A public talk delivered yesterday evening in the series “Cafe philo” of the Tübinger Zimmertheater. During the first half I briefly summarized some of my “old” results on chaos and the competition between deterministic chaos and quantum mechanics (“explicable” chance versus “primary” chance). Then elements of my forthcoming paper “Hun Tun versus Big Bang” were presented along with the implied explanation why the week has seven days. Then the new physics Nobel prize stood center stage. The honor given to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess represents a timely recompense for the denial of the same prize to Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of the Hubble redshift law. His linear redshift law of 1928 grew longer and longer over the decades. The first wiggle was found 70 years later by the 3 researchers. The distance versus redshift line now points slightly upwards at its tip.

Fritz Zwicky’s 1929 – confirmed by nobelist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 14 years later – “dynamical friction” explanation of the Hubble law was re-discovered in Tübingen in 2003. It also provides a natural explanation of the Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess phenomenon as shown in 207: Instead of the currently accepted conglomerate of assumptions — an initially explosive inflation followed by a retarded expansion phase followed by a very long period of constant expansion -, nothing but a stationary possinly unbounded fractal universe is assumed. It implies an at its end more and more wiggly Hubble line of which we now see the first pointing-up deviation. Since not a single new hypothesis is involved, this finding offers a superior explanation to all observed phenomena — including the new Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess Hubble law.

The old bolometric measurements of our local cosmic temperature (about 4 absolute degrees) made by nobelist Charles Guillaume in 1896, and the apparently ultra-high-redshift ultra-distant X-ray quasars, discovered by nobelist Riccardo Giacconi in 2005, were next alluded to when I mentioned Siegfried Zielinski’s new comparative science of “Variantology,” in which alternative historical scenarios are followed up to prevent scientific progress from going astray.

After a break with wide-open windows, the audience wanted to hear about the LHC. The latter had been defended before in the “Schwäbisches Tagblatt” by my Tübingen colleague Werner Vogelsang. I started out on Francis Bacon’s early insight that nature is trying to outwit humankind, being our worst enemy. The fight against disease is no longer in the foreground of public consciousness in privileged countries. But much like penicillin in the past, so a new finding about black holes apparently makes all the difference of the world. My American colleague Richard J. Cook, pupil of Edward Teller’s, is squarely on my side, on the basis of his independent results. Also every Tübinger knows about “Schwärzloch” (“Blackhole”) already – a 900 years old hamlet 3 kilometers to the West featuring an “angel of one-half life size” in half-relief according to G. Dehio’s art guide. The new Schwarzloch result reads: “black holes are uncharged.”

The new property of black holes is an overlooked implication of Einstein’s early findings. It makes the “LHC” nuclear experiment at CERN near Geneva in Switzerland “blind” to its own most hoped-for success: black hole generation. Black holes are undetectable by the instruments available at CERN. CERN’s published result that “we did not find any black holes” jence unfortunately is devoid of content. But the new features of black holes do make a success of the LHC experiment much more likely. And their growth rate inside matter, once one slow enough to stay inside earth has been produced (which unavoidably occurs at some point) is no longer modest as CERN claims but rather exponential. Therefore but a few years suffice to let the earth be eaten inside out with nothing but a 2-cm black hole remaining. Nature’s own sister mini black holes necessarily have a very high intrinsic velocity — so that they can only get stuck in an ultra-dense neutron star. Unfortunately for humankind but fortunately for the nuclear-chemical life forms present on neutron stars (according to Robert Forward), nature has endowed neutron stars with a special quantum mechanical protection law.

At least 5 independent features of nature collude posing a “trap” to humankind, as all presently available safety arguments turn out to fizzle each for an independent reason. Such a situation is unheard of in history. CERN refuses to quote any of these results published 3 years ago. It no doubt is a subjectively forgivable form of self-righteousness which lets CERN refuse the scientific safety conference demanded 3 ½ years ago and requested anew by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011. The issue is before the United Nations Security Council but is apparently being being blocked there. This led to a remark from the audience that the popular “Stuttgart 21” street demonstrations against a new train-station are a bit naïve in comparison.

The probability of earth being shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time is going to be increased to 3 percent during the remainder of the present month by CERN if no new information applies. This fact makes the safety conference maximally urgent. To encourage the audience to ask public questions themselves, I reminded them of my own weak status in politics – that I was declared insane by the state 15 years ago for having revealed a new law in the lecture hall (involuntary out-of-field professorships) which fact had led to police being sent into my lecture hall for months in a row. This confession of mine lifted the atmosphere back to an up-beat level: Everybody tried to contribute a constructive thought. Now I hope that this brief report has a good influence on the reader so that either the necessary stop can be accomplished immediately or the salient counterargument against the implied danger can be found.