If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create BIG BANG
Which sim (66 mod??) u talking about?
"Doomsday Machine" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:qM4Sj.232108$pM4.116624@pd7urf1no... > French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) > Unknown Planetary Risk To Create BIG BANG > > French Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) > Old Dying Physicists want to go out with a BIG BANG > > What are we talking about? > > Many helpful Links and Video links at end of post. > > http://lhcconcerns.com/ > > In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The > Large > Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along > the French and Swiss border with a total estimated circumference of 17 > miles > will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal > behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements > of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down > further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once > thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down), > Electrons, and Protons discovered. > > The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the > "Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter > Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is > believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the > observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be smashing these Hadrons > (specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the > average > person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light). > > To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams > will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains > roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt = > 1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV. > Although > such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space, > this > will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on > Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other > possibilities > that could arise. > > Why haven't I heard about this before? > > Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a > lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or > even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot > more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's > geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not > covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest, > or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of > understanding > something so complex. Still however there are several Documentaries and > other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure > why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective > it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific > Expirement of al time. > > Why We're Concerned > > To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that > the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator > in > history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O. > Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial > invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and > More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle > accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has > increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction > of > the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH > Production, > Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as > relevant > possibilities. > > So, what's different this time? > > This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite > different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were > explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these > scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a > total > combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies > generated > by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality, > in > fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here > is > an excerpt from Safety at the LHC > > "If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much > higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is > still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC > are > harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a > process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract > matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink, > evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it > vanishes. > If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist > only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way > they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay." > We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section. > > So, what's the problem? > > In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would > evaporate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and > being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has > never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is > that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings > Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer > Published > a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that > Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would > not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this document go here > Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.) > > In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and > theories which have gained a lot of support in the scientific community > such > as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced, > which > do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than > previously thought. > > The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for > safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately > references > Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect > then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate. > > Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create > Black > Holes on Purpose? > > Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to > usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in > Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently > which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in > fact > not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of > Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the > nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds. > > Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't evaporate, what next? > > Here is another place that CERN's safety assessment is incapable of > addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton > beam > is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in > each > beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision > would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative > sense > any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both > beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or > to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape > velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull. > > At that point two hypothetical scenarios exist. It would either maintain a > rather low orbit within our planet itself, slowly accreting mass at an > exponential rate, or it's possible it may "gravitate" to the direct center > of the planet in which case would accrete mass very quickly > > Wait a second, I've also heard of other dangers like "Strange Matter", > "Bubble Nucleation", and "Magnetic Monopoles", why the focus on Black > Holes? > > It is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem > with > representing them accurately is the true danger can never be quantified as > None of these have been observed, however that does not mean the risk is > zero. The very fact that this experiment is called an experiment is the > prove a hypothesis, if the results were truly known then this would not be > occurring in the first place. > > The Large Hadron Collider is going to be forcing Protons together in a > very > unnatural way, not only forcing them into groups of roughly 3,000 protons > for the collisions, but exposing them to temperatures colder than space as > well (1.9 K or -271 C). These types of collisions in a sense are unnatural > because collisions at those speeds and temperature would never happen, > meaning at the point of activation, no one will truly know these results > until they occur, in a matter of Femtoseconds we would be placing the > entire > world in potential Danger. I've seen many websites calculate > possiblity/problem or a percentage of risk, however without many of these > theories as proof, there is no accurate way to calcuate them, So although > the risk potential is unknown, the risk can never be calculated at zero. > > Although the credence given Strange Matter production, and it's subsequent > catalytic behavior by the scientific community is not always mutual. > Certain > types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically convert > all > matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is not > as > likely as creating a Black Hole, it's worth mentioning because it is a > possibility. > > I want to learn more, where can I go? > > The internet is a good place, it brought you here, didn't it? Of course > you > could always visit the links on the site, and take part in our discussion > on > the forum, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with all the issues, > and > a basic understanding of Black Holes won't hurt either, of course I can > always recommend reading A Brief History of Time or the Universe in a > Nutshell there is always Google, for as many people as there are > concerned, > there are people who believe the danger is zero, it's important for you, > to > properly evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion, of course we > would like your support, however, the goal of this web site is > information, > discussion, action, and rationale, we are real people after all, and so > are > you. > > Thinking outside the box can't hurt either, I encourage you to Talk to a > Professor at a local college, write a Letter to CERN, do whatever you need > to do to inform yourself and make an informed decision, any contribution > you > make, even discussing with one other single person in the world, has the > possibility to make all the difference. > > Links.. > > Large Hadron Collider > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider > > CERN > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN > > LHC Concerns > > http://lhcconcerns.com/ > > National Geograhic - The God Particle > > http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text > > BBC News - Lab Fireball May Have Been Black Hole > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm > > An Open Letter To Stephen Hawking > > http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/F...c.php?f=2&t=72 > > Black Holes On Demand (George Street Journal) > > http://www.brown.edu/Administration/.../26GSJ10a.html > > CBC News - LHC > > http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/lhc.html > > New York Times - LHC Dangerous? > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss > > LHC Legal Defense Fund > > http://www.lhcdefense.org/ > > MySpace STOP CERN Website > > http://www.myspace.com/stopcern > > LHC Risk Evaluation Forum > > http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/ > > YouTube music Video Of The Atom Smasher (LHC) Black Hole Generator > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOFSrS03wjE#GU5U2spHI_4 > > French Build Doomsday Machine > > http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com...ay_Machine.htm > > U-Tube Videos > > Documentery > > Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [1 of 3] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJ6P...eature=related > > Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [2 of 3] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNPp...eature=related > > Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [3 of 3] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZ...eature=related > > The Large Hadron Collider: The End Of The Universe? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPxYd...eature=related > > > |
Ads |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black HoleGenerator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create BIG BANG | Bob Simpson | Simulators | 25 | May 22nd 08 12:23 PM |
Massive Black Dot Problem | Jennifer | Saturn | 17 | May 28th 04 10:05 PM |