Thousands? Or Millions?
Cuz that's a VERY big Difference!
I'm not baiting you.
I admit that I am frustrated by your strange desire to shut down a perfectly legitimate and fruitful scientific endeavor simply because your lack of understanding leads you to Terror.
So?

Is there any point to this thread anymore?

Should it even be in this forum anymore?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

G&M on page 26 provide a conservative, lower bound on accretion time of 3 x 10⁵ years. Enough time to evacuate the planet's population to Mars, thankfully!

I wouldn't call it Terror; it's more like Prudence. What's the big hurry? It's like the whole mBH issue is driving the LHC's schedule. Dr. John Ellis admitted as much in the recent CERN colloquium when he said that the best way to put an end to the safety debate was to get the LHC up and running as soon as possible. (The whole thing's on video. It's very interesting. I think you'd like it. If you watch it, tell me what the heck his T-shirt says.) I can't help but wonder if the recent mishaps were the result of being in too much of a hurry in order to make the LHC a fait accompli. If the thing is as safe as they say it, there should be no problem. (Well, actually, I confess that even if it is as safe as they say it is, that is not safe enough in my book--especially when there are practicable alternatives available, like single-beam colliders.)

Well, do you think that there might just possibly, potentially be a 1 in 1,000 chance that G&M's paper is so horribly wrong due to some oversight that we can't see now, but in hindsight will be so obvious that they will have to retract their paper from Physical Review Letters?

300,000 years eh?

So, the WORST most HORRIBLE case possible- If all our Physics which has so far been observed to be correct magically turns wrong somehow- We have 300,000 years to figure out what to do about it?
Sheesh!

We're due for a Massive GRB at least 200,000 years PRIOR to that!

Is this your representation of his words?
I'm glad you are not in charge of my safety standards in my life. I'd be confined to a straight jacket and a padded room.
Which have yet to yield the high energy results necessary.
Not really.
No more than I think Relativity will be shown to be horribly wrong.
Is it possible? Of course.
Is it 1:1000- I really do not think so.


Warren Platts, You seem to be getting more and more hyperactive in your emphatic stance as these two threads progressed. 1:1000 that ALL KNOWN quantum Mechanics are Horribly Wrong?

Get Real.

Is there a problem with free speech? I'm still interested in this topic; there's new stuff happening just about every day, and the LHC won't be a fait accompli for several month yet. If you're not interested in this topic, then don't press your mouse button. The fact is, this thread is generating a lot of page views. Fraser was complaining that his server was choking on the volume of people googling about the LHC. The page-view/post ratio for this thread has been about three times the typical page-view/post ratio. Instead of trying to shut me down through procedural tactics, why don't you attack my ideas. Plaga just came out with a rejoinder to Giddings and Mangano. Why don't you tell us what's wrong with Plaga's latest (sec. 8, p. 9), instead of trying to shut off the conversation.

but all that happens is that it goes round and round in a circle. Like an old fashioned ATM Cheese Shop! You haven't posted anything new for pages!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

In my post #1399 (2 days ago), I pointed out Plaga's rejoinder to Giddings and Mangano. That's news! And my post #1405 detailed Toby Ord's survey of retracted papers in high-impact scientific journals. What is circular is the endless debate on my word twisting ability, rather than on the primary scientific (and philosophical) issues that are the subject of this thread.

It's not my fault that people would rather make mountains out of mole hills and discuss whether I'm a word twister rather than discussing the new, substantive information that I have brought to light. Shutting down the thread is not the answer. Let it die a natural death from lack of interest.

If this thread bores you, then don't click on it. If this thread scares you, whether your fear is of the end of the world or of the end of science itself, then this thread is doing it's job: making people think for themselves.

I actually supported the "stop active SETI" post - because it actually had a snowball's chance in hell of harming Earth, however small.

I can't get behind this "Shut down the LHC" cry because the science shows it simply won't be a problem.

__________________

How ironic, considering that one of the standard explanations for the Fermi paradox is that alien civilizations always blow themselves up because of their technological hubris.

If we were getting hammered by GRB's every 100,000 years, the hominid lineage would have gone extinct a long time ago, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's a paraphrase, but that's what he basically said (I think he used the word "arguments" instead of "debate"). It's toward the end of the lecture.

Fortunately, you're not a threat to the planet.

Necessary for what? Warp drive or the next Nobel Prize?

I never said ALL KNOWN quantum mechanics or relativity would have to be wrong in order for Giddings and Mangano's arguments to be wrong. (And Einstein must be wrong about GR in order for Hawking radiation to work--a hypothetical phenomenon that has yet to be observed, BTW). What will happen, assuming we don't get swallowed up immediately, is what usually happens: the edges of the theory get tidied up, some things get swept under the rug, and then new forms of Dark Stuff are slathered over everthing in order to preserve the surface.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Actually not it's not showing Einstein wrong, since it's happening at the scale where GR is already known not to work.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Does that hold for giant black holes as well as mBH's?

Some dodgy maths.

300,000 - 200,000 = 100,000, yes.

But that is not the implication of what Neverfly wrote.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

No, it isn't. The basis of what I wrote is that a Nearby Supernova (actually several of them) are possible, maybe even likely, to become a threat within (between this very moment and ---) 100,000 years.
Within 200,000 years, it's likely.



Given your history, perhaps it's best if you just quote him directly from now on.
We are intelligent beings, allow us to hear his words without your interpretation of them.

Is that a zero chance or a non zero chance?

Do you always think in terms of some fantastic device or prize?

Did Watson and Crick's work on DNA lead to a Genetic Altering Machine?
The progress of science does not turn about that quickly. The reach for greater understanding DOES yield the amazing machines and the huge results, but it doesn't do it as fast as we would like.
But the Warp Drive etc must have foundations in the understanding we build today.
Newton never built a space probe.
Pretty much, it would all fall under heavy scrutiny.

GRB's have not caused a mass extinction since at least. . . . when???

That's not the point.

Your 3 x 10⁵ years starts from now (or at least, in a few months, when the collider hypothetically makes the black hole).

Neverfly's claim that we'd expect a GRB within 200,000 years does not imply that the previous one happened today - or when it occured at all.

Your reply to Neverfly implied that you think he implied GRB's occur every 100,000 years.

That's wrong, as the time between GRB's is not at all supplied or implied by Neverfly's statement.

I was not arguing about GRB's; I was pointing out that you were wrong to simply subtract 200,000 from 300,000, and then make the claim that Neverfly implied that GRB's occur every 100,000 years.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Warren Platts, this is exactly the kind of distortion and misrepresentation you do regularly.

Master! May I, sir, respectfully request a reference in that regard?

I've given the link at least twice already: you have my permission to listen to his words. . . .
Nonzero. Just ask Fazor!

Actually yes. . . .

Actually yes. . . .
I actually agree with you. So what's the hurry? If we don't light off the LHC in March, that will not entail that we will never figure out the warp drive. Did we become extinct because we didn't build a space probe in the 17th century? Apparently not. Patience and Prudence are better virtues than Impetuousness and Impulsiveness.

I understand the impatience of the CERN scientists. I've seen the same attitude among all sorts of developers who think their various projects will not harm the environment. Their careers are on the line. Someone may not win a million dollar Nobel Prize if the LHC is never lit off.

My response: join the club. . . .

There are no sacred cows.

God forbid!

Thank you.
It was a Fraser link in a UT article- there are about three of them but I've had to confess to myself that I really SUCK at searching for links.

Which makes your interpretations irrelevant.

Then I am a threat to planet Earth and must be stopped. Perhaps Wagner can sue me for existing.

Actually, No.

Actually, no.
The advances in understanding genetics did lead to analsys machines and devices, but it has not led to a Genetic Machine that can build DNA, Restructure DNA or otherwise alter the Human Genome, thus curing all genetic diseases, eliminating faults or genetic weaknesses, enhancing human life or slowing aging.

However, with the knowledge that cost so much and that scientists work so hard to expand on, we are hopeful to achieve all of these things. In fact, given our strange breeding practices, it may become necessary.

This is the point: We build and build and build- Our future dreams ride on what's being built NOW. Without us making the investments and taking the risks and funding and researching and learning, NONE of our future ideas or dreams or goals or hopes can ever be possible to achieve (Unless aliens handed it to us on a silver platter.)
YOU'RE the one who wants some kind of hurry- I just typed out a long paragraph above explaining how todays work can take a century or more to show the LARGE effects you seem to be fantastically dreaming about as immediately available.
If we don't do the science NOW, we never can learn enough to advance beyond what we currently know.

There is No Reason to Not proceed with the LHC.

Oh whatever, you're trying to claim they are going to Destroy the Planet. I can see how it might be possible that a few scientists MIGHT try to forgo some environmental harm if they get carried away and are unregulated.

But thousands of them that are being closely watched?

This would require an Illuminati Conspiracy Theory to support that kind of claim.


What?

Sir, you're welcome Master sir!

GRB's have been proposed as possible causes of mass extinctions. The only problem is that the evidence for GRB's is mainly lack of evidence for other causes. The big K-T extinction that killed off the dinosaurs was the most recent "existential" event that's happened recently (only 65 mya), and that was most probably impact related. Lucky for us we live in Boondock!

Besides, there's nothing we can do to avoid a GRB. The LHC is eminently avoidable, however.

Check him out yourself. He kind of reminds me of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings.


I am reasonably certain that you do not in fact pose a threat to the planet.

And I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the LHC will not destroy the planet. After looking at the primary literature myself--the PR put out by CERN is well spun--I must admit that I would risk hanging an innocent man on much less evidence.

But I am not reasonably certain that the LHC will absolutely not destroy Earth.

Even a p_catastrophe in the 10^-20's is arguably too high. Er, or it wouldn't be if we could in fact be sure that p_catastrophe actually was, in a statistical sense, only 10^-20. That wouldn't be a problem. The problem is the 1,000 in one chance that the paper's going to get rejected by Mother Nature.

And there are practicable alternatives: like spending the $dough$ to build a 14 TeV single beam collider, or waiting a hundred years and building it on Eros.

And if one chooses to go ahead anyway, one always has the option of proceeding cautiously, or plunging in cannonball-style.

OH WHATEVER!

So what are you doing?! Stirring up Hype and sensationalism and basking in the glorious attention or something?

Warren noted:

In 2007 over 92% of papers were rejected by Nature. So your rejection rate estimate is off by almost a factor of 1,000.

http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/


Now, if you're talking about retraction chances, that's different. Also a way to once again reduce those high negative probability exponentials by looking at the rate of retracted papers in a general science journal. This shifts the discussion completely away from black holes and colliders to discussions of, say, deliberate fraud vs. nonreproducible results in scientific publication. I can't recall an instance of retraction in the area under discussion that made the larger press; most of that seems to be in the biological sciences.

But it appears we are now faced with the conclusion that all papers are suspect because some are retracted. I leave it to the student as an exercise to see where this leads.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Hi Mike,

My "rejection by Nature" was intended as a playful double entendre: a paper might get rejected by the journal Nature, but it can also get rejected by Mother Nature--as in revealing a false picture of reality regardless of the paper's fate in print journals. Alas, the deliberate ambiguity was a little too ambiguous. So I have redacted my post regarding rejection to make it less ambiguous.

By the way, Rainer Plaga has a new paper in Nature. With a rejection rate of 92%, Plaga must not be a crackpot!
It's not all in the biological sciences. A keyword search for "retraction notice" in ScienceDirect revealed a disturbingly high rate of retraction in the Journal of Hazardous Materials! And even physicists are not immune from retractions: after a little googling, I found:

Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids

Annals of Physics


Here's an interesting article on the "discovery" of element 118.

Oooh! Here's a bad one on the Current Status of Exotic Hadrons: MODERN TRENDS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH

Japanese Journal of Applied Physics

But you get the picture. . . .

It leads to a healthy skepticism along with the realization that science is provisional.

Folks who are worried about mBH´s would be thrilled to know a new danger is added to the list. Search for Bosenova on Google.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Isn't that a Clock Radio with Superior sound quality?

The guy pushing this as a danger also claims the liquid helium could produce a thermonuclear explosion, and that the magnetic fields themselves pose some kind of risk. His claims are more absurd than most.

Would that be Alan Gillis at Science of Conundrums?

New paper that says there is no danger of bosenovas:

There is no explosion risk associated with superfluid Helium in the LHC cooling system

Cool! We'll all be singing "Blame it on the Bosenova"...


[/rimshot]

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Here's some Bossa Nova music for you to dance to. It's the 50th anniversary. Enjoy it while you still can. . . .

http://www.davidbyrne.com/radio/index.php