My qualifications by the way are admittedly none. I have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics(Applied) and have taken 8 credit hours of physics. The only props I will give myself on the physics end is that I took Physics 181/182. Those are "Introductory Physics for Physics Majors." Math and Engineering majors were only required to take Physics 161/162. I briefly considered a minor in Physics, but decided that I had my hands full enough with my Math classes and I hated writing lab reports. So no , I don't have a PhD in Astro or Nuclear Physics. Thats why I've said I trust the scientists at CERN not to "blowup" the world so to speak. I just have been unable to agree with the assertion of theirs that "nature has done the same thing as we are going to do". When it's fairly obvious that they have changed the frequency and conditions under which these collisions take place. I've had laboratory components for my physics, chemistry, botany and zoology classes. So I am able to distinguish differences between experiments performed in a laboratory and in nature.
For my part, sure I'm wrong all the time, but I love to learn. I've already learned some new things since I came to this forum. I've just asked you other posters to give me some reputable sources to review, that way if/when I am wrong I can learn from my mistakes.