Re: Large Hadron Collider in cosmic catastrophe lawsuit!

On Mar 31, 3:39 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:51 pm, Mike <elea...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 28, 6:56 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The builders of the world's biggest particle collider are being sued in
federal court over fears that the experiment might create globe-gobbling
black holes or never-before-seen strains of matter that would destroy
the planet.

Representatives at Fermilab in Illinois and at Europe's CERN laboratory,
two of the defendants in the case, say there's no chance that the Large
Hadron Collider would cause such cosmic catastrophes. Nevertheless,
they're bracing to defend themselves in the courtroom as well as the
court of public opinion.
--

Everything is possible. If chaos is indeed prevelant in the world, a
slight variation in initial condition may create a series of
catastrophic failures, for example earthquake activity, etc.

Hey look, I have not been to these threads for a while neither I plan
to be back since they offer shelter to insulting species like Uncle
Al, impotent impeciles like  Erica Gissa, a stupid high school dropout
who thiks the free fall equation is an ODE:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c...

then there are the _know_in_reality_nothing Sum Warmleys, the confused
to a singularity PD, and other losers.

The important think about the LHC is the following:

(1) When cornered, scientists claim their theories are MODELS of who
the universe works, not representation of a metaphysical reality, like
the real composition of matter

(2) At the same time, they spend 4 billion of taxpayer money to try to
probve a hypothesis about a Higgs boson, Hawking has already given a
high probability it does not exist.

(3) But searching for a particle to support a mathematical model is
actually believing the model represents how the world works. Isn't
that exactly what the multi-billion euro experiemnt is doing?

(4) then, before that, why do they tell us, what is mass, inertia,
even spacetime, more importantly time, things that are in the
foundations of the model?

Oh wait, I got an answer: space is what a ruler (space) measures and
time is what a clock (timer) measures?

I tell you something people: Scholastic philosophy was stupid but
NEVER violated the rules of logic. Actually, the rules of logic were
developed by scholastic philosophers mostly.

Modern science completely violates rules of logic in such a blunt way
people wonder is for the moment of justifying their curiocity these
insane people would not stop from destroying earth.

I think the LHC experiment SHOUL BE STOPPED NOW until these idiots
tell us what is mass, spacetime, inertia, etc.

Neverthless, they won't find anything worth the billions.

Mike

Well, let me see if I can respond to what I heard through all the foam
flinging from your lips.

1. .. Thus,
while experiment and rigorous analysis persisted, intuition became
less reliable. Some people erroneously attribute this to a  loss of
logic.


This is probably one of the most stupid statements I have ever read.
Logic has given rules and when violated, logic is violated, just that.
For example, you cannot affirm your consequent, something that is so
common in scientific literature but people just ingore this formal
fallact when they review their friend';s papers.


2. Models are valuable insofar as they let us reliably predict
measurable outcomes of real observations under particular
circumstances. Without that utility, there would be no value for
models at all. But they DO have value, and those models have also
allowed us to *design* practical devices that work exactly as
designed, precisely because the models work.

I did not dispute the obvious. Maybe, once more, you missed the point.
It is when people assume a certain ontology based on models that
things become complicated.

3. A hundred and twenty years ago, the investment in electromagnetism
was enormous and also without much promise in practical terms. No one
envisioned at that time that control of the electromagnetic
interaction would represent 95% of our technology infrastructure. I'd
be curious what you think the total value of that is today.

The above has nothing to do with the alleged connection between the
standard model and a true physical reality people are searching with a
multi-billion LHC. You are violating logic yourself by using the
fallacy of false analogy.

Today we
are investing in understanding and controlling the standard model
interactions, which (aside from the electromagnetism it subsumes)
includes forces that are at least a thousand times more powerful than
the electromagnetic interaction we so thoroughly exploit today. If you
are willing to wait 4 or 5 decades to see what the benefit of the
study of these interactions is in everyday life, then in retrospect
you might be in a position to assert that it was a waste of money.

The only benefit would be the understanding of the gravitational
interaction for solving the energy problem. But as the insulting Uncle
Al has said many times, the various models involved cannot be unified
for simple reasons. Also, if there was such possibility, people would
have invented something along these lines practically, as was done in
the case of electricity and light bulbs.

I still think the experiment is indeed dangerous and even more than
the alleged Philadeplhia experiment that I do not know if ever
happened.

Someone once said that it is impossible to study the inner workings of
a fine clock by breaking it on the wall to see what is made of. This
is what the LHC does. A noce way for many contractors and universities
to make money but there will be no result.

Mike





PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.