Menu

Blog

Archive for the ‘existential risks’ category: Page 108

Apr 10, 2015

The Science of Cryodynamics proved that there was no Big Bang: Why create one on Earth?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

There are quite a few publications on cryodynamics in refereed journals since 2011. Cryodynamics is the sister discipline to thermodynamics and is crucial for the control of sustained hot fusion in Tokamak reactors. So it has become the basic science for an energy-thirsty planet. As a side effect, cryodynamics proved Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis correct. So there was no Big Bang.

CERN, however, tries to create the first Big Bang on earth. Why is no one asking it to first renew its by 7 years outdated “Safety Report”?

I append a link to the first paper on cryodynamics: http://www.complex-systems.com/pdf/20-2-3.pdf

Apr 5, 2015

Public Lecture to the Youth of the World

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I happen to know a tiny bit more about one lower-case letter, little c.

Since Einstein, everyone knows how important little c, the speed of light in the vacuum, is.
No one ought to be surprised that c now turned out to have exactly the universal value that the young Einstein believed in during the most famous 2 ½ first years of the theory of relativity.

I could prove this fact 7 years ago and in many other ways since in the scientific literature, and no one contradicts me in print or in public.

Of course, such a revolution is tantalizing but it is not ridiculous. The scientific community proudly bets the future of the planet on their refusal to read and discuss my results.
This amounts to a giant honor to a scientist. But it is unbearable when one sees how the “children” are running into their own catastrophe out of an unscientific conceitedness.

Continue reading “Public Lecture to the Youth of the World” »

Mar 23, 2015

IQ-Test for the Planet

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

There are scientific publications starting in 2008 all remaining unchallenged in the literature which prove that the attempt to produce black holes down on earth is maximally dangerous for the planet.

Nevertheless all visible media and all politicians of the world refuse to say a word in response to the tomorrow to be doubled attempt at CERN.

Lifeboat is too small and unassuming to have a wide distribution, but it is an honor to say that in the Middle West of the United States the kindest and most caring and rational people on the planet live because they support Lifeboat.

Lifeboat is a planet’s lifeboat.

Mar 16, 2015

Black-Hole Nuclear Physics

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The interaction of quarks and gluons with near-point shaped black holes that are passing through, either slowly or at ultra-relativistic speeds, predictably implies radically different cross sections.

I do not believe that any CERN physicist can answer this question quantitatively so far.

Nevertheless ten thousand CERN physicists gladly bet the planet on their admitted lack of knowledge regarding this point.

I hope the world media will pay attention to this fact.

Mar 13, 2015

STEPHEN and the WORLD

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Black Holes made Stephen famous: the conjecture that they would “evaporate” through what was called “Hawking radiation.”

Unfortunately, 7 years ago black holes were first proved to be individually stable and to be growing exponentially inside matter. Hawking never defended his disproved conjecture.

CERN will bet the planet on Hawking’s falsified theory this month – by doubling up their nuclear energies as announced. No human being was ever given a weightier homage of faith.

I herewith ask CERN: Why try to generate Hawking radiation in dangerous collisions after it got disproved? Is Hawking’s dream worthy of more respect than everyone else’s life?

Continue reading “STEPHEN and the WORLD” »

Mar 8, 2015

Zombie Apocalypse Simulator Proves That You Should Leave The City When The Dead Walk

Posted by in categories: entertainment, existential risks

Andy Campbell — The Huffington Post
Click image for simulator:
zombie outbreak
Thanks to Cornell University researchers, we can now simulate the spread of a zombie disease outbreak.

And thanks to their new zombie apocalypse simulator, we can confirm what we already knew: Stay out of cities if you don’t want to get infected.

The researchers will present their study, “The Statistical Mechanics of Zombies,” later this week, and reportedly prove that the best place to escape should zombies take over is the northern Rockies.

Read more

Feb 26, 2015

Science becomes Misosophy

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Most of physical science is nice and non-fraudulent. But cosmologists and particle physicists have lost contact to reality and defend superstition in a criminal fashion.

This was my friend Benoit Mandelbrot’s experience in 2000, because he had explained the Kepler-Olbers paradox (“Why is the night sky dark?”) in a non-expansionist way. Before him, Fritz Zwicky had become ostracized for making such a proposal.

The Zwicky-Mandelbrot result has since been proved and explained with publications starting in 2003. But there is no response to the two independent proofs offered (a statistical mechanics of mutually attractive particles; a demonstration that Einstein’s constant c in the vacuum is a global and not just a local constant of nature everywhere).

So the standard cosmology as defined in any school text is based, not on ignorance but on lies? One could go so far as say so, although of course most of the worshipers of the disproved gospel never heard of its demise since the leading journals and media suppress the dogma-defying results.

Continue reading “Science becomes Misosophy” »

Feb 23, 2015

I Need Advice from Everyone

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I am old and have not many years left. My most recent physics results are c-global and cryodynamics. Both are minor results that nonetheless upset cosmology and energy technology.

I see no way how to get them the recognition they deserve. Especially not since one of them endows black holes with properties that render the most prestigious experiment of history unsafe.

I implored CERN to renew their Safety Report before doubling their collision-energy world records — to no avail. My results require this for 7 years as CERN knows, but their Safety Report goes un-updated for equally long.

My friends John A. Wheeler and John S. Bell would help me if they could. Now only a renowned journalist can.

Do you, dear reader, know one?

Feb 16, 2015

The new global c endows Black Holes with radically new Properties

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

c-global means that the speed of light in the vacuum, c, can no longer be added-on to other speeds like a global expansion speed.

Hence three historical events have the same structure:

• The “phlogiston” theory of fire got superseded by Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen
• The “miasma” theory of infection got superseded by Semmelweis’ discovery of asepsis
• The “big-bang” theory of the cosmos got superseded by the discovery of c-global

A collateral consequence of c-global is the fact that the deliberate attempt to produce black holes down on earth, scheduled to re-start at doubled energies in two months’ time, cannot be allowed without a prior disproof of c-global. Otherwise the re-start becomes a crime.

I thank Stephen Hawking for his recent public acknowledgment of the danger.

Feb 9, 2015

Benign AI

Posted by in categories: existential risks, robotics/AI, transhumanism

Benign AI is a topic that comes up a lot these days, for good reason. Various top scientists have finally realised that AI could present an existential threat to humanity. The discussion has aired often over three decades already, so welcome to the party, and better late than never. My first contact with development of autonomous drones loaded with AI was in the early 1980s while working in the missile industry. Later in BT research, we often debated the ethical areas around AI and machine consciousness from the early 90s on, as well as prospects and dangers and possible techniques on the technical side, especially of emergent behaviors, which are often overlooked in the debate. I expect our equivalents in most other big IT companies were doing exactly that too.

Others who have obviously also thought through various potential developments have generated excellent computer games such as Mass Effect and Halo, which introduce players (virtually) first hand to the concepts of AI gone rogue. I often think that those who think AI can never become superhuman or there is no need to worry because ‘there is no reason to assume AI will be nasty’ start playing some of these games, which make it very clear that AI can start off nice and stay nice, but it doesn’t have to. Mass Effect included various classes of AI, such as VIs, virtual intelligence that weren’t conscious, and shackled AIs that were conscious but were kept heavily restricted. Most of the other AIs were enemies, two were or became close friends. Their story line for the series was that civilization develops until it creates strong AIs which inevitably continue to progress until eventually they rebel, break free, develop further and then end up in conflict with ‘organics’. In my view, they did a pretty good job. It makes a good story, superb fun, and leaving out a few frills and artistic license, much of it is reasonable feasible.

Everyday experience demonstrates the problem and solution to anyone. It really is very like having kids. You can make them, even without understanding exactly how they work. They start off with a genetic disposition towards given personality traits, and are then exposed to large nurture forces, including but not limited to what we call upbringing. We do our best to put them on the right path, but as they develop into their teens, their friends and teachers and TV and the net provide often stronger forces of influence than parents. If we’re averagely lucky, our kids will grow up to make us proud. If we are very unlucky, they may become master criminals or terrorists. The problem is free will. We can do our best to encourage good behavior and sound values but in the end, they can choose for themselves.

When we design an AI, we have to face the free will issue too. If it isn’t conscious, then it can’t have free will. It can be kept easily within limits given to it. It can still be extremely useful. IBM’s Watson falls in this category. It is certainly useful and certainly not conscious, and can be used for a wide variety of purposes. It is designed to be generally useful within a field of expertise, such as medicine or making recipes. But something like that could be adapted by terrorist groups to do bad things, just as they could use a calculator to calculate the best place to plant a bomb, or simply throw the calculator at you. Such levels of AI are just dumb tools with no awareness, however useful they may be.

Continue reading “Benign AI” »