Wrath of Dagon

We can't take military action against NK because China is protecting them. The main danger here is a real war will break out between the 2 Koreas, which could easily escalate into a nuclear war between US and China, since we'll probably have to use tactical nukes against NK artillery aimed at Seoul in case of an all out war. So we need to avoid escalation as far as possible. Taking sanction off NK was a big mistake though, we need to put those back.

Saudi Arabia is wealthy, but modern? I wouldn't say that. And at least China is secular. Also I think Saudi Arabia is reforming, very slowly.

He could always do what most physics majors do, become a programmer. Or he could invent the next Xbox.

What are you talking about, those guys look super cool!

In spite of tremendous economic growth, China is still per capita one of the poorest nations on earth. I have to think that it's impossible to have a modern society while maintaining dictatorship and repression, thus I hope eventually the pressure for reform will become irresistible.

That zany guy is at it again: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_...sconi_s_touchup

The first Indy movie was really good. The rest were just crummy cash-ins, really didn't have the same feel to them at all.

No, the lawyer is Johnson, which was my first link. He references a paper by Paglia, who's an astrophysicist. I found a free link to the Unruh paper : http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2.pdf I don't think he means there's some other kind of radiation, I think only the Hawking radiation is possible for a black hole.

Paglia's paper was reviewed by Giddings and Mongano, who did the safety analysis article for the LHC. They offered 3 objections, which he answered and which you can see in his article. Questioning Hawkins radiation there are two published articles, one by Helfer and one by Unruh.

By non-negligible I mean small but not so small as to be ignored, considering the possible outcome. As for Krezack's question, this is a quote from the Paglia paper I linked to

I don't think that's called for. WoD is discovering new things about science (as are we all) and he just acknowledged that. Is continued vitriol necessary? It's not like this is a thread about politics - there's no need for an us vs them attitude. Nobody has been harmed - it seems pointless to hold a grudge or seek 'revenge'. Edit: Or did I misread and WoD is still arguing black holes are going to be generated by the LHC and consume earth? I never said they will be generated and will consume earth, I said there's a non-negligible chance of that.

Plenty of people already think that. I don't expect anything from this bunch, it's obvious I'm disliked here.

That was probably before they realized the micro black holes might actually turn out to be stable. Anyway, as we've learned in another thread, just because the odds are that low doesn't mean it can't happen.

What gave me away?

Exactly what I said earlier, except I'm not convinced by their argument about the white dwarves, because you know, they're completely different from earth, like having huge amounts of gravity. Why would anybody here have any reason to drop this topic besides you? We're defending the integrity of science, and in doing so that happens to place us on the side of the truth. WoD, my desire to inform you and prevent argument is tempered by my desire to prevent you from spreading lies and misinformation that other readers might pick up (because lets face it, this is a public forum with many thousands of viewers). That's fine, you started the thread, I was just concerned almost all of the discussion was about LHC safety instead of whatever discoveries they made, I don't mind continuing so long as anyone is responding. Edit: Here's a scientific paper critisizing the white dwarf theory: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v2.pdf I admit I haven't read it yet and relied instead on the summary in my original link. Btw, I recommend those interested read at least the section starting on p845 of the original link,it's very interesting even if you disagree with it.

It would be feeble if anyone could actually contravene any of the relevant facts. Otherwise this is simply an ad-hominem argument.

No one's talking about compression. It's believed that it's possilble that the LHC might produce black holes, that's a fact. I didn't claim it was a scientific article. It does source scientific articles though. Just because you found one thing from Einstein biography that you consider wrong (and irrelevant btw) doesn't make the whole article incorrect. Anyway, I feel I'm taking this thread off topic. Feel free to drop this.

Not in particle physics, it's mostly based on mathematical theories with very little in the way of empirical observation. Anyway, that paper is sourced, feel free to argue with what you don't agree with. The event horizon is the critical thing- a black hole isn't really matter in the classical sense and doesn't 'collide' with stuff as it, theoretically at least, is a single point in space which has no volume at all. The thing it collides with is effectively the event horizon and after that it doesn't matter which way it goes 'cos all roads lead to the singularity. That's especially true for something small that ain't going to attract stuff gravitationally. Exactly what would happen if an event horizon of that size hit anything is a bit of a moot point (since it is exceeding unlikely that they are stable, basically it is one of those conundrums where the best evidence that they aren't is that the universe still exists) as it is smaller than even subatomic particles- as much as giving subatomic particles a volume makes any sense in the first place. It is an interesting philosophical question as to whether having a black hole smaller than a fundamental particle means that energy/matter would escape from it in a non-Hawking sense, but purely theoretical. So your point is what, collision with a black hole wouldn't increase its mass? Or collisions are impossible? As far as being unstable, the LHC people themselves have already admitted the black holes might be stable.

Actually I don't think I've ever claimed to be an expert on any topic, but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions on those topics. You assertion that I'm unwilling to weigh other evidence is unfair, and not backed up by fact. As far as this thread, what I said is that there's a non-negligible possibility that LHC could destroy the earth. Edit: Here's a paper which explains the arguments and provides references, I posted it a while back but it was dismissed with ad-hominem responses: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf

OK, so you're making a judgment of me based on my arguments and those of others that you admit you don't understand. You claim I choose a side and stick with it no matter the evidence, yet it's evidence you apparently don't understand. Has it occurred to you that may be the reason I stick to a side is because I don't make claims unless I'm confident of their correctness, and because the evidence presented against me is either irrelevant or incorrect?

No, and I haven't claimed to be. Why do you keep making judgments about things you yourself admit you don't understand? Because someone throws down some irrelevant numbers you automatically assume they're right without understanding (or even seemingly reading) any of the arguments.

Event horizon has nothing to do with it as I explained. The micro black hole would grow by colliding with other particles, not by attracting them. Thus it would take a really long time, possibly 100's of thousands of years or more. So the fact that nothing happened yet tells you nothing. Only once the black hole grew to a critical size would it start actually attracting particles. Btw Krezack, nice job of personal attacks. I notice you never bother to offer an actual counter argument. As far as you being a member of the scientific community, I'm pretty sure only one of us graduated from a university.

And if it does, we'll never know

Bizarre Creations to close: http://www.vg247.com/2010/11/16/rumour-biz...s-of-200-staff/ Man, used to be so great way back when. But I guess a one trick pony.

Too bad there's no empirical evidence for this. And since you know so much about science, you should know that the derivation of the Hawkins radiation has already been proven to be incorrect. It's probably still true that the micro black holes are unstable, but there is a set of assumptions under which they would in fact be stable, and could grow slowly over time through collisions with other particles, until it reached enough mass to start attracting other particles, at which point it would rapidly grow and consume earth. As far as collisions in upper atmosphere, they don't prove anything, as any black holes formed would move through the earth at near the speed of light, and thus wouldn't have a chance to grow to a dangerous size. The LHC apologia has already moved on to claim that since white dwarves don't get destroyed by cosmic ray collisions, the earth won't either.