It would be a “first” in history – that a whole profession refuses to think. That they would be so much scared by the fact that a trivial new result when taken seriously can prevent Armageddon that they would rather not believe than check it.

This sounds very unlikely indeed. The trivial result in question is the “ontological Einstein.” His relativity theory possesses additional ontological implications besides the famous twin-clocks paradox of 1905. Let me briefly state my point.

Every high-school student learns that a travelled twin is younger upon return than the brother who stayed at home. In other words he is ontologically younger. Einstein’s first example was two mechanical clocks on which the difference is objectively verifiable (one being late). “Ontological” is derived from the Greek word “on” (with a long “o”) which means “being in reality.” This is the single most intimidating result of Einstein. It has nothing to do with observation from a distance as relativity is often understood, but represents a tangible reality. No professional physicist puts it in doubt (except ideologists like the “100 Authors Against Einstein” of 1930). A second result of the same miraculous kind applies in gravity as specialists know (Frolov and Novikov’s book “Black Hole Physics” of 1998 provides helpful information on page 20, bottom). In this second twins paradox, it is the descended twin that after having been hauled back up again is ontologically younger than the one that stood put upstairs. Everybody is familiar to date with this “slower-aging effect” from the Global Positioning System (G.P.S.) whose earthbound clocks are manifestly slower than their twins in the satellites overhead.

But if this is well known – where lies the problem? It is only the implications that are ignored. It is three: the slowed-down clocks (and everything else downstairs) are,

(i) proportionally enlarged,

(ii) proportionally mass-reduced,

(iii) proportionally charge-reduced.

The profession neglects these three corollaries to Einstein’s ontological reduced ticking rate downstairs. A partial excuse is that the three new points are as inaccessible locally as the clock slowdown itself. For Einstein’s principle of “general covariance” implies that any object that is freshly released into free fall is subject to the very laws that apply in free outer space where everything is normal by definition. Hence time, size, mass and charge are absolutely normal-appearing downstairs. This notwithstanding, the normal-appearing photons generated there have a reduced frequency and hence lower energy compared to above. This fact is admitted by every specialist when pressed (only Pound and Rebka who first measured the effect on earth in 1960 never subscribed to this, claiming that the normal photons downstairs had lost their energy on their way up). Yet IF photon mass-energy is counterfactually – locally unrecognizably – reduced downstairs, as Einstein saw in 1907, then the same thing automatically applies to ALL masses down there. This is because particle mass can be exchanged into the currency of photons locally as positronium annihilation and creation attest to. This counterfactual “mass-change result” carries over to the – locally mass-proportional – charge of the particles in question.

Thus if T is ontologically slowed downstairs according to Einstein, L is ontologically increased there; M is ontologically decreased there (which fact by the way re-confirms the change of L via quantum mechanics); and Ch is ontologically decreased there; all by the same factor. The full four-leafed clover (T-L-M-Ch) is called “Telemach.”

The physical profession fumes against this result – behind closed doors. For if it is true, a hundred other canonical teachings become as false as the no longer true belief in the global constancy of L and M and Ch. Every reader has probably heard of the Ur-meter, the Ur-kilogram and the unit (Ur) charge: They are all gone. Further catastrophic (or wonderful) consequences follow: The speed of light in the vacuum, c, is globally constant because the ratio L/T (unit-period length over corresponding unit-period time) equals c no longer only locally but globally; the belief in oscillatory gravitational waves based on a variable c is out; the famous Reissner-Nordström metric presupposing charge conservation is gone; the famous Kerr metric needs overhaul for denying the infinite ontological slowdown of time on the horizon; the famous Hawking radiation which presupposes that somehing (the partner in a pair of virtual particles) can reach the horizon of a black hole in finite outer time, is nonexistent; and singularities and wormholes cease to be real in finite outer time. Telemach was, by the way, independently discovered by Richard J. Cook of Colorado Springs.

It is rare that a new insight – and a trivial one at that since L-M-Ch are corollaries to Einstein’s T – entails so many revolutionary consequences. The sluggishness of the profession to come around is therefore understandable. Similar delays have happened before in the history of science. So everything is fine?

Not quite. By a quirk of fate, the outdated previous consensus is responsible for an experiment, already performed for a year, which is planned to be continued upgraded in combined energy and luminosity by a factor of five next month. The “LHC experiment” of CERN openly attempts to implant a human-made micro black hole into mother earth. The experimenters admit (in their latest “safety report” from 2008) that the micro black hole will eat the earth inside out in some 5 billion years’ time. Unfortunately, the three new corollaries L,M,Ch to Einstein’s T imply that, # 1 black holes are up to a million times more likely to be produced at CERN and, # 2 the 5-billion-year delay is shrunk to 5 years. Simultaneously, # 3, CERN’s detectors are now blind by construction to its most hoped-for product by virtue of the new absence of both Hawking radiation and charged black holes.

Stephen Hawking is if you so wish responsible for the underlying sociological catastrophe – that no public discussion took place. The silence of the greatest living personal hero of the planet encouraged the pope and the papal academy of which Hawking is a member to stick to his big-bang supporting but falsified theory in defiance of Saint Augustine’s “created eternity.” Belief in manifest miracles (despite the miraculousness of it all) is, however, only one reason for the catastrophe. Europe, currently busy destroying a one percent member state, shies away from losing clout with the rest of the planet if confessing that it refused against better reason the “safety conference” which would have spared the planet the ordeal of having to fear Armageddon for years to come.

Money can explain irrationality on a grand scale, and so can ideology. However, that la crème de la crème of the most advanced science of the planet should have disallowed public discussion of the worst conceivable danger of history, looks a bit implausible. There is bound to be a better explanation than collective feeblemindedness. I therefore retract with apologies my having given the joker to Stephen and the pope: It is all my own fault!

Let me explain. When Germany had introduced new obedience laws for university professors after her re-unification, I made the mistake of making this fact public by requesting the dishonorable retroactive discharge of a female professor (my wife) to be stopped along with the expulsion of her family from the inherited house. Both acts being punishments for her not having accepted an involuntary out-of-field medical professorship with annulment of her lifetime call in her own field and her award for 25 years of excellent service.

I mention this because I realized only today what a big mistake it was on my part to defend the privileges of the most pampered profession of the planet (to be allowed to treat patients and teach students with honesty): the globe knows worse violations of human rights. My making wind against the destruction of the German universities was the stupidest act of my life because I now have to pay for it by not being taken seriously with an infinitely more important cause. Everybody in the planetary media can be told that I practiced hysterical exaggeration for having thought I could stop discriminatory expulsion from honor and home by the state. My not giving up where everyone else would have resigned was ill-advised. Poet Goethe said that the individual has not the right to blame the state – a European rule against which I sinned.

So the planet “knows” I am a trouble-maker (I stopped my public demonstration only the day the Iraq war broke out in view of the smallness of my own cause in comparison). The fact that I had proposed “Lampsacus” 18 years ago as a human right (“hometown of all human beings on the Internet”) as the best economic engine for the planet – with young genius Mark Zuckerberg now earning an iota of that revolution – got erased by my unsuccessful demonstration for academic freedom – a consequence which I had risked. But the fact that my current begging for the benefit of the doubt is being met with a shrug is too big a price: “He is making empty waves again by misusing Einstein’s name!”

A judge working at a nearby courthouse once took the trouble to approach me during one of my (work-) daily 7-year long demonstrations before the Tubingen jailhouse, to tell me that it was to no avail so I should stop. I thanked him for his kindness. When he insisted on my explaining to him why I did not give up, I replied spontaneously with a phrase that surprised me: “I am still a child, you know.” He walked away without a word. I realized only when calling on you here today that this spontaneous confession of mine can be taken to imply that I am an “autist” as Paul Dirac (whom I once met) allegedly was according to Graham Farmelo’s famous biography. The fact that 44 years ago, I had proposed a causal therapy for autism, appears in a new light too, so it occurs to me – including the fact that the therapy was never tried out by a member of the therapeutic profession (only a mother once unknowingly used it successfully in a TV-documented case).

Now, both you and I suddenly understand why it is that, when I say “please, take my word that I understand Einstein better than previous consensus had it,” the physics community shrugs: When this impossible person insists on being given a reason why we do not believe him, he does not deserve the benefit of an answer! The physical profession would rather hold another meeting behind CERN’s closed doors, to afterwards ask the waiting journalists please not be upset that CERN cannot give a single scientist’s name as support for their unanimous decision not to admit a safety conference. For otherwise “this lunatic” would have a pretext to respond in his own jargon and show to his private satisfaction that this colleague’s answer was false. Everybody must understand that an organization as big as CERN, with billions of dollars at stake, cannot afford taking such a risk. The world media comply by not reporting on the extant proof of danger – including the fact that the Cologne Administrative Court requested a “safety conference” on January 27, 2011.

What you, my dear reader, and I realize at this moment is that my past fight for the human right of students and patients to have professors who need not fear telling the truth, fits-in in proving my lack of social competence, as I found out today: I am bound to be an autist who is unable to realize when becoming unbearably tactless. In primary school I was called “Herr Brotfresser” (Mister bread-eater) which sounds like “professor” – an ominous sign.

But: should the world really go under only because it is an Asperger-type human being who insists there is reason for a bomb alarm before flights can be resumed on airport CERN?

Forgive me that I saw the most convincing excuse of my adversaries only today: the fact that everybody at CERN can tell the media and the politicians and the courts, under the seal of not giving away their name, that “if this impossible person says he wants disproof, this is his own problem, not ours.” Germany declared me insane in 1996 for having revealed the new law in my lecture hall in response to a student’s question. I had to flee to Switzerland, being made a convicted person in absentia the next morning rather than being put into a mental institution as the state had ordered. The media know about this. What you will have difficulty believing is only that I did not fully realize before the striking logic behind CERN’s pointing to my fearless=tactless= insane character, as a safety argument sufficient for a planet. But:

DO I REALLY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TOLD WHERE THE ERROR LIES IN MY PRESENTED PROOF?