Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

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.
rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by rasalhauge » Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:25 pm

Ivan? As in Ivan Gorelik, aka Dr. Dark Energy? Wow, I've read quite a bit about you and must admit that although I don't agree with you or am able to find and peer-review publications that support your theories, I find your theories entertaining.

It is apparent that you do not approve of the experiments undertaken at LHC, and it is also most apparent that you are more or less convinced that we are all going to be engulfed by a magnetic hole/MBH/Strangelet (honestly, haven't kept myself properly updated on what your claims are now). But, I must admit that I feel inclined to ask you, not to offend you, but why should we, or the general public for that matter, pay attention to your current claims?

To me your claims just pans out too conviniently, frequently. Before LHC was started you claimed that the very first experiments would spell doom and gloom, yet it didn't. When that failed you lay low for a while and then came back with claims reg. the higher energy pp collisions instead. Yet again your claims was proven wrong and we didn't hear of you for a while. But now, after several failed "predictions" you come back and claim that MBH's and Strangelets should have been created already. So basically, after three or more failed predictions we are supposed to believe in your math that states that some less than benevolent object has been created and as we speak it's eating its way through earth? What do you base this rather fancy assumption on this time?

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, which I most likelly is because as I said, I haven't kept myself as updated on your claims as I would like to.

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:25 am

Thank you Charm! Thank you rasalhauge!

Do not fear.
We have a sacred mission – not only to die, but to bring the life to other stellar systems.
The most probably, the dangerous condensate was already created and it is growing now somewhere inside the Earth.
So, I do not think, that now, after the crime was already performed by 99% of physicists, there is a cause to fight against the suicide of our planet.
Glory to CERN physicists!
I wish to all of you a happy flight to stars.
Our biosphere must reproduce.
We are seeds of future life in the Galaxy. The seeds must be transported to other stars in comets. The explosion of a grown-up habitable planet is an inevitable element of biospheres reproduction.
Glory to CERN physicists! Glory to Earth’s killers!
Don’t fear to die and perform your sacred mission.
:angelic-green: :angelic-green: :angelic-green:

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:25 pm

I have made a program "Explosion of the Earth, switched by criminal physicists".

Here it is:
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ExplosionRu.exe in Russian;
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/Explosion.exe in English.

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Bornerdogge » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:19 pm

rasalhauge wrote:But now, after several failed "predictions" you come back and claim that MBH's and Strangelets should have been created already.
I was right wasn't I ^^
rasalhauge wrote:your math
What this guy write is not math, it's pseudo-complex calculations that in fact a school boy could do... Nothing to do with what real scientists do.

Now please guys, just stop bothering with this ivan!! I thought this was a serious forum...

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:06 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:...What this guy write is not math, it's pseudo-complex calculations that in fact a school boy could do... Nothing to do with what real scientists do.
...
I'll stop at two points:
1...school boy could do...
2...Nothing to do with what real scientists do.

1. Can a school boy, or you, imagine a closed Universe.
I can. And I can draw it.
Here it is: Image
To see this figure in larger scale open my page: The Closed Universe.
Can you imagine 4-d rotation.
I can draw it:
Image
And I know that 13,7 billion years is not the age of Universe, but 13,34 billion of years is the time of one four-dimensional rotation of our Universe.

2. Your real science has many crude errors. Astrophysics is based on the errors about pressure and density in the centers of stars. The cause is inability to solve the system of several differential equations.
Can you solve this system:

"standard" model
dp/dr = - g rho.
dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k.
dM/dr = 4 pi r^2 rho.
g = GM/r^2.
p=nkT.
rho=nm.

or this system

"my" model
dp/dr = - g rho + 2p / r.
dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k.
dM/dr = 4 pi r^2 rho.
g = GM/r^2.
p=nkT.
rho=nm.

I solved these systems.
Here are solutions:
Image Image

Can you solve these systems?
Why I enclosed the word standard using quotes?

An answer - contemporary astrophysics uses erroneous results, which were made dozens of years ago and no one have sufficiently honesty in order to say the truth.

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Bornerdogge » Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:15 pm

Some colorful circles or graphs with no explanations, units or whatsoever mean absolutely nothing.

Ok, your model is better than the old one? Justify! Give us observations and experiments that have proven with good statistical significance that the old model is wrong.

I can write some funny formulas and create somme fuzzy graphs, too...

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by tswsl1989 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:49 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:Some colorful circles or graphs with no explanations, units or whatsoever mean absolutely nothing.

Ok, your model is better than the old one? Justify! Give us observations and experiments that have proven with good statistical significance that the old model is wrong.

I can write some funny formulas and create somme fuzzy graphs, too...
We've been saying this for the past 67 pages....
Hence why most of us have elected to stop feeding the troll

rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by rasalhauge » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:26 pm

Ivan, busy day today? Have seen your crackpot claims all over the web today, even at 2012 related forums. What gives?

On a sidenote, I think that you really, really should get a renewal of the perscribtions that kept you away for 4 months. I honestly think that it would be best both for you and the general population if you just simply kept your overwhelming truth-declarations to yourself. You've been proven wrong by actual physicists so many times now that even a delusional guy like you must begin to wonder if there isn't the slightest possibility that you are wrong.

You base all your math on self-invented ideas that can't possibly be proven neither wrong nor right, because of the simple fact that they are nothing more than random ramble of a lunatic with to much sparetime.

I consider myself a good Christian and usually don't attack people or their believs, but in your case I really can't keep myself from addressing you in this manner. Your sole purpose seems to be to alienate people from science by making them afraid of everything that concerns physics, right? I know, a narcissistic fuck like you will probably say that your only purpose is to safe the mankind.

Nevertheless, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and let you introduce the evidence that anything in your model are correct. Can you do that? A single shred of evidence that validates your claims would be enough to lay this ordeal to rest.

Just to be sure I get what you mean; you are saying that no one except you are able to calculate the likelihood that a catastrophic scenario at LHC will occur? Should we just throw away everything we know about the Standard model of physics cause an Ukrainian teacher says so? Im sorry, but I think I trust the particle/quantum mechanics physicists over you any given day of the week.

User avatar
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.

Post by CharmQuark » Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:36 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:
Now please guys, just stop bothering with this ivan!! I thought this was a serious forum...
I completely agree with you Bornerdogge and Tswsl for that matter we should leave Ivan alone completely......This is a serious forum........and this is why his thread or what you want to call it is in this section in the first place......thats why the discription at the top of the page says this forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.... this is why i was made moderator of this section to keep peace and harmony with everybody ;) the way i see it is you have three options............to look here and keep feeding him which what he wants........to ingore the whole thread completely...... or to looks at what he is saying but have no comment on it at all.....Ivan believes his own BS nothing anybody ever says will make no difference to that........it really does suck to be Ivan........anyways it's all good....... :thumbup:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Bornerdogge » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:50 pm

Close the subject? Ban? That would settle it... I don't see the point in 60+ pages of flood (I almost drowned... tswsl was there to keep me out)! :text-banplz:

User avatar
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.

Post by CharmQuark » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:Close the subject? Ban? That would settle it... I don't see the point in 60+ pages of flood (I almost drowned... tswsl was there to keep me out)! :text-banplz:
Why ban? there was a discussion about this on other pages about banning him what would that solve? nothing really. apart from sprouting BS he is not doing anything wrong.........he has been warned by chris about his threats and stuff like that.......I don't understand why people get so wound up if you don't want to look at what he says......just don't look at the thread at all? am i wrong in what i have just said? :idea: all i can do if you are really serious about this is talk to Chris when he is next around? let me know.

Charms
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Janelouise
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:52 pm
Location: Glos, UK

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Janelouise » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:15 pm

To be honest, I read Ivans thread because I find it entertaining :lol: He doesn't scare me anymore! :o Sometimes he does get out of hand!! But as Charm said, Chris has already given him a warning! :)

User avatar
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.

Post by CharmQuark » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:22 pm

Janelouise wrote:To be honest, I read Ivans thread because I find it entertaining :lol: He doesn't scare me anymore! :o Sometimes he does get out of hand!! But as Charm said, Chris has already given him a warning! :)

Nice to see you huni :dance:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:07 am

Close the subject? Ban?
Try to find the answer, why so many people want to ban..?
The answer is hidden in the bottom text.
--------------------------------------

From my point of view, the most dangerous things, which can be made on proton-proton (p-p) collisions at powerful colliders, are two different condensates: microscopic magnetic holes and microscopic droplets of strange matter. In the bottom I’ll name both of them by unifying term 'droplets’.

I have made a program “Explosion of the Earth, switched by criminal physicists” and want to show you some results.

The time interval of the Earth explosion depends from several parameters: the number of created droplets; the density of matter inside droplets; the velocity of particles in plasma bubbles around the droplets.

Let density of droplet will be 300 times greater than nuclear density;
Let velocity of particles in the plasma bubbles will be v=c/10.

Then:

a. if there were created 100 000 000 000 droplets, then the Earth will be exploded in 6 days;
b. if there were created 1000 000 droplets, then the Earth will be exploded in 272 days;
c. if there were created 1 droplet, then the Earth will be exploded in 75 years.

Result "c" can be rejected. Physicist will not stop if they will see one unusual track.
Result "a" can also be rejected, because it is impossible to create 100 000 000 000 droplets in the very first days.

In the upper results we supposed that the droplets were made simultaneously.
Now we'll remade the program and let’s suppose that they are created continuously:

a. 10 droplets per second;
b. 1 droplet per second;
c. 1 droplet per 10 seconds;
d. 1 droplet per 100 seconds.

Then the Earth will be torn on fragments in

a. 98 days;
b. 175 days;
c. 311 days;
d. 552 days.

As we know LHC works with quite long stops. So, I think, that the option "d" is the most reliable. As a result, I supposed that the total time of Earth explosion into fragments is about 1000 days.

Several more interesting results:
1. The mass of Earth’s matter, ruined before the rest of it would start into cosmos with velocity about 10 km/s, is about 10^15 kg, - that is about one billionth part of Earth. That also will be approximately the total mass of all droplets.
2. The Sun will be ruined in about a 1000 years. The Sun will undergo several successive explosions as nova. By the way, that explains the rings of SN 1987A.
3. The energy output of matter’s collapse at droplets at the time of “Earth torn on peaces” will be about the luminosity of the Sun. That means that neutrino flux from the Earth at that time will be by (R/r)^2 times bigger than today’s neutrino flux from the Sun. (R – radius of Earths orbit; r – radius of the Earth). The graph of heat power in the “continuously” case is a cubic parabola; consequently, we are able to register the excessive flux of neutrino from the Earth already now! If there is no such excessive flux, then I was wrong. But do not forget about future ion-ion collisions; do not forget about future 2*7 TeV p-p collisions. Those are other possibilities to kill the Earth, to kill the humankind.

CERN and all corrupted science are responsible for the probable future murder of 6 billion people and probable destruction of the Earth.

It was subscribed in the Universal Genetic Code of Eternal Living Universe that we, the enemies of biosphere's suicidal reproduction must be undergone to ban, to laughter and shame; otherwise the reproducing act would not occur. That is the law of biosphere's reproduction. So, don’t fear to die and perform your sacred mission. Fasten your safety belts; - be ready to biosphere’s suicidal reproduction!

Appendix: If you do not trust to my computed results, you can compose your own program and test it. My program works by small steps, measured by time interval, for example, dt=1000 seconds. At every step it computes the number of ruined protons by this formula dN = dt * v * 4 * pi * r(i) ^ 2 * k / 6, where v = c/10, c – velocity of light; 4 * pi * r(i) ^ 2 – the surface of a droplet at i-th step; pi=3.14; r(i) – radius of a droplet at i–th step; k – concentration of protons in a plasma bubble around a droplet, k = M_Earth / (4 / 3 * pi * R_Earth ^ 3) / m_proton. The number “6” in a formula for dN is explained by the fact that our space has 3 dimensions and by the fact that only 1/2 of particles move in positive direction.
Radius of a droplet at the next step: r(i) = r(i - 1) * ((N + dN) / N) ^ (1 / 3).
The total number of ruined protons at every step: N = N + dN.
Heat power at every step, if droplets are made continuously:
P(i) = P(i - 1) + dN * m_proton. * c ^ 2 / dt / 2 * N_dr;
if droplets were made simultaneously:
P(i) = dN * m_proton. * c ^ 2 / dt / 2 * N_dr.
In “simultaneously” case P-graph is square parabola; in “continuously” case P-graph is cubic parabola;
N_dr – number of droplets created per step.

The program stops, when the total heat output, Q, becomes bigger than 3*10^32 Wt. This amount of energy is enough to send all matter of the Earth to infinity. Inevitable energy losses can be neglected if T < 1000 days. If T > 1000, then the true value of T will be the more, the more it’s computed value.

Note 1. It was supposed that every proton, p, colliding with microscopic magnetic hole, NS, decays and the droplet becomes bigger. NS_(n) + p = NS_(n+1) + e+, where: e+ - positron; (n) and (n+1) are the number of x-bosons in the magnetic hole; x-boson is a smallest magnetic excitation in ferromagnetic Savidy vacuum, ns. As a result of proton capture the region around magnetic hole will have an excess of neutrons. That will lead to beta decays and to flux of electronic antineutrino from that region.
Note 2. It was supposed that every proton, p(uud), and every neutron, n(udd), colliding with droplet of strange matter, N(uds), decays and droplet becomes bigger. N(uds) + p(uud) = (N+1)(uds) + K+, where: K+ - positively charged kaon. (N) and (N+1) are the number of lambla-hyperons in a growing strangelet. Lambla-hyperon is a strange nucleon (uds) in a strangelet N(uds). A strangelet can capture neutrons too: N(uds) + n(udd) = (N+1)(uds) + K0, where: K0 - neutral kaon.
K+ and K0 decay. As a result an additional flux of different sorts of neutrino and antineutrino can be registered.
Every capture of nucleon by a droplet is accompanied by heat output of about half of rest energy of nucleon. That means that the binding energy of a droplet is extremely high; that specific energy output of nucleon collapse onto droplet is hundred times more than the specific energy output in uranium or hydrogen bombs. But the time interval of collaptical explosion is quite big, because, in order to explode the Earth into peaces, the droplets must successively grow from 10^-23 kg to 10^+15 kg / N_droplets.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:11 pm

MagneticTrap wrote:we are able to register the excessive flux of neutrino from the Earth already now!
Do you have any evidence supporting this specific statement?

Post Reply