[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]
These presently offer the world the unique chance that a high-ranking personality on the planet has the courage to ask to be officially informed about CERN’s legal status before the International Court of Crimes against Humanity before which it was accused more than 3 years ago without any defense ever having come forward.
The issue on hand concerns scientific ethics: CERN refuses to offer a counterargument for nearly 4 years. And, to the best of the present writer’s knowledge, no scientist speaks up in person on behalf of CERN by offering a scientific counterargument that he or she would be ready to defend. The much simplified 2010 theorem proving the danger was not even attempted to be defeated by a scientist.
Einstein’s famous gravitational frequency shift is accompanied by an equally strong change in particle mass and particle charge, both locally undetectable too. The new-found corollaries to Einstein’s famous “happiest thought” endow black holes with radically new properties. These properties not only render CERN’s detectors blind to its most hoped-for product (black holes) but do simultaneously enhance the probability of the successful production of black holes – an ominous combination. The first sufficiently slow specimen produced will take lodging inside earth – to grow there exponentially leaving nothing but a 2-cm black relic of our planet after a few years’ time.
The decisive “Telemach” theorem is maximally simple as mentioned and therefore maximally easy to refute if false, but no one has come forward. The visible physics community refuses to discuss the proven results while the very few best are on my side.
Although the highest administrative bodies on the planet chose to rely on an invisible science pope’s word given to them with the kind request not to be mentioned by name, the planet has after a year of maximum-energy operation by CERN perhaps earned the right to learn about the identity of the father figure who took the responsibility for everyone into his able hands. And: What is his precious argument so we all may learn from it?
To return to the beginning: I can only say that I trust a man who with the greatest personal sovereignty survived Dr. Joffe’s mercilessly punching questions 9 days ago in a live “Zeit” interview. The planet is waiting for a personality of this caliber demanding to be publicly informed.
Please, do not refuse to help the planet, dear Mr. President Dr. Christian Wulff.
Maybe its just me but it seams like the leaders of Europe are right to be more concerned with their pressing economic problems then with the hypothetical negative outcomes of an experiment that isn’t even currently running, with the LHC’s winter break extending until March.
Thank you for your wishful thinking which I hope is absolutely justified.
Would you be able to encourage President Obama to come to the aid of Mr. Wulff and the world?
Oh please, when will you shut up? Wulff is only president because Merkel wanted to get rid of a competitor, and his behavior is NOT at all brave, but just annoyingly impertinent and insulting to any citizen of Germany. And really, why should such a small personality have any interest in YOUR personal delusions?
You did not read my text, Mr. Sven. If you know a more courageous politician, please, name him publicly.
Wait; in the second reply to this article did Mr. Rossler just thank himself for his own post? He couldn’t have been replying to a comment because my comment was the only one prior to his and it said that the leaders of Europe are rightfully more concerned with economic issues and thus won’t waste their time addressing hypothetical negative outcomes of an experiment that isn’t even currently running. With that in mind Mr. Rossler’s comment is a little odd.
Bill — if I can interject, perhaps just like you Prof Rossler wishes he was wrong, so he thanks you for your assuredness, with which we would all be happier if it was not just wishful thinking. Though your reference to the experiment not even currently running is quite a limp dismissal, as we all know these experiments are planned and imminent, and his concerns are therefore very topical, even if, yes, quite fringe… perhaps.…
Tom, I made reference in my post to the fact that these experiments will pick back up in March so I was not trying to say that the concern is not topical. However I did find it relevant to point out that it is hard to convince people that CERN is recklessly racing forward towards the end of the world while the experiment in question is in a technical stop that lasts for several months; there is just tons of conflicting perceptions there. So while it is a temporary stop it does have an effect on the arguments in terms of their persuasive power at that moment especially with the presence of other pressing problems.
It is so nice that you see “other pressing problems” in the face of planetary death accepted, or potentially accepted, if it is true that CERN did and soon continues to do experiments that are based on bad, outdated, proven-to-be-false premises (like Hawking radiation) with blind detectors but an obviously fascist mind, and the whole world is watching in awe, dear Mr. Bill Johnson.
Please, explain your stance and motivation. Thank you for being so kind as to do this.
Mr. Rossler,
Certainly I can answer those questions:
my stance is that CERN has sufficiently addressed the safety concerns associated with the LHC to begin and continue their research and operation of the LHC. Now it is true that new concerns can arise and so I am open to calls for new safety concerns to be addressed as they arise and I don’t dismiss those calls of hand, but I don’t support halting the work at the LHC for every concern that is raised.
My motivation or interest in this topic is looking at some of the more “fringe” theories concerning large scale scientific experiments and how they develop overtime and adapt to change.
Quote: “I don’t dismiss those calls of hand, but I don’t support halting the work at the LHC for every concern that is raised.”
No one will contradict you on this statement, Mr. Johnson. So you would conversely also not contradict anyone who demands to hold a safety conference about an undisproved proof of a maximal danger before continuing, I presume.
“So you would conversely also not contradict anyone who demands to hold a safety conference about an undisproved proof of a maximal danger before continuing, I presume.”
It would depend entirely on the level of scientific support for the claim that there was such a level of danger that the project should be put on hold until the concern is addressed. As I said and you agreed the LHC can’t stop for every concern that is raised, so the only question now is what level of scientific support is needed to justify a halt to the LHC for a safety conference. On this point we differ as I would need more support from the scientific community before I would support placing the LHC on hold.
I completely understand your position. Not being a member of the scientific community, you rely nilly-willy on the fact that no visible member of the latter openly supports my offered proof (only Professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy openly stands behind rthe decisve Telemach theorem).
Thereby you refuse to believe that a single man’s word is worth being taken seriously.
I can understand this position. I would probably not speak differently in your place. But I give you my word that you can trust me.
Goodbye Lifeboat blog, you’re finally being removed from my RSS feed.
Irrational behavior — unless Mr. Bombadil is so kind as to explain why he is sure proven dangers are not worth double-checking.
“Not being a member of the scientific community, you rely nilly-willy”
Stop right there, not being a member of the scientific community? I start work on my PHD in sociology next year a different realm of science to be sure but still very much a part of the scientific community. Furthermore the idea that members of the scientific community would be more willing to take the word of a single man then the general public is in fact completely turned around; in fact the opposite is true.
Sorry, I had meant of the physics community. You are to be praised for not being afraid of physics in sociology.
And thank you for giving an undisproved theorem of a single physicist a maximally high weight.
It will be my pleasure to continue the conversation.
Who is the single physicist? Roessler is a medical doctor and equally (in)competent to judge these issues as any oher layman.
Why telling lies, dear observer?
Are you a physicist or a medical doctor? Where is my lie??????
I apologize for having feared the return of the anonymous child soldiers from CERN. I have been working in mathematical physics for many decades, dear observer. Take care, Otto
So I didn’t tell a lie, right? You are a mdeical doctor and you have worked in the field of chemistry, not physics. You have no formal eduction in physics. Please tell us if any of my statements are wrong.
Dear Mr. Observer: I held two profesorships in theoretical physics, as my vitae on Lifeboat documents. If you ask me whether I had studied physics formally as a young man, the answer is no.
I took back my reproach that you were lying — can you forgive me?
If I may interject Mr. Rossler I believe our observer was asking if you had a formal degree in Physics, in which case the answer, as far as I can tell, would be no. However you have done a lot of work in that field as indicated in your bio which I would suggest our observer read for more information.
Now as to our conversation.
“You are to be praised for not being afraid of physics in sociology.”
Well thank you, to me physics was always the most interesting non-social science and with this topic I get to combine both.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.