Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

You claimed, in this very thread, to be doing stuff on black holes which I touched on in my 4th year. You obviously aren't doing that.

If you haven't done maths recently, you aren't on a physics degree.

You claimed to have done vector calculus, but if you haven't done maths in ages and you don't multiply out brackets, then you lied.

The list of equations you posted a while about to say to me "Ha! Here's the stuff I do!" didn't include anything beyond A Level in England. No equations involving relativity or vector calculus or group theory or quantum theory. And yet you've claimed to have done those things in college. Another lie.

Again and again you lie. Come on, tell me what topics you're doing in school right now. Give me some equations you did last in school.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a topic you did in physics class that I won't know, as you claimed in this thread. More lies.

 

[Reiku]

I did do studies on relativity, special relativity mostly. In fact, i am not here to argue with you, or prove anything to you. I was making a point, before you passed the buck, that anything Paul does, does not necesserily effect you.

You obviously have some problems accepting that Paul could ever be nominated for Prizes, and this disturbed you. Can you say, ''Jealous,'' much?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

No, loads of people get nominated every year for prizes I hold no illusions I can ever been in the running for. I lost my naivety about the difficulty of physics and the staggering ability of many other people when I went to uni.

But considering Paul makes statements which are false (if high energy collisions could trigger a vacuum tunnelling effort, cosmic rays would have done it long ago, the momentum argument is irrelevant to that one) and has been told so. And yet he continues to post. Nothing on his CV is about doing actual physics, he does the psychology of science. It's a pretty big difference.

The selection process for the physics nobel prize is long and complicated and rigorous. Is Paul well known enough that a significant number of the top few thousand physicists in the world would put his name forward over all others in the field, thus getting him actually nominated for the prize? The physics Nobel prize is typically a culmination of a life time of acheivement, where the contribution(s) of the recipient has made a large difference to a particular area of physics. Why can I not find anything to do with 'Paul William Dixon, physics' when I search other than Paul's own website and other threads like this on other forums? If you search for 'David Gross, physics' you get loads. Not just for his Nobel Prize in 2004 but about the work he did and is doing. Paul seems to have no work.

The only two 'publications' he's got which relate to physics are a supposed 'transfinite proof of Fermat's Last theorem', which obviously noone believed because he did it before Weyl did his proof and Weyl is considered the guy who proved it. The other is combining quantum mechanics and conciousness. Your favourite area of pseudoscience Reiku.

So Walter, which publications of Pauls deserve a Nobel Prize for physics? ffect of inter-trial interval and verbal reinforcement on choices of front or back tongue position perhaps? Or maybe Two factor explanation of post high school destinations in Hawaii? Both are obviously ground breaking areas in physics. I think Witten did his PhD on the second one didn't he?

So no, I'm not jealous of someone who is foolish enough to think they published a proof of FLT in 1981, which noone accepted, and then puts it on their CV.

 

[Billy T]

...Paul makes statements which are false (if high energy collisions could trigger a vacuum tunnelling effort, cosmic rays would have done it long ago, the momentum argument is irrelevant to that one) and has been told so. And yet he continues to post. ...

I agree on this point - said the same more than 500 posts ago, but I am not 100% sure Paul is false profit. It takes a huge streach to believe there is any danger, but here is how that may be possible:

First Hawking radiation must not be real (at least not real for very tiny BHs - perhaps some gravity quantization effect that blocks the "final flash." It is still only theory and gravity theory is not fully connected to Quantum theory, etc.). When LHC confirms Hawking radiation is real, as I expect it will, given his condition, I would not be surprized to see the Nobel committee called into special session to award Hawkins the physic prize. I do not know his state of health - perhaps that is not likely to be needed, but I for one would not want to risk it as the prize can not go to anyone dead. (Watson and Crick got theirs, IMHO, mainly because the lady who deserved at least half of it was dead.) but I digress.

Secondly these stable tiny BHs must be formed with less than Earth's escape velocity, (With many colliding beam events that seems to be assured for one.), at least that seems a necessity to me, but perhaps one going faster might "get lucky" and eat and electron before leaving Earth.

Thirdly these non Earth escaping, stable, tiny BHs must be able to "localize" one electron inside their EH as they pass thru "zillions" of atom's electronic orbitals. These BHs are so tiny (compared to the volume of these bound electrons where psi ^2 is greater than 0.001) that many zillions of attempts to localize one electron - become a charged BH - would be required, on average. But this very rare event does also seem likely to happen sometime as the tiny BH is gravitationally bound to Earth and can just keep oscilating thru (Or only inside the Earth's core) until it does.

Thus, it seems that all our eggs may be in the first basket. We are trusting that Hawking is not wrong about very tiny BHs - We need them NOT to be stablized by some not now known quantum gravity effect against the final flash. (QM can, AND DOES, stablize against the Coulumb force. - That is why atoms can exist for more than a few nano-seconds. We know much less, next to nothing, about quantum gravity for these tiny BHs. Are we really sure their "final flash" is not "QM blocked," like atomic final flash of atoms is?)

If 1, 2 and 3 above should be true and happen, then I think: "Earth is a gonner" in about a day (less than a week anyway). Once the Coulumb force instead of gravity is helping the BH "eat" nuclear particles it can rapidly grow. The first proton it eats will neutralize the first electon so it must try again to get (more?) charged, but now with one nuclear mass it is greatly slowed and may have zillions of zillions of opportunities to eat another electron. It is still not very like to eat a nuclear particle by gravity as it rarely comes close to a nucleus as it passes thru solid matter while it is only a few humdred thousand of unranium atom masses, but eventually gravity will begin to help and Earth will begin to collapse towards the now much heavier BH. (Even Earth's own gravity and "plastic flow" of the core into any deep void will keep it increasingly rapidly feed.)

Now I admit that the people at LHC, etc. have surely thought of all this and believe that the existance of neutron stars proves it has never happend as by their calculations even the fast BHs made by cosmic rays would have stopped inside and eaten all the neutron stars; but, many thousands of them, as pulsars, do exist etc. So for Paul not to be a "false profit" we also need either:

(a) Even these "Fast (V ~= C) BHs would be stopped in neutron star" calculations are wrong,
Or
(b) Cosmoc ray production is relatively recent and local in origin and has not had time to find all the neutron stars that originally existed. I.e. some neutron stars ARE being eaten NOW and are seen as Paul's Type II supernovas. Note the recent large Argintine Augar detector of very high energy cosmic rays does show a narrow space localization. (Why not a short production time period on cosmic scales also?)

PLUS:
"Paul not a false profit" needs some strange reason why these type II supernovas all look alike despite the widely different mass of the neutron star that is being eaten. - Perhaps the CR's BH eats a small fixed amount of the neutron star and "belches" the remaing mass out into space?

How do we know that the Dark Mater is not "pea sized" pieces of neutrons? Again I admit that is not likely as (Unless memory fails me the isolated neutron can decay to leave two charges.) But is a "pea sized" clustor of neutrons stable against this decay? It would be my guess that the answer to that is Yes. The strong force holds much smaller cluster together even with proton mutual repulsion - why not a tiny neutral cluster?

Admittedly Paul being right for the wrong reasons is a very long shot, but if I were a young physicist, like you, I would either have some strong counter to this above far fetched possiblity* or see at least some wisdom in more simulations before BH making. Hawking does not NEED his diserved prise.**

I am an old guy, but not a bad swimmer. If Earth does get eaten by a LHC produced BH from the inside out, as it collapses the still surface parts will be all sea covered. I will be among the last to die. - It does not seem like a bad fate*** and I got to go some way. Even I will surely drown before the gravity gradient near the BH rips me apart.
--------------
*If you do, please post the out line of it.

**I have also, 99.9+% in jest, long ago suggested that Hawkins is tired of living in his condition but not able to do anything physical to terminate his life; however, being the genius that he is, he can kill us all and have the most grand funeral ever. If not for hawking radiation thought to be real the LHC would not exist. Few really follow his math - perhaps he has cleverly hidden the flaw?

***Compared to some that envolve large dollar cost and a choice between long periods of pain or vegatative sedation.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

So Walter, which publications of Pauls deserve a Nobel Prize for physics?

AN:

You read things into people's statements that aren't there. I never said he deserved a Nobel Prize, or that any work of his was deserving of nomination for a Nobel prize. However, my personal view is irrelevant. Certainly I'm not on any of the Nobel committees for physics, or any other field in which such prizes are awarded.

Apparently, however, others felt differently about it. I simply stated that I believe he was nominated by others [apparently, long before I heard of him].

I believe the nomination pertained to his studies of deSitter space, but frankly, I've not read most of his works, and I'm certainly unaware of what actually the nomination was for, and certainly not whether it was earned, deserved, or whatever. I do know he reads voraciously other people's works in astrophysics.

However, you immediately accused Dixon of lying about such nomination without any evidence.

Cheers

 

[Reiku]

No, loads of people get nominated every year for prizes I hold no illusions I can ever been in the running for. I lost my naivety about the difficulty of physics and the staggering ability of many other people when I went to uni.

But considering Paul makes statements which are false (if high energy collisions could trigger a vacuum tunnelling effort, cosmic rays would have done it long ago, the momentum argument is irrelevant to that one) and has been told so. And yet he continues to post. Nothing on his CV is about doing actual physics, he does the psychology of science. It's a pretty big difference.

The selection process for the physics nobel prize is long and complicated and rigorous. Is Paul well known enough that a significant number of the top few thousand physicists in the world would put his name forward over all others in the field, thus getting him actually nominated for the prize? The physics Nobel prize is typically a culmination of a life time of acheivement, where the contribution(s) of the recipient has made a large difference to a particular area of physics. Why can I not find anything to do with 'Paul William Dixon, physics' when I search other than Paul's own website and other threads like this on other forums? If you search for 'David Gross, physics' you get loads. Not just for his Nobel Prize in 2004 but about the work he did and is doing. Paul seems to have no work.

The only two 'publications' he's got which relate to physics are a supposed 'transfinite proof of Fermat's Last theorem', which obviously noone believed because he did it before Weyl did his proof and Weyl is considered the guy who proved it. The other is combining quantum mechanics and conciousness. Your favourite area of pseudoscience Reiku.

So Walter, which publications of Pauls deserve a Nobel Prize for physics? ffect of inter-trial interval and verbal reinforcement on choices of front or back tongue position perhaps? Or maybe Two factor explanation of post high school destinations in Hawaii? Both are obviously ground breaking areas in physics. I think Witten did his PhD on the second one didn't he?

So no, I'm not jealous of someone who is foolish enough to think they published a proof of FLT in 1981, which noone accepted, and then puts it on their CV.

My computer won't open this type of file the now, because of a stupid fire-wall, but i noticed you complaining about not enough reading material.

I found this by Dr Dixon, and i am still looking for other material.

DOC] RJW AffidavitFile Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
I, Paul W. Dixon, affirm state and declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws ... My research interests include a solution to the Continuum Hypothesis of ...
www.wiki1.net/groups/uploads/LargeHadronCollider/SanchoPaulWDixon1.doc - Similar pages

 

[Reiku]

I believe the Continuum Hypothesis sought a solution in the last paper.

 

[prometheus]

Off topic: I'd like to know where Walter Wagner gets off calling himself a nuclear physicist when he is a Biologist or a medical physicist at the closest.

 

[Vkothii]

On topic: lawyers who start interrogating physics theories (quantum ones especially) in this day and age, could be a bell ringing somewhere.

Except, thankfully, electrons don't generally respond to questions of the legal kind ("who was that atom you were with last 9th August?"); lawyers give themselves away by applying the "I just have to ask the question that throws the defendant", formula.

At least that's been my observation.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You read things into people's statements that aren't there. I never said he deserved a Nobel Prize, or that any work of his was deserving of nomination for a Nobel prize. However, my personal view is irrelevant. Certainly I'm not on any of the Nobel committees for physics, or any other field in which such prizes are awarded.

I didn't say you thought he deserved nomination. I was asking which papers could be worth a Nobel Prize. Few of his publications are physics based and none of them have contributed anything to science.

I honestly don't know what he could be nominated for. Help me out here.

I believe the nomination pertained to his studies of deSitter space, but frankly, I've not read most of his works, and I'm certainly unaware of what actually the nomination was for, and certainly not whether it was earned, deserved, or whatever. I do know he reads voraciously other people's works in astrophysics.

Firstly, he's demonstrated he doesn't understand such stuff, otherwise he'd not be saying CERN or Fermilab could trigger 'a supernova', because cosmic radiation would have already done it.

Secondly, if he's done so much good work he deserves a Nobel Prize, why is he unknown and unpublished in the physics community?

However, you immediately accused Dixon of lying about such nomination without any evidence.

Evidence :

He's unknown in the physics community
He demonstrates he doesn't understand deSitter physics
He's unpublished in the physics community
He misrepresents himself in terms of his physics knowledge and qualifications.

I've asked you to provide evidence for him but you can't. His CV doesn't support his claims.

found this by Dr Dixon, and i am still looking for other material.

RJW AffidavitFile Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
I, Paul W. Dixon, affirm state and declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws ... My research interests include a solution to the Continuum Hypothesis of

The continuum hypothesis is an hypothesis because it cannot be solved. It's a proven example of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It's solution (ie is it true or false?) must be defined axiomatically. So not only has Paul lied about 'solving it' but he's demonstrating he doesn't even understand it.

Just like he's stupid for putting on his CV he solved Fermat's Last Theorem before Wiles, which everyone knows is a lie. So either he knowingly lies on his CV or he's ignorant of areas of research he claims to work in.

Neither one of which does him any favours. And that's not me assuming things, it's a fact.

 

[funkstar]

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.

I looked into this 3 years, as this post shows. Seems that the nominations are actually kept secret for 50 years (IIRC). That makes it pretty much impossible to check. In any case, note the absence of any explanations as to the supposed nominations wrt field and contribution...

Edit: I've just taken a few minutes to look up his 'Transfinite Solution to the Last Theorem of Fermat'. It's the first hit on an auther search for 'Paul Dixon' on www.jstor.org. The "transfinite solution" in the title is to be taken literaly, i.e. it's not a proof of anything related to the actual theorem.

 

[prometheus]

If the nominations are kept secret, how can Paul know he's nominated? It probably was an enormous shock seeing as he's a psychologist...

It's like me being nominated for an oscar...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I was in the running for being the last Pope.

 

[funkstar]

What a coincidence, so was Paul!

 

[Billy T]

I was in the running for being the last Pope.

AN, Please comment on post 1524's remote worry: On that outline of highly unlikely physic processes / concepts under which Paul would not be a false profit (even thought he is totally wrong in how that could happen).

I know you can do some physics. -Why are you wasting time continuing a "pissing contest" ?

 

[Dinosaur]

Billy T: You are less subtle than I.

I know you can do some physics. -Why are you wasting time continuing a "pissing contest" ?

I thought I was expressing the same idea when I posted:

The longer a wise man & a fool argue, the more difficult it becomes to decide who is the fool.

 

[taichitarot]

reluctant to post here but trying to get to 20 posts...

reluctant to post here but trying to get to 20 posts...

dixon@hawaii.edu
whoever Paul Dixon is it seems clear he is trying to get masses of spam sent to the above email address...

is dixon@hawaii.edu the email of the guy who is trying to stop CERN by lawsuit?

fascinating stuff: email me taichi_tarot@yahoo.com.au with some random gossip please regarding this please.

Julio Pillow

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

Supernova From Experimentation At Cern

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankindChildren have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.

Update on the research progress at CERN.

End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.

We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=large-hadron-collider-first-beam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm

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.


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 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 7 Tev 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 as noted above.

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

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

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENATION AT CERN

Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)

This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shoen here have never been refuted.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

[Vkothii]

And may the cosmic computer have mercy on us all...