User talk:Jtankers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Is Hawking Radiation Credible?
Dr. Adam D. Helfer Do black holes radiate?
"this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions..." "no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes"
Dr. William G. Unruh and Prof. Ralf Schützhold On the Universality of the Hawking Effect
"Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation or not remains an open question"
Prof. V.A. Belinski On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole
"...the effect [Hawking Radiation] does not exist."
[edit] LSAG Preliminary Conclusions
LHC: what if ... ? Michelangelo Mangano CERN, TH-PH "At the LHC, some of them will have v<10 km/s, will be gravitationally trapped, and could start growing"
[edit] Safety Argument
LHCFacts.org will pay $500.00 US to the best proposal that can reasonably prove 5% or less Risk of Planetary destruction from Micro Black Holes.
The contest will conclude in a vote by site visitors on all reasonable proofs received, all proofs will be published and the contest will end not sooner than May 20th. (LHCConcerns will make the final call on best proposal that reasonably proves 5% or lower risk from micro black holes being created by the Large Hadron Collider).
You may prove that ANY ONE of the following or provide any other reasonable Proof or method to prevent Micro Black Holes from being created by the Large Hadron Collider or prove that they are harmless!
1. The Large Hadron Collider will not make micro black holes. 2. Micro black holes created will be sent safely into space. 3. Micro black holes will evaporate. 4. Micro black holes will take more than [500 million] years to accrete the Earth. (Very Generous, but if you can only prove a lesser time frame, then the prize will be reduced proportionately...) 5. Any form of cosmic ray argument that proves 5% risk or lower. 6. Find a way to make the Large Hadron Collider safe from creating micro black holes (we already requested different speed collissions or different mass collisions, LSAG told us it was not possible, they already thought of it).
It is harder than it looks, the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) could not produce a safety report... (CERN and LSAG are still using the 1999 RHIC safety report that does not even address what might happen if micro black holes were created, because they did not know that it was possible at that time. We are also being extremely generous on the 500 million years, since life on Earth might be possible for billions of years.)
JTankers LHCConcerns.com
[edit] Re-factorting of your comments
Hi there it is not generally accepted on wikipedia to re-factor your talk page comments once someone has already responded to them, as it has the potential to make any follwoing comments looks disjointed or can bias a discussion. If you wish to modify your comments use the strikeout comment, like this using <s> </s>. I've reverted your comments but if you want to re-add them using the strikeout facilty, just let me know. Cheers Khukri 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the original post with strike through and the replacement, and apologized on LF1975's talk page for apparently overwriting his post. Thank you --Jtankers (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My Two Cents
CERN predicts the creation of up to 1 micro black hole per second in the Large Hadron Collider and references the 1999 RHIC safety study as proof of safety.
(Rebuttal: But the 1999 RHIC safety study only ruled out any possibility of colliders creating micro black holes based on knowledge at that time.)
CERN predicts that micro black holes will evaporate.
(Rebuttal: But Hawking Radiation has been disputed by no less than 3 peer reviewed studies that found no basis in science for such conclusions.)
CERN and Steven Hawking state that much greater energy cosmic ray impacts with Earth prove safety.
(Rebuttal: But higher energy cosmic ray impacts with stationary particles have net collision speeds of almost the speed of light and send all particles created safely into space, while head-on collider collisions have net collision impact speeds at almost twice the speed of light but are designed to focus all the energy to a single point in space and particles created may be captured by Earth's gravity.)
CERN promised to create and release an new safety report before the end of 2007.
(Rebuttal: CERN's LHC Safety Assessment Group has concluded that particles created by cosmic ray impacts with Earth's atmosphere are safely ejected into space and LSAG stated that they do not assume that micro black holes will evaporate, but CERN never released any safety reports created by their LHC Safety Assessment Group.)
CERN asserts that there is no risk to the planet, even though the Large Hadron Collider will create conditions not seen in nature since the first fraction of a second after the big bang.
(Rebuttal: But the legal action contends a 75% probability of risk with very high degree of uncertainty calculated by a scientist with a masters degree in statistics, and alleges that Chief Scientific Officer Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN asking them regardless of personal opinion to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing CERN's previous assertion of minimal risk.)
Professor Otto Rossler calculates that a single micro black hole could accrete the Earth is as few as 50 months and Dr. Rossler is world recognized as one of the most prestigious, most eminent, award winning scientists alive. Others including Dr. Raj Baldev, director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research, are also warning of a very real, very possible, very present danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider.
(Rebuttal?: But CERN has not scientifically refuted his calculations that I am aware of, CERN only promised Dr. Rossler that if they create stable micro black holes that they will stop the experiment immediately. But could that be too late?)
The World might prevent a catastrophy if we delay the experiment until the promised safety studies are completed and peer reviewed.
(Rebuttal?: But then some scientists may not be the first to discover new science and some Nobel prizes may be lost?)
JTankers LHCConcerns.com
Note: The Large Hadron Collider promises head-on collissions between protons and/or anti-protons of the same mass, all traveling at exactly the same speed, 99.9999991% of the speed of light and will collide head on with exact opposite vectors and some percent will collide exactly center mass to focus the energy to a single point to create conditions not seen in nature since the first fraction of a second after the big bang.
[edit] Questions about Mechanics of Micro Black Hole Creation
My point is that creating a micro black hole may require very precise mechanics which might only be possible in a head-on collisions, where the energy is precisely focused into the center of the impact. Where a moving to stationary impact should transfer energy in the direction of motion.
FOLLOWING IS MISSLEADING: Of course this is only valid if you accept preferred reference frame, where there is a difference between which particle is moving and which is not. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, easily proven... c/2 to c/2 would have no significant energy, poor argument... No credible physicist seriously believes that cosmic rays could create conditions where energy is focused as it is in head-on collission of same mass, same speed, exact opposite vector, center mass collissions. Hawking might, but like I said, no credible physicist. (Sorry SH). --Jtankers (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] See LHC talk page
Just reverted your edits, but I'll exaplin on the talk page in two mins why. I have a copy don't worry. Khukri 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help in this. I know our view points differ, but my views are irrelevant and I'm only interested that the article meets the wikipedia guidelines so appreciate your help in these matters. Khukri 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BigCrash.org
A blogger recently asked at [[LHCConcerns.com -> http://www.LHCConcerns.com]]: \\ ...this wonderfully elaborate "test" to see how the universe was created still leaves the blank void of an answer to HOW the matter that caused the so-called "big-bang THEORY" came to be.
A few theories are linked to from the [[wikipedia big bang page -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang]].\\
[edit] Skeptical of Hawking Radiation
- Hawking Radiation theory is disputed by at least 3 rigorously peer reviewed studies that found no basis in science to support it
- 2008 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503052v1.pdf QUANTUM NATURE OF BLACK HOLES by Adam D. Helfer "this prediction is not without its problems... no very good responses to these concerns... completely alters the picture drawn by Hawking"
- 2004 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0409/0409024v3.pdf HAWKING RADIATION AND BLACK HOLE THERMODYNAMICS by Don N. Page "it may be a long time before we have sufficient knowledge of quantum gravity to be able to calculate the correct answers for the logarithmic terms in the entropy."
- 2004 http://www.lhcconcerns.com/#James_Blodgett "9.9% average doubt, ranging from 0% to 50% doubt by 15 physicists polled even before much of the peer reviewed credible rejection of Hawking Radiation was published"
- 2003 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Do black holes radiate? By Adam D. Helfer "Yet this prediction rests on two dubious assumptions... no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes"
- 1900s Albert Einstein's theories require that black holes only grow, they never shrink, not even light can exit a black hole
(And scientists have recently conceded that Albert Einstein was at least equally correct when he proposed a non-paradoxical deterministic model of quantum physics, and now efforts to prove superiority of Bohmian theory have been proposed. www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700-quantum-randomness-may-not-be-random.html)
Recently when asked if the Large Hadron Collider was safe, Professor Hawking said "Particles from collisions far greater than those in the LHC occur all the time in cosmic rays, but nothing terrible happens.". What? www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-hawking12apr12,1,3191870.story
Even CERN's own LHC Safety Assessment Group has conceded the that cosmic ray impacts with Earth could not endanger Earth, because unlike particles created by head-on collider collisions, cosmic ray created particles travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity and are all safely expelled into space.
[edit] Use of your talk page
Hi James, You may want to read WP:UP as it seems you are using your talk page as a blog to record your discussions. This is not really what talk pages are intended for, though you are editing the LHC article these discussions on your talk page are not related to Wikipedia, and are best suited to the many blogs and forums you are involved with. Cheers Khukri 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Khukri, I read the rules and cleaned up my talk page accordingly...
[edit] Speculative Theories
Citation to speculative alternate theories similar to loop quantum gravity and big bounce at Open Source Pre-Big Bang Theory (BigCrash.org) similar to Loop Quantum Gravity Theory, removed waiting peer review and affirmation of scientific merit. Open Source Inertia theory (BigCrash.org > Inertia) similar to Higgs Field Theory...
[edit] Pioneer Anomaly
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pioneer_anomaly#Quantum_Gravity) Quantum Gravity Waves
- If you accept both Einstein's theory that gravity around massive objects is actually a curvature of space and time accelerating matter toward the massive object, and you accept the presence of vacuum energy (dark energy), then is easy to imagine very dense vacuum energy generating the same curvature of space and time accelerating matter toward the dense energy (accelerating matter outwardly in all directions at once, which can be felt as inertial forces, resistance to change in motion). We can then 'feel' vacuum energy gravity when we accelerate in the weightlessness of space, and when we resist the force of Earth's gravity we are experiencing both curvatures (matter gravity accelerating matter downward toward Earth and vacuum energy gravity resisting acceleration forces). Some work being done at open source project http://www.BigCrash.org, including speculation that vacuum energy might flow into black holes. --Jtankers (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speculation, if dark energy is dense enough to cause its own powerful gravity, (if it is the force that gives matter inertia by resisting change in motion), and if large objects like the sun create waves of density in the dark energy (similar to a wake left by a speeding boat on a pond, but in 3d), then perhapses the energy density waves caused by the sun moving through the dark energy field might subtlety affect motion of space craft. --Jtankers (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Status
Hi James, could you ask your people in the know please what the status of the injunction case is please. Many thanks. Khukri 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Case is moving forward, June hearing date is unchanged... Will update with any significant news. --Jtankers (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] LHC revert discuss
--Phenylalanine (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
When you're entering edit summaries, could you please append your summary to the end of the field, leaving the auto-generated text within the /* */ tags as is? The stuff within the tags is treated differently when viewing page history. By editing the text inside the tags, you break the auto-section-linking mechanism, and make it difficult to tell what part of the edit summary has been written by you. -- Mark Chovain 07:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
