LHC Kritik / LHC Critique

Statements Prof. Rössler

Prof. Otto E. Rossler’s statement to ‘LHC-Kritik’, autumn 2008:

I was very happy with the incredibly creative initiative taken, and so I gave it every encouragement I could.  I would like to state here that CERN’s claim that it has addressed all the major issues - repeated in the excellent daily-telegraph article - does not correspond to the truth in 3 respects: 

1) CERN chose to ignore my more than a year old, up until now undisproved, general-relativistic theorem, which implies that Hawking evaporation does not exist and thereby independently confirms Vladimir Belinski’s (Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques at Bures-sur-Yvette, France and University of The Holy Wisdom, Rome) earlier proof published in 2006 in Physics Letters A. 

2) CERN chose to ignore my new undisputed quantum conjecture (brought to its attention in May and published in July) that superfluid neutron stars are immune to natural fast miniblack holes - those necessarily also existing cousins to their hoped-for artificial ones.  Hence this safety-by-analogy argument presented so convincingly by CERN to the public unfortunately also presented with tongue-in-cheek. 

3) CERN offers the public a linear growth rate for its earth-dwelling artificial miniblack holes as the only plausible possibility - even though nonlinear self-organization and exponential growth are the hallmark of all matter-eating natural black holes known from the night-sky, as humbly submitted to it in time.  In spite of these 3 defrauds, CERN openly declares to the public verbally:  “The LCH is safe… the way to stop all these arguments about whether the LHC is going to destroy the planet is to get the LHC working!” 

This assertiveness is the more astonishing as all that I and other “minority scientists” (all good scientists are minority scientists) are demanding is a “safety conference” to be held before the potentially dangerous collisions start - as now apparent scheduled for September 10.  Psychologically speaking, CERN’s three false claims and its public assertiveness are not unpredictable, though.  Science usually reacts like this to new developments.  Only there are years or decades available in the general case until eventually the truth settles from the dust.  The problem is “only” that this timearound, we do not have the temporal window of opportunity needed for that.  So a Galileo-like situation has unwittingly arisen, it appears.  Admittedly, it is at first sight highly improbable again that by merely looking through this three-tiered instrument, an otherwise inaccessible feature of nature can be captured:  Namely, that another implication of Einstein’s general theory, combined with a BEC-like quantum feature and a Poincaré-Einstein nonlinea-thinking-type argument (”EEE theory” since Einstein’s name features three times in it) could spot an otherwise undetectable danger. The probability that such a “conspiracy of simultaneously needed theories” arises in nature appears too exotic to be seriously reckoned with.  Everybody who says he gives this danger any credit should therefore think twice. 

But then:  what do we gain by betting on the apparently more likely customary case that all 3 theories apply in a nonconspirational manner (nothing new in relativity, nothing new in quantum mechanics, nothing new in nonlinear dynamics)?  All we achieve by this conventional attitude is that the rightfully recognized greatest specialists in the three independent fields can individually feel satisfied for having been paid due public credit in their own specialty.  They will each be quite happy when the experiment is started without the combined net (telescope) requested first, because this shows how much the world trusts their expertise as true leaders in their subfield.  But this will be all.  The three groups to whom the public brings this sacrifice of intellect do not even know each other well at present.  But why not do them the favor?  Yes, why not?  On the other hand of the scale of justice that we are pondering at this moment, there lies the survival of history - not to talk of the future.  Is this not also a very, very precious good?  I think the individuals whom we do a personal favor by our believing in the soothing voice of CERN and the unquestioning judges’ voices alike will not care even to say “thanks” for the readiness of the public to offer their children’s lives to them.  “Thank you for being so good pets indeed” would be the minimum one would expect to be told in return.  On the other hand, I still do believe that it will not cost much to look through the combined microscope first, before bringing that sacrifice - by demanding the “Schwärzloch Conference” (a Caph named “black hole” for many centuries near Tübingen).   Let me close by pledging:  “Long live the Swiss constitution for its promise to safeguard creation!”   For J.O.R.    By Otto E. Rossler 

Euer Otto.

—————————————————–

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA

by Prof. Otto E. Rossler, September 6

Dear Mr. Presidential Candidate, allow me and many other world
citizens to turn to you as virtually our last hope:  Please, ask the
Swiss President to call for a moratorium before the nuclear particle
collider LHC near Geneva becomes critical on next Wednesday,
September the tenth.  No other moral world leader - including pope, emperor and helmsman -
dares ask the safety question up until now.  CERN say that the 3
counterarguments that I forwarded to them have been disproved, which
is the opposite of the truth, and add that the best way to quell the fears
of the public regarding the black-hole threat to the continued
existence of the planet is to go ahead with the experiment. This
is a crime not just in my eyes since it puts young children and
their parents all over the planet into mortal fear.  Scientists should
never take hostages! Please, do encourage CERN to at long last say yes to dialog (rather
than call their critics “crackpots” on ARD, the prestigious federal TV
channel, today) and to postpone the scheduled date until an
independent safety conference has taken place.  Only a person
who magnetically bundles the world’s hopes can dare to do that. Thank you, dear Mr. Obama, for saying the liberating word!Sincerely Yours, Otto E. Rossler
Chaos theorist, University of Tubingen. 

—————-

February 16 2009

A Childish Dream?

O.E. Rossler

In reply to a question recently come to my attention, I would like to say that my article on the wisensnavigator (www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf) contains a proof that Hawking radiation does not exist.But the existence of Hawking radiation is the only hope for mankind in case miniblack holes are generated in the LHC experiment (as anticipated by the experimenters).
Therefore many scientists tried to refute the gothic-R theorem of that paper - in vain. No one has proposed a disproof to my knowledge.

If this is true the best course to reduce the 100 percent probability of planetary danger, in case of successful black-hole formation, appears to be to give an incentive to the world at large to try and refute the gothic-R theorem.
To this end one could, for example, set out a prize for the first successful refutation.

When making my petition to the world on April 18, 2008 to hold a scientific safety conference (www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf), I had the same thing in mind. The money that the safety conference is going to cost could be used for the just-mentioned prize - in case a winner is found before the conference starts since the latter will then be redundant as far as refuting the danger implicit in miniblack hole formation is concerned.

There are other so far unrefuted risks - like that of strangelet formation proposed by Wagner, Sancho and Blodgett. Thus, a second prize could go to any one who is first able to refute the underlying conjecture. A third could go to the first person disproving the Casadio-Plaga-Vilkovisky conjecture independently of the gothic-R theorem. A fourth could go to the first refutation of the “quantum-guardian angel for neutron stars” conjecture (www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf).

Such a game (”Who can refute the hardest-to-crack danger theorems and conjectures?”) if made public on the globe could re-infuse a spirit of enterprise
and hopefulness in a science grown dogmatic in parts on a planet that never was younger and mentally stronger.

The Earth-Moon University of “Lampsacus hometown of all persons on the Internet” will share in sponsoring the world-wide call for falsification - once a philanthropist will be ready to launch it. There never has been an “Earth-Moon Prize” before.

For J.O.R.

—————————

Barefoot Physics Against LHC Goliath

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen

Four simple results, taken together, let the LHC experiment appear highly dangerous.. The thereby acquired popular interest has interfered with their scientific acceptance since the formation of a scientific consensus ordinarily takes longer.

It is their simplicity which makes the Tubingen results suspect in a time in which science grows ever more inaccessible. An awakening of young men easily kindles fears – much like the brave boat people do whose initiative is not recognized as the chance for the future of a continent grown senile.

The FIRST Tubingen result reads: The surface of a black hole (the so-called horizon) is always infinitely far away – even when one can fly around it.

The SECOND reads: Black holes are uncharged.

The THIRD: Superfluids offer no friction to fast-flying uncharged mini-particles.

The FOURTH: All quasars are rotation-symmetric Kleiner attractors.

In discussing the 4 points, let me go backwards since only the first is difficult.

Point FOUR means that just as in the cosmos, also in the earth “quasar formation“ (on a micro scale) occurs if a stable mini-black hole takes lodge. The consequence is the same exponential growth as it occurs with the two larger cousins – the billions of solar masses comprising “quasars“ and the just one solar mass heavy “microquasars.“ The alleged continuation of this hierarchy down the mass ladder is nothing but applied chaos theory.

Point THREE implies that neutron stars (which are superfluid) are not endangered by impacting mini-black holes born from cosmic rays colliding with terrestrial protons. In this regard, Rolf Landua of CERN on July 4, 2008 offered the prospect of a special experiment at CERN (where the largest amounts of superfluid helium world-wide are housed) in order to put this quantum feature to the test.

Point TWO (unchargedness) conflicts with the Gauss-Stokes theorem of electrostatics which states that the, on the outside perceptible, sum charge inside a closed surface cannot be changed by anything that occurs inside (in the present case: cannot be diminished through black-hole formation). The so far unproblematical link between general relativity and electromagnetism would be suspended. Something this far-reaching occurs only extremely rarely in science.

The burden of the proof now rests with the FIRST point. The Tubingen chaos school (Fröhlich, Kyupers, Kleiner, Argyris) has over the years published a few bits to the effect that sizes and distances change in proportion to the observed redshift, which remained unnoticed. Only when the result was successfully retrieved in the Schwarzschild metric – a recognized solution to the Einstein equation itself – did the current storm break loose.

Actually the result of a redshift-proportional relative rise in distance is well known. It only has fallen into oblivion for nine decades. Light ascending from the horizon is not just infinitely slowed in its frequency (redshifted), but also takes infinitely long to reach the outside world. In unison with this, light takes also infinitely long to reach the horizon from the outside world. That is, the “radar distance“ of the horizon from the outside world is infinite.

Where then lies the problem? In reality there is none. But a famous second result about black holes falsely exerts – as it were from the subconscious – an erasing effect on the former. It was discovered in 1939 by Oppenheimer and Snyder and states the following: Being an astronaut, one can drop into a large black hole in finite time! (And if on the horizon a sufficiently elastic trampoline were firmly suspended, one could rebounce equally fast.) Hence everybody calmed down: All is normal again with the distance of a black hole, that one can circle with a spaceship as we saw or that if it were sufficiently small and manipulable one could even hold in one’s hand. This re-gained belief in the effectively finite distance of the horizon from the outside world is unjustified, though.

The truth is that during each of the two elegantly covered legs of the astronaut’s trip to a large black hole and back, an infinite amount of time is passing in the outside world! The contradiction explained reads: The clocks of the astronaut were infinitely slowed down! Igor Novikov puts it like this: “Radio waves will travel infinitely far to the gravitational radius [horizon] and will never return to the observer who sent them“ (“Black Holes and the Universe,“ 1990, p. 24). And Kip Thorne says: “When an infinite amount of external time has passed, the [dropping] particle has experienced only a finite and very small amount of time“ (“Black Holes and Time Warps,“ 1994, p. 292). This holds true respectively for either leg of the trip. If this were not so, the astronaut would be faster than light (he actually takes twice as long).

The described by no means new (only lost from consciousness) result entails three secondary consequences:
a) The formation of the horizon of a black hole necessarily takes infinitely long in outside time until it is completely finished. Nevertheless most of the properties of a black hole (like blackness and immense distance) are reached in good approximation in a very short time.
b) No radiation can escape in an effectively finite time from the neighbourhood of the horizon.
c) Downstairs arrived charges are ineffective toward the outside owing to their large distance.

The described findings are unpopular. The attempt to publish meets with great resistance. An editor, after agreeing to publish, got removed from office (I hope only temporarily!), and the even unpartisan “arxiv“ causes trouble accepting the preprint. CERN on the one hand let itself be prompted by the preprint’s content to come up with assertions to the contrary (neutron stars would prove the experiment’s safety) and to disclaim its own former belief in the possible formation of black holes, but on the other hand avoids any citation. Why this boycott of a new, old-as-the-hills finding?

It may have to do with the fact that the finding suggests that one can come up with an intuitive picture of what goes on around a black hole. And also, that new differential-geometric structures become mandatory (not just curvature but also relative stretching and compression, respectively); such a thing has not happened for nine decades. And also, that the connection to electrodynamics needs to be taken up again. Also, the existence of gravitational waves becomes questionable again and even the Big Bang would need to be rewritten. All of this only because the slowing of the wrist-watches of astronauts, in the gravitational twins paradox of the young Einstein, has dropped from consciousness? Although admittedly we here have to do with the most beautiful example ever: infinite age difference after the return of the lost twin brother.

Only now quite at the end follows the connection to the planned Large Hadron Experiment at CERN: The new unchargedness of black holes means that the familiar charged “point particles“ (like electrons) cannot be maximally compact, since they would then be uncharged, but rather must be string-shaped (with a hole or more). Hence “strings“ would already exist! Mini-black holes would then all of a sudden be nothing exotic any more: The probability of their arising in the LHC would increase dramatically. In addition, the unchargedness would make their natural cousins generated by cosmic-ray protons in the atmosphere) innocuous: so not only to the earth and the sun but to all celestial bodies (including neutron stars owing to a special quantum effect as we saw). Only the ultra-slow human-made black holes would remain dangerous. Such a “conspiracy“ of nature against the human species – that a single result fallen into oblivion should entail a whole cooperative bundle of dangers hidden from view without it – appears almost infinitely improbable a priori.

A proverb says that it is through thinking that all the errors arise. The return to Einstein’s “mulling“ is an extraordinarily taxing task. Only young human beings (and age-old ones like the late John Argyris) have a chance. This gives me the courage to herewith ask the young scientists of the third world to support the request for a scientific safety conference on the LHC experiment (requested on April 18, 2008) with a proclamation. A few days ago I got invited by a scientific journal from their midst to submit my paper to them. That was the greatest honor I can imagine. For science is friendship. It is the opposite of war as long as it is not misused.

As the official location of the meeting, I again suggest the summer residency of the pope.

Summary: It is possible to do physics with mental images. Einstein called this “Grübeln“ (mulling).. In the time since, so many purely formal results have been accumulated that a “return to the images“ is vital. The current LHC crisis – that “faits accomplis“ are being created before a theoretical consensus regarding safety has been achieved – shows that the turnabout in thinking is essential for survival. The simplicity and the enchantment of a youth-supported “barefoot physics“ is called for. For J.O.R.
(April 2, 2009)

A German-language version is on:
www.achtphasen.net/index.plasmaether/2009/04/02/prof_dr_otto_e_rosslerbarfus_physik_geg#c1018

Doxnload this text: O.E. Rossler_Barefoot Physics Against LHC Goliath

———-

Mai 2010

“Der gedachte Jonas“

Es kursieren Behauptungen über mich auf dem Internet, dass ich dunkle Motive hätte und Lügen benutzen würde bei meinem ungleichen Kampf gegen das CERN. Leider bin ich “ehrlich so dumm“ wie ich mich darstelle: Ich bin wirklich sicher, dass die von mir gefundenen Gefahrenbeweise unwiderlegt sind, und bitte die ganze Welt herzlich, dass sie endlich widerlegt werden mögen, bevor es zu spät ist.

Wenn die Zunft das nicht schafft, sondern mich lieber lächerlich macht, betrübt mich das einzig und allein wegen der dadurch geschädigten Menschen, inklusive der Zunft selbst. Vielleicht verspürt doch in irgendeinem Teil der Gesellschaft jemand Lust, den öffentlich verweigerten Dialog der Fachleute anzufachen – zum Beispiel durch einen gestifteten Preis? Glauben Sie mir, sehr verehrte Dame oder geehrter Herr: es kann Spaß machen, etwas offenkundig Vernünftiges durchzusetzen. Sogar Wähler könnten irgendwann darauf aufmerksam werden.

Warum bin ich so ausverschämt, an unerwarteten Resultaten, die niemand widerlegen kann, festzuhalten? Der Grund ist: mir hilft “der gedachte Jonas“. Das war ein Spruch von ihm, als er 2¾ Jahre alt war, der immer bei Abschied und ähnlichen Gelegenheiten angebracht wurde. Als ich nach seinem plötzlichen Tod mit 7¾ ebenfalls dem Tode nah war, ging mir auf, dass er nicht wollte, dass ich nachkäme. Seitdem lebe ich sozusagen im Auftrag, wie der alte Fritz oder Kant. Das macht mich immun gegen falsche Anwürfe. Die Polizeioffiziere, die mich aus dem Hörsaal tragen mussten, weil ich die Wahrheit gesagt hatte, haben sich danach jedes Mal bei mir entschuldigt. Ich bitte meine selbsterklärten Gegner, ebenso fair zu sein. Sie können darauf vertrauen, dass ich nicht ihr Feind bin. Das gilt auch für die, die ich öffentlich des wissenschaftlichen Betrugs bezichtigt habe. Niemand wird sich mehr freuen als ich, wenn ihre Selbstrechtfertigung gelingt im Rahmen der Klärung der Fakten. Ich will nur widerlegt werden. Wenn sie aus Hellsichtigkeit betrogen haben, werde ich es loben. Wir irrtumsanfälligen Menschen können uns der Wahrheit nähern mit einem liebevollen Auge auf die Kinder, die sich auf uns verlassen. So wie man sich als Erwachsener auf ein Kind verlassen kann.

Ich bitte also herzlich darum, endlich gezeigt zu bekommen, dass meine neuen, seit zwei Jahren unwiderlegten, wissenschaftlichen Resultate (vor allem die Ungeladenheit von Schwarzen Löchern) falsch sind, bevor das vor 6 Monaten gezündete 7-Tera-elektronen-Volt Roulette-Experiment seinen berühmten “Knick nach oben“ macht, was die Zahl der erzeugten Kernkollisionen angeht, sodass die Gefahr maximal groß wird. Die Verantwortlichen sollen bitte nicht länger als der größte Feind jedes Kindes des Planeten dastehen und die Religionen dürfen sich wieder als ihr größter Freund profilieren. Kindern gegenüber besteht eine Fürsorgepflicht auch für Nichtverwandte, würde Jonas sagen. Ihr Otto E. Rössler. 21.5.2010. Für J.O.R.

————————–
Zweiter Text
————————–

Europa als Versager?

“Epimenides der Kreter sagte, alle Kreter sind Lügner.“ Rössler der Europäer sagt, alle Europäer sind Versager. Hierbei sind die Schweizer Stimmbürger ausgenommen, die sich gerade mit zweijähriger Verspätung formieren.

Wieso sage ich etwas so Schlimmes über die Europäer? Die ganze Welt weiß davon: Es gibt unwiderlegte neue wissenschaftliche Resultate, die beweisen, dass das europäische LHC-Experiment mit einer hohen Wahrscheinlichkeit planetarer Selbstmord ist. Aber die europäischen Fachleute winken ab, obwohl sie keinen Gegenbeweis vorlegen.

Dieses Phänomen des unbedingten Vertrauens auf Unbewiesenes ist präzedenzlos. Ich führe es für mich auf den deutschen Gehorsam zurück: Die deutschen Professoren schwiegen, als vor 15 Jahren einer von ihnen wegen der Äußerung der Wahrheit monatelang von der Polizei aus dem Hörsaal getragen, dann vorbestraft und enteignet wurde. Seither gibt es nur noch weisungsgebundene “Gehorsamsprofessoren“ in Deutschland, die nicht mehr an ihre Studenten oder gar an die Wahrheit denken, sondern nur noch an ihren Job, den sie sonst gefährden.

Im vorliegenden Fall haben sie sich nach ihrem Mut auch noch ihr Denken abkaufen lassen: sie sind nicht in der Lage, die vorgelegten Beweise nachzuvollziehen und verlassen sich offen auf hellseherische Autorität.

Das Albert-Einstein-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft hat viel Geld und Macht, aber keine unabhängigen Studenten. Das ist die große Krankheit der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Die beiden Chefs konnten so der Öffentlichkeit die Unwahrheit sagen. Und der oberste Chef darf sibyllinisch schweigen: “Ich will nicht mit Ihnen sprechen“, war seine Antwort vor beinahe zwei Jahren. Sonst würde er dem in wochenlangen Diskussionen mühsam gewonnenen Konsens in seinem Institut in den Rücken fallen, wie er sagte. Vor kurzem wiederholte er seine Weigerung.

Ich fordere deshalb die Umbenennung dieser zu Unrecht den Namen Albert Einsteins tragenden Institution. Und die sofortige Rückkehr zu freien Universitätsgesetzen in Deutschland. Und eine namentliche Befragung aller Relativitätsfachleute der Welt zu meinen Resultaten durch ein Meinungsforschungsinstitut. Und die Rückkehr der Print-Medien zu ihrer Informationspflicht – statt unter Berufung auf die erwähnte Autorität weiterhin die Berichterstattung zu verweigern, wie FAZ und Süddeutsche zugeben.

Das Alarmierendste ist für mich, dass nicht einmal die armen Länder der Welt es wagen, Aufklärung zu verlangen, obwohl sie die Zukunft sind: für mich der traurigste Beleg für den weiterfunktionierenden europäischen Kolonialismus.

Also: Es wird am Europäischen Kernforschungszentrum derzeit ein Experiment durchgeführt und täglich in seiner Trefferquote erhöht, das unwiderlegt mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit von 1 zu 12 den Erdball in wenigen Jahren durch “Mini-Quasar-Bildung“ auf 2 cm schrumpfen wird als eindrucksvolles Spektakel vom Mond aus gesehen.

Was ist da los, liebe Mitbürger: sind nur noch Versager in der Politik? Sie sind es nicht selber. Obama, Sarkozy, Benedikt, Kaiser, Queen: alle sind von Beratern umgeben, denen sie nicht entfliehen können. Diese Berater glauben Europa. Auch die BRIC-Staaten haben keine anderen Berater.

Daher, liebe Mitbürger dieses Planeten: Geht wieder auf die Straßen wie Anfang September 2008, als die Roulette-Maschine zum ersten Mal eingeschaltet wurde (damals ohne Erfolg). Und verlangt die Vorlage eines Gegenbeweises gegen die bewiesene Gefahr, bevor die Maschine die maximale Schussrate erreicht. Noch besser: Verlangt einfach einen Namen! Den eines Wissenschaftlers, der zu sagen wagt “Ich habe die Gefahr widerlegt: dies ist mein Beweis gegen Rösslers Resultate!“ Niemand nimmt einen Scheck an, der nicht namentlich gedeckt ist. Warum eine Überlebensgarantie annehmen von Leuten, die nicht sagen können, wer sie unterschrieben hat? Dumpfer Konsens ohne Beleg reicht nicht in der Wissenschaft. Europas Antwort ist gefordert.

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Otto E. Rössler, Chaosforscher, gewähltes Mitglied der Leibniz-Sozietät, Abteilung für Theoretische Chemie der Universität Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, Deutschland. 24.5.2010. Für J.O.R.

——

May 31, 2010

“Calling on Every Science Student of the Planet:
Please, Rehabilitate the Establishment”

The physics community asserts in authoritative statements that my results
are false –so false that the fate of the planet can be bet against them as
CERN currently does. My new result reads:
“The rest mass, and hence also the charge, of
any material body located
more downstairs in a gravitational
field (or equivalently more rearward in a
constantly accelerating rocket) is reduced in
proportion to the local redshift factor“
(Rossler-Cox theorem). Hence rest mass and
charge are zero at the horizon of a black hole.

This result is a direct – if belated – corollary to Einstein’s famous “equivalence principle“
of 1907.The corollary implies both lack of Hawking radiation and lack of stickiness of
miniature black holes, hoped to be produced at CERN. A third safety-destroying
argument (frictionless passage of fast uncharged particles through superfluids)
was also presented to CERN two years ago. Thus, no safety-assuring argument is
left as long as the above result stays undisproved. Hence a planetocidal experiment
is going on as far as anyone can tell.

You – my young reader – cannot do any greater favor to the planet and the
profession at large than to dismantle the above theorem. If you do not
succeed – as I am afraid could happen –, please endorse my 2008
call for a scientific safety conference. Even at a
delay of 103 years, any corollary to the Einstein equivalence principle
- his “happiest thought“ – deserves the utmost scrutiny. The planet
is putting its fate into your hands.

Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen,
Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, Germany. For J.O.R. (Submitted
to Associated Press, May 31, 2010)

———————————————-

June 9, 2010

“Why Do the Media Suppress The Hottest Story  of History?”

Why do the world’s media not follow up on the “luminosity“ of the Large Hadron Collider experiment at CERN as it is being cranked up day after day?  The undisputed danger of miniature black hole formation is proportional to this luminosity. Once sufficiently many such minis have been produced as the luminosity goes up, eventually one specimen that is slow enough to stay inside earth is bound to be among them – to shrink earth to 2 cm in possibly 5 years time. This proof given two years ago still stands undisproved. For some reason, this largest possible sacrifice to the child-eating moloch warned against in the bible makes for a planet-wide “non-topic“ - even though it contains all the ingredients of a journalist’s dream story.The media’s excuse is the following: politicians and the official scientific and environmental organizations all say they are sure the risk is way smaller than the 8 percent given by Rossler. A “majority opinion“ to this effect is proudly pointed to. But this is not how science works. If there is not a single scientist on the planet who says: “I found a counterproof to Rossler’s proof and I bet that he cannot dismantle it,“ there is no counter evidence. Groups are notoriously weaker than individuals when it comes to the new. Scarcity of high-ranking support comes not unexpected.  There are 4 names behind the corporate safety consensus: Giddings and Mangano of CERN, Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institute, and Stephen Hawking of

Cambridge university. The first two colleagues broke the scientific taboo of withholding relevant information known to them, in their still unupdated official “safety assessment“ of 2008, as they do not dispute. The third cut off dialogue after having been proven wrong more than a year ago with a high-caliber counterargument raised against my unchargedness result, maintaining his public claims to the latter’s validity. Stephen Hawking while reluctant to respond to the counterproof presented to the globe’s best life insurance (Hawking evaporation, for two years in a row, remains immune to reproach owing to his proven personal heroism.The first three names, all connected to CERN, bear the brunt. Paradoxically they are treated like prophets whose written words represent revelations. The mysteriously stepped down German head of state had made his unconditional belief in the corporate safety report one of the last statements from his office. No one in the planetary scientific establishment sticks their necks out in favor of the innocuous scientific safety conference, called-for in April 2008 (see “honey I shrunk the earth“ on the web). The CERN’s LHC experiment could continue immediately once a single hole has been punched into my chain of proofs. Conversely, as long as this is not the case, a second “

Alamogordo risk“ is being allowed to hover over the planet in a span of 65 years. (The risk that the first atomic blast would co-ignite the planet’s atmosphere had been estimated to be 1 percent by an official advisor whom I once encountered.)   Is it simply that in an age of restauration, no one is able to look ahead any more? I do see no colleague ready to scrutinize the fact that Einstein unearthed yet another breath-taking detail with his “equivalence principle“ of 1907. (The latter asserts equivalence between a silently accelerating long rocketship in outer space on the one hand, and the same sealed chamber standing vertically on earth on the other.) Beside the famous reduction of clock rate and photon energy at the rear, highlighted by Einstein, there is a parallel reduction of rest mass and charge downstairs, as he no doubt would happily confirm today since the equivalence principle was his “happiest thought“ as he used to quip. Every high-school senior can verify the new implication but the establishment “knows“ this is a matter of impossibility given the no longer human status of this innovator. So discussion in learned circles is tabooed.Nature seems to have set humankind a trap by providing several totally independent reasons why different safety arguments fail simultaneously. It is my stumbling over this uncanny coincidence that forced me to call for a safety conference. The finding that quantum mechanics steps in to protect neutron stars from nature’s natural ultrafast cousins to humanity’s hoped-for ultraslow artificial mini-black holes should the latter appear is perhaps the most breath-taking.  CERN is so sure that my quantum prediction that superfluids offer no friction to fast uncharged particles is false that they skipped an experiment designed to check this prediction as they had promised to do two years ago. Only human-made ultra-slow mini-black holes pose any danger to the earth, the sun and the moon. More and more scientists are joining-in as time goes by - and is running out.Why should any father on the planet stand by idly rather than say: “please, dear CERN, present your proofs to me and the world before I can agree to your taking our lives into your hands“? The only reason this is not being said today all over the globe is the media curfew, caused by a false belief in authority as we saw. Please, dear media: return to your professional skepticism and lay the facts on the table as they are. No one is ever grateful if you report but if you don’t, it is always your fault. There is no greater planetary heroism. Thank you in advance.

Otto

E. Rossler, chaos researcher,

University of

Tubingen, June 9, 2010. For J.O.R.  

—————-

March 1 2011:

Paper: Otto Rossler: Einstein’s Equivalence Principle Has Three Further Implications Besides Affecting Time: T-L-M-Ch Theorem 

Comments