that the same author wrote a childrens book on why the Tooth Fairy wants you to brush every day.
Apparently, you didn't bother to read my entire post. It seems you missed the part where I discussed the particular reference in question. Read it again.
I just realized how futile all of this is.
I did a search through Alphanumerics posts looking for a reference and realized that Ubavontuba's been spouting the same misconceptions since July 2006.
Inspite of the arguments, derivations and calculations that have been handed to him on a silver platter, and the numerous ways his various arguments have been shown to be wrong.
No doubt he will try to argue that it's an indication of a weak argument, but it seems to me that it's more an indication of wrong headedness, and a weak mind.
I did a search through Alphanumerics posts looking for a reference and realized that Ubavontuba's been spouting the same misconceptions since July 2006.
Inspite of the arguments, derivations and calculations that have been handed to him on a silver platter, and the numerous ways his various arguments have been shown to be wrong.
No doubt he will try to argue that it's an indication of a weak argument, but it seems to me that it's more an indication of wrong headedness, and a weak mind.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 7 2008, 11:09 AM)
I just realized how futile all of this is.
I did a search through Alphanumerics posts looking for a reference and realized that Ubavontuba's been spouting the same misconceptions since July 2006.
How can that be, when you've previously insisted that I've been inconsistent!
None of my arguments have been shown to be wrong. On the contrary, AlphaNumeric, rpenner, and even you have had to back away from theirs and your own contentions.
None of my arguments have been shown to be wrong. On the contrary, AlphaNumeric, rpenner, and even you have had to back away from theirs and your own contentions.
No doubt he will try to argue that it's an indication of a weak argument, but it seems to me that it's more an indication of wrong headedness, and a weak mind.
It's an argument without substance.
I did a search through Alphanumerics posts looking for a reference and realized that Ubavontuba's been spouting the same misconceptions since July 2006.
How can that be, when you've previously insisted that I've been inconsistent!
QUOTE
Inspite of the arguments, derivations and calculations that have been handed to him on a silver platter, and the numerous ways his various arguments have been shown to be wrong.
None of my arguments have been shown to be wrong. On the contrary, AlphaNumeric, rpenner, and even you have had to back away from theirs and your own contentions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Inspite of the arguments, derivations and calculations that have been handed to him on a silver platter, and the numerous ways his various arguments have been shown to be wrong. |
None of my arguments have been shown to be wrong. On the contrary, AlphaNumeric, rpenner, and even you have had to back away from theirs and your own contentions.
No doubt he will try to argue that it's an indication of a weak argument, but it seems to me that it's more an indication of wrong headedness, and a weak mind.
It's an argument without substance.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 9 2008, 12:02 PM)
How can that be, when you've previously insisted that I've been inconsistent!
None of my arguments have been shown to be wrong. On the contrary, AlphaNumeric, rpenner, and even you have had to back away from theirs and your own contentions.
It's an argument without substance.
No it isn't.
It's an argument based on known physics, with understood equations and provable conclusions.
And you have been inconsistent. The fact that you've been making the same consistently wrong arguments this whole time doesn't change that.
None of my arguments have been shown to be wrong. On the contrary, AlphaNumeric, rpenner, and even you have had to back away from theirs and your own contentions.
It's an argument without substance.
No it isn't.
It's an argument based on known physics, with understood equations and provable conclusions.
And you have been inconsistent. The fact that you've been making the same consistently wrong arguments this whole time doesn't change that.
CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.
However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einsteins highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles smash head on like a car collision and can be captured by Earths gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay (Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories). There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.
Cosmic Rays from the legal complaint.
any such novel particle created in nature by cosmic ray impacts would be left with a velocity at nearly the speed of light, relative to earth. At such speeds, . . . , is believed by most theorists to simply pass harmlessly through our planet with nary an impact, safely exiting on the other side. . . . Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earths gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] with disastrous consequences of the earth turning into a large black hole.
If this thing is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?
Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk.
(Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).
JTankers
LHCConcerns.com
However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einsteins highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles smash head on like a car collision and can be captured by Earths gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay (Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories). There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.
Cosmic Rays from the legal complaint.
any such novel particle created in nature by cosmic ray impacts would be left with a velocity at nearly the speed of light, relative to earth. At such speeds, . . . , is believed by most theorists to simply pass harmlessly through our planet with nary an impact, safely exiting on the other side. . . . Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earths gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] with disastrous consequences of the earth turning into a large black hole.
If this thing is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?
Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk.
(Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).
JTankers
LHCConcerns.com
Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity (www.golem.de/0802/57477-4.html, translation at www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=52)
QUOTE (jtankers+Apr 6 2008, 07:22 AM)
Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity (www.golem.de/0802/57477-4.html, translation at www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=52)
Wow! That's much faster than even I'd suggested!
Wow! That's much faster than even I'd suggested!
QUOTE (jtankers+Apr 4 2008, 12:51 AM)
Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earths gravity
Derivation? All products at previous colliders have been relativistic. Saying "A goodly percentage" is vacuous arm waving. Walter claimed, on another forum, it would be between 0.1 and 14%. I asked him about a month ago to back up his numbers. I've had nothing but silence in return.
Derivation? All products at previous colliders have been relativistic. Saying "A goodly percentage" is vacuous arm waving. Walter claimed, on another forum, it would be between 0.1 and 14%. I asked him about a month ago to back up his numbers. I've had nothing but silence in return.
QUOTE (jtankers+Apr 4 2008, 12:51 AM)
However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einsteins highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles smash head on like a car collision and can be captured by Earths gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay (Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories). There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.
Already been explained away in terms of long life black holes forming a Boltzmann gas and thus there being some in the vicinity of Earth which are slow and thus we'd have already been destroyed.
QUOTE (jtankers+Apr 4 2008, 12:51 AM)
Professor Otto Roessler
A biochemist. What's the matter, can't find a physicist? That's right up there with the Intelligent Design list of 'scientists' who don't believe in evolution being almost entirely devoid of biologists!
So theoretically, the BH could fall to the centre of the earth, undetected,
and the shell of the earth collapses suddenly in 50 months time.
At least it will be quick!
and the shell of the earth collapses suddenly in 50 months time.
At least it will be quick!
QUOTE (Chromodynamix+May 3 2008, 11:38 AM)
So theoretically, the BH could fall to the centre of the earth, undetected,
Not in this universe...
Not in this universe...
QUOTE (Chromodynamix+May 3 2008, 11:38 AM)
So theoretically ... the shell of the earth collapses suddenly in 50 months time.
The problem with this statement is that no calculation based on a physical hypothesis supports this.
No one has seen this exact calculation by Dr. Rössler but his understanding of General Relativity that we have seen is abysmal. He seems to have confused cm^2 with cm, and his description of black holes seems to have misconceptions seen by poor zeroeth year GR students.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=335002
It must be pretty awful math since I see no sign that any of his balck hole papers have been accepted for publication even though he gave them to a math journal where he is an honorary editor.
The problem with this statement is that no calculation based on a physical hypothesis supports this.
No one has seen this exact calculation by Dr. Rössler but his understanding of General Relativity that we have seen is abysmal. He seems to have confused cm^2 with cm, and his description of black holes seems to have misconceptions seen by poor zeroeth year GR students.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=335002
It must be pretty awful math since I see no sign that any of his balck hole papers have been accepted for publication even though he gave them to a math journal where he is an honorary editor.
[accidental bump removed]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.