Thanks for the link. Let's hope that G & M get the last word on the quasistable black holes!

But they didn't touch at all Plaga's discussion in his section 5.

ETA: And they accuse Plaga of misquoting them. What they wrote:

“...at each point where we have encountered an uncertainty, we have replaced it by a conservative or “worst case” assumption.”
(my emphasis)

What Plaga wrote:
“...at each point where we encountered an uncertainty, we have replaced it by a conservative “worst case” assumption”.

This is a good example of an ad hominem attack, Van: point out a simple typesetter's error that changes the meaning of the sentence not a whit, and then accuse the author of misquotation, and thus attack the integrity of the author by leaving the reader with the impression that the author is intellectually dishonest. Plaga actually did them a favor by improving their style.

You already quoted from this paper yourself, but okay. From this paper:

http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf

From section 2 - The LHC compared with Cosmic-Ray Collisions

"The area of the Earth's surface is about 5x10¹⁸ square centimeters, and the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years. Therefore, over 3x10²² cosmic rays of 10¹⁷ev or more, equal or greater than the LHC energy, have struck the Earth's surface since its Formation."

This point has been made many times. The LHC energies do already occur in nature, on the Earth.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Cosmic rays hitting the earth, moon, other planets, have carried out the same experiments countless times since the earth was formed, and you know, we're still here.

So, I think, nobody's explained why there is any reason to be concerned.

Given the problems they found, I'm not sure what the point would be.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I guess the only thin left undiscussed is that the heat that will be poduced is 100,000 times greater than the heat of the sun (someone said it on page 29), not that this could create a blackhole, but what would, if any, be the "side effects?"

It's been discussed, look up a couple of posts.

Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER??

It was a repetitive statement before this thread started, but these energies aren't new to nature or even the Earth.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Ok now we are making progress, however I have already read those papers.
The argument by CERN is that no Meta-Stable Blackholes will occur, not that no black holes will occur. Also that the report was created by CERN scientists and CERN scientists alone, hardly an uninterested 3rd party. Also the CERN scientists admit in that when they encountered an uncertainty they used a "conservative", "worst case scenario" , to replace the variable. Without describing the parameters they considered as "worst case".
Sounds like they have it covered right? Ok so you play baseball in the backyard, you determine that: "worst case we hit the baseball through the neighbors window" and could pay to replace the cost from your paper route money.
Worst case occurs, you hit the baseball through the neighbors window, knocking the priceless Ming vase off it's stand.

No I get that, but I don't think that heat 100,000 times greater than the heat of the sun is produced with each of these natural interactions that happen a couple of thousands times a day.

I may have no idea what I'm talking about, so yeah, go ahead and tear it apart

If a believer of Nibiru and I are talking and I fail to make a good counter-claim- does this mean that Nibiru is real and it will endanger Earth?

No.

All it is is ignorance bucking against reality.
Whether someone makes a counter-claim or not- reality is not dependent on the words we spew at eachother here.

Not looking to rip anyone apart:
This should create a state of matter called quark-gluon plasma, which probably existed just after the Big Bang when the Universe was still extremely hot.
They do not say: creating a substance that occurs naturally everyday.

Well, among other things there's confusion between temperature and heat. For instance, one comment was "Collisions in the LHC will generate temperatures more than 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun."

Referring to temperature is a way of talking about particle energy. That is very different than talking about the heat of a system. In this case, what's being discussed is the energy of the particles, and as discussed, these energies already occur in nature, on Earth.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

So the collisions in our atmosphere reach 100,000 times greater in temperature than the sun? And reach the same temperature as in the LHC?

More quotes from the LSAG reports:
Cosmic ray energies are well known, this isn't information exclusive to CERN.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm still not a doomsayer or alarmist, I just don't like the safety report they produced. "Hey that guy used fuzzy selective math to prove his point, see here's our fuzzy selective math to prove our point!" no problem people!
"Cosmic rays release more energy then our experiment, nature does it all the time. We're going to recreate conditions that haven't existed since the universe was formed."
"Unstable planet eating blackholes can't form in our lab! We're hoping we can get particles to dissapear into an undiscovered dimension, or have exciting new particles appear in our space from these dimensions!"
The moon is made of Cream Cheese and we've got a fine selection of crackers and wine!.

Well, among other things there's confusion between temperature and heat. For instance, one comment was "Collisions in the LHC will generate temperatures more than 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun."

That wasn't a comment, that was a direct quote from CERN. Yes yes, heat is energy, high energy levels exist, but find me a place on our planet where that temperature exists! You won't because that temperature hasn't existed since our universe was created, according to CERN.

Right.

Wrong. See post immediately above yours.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Wrong read their mission statement:
Collisions in the LHC will generate temperatures more than 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun. Physicists hope that under these conditions, the protons and neutrons will 'melt', freeing the quarks from their bonds with the gluons. This should create a state of matter called quark-gluon plasma, which probably existed just after the Big Bang when the Universe was still extremely hot.
I pasted the link to that page directly from the CERN site. I repeat, they do not say this occurs every day in nature from the collision of cosmic rays with planetary or solar bodies.
I am only using their facts Van Rijn. So you just called CERN wrong not me.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/ALICE-en.html
Now stop making me repost the same material, it makes for a poor discussion

Sure, easily. Presumably they're referring to the roughly 15,000,000 K temperature at the core of the sun. Here's a page on how temperature is measured in accelerators:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/...Gillyard.shtml

Many cosmic rays are much higher energy than here or in the LHC, so . . .

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

damn, that's hot Well as long as that kind of heat doesn't cause problems, then lets fire this up asap!

Please tell me where you think I called CERN "wrong."

I read that link. Unfortunately, I did not see a source for your statement:

Could you point out where you found it at CERN?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Right. Read it a couple of times. Does it say that the mentioned plasma exclusively existed just after the Big Bang? What they mean here is that at that point in time it was the only state of matter.

Nor does that statement say it does not occur every day in nature.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

It's only logical that these Micro black holes are made all the time in nature.


You see, I think I ate one as a child.
There it has remained in my belly, greedily devouring most of my food intake, requiring me to counteract it by eating even more.

I scare people with how much I put away at a sitting- and if that wasn't scary enough- I am hungry again ten minutes later. Eating like a horse- massive amounts and constantly.

I tried Weight Gainer- back when I was in the army.
Doubled the dosage even. Made no difference. Didn't even gain one pound.


A curse upon this Micro black hole. I can't wait until it s Does migrate to the center of the planet.

If I may state the obvious, it seems Pippin has a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved. Approaching this subject as a layman, and unconciously interpreting it through a bias of fear, can lead to honest misinterpretations of what CERN has said. And thus more misunderstandings when both Pippin and the others accuse each other of twisting words.

No-one is twisting words - It's just when they re-phrase what was said, they're using different interpretations of the concepts.

You either have a sub-literate grasp of the English language or you are being disingenuous if you claim that a conservative worst case assumption is the same thing as a conservative or worst case assumption.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that if one can disprove one argument of another, then any other argument he or she makes must also be false; a logical fallacy that you tend to commit, I must say.

Can you open your mouth without hurling insults?

The 'or' in 'conservative or "worst case" assumption' merely serves as a comma between two adjectives. That is, it's not the case that G&M intended to say that they replaced some uncertainties with conservative assumptions or they replaced some uncertainties with "worst case" assumptions, or they replaced some uncertainties with both conservative assumptions and "worst case" assumptions. Right? As that would imply that maybe they didn't use worst case assumptions to replace all or even any uncertainties in their analysis! Which would imply that maybe their finding of guaranteed safety for the LHC isn't so certain after all. Although I suppose that because of the scare quotes, one could be forgiven for wondering!

Personally, I would have inserted an actual comma in order to avoid that '"worst case" assumption' be conceived as a unit, as in 'little girl', 'glass ceiling', or 'political science'--as if there were such a thing as an unconservative "worst case" assumption.

Maybe you should try a dewormer medication instead!

Since when has a cosmic ray been capable of melting 1 ton of copper within 1 second?

I agree and this is the tricky part.

How to tell someone that they are behaving irrationally or even (gasp!) ignorant- with a touch of psychological influence (Fear) Without managing to somehow offend them.

I've gone through the Safety Report referred to three times at this point and I am walking away with wholly different meanings.
And it's not really up to interpretation
Leave my fine segmented friends alone

The point we doomsayers have been making is that they are not the same experiments. mBH's in the LHC will result from two perfectly head on collisions; such LHC induced mBH's will have low velocities relative to the Earth, allowing them to be captured by Earth's gravity, unlike cosmic ray induced mBH's that would pass harmlessly through Earth. Moreover, that such black holes would not grow rapidly is not excluded by the first principles of physics, as we know them so far.

So they attempt to constrain their physics equations through the use of astrophysical data. That is, they assume that white dwarfs are dense enough to trap cosmic ray induced mBH's. However, that assumption depends in turn on the plausibility of the "semiclassical approximation"; but mBH's exist deep within the "quantum gravitational regime" that we know little about. Quantum gravitational effects may cause mBH's to violate the semiclassical equations, allowing cosmic ray induced mBH's to pass harmlessly through white dwarfs, just as the semiclassical equations allow cosmic ray induced mBH's to pass harmlessly through ordinary stars.

Therefore, there is a built-in uncertainty in whether the long-term presence of white dwarfs can actually serve as a constraint on the laws of particle physics with regard to the growth rates of mBH's.

And if there is a reasonable uncertainty--no matter how small--the knowledge we might gain--no matter how profound--is not worth the risk of destroying the Earth. Especially when there are alternatives available--like constructing colliders with only a single beam instead of two beams aimed at each other.