Cern Power___Colder than Space

LHC



Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 12/03/2009 01:29 AM

remember, remember the 5th of November


Many will be rallying to DC for another demonstration of the peoples will...


seems DC is deaf...while listening to all calls and emails and text and phone....

SKYNET is DEPLOYED




BACKBONE is deployed for military and all NET...


World Domination is their goal-no matter resistance-those opposing will be "removed"


Cern


SHIVA


MOVEMENT


EXTRAORDINAIRE


Shiva is the destroyer of the world, following Brahma the creator and Vishnu the preserver, after which Brahma again creates the world and so on. Shiva is responsible for change both in the form of death and destruction and in the positive sense of the shedding of old habits. In Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram or Truth, Goodness and Beauty, Shiva also represents the most essential goodness.

Shiva is the god of the yogis, self-controlled and celibate, while at the same time a lover of his spouse (shakti). Shiva's first wife was Sati and his second wife was Parvati, also known as Uma, Gauri, Durga, Kali and Shakti. His sons are Ganesha and Kartikeya. Shiva lives on Mount Kailasa in the Himalayas.

Shiva's main attributes are the trident that represents the three gunas and the snakes that show he is beyond the power of death and poison and also stand for the Kundalini energy. The vehicle of Shiva is the white bull called Nandi (the joyful). He is often seated on a tiger skin or wears a tiger skin, with the tiger representing the mind.

Shiva & Parvati dancing in the Himalayas - Click for a larger imageShiva has many forms, which are visible in his Panchavaktra form with 5 heads, a combination of all Shiva energies : Aghora (resides in the creamation grounds), Ishana (most often appears as the shivalingam), Tat Purusha (meditating), Varna Deva (the eternal Shiva) and Saddyojat or Braddha Rudra (the old wrathful form). The last also forms the connection to the Rudraksha mala - a rosary made of the dried fruits of the Rudraksha tree.

Shiva Nataraj's dance represents both the destruction and the creation of the universe and reveals the cycles of death, birth and rebirth. His Dance of Bliss is for the welfare of the world. In the pose of Nataraj, the King of Dance is giving darshan to his beloved devotees within the "Hall of Consciousness", which is the heart of man. Under his feet, Shiva crushes the demon of ignorance called Apasmara Purusha, caused by forgetfulness.

One hand is stretched across his chest and points towards the uplifted foot, indicating the release from earthly bondage of the devotee. The fire represents the final destruction of creation, but the dance of the Nataraj is also an act of creation, which arouses dormant energies and scatters the ashes of the universe in a pattern that will be the design of the ensuing creation.




[link to www.sanatansociety.org]

where oh where did Jan Hendrick Schon go???




Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970) is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1] Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002.


just casually fooled all the physicists for how long....and the trail goes DEEPER than it seems...to looking glass at CERN...where oh where did he go???




[link to esciencenews.com]

one might wonder if he really was not as he seemed or was he smeared like Royal Rife, Nikola Tesla...or others




Schoen...Schoon...very interesting happenings

[link to sci.tech-archive.net]


[link to www.seattlepi.com]



[link to penstalker.com]

kind of like others like no one knows who they are until they get caught in a RED bug



we can only HOPE all of it were false...I doubt it...
He could have been the herald of nanotechnology with the supposed breakthroughs in superconductivity, molecular electronics and molecular crystals. It would have brought great improvements to telecommunications only that those breakthroughs were false!!


HMMMMMMMMMMM




spidey senses....tingling

[link to zatma.org]

The program wanted to scare us in that old Armageddon-science style: nuclear fission A bombs that would ignite the atmosphere; nuclear fusion H bombs that would ignite the atmosphere; pulsars that send warnings; nuclear winter; global warming; planet consuming black holes created in Long Island's RHIC particle accelerator; planet consuming black holes created in Europe's CERN large hadron collider -



a facility so powerful and secure that days before the collider was scheduled to be operational, a bunch of Greek kids hacked into its computers and left a taunting message - (which really is scary); and now Nanotechology, the real villain of SciQ's expos about Henrik Schon.




In the event that we had missed it, the narrator punched up the significance of malignant grey goo in lines deleted from the U.S. script.


"So great is this fear of the grey goo that eminent figures around the world such as Prince Charles have raised concerns about it.. The British Government have asked the Royal Society to investigate nanotechnology."

That settled it. We were in trouble. Or, actually, we would have been in trouble if...




the RABBIT hole HERE IS VERY DeeP...seriously DeeP...



Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 11/05/2009 12:21 AM

Like so many before


like others of lesser regard...and few seem to notice




By its title, the program, a British production that was edited for U.S. viewing, suggested that it would examine some unknown, mysterious facts about Schon, a once and probably not future physics' wunderkind.

Curiously, the program opened with a bold, declarative sentence. "This is the story of the man behind the most remarkable discovery."

Yet the script writer found this statement to be sufficiently ambiguous to reveal subsequently that Schon had made no such remarkable discovery.

He only seemed to have made it which, evidently, was fortunate since the discovery "could wipe us out and cause complete extinction."



CONcerNING


if one but RESEARCHES


where did he go???



hmmmmm


so he was discredited and now where is he....having a Doctorate in physics and such shaming...hmmmm

I wonder if he knew Joseph B Moeshe...

Human life had cause to be disappointed in this result. The narrator had an opinion: "Nanobots were created to be like life. To be able to reproduce to serve our needs." These nanobots just did not know how to keep their place. (The Brits are particularly touchy about things like this.) "The machines began to change, and as they changed we found that we could not control them. They began to take on a life of their own" Uh, oh. Trouble in Nanoland.

Someone speculated that uncontrolled trillions of nanobots could constitute, "a non-biological cancer that could just eat up, you know, the natural world. That's the so-called grey goo problem."

In the event that we had missed it, the narrator punched up the significance of malignant grey goo in lines deleted from the U.S. script. "So great is this fear of the grey goo that eminent figures around the world such as Prince Charles have raised concerns about it.. The British Government have asked the Royal Society to investigate nanotechnology."


so much for the inquisitive ones eh?


nanos was his forte and he just talks about grey goo and then...like Cellini had worked some stage magic...

Oh and after the trouble with the cooling magnets...they supposedly shut down last yr and everyone went home...to start up again in October...maybe close to the time of the Moon ...'impact'...You BET...just like microbiologists and astrophysicists go to college for 20 yrs and then decide to commit suicide...everyday...uh huh...sure...

But now we need to start connecting all these disparate pieces, that seems to be the most difficult part, even for lunatics like myself who believe :)

Nanotechnology futurists could not contain their joy. Life was carbon-based. Might it not be possible to avoid economic extinction the same way that life avoids extinction - by simple reproduction? Carbon was so marvelously fecund. One molecule could beget two; and two could beget four; and four could beget eight, and so on; and since nobody provided for a nanobot graveyard, the pyramid scheme could continue until, well, molecular nanobots consumed all edible life.

The thought that these quasi-creatures would dine upon us was worrisome. One scientist discerned the need to develop protective nanotechnology, "blue goo - police nanobots that would try to combat the destructive ones."

Against this total annihilation of planetary life, the scientists weighed the benefits: (This is a complete list taken from the transcript, so help me God.) "Thirty years from now I'm wearing a really smart shirt and I have an accident, the shirt knows I've had an accident because it can measure the G force and it might even measure that I'm bleeding. The shirt can tell the ambulance in great detail while they're on their way exactly what's wrong with me so they've got the equipment ready for when they arrive. It might save my life." (A merciful editor deleted this from the U.S. version.) "More powerful computers would allow us to crack age old problems that have defeated science, like understanding the extreme complexities of our climate. Molecular computers would give us faster, more accurate forecasting of even the most complicated weather systems." "We'd be able to give people more advanced warning of storms and hurricanes and we'd save people's lives." "Nanotechnologists have already tinkered with carbon atoms to make lighter, stronger tennis rackets. The molecules in sunscreen have been manipulated to give improved protection." "One day scientists could manipulate molecules to create tiny computers that will fuse with our bodies." "If we can get molecular computers.. small enough, we can get these things into contact with every synapse in your brain," then, "with molecular computers in your brain other people could literally download your thoughts. You could download theirs. All knowledge would be instantly available."

Health and longevity are virtually guaranteed. "These self-replicating machines could be programed to target every diseased cell in our body." And while "white blood cells take an hour and a half to destroy a bacteria... a nanorobot can do the job in seconds. It would be far more powerful like destroying pathogens in cancer cells." And a tiny molecular computer, the already-named respiracyte,. "could be injected into the victims of drowning. Once in the blood stream these nanobots would break down the excess molecules of carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the blood. They could mean the difference between life and death." "The lives of our children could be extended by decades."

We had plunged into a Dantean "what-if" journey. We what-if'd our way through the nanobot Paradiso of a long and disease-free life and then, just as we began to shudder thinking about Thomas Malthus, the earth's burgeoning 6,800,000.000 population and its shrinking land mass, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse galloped by. For If the gift of nanobot-induced longevity were not munificent enough - and it certainly ought to be - we were also offered the boon of nanobot weaponry. "Wars would be fought using nanobots." "Nanobots could lie silently in the environment for years, sending back information about our enemies. They could even be our assassins. These killers could be programed to know precisely who to attack." "You can target them very specifically so that they will attack people with only certain characteristics." Hmmm.. Nanobot Genocide! Ethnic nano-Cleansing!

And to think that the engine of this brave new world was sabotaged by Jan Hendrik Schon! There may be a Nobel Prize in his future, after all. Maybe not Physics... but Peace.

Fortunately or unfortunately (the program wasn't awfully clear) Schon had discovered nothing. When serious complaints were made to Bell Labs by scientists who could not replicate Schon's results, Professor Lydia Sohn of Berkeley found a message on her voicemail, prompting her to conduct an investigation. She and Professor Paul McEuen of Cornell found evidence of numerous instances of fabricated data - including the vaunted carbon transistor "breakthrough." Schon was exposed; and Bell Labs quickly fired him. And we were given the distinct impression that the Nanobot Express had screeched to a stop.

If the program had only trivialized nanotechnology, it would have been skewed but only in the way that envy can skew an observation. Or if its doomsday scenarios were played with obvious tongue in cheek, we could all have enjoyed the laugh. But the scare tactics had a taunting whiff of disdain that seemed calculated to provoke eschatological fear - a world-ending prophecy that would leave ignorant multitudes waiting on mountaintops for the heavens to open. This program went out of its way - by accident or by design - to present nanotechnology in such a grotesque way that religious fundamentalists are likely to see the need to erect a shield against it. Either that or to start making plans to evangelize the new life forms or perhaps to impose sanctions on their rate of reproduction.

That so much brain-power could be devoted to bizarre fantasies about prolonging life - at least long enough for us to kill each other in techno-combat or to be devoured by rapacious slime - tells us that intelligent people who hold great power are not necessarily sensible enough to use it wisely.

Nanotechnology is a young science - one that, as the African proverb states, will need to be raised by the whole village. It does not need unofficial spokespersons making enemies for it or holding it up for ridicule as the village idiot.

In fact, without having received any of TV's Godfatherly nurturing, nanotechnology has managed to grow nicely. Academic and commercial interests around the world are heavily involved in the research and development of a wide variety of applications for this new science.

SciQ's program would have been better spent focussing on Schon instead of just using his name and fall from grace as an excuse to subject nanotechnology to some yellow journalism. Why would a young scientist fake data that, given the common practice of peer scrutiny and replication of results, he surely knew would be exposed as false? Who was this man? Did he not exist before the fakery began? We know nothing about him. In physics, does the "publish or perish" stress of professional life begin early, say, in high school, and if so, do the intellectual demands of physics so consume the nutritive resources of a young scientist's psychology that other areas of his personality are left barren? (And come to think of it, there is an adolescent lack of judgment in just about everybody involved in this man's career.) How much responsibility should be born by the prestigious publications and by the scientists who co-authored his papers? Would these people sign a blank check? What were the real-world effects of this fraud? There are many issues that could have been examined. Instead, SciQ opted to become SciFi and in doing so, left nanobotic ethics and judgment hanging outside, twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, and a bit too close to religion's window.

A year ago, ScienceDaily reported that scientists from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology had succeeded in printing the entire Old Testament onto a silicon chip smaller than a pinhead. According to Professor Uri Sivan, head of the university's Russell Berrie Nanotechnology Institute, "The nano-bible project demonstrates the miniaturization at our disposal. This research could lead to the creation of more advanced miniature structures -- and imaging -- on a nanometric scale, advances in storing information in very small spaces, and the use of DNA molecules to store information."

The Israelis had made a nice pre-emptive P.R. strike.

Nobody says that science ought to wink or bow to religion, but it wouldn't hurt to treat associated philosophical issues with half as much respect as it demands for itself.

more from link...

from the world of physics
2002

Anti-atoms at CERN

Large numbers of cold anti-atoms were produced this year for the first time. In September the ATHENA experiment at CERN made 50 000 cold antihydrogen atoms by combining antiprotons and positrons in a series of magnetic and electrostatic traps.

Two months later the ATRAP experiment, which is also based at CERN, produced an estimated 170 000 antihydrogen atoms. This group was also able to study the internal states of antihydrogen for the first time. Both groups used similar techniques to make the anti-atoms, but different detection methods.

The ultimate goal of both experiments is to compare the energy levels of hydrogen and antihydrogen atoms in detail and perform the most accurate ever tests of CPT (charge-parity-time) symmetry. Any violation of CPT symmetry -- which would require new physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics -- would appear as a slight difference in the frequency of electronic transitions between the ground state and the first excited state in hydrogen and the corresponding transition in antihydrogen.


and the other important news that yr was also
Cosmic microwaves reveal polarization:

Astronomers in the US detected the polarization of the cosmic microwave background -- the microwave ‘echo’ of the Big Bang -- for the first time. The researchers used the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI) at the South Pole to make the measurements, which agree with predictions and provide further support for the standard Big Bang plus ‘inflation’ model of cosmology. The results also confirm that ordinary matter accounts for less than 5% of the total mass and energy of the universe.

Earlier in the year, the Cosmic Background Imager produced the sharpest ever images of the cosmic background. These images allowed astrophysicists to see for the first time the tiny density fluctuations that became our present-day galaxy clusters.

Ultimately polarization experiments may be able to investigate the Universe in the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang -- when it underwent a period of extremely rapid expansion known as ‘inflation’. If the inflation model is correct, then gravitational waves emitted during this period will leave a signature on the polarization of the cosmic background.

Sorry, don't know what happened, the first paragraph is not my quote. I was merely replying to it. Sheesh, not enough coffee yet.

looking glass technology


off world muck rakers...like the moon blast and the Jupiter and the Saturn...seems they are constantly dosing the heavens with weapons


real stargate technology-opening one for sure-with that much copper and power...add in AI and SKYNET...add in some DNA manipulations gaining by leaps and bounds as knowledge increases one hundred fold...a lie of advancement sold to man-ENSLAVING HIM GREATER

core frames for other disembodied entities-

that is what I C...I hope I am proven wrong...

truly...the Great Singularity...


ah yes, what of that?

magnets failing does not bode well and I am sure they have been active there just not wanting the public eye on them too closely

magnets failed...a problem they keep having...through the yrs even before last yr...


not good...

People who think the LHC is a danger need to get a grip and realise we have far more energetic particles hitting the magnetosphere every second, has been ever since the formation of the solar system and will continue to do so long after we're gone. The LHC simply allows them to study them in a controlled environment. Gamma ray bursts have over a billion times more energy and we get hit by them all the time, where the fuck are the black holes? Ignorance should be punished by death.

a super leap in consciousness


brings us full circle with the creation of man into Borg/cybrid...perfect slaves plugged into the machines-the tech is already overtaking HUmanity quickly...self replicating...it does tie in with CERN as the ones providing extra funding to it have an agenda...

Strangelets are more my concern and far more worrisome...





many experts have openly admitted they do not know and it is a possibility of some untold catastrophe.

Looking through time can cause rifts-and serious weather anomalies-during this time of extreme change on the planet it is not the wisest choice. IMHO

Maybe a few experts at CERN are considering this aspect far more than you seem to think...



[link to www.cscs.umich.edu]

genetic algorithms...hmmmm

Essentially, if we have criteria of ``fitness,'' anything which can be turned into a bit string can be evolved by genetic algorithms. As should be evident to anyone reading this, literature, pictures, sound and movies can all be turned into strings of bits. Once we have a measure of fitness, there is no a priori reason we could not turn standard techniques loose on an initial population of pictures, or sonatas, or sonnets. There are even techniques, outlined at least by Holland, which will allow our system to modify the means it uses to evalute fitness. In particular, rather than mutating and recombining essentially random lengths of bits, the system could come to recognize that certain blocks of bits are meaningfully connected.

It also does not seem impossible, or even terribly difficult, to modify the standard techniques of genetic programming so as to work directly on two-dimensional or three-dimensional objects. Whether it would be worthwhile, I cannot say.

It is curious, and I believe not previously noticed, that something very similar is essential to high-energy physics. (Physics also needs normal perception, of course.)

At this point alarms ring in the minds of my colleagues, since we are all too familiar with books on the profound connection between ``the new physics'' and consciousness and various sophomoric distortions of Asian mysticism. The authors of this school are seldom discussed, save by graduate students who laugh at the errors and covet the royalties. Rest assured, I shall not discuss the torture of cats, Buddhist puns, interpretive dance, the Tao of the relativistic Euler-Lagrange equations, the maya-aspects of renormalizable gauge field theories, or even how to find a cheap Chinese restaurant in Copenhagen without a Danish interpreter./color]

My subject is, instead, rather more massive and solid and sweaty: the detectors attached to particle accelerators. A word or three of reminder about these, too, may not be out of place.

Particle physicists are interested in what the smallest discoverable bits of matter are, and how they behave. They are especially interested in how they behave at very high energies, since these let them probe very short distances and led to unusual (and hence informative) events, like the creation of new kinds of particles.

The only practical way to give elementary particles lots of energy is to accelerate them to very high speeds; the electro-magnetic machines which do this are called, imaginatively enough, ``accelerators''.

Some accelerators send a beam of particles into a fixed target of more normal matter, say, gold foil. The really high-energy ones collide two beams of particles moving in opposite directions. There are all sorts of fascinating technical issues, on which I may well end up writing a dissertation --- but another time.

More interesting for us than the accelerators are the detectors, the machines which sense what happens when the particles collide. The need for such machines is quite real. The events happen far too quickly (over 10^-23 to, at the most lackadaisical, 10^-10, seconds) and in too small a region (on the order of 10^-18 meters) for human perception.

I come at last to the heart of the matter. Most of the oceans of data from detectors are uninteresting and worthless. Recall that physicists want to learn about unusual, hard-to-achieve or anomalous events; everything else is noise.

But common, easily occurring events are by definition the majority; therefore most events are uninteresting. Sturgeon's Law states that ``ninety percent of everything is crap.''

For particle physics, this is wildly optimistic; interesting events can be outnumbered by billions or trillions to one. In theory, combing haystacks for needles is what professors have graduate students for. In practice, not even an army would suffice.

What does suffice is very high speed electronics, working on time-scales of under a microsecond. The lowest level, known as the trigger, scans the signals from the detector for an interesting pattern, usually something very simple, like ``two diametrically opposed detectors activated.'' The data is recorded only if the trigger is (for want of a better word) triggered. Once it is recorded, the computers set to work on it, attempting a more and more detailed reconstruction of the event.

At each stage in the reconstruction there are ``cuts'', i.e. some events are selected for their interesting characteristics and the rest discarded. (For instance, we might want events where all the outgoing particles concentrate into two back-to-back jets, and so cut those where lots of other detectors got triggered, along with a diametrically opposed pair.)

Great care is lavished on both the design of the cuts and the reconstruction, for figuring out what to ignore is, practically, as important as figuring out what happened. What bubbles up, in the end, are a handful of reconstructions selected --- elected? --- for conscious, human attention.




interesting perspective

another site
[link to www.consciousness.it]

There are a few areas that cooperate and compete in order to outline the framework of this new field: 1) embodiment , 2) simulation and depiction, 3) environmentalism or externalism, 4) extended control theory. None of them is completely independent of the others. They strive to reach a higher level of integration.

Embodiment tries to address the issues of symbol grounding, anchoring, and intentionality. Recent work emphasizing the role of embodiment in grounding conscious experience goes beyond the insights of Brooksian embodied AI and discussions of symbol grounding (Harnad, 1990; Harnad, 1995; Ziemke, 2001; Holland, 2003; Bongard, Zykov et al., 2006). On this view, a crucial role for the body in an artificial consciousness will be to provide the unified, meaning-giving locus required to support and justify attributions of coherent experience in the first place.

Simulation and depiction deal with synthetic phenomenology developing models of mental imagery, attention, working memory. Progress has been made in understanding how imagination- and simulation-guided action (Hesslow, 2003), along with the "virtual reality metaphor" (Revonsuo, 1995), are crucial components of being a system that is usefully characterized as conscious. Correspondingly, a significant part of the recent resurgence of interest in machine consciousness has focused on giving such capacities to robotic systems (e.g., Cotterill, 1995; Stein and Meredith, 1999; Chella, Gaglio et al., 2001; Ziemke, 2001; Hesslow, 2002; Taylor, 2002; Haikonen, 2003; Holland, 2003; Aleksander and Morton, 2005; Shanahan, 2005)

Environmentalism focuses on the integration between the agent and its environment. The problem of situatedness can be addressed adopting the externalism view where the vehicles enabling consciousness extend themselves to part of the environment (Drestke, 2000; O' Regan and Noe, 2001; Noë, 2004; Manzotti, 2006).

Finally, there is a strong overlapping between current control theory of very complex system and the role that is played by a conscious mind. A fruitful approach could be the study of artificial consciousness as a kind of extended control loop (Chella, Gaglio et al., 2001; Sanz, 2005; Bongard, Zykov et al., 2006)

There have also been proposals that AI systems may be well-suited or even necessary for the specification of the contents of consciousness (synthetic phenomenology), which is notoriously difficult to do with natural language (Chrisley, 1995).

One line of thought (Dennett, 1991; McDermott, 2001; Sloman, 2003) sees the primary task in explaining consciousness to be the explanation of consciousness talk, or representations of oneself and others as conscious. On such a view, the key to developing artificial consciousness is to develop an agent that, perhaps due to its own complexity combined with a need to self-monitor, finds a use for thinking of itself (or others) as having experiential states.



References

Adami, C. (2006). “What Do Robots Dreams Of?” Science 314 (5802): 1093-1094.

Aleksander, I. (2000). How to Build a Mind. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Aleksander, I. (2001). “The Self 'out there'.” Nature 413: 23.

Aleksander, I. and H. Morton (2005). “Enacted Theories of Visual Awareness, A Neuromodelling Analysis”. in BVAI 2005, LNCS 3704.

Atkinson, A. P., M. S. C. Thomas, et al. (2000). “Consciousness: mapping the theoretical landscape.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (10): 372-382.

Baars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Baars, B. J. (2002). “The Conscious Access Hypothesis: origins and recent evidence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (1): 47-52.

Bongard, J., v. Zykov, et al. (2006). “Resilient Machines Through Continuous Self-Modeling.” Science 314 (5802): 1118-1121.

Chella, A., S. Gaglio, et al. (2001). “Conceptual representations of actions for autonomous robots.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 34 (4): 251-264.

Chella, A. and R. Manzotti (2007). Artificial Consciousness. Exeter (UK), Imprint Academic.

Chrisley, R. (1995). “Non-conceptual Content and Robotics: Taking Embodiment Seriously”. in Android Epistemology. F. K, G. C and H. P., Cambridge, AAAI/MIT Press: 141-166.

Chrisley, R. (2003). “Embodied artificial intelligence.” Artificial Intelligence 149: 131-150.

Cotterill, R. M. J. (1995). “On the unity of conscious experience.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2: 290-311.

Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, Little Brown and Co.

Drestke, F. (2000). Perception, Knowledge and Belief. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Edelman, G. M. and G. Tononi (2000). A Universe of Consciousness. How Matter Becomes Imagination. London, Allen Lane.

Franklin, S. (2003). “IDA: A Conscious Artefact?” in Machine Consciousness. O. Holland. Exeter (UK), Imprint Academic.

Haikonen, P. O. (2003). The Cognitive Approach to Conscious Machine. London, Imprint Academic.

Harnad, S. (1990). “The Symbol Grounding Problem.” Physica D (42): 335-346.

Harnad, S. (1995). “Grounding symbolic capacity in robotic capacity”. in "Artificial Route" to "Artificial Intelligence": Building Situated Embodied Agents. L. Steels and R. A. Brooks. New York, Erlbaum.

Hesslow, G. (2002). “Conscious thought as simulation of behaviour and perception.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (6): 242-247.

Hesslow, G. (2003). Can the simulation theory explain the inner world? Lund (Sweden), Department of Physiological Sciences.

Holland, O., (2003). Machine consciousness. New York, Imprint Academic.

Jennings, C. (2000). “In Search of Consciousness.” Nature Neuroscience 3 (8): 1.

Kuipers, B. (2005). “Consciousness: drinking from the firehose of experience”. in National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-05).

Manzotti, R. (2005). “The What Problem: Can a Theory of Consciousness be Useful?” in Yearbook of the Artificial. P. Lang. Berna.

Manzotti, R. (2006). “An alternative process view of conscious perception.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 13 (6): 45-79.

Manzotti, R. (2007). “From Artificial Intelligence to Artificial Consciousness”. in Artificial Consciousness. A. Chella and R. Manzotti. London, Imprint Academic.

McCarthy, J. (1995). “Making Robot Conscious of their Mental States”. in Machine Intelligence. S. Muggleton. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

McDermott, D. (2001). Mind and Mechanism. Cambridge (Mass), MIT Press.

Minsky, M. (1991). “Conscious Machines”. in Machinery of Consciousness, National Research Council of Canada.

Minsky, M. (2006). The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Noë, A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge (Mass), MIT Press.

O' Regan, K. and A. Noe (2001). “A sensorimotor account of visual perception and consciousness.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5).

Revonsuo, A. (1995). “Consciousness, dreams, and virtual realities.” Philosophical Psychology 8: 35-58.

Rockwell, T. (2005). Neither ghost nor brain. Cambridge (Mass), MIT Press.

Sanz, R. (2005). “Design and Implementation of an Artificial Conscious Machine”. in IWAC2005, Agrigento.

Shanahan, M. P. (2005). “Global Access, Embodiment, and the Conscious Subject.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (12): 46-66.

Sloman, A. (2003). “Virtual Machines and Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (4-5).

Stein, B. E. and M. A. Meredith (1999). The merging of the senses. Cambridge (Mass), MIT Press.

Taylor, J. G. (2002). “Paying attention to consciousness.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (5): 206-210.

Ziemke, T. (2001). “The Construction of 'Reality' in the Robot: Constructivist Perpectives on Situated Artificial Intelligence and Adaptive Robotics.” Foundations of Science 6 (1-3): 163-233.

[link to lshuai.web.cern.ch]


thinking "machines"...are we not devo???


[link to scholar.google.com]




this does tie in with their "machine"


cyborgs...AI....time jumping or quantum leaping

[link to superstrangeland.blogspot.com]

take care





It is the 5th of November...

CHANGE IS ACCELERATING | CONSCIOUSNESS IS CHANGING


MindShaft presents a series of mini-summits with renowned international guest speakers on the global phenomenon that is consciousness.


UN Commission on Global Consciousness
[link to www.globalspirit.org]

Center for Law of Time
[link to www.lawoftime.org]

Auroville India
[link to www.auroville.org]

First Noosphere World Congress
[link to www.noospherecongress.org]

:: Astral Projection
:: Vedic Science
:: Global Village Sqaure
:: Quantum Consciousness
:: Virtualisation
:: Intention
:: Consciousness-Based Education
:: Cosmic Consciousness
:: Connected Intelligence
:: Holistic Quantum Relativity
:: Climate Chaos
:: Geo-Politics
:: Artificial Intelligence
:: Disclosure
:: Technopsychology
:: Unified Field
:: Noosphere
:: Alternative Energies
:: Astrology
:: Zero-Point
:: CERN
:: Cosmology
:: 2012
:: Quantum Physics
:: Singularity
:: Astronomy

Hmmmmm very interesting




[link to www.hep.upenn.edu]





[link to www.facebook.com]

[link to atlas.ch]


The most recent schedule announced by CERN envisions beam in LHC in late November 2009. The first high-energy collisions (with a total energy of 7 TeV) will occur after mid-December. Later in 2010, the energy is expected to be taken towards 10 TeV. This is exciting news for ATLAS and the other experiments. It means that within a year’s horizon ATLAS will have substantial data allowing full physics analyses and even a possibility of new discoveries.

The full ATLAS Experiment has been operational and taking cosmic ray data since September 2008. Now the ATLAS detector has been opened to allow work on improvements for the detector and maintenance work for cooling, electrical and ventilation infrastructure. In May the detector will be closed up again, and steps toward commissioning for data taking will begin. This will lead to the startup of operations, and the detector will be kept running and observing cosmic rays until LHC starts producing collisions in late 2009 or 2010.

Data from cosmic rays that hit the ATLAS detector are valuable to calibrate and synchronize the many detector elements. Even more exciting were the so-called “splash events” that occurred as the LHC was being tuned up starting 10 September 2008 (see earlier story about first events in ATLAS). During that time, beam was initially directed at beam collimators just outside the detector, so that a splash of particles would fill much of the detector allowing ATLAS experimenters to prepare the detector for actual running (and also producing some spectacular event images).

During the LHC tune-up period in September 2008, protons were inserted into LHC at the injection energy without any acceleration, and there were no collisions yet of the two counter-rotating beams of protons. The discovery physics run with high energy and colliding beams will occur when LHC restarts in late-2009.

fact sheets

[link to atlas.ch]

some have suggested dark entities or EBEs coming through portals or vortices

That is a possibility opening doors and all


[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]

Maybe it is because it is so in line with UN global consciousness project...combined with eugenics...I am struggling to see the VALUE


[link to www.globalspirit.org]

[link to www.facebook.com]


with the terrorist threat reported earlier

[link to www.cbc.ca]

Physicists and CERN officials dismissed the concerns, with the LHC project leader saying in 2008, "Obviously, the world will not end when the LHC switches on."

The collider is designed, however, to work at high energies. When it relaunches in November, the collider is expected to begin running at 3.5 tera-electron volts (TeV), or 3.5 trillion electron volts. It was built to move particles at twice those energies.

The accelerator is designed to smash subatomic particles into each other at high speeds in order to break them down and allow the discovery of smaller, more fundamental particles.

perhaps it is hard to imagine the GRAVITY of this situation



What is CERN really for, surely the people working there know that there are no such things as higgs bosons etc.. gravitons lol.. maybe they are that blinded.. who knows?? Most of them know string theory IS bs ...WHAT IS the REAL reason for it!!!!!!

With all that copper and super solenoid it lOOks and sounds like a hyperspace time space gateway device.


playing with the time space continuum is not such a good idea IMHO

Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 11/05/2009 08:30 AM

From last yr


Yesterday, a group of LHC critics filed a suit against CERN in the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg . The authors of the suit are physicists, professors and students largely from Germany and Austria, who feel that the operation of the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, poses grave risks for the safety and well-being of the 27 member states of the European Union and their citizens.

The Rule of Law, the suit states, is also threatened. The legal arguments that define the legitimacy of the suit appear clear-cut, and have been crafted in German by a well known Professor of International Law, Adrian Hollaender.

The arguments for several major risks that might develop into wholesale disasters are based on papers from various physicists and a risk assessment analyst, whose conclusions will be examined by the court as well as counter-arguments by CERN.



It's a question of theories versus theories. The outcome is anyone's guess, but a cogent risk analysis could be the deciding factor.

The suit highlights the possible production of Micro Black Holes, which could be a pollution hazard or combine and destroy the LHC. In the worst case, mBH could start consuming the planet, producing dangerous radiation.

MBH are admitted as theoretically possible by CERN. Indeed CERN anticipated large scale production of mBH, but lately has refuted the possibility and denied that they could be produced at the LHC, unless there were extra dimensions as postulated in String Theory.

In that case CERN says mBH would be harmless, evaporating quickly due to a theoretical Hawking radiation, though this radiation has not been detected from black holes in space.

Bosenovas are a new risk theory in the suit, besides the better known Strangelets and Lowered Vacuum State theories. Unlike the others there is some experimental evidence for a Bosenova, but this phenomenon of implosion/explosion has only been produced in small groups of atoms of Rubidium-85 in an ultracold state, a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

What might occur at the LHC, is a new type of Bosenova from what amounts to a BEC used there as a coolant, an ultracold Superfluid Helium II, of about 60 metric tonnes in the LHC ring, and a further 60 tonnes of somewhat warmer Superfluid Helium I in refrigeration plants on the surface connected to the subterranean main ring.



Whether possible or not is unknown, no experiments having been done by CERN to rule out the possibility, nor any theoretical model studies. The Bosenova risk was first raised in an article by Alan Gillis in the on-line science magazine, ScientificBlogging, July 2, 2008, "Superfluids, BECs and Bosenovas: The Ultimate Experiment".


The first full proton beam injection into the LHC is due September 10th. As further studies and experiments required to assess risks are a long way off, and even a decision on risks as presented by the plaintiffs could take the European Court some time to evaluate, the authors of the suit are asking the court for a speedy granting of Interim Measures. The LHC should be shut-down pending the Court's ruling. The argument that the LHC be limited to no more than 2 TeV energy overall, similar to Fermilab's Tevatron collider design energies, they exclude from the Court's consideration.

A similar suit is before the US court in Hawaii, launched by Dr Walter Wagner and Dr Luis Sancho, against CERN and Fermilab, court in session September 2nd.


[link to projectavalon.net]

Meanwhile the TevaTRON in Ill... [link to news.cnet.com]

slight difference
The Tevatron doesn't have the scale of the Large Hadron Collider. But it does seem to have one small advantage: it's actually working. Yes, those beams of protons are smashing giddily into some antiprotons coming in the other direction. And, would you believe it, the Fermilab folks may be stumbling into some taxpayer dollars.


supposedly later this month they will fervently be at it...

Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 11/05/2009 08:48 AM

[link to news.cnet.com]



seems lots of physicists had concerns...maybe THEY are just chicken littles eh???



I do not think so-














[link to www.superrelativity.org]