Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1929crash

Real Doomsday Alert!

Recommended Posts

Abstract. We have received and will show in this article astonishing documents leaked out of CERN internal servers, about the CASTOR project, a Centauro and STrangelet Object Research to hunt for strangelets ‘likely‘ to be produced at the LHC.

According to those internal documents CERN has been lying for years to the press and in the suits, since it always affirmed that it won’t produce the ultra-dangerous, ultradense ‘strangelets’, the liquid explosive made of up, down and strange quarks, responsible of the ice-9 reactions that cause supernovas (below’s graph).

In those documents CERN affirms there is a 65-70% of chances of producing negative strangelets, which according to standard science on strangelets today, will provoke the ice-9 reaction (name taken from Cat and Cradle’s book in which a physicist destroys the world throwing a new type of water that freezes the planet, since an ice-9 reaction will condensate the planet in a 15 kilometers ultra-dense strange star).

Thus CERN has been lying and it is playing with all mankind a Quantum Russian Roulette game with 4 shots out of 6, 66% chances of extinction. This will be even if we survive the biggest genocide of history, calculated multiplying probability and victims: 66% x 6.6 billions=4.4 billions, 1000 times the Holocaust. The experiment will start in 45 days now. We might be living the last month of our existence as individuals and as a species. This Fall can be indeed the Fall of Man. And yet, the experiment is not stopped. This machine is too big to fail. Ave Caesar Hauer, morituri te salutant…

http://www.cerntruth.com/?p=125

At least we'll avoid the coldest winter in 1000 years . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought this was research...if they know about these things...then why bother?

course they dont know about this stuff....becos:

Ice-nine is a fictional material appearing in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle. It is supposed to be a more stable polymorph of water than common ice (Ice Ih) which instead of melting at 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), melts at 45.8 °C (114.4 °F). When ice-nine comes into contact with liquid water below 45.8 °C (which is thus effectively supercooled), it acts as a seed crystal, and causes the solidification of the entire body of water which quickly crystallizes as ice-nine. A global catastrophe involving freezing the Earth's oceans by simple contact with ice-nine is used as a plot device in Vonnegut's novel.

Vonnegut came across the idea while working at General Electric:

The author Vonnegut credits the invention of ice-nine to Irving Langmuir, who pioneered the study of thin films and interfaces. While working in the public relations office at General Electric, Vonnegut came across a story of how Langmuir, who won the 1932 Nobel Prize for his work at General Electric, was charged with the responsibility of entertaining the author H.G. Wells, who was visiting the company in the early 1930s. Langmuir is said to have come up with an idea about a form of solid water that was stable at room temperature in the hopes that Wells might be inspired to write a story about it. Apparently, Wells was not inspired and neither he nor Langmuir ever published anything about it. After Langmuir and Wells had died, Vonnegut decided to use the idea in his book Cat's Cradle.[1] The fictional ice-nine should not be confused with the real-world ice polymorph Ice IX, which does not have these properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought this was research...if they know about these things...then why bother?

course they dont know about this stuff....becos:

Ice-nine is a fictional material appearing in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle. It is supposed to be a more stable polymorph of water than common ice (Ice Ih) which instead of melting at 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), melts at 45.8 °C (114.4 °F). When ice-nine comes into contact with liquid water below 45.8 °C (which is thus effectively supercooled), it acts as a seed crystal, and causes the solidification of the entire body of water which quickly crystallizes as ice-nine. A global catastrophe involving freezing the Earth's oceans by simple contact with ice-nine is used as a plot device in Vonnegut's novel.

Vonnegut came across the idea while working at General Electric:

The author Vonnegut credits the invention of ice-nine to Irving Langmuir, who pioneered the study of thin films and interfaces. While working in the public relations office at General Electric, Vonnegut came across a story of how Langmuir, who won the 1932 Nobel Prize for his work at General Electric, was charged with the responsibility of entertaining the author H.G. Wells, who was visiting the company in the early 1930s. Langmuir is said to have come up with an idea about a form of solid water that was stable at room temperature in the hopes that Wells might be inspired to write a story about it. Apparently, Wells was not inspired and neither he nor Langmuir ever published anything about it. After Langmuir and Wells had died, Vonnegut decided to use the idea in his book Cat's Cradle.[1] The fictional ice-nine should not be confused with the real-world ice polymorph Ice IX, which does not have these properties.

Thanks bloo loo. Interesting post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there were seven types of ice already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there were seven types of ice already!

Ice cream, ice lolly, iced tea, ice cube......nope, cant do it.

Anyone that talks about "fall" as a season is a retarded simpleton. If this were true would it have been leaked to some journo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought this was research...if they know about these things...then why bother?

course they dont know about this stuff....becos:

Ice-nine is a fictional material appearing in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle. It is supposed to be a more stable polymorph of water than common ice (Ice Ih) which instead of melting at 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), melts at 45.8 °C (114.4 °F). When ice-nine comes into contact with liquid water below 45.8 °C (which is thus effectively supercooled), it acts as a seed crystal, and causes the solidification of the entire body of water which quickly crystallizes as ice-nine. A global catastrophe involving freezing the Earth's oceans by simple contact with ice-nine is used as a plot device in Vonnegut's novel.

Vonnegut came across the idea while working at General Electric:

The author Vonnegut credits the invention of ice-nine to Irving Langmuir, who pioneered the study of thin films and interfaces. While working in the public relations office at General Electric, Vonnegut came across a story of how Langmuir, who won the 1932 Nobel Prize for his work at General Electric, was charged with the responsibility of entertaining the author H.G. Wells, who was visiting the company in the early 1930s. Langmuir is said to have come up with an idea about a form of solid water that was stable at room temperature in the hopes that Wells might be inspired to write a story about it. Apparently, Wells was not inspired and neither he nor Langmuir ever published anything about it. After Langmuir and Wells had died, Vonnegut decided to use the idea in his book Cat's Cradle.[1] The fictional ice-nine should not be confused with the real-world ice polymorph Ice IX, which does not have these properties.

Although in general I disagree with doomsters (normally the science is crap), this is one area that is worth some consideration.

No-one knows exactly what's going to happen when these experiments are done. One famous astronomer put forward the simple argument that the probability of something going wrong may be small, but the consequences may lead to something huge (the end of life as we know it).

For example one of the experiments might produce black holes. OK the scientists scoff, these will just evaporate via Hawkign radiation. One small issue here, no-one has actually provided beyond reasonable doubt that Hawking radiation actually exists.

So to my mind the experiments merit some caution. I think the energy should be taken up gradually at least, and whatever new physics appears should be understood before taking things forward. This is what I do when I build something new. A cautious approach. Of course, for the scientists to admit and do this would basically mean they would be admitting that they don't know exactly what's going to happen, thus shaking public confidence.

It's a sobering thing to consider that the reason we might not have found any other life in the universe is because it destroys itself by investigating physics. Chinese UFOs could be the exception of course.

And of course, it's difficult to counter the Bloo Loo argument. If you know what's going to happen, then you don't need to do the experiments. If you don't know what's going to happen, how do you no for certain it's not going to be dangerous ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but will if affect house prices?

My money is nothing will happen and we'll continue posting on here.

Hmmm. How can you bet on existence v non-existence? don't you have to have someone around to witness both states to assess the validity of the wager?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although in general I disagree with doomsters (normally the science is crap), this is one area that is worth some consideration.

No-one knows exactly what's going to happen when these experiments are done. One famous astronomer put forward the simple argument that the probability of something going wrong may be small, but the consequences may lead to something huge (the end of life as we know it).

For example one of the experiments might produce black holes. OK the scientists scoff, these will just evaporate via Hawkign radiation. One small issue here, no-one has actually provided beyond reasonable doubt that Hawking radiation actually exists.

Could it be that every black hole we observe in space originated as an LHC experiment of another species, each doomed to repeat the mistake of the last... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No-one knows exactly what's going to happen when these experiments are done.

That is not the same as saying they are dangerous. The most compelling argument is that particles with far higher energies hit the upper atmosphere in great numbers every single day. Not once, in all the billions of years, has the Earth been turned to a super snow ball. Alas you can not predict where and when they will strike and so you need a controlled experiment to place your detector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not the same as saying they are dangerous. The most compelling argument is that particles with far higher energies hit the upper atmosphere in great numbers every single day. Not once, in all the billions of years, has the Earth been turned to a super snow ball. Alas you can not predict where and when they will strike and so you need a controlled experiment to place your detector.

I agree this is a good argument. However, are you sure that the CERN experiment replicates exactly the conditions when higher energy particles hit the upper atmosphere ?

For example is the collision density the same ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree this is a good argument. However, are you sure that the CERN experiment replicates exactly the conditions when higher energy particles hit the upper atmosphere ?

For example is the collision density the same ?

No, of course it doesn't replicate the conditions - it can't because it can't produce particles with as high an energy as some of the cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

Don't know what you mean by the collision density. It's all about individual particle collisions. The odds of a three-particle collision in the atmosphere must be vanishingly remote, and probably even more remote in a particle accelerator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, of course it doesn't replicate the conditions - it can't because it can't produce particles with as high an energy as some of the cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

Don't know what you mean by the collision density. It's all about individual particle collisions. The odds of a three-particle collision in the atmosphere must be vanishingly remote, and probably even more remote in a particle accelerator.

There are lots of ways in which the LHC experiments differ from atmospheric cosmic ray events.

For example, in what way is a cosmic ray similar to a lead nucleus ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of ways in which the LHC experiments differ from atmospheric cosmic ray events.

For example, in what way is a cosmic ray similar to a lead nucleus ?

By being a particle with kinetic energy, and that's the big difference. After all, lead nuclei, protons, and helium nuclei aren't amazingly rare on Earth; the only significant difference is the energy involved. There is nothing that a particle accelerator can do that doesn't happen in nature. All the particle accelerator does is move it into a situation where we can have a fixed place to put our instruments and don't have to be as distracted by as many other random events going on in the same vicinity, and so that we know precisely which particles with how much energy have gone into a particular collision.

What you should be asking are what are the differences that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By being a particle with kinetic energy, and that's the big difference. After all, lead nuclei, protons, and helium nuclei aren't amazingly rare on Earth; the only significant difference is the energy involved. There is nothing that a particle accelerator can do that doesn't happen in nature. All the particle accelerator does is move it into a situation where we can have a fixed place to put our instruments and don't have to be as distracted by as many other random events going on in the same vicinity, and so that we know precisely which particles with how much energy have gone into a particular collision.

What you should be asking are what are the differences that matter?

Give me an example in nature where two lead nuclei collide head on at these sorts of energies on a regular basis.

As for knowing what matters, isn't it supposed to be investigating new physics ? Who knows what matters ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me an example in nature where two lead nuclei collide head on at these sorts of energies on a regular basis.

As for knowing what matters, isn't it supposed to be investigating new physics ? Who knows what matters ?

Two lead nuclei? Irrelevent. It's energies that are relevent and what happens at those energies. We know enough to know what the differences between a lead nucleus and a helium nucleus are, and why that's not the important part. It's all about energy. You may as well say "Well, the results might not be the same" if you hit someone over the head with a hammer made of gold instead of iron.

Investigating new physics builds on top of existing physics. Ignoring that and saying "Well, there's some new in there so anything might happen" does not make sense. You'd be too scared to ever do anything then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two lead nuclei? Irrelevent. It's energies that are relevent and what happens at those energies. We know enough to know what the differences between a lead nucleus and a helium nucleus are, and why that's not the important part. It's all about energy. You may as well say "Well, the results might not be the same" if you hit someone over the head with a hammer made of gold instead of iron.

Investigating new physics builds on top of existing physics. Ignoring that and saying "Well, there's some new in there so anything might happen" does not make sense. You'd be too scared to ever do anything then.

I take it that that is a no to my first question.

OK regarding energy. You take a bunch of neutrons and fire them at a 20kg lump of lead. Then take a bunch of neutrons and fire them (at the same energy of course) at a 20kg lump of U235. Would you expect to see any difference ? Is the speed of the neutrons important ?

Some people might argue that spending billions of pounds on a machine that has a chance (all be it very small) of destroying the world does not make sense. Especially since it's difficult to see what benefit it could bring to society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know where the bunsen burner, tripod and asbestos gauze are kept in the LHC experiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 245 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.