It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:59 AM
Very well put together, I agree with your theory. I thought it was a great read.
Thanks, S&F Brother keep up the great work.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by order in chaos

Thanks for that information. I misunderstood Kaliyuga as the change, not the age were are presently in. It makes even more sense now.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by ucalien

I can tell you have reservations about the LHC. Many people do. It is common to fear the unknown, or that which we do not understand. And to justify those fears, and make rational that which is irrational to us. We must make the object of our concern something we CAN understand in our mind.
Unfortunately that often takes a mythical dimension, rather than a scientific one.
For some inexplicable reason, even in this enlightened day and age, folks still trust a good presentation of mumbo jumbo over a solid scientific explanation.
It's just not .... logical.

I do not mean to offend, but the yarn you have spun with bits from here, and pieces placed there ... begs a retort.

Did you ever hear the story of the four blind monks and the elephant? (Replace monks and the elephant with whoever, the story is told in all walks of life) Having never encountered an elephant, the only way they could discover what this monstrosity could be, was to split up and each take a section and describe what they felt with their hands. Can you imagine what when through the head of the monk who got the trunk end? By the end of their exploration what they collectively described in no way resembled an elephant as we know it.
And, that is precisely how you have described the LHC and it's date with doomsday .Based on descriptions, first and second hand.

Well, I suppose we should get this over with ...
If you present a valid scientific argument, there will be little to argue.

First, The photo of the opening above? The photo was taken during construction and is just an enclosed part of the tunnel now. The four intersections where the particles will collide are streamlined to a much smaller diameter so as to assure there IS a collision of particles. And, they are more governed than expressed in the video, because it is a "controlled" experiment. Common sense. (To use the phrase you repeat many times ... mostly where common sense isn't really an applicable term)

I can't even believe you used the ole "superimpose the evil God's statue on the coil" trick. owwww .. Ahhhhhh. And the crowd goes hush, thinking it is some revelation and indication that something is very wrong here ... Oh, it does give our imagination something to relate to. The word is fiction.

First done by William Henry. A religious zealot searching for 'Freedoms Gate' or a star gate. He was the first to offer the notion (After seeing a photo image from Cern of the coil) that the LHC resembled the glyph of the machine-like device that took the Mayan rulers to 'the other side' to be with their Gods.
That was 2007, I believe.
Shiva. No mystery there. The statued figure was given to CERN by the Indian Department of Energy. There’s a plaque next to it telling how some Hindu ideas about matter relate to modern day particle physics.
It is not near the collider, but outside the CERN building.

Your two Scientists; Prof Irina Aref'eva and Dr Igor Volovich had published in Physics Review Focus (An APS review based Journal) and were disproved. Then, Published the same theory virtually unchanged in New Scientist (were David Icke and many others were quick to quote from).
New Scientist. - The Physics publication that does not review it's authors. If you're in college and use that as a source your paper receives an immediate failing grade. Peer review is an integral part of the scientific method which allows others to try and disprove your theory.

Here's a link to Joanne Nova. A science writer of some fame and reputation.

And, finally. Sourcing theses guys: Science Guardian/New AIDS Review/Damned Heretics.
If they had E=mc2 as the theory of the day I would seriously have to wonder if Einstein was right.

Guardians of science, they are not.

Science, real science, is actually spoken in one language - Math.

And, it needs no guardian. .... for it is the ultimate truth.

Either it equals, or it doesn't.

But it does need lot of batteries for your calculator.

'course .. if we blow up or get sucked in, you'll have the last laugh when you say I told you so.

But, it's not bloody likely.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:41 PM
Very interesting reading.

The Large Haldron Collider (LHC) accelerates atoms in focused beams, in opposite directions, then intersects the beams and waits for collisions. Such collisions do not create wormholes, if such things exist at all.

The proton to proton collisions cause the particles to split into subatomic particles like photons, neutrinos, charged and non charged magnetic photons and X/Y Higgs-Bosons.

Some of which are purely theoretical. Some have mass and some don't. Its these dark particles they seek to verify by analyzing the debris. I thought that the primary concern of atomic physicists was the potential for mini-black holes to be created and destroyed.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:49 PM
Here is how michio kaku would open a wormhole.Very similar just on a bigger scale.

Haha funny how the above post was posted at the same time I posted mine.Don't quit your day job.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by ThenThanCorrectionMan]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:55 PM
there's so much publicity surrounding cern with journalists all over the place and organised guided tours giving the public access to the facility. Many popular physicists are involved in this also. So sorry I do not think for one second they are creating a stargate or wormhole or anything like that. If they were up to something like that you can bet we wouldn't even know its existence. Also the "evidence" you present isn't very convincing either.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:56 PM
looks like you've taken credit for something you didn't actually create. (aka plagiarism)

all credit for exposing this copy&paste goes to Derised Emanresu

see his latest thread exposing this plagiarism here

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:58 PM
I am not sure if this was covered yet, but calling the LHC a "collider" is a bit of a misnomer.

Instead of taking energy particles and blowing them into their respective bits of "energy" (quarks, muons, etc....),

It does the reverse.
It slowly builds enough energy to CREATE these subatomic particles.

It can be likened to a reverse explosion, but on a MUCH deeper level.

So in a way, it does smash energy together, but not so as to destroy things, but to CREATE things.

This is of interest because usually it is not what we are looking for in science that allows for discoveries to be made, but it is the accidental discoveries made from the byproducts of the experiment that yield such great results.

Just know that at the LHC, they are not SMASHING anything.


They are playing with a ticking time bomb in my opinion.

[edit on 4/3/2010 by Josephus23]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
looks like you've taken credit for something you didn't actually create. (aka plagiarism)

all credit for exposing this copy&paste goes to Derised Emanresu

see his latest thread exposing this plagiarism here

Yes, this work has been proven as "stolen" from another site.


I only flagged this thread because I thought the OP did considerable work to craft it. I thought the info was false and misleading but the level of the work was worth a flag.

Come to learn, it was stolen from somewhere else. flag was also stolen.

I want it back.

Boo to plagiarism.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:04 PM
The thread is being closed, until such time as staff can review it.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in