My New November Tipping Point Nightmare
Yeah, sure, we know that there's plenty to worry about in the existing data about economic collapse, worried about Three Gorges filling, plus the usual earthquakes and such, but there's something which is quickly getting up toward the top of my list of November 8-12 worries: the possibility that experiments planned for CERN could go terribly wrong.
How wrong might that be? " 1st extinction event: Leaked CERN documents state LHC has 70% chances to produce stangelets on 11/9."
Since most UrbanSurvival readers can't remember back to physics in school (and a few of us predate the wheel) a look at what stangelets are, and what dangers they might pose seems in order, so we find this in Wikipedia:
A strangelet is a hypothetical particle consisting of a bound state of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks. Its size would be a minimum of a few femtometers across (with the mass of a light nucleus). Once the size becomes macroscopic (on the order of meters across), such an object is usually called a quark star or "strange star" rather than a strangelet. An equivalent description is that a strangelet is a small fragment of strange matter. The term "strangelet" originates with E. Farhi and R. Jaffe. Strangelets have been suggested as a dark matter candidate.
Why, that doesn't sound too dangerous, does it? But then we come to a whole section on the dangers of stangelets:
If the strange matter hypothesis is correct and a strangelet comes in contact with a lump of ordinary matter such as Earth, it could convert the ordinary matter to strange matter. This "ice-nine" disaster scenario is as follows: one strangelet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, producing a larger, more stable strangelet, which in turn hits another nucleus, catalyzing its conversion to strange matter. In the end, all the nuclei of all the atoms of Earth are converted, and Earth is reduced to a hot, large lump of strange matter.
This is not a concern for strangelets in cosmic rays because they are produced far from Earth and have had time to decay to their ground state, which is predicted by most models to be positively charged, so they are electrostatically repelled by nuclei, and would rarely merge with them. But high-energy collisions could produce negatively charged strangelet states which live long enough to interact with the nuclei of ordinary matter.
The danger of catalyzed conversion by strangelets produced in heavy-ion colliders has received some media attention, and concerns of this type were raised at the commencement of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experiment at Brookhaven, which could potentially have created strangelets. A detailed analysis concluded that the RHIC collisions were comparable to ones which naturally occur as cosmic rays traverse the solar system, so we would already have seen such a disaster if it were possible. RHIC has been operating since 2000 without incident. Similar concerns have been raised about the operation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN but such fears are dismissed as far-fetched by scientists.
In the case of a neutron star, the conversion scenario seems much more plausible. A neutron star is in a sense a giant nucleus (20 km across), held together by gravity, but it is electrically neutral and so does not electrostatically repel strangelets. If a strangelet hit a neutron star, it could convert a small region of it, and that region would grow to consume the entire star, creating a quark star.
All the issues discussed above relating to the conversion of ordinary matter to strange matter only arise if the strange matter hypothesis is true, and its surface tension is larger than the aforementioned critical value.
The reason that the notion of stangelets being deliberately created is such a worry is that we have some reason to believe that the military is looking into areas which could be somehow related to strangelets.
One example would be the military's interest in weaponizing ball lightning which shows up in the gray literature as this dandy 1965 report with the modest title: "Survey of Kugelblitz Theories for Electromagnetic Incendiaries".
I assume you remember enough of your German to translate kugelblitz into 'ball lightning' or thereabouts?
As we read through the military literature from 1965, the idea that 'stangelets' could occur periodically (perhaps in concert with ozone/ozonation) gets to be particularly interesting.
Just asking an interesting "What if?" or two here:
What if the LHC is really trying to create a 'microstrangelet' and
What if a microstrangelet were to get out of hand?
What if this were to happen November 9th?
We press into research mode: Back in 1965 the dot mils figured that...
"If the discharge mechanism was of the millisecond to microsecond type, then the power level would be in the range of 109 to 1012 watts." (10 billion to 10 trillion watts - g)
At the time (Dec. 1965) ball lightning was judged to come in two states: a high energy and low energy type and the source mechanisms were thought to be either classical plasma theory, quantum plasma theories or some new non-plasma theories.
Now I ask the simple 'Occam's Razor' question here: Why do you think all the money has been poured into CERN? Science doesn't usually get money without some prospect of a return on investment. CERN is a global-level investment...
Flip ahead to the 2002 Ball Lightning Study out of Edwards AFB available online here.
"...The focus of this study was to review and analyze the axially symmetric force-free time-harmonic plasmoid model developed by Nachamkin (1992) for a previous Air Force Research Laboratory study. The intent of the Nachamkin model was to bring together a unique blend of properties proposed by investigators exploring the genre of microwave plasmoid resonance ball lightning models. The main goal of this study is to evaluate and propose experiments to demonstrate the generation of axially symmetric force-free plasmoid ball lightning in the laboratory. Two key experiments were identified and discussed in the report with enough detail to form the basis of future research proposals...."
The idea of producing 'stangelets' in experiments at CERN certainly seems to fit at least a parallel track to the military's interest in weaponizing ball lightning which on p. 26 of the 2002 paper describes the recent research (circa 2001/2002) into ball lightning as an "Electromagnetic vortex (EV) Phenomena:
This section describes an alternative BL concept that really stretches “out-of-the-box” thinking. I say this not because there is some off-the-wall BL theory involved, but because there is extensive multiyear, repeated (but not independently repeated as of this date) experimental data that led to the discovery of a new BL phenomenon existing in the microscale regime. The experimental data and subsequent applications development of EV is very rich while a first-order theoretical model for it has been developed. In 1976 K. R. Shoulders (founder of microelectronic field emission devices while at Stanford Research Institute (SRI), doing contract work for the National Security Agency (NSA)), H. E. Puthoff (a physicist then at SRI; presently at the Inst. for Advanced Studies at Austin) and Bill Church (enterprising businessman/financier with a gift for intuitive insight into tough out-of-the-box physics concepts) came together to undertake exploratory work to find a new energy source at the elementary particle level (not involving nuclear processes).
Shoulders began examining the plasma vortex (aka force-free plasmoids) work of Wells and Bostick (see, for example, references 51-53 and 446-449) because he was originally influenced by theories of elementary particle structure formed from vortical flows of a primeval substance. Shoulders was motivated by the possibility of stable, quantized force-free structures that could be taken apart by some process that would yield energy gain. Bostick later met with Shoulders and stated that he had been observing strange electron concentrations (he called vortex filaments) that formed in an electron beam he made using a plasma focus machine (and also the TX-25 relativistic electron beam machine). Bostick was apparently very puzzled by these objects because their electron concentration violated the space charge law. The vortex filaments were striking exposed materials (metals, dielectrics, ceramics, etc.), boring straight through them and exploding with a large force. Shoulders later renamed the vortex filaments “EV” (aka charge cluster).
Shoulders then went to work and immediately reproduced Bostick’s unusual EV phenomenon by using low voltage/low power micro-arc discharge (aka condensed-charge emission) devices. The EV was much easier to detect and observe using micro-arc discharge devices because they were usually obscured in large high-power machines by the surrounding plasma “mess”. But Shoulders was unable to pin down precise physical characteristics of the EVs because observational resolution was too low due to certain aspects of the apparatus design. After many modifications of the apparatus and subsequent experimental trials Shoulders was finally able to ascertain the high-resolution characteristics, which led to a major discovery. It was discovered that EVs were not filaments at all, but instead were (approximately) 1 mm spherical beads and the beads formed chains. These EV chains were observed to strike surfaces without rotation, translation, or skewing. And the EV beads appeared to be not vortical at all. Further experimental work ascertained the following physical properties of the EV (as claimed by Shoulders, 1987):
· EVs are spherically shaped beads of pure charge (i.e., high-density charged plasma clusters).
· Measured EV-bead diameter: 1 – 20 mm, with 20 mm being the maximum size observed
· Residual negative charge carried by EV: ~ 1010 electrons (3 mm bead) – 1014 electrons (10 mm bead)
· EV charge density: 6.6 x 1023 electrons/cm3 (approx. that of a solid)
· It is not known whether or not EVs shed electrons and get smaller in flight.
· Some EVs explode in space once a lower critical charge/charge density is reached.
· EV charge/mass: » electron charge/mass (1.7588 x 1011 Coulomb/kg)
· Internal electric field strength: > 108 V/m (?)
· Deflection of an EV by external fields of known polarity shows that it responds as an electron.
· Ion content of an EV: << 1 per 105 electrons
· An EV is capable of being excited into emission of a narrow band of electron energies by various means including electromagnetic excitation.
· Sudden explosion of an EV leads to copious emission of X-rays.
· Exploding EVs leave impact craters (round or ring-shaped) or holes in materials (metals, ceramics, dielectrics, glass, etc.).
· An EV can be transported through space without emission of electrons or photons.
· The charge of an EV can be dumped suddenly on an electrode leading to a large time rate of change of voltage on that electrode.
· Coupling between adjacent EVs produces quasi-stable structures (chains).
· EV surface current density: 6 x 1011 amps/cm2 (10 mm bead)
· Rate of electron emission from EV: ~ 1025 electrons/sec or 1.7 x 106 amps (for EV translational speed of c/10)
· EV lifetime: 3 x 10-11 sec (in accord with observations on heavily loaded or disturbed EVs)
· EVs can bore smooth channels/ducts through solid materials (metals, ceramics, dielectrics, glass, etc.).
Sounds like a dandy weapon to have and there may be some major incentives to 'get 'er done'. Like what? This is going to sound odd, but here goes....
For example: Although it's way out of the box -- the reports and rumors from UFO and conspiracy boards making claims of seeing certain objects in the night skies visible only with extended optical range nightvision often include reports of discharges in space that appear to be of a 'ball lightning' type and moving at visible speeds rather than at the invisible speeds of microwave pulse weapons and such.
A science fiction writer could hypothesize that CERN's early November experiments could actually be designed to build stangelets on a small scale in order to learn more about them and then build something deployable as directed energy weapons. A side payoff of fusion power would be nice, too. But curiously, there have been conferences on ball lightning involving the Russians and others. So what's the reason for all the interest if there's no some some gold at the end of this rainbow?
All neat stuff, except for one tiny snag: There's only one chance to get things wrong. If something does go wrong, we could have a large chunk of earth wiped out by a runaway strangelet.
Still, even here that's some 'good news' - at least Clif and I would have the satisfaction of knowing what all the 'stuff' in the 'spacegoatfarts' part of the predicting linguistics/rickety time machine was all about.
Still, people keep sending in less exotic scenarios...like this one from a fellow up in Boise:
European Ice Age is the event.
- Yesterday news account of 1000 year winter event in Russia - News account of weakening of Gulf Stream
The gulf stream disappearing is caused by the BP/Cortex spraying - this is the natural/man made event. The ramifications of an European ice is easily 1000 times 911
- No agriculture - Energy sources and cost to heat homes - Collapse of local economies and migrating to a Euro Crash. Bond markets, etc.
You can easily fill pages with this one, but this is my guess."
True that, but what could be more just plain damn interesting that UFO's and directed energy weapons? Buying mukluks isn't very exciting, now, is it? Can't we have a decent conspiracy theory, some transdimensional excitement and a UFO on the side ...(with a host of crazed aliens)...please? Much better and more entertaining, you know?
Besides, we're all awaiting the "worldwide UFO revelation October 13th" which would sure give credence to the 'need to develop ball lightning type weapons to fight the aliens' theory which (oddly) seems to fit. Perhaps as much as the "Obama plans to flee due to currency crisis " reports.
Terrorism "Secrecy" Docs
Sources in the UK have alerted us to something I wasn't aware of: In the wake of a purported 'terrorists with a bomb report' (which turned out not to be true, BTW) the authorities were going around making people sign something: Writes our source: "The staff from ****** that had been told about 'the bomb' were later made to sign what they were told were secrecy documents forbidding them from disclosing any information that they had learned from police."
Which, since there was no bomb, was a kind of curious thing. Which gets me to thinking "If someone told me there was a bomb and a couple of terrorists in the immediate area...and if that turned out to be false...would the purpose of the document be to 'protect security'; or to keep egg off the face of officials for erring on the side of caution?" So, we wonder what was that all about?
The whole thing was only lightly covered in the press and you'd really have to know what you were looking for (like the story here, just for instance...).
As a personal policy I don't sign anything without my lawyer reading it first and getting an official signature on the document. I mean, you wouldn't accept a traffic ticket from a cop who wouldn't sign it, would you? How strange...
CERN LHC Black Holes and Strangelets - May Appear Years Later and Destroy World
YOU TUBE MOVIE ON CERN WEAPONRY HERE: