Raphael on CERN

[Raphael]

Moderator note: Shifted from a thread where it WAS a hijack. Raphael, please follow the conventions of BAUT, if you wish to post here. Threads are to be kept on the specific topic of the O.P. of that thread. You idea of what is "on topic" is far too lose.

Terry, interestingly I too am from Newcastle, and have worked at CERN. Not only that, but my research was into the Higgs.

Why not ask me?

THIS IS NOT A HIJACK ... it is pertinent to the topic.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...asandAlice.jpg
CERN
please note the BIG macro circle that contains the much smaller micro circle inside.
Does this hint at macrocosm and microcosm philosophy shared by the ancient alchemists and mystics?

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ceandAtlas.png
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...eMoonEarth.jpg
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...truvianMan.jpg

I have a question for you NBoy or Terry G.
Are the scientists at CERN...those who actually designed the place...into sacred geometry and gematria and the Kabbalah?
Why do the images I posted...along with the links below...suggest YES?
What does it suggest about how the modern scientist views ancient 'wisdom'.


http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...-constant-137/
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...lical-rapture/
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...e-gate-of-god/

And how does the pursuit of the Higgs Boson, which is in fact the 17th elementary particle, collide with ancient Arabic alchemy from around 900 AD, a 'science' we do not understand, based on abstractions of the very very ancient/archaic Lo Shu magic square?

Are there profound connections between Higgs Boson, 17th particle, Arabic alchemy and the enigmatic Lo Shu magic square which forms the basis of the I Ching?

YES
go here:
http://www.religionforums.org/thread-1168.html

yes it is a religious forum.
but I am not on that site because I am religious...
I am attempting to show how archetypal religion matches up rather nicely with modern science.

namaste

[NorthernBoy]

I have a question for you NBoy.
Are the scientists at CERN...those who actually designed the place...into sacred geometry and gematria and the Kabbalah?

No. We were quite heavily into drinking, mainly at Flanagan's bar in Geneva (which I found to be closed when I went back this summer), and pretty much all heavily into being physicists, with all the geekiness that that implied, but I don't recall anyone being into any quasi-religious numerology, no.

We were quite a rational bunch. Still are, in fact.

On the below, by the way, why are you using miles? Distances in SI are in kilometres, so you have made a silly mistake there. The combined radius of the Moon and the Earth is 16,210km.

So, what on earth made you think that we were into Kabbalah?

I am attempting to show how archetypal religion matches up rather nicely with modern science.

Oh dear. That's a very foolish quest.

[captain swoop]

Raphael this is completely of ftopic for this thread and a Hijack. Please start your own thread. Also I have converted your images to links as we don't know the copyright status of the images.
In addition this is getting into Religion, that is a no-no topic for this board.

Please read the rules as linked at the bottom of this post.

[Raphael]

mr moderator sir.
okay if I answer NBoy?

On the below, by the way, why are you using miles? Distances in SI are in kilometres, so you have made a silly mistake there. The combined radius of the Moon and the Earth is 16,210km.

because miles and cubits were at one time relevant?

So, what on earth made you think that we were into Kabbalah?

take a look at these images...the architecture CERN chose to emulate.
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...-constant-137/

Oh dear. That's a very foolish quest.

Really you are calling my quest foolish?
Truth is only accessible by working for CERN?

Oh I disagree with the empirical scientist quite often.
The scholarly essay called Hamlet's Mill suggests I am not on a foolish quest.
It suggests science should not isolate itself from the other disciplines that assist in giving us clues to the mysteries.
It suggests the scientist still has much to learn about our foundations, our past, our ancestry.

Concepts like the Planck Era...or the quantum conclusion that the observer affects the observation...
... these are metaphysical concepts as well as mathematical.

... and the most obvious reason why we should 'think' outside of the box?
Sir Isaac Newton who science adores as hero...was religious and foremost an alchemist.
And alchemists studied the Kabbalah, among other disciplines, lost to time.
Why else do you think Newton had the insight he did?

'Modern' science was relatively new...alchemy was old, on the way out.
He was posited between the two.
That is why I feel he had an advantage in conceptualizing the cosmos.

I do find it rather interesting that this forum disses the ancient archetype, whether it is mythical or religious.
Both Newton and Einstein blended science and belief in god.
So I do find it very interesting that BAUT 'fears religious or mythical' discussion?
Maybe we should just ignore all history, everything prior to the Big Bang/Super-string theories and start from there?

namaste

[PetersCreek]

Enough of the hijack, Raphael. Any more and you'll earn yourself a suspension.

[NorthernBoy]

I did suggest the fellas who designed CERN might have been.

That was me, and my colleagues. I was there in the meetings, as were they, when these things were being discussed.

By the nature of a project of this size, my input was only a small part of it, but all the others were scientists like me, too.

You seem to be under the strange view that one person had CERN as his vision, and then recruited us to make it happen. This is just wrong.

I think that perhaps Angels and Demons was put in the worng section in your library, it is fiction, and quite bad fiction at that. CERN is not a secretive, shadowy organisation, it's just a bunch of scientists and engineers trying to work out what makes the universe tick, and we are most certainly not doing it with reference to any religious texts.

I was wary about engaging this subject, as you struck me as someone who would simply completely ignore any answers which you did not like.

It turns out that I was right. I tell you that we are not into Kaballa, and rather than saying "I see, maybe I need to rethink", you just plough on into a fantasy world where an evil genius is controlling us, and using ancient designs to design his project...

[Raphael]

That was me, and my colleagues. I was there in the meetings, as were they, when these things were being discussed.

By the nature of a project of this size, my input was only a small part of it, but all the others were scientists like me, too.

You seem to be under the strange view that one person had CERN as his vision, and then recruited us to make it happen. This is just wrong.

I think that perhaps Angels and Demons was put in the worng section in your library, it is fiction, and quite bad fiction at that. CERN is not a secretive, shadowy organisation, it's just a bunch of scientists and engineers trying to work out what makes the universe tick, and we are most certainly not doing it with reference to any religious texts.

I was wary about engaging this subject, as you struck me as someone who would simply completely ignore any answers which you did not like.

It turns out that I was right. I tell you that we are not into Kaballa, and rather than saying "I see, maybe I need to rethink", you just plough on into a fantasy world where an evil genius is controlling us, and using ancient designs to design his project...

You are wrong about what I think dude.
You are very accusatory.

And I hate to tell you ... you are wrong about whose idea CERN is based on.
CERN was based on ONE man's 'idea'.
He had this vision I suspect before you were born.
His name was Nicholas Constantine Christofilos.
Ever hear of him?
Not many people have.

Strong focusing was first conceived by Nicholas Christofilos in 1949 but not published (Christofilos opted instead to patent his idea), and was later independently invented in 1952 [2] [3] at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The advantages of strong focusing were then quickly realised, and deployed on the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron. Courant, Livingston, Snyder and Blewett later acknowledged the priority of Christofilos' idea [4].

If CERN does not concern itself with strong focusing....I stand corrected.

Do you know the most interesting story about the fella who in effect hatched CERN with his strong vs. weak focusing principles?
He was the one to suggest we were embraced by the Van Allen belts.

All Dr. Van Allen did was suggest they put a geiger counter aboard Explorer I.
True story.
Dr. Van Allen became the spokesperson for the belts...and Christofilos started working on secret Project Argus, where they tried to manipulate the belts ... by inserting a third one.
But that is another story...

They really should be named the NCC Belts.
The crew of the starship Enterprise salutes NCC.
Beam me up Scotty?

namaste

Raphael

[phunk]

You are wrong about what I think dude.
You are very accusatory.

And I hate to tell you ... you are wrong about whose idea CERN is based on.
CERN was based on ONE man's 'idea'.
He had this vision I suspect before you were born.
His name was Nicholas Constantine Christofilos.
Ever hear of him?
Not many people have.



If CERN does not concern itself with strong focusing....I stand corrected.

Strong focusing is one concept used in accelerator design. He did not design the LHC. That's like saying the person who made the first wheel designed my car.

[Eta C]

You know, Rafe, there is more than one particle physics lab in the world and many share this "circle in clrcle" thing you seem so obsessed with. It has nothing to do with mysticism of any kind and everything to do with practical accelerator design. As a start try looking up overhead images of Fermilab, or the RHIC at Brookhaven, or DESY in Germany. For a different approach there's SLAC the linear accelerator. How does its design fit in with your numerological nonsense?

[NorthernBoy]

And I hate to tell you ... you are wrong about whose idea CERN is based on.
CERN was based on ONE man's 'idea'.
He had this vision I suspect before you were born.
His name was Nicholas Constantine Christofilos.
Ever hear of him?

This is so far wrong that it's hard to know where to start. It's probably best just to echo what has already been posted, and to point out that he came up with a focussing method, which is just one of probably a hundred thousand pieces used in the engineering of accelerators.

CERN was no more his vision than it was JJ Thompson's or Nikolai Tesla's, although they were both instrumental in early scattering experiments, and the development of modern electrics, respectively, which also are used to get CERN working.

How can you justify jumping from him coming up with a focussing technique to claiming that CERN was his idea, built to his design?

[slang]

CERN is an organization. How is an organization just "ONE man's 'idea' "? And why does that matter, anyway?

[NorthernBoy]

CERN is an organization. How is an organization just "ONE man's 'idea' "? And why does that matter, anyway?

It matters because he was convinced that those of us who worked at CERN used Kabalah to design it. When I pointed out that we did not, he instead decided that it was designed by this one fellow who, despite apparently not being much into Kaballah either, is dead, so is not around to refute it.

He id doing numerology with the layout, so wanted to prove that the people who did the layout were coreligionists, I assume. Whatever the impact of focussing, it was not used to choose where to site the rings, or their size.

[zerocold]

lol, should not be this placed into the CT section?

[slang]

It matters because he was convinced that those of us who worked at CERN used Kabalah to design it. When I pointed out that we did not, he instead decided that it was designed by this one fellow who, despite apparently not being much into Kaballah either, is dead, so is not around to refute it.

He id doing numerology with the layout, so wanted to prove that the people who did the layout were coreligionists, I assume. Whatever the impact of focussing, it was not used to choose where to site the rings, or their size.

Yes, I get all that. But CERN isn't the name of any particular instrument or experiment, is it? You are the person to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CERN was nothing but the name of an international organization. An organization responsible for designing and executing lots of great stuff, of course.

[KaiYeves]

or the RHIC at Brookhaven,

Random: If you ever go near there, Brookhaven is well worth a visit.

[Garrison]

A timeline of the actual origins and development of CERN:

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/...istory-en.html

Doesn't seem to involve any spiritualism or mystic beliefs, just particle physics and inventing the World Wide Web...

[mike alexander]

Um.

The atomic mass of hydrogen (protium, or hydrogen-1) is actually a bit less than 1.008, around 1.00794 or something. Details.

But it's important to know that the atomic mass is somewhat arbitrary. The current definition of the atomic mass of hydrogen-1 is based on the definition of the atomic mass unit being exactly 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12.

Before 1961, the atomic mass unit was defined as 1/16 the mass of oxygen-16 (for physicists, anyway). Changing from oxygen to carbon caused some minor changes in the masses of the other elements due to the small difference in nuclear binding energy between elements.

But the central point is that the atomic mass of an element is not an elementary number, but a derived one using a manmade scale.

[mike alexander]

Just to drive it into the ground...

Instead of physicists/chemists deciding that carbon or oxygen would be the atomic mass unit definition, lets say they chose hydrogen-1. then, the mass of hydrogen-1 would be defined as 1.000000...

and carbon-12 would have a relative mass of 12.096. If you cannot understand what I'm talking about, please send me a PM and I will be happy to go into whatever detail you need. But beware, I will show you that you are completely wrong.

Jesu, Raphael, learn something about scientific inquiry. Science is hard, no doubt about it. And science hangs together. Mathematics feeds on physics, and chemistry, and biology, and astronomy, and geology... I could go on.

[Ravenwood]

They really should be named the NCC Belts.
The crew of the starship Enterprise salutes NCC.
Beam me up Scotty?

namaste

Raphael

[geek mode on/]Actually, the NCC designation in Star Trek (As in NCC 1701 Enterprise) refers to Naval Construction Contract. [geek mode off/]

[jja]

"The pun is the lowest form of wit" -- some say because it is the foundation of all wit.

Linguistic puns draw connections between words due to their resemblance and not necessarily because of their meaning. Rare is the pun which not only draws a connection between the form of words but also makes a useful comment about the subjects it connects. Puns that achieve this are the most memorable, and the ones most deservedly labeled as "wit."

This is part of why shaggy dog stories -- long complicated tales which serve only to set up a pun which would never be said in realistic conversation -- elicit such groans of exasperation. The shaggy dog pun communicates no useful ideas; it is a superficial knot of language with no deep purpose and no meaning to engage the intellect.

Linguistic puns are thus a shaky platform for exploring meaning, and I maintain that this carries over to other sorts of puns, including visual and numerical puns.

Numerology is the practice of trying to find deep significance behind confluences of similar numbers. It is not regarded as a science because there is usually nothing connecting the meaning beyond the superficial fact of two separate algorithms leading to strings of similar digits. The numerologist strives to provide meaning by connecting the numbers to current or past events. But as in the case of the string '666' which throughout history has been connected to dozens of different people, all depending on whom the numerologist thought was the most hateful person alive at the time, we can see that numerologists mainly fit their facts to their theories -- a practice eschewed by science because it descends so readily into error. A theory, even a cherished, deeply deliberated and well-buttressed theory, is of little use if it contradicts the plain facts of how the world works.

Turning to visual puns, the errors are similar. Grammar school science textbooks love to analogize atoms and solar systems because in both we have little objects circling big objects. But there are so many major differences between the structures of atoms and solar systems that we would fall badly into error if we tried to use the path of an electron to predict the path of a planet. The resemblance is too superficial to carry useful meaning.

Raphael -- you have presented a picture of the LHC as a circle within a circle. You then show us some visual puns that actually bear little resemblance to the structure of the LHC. (Your other examples have the little circle outside of the big circle, for one thing.)

I can state that the sun and a compact disc must have some deep link because they're both round, and that they share a mystic connection with aspirin because the pills are round too... Do you see the problem here?

Can you tell us why the LHC was constructed in a circular arrangement? Can you state what function this arrangement serves? Can you state explicitly why the other images are using circles, and show that they are for meaningfully similar reasons?

I don't think that you can, and this leads me to think that you are telling shaggy dog stories with images and words.

Namaste.

[NorthernBoy]

Yes, I get all that. But CERN isn't the name of any particular instrument or experiment, is it? You are the person to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CERN was nothing but the name of an international organization. An organization responsible for designing and executing lots of great stuff, of course.

It's more the name for the place, really, the translation of the French acronym is European Centre for Nuclear Research, although those working on its projects would often carry out big chunks of the work while elsewhere.

It's a bit mixed, I suppose. CERN has physical sites on the Franco-Swiss border, but will also be used as shorthand to refer to the sum of the experimental collaborations.

[Raphael]

A timeline of the actual origins and development of CERN:

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/...istory-en.html

Doesn't seem to involve any spiritualism or mystic beliefs, just particle physics and inventing the World Wide Web...

thanks for the link
this is a great page...

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/...tory93-en.html

namaste

[djellison]

.
I am attempting to show how archetypal religion matches up rather nicely with modern science.

Irrelevant. The design of the LHC is simply a result of what is required to get the job done.

There is no religious connection.

[NorthernBoy]

So, nothing to back up your suspicions yet.

Are you going to present evidence that CERN's design was the idea of your physicist, or are you going to retract that claim?

If you'll remember, you are trying to claim that the layout was inspired by Kaballah, and as part of the evidence for this, you said that CERN was the brainchild of one man.

It is also worth pointing out that your diagram claims that the two main rings at CERN are tangential to one another. I don't actually think that that's true, as the smaller ring actually crosses the larger one for some of its circumference.

This link shows this

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

Some of the maps of the larger area don't bother to show this scale, but I'm afraid that in reality, the layout is not the same as the diagram that you were comparing it to.

[Raphael]

This is so far wrong that it's hard to know where to start. It's probably best just to echo what has already been posted, and to point out that he came up with a focussing method, which is just one of probably a hundred thousand pieces used in the engineering of accelerators.

CERN was no more his vision than it was JJ Thompson's or Nikolai Tesla's, although they were both instrumental in early scattering experiments, and the development of modern electrics, respectively, which also are used to get CERN working.

How can you justify jumping from him coming up with a focussing technique to claiming that CERN was his idea, built to his design?

talk about jumping to conclusions.
all I said was that strong focusing is part of what makes CERN tick.

I did NOT say NCC designed it, merely that his idea lead to the formation of CERN.
please find the quote where I claim Christofilos designed CERN.
Fact is he had the technique for strong focusing under patent.

Thus if strong focusing formed a central idea....logic suggests that 'CERN' was 'designed' to accomodate the 'idea' that NCC put forth.

Is this next quotation a FACT, please tell me you are the 'expert' here.
You work at CERN.
I am merely the observer trying to effect the observation...

Strong focusing focusing due to asymmetric magnetic fields can achieve much narrower focusing

And if taken along with this next quote?

However, matter–antimatter asymmetry remains on the agenda at CERN, in particular with the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider.

Did I mention the 10,000+ year old swastika is asymmetric in its design?


Coincidences?
NO, CERN is a 'design' that goes step in step with how we are evolving.
Einstein yakked about elevators.
NCChristofilos was an elevator engineer.

But fellas like Timothy Leary, James Crick, the Shaman, the Pope, the Statue of Liberty don't use ELEVATORS dude.
We all use an asymmetrical staircases to ascend...just like the double helix of your DNA.
And guess what a time tunnel or worm hole is more analogous to a double helix than it is to an elevator.
Therein lies the difference.
Nature suggests life is a spiral/helix, aka the golden spiral or nature's spiral.
Man and his ego, want to side step this fact.....and develop an elevator that travels in a straight line, right to the top, pronto.

Holman Transfer Orbits used for interplanetary travel suggests straight line travel is currently NOT feasible.

You fellas want me to accept that I should accept the 'design' of the most brilliant minds in the world collected into one spot.
That in itself sounds like an analogy for 'strong focusing' principle.

However I want to suggest to you, anything man has, can, or will create using his asymmetrical brain has already been created by the creator alchemist (for the lack of a better word, some might use 'god').

Familiar with the video Power of Ten?
Take this 9 minute journey...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cmlhfdxuY

And along the way keep the following in mind...yes keep this thought contained, using the power of strong focusing, called meditation, using your asymmetrical brain.

Left/Right Swastika asymmetry
CW vs CCW asymmetry
TIME due to entropy or 'time's arrow' is asymmetrical
milky way is asymmetrical
heliosphere is asymmetrical
solar system is asymmetrical
orbits are asymmetrical
mother nature is asymmetrical
L/R hands are asymmetrical
brain is asymmetrical
heart is asymmetrical
blood flow is asymmetrical
DNA is asymmetrical

and at the smallest scale ... all that really matters

matter and anti-matter are asymmetrical

the primary building block of the 'visible' universe is asymmetrical.
thus can I suggest that the primary building block of the 'invisible' universe is probably symmetrical and it looks like a SOUND wave.
these are just conjectures of mine.

so can I ask you something sir?

In the Big BANG theory, what part of the theory deals with the BANG, with the SOUND?
Something appears to be missing from the equation?

low frequencies emanating out of black holes that are 57 Octaves below middle 'C'?
So NBoy what would that sound wave being emitted by the black hole, pulsating like a heart, look like?
If you were to plot this black hole sound, its positive/negative amplitudes ... frequency etc., as sin wave, what would it look like RELATIVE to very own Milky Way.

Let me draw you a quick sketch.
Imagine our Milky Way is a circle.
Now how would I plot that sound wave that is 57 Octaves below middle 'C' onto the circle?

Here is your answer, the simplest way I know how to express it.
Draw a straight line through it. It has tremendously long wavelength.


here is just another thought...more metaphysical than quantum.
Our solar system could be nothing more than a bead vibrating around a string that holds 107 other solar systems?
107 + 1 = 108
http://www.swamij.com/108.htm

8 and 1 is a door that a Kabbalist, or Pythagoras, a composer, a Nazi or a Nepalese might enter very willing.
BTW

namaste

Raphael

[Daggerstab]

If you don't want people to be jumping to conclusions about what you say, perhaps you should try to express yourself more clearly?

Anyway, the "Big Bang" was a nickname used by the opponents of the theory. There was no "sound".

[djellison]

You fellas want me to accept that I should accept the 'design' of the most brilliant minds in the world collected into one spot.

You can accept it or not. That's entirely up to you.

You would be wrong, however, to think there is some religious influence to the LHC.

It's the shape it is, because that's the shape it needs to be to do its job.

Perhaps you could suggest other shapes for the LHC whereby it still gets this job done and at the same time, doesn't coincidentally reflect some symbol or other.

[Raphael]

You can accept it or not. That's entirely up to you.

You would be wrong, however, to think there is some religious influence to the LHC.

It's the shape it is, because that's the shape it needs to be to do its job.

Perhaps you could suggest other shapes for the LHC whereby it still gets this job done and at the same time, doesn't coincidentally reflect some symbol or other.

YES the SHAPE is very important.
How things take shape and form is very important.

No religious connection?
Hard to pretend the last 2000 years of history didn't happen.
I think the folks who fund CERN will the have the last word...whatever that is?
The rest will meet for a beer.

The results of CERN can/will be used to either confirm a psuedo religious belief and empower it or slay it.

I guess the point I am trying to make...is that basic archetypes...seem to be in place, the invisible world has a hand in what we see.
And science also says we do not see with our eyes, they are merely shutters that let the light in, the brain actually 'sees'.
We must give the power of the mind its due.
I have acknowledged the 'trickster' within.

CERN is like a temple for the scientist, a pilgrimage to Mecca, both pilgrim and CERN scientist doing 7 circumnabulations around the Ka'ba stone?
The images I posted re: earth/moon ratios were based on the 'gematria' work of others.
And just to be consistent it can be easily shown that nearly all major religious beliefs end up creating very very similar temples too.
Temples that resemble the binary code for DNA, the code that Sagan and co. sent into outer space ... known as the Arecibo message.

Here are the patterns that transcend spacetimemotion, that I have recovered, the SHAPE and FORM that always seem to manifest, the wheel reinventing itself but still identifiable:
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...ecibo-message/

namaste

[Glom]

Alright, what's all this then? I can't make head nor tail of it.

[Raphael]

If you don't want people to be jumping to conclusions about what you say, perhaps you should try to express yourself more clearly?

Anyway, the "Big Bang" was a nickname used by the opponents of the theory. There was no "sound".

so tell me where the factor called 'sound' has been addressed in any kind of standard model or in the big bang itself?
I feel that there is something vital missing here regarding sound/frequencies and vibration.

exploding supernovas do not give off a sound?
the 'explosion' that caused our universe to come into being was silent?
is that what I am supposed to believe?

A supernova (pl. supernovae) is a stellar explosion. Supernovae are extremely luminous and cause a burst of radiation that often briefly outshines an entire galaxy, before fading from view over several weeks or months. During this short interval, a supernova can radiate as much energy as the Sun could emit over its life span.[1] The explosion expels much or all of a star's material[2] at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (a tenth the speed of light), driving a shock wave[3] into the surrounding interstellar medium. This shock wave sweeps up an expanding shell of gas and dust called a supernova remnant.

are you suggesting ALL of the above, explosion, radiation, shock wave, does not emit a sound 'wave' of any kind?

On average, supernovae occur about once every 50 years in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way.[5] They play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with higher mass elements.[6] Furthermore, the expanding shock waves from supernova explosions can trigger the formation of new stars.

It would be a very daunting task to try to put all of the above into nice neat little mathematical formula I would think.
Good luck CERN and associates.

namaste