Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Sorry, but that your point is so obviously wrong, it went right over my head.
|
Now that is a quotable quote if I ever heard one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Even Giddings and Mangano say that the wrong kind mBH could be potentially problematic on timescales of 105 years.
|
Get a job with the media.
You're really good at word distortion. And I wouldn't be surprised if you actually believe it too. it'll help you report with seeming sincerety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Plaga, of course, gives plausible reasons for thinking that a mBH could grow to the size of a kilogram in a fraction of a second. Yes, G&M, in their rebuttal say that Plaga's calculations were off by 23 orders of magnitude. But it turns out that Plaga wasn't using the equation they said he was. So where does that leave us?
|
That he used the wrong equation and that explains why he was off so badly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
There is a term (D - 5) in the denominator, implying that the whole equation blows up when D = 5 such that the stopping lengths of 5th dimensional mBH's (the most dangerous kind) within white dwarfs are completely unconstrained. This is such a glaring hole in G&M's argument, I thought for sure that I must be massively wrong somehow. Yet who has stepped up to the plate and showed me the error of my ways?
|
Well, for one: You wouldn't listen anyway. You would continue to repeat the same tired arguments as you have been doing.
Two: I have no idea what the D-5 thing is all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
To return to the topic of the day, and keep the thread moving in a noncircle, I'd like to return to Master Neverfly's contention that physics is not on the verge of a Kuhnian paradigm shift:
As the paper was saying: something's got to give--either in particle physics or in astrophysics. Either dark matter and dark energy will have to be brought out of the cold and somehow fitted into our theories of ordinary matter and energy--which will require a revolution in particle physics--or else dark matter and dark energy will have to be done away with altogether--which will require a rewriting of the laws of gravity. Either way, that's a huge source of uncertainty. The theoretical core of modern physics is rotting out. That does not bode well for arguments that purport to guarantee the safety of the LHC. We need to be as certain that the LHC will not destroy Mother Earth as that Warren Platts will not win the Nobel Prize in physics tomorrow. I think the latter is more certain; that's not right.
|
Such black and white thinking...
Warren Platts, have you read any of the papers out RECENTLY on the direct or near direct observation of Dark Matter?