Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND AT BROOKHAVEN

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

We may also include a quote to illustrate the state of confusion now prevalent in the field of high-energy physics experimentation. In reference to their discovery of the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) this article brings forward a
statement by Miklos Gyulassy, "It's as if Columbus hit on land and came back
unexcited about it." There should be a statement of achievement so that the current work can go forward with the description of this form of matter's physical characteristics. Alas, as this work contiunues they court instant and complete global suicide with Type Ia Supernova generation. Please contact members of Congress and ask them to formulate immediate legislative action to bring a halt to our rush towards doom.
(Geoff Brumfiel, What in a name? Nature 430, 29 July, 2004,pp. 498-499)

All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf.

EVERY BEST WISH

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frfom EXperimentation
 
Last edited:
I have not read all pages of this long thread, but have never seen Paul's answer as to:

1) Why the very much higher energies, concentrated in a single primary cosmic ray, have not long ago punched a hole in the barrier to supernova?

2) Why the "more than extreme" energies densities on the other side of the barrier don't punch through to us? (I am no expert, but think that if we are in danger of having a supernova come bursting forth from some microscopic concentration of "quark-gluon plasma" that ANL may make, then energies density waiting on the other side is way beyond "extreme." I think this because big bangs and supernova, etc. are examples of very-large, rapidly-decreasing, energy densities. Hence waiting on the other side, if your fears are well founded, are energy densities that make ANL best efforts look like a flea's fart by comparison.)

3) Why a Ph.D. psychologist, rather than physicist, is so worried? (There are surely many responsible ones, better trained in high energy physics than Paul. Even the irresponsible ones surely don't want to be part of a supernova.)

Paul, rather than repeatedly posting essentially the same text, you would do your stated cause more good by answering these three question. If you don't provide any answers, I suspect either (1) your are blowing smoke or (2) have inhaled too much smoke or (3) are conducting some psychological experiment on this group. (I.e. your stated cause is not your true cause.)

PS Learn more about me and my "cause" at www.DarkVisitor.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Flea’s Fart” – I coined this phrase, but now want some biologist’s aid. Do fleas fart? If so, can you estimate the energy content? (Include all, both kinetic and chemical.) Perhaps ANL’s best efforts do not even equal those of a flea. I.e. the energy content of the Quark-Gluon Plasma, that Paul fears will cause a supernova, may actually be less than a flea’s fart! If fleas don’t fart, what about gnats etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND AT BROOHAVEN

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

We should consider the singular nature of the cosmic ray at some 10 to the 19th power electron volts in contrast to 10 to the 31st power particles at some 10 to the 12th power electon volts per colliding particle. Also the energetics of de Sitter space can be estimated at 1.6 x 10 to the 126th power electon vollts.

Thus, when you have penetrated the potential barrier towards de Sitter space this vast force is released from an unlimited source. All of this is very well-known by those aware of the ramifications of modern physics. The fact that the quark-gluon-plasma is formed indicates the vast energies of this mini-bang which has been formed at Broohaven National Laboratory. Please review page 1 of this thread for the references from the major journals of science regarding these values. Do we really wish to access de Sitter space with these unchecked and uncontrollable energies topologically cobordant to the continuum at every point protected as we are only by a large potential barrier?

All the children will thank you for your prompt notification of the members of the United States Congress asking them to bring an immediate halt to this reckless plunge into the unknown. May the good God have mercy on our souls.

ALL BEST WISHES

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
So by having a shear number of more weaker particles you can somehow open de Sitter space as compared to having one particle at much higher energies? I don’t get how much weaker particles spread over a much wider area could do that. And if de Sitter space opens at 1.6*10^126 then we have nothing to worry about! Even if we multiply your numbers of 10^31 particles at 10^12 evolts it would be equivalent in power to one particle at 10^41 evolts. By your estimates it would require the equivalent of 1.7*10^97 kilotons of TNT to equal the amount of energy needed to open de Sitter space!
 
Paul I would appreciate a clear answer to my four questions. You made a post after I asked them. Was that a “reply”? Both I and WCF understood this recent post of yours to imply that extremely high energy density of primary cosmic rays was not as threatening to the Earth as many lower energy particles, without the slightest suggestion why this should be so.

I had already covered this type of answer when I noted that a flea’s fart probably had more energy in more particles than ANL’s “best effort,” either as to particle count or total energy. Am I to infer from your “reply” that the Earth is in danger of de Sitter space energy (‘10^126ev according to you) bursting through some not well defined barrier every time a flea farts? (1% of your repetitive posts would have allowed you space to define it for us here.) WCF’s post is, as usual, short and good. I did not think to do the calculations she did. How can such little energy make a supernova? (call that question 5)

Perhaps WCF and I are wrong in thinking your “reply” was responsive to my question #1. (I have noted a tendency of yours to just post basically the same item many times and not be responsive. – this is supposed to be a form for DISCUSSION, not one to help spammers slow down the internet, etc.) Thus, please reply to my questions with clear indication of which you are responding to. For example, you could begin each response by:

Explaining why fleas and cosmic rays are not a supernova danger, but ANL is. (Response to Billy T’s question 1):

Until you do so, I am inclined to the theory that you are conducting some psychological experiment on this group For example, your experiment might be: How non responsive and repetitive can posts be before I am barred? (Personally, I support free speech so strongly that I would not want to see your barred. – Perhaps that is what your psychological experiment was waiting to hear?)
Paul W. Dixon said:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND AT BROOHAVEN

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

We should consider the singular nature of the cosmic ray at some 10 to the 19th power electron volts in contrast to 10 to the 31st power particles at some 10 to the 12th power electon volts per colliding particle. Also the energetics of de Sitter space can be estimated at 1.6 x 10 to the 126th power electon vollts.

Thus, when you have penetrated the potential barrier towards de Sitter space this vast force is released from an unlimited source. All of this is very well-known by those aware of the ramifications of modern physics. The fact that the quark-gluon-plasma is formed indicates the vast energies of this mini-bang which has been formed at Broohaven National Laboratory. Please review page 1 of this thread for the references from the major journals of science regarding these values. Do we really wish to access de Sitter space with these unchecked and uncontrollable energies topologically cobordant to the continuum at every point protected as we are only by a large potential barrier?

All the children will thank you for your prompt notification of the members of the United States Congress asking them to bring an immediate halt to this reckless plunge into the unknown. May the good God have mercy on our souls.

ALL BEST WISHES

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Click to expand...
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB AND AT BROOKHAVEN

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

Please take a moment to view the exciting new film from NOVA entitled the Elegant Universe narrated by Brian Greene, professor of physics at Columbia University. In this film, which stars feature appearances by most of the leading lights in modern physics, including many Nobel Prize winners in physics, the entire field of modern physics is clearly and entertainingly illustrated with clear graphics and accurate and up-to-the minute
theoretical discussions.

The spokesperson for Fermilab, Joseph Lykken, describes one of the very real hazards of the this high-energy physics research at Fermilab, Broohaven and CERN, which is to enter into another dimension and "blow us all up." In the theoretical position put forward in this thread, this other dimension is de Sitter space which has suffiicient energy according those most most authoritatative journals in science to generate a Type Ia Supernova. Please come to the aid of all mankind and call for a halt to this mad dash towards certain and ultimate doom.

All the children will thank you for your prompt actions in notifying your members of Congress and may the good God have mercy on our souls.

ALL BEST WISHES

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, PhD.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Fermilab offers chance to see antimatter factory

How to get there.

Curriculum Vitae for Paul W. Dixon

Dixon, Paul W. (2003) [PDF]Supernovae From Experimentation?[PDF] Bionature 23:2, 75-81.

Joseph Lykken's webpage.

Fermilab Theoretical Physics Department

If Dr. Dixon's science is sound, why then is there not an uproar in the physics community? If high-energy physics research is safe and the science is sound, what makes Dixon speak out?

If Dixon is wrong, what is his motivation? Is he any different (if wrong) than Norval with his Alien War speculation or Carlotto with his speculation of ancient Mars civilization? Or Gary Denke with his fantasy of the Ark of the Covenant buried beneath Stonehenge?

Or is Dixon a Galileo, ignored by a populace that doesn't grasp the math and concepts he proposes and kept in check by the established authority that wishes to maintain the status quo?

It's too bad the Pseudoscience section is overrun by nutters and kooks with fanciful speculations instead of intellectual discussions on actual pseudoscience. This might have been a good topic to review there...
 
Last edited:
Yes, but this thread can never be moved! Paul W. Dixon made a unofficial arrangement with sciforums.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND BROOKHAVEN

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

Alas, those scientists who have an acquaintance with modern physics all indicate that they are aware of the vast energies resident in de Sitter space. The spokesperson from Fermilab, Joseph Lykken also indicated the possiblity of entering into another dimension and "blowing us all up." When picketting at Fermilab (a picture of us picketting at Fermilab is posted on this thread), the scientists conversing with us at the gate to Fermilab revealed that they too were aware of the vast energies resident in de Sitter space and the possibility of forming a transition towards de Sitter space thus creating Type Ia Supernova. They indicated that they wanted to continue with their employment at Fermilab and that they did not want to work for "Ma Bell Illinois," i.e., the telephone company. They also indicated that they were enaged in a semi-religous quest for truth at Fermilab. In essence, we are all to be sacrificed for their ultimately selfish desires. Conversations with other physicists indicated that this would be expected from members of their profession since nothing would disuade them from their course of action once it was initiated.

The energies at Fermilab are at the threshold towards forming a transition towards de Sitter space since they approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe. A certain combination between the oscillatory properties of the ring at Fermilab, variation in the primordial region termed de Sitter space, and increased energetics of operation at Fermilab must soon occur thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova. This will be the experimental verification of the Generalized Theory of Relativity and its extension by Willem de Sitter, forming in their theory the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

All the children will thank you for your prompt actions in notifying the members of Congress to bring a halt to this gravely irresponsible action 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:
Paul you still have not responded to my three questions posted 9-13-04, so I compress them and ask again:

1) Why energy densities, much higher than ANL can make, concentrated in a single primary cosmic ray, have not long ago punched a hole in the barrier to supernova?

2) Why the extreme supernova producing energies on the other side of the de Sitter barrier don't punch through to us?

3) Why a Ph.D. psychologist, rather than physicist, is so worried? (Even “selfish” ANL scientists don't want to be part of a supernova.)

If you were serious, you would try to answer at least one!
 
Billy T,

I get the feeling Paul the kind of guy that would explain his theory for hours on end to a brick wall or the corner of a elevator. Talking to him is a waste of time as he is us to talking to unanimous objects.
 
It is interesting that Bionature agreed to publish Paul's paper on his supernova theory. I wonder who the referees were? I wonder whether they were qualified in physics.

I suspect that this publication may have been allowed to go through due to Paul's previous contributions to the journal, in his earlier years.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed at the accelerator (Please note) is 103.43E30. In scientific
notation, this is 103.43 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With
a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the
energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 103.43 x 10 to the 41st power
electron volts (103.43 E 41 eV). These energies, focused to some nanometers diameter, are the equivalent to those found at the point origin of the Universe, owing to the collisonal energies of protons and antiprotons in the CDF at Fermilab. This is much greater than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger, a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we shall all perish.

The paradoxical properties of the potential barrier toward de Sitter space are explicated in the article, Supernovae from Experimentation,? whose web address is posted on this thread.

All the children will thank you for your prompt notification of the members of Congress 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 probably right WCF, but Paul is at least giving the appearance of an answer to my first question, so I will respond to him.

Paul my first question asked about ENERGY DENSITY at ANL vs. That of a single cosmic ray in its first nuclear collision high in the atmosphere. You responded with information about many particles to display greater total energy, mentioned a small volume, gave various numbers, but nothing about energy density.

If you think high energy density is the dangerous thing, then that is what we should discuss. If total energy is the problem, lets start a thread to stop the QE II from sailing so fast across the Atlantic. If total energy released in a short time (power level) is the problem, our new thread should try to prohibit baseball bats that hit fast balls and bullets fired into steel plates. Perhaps my first question should have been what is the problem: Energy density or Total energy or Peak power? Take that as question No. 4.

If you want to play the “energy / luminosity game,” I will to. If you must avoid giving “energy density in one collision at ANL vs. A Cosmic Ray primary collision” comparisons, because that would make your concern look silly, then compare ANL collision luminosity to the collision luminosity of cosmic rayS incident upon the sun, from all directions.

Perhaps Hans Bethe got it all wrong. – Fusion does not take place in the sun’s core. The sun shins because the cosmic ray flux on it is continuously releasing de Sitter energy. If I were you, I would write and ask for his Nobel Prize. :D

If one proton /antiproton annihilation does not produce greater energy density than one primary cosmic ray hitting the nucleus of a air atom then it is silly to become concerned just because such collisions happen many times. I.e. be consistent. Either speak to the energy density at ANL in a single annihilations event and in high atmosphere collision of a cosmic ray OR compare the total of events extending over time (as the long chain of particles traveling around the accelerator collide) with the total cosmic rays colliding on the surface of the sun in the same time interval.

I think this time interval would be the circumference of ANL accelerator / c.

SUMMARY:
Paul we are losing ground. Now there are 4 unanswered question and only a confused attempt to answer the first question which mixed (as best as I can understand it) total energy, energy density, and power into a confused ball and threw it back at me as an “answer.” Still waiting for a clear answer that addresses these three distinct concepts separately. BTW, what is the circumference of the ANL accelerator? (I might want to estimate the power deliver to the sun surface by cosmic rays, as you seem impressed by large exponents.)
 
Paul W. Dixon,

A atomic bomb pusts outs more energy density then fermilab, how come they haven't opens a rifted in space and destroyed the solar system?
 
WellCookedFetus said:
A atomic bomb pusts outs more energy density then fermilab
Click to expand...

Are you sure, or are you guessing?
Can you back it up with calculations or references?
 
Because you stated it as fact.

I would be very surprised if a high energy research facility was unable to achieve the energy densities in a nuclear explosion.
 
Hey according to Paul the fermilabs accerlerator is putting out more raw energy the an nuclear bomb by several fold (convert eV to joules, joules per kg of TNT, you'll see) first of all the lab can’t put out more energy then it puts in, second of all if was putting out that much energy it would have exploded and blow the earth up with it already (and that an estimate that 3.9x10^9 Mt of tnt could blow up the earth)! So I figure something’s questionable with Pauls post already. Please correct me though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top