God Is Sabotaging The Large Hadron Collider

[CaptainStoner]

Whether they find the bison(sick) or not, they will learn from the LHC, we will advance from it.

I am very interested in this experiment.

@ booj.. what a way to go eh, falling into the big bang..

Edited February 14, 2010 by CaptainStoner

[RilverSizlas]

How much has been spent on the various "nuclear fusion" research experiments, like tokomak? Billions.

How much power has any one of these massive devices generated? 0 watts.

How much power have they put in up to now? Gigawatts.

I well remember one of the scientist talking about this technology years ago, claiming something like "we will put 20MW in, and we will get 200MW out".

Sounds like a free energy device to me, or a perpetual motion machine, both of which are impossible according to their own laws of physics.

Please look up nuclear fusion, it's not free energy, unless you mean in the same way as the sun produces free energy. The hope is that we can free more energy than it uses to release it. According to your logic a coal power station is a perpetual motion machine.

I have no idea what this standard model you talk of is, as far as I'm concerned there is only science and bullshit, and you've been fed the bullshit.

[Cosmic Dick]

Please look up nuclear fusion, it's not free energy, unless you mean in the same way as the sun produces free energy. The hope is that we can free more energy than it uses to release it. According to your logic a coal power station is a perpetual motion machine.

I have no idea what this standard model you talk of is, as far as I'm concerned there is only science and bullshit, and you've been fed the bullshit.

You admit you have no idea what the standard model is, then you claim I've been fed bullshit.

I'm not the one being FED bullshit, you are, you obviously don't think for yourself, or read for yourself.

You could say I may have READ bullshit, but not FED, sorry, that is your problem, not mine.

I suggest you go and read about the standard model, try to understand it is based on assumption upon assumption.

As for what you call science, well you don't know yourself, do you, but the science you are happy with is theoretical physics, all in the mind and mathematics, whereas mine is all based on measurement and observation.

In the science that I believe, they have no need to invent miraculous things like black holes, or mysterious unseen dark matter, and unmeasurable dark energy.

I state again, they have not produced one single watt of power from their nuclear fusion experiments.

The Standard Model of todays science is, to me, IDENTICAL to the christian creation story in Genesis, just a brief introduction to the similarity of the two theories (or religions, they are both the same):

God said "Let There be Light" and the universe was created, an obvious miracle, no need yo question further.

Science says "Let there be a Big Bang", where the entire universe was created out of nothing.... another obvious miracle, and one that they give the full hollywood treatment with spectacular graphics, the mother of all bangs, and if you question them about the origin of that, they insist it is nonsense to talk about a before, you can't question it... it was a miracle.

God created the heavens and the Earth, an obvious miracle, no need to question further.

Science says the Sun and all the planets formed from a large dusty disc, with the sun firing up it's nuclear furnace due to the force of gravity, quite odd this idea, as gravity is the weakest of forces, and the planets coalesced out of the remaining dust, NONE of which has ever been observed, and which they themselves cannot even reproduce on their massive computer models without inputting fudge factors.

I will leave it to you if you want to continue the comparison.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Cosmic Dick

[Russkya]

it will not find anything of the so-called super-massive sub-atomic particles

E=MC2

The subatomic particles become relatively massive due to the speed they are being forced to go at [near to the speed of light]. As things move faster they actually increase in mass [or energy they're one and the same under einsteins theory]. For the benefit of the layman if you throw a tennis ball with your hand you have given it kinetic energy, this actually makes the ball acquire more mass/get heavier. The faster you go the more mass you have, why the universal speed limit is the speed of light, as you approach the speed of light you get so mass laden you need logarithmic scales more thrust to go faster.

No other collider has yet been able to bring these particles up to such speeds because the tracks needed to be so big.

I'm not making any wagers as to what they find/if they'll find it. But there is a good reason why they built the LHC as it is.

[Cosmic Dick]

Please look up nuclear fusion, it's not free energy, unless you mean in the same way as the sun produces free energy. The hope is that we can free more energy than it uses to release it. According to your logic a coal power station is a perpetual motion machine.

There you have another belief in free energy (in bold).

I claim there is no free energy.

Even the Sun is not free energy, it is powered from an outside source.

I believe in a different model of the Sun.

For you, and most standard modelers, the Sun is powered by a nuclear fusion source at it's centre.

For me, a better analogy would be a fluorescent light, powered externally, just like you have many examples of in your home.

Even your/my HPS growlamp is a better model than the nuclear furnace model, but the best is the fluorescent tube.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Cosmic Dick

[Cosmic Dick]

I'm not making any wagers as to what they find/if they'll find it. But there is a good reason why they built the LHC as it is.

Pity that, I am willing to wager, and I still say their reasoning was bad.

Re the wager, I don't mean "I'll bet you...", that is pointless, I'll use a bookie, probably William Hill, and I look forward to getting good odds as it appears everyone believes the hype, they/you are all so confident, although the phrase "they MUST know what they are doing...." that you often hear/see would not instill confidence in me.

But I have plenty of time before the full power runs in 2013.

As for it's results, not a single fear on my part, no micro-black holes (they don't exist), no passage to other dimensions (I have no need to have more than the three we have), no time-travel or time-anything (time is not a dimension, it is just a continuous now).

As another here has commented, brutal, "bang the rocks together, guys"...

It is like we have a Jumbo Jet, and to work out how it functions we fly it at high speed into a mountain, and then examine the debris.

[Cosmic Dick]

it will not find anything of the so-called super-massive sub-atomic particles

E=MC2

The subatomic particles become relatively massive due to the speed they are being forced to go at [near to the speed of light].

thank you for the SM interpretation, and I am aware of this, might I say, there could be another interpretation?

Take the letter C in your equation, that represents the speed of light, which SM's claim is the maximum speed of anything?

So what is the speed of gravity?

Even Newton, who gave us the gravity force, knew that it had to be instantaneous, because if it wasn't, then the Earth in it's orbit would "feel" the Suns gravity over 8 minutes late, the Sun would be 8 minutes further in it's orbit, and the torque forces resulting would eventually fling the Earth out of orbit.

Within a few thousand years.

And if it's bad for the Earth, consider Jupiter.

So C is exceeded by G.

In the theory I hold to believe, this is no surprise, it is expected and predicted.

[Russkya]

The speed of gravity can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16 and PSR B1534+12. The orbits of these pulsars around each other is decaying due to loss of energy in the form of gravitational radiation. The rate of this energy loss ("gravitational damping") can be measured, and since it depends on the speed of gravity, comparing the measured values to theory shows that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%.

Actual source was a 2001 paper.

I don't claim to know enough about it for open debate - it's clearly a complex science and my thoughts are it best left to those qualified to understand it. They'll either find what they're looking for or they won't but not finding anything is always a result in science.

[Albeit a very expensive one I admit].

[Cosmic Dick]

The speed of gravity can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16 and PSR B1534+12. The orbits of these pulsars around each other is decaying due to loss of energy in the form of gravitational radiation. The rate of this energy loss ("gravitational damping") can be measured, and since it depends on the speed of gravity, comparing the measured values to theory shows that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%.

Actual source was a 2001 paper.

I don't claim to know enough about it for open debate - it's clearly a complex science and my thoughts are it best left to those qualified to understand it. They'll either find what they're looking for or they won't but not finding anything is always a result in science.

[Albeit a very expensive one I admit].

I disagree with it, but that counts for nothing.

Re your garbage of wiki, you are closer to the truth than you realise, the gatekeepers of out knowledge do not allow anything which disputes the standard model too deeply.

As for your "don't know enough" followed by "best left to those qualified", does that mean you don't think you are capable of understanding it?

I find that sad, but completely understandable.

If you believe you are not capable of understanding the Standard Model I would agree with you, because I thought exactly the same.

Then I re-educated myself, and realised that I am capable of fully understanding everything I need to know to explain anything about how things work.

And I believe you are too. We all are, because the truth is much simpler than we are led to believe.

That does not mean I am capable of knowing everything, for there are three things I know that I can never know, probably.

1. The size of the universe - probably infinite

2. The age of the Universe - probably infinite

3. The origin of the universe - probably always been here

[Russkya]

I firmly believe anyone is capapble of understanding anything - given the will.

I was more talking of qualified by experience and education and forming an opinion on something I do not fully [or even partially in the scheme of things] understand would be a foolish endeavour. I wouldn't advise a plasterer on how to plaster, a baker how to bake, a climate scientist on the climate nor a particle physicist on particle physics.

If one can draw a level of knowledge to discuss it then power to them, alas it is not me in this particular field - my experiences in science however would lead me to believe that the "truth" if it were so simple would spill out pretty fast. The level of bitching and back stabbing and leaks of private notes in the fields of research staggered me when I first entered it. I do recognise the standard model has many flaws however.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Russkya

[Cosmic Dick]

No probs Russkya, I never expected anyone here yo be a physicist, and because of that I would never challenge anyone here to defend the Standard Model.

I am only interested in getting people to think for themselves, after all, IMHO, that is what cannabis is all about, it lets you THINK....

...or it should do, it does to me, and it obviously did for Baudelaire and his cronies:

http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?show...t&p=2109396

But I am beginning to wonder a little about this forum, there does appear to be a few closed minds around, ....

....... and it is the philosophy dept (of Walamaloo?... Monty Pythons)

Perhaps a little experiment might open a few minds here.

Lets try it, you can do this mentally, or you could actually do this physically, at almost any size you care to try, because the bigger you do this the more obvious the effect.

Cost of experiment, a few quid maybe, although you could get bits from a scrap yard.

You want to set up a whirlpool in a container, so this is as simple as a cup of water and a teaspoon, or a bowl and a larger stirring device.

Or go larger still, use similar method to laboratories, a magnetic stirrer as in stick some supermagnets to a computer fan, this can sit below your bowl, and inside the bowl is a lump of iron, perhaps a few nails, wrapped up together in tape. When you rotate the motor and magnets, it will drag the iron bar round with it.

Fill with water, stir/rotate until you have a nice little whirlpool, not too deep needed for this experiment, but deep enough to be visible.

Now drop some small floating beads on the surface at various distances away from the centre.

You will notice that they orbit the centre, just like our own solar system, and if you observe closely enough you will find that they follow Keplers laws.

To show that better, try offsetting the whirpool from the centre of the container, put it nearer to a side, and then you may get lots of eccentric orbits, but all these orbits follow Keplers law, as in, sweeping out the same area in the same time.

Notice here please, this model recreates orbital mechanics, but my point here is, at the centre of THIS model is ..... what?

I'ts a depression, a nothing. Think about it, there is nothing there.

Now consider that they say that at the centre of all galaxies is a massive black hole, because only that can account for the fact that the stars in these galaxies are moving so fast, they should fly off, so in their model there MUST be a black hole at the centre.

Yet this little experiment shows that nothing can have the same effect.

Okay, this model only had a few floating balls, it would be hard to make a similar model to show millions of stars doing the same thing.

Wouldn't be cheap,you might think, probably at least a supercomputer?

How about for the price of a (good) cup of coffee?

Let me introduce you to an artist, and a layman scientist. He makes video's too.

I like artists, they are great observers, and thinkers, and often as mad as hatters.

My personal favourite artist, it can only be Leonardo da Vinci.

But let me stress, by showing you this video, it does not mean I agree with his theory, but I certainly can't show it to be wrong, and it is very interesting.

So, back to that cup of coffee....

If you are interested further in his theory, his website is: hxxp://www.goodfelloweb.com/index.html

[WackieChewBaccie]

there switchin it on in an hour or so

[ninorc]

Live coverage streamed from CERN here

[GoGoBongzilla]

If the LHC was a person I would marry it and we would be so happy together.

[GoGoBongzilla]

Live coverage streamed from CERN here

Holey Moley. A million thank you's for this link!