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: John Christiansen on 12 Nov 2009 05:30 "AD" <andre.depre(a)scarlet.be> skrev i en meddelelse news:fea810fd-d0b7-4b14-bb0d-17bb1966d907(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Nov 6, 8:42 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:31 am, Magnetic <magnetic.t...(a)yandex.ua> wrote: > > > > Amazing how ignorant it is possible to be. There is not now and there > > > has > > > never been an EU president. Furthermore CERN is in Switzerland which > > > is not > > > part of the EU, so even if there were an EU president (which as > > > mentioned > > > earlier there is not) he or she could do nothing about it. > > > CERN is the "child" of 20 countries. > > can't you just be happy for this incredible achivement? > this amazing structure its like no other ever build. > it will bring light to many questions and > it is the kind of thing that its build with the future in mind. > there are a million things out there that could really > turn society into a wasteland There is a EU presidency that changes every 6 months. And with the new treaty in place, the ministers of the member states will chose the first EU president next week. The 'precidency' that changes every 6 months is a chaimanship, not a precidency. The coming president is not an elected one but an appointed one with not much political power. The EU president will have to ask the national leaders of the EU nations before being able to act. Again this president is more like a civil servant than a real president like those you see in the USA, Brazil, Russia, Egypt, Germany, France, Venezuela or Israel.
From: Media Watcher on 17 Nov 2009 10:04 QUOTES REGARDING THE SAFETY OF THE CERN LARGE HADRON COLLIDER (LHC) IN GENEVA QUOTE Sir Martin Rees (England's Astronomer Royal) on page 123 of his book 'Our Final Hour': Most of the 'natural' cosmic collisions happen in interstellar space, in an environment so rarefied that even if they produced a strangelet, it would be unlikely to encounter a third nucleus, so there would be no chance of a runaway process. Collisions with Earth also differ in an essential way from those in accelerators, because incoming nuclei are stopped in the atmosphere, which does not contain heavy atoms like lead and gold. Some fast-moving nuclei, however impact directly on the Moon's solid surface, which does contain such atoms. Such impacts have occurred over it's entire history. The Moon is nonetheless still there, and the authors of the Brookhaven (and CERN) report proffered this indisputable fact as reassurance that the proposed experiment couldn't wipe us out. But even these impacts differ in one possibly important way from those that would occur in the Brookhaven (and CERN) accelerator. When a fast particle crashes onto the Moon's surface, it hits a nucleus that is almost at rest, and gives it a 'kick' or recoil. The resultant strangelets, produced as debris in the collision, would share this recoil motion, and therefore be sent hurtling through the lunar material. In contrast, the accelerator experiments involve symmetrical collisions, where two particles approach each other 'head on'. There is then no recoil: the strangelets have no net motion and therefore might stand more chance of grabbing ambient material. *** Where in it's safety rapports does CERN address these differences between cosmic rays and the LHC collisions...? QUOTE NRO book review 'Our Final Hour' (Sir Martin Rees): Messing with the fundamentals of physics could have very dramatic consequences. At the time of the first nuclear explosions in 1945, some of the physicists involved wondered if they might ignite a chain reaction that would destroy Earth's atmosphere. A quick back-of-the- envelope calculation seemed reassuring, so they went ahead with the Trinity test. It is now clear that there was no possibility of worldwide conflagration from Trinity; but issues of this sort are now coming up with accelerating frequency, and there is a chance that sooner or later we shall get one of them wrong. The whole point of a scientific experiment, after all, is to find out what will happen if.... There is no knowing in advance. If there were, the experiment would have no point. The kinds of experiments we shall soon be conducting might, according to perfectly respectable theories, have very dire results. One possibility is the swift reduction of our planet to a sphere of super-dense 'strange matter' about a hundred yards across. Another is the annihilation of space-time itself though since the sphere of annihilation could expand only at the speed of light, it would take a few billion years to swallow up the whole universe. QUOTE Warren Platts: It is said that the chance of it destroying the earth through the creation of a particle called a strangelet is only about 1 in 50 million and the chance of it creating a black hole which does not evaporate is much less than this. However, these are not the probabilities we are looking for. The problem is that the calculations don't consider that the physical theories they are using could themselves be incorrect. For example, a hundred and twenty years ago, the scientific consensus held that Newtonian mechanics was the ultimate physical theory. If they had to calculate the chance that an experiment could lead to the curving of space and time, they would have said there was no chance at all. They would have been at least as certain of this as the directors of the LHC are, and they would have gotten it wrong. We could be in just such a situation and with the highest possible stakes at risk. There is, however, one large dissimilarity between now and then. In the late 19th Century, there was a huge amount of evidence in favour of Newtonian mechanics and only a few nagging lose ends that hadn't been explained. Now, however, we are genuinely uncertain about our physical theories. Moreover, we know that our current theories are false because they don't correctly merge Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Considering the stakes, it is thus highly irresponsible for the LHC's management to give so much emphasis to these misleading probability calculations, when the real chance is clearly higher. QUOTE Nostradamus 9 44: "All should leave Geneva, Saturn turns from gold to iron. The contrary positive ray (RAYPOZ) will exterminate everything. There will be signs in the sky before this." You may laugh, but please do note the unusual wording for the time such as 'contrary positive ray' and 'Saturn' (also ringed) in this quite remarkable prediction and also that Nostradamus did not mention Paris, Rome, London or any other city but specifically Geneva... What are the (mathematical) probabilities that this is all pure coincidence? Could it be possible that, given quantum non-locality of particles in both space and time, the consciousness of some people is able to (be it distorted) connect with other space/time locations in the Universe? Quantum non-locality is most definitely science. Also it is science observed but not understood. There is much that is not properly known or even discussed about the far reaching effects of quantum positioning. In a connected quantum way a disaster may have echoes through time. On a "positive" note, if Nostradamus's prediction is correct, and there's a disaster at CERN, it seems to be limited to Geneva...
From: Media Watcher on 17 Nov 2009 17:11 In it's safety rapports CERN does not address the differences between cosmic rays and the LHC collisions. Neither does your answer.
From: nuny on 18 Nov 2009 18:07 On Nov 17, 2:11 pm, Media Watcher <b...(a)telenet.be> wrote: > In it's safety rapports CERN does not address the differences between > cosmic rays and the LHC collisions. > Neither does your answer. Learn to spell "reports", you idiot. 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. Mark L. Fergerson
From: nuny on 18 Nov 2009 18:16
On Nov 18, 5:19 am, Magnetic <magnetic.t...(a)yandex.ua> wrote: > > Notice the Moon still exists. > > Notice all the planets orbiting our Sun still exist. > > Idiot, where is Phaeton? There never was any such planet, idiot. There isn't enough stuff in the asteroid "belt" to make a decent moon. There's about one percent of Earth's mass, total. > > Notice our Sun still exists. > > > Notice planets orbiting other stars still exist. > > > Notice other stars still exist. > > Idiot, what are novae and supernovae? Exploded stars, idiot. Not by your doomsday fantasies either. > CERN, LHC, Phaeton, Earth, Dearth. > > Get up, and take action! You DO realize that your threat in another thread to kill vacationing Swiss etc. amounts to a declaration of intent to commit terrorism, don't you? Shall I bring it to the attention of your ISP and say perhaps your local law enforcement, or will you come to your senses? Mark L. Fergerson |