How are black holes created? LARGE HADRON COLLIDER

On Sep 9, 6:56*am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

xxein: I have read 63 posts and not a single one of them is correct
in the physic. Tom Roberts taught me this a long time ago and even he
doesn't understand it (apparently). Physics is not the physic. It is
rather like a bus schedule. How do we catch a bus and use it for our
subjective preoccupations (a subjective behavior or viewpoint)?

The physic, otoh, is the objective nature of all things divorced from
how we might measure them. Iow, it deals only with itself regardless
of inner subjective measurements and theories.

We can peer into the physic, but we are confused as to whether we
really do see it as objectively or subjectively. We have tended to
look at everything from a subjective viewpoint. "How does it affect
me?" "What do I measure that causes it to happen?" This last is most
important. It explains why we have a subjective viewpoint that is
hard to overcome to realize an objective nature. We get a hint of the
objective and immediately twist into the subjective.

So take two protons. Accelerate each one to c if you like and collide
them. What have you got? A mess. Just a bunch of sub-protonic
debris flying off in their own direction. Just as in the past at less
than this velocity.

The fear of creating a black hole is due to the lack of understanding
the nature of gravity. Yes, BH's exist. But our physics is woefully
deficient of the nature of the physic.

How can I say this with a straight face? We thought Einstein had a
straight face until he waffled with himself over several key issues.
Hawking is doing the same. Susskind will inevitably do the same. I
limit the names to ~ a popularity of belief.

I will do so also (waffle). We have much to discover, but more
importantly in an objective way rather than a subjective way.

How do I know this? Well, try thinking instead of learning rote. I
can't be the last to say that some 'just don't get it' wrt any topic
of discussion. Even 'experts' don't get it. They just think they do
with a coerced popular opinion. "Do you like my Kool-Aide?"

I would like to offer some Kool-Aide but it would be a bribery.
Instead, I would ask that we really think. Not about what we measure,
but how we are subject to the measurements we make. What condition is
our condition in wrt to the physic? How does that affect how we make
a physics different from the physic?

I know a lot more (~gravity, for instance) but it seems everyone is
trapped into the popular roads of a belief system that are still
seeking Higgs bosons and gravity waves to tie it all together. That
would be OK if there were anything substantial there. But there is
not, despite our best efforts at detecting such stuff. Even bending
our minds, reconstituting data and whatever else to make something
observevable to use a mathematic; we can't do it. It remains an
elusive fact.

It remains elusive because we haven't guessed right yet. Some have
come close and were dismissed summarily. Why? Did anyone have the
correct answer? NO! We just didn't want to believe it in that way.
It would wreck the way we founded our present notion of our physics.

This shallow thinking is already upsetting the balances we have with
our immediate nature. No. I'm not one of those. I merely want us to
understand more of the physic instead of our manmade physics. Is that
too much to ask?

Dear xxein:

"xxein" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
On Sep 9, 6:56 am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
....

No. Search "dual to black holes" or "dual to a black hole". No
"sub-protonic debris" exited.

....

*Our* nature, or Nature's?


Baby steps, is that too much to ask? They are coming faster,
year by year...

David A. Smith