PROOF: LHC MORE Energy than Cosmic Ray Collisions
in [Physics]
|
Prev: PROOF: LHC MORE Energy than Cosmic Ray Collisions
Next: speed of light is likely to be more accurately that of 3.14159.. x 10^8 m/s; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #185; ATOM TOTALITY
From: guskz on 25 Jun 2010 21:39 On Jun 25, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 2:12 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:14 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Here is PROOF that Europe's LHC proton collider is ***LYING*** when > > > > > > they compare the probability of creating a black hole to cosmic ray > > > > > > collisions: > > > > > > > Even if cosmic rays carry 10^20 eV, when they collide with the > > > > > > atmosphere which is a fixed target, the energy produced is: > > > > > > > #1) E= Square_root_of (10^20) = 10^10 eV > > > > > > Math error. > > > > > The equation is sqrt(2 * m_n * E_cr). You'll see it in the very page > > > > > you reference. > > > > > This is sqrt (2 * 10^9 * 10^20) eV = sqrt(20*10^28) = 4.5*10^14, which > > > > > is 450 times a TeV. > > > > > > > WHERE AS the collision between two moving targets as in LHC proton > > > > > > collider is: > > > > > > > #2) E= E1 + E2 = 10^12 eV > > > > > > > #2 is 100 fold higher than #1 and therefore more LIKELY than cosmic > > > > > > rays to produce a BLACK HOLE that destroys the Earth. > > > > > > > Equations at LHC's own web pages: > > > > > > >http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=3&e=0 > > > > > > Yes, you'll note in the page that you reference that the energy of the > > > > > proton in a fixed-target collision would have to be 10^17 eV to be > > > > > equivalent to the energies at LHC. But cosmic ray protons can be a > > > > > 1000 times larger energy. > > > > > Bravo, I seen it after but waited to see what Aunt Al would say, it > > > > proves she only Trolls the posts, if the equation was true she still > > > > doesn't care. > > > > Ah, good, then you admit that your post was a troll, and that you > > > retract your "proof" based on crappy calculations. > > > No, it proves YOUR sentiment towards the matter and the lack luster > > wish to deny the testimony for what is written. > > I didn't make the arithmetic error. You did. Your dispute over the error is troublesome, you accept LHC and their web page to make the error but not me. Vindictive behavior, has no room in science. This is a sign of indifference other than the sole difference to be TROLL. > Once the error is corrected, then your cause of concern should > vaporize. > The fact that your fears do NOT vaporize is something you should > wonder about. > > > > > > > And what do you understand of the density of intergalactic space, > > > > where they say it averages 1 proton per m^3. > > > > > Can one use LHC's own probability of collision (or interaction) > > > > equation (and thus generating particles) to see the odds of a light > > > > beam to collide/interact with a proton as it travels from 10 billion > > > > light years away? > > > > > It may also be the answer to dark matter, and to see how much the > > > > luminosity and red shift can be affected. > > > > > Doesn't that make sense to you? > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > What is "truly" terrible, is those that said Cosmic Rays were more > > > > > > likely to produce black holes than LHC. > > > > > > > Yet they are shown they were wrong, but they still argue and claim to > > > > > > know more than THEIR MASTER. > > > > > > > 2010: Before Einstein,GUSKZ- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: guskz on 25 Jun 2010 21:41 On Jun 25, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 2:12 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:14 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Here is PROOF that Europe's LHC proton collider is ***LYING*** when > > > > > > they compare the probability of creating a black hole to cosmic ray > > > > > > collisions: > > > > > > > Even if cosmic rays carry 10^20 eV, when they collide with the > > > > > > atmosphere which is a fixed target, the energy produced is: > > > > > > > #1) E= Square_root_of (10^20) = 10^10 eV > > > > > > Math error. > > > > > The equation is sqrt(2 * m_n * E_cr). You'll see it in the very page > > > > > you reference. > > > > > This is sqrt (2 * 10^9 * 10^20) eV = sqrt(20*10^28) = 4.5*10^14, which > > > > > is 450 times a TeV. > > > > > > > WHERE AS the collision between two moving targets as in LHC proton > > > > > > collider is: > > > > > > > #2) E= E1 + E2 = 10^12 eV > > > > > > > #2 is 100 fold higher than #1 and therefore more LIKELY than cosmic > > > > > > rays to produce a BLACK HOLE that destroys the Earth. > > > > > > > Equations at LHC's own web pages: > > > > > > >http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=3&e=0 > > > > > > Yes, you'll note in the page that you reference that the energy of the > > > > > proton in a fixed-target collision would have to be 10^17 eV to be > > > > > equivalent to the energies at LHC. But cosmic ray protons can be a > > > > > 1000 times larger energy. > > > > > Bravo, I seen it after but waited to see what Aunt Al would say, it > > > > proves she only Trolls the posts, if the equation was true she still > > > > doesn't care. > > > > Ah, good, then you admit that your post was a troll, and that you > > > retract your "proof" based on crappy calculations. > > > No, it proves YOUR sentiment towards the matter and the lack luster > > wish to deny the testimony for what is written. > > I didn't make the arithmetic error. You did. > Once the error is corrected, then your cause of concern should > vaporize. > The fact that your fears do NOT vaporize is something you should > wonder about. > > TROLL, it was an error on LHC's behalf, do not believe in LHC anymore but you will believe because your are TROLLING. > > > > > And what do you understand of the density of intergalactic space, > > > > where they say it averages 1 proton per m^3. > > > > > Can one use LHC's own probability of collision (or interaction) > > > > equation (and thus generating particles) to see the odds of a light > > > > beam to collide/interact with a proton as it travels from 10 billion > > > > light years away? > > > > > It may also be the answer to dark matter, and to see how much the > > > > luminosity and red shift can be affected. > > > > > Doesn't that make sense to you? > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > What is "truly" terrible, is those that said Cosmic Rays were more > > > > > > likely to produce black holes than LHC. > > > > > > > Yet they are shown they were wrong, but they still argue and claim to > > > > > > know more than THEIR MASTER. > > > > > > > 2010: Before Einstein,GUSKZ- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:15 On Jun 25, 8:39 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2:12 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 21, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:14 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is PROOF that Europe's LHC proton collider is ***LYING*** when > > > > > > > they compare the probability of creating a black hole to cosmic ray > > > > > > > collisions: > > > > > > > > Even if cosmic rays carry 10^20 eV, when they collide with the > > > > > > > atmosphere which is a fixed target, the energy produced is: > > > > > > > > #1) E= Square_root_of (10^20) = 10^10 eV > > > > > > > Math error. > > > > > > The equation is sqrt(2 * m_n * E_cr). You'll see it in the very page > > > > > > you reference. > > > > > > This is sqrt (2 * 10^9 * 10^20) eV = sqrt(20*10^28) = 4.5*10^14, which > > > > > > is 450 times a TeV. > > > > > > > > WHERE AS the collision between two moving targets as in LHC proton > > > > > > > collider is: > > > > > > > > #2) E= E1 + E2 = 10^12 eV > > > > > > > > #2 is 100 fold higher than #1 and therefore more LIKELY than cosmic > > > > > > > rays to produce a BLACK HOLE that destroys the Earth. > > > > > > > > Equations at LHC's own web pages: > > > > > > > >http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=3&e=0 > > > > > > > Yes, you'll note in the page that you reference that the energy of the > > > > > > proton in a fixed-target collision would have to be 10^17 eV to be > > > > > > equivalent to the energies at LHC. But cosmic ray protons can be a > > > > > > 1000 times larger energy. > > > > > > Bravo, I seen it after but waited to see what Aunt Al would say, it > > > > > proves she only Trolls the posts, if the equation was true she still > > > > > doesn't care. > > > > > Ah, good, then you admit that your post was a troll, and that you > > > > retract your "proof" based on crappy calculations. > > > > No, it proves YOUR sentiment towards the matter and the lack luster > > > wish to deny the testimony for what is written. > > > I didn't make the arithmetic error. You did. > > Your dispute over the error is troublesome, you accept LHC and their > web page to make the error but not me. Their content is fine. You took their content and you made an arithmetic error with THEIR equations. That is, you took correct equations and abused them, and as a result came to an erroneous conclusion. Now you seem to have trouble retracting an error, insisting that someone else is to blame for YOUR mistake. This is a psychological problem. > > Vindictive behavior, has no room in science. This is a sign of > indifference other than the sole difference to be TROLL. > > > > > Once the error is corrected, then your cause of concern should > > vaporize. > > The fact that your fears do NOT vaporize is something you should > > wonder about. > > > > > > And what do you understand of the density of intergalactic space, > > > > > where they say it averages 1 proton per m^3. > > > > > > Can one use LHC's own probability of collision (or interaction) > > > > > equation (and thus generating particles) to see the odds of a light > > > > > beam to collide/interact with a proton as it travels from 10 billion > > > > > light years away? > > > > > > It may also be the answer to dark matter, and to see how much the > > > > > luminosity and red shift can be affected. > > > > > > Doesn't that make sense to you? > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > > What is "truly" terrible, is those that said Cosmic Rays were more > > > > > > > likely to produce black holes than LHC. > > > > > > > > Yet they are shown they were wrong, but they still argue and claim to > > > > > > > know more than THEIR MASTER. > > > > > > > > 2010: Before Einstein,GUSKZ- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
From: guskz on 26 Jun 2010 20:16 On Jun 26, 10:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 8:39 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 2:12 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:14 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Here is PROOF that Europe's LHC proton collider is ***LYING*** when > > > > > > > > they compare the probability of creating a black hole to cosmic ray > > > > > > > > collisions: > > > > > > > > > Even if cosmic rays carry 10^20 eV, when they collide with the > > > > > > > > atmosphere which is a fixed target, the energy produced is: > > > > > > > > > #1) E= Square_root_of (10^20) = 10^10 eV > > > > > > > > Math error. > > > > > > > The equation is sqrt(2 * m_n * E_cr). You'll see it in the very page > > > > > > > you reference. > > > > > > > This is sqrt (2 * 10^9 * 10^20) eV = sqrt(20*10^28) = 4.5*10^14, which > > > > > > > is 450 times a TeV. > > > > > > > > > WHERE AS the collision between two moving targets as in LHC proton > > > > > > > > collider is: > > > > > > > > > #2) E= E1 + E2 = 10^12 eV > > > > > > > > > #2 is 100 fold higher than #1 and therefore more LIKELY than cosmic > > > > > > > > rays to produce a BLACK HOLE that destroys the Earth. > > > > > > > > > Equations at LHC's own web pages: > > > > > > > > >http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=3&e=0 > > > > > > > > Yes, you'll note in the page that you reference that the energy of the > > > > > > > proton in a fixed-target collision would have to be 10^17 eV to be > > > > > > > equivalent to the energies at LHC. But cosmic ray protons can be a > > > > > > > 1000 times larger energy. > > > > > > > Bravo, I seen it after but waited to see what Aunt Al would say, it > > > > > > proves she only Trolls the posts, if the equation was true she still > > > > > > doesn't care. > > > > > > Ah, good, then you admit that your post was a troll, and that you > > > > > retract your "proof" based on crappy calculations. > > > > > No, it proves YOUR sentiment towards the matter and the lack luster > > > > wish to deny the testimony for what is written. > > > > I didn't make the arithmetic error. You did. > > > Your dispute over the error is troublesome, you accept LHC and their > > web page to make the error but not me. > > Their content is fine. You took their content and you made an > arithmetic error with THEIR equations. > That is, you took correct equations and abused them, and as a result > came to an erroneous conclusion. > Now you seem to have trouble retracting an error, insisting that > someone else is to blame for YOUR mistake. > This is a psychological problem. > > > > > Vindictive behavior, has no room in science. This is a sign of > > indifference other than the sole difference to be TROLL. > > > > Once the error is corrected, then your cause of concern should > > > vaporize. > > > The fact that your fears do NOT vaporize is something you should > > > wonder about. > > > > > > > And what do you understand of the density of intergalactic space, > > > > > > where they say it averages 1 proton per m^3. > > > > > > > Can one use LHC's own probability of collision (or interaction) > > > > > > equation (and thus generating particles) to see the odds of a light > > > > > > beam to collide/interact with a proton as it travels from 10 billion > > > > > > light years away? > > > > > > > It may also be the answer to dark matter, and to see how much the > > > > > > luminosity and red shift can be affected. > > > > > > > Doesn't that make sense to you? > > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > > > What is "truly" terrible, is those that said Cosmic Rays were more > > > > > > > > likely to produce black holes than LHC. > > > > > > > > > Yet they are shown they were wrong, but they still argue and claim to > > > > > > > > know more than THEIR MASTER. > > > > > > > > > 2010: Before Einstein,GUSKZ- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Nay there 1st equation says: Ep = square_root_of (E_beam) But you don't care, you already know this but are overlooking it instead cause you are TROLLING, thus a TROLL.
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:02
On Jun 26, 7:16 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 10:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:39 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 2:12 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:14 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Here is PROOF that Europe's LHC proton collider is ***LYING*** when > > > > > > > > > they compare the probability of creating a black hole to cosmic ray > > > > > > > > > collisions: > > > > > > > > > > Even if cosmic rays carry 10^20 eV, when they collide with the > > > > > > > > > atmosphere which is a fixed target, the energy produced is: > > > > > > > > > > #1) E= Square_root_of (10^20) = 10^10 eV > > > > > > > > > Math error. > > > > > > > > The equation is sqrt(2 * m_n * E_cr). You'll see it in the very page > > > > > > > > you reference. > > > > > > > > This is sqrt (2 * 10^9 * 10^20) eV = sqrt(20*10^28) = 4..5*10^14, which > > > > > > > > is 450 times a TeV. > > > > > > > > > > WHERE AS the collision between two moving targets as in LHC proton > > > > > > > > > collider is: > > > > > > > > > > #2) E= E1 + E2 = 10^12 eV > > > > > > > > > > #2 is 100 fold higher than #1 and therefore more LIKELY than cosmic > > > > > > > > > rays to produce a BLACK HOLE that destroys the Earth. > > > > > > > > > > Equations at LHC's own web pages: > > > > > > > > > >http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=3&e=0 > > > > > > > > > Yes, you'll note in the page that you reference that the energy of the > > > > > > > > proton in a fixed-target collision would have to be 10^17 eV to be > > > > > > > > equivalent to the energies at LHC. But cosmic ray protons can be a > > > > > > > > 1000 times larger energy. > > > > > > > > Bravo, I seen it after but waited to see what Aunt Al would say, it > > > > > > > proves she only Trolls the posts, if the equation was true she still > > > > > > > doesn't care. > > > > > > > Ah, good, then you admit that your post was a troll, and that you > > > > > > retract your "proof" based on crappy calculations. > > > > > > No, it proves YOUR sentiment towards the matter and the lack luster > > > > > wish to deny the testimony for what is written. > > > > > I didn't make the arithmetic error. You did. > > > > Your dispute over the error is troublesome, you accept LHC and their > > > web page to make the error but not me. > > > Their content is fine. You took their content and you made an > > arithmetic error with THEIR equations. > > That is, you took correct equations and abused them, and as a result > > came to an erroneous conclusion. > > Now you seem to have trouble retracting an error, insisting that > > someone else is to blame for YOUR mistake. > > This is a psychological problem. > > > > Vindictive behavior, has no room in science. This is a sign of > > > indifference other than the sole difference to be TROLL. > > > > > Once the error is corrected, then your cause of concern should > > > > vaporize. > > > > The fact that your fears do NOT vaporize is something you should > > > > wonder about. > > > > > > > > And what do you understand of the density of intergalactic space, > > > > > > > where they say it averages 1 proton per m^3. > > > > > > > > Can one use LHC's own probability of collision (or interaction) > > > > > > > equation (and thus generating particles) to see the odds of a light > > > > > > > beam to collide/interact with a proton as it travels from 10 billion > > > > > > > light years away? > > > > > > > > It may also be the answer to dark matter, and to see how much the > > > > > > > luminosity and red shift can be affected. > > > > > > > > Doesn't that make sense to you? > > > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > > > > What is "truly" terrible, is those that said Cosmic Rays were more > > > > > > > > > likely to produce black holes than LHC. > > > > > > > > > > Yet they are shown they were wrong, but they still argue and claim to > > > > > > > > > know more than THEIR MASTER. > > > > > > > > > > 2010: Before Einstein,GUSKZ- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Nay there 1st equation says: > > Ep = square_root_of (E_beam) Look at the next equation AFTER the one in the caption, after the header "fixed target". That one is dimensionally correct. The one in the caption is not dimensionally correct. This is an error on the web page. > > But you don't care, you already know this but are overlooking it > instead cause you are TROLLING, thus a TROLL.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |