The Quantum Pontiff

Blak Holz Eatn My Worlsd! Update

rpenner passes on some of the latest news on the black hole lawsuit against the LHC:

Update: The trial has been scheduled for June 2009….

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=349304
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=349685

and

Update: LHC Saftey Assessment Group releases two papers.

http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf

http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PH-TH_2008-025.pdf

Update 6/23: Oh noes! The Optimizer wants to kill us all!

Comments

  1. #1 JTankers
    June 21, 2008

    Quote from the new safety report: cosmic rays do not produce such black holes, and hence neither will the LHC

    This new report provides reasonable evidence that when a stray cosmic ray particle collides with Earth or a Neutron star, dangerous black holes are not produced.

    But the report fails to address the safety of colliding thousands of anti-matter particles head on against thousands of matter particles at 99.9999991% of the speed of light with powerful magnets and exactly opposing momentums to focus the energy. Conditions that might create dangerous black holes.

    This report simply asks us to make one hell of an assumption, that a single cosmic ray particle impact with Earth or Neutron stars will produce the same results as colliding thousands of anti-matter particles head on against thousands of matter particles with powerful magnets and exactly opposing momentums to focus the energy to a single point in space. We are asked to accept that these conditions must create the same results, without a single scientific explaination to support what appears to me to be a rather far fetched assumption hence neither will the LHC.

    Waiting for reasonable proof of equivalence.
    LHCFacts.org

  2. #2 Markk
    June 21, 2008

    HeOk I know JTankers is kind off the wall but please isn’t this the mot obvious error?

    “But the report fails to address the safety of colliding thousands of anti-matter particles head on against thousands of matter particles at 99.9999991% of the speed of light with powerful magnets and exactly opposing momentums to focus the energy. Conditions that might create dangerous black holes.”

    No reason to do that since the LHC doesn’t collide anti-matter with matter at all in that sense – both beams are protons at LHC, What you have just described is Fermilab’s Tevatron acceleratot which has been running for, oh, 20 years or so. Of course if you really look at it both could be said to be colliding quarks and anti-quarks together, just like cosmic rays…

  3. #3 Dave Bacon
    June 21, 2008

    I’m still waiting for the evidence of 10^31 black holes in our Milky Way due to Cosmic ray collisions with stars.

    scienceblogs.com/pontiff (a.k.a. LHCAlienFacts.org)
    Waiting for the truth about Evil ALIENZ shooting their Cosmic rayz AT THE EARTH

  4. #4 rpenner
    June 21, 2008

    This report … make[s] … an assumption, that a single … impact with Earth … will produce the same results as colliding thousands … against thousands … [at] single point in space. We are asked to accept that these conditions must create the same results, without a single scientific explaination to support what appears to me to be a rather far fetched assumption hence neither will the LHC.

    All physics is based on this “assumption” that physics is local. Furthermore, since 1905 there has been no concept of absolute space, so it is ridiculous to speak of two events happening at a “single point in space” as being physically significant. Your “concerns” are all jargon backed up with comic-book reasoning, all hat and no cattle.

  5. #5 rpenner
    June 21, 2008

    First link is to DOE’s summary of the case.
    Second link (broken) is to trial schedule. It should be:
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=349685

  6. #6 felizkrilll
    June 22, 2008

    TAM 6 Call for papers: James Randi – little blaspheming atheist fraud and his army of robot zombie followers:

    visit:

    http://www.disclose.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=94

    to see how we stopped Randi’s MD paranormal challenge….

    and FINALLY:

    guess what is inside angel’s ENVELOPE:

    ___________________
    |
    | RANDI’S HEAD
    |
    ___________________

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YXHGGfeVzI

  7. #7 Dave Bacon
    June 23, 2008

    TAM 6 Call to Earth. No one is paying attention to you.

  8. #8 rpenner
    June 25, 2008

    Update: DOE files papers asking for dimissal.

    And it’s all over but for the crying. The DOE filed papers which indicate that Wagner and Sancho are untimely and moot and fail to make the case that they deserve to be heard in court. This is the proper fate for argument from personal ignorance when the state of man’s understanding has been progressing all the time, and this is the proper disposition when Wagner and Sancho were at least as ignorant when the Federal decision to fund 38 magnets of LHC was made over eight years before Wagner filed.

    More at http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=351301

  9. #9 rpenner
    August 18, 2008

    Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson want to end Wagner’s unscientific scaremongering based on personal ignorance. They seek permission to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, explaining what Wagner does not and cannot.

    Update to timeline of Wagner/Sancho vs. US DOE, NSF and CERN

    1996 — US Department of Energy first funds conceptual work with regard to the LHC
    1998 — DOE began funding LHC construction
    1999 — NSF began funding LHC construction
    December 8, 1997 — the US officially gets involved with CERN in the LHC project
    January 1, 1999 — Agreement for ATLAS components signed
    March 1, 1999 — Agreement for CMS components signed
    May 14, 1999 — Wagner sues in California to shutdown the RHIC
    September 28, 1999 — “Review of Speculative ‘Disaster Scenarios’ at RHIC”
    March 3, 2000 — Wagner sues in New York to shutdown the RHIC
    May 26, 2000 — Wagner’s New York case is dismissed
    June 18, 2001 — Wagner’s California case is dismissed
    February 28, 2003 — “Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group”
    2004 — Deadline to challenge DOE funding of LHC expires under 28 U.S.C. Section 2401(a).
    2005 — Deadline to challenge NSF funding of LHC expires under 28 U.S.C. Section 2401(a).
    January, 2007 — Commissioning of the LHC began
    March 7, 2007 — US completes deliver of US-made accelerator components to CERN
    September 18, 2007 — US transfers title to US-made accelerator components to CERN
    September 30, 2007 — All US funds for building ATLAS and CMS spent.
    March 21, 2008 — Complaint filed. Case assigned.
    April 25, 2008 — A Summons is executed with respect to DOE (but none of the other listed defendants, esp. CERN.)
    May 28, 2008 — A Summons is executed with respect to CERN (but no clearly stated authority)
    May 30, 2008 — Scheduling conference between parties.
    June 16, 2008 — Scheduling conference with Judge.
    June 17, 2008 — Deadline for CERN to respond if it is a person
    June 20, 2008 — LSAG publishes “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions”, SPC endorses it. Two others publish: “Astrophysical implications of
    hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes”
    June 24, 2008 — Deadline for DOE to respond to complaint. — They moved to dismiss and moved for summary judgment.
    June 30, 2008 — Wagner/Sancho reveal CERN Summons was served and file for default.
    July 1, 2008 — Court clerk filed entry of default based of Wagner/Sancho request
    July 27, 2008 — Deadline for CERN to respond if it is a governmental agency
    August 5, 2008 — Wagner/Sancho file for permanent injunction versus CERN
    August 11, 2008 — Wagner/Sancho refile with additional signatures
    August 13, 2008 — Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson decide that this is too much fun to pass up and file legal papers
    August 15, 2008 — my guess on the deadline for Wagner and Sancho to respond (It is possible that this was filed late Friday)
    August 22, 2008 — my guess on the deadline for DOE to respond to Wagner and Sancho September 2, 2008 — Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
    September 25, 2008 — Hearing on permanent injunction versus CERN
    ….
    June 16, 2009 — Non-jury trial scheduled to begin

  10. #10 Jonathan Vos Post
    August 18, 2008

    The key to understanding the Law about Summary Jugment is this. A suit is dismissed, without needing to go to trial, if, upon filing a Motion for Summary Judgment and an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, it is determined in a hearing that THERE ARE NO DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS.

    Not that there are no undisputed OPINIONS or undisputed SPECULATIONS. This legal encounter is about FACTS.

    Unfortunately, that begs the squestion of what one means by “truth” and what protocols are used to accomplish “proof.” I’ve explained elsewhere, at length, the difference between 5 magesteria, each with its own “truth” and “proof”: axiomatic, empirical, politico-legal, aesthetic, revealed-relgious.

    In this case, politico-legal protocol and procedure is in effect, even if the underlying subject relies on empirical truth, and the theory uses mathematical models depending upon axiomatic truth.

    So there is plenty of opportunity for confusion, clash of cultures, unintentional humor, and cluelessness by the popular press. Do please keep us posted.

    Disclaimer: IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer); TINLA (This Is Not Legal Advice).

  11. #11 rpenner
    August 18, 2008

    Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson’s description of the LHC was not identical to my understanding. It could be an issue in the translation to legalese, as this was not an affidavit but a brief.

    Also on August 13, the Swiss Embassy sent a letter indicating that no part of serving papers on CERN using the Swiss justice system is legal and that the Hawaiian federal court should not consider the service as valid. As I, a layman, had corresponded with Wagner indicating the foolishness of the attempt long before suit was filed, it would seem that this basic research (which can be done on the web) on CERN was never done or never heeded. (page updated at earlier hyperlink on my name)

    Unless there is some snafu in the Hawaiian clerk’s office, it appears that Sancho/Wagner failed to oppose DOE’s motion for summary dismissal by the deadline.

    The competence of these pro se plaintiff’s in legal matters appears to be that of rank amateurs. Ironically, this may subject them to new action as they (attempted to) raised money on the web to pursue this course of action and any such funding source has a natural expectation of competence.

    http://dsu.web.cern.ch/dsu/ls/documentsE.htm

  12. #12 Jonathan Vos Post
    August 18, 2008

    A person who represents himself/herself (pro per, or pro se) has a fool for a client.

    The weird exception in USA precedent was a prisoner who represented himself in court, and lost. Then he filed for appeal on the basis that he’d been inadequately represented by counsel. And won! The basis for this anomaly was the affadavits and declarations by other prisoners, and a sympathetic guard, that every night before a court hearing a nasty guard would keep awakening the prisoner, thus making him too sleepy in court to adequately represent himself.

    To go into the procedures of what it takes to convince a clerk to file something, as opposed to convince a judge, as opposed to convince a judge in another state or country, is too far afield.

    Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief: when I won a unanimous 7-0 Opinion in California Supreme Court, October 1999, had half a dozen Amicus curiae by firms representing female employees, Hispanic employees, Asian/Pacific Islander employees, rural employees, and other discriminated-against groups. Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates, S081910. (B118176; 73 Cal.App.4th 845.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order reversing dismissal of a proceeding before the Labor Commissioner. This case concerns whether a determination by the Labor Commissioner that a claimant is not an employee and hence that the Labor Commissioner has no jurisdiction is subject to review by appeal to the courts pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2.

    Definition: Latin term meaning “friend of the court”. The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.

    “… a phrase that literally means “friend of the court” — someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89.

    Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court’s decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case. Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to “lobby” the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.

    “An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.” Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.

    “FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons.” Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    Disclaimer: IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer); TINLA (This Is Not Legal Advice).

  13. #13 rpenner
    August 23, 2008

    Update to timeline of Wagner/Sancho vs. US DOE, NSF and CERN

    August 15, 2008 — Deadline for Wagner and Sancho to respond to DOE motion to dimiss. This deadline was missed. EPIC FAIL.
    August 19, 2008 — Wagner proves he is still alive by filing useless documents opposing having to face the words of Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson. Sancho is nowhere to be seen.
    August 22, 2008 — A document claiming to be the late response, signed again only by Wagner, trickles in to the DOE. But this has not appeared in court and may never be allowed in.
    August 22, 2008 — Deadline for DOE to respond to Wagner and Sancho — they point out that by not responding, Wagner and Sancho have failed to rebut any of the reasons for the requested dismissal, and as it is unopposed it should be granted, including dismissing the case against CERN.
    September 2, 2008 — Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. A great time to visit Hawaii if you want to see the US Justice System. (Date subject to change, Force Majure, IANAL, etc.)
    September 25, 2008 — Hearing on permanent injunction versus CERN

    The text of the DOE filing is at the link.

  14. #15 rpenner
    September 11, 2008

    One judge has tossed out the part of the case that tries to hold the US Government accountable to some interpretation of Europe’s Precautionary Principle. The rest of the arguments for dimissal have been taken under consideration.

    The Nobel Laurelates don’t get to play. But the judge wants everyone to stick to the rulebook.

    Tuesday, the judge for Sept. 25′s hearing is very interested in receiving a written response to the Goverments allegations that CERN was never legally served despite what Wagner and Sancho told the court clerk.

  15. #16 rpenner
    September 29, 2008

    Based on the arguments given on September 2, Judge Gillmor has dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2029021&postcount=35

  16. #17 rpenner
    October 23, 2008

    Update:
    Wagner files Notice to Appeal on October 20.
    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2053936#post2053936

  17. #18 Dave Bacon
    October 23, 2008

    Wow just not giving up, eh.

  18. #19 rpenner
    October 23, 2008

    Well, at the link there is the first video I have seen of Wagner. It’s pretty much like the last 9 years of physics arguments have never happened for him. (Or the last 30 years of rejection of his monopole claims have never happened.)

    Many Internet crackpots espouse the desire to see their critics be placed on trial. Wagner distinguished himself from these in that he actually does something about it. But the courts have not rewarded him in this regard.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!