Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 2) 153
And you chose to ignore all the content in his/her arguments, by distorting context (the comics arguemnt) trying to undermine the credibility of GP. Who's the weak-ass, AC?
And you chose to ignore all the content in his/her arguments, by distorting context (the comics arguemnt) trying to undermine the credibility of GP. Who's the weak-ass, AC?
Sounds good, but we are talking here about a regime in a country which is sentencing political enemies to death by the hundreds... I could never shake hands with that man - I'd be left with stains of blood on mine.
I fully disagree. I do not need to watch such videos (and I will not) to understand whaht is going on. Or shall we slowly make the whole society numb to deep human suffering and disgusting brutality?
What the OPERA collaboration claimed was that they had an anomaly in their data, which led to a possible interpretation of nneutrinos travelling faster-than-light. Since they found that a very extrordinary claim, they knew they needed extrordinary evidence, and after a few months of searching within, they opened up to the scientific community to help find their mistake, if any. They were very scientific about the whole thing, and didn't at any point claim "hey look here, we found neutrinos to go faster than lightspeed!".
In summary, TFS contains crap on the part I know about, so I'm not inclined to go read TFA... I'll hear it from a more reliable source if it turns out to be anything important.
TFSFS, i.e. The First sentence of TFS, is a load of crap. Physicists Peter Higgs and Francois Englert won the Nobel Prize for *predicting* the Higgs Boson, *not* for discovering it!
And the rest of the summary doesn't make me a bit interested in reading TFA either. There's been Higgs imposter models out there from before the discovery was made. And sure they have their merit. But as long as we have no new physics observed, the Standard Model covers it just fine.
Blowing karma on being pedantic: gravity is by far the weakest force known!
The LHC is basically working at the same energies equal to cosmic rays striking the earth's atmosphere.
Within a factor of a few tens of millions, you are right.
Nope, GP was right. The centre-of-mass energy in collisions of UHE cosmic rays with our atmosphere is of the order (slightly above) of the centre-of-mass energies reached at the LHC. That's another reason why we build colliders: it's hard to reach high energies in fixed-target collisions.
You'd think that after 4.5 billion years of cosmic rays hitting things like this planet, the sun, the other planets, etc. that a black hole would be here by now.
What about speed relative to the earth? A black hole produced from a cosmic particle will be produced from a stationary particle being hit, and will thus have a high momentum, easily enough to escape the earths gravity well before interacting with anything. A black hole produced at CERN will be produced from two particles travelling at nearly the same speed in opposite directions, so it will be travelling much slower. Or will it still have a high enough speed that it doesn't matter?
Don't forget that the LHC is colliding the quarks and gluons inside the protons, and the speed (momentum, you mean of course) of the incoming particles is never mathematically equal. Still, you have a valid point, this is an important difference between the LHC collisions and the comic-ray ones.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff." -- Dave Enyeart