Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a blackhole created in a lab
expt??

ScI-KO

Dear VTNAME:

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a
blackhole created in a lab expt??

We can "Chicken Little" about anything.

If GR is right, then the black holes, if produced, must evaporate
in microseconds.
If GR is jewish crap, no black holes will form.

I'd worry more about the black stuff under my fingernails...

David A. Smith

On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:25:25 -0400, "VTNAME" wrote:

Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a blackhole created in a lab
expt??

Rest easy. There is mo possibility of the world being blown up.

Black holes created by proton collisions would decay very rapidly
into a burst of radiation.

What they're really trying to do is to determine the shape of
extra spatial dimensions which could help us to understand more
about the early moments of the formation of our universe.

Read this:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ack_holes.html


"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
| Hi,
|
| I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
| Anyone else feeling the same thing?

No, cretin. Fear of the evil eye never troubled me.

VTNAME wrote:
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a blackhole created in a
lab expt??

There is about as much chance of the LHC destroying Earth as there is of
cdesign proponetsists coming up with an actual Theory of Intelligent
Design. IOW, so freaking low it might as well be zero.

On May 1, 9:42*am, Harold Saxon wrote:
On 5 Apr, 15:07, "adman" wrote:

*Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the
probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to
the10.123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this
possibility.

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen
Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the
probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for
human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the
probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of
the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order
of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123
means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total
number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's
answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1
followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if
nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name
for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero
probability".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times
less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
"coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an
accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could
not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary
notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to
write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire
universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we
should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.

While I'm inclined to the 'this is a meaningless question' view in
the article Craig T cites, the argument as presented is obviously
false. Penrose did not make his calculation including a Creator, so
the improbability *increases* by adding that variable to the phase
space.

-tg

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?

You might want to check out:

http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/index.htm

"Onoit" wrote in message
news:HIednVpoHfRAGYLVnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@internetamer ica...

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?

You might want to check out:

http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/index.htm


yeah.... seems lik epistemic uncertainity risk analysis hasnt been done
yet... epistemic uncertainity is d uncertainity due 2 d lack of knowledge...

On May 1, 9:42*am, Harold Saxon wrote:
On 5 Apr, 15:07, "adman" wrote:

*Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the
probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to
the10.123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this
possibility.

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen
Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the
probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for
human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the
probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of
the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order
of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123
means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total
number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's
answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1
followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if
nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name
for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero
probability".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times
less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or
"coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an
accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could
not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary
notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to
write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire
universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we
should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The probability of this universe forming by chance is 1 in 10^10^123.
Ok, let's not argue with that.

Let's say we hold a billion people random raffle. The raffle is drawn
and Judy wins. But you point out, the "probability of Judy winning by
chance is 1 in 1 billion. There's no way she could've won a random
raffle draw. She must have cheated and rigged the draw." See the
problem? The odds of ANY person winning is also a billion to one. If
anyone else had one, you could've made the same argument and accused
anyone of cheating. But the truth is, so long as the raffle was drawn,
the probability that somebody will win is 100% guaranteed. Somebody
MUST win. Judy, simply lucked out.

So let's say that our universe participated in the cosmic raffle. So
did many other universes. Universe A has more stars than us and twice
as many galaxies. Universe B has more pulsars and less planets.
Universe C has purple planets with pink rings. etc. The cosmic raffle
is drawn. Each of these universes (including ours) has an equal chance
of winning (1 in 10^10^123). Even so, when the raffle is drawn, one of
these universes MUST win, even if its chances were small. The chance
of this is 100% guaranteed. So, as you can see, somebody had to have
won. Judy simply lucked out. Somebody had to have won the cosmic
raffle as well. Our universe simply lucked out. Both raffles were
completely random. It's a logic fallacy to claim that the odds of the
resulting winner is small, thus she cheated and rigged/designed the
raffle. It's a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:45:48 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Dear VTNAME:

"VTNAME" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have a bad feeling about the LHC experiment.
Anyone else feeling the same thing?
Any possibility of the world being blown out by a
blackhole created in a lab expt??

We can "Chicken Little" about anything.

If GR is right, then the black holes, if produced, must evaporate
in microseconds.


Typo?
I think you probably meant to say,
: If QM is right, then the black holes, if produced, must evaporate
^^^
: in microseconds.

Have a Nice Day,
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
www.relativitybook.com