Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by rasalhauge » Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:38 pm

Last couple of days there's been quite lengthy discussions regarding this mans claims (much thanks to me, I'll un-willingly admit). So I thought I'd start a thread about two of the more interresting claims:

http://www.cerntruth.com/?p=55 The Quark Gluon soup that will kill us all

http://www.cerntruth.com/?p=125 The Stranglet history revised

Hopefully we can get some rebutals here by some of the more "knowledgeable" guys here at the forum, and thus eliminate Sanchos name from all future discussions. I for one think it would be really nice if we could bring some closure to this=)

I know there has been much wise words said by oxodoes and tg at the chat, and if either one of you (or anyone else for that matter) would like to give me your oppinion on these two articles it would be great

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by Stephen » Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:59 pm

Yesterday we had quite an interesting discussion regarding his specific scenarios - earth turning into a supernova, ice 9 reaction and dibaryons forming dangerous strangelets. The conclusion reached was that none of those is even technically possible.

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:40 am

I hope in time you can settle down and enjoy what the LHC is doing :D think of something that you would like them to find? me I am waiting for extra dimensions and SUSY ;) Might even get excited if they do make micro black holes :thumbup: I hope you guys can get the answers you want and need to keep you calm and grounded :D
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by rasalhauge » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:14 am

CharmQuark wrote:I hope in time you can settle down and enjoy what the LHC is doing :D think of something that you would like them to find? me I am waiting for extra dimensions and SUSY ;) Might even get excited if they do make micro black holes :thumbup: I hope you guys can get the answers you want and need to keep you calm and grounded :D
The sad part is that I myself has always been very pro-science kind of guys and actually waited with excitement for the first collisions, but things changed. Earlier this spring I actually got burned out really bad due to stress, and from then I have suffered from OCD in its most severe form.

I think John Ellis hit it right on when he said that the people who worry the most are those who understand bits and pieces of physics, but not enough to debunk the silly claims. I count myself to that category, even though my OCD certainly plays its part in all my fears.

I know, judging by my rantings over here it's probably hard to believe but I actually graduated law school with flying colors so I don't think my logic is all that defect when I'm at my normal senses.

But OCD and all crap aside, what I really look forward to now is for November to get by without us being engulfed by strangelets, microscopic black holes or a gigantic white unicorn or what not. My greatest wish for now, no matter how cheezy it might sound, is to be able to leave Gorelik, Sancho, Wagner, Rössler and all the other crackpots well behind me and don't ever in a million years look at their way again. I want to be able to enjoy science as I once did, and actually be as excited as you guys are when new operations are on its way.

As I see it I'm halfway there. I'm able to look past everything Gorelik says, and I know Rössler has been proven wrong quite some times, and Wagner, well to be honest he never got to me the same way as Sancho did. So the last piece in my puzzle is Sancho. If I can only look past his claims I think life would be much easier.

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:44 am

Rasal :)

No matter what you put here it's not ranting........its you wanting to find out about something that is making you feel edgy.......believe me i know how that feels a little to well for my liking....in time Ivan and all the other crack pots will find something else to amuse them....personally i have to say at this point when Ivan ain't around i do miss even though i find him on my foes list lol,

I also have a friend who suffers badly with OCD so i can see where you are coming from there......you can look past what Ivan says thats a good thing :thumbup: sometimes i still find he can trigger me so badly :oops: it sounds like you have come along way....you should be proud of this :thumbup: I am sure your questions will get answered I look forward to hearing them too ;) just because i don't say much don't say i am not lurking or watching :oops:

Have a great day Rasal
CQ :thumbup:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Kasuha
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by Kasuha » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:16 pm

Every time I hear about such claims I remind myself of the base fact - LHC is not doing anything special in the universe. What's special about it is not the fact that it produces collisions at certain energy, but the fact that we can see them in unprecedented detail.
Everybody trying to say LHC is unique just does not have good enough image about processes which happen in the universe, from what's just inside regular or neutron stars, through regular and neutron stars collisions to stars and matter falling into active galactic nuclei. These are the most energetic events in every regard in the universe and if they didn't destroy the universe yet, LHC is not going to, either.

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by Allan » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:41 pm

Thank you Kasuha for stating it so well. I had just finished reading the latest claims from Sanchos and I have to agree with you that I think all of the LHC distractors are sadly underestimating the power of Mother Nature and overestimating the power of man.

Allan

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:02 pm

Why can't we just sit back and enjoy :roll:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by rasalhauge » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:09 pm

CharmQuark wrote:Why can't we just sit back and enjoy :roll:
Believe me, I've tried:)

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:17 pm

rasalhauge wrote:
CharmQuark wrote:Why can't we just sit back and enjoy :roll:
Believe me, I've tried:)
Things will get better ;) just give it time :D
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by MagneticTrap » Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:02 am

Kasuha wrote:Everybody trying to say LHC is unique just does not have good enough image about processes which happen in the universe, from what's just inside regular or neutron stars, through regular and neutron stars collisions to stars and matter falling into active galactic nuclei. These are the most energetic events in every regard in the universe and if they didn't destroy the universe yet, LHC is not going to, either.
1a. LHC can not destroy the Universe.
1b. LHC will destroy the Earth with the probability about 50%. LCH will destroy the Solar system with probability about 30%.

2a. Collisions at LHC and at other powerful colliders are unique, because they can create different types of dangerous aggressive subnuclear condensates.
2b. Condensates, created at cosmo-cosmo collisions of the same energy, are extremely rarefied. Dangerous droplets, created in this case can by blown out from the Solar System by solar light, like gas and dust blown from comets. Cosmic microscopic dangerous droplets can be a constituent part of dark matter of the Galaxy. It is known the amount of dark matter in a Galaxy is about 6 times bigger than usual proton-neutron matter.
2c. Condensates, created at cosmo-atmospheric collisions of safe, because they are ruined by several successive TeV collisions with atmosphere particles. Binding energy of a constituent element of a condensate (fraction of 1 Gev) is more than 1000 times less than the energy of successive collisions (several TeV).

3a. Neutron star is theoretical object.
Strange star is theoretical object.
...several more theoretical objects...

3b. Pulsar is observable object.
Magnetar is observable object.
..several more observable objects…

Nobody knows, what is pulsar or magnetar? Majority of astronomers believe that pulsars are neutron stars. Others think that pulsars and magnetars are composed of strange matter, or quark matter, or…

Future heavy ion collision can create dangerous condensates of strange matter, mixed neuron-strange matter, charm-strange matter, neutron-charm matter, many others fermionic condensates, and at last, - microscopic magnetic holes, which are bosonic condensates. All these staff can explode the Earth. But do not fear, - our Universe will not be ruined.

rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by rasalhauge » Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:49 pm

1b. LHC will destroy the Earth with the probability about 50%. LCH will destroy the Solar system with probability about 30%.
I'm not sure if you know how probabilities work, but since you claimed with a 50% certainty that earth would be destroyed when they started to collide protons it's a probabilistic impossibility to get a 50% risk yet again. So, since you don't even know basic risk assesment I doubt that anything you say holds any merit whatsoever (which you've proved many many times by now)

I have a question for you though; Do you even backtrack your own statements, or do you suffer from such a severe form of delusion that you don't even know that you've made the same predictions several times by now?

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by MagneticTrap » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:41 pm

rasalhauge wrote:
1b. LHC will destroy the Earth with the probability about 50%. LCH will destroy the Solar system with probability about 30%.
I'm not sure if you know how probabilities work, but since you claimed with a 50% certainty that earth would be destroyed when they started to collide protons it's a probabilistic impossibility to get a 50% risk yet again. So, since you don't even know basic risk assesment I doubt that anything you say holds any merit whatsoever (which you've proved many many times by now)

I have a question for you though; Do you even backtrack your own statements, or do you suffer from such a severe form of delusion that you don't even know that you've made the same predictions several times by now?
Here is my text from November 2009:
I give the following probabilities:
A. 10% - magnetic collapse will start at 0.45 TeV;
B. 50% - magnetic collapse will start at 3.5 TeV, if A did not happen;
C. 70% - magnetic collapse will start at 7 TeV, if B did not happen.
30% I leave to my mistake.


I can correct it now.
I give the following probabilities:
A. 5 % - there were no collisions at all;
B. 3 % - dangerous droplets are already created and we all are already doomed to die in a couple of future years;
C. 10 % - dangerous droplets will be created at further more intensive p-p collisions at the energy diapason 0.1 - 3.5 TeV;
D. 30 % - dangerous droplets will be created at further more intensive p-p collisions at the energy diapason 0.1 - 3.5 TeV or at ion-ion collision.
E. 50 % - dangerous droplets will be created at further more intensive p-p collisions at the energy diapason 0.1 - 7 TeV or more powerful ion-ion collision.
F. 60% - Earth will be destroyed by dangerous droplets created at LHC or at some other future more powerful collider.
G. 40% - Physicists will not destroy the Earth by colliders.

You can see some difference in my predictions, made in November 2009 and September 2010.
It is clear that F includes E; E includes D; D includes C; B has a decreasing thread – we did not registered any growth of neutrino flux; B has an increasing thread too – collisions are continued and the luminosity of collisions is growing; Probability of falsifications, denoted by A, is small, and I think that it is smaller than the known probability that Americans astronauts did not visited the Moon. I give about 10% at Moon falsification.

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by CharmQuark » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:39 pm

IVAN YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD TIME AND TIME AGAIN KEEP YOUR IDEAS TO YOUR OWN THREAD..........PLEASE DO NOT LET ME HAVE TO WARN YOU AGAIN........ :angry-tappingfoot:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Sanchos claims - Any merit whatsoever?

Post by MagneticTrap » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:15 pm

:Heart: :axe: :Heart: :angry-argument: :Heart:

Post Reply