it was a minor bump… partly it energized me being a little slap only

I collected argumentation supporting James Blodgett at

http://junkerlchen.deviantart.com/

under the rubric “Journal” and at other places in the web -countercheck it. See why by this you can deduce argumentation of CERN is not sufficient for the LHC and related experiments to be safe.

In this sense: The induced model to guarantuee safety (comparison with cosmic rays mainly) is not sufficiently (?? - I admit, but this not discussed as well) proved. Read for your own. Now - having understood the leaks here (or refuted me?) - you can deduce with James the experiments should be halted.

It’s not so difficult I think to get worried!! Sorry…

But let’s go on o.k. - James already did much, I did much as well, CERN did most, that’s the reason they do not want to “halt”

I tried to start Hawaiian - I am a wiki sometimes (seldom)
It’s not funny but it’s useless for me to show here severeness which can not be fulfilled. I advanced already enormous saving minor humour (this last clause here if you allow Sandy and all).

Try the best to know what you are doing!!!

Oh I forgot the spam protection… but now

for completeness, you might want to include Jason’s reply to Rossler in his blog “El Naschie Watch”

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/prof-otto-e-rossler-responds-to-el.html

I attach the text below. Incidentally, thanks for drawing my attention to that excellent blog. Now I can finally understand Rossler’s ramblings about his favorite editor being fired.

Cheers, Ptrslv72

********************************************************************

Dear Prof Rössler,

Thanks for calling my blog, El Naschie Watch, a “highly professional website”, “this marvellous website”, and even “one of the most beautifully done web pages of history”. I am overwhelmed.

There have been further posts about you since the one linked to.

A small correction: I write under my own name, not anonymously. My location and contact information are given.

Allow me to invite you to write a guest post on El Naschie Watch, long or short, on any topic of interest or importance to you. Email it to me using the envelope widget in the left column. (hasten dot jason at gmail dot com)

Sincerely,

Jason

[...] something about lhcfacts[...]…

Thanks for calling my blog, El Naschie Watch, a “highly professional website”, “this marvellous website”, and even “one of the most beautifully done web pages of history”. I am overwhelmed.

There have been further posts about you since the one linked to.

A small correction: I write under my own name, not anonymously. My location and contact information are given.

Allow me to invite you to write a guest post on El Naschie Watch, long or short, on any topic of interest or importance to you. Email it to me using the envelope widget in the left column. (hasten dot jason at gmail dot com)

Sincerely,

Jason

There is no diploma, degree or even certificate for alternate theory. To disagree with the scientists at CERN is an alternate point of view. The closest to an alternate degree is theological. Take the part where it says people will suffer great scorpion stings in the last days.

What mechanism could do that? Well how about millions upon millions of growing micro black holes. For many years they would be way to small to take in more than a few particles. But when in proximity to each other would repel violently. A charged micro black hole of considerable mass at pre exponential expansion stage would do extreme charge damage to any living or other tissue it passed through.

The last days are of pain and burning. Electrocution or flash burn by being in the path of a micro black hole ejection sounds quite Biblical to me. The damage to electrical and communications equipment would place the world in a new dark age. Science does not even go close to proving everything. My advice … Do not disregard The Bible.

Michael.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

In nature such temperatures may only occur in supernova and the known outcomes are violent explosion, collapse to a new matter state (neutron star) or collapse further to a black hole. Unfortunately the only reaction I have received from the public forums to a quantum singularity destroying a planet has been “cool”.

One needs to ponder the intelligence of the scientific community and the public (in the public defense … they were trekkies).

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

Against LHC: 65%
Pro LHC: 35%