Proof that Tom Roberts and David Smith were wrong
gu...@hotmail.com
*****LHC****** SAID THEY'RE BEAM CAN PIERCE METAL, TOM ROBERTS SAID
*IMPOSSIBLE**.
DAVID SMITH SAID COSMIC RAYS ***CAN DAMAGE**** A SPACESHIPT, LHC SAID
COSMIC RAYS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INTENSITY BUT THEY'RE BEAM DOES.
*****WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY REPLY TO THEM before my talk with LHC, yet
they refused. This shows this newsgroup lacks honesty, integrity or
the capability to understand even the **SIMPLE* e let alone more
complex discussions.
1. Tom Roberts replied impossible for a LHC's proton beam to pierce
through several feet of metal, & said that particular news report
(and
not him) was WRONG.
2. David A. Smith replied, If it was true the Spacecraft would be
damaged by Cosmic Rays.
Proof:
LHC at CERN and ****their***** own words:
"Cosmic rays don't damage space ships much only because of the
INTENSITY, not the energy. at the same intensity cosmic rays would
do much more mechanical damage than the LHC beams"
Androcles
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eb305d1-0704-4b7b...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> *****LHC****** SAID THEY'RE BEAM CAN PIERCE METAL, TOM ROBERTS SAID
> *IMPOSSIBLE**.
>
> DAVID SMITH SAID COSMIC RAYS ***CAN DAMAGE**** A SPACESHIPT, LHC SAID
> COSMIC RAYS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INTENSITY BUT THEY'RE BEAM DOES.
>
> *****WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY REPLY TO THEM before my talk with LHC, yet
> they refused. This shows this newsgroup lacks honesty, integrity or
> the capability to understand even the **SIMPLE* e let alone more
> complex discussions.
Bigots Roberts and Smith (and dozens more) simply bluster and always have;
they are not capable of reason, they merely recite their religion. You are
flogging
a relativist horse, and it's dead. So what's new?
dlzc
On Oct 6, 10:33 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> LHC at CERN and ****their***** own words:
>
> "Cosmic rays don't damage space ships much
Big word here "much". Means "will not rupture the gas-containing
envelope that keeps the astronauts alive", but the integrity of that
metal is altered with each "strike".
> only because of the INTENSITY, not the
> energy. at the same intensity cosmic
> rays would do much more mechanical
> damage than the LHC beams"
It's a book of matches. You can do all sorts of damage with that.
You want to be paranoid, to be sure they are going to destroy the
Earth beneth your feet, despite any sort of arguments raised. Go
right ahead.
They had a containment failure. They lost a "half-load" of
particles. No metal was melted.
Funny you are just sure scientists lie, then you cite them when it
suits you. Your head seems to have two mouths. Have you considered
running for politics?
David A. Smith
gu...@hotmail.com
That's what it is, politics.
And LHC site THEMSELVES when it suits them or ye didn't notice. First
they compare it to cosmic rays then they don't compare it to cosmic
rays. (Cosmic rays can't melt metal but their beam can).
If there was a small percentage of danger, would they tell the people
knowing if they did the project may get refused......Politics is what
permits and funds such projects.
Their own words specifically say the intensity is as MUCH as two
mosquitos colliding, then ***THEY*** say their intensity can melt
several feet of metal....= lies.
And yes intensity like energy is conserved, so the intensity after the
collision is as much as the intensity of the beam before the
collision. Their lie is that they are using the intensity of one
single non-condensed collision, same as a cosmic ray collision which
DOES NOT MELT METAL.
Now compress it into a tiny area, and make it a billion collisions per
second per detector (If I remember 4 detectors in total).
> David A. Smith
LHC as well told me, there was no risk of a chain reaction (Black hole
growing as it swallows all matter), in brief they are not 100%
positive (charged black hole is JUST a theory) and the main reason is
matter may not be stable (resist a black hole) enough to resist a
chain reaction where as a for a city-wide nuclear explosion matter is
stable enough (exception plutonium/uranium) and only becomes a radio-
active isotope instead.
Example: So if the planet was 100% made of unstable matter like
plutonium/uranium then even a tiny nuclear explosion would destroy the
entire planet. And likewise if all matter is unstable to a tiny black
hole then the entire planet may become one as it feeds the black hole
and causes it to grow.
dlzc
On Oct 8, 2:01 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> LHC as well told me, there was no risk of
> a chain reaction (Black hole growing as it
> swallows all matter),
Right. The same physics that allows for black holes, requires that
they evaporate before swallowing anything else. The density of a
nucleus and the "average density" of a black hole (including the event
horizon as a boundary) is about one order of magnitude different. The
stuff around the BH (if one is created) will see really nothing
different than a helium nucleus for a little while.
Anyone that tells you differently is treating you like a sheep. Or a
mushroom.
> in brief they are not 100% positive (charged
> black hole is JUST a theory) and the main
> reason is matter may not be stable (resist a
> black hole) enough to resist a chain reaction
Wrong concept. Nature already maintains "near black holes" now. We
are all based on them.
> where as a for a city-wide nuclear explosion
> matter is stable enough (exception plutonium
> / uranium) and only becomes a radio-active
> isotope instead.
>
> Example: So if the planet was 100% made of
> unstable matter like plutonium/uranium
Which the Earth's core is mostly iron and is only "barely"
radioactive...
> then even a tiny nuclear explosion would
> destroy the entire planet.
This would require emission of millions of tons of thermal neutrons.
You don't get that from a tiny high energy, low volume black hole.
Our core is just not that radioactive.
> And likewise if all matter is unstable
> to a tiny black hole then the entire
> planet may become one as it feeds the
> black hole and causes it to grow.
If you are going to insist on living in fear, I cannot help you. If
you want to use any sort of common sense, I can. Good luck.
Just remember, someone was sure we were going to set fire to the
Earth's atmosphere with atomic explosions... at one point. Lots of
"Chicken Littles" willing to run around telling about how the sky is
falling. You don't have to believe them. If it falls, there will be
nothing we can do about it, and it will be nothing we caused.
David A. Smith
gu...@hotmail.com
> Dear guskz:
>
> On Oct 8, 2:01 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > LHC as well told me, there was no risk of
> > a chain reaction (Black hole growing as it
> > swallows all matter),
>
> Right. The same physics that allows for black holes, requires that
> they evaporate before swallowing anything else.
Incorrect. As I said below CMBR (entering a black hole) alone they say
can maintain a Black Holes Lifespan for billions of years. If light
and dispersed CMBR can do this, imagine dense matter, 1 million times
bigger than the tiny black hole created at LHC.
>
> > Example: So if the planet was 100% made of
> > unstable matter like plutonium/uranium
>
> Which the Earth's core is mostly iron and is only "barely"
> radioactive...
>
The topic posted was not about radioactivity, radioactivity was simply
mentioned to demonstrated the effects of stable matter in the
proximity of a nuclear explosion. WHICH IS WHY THE EXPLOSION STOPS.
Where as to a black hole's supper time, all matter may be un-stable,
and thus cause a chain reaction (Black hole grows).