Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

7/2.4 = 2.92; So, it was different by a factor of 2.92, not by a factor of 2 -- is that better?

You state that Gregger said 200 days X 1/2 hour/day = 1 Rad (to the exposed area)

You say I stated 200 days x 1 hour/day = 4 Rads (to the exposed area); thus for 1/2 hour, instead of 1 hour, that would be 2 Rads

Last time I checked, 1 Rad / 2 Rads = 1/2; that is, we were different by a factor of 2;

Isn't that what I said? Where's the problem? We're both agreed that it is unnecessary exposure, and yes, the risk is relatively low (though not non-existent, unless you believe in the LNT hypothesis, which is essentially discredited, though I won't go into that here).

Incidentally, I only did a cursory survey with a cheap piece of equipment that did not measure absolute energy, rather only the presence/absence of beta radiation. My exposure rate was for the skin-entrance exposure, which is definitely higher than the average for a 1 cm depth. I believe Gregger's exposure was for the average, which is likely the explanation for the factor of 2 discrepancy. To calculate the energy (Rads), I used the absolute count (which was fairly accurate) and the theoretical (from the book) energies of the betas. Thus, we had remarkably similar agreement, if you do the skin entrance exposure, rather than the average exposure.

The point of all this is that I would not want my kids sitting around on that Uranium day after day, which some kids do, even if the risk is low. Why take on additional risks when we already have enough in life, as is?

Also, while a whole-body exposure for an adult of 1 Rad gives a lifetime added risk of less than 1/10,000 for a cancer, it is not well-quantified what the risk is for kids. We do know that CT scans in kids have been shown to show a statistical increase in cancers, though not yet shown in adults. It is known that the younger the person exposed (if not an adult), the greater the risk. Infants/toddlers are at greatest risk, and in the houses in that neighborhood, there might well be tiled floors with such infants/toddlers crawling around for hours on end on Uranium tiles; just as might be the case in many older neighborhoods across the US, in Canada, in Europe, and elsewhere where such Uranium tiles were placed and are still in place.

But isn't this missing the point of this thread? Why not start another thread that is more apropos, and I'll correct your misunderstandings there.

As to Russia and China, both on the Security Council, and their seeming lack of concern regarding yet another State (Iran) potentially going nuclear-weapons, I have no idea what their 'thinking' is. However, last week I heard from our HPS president-elect, who's just finished cleaning up after the Russians along the arctic coast via his IAEA employment, that their Soviet predecessor state literally abandonded 1000 sealed-source thermo-electric generators that had been used to power lighthouses along the arctic coast. You likely heard about this via the news media, when it was reported a few years ago that one of them was found by some woodsmen who used it to keep warm overnight, only to suffer massive radiation burns (I believe they died). They were 20,000 Curie sources - quite deadly. All are reported now to have been recovered, as well as numerous other abandoned sources.

So yes, Uranium-tiles pale in comparison to other ills of the world.

Potential strangelets that could destroy the planet, etc., however, are potentially of greater concern, so I return this thread back to its original content. If you wish to comment on other topics, start a thread, and I'll respond.


Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
The point of all this is that I would not want my kids sitting around on that Uranium day after day, which some kids do, even if the risk is low. Why take on additional risks when we already have enough in life, as is?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, one would certainly agree with that. But the media circus you've created that has resulted in tons of taxpayers cash being spent for your own personal amusement is apalling.

So yes, Uranium-tiles pale in comparison to other ills of the world.
Click to expand...

But you would much rather center your attention on the tiles and create unnecessary mayhem resulting in further taxpayers dollars wasted.

Of course, I love your statement in regards to baby Toby:

"I don't even need to get in and see it," he reasoned. "I can visualize it (beams of radiation). It's there."
 
I am unaware of the so-called "tons of taxpayer cash" you allege has been spent. The media as a circus has been around for quite a long while. It is my understanding that the State (California) was paying salaries already to the people who surveyed that particular site, and other than the gasoline to drive to SF from Berkeley and back (a few dollars), it should certainly have cost the taxpayer nothing extra. Conversely, I have donated quite a few dollars, far more than has the State, to elucidate those facts.

With regards to the one-year-old child who died (Toby, whom I never met, and who died approximately 10 years before I learned of where he had lived) from Rhabdomyosarcoma (a very rare and painful cancer of muscle tissue) after having lived in a house which had Uranium-tiles in the bathroom, I have seen such identical tiles elsewhere, and have made measurements on them. After seeing the tiles at that particular apartment (while standing at the door, from a distance), I reduced my dose-exposure estimate about 10-fold to accord with similar tiles I had seen elsewhere, which I had measured, which tends to discount the likelihood that those particuar tiles were responsbile for that particular cancer. I was not allowed direct access to measure the exposure rate at that particular apartment, however, since the US Navy occupant "knew it was impossible" for the tiles to have Uranium on them, since he'd served on board a nuclear sub, and knew alot about nuclear matters.

You should realize that media persons often paraphrase, but cite as quotations, and in so doing, get statements wrong and/or out of context.

The reason I learned about Toby was exactly because of media attention. One person, a physicist, who read about Uranium tiles via the media, contacted me because he had been perplexed as to why his friend's son had died of such a rare cancer, at such an early age. He related to me that after Toby died, on a whim he took a survey meter into the apartment, and discovered the extensive usage of the Uranium tiles. He kept that information to himself for ten years (he's not a health physicist), until he read the article I stimulated about Uranium tiles, and contacted me. That's what the media's for.

Now, why are you so pushed out of shape about it? It didn't cost you any money, and it didn't cost the State any money.
 
"you believe in the LNT hypothesis"

My typo: Supposed to have read "unless you believe in the non-LNT hypothesis"
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB CERN AND BROOKHAVEN

Please recall that in continuous operation of the Tevatron the protons and antprotons maintain a circular path of some 4 miles circumference.
In a 6 hour run, for example, where the particles and antiparticles are in continuous collisional interaction all the variables within the Tevatron such as particle bunch size, emittance (bunch density), luminosity, penetrability of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, and etc., should vary at least three standard deviations. This combined variation provides for the optimum conditions for transtion towards de Sitter space. Given the extended time of operation for the Tevatron all of these variable should easily achieve their maximum value at some point of simultaneity in space and time. We are, therefore, ready to generate a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory during its next phase of operation. All the children will thank you now and forever for your kind actions on their behalf.

*edited for copy/paste from previous post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN AND BROOKHAVEN

The new refitted Tevatron has reduced emittance thus creating the
optimum conditions for a transition towards de Sitter space and
creation of a Type Ia Supernova.

Please recall that in continuous operation of the Tevatron the protons and
antprotons maintain a circular path of some 4 miles circumference.
In a 6 hour run, for example, where the particles and antiparticles are in
continuous collisional interaction all the variables within the Tevatron
such as particle bunch size, emittance (bunch density), luminosity,
penetrability of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, and etc.,
should vary at least three standard deviations. This combined variation
provides for the optimum conditions for transtion towards de Sitter space.
Given the extended time of operation for the Tevatron all of these
variable should easily achieve their maximum value at some point of
simultaneity in space and time. We are, therefore, ready to generate a
Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory during its
next phase of operation. All the children will thank you now and forever
for your kind actions on their behalf.

Numerically, for example, a bunch of particles moving at light speed will
have gone 4,017,600,000 miles in six hours. The combined statistical
variation for the variables of particle bunch size, emittance (bunch
density), luminosity. as well as penetrability of the potential barrier
towards de Sitter space would be 100,000,000 with a range up to three
standard deviation on a gaussian distribution per variable. Thus, given
the four mile circumfernce of the Tevatron, there would be the statistical
likelihood of a condition of simultaneity of approximately one occurence for every six hour run.
It may be understood in this connection that more variables may be
postulated as having an influence on a transition towards de Sitter space.

This is the webaddress for the Tevatron at Fermilab:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/whatis/picturebook/descriptions/01_1041_3.html

(Addtional numerical illustration added in support of the earlier work)
 
ok sorry guys i haven't read all 48 pages of posts on this topic. I am, however, quite amused at the fact that this Paul guy has been talking about the destruction of our planet due to this Fermilab particle accelerator for 5 years now.
Don't you have anything better to do man?? Obviously the guys in the lab know more then you do, otherwise you wouldn't be able to keep posting about the hazards for years on end.
 
What could be better -more noble- than trying to save the entire planet from destruction?

Paul is, without a doubt, my favorite kook on this board. He has more consistency and tenacity that Garry Denke and Norval Cunningham combined. Both of those guys eventually gave up and quit their kookdom. Paul never gives up, and that's something to be respected just for itself.

Also, what if he's right....?
 
Xeeg: How unscientific of you to express a negative opinion of a kook without reading 48 pages of repetitive nonsense.

If you had a more open mind, perhaps your brains would fall out or trash would get in.
 
Supernova from Experimentation at FermiLab

When I previously posted, I had not skimmed through all 48 pages. I have since done so, though quickly glossing over Dixon's posts to read the posts of others. It literally took me several hours, but it was fun. I'll point out his errors (again) and the errors of his critics further below.

Dixon was born about 1936, I gathered, and was about 5 years old when the US entered into WWII (December 7, 1941, the "day that will live in infamy"), which had started two years earlier in Europe (1939 invasion of Poland). Four years later, when he was 9 the US dropped two A-bombs, incinerating lots of civilians (circa 150,000), and ending the war. The US had earlier been dropping incindiary devices (on Tokyo, on Dresden in Germany, etc, - read Kurt Vonnegut's Schlachthof-Fuenf [Slaughterhouse 5] for an interesting perspective from one US GI who actually was there back then) and incinerating lots more civilians (circa 200,000+) in both war theatres. I'm sure those events shaped his perceptions in life. Thereafter, the US and the USSR and China and the UK and France began a program of atmospheric testing of A and H bombs, with the atmospheric testing ending when Dixon was in his 20s. I'm sure those debates and struggles also helped shape his perspectives.

He is actually fairly widely read in many fields, including cosmology, in part because he shares the University of Hawaii at Hilo campus with physicists/cosmologist from the large telescopes atop Mauna Kea.

Without regurgitating all of the many posts, some of which are quite virulent, allow me to reference to the post of paulsamuel of 1-31-03 that perhaps best sums up much of the unfounded criticisms, and with which I agree.

The one person who posts the most logical criticisms I believe was from steven23, who at least twice posted his correct criticism of dixon's error in mathematics. It is the same error I caught, as noted in my previous post, pertaining to the number of particles in the beam. More about that further below.

One other psychological 'insight' of mine (and, after all, we all can claim to have some degree of psychological insight) is as follows:

I am a late-comer to sciforums, and never visited or posted until this past month. Many other scientists have never visited or posted at sciforums as of yet, and thus far, it appears that many persons who post here have limited scientific backgrounds. Some persons who do post have very extensive scientific credentials. For a good exchange, see the one under Genetics under the Link between Land and Sea fossils, in which Valich and I have pursued some intersting topics.

I was curious, since Dixon began posting well before 9/11/2001, as to who, if anyone posted on that date. I know what I was doing on that date. I was glued to the TV most all day. So go back and check, and you'll find that Dixon posted at about 3:30 in the afternoon Hawaii time, keeping his post strictly to the topic of the thread. For the next entire month, no one else posted except he, several times. Clearly, this topic is quite all-consuming for him.

Now, to give you one brief example that sometimes the 'lone person crying wolf' can be shunted aside improperly (as was noted for some of the Morton-Thiokol engineers when they tried to stop a shuttle launch at freezing temperatures and were unable, as correctly noted in one of the posts herein), allow me to mention that in April, 2001 at the 5th annual John Horan Memorial health physics symposium in Salt Lake City, Utah, the topic of discussion was the possible "temporary" 20-year placement of spent nuclear reactor fuel rod casks on the desert floor in western Utah. I suggested that any such placement out in the open was foolhardy, because possible suicide pilots might fly private planes loaded with explosives, followed by ones loaded with incindiary materials, to create a huge mess downwind. Only one person agreed with me that perhaps the materials should have a concrete cap placed over them, this being a physicist who had only the month prior put to bed the debris of TMI, covered with a concrete lid in Idaho. I was, of course, roundly derided for suggesting that there might be such things as multiple suicide pilots, and my criticisms fell on deaf ears at the time. Everyone else was gung-ho to leave the stuff out in the open.

Now, as to Dixon's mathematics error, he assumed that the 'luminosity' expressed the actual number of particles in the beam, which it does not. Rather, it expresses the particle beam intensity.

This was pointed out at least twice by Steven23 prior to my first post (which posts of his I had not previously read when I earlier posted herein, as they're buried back in 2003), but no one else even commented on it. However, as luck would have it, that error does not necessarily change the results of the argument.

Likewise, no one ever figured out what Dixon is concerned about, and their 'guessing' completely misses the mark. Steven23 (and others) correctly point out, repeatedly, that the energy of the collision of a proton and an antiproton (2 TeV, i.e. 2E12 eV) is well below the energy of high energy cosmic rays, which are reliably measured at up to 1E17 eV in the atmosphere, and not-so-reliably measured at up to 1E21 eV by ground-based detectors such as Pierre Auger (and which high energy showers possibly have other explanations such as the break-up of the rest mass of exotic particles of high mass). Dixon knows those facts.

No, what Dixon is concerned about is the as-yet-undemonstrated possibility that by confining so many collisions (3.0E10 anti-protons [from Steven23] in a bunch yielding circa 1E10 collisions) into such a small volume (a 'sphere' of diameter circa 0.015 cm, again from Steven23, as well as from FermiLab), that there is conceivably an ADDITIVE EFFECT, that would trigger a supposed transition to deSitter space.

The last time I checked, one bunch of 1E10 particle-collisions X 2E12 eV/particle-collision = 2E22 eV total for each bunch of proton/anti-proton collisions, near or slightly above the highest recorded cosmic ray particles (and this BEFORE taking into consideration the Center-of-Momentum reference frame, which would be applicable for particulate matter, though apparently not for his type of argument of a change in state of the vacuum)

As I mentioned in my previous post, I do not know of any 'mechanism' that would allow for an additive effect to take place to allow one to sum the energies, but likewise I cannot disprove it either.

And yes, a transition to deSitter space is a theoretical possibility that was detailed in Nature in the referenced article, which he posted. It is such thoughts that directed the RHIC 'after-the-fact safety analysis' to consider just such a possibility, and it was able to be disproven for the RHIC due to the case of two colliding cosmic rays (assuming arguendo that each has 1E21 eV, and in striking head-on had a total of 2E21 eV) in deep space having greater energy than the RHIC COM energy (circa 2E13 eV), and do not cause such a transition. Thus, the RHIC was posited safe from that scenario, with which I agreed.

However, under Dixon's postulates the FermiLab is at or about that threshold, and IF in fact the 1E21 eV cosmic ray showers are from the break-up of a massive particle of rest-mass of 1 E21 eV, rather than from a smaller particle of high kinetic energy, and IF Dixon's central thesis that there is an ADDITIVE EFFECT were correct, then FermiLab would be operating beyond what has been demonstrated safe from the consideration of head-on collisions of cosmic rays in deep space (lowered to circa 1E17 for the highest energy cosmic rays measured in balloons). Of course, these are two big IFs, and apparently no one who has posted here previously is qualified to address them, since they completely glossed over Dixon's concerns.

Further, Dixon postulates that for any one particular run, there is only a slight chance of such a deSitter space transition, but that over many thousands of such runs (current count circa 5,000 and counting), the chance of such transition becomes closer to 1/10,000 (note: without explaining how he comes up with that number, which is possibly a pure guess), which to many is an unacceptable risk.

Dixon has apparently had some private communications with physicists at FermiLab who have told him that they are more than willing to take such risks personally, because they perceive that their personal benefits (good job, good money, prestige in the community, etc.) are worth the risk. Thus, from Dixon's sociological perspective, it becomes an issue that should deserve a broad social input, hence his continous posting to this forum, and elsewhere, in an attempt to develop that input.

Now, with respect to the scientific communities' addressing of these issues, KMGuru in one of his earlier posts gave an excellent link, which I post again:

http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm

I have had some experience with raising other issues of safety concern pertaining to the RHIC and the LHC. Those were inadequately addressed by a 'safety review' which has been faulted for a number of reasons, both by myself, as well as by others in the link above. Allow me to mention the most serious flaw in the first review prepared.

It was postulated, similar to the postulate for head-on collisions of cosmic rays in space showing the RHIC to be safe from a deSitter space transition, that it was likewise safe from creation of strangelets. However, the situation is entirely different, as was overlooked by the authors' first report. Small strangelets, as would be created at the RHIC, are postulated to be radioactive, with half-lives on the order of microseconds to minutes, and hence any created in deep space would quicly disappear back into normal matter. However, the authors overlooked that fact, and estimated the number of excess supernovas we'd see, based on the number of RHIC-like head-on collisions in deep space of high energy cosmic rays, and came up with a huge number, and not seeing such, concluded (incorrectly) that such RHIC-like collisions cannot create dangerous strangelets. When this was pointed out to the authors, they dropped that argument.

Likewise, there is a qualitative difference for the 'moon' argument that was presented, and what happens at RHIC, which is addressed in the posted link above. To summarize; small strangelets are postulated to be slow to react with normal matter, and likely can only react initially with low-Z matter such as Helium (which is in great abundance at our super-conducting colliders), whereas neutral strangelets created on the moon by cosmic ray impact are moving near the speed of light (relative to the moon, after impact), and zip right through the moon before having the chance to interact with moon nuclei and grow larger; neutral stranglets created at the RHIC or LHC would be relatively stationary to Earth, and would drift towards the center and have lots of time to slowly grow larger. Hence, the cosmic ray argument simply does not hold up for either the RHIC or LHC, but I won't go into all the details here.

Of course, strangelets are only a theoretical postulate so far as we know, and might be impossible to create, which many theorists also believe.

The dangerous 'mini-black-hole' argument is essentially the same as for the strangelets. Some theorists have postulated that Hawking might be wrong, and mini black holes don't evaporate at anywhere near the rate he predicts. Calculations using his formula show such mini black holes to evaporate in such a short period of time, even at moving at 99.99 c, that they will not move more than a proton diameter, and hence would be safe. For more information on this topic, check the posted link given above, originally posted by KMGuru.

Now, why doesn't someone start a thread on magnetic monopoles, and I'll detail the balloon-borne cosmic ray experiment from 1975 that appears to have found evidence for the existence of massive magnetic monopoles.

Also, if anyone is interested in health physics, why not start a thread on the RBE value for alpha emitters (given in the NRC, DOE, EPA and other regs as the value of 20), and I'll show how it was originally derived, and how it is too low.

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN AND BROOKHAVEN

Given the uncertainties of this kind of research should we not go forward with a legal action to halt this very great public endangerment? Our lives are in the hands of those whose focus lies elsewhere and not on the humdrum mundane world of staying alive. We thank you for your understanding and
ask for some immediate legal action. The new round of highest-energy physics research is set to begin on July 18, 2006. We will then see an empirical test and indeed, without a doubt, an empirical verification of this postulation of the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.
The new refitted Tevatron has reduced emittance thus creating the
optimum conditions for a transition towards de Sitter space and
creation of a Type Ia Supernova.

*edited for copy/pasted material
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN AND BFOOHAVEN

As the prediction for this type of highest-energy physics experimentation is a Type Ia Supernova formed via a transition towards de Sitter space, statistical studies of Supernovae Type Ia may be germane to these interests. A study of the Virgo cluster of 1800 galaxies indicated 0.25 +/- 0.06 Type Ia events per year. Examining all types of Supernovae provides for 0.84 +/- 0.13 per year.
Depending on the type of cluster, the overall frequency of Type Ia Supernova can vary from 13% to 25%.
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/xmmnewton_elements_origin.html

While the formation of Type Ia Supernova is thought to have origin in accretion around a white dwarf from a neighboring star, there is no trace of hydrogen near maximum liight for Type Ia Supernovae. This, plus the anomalously high calcium levels in Type Ia Suprenovae, raises doubt concerning the now extant theories for their cosmological formation.

Do we really wish to become another statistic in the cosmological frequency of Tyoe Ia Supernovae or should we take stock of where we stand before we plunge forthwith into the unknown. That there are riskes involved is now a given in these analyses. We do not know their extent. Let us call a halt to
these investigations until these riskes have been quantified.

The fundamental error made by particle physicists is illustrated by
this quote from the CERN website. They believe that when the
energy is
small enough, even though the focus is such as to raise these
energies to
some trillionths of a second after the Big Band at the point oriigin
of
the Universe,
that is safe. Alas the penetration of the potential barrier is
independent of scale.

"A TeV is a unit of energy used in particle physics. 1 TeV is about
the
energy of motion of a flying mosquito. What makes the LHC so
extraordinary
is that it squeezes energy into a space about a million million
times
smaller than a mosquito."

This is often referred to as an oversight in their equations.


June 18th, 2006 is now the time set for highest-energy physics at Fermilab,
with reduced emittance/ decreased cross-section, necessary for forming
a penetration of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation.
 
Last edited:
Paul:

My reading of a deSitter transition, also investigated by the RHIC committee on its "safety review", is that such a transition would propagate outward at the speed of light, essentially converting our space into the 'lower-level' deSitter space. In other words, such a transition would destroy not just a planet or star, but the entire Universe.

Hence, the supernovas (supernovae) we see in other galaxies cannot represent a deSitter space transition. Rather, they represent supernova of stars due to processes not yet fully understood, but generally associated with the depletion of the fusable Hydrogen that keeps the over-burden of the star's exterior portions (where the fusion is not occurring) from collapsing. Eventually, upon depletion of Hydrogen, the pressure increases in the stars interior, and higher Z elements begin fusing, resulting in a very rapid neutron flux and increase in fusion until Iron (Z = 26) is formed. Thereafter, fusion is no longer energy-producing (binding energy/nucleon maxed), and the star collapses, though with many neutrons being released, and capture forming higher-Z elements (to beyond Z = 92, though the higher Zs subsequently radioactively decay to Z = 92 and lower), which are then dispersed into the intergalactic medium, 'salting' the Hydrogen gas clouds that pervade the galaxies with the elements necessary for life, etc.

You mention the Virgo cluster of some 1800 galaxies. These are apparently gravitationally bound, and one would expect to find many colliding galaxies in that cluster. As I mentioned in a prior post eslewhere, it is now believed that spiral galaxies (such as our own Milky Way) are formed by the collision of many small globular clusters, which become 'stretched' to form the 'arms', etc. These collisions only rarely have actual stars colliding. Rather, the stars of a cluster are gravitationally perturbed to assume newer locations as they become incorporated into the merged 'super-galaxy'. The many globular clusters likely have many black-holes (and possibly larger central black-holes), and thus there are likely many black-holes within the 'arms' of our own Milky Way. (BillyT will agree with this!)

When such galaxies collide, they 'light up' in the region of intersection by the formation of OB stars where their Hydrogen gas clouds collide, forming new stars. Such is likely what gave birth to our own Solar System some 5 billion years ago, possibly by just such a collision of a globular cluster with the incipient Milky Way.

Now, as to the "Additive Effect" you've postulated at FermiLab, as I mentioned before, I cannot yet disprove it. If such additive effect exists, then the total energy at the 'region' of collision is the 2 TeV of the proton-antiproton kinetic and annihilation energy (mostly kinetic) multiplied by the number of annihilations (on the order of 1E7 I believe. This does take us beyond our experience with cosmic rays, if we use only directly detected cosmic rays, and not those inferred by ground-based detectors, which might be detecting the break-up of high-rest-mass exotics such as magnetic monopoles, etc., as postulated by numerous others.

As I understand some of your prior postings, some of your concern is with the fact that numerous physicists, as they seek to investigate our Universe, have expressed to you their belief that the Universe is knowable, and as such it is our purpose in part to learn/investigate/know our Universe, and that they have a faith that our Universe would not be such as to allow for its own self-destruction by engaging in such investigation. Further, we have an excellent past history of non-destruction of the Universe, etc. Apparently, this is a faith-based exposition, and really should not be permitted as a basis for scientific elucidation.

So, as a challenge to anyone else reading this, please prove how an "Additive Effect" would not be applicable to many millions of 2TeV energy bursts all happening simultaneously within a very tight confine (dimensions of microns), such that such Additive Effect could be posited to trigger a deSitter space transition. I believe that this is a higher energy density than in a supernova or other astrophysical object (other than a black hole), but certainly at the initiation of the Big Bang, the energy density was much higher. So how come there was not a deSitter space transition at the beginning of the Universe, if such could happen now?

I'll try to post about the strangelet considerations at the LHC, possibly in a new thread.

Also, I gave you a free bump!

Regards,


Walter
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN AND BROOHAVEN

My Dear Dr. Walter,

As indicated previously: "The energetics of supernovae Type Ia, which are of approximately one solar mass, and yet 2.5 times greater than Type II supernovae of some 10 solar masses or greater, should then result from a small though highly energetic flux's reading of a more highly energetic region of the continuum of the false de Sitter vacuum." (Dixon, P. W. Supernovae from Experimentation? Bionature, 23 (2), 2003 : 75-81) This may be thought of in contrast to the penetration of the potential barrier to the lower energy condition which would result as you have mentioned. De Sitter space is conceived of as having both a higher and lower energy condition. A transition towards the higher condition would be more likely since, according to these postulations the higher energy conditon would provide for the energy necssary for an intrusional event. A transition towards the lower energy condition in de Sitter space would also be possible as you forsee.

Should we not go forward with legal action given the uncertanties of these theoretical predictions and let the public have a voice in these matters. It is our hard-earned tax dollar which supports these researches with the billions of dollars necssary for the constuction of the highest-energy collider at Fermilab and elsewhere.

Your kind thoughts and understanding in these matters is of the greatest significance. All of our children will thank you now and forevermore for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

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

We have now entered into a Run 2 Phase B at Fermilab. With all of the parameters now brought into alignment at Fermilab, a full test of the Relatvistic Cosmology of Willem de Sitter is now underway. So far, all of the tests of General Relativity have supported this theory with a high degree of predictive validity. In this case, we may predict further support through this empirical test at Fermilab with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova.
Please note: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/index.html

There may be an illusory period of safety due to the statistical nature of the bringing all the variables into juxtapostion; analogously, to fitting a key into a lock, which as we all know may take some period of time. "It may be an error to presume that de Sitter space is a static creation of invariant action but may instead be, according to these observations, a region of dynamic action and hence interaction with the continnum. (Dixon, P. W. Supernova from experimentation? Bionature, 23(2), 2003 :75-81) Variation in the energetics of de Sitter space may then provide another variable that will yield a transition, i.e., Type Ia Supernova, after some period of persistence in experimentation.

All the childeren will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to write a small reply to this because of my very limited knowledge in physics (having only studied 2 out of a possible 5yr degree then "dropping out").

It seems to me that this notion of setting off a supernova in a particle accelerator is nonsense, i mean how can you say that 33 TeV is large enough to cause a supernova when particles of larger energy are found all around us in the cosmo's. Let them have the experiment, it might yeild some amazing results and i have faith in well over 200 scientists doing something right, than 1 "scientist" claiming they're wrong.
 
Paul W. Dixon said:
...There may be an illusory period of safety due to the statistical nature of the bringing all the variables into juxtapostion;...
Click to expand...
No need to hedge you predicitons now Paul at this last stage. Nothing you can post now, after 51,000 views, will save you. Either you will continue to look silly; or if you are right, no one will know. For you it is a Lose/lose suituation. :p
 
BillyT:

Actually, Paul's postings are about something that would be eternally correct, or else it will all end instantaneously, and we'll never know that he was correct.

He's likened the experimentation to a "Russian Roulette" (and I mean no offense to our friends in Russia - it's simply an expression common in the English language, much like a "French Kiss" now having nothing to do with France), but instead of 6 chambers for bullets and only one bullet, there are an unknown number of chambers with one bullet.

Just as they do not get a "resonance" peak for each run (indicating a particle creation), so too he's suggesting that they will not get a supernova with each run - just a chance of one. Run it enough times (thousands to tens of thousands), and you might get your supernova, if the number of chambers is small enough, or we're unlucky enough. Just as in Russian Roulette, if you pull the trigger and nothing happens (just a 'click', no bullet firing), does that prove that Russian Roulette is a safe game to play?

It also raises a philosophical question. Many physicists have suggested that there is a "risk", but almost all concede that it is exceptionally small (caveat: without explaining how they determine how small it is). If it were possible to calculate the odds of a mishap (say, 1 in a billion), is that a risk that society as a whole should be willing to take. How do we determine how much of a risk we should be willing to take? And who gets to decide?

There are indeed deeper issues underlying his postings, as recognized by several who've posted in response over the years.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the LHC and strangelet production potential. Others are concerned about the LHC and that Hawking's formula for ultra mini black holes may not be correct, and that they last longer than predicted. Personally, I believe Hawking is correct, but who knows, I might be wrong.

I theorized as such in that 1999 Letters to the Editor for Scientific American in which I predicted that colliding two atoms head-on with enough energy might create a mini-black-hole (sort of like the reverse process of the final stages of 'evaporation' of a black hole), but that Hawking's formula showed they should be so ultra-short-lived that it could not create a doomsday scenario. They also published Frank Wilczek's response to my Letter in which he ridiculed my suggestion that mini black holes might be created at the RHIC and LHC, but in which he raised the strangelet issue. Since then, theorists are now suggesting that I was correct, and that mini-black-hole creation is the best explanation for some of the RHIC results. It remains to be seen if Frank was also wrong about strangelets.

Keep up your postings. I enjoy reading them wherever, and look for them in particular. With the start of Winter just under your belt, and the days finally getting longer again, I hope the improving weather doesn't keep you out-of-doors and away from your computer too much. By the way, have you been reading MetaKron's postings about his Velikovsky scenario for Venus' origina from Jupiter? Rather strange.

Regards,


Walter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top