Professor Rossler is a CHEMIST — one who happens to not understand the mathematics of relativistic physics, despite his impressions to the contrary. There are several papers out there by actual physicists, who take the time to step through and show the errors that Rossler makes in his “calculations.”

Estimations for Q can be much more meaningful, since all related events exist within contexts that we have knowledge of; whereas the P event is a “what if everything we think we know is wrong”-type event.

One lower bound for the Q value would be p(human-extinction astroid collision event in next 10 million years) * p(given the astroid collision event, LHC provides knowledge which forms basis for technology which uniquely enables humans to avoid the collision).

Based on the geological record, and granting a good likelihood that for many astroid events at least a remnant of the human race could escape by other means, I’d estimate 10^-3 for the first probability.
Based on the fact that the LHC uniquely provides information we won’t otherwise obtain pertaining directly to the causes and nature of mass and gravity, I think an extremely conservative estimate for the second probability would be also 10^-3.

So considering only this very narrow slice of time and possible rescue scenario, Q = 10^-6.

so Q is 100 billion times larger than P = 10^-17.

Q/P is the only number that truly matters. So saything that Q is less reliable than P is a non-argument. The result will be roughly as reliable as its least reliable component. You can either try to make it more reliable or use it as-is. >1 you pull the starter cord, <1 you don’t. (It has a starter cord, right? :P)

As for risk, the reasonable potential lifespan of the human race would be 5 billion years, the remainder of the tenure of the sun. So the cost of the destruction of the race related to the Q event is on average 0.999 x the cost related to the P event. So the risk relationship is essentially the same as the probability relationship.

Of course, to be complete, we’d want to continue to look for extinction events after the first 10 million years, which would of course continue to increase (Q/P), as the benefit of knowledge multiplies indefinitely, whereas the non-occurance of a past imagined disaster remains static.

It just happened to be a fast breeding, blood draining vegetable with the capacity to wipe out all animals and humans and the scientist was intent on cultivating it. Also sabotaged the generator. No they are not to be trusted.

How soon we forget. Since when has it ever been the duty of all humanity to die for the benefit of science at ANY level of risk and this is not the first time.

Lets just say that arguments in favor of the LHC do have more pounding power than the ones against. Lets just say that scientists are not a crazy lot of hags intent on destroying mankind. Lets just say that we people may or may not have as much knowledge on the subject as them.

So maybe we can trust them on this one.

Professor Rossler refuted CERN’s safety arguments (paper at the top of LHCFacts.org). The LHC may destroy the planet in 5 years to 50 years based on Dr. Rossler’s calculations. The responsible course of action is to verify or refute safety arguments before high energy collisions begin and to be open and honest with the public and with other scientists about the lack of verified proof of safety.

The lawsuit before US Federal Courts and at least one of Dr. Rossler’s interviews aledge that CERN’s actions potentially amount to criminal neglegence. I agree.

Here is the quote :

“at the LHC energy, any danger for the Earth on time scales lower than or
comparable to the natural lifetime of the solar system can be ruled out on the basis of its
contradiction with the observation of white dwarf stars of known mass, age and other
properties. This conclusion, while entirely valid for the LHC, would need further work to
be extended to conceivable future colliders of much higher energies. A powerful
argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed
neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that,
while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years.
On the basis of all these findings, we can conclude that there is no danger of whatever
kind from the hypothetical production of black holes at the LHC.”

The SPC believes the white dwarf argument to be correct. This is a fact you do not yet seem to have absorbed or admitted, you continue to misreport the SPC findings.

The question of magnetic fields has been specifically addressed in the Giddings & Mangano paper, section 6.1, both with regard to deflection and synchrotron radiation, where they conclude:

“This and the preceding sections have argued that in the hypothetical TeV-scale gravity
scenarios possibly relevant to LHC, 1) cosmic rays will produce significant numbers of black holes on white dwarfs of low (few x 10^5 G) magnetic fields, on time scales short as compared to known white dwarf lifetimes; 2) such black holes, even if neutral and with the highest masses accessible at the LHC, will be stopped on white dwarfs with masses M >~ M_sol, by accreting and scattering the dense matter of the star during their transit; and 3) the white dwarf will then be accreted.”

I should also ask why, if you’ve read so many articles about the dangers of the LHC, you haven’t yet read the Giddings and Mangano paper. It really covers every possible point. If you think their arguments are incorrect you should find the mistakes and point out where and how they are wrong.

How about: ‘Black holes at LHC, IF they present any danger to the Earth within the lifetime of the Solar System, would also be produced by cosmic rays and stopped within white dwarves, BUT we see that white dwarves are not destroyed by this, THEREFORE there is no danger to the earth within the lifetime of the Solar System’.

Would that be ‘deductive’ enough for you?