Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Well, there was that "fireball". If anything, that indicates that RHIC was getting pretty darn close to the energy levels required to produce mBH's.
|
Twisting facts beyond any resemblance to reality to support your argument, as usual. The RHIC "fireballs" are only analogous to a black hole in that they exhibit phenomena that could be described using similar mathematics...IIRC, extending to a phenomenon analogous to Hawking radiation. The only reason to even discuss it was that despite not involving gravity, they could allow some ideas about quantum gravity to be tested. That they were not black holes, or anything close to being black holes was so widely reported that I do not believe you could have missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slang
On the other hand, the look I had into some of the science, limited as I am in my abilities, was fun. It's too bad that those who might have offered some understanding to the physics and math have mostly bowed out of this thread. Or at least it seems so to me.
|
Part of it is that Warren's arguments have simply gotten too ridiculous to take seriously...all he does is make up some numbers that suit his needs, multiply them together, and call it a Bayesian analysis. There's no content there to argue...it's no better than a crayon drawing of Geneva being consumed by a black hole. What little substance there is has already been covered quite thoroughly. There's also his habit of taking what his opponents say and deliberately misinterpreting it, making elaborate justifications for doing so and ignoring attempts at correction, or outright fabricating things...why spend time to carefully assemble a counterargument if it'll either be ignored or mangled beyond recognition?
So, no, I don't pay much attention to Warren any more. If you've got questions, I'm still open to discussion, though.