[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]
It is an almost infinitely unlikely coincidence that three “colluding” results have emerged simultaneously which in their combination signal an infinite danger to the planet.
With so improbable a situation, it is not surprising that a giant group of scientists who invested their hearts’ blood into the experiment have resolved rather to (as an observer recently put it) take their own children hostage than let a safety conference evaluate the risk.
Every bus driver is ready to take his own children aboard – taking them hostage as it were. The good conscience displayed by CERN is disarming. CERN has the best of relations to Israel and to its sister organization UNO. The planetary press curfew akin to SCUN’s is hard-won. CERN’s legal immunity as a mini state equals UNO’s. No head of state can give orders to it and no member country can legally leave it (as Austria tried).
Hence it is no wonder that the whole planet says: MAYBE the Telemach theorem is without flaw since no specialist claims falsity, and MAYBE the Shilnikov theorem is applicable to growing black holes inside earth since no specialist denies this, and MAYBE the frictionless cores of neutron stars render the latter immune to nature’s fast analogues of CERN’s hoped-for human-made black holes so the hoped-for safety insurance is void. But: Who would believe ALL THREE dangerous maybes to be confirmed simultaneously?
Thus CERN and UNO and all other countries refuse to believe in Shakespeare’s witches: “When shall we three meet again, in the thunder, lightning or in the rain?”
A person who to his dismay would have stumbled across all three witches as being real can – besides pledging to check on the triple trap before continuing since “checking costs nothing” – only try to offer a reward. My reward is the smile theory. The smile makes us human I learned it from a doomed pediatric patient: The smile talks. It says, “nothing makes me more happy than when you smile for being happy yourself.” A chain reaction as well.
Emmanuel Lévinas said it in more adult terms: “The face is naked. It talks. It says, Do not kill me. It says, Do not leave me in my dying.” I trust that there is a mother somewhere, and then a father, and then a grandmother… who remember their own being touched in their heart. It is the smile of the toddler that can save a planet. Nothing else is stronger.
I shall drop the topic of danger as soon as one of my readers has found a scientist capable of defusing the three witches: the relativistic “Telemach”; the “homoclinic saddle-focus” of Len Shilnikov applied to black hole growth inside earth; the quantum frictionlessness of neutron stars. Dispelling one of the three storms is enough.
Quote from http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/04/if-no-single-scientist-openly-contradicts-my-results-why-no-public-debate/comment-page-1#comment-103527 today :
Messenger on March 11, 2012 7:52 pm
Dr. Rossler,
If you are still active, I would be grateful for any reviews and feedback you could provide on the paper linked from the above forum.
Otto E. Rössler on March 12, 2012 1:51 am
Dear Messenger:
Please, allow me to ask what paper you have in mind.
Otto — can you point me to a paper on the superfluidity / quantum frictionlessness of neutron stars? I am familiar with the concept but have not read a detailed paper on this.
I quoted an abstract in my paperof 2008, “A rational and mora and spiriritual dilemma”
An abstract. You are joking?
The world is still waiting for your full formulated theorem about the fantastic gravitational and strong force superfluidity.
[sorry I pushed the wrong button] but in the meantime, new learned confirmatory papers have appeared (I once quoted one on Lifeboat I believe). But I live in Tübingen where the properties of neutron stars are an old specialty of astrophysicists, including Hanns Ruder’s group. From him (and posters of other researchers) I am long familiar with the so-called “glitches” — that neutron stars sometimes change their uniquelx constant rotation speed all of a sudden as a whole. This fact is proof to the eye that the whole star is acting as a single quantum object. Only superfluids behave in this way.
The point is not the superfluidity’s existence as such, but the fact that superfluids are frictionless, as Kammerlingh-Onnes dicovered in 1911. They sneak through the finest cracks in bottles, not losing speed through friction, and defy gravity. A sufficiently small projectile therefore cannot get stuck inside them.
The high temperature of neutron stars’ cores is a conceptual barrier to believing this. And in fact the most modern models are quite complicated. Nevertheless it is a “safe bet” that micro black holes cannot grown inside their cores. They also cannot grow inside their (likewise superfluid) inner crust. But most likely in the outer crust they can. There, they become fattened a bit, to get heavy enough to fall into the uperfluid, to move inside on Keplerian orbits, sometimes touching from within on the crust to eat a bit and fall back, to eventually orbit inside and — perhaps — combine with sister holes there to form a more or less centrally moving “black core” inside. The presence or absenceof the latter may become analyzable from a detailed observation of the temporal structure of glitches.
Is this “unwashed” preliminary answer okay with you?
I just found the following referenced from “A rational and mora and spiriritual dilemma” http://www.mi.infn.it/~colo/TRENTO/Abstracts/gori.txt which isn’t much. Would like to locate a full paper on the topic. It seems counter-intuitive that a nuetron star is always superfluid to MBH. If a part of the neutron star passes the event horizon of even an ultrarelativistic MBH — surely the MBH is then trapped in it (as it is trapped by the MBH).
So you agree that it needs a little bit more than to say “it is protected by a fantastic new feature” without any kind of theoretical background?
Otto is asked for simething like that for years. He never delivered. Think about that.
Better to ask google… I just found a short paper ‘neutron star and superfluidity’ produced by the Dept of Physics at the University of Illinois
http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2010/Files/lo.pdf
I cannot agree such zero viscosity could prevent MBH capture — as zero viscosity is not a ‘get out of jail card’ once traversed by a (non-radiating) MBH event horizon…
The point is that the classic superfluidity to which Otto refers here is not really preventing a black hole to become caught. The conditions inside a neutron stars are extreme.
The questions is not whether N-stars are superfluid or not but is this “protecting” the n-star. Otto never got this.
Yes — the neutron star can be superfluid — but Superfluidity gives no protection/escape from an event horizon of a non-radiating MBH passing through such…
So papers showing that they are indeed superfluid are not supporting Ottos position.
Agreed — I just needed to have a quick glance over a document on neutron star superfluidity before quickly surmising — that this cannot apply to MBH as zero viscosity is not a valid argument against MBH capture. A zero viscosity can’t slither anything back out from the dark side of an event horizon… Sorry Otto — I can’t see your argument.
Many many people with a clear scientific background explained that to Otto in the past. And still he states that “there is no scientist oin the world contradicting me”.
the reader can draw his conclusions.
Actually I hadn’t seen much debate on superfluidity… not mentioned or dismissed in the G&M report at least, though I think applying it to MBH as a safety concern came later…