But I was impressed by the inside glimpses, too.

The first 50 comments are at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/12/the-cern-nicolai-coverup-%E2%80%93-a-proposed-solution/comment-page-1
which is as usual the url of this new 50 post section with /comment-page-1 replacing #comment at the end of the url.

Anyhow referring to the comments which just preceded this one, one wonders about the peculiar logic of the “Evil Visitor” in referring to the dear “journalist” (sic) AnthonyL. I am a journalist, as my site states, though an investigative one, ie that does not takes everything in press releases as gospel. Why does Visitor put this in quotes? Is the brain of the Visitor even functioning when he/she writes his/her posts?

Visitor’s brain seems to have completely failed whecontemplating the cosmic ray argument, since he states “The cosmic ray argument stands on firm grounds. If a kind of blow-up particle could be produced by collisions of protons with the same energy as used in the LHC then it would have happend long before. For this type of scenario not even the use of dense astronomical objects is necessary to confirm that there is no danger.”

This shows such illiteracy and unread unfamiliarity with all that has been written by CERN scientists and Martin Rees and everyone else including Houston and myself on this blog that one wonders, as I say, is the brain of the Visitor even engaged when writing his comment here?

Even Rossler who usually kindly ignores silly mistakes by the untutored is forced to point out that this statement is prima facie absurd.

Since Visitor is obviously basically intelligent and tutored in the basics of the LHC one can only conclude that indeed he write from emotion on this blog, and his brain is disengaged in order to allow full rein to his prejudice that any criticism of the LHC operation doesn’t take into account the difference between what is written in papers and what happens inside the machine.

What? That is a new one. Papers are usually the basis of the design of the machine, sop to say that papers don’t accord with its operation is a daring assertion. One waits with interest to see if Visitor can justify this slip.

This is only one example for your business of scaremongering, your pseudoscientific crusade against proper science. There are more examples, not at least on this blog (e.g. your difficulties to explain or derive your wrong equations and much more).

So if someone is brainwashed then the blind followers of your lies, tricks and pseudoscience.

However, the party is over. this blog has an anti-scientific agenda and Rössler fits perfectly to it. Be happy with your “expert” and do not think to much about the inconsistencies or changes in probabilities or something like that. to be critical of Rössler and to ask questions is of course the result of dogmatism , brain washing or some psycholgical disorder.

Best regards from your imaginary friends in Geneva,

The Evil Visitors.

I therefore can take issue with the one ideological element above in confirmation of AnthonyL’s worst fears: “The cosmic ray argument stands on firm grounds.”

This either is a dirty lie — which I do not believe in the above context — or a proof of the brainwashed status of this member of the Potsdam (Golm) Institute. He only read what CERN allowed him to read and never even checked whether the literature that CERN chose to ignore for more than three years exists, not to mention read it.

Nor did he read the counterproofs and background given on Lifeboat. To see a specialist go astray is especially tragic. I can only congratulate him for having withheld his name from his readers.

You should really think about the real conditions in the LHC. Think about the number of partticles in each bunch, think about the number of collisions when two bunches meet each other and also think about the speed of the involved particles. All these facts lead to the conclusion that collisions at the LHC are statistical independent events and do not interact with other collisions. Besides this is in fact the desired operational mode because interacting events would be a nightmare for the data processing.

Furthermore you should inform yourself about the definition of terms like “temperature”.

So in the end the naive guy is Mr. Houston who evidently has not read a single data sheet about the machine itself. The recommendation to learn a little bit about physics is therefore justified again.

The cosmic ray argument stands on firm grounds. If a kind of blow-up particle could be produced by collisions of protons with the same energy as used in the LHC then it would have happend long before. For this type of scenario not even the use of dense astronomical objects is necessary to confirm that there is no danger.

AnthonyL: Thanks for the nice words, of course all the people at CERN or elsewhere are brain-paralyzed followers. The possibility that some deeper knowledge of the issues could be the reason that only laymen like Houston see any danger is completely absurd. All what is needed is the ability to read some words in some papers. No one needs to know anything about machine conditions or the physics behind it. :D

Well, they should have had the courage, since it has become clear that none of the media reporters or other boosters of CERN folly ever trouble to read the material, which may as well be written on water as far as they are concerned, since their ruling assumption is that one finger crossed over another is the only safety strategy needed.

Arguing with CERN boosters is like arguing with the brain-paralyzed followers of a cult, or indeed, an established religion. Their faith is admirable in being a great source of comfort to them all, including their wives and children, one assumes.

All these people like Houston in their book are mere troublemakers who attack their God, and remind one of Christopher Hitchens the sourpuss who attacked Mother Theresa and even God Himself (Herself? Itself?) until he got struck down by lightning from Heaven in a significant area of his body (fatal cancer in the lower throat).

We are waiting for CERN defenders to call down hellfire from on high just like God did on poor Hitchens, who was merely pointing out flaws in logic and evidence, just as Houston et al are doing. Perhaps they are waiting for the Christmas recess to be over before.…

Wait! the LHC is starting up in March again!

Let’s hope that is not the hellfire they have in mind.

Through magnetic focusing, beam compression, and particle density, the LHC is designed to produce conditions comparable to those existing a trillionth of a second after the big bang. Such conditions include temperatures over 100,000 times that of the core of the sun — conditions not producible by cosmic rays, which are merely isolated particles, with nowhere near the luminosity of the LHC. Furthermore, cosmic rays do not involve collisions of lead nuclei, as occur in the LHC’s ALICE experiments.

Nor do cosmic rays produce quark-gluon plasmas, such are believed to have occured in the big bang and in supernovas. There are a number of such pertinent diferences that permit the LHC to generate phenomena not detected in cosmic rays.

The inflaton particle and field were produced an instant after the big bang in conditions which are not produced by cosmic rays but which might occur in the LHC. Yet not one word about this possible danger was ever mentioned in any of CERN’s safety documents.

i recommend a lttle bit more thinking before talking about bunkerbusters.