"MUMMY, MUMMY, the mean man said I was wrong!! Make man go bye bye!!! Wah Wah!!"
The smartest thing you have ever said. Where did you parrot it from?
Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab
- Thread starter Paul W. Dixon
- Start date
The smartest thing you have ever said. Where did you parrot it from?
That the best you can do? I'm still waiting for your calculations which back up your claims about inflation predicting heavy elements and the universe recollapsing. What's the matter, can't put your physics where your mouth is?
Hi BillyT:
Paul began posting this thread in February, 2001. He has posted a few times elsewhere. That would be an average of about 420 posts in 7-1/2 years in this thread, a little over one per week. This appears to be one of his weekly routines, to bring these issues to the forefront, to see what kind of response he gets. Lately, it's been about a host of other issues.
Paul began posting this thread in February, 2001. He has posted a few times elsewhere. That would be an average of about 420 posts in 7-1/2 years in this thread, a little over one per week. This appears to be one of his weekly routines, to bring these issues to the forefront, to see what kind of response he gets. Lately, it's been about a host of other issues.
That the best you can do? I'm still waiting for your calculations which back up your claims about inflation predicting heavy elements and the universe recollapsing. What's the matter, can't put your physics where your mouth is?
Explain every physical process that takes place in a body from a thought to getting up and going for a walk.
You can't? That means you cannot walk anywhere or physically do anything. Or it does to use your usual faulty reasoning. You can mathematically prove how many angels you can get on the head of a pin but not much use in the real world. Only in maths world. Which explains your vain boasting and bragging, but also explains your lack of real world knowledge.
I could put my car where your mouth is, or park it in your hat.
Don't you get bored with losing?
Of course, this guy can't possibly be talking about the unknown energy scale of the big microscope, he must mean unknown forces that are about to rip the Swiss Alps, and then the planet apart.
Or "how to misinterpret what the Fermilab and CERN scientists say on the TV", by the chronically Luddist, unable to imagine anything past "X-files" fantasy.
Dr. Who will not have to turn up to stop them pushing the button; Arnie won't materialise to terminate anyone.
Nosiree, it's just a big instrument, like a big electron microscope, except bigger, and it's got big detectors, with a much bigger cross-section to gather and process data - but the whole thing is really (as an IT dude will tell you) a bloody great computer, the electronics is part of measuring the output of it - they are the instrumentation after the real computer has processed protons and antiprotons, in various i/o channels, sort of a big parallel computer, and also a quantum computer - it's extremely close to that vacuum where all that quantum stuff just "happens" - you know.
Nice strawman. You claimed that inflation models predict lots of heavy elements. Considering people have done calculations which show the opposite, you should be able to do the calculations to back up your claims.
But you can't, so your claims are baseless. Unless you call your ignorance 'a base'. So where's your real world knowledge? I keep asking you to show where you've demonstrated you can describe real world phenomena but you can't give me an example. And I don't mean a wordy explaination, anyone with access to Wikipedia can fake that, as you accuse me of doing. Show me where you demonstrate you can accurately describe dynamical physical systems. I can provide such evidence. Must be upsetting to you to be shown to be even more ignorant than myself.
You don't even seem to understand the point of backing up your claims. :shrug:
True. I've got a similar quote, though not from someone quite so well known :
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Dilbert
I'd like to think there's some difference, in that Kaneda has yet to show any working understanding and he continually claims mainstream models don't address certain things, right before I prove they do and such things are known to students. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that cranks also bring in things like "You're a liar about who you are". One, on PhysOrg, has succeeded in taking a thread about the LHC off course for the last 250+ posts by claiming I'm a chatbot (so not even a real person!!) and sticking to that.
Both he and Kaneda don't seem to realise that irrespective of who I am, be I Hawking under a pseudonym or a 9 year old whose home schooled, the fact I can post evidence against them is valid. Kaneda claims no perturbations are considered. I prove it's in a 1st course on cosmology for undergraduates. He creates strawmen like "If you cannot prove strings exist, then you're a fraud". How many people in history predicted things which weren't measured for years, decades even? That's what a prediction is. Something you say exists or occurs but haven't observed yet. The existence of Neptune, antimatter, GR, SR, the third family in the Standard Model, weak bosons, neutrinos, bose-einstein condensates (they took more than half a century!!), asymptotic freedom in the strong force and the existence of a quark-gluon plasma in confining theories.
Notice how most of those are theoretical physics based. As our grasp of quantum things has increased, our predictions seem to have stretched into the future, as our understanding outstrips our ability to build machines to test our understanding.
Things predicted which the LHC will test include the existence of the Higgs (and if it's not found almost everyone is certain there'll be something like a top condensate to do the job of the Higgs), supersymmetry, extra dimensions and more 'mundane' things like photon-photon scattering and more precise measurements of a lot of things. Photon-photon scattering is predicted in QED, which Feynman et al developed in the 50s. And yet more than 50 years later, we haven't seen it?! Because, as any person whose sat a 1st course in QFT will know, photons scattering off one another only occurs are 2nd order perturbations in QED. In other words, it's highly supressed because the incoming two photons have to make electrons to go between them, which in term have to generate out going electrons, so it's photon scattering and not something like photons->electron+positron, which we've seen plenty of and is much more likely (more specifically, it's a 4 vertex 'box' diagram. I can go into more details if needed). The LHC is the first accelerator to get to the power where this is a measurable effect and so they'll test for it. Despite ALL the evidence for QED, the decades and decades of development of additions to it like the weak sector, they have to test everything they can because it's what physicists do. There's no "Oh just forget about it. It'll cost $100 million to build that detector!", it's "We have to test this because if just one part of our theory is wrong, it falls apart".
While Kaneda will no doubt not believe this, physicists want to find cracks in the SM, both in particle physics and cosmology. Why else do all the tests? Why invest thousands, even millions, of man years computing every single implication of their theories and then putting them to the test, if not?
What cranks fail to realise is that it's a matter of history that when you knock over a pillar of physics, much of the community drops what they are doing and says "****, we need to address this!" and huge effort is put into sorting it out with a replacement. If the standard model of particle physics was shown incorrect by the LHC finding nothing but the scattering processes of W particles remaining unitary (which are two fundamentally incompatible notions in our current models) it would mean the SM is wrong. Not just 'slightly' but horrifically. But people wouldn't sweep it under the rug, it would be announced for everyone to know and almost as a "Right guys, here's the challenge! What the **** is the solution!". I imagine a large number of string theorists and people doing stuff like supersymmetry or GUT models would drop what they are/were doing and attack that problem instead, since it would have huge ramifications for their work too.
Physicists don't ignore problems, they embrace them because that's what a physicist is, a problem solver.
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Dilbert
I'd like to think there's some difference, in that Kaneda has yet to show any working understanding and he continually claims mainstream models don't address certain things, right before I prove they do and such things are known to students. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that cranks also bring in things like "You're a liar about who you are". One, on PhysOrg, has succeeded in taking a thread about the LHC off course for the last 250+ posts by claiming I'm a chatbot (so not even a real person!!) and sticking to that.
Both he and Kaneda don't seem to realise that irrespective of who I am, be I Hawking under a pseudonym or a 9 year old whose home schooled, the fact I can post evidence against them is valid. Kaneda claims no perturbations are considered. I prove it's in a 1st course on cosmology for undergraduates. He creates strawmen like "If you cannot prove strings exist, then you're a fraud". How many people in history predicted things which weren't measured for years, decades even? That's what a prediction is. Something you say exists or occurs but haven't observed yet. The existence of Neptune, antimatter, GR, SR, the third family in the Standard Model, weak bosons, neutrinos, bose-einstein condensates (they took more than half a century!!), asymptotic freedom in the strong force and the existence of a quark-gluon plasma in confining theories.
Notice how most of those are theoretical physics based. As our grasp of quantum things has increased, our predictions seem to have stretched into the future, as our understanding outstrips our ability to build machines to test our understanding.
Things predicted which the LHC will test include the existence of the Higgs (and if it's not found almost everyone is certain there'll be something like a top condensate to do the job of the Higgs), supersymmetry, extra dimensions and more 'mundane' things like photon-photon scattering and more precise measurements of a lot of things. Photon-photon scattering is predicted in QED, which Feynman et al developed in the 50s. And yet more than 50 years later, we haven't seen it?! Because, as any person whose sat a 1st course in QFT will know, photons scattering off one another only occurs are 2nd order perturbations in QED. In other words, it's highly supressed because the incoming two photons have to make electrons to go between them, which in term have to generate out going electrons, so it's photon scattering and not something like photons->electron+positron, which we've seen plenty of and is much more likely (more specifically, it's a 4 vertex 'box' diagram. I can go into more details if needed). The LHC is the first accelerator to get to the power where this is a measurable effect and so they'll test for it. Despite ALL the evidence for QED, the decades and decades of development of additions to it like the weak sector, they have to test everything they can because it's what physicists do. There's no "Oh just forget about it. It'll cost $100 million to build that detector!", it's "We have to test this because if just one part of our theory is wrong, it falls apart".
While Kaneda will no doubt not believe this, physicists want to find cracks in the SM, both in particle physics and cosmology. Why else do all the tests? Why invest thousands, even millions, of man years computing every single implication of their theories and then putting them to the test, if not?
What cranks fail to realise is that it's a matter of history that when you knock over a pillar of physics, much of the community drops what they are doing and says "****, we need to address this!" and huge effort is put into sorting it out with a replacement. If the standard model of particle physics was shown incorrect by the LHC finding nothing but the scattering processes of W particles remaining unitary (which are two fundamentally incompatible notions in our current models) it would mean the SM is wrong. Not just 'slightly' but horrifically. But people wouldn't sweep it under the rug, it would be announced for everyone to know and almost as a "Right guys, here's the challenge! What the **** is the solution!". I imagine a large number of string theorists and people doing stuff like supersymmetry or GUT models would drop what they are/were doing and attack that problem instead, since it would have huge ramifications for their work too.
Physicists don't ignore problems, they embrace them because that's what a physicist is, a problem solver.
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKAHAVEN AND CERN
The rate of change towards ever higher energies has been accelerated at CERN thus decreasing the time remaining for our planet earth and all of us as well. Many thanks for your kind attention and prompt actions in this tragic concern.
The central theories are The General Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein, which is very well respected and established in the field of physics circa 1920, and also the Standard Model of Quantum Field Physics begun in the 1970's. The Standard Model is incomplete since it does not encompass gravitational phenomena. Since it is the extension of the Generalized Theory of Relativity which predicts to de Sitter space this would be a reliable and established prediction based on modern relativistic cosmology. We need only wait for the confirmation of this prediction with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova from Fermilab, Brookhaven or CERN. Billions of dollars are being spent in this pursuit of confirmation of the exisence of de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed. All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
Many thanks to everyone for your most kind actions in this tragic concern.
(Please note: World Record for Luminosity is now underpreparation at CERN, i.e., greatest energy yet seen on earth) Clearly, a scientific enterprise that deals wth energies found only fractions of a second after the point origin of the universe should proceed with caution and prudence or we shall all perish!
Of further note in this connection, is additional evidence for the presence of de Sitter space in astronomical observations. Type Ia Supernovae are more
energetic than other Supernovae by a factor of some 2.4. This is the case
even though the progenitor object is of some 1 solar mass or less. These objects may then be below the Chandrasekar limit necessary for the implosion
threshold necessary for the generation of Supernovae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
Other evidence for the intrusional events from de Sitter space may be noted in the monopolar jets from quasars. These objects are four to five times larger than bipolar objects. Where the fluxional energetics of these variables is measured in millions of galaxies, it would appear plausible to assume that there is a unique source of energetics for these larger objects (i.e. de Sitter space) since there is a dichotomous distinction between Class I and Class II objects. (Burns, J. O.(1990) Chasing the monster's tail: new views of cosmic jets. Astronomy, (18) 8, 28-37) Recent observations in suppot this postulation are found in, Discovery of a bright quasar without a massive host galaxy (Magain, P. Letawe, G., Courbin, F., Jablonka, P., Jahnke, K., Meylan, G., Wisotzki, l., (2005) 7057, 437, pp. 381-384). Thus indicating that the enormous fluxional energetics of millions of galaxies over thousands of light-years extending for billions of years may have origin in de Sitter space or other similar energetic domain.
Please review this presentation on Type Ia Supernovae.
These supernovae are sufficiently uniform as to be used as standard candles in observational cosmology. While they are believed to form as a neighboring star has hydrogen siphoned off of it to form sufficient mass to produce the implosion necessary for supernova generation from a white dwarf, there is no trace of hydogen at the time of maximum light. Also, the process of ignition is not known. The hypothesis that sentient entitites much like ourselves
create Type Ia Supernovae is therefore brought forward. Should we be the only ones to create Tyoe Ia Supernova this would in a sense go against the uniformity of Nature. If on the other hand, they are noted arising as uniquely bright events that outshine their respective galaxies of origination throughout the cosmos, this would indicated that the possiblity of causing a Type Ia Supernova from experimentation is a frequent and uniform event. At this time all of the major leaders in high-energy physics are familiar with this postulation. May we therefor call for a moratorium on this line of research until that parameters controlling a transition towards de Sitter space are better understood.
A natural question in this connection is why are these experiments being conducted. It may be noted in this connection that the world we see is constructed from just six particles, three matter particles (up quarks, down quarks and electrons), two force quanta (photons and gluons, and Higgs bosons, There are three sets of particles where each set is heavier than the preceeding set with the interactions of the particles in each set being the same as the preceeding set. The standard model cannot explain these differences. (Kane, G. (2005) The mysteries of mass, Scientific American 293, 1, 40-48) We may postulate that the vast explosion at the point origin of the universe may have produced at lest three wave actions that are reflected in these increasing masses of these fundamental particles as three separate waves propagated in the fields which embody electromagnetism, as well as the weak and strong interatomic binding forces. May we recommend more theoretical work in this connection rather than empirical to leave our world intact for every child as they grow older.
Many, many thanks to everyone for their kind concern in this most tragic
work in highest-energy physics. It must be only a miracle that we all remain alive given the entropic diffculties of continuous computer operations controlling the separation of the bunches of particles and antiparticles in the ring at Fermilab.
May we recommend the treatment of the Weyl Tensor from Tensor, mathworld
to provide an introduction to the mathematical exposition necessary for an
intuitive understanding of those philosophies which undergird our understanding of the continuum and de Sitter space. The advantage of mathematics is that it provides a handle whereby these concepts of a philiosophical nature can be found to conform to a set of basic mathematical
operations. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html The tensor equations for the de Sitter Universe are provided in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_
Sitter_ universe" which with the tensor equations for the Weyl Tensor provide the general values for the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed.
Please note that so far in over thirty years of discourse in physics internationally in this connection there has been no refutation of the central tenets of the General Theoryof Relativity and the extension of this work by Willem de Sitter. Discourse in a Sciforums should concern itself with matters of physics particularly in this matter of generation Type Ia Supernova from high-energy physics experimentation.
Of general interest are: Out of this world: Colliding Universes, Branes, Strings and Other Wild Ideas of Modern Physics by Stephen Webb (Copernicus, 2004)
also a better volume, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (W. W, Norton, 1999).
We may refer to the greatest seer of the ancient Hellenes, Tiresias, who
stated that the Truth is always visible and audible, yet never acknowleged.
The central motivation for this thread is to prevent the ultimate doom for all of mankind. Where modern physics clearly reveals the presence of the high-energy condition according to the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter which we are protected from by a large potential barrier. The question has been raised by myself and my colleagues with the scientists as Fermilab, how this research can continue with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova as a certain result of laboratory mischance with the increased energies in the CDF at Fermilab. In a classical sense, the penetration of a potential barrier is only a function of energy. The scientists and other staff members indicated to us that 1.) They did not wish to work for "Ma Bell," Illinois. In other words for the telephone company. 2.) There was a philosophical quest for truth undergirding their research. To these replies, my colleagues indicated that this was essentially a selfish motivation since they risked the doom of everyone by their research with their energies approximating those found at the point origin of the universe. Should we accept their explanatory framework, or should we avoid this headlong rush to ultimate doom?
Please access:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com
As the energies in the colliders both at Fermilab and also at Brookhaven are increased from those expected at 10^-9 to 10^-15 seconds after the point origin of the universe (Big Bang), there should occur changes in the energetics which indicate the presence of the densely energetic condition of de Sitter space,
Such has now been observed at Brookhaven where the enormously dense energy matrix of de Sitter space has created an influx of particles from the accelerator. This has given rise to thermal radiation as would be expected from this level of energetics as we follow the results from the familiar equation e=mc^2.
The next level of energetics should, under this postulation, create a reply from de Sitter space in the form of Type Ia Supernova thus destroying our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars. Please contact Horatiu Nastase at the RHIC at Broohaven National Laboratory of this conclusion from the theoretical formulations of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in the Einstein de Sitter Uinverse as it is now termed.
"A fireball created in a US particle accelerator has the characteristics of a black hole, a physicist has said. It was generated at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, US, which smashes beams of gold nuclei together at near light speeds. Horatiu Nastase says his calculations show that the core of the fireball has a striking similarity to a black hole. His work has been published on the pre-print website arxiv.org and is reported in New Scientist magazine. When the gold nuclei smash into each other they are broken down into particles called quarks and gluons. These form a ball of plasma about 300 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. This fireball, which lasts just 10 million, billion, billionths of a second, can be detected because it absorbs jets of particles produced by the beam collisions. But Nastase, of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, says there is something unusual about it.
Ten times as many jets were being absorbed by the fireball as were predicted by calculations. The Brown researcher thinks the particles are disappearing into the fireball's core and reappearing as thermal radiation, just as matter is thought to fall into a black hole and come out as "Hawking" radiation. However, even if the ball of plasma is a black hole, it is not thought to pose a threat. At these energies and distances, gravity is not the dominant force in a black hole.
It may be understod in this connection that in over 30 years of presenting these findings from the General Theory of Relativity and the extension to
de Sitter space by Willem Sitter, there has been no refutation of this
work. Notification of the Illinois Attorney General is, therefore, in order to bring to a halt this very great and potenially tragic public endangerment
This is the question. Should we continue with this large a penalty of complete extinction for everyone for this research with greatest energies at the highest energy physics laboratory? Now again setting a new record for energies found on earth. Is this an existensial dilemma that only those who are concerned about humanity can solve? We need your help in this connection to please bring word of this public endangerment to the
Illinois Attorney General. We do, most respectfully, request a moratorium on
this highest-energy physics research until a refutation of this conceptual
framework is published in a peer-reviewed journal of highest-repute - or all must perish!
Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)
This research is being carried out to follow the thought of Richard P. Feynmnan among others to examine the partons of the subatomic realm of
physics. Alas, as you begin to discover the basic building block of matter you enter into the energies necessary to form a transition towards de Sitter space and release the force of a Type Ia Supernova!
15 June 2004
Lisa Madigan
Illinois Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Ill 62706
Dear Attorney General,
May we request your interest in the onset of the very great energy increments now underway in June and July 2004 at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. There is a very great probability that this experimental apparatus will generate a supernova thus producing a very great and grave public endangerment to the personnel of the laboratory, their families, the United States of America and also the population of our planet.
A physicist, Dr. Walter Wagner,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/314049.asp?0m=T17N
has already brought suit against this forthcoming disaster in New York State and also in California. He states that the research is being brought forward without regard for the potential danger only to get the research underway. May we very respectfully call on the good offices of all concerned citizens of the world to halt this reckless plunge into the unknown on behalf of the families of all mankind.
In this connection, may we present an alternate hypothesis to that presented by Mike Perricone in the FermiNews (The Universe Lives On, June 19, 1998). This postulation may be termed the high-energy postulation wherein the equations show the attractive properties of the high-energy condition termed de Sitter space. It would, therefore, under this postulation be found that high-energy physics experimentation now coming on line at the Tevatron in our Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory would have a greater probability of releasing a supernova upon our planet and solar system by breaching the potential barrier towards the high-energy condition (de Sitter Space) than initiating a transition towards the low-energy condition. This hypothesis is based on the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter. Their work has proven uniformly correct in the realm of physics and would necessarily be found to be true in relativistic cosmology. (Blau, S. K., Guendelman, E. I. & Guth, A. H(1987) Physical Review D. Particle and Fields, 3, 1747-1766. To quote in this connection from Alan Guth who initiated inflationary cosmology, "one might guess that the gravitational repulsion of the false vacuum would push outward on the bubble wall, so, if the repulsion were strong enough. Not so however, say the equations of general relativity. The gravitational repulsion causes the false vacuum to swell, but the repulsion does not extend beyond the false vacuum. Objects outside the bubble wall are attracted towards the bubble, and the gravitational force on the bubble is inward." (Burns, J.O. (1990) Astronomy, 18, 28-37)
The possibility of initiating a transition towards the lower-energy condition from high-energy physics experimentation may still be present, yet this kind of transition would have far lower probability value according to the aforementioned equation.
May we very respectfully request that these transitions be modeled via computer simulation before the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory continues with any further experimentation at this time. To avoid any bias in understanding, publication of these results in a peer-reviewed journal of highest repute is most respectfully recommended to members of the staff at Fermilab.
It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.
A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3 , converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation. This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a public endangerment as well.
This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere, the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger for their release.
With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed, and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to relativistic cosmology.
No harm will result from computer modelling of this alternate hypothesis for generation of Type Ia supernovae as a result of the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space. Yet clearly, vast harm may result form our continuing to plunge into the unknown without proper foresight concerning this possibility.
All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf. Please do what you can for them in this connection.
Your kind attention and consideration in this most salient matter are most gratefully appreciated.
All best wishes for you and your family.
With greatest respect,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Linguistics
The rate of change towards ever higher energies has been accelerated at CERN thus decreasing the time remaining for our planet earth and all of us as well. Many thanks for your kind attention and prompt actions in this tragic concern.
The central theories are The General Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein, which is very well respected and established in the field of physics circa 1920, and also the Standard Model of Quantum Field Physics begun in the 1970's. The Standard Model is incomplete since it does not encompass gravitational phenomena. Since it is the extension of the Generalized Theory of Relativity which predicts to de Sitter space this would be a reliable and established prediction based on modern relativistic cosmology. We need only wait for the confirmation of this prediction with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova from Fermilab, Brookhaven or CERN. Billions of dollars are being spent in this pursuit of confirmation of the exisence of de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed. All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
Many thanks to everyone for your most kind actions in this tragic concern.
(Please note: World Record for Luminosity is now underpreparation at CERN, i.e., greatest energy yet seen on earth) Clearly, a scientific enterprise that deals wth energies found only fractions of a second after the point origin of the universe should proceed with caution and prudence or we shall all perish!
Of further note in this connection, is additional evidence for the presence of de Sitter space in astronomical observations. Type Ia Supernovae are more
energetic than other Supernovae by a factor of some 2.4. This is the case
even though the progenitor object is of some 1 solar mass or less. These objects may then be below the Chandrasekar limit necessary for the implosion
threshold necessary for the generation of Supernovae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
Other evidence for the intrusional events from de Sitter space may be noted in the monopolar jets from quasars. These objects are four to five times larger than bipolar objects. Where the fluxional energetics of these variables is measured in millions of galaxies, it would appear plausible to assume that there is a unique source of energetics for these larger objects (i.e. de Sitter space) since there is a dichotomous distinction between Class I and Class II objects. (Burns, J. O.(1990) Chasing the monster's tail: new views of cosmic jets. Astronomy, (18) 8, 28-37) Recent observations in suppot this postulation are found in, Discovery of a bright quasar without a massive host galaxy (Magain, P. Letawe, G., Courbin, F., Jablonka, P., Jahnke, K., Meylan, G., Wisotzki, l., (2005) 7057, 437, pp. 381-384). Thus indicating that the enormous fluxional energetics of millions of galaxies over thousands of light-years extending for billions of years may have origin in de Sitter space or other similar energetic domain.
Please review this presentation on Type Ia Supernovae.
These supernovae are sufficiently uniform as to be used as standard candles in observational cosmology. While they are believed to form as a neighboring star has hydrogen siphoned off of it to form sufficient mass to produce the implosion necessary for supernova generation from a white dwarf, there is no trace of hydogen at the time of maximum light. Also, the process of ignition is not known. The hypothesis that sentient entitites much like ourselves
create Type Ia Supernovae is therefore brought forward. Should we be the only ones to create Tyoe Ia Supernova this would in a sense go against the uniformity of Nature. If on the other hand, they are noted arising as uniquely bright events that outshine their respective galaxies of origination throughout the cosmos, this would indicated that the possiblity of causing a Type Ia Supernova from experimentation is a frequent and uniform event. At this time all of the major leaders in high-energy physics are familiar with this postulation. May we therefor call for a moratorium on this line of research until that parameters controlling a transition towards de Sitter space are better understood.
A natural question in this connection is why are these experiments being conducted. It may be noted in this connection that the world we see is constructed from just six particles, three matter particles (up quarks, down quarks and electrons), two force quanta (photons and gluons, and Higgs bosons, There are three sets of particles where each set is heavier than the preceeding set with the interactions of the particles in each set being the same as the preceeding set. The standard model cannot explain these differences. (Kane, G. (2005) The mysteries of mass, Scientific American 293, 1, 40-48) We may postulate that the vast explosion at the point origin of the universe may have produced at lest three wave actions that are reflected in these increasing masses of these fundamental particles as three separate waves propagated in the fields which embody electromagnetism, as well as the weak and strong interatomic binding forces. May we recommend more theoretical work in this connection rather than empirical to leave our world intact for every child as they grow older.
Many, many thanks to everyone for their kind concern in this most tragic
work in highest-energy physics. It must be only a miracle that we all remain alive given the entropic diffculties of continuous computer operations controlling the separation of the bunches of particles and antiparticles in the ring at Fermilab.
May we recommend the treatment of the Weyl Tensor from Tensor, mathworld
to provide an introduction to the mathematical exposition necessary for an
intuitive understanding of those philosophies which undergird our understanding of the continuum and de Sitter space. The advantage of mathematics is that it provides a handle whereby these concepts of a philiosophical nature can be found to conform to a set of basic mathematical
operations. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html The tensor equations for the de Sitter Universe are provided in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_
Sitter_ universe" which with the tensor equations for the Weyl Tensor provide the general values for the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed.
Please note that so far in over thirty years of discourse in physics internationally in this connection there has been no refutation of the central tenets of the General Theoryof Relativity and the extension of this work by Willem de Sitter. Discourse in a Sciforums should concern itself with matters of physics particularly in this matter of generation Type Ia Supernova from high-energy physics experimentation.
Of general interest are: Out of this world: Colliding Universes, Branes, Strings and Other Wild Ideas of Modern Physics by Stephen Webb (Copernicus, 2004)
also a better volume, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (W. W, Norton, 1999).
We may refer to the greatest seer of the ancient Hellenes, Tiresias, who
stated that the Truth is always visible and audible, yet never acknowleged.
The central motivation for this thread is to prevent the ultimate doom for all of mankind. Where modern physics clearly reveals the presence of the high-energy condition according to the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter which we are protected from by a large potential barrier. The question has been raised by myself and my colleagues with the scientists as Fermilab, how this research can continue with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova as a certain result of laboratory mischance with the increased energies in the CDF at Fermilab. In a classical sense, the penetration of a potential barrier is only a function of energy. The scientists and other staff members indicated to us that 1.) They did not wish to work for "Ma Bell," Illinois. In other words for the telephone company. 2.) There was a philosophical quest for truth undergirding their research. To these replies, my colleagues indicated that this was essentially a selfish motivation since they risked the doom of everyone by their research with their energies approximating those found at the point origin of the universe. Should we accept their explanatory framework, or should we avoid this headlong rush to ultimate doom?
Please access:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com
As the energies in the colliders both at Fermilab and also at Brookhaven are increased from those expected at 10^-9 to 10^-15 seconds after the point origin of the universe (Big Bang), there should occur changes in the energetics which indicate the presence of the densely energetic condition of de Sitter space,
Such has now been observed at Brookhaven where the enormously dense energy matrix of de Sitter space has created an influx of particles from the accelerator. This has given rise to thermal radiation as would be expected from this level of energetics as we follow the results from the familiar equation e=mc^2.
The next level of energetics should, under this postulation, create a reply from de Sitter space in the form of Type Ia Supernova thus destroying our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars. Please contact Horatiu Nastase at the RHIC at Broohaven National Laboratory of this conclusion from the theoretical formulations of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in the Einstein de Sitter Uinverse as it is now termed.
"A fireball created in a US particle accelerator has the characteristics of a black hole, a physicist has said. It was generated at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, US, which smashes beams of gold nuclei together at near light speeds. Horatiu Nastase says his calculations show that the core of the fireball has a striking similarity to a black hole. His work has been published on the pre-print website arxiv.org and is reported in New Scientist magazine. When the gold nuclei smash into each other they are broken down into particles called quarks and gluons. These form a ball of plasma about 300 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. This fireball, which lasts just 10 million, billion, billionths of a second, can be detected because it absorbs jets of particles produced by the beam collisions. But Nastase, of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, says there is something unusual about it.
Ten times as many jets were being absorbed by the fireball as were predicted by calculations. The Brown researcher thinks the particles are disappearing into the fireball's core and reappearing as thermal radiation, just as matter is thought to fall into a black hole and come out as "Hawking" radiation. However, even if the ball of plasma is a black hole, it is not thought to pose a threat. At these energies and distances, gravity is not the dominant force in a black hole.
It may be understod in this connection that in over 30 years of presenting these findings from the General Theory of Relativity and the extension to
de Sitter space by Willem Sitter, there has been no refutation of this
work. Notification of the Illinois Attorney General is, therefore, in order to bring to a halt this very great and potenially tragic public endangerment
This is the question. Should we continue with this large a penalty of complete extinction for everyone for this research with greatest energies at the highest energy physics laboratory? Now again setting a new record for energies found on earth. Is this an existensial dilemma that only those who are concerned about humanity can solve? We need your help in this connection to please bring word of this public endangerment to the
Illinois Attorney General. We do, most respectfully, request a moratorium on
this highest-energy physics research until a refutation of this conceptual
framework is published in a peer-reviewed journal of highest-repute - or all must perish!
Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)
This research is being carried out to follow the thought of Richard P. Feynmnan among others to examine the partons of the subatomic realm of
physics. Alas, as you begin to discover the basic building block of matter you enter into the energies necessary to form a transition towards de Sitter space and release the force of a Type Ia Supernova!
15 June 2004
Lisa Madigan
Illinois Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Ill 62706
Dear Attorney General,
May we request your interest in the onset of the very great energy increments now underway in June and July 2004 at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. There is a very great probability that this experimental apparatus will generate a supernova thus producing a very great and grave public endangerment to the personnel of the laboratory, their families, the United States of America and also the population of our planet.
A physicist, Dr. Walter Wagner,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/314049.asp?0m=T17N
has already brought suit against this forthcoming disaster in New York State and also in California. He states that the research is being brought forward without regard for the potential danger only to get the research underway. May we very respectfully call on the good offices of all concerned citizens of the world to halt this reckless plunge into the unknown on behalf of the families of all mankind.
In this connection, may we present an alternate hypothesis to that presented by Mike Perricone in the FermiNews (The Universe Lives On, June 19, 1998). This postulation may be termed the high-energy postulation wherein the equations show the attractive properties of the high-energy condition termed de Sitter space. It would, therefore, under this postulation be found that high-energy physics experimentation now coming on line at the Tevatron in our Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory would have a greater probability of releasing a supernova upon our planet and solar system by breaching the potential barrier towards the high-energy condition (de Sitter Space) than initiating a transition towards the low-energy condition. This hypothesis is based on the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter. Their work has proven uniformly correct in the realm of physics and would necessarily be found to be true in relativistic cosmology. (Blau, S. K., Guendelman, E. I. & Guth, A. H(1987) Physical Review D. Particle and Fields, 3, 1747-1766. To quote in this connection from Alan Guth who initiated inflationary cosmology, "one might guess that the gravitational repulsion of the false vacuum would push outward on the bubble wall, so, if the repulsion were strong enough. Not so however, say the equations of general relativity. The gravitational repulsion causes the false vacuum to swell, but the repulsion does not extend beyond the false vacuum. Objects outside the bubble wall are attracted towards the bubble, and the gravitational force on the bubble is inward." (Burns, J.O. (1990) Astronomy, 18, 28-37)
The possibility of initiating a transition towards the lower-energy condition from high-energy physics experimentation may still be present, yet this kind of transition would have far lower probability value according to the aforementioned equation.
May we very respectfully request that these transitions be modeled via computer simulation before the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory continues with any further experimentation at this time. To avoid any bias in understanding, publication of these results in a peer-reviewed journal of highest repute is most respectfully recommended to members of the staff at Fermilab.
It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.
A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3 , converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation. This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a public endangerment as well.
This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere, the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger for their release.
With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed, and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to relativistic cosmology.
No harm will result from computer modelling of this alternate hypothesis for generation of Type Ia supernovae as a result of the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space. Yet clearly, vast harm may result form our continuing to plunge into the unknown without proper foresight concerning this possibility.
All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf. Please do what you can for them in this connection.
Your kind attention and consideration in this most salient matter are most gratefully appreciated.
All best wishes for you and your family.
With greatest respect,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Linguistics
For some time, I have wondered how Paul would react to the event, should it happen, that LHC makes its most energetic possible collisions and we are all still here. He is a psychology prof, so he too must have wondered some about the personnel impact, should it occur, of looking so foolish for so long. How to cope?
Until the above post I was guessing that Paul would say something like:
" ... Well I was wrong, but I have no regrets. I gave sound advise (delay experiment and simulate more etc.) It certainly would have been wiser to be cautious than to gamble even if, as it appears to have turned out, the LHC scientists were correct their predictions of "no danger." ..."
Now, the part of Paul's post I made bold above, has changed my expectations of Paul's reaction to the "good news" that we survived. I.e. He will note that God is good and all powerful, so He spared us from our foolishness. Paul, consciously or not, seems to be laying the ground work for this "victory" statement.
Has anyone been to his website? Someone called Anson on there commented that Paul says on his website that he's been nominated for the Nobel Prize 3 times so there has to be something to his claims.
It would seem Paul not only isn't above misrepresenting himself, lying about scientific results and changing his claims when they are disproven (Fermilab didn't destroy the Earth so he's changed to CERN) but he's also willing to lie about something as huge and easily checkable as Nobel Prizes.
Paul has never been published in a reputable on the topic of actual science. Come on Paul, prove me wrong.
It would seem Paul not only isn't above misrepresenting himself, lying about scientific results and changing his claims when they are disproven (Fermilab didn't destroy the Earth so he's changed to CERN) but he's also willing to lie about something as huge and easily checkable as Nobel Prizes.
Paul has never been published in a reputable on the topic of actual science. Come on Paul, prove me wrong.
AN:
You fling your accusations against other people far too easily. Makes one wonder about you.
I believe that Paul Dixon likely has been nominated. That's a far cry from being awarded a Nobel Prize. Lots of people are nominated, just like lots of people are nominated for Oscars, but aren't awarded them. I don't believe that's an example of lying.
Also, if you check out Dixon's CV, you'll see he's got many papers published in various fields of scientific endeavor in reputable journals - certainly far more papers than you. There's an old saying about casting one's pearls before swine, and I seriously doubt that Dixon is going to want to engage you in debate, particularly since he rarely engages anyone in debate.
That's not to say that I endorse everything Dixon says - but I do believe that you should watch your language. It demeans this forum to make false accusations impugning a person's reputation. By George, it's an ill weather system afoot, I do believe.
Cheers,
You fling your accusations against other people far too easily. Makes one wonder about you.
I believe that Paul Dixon likely has been nominated. That's a far cry from being awarded a Nobel Prize. Lots of people are nominated, just like lots of people are nominated for Oscars, but aren't awarded them. I don't believe that's an example of lying.
Also, if you check out Dixon's CV, you'll see he's got many papers published in various fields of scientific endeavor in reputable journals - certainly far more papers than you. There's an old saying about casting one's pearls before swine, and I seriously doubt that Dixon is going to want to engage you in debate, particularly since he rarely engages anyone in debate.
That's not to say that I endorse everything Dixon says - but I do believe that you should watch your language. It demeans this forum to make false accusations impugning a person's reputation. By George, it's an ill weather system afoot, I do believe.
Cheers,
The fantastic aspect (or one of them) about all this "DANGER, Will Robinson!", discussion, is the idea that we puny humans can build a computer, and program it to initiate an algorithm that will terminate with the self-destruction - of the computer; and this output will then cause the planet to do the same thing.
Not just a puzzling probability question, but a laughable one, in fact.
That's my other 2c worth.
Not just a puzzling probability question, but a laughable one, in fact.
That's my other 2c worth.
Nominated by whom? Can I nominate my mum? Can you nominate yourself?
I was under the impression that nominations are done by reputable people in your field. To use your analogy, you don't get into the final 4 for an oscar because some guy on the street writes a letter to the Oscar committee but because a survey of your peers or the relevant people in the industry brings up your name a lot.
Is Paul well known in the scientific community? Got any evidence?
I did look actually. And his publications are not in say things like "Topological field theory and it's applications to deSitter tunnelling in relativity", which would be relevant to this discussion, but instead on the psychology of scientific research. Someone asking me "How does research make you feel" is not contributing to my research.
Can you give me a specific example from his CV which is a scientific publication of the kind I just said he didn't do?
He's misrepresenting himself. At least you aren't as bad as him. Your degree and PhD are not in physics, though you don't mention that when saying your qualifications.
As I've said to you and Ubonatuva on PhysOrg, if you were really serious about your worry the LHC will kill us all and you had worked through all the results you keep claiming, you'd be able to engage anyone (particularly a lowly PhD student whose not published like me) and provide us with detailed calculations and analysis of the models you talk about. The fact you don't speaks volumes.
You make claims about the quantity of collisions producing black holes. I ask you to back up your numbers, you can't. You claim Hawking radiation can tunnel energy and mass into a black hole. I ask you to back up your claims, you can't. So what are you basing your claims on? What is Paul basing his claims on? If you cannot provide anything other than "Well I kind think it's like that :shrug:" then it smacks of "I'm hysterical about something I don't understand and I'm willing to make up lies about it to try to convince others!".
Is this a false accusation? Am I hurling about unsubstantiated criticism like a monkey throwing it's own crap? Well if I am, back up your claims. It's not hard. It's something you should be able to do if you're planning on going to court for this.
And it's an insult to people like John Ellis, one of the leading scientific minds of our age, to have to pander to whiny idiots whose complaints seem to amount to "I know nothing of this topic but I'm doing to make a big song and dance about it because I misunderstood someone's explanation of the aforementioned topic I don't understand, and refuse to try to understand because deep down I know I won't understand, and so I demand people who do understand expand their valuable time and energy to provide me with explanations I'll ultimately ignore, because I won't understand."
If you think I'm making false accusations, back up your claims. If you're competent at this kind of stuff it shouldn't be hard. When Reiku challenged me to a 'Physics-off' it only took me as long as it takes to type a post to answer some of his questions. You're having to go to court for this and you think the entire existence of the human race is at stake and you can't spend 30 minutes providing the calculations you claim exist?!
False accusations indeed....
Nominated by whom? Can I nominate my mum? Can you nominate yourself?
I was under the impression that nominations are done by reputable people in your field. To use your analogy, you don't get into the final 4 for an oscar because some guy on the street writes a letter to the Oscar committee but because a survey of your peers or the relevant people in the industry brings up your name a lot.
Is Paul well known in the scientific community? Got any evidence?
I did look actually. And his publications are not in say things like "Topological field theory and it's applications to deSitter tunnelling in relativity", which would be relevant to this discussion, but instead on the psychology of scientific research. Someone asking me "How does research make you feel" is not contributing to my research.
Can you give me a specific example from his CV which is a scientific publication of the kind I just said he didn't do?
He's misrepresenting himself. At least you aren't as bad as him. Your degree and PhD are not in physics, though you don't mention that when saying your qualifications.
As I've said to you and Ubonatuva on PhysOrg, if you were really serious about your worry the LHC will kill us all and you had worked through all the results you keep claiming, you'd be able to engage anyone (particularly a lowly PhD student whose not published like me) and provide us with detailed calculations and analysis of the models you talk about. The fact you don't speaks volumes.
You make claims about the quantity of collisions producing black holes. I ask you to back up your numbers, you can't. You claim Hawking radiation can tunnel energy and mass into a black hole. I ask you to back up your claims, you can't. So what are you basing your claims on? What is Paul basing his claims on? If you cannot provide anything other than "Well I kind think it's like that :shrug:" then it smacks of "I'm hysterical about something I don't understand and I'm willing to make up lies about it to try to convince others!".
Is this a false accusation? Am I hurling about unsubstantiated criticism like a monkey throwing it's own crap? Well if I am, back up your claims. It's not hard. It's something you should be able to do if you're planning on going to court for this.
And it's an insult to people like John Ellis, one of the leading scientific minds of our age, to have to pander to whiny idiots whose complaints seem to amount to "I know nothing of this topic but I'm doing to make a big song and dance about it because I misunderstood someone's explanation of the aforementioned topic I don't understand, and refuse to try to understand because deep down I know I won't understand, and so I demand people who do understand expand their valuable time and energy to provide me with explanations I'll ultimately ignore, because I won't understand."
If you think I'm making false accusations, back up your claims. If you're competent at this kind of stuff it shouldn't be hard. When Reiku challenged me to a 'Physics-off' it only took me as long as it takes to type a post to answer some of his questions. You're having to go to court for this and you think the entire existence of the human race is at stake and you can't spend 30 minutes providing the calculations you claim exist?!
False accusations indeed....
Why do you even care AN?
It's not as if the actions of someone else around here impedes your world, or tries to bring you down with false accusations.
I notice, when you get you foot into the ground, you can't help but grab out for the branches as well, and you try your hardest to make some point, wrapped up in lies you have created yourself, never mind the lies you claim others are making.
You must be very insecure, to be such an un-modest scientist.
Scientific integrity and if Paul is emailing people at CERN and Fermilab every time he posts here it amounts to harassment.
CERN will be providing HUGE amounts of information to 'my world' for more than a decade to come.
Got any examples?
How am I unmodest? Do I claim to be competent at things I'm not (like you or Walter)? Nope. Do I claim to be top of my field? Nope. If anything, I have repeatedly said I'm close to the bottom. I've yet to meet someone at a conference in my area who I think "I'm probably better at this stuff than you". Do I lie about who I am and what I do (like you)? Nope.
I'm confident in what I do know and I'm able to show I'm competent in such things when people challenge me. Unlike you.
You must be insecure to continue telling lies when everyone has exposed them and noone believes you.
''Scientific integrity and if Paul is emailing people at CERN and Fermilab every time he posts here it amounts to harassment.''
Scientific integrity.?? AN, you would show more integrity about yourself if you actually left the powers that be to fight the claims of Paul. You are not in a position to talk for John Ellis, but Paul is in a particular position to fight against it. That's the right of most country's.
''CERN will be providing HUGE amounts of information to 'my world' for more than a decade to come. ''
So you are afraid it will impede your world afterall? Is there a truth then behind Pauls claims that some knowledges are at a valuable cost, even for your education?
''Got any examples? ''
I don't think you realize half the time, but your judgement is really bad on some individuals, knowing very little about their lives, but still making rash judgments on them.
''How am I unmodest? Do I claim to be competent at things I'm not (like you or Walter)? Nope. Do I claim to be top of my field? Nope. If anything, I have repeatedly said I'm close to the bottom. I've yet to meet someone at a conference in my area who I think "I'm probably better at this stuff than you". Do I lie about who I am and what I do (like you)? Nope.
I'm confident in what I do know and I'm able to show I'm competent in such things when people challenge me. Unlike you.
You must be insecure to continue telling lies when everyone has exposed them and noone believes you.''
You're unmodest, because you don't cease these pointless arguements. You make a mockery of people who started the conversation, and you turn it into professional hatred-filled competition. A modest scientist evaluates everything, and even when he has, he remains adultlike towards his peers. You don't. You set out to verbally-harm, insult and initiate false conclusions about who it is you argue with.
Oh, that's very modest, so it is.
Scientific integrity.?? AN, you would show more integrity about yourself if you actually left the powers that be to fight the claims of Paul. You are not in a position to talk for John Ellis, but Paul is in a particular position to fight against it. That's the right of most country's.
''CERN will be providing HUGE amounts of information to 'my world' for more than a decade to come. ''
So you are afraid it will impede your world afterall? Is there a truth then behind Pauls claims that some knowledges are at a valuable cost, even for your education?
''Got any examples? ''
I don't think you realize half the time, but your judgement is really bad on some individuals, knowing very little about their lives, but still making rash judgments on them.
''How am I unmodest? Do I claim to be competent at things I'm not (like you or Walter)? Nope. Do I claim to be top of my field? Nope. If anything, I have repeatedly said I'm close to the bottom. I've yet to meet someone at a conference in my area who I think "I'm probably better at this stuff than you". Do I lie about who I am and what I do (like you)? Nope.
I'm confident in what I do know and I'm able to show I'm competent in such things when people challenge me. Unlike you.
You must be insecure to continue telling lies when everyone has exposed them and noone believes you.''
You're unmodest, because you don't cease these pointless arguements. You make a mockery of people who started the conversation, and you turn it into professional hatred-filled competition. A modest scientist evaluates everything, and even when he has, he remains adultlike towards his peers. You don't. You set out to verbally-harm, insult and initiate false conclusions about who it is you argue with.
Oh, that's very modest, so it is.
I'm not talking for him. I'm just saying he's definitely got better things to do than delete spam emails from Paul.
I'm afraid that whiny clueless idiots will hold back scientific advancement yes.
Firstly, it's more than just me. Secondly, the cost is in time, money, resources and man power and considerably less than say a month in Iraq.
Perhaps if they could back up their claims and stopped telling such transparent lies?
For instance, I accused you of lying about your physics classes because you couldn't do basic algebra and you claimed you were taught Cambridge postgrad material.
Do you think that's a believable lie?
My views of cranks do not stem from my scientific knowledge. I am not defined by the books I read and the work I do. I have long had a short fuse for idiots, long before I got into physics.
And you don't cease your pointless essays filled with mistakes and lies.
I make a mockery of lies, frauds and fools. All three categories you reside within.
I give you and Walter plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong. How many months have you had now?
''I'm not talking for him. I'm just saying he's definitely got better things to do than delete spam emails from Paul.''
I'm sure John has plenty of men around him that will do that for him. Nothing for you to sweat over.
''I'm afraid that whiny clueless idiots will hold back scientific advancement yes.''
That's shocking when a scientist does not evaluate the entire danger of meddling with forces not seen only moments after big bang. You know, Walter gives an example of this dogmatism. I think he uses the Challenger Space Shuttle (is that right?) as an example.
''Firstly, it's more than just me. Secondly, the cost is in time, money, resources and man power and considerably less than say a month in Iraq.''
Then worry about Iraq.
''Perhaps if they could back up their claims and stopped telling such transparent lies?
For instance, I accused you of lying about your physics classes because you couldn't do basic algebra and you claimed you were taught Cambridge postgrad material.
Do you think that's a believable lie?''
Oh, but i haven't lied. I do physics everyday at my college. Maths was never targetted and it was assumed by all pupils that algebra was simply known. I was out of education for a while, and when i came back, it was obvious i needed to learn all these things again. This is why my teacher want's me to start a math course at the beginningof next year.
No lie about it.
''My views of cranks do not stem from my scientific knowledge. I am not defined by the books I read and the work I do. I have long had a short fuse for idiots, long before I got into physics.
And you don't cease your pointless essays filled with mistakes and lies.''
Alphanumeric, your idea of cranks stem from your infinite relation to cranks on physorg. Such as Zephir, or StevenA... and even me in your book. But having this attitude towards people will be fruitless for you in the long-run.
'' make a mockery of lies, frauds and fools. All three categories you reside within.''
Ah yes. I am glad i mentioned myself.
''I give you and Walter plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong. How many months have you had now?''
And even Walter has explained, as much as i have as well, he is not here to answer your questions. This place is not a homework place for us. It's to discuss science, not have a conference on it.
I'm sure John has plenty of men around him that will do that for him. Nothing for you to sweat over.
''I'm afraid that whiny clueless idiots will hold back scientific advancement yes.''
That's shocking when a scientist does not evaluate the entire danger of meddling with forces not seen only moments after big bang. You know, Walter gives an example of this dogmatism. I think he uses the Challenger Space Shuttle (is that right?) as an example.
''Firstly, it's more than just me. Secondly, the cost is in time, money, resources and man power and considerably less than say a month in Iraq.''
Then worry about Iraq.
''Perhaps if they could back up their claims and stopped telling such transparent lies?
For instance, I accused you of lying about your physics classes because you couldn't do basic algebra and you claimed you were taught Cambridge postgrad material.
Do you think that's a believable lie?''
Oh, but i haven't lied. I do physics everyday at my college. Maths was never targetted and it was assumed by all pupils that algebra was simply known. I was out of education for a while, and when i came back, it was obvious i needed to learn all these things again. This is why my teacher want's me to start a math course at the beginningof next year.
No lie about it.
''My views of cranks do not stem from my scientific knowledge. I am not defined by the books I read and the work I do. I have long had a short fuse for idiots, long before I got into physics.
And you don't cease your pointless essays filled with mistakes and lies.''
Alphanumeric, your idea of cranks stem from your infinite relation to cranks on physorg. Such as Zephir, or StevenA... and even me in your book. But having this attitude towards people will be fruitless for you in the long-run.
'' make a mockery of lies, frauds and fools. All three categories you reside within.''
Ah yes. I am glad i mentioned myself.
''I give you and Walter plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong. How many months have you had now?''
And even Walter has explained, as much as i have as well, he is not here to answer your questions. This place is not a homework place for us. It's to discuss science, not have a conference on it.