We Are The Most Reliable Online Pharmacy Store » Buy Allegra Without Prescription

24 Responses to “Buy Plavix Without Prescription”

1. JTankers Says:
   May 24th, 2008 at 4:23 am

   Is that the best you have… I will focus on the micro black hole argument, that is what the contest is about…

   So, here is again all the reasons why the LHC isn’t going to create a black hole that will cause the end of the world:

   CERN 1. To begin with, please notice that the creation of a black hole at the LHC is *not* possible in the standard framework of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. To produce black holes at the energies LHC can reach, it needs a modification of General Relativity at small distances. This could potentially be the case if our world had large extra dimension. There is however no, absolutely no, evidence so far this is really the case. The scenario is pure speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, or call it wishful thinking [1].
   

   JTankersSorry, CERN predicted creation of up to 1 micro black hole per second. Have CERN publicly and strongly completely retract that prediction and I will give your argument more credit. Currently, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. CERN either predicts the creation of micro black holes or they do not. They do. Further, the March 2005 RHIC bose-nova implosion created a Bose-Einstein condensate and thousands of atoms could not be accounted for. According to one Nobel prize winner it was “probably not a black hole”. I hope he was correct. Because what ever was created, it was stable and it disappeared.

   CERN 2. It is not only that there must be compactified extra-dimensions, but the parameters of that model (their size and number) have to be in the right range. We know that the case with one dimension is excluded, and two should also already have shown up in sub-mm measurements, so this case too is strongly disfavoured. There are further various constraints from astrophysics that put strong bounds on the cases with three and four. But most importantly, there is no good reason known why these extra-dimensions should have the radius they need to have so quantum gravity is observable at the LHC - no reason other than it would be nice to have it shown up at these energy scales.
   

   JTankersThis is supposed to be convincing… to who?

   CERN 3. Now to come to the issue of the black holes should they be created. Hawking showed in ‘75 using quantum field theory in the curved spacetime caused by a collapsing matter distribution that black holes emit thermal radiation. The temperature of this radiation is inverse to the radius of the black hole. The black holes that would be produced at the LHC would be extremely tiny, ~ 10-18 meters, and thus be extremely hot ~ 1016 K (that’s a 1 followed by 16 zeros). They would decay within a time scale of roughly 1 fm/c, that is 10-23 seconds. They would not even reach the detector, instead they would decay already in the collision region. The only thing that could be measured are the decay products.

   
   JTankersHawking Radiation has been disputed by no less than 3 rigorous peer reviewed studies that found no basis in science for such a conclusion. This is science fiction that requires Einstein to be doubly wrong in Professor Hawking’s opinion. And we should believe professor Hawking why, because he has had how many theories proven correct correct in his very long career, he has won how many Nobel prizes since he completed his academic career with a sterling C average? Give me a break.
   
   CERN 4. The temperature of these black holes is so hot, they can not grow even if they pass through matter of very high density, like e.g. a gluon plasma or a neutron star. The mass gain from particles coming in the black hole’s way (which depends on the density) is far smaller than the mass loss from the evaporation. The density of the earth is further several orders of magnitude smaller than that of nuclear matter, so there is no way the black hole could grow. Even if you assume the black hole has a high γ-factor (and thus experiences a higher density), this is not sufficient to enable it to grow.
   

   JTankersAnd you know better than Professor Rossler who has been described by the ‘Zero Risk’ crowd as prestigious but, eminent but, world recognized but… And Albert Einstein was ‘just a grad student’. Professor Rossler is one of the worlds most respected scientist geniuses, his list of scientific accomplishments is staggering. He did the math. 50 months accretion time. Where is the rigorous peer review rebuttal? Where is LSAGs Earth Accretion math? LSAG writes that they do not assume that micro black holes will be stable. So where is the rigorously peer reviewed Accretion math? It is only the fate of the planet, no math?

   CERN 5. Hawking radiation is *not* a quantum gravitational effect. Hawking’s calculation uses two very well known ingredients that are classical General Relativity and quantum field theory. It is true that we do not know quantum gravity, but quantum gravitational effects would only become important in the very late stages of the decay, when the black hole comes into the quantum gravitational regime. This would then affect the observables (and this ambiguity is thus somewhat of an annoyance), but it does not mean the black hole could grow. The reason is that if the black hole grew, it would come into the regime where Hawking’s calculation applies to very good approximation, and it would lose mass as predicted. The scale for quantum gravitational effects to be important is the curvature at the horizon, which falls with M/R3 when the black hole grows, where M is the mass of the black hole and R is its radius (which again is a function of the mass).
   

   JTankersHawking again, not credible. The GLAST satellite will look for signs of Hawking Radiation this summer, are you planning to start up the Large Hadron Collider before this satellite might fail to find the mythical Hawking Radiation. The following is what one professional physicist that I highly respect said of Hawking Radiation and possible quantum effects on micro black holes…

   QUOTE “Hawking Radiation” is a hoax. Quantum theory should actually likely require a blackhole to grow larger, not smaller, if it were to effect a blackhole. Here’s why.

   Separating “virtual particle pairs” into real particles is not difficult, nor is creating antiparticles.

   We routinely make antiprotons at Fermilab, etc. We slam high-energy protons into a Nickel target, with kinetic energy of about 2 orders of magnitude more than the rest-mass of a proton [about 0.94 GeV]. Out pop all kinds of particles and antiparticles, including antiprotons, which we magnetically separate, store, and later accelerate and collide into protons.

   These scenarios always require an input of energy at least equal to the rest-mass of the particles created. For the radioisotope, this energy comes from the mass of the nucleus itself, which is reduced slightly when the positron is emitted. For making antiprotons, it comes from the kinetic energy of the proton beam striking the target.

   Hawking’s idea of evaporating black holes does not require input of energy to create particles. Instead, he believes that two particles [the particle and its antiparticle] will come into existence at the ‘event horizon’ as virtual particles, with one falling into the black hole, the other wandering away [as "Hawking Radiation"]. Because the one that wandered away became real, the one that fell into the black hole must have the equivalent of negative mass, thereby reducing the mass of the blackhole, preserving the total mass of the system.

   That is the hoax. Negative mass. No such thing. If there were, the negative mass particle would more likely be repelled from the black hole [the opposite sign would make for gravitational repulsion, not attraction], not falling into it. The net result would be that black holes would spontaneously slowly grow larger, not evaporate, robbing via quantum tunneling from nearby matter. However, I believe they would just sit there unless matter directly fell into them. Either way, “Hawking Radiation” would not exist.

   It is, of course, utter lunacy to use as a “safety argument” the idea that “Hawking Radiation” will evaporate the microblackholes they hope to make in the ATLAS detector.

   CERN As to the claim that there are ‘people’ who doubt black holes radiate, let me first reduce ‘people’ to ‘physicists’ since there are apparently also ‘people’ who doubt that the earth is more then 20,000 years old, or is a sphere (at least to very good accuracy). I know exactly no physicist who doubts that black holes radiate. The one work that I know of has sometimes been referred to is that by Adam Helfer. However, even he states in his paper (gr-qc/0503053) explicitly: “[These results] do not, as emphasized above, mean that black holes do not radiate [...]” [2].

   JTankersTalk to me about science that is NOT REFUTED by rigorus scientific studies over and over and find NO BASIS IN SCIENCE. Give up Hawking Radiation, LSAG has “we do not assume that micro black holes will evaporate…” and your peers have. Hawking Radiation is not science. It is rigorously disputed speculation that has no basis in reality.

   CERN 6. As has been said many times before, the earth is constantly hit by cosmic rays which undergo in interactions with particles in the earth’s atmosphere collisions with a higher center-of-mass energy than the LHC will reach. If it was possible to produce a black hole this way which would then swallow the earth, this would not only very likely already have happened some billion years ago, but we should also see stars disappearing more often, especially neutron stars because of their high density. There is no evidence for that.
   

   JTankersYour own LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) presented to the University of Berkley not too long ago and conceded that cosmic ray impacts with Earth would send ALL particles created safely into space. Even the 1999 RHIC safety study conceeded that cosmic ray impacts are not equivalent of collider collisions. Why did CERN not release a promissed safety report from LSAG. Because they did not want the creme of the worlds physicists to tear it apart, so they send Physics graduate students to peddle weak, non-peer reviewed science on blogs?

   Now you want me to believe that a cosmic ray hitting a stationary particle would focus the energy to a single point the same way that a collider smashes same mass, exact same speed, exact opposite vector and in some cases exactly center mass collisions with particles traveling each at 99.9999991% the speed of light for a net collision speed of almost 2C focusing the energy precisely to a single point, and sometimes these collisions will involve protons with anti-protons. And you want me to believe that is the same as a stray proton with up to 10^20 eV of energy hitting a relatively stationary particle on Earth. I read the 1999 RHIC safety study, they admit that the momentums produced by cosmic rays do replicate head on collider collissions. Did you read the 1999 RHIC study? Are you trying to make false arguments? Or do you truly not understand basic physics?

   CERN 7. It has then further been argued that the black holes at the LHC would be created in a different center of mass system, and thus not have the same average velocity with respect to the earth. This is correct but there are two points to be said here.

   Thank you.

   For one, the protons at the LHC will be accelerated to 99.9999991% of the speed of light, which is really fast. I mean, really. If you bang them together it is extremely unlikely the created particles will be in rest or even slow moving relative to the earth. Indeed, as Stefan has explained very nicely previously, their velocity will typically be far higher than the escape velocity of the earth. Pictorially speaking, consider a car crash. Things usually fly around quite a lot, already at 0.0000001% of the speed of light.

   JTankers I don’t know if every single EXTREMELY DENSE micro black hole created will be captured by Earths gravity. I would like to know. Because if even the first is likely or virtually assured to be captured, then shutting down the experiment as CERN promised in response Professor Rosslers very strong concern, will be of no use!

   CERN Second, even for the few black holes for which that wouldn’t be the case, again, they would decay even before they hit the detector. In any case they would definitely not collect in the middle of the earth (or ‘gravitate to the center of the earth’ or whatever). This is a totally absurd idea that I have however come across several times. It is absurd because the center of the earth would generally not be on the produced object’s trajectory (having an initial velocity), and even if it was they wouldn’t stop in the center of the earth, why should they? Ever heard of energy conservation? As said previously, they are far to small (cross-section to small) to interact noticeably with the earth’s matter so they wouldn’t slow down. (If one really pushes it one can now go and estimate how long it would take them to slow down until they get stuck and so on. But frankly, this scenario is already so absurd that such a speculation is totally moot, and an utter waste of time, mine and yours.)

   JTankersExcuse me, but you are repeating weak and disputed arguments… If it is scientific, then officially release it and have it peer reviewed. If you can not, then perhaps all you can do is have Physics grad students peddle this ’stuff’ on blogs.

   CERN 8. About the claim that the LHC’s risk report is biased because it has not been performed by people at “arm’s length”. Yes, to get a reasonable report about the difficulties the LHC might be facing I would think you ask experts. These experts are usually people working in the field. Would you prefer them to be random sampled from a phone-book? I honestly do not understand why anybody would think people working in theoretical physics have a larger interest in destroying the planet than other human beings.

   JTankersLHC Safety Assessment Group never release a report. There is no report. That is a very strong statement in it self. What I am responding to now, is this the LSAG safety report? Are the scientists who wrote it are not willing to defend it? I don’t blame them.

   CERN To be somewhat cynical here, you’d instead think that a lot of theoretical physicists should be really nervous about the LHC because it will test their theories. And no matter what, very many of these theories will be outruled, dead, speculations no longer viable. One of these theories that can be tested is the one with large extra-dimensions. And if it isn’t found hundreds of people who have worked on it must face that they have wasted their time, their publications do not describe nature, and the topic is no longer something you can use for a grant proposal.

   JTankersI don’t know how many scientists I have read that said, “No danger”, of course I have not bothered to look into it myself, I am busy. Of course, according the legal action, any employee of CERN is requested to refer to the risk as zero, regardless of personal opinions.

   CERN 9. Finally, let me say that there is always some amount of uncertainty in everything we do. Yes, there is the possibility we are all wrong. There is also the possibility that you wake up tomorrow morning an have turned into a monstrous bug, because a cosmic ray has modified some virus to being capable altering your DNA. Or, as Arkani-Hamed put it so aptly in the recent NYT article: There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”

   JTankersThere is a $500 challenge, just prove 5% or less risk with respect to micro black holes. How many grad students are so well paid that you could not use $500?

   CERN I, and I believe many of my colleagues, would really appreciate if the media - TV, print and online - would not support such catastrophe-scenarios and scientifically completely absurd scary stories just because they sell well. There is, in the community, no argument about whether mini-black holes at the LHC are a risk worth worrying about. The answer is simply no, they are not. The story about black holes created in particle colliders that swallow the earth came up first time in ‘99 regarding RHIC, so it has a long beard in 2008, and it’s getting longer every day. If you are running out of topics for the science section, why don’t you go and ask some scientists for inspiration?

   I have no specific relation the theories investigated here, in fact, not being influenced by subjective preferences is part of what it means to be a scientist (whether we like that or not). I’m not telling you what I wrote here because I want money or publicity for collider physics, or any other reason of personal advantage you could accuse me of. I am telling you that just because black holes at the LHC is not something you should worry about. Worry about some real problems instead.

   JTankersI don’t think I will sleep well tonight. Will you?

2. JTankers Says:
   May 24th, 2008 at 7:40 am

   LSAG Promises to release an updated theory of safety soon, at that time we can see if it does a better job with the $500 challenge…

3. yo better theory estas aqui Says:
   August 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am

   If I tell you how to show there is a real danger from this thing in the other direction, can I still get a prize for saving your butts also???????????? I do not want the money or the fame, hence left no name, just reply online if you want or don’t if you don’t want the truth, experiments and planets orbits will be included in proof, they don’t lie.

4. JTankers Says:
   August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

   You have my attention!

   What are your proposing for the rules? Best argument proving 95% probability of danger? Sounds like a tall order, but if you can do it sure!

5. Michael Noonan Says:
   August 13th, 2008 at 9:34 am

   Well here we are two days later and no reply.

   What about the most simple analogy. Points of simultaneity. According to General Relativity the start and finish points are different for objects traveling at extreme velocity to each other. The classic example is enclosing a longer train in a shorter tunnel which takes a month of mathematics to learn.

   Here is the deal. The protons take 40 to 45 minutes to accelerate to very near light speed and gain relative mass to over 200 time the weight of a proton. Fine so far but when you do that the time frame for the proton is different to our time frame.

   Gibberish maybe but under the Laws of physics the protons being smashed together are not the same protons being injected into the particle accelerator. That make the CERN particle accelerator a time machine with the potential to damage reality in ways that can barely begun to be imagined.

   If you think the scientists know what they are doing forget it. They have admitted publicly that they do not have a clue. Remember the famous Caesar’s last gasp? What happens if the wrong protons are in the air we breathe and simultaneously being subject to the most extreme forces ever introduced to matter since a trillionth of a second after the big bang because science fails to track or know where the “real” protons being used are and where they are going?

6. sakurai Says:
   August 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 am

   Just read

   http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf

7. Giulio Paribeni, professor of Mathematic at Pisa Says:
   August 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

   For Sakurai
   We know the LHC safety report. But what about the study of Peskin, already in this website?

   http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14

   In which the highly respected physicist demonstrate that the Giddings/Mangano report is seriously flawed?

   Peskin do not believes that there are dangers, but simply states that there are factual mistakes in their study. Well, there could be even more.

   I am not a creationist or a muslim, but in many scientists working at the LHC I found often expression offensive for believers and full of vulgar arrogance. Like Michio Kaku’s : “We are close to read the God’s mind”. Or “We have explored the last corners of the Universe and there is no trace of God”. Or the Hawking’s mantra that “We are close to unravel the last mysteries of the Universe.”

   Even an atheist like Richard Feynam disliked such manifestation of human stupidity. To me the LHC remind Babel’s Tower…

8. Giulio Paribeni, professor of Mathematic at Pisa Says:
   August 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

   sorry, Richard Feynman

9. Giulio Paribeni, professor of Mathematic at Pisa Says:
   August 29th, 2008 at 1:53 am

   An interesting study by the CATO institute in which the author, Ken Jeffreys, argue that the SSC was only an expensive toy not worth building as it was made only “to satisfy the curiosity of a small segment of the scientific community”.

   http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-016.html

   In fact the American Congress dropped the USD 12 billions project.

10. sakurai Says:
    September 8th, 2008 at 4:34 am

    How nice of you to give a link to your own counter arguement.
    From
    http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14
    quote:
    But the higher-density white dwarfs and neutron stars would be destroyed much more quickly by captured black holes. For white dwarfs, the accretion time is ten thousand times shorter. Neutron stars are so dense that they are already very close to the threshold for complete gravitational collapse. This implies that even a single microscopic black hole can catalyze the rapid collapse of the whole neutron star. However easy it might be to destroy the earth, these stars are much more vulnerable. Thus, superdense stars act as the proverbial canaries in the coal mine for black hole production at the LHC. As long as pulsars keeping chirping, the earth is not in danger.

11. JTankers Says:
    September 8th, 2008 at 6:51 am

    Thank you for your input Sakurai. Unfortunately Dr. Plaga and Dr. Rossler both refute that argument.

    Dr. Rossler believes that micro black holes would not be stopped by white dwarfs and neutron stars are protected by super fluidity, neutral micro black holes would pass through.

    Dr. Plaga proposes other arguments to explain how such “proverbial canaries” may be protected from micro black holes, including the immense magnetic fields around Neutron stars.

12. Sakurai Says:
    September 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    I am sure these people believe alot of things, but as you probably already know Rossler’s paper has been refuted by Herman Nicolai Director of the Albert-Einstein institute in Birlin as a miss interpretation of the Schwarzchield metric

    And for mr. Plaga. Some high energy cosmic protons would come in along the magnetic field axis. along this the neutron star is not protected. Hereby creating a black hole. since many neutron stars are in binary systems, the black hole would be stopped in the other neutron star, and eat them both. Since we see many binary neutron star systems, this has not happened. the magnetic field of the neutron star would NOT shield it from the black hole , since in your argument the black hole would have to be neutral and hence not be subject to Synchrotron radiation.

13. erik Says:
    September 8th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    I’m pretty sure that all those brilliant minds hypothesizing together seems really cool. And it is pretty cool, but the fact is, they are hypothesizing optimivists! They know as much about how safe it is as others know how devastating it can be. They are rolling dice. The experiment could show us cool stuff that is safe, it could be a big waist of money, or is could show us really cool stuff that may change the world in a worse way. You can’t say its safe because their imaginations are cool. I wonder if they all believe in god. Seeing as they put all their faith in dreams, I imagine they all should believe in god too. If not, they are hypocrites.

14. fletcher Says:
    September 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    It’s funny that one can’t find Giulio Paribeni, professor of Mathematic at Pisa on there web site. hmmmmmm. Is someone just making stuff up:-)

15. 18001 standard Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    18001 standard…

    OHSAS 18001 standard defines “acceptable risk” as a risk that has been reduced to a level that can be tolerated by the company in regard to the company’s legal obligations and its own occupational health and safety (OH&S) policy….

16. Warren Platts Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 6:31 am

    Run the LHC in single-beam mode only. That would mitigate the risk against mBH’s by ensuring that any mBH’s that get produced will get kicked out of the planet’s gravitational field.

17. JTankers Says:
    March 31st, 2009 at 10:07 am

    I agree. There does not appear to be a cautious plan to “ramp up” energy levels slowly or to use a single beam fired into perhaps a block of lead where results would be sent safely out of Earth’s orbit.

18. Eric Says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Assuming Richard Webbs arguments could be properly addressed, the latter alternative I think is right in terms of safety as it essentially mimics secondary cosmic ray collisions. Then arguments would start again about the scientific justification for the redesign implications of such a new collider mode. At such a point I would like to think that the relative scientific worth of cosmic ray detector to high energy colliders would become a more central issue. Presently, and I don’t see myself changing my mind - even if only for CO2 reasons and my concern about physicist’s high energy collider addiction - I would vote redivert costs to more extensive space based primary cosmic ray detectors or ground based ones.

    But atleast in the latter scenario outlined, the present cloud of fear would be removed.

19. Ptrslv72 Says:
    May 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Please please please JTankers you MUST add a link to this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR9TbLtJX9Y in the section about Walter “50/50″ Wagner… Cheers Ptrslv72

20. Michael Noonan Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Ptrslv72 I listened to the canned laughter to an open ended question. No time frame for the 50/50 possibility was given.

    The odds of 1 in 50 million were calculated by Martin Rees for RHIC in 1994. At those odds there is a half a chance of destruction by the year 2100. Since no time frame was given then half a chance of destruction is 50/50.

    The odds of half a chance in the correct time frame is half.

    The LHC will be 25 to 30 times more powerful so presumably the 50/50 scenario will be arrived at a whole lot sooner.

21. Ptrslv72 Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 5:05 am

    Borrowing John Oliver’s line in the show: “Michael, I am not sure that’s how probability works… (puzzled look)”

    JTankers, are you still not embarrassed by either your supporters or your supportees?

    BTW, what’s going on with Wagner’s website? It seems to have disappeared right after the show was aired. Did Walter 50/50 shut it down in shame?

    Cheers Ptrslv72

22. JTankers Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 6:17 am

    Safety theories on both sides are just that, unverified theories based on conjecture and best assumptions. Walter Wagner argues that science can not currently accurately or precisely estimate odds of danger.

    I suspect the lhcdefense.org web site may be down due to technical or financial concerns.

23. Ptrslv72 Says:
    May 12th, 2009 at 7:25 am

    …and now Otto Rossler stoops to spamming:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090508/full/news.2009.459.html

    JTankers, what’s going on with all of your heroes? ;-)

24. Michael Noonan Says:
    May 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    I rather hope the site will open again closer to the restart of the LHC. The LHC is in a testing phase presently with collisions scheduled for late September or maybe October.

    Ptrslv72 from what I understand probability is a numeric device. It can be event based like the flip of a coin or time and event based like multiple coin flips to get a probability number for the number of events required or the time taken to reach a probable event like flipping six heads in a row.

    So with 31.5 million or so seconds in a year the meltdown of the machine has spared civilization a potential 31.5 million micro black hole possibilities. The probability of any one of them being the cause of planet destruction is small but collectively shouldn’t take more than a few years to hit the mark at the safety margin of 50 million to one.

    So unless like the new Star Trek depiction a single quantum singularity is required to destroy a world there is some time yet.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.