Old hat rubbish. You don't need mass to explain the effects of mass. All you need is an information balance theory. At least Shell seem to think so. If you bang your head off the wall every time you look for mass surely it is time to rethink things. Put the following keywords in Google Shell Boffin Sinclair and read the top entry 'crackpot or genius'. There is a lot of money tied up in 'big science' but the little questions along the way were never answered it seems from the attached. All you need for existence it seems is self-consistency. The thing to remember about mass is that we are made of it so it is bound to seem 'real' but maybe it isn't quite so entrapping after all. If we are ever to escape that box waiting for us all at three score years and ten hadn't we better start thinking outside the 'mass' box?

Assuming they are able to make a micro-black hole, it will only last for a few microseconds and won't be around long enough to cause any damage. The amount of time a black hole exists is directly related to its size (small black hole = not around very long).

Also, nothing they will be doing at CERN isn't already being done in the Earth's atmosphere.

CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.

However, cosmic rays hit our stationary atmosphere and travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, while collider particles smash head on like car collisions and can be captured by Earths gravity. Einsteins highly successful relativity theory predicts that micro black holes will not decay but instead only grow, and Hawking Radiation is an unproven and disputed theory that contradicts relativity.

There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. However science may still be a few years away from being able to prove safety or not.

Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler has given interviews and lectures in Europe warning of a very real danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider.

If this experiment is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?

Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk. (Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).

Which would more wise, conduct a full and independent adversarial safety study first, or just turn it on now and see what happens?

JTankers
LHCConcerns dot com

How can you conduct a " full and independent adversarial safety study " for something that's not much more than a bunch of theory so far? The only way to find out is to try. That's what science is.

Im only 14 right i just wanna know are we all going to die,you know what kids are like with rumors!

I would like to know what the student from one of our nation's finest academic institutions meant by a "violent strain of bird flu". Would that cause fatigue, myalgias, high fever, and an increased likelihood of psychotic rampage? I may just be a dumb Aggie, but I believe the word is "virulent".

PS Brad, all of us are certainly going to die. The likelihood that our deaths will be caused by the Large Hadron Collider, however, is extremely remote.