Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

nah, you can unsubscribe, thats enough. The reason I even bother to continue arguing my point is the spam-by-another-name nature of this thread.
 
no one does, posting in a thread automatically subscribes you until you "unsubscribe".
 
buffys said:
My views of this thread have nothing to do with fetus's views or yours for that matter. I have no idea what brought about your little feud but keep me out of it, thats between you two.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to drag you in, but appearences belie your contention (I, of course, believe you).

WCF said;
I mean Paul W. Dixon constant spaming I think it should be closed, any one wish to object or agree

then you agreed with him;

If dr.paul actually responded to posters I'd say keep it open but this really is just spam by another name. So, although it's a funny read, I say close it up.

so, of course I'm wrong because you've told me you weren't influenced by fetus, but it appears that you were.

I hope you see the distinction because I don't wish to offend.

buffys said:
if you can't see evidence in this thread that he's advertising a cause there's nothing I can say that will convince you. Again, it's not the advertising or the cause per se that makes it spam. There are many threads that advocate products or ideas (eg. macintosh vs pc, islam vs christian, etc.) the reason these are not spam is because the thread maker joins the debate, if someone just wrote over and over, "macintosh is great! pc sucks!" but never addressed points from others it becomes spam in my book. This is what paul is guilty of and why I argue he doesn't deserve to have his thread remain open. He may have very valid points but since he refuses to discuss my and others' questions his posts cross the line from simply "advocating" an idea to spam.
Click to expand...
Well, I won't argue semantics, but I'm not sure all would agree with your definition of spam. Well, let's make clear your definition. You're saying it's spam because he won't respond? It's his unresponsiveness that makes it spam?

Well then, I can't agree. It appears he does and is responding, perhaps in an unconventional way, but respond he does.

Perhaps his responses are not to the point or do not address the question at hand? Jesus, almost everyone's like that here.

I don't know buffys. Even by your definition of spam, i'm not seeing it here.

buffys said:
and how did you uncover his agenda? through discussion with him, something paul doesn't engage in. Hell, I respect edufer more because he at least put himself into the debate.
Click to expand...
Edufer's a liar.

That's not name-calling, that's a matter of fact.

I found his webpage which was founded on debunking science that revealed environmental polluters and global warming. A complete attack on environmental science. Very obviously a group with a political agenda, not a scientific one, which is what he was hiding behind.
 
buffys said:
no one does, posting in a thread automatically subscribes you until you "unsubscribe".
Click to expand...
Nope. It's an option, and you can set it when you do your registration and in your options afterwards. I chose not to subscribe by default.
 
paulsamuel,

you're right, it really is semantics (spam is a difficult thing to perfectly define). In my opinion spam is a combination of two things: someone repeating the value of their belief/idea/product without addressing concerns/questions of other posters and continuing those posts even when the natural thread life ends (keeping a thread alive by continuing consecutive posts, in pauls case this can extend over weeks or months).

I suppose everyone has different views of spam but thats a rough definition from my point of view.
 
paulsamuel said:
The thread has generated a lot of interest, hence it has continued for years. Just yesterday a new member was so interested he/she read all 33 pages of posts in this thread. And now we have a new moderator, trying to stretch his powers, and close this thread arbitrarily.
Click to expand...

1. A book of 100 pages that sells only one copy does not generate interest simply because one person bought or read it. I wouldn't say I read out of interest, but I can say that anything of interest ceased to exist in this thread several pages back when the intellectual debate ended and the mudslinging political agendas began. Because the last few pages bear no resemblance to intelligent discussion, but are simply an argument over whether or not to close the thread, I vote the thread closes. You have turned the thread into a playground for the immature. I hope you're happy. People were actually trying to make it work for awhile there, and you ruined it. Congrats.

2. If a moderator cannot close a thread arbitrarily, what power does he really have? Why not just delete the last few pages of the thread, and leave the attempts at open intellectual discussion open for comment?
 
papers said:
1. A book of 100 pages that sells only one copy does not generate interest simply because one person bought or read it. I wouldn't say I read out of interest, but I can say that anything of interest ceased to exist in this thread several pages back when the intellectual debate ended and the mudslinging political agendas began. Because the last few pages bear no resemblance to intelligent discussion, but are simply an argument over whether or not to close the thread, I vote the thread closes. You have turned the thread into a playground for the immature. I hope you're happy. People were actually trying to make it work for awhile there, and you ruined it. Congrats.
Click to expand...

Better watch out, paulsamuel believes in getting all nasty and immature when he's "attacked" he can't usually maintain a sense of dignity at all times no matter what his opposites do, if he would remain claim and nice he would look better then his opponents but instead he will drop to their level or lower. Unless he learns from what I and others have been telling him, you better watch out.

2. If a moderator cannot close a thread arbitrarily, what power does he really have? Why not just delete the last few pages of the thread, and leave the attempts at open intellectual discussion open for comment
Click to expand...

Paul W. Dixon has repeatedly failed to hold discussion with us, we ask him question, criticizes claims and he ignores us, there is no valid discussion to this thread because the thread starter won’t provide any. If it was not for Paul W. Dixon posting ever once in awhile on this thread it would have drop down out of sight long time ago.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this tragic concern.

Please note that the vast energies at Fermilab with 103.43E30 luminosity at near to 2 TeV require an immediate request to the members of Congress from your State or if you are from another country please contact the representative from the State of Illinois for them to withhold funding from Fermilab to prevent Type Ia Supernova generation.

Please review the article from Theoretical Physics from the most respected journal, Nature by Malcolm J. Perry entitled: Quantum tunelling toward an exploding Universe? Nature 320, 1986. p. 679. In the sense of a sciforum, you must refute this article's postulate system in order to reply to this most tragic concern. Please reserve your personal attacks on other members of sciforum as a gesture of courtesy and respect for each other.

All the children will thank you for your kind 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
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to eveyone for your kind efforts in this most tragic concern.

Let us continue with the list of possible objections to generation of Type Ia Supernova from highest-energy physics experimentation.

Under the general notion of the ego-defense mechanism of denial another version of this may be termed:

"The 'Heads in the Sand' Objection." The consequences of supernova generation are too dreadful to contemplate. Let us hope and believe that it cannot be so.

Clearly this objection has no merit and will not remove the possibility of supernova generation from highest-energy physics experimentation no matter how ardently it is believed in.

Please contact the members of Congress from your state, or if elsewhere, those members of Congress from the State of Illinois to request that they withhold funding until this form of experimentation is proven safe by publication in a peer-reviewed journal of highest repute.

All the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.

ALL GOOD WISHES

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to one and all for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

In addtion to the variability in the ring at Fermilab, it could be that there is another source of variability in the energetics of de Sitter space. Should we postulate that quasar energetics also has origin in de Sitter space, we may call on the observations of quasar dynmaics for illustration of our hypothesis.

It is clear that where the fluxional energetics of the quasar may equal the continuous output of 100 milllion galaxies from a region of only a few light minutes diameter, with shock parameters providing additional variation to this output with energetics haviing variability in the million solar luminosity range, mass conversion equations do not suffice. The agency of de Sitter space is necessary to account for these vast energies.

Also the alternate model of de Sitter space is necessary to account for the finding of increments of in luminoisty in a sample of neighboring quasars of .25 magnitude over a seven-year observational period. (Cristiani. S., Vio, R. Andreani, P.(1990) Long-term variability of a complete sample of quasars, The Astronomical Journal, 100, 1, 56-59)

This enormous increment in energetics and also the correlation in energetics over many hundreds of thousands of light years for a sampling of quasars indicates enormous variation in energetics in de Sitter space under this postulation. This variation in energetics may then combined with variations in the ring at Fermilab to produce the probability of Type Ia Supernova generation.

Please contact the members of Congress from your state or the members of Congress from the State of Illinois to request a withholding of funding
for this highest-energy physics experimentation before it is too late!

All the children will thank you for your prompt efforts 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
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this tragic concern.

Please note that the luminosity at Fermilab is in the range of 103.43E30 with near to 2 TeV. Please note in this connection that according to the Tevatron Luminosity Charts which shows the Collider Run II Peak Luminosity that these very large values of luminosity are now the standard of operations at Fermilab.

Please contact the members of Congress from your state or if elsewhere those members from the State of Illinois to halt funding for this project. This is your tax dollar that is supporting the generation of Type Ia Supernova if you are a citizen of the United States. If you are not a citizen, then you are a victim of this irresponsible and reckless plunge into the unknown at the world's highest-energy collider laboratory.

All the children will thank you for your prompts 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
 
Last edited:
you are a victim of this irresponsible and reckless plunge into the unknown

Really Paul, must you be so melodramatic? You're beginning to sound like a soap opera.
 
Has anyone else noticed this:
Top 5 posters:
Name - Posts
thed - 24
buffys - 30
WellCookedFetus - 30
James R - 39

And then...
Paul W. Dixon - 212
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

Alas the energies in the CDF at Fermilab have reached 103.43 luminosity with almost 2 TeV energetics. These vast energies with the natural variation in the production energies in the ring plus variation in the energetics of de Sitter space may at any moment trigger an intrusional even from de Sitter space. This would produce a Type Ia Supernova according to these postulations. This view of the possibility of absolute and irretrievable disaster is based on the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter. References for these statements are based on work published in the world's leading journals of science. These references are cited in this thread.

Please contact the members of Congress from your state or, if resident elsewere in the world, the members of Congress from the State of Illinois to call for a halt to funding with your tax dollars! (U.S. Citizens)

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
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

Please note: the energies now employed in the CDF at Fermilab are in the range of 103.43E30 luminoisty at near to 2 TeV. Where these energies are already an approximation of those found at the point origin of the Universe, they have now been increased by an order of magnitude (x 10). It is important to realize in this connection that we are proteted from de Sitter space by a potential barrier whose breaching is only a function of energy. From the Theoretical Physics section of the most respected journal nature we may cite the article by Malcolm J. Perry entitled, Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? (Nature , 320, 1986, p. 679). Your tax dollars are being dedicated to the destruction of everything you hold most dear in this reckless plunge and irresponsible generation of the vast powers of Type Ia Supernova. Such a Type Ia Supernova may outshine its host galaxy for weeks at a time. Please contact the members of Congress of your State or if outside of the United States the members of Congress from the State of Illinois to ask for halt to funding.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

EVERY BEST WISH

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation













































































































































































All the children will thank you for your kind efforsts on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

EVERY BEST WISH

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND AT BROOKHAVEN

Many thanks to one and all for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

We must also think of Brookhaven National Laboratory as a source of Supernova generation. For three years the Relativisitic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has been colliding beams of heavy nuclei at ultrarelatvisitic energies as high as 100 GeV per nucleon. The function of this is to seek out new forms of matter as they existed close to the point origin of the Universe, i.e., the Big Bang. At these incredible energies, a new form of matter has been detected as predicted by Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which is temed the quark gluon plasma (QGP). From current work at the RHIC, with the production of the QGP the next phase predicted is of a glass with a very-dense superposition of gluons, similarly to a Bose condensate. This glass-like constitutent evolves slowly and is termed a color glass condensate (CGC). We are thus ready to observe the conditions which evolve into the QGP at the time of our Universe's origin.

Thus as we probe the matter density condtions which existed immediately subsequent to the Big Bang we may initiate a transition towards de Sitter space thus destroying all that we hold most dear in a Type Ia Supernova.
(Thomas Ludlam and Larry McLerran, What have we learned from the relativistic heavy ion collider? Physics Today, October 2003)

Please contact the members of Congress from your State, or if you have residence elsewhere the members of Congress from the State of Illinois.
We must ask for an immediate halt to all funding for high-energy physics experimentation before it is too late!!!

All the children will thank you for your prompt efforts on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

EVERY BEST WISH!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
You edited the wrong post, Paul - you should have edited the previous one with its load of unnecessary blank space.

I'm fascinated by the concept that quasars and supernovae are actually the long-awaited evidence of alien intelligent life! Shame that we only find out about them at their moment of destruction.

I know it's pointless to ask (after three years, yet!) but could you not put the same header and footer on every post, and when you repost you frequently forget to edit the post to mention the fact that these experiments are no longer "forthcoming" being as they were three years ago. Also, you continue (like all pseudoscientists) to promulgate an educational achievement which has no relevance. Either you are vainglorious to the point of ludicrousness or you think you will continue to persuade people that you are qualified to talk on these matters, when in fact you are a psychologist. Either way, please stop putting "Ph.D" after your name every time. I'm a friend of three Ph.D's and none of them would dream of shoving it in peoples' faces on an informal discussion group like this one.

This last point you're starting to make is the most disturbing one. Congress will cut funding for all and any scientific endeavour if it is given the slightest excuse to do so. The more they do the more the richest nation on Earth will become retrograde in science, and consequently economic potential.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND AT BROOKHAVEN

Many thanks to eveyone for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

More information is now presented in this connection in the recent article in the most prestigious journal Nature, What's in a name? (Geoff Brumfiel, Nature, 430, 29 July, 2004, pp.498-499) "Physicists agree that experiments at the Brookhaven atom collider have created a new form of matter. But theorists and experimentalists are still arguing about what to call it." As mentioned previously, this new form of matter is more like a glass which has a liquid-like structure. This would indicate that this form of matter is closer to the original form of matter found at the point origin of the universe, i.e., the "Big Bang." This may then be termed a "Mini-Bang."

Clearly this investigation is floundering at the edge of the unknown and may start a transition towards de Sitter space at any time thus generating a Type Ia Supernova. Please contact your members of the United States Congress and call a halt to this form of global suicide.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

Please review this thread for answers to any other questions.

ALL BEST WISHES.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top