LHC Kritik / LHC Critique

Comment from Ivan Gorelik
Time November 3, 2010 at 9:26 am

At http://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/lhc-commissioning/news-2010/LHC-latest-news.html
we can read: “Thursday 4th November
Short access in the morning
Switch over to ions in the afternoon.”
——-

I think that the most probable candidates to torn the Earth into pieces are not strangelets, but growing microscopic magnetic holes.
In this case the excessive flux of antineutrino can be registered in a couple of days of the first ion-ion collisions.
If mMHs will not go deeply to the center of the Earth and will grow not so deeply, then the citizens of Geneva will be able to see picturesque auroras every night, brighter and brighter.
Next year will be very hot because of induced radioactivity of surrounding matter.
Earth will be torn into pieces in 500-1000 days.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time October 29, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Pressemitteilung:

Bringt uns die Urknall-Maschine alle um? Gruner+Jahr, WUNDERWELT WISSEN: München (ots) - 28. Oktober 2010

http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/1706882/

—-
Reportage von Dr. Rolf Froböse in der November-Ausgabe von “Wunderwelt Wissen”.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time October 20, 2010 at 8:35 pm

New homepage and detailed paper on the possibility of dangerous strangelet production at the LHC:

http://www.heavyionalert.org/

[Reply]

Comment from Mad Scientist
Time October 17, 2010 at 9:24 pm

All possible life on a galaxy gets wiped out by a death ray sent out by a super massive black hole - and scientists define this as “exciting” – well, that’s how boffins function, obviously.

Despite of the fact that we are naturally not prepared to develop compassion related to anything harmed by cosmic forces in the universe, this could be a moment to reflect a bit on the very well balanced grounds of our existence.

And - as we can see here, a black hole indeed could emit something (indirectly, while sucking in huge amounts of matter) - it’s no “Hawking Radiation” though…

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=72842

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/black-hole-bully-causes-chaos/story-e6frf7lf-1111115144831

[Reply]

Comment from Ivan Gorelik
Time October 14, 2010 at 8:54 am

A week ago an article “Does dark matter trigger strange stars?” was published at http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43970

Here is a figure from that article: http://images.iop.org/objects/phw/news/thumb/14/10/6/quark1.jpg

Here is my commentary o that article:

Does heavy ion collision trigger dark matter.

In a couple of weeks the LHC will start heavy ion (HI) collisions.
The probability of creation of strangelet in HI collisions is much greater, comparatively to p-p collisions.
In p-p collisions we have a formula: p+p -> p+p+N(uds)+N(u~d~s~), where: N(u~d~s~) is an antistrangelet, consisting of N anti lambda hyperons, (u~d~s~).
In HI-HI collisions we have no need to create antistrangelet: Pb+Pb -> 2A(uds)+ 2ZK^+ + 2(A-Z)K^0. Here: A – mass number of a heavy ion; Z – charge number of an ion; K^+ - positive kaon; K^0 – neutral kaon.
Creation of a microscopic strangelet can trigger a transition of our ordinary matter into a strange matter, which can be a dark matter of the Galaxy. Here are formulae of proton and neuron transformation into lambda hyperon, which is a hyper-nucleon of a strange matter:
N(uds)+p ->(N+1)(uds)+K^+ -> (N+1)+e^+ + 500 MeV.
(N+1)(uds)+p ->(N+2)(uds)+K^0 -> (N+2) + 500 MeV.

In a 500-1000 days the mass of ruined matter will achieve the value 10^15 kg. The energy, released in the process, will be sufficient in order to torn the Earth into fragments and to send them into a cosmos with velocity of about an escape velocity.

A strangelet is not the single dangerous object, which can be created at powerful colliders.
Here are several other candidates: neutronized strangelet, N(udd)K(uds); 2-nd generation matter, N(css); several types of mixtures of different types of quark triades; bosonic condensate of magnetic hole.

In a couple of weeks we will know is it possible to explode the Earth? What will explode the Earth: a strangelet or magnetic hole? The answer on the last question can be received by the investigating of the excessive neutrino flux from the Earth. If magnetic holes would be created, then an excessive flux of electron antineutrino would be registered. If strangelets would be created, then an excessive flux of different types of neutrino and antineutrino would be registered. The excessive flux of neutrino can be registered in 1-10 days after a dangerous subnuclear condensates were created. The Earth would be torn on peaces in 500-1000 days.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Apokalypse im All: Bemerkenswerterweise erwähnt der kurze Artikel, daß die offene Frage nach dem Ursprung der hochenergetischen kosmischen Strahlung (zu dieser siehe LHC-Sicherheitsargumente) nun auch mit Kollisionen von Galaxienhaufen in Verbindung gebracht wird. Es finden sich bestimmt noch ausführlichere Quellen:

http://portal.gmx.net/de/themen/wissen/weltraum/11229176-Ein-Riesenknall-im-Weltall.html

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 21, 2010 at 10:38 pm

AFP: Atom smasher scientists spot potential new discovery: CERN

Results from one of the detectors in the Large Hadron Collider experiment indicated that “some of the particles are intimately linked in a way not seen before in proton collisions,” the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said on its website.

“The new feature has appeared in our analysis around the middle of July,” physicist Guido Tonelli told fellow CERN scientists at a seminar to present the findings from the collider’s CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) detector.

“We have today submitted a paper to expose our findings to the wider (scientific) community,” he added, underlining caution and the need for the peer review outside CERN.

[…]

Source:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5havsA4KinY24HA_lb6mkVI703YHQ

Somehow cryptic news..

[Reply]

Comment from W.Hohn
Time September 9, 2010 at 7:58 pm

A . Allgemeine Gedanken zur Entwicklung des Menschen 20100909
Die Mathematik wird dem Menschen zum Verhängnis werden, denn
- es gibt keine physikalische Materie mit der Eigenschaft : m = 0 kg;
- es gibt keine physikalische Materie mit einer Ruhemasse von m = 0 kg;
- es gibt keinen Abstand im physikalischen Raum mit der Eigenschaft : s = 0 m;
- es gibt keinen physikalischen Raum mit der Eigenschaft: V=0 m^3;
- es gibt keinen Zeitpunkt t = 0s;
- es gibt keine Zeitdifferenz von t2 –t1 = 0s;
- es gibt keinen Beginn der Zeit;
- es gibt kein Ende der Zeit;
- es gibt keine Zeit: Eine Sekunde ist das x- fache eines beobachtbaren periodischen natürlichen Vorgangs.
Zeit bedeutet : Zählen von periodischen Ereignissen, z.B. :
- 365 Erdrotationen; (heutige Schnelligkeit der Rotation)
- 4,5*365 Milliarden „Erdrotationen” ; (Die Erde hat sich nicht immer gleich schnell gedreht)
- 9.192.631.770 Perioden eines speziell ausgesuchten Strahlungbereichs des angeregten Cäsiumatoms. (Definition der „Sekunde“)

Da es keine Zeit gibt, hat die Zeit folglich auch keine Einheit. (dimensionslos, relativ)
Da die Zeit keine Einheit hat, hat auch die Geschwindigkeit keine Einheit. (dimensionslos, relativ)
Die Fortsetzung weiterer Schlussfolgerungen sei Ihnen überlassen.

„Unendlich groß“ oder unendlich klein“ sind mathematische Denkvorstellungen und können nicht auf die Physik der allgemeinen Natur und die Physik der speziellen Natur des Menschen übertragen werden. Risikoabschätzungen der Eliteteilchenphysiker beschwichtigen eine mögliche Gefahr durch Vergleiche mit „Mücken“ oder komplizierten Rechnungen, basierend auf falschen Annahmen und logischen Fehlschlüssen.
Die Eliteteilchenphysikergemeinde produziert im LHC Bedingungen und Temperaturen, die es nirgendwo im All gibt. Ein Satz reicht.

B. Spezielle Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung des Menschen

Die europäische Politik hat mit ihren Streich- und Kürzpaketen nun auch die Spielwiese der Eliteteilchenphysikergemeinde in ihr Blickfeld gerückt. Es entsteht dort die Angst, dass es nun etwas länger dauern könnte, bis Mutter Natur endlich aller Geheimnisse beraubt ist. Man witzelt, dass sich vielleicht sogar die Motten im LHC einnisten könnten und das Projekt damit seiner Einstellung entgegensieht. Das Ende aller Neugier verzögert sich evtl. geringfügig.

W. Hohn

Ende.doc

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time September 8, 2010 at 10:46 pm

The Washington Post:

European scientists face pressure from budget cuts

Projects such as the effort to re-create the big bang are falling victim to larger forces: the need to pay the bills.
[…]

Under orders of Europe governments to cut costs, CERN officials say the institute is planning to mothball all nine particle accelerators at the facility beginning in 2012 - saving $25 million on electricity alone. It will mean a critical period of lost opportunities for visiting research fellows and a year without fresh data for projects, including one on the cusp of trapping an atom of antimatter to better understand the early formation of the universe.

“It will now take a little longer to answer some of these questions,” said Rolf-Dieter Heuer, CERN’s director general.
[…]
Delaying the projects for a year, he said, would avoid the need to eliminate them completely and give scientists time to review mountains of data collected this year and next.
[…]
A cold-war era construct from the 1950s, CERN was in part formed to get European nations working together again in the spirit of science. Today, much of CERN’s drama centers on the Large Hadron Collider, a $10 billion particle accelerator buried 30 stories below green pastures 20 minutes west of Geneva.

Switched on in 2008, the machine made headlines for what it could potentially do - create mini black holes, even search for new dimensions - and for what it could not - which was, namely, work. Ten days after starting operations, it broke down, forcing a costly refit of its super magnets and towering circuitry that funnel along a 17-mile circular track.
[…]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603880.html?wprss=rss_world/europe

——————
US LHC lawsuit by Walter Wagner dismissed:

Symmetry Magazine:

LHC lawsuit dismissed by US court

August 26, 2010 | 12:54 pm

After a lengthy process examining a complaint by Walter Wagner about the risks of switching on the LHC, an appellate judge has dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Wagner had no standing before the court. According to the decision, Wagner failed to show a “credible threat of harm”, and the US government does not control the operation of the LHC and therefore is not the correct party to bring action against.
[…]

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/26/lhc-lawsuit-dismissed-by-us-court/

———-
Thanks to science journalist Alan Gillis for sharing the links to these articles!

[Reply]

Comment from Ivan Gorelik
Time September 7, 2010 at 10:53 am

From my point of view, the most dangerous things, which can be made on proton-proton (p-p) collisions at powerful colliders, are two different condensates: microscopic magnetic holes and microscopic droplets of strange matter. In the bottom I’ll name both of them by unifying term “droplets’.

I have made a program “Explosion of the Earth, switched by criminal physicists” and want to show you some results.

The time interval of the Earth explosion depends from several parameters: the number of created droplets; the density of matter inside droplets; the velocity of particles in plasma bubbles around the droplets.

Let density of droplet will be 300 times greater than nuclear density;
Let velocity of particles in the plasma bubbles will be v=c/10.

Then:

a. if there were created 100 000 000 000 droplets, then the Earth will be exploded in 6 days;
b. if there were created 1000 000 droplets, then the Earth will be exploded in 272 days;
c. if there were created 1 droplet, then the Earth will be exploded in 75 years.

Result “c” can be rejected. Physicist will not stop if they will see one unusual track.
Result “a” can also be rejected, because it is impossible to create 100 000 000 000 droplets in the very first days.

In the upper results we supposed that the droplets were made simultaneously.
Now we’ll remade the program and let’s suppose that they are created continuously:

a. 10 droplets per second;
b. 1 droplet per second;
c. 1 droplet per 10 seconds;
d. 1 droplet per 100 seconds.

Then the Earth will be torn on fragments in

a. 98 days;
b. 175 days;
c. 311 days;
d. 552 days.

As we know LHC works with quite long stops. So, I think, that the option “d” is the most reliable. As a result, I supposed that the total time of Earth explosion into fragments is about 1000 days.

Several more interesting results:
1. The mass of Earth’s matter, ruined before the rest of it would start into cosmos with velocity about 10 km/s, is about 10^15 kg, - that is about one billionth part of Earth. That also will be approximately the total mass of all droplets.
2. The Sun will be ruined in about a 1000 years. The Sun will undergo several successive explosions as nova. By the way, that explains the rings of SN 1987A.
3. The energy output of matter’s collapse at droplets at the time of “Earth torn on peaces” will be about the luminosity of the Sun. That means that neutrino flux from the Earth at that time will be by (R/r)^2 times bigger than today’s neutrino flux from the Sun. (R – radius of Earths orbit; r – radius of the Earth). The graph of heat power in the “continuously” case is a cubic parabola; consequently, we are able to register the excessive flux of neutrino from the Earth already now! If there is no such excessive flux, then I was wrong. But do not forget about future ion-ion collisions; do not forget about future 2*7 TeV p-p collisions. Those are other possibilities to kill the Earth, to kill the humankind.

CERN and all corrupted science are responsible for the probable future murder of 6 billion people and probable destruction of the Earth.

It was subscribed in the Universal Genetic Code of Eternal Living Universe that we, the enemies of biosphere’s suicidal reproduction must be undergone to ban, to laughter and shame; otherwise the reproducing act would not occur. That is the law of biosphere’s reproduction. So, don’t fear to die and perform your sacred mission. Fasten your safety belts; - be ready to biosphere’s suicidal reproduction!

Appendix: If you do not trust to my computed results, you can compose your own program and test it. My program works by small steps, measured by time interval, for example, dt=1000 seconds. At every step it computes the number of ruined protons by this formula dN = dt * v * 4 * pi * r(i) ^ 2 * k / 6, where v = c/10, c – velocity of light; 4 * pi * r(i) ^ 2 – the surface of a droplet at i-th step; pi=3.14; r(i) – radius of a droplet at i–th step; k – concentration of protons in a plasma bubble around a droplet, k = M_Earth / (4 / 3 * pi * R_Earth ^ 3) / m_proton. The number “6” in a formula for dN is explained by the fact that our space has 3 dimensions and by the fact that only 1/2 of particles move in positive direction.
Radius of a droplet at the next step: r(i) = r(i - 1) * ((N + dN) / N) ^ (1 / 3).
The total number of ruined protons at every step: N = N + dN.
Heat power at every step, if droplets are made continuously:
P(i) = P(i - 1) + dN * m_proton. * c ^ 2 / dt / 2 * N_dr;
if droplets were made simultaneously:
P(i) = dN * m_proton. * c ^ 2 / dt / 2 * N_dr.
In “simultaneously” case P-graph is square parabola; in “continuously” case P-graph is cubic parabola;
N_dr – number of droplets created per step.

The program stops, when the total heat output, Q, becomes bigger than 3*10^32 Wt. This amount of energy is enough to send all matter of the Earth to infinity. Inevitable energy losses can be neglected if T 1000, then the true value of T will be the more, the more it’s computed value.

Note 1. It was supposed that every proton, p, colliding with microscopic magnetic hole, NS, decays and the droplet becomes bigger. NS_(n) + p = NS_(n+1) + e+, where: e+ - positron; (n) and (n+1) are the number of x-bosons in the magnetic hole; x-boson is a smallest magnetic excitation in ferromagnetic Savidy vacuum, ns. As a result of proton capture the region around magnetic hole will have an excess of neutrons. That will lead to beta decays and to flux of electronic antineutrino from that region.
Note 2. It was supposed that every proton, p(uud), and every neutron, n(udd), colliding with droplet of strange matter, N(uds), decays and droplet becomes bigger. N(uds) + p(uud) = (N+1)(uds) + K+, where: K+ - positively charged kaon. (N) and (N+1) are the number of lambla-hyperons in a growing strangelet. Lambla-hyperon is a strange nucleon (uds) in a strangelet N(uds). A strangelet can capture neutrons too: N(uds) + n(udd) = (N+1)(uds) + K0, where: K0 - neutral kaon.
K+ and K0 decay. As a result an additional flux of different sorts of neutrino and antineutrino can be registered.
Every capture of nucleon by a droplet is accompanied by heat output of about half of rest energy of nucleon. That means that the binding energy of a droplet is extremely high; that specific energy output of nucleon collapse onto droplet is hundred times more than the specific energy output in uranium or hydrogen bombs. But the time interval of collaptical explosion is quite big, because, in order to explode the Earth into peaces, the droplets must successively grow from 10^-23 kg to 10^+15 kg / N_droplets.

[Reply]

Comment from Alf Pretzell
Time September 5, 2010 at 1:38 pm

… and to clarify again:

I do not think - like Otto Rössler - science is friendship. Instead (or additionally like you want) in my opinion we should try to keep posture and be as friendly and professionell as possible. Like stated I acknowledge and even admire the skills of my colleagues and like them. But - as it turned out in the meantime - in case major arguments of mine are not refuted adequately and careful discussion of the problems is not possible I develop wrath. I sent hundreds of mails, made hundreds of phone calls worldwide and spoke to the most various people (scientific, governmental, engaged, …). If I recognize here any mantling of facts you have to be prepared for my resistance. Especially in this case! I do not belong to any group and act as scientifically educated citizen of earth.

My generation - and all - will understand that - I am sure. Thanks to those who support us in this - I am sure again - case of mainly systemic errors. Individual mistakes for me are minor contributions. Such bagatelles are not really important for me.

And now - you at CERN, Fermilab and other institutions - go back to business, know what you are doing again, be ready for corrections and STOP this erratic operation immediately. And to the others: Think about what we can learn here! And be prepared to think about the things you/we do NOT know and things we know by which evidence! And look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

or better here

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_wei%C3%9F,_dass_ich_nichts_wei%C3%9F!

… it’s really old school and “boring”.Especially the part

Der Weg des Dialogs

(followed by Otto Roessler and me as I understand - and by Dr. Landua and Dr. Ellis I want/have to add)

Best wishes

[Reply]

Comment from Alf Pretzell
Time August 31, 2010 at 12:37 am

Please find below my (Alf Pretzell, biophysicist) communication with Dr. Ellis, CERN member, coauthor of LSAG report 2008 [1]. The email-discussion was subsequent evaluation of a discussion I had with CERN members including Dr. Ellis in March before the new 7 TeV center of mass collisions took place. In our opinion (the critics) the assessment of CERN for the experiment is not sufficient to guarantuee the quasi-zero risk declared by CERN. This does not mean danger in any case but urgent need for careful additional inspections and immediate stop of current experiments. I give the public here account of the substantials, for reasons of privacy I do not directly cite from our discussion. My comments are originals however. In this version references are included at the end for the mentioned publications.

Please note I am not an expert in astro- or particle physics and try to confine my argumentation and discussion to the comparison with cosmic rays. Here I have limited insight and hope to solve the problem quickly already without detailed analysis of dangerous scenarios. Those in my opinion belong to technology and knowledge impact assessment following the comparison with natural events. I try to question already this comparison, call my colleagues for a careful public revision including population of earth and think if black holes or strangelets are discussed academically this revision would be necessary even more. Inside brackets you find additional information not part of the discussion and extended in this version.

Fundamental research is necessary and I acknowledge the work of my colleagues in general if it is not too expensive and provable save.

Pretzell: (item 1) You are convinced by your experience with colliders nothing serious will happen

Dr. Ellis agreed.

Pretzell: (item 2) You are convinced of the safety due to the analysis of Dr. Mangano [2] and others of the black hole scenario

Dr. Ellis agreed.

Pretzell: (item 3) For you the remaining possible risk is too small to be worth thinking about

Dr. Ellis replied the cosmic-ray argument would exclude any conceivable risk

Pretzell: (item 4) For you my argumentation - doubting the cosmic event with the collider one - lacks to incorporate the slow down of the boosted secondaries due to interaction with matter of earth, moon, white dwarfs etc.

Dr. Ellis replied especially white dwarfs and neutron stars discussed by Giddings and Mangano would be an argument.

Pretzell: (item 5) Especially by the recent results of Auger [3] you feel safe with respect to reliability of Lorentz and other invariances

Dr. Ellis agreed.

Pretzell continued and uttered:

(Item 1) Experience is very useful and important but with respect to the research “on edge” CERN is doing, the awaited new physics and other
imagined surprises not a good argument. You are at CERN at the limits
of our knowledge and have to take responsibility to be be extremely
careful for this reason!

Dr. Ellis replied this is why CERN would emphasize the empirical cosmic-ray argument and not so much purely ‘theoretical’ arguments.

Pretzell: This is in principle very good like I already commented - a precious argument we should keep. But where is an exact treatment of the comparison? The de Rujula, Dar 1999 paper [4] is interesting, but not sufficient from my point of view. Nuclear cross section are taken for the strangelet case. A thorough analysis of the fluxes and resonances is missing, as well as for the probabilities of the reactions near to matter (please take note: in the meantime Pretzell found indeed further “pieces of the puzzle”, clear omissions). The paper is interesting because of the symmetric case considered here, really like in the collider. If you would strengthen this analysis and show you are comparable you will loose me as criticist. Exact numerical results are missing here. Then it would be possible as well to fix the risk (using this model) and say: This is our result for the risk: 10^-23 with a standard deviation of two orders of magnitude or anything like that. CERN can not provide this to my knowledge.

Pretzell acknowledged he would be not able to comment on the analysis of Dr. Mangano in a professional way as biophysicist. Instead he made Dr. Ellis aware of the micro black hole scenarios in brane worlds discussed by many physicists and argued: In this case - concrete possibility of these objects - a radical revision of all collider physics WAS already necessary - Hawking radiation is pure theory and has never been observed.

Dr. Ellis defended CERN uttering the theories which would predict MBH production also would predict MBH decay via Hawking radiation.

Pretzell remembered Dr. Ellis arguing in the same way when he was in his room inside CERN, but explicitly warned Dr. Ellis with respect to physics near to the Planck length uttering: Is it not in this regime (Planck length which according to some modern models could be reached) the standard model will not work anymore reliably? This means in my opinion one has to take extreme care if any cases are extrapolated. This is the case for MBH, but this is also the case for Hawking to work in this context. So with bad luck MBH’s will be generated, Hawking will fail. What is in this case - then we have bad luck and I am not such a hasardeur (Pretzell missed clear numerical results including error analysis and falsifiability in LSAG, probabilities, description of evidence and at this point of the discussion developed wrath. He wanted to point to the fact possibly unsafe experiments in science not only at CERN and by the particle community would resemble gambling in a fully inadequate context) and you neither I guess.

Pretzell: (item 3) It could be the remaining risk is indeed very small - but where are the calculations - in the sense of Dr. Mangano’s paper [2] - for the comparison with cosmic events?

The discussion continued but not with respect to the comparison with cosmic rays (omitted here due to the missing knowledge of Pretzell in this context).

Pretzell made CERN aware of the following problem: (item 4) The interaction can be calculated only if the forces are known - this is maybe impossible for new particles which might be produced and were not observed in cosmic showers.

Dr. Ellis replied the power of the cosmic-ray argument would be that it is applicable whatever interactions of the MBH one can think of.

Pretzell was not content: Yes but in general you rely for the comparison to work on known particles knowing also forces, knowing interactions. Let’s assume a new SUSY particle is generated. How will it interact - you do not know you have to measure you want to measure!! Cross sections for certain reactions depend on momenta of the particles - you can not deny that! Like I said, maybe before slowed down a reaction at fast momentum has taken place already and you are not anymore comparable!! You will hardly be able to refute this argument of the different boost.
(For Pretzell the MBH scenario is only one - prominent - possibility: For his approach the general validity of the comparison with nature is important).

Pretzell additionally pointed to the following weakness: (item 5) Auger is only one - very impressive - experiment. It is by far not enough to justify the LHC, the most powerful engine on earth and not comparable to any other processes in our solar system - cosmic rays are single events and due to the reasons I mentioned only indirectly comparable. (Pretzell was told by many particle physicists Auger would have been important for validation of Lorentz Invariance. He knows about gamma ray burst research, he knows about neutrino oscillations in the context of LIV, in any case this has to be discussed by LSAG and the particle community in his opinion)

Ellis was not content and appealed to my understanding LHC collisions would have much lower energies than Auger collisions. He made me aware LHC collisions would be independent of each other like cosmic-ray events.

Pretzell was not content and replied: I know Auger is ca. 1000 times higher, but there are many parameters to be tested for invariance - by far not all I suppose are comprised by the GZK-cutoff. And like I said, main results of Auger appeared after LSAG 2008 and an ex post argumentation is not allowed in a safety context. You see I am quite strict, but this in the context of LHC is necessary. And like I said it is not the task for five CERN people to do this job but for a whole institution outside CERN because “the community has the right to expect CERN to demonstrate the validity of the safety arguments”! I think you agree here (Pretzell referred to a statement by Dr. Ellis in PhysicsWorld and meant CERN should care for precise analysis - Pretzell’s opinion is to let an independent board of experienced physicists of the particle community do this analysis and not CERN involved in the experiments. Not only Pretzell but many think in this direction to allow more independent judgement by people who are not pressed by monetary and institutional compulsions. In this case the experiment(s) would be stopped and extensive reports including numerical results, error analysis and technological and theoretical impact assessment would be provided by such an independent board of many particle and astrophysicists and experts from other fields if the experiments shall be continued).

Pretzell thanked Dr. Ellis, closed the discussion and does not think his arguments have been refuted fundamentally.

References

[1] Ellis J., Giudice G., Mangano M., Tkachev I., Wiedemann U., Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) ‘Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions’, CERN. 2008 [link]

[2] Giddings S. B., Mangano M. M. “Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes” Physical Review D78 035009 (2008) [link]

[3] Pierre Auger collaboration [link] Pierre Auger collaboration 2009 [link]

[4] Dar A., Rujula A. D., Heinz U. ‘Will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy our planet?’ Physics Letters B Vol 470, Issues 1-4, pp.142-148 1999 [link]

[Reply]

Comment from Ivan Gorelik
Time August 27, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Hi everyboby!
Here is my commentary to the article “CERN faces €250m budget cuts” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43620

CERN must be dismissed.
Suicide machines (LHC and other powerful colliders) must be closed. CERN must be dismissed. Nuclear physicists must work at MeV energies. TeV energy collisions can lead to formation of a droplet of dangerous fermionic or bosonic condensate (strangelet or magnetic hole, correspondingly). That will lead to collaptical explosion of our Earth and Sun. Astronomers can see about 15 such explosions in our Galaxy every year.

Do you want to die? There is very great probability that we all are already doomed, if the dangerous droplet is already created and grow somewhere inside the Earth. We’ll be able to know about growing droplet existence, when its mass will be about of 1 kg or couple of orders more. At such mass its neutrino output will be comparable to the output of one nuclear power station. On the next day – ten times more; the next day – hundred times more…

So, fasten your safety belts, - be ready to start into cosmos; be ready to suicidal reproduction of our biosphere.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time August 19, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Prof Otto E. Rossler writes:
————————–

“Telemach Helped Ulysses Save Penelope – T-L-M-Ch Helps Einstein Save Earth”

T-L-M-Ch stands for the equivalence principle: the fact that inside an
accelerating rocket, one observes gravity. Einstein saw that all features of the
latter can be rigorously derived in this way. They are: T (clock rate) goes down
toward the rear end, L (wavelength/size) goes up, M (mass) goes down, and Ch
(charge) goes down. Only the first effect, described by Einstein in 1907, is
well known. The full “Telemach“ still remains unappreciated.

The reason has to do with the modesty so characteristic of the physicists‘
trade. If “L“ (the local change in length) is to be appreciated in second place
after “T“ (the local change in clock rate), L/T (distance over time) suddenly
becomes equal c globally. This is marvellous but embarassing because the hope
for c being globally constant was given up historically in a famous, if based on
a misunderstanding, rivalry between Abraham and Einstein in 1912. The healing of
this wound meets with understandable but outdated skepticism. “M“ and “Ch“
follow as corollaries to “L“ whereby “M“ also follows from quantum mechanics.

The new consistency is formally implicit also in the famous Schwarzschild metric
of 1915, as shown in a paper on the Internet
(www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf). Why is this mentioned here in a
popular context? It is because the young TeLeMaCh this time around helps, not
Ulysses save Penelope, but Einstein save Earth. In light of the new result
mimicking Telemach‘s name, it turns out that a group of dogmatic suitors are
threatening Penelope/Earth with geocide.

If c is globally constant by Telemach-Two, BLACK HOLES possess radically new
properties: They are non-evaporating, uncharged, have a boosted-up minimum size
and are much easier to generate than previously thought. Moreover, they suffer
almost no friction inside earth and grow exponentially there if human-made (that
is, if artificially slow). They thus can eat earth rapidly in principle. In
contradistinction, their ultra-fast natural cousins cannot – in contrast to word
spread by the suitors – eat neutron stars owing to a special feature of quantum
mechanics.

A currently running experiment – the most expensive one of history – critically
depends on the false supposition that TeLeMaCh is a harmless boy. The world
applauds while Penelope/Earth is forced to tolerate her suitors – the 20 member
states of CERN.

But Ulysses has already entered through the backdoor (www), with TeLeMaCh
handing out to him the arrows to expel the suitors.

The suitors attempt to shoot back: “We proudly refuse to respond to the new
results.“ But the world has already recognized Einstein in his inconspicuous
coat. Telemach is no longer a weak boy in his presence. The suitors find
themselves bound to explain to Penelope/Earth why they are ignoring a proven
truth.

The globe now expects them to defend their announcement that they will increase
the danger 30-fold to its maximum in the next 6 weeks.

August 18, 2010. For J.O.R. Signed: Otto E. Rossler

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time August 19, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Monster-Magnetstern gibt Astronomen Fragen auf

Garching (dpa) - Ein kosmischer Supermagnet verblüfft Astronomen: Die magnetische Sternleiche muss von einer Riesensonne stammen, die eigentlich zu einem Schwarzen Loch hätte zusammenstürzen sollen. Die Beobachtung kollidiert mit der gängigen Vorstellung, wie Schwarze Löcher entstehen.

http://portal.gmx.net/de/themen/wissen/weltraum/11011648-Raetsel-um-Monster-Magnetstern.html

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time August 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm

New text by Prof Rossler:
———————–

“Sunset in Science”

I wrote profusely about the “explosion of the suspicion of benevolence in the
young child.” This being an example of an epigenetic “function change” in the
sense of biomathematician Robert Rosen.

In 1996, I became the only Western scientist officially declared crazy by the
state for civil disobedience. And my student is the only Western PhD student to
be denied his degree for originality (a mass and size change in the
gravitational field). This discovery of ours can now save the planet. But the
resistance to novelty is so strong that the establishment rather bets the
survival of the planet against taking us seriously.

Suppose there were scientific proof that a specified nuclear reactor will
exterminate the state in which it stands with a 1 to 12 odds in about 5 years’
time: Would the press be prevented from reporting as long as there is still hope
that it is not too late? Why then refuse to report when the reactor at stake is
going to transform Earth into a 2-cm quasar in the same period?

I was compared to Einstein when I was young. My student was called “Einstein” as
a child. Why despair that a single individual cannot save us all? And, of
course, the two of us are not alone: The inventor of the G.P.S. is a member of
the club. So is G.W. Cox from Carlsbad, CA. And so are all my students. And the
whole International Institute for Applied Studies in Systems Research and
Cybernetics. And the venerable Leibniz-Sozietaet of which Einstein was a member.
And the Swiss initiative that is presently forming. And Nico Ohlemeyer who
forced the European Parliament into making a preliminary statement.

Why do the derisive remarks of a nobelist who refuses contact, and unquoted
statements from dialog-refusing members of a German “Albert-Einstein-Institute,”
suffice to quench the world press’s curiosity? Why not request a dialog in the
face of unrefuted proofs lying on the table, as first publicly called for on
April 18, 2008?

Authority that shies away from dialog is despotism. Despotism is unacceptable if
a whole planet is taken hostage by it. Not only the Earth: also the Sun is going
to blink out with a 1 to 12 odds if no one reports in time so as to save the
face of humanity and the infinite smile of its children.

For J.O.R. August 11, 2010 Signed: Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time August 9, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Weltuntergänge | 07.08.2010 09:00 | Ian Sample

Ein Haps, und alles ist weg

Forscher wecken mit ihren Experimenten oft die Angst vor Katastrophen. Sie sollten sie ernst nehmen - denn selbst aus unwahrscheinlichen Szenarien kann der Mensch lernen.

[…]
Long Island, New York. Hier steht der Teilchenbeschleuniger Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. In jenem Sommer erschien im Scientific American ein euphorischer Bericht über die Maschine, der Bedenken hinsichtlich der Entstehung eines Schwarzen Loches oder Schäden am Planeten provozierte. Marburger stellte sofort ein Gremium zusammen, das jedes denkbare Weltuntergangsszenario durchspielte und das Risiko seines Eintretens bewertete. Das Gremium befand, die Maschine sei sicher, weil seit Milliarden von Jahren in der Natur durch den Zusammenstoß von Strahlen mit Planeten, Sternen und Wolken aus Staub und Gas schon weit mehr Partikel gewaltsam aufeinander geprallt seien, als es auf Long Island je geschehen könne. Am Cern in Genf kam ein Sicherheitsbericht über den LCH, dessen Bau zu diesem Zeitpunkt erst begann, zu demselben Ergebnis.

Beide Gutachten blieben im Wesentlichen jedoch PR-Übungen. Die verantwortlichen Regierungen haben nie im Ernst daran gedacht, die Projekte abzubrechen. Unterlassungsklagen gegen die Collider wurden abgewiesen. Die Berichte machten aber deutlich, welches Problem derartige Gremien aufweisen: Teilchenphysiker, die über die Sicherheit von Teilchenbeschleunigern urteilen, haben bisweilen selbst Interesse daran, dass das Projekt weiterläuft.

Kurz darauf setzte sich der italienische Physiker Francesco Calogero für eine alternative Praxis ein. Unter dem Titel „Könnte ein Laborexperiment den Planeten Erde zerstören?“ plädierte er dafür, zwei Gremien einzusetzen. Das erste macht sich für die Sicherheit des Experiments stark, während das zweite Team die Risiken herausstellt. Dann kommen die beiden Gruppen zusammen und entscheiden, wessen Argumente die besseren sind. „Es ist nicht perfekt, aber es handelt sich um die beste Strategie“, sagt Calogero. „Persönliche Interessen können auf diese Weise ausgeschaltet werden und die Leute können auf Argumente aufmerksam zu machen, die nicht ganz wasserdicht sind – und auf alles, was schief gehen könnte.“

Anderen sind Entscheidungen über das Menschheitsschicksal zu wichtig, um sie einem Gremium von Wissenschaftlern zu überlassen. Richard Posner, US-Richter und Autor des Buches Catastrophe: Risk and Response fordert ein Office of Risk and Catastrophe im Weißen Haus, das Risiken identifiziert und seine Einschätzungen von Experten prüfen lässt. Ein internationales Netzwerk solcher Büros könne für die Verbesserung der weltweiten Sicherheit viel erreichen, glaubt Posner, doch die Idee ist umstritten. „Es gibt viele Wege, auf denen die Sache politisiert oder kompromitiert werden könnte“, meint Bostrom.
[…]

http://www.freitag.de/wissen/1031-ein-haps-und-alles-ist-weg

(Dank an Rudolf und Georg für den Quellenhinweis!)

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time July 30, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Artikel von Prof. Rössler:
——————————-

Ein Interpretationsfehler korrekter Gleichungen führt die Welt an den Rand des
Abgrunds

Die Grenzen von Raum und Zeit haben sich verschoben

Schwarze Löcher sind etwas Spannendes, wie der rätselhafte Name bereits
nahelegt. Ein Astronaut, der auf ein Schwarzes Loch, das aus einer kollabierten

Riesensonne entstanden ist, herunterfällt, braucht dazu nur einen Tag. Und
ebenso lang, um wieder herauf zu kommen, wenn unten an der Oberfläche
(”Horizont”) seine Bewegungsrichtung magisch umgekehrt wurde. Aber für die im
umkreisenden Raumschiff Zurückgebliebenen vergeht inzwischen unendlich viel
Zeit.

Dieses staunenswerte Phänomen ist wohlbekannt. Im Standardwerk “Black Hole

Physics“ von Valeri Frolov und Igor Novikov aus dem Jahr 1998 wird es mit den
Worten beschrieben: “die Uhr auf dem Teilchen, das zum Schwarzschildradius
fällt, ist verlangsamt relativ zu der Uhr bei unendlich“ (Seite 20). Dennoch
werden die Konsequenzen dieser Tatsache allgemein übersehen - auch von den
Autoren selbst in späteren Kapiteln ihres Buches. Das hängt mit dem
gleichartigen Verhalten von Licht zusammen, das zu einer folgenschweren
Verwechslung geführt hat.

Denn nicht nur Astronauten in einem Raumschiff um ein Schwarzes Loch
brauchen unendlich lang, um zu dessen Horizont herunterzukommen und wieder
herauf - auch das Licht braucht unendlich lang (genauer halb so lang) für jeden

Schenkel dieser Reise.

Es hat sich eingebürgert, die Eigenschaften Schwarzer Löcher vom Standpunkt

eines einfallenden oder heraufkommenden Lichtstrahls zu behandeln. Damit
gelingt

es, das weitere Schicksal von Licht (oder Astronauten) “jenseits des
Horizonts”

mit zu behandeln - obwohl dies bei unendlich verlangsamten Uhren notwendig
sinnlose Resultate liefert. Die oben beschriebene “Singularität“ des Horizonts
–

dass dort Unendlichkeiten in der Reisedauer auftreten – wurde so zum
scheinbaren

Verschwinden gebracht. Denn Licht braucht für sich selbst genommen keine Zeit
beim Reisen. Daher wird nach der weltweit anerkannten Lehrmeinung der Horizont

als bloße “Koordinatensingularität“ angesehen - als ein ganz gewöhnlicher Ort.
Der Übergang auf Lichtkoordinaten wurde zuerst von Eddington 1924 durchgeführt.

Die Unendlichkeitsstelle Horizont gilt seither allgemein als nicht minder
“unphysikalisch” als etwa der von der Beschriftung abhängige “Nordpol” eines
Kinderglobus.

Rechnerisch wird alles sehr elegant mit “Lichtkoordinaten”. Leider ist
dabei

aber ein Denkfehler aufgetreten. Natürlich darf man alles auch vom Standpunkt
eines das Schwarze Loch erkundenden Lichtpaketes beschreiben. Aber man darf
nicht vergessen, danach alles wieder auf die Maßstäbe von materiellen
Objekten,

die außen leben wie wir, zurück zu transformieren. Dieser historische Fehler
ist

eingetreten.

Der Sachverhalt ist einfach, dass hier ein Spezialfall des
Zwillingsparadoxons (“Uhrenparadoxon“) von Einstein vorliegt: Außen kreist das
Raumschiff mit dem einen Zwilling, der andere lässt sich ein Stück herunter,
bleibt dort eine Weile (oder nicht) und kehrt sodanach wieder zurück. Dann
stellen beide erstaunt fest, dass der Reisende jünger geblieben ist: seine Uhr
geht nach. Dieser Spezialfall des Zwillingsparadoxons heißt “gravitatives
Zwillingsparadoxon”. Wir sahen bereits, dass wenn der Zwilling hierbei ganz
herunterkommt bis zum Horizon, der oben wartende Zwilling inzwischen unendlich
alt geworden ist. Denn die Uhren des reisenden Zwillings wurden unendlich
verlangsamt.

Das ist wohlbekannt, doch die physikalische Bedeutung wurde übersehen: Es
ist zwar möglich, die Physik Schwarzer Löcher vom Standpunkt schnell reisender
Zwillinge - oder noch einfacher Lichtstrahlen - zu beschreiben (siehe die
schöne

Darstellung auf Seite 107 von Ta-Pei Cheng’s Buch “Relativity, Gravitation and
Cosmology“ von 2006). Doch Sie ahnen es schon: ohne Rücktransformation auf die
Welt der “Zurückgebliebenen“ - unsere Welt - führen die Darstellungen in die
Irre. Die Physiker haben so die Realität - dass die vermeintliche
“Koordinatensingularität“ des Horizonts in Wirklichkeit doch eine echte
“physikalische Singularität“ ist – seit Jahrzehnten aus en Augen verloren.
Warum

bringe ich Ihnen dieses wissenschaftshistorische Ereignis nahe?

Der Grund liegt in Meyrin bei Genf und heißt “Large Hadron Collider“
(Großer

Atomkerne-Gegeneinanderschmetterer). Dort wird seit 9 Monaten täglich alles
getan, um Miniatur-Schwarze Löcher auf der Erde zu erzeugen. Die maximal
mögliche Bildungsrate - falls das Experment in diesem Sinn erfolgreich ist -
wird in wenigen Wochen erreicht werden.

Aber: die gesuchten Schwarzen Löcher haben ganz neue Eigenschaften wegen
der

Rückkehr zu nichttransformierten Koordinaten? Ganz richtig: Sie können nicht
mehr Hawking-Strahlung “verdampfen” und sind daher auch nicht mehr direkt
nachweisbar oder ausschließbar. Und: sind auf einmal ungeladen (weil mit der
Annäherung an die Lichtgeschwindigkeit unten am Horizont die Ruhmasse und damit

auch die Ladung jedes hineinfallenden Teilchens gegen Null geht). Sie
entstehen

auch leichter, weil nun umgekehrt geladene Teilchen nicht mehr maximal klein
sein können. Und: Schwarze Löcher bilden in Materie, wenn sie langsam genug
sind, um nicht sofort von der Erde wegzufliegen, einen sogenannten
“Mini-Quasar“

- eine räumliche Struktur mit einer heißen Akkretionsscheibe um das Schwarze
Loch und zwei “Jets“ nach oben und unten. Als solches wachsen sie sehr
schnell:

exponentiell. Die Chaostheorie ist für “Attraktoren” dieser Art zuständig.

Jetzt mache ich Ihnen aber Angst? Nur sehr begrenzt: das Ganze wird bei den

gegenwärtigen Collider-Energien nur mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit von circa 8
Prozent eintreten. Auch das erst, wenn die Kollisionsrate ihr Maximum erreicht
hat, was noch Wochen dauern kann. Danach bleiben immer noch mindestens 5 Jahre,

bis der Miniquasar sein Werk der Einverleibung der Erdmaterie vollendet hat.
Diese Abschätzungen sind noch sehr ungenau.

Sollte man die neuen Resultate über Schwarze Löcher aber nicht doch
zunächst

einmal diskutieren? Darum bitte ich seit dem 18. April 2008 öffentlich. Doch
dafür gibt es von Seiten der Fachwelt kein Einverständnis. Der Grund ist der
oben geschilderte Interpretationsfehler - die angeblich endliche
Zugänglichkeit

des Horizonts Schwarzer Löcher. Sie wird von der Community der
Relativitätsphysiker blindings aufrechterhalten. Kein Fachmann ist sich dessen
bewusst, was Sie als Leser bereits wissen. Denn offiziell gilt: “der Horizont
ist keine physikalische Singularität“. Ein Kandidat, der in der Physik-Prüfung
das Gegenteil behauptet, fällt durch.

Dennoch hat in einer historischen Entscheidung das Europäische Parlament am

15. Juli beschlossen, die Sicherheitsfrage zu prüfen (
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/peti/oj/822/822461/822461de.pdf

), dort Punkt 63, Seite 10/12. Allerdings ohne bisher einen Termin anzugeben.
Die interdisziplinäre Sicherheitskonferenz, die von Seiten der physikalischen
Gemeinschaft seit Jahren verweigert wird, muss bitte sofort einberufen werden,
denn: die Maschine läuft. (Für J.O.R. 22. 7.
2010)

Otto E. Rössler

[Reply]

Comment from ENW
Time July 28, 2010 at 3:40 pm

More interesting stuff about failed legal actions against science:

http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/allgemein/lhc-nach-den-klagen-auch-die-petitionen-gescheitert

https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/files/0195.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/peti/cm/814/814449/814449de.pdf

[Reply]

Comment from ENW
Time July 23, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Roesslers speech at a quack conference:
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/otto-e-rossler-speaks-at-conference-of.html

http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/allgemein/otto-e-rossler-blodeleien-vor-der-dgeim

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time July 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Two new letters by Prof Otto E. Roessler:
——-

(1)

“Jan Hus - A Public Statement after 6 Centuries”

Dear fellow inhabitants of our planet: he current scientific establishment
behave like dogmatic believers. They tell you that my results are not even
worth the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately if I am right, the earth will
with a probability of 1 in 12 be shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time
- in the wake of a currently running CERN experiment in Switzerland.

Jan Hus was burnt on the stakes in Switzerland in 1415 for his insisting on
the truth. This time everything is turned on its head: the planet executes
capital punishment on itself for rejecting the truth. Why not rather allow the
scientific safety conference first that I asked for more than two years ago?
Dear Jan Hus, a whole planet thinks of you with affection and hope.
For J.O.R. July 18, 2010

——————————-
(2)

Dear World Aids Conference: Thank you for your marvellous efforts. Allow me to

send you the following official call for help:

“THE PLANET HAS AIDS

For 9 months a physical virus is being injected into the body of our planet.
We

do not know when the first specimen called a mini-black hole will get stuck.
Every minute, hundreds of them are likely to be released, with a total
probability of 8 percent, but the vast majority will be too fast to get stuck
(so we may still be in time when stopping). For some reason, the planet’s
physicists refuse to apply rational standards of precaution like
falsification-in-time or testing (a control experiment was denied by CERN).

Maybe the planetary medical profession can take the lead, being supported by
all its members and, above all, patients. All that they need ask for is an
official reply by the physical community to the effect that my proven results
have been disproved in a publicly accessible proof. Or else that this disproof

is being sought and the LHC has been stopped for so long. I apologize to the
world AIDS community for desperately needing their help on behalf of every
other planetary citizen. Take care, everyone!

Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher and professor of theoretical biochemistry,
University of Tubingen, FRG. For J.O.R. 19.07.10″

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time July 14, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Prof Otto E. Roessler sent us another text to be published here:
——-

“Harold Bloom and CERN“

I just read a newspaper (faz) article if 2 days ago on the unique American
self-confidence and self-assertiveness, diagnosed by Harold Bloom. I learned
from it that if I were American like my closest relatives, I would have a chance
trying to save the world from CERN’s unprecedented experiment.

If an American citizen said “My dear non-American colleagues all over the world
who cannot come up with a counter-proof to my given proof that black holes,
hoped to be produced at CERN, can neither evaporate nor be charged: do, please,
halt the ongoing CERN experiment for its being built on the opposite
assumptions,“ his request would no doubt be heeded immediately. Especially so if
he added “otherwise you not only act recklessly but assault the lives of all
American citizens.“ Not being American, I cannot talk like this. But being
almost American, I can ask all American citizens for support given the fact that
it is their own children and parents whose lives are at stake.

The situation is different from BP’s who did not act recklessly since they had
no proof lying on their table delineating with an odds of 1 to 12 that what
later happpened would happen. Notwithstanding the fact that the present case is
“a trillion times worse.“ So I guess BP will be the second to be found on my
side – after president Obama.

“Please, dear Mr. President, request a safety conference to be held before
continuing to be co-responsible (no: solely responsible) for the greatest threat
to humankind ever, posed by the currently running LHC experiment of CERN near
Geneva.“

Why “solely responsible“? Because ONLY Americans have self-confidence and
self-assertiveness according to Harold Bloom. And because – INDEED – no one else
on the planet has the guts to feel responsible as you may have noticed, dear Mr.
president.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rossler

Chaos researcher, University of Tubingen
International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and
Cybernetics, Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada
Center for Theoretical Biology, State University of New York at Buffalo,
Semipermanent appointment 1969 till the center’s shutdown

Santa Fe Institute, Invited appointment 1995, unconsummated

For J.O.R. July 12, 2010

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time July 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Prof Otto E. Roessler sent us this new text to publish:
—————

After Confusing “Proven Danger” with “Possible Danger,” CERN Needs Worldwide Aid

The inability of Europeans to distinguish between proven dangers and merely
possible dangers is putting our planet at risk for the second time in a row
within 65 years time minus a few days. This officially tabooed fact is well
known on the net. Worse in the eyes of some is the fact that an institution
which displays this inability loses credit all around the world – even in
financial terms.

Being the only friend of CERN’s who is not on their payroll in one way or
another, I humbly ask the planet’s few oil-rich families to come to the rescue
of this last European effort at leading the world – after it stops trying to
transform earth into a miniquasar within years with an odds of 1 to 12 as a
proven (and not just possible) danger.

The evidence: my latest scientific paper (
http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/2010/07/03/p1743 ). The world’s most
prestigious science journals to whom I sent it too, did not reply as of yet.
Maybe they know that this is a sensitive bet to take: either risk bancruptcy (as
“Chaos, Solitons and Fractals“ did who would rather fire their maverick founding
editor and his whole honorary editorial board than tolerate their accepting my
2007 paper) or stick to the responsibility conveyed by their prestigious names
and not go bancrupt (but dare annoy Mr. Anonymous Consensus).

You may say that I am too pessimistic after my unsuccessful request of three
years standing to show me and the public where the error lies in my proof of
danger. For to do only that (to respond) would already amount to acknowledging
that the danger is not a taboo but deserves the benefit of the doubt.

How come the planet can get into such a quagmire: that all leaders,
political or by prestige and name including Kim Jong Il, refuse to face up to
their first responsibility: to protect?

While I am rattling on like this, you no doubt hear a loud and clear voice
in your mind that one side must have gone crazy here: either the man or the
world and its leaders. It goes without saying who is wrong in such a case,
probability-wise. Unless it were true once more that a single stupid individual
like Columbus or Galilei is right over the whole elite of his time.

Fortunately, the at first sight obvious answer that this is not the case can
be checked, fact-wise. A scientific proof is designed to maximally facilitate
falsification: “look through my telescope“ said Galilei. I am horrified that an
analogous refusal may take place again. While I seemingly take a great risk
sticking my neck out when saying “please, defeat me,“ the roaring silence comes
completely unexpected to me. That an unspectacular minor finding obtained in the
Einstein-Schwarzschild metric would meet with such heroic resistance: that not a
single colleague would step forward and say “I have a counterproof and am ready
to defend it should Rossler see a way to dismantle it.“

I may be too stupid to understand the hoped-for counter-proof but would at
least like to see one. Someone may thereafter even be able to explain it to me.
Such a counterproof to my results (take just my unchargedness result for black
holes detailed in the above-quoted paper) is nonexistent.

Therefore I say one more time: “Dear planet, please, do give my results the
benefit of the doubt and prove me wrong!“ Otherwise you will paradoxically turn
me into a reluctant prophet. The only reason for my asking the world to help me
disprove my results is that I love you. I do not want to see you die.

Your specialist in “stirring theory” (“Rühr-theorie“ in German), Otto E.
Rossler

P.S. “Rühren“ also means touching on the heart – like when my young son once
asked me after his having done something nice (I unfortunately forgot what it
was) “Are you now stirred through and through – like scrambled eggs?“ For J.O.R.
July 8, 2010

[Reply]

Comment from olaf ciachowski
Time July 8, 2010 at 8:49 am

Honey, I shrunk the proton…

Max Planck physicists shock the world of physics : protons are much smaller than previously thought.

If even a basic and supposedly known component of the Standard Model can be “wrong”, then how much more all the complex safety assessments of the LHC ?

http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20100708-279933/Particle-physics-Honey-I-shrunk-the-proton

[Reply]

Comment from Rudolf Uebbing
Time July 8, 2010 at 8:07 am

“Die Theoretiker rechnen gerade wie wild nach,
um die Ursache für die Diskrepanz zu finden”,
berichtet Pohl. Siehe dazu bitte:
Pohl, R. et al.: The size of the proton. In: Nature 466, S. 213-216, 2010.

Oder:

Der Sinn der Suche in “unvernünftigen” Bereichen
in der Kernphysik.

Der bislang als gesicherte angenommene Wert des Protonenradius
muss derzeit bezweifelt werden.

Was die Sicherheit und Zuverlässigkeit von teilchenphysikalischen Aussagen betrifft, ist man
selbst in der ansonsten sehr
erfolgreichen Quantenelektrodynamik nicht
vor Überraschungen gefeit -
wie weit darf und m u s s
die Fragestellung auf eine bestimmte Experimentiersicherheit
resp. auf deren denkbares Gefahrenpotenzial ausgedehnt werden ?

Zitat:
“Dann haben wir uns gedacht,
wenn wir im vernünftigen Bereich nichts finden,
dann müssen wir eben im unvernünftigen suchen”,
erinnert sich Pohl. Eine gute Entscheidung: Wenig später stießen sie auf das lang gesuchte Signal.

Resume:
Teilchenphysik ist gut für Überraschungen - aber:
Gefahrenverdachtsmomente - existieren sie wirklich nicht ?

Erst sollten a l l e widersprüchlichen Ergebnisse
der Teilchenphysik miteinander vereinbar
unter e i n e n einzigen theoretischen Hut
gebracht sein, ehe man das aktive Extremexperiment
LHC fortsetzt -
der vielleicht gefahrvolle Bereich für Überraschungen
m u s s (und k a n n) von vornherein minimiert
werden - wenn der Physikmainstream sich auf die Entwicklung der theoretischen Physik konzentrieren würden anstatt mit atomarem Feuer (mit höchsten Energiedichten) zu hantieren.

Zu obigen Zitat sh.
http://www.wissenschaft-online.de/artikel/1038812

[Reply]

Comment from Rudolf Uebbing
Time July 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Geheime Liste von 400 interessanten Objekten in der Exoplanetenforschung

Im unten genannten Link können die Worte “secret list”
nachgelesen werden; einige Astronomen haben
sich über das Vorgehen ihrer Kollegen (KEPLER-Team) schon in
den Medien beschwert.

Sollte ein Objekt - ein Exoplanet - mit unerwarteter, hoher
energetischer Abstrahlung dabei sein,
so wäre ein “Gefahrenszenario 3″ - bekannt gemacht
durch einen deutschen Astrophysiker,
der auf diese Möglichkeiten
in den Jahren 2008 und 2009 sehr deutlich
hingewiesen hat - nötigerweise
weiter zu diskutieren. - Leider ist keine
Reaktion des Experimentbetreibers (CERN) auf die in 2009 bekräftigte Darstellung des
Gefahrenszenarios 3 hier bekannt.

Bei Sternen würde eine zusätzliche Strahlungsquelle
im Sterninnern u.U. nicht auffallen, einen Planeten würde
jedoch eine ausreichend große Energiequelle entscheidend
prägen und verändern können.

Es wurden bereits besonders auffällige Exoplaneten beobachtet,
nämlich Exemplare mit extrem kleiner Dichte (aufgeblasen durch eine innere Energiequelle ?? ) oder auch Exoplaneten
mit retrograden Umlaufbahnen. Die Erklärungen hiefür
sind teilweise noch offen oder nicht überprüft.

Somit ist bedauerlich, dass das KEPLER-Team die Liste
von vermutlich 400 neuen Exoplaneten bis Febr. 2011 nicht publiziert,
so dass spezielle, denkbare Fälle (z.B. ungeklärte, heisse
Planetenoberflächen) auf ihre Existenz von anderen Wissenschaftsstellen
nicht näher geprüft werden können.

sh. bitte:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/kepler-data-dump-suggests-hundreds-exoplanets-stirs-controversy

[Reply]

Comment from olaf ciachowski
Time June 30, 2010 at 4:30 am

LHC now operates at nominal luminosity. (max. fill of 100 billion protons per bunch for 3 bunches per beam) and 10,000 particle collisions per second.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10430234.stm

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20100629-278168/Worlds-biggest-atom-smasher-gains-paceCERN

The “excitement” grows regarding black hole production.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time June 23, 2010 at 11:33 am

PAPER:
A new approach to risk: The implications of E3
Robert Bea, Ian Mitroff, Daniel Farber,
Howard Fosterd and Karlene H. Roberts
http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/resin/pdfs_and_other_docs/bea_etal_RiskManagementArticlefinal.pdf

“Abstract

The fundamental thesis of this paper is that no matter how much physical
science and technology are involved in complex systems, no system is ever purely or
solely physical or technical. Certainly no system of which we are aware is purely scientifi c
or technical in its operation or management. Furthermore, while research on and the
modeling of complex systems usually rely heavily on the consideration of technological
variables and processes, they typically fail to consider the contributions of individual psychological,
organizational and contextual factors. This paper argues that we need models
that avoid committing errors of the third kind, solving the wrong problem precisely. The
paper sets out a mechanism for developing models that include contextual as well as
technological variables.
Risk Management (2009) 11, 30 – 43. doi: 10.1057/rm.2008.12

[…]
The Practical Significance of E3 [excerpt P7]

[…] traditional engineering analyses of the likelihoods of failures do not match the actual
or actuarial likelihoods of failure – they under-predict the real likelihoods by factors
of 10 or more. Engineering models do not include the critical human and
organizational parts of the system – resulting in a critical E3. A similar situation
also was found with the consequences of failure – these too were underpredicted
by factors of 10 or more. Thus, ‘ expected ’ risks taken as the product
of the likelihood of failure and the consequences given failure were underpredicted
by factors of 100 or more.

[…]
Conclusion [P12]
All too often, researchers and decision makers focus exclusively on E1s, the risk
of accepting a false hypothesis about the true value of a variable. They fail to
take into account E2s, the risk of rejecting a true hypothesis about the true value
of a variable. Thus, statistical reliability trumps statistical power. But even more
important are E3s – the risk that the entire model used in the analysis is wrong,
often because it omits key variables.”

—-
View an article on the on the BP oil disaster in NewsHammer, by Alan Gillis:
http://newshammer.blogspot.com/

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time June 13, 2010 at 9:45 pm

—————
New Paper:
—————

The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) experiments : Where might equals right.

By Marguerite Thoresen (B. Journ)

Abstract: This paper discusses why the LHC experiments at CERN are unsafe and a danger to life on Earth. Discussions using the precautionary principle, safety aspects, ecofeminism and risk analysis enable an understanding of the issue. The Large Hadron Collider took 20 years to design and build. New and revised scientific theories indicate the LHC experiments recently commenced at CERN may lead to destruction of planet Earth. Obtaining a legal injunction to stop the LHC experiments while safety issues are discussed is difficult and several attempts have failed. Meanwhile, the LHC machine continues to operate at ever increasing rates of power while CERN avoids open and honest discussion of safety issues. This authoritarian approach by CERN and its scientists marginalizes, disempowers and devoices world citizens and concerned scientists. In the past, authoritarian approaches of those in power pursuing deemed justifiable but abhorrent courses of action, resulted in the development and use of the atomic bomb used to kill at least 70,000 people in Hiroshima alone. Authoritarian approaches in Nazi Germany resulted in the holocaust, killing over 6 million people. In both these cases the average person could do little to stop these atrocities.
[…]

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/lhc.htm

[Reply]

Comment from Thomas Heger
Time June 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm

Ich wollte auf die Versuche von G. Lochak hinweisen, wo er die Theorie von ‘leptonic magnetic monopoles’ untersucht und entsprechende Experimente durchführt. Dabei entsteht so was ähnliches wie ein schwarzes Loch, nur nicht durch Gravitation, sondern als Singularität eines Magnetfeldes, ähnlich einem Elektron, aber ‘magnetisch’. Diese durchdringen Dicke Wände, Metallplatten und weite Distanzen, bleiben aber längere Zeit an einem Ort.
Am einfachsten kann man sich so eine Singularität vorstellen als einen Zustand, in welcher die zeitliche Zukunft ’senkrecht’ auf unserer steht. Jedenfalls würde dieser die Nachbarschaft in einer Weise beeinflussen, daß diese auch ihre Richtung ändert und sich in eine Richtung bewegt, welche für uns imaginär ist.
Hier noch ein ergänzendes paper zu diesem Thema:
‘Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole’
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

‘Low’ also niedrig ist hier ein relativer Begriff, da schon recht erhebliche Energiedichten erforderlich sind. Allerdings sind sie viel geringer als für typische Kernprozesse. Diese Effekte sind experimentell nachgewiesen und entstehen durch starke elektrische Felder.
Der Zusammenhang zum LHC ist nun, das dort anscheinend versucht wird eine entsprechend hohe Energiedichte herbei zu führen um den ‘Urknall zu simulieren’. Nur: der ist gar nicht richtig verstanden und die Theorie, welche wir dazu haben wahrscheinlich falsch.
Wenn es nun doch solche Zustände gibt, welche Lochak als Monopole bezeichnet und man die durch entsprechende Entladungen erzeugen kann, dann könnte der LHC entsprechend größere erzeugen und tatsächlich einen Urknall oder etwas ähnliches auslösen. Jedenfalls könnte man so einen Zustand kaum unter Kontrolle bekommen und unter der Erde wäre er wohl auch gefährlicher als oberhalb, da er dort ständig ‘Nachschub’ erhält.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time June 10, 2010 at 5:41 pm

Prof. Rossler has sent us the following text:
———

“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.

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time May 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Accelerator boffins try to find out in high energy experiments why matter survived the big bang:

“Indeed, the results so far have been consistent with predictions from the Standard Model of particle physics. However, this is not nearly enough to explain the full extent of matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe and this has sustained a divide between theory and experiment in particle physics.”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42692

Also see the current issue of “Die Zeit”.

————–
Black Holes good for surprises:

“Supermassive black holes reveal a surprising clue”

“People have tried to make correlations of black hole mass with obvious properties,” says Andreas Burkert at the University of Munich. “And then we thought, `Why not try something which is out of thin air – where nobody would think there should be any correlation?’”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42693

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time May 25, 2010 at 10:51 pm

Prof. Otto E. Roessler hat uns diesen aktuellen Text zukommen lassen:
——————

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.

[Reply]

Comment from W.Hohn
Time May 25, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Don´t laugh comparing these two parallel events:
1) http://twitter.com/lhcstatus (25.05.2010: DUMP handshake about to start)
2) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010wsa6.php
Two needles met across the atlantic: 35.352°N, 35.925°W; 12:09 GMT. (predicted?)
Now you can laugh.
W. Hohn 

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time May 21, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Quarrel on “dark matter” continues:

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/05/xenon100.html

[Reply]

Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time May 20, 2010 at 4:06 pm

The pioneer of Chaos Theory and prominent critic of the LHC experiments Prof Otto E. Roessler today is celebrating his 70th birthday.

Prof Roessler wrote that he had heard yesterday that the German Physicists Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft / DPG) had decided on a conference not to accept Prof Roesslers results concerning black hole risks at the LHC.
This is what former German President Richard von Weizsäcker wrote in a letter to a friend.
This refusal happened without discussing Roessler’s results directly with him and surely – in greatest parts - without knowing about those results at all.

Otto, the critical community owes you so much concerning the critical debate. Please stay tough as you are and insist on solving the open questions in a fair debate or in a safety conference.

LHC Critique wishes you all the best and congratulates sincerely and warmly to your birthday!

[Reply]

Comment from W.Hohn
Time May 19, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Uni im Rathaus
LHC - Die Weltmaschine
Vortrag von Prof. Dr. Lutz Feld, I. Physikalisches Institut
Donnerstag, 10. Juni 2010
19.30 Uhr
Krönungssaal des Aachener Rathauses, Markt
Der Besuch des Vortrags ist kostenfrei.

[Reply]

Comment from W.Hohn
Time May 19, 2010 at 12:33 am

Hallo Markus,
mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten zu argumentieren bedeutet, die Mathematik zu bemühen. Die Mathematik beschreibt bekanntlich nicht die Wirklichkeit.
Es besteht eine 100-prozentige Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass
- die Katastrophe von Tschernobyl nicht die letzte nukleare Katastrophe sein wird;
- der letzte Weltkrieg nicht der letzte sein wird;
- der jetzige Teilchenbeschleuniger nicht der letzte sein wird;
- die Entwicklung des Menschen ein Ende haben wird.
W. Hohn
Ende. doc

[Reply]

Comment from W.Hohn
Time May 18, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Watch how a black hole works!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_Msrdg3Hk&feature=fvw
Gruß
W. Hohn
Ende.doc

[Reply]

Comment from W.Hohn
Time May 18, 2010 at 11:38 pm

Bilder sind mehr Wert als Worte.
YouTube - The Black Hole
6,5 Millionen Menschen haben dieses Video bis jetzt gesehen.
Sie noch nicht?
Gruß
W. Hohn
Ende.doc

[Reply]