More LHC Nonsense - Page 3

renormalised (Carl) · #41 19-10-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rally

Prof Nielsen has released another paper and refutes his previous conclusions

Download his latest PDF here http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0359

It seems to be a lot of statistical propositions and assumptions based on Random card draws than a traditional Mathematical proof.

Too much for me !

Rally

You watch what happens....they'll find a few more things and he'll change his mind again!!!. Always happens

Nesti (Mark) · #42 19-10-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

You watch what happens....they'll find a few more things and he'll change his mind again!!!. Always happens

Ahhh, the slippery trickery continues.

Any publicity is good publicity I guess.

renormalised (Carl) · #43 19-10-2009, 04:41 PM

How's this for a good reason to sabotage the LHC...in the future, a run on the LHC opens up a stable wormhole into another spacetime. Unbeknown to us, a malevolent group of entities which inhabit the other spacetime try to cross over to ours to wreak havoc, but group of multidimensional beings in our own spacetime cause the hole to collapse and send a surge of energy back through time to now, where it causes glitches and accidents in the LHC, to prevent them from generating the hole in the future

multiweb (Marc) · #44 19-10-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

Imagine if the thing stuffs up again. Still it would make a great go-kart race track

.

Mark

Yeah... and with that time shift business, all bets are off, unless you push the right buttons...

... could be interesting - rebrand it from LHC to TAB.

sjastro · #45 19-10-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rally

Prof Nielsen has released another paper and refutes his previous conclusions

Download his latest PDF here http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0359

It seems to be a lot of statistical propositions and assumptions based on Random card draws than a traditional Mathematical proof.

Too much for me !

Rally

Don't worry about it. It's appears to be written in classic Jinglish (given the co-author is Japanese.)
Words invented (eg "miraculocity"), poor grammar etc.

I know having struggled with Japanese scientific and engineering documents translated into English for nearly 20 years.

The document is not terribly convincing, but not having the original article doesn't help.

Steven

renormalised (Carl) · #46 19-10-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Don't worry about it. It's appears to be written in classic Jinglish (given the co-author is Japanese.)
Words invented (eg "miraculocity"), poor grammar etc.

I know having struggled with Japanese scientific and engineering documents translated into English for nearly 20 years.

The document is not terribly convincing, but not having the original article doesn't help.

Steven

Much like papers from the U.S., written in Yanklish. Wonder what would happen if you combined Jinglish and Yanklish in a academic paper??

Sounds almost Chinese...."Jianklish"

( Although, technically that would by "Xianklish"

)

sjastro · #47 19-10-2009, 06:49 PM

[QUOTE=renormalised;508720]Much like papers from the U.S., written in Yanklish. Wonder what would happen if you combined Jinglish and Yanklish in a academic paper??

/QUOTE]

Obviously you would get Yin and Yang.

AlexN · #48 19-10-2009, 06:52 PM

What a laugh..

And to think, Humans thought we'd passed the dark ages where science was seen as heresy... Now, its not the church trying to stop science, nay, God himself is traversing time to impede scientific advancement...

I love what Bert quoted, and its so true, so many people dont want to see the LHC running... They fear it. As its been since the dawn of time, people fear what they dont understand. Yet clearly, these people do not fear the idea of eating, despite the fact they have no idea exactly how their body breaks food down, turns it to energy and consumes the energy that is created.

The LHC is not something to be feared.. Rather, something to be revered.. How is it bad for mankind to strive to understand the nature of our own existence, How everything came to be.. Its pure non-sense. Yes, the LHC could create a black hole... and that is not something to be afraid of... Its exciting. We're not talking a black hole of the magnitude of the ones we detect in space... we're talking about micro black holes.. teency weency little ones.. The LHC will re-define human understanding of the universe..

Hubble was no different... It was a machine built by humans to gain a better understanding of the universe. It took some time to get it operating exactly the way it was supposed to, and since then, we've learnt SO much about the universe.. The LHC will have teething problems as any large scale machine/experiment dedicated to understanding things humans can not yet fathom.. And when it is fully operational, and the bugs are ironed out, like hubble, it will teach us so much, and the doom sayers can be wrong once again...

If, by some ridiculous chance something goes catastrophically wrong, and we all get swallowed up by a black hole the size of a few atoms, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, But I'll still say, Better to die having attempted to understand than live in ignorance.

renormalised (Carl) · #49 19-10-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Obviously you would get Yin and Yang.

But would it be truly balanced??

seanliddelow (Sean) · #50 19-10-2009, 07:48 PM

Perhaps the scientests at the LHC are trying to 'warp' Higgs Bosons so they can stop the time ripple and create the Higgs Boson in the first place. Its doesnt seem it has workd yet. Perhaps they can reverse the 2012 'catastrophe' or maybe they are making it worse. Looks like a case for the X-Files...........

Crap, I think im turning into a nutjob

.

Nesti (Mark) · #51 19-10-2009, 08:35 PM

A modern-day Excalibur; perhaps only ‘The Chosen One’ may press the almighty button…

It is stuck in the rock ya know!!!

Where's Ron Howard????

Paul Hatchman · #52 19-10-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpastern

If they can't be 100% sure that nothing untoward will happen to the planet, then we shouldn't be doing it. Plain and simple.

Dave,
You are just trading one kind of uncertainty for another. You are making an implicit assumption that the knowledge gained from the LHC is not useful for saving or vastly improving the planet in the future. By *not* doing the experiments we may lack the information required to prevent something untoward from happening to the planet.

As far as I can see, the LHC has gone through many different reviews where all of these concerns have been addressed and we just aren't doing anything with the LHC that doesn't already happen in nature. To me, there is more of a risk not to do it.

Cheers,

Paul.

dpastern (Dave Pastern) · #53 19-10-2009, 08:52 PM

Paul - the planet has survived for aeons without our human intervention. I argue that nature doesn't need mankind to tell it how to survive. And I'd be right. We still have very little understanding of evolution, of nature, and we could spend a LONG while studying and still not come much closer imho.

I'll quote George Mallory:

"because it's there"

and it cost him his life. Man is pretending to be a God, and to know the secrets of the Gods (to coin a phase). Remember the tale of Icarus? Of Arachne?

Dave

PS I'm not a Catholic btw, so no single God comes into play in my eyes. I'm not really what most people would call a religious nutto either. I'm fairly grounded, but cautious.

avandonk · #54 19-10-2009, 11:26 PM

Any black hole that is putatively created by the LHC would be so small that it's life would be cut very short by Hawking Radiation. A bit like the particles that appear fleetingly everywhere that gives empty space a dielectric constant that can be measured. It is called the Casimir Effect.

Please remember there are only two rules in the Universe

1. There is no free lunch.
2. If anything sounds to good to be true, it is not.

There are also only two real sins.

1. Ignorance.
2. Hipocrisy.

Most sins are a combination of both!

Bert

renormalised (Carl) · #55 19-10-2009, 11:44 PM

To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane, "The Universe is not only queer, it's queerer than we can suppose"...LHC, watch this space.

dpastern (Dave Pastern) · #56 19-10-2009, 11:46 PM

To quote Dave:

"I'd rather not take the chance and potentially gamble with everyones lives in order to prove I'm right".

Dave

avandonk · #57 19-10-2009, 11:47 PM

I am trying to come to grips with the absurd assertion that man can even play at being god. Let me get this correct. If I want to do something that is beyond the understanding or comprehension of another man then I am magically elevated to a pseudo god.

I can see the connection as gods were invented to explain what was not understood.

I will leave you all to join the dots.

Bert

renormalised (Carl) · #58 19-10-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

If I want to do something that is beyond the understanding or comprehension of another man then I am magically elevated to a pseudo god.

Or, you could say this..."Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic". Maybe it's better to be a magician...it's more fun in any case

Nesti (Mark) · #59 20-10-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

I am trying to come to grips with the absurd assertion that man can even play at being god.

Bert

"God" made us in his image. Monkey see, monkey do...

Cheers
Mark

Paul Hatchman · #60 20-10-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpastern

Paul - the planet has survived for aeons without our human intervention. I argue that nature doesn't need mankind to tell it how to survive.

Hi Dave,

You miss my point. It is not the planet, but humans that will need this technology to survive. It only takes one stray rock and we will not even be a footnote in the history of the planet.

Let me jump into sci-fi land here for a moment. Perhaps the LHC's discovery of the higgs boson would let us create an artifical mass that enbales us to deflect a future earth-bound asteroid.

So, I still say that your position could well be damning human kind to destruction.

Cheers,

Paul.