All secret services of the planet know about my warnings against CERN.
Prof. Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., 052811)
P.S. The following paper submitted to CERN and the Albert-Einstein-Institut got removed from the Internet:
————————————–
Einstein’s Equivalence Principle Has Three Further Implications Besides Affecting Time: T-L-M-Ch Theorem (“Telemach”)
Moderate climate critic Richard A. Muller emphasized before the American Congress that a fair presentation of any warning-type scientific results presupposes a fair treatment of the stance of the skeptical majority. I therefore herewith present my Armageddon scenario (of 8 percent within perhaps 5 years) to the American Congress in the requisite, maximally vulnerable manner; in 4 points.
Point # 1 – lack of publication in refereed journals –
Correct. My seminal paper of 2007 remains unprinted – even though it was accepted for publication by a refereed journal. The reason: the journal got closed down. Although it was re-opened recently under its old name, its scope was reduced so as to no longer cover theoretical physics. The journal’s name: “Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.”
Point # 2 – alleged falsity of my first major result –
A scientist finds a new result – black holes are uncharged – and the best defense of CERN’s against the allegation that its currently running black-hole factory endangers the planet is gone. But CERN continues in plain sunlight while pretending the result is non-existent.
This would make for a grandiose Hollywood script. It could be pepped up with the side ingredient that the planet’s International Court of Crimes Against Humanity shies away from even replying, and that in contrast a Cologne court requests a scientific safety conference before the experiment can be continued: each fact a non-topic for the media of the planet in question. Sociologists will be eager to explain how such strange global behavior could arise. Or is it because CERN has the rank of a military organization given the fact that its status of absolute immunity is only matched by that of the United Nations themselves?
Much more likely, of course, is it that the unchargedness theorem is false. This is what the Albert-Einstein Institute maintains unofficially while refusing to acknowledge the problem in public. Thus, most probably, everything is fine?
This would be the case if life-saving new results either could not exist or could be made disappear by decree. “A Nobel candidate’s results published three years ago being treated as nonexistent by the planet’s establishment” has only one possible explanation: the person in question has been declared crazy by the state.
800 out of 12.000 boat people have drowned in 2 months time in unappreciated heroism. One billion out of 7 billion people go hungry every day. Science no longer yearns for the unknown. Seen against this backdrop, CERN’s refusal for 3 years to allow for a scientific safety conference in the face of a comparable risk to the whole planet (to be shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time with a probability of about ten percent) fits in perfectly.
Are human beings the “ten percent killers” by nature? I doubt it. A corrupt system is almost everywhere active in society, or so it appears. The past fate of Lampsacus hometown could be taken for a sign. The hometown of all persons on the Internet is an option for 17 years but remains a non-topic. This even though it is quite affordable and would boost the nation or continent or institution that installs it. And in addition would do a lot for a healthy global economy.
What has all of this to do with CERN? I do not know — except that CERN invented the Internet. But there is the more recent fact that they are hostile to new scientific results and more specifically are unwilling to admit a discussion of the safety of their – by now for more than a year running at increasing luminosity — mega-experiment. I admit that I still hope that my results as to an apocalyptic danger residing in the latter can be relativized. But so far, no one tried to achieve this goal. And no one on the planet dares take up the issue.
In ordinary life one calls such behavior cowardice: Disappearing from sight when asked to respond. A very human attitude. Especially so when a monolithic giant like one of the few legally immune world institutions is involved.
Continue reading “Boat-People Planet – Affirmative Science – One Billion Starving – CERN Fits in” »
I am at a loss: I have a scientific proof that can save everyone’s life but no one listens.
The proof implies that CERN — the European Research Council – currently attempts to shrink the earth to 2 cm in a runaway process consummated in about 5 years’ time and effective with a probability of about 8 percent, if the LHC experiment is not stopped immediately.
The scientific safety conference already demanded three years ago got recently requested from the German government by a Cologne court. But the globe’s media keep silent (except for the tiny “ET-Journal,” Volume 16, pages 58–59, 2011).
Maybe the court and the present writer are both crazy? But even if you assume this, is the danger not appreciably reduced thereby as long as the offered proof stays unaddressed. (The proof has three elements: Telemach – a new black-hole theorem involving Time, length, mass and charge -, a quantum theorem protecting the superfluid cores of neutron stars, and a chaos theorem yielding exponential growth inside earth.)
Please, declare that I am wrong if I say that my proof stands undefeated that the citizens of the U.S. are currently subject to an attempt on their lives by the European Nuclear Research Council.
(The probability that the planet will be shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time is of the order of 8 percent if the LHC experiment is not halted immediately, according to my calculations based on Einstein’s equivalence principle published three years ago.)
I desire nothing more than a refutation but no scientist dares come forward so far. Ask Stephen Hawking.
Only your authority can cut through the Gordian knot. I subject myself to your judgment.
Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., May 3, 2011)
… while Europe continues to suppress the risk incurred by it regarding the lives of all children on the planet. The cover-up of this proven fact must end and CERN halt the LHC experiment.
May I dare ask the people of Japan to rally behind the Cologne Administrative Court who publicly called for the scientific safety conference denied by Europe for 3 years?
Otto E. Rössler, chaos researcher, University of Tübingen (May 1st, 2011, for J.O.R.)
The LHC experiment at the European Nuclear Research Center is presently being continued in defiance of a public proof of danger — that the planet will be shrunk to a diameter of 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time with a probability of up to 8 percent if the experiment goes on. The continuation occurs in defiance of the recent public appeal by a court to allow for a scientific safety conference first.
No public voice on the planet acknowledges this critical situation – even though simultaneously another survival error unfolds before everyone’s eyes. The perhaps most cynical situation of history. What has gone awry?
Is “rational science” a myth that was imperceptibly abandoned? The scientific members of CERN cannot possibly believe that they are acting in accord with the rules of rational science, one feels. Nevertheless they are being held in high esteem across the planet – so high in fact that the world’s media appear to voluntarily observe the first global press curfew. How can the manifest irrationality – if it is one – be explained?
The reason has to do with opinion power – who would argue with 8.000 scientists? But suppose the mentioned proof is really on the table (as it is to the best of my knowledge): What would be the explanation, then? One would be forced to conclude that outdated science, if held fast to, is not science any more but rather the opposite: the most dangerous enemy of the future. We know this from medieval times where dogmatism took over under the mantle of orthodoxy (in the good sense). Did we re-arrive there again with the burden of a much more dangerous arsenal of instruments, acquired in a preceding period of rationalism?
Continue reading “Neophobic Science Seen as Cause of the Present Apocalyptic Danger” »
As I remarked in my heartfelt endorsement for astronomer Jeff Kanipe’s fantastic book at Amazon.com, Dobzhansky noted,
One can argue that all environments are hostile, and that death and extinction are probable events, while survival is improbable. Just how life has managed to overcome this improbability is a problem which many biologists find challenging and fascinating. In my opinion, this problem may well be used as the framework on which to build the teaching of biology [1].
Building upon profound observations along these lines, readers may find that Kanipe offers some poetically illustrated support for my conjecture that this problem may well be used as the framework on which to build the teaching of every science — from biology to cosmology to economics to political science.
On the Origin of Mass Extinctions: Darwin’s Nontrivial Error offers a few choice previews from this beautiful, optimistic, and most highly recommended book!
Continue reading “Cosmic Connection: How Astronomical Events Impact Life on Earth” »
Dear Lifeboat Foundation Family & Friends,
A few months back, my Aunt Charlotte wrote, wondering why I — a relentless searcher focused upon human evolution and long-term human survival strategy, had chosen to pursue a PhD in economics (Banking & Finance). I recently replied that, as it turns out, sound economic theory and global financial stability both play central roles in the quest for long-term human survival. In the fifth and final chapter of my recent Masters thesis, On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Game-Theoretical Solution, I argued (with considerable passion) that much of the blame for the economic crisis of 2008 (which is, essentially still upon us) may be attributed the adoption of Keynesian economics and the dismissal of the powerful counter-arguments tabled by his great rival, F.A. von Hayek. Despite the fact that they remained friends all the way until the very end, their theories are diametrically opposed at nearly every point. There was, however, at least one central point they agreed upon — indeed, Hayek was fond of quoting one of Keynes’ most famous maxims: “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else” [1].
And, with this nontrivial problem and and the great Hayek vs. Keynes debate in mind, I’ll offer a preview-by-way-of-prelude with this invitation to turn a few pages of On the Problem of Modern Portfolio Theory: In Search of a Timeless & Universal Investment Perspective:
It is perhaps significant that Keynes hated to be addressed as “professor” (he never had that title). He was not primarily a scholar. He was a great amateur in many fields of knowledge and the arts; he had all the gifts of a great politician and a political pamphleteer; and he knew that “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is generally understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else” [1]. And as he had a mind capable of recasting, in the intervals of his other occupations, the body of current economic theory, he more than any of his compeers had come to affect current thought. Whether it was he who was right or wrong, only the future will show. There are some who fear that if Lenin’s statement is correct that the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency, of which Keynes himself has reminded us [1], it will be largely due to Keynes’s influence if this prescription is followed.…
