He always called it so. That in free fall after jumping out of the window (he was feeling sick at the moment) you do not feel the weight of a heavy stomach. The laws of nature then are the same as those valid in free outer space — those of special relativity.
The long overlooked consequence: gravity reduces rest mass energy and charge and increases size along with the clock period T focused on by Einstein. His T-change in gravity is accompanied by an L-, M- and Ch-change (Telemach theorem). Very simple but planet-saving. For it totally alters the properties of black holes. They arise more easily, do not Hawking evaporate, cannot be detected if produced at CERN, and grow exponentially inside earth.
The risk of the planet being shrunk to a 2-cm black hole in a few years’ time is currently being raised at CERN every day by 1/30 of the calculated final risk of 3 percent reached by the end of October. No scientist contradicts this accusation openly.
It is so easy: Interrupt and wait until the vitally needed counterproof has been found. No one will be happier than me and the mothers of the planet. Please, allow them to know about the situation.
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/51100-einstein-knew-about-a-frightening-particle-windmill-that-might-kill-us-all for our happiness.
The complete lack of realism about bureaucracies and governments and their possible response to actvisim offered by some of those here who believe that any suggestion to cut funds to the LHC would be welcome discredits their valid realism about the feeble safety arguments advanced by CERN to justify rocketing ahead with the escalation of energy at the LHC .
Professional defenders of the LHC such as PassingBy do not have to do much to discredit the anxious as long as they continue to make silly suggestions as to how to stop the LHC by writing illiterate appeals to general addresses at the UN.
This is a pity since the safety arguments of CERN are totally inadequate and if Professor Rossler’s mathematical speculations are valid, despite being somewhat intuitive, he joins others who predict dire results if the gamble fails this time.
Perhaps the conCERNed here could make more of an effort to demonstrate that their view of the world is as realistic in regard to the workings of large institutions of a political nature as it is in regard to the workings of CERN, even though CERN is of course also a highly political instituion.
They could follow the lead of Robert Houston who writes precisely formulated and (usually now) dispassionate posts quoting factual statements drawn from the texts published by CERN and other authorities and thus confines himself to unvarnished realism in these and related matters.
Otherwise they will not create the required impression of seriousness in positing the potential swallowing up of the entire planet into a 2m black hole, and no one will be motivated to help them avoid this catastrophe.
Which seems to be the present state of affairs.
What is needed is a well formulated appeal addressed to a specific recipient in high position who has the power to respond effectively.
But who? Does such a person even exist?
It may be that the end of the world will follow from the reality that institutions grow larger and larger and further and further beyond any outside control.
No, no, no: What is lacking is citizens asking their local media to inform them. The citizens of the planet are just about ready to wake up.
It is certainly true that the media (with the sterling exception of ScienceGuardian.com) have fallen down completely on this issue. After the LHC was finally cranked into life again after its second collapse into smoking debris, in 2008, all the hardworking but uninformed and under-researched hacks who cover this topic simply assumed all is well. They do not even consider the fact that as the distinguished Professor Rossler keeps pointing out, escalating the beam energy of the LHC takes us ever farther into unknown territory wherein physics fairies such as Higgs bosons, black holes and strangelets may reside, who may not all be planet friendly.
What can be done to improve the situation? It seems doubtful that publishers will want to pay their overworked employees to bone up on their physics including actually reading the safety reports of CERN and seeing that they are either exploded or feeble.
The whole idea of the investigative reporter in science is totally unfashionable ever since the Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson failed to win a deserved Pulitzer or Peabody or both for informing the world of just how much of a charming rogue was Robert Gallo the non-discoverer of HIV, to virtually no effect even when he put it all into a book.
The only people who fund investigative work in reporting on science or at any rate medicine and the environment are Pro Publica, a non profit foundation, and one or two others, and the Times in New York, of course, who unfortunately have in place a whole set of science reporters who have never challenged what they are spoon fed for their entire careers.
Only scienceguardian.com stands alone in its desire to cover scandalous lack of public responsibility on the part of scientists whose expertise otherwise leaves them scot free of any troublesome coverage by nosy reporters.
Thus CERN doesnt have to worry about anyone from the media asking any difficult questions. Anyone except Science Guardian that is. But the founder and editor of that distinguished publication has its hands full dealing with other matters of concern and thus is unable to give this topic the attention it deserves, given that the Fate of the World is in the balance.
Interesting comment. Still, no reason is given why the most tantalizing question of the world — “Who on the planet is able to prove the danger-warning wrong?” — finds not a single journalist perceptive enough to ask it.
Or to ask: “Is there a single citizen on the planet who finds it forgivable that CERN continues before the sought-for person has been found?”
Regrettably, Professor, journalists have to be convinced that in your own case the critique is viable before asking why no one can prove it wrong and unfortunately it therefore has to be made intelligible to non specialists, which is not possible, it appears, since you have not attempted it. This leaves the question you suggest they ask moot, both for journalists to ask and for citizens to wonder about,.
Please, dear representative of the world’s professional journalists: Why do you say that?
It is just the way journalists work, Professor. If they don’t understand the science or mathematics that a critic is basing his view upon, they need to have some credentials to justify their reporting of what he has to say with their editors, who tend to be stuck with whatever established generals with medals in the field they have used as authoritative sources in the past.
Such generals tend to poo poo any critics and the press tends to accept their advice. There is virtually no investigative journalists or science critics in science, though they exist in health and medicine. Ruling scientists and bureaucrats can simply hide behind their expertise and their prizes and let their maverick critics languish in zero or negative coverage.
Sorry, ‘is’ should be ‘are’ (no investigative…etc.)
I understand. But if there are only anonymous generals, all eager to cover their face?
This is without precedent in history to my knowledge.
Professor, there are many examples in science everywhere you look, as there are in any field of human endeavor. Most human beings go along with whatever their colleagues say even in intellectual life at the top of the academy. Very few are inclined to examine assumptions and premises all or most of their colleagues use. Those that do are careful to do it quietly until the situation becomes critical for some reason. Then they speak out, and get ostracised and ignored for being mavericks.
A good example on a not very intellectual level is the experience of the FBI agent who saw very early that Osama Bin Laden was a serious threat to the US, tried to get his superiors to be aware of this, got ejected for being too extreme, took a job as security chief for the World Trade Center, and died weeks later in the 9/11 demolition of the Twin Towers.
But you are right, the implications of this case are unprecedented since we may lose all.
I had not known about this hero you mention.
My question is: How can a fact that lies before the eyes of the quality media world-wide be brought to their attention so that they see it?
You know which fact I mean? The lack of a single visible adversary to my request to have a second look. That is all I request and ever requested for three and a half years. It costs nothing!
And can save everyone.
Shouldn’t it be fun to show that the person who requests that is a fool? The fool says: “Please, show me someone who says: ‘this lonely piece of luggage is mine, I take the responsibility for it.’ ”
Why does no one see that no one says that this request is foolish?
Dear Imani:
Thank you for the encouragement.
Otto