It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Climate Change: Is Carbon Dioxide the Culprit? No, It's CERN?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Orionx2

I know.. imagine something like that posted on a conspiracy site? Why engage in the conspiracy and talk about it?



What? CERN has no conspiracy. It is very clear what it does and it has been operation with zero negative side effects for years.
Is ATS really a "conspiracy" site? If so then the title of the site makes no sense. "Above Top Secrete" is not conspiracy.. Nothing above top secrete actually exists on this site..




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I would expect a spectacular version of the Northern Lights over CERN if any of this was even remotely true.
Wouldn't You?



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
Why not? He got his education here in the US unless you are implying he couldn't because he is from Nigeria.

You are right. I didn't notice the 'pedigree'. (Usually willfully blind to such stuff...)
So nevermind that sarcasm. Big fail! *__-

I have followed the scientists talking about global warming, for all the years it's been reported. I read the charts, heard the lectures...
On the other hand, I have heard enough 'crackpots' (and know enough 'science') to be wary of any sudden spike on the graph.
Could just be gas. *__-

Knowing what I know now, if I saw some new theory on why the Earth is flat, I probably wouldn't take the time to read it, unless I had some 'dog' in that race!
If I see more and more headlines jumping on that bandwagon, perhaps 'then' I'll spend the time and mind to read it.
Don't scientists need like 30 other scientists agreeing with their hypothesis before they are even allowed to mate?
Remember Occam's Razor...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I'm no scientist and could not read the article but here is my take.

I call hyperbole.

Remember the law of thermodynamics? Entropy states that energy tends to disorder. CERN does not create energy. Energy cannot be created outside of a nuclear reaction. but thay are smashing parts of atoms together and watching what happens. But the scale of cern versus the scale of the reactions inside the sun....

The effect of CERN ought to be negligible.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyosaurus




The effect of CERN ought to be negligible.


That's my thought on it as well. Like I said I can't view his actual break down of how he came to this conclusion. I'd have to pay to download any of his work and I don't think that much of it to do so.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
I posted the paper to get peoples opinion of the THEORY...



It doesn't actually make any sense.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It doesn't make sense to me either. I want to make sense of it and try to understand WHY he proposes this conclusion and HOW.

When you have time will you read this link and see if you can understand it? I am rushing out the door to work a few hours and then I will be back to read it as well. I doubt my mind will wrap around it. file.scirp.org...

Let me be clear though I am not in no way supporting this theory in any way. I am just curious and question everything. It's my nature.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Sillyosaurus




The effect of CERN ought to be negligible.


That's my thought on it as well. Like I said I can't view his actual break down of how he came to this conclusion. I'd have to pay to download any of his work and I don't think that much of it to do so.



Nice point about the business of white papers.

The part about paying for white papers on such suspicious content has an exploitation problem. I can certainly see paying for quality work from noted scientists, however this can also be a screen to elude scrutiny on the down and dirty facts. Few will pay to read details outside of the scientific community (of course the scientists belonging to the organizations, most likely get them for free).



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

I was able to read it and understand it a little bit more.

If this is true, this is huge!

This explains it much better than the other paper. It's called, "The World Energy Challenge and Global Warming" file.scirp.org...

He says their theory and conclusion isn't a figment of the imagination, it's real.


The foregoing conclusion is not mere figments of the imagination, it is real. The previously unobserved electroweak photons (gamma rays) have been detected recently [4]. Conventional physics claims that the source of these rays is non-anthropogenic, attributing it, strangely, to thunder storms.


And is also the reason for the uptick in "natural" disasters.


Further, the ultrahigh energy particles could originate from the earth-based ultra-high energy particle accelerator laboratories. Thus, today the earth is under the influence of such energetic particles from two different sources, namely, natural and manmade sources. This explains why the natural disasters have become rampant and ferocious, entailing cataclysmic destructions. A



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

"Further, the ultrahigh energy particles could originate from the earth-based ultra-high energy particle accelerator laboratories. " Notice how he says laboratories as in plural...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ


As far as I know, this is the only case in the history of science where discovery in a single laboratory is taken as a confirmation of a prediction!

Surely the data is confirmation of the prediction and CERN is the only place confirmation could be obtained.


To stem global warming, the United Nations should decree that all such machines should be banned with immediate effect as they are not of any use to humanity under ordinary conditions.

Not of any use to humanity ? , to understand Universe we must first understand the world of the very small , CERN helps us do that.

I think his theory is nuts and question his motivation for it.

edit on 21-10-2016 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
When you consider all of the high energy particles that hit the Earth each day from every direction, or just go through it,like neutrinos, surely there are a huge amount of collisions. Trouble is, in order to detect them, you need to have a CERN observation head when it happens. I find it hard to believe that the relatively few, in comparison, that CERN produces, can have any effect at all. But ... not being a particle physicist...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Belgianbeer

Yes, I did notice that. There are thousands of them.


There are more than 30,000 accelerators in operation around the world. Accelerators are all over the place, doing a variety of jobs. They may be best known for their role in particle physics research, but their other talents include: creating tumor-destroying beams to fight cancer; killing bacteria to prevent food-borne illnesses; developing better materials to produce more effective diapers and shrink wrap; and helping scientists improve fuel injection to make more efficient vehicles.
www.symmetrymagazine.org...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

What he is saying is it should be tested again in another accelerator for confirmation. He's also stating the energy from it at almost speed of light is too much for our Planet.

The OP linked a different paper than this one. file.scirp.org...

It explains in more detail his theory. I'm still trying to understand it. I'm just not that smart in physics but it doesn't stop me from trying and I love the subatomic world.

He does believe accelerators are very useful, he's not denying that just at that speed it's dangerous and causes cataclysmic energy states and our weather is proof.

If you understand physics have a read and tell me what you think.

He also states this 80 year old theory is wrong.


How energy is produced in the sun and other stars was a big puzzle at the beginning of the 20th century. Following Eddington’s conjecture that the energy source of the stars might be the conversion of hydrogen to helium, H. A. Bethe propounded his theory of fusion [2]. According to Bethe’s theory of stellar evolution, a star is formed from the condensation of interstellar matter. This collection of matter builds up internal pressure as a result of its gravitational contraction. The pressure raises the temperature of the star until it reaches about 5 - 10 × 106 K. At this temperature thermonuclear conversion of hydrogen to helium, which helps to counterbalance the gravitational contraction begins. The energy released from this conversion is radiated into space and provides the earth with all the light and heat necessary to maintain life on earth. Sadly for almost 80 years since the theory was proposed, and despite generous infusion of resources (human and material) all attempts at its practical realization have failed. Further, the theory is completely silent about the origin of cosmic rays which are known to come from outside the earth’s atmosphere. One is left with no other choice than to conclude that the theory is wrong



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Here is the beginning of the conclusion but for anyone interested read the theory/paper to get a better idea and the full context.


Fusion has long been recognized as the solution of the world’s energy problem because of its potential as abundant source of clean, safe, environmentally friendly, and economically competitive energy resource. Its realization, despite infusion of huge amounts of resources for several decades, has eluded humanity. Many of the world’s great laboratories have experimented on all types of fusion including “bubble” and “cold” fusion; added to these are international efforts like JET and ITER; all of these have yielded null result. The only conclusion to be drawn from about eighty years of null results is that the Bethe fusion theory is wrong. Given our new theory, realization of fusion energy should not be too far in the future. What is required now is the appropriate technology with which to extract energy from fusion-that is a process that enables humanity to harvest the photons (energy) escaping from ultra-high energy particle accelerators. Such a process converts these accelerators to fusion reactors. There should, however, be a total ban on all such machines which are not operating as fusion reactors to stem global warming. Earthquake, hurricane, tornado, typhoon, cylone, etc. are well known and well documented natural disasters. What causes them and the reason for their unprecedented violence in recent times are, however, unknown. Environmental scientists have come up with explanations which are certainly unsatisfactory. For example, geologists claim that earthquakes are caused by ‘plate movement’, but the force responsible for this movement has not been identified. We hypothesize that the force responsible for these natural disasters has nuclear origin



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
He says their theory and conclusion isn't a figment of the imagination, it's real.


There's no such thing as an "electroweak photon", to start with.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Ok, this thing is a big cartload of horse dookey. I'm not familiar with this publication. But either it's unrefereed or it's pay to play.

Let's pick it apart a bit, shall we?



According to Bethe’s theory of stellar evolution, a star is formed from the condensation of interstellar matter. This collection of matter builds up internal pressure as a result of its gravitational contraction. The pressure raises the temperature of the star until it reaches about 5 - 10 × 106 K. At this temperature thermonuclear conversion of
hydrogen to helium, which helps to counterbalance the gravitational contraction begins. The energy released
from this conversion is radiated into space and provides the earth with all the light and heat necessary to maintain life on earth.

Sadly for almost 80 years since the theory was proposed, and despite generous infusion of resources (human
and material) all attempts at its practical realization have failed. Further, the theory is completely silent about the
origin of cosmic rays which are known to come from outside the earth’s atmosphere. One is left with no other
choice than to conclude that the theory is wrong.


Ok. This is a mass of "bees smell fear" and non-sequiturs he hopes you won't catch.

In case you've never been along with me for one of these, let's define "BSF" as "bees smell fear". It's from Jerry Maguire:



If you've ever seen me post "bees smell fear" or "the human head weighs eight pounds" as a response, this is where it comes from. It refers to a common method on the net of conveying bull#. You start off by citing a bunch of unrelated factoids, then swerve into a lie, or a non-sequitur.

Here, the first paragraph is BSF. It's all factoids. Then, having lulled you by citing pointless but somewhat accurate facts, he goes for the alfalfa: because we can't do Bethe Cycle fusion (it's a special case) in a bottle, and we don't know the origin of cosmic rays as a near certainty, the Sun does not do fusion to generate energy.

That's a slap-in-the-face-with-a-wet-rag sort of non-sequitur. Bethe Cycle fusion can't really be done outside a star, and even Sol doesn't do Bethe Cycle fusion - it requires a certain size star, and Sol is too small to do Bethe Cycle catalytic fusion.

Sol uses proton-proton chain reaction fusion. It's the sort of thing you see in smallish stars, and is predominate even in bigger ones that ALSO do Bethe cycle. But both sorts are damned tough to do. We can do fusion - we do it all the time in labs - and you could in your house, if you were a half-competent machinist with a lot of money to blow. But not THAT fusion. (there are many sorts) Therefore "all attempts at its practical realization have failed" is bogus - every thermonuclear bomb set off to date used fusion, and there are lots of neutron generators that get their neutrons through fusion. It's not uncommon, so not only is he wrong (and if he's any sort of physicist, he has to know this, so he's lying or incompetent), but it doesn't even apply.

Next, he brings in cosmic rays. I'm not sure why, but he'll likely come back to it. He states "Further, the theory is completely silent about the origin of cosmic rays which are known to come from outside the earth’s atmosphere." That's true, on the face of it. But it's a total non-sequitur. Cosmic rays and Bethe Cycle fusion aren't related in any way. Or any other fusion type, for that matter. The reason that it's silent about the origin, is because they're as alike as parakeets and cheese. It's like saying "the limit theory in calculus is completely silent about the Krebs Cycle in eukaryotic cells". Sure it is. They have nothing to do with each other.

Having spat forth some BSF and made a double non-sequitur, he concludes that you will buy his conclusion based on nothing whatsoever "One is left with no other choice than to conclude that the theory is wrong." Why? Because fusion theory has nothing to do with cosmic rays? Or that you incorrectly think fusion can't be done at all? This is a pretty lunatic conclusion to draw to, and his arguments are childish.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   


We give here a formal theory of fusion; and with the correct theory at our disposal, humanity will be in a van-
tage position to exploit the vast potentials of fusion. We begin by stating that fusion is a purely nuclear process,
having nothing in common with atomic processes.


Pardon? This actually is a combination of nonsense and shibumi, using the definition 'something so obvious it need not be stated'. Nuclear and atomic processes are the same thing. But yes, fusion has to do with fusing nuclei. That's the definition. So it's either stated oddly or it's incompetence. Again.



A star starts its life as a cosmic soup of neutrons, antineutrons, and boson particles.


No, no it doesn't. It starts its life off as a gravitic infall of whatever's in the area - mostly hydrogen and helium, but also whatever heavy elements it accrues from the last wave of stellar evolution. Free neutrons have a half-life of about 15 seconds. Same with anti-neutrons, and we don't see anti-neutrons 'in the wild' at all - if they were around, they'd either decay or encounter a neutron. And I'm pretty sure an anti-neutron will annihilate with a proton as well, leaving a neutrino of some sort and an electron. So you're not going to get a lot of neutrons or anti-neutrons lollygagging around to form a star.

The guy's obviously a bozo. I don't know if you need more, but every paragraph's a collection of bullcrap.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Associated W and Higgs boson photoproduction and other electroweak photon-induced processes at the lhc

www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

He's not the only one stating this old theory of Bethe's is wrong.


Finally, after the discovery of the atomic nucleus and the tremendous amount of energy locked up in the nucleus, Eddington in 1920 suggested nuclear energy as the source of solar and stellar energy. It took many more years for the development of nuclear physics to advance to the stage when Bethe,the Mas- 6 ter Nuclear Physicist, analysed all the relevant facts and solved the problem completely in 1939. A year earlier,Weisszacker had given a partial solution. Bethe’s paper is a masterpiece [2]. It gave a complete picture of the thermonuclear reactions that power the Sun and the stars. However, a not-sowell-known fact is that Bethe leaves out the neutrino that is emitted along with the electron, in the reactions enumerated by him. Neutrino, born in Pauli’s mind in 1932, named and made the basis of weak interaction by Fermi in 1934, was already a well-known entity in nuclear physics. And it is Fermi’s theory that Bethe used in his work. So it is rather inexplicable why he ignored the neutrinos in his famous paper. The authority of Bethe’s paper was so great that the astronomers and astrophysicists who followed him in the subsequent years failed to note the presence of neutrinos. Even many textbooks in Astronomy and Astrophysics written in the 40’s and 50’s do not mention neutrinos! This was unfortunate, since we must realize that, in spite of the great success of Bethe’s theory, it is nevertheless only a theory. Observation of neutrinos from the Sun is the only direct experimental evidence for Eddington’s thermonuclear hypothesis and Bethe’s theory of energy production. That is the importance of detecting solar neutrinos.
arxiv.org...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join