LHC portal

Well Magnetic Trap as i type this they are colliding at 1.48e10.. 4x4 bunches... They are doing this continuously for 2 hours now... They plan on doing this for some time yet...

We are still here....

yes Im offended you also ignored me too...

But im too busy right now covering the live events at the LHC to bother with you AT THE MOMENT... i'll be back...

And why do you think the rings around the supernova (which according to Wiki are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor) are proofs for you magnetic holes, other than the fact that they are round?

Progenitor or planet, which exploded thousand of years before the explosion of central star?

And more: I think that repeated stars are also the result of magnetic holes created on the planed of a star. If mass of magnetic hole becomes equal to 1/100 of Solar mass, and if its configuration is close to cylinder with h=R/2 then magnetic collapse transforms into gravity collapse.

It is possible that our Sun will undergo dozen of explosions as nova with the period about 10 years.

But I still can not explain the two external rings of SN 1987A.
Here there are many ideas, but they are not sufficiently hard.

MagneticTrap wrote:

And why do you think the rings around the supernova (which according to Wiki are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor) are proofs for you magnetic holes, other than the fact that they are round?

Progenitor or planet, which exploded thousand of years before the explosion of central star?

And more: I think that repeated stars are also the result of magnetic holes created on the planed of a star. If mass of magnetic hole becomes equal to 1/100 of Solar mass, and if its configuration is close to cylinder with h=R/2 then magnetic collapse transforms into gravity collapse.

It is possible that our Sun will undergo dozen of explosions as nova with the period about 10 years.

But I still can not explain the two external rings of SN 1987A.
Here there are many ideas, but they are not sufficiently hard.

Magnetic, you've contradicted yourself. I recall you saying before that Gravitational Collapse (AKA Black Holes) does/do not exist..yet now you say that it's possible for them to exist. Contradiction? I believe so..

MagneticTrap wrote:
Progenitor or planet, which exploded thousand of years before the explosion of central star?

And more: I think that repeated stars are also the result of magnetic holes created on the planed of a star. If mass of magnetic hole becomes equal to 1/100 of Solar mass, and if its configuration is close to cylinder with h=R/2 then magnetic collapse transforms into gravity collapse.

It is possible that our Sun will undergo dozen of explosions as nova with the period about 10 years.

But I still can not explain the two external rings of SN 1987A.
Here there are many ideas, but they are not sufficiently hard.

1. Wait, so you don't believe in supernovas?
2. You haven't explained why SN 1987A's rings are magnetic holes.
3. I'm curious to know your explanation for the currently missing neutron star. What do you think formed after the explosion?

Magnetic, you've contradicted yourself. I recall you saying before that Gravitational Collapse (AKA Black Holes) does/do not exist..yet now you say that it's possible for them to exist. Contradiction? I believe so..

No.
Gravitational collapse is possible. It is very rapid and accompanied by gamma-burst and explosion. At the time of collapse the gravitational funnel becomes longer and thinner. The space-time becomes flat, or transforms into a small magnetic hole, which will be rejected from the star. In a dozen of years it returns, again grows and again (at sufficient mass) magnetic collapse transforms into gravity collapse and gamma-burst…
In the Universe there are not completely formed black holes.

That is correct for cylinder like magnetic hole.

If it has a torus like form, the star can undergo a single explosion as supernova.

Still sounds spotty.

Again.. im tired from covering events to compose a proper response...

I am awaiting a email confirmation but I believe I saw sustained 2e10 collisions for a extended period.. 2Tev...

Did I miss anything? I thought their highest energy so far was 450 GeV.

The highest reports beam I saw reported was 1.18 Tev which was higher then the Tevatron.

Allan

AFAIK LHC have circulated beams at 1.18 TeV but done no collisions at that energy yet. Last weekend's collisions were at 450 GeV according to my understanding. Of course I missed the event so I may be wrong here...

BTW - It makes no sense to do a lot of calibration and beam stability studies at 450 GeV (which seems to have been what happened last week) and then go for collisions at an energy level higher than what was tested before. If I were to commission a machine like this I'd get confident at 450 first and do collisions at that level so as to give the experiments (ATLAS, CMS, etc.) a chance to test their equipment. Then, I'd repeat the process at a higher energy level (possibly with some shortcuts -- if appropriate).

There are more parameters that are important than the energy, by the way, one of them is Luminosity. Could it be that there is some confusion about that?

Also...
1 GeV = 1 x 10^9 eV (or in shorthand 1e9)
1 TeV = 1 x 10^12 eV (or 1e12)
1.48e10 = 1.48x10^10 = 14.8 x 10^9 ... don't believe for a second those are eV because it would be an underwhelming 14.8 GeV

Could be confusion about that.. yes indeed... I may be the confuzed...

On a side note, it seems like no one is writing at lhc concerns anymore except Ivan, What happened to everyone?

Stephen wrote:On a side note, it seems like no one is writing at lhc concerns anymore except Ivan, What happened to everyone?

I think everyone that was scared shitless by these so called "Dr's" and scientists that at first there was a lot of hype and alot of people trying to calm the fears by discussion, however a year on the majority have had the time to absorb and understand the saftey aspects of the LHC to not need to go on that site again.

Meanwhile Mr Wagner is getting battered over at Sciforums, because for the last 12 months he has been selective in reading posts and replies.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97768&page=5

He just wont answer the questions people have or show any equations to why he feels there is a 50% of world destruction.

its worth a note that this is the only place wagner appears to be nowadays, seems the mainstream media (bar daily show) have disowned him.

I wonder why....

It's all abit sad really a year ago if the media had made responsible posts rather than going for sales and figures I do believe alot of people wouldnt have had mental health issues regarding it (myself included).

As for Ivan i really hope he stay's calm, I'd hate to read on here that a rusky fellow had been arrested for smuggling a bomb into Cerns cafeteria or something like that and his site does smell of ultimatum, please man take it easy and seek some support.

As I see no one answered my question:

Return to the first post of this thread and give your answer.

A. CERN’s answer: 10^18.
B. My answer: (All protons of Earth)/(The number of dangerous particles).
C. Your answer: ..

Try to solve this problem.
In order to better understand the solution of this problem, play and train with my program Arcball: http://darkenergy.narod.ru/arcbol.exe


So CERN has no safety documents, but has falsifications.
Crime will be punished. Magnetic trap will be created. Earth will be exploded.
I wish you happy New Year in icy comets.

MagneticTrap wrote:As I see no one answered my question:

A. CERN’s answer: 10^18.
B. My answer: (All protons of Earth)/(The number of dangerous particles).
C. Your answer: ..

Because no one understands your point. What are you trying to calculate here?