Thanks to CW, Refugees is pretty high in Google for things like DH 86 Express and Bristol Brabazon, although he is also the reason we are hit #5 for "pirates with skin lesions". :D
I, on the other hand, am proud to note that we are #1 in Google for "Rainer Plaga idiot" and #6 (ahead of Janiece) for "Walter Wagner retard".
Yes Nathan, we are doing our part to de-crazy the internet. :p
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
Name calling can be fun but it also says something about the name caller.
Former nuclear safety officer (and cosmic ray researcher at UC Berkeley) Walter L. Wagner is one of the most intelligent scientists I know. He was also the only educator in California to obtain a perfect score on a standardized California math test.
Far from your derogatory name calling, he is the scientist who discovered fundamental flaws with CERN's cosmic ray safety arguments that prompted CERN's latest safety report. (Cosmic ray researcher discovers flaws with cosmic ray arugments).
Now astrophysicists Dr. Habil. Rainer Plaga (Habil is short for Habilation, the highest achedemic degree available in Germany) disputes CERN's stable astronomical body arguments (astrophysicists finds flaws with astrophysics arguments made by particle physicists).
I realize that billions were spent on the Large Hadron Collider, but name calling and recklessness is not reasonable or civilized, it is foolish and child like.
A reasonable and sound res ponce would be to acknowledge that credible scientists (also including Dr. Otto Rössler, one of the world's great contributors to science on on Wikipedia, Amazon books, etc.) are concerned and conduct reasonable refutation and follow reasonable safety mitigation procedures including slowing down.
Name calling and recklessness does not help your credibility nor CERN's credibility.
The sad fact is that more is unknown than known. This experiment should proceed with extreme caution, instead it is proceeding with extreme arrogance.
LHCFacts.org
John, in fairness, I'm the #1 hit for "Walter Wagner 'tard."
::beams with pride::
I'll let you respond to ole James, here, since these are your digs.
I would like to point out the laughability of someone using the term "credibility" in discussing "Walter Wagner" and "physics."
Hee!
Man's technology has exceeded his grasp. - 'The World is not Enough'
September 24, 2008 - 'LHC on hold until spring of 2009' - PhysicsWorld.com: "The magnet failure last week at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) means that the accelerator will not be up and running again until early spring of 2009, say officials at CERN. To keep the project on schedule, the team running the accelerator near Geneva have decided to skip a planned test run at an intermediate energy and re-start the LHC in 2009 at the full beam energy of 7 TeV.") And begin creating Black Holes.
Zealous, jealous, Nobel Prize hungry Physicists are racing each other and stopping at nothing to try to find the supposed 'Higgs Boson'(aka God) Particle, among others, and are risking nothing less than the annihilation of the Earth and all Life in endless experiments hoping to prove a theory when urgent tangible problems face the planet. The European Organization for Nuclear Research(CERN) new Large Hadron Collider(LHC) is the world's most powerful atom smasher that will soon be firing groups of billions of heavy subatomic particles at each other at nearly the speed of light to create Miniature Big Bangs producing Micro Black Holes, Strangelets, AntiMatter and other potentially cataclysmic phenomena.
Particle physicists have run out of ideas and are at a dead end forcing them to take reckless chances with more and more powerful and costly machines to create new and never-seen-before, unstable and unknown matter while Astrophysicists, on the other hand, are advancing science and knowledge on a daily basis making new discoveries in these same areas by observing the universe, not experimenting with it and with your life.
The LHC is a dangerous gamble as CERN physicist Alvaro De Rújula in the BBC LHC documentary, 'The Six Billion Dollar Experiment', incredibly admits quote, "Will we find the Higgs particle at the LHC? That, of course, is the question. And the answer is, science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." And CERN spokesmodel Brian Cox follows with this stunning quote, "the LHC is certainly, by far, the biggest jump into the unknown."
The CERN-LHC website Mainpage itself states: "There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions,..." Again, this is because they truly don't know what's going to happen. They are experimenting with forces they don't understand to obtain results they can't comprehend. If you think like most people do that 'They must know what they're doing' you could not be more wrong. Some people think similarly about medical Dr.s but consider this by way of comparison and example from JAMA: "A recent Institute of Medicine report quoted rates estimating that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year in US hospitals." The second part of the CERN quote reads "...but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator,..." A molecularly changed or Black Hole consumed Lifeless World? The end of the quote reads "...as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe." These experiments to date have so far produced infinitely more questions than answers but there isn't a particle physicist alive who wouldn't gladly trade his life to glimpse the "God particle", and sacrifice the rest of us with him. Reason and common sense will tell you that the risks far outweigh any potential(as CERN physicists themselves say) benefits.
This quote from National Geographic, "The hunt for the God particle", exactly sums this "science" up: "If all goes right, matter will be transformed by the violent collisions into wads of energy, which will in turn condense back into various intriguing types of particles, some of them never seen before. That's the essence of experimental particle physics: "You smash stuff together and see what other stuff comes out." Read about the "other stuff" below:
http://www.SaneScience.org
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon6.htm
http://www.LHCFacts.org/
http://www.LHCDefense.org/
http://www.LHCConcerns.com/
Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"
"Anonymous" raises a good point: "The World Is Not Enough" really is a great James Bond theme song, one of my all time favorites. Then again, I was actually lucky enough to see Garbage play it live on one of their last tours, just before the movie hit general release. Shirley Manson is hawt.
Oh... wait... "Anonymous" was saying something stupid. I should have paid more attention after the title. Sorry. Never mind.
jtankers, you have been spewing shit all over the internet (and it's sadly obvious you Google yourself), and I've not said anything because it was not on my playground. I'm usually not abusive to commenter, but just for you, I'll make a BIG exception.
Name calling can be fun but it also says something about the name caller.
Yes, it tells you that I’m pissed as hell at you and your ilk spewing anti-scientific nonsense all over the Goddamn Internet. Note that in my post “Mixed Nuts”, I waited until the very end, after a long and detailed analysis, to lose my shit. But it’s been lost, and now I’m going to lose it on you.
Former nuclear safety officer (and cosmic ray researcher at UC Berkeley) Walter L. Wagner is one of the most intelligent scientists I know. He was also the only educator in California to obtain a perfect score on a standardized California math test.
I’m not a newbie at this particular LHC is the End of the World game anymore, although I wish I was. Wagner has claimed this honor as a high school student. Last time I checked, a HS senior was not an “educator”. And duuuuude. If you need to list HS honors to bolster your man’s credibility, then his credentials have long ago shit the bed, and you know it. And I know it. And I blogged about it.
I looked up his credentials as listed in the lawsuit. The man has a JD and calls himself “doctor”. That’s unethical and misleading. His highest “degree” in physics is an undergraduate minor. He was a fucking lab tech at Berkeley, not a “physicist” He’s a retard, and if you keep defending him, I’m going to start calling you a retard. And obviously you don’t know any scientists, if he’s the most intelligent one you know.
There is no such thing as a “Nuclear Safety Officer” at the VA. Wagner held a Geiger counter over the X-ray machines to make sure the shielding was working, and then spent most of his time writing out reports. That is not the job of a “nuclear physicist”. It’s another fucking lab tech job. Wagner IS NOT A FUCKING SCIENTIST. He’s a lawyer. And evidently, judging by the fact that his lawsuit just got dismissed, he’s not a very good one.
I hold a Ph.D. in Chemistry from one of the best institutions in the country and my advisor is the top researcher in the world in his field. I hold 9 patents in the field of polymer chemistry and physics. I published my thesis research in what’s arguably the most prestigious refereed journal in the world: Nature. Big fucking deal. Doesn’t make me qualified to opine on nuclear physics.
Far from your derogatory name calling, he is the scientist who discovered fundamental flaws with CERN's cosmic ray safety arguments that prompted CERN's latest safety report. (Cosmic ray researcher discovers flaws with cosmic ray arugments).
You keep using the word “scientist”. I fucking know it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Most of us might be generous and call someone with a B.Sc. a “scientist”, but let’s be honest – a B.Sc. qualifies you for little more than lab tech status, even from the best institutions. Get an M.Sc., and then we’ll talk about calling you a “scientist”. Walter Wagner’s highest science degree is in biology.
I actually took the time to hunt down some of the people who worked with the retard at Berkeley. He was not a “Cosmic Ray Researcher”, whatever the hell that is. He was a lab tech, a “scanner”. A scanner looks in the microscope at the tracks made in a plastic block by cosmic rays. The real scientists tell the scanner to look for tracks of specific properties, and the scanner peers into that microscope until he or she finds one. Then the track is marked, and the real scientists do the mathematical modeling to determine just what the possible sources of that track might be. I could train a HS student to be a scanner. Wagner had nothing to do with the calculations or theorizing about that particle – as evidenced by the fact he wasn’t a fucking co-author on the paper.
Now astrophysicists Dr. Habil. Rainer Plaga (Habil is short for Habilation, the highest achedemic degree available in Germany) disputes CERN's stable astronomical body arguments (astrophysicists finds flaws with astrophysics arguments made by particle physicists).
Don’t condescend to me about academic titles. Remember, I hold one, and I ain’t impressed. Mostly, I’m not impressed by European Ph.D.s – they get them in about 3 years, and they don’t do much of their own experimental work or writing. The German system is very patriarchal and babies its lower echelons. A Dr. Habil. might arguably be equal to a mediocre US Ph.D. plus a post-doc, but in reality most Habilitats are about on the level of a newbie US Ph.D. from a good institution – yes, I’m that arrogant, but see my patents and publication record above – I’ve got the chops to back that up. The Germans themselves see the Habilitat as useless paperwork, and a lot of them want to get rid of it: see here. Habilitat is certainly not an indication of seniority. And Plaga, to the degree that he was in physics at all (he’s been booted out of Max Plank and is now a low level bureaucrat) was a telescope guy, not a particle guy, and no more qualified to opine on the LHC than I am, without some serious study. Which his detractors have proved that he has not put in, given his relatively (for a Ph.D.) elementary math mistakes.
I realize that billions were spent on the Large Hadron Collider, but name calling and recklessness is not reasonable or civilized, it is foolish and child like.
You are not fucking civilized. If Wagner was really concerned about civilization, he’d file his suit in the EU. He’s grandstanding and wasting my money. He’s a luddite and a barbarian, or at the very least a deranged attention whore.
A reasonable and sound res ponce would be to acknowledge that credible scientists (also including Dr. Otto Rössler, one of the world's great contributors to science on on Wikipedia, Amazon books, etc.) are concerned and conduct reasonable refutation and follow reasonable safety mitigation procedures including slowing down.
Oh Jesus Christ jumped up on a shit-covered pogo stick. I am a fucking credible scientist. No reasonable refutation has been offered. On a non-ad hominem level, Rössler made a fundamental math error. He got smacked down for it. Like Plaga, he’s not in his field and he’s embarrassing himself. On an ad hominem level, he’s a crank. If you look at his publication record, he’s all over the place. In today’s world, it’s possible to be an expert in 2 or 3 fields, no more. He’s been visiting professor of this and that all over the world at 2nd tier institutions. His publication record is staggering in its lack of depth. He got lucky once in the mid-70s in coming up with a system of three equations that described an chaotic attractor. Other people did the real analysis later. Other than that, he’s sat on the edges of science his whole career. He publishes in 4th or 5th tier journals whose referees are two senile emeritus professors and a trained monkey.
But trotting out Amazon, you just revealed how scientifically ignorant you are. Science communication is not done in books. In active fields, the information in a book is obsolete before it hits the presses. Science is communicated in jounral articles. Which is why I cite Wagner’s and Rössler’s publication records (or lack thereof) as evidence of their idiocy.
By trotting out Wikipedia, you’ve just revealed how ignorant you are without any reference to science. Anyone, even a 10 year old who just read his first astronomy book, can become a Wiki editor. To get your edits to not be revised is another matter entirely, but I signed up for a Wiki account right after I first learned of this mess. No questions were asked about my credentials, in fact they don’t even know my real name. I’m redneckphd over there, go check me out. Dipshit.
Name calling and recklessness does not help your credibility nor CERN's credibility. The sad fact is that more is unknown than known. This experiment should proceed with extreme caution, instead it is proceeding with extreme arrogance.
Holy cow we’ve finally come to the end of this shit sandwich you just served on my blog. My credibility does not need help. See above. Wagner’s, Plaga’s and Rössler’s need more reinforcing than could be provided by the First Marine Division. Of fucking course more is unknown than is known. That’s the whole fucking point of building the LHC, you fuckstick.
What pisses me off is that an honest scientist can never say “never”. And you and your fellow retards exploit that philosophical honesty, twist it and distort it. Science can not prove things. It can not “prove” safety. Science proposes hypotheses, and then tries to disprove them. Sometimes it succeeds, and new hypotheses are sought. But the real question is: “what is the degree of risk?”. And every single physicist (and don’t trot out Rössler’s visiting professorship as evidence he’s a “physicist”) has said that the likelihood of this being a danger is on the order of the likelihood of the moon exploding tomorrow. As a scientist, I can’t say with 100% certainty that won’t happen tonight, but you know, I’m not building a bomb shelter, either. You, on the other hand, are Henny Penny.
My goodness.
I think I need POPCORN. And a BEER.
Do you think ole James is in cahoots with "Voice?"
They both seem to have the same grasp on reality.
::looks at James suspiciously::
P.S. Also, can anyone explain how someone can be an "independent physics researcher?" That's actually not snark, I just don't get how someone can do real and serious research in physics today without some affiliation with an established institution.
Wow, this debate could be fun. Is the battle 'to the pain'?
John, have you been getting coaching on the side from Jim? Because you're sounding suspiciously Navy here. ;)
This is not a field I can play on - I'm a science fangirl, not a scientist - but IMHO, well played.
orig. posted by John the scientist: ''A scanner looks in the microscope at the tracks made in a plastic block by cosmic rays. The real scientists tell the scanner to look for tracks of specific properties, and the scanner peers into that microscope until he or she finds one. Then the track is marked, and the real scientists do the mathematical modeling to determine just what the possible sources of that track might be.''
wow, is that the method used to decide charge and energy of cosmic rays ? I think you forgot to mention that the piece of plactic is washed with sodium hydroxide before the fissure can be examined. I'd say that method is just as reliable as using your fingers to measure temperature. Sry, but if that is what CERN ''scientists'' rely on I'd rather recommend any reasonable technician working at the LHC to pull the plug out of the socket. Man, seems like science has become crap these days ...
another word in regard to Hawking radiation. Hawking's theory predicts exploding black holes (those which mass is less than 1000 tons). Question: how can BH exist that are HEAVIER than a thougsand tons ??? Wouldn't they have exploded in the first place ? Hawking radiation has never ever been observed. If it would exist I guess there won't be any dark matter in our galaxies at all.
ps.: i am not a scientist but I am glad to have an open-mind to understand such discrepancies.
"LHC Is Crap":
Eric will use short sentences.
Eric will use short sentences because they are easier to read.
Eric will also avoid pronouns.
(Pronouns are hard.)
John wrote about cosmic-ray scanners.
John wrote about cosmic-ray scanners because Walter was a cosmic ray scanner.
A cosmic ray scanner looks at a plastic block.
See the scanner look. Look, scanner, look!
The cosmic-ray scanner says, "Look, I see a path!"
A scientist looks.
A scientist says, "I see the path, too."
The scientist does math.
(Math is hard.)
The scientist uses math to decide how the path was made.
That is how the scientist decides what made the path.
(Eric would like to use a metaphor to explain, but metaphors are hard.)
Walter does not do math like the scientist.
Walter is a lawyer.
Lawyers do not do much math.
(Eric is a lawyer. That is why Eric knows how much math a lawyer uses at work.)
Walter had a job.
Walter had a job looking at tracks.
Walter had a job looking at tracks and saying, "Look, a track!"
Find the track Walter! Find!
Walter said that finding tracks made him smart.
Walter said finding tracks made him a "cosmic ray researcher."
What Walter said is not true.
Finding tracks does not make you a scientist.
It does not make you a researcher.
A sentence that is not true is a lie.
A person who says something that is not true is a liar.
See Walter lie. Lie, Walter, lie!
That is why John wrote about finding tracks.
John wrote about finding tracks to show Walter is a liar.
John, I don't need the University to end its strike. I am getting a much better education on the internets. Heck, Wagner is proof that I really don't need to even have the education..I just have to claim I do. I am thinking that i would like to be a doctor...POOF...you may now address me as Kimby MD.
And for the record, WIKI? Even my 7 year old knows that nothing on there can be used as actual "proof" of anything.
Eric, you owe me a monitor. I should know not to drink coffee while reading anything you have written!
Get out of the way, Kimby, MD, I'm about to propose marriage to Eric.
Eric, you don't need to excuse yourself or John the scientist, I knew that the method to measure cosmic rays was crap ;-)
damn, Wiki uh ? Where was the leak ...
What does the validity of the methodology have to do with the fact that Walter Wagner is a liar? Or do you agree with that main point, but are trying to take us off on a tangent? ;)
We have moved up to #3 for 'Pirates with Skin Lesions'. Yay!
Also John I think you have provided us with the blog equivalent of Bill O'Reilly V. Barney Frank.
Just wait, CW, I've got one for the second retard commenter, too. Eric pretty much demolished the third one, even I don't have the heart to beat that horse.
quote ''Just wait, CW, I've got one for the second retard commenter, too. Eric pretty much demolished the third one, even I don't have the heart to beat that horse.''
yeah, bring it on Mr. Scientist :-)
It's looking like even with short, easy to read sentences, "LHCic" still managed to miss the point.
Or is a masochist.
::covers face with hand and shakes his head::
Well, I tried.
lol Eric, nope. I didn't miss 'your' point. But it wasn't mine. No, I'm no masochist. But perhaps you are an egocentric person ? No offense :-)
Somebody who blogs and post comments on blogs an egocentric person? Why, I never! The possibility is unfathomable! Ludicrous! Beyond all credible and reasonable thought!
Yeah, egocentric. Would that be the part where the guy who is "not a scientist but ... glad to have an open-mind to understand such discrepancies" is busy trying to tell a real scientist how science actually works?
Or is that just stupidity?
Jesus, John, you've sure managed to pull in the trolls today.
ok, Jim - I won't stand in the way to let Mr. Scientist explain the world to me. Only a scientist is privileged to comprehend the universe. The average mind is just so stupid. So where is Hawking's radiation ? Why do black holes weighing less than 1000 tons explode and where can we observe that - there must be some kind of tangible proof. How exactly does a ''scientist'' calculate the charge and energy of a cosmic ray from a fissure of a piece of plastic and what went wrong at the LHC. Where is the benefit to mankind ? I just can't see it. Tell me plz
LHC is Down, if you have some credibility in terms of discussing particle physics that the rest of us are not aware of, now is the time.
Because John's criticisms of Wagner were those relating to his credibility.
And right now, you don't have much, either.
wow, is that the method used to decide charge and energy of cosmic rays ? I think you forgot to mention that the piece of plactic is washed with sodium hydroxide before the fissure can be examined. I'd say that method is just as reliable as using your fingers to measure temperature. Sry, but if that is what CERN ''scientists'' rely on I'd rather recommend any reasonable technician working at the LHC to pull the plug out of the socket. Man, seems like science has become crap these days ...
With all due respect (none) what the fuck are you talking about? Surface chemistry is a highly active and specialized discipline, but even undergrads know that physical defects cause localized chemical changes on the surface of a bulk material. This means that caustics, such as acids or bases attack those points that have been damaged or abraded more quickly than an undamaged surface. The very bright guys at Berkeley who sent those Lucite blocks up on those balloons knew that their scanner would go blind looking for the faint tracks of cosmic rays in their native state, but a little bit of exposure to a caustic would etch the tracks - but not the undamaged plastic - like a photographer developing black and white film. Actually, a more direct analogy would be like a forensic scientist recovering the filed down serial number of a handgun via acid etching.
Yeah, that well known bit of surface phenomenology is so questionable it’s used as evidence in court. Were you born this stupid, or did you work at it?
another word in regard to Hawking radiation. Hawking's theory predicts exploding black holes (those which mass is less than 1000 tons). Question: how can BH exist that are HEAVIER than a thougsand tons ??? Wouldn't they have exploded in the first place ? Hawking radiation has never ever been observed. If it would exist I guess there won't be any dark matter in our galaxies at all.
Exploding black holes of mass less than 1000 tons? First of all, where did you get that figure as the cutoff point? You lost a few zeroes somewhere, as the prediction of for the evaporation of a black hole would be observable in the lifetime of the Universe is for holes smaller than 10^11 kg, which is 100 million metric tons. If you want to toss out figures at random, do it somewhere else, when you argue with scientists, get your facts straight or you’ll be laughed out of the room. Since you all love Wiki as a source so much, and since this time it happens to be right, I’ll point you here:
For a black hole of one solar mass (1.98892 × 1030 kg), we get an evaporation time of 2.098 × 1067 years—much longer than the current age of the universe at 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years.
But for a black hole of 10^11 kg, the evaporation time is 2.667 billion years. This is why some astronomers are searching for signs of exploding primordial black holes.
Please note that the evaporating black hole of 100 million ton mass would exist for 2 and two thirds {Carl Sagan} billion {/ Carl Sagan} years. That’s an awful long time for something to exist. Plenty long for a puny human to observe. What was your question again? Why can we observe things that eventually decay into nothingness, but that do have a finite observable lifetime? I’m observing you (unfortunately), aren’t I?
Oh, you were asking about holes heavier than 100 million tons (or would have asked that question if you weren't significant figure challenged ...er... differently abled) - the answer to that one is easy - they will eventually evaporate, but their lifetime is longer than the current time of existence of the Universe.
It's not just scientists who can understand the universe - talented laymen can put in the effort to become knowledgeable. Unfortunately, the distance from where you are to "knowledgeable" status is measured in light years.
you guys are so funny, you are like the muppet show. Using insults as arguments. And btw John, you really need your servants (Janiece Murphy, Jim Wright, Eric and CW) until the distinguished honorable gentleman starts his ingenious speech ? Or why is it that it took you so long for an answer or rather what appears to be such?
You asked where I got the figure from ? You cited that Wiki link already. That's where I got it from (just the german version).
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking-Strahlung
Quote: ''Dadurch steigt die Strahlung weiter an, sodass so ein kleines Schwarzes Loch in relativ kurzer Zeit völlig zerstrahlt. Sinkt die Masse unter 1000 Tonnen, so explodiert das Schwarze Loch mit der Energie einer Millionen-Megatonnen-Atombombe.''
Translation: By that the radiation increases so that a small black hole decays within a relatively short period of time. If the mass decreases to 1000 tons it will explode with an energy equal to a one million mega-ton atomic bomb.
So if black holes with that mass do explode how can it be that there are bhs that are greater than that ? Have they just appeared on the scene from one moment to the other ?
quote John the Scientist: ''Surface chemistry is a highly active and specialized discipline, but even undergrads know that physical defects cause localized chemical changes on the surface of a bulk material. This means that caustics, such as acids or bases attack those points that have been damaged or abraded more quickly than an undamaged surface. The very bright guys at Berkeley who sent those Lucite blocks up on those balloons knew that their scanner would go blind looking for the faint tracks of cosmic rays in their native state, but a little bit of exposure to a caustic would etch the tracks - but not the undamaged plastic - like a photographer developing black and white film.''
I asked for calculations not for a pathetic palliation of so-called scientific methods. Just name one example of a calculation for a high energetic particle, e.g. one with an energy of the scale 10^20 eV. The connection to a track left in a plastic block though must be clear. There must be some documents about it if that procedure is applied. So, name ONE. If it is convincing I won't argue about that issue anymore.
And btw John, you really need your servants (Janiece Murphy, Jim Wright, Eric and CW) until the distinguished honorable gentleman starts his ingenious speech ?
Now that's funny. First because the idea that any of the UCF can be described as "servants" cracks me up. And second because the troll does not appear to have the ability to put a complete sentence together. But he expects us to take his ability to understand the issues involved on faith, even though he also (apparently) lacks a thorough understanding of the scientific method.
Which relates directly to credibility, troll. Issues of credibility are not ad hominem attacks, although I can see why you'd like to make it seem so.
::snort::
''the troll does not appear to have the ability to put a complete sentence together''
but I see you got the point though LOL. That speaks for ya sweetie :-)
quote: ''"Sweetie?" Really? How very original.''
you call me troll, I call you sweetie ;-)
''Fuck off, you misogynistic asshat.''
yep, if I look back at the messages (i.e. all messages, also those before my 1st appearance) I conclude that this is the general niveau of this blog. Using raunchy words and gangster rap language rather than arguments. And as soon as you don't have the answer you prefer to throw people out of your artificial heaven rather than admitting your incapacity. But the point is, you can't throw me out unless you delete my comments ;-)
As for anonymity, I am not responsible for the fact that you chose to be non-anonymous. And btw, i don't care who someone is (or who (s)he pretents to be). I look at statements not on the guy who posts them.
LHC, I guess I wasn't clear enough. Perhaps I should use small words, like Eric.
You are not a worthy adversary. I will no longer engage with you on any level. If you need an explanation for my decision, please feel free to look at your comments above. Any of them will do.
Come back when you can read, write, and argue like an adult, i.e., expressing your views comprehensively and coherently, without having to resort to emoticons and hyperbole.
That means you have to read and understand the meaning of the words, and not just pick out the "naughty" ones and say, "Oooh! You have a potty-mouth! I'm telling!"
::snort::
John, I'm bowing out now, as I have other obligations today, and this guy simply isn't worth my time or even interesting. Have a nice time with him in my absence (if you so choose).
''You are not a worthy adversary. I will no longer engage with you on any level.''
just as I said. Evading questions.
Strange this is the only blog where this happens. I thought that John would have been able to offer something (to be honest, I wouldn't expect answers from you JM, anyway) but that seems not to be the case.
Speaking of evading questions:
What are your credentials and scientific background, LHC? John has stated his.
Given "LHC is blank"'s reliance on the German edition of Wikipedia, I think it's likely English is not his mother tongue. So I won't berrate him (or her) for his constant palining--he might actually have an excuse for the unusual grammar and odd word usage.
That said, I have to rely for my information on English-language sources, and they don't say what the German edition of Wikipedia does. I am inclined to think that there is a translation error somewhere along the way that explains the missing zeros that have vanished in the de.wikipedia.org version.
It may be the language barrier that is keeping Herr LHC from comprehending some of the responses here. That doesn't fly very far as an excuse: I personally would not repeatedly go to a blog written in a language that was secondary to me and act as arrogantly. Then again, I don't understand the motives of trolls in the first place.
LHC is blank, you've had your answers even if you choose to ignore them. You've been asked at least one question that you haven't answered. You've made it abundantly clear that your modus operandi is to acknowledge your lack of education in the form of calling it a virtue (the "I know nothing, therefore I am 'open minded'" tactic), to ask questions that you don't actually care about the answers to, to ignore answers that disagree with you, to mistake the asking of rhetorical questions for advocacy, and (when all else fails) to repeat what you've already said. These are the tactics of conspiranoiacs and fools: the methods you use are found in books about the JFK assassination and on websites claiming moon landings are a hoax.
Unfortunately, LHC is blank, unlike assassination buffs and Apollo-deniers, you're neither interesting nor amusing. At least a book claiming JFK was shot with a piece of ice has a kind of fun SF/episode-of-The Prisoner vibe (if nothing else), and an idiot filmmaker who gets his lights knocked out by an elderly astronaut is worth a good laugh. You lack even these meager virtues, I'm afraid.
I'm sure, LHC is blank, I can expect some attempted insult in response. I'm actually too bored at this point to offer a helpful suggestion (I tried to think of something cruel and devastating you could say to me, and the best I could come up with was a fat joke--meh), so I'll merely wish you good luck with that and all your future attempts to impress others with your keen intelligence and knifeblade wit. The rest of the world truly does not know what it is missing.
@ anne c.
do I need a credential as an autodidact or libertine ? There have been quite a lot of ppl without a Dr. or Prof. in front of their name that contributed more to science than some scientists. Not that I want to compare myself with anyone who did so, I just asked questions, I didn't come up with theories so far. I agree that scientists have studied and certainly know a lot more about mathematics and physics than the average mind. But that makes them neither omniscient nor impeccable. In fact, I love science (yeah, you won't believe it) but I know (as everyone else knows) that science may err or even make serious mistakes, e.g. in regard to atomic energy, radiation etc. In order to find out that Gamma-radiation was lethal the effects on humans had to be observed. Their formulas didn't indicate that in the first place or at all.
@ Eric
yep I'm german. Does that matter ? I don't think that the german Wiki misquoted the english version. It clearly says that such small bhs would explode.
no, I don't think that I've misunderstood any of the statements made hear. I was well able to understand that almost all of you here vigorously try to run down Dr. Wagner. I mean, one only has to read what John wrote at the beginning:
''I, on the other hand, am proud to note that we are #1 in Google for "Rainer Plaga idiot" and #6 (ahead of Janiece) for "Walter Wagner retard".
''
what kind of scientific approach is that ??
you guys keep judging people by their status. But status does not necessarily equal honesty/ degree of knowledge/ credibility and certainly it does not justify to run down others. Perhaps you take a look at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community
and especially this statement in it:
''"Membership" of the community is generally, but not exclusively, a function of education, employment status, and institutional affiliation. Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record. Sociologists report that gender, race, and class may also influence status within the community''
(I admit having copied that from someone else in another blog but I think that's ok)
I don't know what the Moon landings, JFK or the other issues you have mentioned have to do with the LHC. So why do you deviate from the topic.
As for the insults, that's a nice rhetorical game but as you see I don't care very much about it. If someone says asshole to me I say motherfucker and that was that. It doesn't affect me at all. But I didn't start that kind of conversation. Just look up to the very first post in this thread.
but probably you are right. I won't find the answers to the questions I've posed here, here. Not because you are too bored or too lazy to answer but because you simply don't have the answers, possibly because there are none, i.e. because of faulty science.
yep I'm german. Does that matter ?
Actually, it does.
My attacks on your mastery of English would not have occurred if I had known that English was your second language.
So for that, I apologize.
I can't believe I'm doing this to myself....
LHC Is Blank, you write:
There have been quite a lot of ppl without a Dr. or Prof. in front of their name that contributed more to science than some scientists.
What this demonstrates is that you really don't know what a scientist is. A scientist is a person who does science. While it's not literally essential to have a doctorate, the reality of contemporary life is that we live in an age of specialization, and a doctorate is something that accompanies that specialization. In other words, yes, somebody without advanced degrees can certainly spend the time doing science that qualifies him as a scientist, but he starts out at a profound disadvantage in terms of education, experience, specialization and credibility when it comes to have his work peer-reviewed (which is a critical part of things as they're practiced now).
Mr. Wagner hasn't done any of those things as far as anybody can tell. And he seems to be aware of this limitation, because he's lied and/or allowed others to lie on his behalf to bolster qualifications he doesn't have.
And, as it happens, because of the way he's chosen to advance his claims, people who have established that they have the education, experience, specialization and credibility have given his views more time than they might have been shown, otherwise, and found his work wanting. So there's two strikes against him.
And here's a third, from my own little corner of things--you write:
you guys keep judging people by their status. But status does not necessarily equal honesty/ degree of knowledge/ credibility and certainly it does not justify to run down others
Well let's talk about the other community Mr. Wagner is a member of, one we know he's a member of: the American legal community. I'm reasonably sure, LHC Is Blank, that you don't know anything about this community, but think you do--and here's why: because law degrees and doctorates in law are a completely different animal on your side of the ocean.
Whatever expertise you may think Mr. Wagner has because he's allowed himself to be called "Dr. Wagner," he doesn't have it. The American law degree, the juris doctor or JD, is not regarded as a doctoral degree, the name withstanding. Lawyers are formally discouraged by all regional licensing associations from using the title "doctor" unless they have a Ph.D or MD degree. As far as I know, Mr. Wagner has neither. If Mr. Wagner therefore allows himself to be called "Dr. Wagner," as he evidently has, it is a breach of American professional legal ethics. It is dishonest. How do I know this? I'm an American lawyer, licensed to practice in the American state of North Carolina, with a law degree from a top-25 law school: I wouldn't pretend to be a scientist, like Mr. Wagner, and I sure as hell would expect to receive a formal complaint if I pretended to be a doctor.
And this is the way it is in every state in the United States. There are essentially two sets of regulations that form the model rules for every state in the United States, and they both say the same thing on this subject and every state has adopted some version of this--in America, even if you technically have a "doctoral" degree in the form of a juris doctorate, you don't call yourself a doctor unless you also have the Ph.D and/or the MD. End of story, no argument, don't try.
For this alone, I feel perfectly comfortable saying Mr. Wagner, MISTER Wagner, is dishonest until somebody shows me he's a physician or a Ph.D.
Finally, unlike Janiece, I'm not going to apologize for some of my earlier comments, LHC Is Blank: you've been very assertive for someone whose comprehension of the issues seems to be limited by language or personal bias. E.g. the German Wiki does not, as you assert, as far as I can tell through translation services, quote the English page at all--in fact, a superficial examination shows they aren't in the least bit similar, with the English page being several times longer and apparently covering far more material.
I have other things to do--I left this comment while waiting for a download to finish. I certainly think you need to reevaluate your position, but that's of course up to you.
Holy crap, this sure exploded while I was looking the other way.
I'm not a scientist. I don't really consider myself educated on the topics being discussed. I do know John and many of his credentials. I do know that even though he and I would probably get into a knock down, drag out, punch you in the nose type fight if we ever seriously got into politics/social issues.
I know that Jtankers started this with a passive aggressive screed about name calling. (Name calling is totally appropriate when you're calling an asshole an asshole.)
I know that LHC (who changes his name with each post) is blindly following people who do not have the credentials to be trusted only at their word.
STFU LHC Hater Guy. You don't know what you're talking about (in any language).
Oh, and BTW, keep on goading Janiece. That'll end well for you.
Hmmm. I was expecting it to get to the part where John turns over all the statcounter logs to Jim, and Jim does the asshole thing... that would make this discussion interesting again.
@ Janiece Murphy,
thx for your apologize, same from me to you.
@ Eric,
you didn't apologize, well that's your choice. May be I should accuse myself for causing you to feel still attacked. But that's just formal stuff. If we meet in the real world I guess we would be more kind to each other ;-)
as for Nathan and possible other flamewar fanatics, not worth to mention something in this respect. Only shows that evolution takes faux pas sometimes.
back to you, Eric:
thx for the much more objective clarification of your view in regard to Mr./ Dr. (I dunno) Wagner. The fact that I mentioned him was simply because of the fuss that was made about him. I'm not really interested in ppl's degree or official status but - as I said before - in their statements. As for me, I am simply not satisfied with the arguments of CERN in regard to the LHC for the reasons / questions I gave/ posed. THAT's what troubles me.
Yep, you're right about that the word misquote was inappropiate. But it was you who said that something went wrong in the translation from the english to the german version:
''I am inclined to think that there is a translation error somewhere along the way that explains the missing zeros that have vanished in the de.wikipedia.org version.''
now you say:
''in fact, a superficial examination shows they aren't in the least bit similar, with the English page being several times longer and apparently covering far more material.''
But as for the quotation itself. I just noticed that the english version states something very similar:
''But for a black hole of 10^11 kg, the evaporation time is 2.667 billion years. This is why some astronomers are searching for signs of exploding primordial black holes
...
So, for instance, a 1-second-lived black hole has a mass of 2.28 × 10^5 kg (which is 228 tons), equivalent to an energy of 2.05 × 1022 J that could be released by 5 × 106 megatons of TNT. The initial power is 6.84 × 1021 W.''
oops, some ^ got lost during copy/ paste:
''So, for instance, a 1-second-lived black hole has a mass of 2.28 × 10^5 kg (which is 228 tons), equivalent to an energy of 2.05 × 10^22 J that could be released by 5 × 10^6 megatons of TNT. The initial power is 6.84 × 10^21 W.''''
"thx for the much more objective clarification of your view in regard to Mr./ Dr. (I dunno) Wagner. The fact that I mentioned him was simply because of the fuss that was made about him. I'm not really interested in ppl's degree or official status but - as I said before - in their statements. As for me, I am simply not satisfied with the arguments of CERN in regard to the LHC for the reasons / questions I gave/ posed. THAT's what troubles me."
Ah. That explains everything.
LHC, this whole post is actually about Wagner (a person whose credibility you have no interest in confirming) and not about the LHC itself.
In fact, you are like Wagner himself, a person with little formal education or experience in the applied field at hand who has an opinion about the LHC based on your limited understanding. Good luck with that. If I were to make an ignorant and stereotypical statement about Germans or Germany, you would laugh and/or dispute me from your position of greater experience and understanding. I could explain that a degree in German or a visit to Germany was unnecessary, that I've seen Germans on film, so I don't need status or education. That wouldn't make you any more impressed with my ignorant statement would it? I don't think so. (I really hope not!) Flip that around and you can see how you appear to scientists. That is how Mr. Wagner appears to scientists, except he is an ignorant man who has gone to the highest mountaintops to shout his ignorant statements, while pretending to more than he does.
You say education (status) and background are unimportant, but Mr. Wagner is faking both to convince more people to listen to him. This is unethical in most societies. You say you pay attention to people's statements and not their education ("status"), but how do you separate out those who are speaking without basis and those who have experience in the issue? It's true that education is not the only way to evaluate the validity of someone's opinion, but surely you must agree that it does have some weight.
I don't know that you will follow my analogy of speaking ignorantly of Germany/science, as you failed to see the relationship between conspiracy theories like JFK's assassination and the moon landing denials (contained in Eric's post), but I figure it's worth a try. I'll point out here that it's not about your nationality, but referencing something that I'll assume you feel you are an expert in.
Oops, dropped a clause in there. I meant to say:
"as you failed to see the relationship between conspiracy theories like JFK's assassination and the moon landing denials (contained in Eric's post) and Wagner's opinions about the LHC,"
10^11 kg is 100,000,000,000 kg, or 100,000,000 metric tons (presumed from the use of kg; if we're talking short tons (2,000 lb), we're talking 110,253,583 tons and if we're talking long tons (2,240 lb) then around 98,425,197 tons.)
"1,000 tons" isn't similar at all--it's off by several orders of magnitude. That was John's point, you see.
The most likely possibilities that give the Gemran Wikipedians the benefit of the doubt are: (1) translation error--there was a mistranslation of the unit of measure at some stage, or (2) transcription error--somebody dropped several zeros and didn't notice.
But the statements aren't the least bit similar: no more similar than somebody transcribing the words "he wore a loose shirt" as "he wore a blue shirt." The sentences are similar in structure, and even similar in sound, but in meaning they're completely unrelated.
Oh, one last thing: how somebody presents themselves is self-evidently part of how you assess their statements. One wouldn't, for instance, ask one's hairstylist to perform open-heart surgery on him. ("But I don't care about your qualifications, only your statements, and you seem to know a lot about cardiology!") And somebody who misrepresents himself usually deserves skepticism on other matters: a person who lies about his job might well lie about other things. This is everyday common sense. ("Well, I don't know whether or not you're really a 'high-placed official in the Nigerian government,' but I'm willing to take you at your word that you've come into possession of certain oil revenues and need my assistance in wiring you money to cover transaction fees in exchange for a share of the profits...." Right. If you really care more about statements than who makes them, can I interest you in the purchase of a well-known bridge in Brooklyn, New York, for a nominal referral fee which you can mail to me in small, non-consecutive, unmarked bills....)
uhm, well - whatever. Eric, you obviously missed the last part of my post.
Hm--and going back, I also see I missed something dumb you said in an earlier post, when you asked how a black hole larger than 1,000 tons could exist in the first place. You might want to read up on black hole formation in the first place, e.g. here for a primer--most black holes will start at vastly larger sizes than 1,000 tons. I now realize that's how we got sucked down that 10^3 ton wormhole to start with.
That being said, thank you for finally conceding my remaining points.
Dammit, Eric, I was getting to that. :)
Tangent: cosmic ray detectors
As is usual in arguments with pseudoscientists, tangents abound until real scientists get fed up and leave the debate. The real purpose, however, is to leave the layman so confused that some perception of erudition is created for the pseudoscientist. In order to prevent that in this thread, I'm going to label each tangent clearly, as I've done for this comment.
For everyone playing at home, the issue of cosmic ray detection relates to the LHC only insofar as Walter Wagner uses his "experience" as a low level lab tech in a cosmic ray lab to bolster his assertion that he was a nuclear physicist. The equations that govern the interaction of the cosmic ray with the plastic or emulsion of a detector are in now way related to the mathematical masturbation that other pseudoscientists have used to try to argue that microscopic black holes might linger in the LHC and eat the Earth.
In arguing that the plastic blocks used in the high altitude balloon flights of the 1970s to detect cosmic rays are crap (nailing pseudoscientists down is like nailing jello to a wall, so I will quote each idiotic statement):
wow, is that the method used to decide charge and energy of cosmic rays ? I think you forgot to mention that the piece of plactic is washed with sodium hydroxide before the fissure can be examined. I'd say that method is just as reliable as using your fingers
LHC is… has basically argued that the scientific acumen of one of the leading anti-LHC proponents is low. Hmmm. I agree, but he’s right for the wrong reason. The methodology is just fine. Wagner never had anything to do with the physics behind it, however.
In another post, LHC is… asked for equations. He derided my defense of the NaOH developing method as:
I asked for calculations not for a pathetic palliation of so-called scientific methods.
Actually, he asked for calculations in a different post, but if I spewed this much horsehsit on a regular basis, I’d forget what I said and when, too. Calculations? Well, here they are:
Price et al., Physical Review D Vol. 18 No. 5 pages 1382 – 1421 (1978)
The mathematical analysis and explanation of the experimental method starts on page 1387.
Supporting references include:
O’Sullivan et al. Physical Review Letters Vol. 26 p. 463 (1971)
O’Sullivan et al. Physics Letters Vol 34B p. 49 (1971)
Price et al., Review Letters Vol. 21 p. 630 (1968)
Price et al., Physical Review D Vol. 3 p. 815 (1971)
I do have a tiny bit of insight regarding the equations used to identify the particles, but I’m not going to offer it here. If, after reading those papers, LHC is… has any quibbles, let him bring them up himself. If he is as intelligent a layman as he claims to be, he’ll be able to say something. I, only the other hand, am placing my money firmly on the square labeled “full of shit”.
The answer to the question, by the way is “he works at it”.
no, I don't think that I've misunderstood any of the statements made hear.
I’m pretty sure you have. Why?
Sry, but if that is what CERN ''scientists'' rely on I'd rather recommend any reasonable technician working at the LHC to pull the plug out of the socket. Man, seems like science has become crap these days ...
From that statement there is no other conclusion but that you assume that the plastic detectors are used in the LHC, otherwise, why bother attacking the method that is one of the leading LHC detractors, thereby undermining the credibility of jtankers’s favorite boy?
That technology was used in high altitude balloon flights in the 1970s.
LHC is… I don’t want to hear one word about finding those articles. If you don’t want to put the time into obtaining them, shut the fuck up. I’ll point you to the dinner table, but I won’t chew your food for you. I’m a scientist, not a mother bird.
Tangent of a tangent: high energy cosmic ray detectors
Quoth the idiot:
Just name one example of a calculation for a high energetic particle, e.g. one with an energy of the scale 10^20 eV. The connection to a track left in a plastic block though must be clear. There must be some documents about it if that procedure is applied. So, name ONE.
Ultra high energy cosmic rays are rare. The Auger detector has been set up to capture these rare particles:
Above the energy of 1020 eV, only one particle falls on a square kilometer in a century!
The plastic block detectors of the 1970s were mostly flown on high altitude balloons. The one Wagner is associated with was an 18 m^2 detector that spent about 60 hours unshielded to space, 15 days in the air.
To obtain a rough probability of “just ONE” of those detectors getting a high energy particle in a given century would be one in a million if the detector were 1 m^2; the detector was 18 times that big, so take 1 million square meters (one km ^2), divide by 18 ~ 55,556 M^2. One century is about 36525 days, divided by 15 is 2435 days. The probability of one of those detectors seeing an event like that was one in about 135 million. THAT is why the very, very large Auger observatory exists.
This begs the question – what in the HELL does this have to do with the LHC? I can think of several possible reasons, but none of them are very good. Asking a question like this betrays: 1) total ignorance of the plastic detectors actually used in the LHC (hint, not plastic blocks) 2) total ignorance of what the plastic detectors were used for 3) total ignorance of when the detectors were used. I’m not sure if this was a deliberate side track or just garden variety stupidity.
Tangent: scientists are so arrogant that they think only they can understand the universe
Machiavelli outlined three types of minds in “The Prince”. The first type can come up with truly original things. The second type can understand what the first type does, but at best tinkers on the edges of original thought. The third does neither.
The universe is complicated. It took me 10 years of concentrated study, often working for almost 90 hours per week in graduate school, to understand my little corner of it. In certain areas, I’m the first type of mind. Unfortunately, in Nuclear Physics, I’m the second. It would take me at least 3 years of concentrated study to get to the newbie Ph.D. level in Nuclear Physics, possibly more. At that level, I’d be approaching the first type of mind, though I know plenty of Ph.D.s who are merely the second, even in their own fields.
A talented layman could possibly, maybe, come to that level in theoretical science. It’s not possible to be an experimental physical scientist without the degree – the equipment just isn’t around for the laymen to get to use. But few to no laymen have the extra time to devote to get to that level even in theoretical subjects, and if you’re going to do it, why not get the degree? That is why the frontiers of science are a closed book to the layman. At a “part time” of 40 hours per week, it would take a layman about 5 years to come to the level of understanding of a good undergrad – more probably, without teachers to steer the student away from blind alleys and concentrate the mind on the proper order in which to study things. It would take another 10 to 15 years to come to the level of a Ph.D. The average physical sciences Ph.D. in the US is 5 – 6 years of study, 60 -90 hours per week. With an advisor. The probability of a laymen getting to this level is nearly zero.
One has to go a long way back, when science was not so advanced, and when talented amateurs could make real contributions. Most to all of those contributions were in the experimental sciences, because there was so much low-hanging fruit around, and even in the 1800s, the math required to contribute to theory was daunting. Einstein is famously remarked to have complained about the proliferation of partial differential equations in physics, and if HE was complaining…
The easy stuff was all picked by the 1960s. Now, the study required excludes all but the most determined amateur.
This comes to the point of why I think LHC is… is an arrogant fuckheaded conspiracy theorist. He reads something on Wiki and thinks “aha, I gotcha in a logical error”: that’s a conspiracy theory. Why? The rational human being might think that Wiki got something wrong, or there was something there that wasn’t clear, or maybe, just maybe, the layman didn’t understand the whole theory. To think that one Ph.D. made that error and a complete newbie caught it is kind of arrogant, but conceivable, if I squint a bit. To believe that an army of Ph.D.s , (many of whom are smarter than I am) in that discipline, didn’t catch the error? Given how many ultra-competitive fuckheads abound in science? That’s what I mean about conspiracy theory.
Laymen usually make elementary mistakes when making grandiose claims. Eric pointed out a good example of the failure of this particular layman’s mistake due to lack of education:
When the black hole question came up, the first thing that should have entered LHC is…’s mind is that stars start out pretty big and then collapse and go supernova at some mass. Hmm, the term “density” should have come immediately to mind. Next, there is a term in physics “path dependent”. Some processes end the same way no mater how you get there. Other’s don’t, and are called “path dependent”. That neither the term “density” and “path dependent” came up to LHC is… shows that he is an uneducated fool.
Finally, LHC is… keeps harping on the post-modernist concept that because science has status, it is a wholly social activity:
Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record.
First, correlation is not causation. That’s an elementary error that critics of science often make. But status is related to doing something worthwhile, and the only way you communicate that is through peer-reviewed publications. But quality counts far more than quantity, and Rossler is a shining example of that.
I do not depend on a scientist's status to ascertain credibility. Linus Pauling won the Nobel in Chemistry, but with regards to Vitamin C he was an ascietific crank, and the science community reviles him for that. We give status based on the ability to predict future events and explain past ones. Einstein's status jumped hugely with the proof of Relativity in the 1919 eclipse. Did that correlate with his publications? You betcha. With those same publications, would his status have been very high if the starlight had bent another way? No way? Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, doesn't make them biscuits.
Logical Fallacy (but for once, not a tangent):
Scientists are sometimes wrong, therefore they must be wrong about this.
This one is related to the idiocy from “anonymous”:
'They must know what they're doing' you could not be more wrong. Some people think similarly about medical Dr.s but consider this by way of comparison and example from JAMA: "A recent Institute of Medicine report quoted rates estimating that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year in US hospitals."
Applying this logic to the LHC is akin to saying that because the hospital pharmacy screwed up and gave you Zyban when you had been prescribed Zithromax for your infection, that you don’t have an infection at all because the medicine failed to cure you. In fact it’s like questioning the whole germ theory of disease because Zyban didn’t do anything for you.
Thousands of Ph.D.s have been reviewing a single patient’s chart here, and the whole community is not going to make elementary mistakes.
LHC is.. has a slightly more sophisticated version of this retardedness:
In order to find out that Gamma-radiation was lethal the effects on humans had to be observed. Their formulas didn't indicate that in the first place or at all.
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the formulas about gamma radiation were. They were not formulas to predict biological effects. If, after the effects of radiation were known, a new type of radiation was discovered, it would then be logical to assume it was also harmful. In fact this was the case when great care was taken to shield astronauts from cosmic rays.
Closely related is the logical error from the anonymous idiot above:
Particle physicists have run out of ideas and are at a dead end forcing them to take reckless chances with more and more powerful and costly machines to create new and never-seen-before, unstable and unknown matter while Astrophysicists, on the other hand, are advancing science and knowledge on a daily basis making new discoveries in these same areas by observing the universe, not experimenting with it and with your life.
If nature is doing these experiments on a grand scale over billions of years, why do you think that these man-made experiments are dangerous? When radiation was discovered, there had been no observations of radiation’s effects on humans. We have observed the effects of cosmic rays on matter. It’s harmless except to very localized structures on the atomic scale. The equations that predict micro black holes also predict decay – you can’t have one without the other. You can’t cherry pick the elements of the theory.
The arrogance with which LHC is… presents his arguments and makes fundamental errors leaves one inescapable conclusion: he thinks’ he’s a wit, and he’s a quarter right.
''Even more massive stars ... cannot find a new dynamical equilibrium with any known force opposing gravity. Hence, the collapse continues with nothing to stop it. Once it collapses to within its Schwarzschild Radius, not even light can escape from the star, and hence it becomes a black hole. At some point later the collapsing object must reach the planck density (as there is nothing that can stop it), where the known laws of gravity cease to be valid[citation needed]. There are competing theories as to what occurs at this point, but it can no longer really be considered gravitational collapse at that stage.''
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
quote Jts: ''When the black hole question came up, the first thing that should have entered LHC is…’s mind is that stars start out pretty big and then collapse and go supernova at some mass. Hmm, the term “density” should have come immediately to mind. Next, there is a term in physics “path dependent”. Some processes end the same way no mater how you get there. Other’s don’t, and are called “path dependent”. That neither the term “density” and “path dependent” came up to LHC is… shows that he is an uneducated fool.''
obviously you still need insults in your argumentation. You say fool, I say clever monkey ;-)
of course that came into mind. But first something else came into mind. How much time does the gravitational collapse take until you can finally speak of a black hole. The above citation as well as Eric's link doesn't tell at which point the matter becomes ''black hole matter'', i.e. matter which becomes relevant in regard to Hawking's exploding bhs. I GUESS (i.e. I don't know) that it is some kind of layers that are being formed, starting with the most dense layer in the center of the collapsing/ collapsed star. So, the black hole (in that view) would ''grow'' and not ''start'' as Eric said ''at vastly larger sizes''. When I say black hole here I mean the matter that can be considered as bh matter. That would mean that there would have to be some kind of hindering procedure that prevents the originally very small black hole (remember it grows) to explode. One procedure I can imagine would be connected to the speed of the bh's formation. But if we read for example ''a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10^-88 seconds to evaporate completely'' (from the Wiki link Eric provided) that speed would be quite big. I haven't calculated (I don't know the forumula) how fast additional matter would have to add but that almost sounds like the matter would have to move at speeds higher than c in order for the bh to remain stable. Another ''procedure'' I could imagine would be that the sourrounding matter of the bh's matter somehow shields its evaporation. But there is nothing said about such procedures in these articles. So I can only speculate (and feel ''worried'', not ''arrogant''). Or have I overread something ?
quote Jts:
''The arrogance with which LHC is… presents his arguments and makes fundamental errors leaves one inescapable conclusion: he thinks’ he’s a wit, and he’s a quarter right.''
I think that YOUR presentation is quite arrogant. You know things that I don't know (but that is vice versa) and use this ''knowledge'' as an justification for labeling people as idiots. If you really are what you claim to be - a scientist - you should know that this approach is absolutely unscientific. From the scientists I know (ok, I live in germany, i don't know what moral is like over the great pond) scientists usually care about questions posed by laymans and are happy to answer them. I never - until now - heard a scientist say: ''what an arrogant statement'' if someone presents his views for evaluation. That's exactly what I did. I asked questions and ''offered suggestions'' and all I get is hesitant answers (of partly doubtful content) mixed with arrogance and insults. And don't tell me that I started with doing so. Your very first post proves that you started with that childish unscientific behavior. Furthermore you make stupid imputations such as me being a quote ''arrogant fuckheaded conspiracy theorist''. This clearly shows YOUR weak state of mind. So, if you care about being taken serious (Eric has clearly failed to so) you should step down from your thrown and be a bit more cooperative. If that's impossible, i.e. if you can't keep your emotions under control I see no reason why I should still (try to) take you serious.
as for the cosmic rays you showed quite a lot of ''good will'' but unfortunately you were not able to convince me:
''I do have a tiny bit of insight regarding the equations used to identify the particles, but I’m not going to offer it here.''
Also your link doesn't convince me. I have gone through some pages there:
''The Fly's Eye detects cosmic rays by observing the light that they cause when they strike the atmosphere. When an extremely high-energy cosmic ray enters the atmosphere, it collides with an atomic nucleus and starts a cascade of charged particles that produce light as they zip through the atmosphere. The charged particles of a cosmic ray air shower travel together at very nearly the speed of light, so the Utah detectors see a fluorescent spot move rapidly along a line through the atmosphere. By measuring how much light comes from each stage of the air shower, one can infer not only the energy of the cosmic ray but also whether it was more likely a simple proton or a heavier nucleus.''
it obviously is an INDIRECT measurement. The particle itself was not detected.
as for the ''new'' detector:
''The Auger Observatory is a "hybrid detector," employing two independent methods to detect and study high-energy cosmic rays. One technique detects high energy particles through their interaction with water placed in surface detector tanks. The other technique tracks the development of air showers by observing ultraviolet light emitted high in the Earth's atmosphere.''
as we will see later that statement is rather imprecise. It says that the high energy particles are detected through their action with water. This implies that the particle itself is detected - which would be a first good step to convince me of the reliability of this method. However, it continues:
The first detection method uses the Observatory's main visible feature - the 1,600 water tanks that cover an enormous section of the Pampa and serve as particle detectors. Each 3,000-gallon (12,000 liter) tank, separated from each of its neighbors by 1.5 kilometers, is completely dark inside - except when particles from a cosmic ray air shower pass through it.
''
so, as we can see it is not the cosmic ray particle itself that is detected but its resulting particles from the air shower. So how can THEY be sure about its charge and energy ?
the second method also provides only INDIRECT results:
''The charged particles in an air shower also interact with atmospheric nitrogen, causing it to emit ultraviolet light via a process called fluorescence, which is invisible to the human eye - but not to the Auger Observatory's optical detectors. The observatory's second detection method uses these detectors to observe the trail of nitrogen fluorescence and track the development of air showers by measuring the brightness of the emitted light.''
so if they say it's this or that kind of particle with this or that charge they only rely on these air showers but not on the particles themselves. And that's what troubles me. They should actually measure and detect the particles where they occur, i.e. they have to go up in space for that. I have actually nowhere found a method that ''catches'' the original particle. And therefore I consider CERN's main argument in regard to cosmic rays (even if we're dealing only with particles that have an energy of 10^11 eV while the LHC wants to produce particles of 7 * 10^12 eV) as extremely weak. Or let me put it this way - just in case you should consider this statement as arrogant again - I am worried that the applied methods to measure cosmic rays are not reliable enough to be translated into the collisions taking place in the LHC.
A blind hog occasionally turns up a truffle. LHC Is Blank finally did get something right. No, it wasn't his incomprehension of how black holes form, or any of the rest of the silliness. No, the one thing LHC gets right is:
Eric has clearly failed to so [care about being taken seriously]
Yep. You finally got me. I'm not so self-righteous as to pretend expertise in a field where I have none. I'm not out here saying, "I have no training and qualifications as a scientist, but I've read some Wikipedia entries and that makes me an expert whose brilliant critiques should be given a great deal of weight even when I ignore the answers others have provided."
Read the thread. Follow the links. Your questions have been answered. Not liking the answers (e.g. one answer you've received is that some of your questions are the wrong questions) isn't the same as not getting answers at all.
Dr Eric, you've completely missed the point here: I.e. on the internet anybody can be a scientist, all you have to do is quote endlessly from the Wikipedia and previous commenters, then add emoticons ;-)
Any dumbass can do it.
of course that came into mind. But first something else came into mind. How much time does the gravitational collapse take until you can finally speak of a black hole. The above citation as well as Eric's link doesn't tell at which point the matter becomes ''black hole matter'', i.e. matter which becomes relevant in regard to Hawking's exploding bhs. I GUESS (i.e. I don't know) that it is some kind of layers that are being formed, starting with the most dense layer in the center of the collapsing/ collapsed star. So, the black hole (in that view) would ''grow'' and not ''start'' as Eric said ''at vastly larger sizes''.
I call bullshit. If those terms had come to mind you would have explained why they were not relevant in the first place. You are the “why, why, why” kind of troll. That type of troll jumps on any kind of simplification (and the advanced physical theories of today in the absence of math are over-simplifications) and claim you’ve found a logical error. Then when called on the logical error, you say I didn’t meant THAT, I meant THIS. And so the cycle begins again. Until the respectable scientist has to go back to his or her day job, leaving something unanswered, and the troll claims victory. This is like the little kid asking “why” after each explanation.
Why is the sky blue? Because the air in the atmosphere scatters blue light more than other wavelengths. Why does it do that? Because the size of the air molecules puts scattering in the Rayleigh scattering range, not the Mie scattering range. Why does that matter? Because the Rayleigh range predicts that small wavelengths scatter more. Mie-sized particles scatter all wavelengths equally, which is why clouds are white. Why are air molecules nearly the size of blue light? Couldn't they be bigger? No, the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up the atoms determine the size, and that size is about the wavelength of light. Well, why are the fundamental particles that big? I dunno kid, they just are. But why? Because God made them that way, dammit. Eat your food!
I think that YOUR presentation is quite arrogant. You know things that I don't know (but that is vice versa) and use this ''knowledge'' as an justification for labeling people as idiots. If you really are what you claim to be - a scientist - you should know that this approach is absolutely unscientific.
This is exactly what makes you a troll and a conspiracy theorist. You grab some half-understood bit of simplified information from Wiki and think that you’ve caught an army of very smart people in an elementary error. I’ll freely admit that I’m a Machiavellian Type 2 mind when it comes to Nuke Phys. You come in with less education than I and act like you’re a Type 1. It’s not lack of knowledge that makes you an idiot, it’s your approach to the problem. I work as a project manager. People on my project know a lot of biology. I know more math than them. But when I see something I don’t understand, I ask a hell of a lot more questions than you before I assume they made a mistake – I respect the time they put into learning their field (more than the degree, some of the top lab leaders I’ve worked with are M.Sc.s). Just because science is supposed to only debate ideas and not backgrounds doesn’t mean we don’t have bozo filters. There is just not enough time in the day to debate stuff that’s already been settled – that’s what education does for you, - tells you what’s the right question to ask in the right situation.
Of course people point out that some great ideas come from questioning what’s already known. True. But – and this is what separates the scientist from the troll – the maverick scientist has a piece of evidence that does not fit the theory, or a competing prediction, before he or she can get any traction. This is a filter mechanism in science, because, while thinking outside the box is sometimes fruitful, 99% of what’s outside the box is outside because it’s garbage. And you come here purveying garbage.
Last piece in this why game:
Stars have energy cycles. Like a hot air balloon, the same mass can have different volumes depending on how much energy is being pumped into it. Once again, you need to understand the physics before you ask questions.
you know what's your problem ? You try to discourage people by calling them idiots and by telling them how great YOU are and how small they are. Doing so, you kill two birds with one stone: on the one hand you lure naive people that are impressed by this behavior and who will therefore back you (no matter what you say). On the other hand you hope to gag any critic and scare away those who would perhaps posed their questions. Of course you do that because that's the easiest way to react - i.e. you don't have to if no one asks or criticizes. Maybe you even fear criticism. I think that comes close to malpractice.
you know what's your problem ?
Hehe. John, I'm quite sure you need some anonymous troll to give you keen insights into your psyche, and that you'll be a better person for it. Since you lead such an unexamined life, and all. And I'm sure your "malpractice" insurance premiums will now soar. Just like "Dr." Wagner's has.
::fades back into the woodwork::
on the one hand you lure naive people that are impressed by this behavior and who will therefore back you (no matter what you say)
Naive people? Is he talking about us? Heh. That would almost be amusing, if he knew anything about us at all.
Malpractice? Seriously, LHC troll, in America if you want to take a swipe at a scientist you don't accuse him of malpractice, you accuse him of terrorism. Just saying.
quote Jim Wright: ''Naive people? Is he talking about us?''
I haven't mentioned any names, so you can choose ;-)
as for reliable science and reliable calculations:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1626728.ece
I so want a t-shirt that says "I was lured by John The Scientist and all I got was this lousy t-shirt." Or a hundred bucks. Whichever is easier.
Eric - will you settle for a pack of Durian-flavored cookies? :D
Sure, why not? But don't put yourself out.
Post a Comment