I took great personal risks by finding no flaw in my 3 new implications of Einstein’s happiest thought (L,M,Ch as corollaries to his T).*) You can call this type of suggesting novelty “hazardeering.”

CERN seemingly did do the same thing with the Gran Sasso experiment. They announced with great fanfare having proved Einstein wrong. Now I am accusing them of hazardeering. But is not all science hazardeering?

Yes, it is in the sense that you put your own good name at stake. This is hazardering in the good sense. So CERN’s having hazardeered the Gran-Sasso experiment is something good and laudable? Absolutely so.

Whythen am I accusing them of hazardeering? So only because they did not re-work their paper after I had sent them my proposed error diagnosis. “Bending over backwards” was Feynman’s happy phrase. Finding a counterargument is in your own best interest. Hazardeering yes, but only as long as it can be upheld.

So I am not opposed to CERN’s having built their accelerator and hoped to generate black holes? Not at all. That was hazardeering in the good sense. But to refuse even to quote papers that showed that the fundamentals (especially Hawking radiation) were false made continuation under conscious suppression of the new counterarguments – and the attendant danger – “hazardeering in the bad sense.”

I do greatly admire Rolf-Dieter Heuer for his steadfastness. His refusal to check for himself – by accepting to talk to the seeming adversary or by allowing him to give a talk at CERN – was his only personal mistake. It was one too many, given the consciously incurred danger to the planet in case the demonstrated risk is real. I cordially hope Professor Heuer can be rehabilitated. But this must occur within one week’s time unless he admits the safety conference before re-starting the LHC experiment.

*) http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMCSR/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf