Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

[Reiku]

You're making up your own definition of 'crank'. Modesty or lack of doesn't make you a crank. Posting BS and proclaiming it's physics does.
Wait, which of us posted this thread? I forget...
Then he should clarify. And besides, your maths is so bad, you think that $$(a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi$$. No, $$a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi = (a+ib)^{2}$$. See the difference? Seriously, this is even more basic than the maths I posted. The maths I posted someone who understands relativity can understand. The maths you just got wrong a child can see is wrong.
Why do you post that? You know I'll see through your nonsense. You don't know anything about Hamiltonians, because they require a grasp of things like variational principles, particularly when dealing with fields, as in relativity. You've previously demonstrated you don't understand energy in relativity by not realising the problem with summing energy in gravitational fields.
Again, why post that? I have previously explained, including given an example, of the difference between mass and energy's sign. They are NOT synomynous. Dirac uses the difference to predict the existence of antimatter. The difference between them explains the Penrose Process.

This is why I reply to your posts, you lie about your understanding all the time. You complain I lack modesty and yet you continually claim you ,know more than you do. I claim I know a bit about relativity. Why? Because I've been to lectures, sat exams and as it happens the Black Hole lecture course I wrote those notes from was a course I got a distinction in. Something I'm especially proud of.

When someone asks me for details, I provide. When I ask you, you refuse, yet you challenged me first. And now you complain I challenge you?! You initiate threads and then refuse to partake.

You are a compulsive, unashamed liar. You lie about your work, your education and I'm 99.9% sure you lied about your brother in your PM on the weekend. Something which you yourself said you'd have to be sick to lie about but it seems that way...

/edit
I didn't care that you couldn't reply. You weren't part of the conversation. I was using you as a prime example of a crank who makes claims he cannot back up and who then puts his foot in it by thinking something he finds hard others find hard. Except in this case, it was multiplying out brackets. I used StevenA as an example too and I'm 100% certain he won't reply to that thread. I doubt he even reads it. I use Zephir as an example still. The fact is, if you didn't put your foot in it and make claims your brain can't cash then you wouldn't have been an example. Funny how I don't use Rpenner or BenTheMan as an example. Well no, it's not funny, because they have proven they can do the physics they say they can.

It's simple. If you make a claim which is different from verified physics, give some evidence. If you make claims about 'proving' things, give the details. If you can't and your posts imply you don't understand the details, I'll say something. If you don't like that the best recourse is to put me in my place by proving your claims.

Hear that Walter? If you think I'm wrong, give explicit details. Given you're talking about GR so much, I assume you know something about it. So it should be within your ability. If not, please explain why not.

yes, i did post that... but hey, are you forgetting you have done these things more than me when modesty is concerned, because let's face it, you ignored me when i said, ''Whilst i am not clean myself on such things,'' i was telling you that you superfluously do it every day, and this satisfaction of behaviour is linked to being unsatisfactory about yourself.

And a warning alphanumeric... You said, ''You are a compulsive, unashamed liar. You lie about your work, your education and I'm 99.9% sure you lied about your brother in your PM on the weekend. Something which you yourself said you'd have to be sick to lie about but it seems that way...''

For your own good, stay out of this affair now. I asked you in confidence to give me a break for a while, because you where stressing me to the point i was thinking bad things.

You have no compassion. None whatsoever. I think you've led your un-modest judgment to even contemplate something like that i would tell you, to be a falsity, because it is quite clear you don't understand the meaning of ''personal message.'' It wasn't something i was going to broadcast all over this forum, in case of personal attacks such as, ''why tell us, are you looking for sympathy,'' but in your case, all i asked you for was time.

 

[Reiku]

''You don't know anything about Hamiltonians''

Yeh, right, and yet, i still knew it was. Your logic sucks, as does your attitude.

 

[Reiku]

In other words, when you said, ''Why do you post that? You know I'll see through your nonsense. You don't know anything about Hamiltonians, because they require a grasp of things like variational principles, particularly when dealing with fields, as in relativity. You've previously demonstrated you don't understand energy in relativity by not realising the problem with summing energy in gravitational fields.''

What are you denying? The fact i knew that it was related to the Hamiltonian relation to the proper expression of E=Mc^2 when compaired to Dirac Equations, or that you think i know no more than this, because i can tell you, that's wrong. I know quite a bit on it, actually. But i am not saying this in contrast to sound ''boastful,'' but you did ask.

Difference with someone like you, is that you boast about achievements even when not asked. That is why you are not modest, in a scientific sense. It's like being in a playground waving your hands saying, ''i know more than you, ha, ha, ha-ha, ha...''

It's childish as well.

 

[Billy T]

Rieku you have a neurological problem (SPD ) as you admit in post:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1898068&postcount=5

It may explain your attacks on AN but not why you insist on display of ignorance in them (not just about physics but as to what is proper behavior of a scientists etc.).

Recall that the third of the characteristics of SPD that wiki listed is:
(3) Give conversational responses that are socially inappropriate, tangential and/or stereotyped

For the three others see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1898537&postcount=13

Your knowledge of physics and what makes a scientist etc. is far below mine which in turn is far below AN's. Walter and I are approximately on a par and both have had useful exchanges between us in this very thread, in the sense that both have learned for the other.
--------
Now to turn to the assertions you made (which display your ignorance) about Hamiltonians. The essence of the Hamiltonian reformulation of classical physics is to convert the set of second order differential equation describing a system into a set of twice as many first order differential equations.

Just to make sure you understand this difference, I now give a simple physics example, Note F = ma uses the acceleration a, which is the second time derivative of position x. One could instead use two first order equations. For example F = (dp/dt) where p the momentum is p = m (dx/dt)

In quantum mechanics the Hamiltonian is normally not even an equation but an operator in the equations with operates on the state function, at least as I recall it from 40 years ago.

I learned my classical mechanics for great old text by Goldstein (called "CLASSICAL MECHANICS, as I recall) The Hamiltonian is rarely, if ever, used in classical mechanics but is easily extended to quantum mechanics. The simple harmonic oscillator problem can be solved with the powerful and general Hamiltonian approach. In fact Goldstein's text illustrates that application, but quickly notes that it is sort of like opening peanuts with a sledge hammer.

Your E = mC^2 is not a Hamiltonian, not even the simple Hamiltonian of the simple harmonic oscillator. It is a statement of how energy and mass are related. Much more like the statement that 1 minute = 60 seconds. I.e. minutes and seconds are the same thing measured in different units. In the case where E = mC^2 is valid, Mass and Energy are the same thing measured in two different sets of units. Your E = mC^2 has essentially nothing to do with Hamiltonians.

You should apologize to AN or at least stop your display of ignorance. In general, in view of your admitted defect, you should write off line and then re-read what you have written at least a few minutes later before posting. See if you are not just exhibiting some of the four things that characterize your SPD defect. I have mild dyslexia so I often to do this. I.e. I let the spell checker help me get my “p” changed into “b” where needed, etc.

 

[Reiku]

Billy --

''Rieku you have a neurological problem (SPD ) as you admit in post:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...68&postcount=5

It may explain your attacks on AN but not why you insist on display of ignorance in them (not just about physics but as to what is proper behavior of a scientists etc.).

Recall that the third of the characteristics of SPD that wiki listed is:''

You want to know the truth. He started on me long ago, and i tried originally to be diplomatic, sending him messages that we should argue but discuss. But he refused, and there went the snowball down hill. So don't presume IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY DISABILITY.

Secondly? Wiki? You do realize that wiki gave examples. They do not apply to every individual. This is why whenever people read up on things on wiki, the work is by definition, created by the public, for the public, and it is very obtuse at that, as you will already know.

''Recall that the third of the characteristics of SPD that wiki listed is:
(3) Give conversational responses that are socially inappropriate, tangential and/or stereotyped ''

Yes, but this is not rooted with me in general, as i stated, in the very beginning when me and Alphanumeric began to talk, he was the one who started on me, being stereotypical, inappropriate in his ways of dealing with other people socially (something which should already be known to quite a few individuals here already), and yet you place the blame on something, i can only imagine you ''presumed'' to be related.

You don't know our history, so i ask, don't comment on them. Or any speculative notions, from now on.

''For the three others see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=13

Your knowledge of physics and what makes a scientist etc. is far below mine which in turn is far below AN's. Walter and I are approximately on a par and both have had useful exchanges between us in this very thread, in the sense that both have learned for the other.
--------
Now to turn to the assertions you made (which display your ignorance) about Hamiltonians. The essence of the Hamiltonian reformulation of classical physics is to convert the set of second order differential equation describing a system into a set of twice as many first order differential equations.''

I never argued it wasn't, but if Alphanumeric, as wise on physics as he likes to boast about, at least i knew that the Hamiltonian expression would have been found erreneous without the improvization between linking the electron with the Dirac Sea, a relativistic ''wedding'' which showed conclusive mathematical evidence that we are not dealing with a classical model no more, and instead, something which evidently stemmed from consclusions of a quantum Aether, which is non-classical, since it takes into account the uncertainty principle.

''In quantum mechanics the Hamiltonian is normally not even an equation but an operator in the equations with operates on the state function, at least as I recall it from 40 years ago.

I learned my classical mechanics for great old text by Goldstein (called "CLASSICAL MECHANICS, as I recall) The Hamiltonian is rarely, if ever, used in classical mechanics but is easily extended to quantum mechanics.''

It's an operator, sure, but Billy... there is so much more to it than that. Do you even know what the operator does?

''Your E = mC^2 is not a Hamiltonian, not even the simple Hamiltonian of the simple harmonic oscillator.''

Read carefully. I said it was a set of equations that expressed similarities to the Hamiltonian expression of E=Mc^2/ *** Please read carefully.

''You should apologize to AN or at least stop your display of ignorance.''

Ignorance? It seems you are no better at displaying it yourself, concerning the heavy studies i put into understanding the history of physics, and knowing how things came about... So no. I will not apologize.

 

[Billy T]

... i knew that it was related to the Hamiltonian relation to the proper expression of E=Mc^2 when compaired to Dirac Equations, or that you think i know no more than this, because i can tell you, that's wrong. I know quite a bit on it, actually. ...

AN was not using the following (quoted from post 1416):

"In quantum field theory, there's 'positive energy' and 'negative energy' modes, which come from solutions of the Dirac equation. One relates to particles, the other to antiparticles. It was precisely that which lead to Dirac predicting the existence of the positron. And yet both positrons and electrons have positive mass. Put simply, if then. ...""

To explain or illustrate Hamiltonians, nor was his E^2 = m^2 + p^2 . He was discussing the positive and negative energies systems. The solutions / or particle& anti-particles as E has two solutions*, on positive and the other negative.

------------
*AN called them "modes" but back when Dirac noted these two solutions no one knew about anti-particles or would have called them "modes." Some one simple minded, like me, simply ignored the negative energy solution as "unreal" but Dirac did not. He wondered why it was "unreal" or if it was by necessity non-sense. Again recall this was prior to any knowledge that positrons were real. Dirac of course knew that no two electrons could occupy the same quantum state and that the negative solution was not observed (back then anyway) So he imagined that all the negative states were already occupied (the "sea of negative states was full" is how he described this.) so no negative energy electron could change states and without this be observed. Then he noted that one unoccupied state in the negative energy sea would have the characteristic of and electron but with the opposite charge (just as later day solid state physicists speak of holes in semiconductors acting like Positive electrons (although not with the same or even constant mass) Thus he predicted that positrons would exist.

All this has essentially nothing to do with Hamiltonians. You do have a SPD communication problem and should be careful to review your posts off line to see if they are not mainly exhibiting some of the four characteristics of this defect, as I suggested in my last post.

 

[2inquisitive]

By what deifnition of 'first' are you working with?

In the reference frame of an observer at infinity, time stops for the infalling particle at the event horizon. In that frame of reference, the infalling particle can take an eternity to reach the singularity or an oppositely charged 'real' particle, while the escaping particle has an eternity to annihilate with a real particle. BTW, we are speaking of a hypothetical micro black hole created by two particles colliding head-on. The extremely rare direct head-on collision is the only collision that would produce the type of mbh we would be concerned with, one that isn't ejected from the Earth's gravitational field. A direct, head-on collision would not create a rapidly rotating Kerr black hole because there is no angular momentum to conserve. The micro black hole would be a Schwarzschild black hole.

The boosting properties of the gravitational field makes the outward ejected particle real by the fact it's moving up through the gravitational field.

Where does the energy come from to 'eject' the virtual particle up through and against the gravitational field near the event horizon? You state the gravitational field will (transform?) the virtual particle into a particle with mass. Why does the micro black hole not pull the particle back into the event horizon if the particle gains mass while within its gravitational field?

The flux of energy is always one direction due to the fact the gradient of the gravitational field is not zero.

Of course, but you have not yet established a mechanism by which an initial 'kick' is given to the virtual particle that formed near the event horizon. A tidal gradient could only pull the virtual particle nearest the event horizon more than the more distant particle, but both would be pulled toward the event horizon. Are you even certain tidal forces will separate massless virtual particles?

AlphaNumeric, I am not asserting that Hawking radiation is definitely false, or that 'reverse' Hawking radiation is real. I am stating it has never been observed and it seems more of a hypothesis as it is grounded on other unobserved and unproven phonomena such as 'negative energy' just because the mathematical sign changes below the event horizon. I am not positive the math works correctly inside an event horizon, are you?

 

[D H]

Back to blackholes from CERN:

CERN recently released their updated safety review. From the CERN press release,

The LHC is subject to numerous audits covering all aspects of safety and environmental impact. The latest of these, addressing the question of whether there is any danger related to the production of new particles at the LHC, was presented to Council at [noparse]the 20 June 2008 CERN Council[/noparse] meeting. Updating a 2003 paper, this new report incorporates recent experimental and observational data. It confirms and strengthens the conclusion of the 2003 report that there is no cause for concern. The report was prepared by a group of scientists at CERN, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The safety review:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

Pre-release of paper on TeV-level blackholes:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381

Various articles:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34711
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/science/21cernw.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
... and many more.

 

[Billy T]

Following is from D.H.'s first link (the revised safety report):

"... Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays. Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral. If they had electric charge, they would interact with ordinary matter and be stopped while traversing the Earth, whether produced by cosmic rays or the LHC. The fact that the Earth is still here rules out the possibility that cosmic rays or the LHC could produce dangerous charged microscopic black holes. ..."

This has been my only concern*, if it should be true that the prediction of Hawking radiation is wrong. I.e. an Earth-bound, charged, Hawking-immune BH would "eat the Earth" in less than a day. A CR produced BH would probably be neutral and remain neutral, I would guess, while traveling thru the Earth at essentially the speed of light (to conserve the CR's original momentum). The report continues to note that even an uncharged cosmic ray BH would eat some large dense bodies that we do observe as follows:

"... {neutral} Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes. ..."

And that is very reassuring, but a slim doubt still lingers, for me:

Recently it has been established by the very-large, very-high-energy cosmic ray "Auger observatory" in Argentina that these high energy cosmic rays come from relatively few origins near Earth at least. Thus, the observation now of N of these dense bodies could be the "relatively stable" numerical result produced by a formation rate F and a destruction rate D.

Also troublesome is that the destruction rate, D, is inversely related to the diameter of these dense bodies and many of them are much smaller than the stars they once were. In contrast, the formation rate, F, tends to increase with the diameter of the original star. Perhaps in the early universe, the value of N was much larger as the large stars (called "Generation 3" but actually the very first) had on average much shorter lives before becoming these dense bodies. I.e. perhaps the N now observed are the "lucky few," not yet eaten by cosmic ray spawned BHs?
----------------
*see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1831078&postcount=1367
but also expressed earlier in other threads.

 

[draqon]

We are doomed people!!! Doomed!!! Send me all your money for forgiveness. 14 TeV worth of energy will collide this world into itself! The quarks and gluons will bombard your home, all your assets, and you too...and it will be too late to stop it! Pray to the Lord allmighty!

The power of Christs' annihilations will compel you! Bless the Lord!

 

[Billy T]

D.H.'s second link was not very reasuring (in a quick skim of it) as it seems to assume that the BH remains neutral (with possible exception in "Apendix A") I have no concern about the tiny BH that remains neutral as it rarely can capture any mass via its gravity. Sun growing cold probably makes life on Earth impossible first. DH's third link (PhysicsWorld ) is just a "dumbed down" summary of the first link ande his fouth (NY times) is just a report of the first link and the current progress of LHC.

Can anyone provide convencing destruction of the slim doubt that still lingers for me - see post 1429 (starting where "slim dobt" is bold).

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

The well-respected theory of Albert Einstein and his collaborator Willem de Sitter has been presented since 1975 regarding Type Ia Supernova generation from highest-energy physics research to the world of science, yet in this time no mainstream news media source has been willing to present this theory in an objective format for general discussion. May we call on the news media to bring these concepts up for general debate to allow the all interested parties the opportunity to provide input as to whether this research should be continued at this time - before it is forever too late.

Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly. May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ As noted in this link:

COST?
The cost of the accelerator only (without experiments and computing) but
including manpower and material is 4.7 Billion CHF (that's around 3.03
billion euros)
IS IT SAFE?
Hawking says,
" What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes
extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that
it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission,
equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs."

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation will commence in June/July 2008. The 7Tev phase of the research would then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN.

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) We note: "Classically,
transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the
existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of
energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar
envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy
physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the
generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the
Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of
our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the
Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at
CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Please note, Perry (1986) "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of
energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the
implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early
Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an
empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the
General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is
now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, as
noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via
the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in May 2008 at CERN with those
energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Alas, we have achieved energies great enough to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space as indicated above and release energies sufficient to outshine our galaxy for some weeks of time.

Please access "Paul W. Dixon" via the Google browser for a search of my background information.

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frrom Experiment

 

[Billy T]

Fact that the Earth is still here, despite the daily bombardment by much more energetic cosmic rays than the LHC can make establishes at least one or more of the following (in order of my estimate of probability) is true:

(1) Even cosmic ray collision energies can NOT make a non-virtual Black Hole, BH. I.e. one that does not immediately decay into other particles within the lifetime allowed by the uncertainty principle.

(2) The Cosmic Ray non-virtual BH, CRBH, can be made, but does promptly decay by Hawking radiation.

(3) The "Hawking immune" CRBH is traveling too fast to capture even one electron and thus passes harmless thru the Earth in about D/C due to it weak gravity's very small mass capture rate and emerges from Earth still with more than the escape velocity. (D/C = Earth diameter divided by speed of light.)

(4) Either the large dense bodies astronomers have found are NOT just the "lucky few" still surviving from a much larger population OR charged and even neutral CRBH pass thru them without destroying them, despite computations predicting they would be stopped inside and "eat" these dense bodies to transform them into massive BHs.

For the LHC made BH to be dangerous to Earth, ALL of the following surprising things must be true:

(1) The LHC's much lower energy collision must be able to make a BH. (If it can, it is likely that it moves wrt Earth much more slowly than speed of light.)

(2) Hawking radiation must not be real or much slower than predicted.

(3) Either the LHC BH must be moving wrt to Earth with less than Earth's escape velocity or it must capture some charge (very likely an electron, as they "occupy" a smear around the atom nucleus the BH would pass thru.)

(4) The large dense bodies astronomers have found are only the "lucky few" still surviving from a much larger population as they were remote from sources of high energy cosmic ray.

See post 1429 also.

 

[Vkothii]

'Yawn'

 

[Reiku]

Billy. They are related, if you knew what you where talking about. $$E=Mc^2$$ is in fact an outdated concept, so we state $$E^2 = m^2p^2+c^4p^2$$, in which case, can only be described for virtual particles, $$E^2=M^2c^4$$, so i wasn't hinting at all at $$E^2 = m^2 + p^2$$ which you seem misunderstood. If you followed my words through carefully, i said it wasn't disimilar to the notation of $$E=Mc^2$$ which is properly expressed in the Hamiltonian as $$E \pm Mc^2$$.

That's all. And if one see's it from this light, the correlations can be seen.

Period.

 

[Reiku]

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

The well-respected theory of Albert Einstein and his collaborator Willem de Sitter has been presented since 1975 regarding Type Ia Supernova generation from highest-energy physics research to the world of science, yet in this time no mainstream news media source has been willing to present this theory in an objective format for general discussion. May we call on the news media to bring these concepts up for general debate to allow the all interested parties the opportunity to provide input as to whether this research should be continued at this time - before it is forever too late.

Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly. May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ As noted in this link:

COST?
The cost of the accelerator only (without experiments and computing) but
including manpower and material is 4.7 Billion CHF (that's around 3.03
billion euros)
IS IT SAFE?
Hawking says,
" What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes
extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that
it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission,
equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs."

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation will commence in June/July 2008. The 7Tev phase of the research would then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN.

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) We note: "Classically,
transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the
existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of
energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar
envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy
physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the
generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the
Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of
our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the
Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at
CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. Please note, Perry (1986) "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of
energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the
implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early
Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an
empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the
General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is
now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, as
noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via
the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in May 2008 at CERN with those
energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the infinite energetics of the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Alas, we have achieved energies great enough to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space as indicated above and release energies sufficient to outshine our galaxy for some weeks of time.

Please access "Paul W. Dixon" via the Google browser for a search of my background information.

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova frrom Experiment

I know you're a psychology professor, and even though i agree with your Campaign , i couldn't help notice something subliminal in the post... and that was how you indirectly related cost with the human population.

Might this be because inside you know, as many should, life is priceless?

 

[Reiku]

Billy. They are related, if you knew what you where talking about. $$E=Mc^2$$ is in fact an outdated concept, so we state $$E^2 = m^2p^2+c^4p^2$$, in which case, can only be described for virtual particles, $$E^2=M^2c^4$$, so i wasn't hinting at all at $$E^2 = m^2 + p^2$$ which you seem misunderstood. If you followed my words through carefully, i said it wasn't disimilar to the notation of $$E=Mc^2$$ which is properly expressed in the Hamiltonian as $$E \pm Mc^2$$.

That's all. And if one see's it from this light, the correlations can be seen.

Period.

The Link? If it’s not obvious, let me explain again. I’ve been going out my way to try and make things more simpler, but I wonder if it’s gone unnoticed :bawl: lol

Where, in Alphanumerics relations, He shows that the negative-positive solution to $$E^2=M^2+p^2$$ can be expressed as $$E= \pm \sqrt{M^2+p^2}$$, which is, of course correct. No one disputes this.

But In a Hamiltonian, it expresses a reduction as well, in $$E^2=M^2p^2+c^4p^2$$, as $$E^2=M^2c^4$$, and since $$-E=M^2+p^2(c)$$ must lead to mass with having a value near that of zero, complimentary to momentum, because we know for sure ‘’c’’ has a non-zero value. This forwards from here to speculate that the energy, $$-M^2=E^2p^2/c^4$$, and if I have done this right, the relation describes now: $$E \pm \sqrt{M^2+p^2}=E \pm Mc^2$$ when dealing with virtual negative energy: $$E^2=M^2c^4$$…

There. I’m knackered man.

 

[Reiku]

Moving on, we need to come to some kind of agreement what kind of negativity we are referring to…

$$E=Mc^2/ \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$

Here we, can talk about a system where it moves faster than light $$v>c$$, but must contain $$(E=\infty)$$ at it’s lowest speed possible, $$v=c$$, which is impossible, just as a Bradyon (or a slow moving object can never reach $$c$$ without obtaining an infinite amount of relativistic mass, or energy.

When speaking about negative forces, we can talk about a lot of things. We can even talk about the gravitational field having a negative quality, such as would be expressed from Newton’s Laws as $$m_i a= -G/{m_p m_a/r^2}$$.

Since in physics there are so many different negative solutions, I think we should agree on what solutions and what kind of systems are most acceptable.

 

[Reiku]

Right... here's a question for ya'll to think about... well, those who wish to anyway.

The irreducible mass can never be minimalized; hence the name.

It follows that the maximal amount of energy [[we can]] extract from a black hole before we slow its rotation to zero is

$$M-M_{irr}=M-1/ \sqrt{2}(M^2+ \sqrt{M^4-(J/G)^{2})^{1/2}$$

Which, i am sure Alphanumeric knows, describes the Schwartzchild black hole, with a mass given as $$M_{iir}$$... By defect of slowing it down to such a degree, the solution of energy that can ever be extracted from a black hole, is about 33% of its total energy content.

Since the area of the black hole never changes, even with an extraction of energy of whatever context we chose, we therefore assume that:

$$\delta A = 8 \pi G(a/ \Omega_{H} \sqrt{G^2M^2 - a^2})(\delta M - \Omega_{H} \delta_{J})$$,

It's all relativity, as many have said. But these equations depends subtly that the first law of thermodynamics gives

$$dU=TdS+work*$$

*in terms

And since white holes seem to defy the second law of thermodynamics, it now concludes from my speculations here that the black holes obey certain thermodynamic laws, but when considering time-reversed values, the black hole shouldn't have any solution like a white hole, which puts both relativistic systems in jeopardy: In three ways.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Reiku, as usual you just post crap.

4-momentum of a single object is $$p_{\mu}p^{\mu} = -m^{2} = -E^{2}+|\mathbf{p}|^{2}$$. The Hamiltonian for an entire system is the sum of all the energies of the components of that system. The precise form this takes is dependent on the system itself. For quantum mechanics it's a sum of the energies weighted by their energy level. For quantum field theory it's an integral over the continuous spectrum of field states. For general relativity it's not even a well defined problem for a gravitational field except in particular limits. I have explained this to you before, after you asked me to give an example of the BS you post and I picked your attempt to sum energy in a relativistic model.

Where, in Alphanumerics relations, He shows that the negative-positive solution to $$E^2=M^2+p^2$$ can be expressed as $$E= \pm \sqrt{M^2+p^2}$$, which is, of course correct. No one disputes this.

But In a Hamiltonian, it expresses a reduction as well, in $$E^2=M^2p^2+c^4p^2$$, as $$E^2=M^2c^4$$, and since $$-E=M^2+p^2(c)$$ must lead to mass with having a value near that of zero, complimentary to momentum, because we know for sure ‘’c’’ has a non-zero value. This forwards from here to speculate that the energy, $$-M^2=E^2p^2/c^4$$, and if I have done this right, the relation describes now: $$E \pm \sqrt{M^2+p^2}=E \pm Mc^2$$ when dealing with virtual negative energy: $$E^2=M^2c^4$$…

There. I’m knackered man.

You're knackered from what, making stuff up?

For instance, if the speed of an object is c then $$m^{2}=0$$, because the object is moving along a null geodesic. Null means that $$p^{a}p_{a} = 0$$ and since $$p_{a}p^{a] = m^{2}$$ then m=0.

It follows that the maximal amount of energy [[we can]] extract from a black hole before we slow its rotation to zero is

$$M-M_{irr}=M-1/ \sqrt{2}(M^2+ \sqrt{M^4-(J/G)^{2})^{1/2}$$

Which, i am sure Alphanumeric knows, describes the Schwartzchild black hole, with a mass given as $$M_{iir}$$

No, that's wrong. You just implied that the mass of a Schwarzchild black holw is a function of J, it's spin. Schwarzchild black holes don't spin. The energy you can extra from the spin of a Schwarzchild black hole is 0.

Not only that, you can see your equation is wrong. You didn't solve whatever quadratic you tried to solve properly. For instance, if J=0, ie no spin, then the energy should be zero. If you put in J=0 you don't get 0 for your energy. This is just another example of your inability to do even high school maths.

By defect of slowing it down to such a degree, the solution of energy that can ever be extracted from a black hole, is about 33% of its total energy content.

No, it's $$1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$ which is about 29%. See Wald, pages 324~326.

Since the area of the black hole never changes, even with an extraction of energy of whatever context we chose

Yes, it does. How else do you think they evaporate? The Penrose process, which is classical, takes energy and mass from the black hole and so shrinks it, but it's a limiting process. But it still shrinks it.

we therefore assume that:

$$\delta A = 8 \pi G(a/ \Omega_{H} \sqrt{G^2M^2 - a^2})(\delta M - \Omega_{H} \delta_{J})$$,

Assume? No, we'd have to derive it. Besides, you just use expressions you haven't derived or defined. That's a classic sign of you copying from somewhere. And as demonstrated, you don't understand it.

which puts both relativistic systems in jeopardy: In three ways.

No, it just shows that you're trying to copy and paste and edit things you don't understand.

http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/lecturenotes/III/Blackholes.pdf would explain a lot of your errors but it's all too complicated for you.

Walter, I'm still waiting...