CERN, LHC. The End is soon.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Fine Particle Physics and the Mathison-Trenite Life Energy Fluctuation Meter (LEF Meter) PART FOUR - {FPP 20090913-draft-V1.0-p4}
Next: JSH: So Crank.net really works?
From: Aleph on 19 Nov 2009 19:25 In article <2415e108-c3a0-4651-9046-3054f1ec80e2 @h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:58:38 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> imparted these words of wisdom: > > On Nov 19, 3:45 pm, Aleph <Usenet....(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > In article <2ec98db9-5b22-4568-a8bb-0a00e2c5ebe6 > > @x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 > > 15:36:43 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> imparted these words > > of wisdom: > > > > > If black holes exist then there is certain end to mankind. But they > > > don't exist and nothing is going to happen. > > > > How can you be so wrong with so few words? > > As soon as they create one it will All be over. I say again.... -- Aleph This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails to this account will be ignored.
From: socratus on 20 Nov 2009 17:33 The mad CERN s project. === . In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms, bombarding them with high energy a- particles. This idea helped him understand the structure of atom. But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists to enlarge the target. Bomb them! And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles. And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature. But this was forgotten. What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators. And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man. Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy. And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum. But this, he has withheld from man. He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible. And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles. And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes. But my God, save us from their presence on Earth. ========= .. ========. Rutherford was right. His followers are mistaken. Why? Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree. For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth. It is normal. But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig a base for a huge building (skyscraper), or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth, will you call me a normal man? ========== .. ===============. Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall. And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws. Does he have many chances to succeed? As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators. If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis, the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited. ========== . ======== . The Nature works very economical. For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all different cells created on our planet. What are about another 80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution. The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 ) proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature. All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus, all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks etc) are dead end of evolution. ============. What was before - the big bang or the vacuum ? The physicists created Europes Large Hadron Colider Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator. They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the big bang. They didnt make this process in the reverse. So, what was prior in the Universe: big bang or vacuum? ===========================.. The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all. === . Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus. http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2547&st=105 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548 ================== . .
From: Aleph on 20 Nov 2009 17:54 In article <83b0cb3e-cbc3-49a7-91d4- 0cfa2bb2ad6f(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:33:48 -0800 (PST), socratus <israsad(a)yahoo.com> imparted these words of wisdom: > > The mad CERN 's project. > <snip excessive verbage> Well, the second circle is completed now and the universe hasnt ended. -- Aleph This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails to this account will be ignored.
From: Media Watcher on 21 Nov 2009 12:29 There have been no proton beam collisions yet. ---------------------------------- Dr Gillies said that if everything continued to go well, Cern might try to reach a record-breaking beam energy of 1.2 trillion electron volts this weekend. Only the Tevatron particle accelerator in Chicago, US, has approached this energy, operating at just under one trillion electron volts. But other team members want to keep the beam circulating at low energy and try for the machine's first proton beam collisions... (BBC News 21/11/2009)
From: nuny on 21 Nov 2009 19:41
On Nov 19, 2:31 pm, Media Watcher <b...(a)telenet.be> wrote: > On Nov 19, 9:23 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 19, 5:45 am, Media Watcher <b...(a)telenet.be> wrote: > > > > On Nov 19, 12:07 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 17, 2:11 pm, Media Watcher <b...(a)telenet.be> wrote: > > > > > There is no relevant difference between "cosmic rays and the LHC > > > > collisions" in this context. Energy is energy, if the one were going > > > > to create strangelets so would the other. > > > > > Learn something, ANYTHING. > > > > Energy is indeed energy, but the way the energy handled is very much > > > different. > > > No, it is not. > > > > For example 120/220 Volt A/C directly earthed with a wire causes no > > > harm. > > > The usual contracted form of "alternating current" requires no > > slash. It's just AC. When you include the slash, it's generally > > understood to mean "Air Conditioning". > > Thanks for letting me know. Anything to improve your skill set. > But even so, you still know much less words in Dutch as I know in > English. I still am not writing for a mostly Dutch-speaking audience. > > Grounding a wire carrying power certainly will cause harm to > > whatever is generating the power (also possibly melting the wires), > > unless the circuit is properly fused. > > > > That same energy that flows through your body and meets you body's > > > resistance, in order to reach earth will destroy your body. > > > Nonsense. I've taken many 120 volt and 220 volt shocks over the > > course of my life. Jolting, but not fatal. > > You should not use examples like that with someone who has not only > > book learning of, but also "hands-on" experience with, electricity. > > Do you really? So have I. > Well, if it's a bad example, let's try 380 Volts. Let me know when you want to talk kilovolts. > BTW, it's not so much the voltage that kills, but rather the power > (symbol I and measured in Amperes) that kills. I is "current", not "power". Power is P. That applies to the conventions I learned; I don't know if it is taught differently where you are. > So would you rather be submitted to 100A for a period of 1 second or > 1A for a period of 100 seconds? Neither, if at all possible. The shocks I have suffered were all accidental except for the times I tested the HV output of TV flyback transformers with my fingertip (with the elbow of that arm grounded on chassis to prevent fibrillation). > Only an "know-it-all" idiot will chose the first option because" in > his wisdom" he thinks it makes no difference. > But I say: Same energy, but in the first case you most probably die > instantly and in the other case you most probably stay alive. The current available at the source does indeed make no difference; what matters is how much current traverses the chest and stops the heart. > The focusing/concentration of energy/matter in both space and time > gives quite a different result. You claimed that energy is all that matters, now you talk about "focusing/concentration of energy/matter in both space and time". What specifically do you mean? I wrote: >> There is no relevant difference between "cosmic rays and the LHC >> collisions" in this context. Energy is energy, if the one were going >> to create strangelets so would the other. You claim: > So, same energy but with quite a different result... What do you assert to be the relevant significant difference between cosmic ray collisions (which do not produce strangelets) and the LHC (which you apparently believe will)? You wrote: > > > Energy is indeed energy, but the way the energy handled is very much > > > different. How, specifically, do you assert it is "handled differently" in the LHC? > > You are still an idiot, but now you're a deliberately obtuse idiot. > > What are your medical qualifications to call someone an idiot? "Idiot" is not only a medical term. I note that you do not deny being obtuse. > > The energy in your example either does, or does not, pass through my > > body. I'd expect a difference in effects. > > > In the referenced example- "cosmic rays and the LHC collisions", it > > goes into particle collisions in both cases. Hence in both cases the > > same effect should happen if "Magnetic" is right, but it happens in > > neither case, so he is not right. I notice you do not comment on this. > Did I mention 'magnetic' somewhere? You are taking his side in a (scientifically speaking) completely unfounded debate. If you think you can support your beliefs without referencing him, go ahead. I'm waiting. Meanwhile, I'll rephrase what I wrote above: > > In the referenced example- "cosmic rays and the LHC collisions", it > > goes into particle collisions in both cases. Hence in both cases the > > same effect should happen if you are right, but it happens in > > neither case, so you are not right. > > Learn some basic logic if science is too hard for you. > > > Whatever you do, stop believing "Magnetic". > > Conclusion: Lots of rude idiot calling but no real answers. You have asked no questions; you have made assertions without providing any basis for them. "Magnetic" at least did that much, though his basis (his so-called "magnetic holes") is fictional. Mark L. Fergerson |