NY Times: "Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More"
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
New Particle Reactor\Collider\Accelerator Could Cause Black Hole That Eats Earth
New York Times Article
Yeah.
But the article also says that scientists say that this is "highly unlikely".
Okay.
I guess everything is safe then.
Where is LaterDays to tell us that the "Precautionary Principle" can actualy be more detrimental than the harm it potentialy stops, and that the burden of proof is on the "industry" to prove that these blackholes really can be created, and that they pose a threat of eating the earth and the solar system?
HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT?
???
:cool:
New York Times Article
article wrote:But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Yeah.
But the article also says that scientists say that this is "highly unlikely".
Okay.
I guess everything is safe then.
Where is LaterDays to tell us that the "Precautionary Principle" can actualy be more detrimental than the harm it potentialy stops, and that the burden of proof is on the "industry" to prove that these blackholes really can be created, and that they pose a threat of eating the earth and the solar system?
HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT?
???
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
No.
I was wondering what their credentials were, myself.
Like i said, i can't do a lot of research on this computer at work.
But NY Times is on the approved list, apparently.
btw.
i'm glad you read that article a week ago.
you are so like, ahead of the curve.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Times Topics: CERNMr. Sancho, who describes himself as an author and researcher on time theory, lives in Spain, probably in Barcelona, Mr. Wagner said. "
there you go. I'm really going to place a lot of weight in someone who "studied physics". doesn't say he actually even has a DEGREE in physics, which still wouldn't qualify him to make such a bold claim. the second guy appears to have no background at all in science of than being a self described "researcher on time theory", whatever the hell that is.
actually, I'm very much behind the curve. I just read this story because a coworker brought it up to me last week. I usually spend most of my workday on ebaumsworld.com or musiciansfriend or looking for deals on ebay.
Actually, i took physics...
TWICE,
in highschool.
Moved in the middle of my junior year, and the chemistry class at my old school was so hopelessly far behind the chemistry class at my new school, they just stuck me in physics for a second go round.
lol.
I guess that makes me double qualified?
In that case,
i say this whole black hole thing runs pretty deep.
We need to investigate further in to it.
Who wants to go first?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
if its that easy for us to destroy ourselves, humanity is doomed anyway, so i wouldnt worry about it.
people thought splitting atoms would start a chain reaction that would obliterate everything.
i've heard that microscopic black holes could be everywhere, and could pass right through you, but it wouldnt hurt you. Eventually over thousands of years it would grow slightly larger and eat everything. not sure which theory would be right.
i love the science channel. on one show about the Multiverse, the scientist was saying that creating a new universe is theoretically easy, but our universe would expand to cover it so we wouldnt notice. or something. to be honest it was all over my head. but it was cool.
I'm listening to this guy on Alex Jones right now, from the Tuesday show.
He went to school at UC Berkley studying physics for three years, before he switched to a biology major. He says it was because he could "graduate earlier".
He says, "I went back to work in physics, uh, in comsic radiation physics, at Berkley for a couple of years. Had some interesting experimental results. Found a particle..."
Alex Jones cuts him off: "Thats right. You're famous. You found a new particle. Go on..."
Wagner: "Yeah. Thats correct. It made the news media at the time. It was all over the world. It was published in peer reviewed articles and so forth. Its not been confirmed as of yet, at least not satisfactorily confirmed, but that doesn't detract from the fact that..."
Alex: "That was a high altitude balloon, correct? Picking up a space particle before it decayed, correct?"
Wagner: "Exactly. The particle that was detected, we believe, was a 'magnetic monopole'. It was a cosmic ray particle tract, that we saw that was completely different from tens of thousands of other particle tracts we'd previously seen."
Alex: "Interesting. Please continue"
Wagner: "So after that i decided to go to law school, see what that was like. And i spent three years struggling through law school, and got out of that, decided that was not what i wanted to do, and I went back in to work in physics, and worked in nuclear medicine, out of a nuclear medicine department in health physics, where we were using large varities of radioactive materials in medical research, and i overviewed the program for about 400 authorized users, to make sure they were using the program correctly."
Then he goes on to talk extensively about getting interested in super-colliders in the 1980's.
If i could even spell or comprehend half of the terms he uses in his extremely fast talking style, i would transcribe it.
Suffice to say, he sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Wether he is involved with their use directly, or not.
So, uh ... i don't know if you think he's qualified or not. I have no idea what the fuck a "magnetic monopole" is, but the guy doesn't sound exactly like "hobbyist physicist" to me.
You think his credentials were just a BIT intentionaly under-represented?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
One of these is a "strangelette".
You guys really have to listen to this shit, cause there is no way in hell i'm transcribing it. Hell, i can't even understand half of it.
Fucking physics.
Up down and strange quarks.
Yay!
I always like the Up quarks best. They're pretty.
"It's believed that these can then rearrange themselves and form a new kind of a nucleus, a new kind of atom formed out of up down and strange quarks. And this new kind of atom is more stable than a normal atom. In other words, if it touches a normal atom it will fuse with it, release energy, and become even larger and more stable this would allow for a chain reaction [alex groans heavily] ... for it to continue to fuse with more and more atoms. The process would first be very slow. It might take decades for it to accumulate to the size of a pea. But eventualy it too would fall to the center of the earth, because anything that touches it becomes part of it, therefore can't stop it from falling, and so eventually it would grow larger and larger inside the center of the earth, and cause our planet to explode."
Alex: "They might not even discover it. It could form inside the hundreds of miles of tunnel, anywhere."
Wagner: "Yeah thats possible. If its neutral in charge when its formed, we would never detect it."
Alex: [driping with sarcasm] "Oh! Wonderful!"
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I guess the question i have is this:
I love science. I'm an idiot when it comes to stuff like this, but i'm so glad people with bigger brains than i can groove on it.
However, when it comes to massive particle reactors that could jeopardize the future of the solar system, my question is: What exactly do we stand to gain? I mean of practical significance? What is figuring out what happend in the big bang going to objectively accomplish for us?
Warp speed travel? Worm holes? Teleporting?
Cost\benefit risk\reward analysis.
What is the benefit\reward?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The "Sancho" guy is a former professor at the University of Barcelona, who spent his life working in "Systems Science" which is a composite of biology and physics.
Again, the article chose to minimize his credentials.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As for the danger, I think people are playing on irrational fear. The chances for this reactor to turn the earth into a 5cm ball are much lower than the earth being destroyed by an asteroid. I'd be more concerned about that.
I have a degree in psychology, but that certainly doesn't make me Pavlov.
the fact that he "discovered a new particle" would be indication to me that his understanding of astrophysics may just be slightly greater than his formal schooling indicates. I also don't think you gain a supervisory position reviewing a 400 person nuclear medicine program, unless you have some sort of qualification in the field.
I'm not saying he is Einstein, but here is a question for you, and i want you to both think about and then answer it:
What "formal qualifications" did Albert Einstein have?
Think about it. Answer it.
Perhaps we could write an article poking fun at him?
"Young man, who had trouble focusing in class, and did not graduate highschool, failed his entrance exams at ETH Zurich, went to another school, and then finaly did re-enter the Federal Technology Institute to obtain a physics degree, then failed to become a teacher, finaly settling for a job as a patent clerk ... describes himself as a 'hobyist physicist' with an interest in quantum physics has postulated a new theory he calls 'relativity' ... it remains unproven."
What was it that made Einstein qualified?
That last year of college physics?
You either know what you're talking about, have a brain and passion for it, and are well versed in the cutting edge of physics, or you are not.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Einstein began studying physics at age 10, published his first scientific paper at age 15, graduated with a degree in physics at age 21. the rest is history. your point? you can write an article poking fun at him if you want to make yourself look foolish. just as it's foolish to compare the guy in the article to Einstein. it's silly, imo, to try to compare this guy's credentials and claims to what Einstein accomplished over a 100 years ago.
put this guy's credentials up against the credentials of the people he is suing, then I'll determine who I put more faith in.
i specificaly said, "I'm not saying he is Einstein", goober.
My point is that formal schooling isn't everything,
but it is the only thing you have referenced now, two or three times.
BTW, this Wagner guy also says that he is causing internal debate within the institutions responsible for pushing this collider, and that their failure to deliver to him, in timely fashion, the formal document responses which they have claimed to be sending, is evidence that they are at a loss to explain some of the discrepancies in their preparatory work. He says he also thus believes that the judge will probably end up granting him the injunction he is seeking.
This guy isn't some nut.
He isn't a neo-Luddite, a mad scientist, or a conspiracy freak.
He has a self professed love for science, and he even indicated that at some point he sees it as possible that these massive colliders get built in safe fashion.
His overwhelming point is that the necessary leg-work to ensure the saftey of such a device has NOT been done. Scientists have yet to even satisfactorily observe some of these particles\elements via passive means (like with observatories and such) enough (or at all!) to even understand what it is the heck they are about to be blasting into eachother at the speed of light.
What exactly, in your opinion, is so wrong about a guy who seems to understand a fairly damn good bit about quantum physics wanting to challenge in court the saftey precautions (or lack there of) of an agency which wants to collide hitherto unresearched subatomic particles in to eachother without even filing basic environmental impact assessment statements?
Surely you agree that something as profoundly awesome as a subautomic collider should be vetted and reviewed for its possible environmental hazards, don't you?
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
my opinion of it is that if he comes nowhere close to having the credentials of those whose work he wishes to hold up, then the case has no validity and should be thrown out of court.
as for the last statement, do you honsetly think that this is something that was haphazardly thrown together without any thought being put into it? does the article not say that a whole group of scientists have spent many years researching and putting this thing together?
it sounds to me like he is in fact a nut, who is jealous that he doesn't have the qualifications to be included in this group of researchers. so he is using the court system as some kind of validation that he or his theories should be considered as worthy among these scientists.
Sure, we are pretty intelligent AND irresponsible, but does anyone REALLY think we can cause a black hole? A freaking black hole? One of the biggest mysteries of all that is known? Or a starmunchkin thing that turns us into strange matter?
Come on now?
Your claims against this man are even more unsubstantiated than (so says you) the claims he is making against the proponents of this collider.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
actually, they're not. I said that having a few college physics classes and a degree in biology does not qualify one to challenge leading scientists, and it doesn't.
This was actually a movie called "Event Horizon" starring Sam Neil and Lawrence Fishbourne from the late 90s. a pretty decent movie actually. of course, it was 100% fiction. I imagine that movie is where these 2 crackpots got their ideas from.
You guys are being fucking asinine.
BBC Article from 2005: Lab fireball 'may be black hole'
Fox News 2008: Scientists Create Artificial Black Hole in Lab
These two fellows are not fucking morons.
They don't claim that this is some 100% certain event that will occur. They say that we are dealing with fucking subatomic physics which is at the very cusp of scientific understanding. We are dealing with laws of physics that we just barely understand. It thus stands to reason, that we could end up causing some unintended consequences.
YOU are the ones looking more and more like idiots by the moment, not me.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I for one didn't call you an idiot, and don't recall anyone else in this thread calling you an idiot. but when you're losing an argument and you resort to name calling, it cheapens any argument that you may have.
is the fire/black hole still burning? if not, how does someone put it out?
imagine if they created a mini sun that you can carry around in a lead box (it would have to be lead I assume) and you have special gloves and you can just bust it out when it gets dark. You could train it to float next to you? you know, like a flashlight.
You're right, you said, "It makes you look FOOLISH",
so sorry.
And all said is, "looking more like an idiot".
So you didn't call me a fool, and i didn't call you an idiot.
:cool:
And who was being a condescending shmuck first?
Losing an argument my ass.
You were simply making ad hominem attacks.
Again, reap what you sow.
Still looking foolish, bub.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i believe what has been suggested is that the blackhole they allegedly created did not accquire enough new mass to sustain itself.
The guy ya'll think is a blooming moron, this Wagner fellow, remains cautiously skeptical that they have atually created such a hole, for the same reasons actualy.
So are you agreeing with this uncredentialed wacko?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
here's what I said......"you can write an article poking fun at him if you want to make yourself look foolish. just as it's foolish to compare the guy in the article to Einstein". now, please don't misquote me again.
now, you called me "goober", said the dissenters were being "fucking asinine", etc etc.
this guy Wagner is a crackpot. I have a friend with a degree in biology that's working campus police at a local university. maybe I'll call and ask his opinion on this whole ordeal.
by the overwhelming responses you've got, you've lost this argument. try to play nicer next time.
1. imho, goober was used in a playful manner to indicate to you that telling me "it's foolish to compare the guy in the article to Einstein" when i specificaly indicated that i was NOT comparing him to einstein is, in fact, just silly. How could you miss that? You accused me of doing something i specificaly did not do.
2. This thread started off pretty well, even considering your initial veiled jab of "I've read that whole story, like a week ago." ... which, wether you want to admit it or not, is a condescending comment, indicating, "yawn. this is old hat. lame for bringing it up".
3. it IS asinine to insinuate that someone who may or may not know what he is talking about (Wagner) is getting his ideas from a movie from the 1990s, when there are articles from the current decade indicating that what you are calling fiction HAS in fact occured.
And yet you would rather continue with character assassination then simply address some simple questions.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?