 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / August 2005Strangelets Disaster Contingency Plan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F05%2F12%2Fwnugg12.xml Highly regarded authorities like Sir Martin Rees, England's Astronomer Royal, in his latest book "Our Final Hour" warns of the possibility of catastrophic results of high enregy physics experiments. Black holes created in the labs or the formation of an exotic form of matter called a "strangelet" could destroy the planet. Strangelets formed as a result of breaking apart quarks and reforming in an exotic configuration would travel at the speed of light, in all directions, converting every thing in its path into a like exotic form. In the event the super accelerators being finished in a few years (2007) would produce these strangelets that can eat matter. Is there a way to stop them at their origin before they spread. For example. What if particle accelerator labs would be installed with a thermonuclear contingency device and the lab would be set to self-destruct in a few minutes upon realization that there is no way to stop the spread of the strangelets. Would the million of degrees of temperature cancel its formation? What would it take to stop them once it started by accidents? In case nukes didn't stop them. Can magnetic containment be initiated in neary state to carry it to a shuttle for quick launch to deep space where it couldn't do harm here on earth. Could you think up of any way to confine them and divert them to other locations. If it reaches the sun. Would it consume it and make our sun dead prematurely? CSCP (Civilian Strangelets Contingency Planners) "It's better to be safe than worry" > Black holes created in > the labs or the formation of an exotic form of matter [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > matter. Is there a way to stop them at their origin before > they spread. The "new generation of atom smashers" is at least five orders of magnitude less energetic that the atom smashing going on right over your head! > > Black holes created in > > the labs or the formation of an exotic form of matter [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of magnitude less energetic that the atom smashing going on > right over your head! http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-matter.html "First, let's examine the lunar argument: some cosmic rays have the mass and equivalent energy of a gold atom flying around in the RHIC. However, the Moon is a stationary target, so the center-of-mass (COM) energy is far below that of a collision in the RHIC. Fully acknowledging that this argument fails, the Review authors turn (in apparent desperation) to the head-on cosmic ray collision argument. Deep space cosmic ray head-on collisions could generate small strangelets. If the strangelets are stable, (long-lived) they could be swept up in the course of years in new star development. If so, they would cause supernovas at a much higher rate than observed; hence stable strangelets are not being created. However, that argument does not speak to the RHIC disaster scenario, which only requires metastable strangelets (not stable ones), so it also fails." In 2007. The Large Hadron Collider being presently built in Europe will be operational. It is aimed to seek out the supersymmetric partners and the hidden dimensions of the strings. It will be the world's most powerful accelerator. It may be the one that may finally create the ELE (Extinction Level Event) Strangelets and consequent hadrons fusions. For this reason. We asked China and other independent nations with nuclear capabilities to review the case with urgency. Should there be a clear and present danger. We have no option but to launch a preempt nuclear strike on the construction site of the Large Hadron Collider to save all of humanity. This act would be nothing compared to the demise of the entire human race. CSCP | In 2007. The Large Hadron Collider being presently built in | Europe will be operational. It is aimed to seek out the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | CSCP http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html You are clearly a phuckwit. Androcles. >>>Black holes created in >>>the labs or the formation of an exotic form of matter [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > CSCP What deterines the life of a strangelet? How does this compare to the evaporation time of a black hole of similar mass? >> > Black holes created in >> > the labs or the formation of an exotic form of matter [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > acknowledging that this argument fails, the Review authors turn (in > apparent desperation) to the head-on cosmic ray collision argument. Bwahahaha: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html Klazmon. > The "new generation of atom smashers" is at least five orders > of magnitude less energetic that the atom smashing going on > right over your head! Integrated over an earth sized sphere, do you have any idea what the flux is compared to that of the upcoming accelerators? Bob  Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > light, in all directions, converting every thing in its > path into a like exotic form. Didn't happen. Long Island is regrettably still there. > "It's better to be safe than worry" Idiot. You bow down to imaginary gods. Uncle Al will diddle his woman. We'll see who comes out on top. [snip crap] SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > other locations. If it reaches the sun. Would it consume it > and make our sun dead prematurely? There are few effective contingency plans which can be established after the charged quark mass has been produced. The largest problem is one of locating the strangelet while it is still within the mass of the accelerator. There is a small chance of disaster avoidance if this can be done. While massive and almost as dense as a black hole, the baby strangelet is still very light in terms of absolute mass. It will float within and mingle amongst the atoms that make up the substance around it, and may even be temporarily bound with charged atom groups in chemical bonding. It will eventually settle out of the mass because of gravity, but it could take many hours, to days for this to occur. Once the baby strangelet enters the earth itself, it will be lost to us and all forms at disaster amelioration will be out the window. One hope is to allow the strangelet to enter a dense sphere of uranium or some other dense metal, and then allow the sphere to rotate slowly within a strong magnetic field. We may be able to keep the strangelet captured in this manner for weeks to months. The only safe procedure at this point would be to load up the nose cone of a carefully prepared rocket with the containment sphere and launch it into space. Then the accelerator should be permanently shut down and the researchers tried for crimes against humanity and planicide. Greysky www.allocations.cc Learn how to build your own FTL radio. > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > www.allocations.cc > Learn how to build your own FTL radio. Or we could just stop bitching and learn to adapt to life on an Earth one centimeter in diameter! Double-A > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Double-A That is mighty small of you, Double-A ! RL > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > www.allocations.cc > Learn how to build your own FTL radio. Million of degrees of temperature can introduce enough kinetic energy to disengage the strangelet nucleus. The Large Hadron Collider being built near Geneva has a diameter of 5.4 miles. We can't use a convensional air assault armed with hellfire missiles to stop the strangelets. We can't trust the particle physicists themselves to announce to the world they have strangelet escaping and growing.. therefore a last minute nuclear missle launch from neighboring Great Britain and France would not stop the strangelet from forming nonstop. Therefore the best option would be to install fail safe nuclear self destruct device watched over by trained minuteman silo personnel who are trained for such red alert scenerio. The scientists and military personnel would still have windows of opportionity to escape via air transport by making a 10 minute detonation sequence. This is the only one to flatten the 5.4 miles particle accelerator labs and ensure the strangelets would be disable in the heart of millions of degrees of thermonuclear exposure. CSCP >>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 >>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > CSCP Perhaps these strangelets will just have to evaporate is a shower of particles. nightbat wrote > Sam Wormley > Perhaps these strangelets will just have to evaporate is a shower > of particles. nightbat Is that what the Cern scientists are hoping for that they just evaporate? I go with Officer Greysky's indications, oh the humanity, and all strangelet paid for by taxpayer research money as if they haven't been eaten enough. ponder on, the nightbat >nightbat wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >all strangelet paid for by taxpayer research money as if they haven't >been eaten enough. I have not been tracking Art Bell's show for the last year. However, this has the smell of his thumbs in it. You might try to double-check if this is one of his attempts to incite panic in the general world population. I would also check to see how anybody gets the title of British Astronomer (or whatever the hell the title is) If the author is legit, check if the guy has survived that "good grief I'm 40 (or 50) years old". A lot of men don't. /BAH > I would also check to see how anybody gets the title of > British Astronomer (or whatever the hell the title is) > If the author is legit, check if the guy has survived that > "good grief I'm 40 (or 50) years old". A lot of men > don't. Astronomer Royal. You get it by being a distinguished astronomer, rather than licking royal arses as a naive observer might imagine. Rees is also the president-elect of the Royal Society, so his scientific credential are impeccable. Ah. More royal stuff.... no, I really can't be bothered... It is a bit pervasive, isn't it? Not read the book, but I imagine he will have included some kind of risk assessment for each of the end-of-the-world scenarios (and there are many) he discusses. I think he's 60. Does that exclude him from your "menopausal apocalypse fantasy" diagnosis or is he just a late bloomer? nightbat wrote > > I would also check to see how anybody gets the title of > > British Astronomer (or whatever the hell the title is) > > If the author is legit, check if the guy has survived that > > "good grief I'm 40 (or 50) years old". A lot of men > > don't. > Pyriform > Astronomer Royal. You get it by being a distinguished astronomer, rather [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think he's 60. Does that exclude him from your "menopausal apocalypse > fantasy" diagnosis or is he just a late bloomer? nightbat Scientist or researcher age won't matter or be a factor once those Officer Greysky reported strangelets start sucking all of us in. Oh the humanity, not even the clueless kookoloo coffee boys will stand a chance. What contingency plan, if it strangelet event happens we all get eaten and the nightbat Red Halo 1st life candidate gets to start the whole process all over again. ponder on, the nightbat >> I would also check to see how anybody gets the title of >> British Astronomer (or whatever the hell the title is) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Astronomer Royal. You get it by being a distinguished astronomer, How does a distinguished astronomer become a particle physicist? From what I've seen, it takes the same number of decades to achieve one or the either. > ..rather >than licking royal arses as a naive observer might imagine. Rees is also >the president-elect of the Royal Society, so his scientific credential >are impeccable. Are his credentials impeccable in the field of particle physics or astronomy? These are areas of the very, very large and the very, very small. > .. Ah. More royal stuff.... no, I really can't be >bothered... It is a bit pervasive, isn't it? > >Not read the book, but I imagine he will have included some kind of risk >assessment for each of the end-of-the-world scenarios (and there are >many) he discusses. From these posts, it sounds like a book of speculation that is close to scifi...as in fiction. Again, was this guy interviewed by Art Bell about this book? That is my litmus test about the usefulness. >I think he's 60. Does that exclude him from your "menopausal apocalypse >fantasy" diagnosis or is he just a late bloomer? Some men never grow up. WE have one in s.p newsgroup who seems to have had the problem at 30 and has yet to grow out of it. /BAH > How does a distinguished astronomer become a particle physicist? > From what I've seen, it takes the same number of decades to achieve > one or the either. Look, you really could do this for yourself: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/IoA/staff/mjr/ I suspect (again, not having read the book!) that Rees does not place much credence on the strangelet apocalyptic scenario, but includes it for completeness. The book is, after all, a round up of ways in which the world *might* end, and is aimed at a lay audience. I think maybe I'll buy it and find out. I don't buy that. >> How does a distinguished astronomer become a particle physicist? >> From what I've seen, it takes the same number of decades to achieve [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >for completeness. The book is, after all, a round up of ways in which >the world *might* end, and is aimed at a lay audience. That's what it sounded like. I have problems with people who abuse their responsibilities in this manner. In my view, these foolish actions completely negate all the time and effort they've spent building up their reputation and value of their work. Sagan did this...and there was another one but I can't recall who. >I think maybe I'll buy it and find out. Good. You might also try to access Art Bell's web site to see if the book got promoted on one of his shows. >> I suspect (again, not having read the book!) that Rees does not place >> much credence on the strangelet apocalyptic scenario, but includes it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sagan did this...and there was another one but I can't recall > who. What did Sagan do that "completely negated" all his other work? He wrote exceptionally well, and used that talent to communicate scientific ideas to a wide audience. "The Demon-Haunted World" (for example) was a cogently argued and timely assault on the irrationality and superstition that threatens to overhelm our society. You have "problems" with that? Or maybe you were offended by his calls for nuclear disarmament, and his work on the threat from "nuclear winter"? You think that these matters were unworthy of his attention? As for Martin Rees, conducting an argument about the content of a book that neither of us has read seems to me faintly surreal. I've heard him speak often enough to be an admirer, and so I think I am on surer ground in defending him than you are in attacking him! You had never even heard of him before this thread referred to one of his books! >> I think maybe I'll buy it and find out. > > Good. You might also try to access Art Bell's web site > to see if the book got promoted on one of his shows. I really don't think Martin Rees is an Art Bell type of guy... >>> I suspect (again, not having read the book!) that Rees does not place >>> much credence on the strangelet apocalyptic scenario, but includes it [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I really don't think Martin Rees is an Art Bell type of guy... Martin Reese was on Art Bell May 12, 2003 to talk about his book. He was on after the dog eared monkey man and before Richard hoagland. I knew of his work well before this date and don't really think his appearance on that show negates his career. To attack someone for advertising his product is just stupid. If anything, it is a testament to Art Bell's smarts that he was able to snag such a mainline personage as Reese. Greysky >>>> I suspect (again, not having read the book!) that Rees does not place >>>> much credence on the strangelet apocalyptic scenario, but includes it [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >Martin Reese was on Art Bell May 12, 2003 to talk about his book. Well, it's nice to know that I've still got It. > .. He was on >after the dog eared monkey man and before Richard hoagland. Now you should really wonder about the presentation of the book. > ...I knew of his >work well before this date and don't really think his appearance on that >show negates his career. But it does demonstrate a lack of judgement. If the book needs to be promoted on that show, he is trying to present fiction as fact. Art Bell does nothing else. > ..To attack someone for advertising his product is >just stupid. To advertise one's product on a show that is known to present fiction as fact is stupider. > ..If anything, it is a testament to Art Bell's smarts that he was >able to snag such a mainline personage as Reese. It says something about the disintegration of Reese's discernment. /BAH >>> I suspect (again, not having read the book!) that Rees does not place >>> much credence on the strangelet apocalyptic scenario, but includes it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >What did Sagan do that "completely negated" all his other work? I did not say his work was negated. I said that he went off the deep end and lost all credibility _at that point in time_. After that, whenever he used his reputation to promote anything, I ignored it. > .. He wrote >exceptionally well, and used that talent to communicate scientific ideas >to a wide audience. No. I did have a problem with communicating non-scientific statements as if they were scientific. I can no longer remember the details other than it got JMF completely utterly hopping mad when the false assertions were made on a NOVA show. (This had to be in very late 70s or early 80s. > .."The Demon-Haunted World" (for example) was a >cogently argued and timely assault on the irrationality and superstition >that threatens to overhelm our society. You have "problems" with that? I haven't read it. However, to promote a personal irrationality using the Science vehicle so that the general public will accept the fiction as fact is a problem. >Or maybe you were offended by his calls for nuclear disarmament, and his >work on the threat from "nuclear winter"? You think that these matters >were unworthy of his attention? Everybody, including scientists, may have their personal political opinion. >As for Martin Rees, conducting an argument about the content of a book >that neither of us has read seems to me faintly surreal. I've heard him >speak often enough to be an admirer, and so I think I am on surer ground >in defending him than you are in attacking him! You had never even heard >of him before this thread referred to one of his books! But why did I guess that this was an Art Bell presentation? >>> I think maybe I'll buy it and find out. >> >> Good. You might also try to access Art Bell's web site >> to see if the book got promoted on one of his shows. > >I really don't think Martin Rees is an Art Bell type of guy... According to another post, he is. People get strange when they face their mortality and try to do something to fix that. This is my hypothesis about why people who did quality work in the past suddenly to off a deep end. /BAH > I did not say his work was negated. I said that he went off the > deep end and lost all credibility _at that point in time_. After > that, whenever he used his reputation to promote anything, I ignored > it. And yet you are unable to tell me what he said or did that offended you. > No. I did have a problem with communicating non-scientific > statements as if they were scientific. I can no longer remember > the details other than it got JMF completely utterly hopping > mad when the false assertions were made on a NOVA show. (This > had to be in very late 70s or early 80s. You can't remember the details? Can you perhaps recall even the merest glimmer of a vague approximation to the general subject area? Then perhaps we could grope our way towards having a discussion about it... >> .."The Demon-Haunted World" (for example) was a >> cogently argued and timely assault on the irrationality and >> superstition that threatens to overwhelm our society. You have >> "problems" with that? > > I haven't read it. I can't claim to be astonished. > However, to promote a personal irrationality > using the Science vehicle so that the general public will accept > the fiction as fact is a problem. This would be the "personal irrationality", the vaguest details of which you are presently unable to recall? >> Or maybe you were offended by his calls for nuclear disarmament, and >> his work on the threat from "nuclear winter"? You think that these >> matters were unworthy of his attention? > > Everybody, including scientists, may have their personal political > opinion. Not that then. >> As for Martin Rees, conducting an argument about the content of a >> book that neither of us has read seems to me faintly surreal. I've [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But why did I guess that this was an Art Bell presentation? No, it isn't an "Art Bell presentation". It's a book, which stands or falls on its own merits, not where it happens to be promoted. You obviously don't understand much about how publishing houses operate. (As a Brit, I am in any case almost entirely oblivious to the whole Art Bell phenomenom. I thought it was just a Usenet newsgroup until quite recently). >> I did not say his work was negated. I said that he went off the >> deep end and lost all credibility _at that point in time_. After >> that, whenever he used his reputation to promote anything, I ignored >> it. > >And yet you are unable to tell me what he said or did that offended you. It doesn't matter what the detail was. I'm talking about using one's reputation to sell nonsense; this is not using good common sense and, besides that, stupid. >> No. I did have a problem with communicating non-scientific >> statements as if they were scientific. I can no longer remember [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >glimmer of a vague approximation to the general subject area? Then >perhaps we could grope our way towards having a discussion about it... I don't want to talk about the detail. I am talking about having the ability to smell bullshit while you see it flowing out of the rearend of the bull. >>> .."The Demon-Haunted World" (for example) was a >>> cogently argued and timely assault on the irrationality and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >This would be the "personal irrationality", the vaguest details of which >you are presently unable to recall? EVerything Sagan did after that deception was subject to extreme scrutiny. Before that I would have taken what he said without much analytical application on my part. Granted, SOP requires that I do this with everything said by everybody but I don't have time. People who have accomplished certain work in their past build up a reputation. That reputation is used to sort out what has to be studied. Sagan had a good rep w.r.t. his science. Then he stopped using the Scientific Method as a basis when doing his shows. This is intellectual dishonesty. >>> Or maybe you were offended by his calls for nuclear disarmament, and >>> his work on the threat from "nuclear winter"? You think that these [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >a Brit, I am in any case almost entirely oblivious to the whole Art Bell >phenomenom. You had better find out about it, then. It doesn't take much time. The pattern I've observed over the past 8 years is that Artybaby will have somebody on his show selling something. About one month later the subject shows up here in sci.physics as a proven fact. The pattern has not varied in all that time. Even repeats of old shows create a new post. There was a rebroadcast of a show done in 1996 or so; the rebroadcast happened ~2003. Somebody posted here as if the idea were brand new and a scietifically proven fact. It took the usual number of posts to decrank it. > ..I thought it was just a Usenet newsgroup until quite >recently). It's that, too. He also has a newsletter which you buy if you want to learn more secrets. His usual topic is impending doom which sells well. He had a field day pre-Y2K. The usual title of his guests is "doctor". You can guess how ambiguious that title can be if not quantified. He has a large loyal following who will believe him before they believe Pat Robertson. The same people who believe everything Robertson says tend to also believe what Art Bell says. This is why I think the guy is quite dangerous. /BAH nightbat wrote > >> I did not say his work was negated. I said that he went off the > >> deep end and lost all credibility _at that point in time_. After [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > /BAH nightbat No in science it's called not doing your own thinking and relying on promoters or presenters image rather then actual content substance. But I know what you mean for instance when I know an actor or actress I like is in a so called big Hollywood movie and just because of past performances I go see it or rent the movie and it turns out lousy. I wonder why did he or she lend their reputation to the fiasco and you have to remember in business the bottom line is studio profit. So some movies are story quality true sufficient budget blockbusters, some contract loaned out make-up productions, and others sinking ship no quality budget crap. The actor rolls with the punches very much like a reputable scientist once that original contract is signed. The protecting organization and fine contract wording is very important and perhaps Sagan got in over his tv show head when studio demand for more viewer numbers came in. The clue came in the special way he repetitively kept saying Cosmos, or how the heck did I get mixed up in this, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. ponder on, the nightbat <snip> > No in science it's called not doing your own thinking and >relying on promoters or presenters image rather then actual content >substance. Nope. That is not science. There is a difference between doing science and marketing an engineered product. > ..But I know what you mean for instance when I know an actor or >actress I like is in a so called big Hollywood movie and just because of >past performances I go see it or rent the movie and it turns out lousy. Exactly. But this is fluff compared to attempts to panic a population or destroy a productive sector of society. Most Hollywood products have an implied assumption that it is fiction. Art Bell never presents his stuff as fiction. He presents the material as fact and then shuts up when these so-called facts are falsified. I've never heard Hoagland recant any of his outlandish statements. >I wonder why did he or she lend their reputation to the fiasco and you >have to remember in business the bottom line is studio profit. So some >movies are story quality true sufficient budget blockbusters, some >contract loaned out make-up productions, and others sinking ship no >quality budget crap. The actor rolls with the punches very much like a >reputable scientist once that original contract is signed. Oh, Sigh! You equate Hollywood with science endeavours? That is exactly why the guy is demonstrating intellectual dishonesty. > ..The >protecting organization and fine contract wording is very important and >perhaps Sagan got in over his tv show head when studio demand for more >viewer numbers came in. No, Sagan got a hair across his a.s about his mortality. I didn't see any maturing. His latest stuff was redolent with trying to find ways of immortality. I don't understand people who do this. The way to become immortal is to consistently do your work well and produce useful stuff. Take a look at your textbooks. Do you honestly think that there were only those handful of people doing the work? No. Their work was what was used for generations after they died. This is useful work. A lot of people's work will never get any press because they spent their time determining the things that don't work. These people will not be remembered by name, but their work will be used for a long time. There is this very, very strange obsession with particular names in science. Who the f.ck cares if Mr. X or Mrs. Y wrote about a particular piece of knowledge? The real emphasis should be on its usefulness within the context of the era it was written. > ..The clue came in the special way he repetitively >kept saying Cosmos, or how the heck did I get mixed up in this, ha, ha, >ha, ha, ha. He was looking for the purpose of life. This is the territory for religion, not science. I know a couple of guys who are trying to ensure their personal immortality by finding a way to download their essence onto iron oxide. Such a waste of time and productive opportunities. Anything useful that might come out of this research will be tossed aside because it won't achieve the goal. /BAH CSCP is ripping off last night's Stargate Atlantis episode. Anyway, read this: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/3cea765ecf7d109f/a0 7360599650cbc8#a07360599650cbc8. > CSCP is ripping off last night's Stargate Atlantis episode. > > Anyway, read this: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/3cea765ecf7d109f/a0 7360599650cbc8#a07360599650cbc8. ... Shhhhhh ! I haven't gotten around to watching it yet. RL > Then the accelerator should be permanently shut down and the researchers > tried for crimes against humanity and planicide. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) -- Ben What's a remailer? I'm a newbie. Of course, a photon doesn't have internal structure. It along with protons, neutrons, and electrons are our 4 fundamental particles, cybernetic "axioms". Quantum physics is nothing more that you physicists cataloging their properties. You don't look for structure below an axiom - you ust note its properties. This cybernetic form underlies everything. Cybernetics of course is the Theory of Everything. You guys have cute ties. - Donsky Oatsky, The Nut (Pecan) Farm, LLC. LLC in ardor to save WAD (Worthless American Dollars). Have a nice day. Address your issues. Oh by the way - Mr. Zick sucks dog penis. Some time ago I posited that the larger scale structure of space and time, once mapped out, may be deconvolved into that seminal moment where some alien lab assistant says "ooops", and thusly finds itself writ large on the (new) cosmos. In other words I posited that the big-bang is a remnant of the catalysis of strange matter in the lab... Which could possibly happen again, bring it on says I. This leads me to my principle of supernatural selection: "be careful in asking for an afterlife, because you might just get one, and considering that the overarching principle of life is natural selection, you might just get that in the afterlife too... with NO GUARANTEE of being at the top of the tree" remember, yus bin warned blart > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PYW0H5WCCUVTPQFIQMFCM5WAVC BQYJVC?xml=/news/2001/09/07/nba07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=2632 > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > (Civilian Strangelets Contingency Planners) > "It's better to be safe than worry" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.