great
From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
To: tozziart...@libero.it
Cc: fis
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story
Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are wrong?
What if the data that were measured are incorrect?
We have
From: "tozziart...@libero.it"
To: fis
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:32 PM
Subject: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story
"The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but
in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists
There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on
the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such
a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as
being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for
example). It
Dear Terry and FISers,
I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the
mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments
can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What
you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds r
Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or
prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being
unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the
actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there
is ano
Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are wrong?
What if the data that were measured are incorrect?
We have had this many times in human history. Titanik was considered
unsinkable.
Bismark too. But both went down to the seaground.
Where is the mathematical proof or the computer simula
"The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but
in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly
considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any
concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contrad
