Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverfly
No. What You Do Not understand is that the factors involved to calculate a probability are gignormous. Either way, the pcatastrophe is still vanishingly small.
|
That apparently depends on one's biases, right?
Quote:
|
The last time I tried doing that, I left none of my justifications and it came out to like 118. That was before I learned that most black holes (If Made At All) will shoot into space.
|
Check out Giddings & Mangano's Figure 12. (page 83) It clearly shows that depending on the choice of parameters up to 10's of thousands mBH's could be trapped by the Earth.
Quote:
|
Plus, it's ironic, that you tried factoring in a supposed 9% of 15 physicists that disagreed with Hawking, but you did NOT factor in a number for how many physicists disagree with string.
|
No, no, no! The poll asked each physicist to assign a subjective probability that the Hawking radiation theory will prove to be false (don't forget that it's never been observed in nature). Their responses ranged from 0% to 50%; the 9% was obtained by adding all of the probabilities together, and then dividing by 15.
Quote:
|
You're pulling numbers out of a skunks rectum and trying to spray Elizabeth Taylor on them and pass them off on us.
|
No I'm just trying to get you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Quote:
|
No, Warren Platts, I am not going to play your little game. Neither you, nor I, are qualified to 'calculate' out the odds. Least of all you. Considering your extreme bias while you PRETEND to be fair.
|
I'd happily farm out the task of calculating p
catastrophe. Unfortunately, the CERN people won't do it themselves. Why do you suppose that is???
I'll tell you why. It's because the value of Mother Earth is, for our practical purposes, infinite. They know there's no way they can come up with a defensible estimate of p
catastrophe that would be less than 10
-21.
Not when practically every scientific theory that was written in the past later turned out to be false.
Not when articles are retracted from scientific journals at rates ranging from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100.
Not when the physicists themselves are bickering over little things like string theory and Hawking radiation.
In other words, the CERN people are smart enough to know that the LHC cannot pass muster when the tools of classical risk analysis are applied to the LHC.
So that's why a proper risk analysis--a.k.a. cost-benefit analysis--was never done.
That's why the CERN people limit the discussion to esoteric physics.
That's why the CERN never bothered to estimate the value of Mother Earth.
I've seen John Ellis on TV openly criticize the technique of calculating expectation (that's simply multiplying p
catastrophe by the Total Value of Mother Earth). It's no wonder he hates doing that--it would mean his precious collider would be SHUT DOWN. But what does he know? He's just a physicist. A geek in other words, with a narrow education. As
Celestial Mechanic has admitted, physicists are
not required to take any ethics classes. Hell, even lawyers are required to take at least one ethics class. Just ask
Geonuc.
So that's why the CERN people are so deathly afraid that their actual arguments might get tested in court. That's why their lawyers have used every procedural trick in the book to to ensure that the actual science is not entered into the court record where it might actually get
judged. They know that if the LHC fell into the hands of a smart judge like the Honorable Richard Posner, the LHC might just get SHUT DOWN.
That's why they were in such a hurry to get the darned thing up and running. (Too much of a hurry it turns out!
) They wanted to make it a fait accompli before some court somewhere says the LHC MUST BE SHUT DOWN!
Quote:
|
Your pcatastrophe is nonsense.
|
You can only say that if you believe the techniques of modern risk analysis are bunk. I guess you're in good company. But is an actual argument why that is the case too much to ask?