[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]
For only under this condition could CERN afford to ignore the INFINITE DANGER which I had proved (in papers published in refereed scientific journals) to be attached to their igniting the upgraded LHC experiment.
This un-disproved danger a court advised to check with the following words: “The court expresses that it should be possible to let the various safety aspects, which also were the subject of the two safety reports from the years 2003 and 2008, be discussed within the scope of a safety conference”
[= translation of the ending of the Cologne Administrative Court’s German-language ruling of January 27, 2011: “Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer ‘Sicherheitskonferenz‘ diskutieren zu lassen“, http://www.juris.de/jportal/portal/page/homerl.psml?cmsuri=/.….A110100233 ; published July 30, 2011 on https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different-%E2%80%93-a-report-made-to-the-un-security-council ].
I therefore dare ask before the whole planet acting as my witness:
—————————————
“Dear CERN: Please reveal the name of the single scientist or spokesperson-scientist who guaranteed you that my results which prove an infinite danger are false.”
—————————————
For without a single personal voice saying that he or she could dismantle my given proof of infinite danger, you obviously could not have done what you now did.
I am sure that I am not the only person on the planet who wants to know.
I just read The Neutron Star Paradox and with a lot of goggling of Tom Kerwick found a lot of material on the CERN dangers.
One problem with taking Otto E Rossler seriously is that none of us humans are wired to consider the possibility that it is already too late to do anything to stop the earth from being destroyed. This together with a distinct possibility that human kind is no closer to creating a Black Hole then to creating Absolute Zero which was a very similar scientific race in the past where the biggest difference was that the race occurred in laboratories instead of the whole earth becoming one big laboratory. Thank you Otto and Kerwick for possibly heading toward a breakthrough in earth as a laboratory as a serious possibility of danger.
Otto E Rossler how about quoting more of others in your blog warnings.
Thank you both,
Richard Kane PS is there anyone else around Philadelphia PA USA who is scared about laboratory earth.
Dear Mr. Kane:
Thank you for your constructive response.
“Laboratory Earth” is a sticking new technical notion, I predict. It is a fundamental Lifeboat topic you created.
As to your question: I made the experience that quoting others as having similar opinions does not help. It only dilutes. But I am greatly indebted to Professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy and to Dr. Walter Wagner and Mr. James Blodgett and Mr. Markus Goritschnig (who successfully made Austria leave CERN for a while). And all the other selfless lovers of our planet and its most hard-won fruit: rational responsibility.
Parenthood is another word.
“Laboratory Earth” is a sticking new technical notion.
Actually it’s not a new concept but one that has been around for some time in multiple disciplines including sociology with a great book titled “world as Laboratory” published in 2006. It is also a huge concept in the area of climate change and here it would be more applicable to the concerns here at Lifeboat.
The experiment at CERN however is not an example of “laboratory earth”, unless one accepts the assumption that a black hole that could consume the earth will actually be created. If that doesn’t happen this is still a contained experiment in a libratory setting, albeit using the largest machine ever built for science.
On that note a few highlights from the past few days:
Friday 30th March:
14:45 Ramp 2 bunches for blowup check — OK. Carry on to collisions.
17:40 Colliding for the first time at 4 TeV with nominal bunches.
Saturday 31th March
Moving to collisions for RP alignment.
Sunday 1st April
6:11 Collisions found in IR5. Start of RP alignment for TOTEM and ALFA.
“If that doesn’t happen” is well taken. Thank you for your post, Mr. Johnson.
I am blushing for the fact that I described that CERN’s detectors in addition are blind to CERN’s most hoped-for success, the creation of miniature black holes; in my Telemach paper in the African Journal of Mathematics.
Do you know when colliding bunches are going to be produced according to plan?
And do you know who bears the ultimate responsibility for CERN’s doings? Specifically: Whom can I ask to allow me to talk to him or her before the danger (unless my results can be disproved) sets in?
“Do you know when colliding bunches are going to be produced according to plan?”
Well the first collision was done Friday noted here:
“17:40 colliding for the first time at 4 TeV with nominal bunches.“
They are still in the commissioning stage with these test collisions being one of the final steps in the commissioning. The first physics run is set to begin next week.
As I said before I’m not connected to CERN, this is all information that is available for anyone to see.
Thank you, dear Mr. Johnson, for your help.
OTTO, I am hoping that there would be some way to get a link repeating your Entire comment “thank you for your … ’ or is there some other link where Professor Richard J. Cook, Dr. Walter Wagner, Mr. James Blodgett and Mr. Markus Goritschnig are in the same paragraph. It lead to a lot of great goggling when Walter ‘Wagner is goggled with another person. People who are concerned about danger should fight for a better Wikipedia entreaty.
Dear Mr. Kane:
I am waiting for Lifeboat to explain its censorship policy and — hopefully — to re-open the deleted blog and blogs.
I hope I never used inadequate words to describe the unprecedented fact that CERN refuses to contradict published scientific evidence that it is risking the planet.
Why the public needs to be protected from this information I cannot fathom.
Take care,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rössler
Otto — ‘Why the public needs to be protected from this information I cannot fathom.’ — to answer your question — which has been explained to you previously — spamming, defamation/slander & incitement to violence are main reasons some of your more controversial posts were censored recently. It is never the intention to suppress scientific debate — though this thread — due to sensationalist tone — was temporarily.
As regards your request for CERN to ‘reveal the name of the single scientist’ which disproves your danger — I refer you to the section on white dwarfs in the G&M safety report as discussed in another thread — although I understand you dismiss this as mathematical witchcraft — even though you have yet to highlight the flaws within it.
No, you are totally misinformed as a self-installed policeman.
Please, show me where I eve used “defamation, slander or incitement to violence.”
I did call for the police, and I did call for citizens not to tolerate being threatened regarding their own lives and the lives of their children. But I always said that the means by which they can achieve this goal is to insist on clarification.
Now Lifeboat, under your own new ruling, censors the right of human beings to be informed about an aggressive act being levelled against their own lives and those of their children.
Why are you doing this openly — in case you cannot defend yourself against the reproach of suppressing life-saving information from the readers of this blog — ?
Why don’t you say: “I am on your side when you request a scientific safety conference”?
Why are you still questioning that the Cologne Administrative Court officially asked as it public opinion at the end of its ruling for the “safety conference” on January 27, 2011?
Otto — I question your claims regarding the Cologne Administrive Court ruling as it contradicts what is stated as fact in wikipedia: “In February 2010, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rejected an injunction petition to halt the LHC’s operation as unfounded, without hearing the case, stating that the opponents had failed to produce plausible evidence for their theories.[94] A subsequent petition was rejected by the Administrative Court of Cologne in January 2011.[95]“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider
I have pointed this out to you before, suggesting that the wikipedia entry should be updated if incorrect… This besides I have stated on a number of occasions, that I am on-side regarding a desire for a safety conference — I have just questioned whether there is a legal basis for it as regards your continued reference to a court ruling whereby the official position appears to be that the plea was rejected. As regards your allegation that I am self-installed as a webadmin, this is not the case, I was approached as regards this and accepted. And I can only perform this voluntary service to Lifeboat to my best judgement. I am sorry Otto, but I see you overstepping the mark on a number of occasions and another webadmin at Lifeboat has also endorsed this viewpoint recently.
A few examples of titles Otto feels aggrieved at being censored — ‘Holy Child Season after CERN Has Laid a Bomb into Every Child’s Cradle?’ ‘I Have enough of Being Allowed to Say “CERN Is Worse than Hitler“‘ ‘CERN’s Leadership Accepts the Comparison with Urinating Soldiers’ ‘Why am I Allowed to Say CERN Is about to Kill Your Child?’ ‘Dear children: Sweet barrage’ Contextually, I believe it is reasonable to catagorise these, in particular the last title, as incitement to violence. And that is just the titles of these posts.
Dear Tom:
I never said the court “ruled” — the latter’s words werew “it is the opinion of the court”. If wikipedia suppressed this, it is so much the worse for wikipedia.
Sometimes in life it is legitimate to shout for the police — even though dialog is always preferable. LIFEBOAT has the chance to invite CERN for the dialog it refuses. Please, do what you can to make this come true.