International Linear Collider and the round earth

I am sure that most people here knows what is a particle accelerator.  The most famous particle accelerator today is the  LHC.

Now, there is another collider being built, it is called International Linear Collider. The most interesting aspect of this collider is that they will accommodate its tunnel to the curvature of the earth.

You can find more about this here, http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/MOPLS098.PDF

Can FE theory, mathematics and/or physics, able to disprove their calculations?

What will happens if the ILC actually works? What happens if by taking the curvature of earth into account they can make a better collider?

This is fantastic!! What would FET say?! What would be the rebuttal? That they're all lying?!?!

I cannot believe that no one has bitten on this yet.

This suggests that the current one in Cern (the one that is real and actually exists) has no such correction for earth's curvature. The assumption that the earth was flat (an intuitive and of course correct one) yet again proved successful.

It would have been advatageous for you to read the conclusion of the article, which stated the overall cost of building a machine that "curves with the earth" outweighs the "inaccuracies" due to its curvature. Basically what this means is their inaccuracies are inherent to the machine and method of measurement, rather than the existence of any such curvature.

You have got to be kidding me!

The LHC has a circumference of 17 miles. It has no need to take the curvature of the earth into account because it is so small compared to the actual size of the earth. (See the magic of perspective). The earth's circumference at the equator is, for example, is 24901.55 miles. The ILC, on the other hand, will have a circumference of 31 km, which makes it slightly less than twice the size of the large hadron collider. Therefore, since it is larger, this one does indeed need to take the curvature of the earth into account. I present for you here this abstract from the scientific research paper presented by the good folks at CERN.
"In the base line configuration, the tunnel of the ILC
will follow the earth curvature. The emittance growth in
a curved main linac has been studied including static and
dynamic imperfections. These include effects due to current
ripples in the power supplies of the steering coils and
the impact of the beam position monitors scale errors" (Eliasson, et. al, 2006).


Eliasson, P., Latina, A., Schulte, D., Poirier, F., & Walker, N. (2006). Study of an ilc main linac that follows the earth curvature. In Proceedings of EPAC Edinburgh, Scotland: Retrieved from http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/MOPLS098.PDF

It would have been advatageous for you to read the conclusion of the article, which stated the overall cost of building a machine that "curves with the earth" outweighs the "inaccuracies" due to its curvature. Basically what this means is their inaccuracies are inherent to the machine and method of measurement, rather than the existence of any such curvature.

See my post above which quotes the abstract of the article.  The entire article is written about why they need to take the curvature of  the earth into account in order for it to work. You are quoting one fact, incorrectly, I might add, and takign it out of context.

You haven't read the article you posted yourself. This is obvious.

You are prattling on about the circumference of the accelerator saying a large diameter must need to take account of earth's curvature etc etc.

The LHC has a circumference of 17 miles. It has no need to take the curvature of the earth into account because it is so small compared to the actual size of the earth. (See the magic of perspective). The earth's circumference at the equator is, for example, is 24901.55 miles. The ILC, on the other hand, will have a circumference of 31 km, which makes it slightly less than twice the size of the large hadron collider. Therefore, since it is larger, this one does indeed need to take the curvature of the earth into account. I present for you here this abstract from the scientific research paper presented by the good folks at CERN.

Now consider the shape of an accelerator. A hoop. Now place the hoop on a flat surface and it sits flush. Now place the hoop over a large ball. And again it fits flush. You do not need to take curvature into account of something circular! Its a hoop on a ball. Make it larger, its sits further down the ball. Its does not need levelling nor raising. The same shape hoop will have exactly the same properties whether it sits on a table top or a ball. this is the nature of geometry. Go read your article properly and stop googling "earth's curvature" and rushing back here with links to your results.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know all there is to know about physics and mathematics. I also am not going to engage you in a pointless debate about the geometry of spheres and hoops, because that will lead nowhere. I instead am going to go back to the main point of all of this, which is the scientists at CERN, all of whom hold doctorate level degrees in advanced physics and maths, wrote a paper entitled "Study of an ilc main linac that follows the earth curvature". They wrote this because they know that the earth is curved, and they wrote a paper about how they plan on dealing with it in the construction of the ILC.

The earth is round, deal with it.

But you didn't even understand the article you linked.

How do you know the earth is round? That article is "bullsh*t baffles brains". They made it too complicated for you to unravel and reach the real conclusions.

The earth is flat. H8rs gonna H8.

What You are ridiculous! I don't understand the article that well either as I'm not a physicist or mathematician, but I do know that articles like that are written not for the public, but for other scientists, particularly those involved on the project. They aren't writing complex articles for their own amusement, and they certainly aren't doing it to try and fool people into thinking the earth isn't round.

Your argument is ridiculous and makes no sense, probably because you don't like the idea of scientists talking to one another about what to do about solving the problems posed by the curvature of the earth.

But you didn't even understand the article you linked.

What You are ridiculous! I don't understand the article that well either as I'm not a physicist or mathematician

It seems comprehension is the issue. Unable to decipher NASA spun gobbledegook about particle accelerators and also unable uncover the simple meaning in a straightforward sentence, the reason you are confused about earth's shape is obvious.

but I do know that articles like that are written not for the public, but for other scientists, particularly those involved on the project. They aren't writing complex articles for their own amusement, and they certainly aren't doing it to try and fool people into thinking the earth isn't round.

Well lets ponder that point. If most people are rolling their eyes or unable to comprehend the document given its style, is that not an effective way to stop people reading its content and analysing the data therein? And if the document is written by those whose livelihoods and budgets depend on funding for further research and is read by those also on the globular gravy train, would it not be possible to perpetuate any fudging of numbers, bending of truths and hiding of uncomfortable facts?

Your argument is ridiculous and makes no sense, probably because you don't like the idea of scientists talking to one another about what to do about solving the problems posed by the curvature of the earth.

You stated that a larger circumference of a larger collider would need to take into account the curvature of the earth. When asked exactly why you would need to include such a correction your answer was "Because this document says so in ways I don't understand."  Its not very convincing is it?

See my post regarding the peer review process. It involves getting knowledgeable, accredited, unbiased scientists to independently review the work and deem it either suitable or unsuitable. Articles such as the one in question are subjected to this process prior to publication.

Articles such as the one in question are subjected to this process prior to publication.

That is your assumption. There is no reason to believe anything in the article was subjected to peer review, most of it was written in the mood of "perhaps consider this" as well.

When you willfully ignore documented, peer reviewed, well researched evidence proving that the earth is round because scientists are required to adjust for the earth's curvature in the construction of a large particle accelerator, is when I know that I can never convince you, and that you are willfully ignoring the truth in favor of a lie.

It's very discouraging.

When you willfully ignore documented, peer reviewed, well researched evidence proving that the earth is round because scientists are required to adjust for the earth's curvature in the construction of a large particle accelerator, is when I know that I can never convince you, and that you are willfully ignoring the truth in favor of a lie.

It's very discouraging.

You again mention "peer review" without providing any evidence of it. You also put forth an article written by a someone attempting to advise a council to building the structure and admitting the cost will outweigh the benefit. Then you assume they're not saying that and my quotes were simply "incorrect."

I have a hard time believing you did anything more than post this article after seeing it mention the "earth's curvature" without paying attention to the true subject of the paper.