Nov 19, 2011

Eminent physicists who dismiss LHC conspiracy theories — 3

Posted by in categories: education, particle physics

I thought I would offer a series of quotes to counter the codswallop frequently expressed here — suggesting that mainstream physicists have genuine concerns about the safety of the LHC**.

“We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC.

R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read the LSAG report where all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the LHC cannot lead to catastrophic consequences.

Academician V.A. Rubakov, Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences

(from http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html).

The LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) report is here if you are wondering. It includes statements such as: Specifically, we study the possible production at the LHC of hypothetical objects such as vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles, microscopic black holes and strangelets, and find no associated risks.

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)

** or (as I have been corrected by Robert) that they just don’t care about the safety of the LHC. Sorry — my mistake.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Dear Steve — last hope of the physics elite on the planet:

    I would be so glad if you could get an opinion from the people you quoted: as to whether they maintain their more than three years old opinions in the light of the more recent Cook-Rössler theorem.

    Otherwise you are treating them unfairly, right?

    Thank you for staying steadfast — such honorable adversaries are the only thing I — and with me the world — need. Maybe your strength persuades my esteemed colleague ‘t Hooft or one of the other dignitaries to clarify?

  2. Thanks Otto, have you had any luck get any of these esteemed people to comment? I am sure in any test of sheer persistence you would beat me hands down, so you go first ;-)

    Three years doesn’t strike me as a long time in science publication. If I felt strongly about an issue that I had changed my mind on — and I think a genuine concern about the destruction of the Earth would drive me and most other people to feel strongly — I would ask for my comment to be withdrawn. I am confident a Nobel laureate would be able to ensure their comment was withdrawn from a CERN publication without difficulty.

  3. It’s a non quantum sub ev world out there. Gravitation and mass are due to a very different form of particle or particles, no resemblance with Higgs. Look for DCE research in Sweden, if you want to see the shape of the things to come. Eventually STR will be marginalized and space and mass will be seen as interchangeable.

  4. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Steve:
    You are skeptical that the CERN danger exists as the most daunting one on the planet — which is a sign of mental strength.
    But then you would probably not be opposed to the question being settled.
    So I am firmly convinced that you are on my side finding clarification to be something that is desired and not to be feared.
    Can you explain why anyone would fear falsification of an undisproved danger more than the danger itself, as CERN does?
    Do you really want to be counted on that side?

  5. Thanks Otto, I try to be mentally strong. I do not agree the question is not settled or that clarification is lacking.

    You had your day in court and a fair hearing and you did you did not convince anyone there was a real problem. Why repeat the process? It would achieve nothing — and I doubt any amount of contrary evidence or argument would change the views of yourself, Robert, Mike and others here.

    I think you guys create a false dichotomy (CERN or you) — there are no sides here. Employees of CERN raise families, watch the telly and grow old just like everyone else — it’s not the Dark Empire.

  6. Robert Houston says:

    Employees of the nuclear power plants at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island no doubt also raised families, etc., but that did not prevent the catastrophes that occurred.. The possible result of a black hole or strangelet disaster at the LHC could be vastly worse: no one — anywhere — would survive.

    Unfortunately, there is no court of science to consider and rule on a potential doomsday machine, and the judicial courts defer to the self-serving opinion of CERN employees and supporting scientists. CERN’s in-house safety reviews allowed no input or interaction from collider critics; thus, both the process and result were totally one-sided.

    As with the dangers of nuclear power, offshore drilling, and other baneful technologies, mainstream scientists have generally taken a cavalier attitude towards safety concerns, issuing smug reassurances to ensure public complacency and funding. The conflicts of interest are often extreme, yet disregarded by the press and media. For example, the LHC Safety Assessment Group, whose 2008 report is promoted by CERN supporters as definitiver, consisted of five CERN employees and was chaired by Dr. John Ellis, a 20-year advocate for the LHC. He later admitted that the report was produced mainly for PR purposes.

    Eminent representatives of the special interest group of nuclear and particle physicists can be counted on to make sweeping safety claims for their favored project, which serves the selfish research and career interests of the field. Yet they also admit that their giant Machine is sure to produce novel unknown phenomena. How can the safety of what is unknown be assured? Gaps and contradictions in the safety rationales for the collider are either ignored or papered over with illogical leaps of rhetoric. A good example is Mr. Nerlich’s first quote: the conclusion from the CERN Scientific Policy Committee that “there is no basis for any concerns…” Yet in the same report they undermined CERN’s neutron star safety argument, stating that “this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that…do require confirmation” (SPC report, 2008, p. 3). By their own admission, this major safety rationale for the LHC is unconfirmed,

    The quote from Dr. V.A. Rubakov states that in the LSAG report, “all possible risks were considered.” But the report never considered the powerful magnetic fields of neutron stars and white dwarfs, which CERN’s own analysts admitted may deflect or weaken cosmic rays so they can’t form black holes. It also ignored the known superfluidity of neutron stars (confirmed this year by NASA), which may allow the transit of black holes. The report also never considered the “3rd scenario” of dangerous Hawking radiation from intermediate growth black holes, put forth by German government physicist Rainer Plaga, Ph.D. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415v3 .

    Denying strangelets could be produced, the LSAG report omitted all mention of the papers of 26 CERN physicists stating that strangelets — even the dangerous kind (stable and negative) — could indeed be produced at the LHC (documented at http://heavyionalert.org/ ). Yet, citing Chinese research, it admitted that if formed a strangelet could be both “negatively charged” and “very long-lived” (LSAG report, 2008, Sec. 5, Par. 4). These were the then “theoretically unexpected” conditions for which an earlier safety paper by three physicists from CERN’s Theory Dept., led by Arnon Dar of Israel, found that there could be a “run-away” process and “the planet would end in a supernova-like catastrophe” (Dar et al., Physics Letters B: 470:142–148, 1999).

    An extensive, well-documented rebuttal to the LSAG safety report was prepared by LHC critics groups. See: http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/critical-…ed-int.pdf:

  7. Thanks Robert — I feel you are jumping in to divert the discussion from a difficult area. My discussion with Otto focused on asking what outcome you guys really want to achieve from all this furious lobbying on a blog with a small readership.

    Your usual line is that you want some kind of public inquiry. Haven’t you already had that with the various Wagner legal challenges:

    Are you suggesting any court is going to decide not to consult with experts in the field (e.g. Physics Nobel prize winners) in favour of hearing extensive and well documented testimony from a bunch of passionate bloggers?

    The same scientists will be brought in to say the same stuff and the same conclusions will be drawn. A concise rebuttal to LHC critics has been published by Nobel prize winners and widely accepted by the community at large.

    Constructively, I suggest that you guys need a new plan. Extensive and well documented ranting on the Lifeboat blog is clearly not working.

  8. Dear Steve: Forgive me that I only now saw your important quote:
    “I do not agree the question is not settled or that clarification is lacking. ”

    Why do you say that? If you rather had said “I do not believe”, you would not have overstepped your competence.

    But now you are in the awkward — or adorable — position to have to explain to the world from Australia why you are the first person on the planet who says “the uestion is settled and clarification has been obtained.”

    Please, do give the name of the authority you are quoting — the world’s media are clamoring for it. Otherwise, I ask you to apologize — as a friend has the right to ask a friend to do.

  9. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Mr. Nerlich

    Thank you for your phrase: “Constructively, I suggest that you guys need a new plan. Extensive and well documented ranting on the Lifeboat blog is clearly not working.“
    But what should one do, without much money, time and without experience in lobbying and politics ? I do not know.

    I have prepared a text the last few days and it does contain some arguments that Mr. Houston has already told. I submit it without changes, to show the paralleles too. I hope it does not disturb. Here is it:

    Dear all

    LSAG and SPC (the Scientific Policy Committee) are both sub-groups of CERN, so there was never a CERN-independent safety assessment group.
    The risks associated with the LHC are the most extreme risks we ever had on the planet — the possible destruction of earth.
    To compare: How would we feel, if a chemical company would find a new drug and just sell it without license — or if the same company would license it? It would be a scandal. The risks associated with the LHC are much worse than the risks of a new medicine.
    Risk = probability multiplied by the damage factor. CERN/LSAG has never made a mathematical calculation concerning the quantity of the risk. We do not know the probability, but the greatest possible damage factor…
    So why not make an official safety conference, together with the critical scientists or an independent safety committee or even an official communication between CERN and the critics ? There was probably never a single particle collision with energies like at CERN, with both collision partners having the same speed, close to the surface (for example 20cm or less above the surface) of celestial bodies in our entire solar system. Therefore slow exotic particles might be produced (just) at CERN. High energetic cosmic rays collide with (relative to earth) slow atoms, therefore the collision products will be fast too (faster cosmic rays produce faster collision products), all more or less in a similar direction.
    We know that slow particles do not interact equally with matter like fast particles. Nuclear power plants are an example: The graphite moderator does decrease the speed of the neutrons, that they can interact more with the nuclear fuel (uranium) and induce more fissions in it. Nobody knows whether some kind of slow (synthetic) exotic particles could induce a chain reaction in the matter of earth. Not everything goes linear. (Dangerous) thresholds do exist in physics.
    We do not know whether the high energetic cosmic rays are protons or not, even CERN does not call them protons in the LSAG report, they just call them “events”. In the references of LSAG one can find just assumptions, that high energetic cosmic rays would be protons. But at CERN we have accelerated protons and they produce exotic collision products.
    So is it “scientific” to vary and repeat phrases like “nature has already done billions of LHC-experiments and the planet earth does still exist” (or similar) about 15 times in such an (obviously) important safety assessment publication (LSAG), without telling the differences between cosmic rays and the LHC? For example the velocity and density (luminosity) of the LHC-beam is much greater than in nature, since the existence of the solar system. The energetic cosmic ray events high up in the atmosphere with energies like at the LHC are very rare and widely “homeopathic” distributed over the globe.
    Some words about group behavior: I think that very vew like to lose their job at CERN and very vew of them will perhaps tell their own mind. Perhaps they all trust the others and think that “they have children too”. I remember a video. Dr. John Ellis had asked the people for their opinion at the end of a safety lecture, in which all risks have been denied and in which critics have been called “semi-scientists”. He told them: “Hands up, if you think that micro black holes are not stable” — and many held their hands up. Then: “Hands up, if you think they are stable.” Some people have been looking around, probably to see, who would raise his hand and just one man has just raised his hand for some seconds. John Ellis said humorously to the man: “Do not forget — I have my laser pointer here…”

    Thanks for reading, good luck and best regards to all.

  10. Get a Clue says:

    God it’s horrible on the eyes reading this white on black website.

    1. You can easily change your view of the site to black on white by clicking “Switch to White” at the top right of the page.

  11. Dear Steve:
    Why are you the first person on the planet who says “the uestion is settled and clarification has been obtained”?
    Please explain.

  12. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Mr. Nerlich

    I think there are not many remaining safety arguments and probably not one general safety argument — or what do you think ? Perhaps it just seems a bit difficult for CERN/LSAG, to change their mind and make a revision of the safety report with so many honored Physics Nobel prize winners on their side ?
    Mr. Houston has told about “the known superfluidity of neutron stars”, it was an argument of Mr. Rössler since a long time. Here is a link:
    ”…The rapid cooling in Cas A’s neutron star, seen with Chandra, is the first direct evidence that the cores of these neutron stars are, in fact, made of superfluid and superconducting material…”

    But sorry — now to the question of Otto Rössler again.

    Best regards to all.

  13. EQ says:

    Superfluidity is not a phenomenon of gravity or the nuclear forces. The enormous density of the star and the interaction of hypothetical particles like this mbhs is sufficient enough to catch them.

    According to Rösslers pseudoscience the mbhs should be uncharged so they are not interacting via electromagnetism. But if they should be able to grow they must interact in some way with matter. Rössler himself agrees that the gravitational force of such a particle is very weak and not strong enough for growing so the only forces left are the strong and weak force. But if the mbh is interacting via this forces there is no reason why the inside of a neutron star should be protected against accretion. If the mbh is not able to accrete the ultradense packed nucleons in a neutron star it is unlikely that it will interact with earth matter at all.

    The issue with the magnetic fields is answered in the respective paper by considering certain binary systems. And btw, to compare neutrinos with this type of massive particle (the mbh) is not really useful.I a black hole is interacting like nuetrinos with ordinary matter it is immediately proven that there is in fact no danger.

  14. Otto E. Rossler says:

    This answer stems from a senior advisor of our child soldier. It is even worse scientifically. All charm of Hansel/EQ’s is gone.

    None of them read my 2008 paper with the title “A scientific, moral and spiritual dilemma” quoted in my gothic-R paper. I herewith ask them to read it and then return.

  15. EQ says:

    First: Xou have no paper. You have some texts published somewhere on the internet. These are no scientific papers as not a single one of them was doublechecked.

    Second: Instead of writing meaningless blabla you should rather adress the issues I mentioned in the text above. For instance there is still no theory for your fantastic gravitational and strong-force superfluidiity. The nest point is that your assumption of exponential growth is rather naive without any model calculation considering the fact that the black hole as assumed by yourself does not intract with anything (not charged, negligible gravitation and obviously no interaction via strong force as it is not intraction with ultradense packed nucleons).

    BTW: please give us the exact accretion model in the respective papers not considering the worst case for black hole growth.

  16. EQ says:

    And don not forget: the gohtic R was disproved and remains disproved. There is no single expert on this planet agreeing with your funny interpretations of “real distances” and so on.

  17. EQ says:

    I see that you have not even cited G&M in your “paper”…I bet you never read it.

  18. LSR says:

    A response to the Giddings/Mangano paper can be found at:


  19. paul mann says:

    Nerd-leech u seem to have an overgrown ego-trip on the importance of man and the knowledge of ‘self-proclaimed’ experts, which are just like you nerdy worms who memorize and believe ‘memes’ in textbooks within the limits of perception and language of the Homo Sapiens Lethaliensis, which are many. What seems to you an expert would be for a more advanced nerd-worm a primitive thinker, full of religious dogmas, personal agendas arrogance and ignorance. LHC is nothing but a relic of the cold war, a disguised weapons recycled as an experimental machine. And if and when they produce enough strange matter to create a stable strangelet that blow us all i can assure you that in the infinite, scalar, fractal Universe that would be as irrelevant as this blog (in that we agree)

  20. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear EQ
    I will not forget to send you a response. Please take a look at the paper that LSR has sent, it seems to be an important one.
    Thank you. Take care.

  21. Robert Houston says:

    From his Vatican balcony, EQ (Pope Hansel the 1st) has issued ex cathedra his assurances that the superfluidity of neutron stars, confirmed this year by NASA, would not affect the resistance of the star’s density to the transit of mini black holes. Then how can neutrinos fly out from the dense core into space, thereby cooling the neutron star?

    Whether one has the mass of a flea or a jet, one still needs the same escape velocity (11 km/sec on earth, 0.3 c on a neutron star), so a relativistic mini black hole may likewise cross the star. At nearly light speed, the trip would take about 1/10,000 of a second. Much longer, even weeks, may be required for significant accretion there, as CERN’s G&M acknowledged.

    One may search their paper in vain for any mention of superfluidity. There’s no way G&M could have been unaware of it in 2008. It’s obvious why they deliberately and deceitfully omitted any mention, for it undermines their neutron star safety argument — as Dr. Rossler was the first to point out, shortly after their paper’s release.

  22. Hansel says:

    Houston, ton compare a Neutrino which is nearly not interacting with a hypothetical particle like this black holes containing quarks is rather stupid. But I have to congratulate you as you were able to set up two strawmen simultaneously in one posting.

    TRMG pointed it out half a year ago that the black hole, this hypothetical particle, would interact with the ultradense matter by strong forces and gravity. These interactions are not only slowing the partticles but also responsible for accretion mechanisms.

    (Of course the only reason why G&M did not mention superfluidity was the evil intention to fake a safety report. yes, that must be the truth. Absolutely convincing. It fits perfectly to the stupidity of these guys when they mentioned the magnetic fields or the need for some additional evidence concerning cosmic rays at much higher energies than relevant for the LHC. Oh yes, these scientists are so stupid. )

  23. Robert Houston says:

    Hansel’s last paragraph is superb! However, I must dispute the ending that “these scientists are so stupid.” They were smart enough to fool a trusting world.

    I compared the neutrino and the neutral mini black hole because both are neutral particles, which would not be affected by electromagnetism. The neutrino’s mass is presumably less, but this does not change the required escape velocity. If the neutrinos are not stopped by density, nuclear forces and gravity in escaping from the superfluid core of the neutron star into space (as confirmed by NASA), then it’s reasonable to assume that the mBH could also do so.

    TRMG had argued that rapid accretion would slow the mBH. But at near light speed, the 20 km diameter could be crossed in about 1/10,000 of a second, too fast for any significant accretion — if such were even possible on a neutron star (where the nucleons are tightly locked into Cooper pairs). In fact, CERN’s analysts calculated that the time scale to significant accretion for an mBH there would range up to “a few weeks” (G&M report, p. 25). By then the mBH would be long gone and far away.

  24. Hansel says:

    What a strawman again! Yes, they would travel through the neutron star that fast IF there would be no interaction. As usual your thinking is flawed.

    It is in no way reasonable to consider particles consisting of quarks (and therefore affected by the strong force) and a neutrino which is nearly not interacting at all (it is not only the mass, there is for example interaction via the strong force) as behaving equally in an environment of dense packed nucleons. This is the strawman argument of the year.

    Again Houston also forgot that there is not only the core. The crust of the NS is already consisting of ultradense, extreme packed matter.

    Now you have found a new buzzword, the “locked cooper pairs”. Besides your normal non-understanding of terms, the quarks in normal matter are also locked in nucleons, bound by the strong force together. If a black hole is nearly non-interacting like a neutrino, ordinary earth-matter is even more protected against accretion than anything else.

  25. Hansel says:

    Oh, and Houston: The paragraph about the stupid scientist was sarcastic. Of course not the scientists are stupid but the people like Houston who can explain certain contents of papers only with the help of conspiracy theories.

    So of course it was an evil intention to leave the superfluidity out in the paper. It is absolutely impossible that it is simply irrelevant. Rössler has state it is relevant (without any explanation) and therefore G&M are evil scientists.

  26. Hansel says:

    That the mbhs should be neutral particles is by the way not very reasonable.

  27. Robert Houston says:

    The standard view, confirmed by G&M of CERN, is that mBHs should be neutral particles due to the Schwinger mechanism of neutralization, which they admitted may occur without Hawking radiation. Also there are theories of attenuated Hawking radiation that won’t extinguish an mBH, while fully compatible with Schwinger neutralization.

    Of course, I knew that Hansel’s parenthetical paragraph was meant in jest, but it still rang true — except that in describing the scientists “stupidity/stupid” should have been replaced by “cunning”.

    If the superfluidity of a neutron star, which could make it less resistant than a gas (Wikipedia), is irrelevant to the safety argument that the resistance of its density would stop a mini black hole, shouldn’t CERN’s analysts say so in their paper and tell us why? Obviously, they had enough difficulty with the trillion gauss magnetic fields of these stars to bother with superfluidity, for which they may have had no counter-argument.

    A neutral mBH travelling at near light speed may be unable to consume or interact significantly. Accretion may be more feasible at much slower speeds, such as could result from the nearly head-on collisions in the LHC. Neutrinos are also affected by gravity (and by the weak nuclear force), yet can escape the superdense core of the neutron star.

    Hansel wrote, “The crust of the NS is already consisting of ultradense, extreme packed matter.” But according to a professor of astronomy, “At the top of the crust, the nuclei are mostly iron 56 and lighter elements, but deeper down the pressure is high enough that the equilibrium atomic weights rise…” (M. Coleman Miller, Univ. Maryland). CERN’s analysts found that “the black hole should rapidly penetrate the crust and enter…the core” (G&M, p. 25).

  28. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear EQ (or Hansel?)

    Sorry for delay. I am not a physicist, therefore I can not handle all your arguments but I here is my response to your comment 6, 2011 9:34 am.
    You say that the gothic R has been disproved. Can you give me the link to it?
    Exponential growth and gravitation: I think it is probably not true that Prof. Rössler agrees that the gravitational force of such a particle is very weak and generally not strong enough for growing, because it not only depends on the mass of the mini black hole but also on the distance down to the horizon. But the distance from outside, down to the horizon is very long (delayed) and observed from outside time stops there. Generally told, gravity at the horizon of mini-black holes is just strong enough, to trap anything and light. But you could surround the mini-black hole with your hand, without feeling an effect. I think gravitation is ‘optical‘, therefore gravitation should be even stronger just at the horizon of micro black holes than at the horizon of larger black holes. But the time delay (that is ‘observed‘ from outside) is infinite at the horizon of any black hole. I think the gravitation at the horizon of very large and old black holes is weak enough to swallow stars without rupture or an observable emission of light.
    I do not know how to calculate the exact accretion model for uncharged micro black holes but it is obvious that more massive black holes do accrete matter much faster than lighter black holes.
    Hawking radiation (observed from our standpoint, from outside the black hole): How to radiate frequencies if time stops at the horizon, if frequencies have to be seen as a funktion of time? The next question would be how an effect of electric charge could be measured outside the micro black hole over such a long distance and time delay. I like Prof. Rösslers idea of uncharged micro black holes because time delayed charge is perhaps like ‘sparks without flow of electricity‘.
    Micro black holes and superfluid neutron stars: Perhaps micro black holes could only become trapped by gravity if they would fall in more slowly than the escape velocity, which have to be calculated. If they would be slow enough they would circulate in, and if the ‘neutron star’ would be otherwise completely slipplery, they would perhaps not grow and exist for ever. If they would be faster than the escape velocity, they would escape at the same speed at which they were incident. I do not know, whether the electromagnetic superfluidity model does exclude “Prof. Rösslers superfluidity model”. I just ‘know‘ that in a neutron star, the electrons are pushed into the protons, producing neutrons. Perhaps Prof. Rössler could explain the reasons for his superfluidity model. It should be stressed that there is no absolute proof of neutron stars and that other (not provable) systems could exist, because nobody was there. Therefore it is important to consider other possibilities like “strange stars” or whatever.
    According to Prof. Plaga energy conversions in the narrow range are imaginable too. If going into the unknown with particle collisions, it would be important to consider energy conversions in every range and in respect to all possible and hypothetic exotic particles, to avoid any risk.
    Not all astronomic observations are solved. Physicists say today that the universe consists of about (only) 4.7% of ordinary matter, the great rest being dark matter and dark energy. Why only 4.7%? I think a very important reason is that ordinary matter is not the most stable of all. So should the physicists not be a bit more careful with new physics experiments that could infuence the structure of matter ?
    We are talking about micro black holes again but I like to repeat that there are differences between cosmic ray collisions and collisions at the LHC.
    Do you agree that one would need a cosmic ray proton with an energy of 100,000 TeV to have a collision energy of 14 TeV if it is striking a stationary air proton? Cosmic rays of 100‘000TeV (= 1017eV) or greater are very (very, very) rare and we do not have a proof that they are protons, because just secondary air showers have been measured and not a single primary cosmic ray particle with 100‘000TeV or greater have been observed yet. The formula for the energy calculation is on page 28 of the GM paper.
    If we do not know all possible exotic particles and their properties (lifetime, forces, interactions with matter, etc.), then we cannot know, whether the LHC is dangerous or not. This is no absolute proof of an existing danger but a reason of the importance of an independent safety review and a proof that CERN has no absolute safety proof. Again: Is it not remarkable that CERN tells the untrue safety argument of cosmic rays instead of a quantitative calculation of the risk and instead of an absolute safety proof?

    Best regards to all.

    Sincerely yours


    ps.: I think Mr. Houston has given very interesting arguments. For example in the first paragraph concerning Hawking radiation and the Schwinger mechanism or concerning the crust of neutron stars in his last paragraph. Perhaps we also do not have a proof whether mini black holes do contain quarks or not. Have you found the response to the Giddings/Mangano paper in the important paper that LSR has sent (see link)? For example starting on page 259? If yes what do you think about it?

  29. blackhole says:

    Houston, the Schwinger mechanism ois also closely related to hawking radiation. Perhaps you decide first hich kind of catastrophic scenario you prefer before you throw around buzzwords you do not understand.

    The crust is not normal packed iron by the way but already an extreme dense form of iron.

    So far your have not given a substantial argument why the ultradense packing of neutrons interacting via gravity and strong nuclear forces should not be able to stop a particle susceptible to these forces. Houston is rather naive if he rules this out in this easy way.

    He has probably still no imagination of the extreme state of matter in these objects. He simply thinks of normal gases, normal matter. he should also explain why a ulrafast proton should be stopped by hitting another proton but not by hitting ultradense matter in the crust of a neutron star. If ultraslow particles can be created by hitting only ONE other particle in a evacuated environment then this is even more likely to happen in an environment filled with ultradense packed iron and nucleons strongly interacting via strong and gravitational forces.

    Neutrinos are on the one hand nearly without mass (and much less mass than these hypothetical black holes) and second we were talking about the strong force concerning the discussionj about nuclear forces. Houston again demonstrates that he is a wordpicker without any deeper understanding. he also clearly has a fanatical anti swcientific agenda.

  30. blackhole says:

    “shouldn’t CERN’s analysts say so in their paper and tell us why? ”

    No, they have not to do that. It is simply obvious for scientists with the necessary knowledge. But why are you not asking them yourself? It is not that difficult to find the email adresses. Perhaps you are afraid of the answer?

  31. Robert Houston says:

    Oh, “It is simply obvious.” How very convenient! So that would be their answer if we called. Yes, indeed, it’s obvious that ignoring the issue is much easier than explaining why being in a superfluid state of matter with no resistance would not affect the resistance of the star’s matter.

    Most of Mr. b’s points were answered in my prior comment of Dec. 14. My first paragraph already answered his talking point about Hawking radiation. My quote from Prof. Miller showed that the outer crust of an NS consists of iron “and lighter elements.”

    It was already long-known that the inner crust is in a superfluid state. Moreover, neutrinos escape through the crust, and G&M admitted that a black hole would “rapidly penetrate the crust and…enter the core.”

    The strong force binding quarks into nucleons and nucleons into pairs on the neutron star is what would prevent a relativistic uncharged mBH from catching any snacks on the fly as it zips through the superfluid fog.

  32. MONDAY, MAY 21, 2012

    Three evidences disprove existence of black hole

    Does black hole exist? Three strong evidences do not support existence of black hole. First, the result of the Large Hadron Collider, ($ 3 billion LHC), the largest, most powerful particle accelerator, in the proton to proton collision, at temperature of 7TEV , 10TEV upon proton-proton collision (creating such temperature closest at Big Bang), and at 99.99% speed of light collision, what the LHC found was a “quark-gluon plasma”, the same “quark-gluon plasma” content of neutron star. The second evidence is the visible ejected super-speed jets of several galaxies, which are in form of plasma, proving that the content of black hole is quark-gluon plasma. Third, most galaxies are rotating at average speed of 3 million miles per/hour. Rotating at such speed would create energy, heat, light, exactly what is seen in ALL galaxies: light, again like neutron star. Neutron star, the collapsed star, a spoon thereof weighs a billion tons up, super-spins hundred to thousand of times per second, such super-spin of neutron star has uncannily similar spin of black hole. IS THERE INSTEAD SUPER GIANT NEUTRON STAR AT THE CENTER OF GALAXIES? Another question, is mini Big Bang created in that collision, that quark-gluon plasma?

    Concept of black hole was taken FROM Dr. Einstein statement referring “to certain region in space with strong gravitational field that even light cannot escape” at the early 19th century but Dr. Einstein was not exactly referring to any suspended body, object, re-MASS, in space but to his conceived CERTAIN REGION in space very much related to wormhole. Until his death in 1955, Dr. Einstein denied the existence of black hole.

    Posted by Capiz Scientists and Invertors Society at 4:42 PM