Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Moderator: CharmQuark
Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
To me the newes qoute of Ivan seems to violate the law of conservation of energy since it assumes some boiling Quarks would transform an up to inifinite number of Quarks bound in solid (protons and neutrons) also to boiling without adding any additional energy per nucleon.
That just doesnt seem to make sence to me.
By the way I just found out that the X-Bosons used in Ivans Theory are only hypothetical particles belonging to a 5th forth not yet discovered by common physics and only predicted by the "Georgi–Glashow model" one (not yet accepted) modle of a "grant unified theory" (successor of the standardmodel).
That just doesnt seem to make sence to me.
By the way I just found out that the X-Bosons used in Ivans Theory are only hypothetical particles belonging to a 5th forth not yet discovered by common physics and only predicted by the "Georgi–Glashow model" one (not yet accepted) modle of a "grant unified theory" (successor of the standardmodel).
bye
chriwi
chriwi
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Ivan, who wrote the quote you brought up? Does he have any physical knowledge?
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Ваня пора прекратить нести ахинею. Ты знаешь, что на LHC невозможно создать больше энергии при столкновениях, чем у меня в кастрюле.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Moderator; Instead of continually warning the Beast about his Russian postings which he insists on making, I suggest you ban him from the forum. Personally I think he adds nothing meaningful when he speaks in English and I doubt if he is more meaningful in Russian. I see his being banned as an improvement for the forum.
Allan
Allan
-
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
indeed, how many times does he need to be told, and whats with not just actually engaging in common talk rather than all this random stuff.Allan wrote:Moderator; Instead of continually warning the Beast about his Russian postings which he insists on making, I suggest you ban him from the forum. Personally I think he adds nothing meaningful when he speaks in English and I doubt if he is more meaningful in Russian. I see his being banned as an improvement for the forum.
Allan
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
The whole plastic sphere with mirror metallic coating on the outside,
24mm in diameter, filled with distilled water was placed in the centre
of a pan 410mm in diameter and 320mm in height with the solution of
cement. At the beginning of the cement becoming solid there was formed
even pressure on water in the sphere by analogy with sonoluminescence.
As the result, during some hours the solution of concrete reached the
final hardness and got warmed up to 40*C in the centre of the sphere
surface and a bit less on the edge of the sphere surface. During 24
hours the concrete was gradually cooling down. Further, on the surface
of the concrete there was noticed a defect – an orifice of less than 1mm
beneath the bulging of 45mm in diameter and 4mm in height leading to the
sphere with water – which stopper the burning of the water in the centre
of the reserved space of the sphere.
24mm in diameter, filled with distilled water was placed in the centre
of a pan 410mm in diameter and 320mm in height with the solution of
cement. At the beginning of the cement becoming solid there was formed
even pressure on water in the sphere by analogy with sonoluminescence.
As the result, during some hours the solution of concrete reached the
final hardness and got warmed up to 40*C in the centre of the sphere
surface and a bit less on the edge of the sphere surface. During 24
hours the concrete was gradually cooling down. Further, on the surface
of the concrete there was noticed a defect – an orifice of less than 1mm
beneath the bulging of 45mm in diameter and 4mm in height leading to the
sphere with water – which stopper the burning of the water in the centre
of the reserved space of the sphere.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
I lost count of how time you have spouted this BS. It is no more meaningful to me now then it was the first. To me it appears to pure and simple drivel. Maybe you should change this crap for something that is more meaningful because this certainly isn't.Beast wrote:The whole plastic sphere with mirror metallic coating on the outside,
24mm in diameter, filled with distilled water was placed in the centre
of a pan 410mm in diameter and 320mm in height with the solution of
cement. At the beginning of the cement becoming solid there was formed
even pressure on water in the sphere by analogy with sonoluminescence.
As the result, during some hours the solution of concrete reached the
final hardness and got warmed up to 40*C in the centre of the sphere
surface and a bit less on the edge of the sphere surface. During 24
hours the concrete was gradually cooling down. Further, on the surface
of the concrete there was noticed a defect – an orifice of less than 1mm
beneath the bulging of 45mm in diameter and 4mm in height leading to the
sphere with water – which stopper the burning of the water in the centre
of the reserved space of the sphere.
Allan.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
COMBUSTION, FLAMES AND EXPLOSIONS OF
GASES
Bernard Lewis and Guenther von Elbe, Physical Chemists,
E- mlosives and Phvsical Sciences Division. U. S. Bureau of
Mrnes, Pittsburgh, Pa., Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1951.
xlx + 795 pp. 355 figs. 16 X 24 om. $13.50.
Did i go back far enough, or do i need a time machine ?
---------- The Beast Bible ? ----------
GASES
Bernard Lewis and Guenther von Elbe, Physical Chemists,
E- mlosives and Phvsical Sciences Division. U. S. Bureau of
Mrnes, Pittsburgh, Pa., Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1951.
xlx + 795 pp. 355 figs. 16 X 24 om. $13.50.
Did i go back far enough, or do i need a time machine ?
---------- The Beast Bible ? ----------
- CharmQuark
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1498
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
- Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Beast Bible Wouldn't mind the time machine thoughspencer wrote:COMBUSTION, FLAMES AND EXPLOSIONS OF
GASES
Bernard Lewis and Guenther von Elbe, Physical Chemists,
E- mlosives and Phvsical Sciences Division. U. S. Bureau of
Mrnes, Pittsburgh, Pa., Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1951.
xlx + 795 pp. 355 figs. 16 X 24 om. $13.50.
Did i go back far enough, or do i need a time machine ?
---------- The Beast Bible ? ----------
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.
-
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
And thus another thread comes to its predicted conclusion.
There is no doubt there are valid questions about the LHC and future colliders, but these guys really dont wanna learn.
And i dont personally like to associate myself to ppl that email bin laden to bomb a science complex.
There is no doubt there are valid questions about the LHC and future colliders, but these guys really dont wanna learn.
And i dont personally like to associate myself to ppl that email bin laden to bomb a science complex.
- CharmQuark
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1498
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
- Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
AGREEDShadowdraxx wrote:And thus another thread comes to its predicted conclusion.
There is no doubt there are valid questions about the LHC and future colliders, but these guys really dont wanna learn.
And i dont personally like to associate myself to ppl that email bin laden to bomb a science complex.
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.
-
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
ORION111 wrote:On Ivan I mean in a passive way, over time, as in inching closer. And for Beast I mean in an active way.ORION111 wrote:Ivan, you are just about to get banned and pretty much done. Beast, you are done.Ivan isn't banned, but close. Only in the future we will know what happens next.Shadowdraxx wrote:And thus another thread comes to its predicted conclusion.
ahh okies
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Ivan squanders the time and facilities on advertising of unlucky persons of LHC (fallen whore).
-
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
upon reading a nice article that rcl posted (see: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=323&start=30)
I found the section 10.7 interesting, given that i thought the possibility of mbh creations was well, way out there, im surprised that they discuss this in such detail, and with the premise that its a good possibility that they may be observing them at some point, the article doesnt discuss the theories behind the possible creation, more that what is expected in models upon their creation.
Anyone else surprised by this?.
I found the section 10.7 interesting, given that i thought the possibility of mbh creations was well, way out there, im surprised that they discuss this in such detail, and with the premise that its a good possibility that they may be observing them at some point, the article doesnt discuss the theories behind the possible creation, more that what is expected in models upon their creation.
Anyone else surprised by this?.
- MagneticTrap
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
- Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
- Contact:
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Ivan and all of you can be killed in a several days by the best physicists of the world.ORION111 wrote:…Ivan isn't banned, but close. Only in the future we will know what happens next.
I do not know the e-mail of Bin Laden. I would write him and would ask him for our salvation.Shadowdraxx wrote:…And i dont personally like to associate myself to ppl that email bin laden to bomb a science complex.
Who? - I do not know.Stephen wrote:Ivan, who wrote the quote you brought up? Does he have any physical knowledge?
Does? - It seems, yes.
Do you know that our Sun is not the star of first generation? The solar system is made from matter which already boiled in another stars. Why don’t you ask astronomers about the low of conservation of energy? In the quoted text we have analogues situation. There is no any infinite number; - “a droplet of quark-gluon condensate” can grow if there is a matter to consume.chriwi wrote:To me the newes qoute of Ivan seems to violate the law of conservation of energy since it assumes some boiling Quarks would transform an up to inifinite number of Quarks bound in solid (protons and neutrons) also to boiling without adding any additional energy per nucleon.
That just doesnt seem to make sence to me.
My x-bosons are not X-bosons, which are described in Wikipeia. In fact, I learned about X-bosons after invented my x-bosons. My “x” means “unknown”.chriwi wrote:…By the way I just found out that the X-Bosons used in Ivans Theory are only hypothetical particles belonging to a 5th forth not yet discovered by common physics and only predicted by the "Georgi–Glashow model" one (not yet accepted) modle of a "grant unified theory" (successor of the standardmodel).
I know now that they are constituent elements of exited vacuum. This droplet of vacuum has ferromagnetic properties. It is connected by three forces: electric, magnetic, and color, oriented as vectors at different planes. In can be created at 1-TeV collisions, where magnetic field reaches the value about 10^16 T. Such abnormal quark-gluon matter composes at least internal parts of some neutron stars, named magnetars. 10^15 T quark gluon plasma (liquid) was achieved already at RHIC. Look video. 10^16 T quark gluon plasma (liquid) will not decay.
Fresh reading CERN on trial: could a lawsuit shut the LHC down?