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.

 

Is CERN the beast?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The symbol of CERN is a group of interlocking 6's

The track of the Large Hadron Collider is 3 6's linked.

The Large Hadron Collider is known as "The Beast" by those running it.

The symbol of the LHC is a mechanical arm gripping if not crushing the world.

The LHC released a Press Release on 9th November indicating that it had just test run protons on half the track and that she will be ready to run shortly.

Several physicist now suggest that the stability of strangelets in underestimated and that one loose one will be bound to escape and begin gathering normal matter to it until it forms a black hole. One such estimate is that this would take as little as two years which wold put the end of the earth at about the 2012 mark.




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
The symbol of CERN is a group of interlocking 6's

The track of the Large Hadron Collider is 3 6's linked.

The Large Hadron Collider is known as "The Beast" by those running it.

The symbol of the LHC is a mechanical arm gripping if not crushing the world.

The LHC released a Press Release on 9th November indicating that it had just test run protons on half the track and that she will be ready to run shortly.

Several physicist now suggest that the stability of strangelets in underestimated and that one loose one will be bound to escape and begin gathering normal matter to it until it forms a black hole. One such estimate is that this would take as little as two years which wold put the end of the earth at about the 2012 mark.


Hi. I am simply requesting proof as to where these supposed 'physicists' propose that 'strangelets' (what is that, anyway? I know of strange particles, like, kaons and gluons... but strangelets is a term i have never heard).... and secondly, from what I DO know of 'strange particles' is that they are indeed very very very very very unstable - so unstable, that they don't even exist for very long before they break down into their origins (whatever that may be - electrons, protons, neutrons etc)... EVEN applying a very significant time warp factor (if they are indeed travelling at the speed of light and no faster... for i doubt the LHC is capable of producing trachyons) they STILL would not survive for very long! So, I would REALLY love to see this source of yours which claims that strange particles are supposed to survive as they are for TWO entire years - when they can barely survive for a nano second as it is!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I don't think that it is the "beast" from Revelations. It is probably a "beast" of a machine, but not the, metaphorically speaking, beast itself.

Here's a linkity link to help out this thread: public.web.cern.ch...

It's CERN's website.

Oh yeah! Here's CERN's explanation on Strangelets!


Strangelets

Strangelet is the term given to a hypothetical microscopic lump of ‘strange matter’ containing almost equal numbers of particles called up, down and strange quarks. According to most theoretical work, strangelets should change to ordinary matter within a thousand-millionth of a second. But could strangelets coalesce with ordinary matter and change it to strange matter? This question was first raised before the start up of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, RHIC, in 2000 in the United States. A study at the time showed that there was no cause for concern, and RHIC has now run for eight years, searching for strangelets without detecting any. At times, the LHC will run with beams of heavy nuclei, just as RHIC does. The LHC’s beams will have more energy than RHIC, but this makes it even less likely that strangelets could form. It is difficult for strange matter to stick together in the high temperatures produced by such colliders, rather as ice does not form in hot water. In addition, quarks will be more dilute at the LHC than at RHIC, making it more difficult to assemble strange matter. Strangelet production at the LHC is therefore less likely than at RHIC, and experience there has already validated the arguments that strangelets cannot be produced.


Source: public.web.cern.ch...

[Edited for spelling and additional source's.....-haVok-]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by havok]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
 


Do you mean this beast?



Or this beast?





Peace.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Ah. Thank you for your insightful post. I see now, so by 'strangelets' they really mean 'strange matter'? So, I was right to assume strangelets are indeed strange particles. However - as your source clearly states - strangelets do not survive for very long (although - I have never heard of this hypothesis that strange particles may be 'infectious' so to speak! that really is fascinating! must read more on that...)

I would still like to see a source for OPs statements. Again, Cannot thank you enough for your post. Starred,.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Well, I'll be! After reading a little bit more on the CERN website about the LHC, I came onto the "microscopic black holes" definition. Now that is really something. Having done my research on black holes (i'm not theoretical physicist, but you don't have to understand math to understand physics! sure helps though...) I must wonder now, what is the schwarzschild radius and chandrasekhar limit for such a tiny black hole to occur. To me, it seems far less than likely that such a thing COULD indeed occur, but I will absolutely not rule out the possibility. On the Website it says

"All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects."

This, may not be entirely accurate, however the point is made "even if black holes were to be created, nothing would come of it"...

they'd sure be a great energy source, black holes would... soon instead of mining for minerals or gas we'll all be mining for black holes hehe...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sacrosanct
reply to post by havok
 


Ah. Thank you for your insightful post. I see now, so by 'strangelets' they really mean 'strange matter'? So, I was right to assume strangelets are indeed strange particles. However - as your source clearly states - strangelets do not survive for very long (although - I have never heard of this hypothesis that strange particles may be 'infectious' so to speak! that really is fascinating! must read more on that...)

I would still like to see a source for OPs statements. Again, Cannot thank you enough for your post. Starred,.


Just giving a helping hand, you know? Your welcome.

I was wondering too. The CERN site is very insightful. I learned alot about matter that I hadn't even read about before.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The idea of microscopic black holes - if observable - would answer too many questions for humanity to stay sane... thus, the end of the world as we know it!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Black holes are still theory. There is no proof of them whatsoever. Black Holes (like many things) were created to patch holes in a flawed theory.

The Emperor Has No Clothes! ... and the sooner we realize this, scrap it and move on, we might actually be able to create a unifying theory that explains everything.

Personally, my bet is on the electric universe.

IRM



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Black holes are still theory. There is no proof of them whatsoever. Black Holes (like many things) were created to patch holes in a flawed theory.

The Emperor Has No Clothes! ... and the sooner we realize this, scrap it and move on, we might actually be able to create a unifying theory that explains everything.

Personally, my bet is on the electric universe.

IRM


Believe me, I'm the first one to admit that theoretical physics is much like putting all your faith in the bible (no offence, I do believe the bible has very good rhetoric... but to believe all of it! ....) Black holes are an enigma - they could be anything... they have been 'detected' by means of gravitational lensing, but it still stands that we have not (and seemingly CAN NOT) observe a black hole. But to blindly shove black holes aside would be equally foolish. You must at least account for what such gravitational distortions, as black holes, would do? Surely somewhere in the vast, empty, seemingly infinite universe, there must exist a super star which has scrunched itself to such an extent that light cannot escape it? What if there is/What if there isn't? These are questions we may never know the answers to, and I don't truly believe the LHC will produce microscopic black holes...

And, by Electric Universe, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean like, David Bohm's interpretation of a single electron universe? I always fancied the idea - seems to explain a heck of a lot more than any other theory - like, why are all electrons so identical? An easy explanation - they're all one and the same! Travelling at speeds faster than light, or even, at the speed of light but going back and forth in time so as to appear a seamless interaction between 'one' electron and 'another' but really its the same electron reacting with itself at the same time!

Of course - there's still lots to learn... for us, the learning has just begun - not in the 1930's was it that Einstein had revolutionized how physicists thought of time and motion... and maybe, one hundred years later, in 2030 we will come to learn much more startling things than we can even begin to ponder upon now, in 2009.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
CERN IS COOL I like them they are my distant mental friends.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
The Large Hadron Collider is known as "The Beast" by those running it.


My ex-girlfriend used to call me "energizer battery". It really doesn't meant that I can light a light bulb by touching it.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Now, why would she call you that?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by aristocrat2
The Large Hadron Collider is known as "The Beast" by those running it.


My ex-girlfriend used to call me "energizer battery". It really doesn't meant that I can light a light bulb by touching it.

lol, sorry



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sacrosanct
 


You may find it interesting to read some of the papers by Wallace Thornhill & David Talbott on the Electric Universe Model.


Thunderbolts Of The Gods - [Movie Download]

Thunderbolts Website

IRM



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Yes, the LHC is the devil, that's exactly it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join