Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab
- Thread starter Paul W. Dixon
- Start date
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
Email to; dixon@hawaii.edu
Quote from; http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php
"SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this most critical and tragic concern.
The best answer is to find someone with connnections in the media world - television, radio, newspapers and to communicate to them your concerns in this connection. They can reach me at dixon@hawaii.edu if they would like to interview me or have a discussion regarding the generation of Supernova via high-energy physics experimentation at Fermilab, Brookhaven, CERN or elsewhere. This is world news of the utmost importance as there are limits to this form of experimentation in the penetration of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf!
ALL BEST WISHES
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Dear Dr. Dixon,
Can you explain your theory in lay terms so that the general public can better understand, and if so, I am willing to lobby for extensive media coverage on this topic.
Thank You
Will Sheephogan...
Quote from; http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php
"SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this most critical and tragic concern.
The best answer is to find someone with connnections in the media world - television, radio, newspapers and to communicate to them your concerns in this connection. They can reach me at dixon@hawaii.edu if they would like to interview me or have a discussion regarding the generation of Supernova via high-energy physics experimentation at Fermilab, Brookhaven, CERN or elsewhere. This is world news of the utmost importance as there are limits to this form of experimentation in the penetration of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf!
ALL BEST WISHES
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Dear Dr. Dixon,
Can you explain your theory in lay terms so that the general public can better understand, and if so, I am willing to lobby for extensive media coverage on this topic.
Thank You
Will Sheephogan...
kmguru
Staff member
Perhaps because, there was not enough mass and energy to sustain the black hole if there was ever one. The movie explains that if the size of black hole is just right for stability, and the containment is overdesigned to hold in place, then you are in good shape. But if containment is breached and the black hole acquires more matter then either it will detonate with an explosion (4 megaton in movie) or keep devouring more matter and fall to the center of earth consuming more matter with a runaway reaction.
So, here are the possibilities:
1. The black hole is stable and by feeding it small amount of matter, you create a super efficient matter-energy converter that provides massive clean energy for a long time. Unlimited power, solving our energy crisis.
2. Something goes wrongo, and it blows up taking the area with it
3. Really something goes wrong bigtime and it starts eating more matter with a run away reaction. End of our solar system and surrounding area. I do not think that would happen. Just a hunch since we do not know the physics at that level.
What is needed is a method to drain the energy without exposing more matter, fast enough to prevent it getting bigger.
So, here are the possibilities:
1. The black hole is stable and by feeding it small amount of matter, you create a super efficient matter-energy converter that provides massive clean energy for a long time. Unlimited power, solving our energy crisis.
2. Something goes wrongo, and it blows up taking the area with it
3. Really something goes wrong bigtime and it starts eating more matter with a run away reaction. End of our solar system and surrounding area. I do not think that would happen. Just a hunch since we do not know the physics at that level.
What is needed is a method to drain the energy without exposing more matter, fast enough to prevent it getting bigger.
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
Of course based on Dr. Dixon's field of study, "Psycholinguistics" we could be having an internet conversation here with Koko Gorilla, or Beluga Whale. LOL 
"I think we'd rather hear why it hasn't happened yet, when the initial posts predicted it'd happen well before the end of 2001...."
Let's see if I can predict the answer. "They have been more careful since concern has been invoked." ?
I hope Amanda keeps it under control.
"I think we'd rather hear why it hasn't happened yet, when the initial posts predicted it'd happen well before the end of 2001...."
Let's see if I can predict the answer. "They have been more careful since concern has been invoked." ?
I hope Amanda keeps it under control.
Last edited:
No cause for alarm, fellows! Just suppose that the entire moon was crushed into a Black Hole. It would still be a lunar amount of mass, perhaps as small as a grain of sand or maybe the size of a small pebble. If you got as close as the current radius of the moon, the gravitational pull would be about 1/6 of Earth surface gravity same as if you were on the surface of the current moon. No big deal! From here on Earth about one quarter of a million miles away, there would still be tidal effects, but not any effects not caused by the current moon.
A mini-black hole created in an accelerator would consist of at most a few hundred nuclear particles. From a centimeter away, the gravitational pull would not be noticeable. I am not sure the gravitational effect would be noticeable from an atomic radius away. As far as I know gravitational effects are not included in any computations for chemical or nuclear interactions, although quite a few elements have 150 or more particles in their nuclei. If Hawking is wrong and the first few did not evaporate, they would stop making them.
A mini-black hole created in an accelerator would consist of at most a few hundred nuclear particles. From a centimeter away, the gravitational pull would not be noticeable. I am not sure the gravitational effect would be noticeable from an atomic radius away. As far as I know gravitational effects are not included in any computations for chemical or nuclear interactions, although quite a few elements have 150 or more particles in their nuclei. If Hawking is wrong and the first few did not evaporate, they would stop making them.
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
I knew that!!!!!! LOL
Doc Dixon is still insistent to this day and time on the "Super Nova" possibility aspect of this extreme experimentation.
It doesn't look as if he has advanced his theory out of what was originally presented. I promptly received an email from him this evening verifying this is no impostor or prank that I can tell.
Message posted here; rather long...
http://pub66.ezboard.com/fthepeanutsgangfrm57.showMessage?topicID=49.topic
Frankly, I'm now convinced of the authenticity of this gentleman's concerns. I can discuss that on a psychological or humanistic level and terms but not in Mathematica.
So, now I must ask you learned scholars, are you sure the fabric of space and the universe will not react in a devastating (chain-reaction) to these energies under all conditions that are possible at the Fermi-lab?
And, if any doubt is in your mind, please encourage further study of this in the appropriate circles.
Ya know guy's this saving the planet stuff is hard work sometimes..!
Doc Dixon is still insistent to this day and time on the "Super Nova" possibility aspect of this extreme experimentation.
It doesn't look as if he has advanced his theory out of what was originally presented. I promptly received an email from him this evening verifying this is no impostor or prank that I can tell.
Message posted here; rather long...
http://pub66.ezboard.com/fthepeanutsgangfrm57.showMessage?topicID=49.topic
Frankly, I'm now convinced of the authenticity of this gentleman's concerns. I can discuss that on a psychological or humanistic level and terms but not in Mathematica.
So, now I must ask you learned scholars, are you sure the fabric of space and the universe will not react in a devastating (chain-reaction) to these energies under all conditions that are possible at the Fermi-lab?
And, if any doubt is in your mind, please encourage further study of this in the appropriate circles.
Ya know guy's this saving the planet stuff is hard work sometimes..!
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
Some of Jung's thought's, If you can relate them here, reflect elements of the problem in my opinion...
The idea of a technological holocaust, is more acceptable to modern man than the pre-enlightened constructs of gods and angels and Armageddon. This is due to advances in physics that allow scientific constructs to have metaphysical possibilities in appearance. (Time travel, worm holes, dark matter etc...What existed before the big bang?...)
Rather than accept a metaphysical fantasy about the destruction of the world, the rationalistic mind constructs a scientific version that somehow fits into modern belief structures.
Jung conjectures that this emotional tension has its cause in a “collective distress or danger, or a vital psychic need”
In the 18th century, a philosophical movement called "The Enlightenment" established the Western paradigm of scientific thought in which the world was compartmentalized between “the skeptical world of science and the credulous world of metaphysical belief”. It is this binary, modernist model of truth versus falsehood, science versus metaphysics, operating in conflict with a fragmentary conspiracy-prone world where we find the background of discourse. The discourse in the background is between psychology, mythology and metaphysical beliefs versus rational, scientific, critical and literal thinking.
Somehow, I think this fits in neatly here. Where, not understanding the numbers in the proof, I, a layman to the mathematics, see the urgency of caution that Dr. Dixon has asserted we must take. Pandora's box is alive and well here IMHO.
The idea of a technological holocaust, is more acceptable to modern man than the pre-enlightened constructs of gods and angels and Armageddon. This is due to advances in physics that allow scientific constructs to have metaphysical possibilities in appearance. (Time travel, worm holes, dark matter etc...What existed before the big bang?...)
Rather than accept a metaphysical fantasy about the destruction of the world, the rationalistic mind constructs a scientific version that somehow fits into modern belief structures.
Jung conjectures that this emotional tension has its cause in a “collective distress or danger, or a vital psychic need”
In the 18th century, a philosophical movement called "The Enlightenment" established the Western paradigm of scientific thought in which the world was compartmentalized between “the skeptical world of science and the credulous world of metaphysical belief”. It is this binary, modernist model of truth versus falsehood, science versus metaphysics, operating in conflict with a fragmentary conspiracy-prone world where we find the background of discourse. The discourse in the background is between psychology, mythology and metaphysical beliefs versus rational, scientific, critical and literal thinking.
Somehow, I think this fits in neatly here. Where, not understanding the numbers in the proof, I, a layman to the mathematics, see the urgency of caution that Dr. Dixon has asserted we must take. Pandora's box is alive and well here IMHO.
pandora's box's are everywhere.
Lets take the nuclear bomb that was supposed to ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet on the first test for example. We've been on 'the brink' of planet wide destruction since we figured out how to use fire.
For all I know this could really be it, the big one, the end of all life on earth. But this is claimed every week by someone and like my nuclear bomb example, often these claims are made by 'the experts'. I guess we'll see if dr.paul is right but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Lets take the nuclear bomb that was supposed to ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet on the first test for example. We've been on 'the brink' of planet wide destruction since we figured out how to use fire.
For all I know this could really be it, the big one, the end of all life on earth. But this is claimed every week by someone and like my nuclear bomb example, often these claims are made by 'the experts'. I guess we'll see if dr.paul is right but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
I never loose sleep, I take it. I've sent my "lay" email to Fermi-Lab and asked for some kind of rebuttal. And I have also asked Dr. Paul if they have responded to his requests at all and to supply that info if they did. Guess I'll see what happens next.
Just wait until they pump up the luminosity with this baby:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-AFRD-magnet-record.html
17 or Bust
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-AFRD-magnet-record.html
17 or Bust
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many thanks to Will Sheephogan and to all those who have taken such prompt action in this most tragic concern.
The energetics at Fermilab have been posted as being in the neigborhood of the new record of 51.79E30 with energetics of 978.09 GeV. This indicates that the energies now employed at Fermilab are very great indeed and we are thus in constant danger of forming a transition towards de Sitter space. These energies, which are five orders of magnitude greater than at the point of initiation, where in this highest-energy physics facility they already approximate those found at the time of the "Big Bang," must then be at the very point of Type Ia Supernova generation via penetrance in the large potential barrier toward de Sitter space. The references for these statements are given earlier in this thread.
So far, there has been no refutation of this theoretical postion in 28 years of continuous presentation to the world of science and particularly in the realm of relativistic cosmology.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Many thanks to Will Sheephogan and to all those who have taken such prompt action in this most tragic concern.
The energetics at Fermilab have been posted as being in the neigborhood of the new record of 51.79E30 with energetics of 978.09 GeV. This indicates that the energies now employed at Fermilab are very great indeed and we are thus in constant danger of forming a transition towards de Sitter space. These energies, which are five orders of magnitude greater than at the point of initiation, where in this highest-energy physics facility they already approximate those found at the time of the "Big Bang," must then be at the very point of Type Ia Supernova generation via penetrance in the large potential barrier toward de Sitter space. The references for these statements are given earlier in this thread.
So far, there has been no refutation of this theoretical postion in 28 years of continuous presentation to the world of science and particularly in the realm of relativistic cosmology.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
If even 17 tesla will not do the trick you can always add some explosive charge magnets that for a short time will yield fieldstrengths over 60 tesla and thus the potential to skyrocket luminosity and get our ticket to Sitter space!
There goes the neighbourhood...
There goes the neighbourhood...
If Paul is right (and deep in our hearts whe know he is right but we have problems to accept this because we don't accept ourselves) than the US of A would posess the ultimate in WMD: the Tevatron, and like a terrorist nation they don't have it to scare people, but are planning to actually use it!
think Hamas bombvest on steroids!
Only a joint pre-emptive war against the usa-terrorists trying to blow up the universe can save us now.
The children will be thankfull.
think Hamas bombvest on steroids!
Only a joint pre-emptive war against the usa-terrorists trying to blow up the universe can save us now.
The children will be thankfull.
Last edited:
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this most tragic connection.
The presence of the Rovers now on Mars has raised the theoretical question of the presence of life, including intelligent life, in the universe. In the current view of the nearly infinite reaches of our Universe both in space and in time, it may be presumptous to assume that we are the only exemplars of life and also intelligent life in the Universe. If we assume that life has its origin in chemical processses, then these fortuitious chemical events should occur more frequently than not. It may then be postulated that life and consequently intelligent life is the rule rather than the exception.
Once intelligent life has progressed to the point of technological develpment colliders and related devices may soon be developed. Penetrance toward de Sitter space should then occur rapidly in terms of historical events. This historical progression should lead to events visible in observational astronomy. These events are Type Ia Supernovae under this postulation.
All the children will thank you for your most prompt actions in this regard. Especial thanks to Vortexx!
ALL BEST WISHES,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernovae from Experimentation
Many, many thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this most tragic connection.
The presence of the Rovers now on Mars has raised the theoretical question of the presence of life, including intelligent life, in the universe. In the current view of the nearly infinite reaches of our Universe both in space and in time, it may be presumptous to assume that we are the only exemplars of life and also intelligent life in the Universe. If we assume that life has its origin in chemical processses, then these fortuitious chemical events should occur more frequently than not. It may then be postulated that life and consequently intelligent life is the rule rather than the exception.
Once intelligent life has progressed to the point of technological develpment colliders and related devices may soon be developed. Penetrance toward de Sitter space should then occur rapidly in terms of historical events. This historical progression should lead to events visible in observational astronomy. These events are Type Ia Supernovae under this postulation.
All the children will thank you for your most prompt actions in this regard. Especial thanks to Vortexx!
ALL BEST WISHES,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernovae from Experimentation
for christ's sake, you've made your point. let the thread die. You're so mind numbingly repetitive I'm actually starting to look forward to the destruction of the planet if just to get you to stop talking.
here's a tip, when the thread author has to keep their thread alive by posting every time outside posts stop, it's probably time to let it go.
And trust me, all the children will DEFINITELY thank you for your most prompt actions in this regard.
here's a tip, when the thread author has to keep their thread alive by posting every time outside posts stop, it's probably time to let it go.
And trust me, all the children will DEFINITELY thank you for your most prompt actions in this regard.