tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post717546628575332134..comments2024-02-23T00:27:41.196-08:00Comments on Refugees From the City: Fun With Search EnginesJohn the Scientisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-32438707437290731012008-10-11T09:32:00.000-07:002008-10-11T09:32:00.000-07:00Sure, why not? But don't put yourself out.Sure, why not? But don't put yourself out.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-44101811974020696712008-10-10T07:36:00.000-07:002008-10-10T07:36:00.000-07:00Eric - will you settle for a pack of Durian-flavor...Eric - will you settle for a pack of Durian-flavored cookies? :DJohn the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-16574977513373673312008-10-09T21:42:00.000-07:002008-10-09T21:42:00.000-07:00I so want a t-shirt that says "I was lured by John...I <I>so</I> 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.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-43172307554731954652008-10-09T10:44:00.000-07:002008-10-09T10:44:00.000-07:00quote Jim Wright: ''Naive people? Is he talking ab...quote Jim Wright: ''Naive people? Is he talking about us?''<BR/><BR/>I haven't mentioned any names, so you can choose ;-)<BR/><BR/>as for reliable science and reliable calculations:<BR/><BR/>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1626728.eceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-50241748538748786362008-10-09T07:34:00.000-07:002008-10-09T07:34:00.000-07:00on the one hand you lure naive people that are imp...<I>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)</I><BR/><BR/>Naive people? Is he talking about us? Heh. That would almost be amusing, if he knew <I>anything</I> about us at all.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>terrorism</I>. Just saying.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-5199703560221203022008-10-09T07:33:00.000-07:002008-10-09T07:33:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-74940283605565437082008-10-09T06:35:00.000-07:002008-10-09T06:35:00.000-07:00you know what's your problem ?Hehe. John, I'm qui...<EM>you know what's your problem ?</EM><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>::fades back into the woodwork::Janiecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190655869710465713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-69645826371918647192008-10-09T05:24:00.000-07:002008-10-09T05:24:00.000-07:00you know what's your problem ? You try to discoura...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-67498762765302510482008-10-08T19:18:00.000-07:002008-10-08T19:18:00.000-07:00of course that came into mind. But first something...<I> 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><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Last piece in this why game:<BR/><BR/>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.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-66451429485432145632008-10-08T18:53:00.000-07:002008-10-08T18:53:00.000-07:00Dr Eric, you've completely missed the point here: ...<I>Dr</I> Eric, you've completely missed the point here: I.e. on the internet <I>anybody</I> can be a scientist, all you have to do is quote endlessly from the Wikipedia and previous commenters, then add emoticons ;-)<BR/><BR/>Any dumbass can do it.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-57356248794023186432008-10-07T20:57:00.000-07:002008-10-07T20:57:00.000-07:00A blind hog occasionally turns up a truffle. 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:<BR/><BR/><I>Eric has clearly failed to so [care about being taken seriously]</I><BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-40421963392514579892008-10-07T10:49:00.000-07:002008-10-07T10:49:00.000-07:00''Even more massive stars ... cannot find a new dy...''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.''<BR/><BR/>source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse<BR/><BR/>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.''<BR/><BR/>obviously you still need insults in your argumentation. You say fool, I say clever monkey ;-)<BR/><BR/>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 ?<BR/><BR/>quote Jts:<BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>as for the cosmic rays you showed quite a lot of ''good will'' but unfortunately you were not able to convince me:<BR/><BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>Also your link doesn't convince me. I have gone through some pages there:<BR/><BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>it obviously is an INDIRECT measurement. The particle itself was not detected.<BR/><BR/>as for the ''new'' detector:<BR/><BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>''<BR/><BR/>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 ?<BR/><BR/>the second method also provides only INDIRECT results:<BR/><BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-7942491427733367482008-10-06T18:33:00.001-07:002008-10-06T18:33:00.001-07:00Logical Fallacy (but for once, not a tangent): Sci...Logical Fallacy (but for once, not a tangent): <BR/><BR/>Scientists are sometimes wrong, therefore they must be wrong about this. <BR/><BR/>This one is related to the idiocy from “anonymous”:<BR/><BR/><I>'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."</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>LHC is.. has a slightly more sophisticated version of this retardedness:<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the formulas about gamma radiation were. They were <I>not</I> 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. <BR/><BR/>Closely related is the logical error from the anonymous idiot above:<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-85786562281876009842008-10-06T18:33:00.000-07:002008-10-06T18:33:00.000-07:00Tangent: scientists are so arrogant that they thin...Tangent: scientists are so arrogant that they think only they can understand the universe<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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… <BR/><BR/>The easy stuff was all picked by the 1960s. Now, the study required excludes all but the most determined amateur.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Finally, LHC is… keeps harping on the post-modernist concept that because science has status, it is a wholly social activity:<BR/><BR/><I>Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record.</I><BR/><BR/>First, correlation is not causation. That’s an elementary error that critics of science often make. But status <I>is</I> 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. <BR/><BR/>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.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-10143540466517737372008-10-06T18:28:00.001-07:002008-10-06T18:28:00.001-07:00Tangent of a tangent: high energy cosmic ray detec...Tangent of a tangent: high energy cosmic ray detectors <BR/><BR/>Quoth the idiot:<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Ultra high energy cosmic rays are rare. The Auger detector has been set up to capture these rare <A HREF="http://www.auger.org/cosmic_rays/" REL="nofollow">particles</A>: <BR/><BR/><B> Above the energy of 1020 eV, only one particle falls on a square kilometer in a century!</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-24888491937039177302008-10-06T18:28:00.000-07:002008-10-06T18:28:00.000-07:00Tangent: cosmic ray detectorsAs is usual in argume...Tangent: cosmic ray detectors<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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):<BR/><BR/><I>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</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>In another post, LHC is… asked for equations. He derided my defense of the NaOH developing method as:<BR/><BR/><I> I asked for calculations not for a pathetic palliation of so-called scientific methods.</I><BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>Price et al., Physical Review D Vol. 18 No. 5 pages 1382 – 1421 (1978)<BR/><BR/><BR/>The mathematical analysis and explanation of the experimental method starts on page 1387.<BR/><BR/>Supporting references include:<BR/><BR/>O’Sullivan et al. Physical Review Letters Vol. 26 p. 463 (1971)<BR/><BR/>O’Sullivan et al. Physics Letters Vol 34B p. 49 (1971)<BR/><BR/>Price et al., Review Letters Vol. 21 p. 630 (1968)<BR/><BR/>Price et al., Physical Review D Vol. 3 p. 815 (1971)<BR/><BR/>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”. <BR/><BR/>The answer to the question, by the way is “he works at it”.<BR/><BR/><I> no, I don't think that I've misunderstood any of the statements made hear.</I><BR/><BR/>I’m pretty sure you have. Why?<BR/><BR/><I>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 ...</I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>That technology was used in high altitude balloon flights <I>in the 1970s</I>. <BR/><BR/>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.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-36737811306719125152008-10-06T17:54:00.000-07:002008-10-06T17:54:00.000-07:00Dammit, Eric, I was getting to that. :)Dammit, Eric, I was getting to that. :)John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-16302569087919536282008-10-06T16:37:00.000-07:002008-10-06T16:37:00.000-07:00Hm--and going back, I also see I missed something ...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. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Formation_and_evolution" REL="nofollow">here</A> for a primer--most black holes will <I>start</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>That being said, thank you for finally conceding my remaining points.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-25162582680070734802008-10-06T12:26:00.000-07:002008-10-06T12:26:00.000-07:00uhm, well - whatever. Eric, you obviously missed t...uhm, well - whatever. Eric, you obviously missed the last part of my post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-65103499946092667932008-10-06T11:06:00.000-07:002008-10-06T11:06:00.000-07:00Oh, one last thing: how somebody presents themselv...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 <I>really</I> 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....)Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-25381642566137621482008-10-06T10:57:00.000-07:002008-10-06T10:57:00.000-07:0010^11 kg is 100,000,000,000 kg, or 100,000,000 met...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.)<BR/><BR/>"1,000 tons" isn't similar at all--it's off by several orders of magnitude. That was John's point, you see.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But the statements aren't the least bit similar: no more similar than somebody transcribing the words "he wore a <I>loose</I> shirt" as "he wore a <I>blue</I> shirt." The sentences are similar in structure, and even similar in sound, but in meaning they're completely unrelated.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-21133145411505062252008-10-06T06:51:00.000-07:002008-10-06T06:51:00.000-07:00Oops, dropped a clause in there. I meant to say:...Oops, dropped a clause in there. I meant to say:<BR/><BR/>"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,"Anne C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09444051201220766948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-86941219901977960622008-10-06T06:49:00.000-07:002008-10-06T06:49:00.000-07:00"thx for the much more objective clarification of ..."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."<BR/><BR/>Ah. That explains everything.<BR/><BR/>LHC, this whole post is actually about Wagner (a person whose credibility you have no interest in confirming) and not about the LHC itself.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anne C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09444051201220766948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-69194603355607357532008-10-06T05:01:00.000-07:002008-10-06T05:01:00.000-07:00oops, some ^ got lost during copy/ paste:''So, for...oops, some ^ got lost during copy/ paste:<BR/><BR/>''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.''''Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1377385119326285192.post-27642643184754492402008-10-06T04:54:00.000-07:002008-10-06T04:54:00.000-07:00@ Janiece Murphy,thx for your apologize, same from...@ Janiece Murphy,<BR/><BR/>thx for your apologize, same from me to you.<BR/><BR/>@ Eric,<BR/><BR/>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 ;-)<BR/><BR/>as for Nathan and possible other flamewar fanatics, not worth to mention something in this respect. Only shows that evolution takes faux pas sometimes.<BR/><BR/>back to you, Eric:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>now you say:<BR/><BR/>''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.''<BR/><BR/>But as for the quotation itself. I just noticed that the english version states something very similar:<BR/><BR/>''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<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>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.''Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com