Einstein realized in the last decade of his life that only a world government can overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the right to demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real threat in the wake of his own contributions to physics.

His main discovery, however, is the “twin clocks paradox,” overlooked by even his greatest competitor. It describes, not just a physical discovery but much more. The travelled twin got transported along the time axis at a different (reduced) rate. So he will be standing younger-in-age beside his twin brother upon return. This is an ontological change which no one else would have dared consider possible: Interfering with the inexorable fist that pushes us all forward along the time axis!

This is Einstein’s deepest discovery. He topped it only once: when he discovered, two years later in 1907, that clocks “downstairs” are rate-reduced, too. The “second twins paradox” in effect.

The word “paradox” is a misnomer: “Miracle” is the correct word. Imagine staying the hands of time! So everybody sees that what you worked is a miracle (a Western Shaman presenting a tangible feat – a Grimms’ brothers’ fairy tale brought to life – a Jewish miracle revived: “the Lord can be seen”).

Why do I point you to Einstein, the sorcerer? It is because we’d better listen to him. Presently, the whole planet denies his legacy as once before. Deliberately to overlook his second twins paradox amounts to consciously risking the planet for the second time in a row.

The ontologically slowed clocks (downstairs) are not just slower-ticking: they also are proportionally mass-reduced, size increased and charge-reduced. This corollary to Einstein’s 1907 result, called Telemach (since T, L, M, Ch are involved), stays uncontested.

Unfortunately – or rather fortunately –, a famous nuclear experiment turns out to be planet-threatening in time I hope. Technically speaking the second twins paradox implies that CERN’s presently attempted to be produced artificial black holes, # 1) cannot be detected at CERN, # 2) are more likely to arise, #3) will, owing to quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and chaos theory, eat the planet inside-out in a few years’ time so that only a 1.8 cm black residue remains.

So dangerous is Einstein still, 57 years after his passing away? This time around, he is imploring us again while taking off his glasses and smiling into the camera: “please, dear children, do not continue a nuclear experiment that you cannot monitor while ontological implications stand on the list.”

The safety conference,rejected by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011, is number 1 on Einstein’s agenda:

The nuclear experiment must be stopped immediately!

The nascent world government is openly asking for this today: This is “Einstein’s miracle.”

[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]

There is not the slightest alleviation of danger so far. All I can record so far is a stalling in favor of letting CERN continue till the end of the year – its present goal. No immediate safety discussion with CERN is planned by any organization if I am told correctly.

I would very much like to understand the mechanism: How is it possible that so many grown-up persons collude in a game of hide-and-seek: What do they gain by refusing to think and, most of all, discuss?

Their neglect of rationality is unprecedented. Imagine: A whole profession being too weak to find a single counterargument against the reproach of trying to vaporize the planet into a black hole in a few years’ time – with not a single member speaking up in objection!

Historians of the future – whom I congratulate if still existing – will be unable to believe their records: A phase of humankind’s history in which the fear of sizing up a danger in time vastly outshines the danger itself – even though the latter is infinite.

Is this really a planet of grown-up persons who have children whom they ought to care for? Please, dear director Heuer of CERN: Do kindly present to the planet a single scientist who defends your stance by a scientific argument offered against the published proof of danger. For those who forgot:

1) black holes do not evaporate (Telemach)
2) black holes are uncharged and hence un-sticky and undetectable at CERN (Telemach)
3) minimal black holes must be very small for leaving white dwarfs unscathed when produced on their surface at nearly the speed of light (observation)
4) black holes leave neutron stars unscathed owing to the latters’ superfluidity (quantum)
5) black holes grow exponentially inside matter by the quasar hierarchy theorem (chaos)
Any of these 5 results if shown to be false exculpates CERN with respect to black-holes

Or maybe you can formulate a counterargument yourself, dear director Heuer?

The avid reader of Lifeboat may have noticed that the debate on LHC safety assurances has recently swerved here towards discussion on astronomical phenomenology — mainly the continued existence of white dwarfs and neutron stars.

The detailed G&M safety report naturally considers both of these, and considers hypothetical stable MBH capture rates based on a weak CR background flux. It actually overlooks better examples of white dwarfs which are part of a binary pair such as Sirius B, the little companion to one of our closest and brightest stars, Sirius A.

One could argue that white dwarfs are not greatly understood — but the relevant factors to the safety debate are quite understood — density, mass, escape velocity, and approximate age of such observed phenomenon. Only magnetic field effects are up for debate.

If Sirius B captured even one such MBH due to CR bombardment from its companion star in the first say 20 million years of its existence — and it would be difficult to argue that it would not — then that MBH would be accreting for the last 100 million years, through far denser material, and most likely at a much higher velocity, than any MBH captured in the Earth due to LHC collisions. Therefore, given the continued existence of Sirius B, accretion rates would therefore have to be incredibly slow and there would be no significant threat to Earth from what would be a much slower MBH accretion rate here.

In this context, any argument promoting the oft rubbished T-L-M-Ch theorem actually provides us with a safe assurance, in the knowledge that accretion rates must be negligible, that there is also no risk of any heating/micro-explosive effect due to Hawking Radiation, as Telemach refutes HR. In this context it is quite a paradox that Prof O.E. Rossler who derived Telemach has championed it as a safety concern…

In the volatile world we live in today it is unfortunate that other issues are over-dominated by the debate on the safety of one particular industry here that may be no threat whatsoever. It was with pleasure I read The Chaos Point — The World at the Crossroads by Ervin Laszlo recently. As far as I recall, our particle colliders hardly got a mention at all.

And finally to share a very low-key ‘Earth Day’ gig in my local town last weekend I was happy to attend ‘(a) choose or create a pledge (b) once committed you must try and stick to your pledge to the end and © try to start an eco revolution’: It’s a wonderful world.

But I would suggest CERN to select the majority of speakers and to make sure they are high-ranking and not necessarily on their payroll.

And Dr. W. Wagner and Mag. M. Goritschnig should be included, as well as the editor of Leonardo.

I also apologize for my having provoked G&M: they have all the chance of the world to defend their position. And no one would be happier than me if they prevailed. For as I always said I am CERN’s best friend. My having asked for a rebuttal was the opposite of an aggressive act: “science is friendship” by its definition. Lifeboat loves science.

[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]

CERN insists on believing in physical nonsense as a guarantee that their LHC experiment were innocuous. They refuse an update on their false “Safety Report” for almost 4 years.

The sacrosanct safety report dogmatically posits that one particular version of string theory possessed physical reality which no string theorist claims.

They refuse up-dating, open discussion and the necessary scientific safety conference for 4 years ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf ). They thereby behave like medieval dogmatists.

I publicly accuse Giddings and Mangano and acting director Heuer of the crime of scientific fraud in conjunction with consciously risking Armageddon.

The silence of the United Nations Security Council and all members and non-members of the world press club is owed to the most effective press campaign of history, launched by the inventor of the web. Even a court’s advice, given to CERN on the 27th of January 2011 to admit a “safety conference,” was prevented from reaching the public.

For future historians who hopefully will exist, this cover-up is the most momentous event to report to the next generation as a “ktéma eis aeí” – a possession for eternity – in homage to Thucydides.

CERN MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY to await the verdict of the safety conference.

This note considers the possibility of earth being replaceable in the galaxy in the foreseeable future. The suggested answer is: no.

Let me explain why. For once, fundamental physics is not enough to understand the story since implied physical disciplines, chemistry and biology, come into play. The modern synthesis (Ernst Mayr) is presupposed. Stu Kauffmann and Joel Cohen stand in the background.

But are humans (the extinction of which the CERN debate is all about) not at the tip of the animal kingdom and hence similar tips should exist elsewhere? Our blue planet would then be not THAT important from a more sub specie aeternitatis viewpoint.

Even this consolation – if it qualifies for one – cannot be offered: Everything speaks in favor of the conclusion that humans are unique over vast stretches of the galaxy’s life-bearing quarters.

The reason is that human beings do not, biologically speaking, occupy the tip of the evolutionary arrow. There exist terrestrial animals with more highly developed brains. The eusocial mole rat has a larger relative brain weight, for example. And sperm whales – the carriers of the largest brains on earth who recently were found to use a different (“baby”) language in communicating with their young – possess the both largest and most complex brain on earth as is well known. But do we humans not make a unique use of our own, lower-class, brains on the planet? This is correct.

This use is not a “more advanced” use in the sense of biological evolution, however. Orangutans can be shown to be more advanced, evolutionarily speaking, in the use they make of their brains. For although they live in a very precarious environment – regarding the height of the trees on which they stay day and night to collect their diverse time-dependent sources of food and to build nests in the night –, they have the lowest known failure rate in using their brains. The maximum error rate, however, determines the minimum allowed reproductive rate: Orangutans have an offspring only every 7 to 9 years, at a lifespan of not much more than 50 years and a fairly late adolescence. This puts them at the top of the efficiency index for their brain.

If it is not the quality of the brain that is so exceptional with the human brain, it must be the human use of the brain if our species is to be unique. What proves to be unique is the use of the brain as a person. How can I be sure? Because the “personogenetic bifurcation” is a tantalizing process in the ontogenesis of the human organism: a “function change” in the sense of Robert Rosen’s. So humans are indeed special. The same function change can, in principle, occur also in other highly brained organisms as well as artificial intelligences, as Steven Spielberg correctly anticipated in “A.I.” and as Ray Kurzweil implicitly assumes in his “Singularity theory.”

I had no time to talk about these “softer” things on lifeboat up until now. After the new fait accompli by CERN – no one believes that a proof of unsafety is a cause for a double-check on our planet – I can do so. When survival is too boring as a topic for the planet’s media, the secret of humanity is perhaps the most interesting and moving topic in the universe.

The protagonists are mother and toddler. The most interesting phase in every individual’s life is the least appreciated one. The toddler is unintentionally seduced into spontaneously inventing, out of nothing, the suspicion of benevolence being shown towards him. And in return he invents a desire to execute benevolent acts by himself (like putting a sweetie into Pa’s mouth and asking “good?!” as I once witnessed an 18-months old do).

But is not brood-caring a benevolent activity all over the animal kingdom? Brood-caring is not at all benevolence-in-action, it only looks so. The caring is finely controlled as an egocentric activity. Take the proverbial example of the chimpanzee mother whose offspring had a broken arm: When it cried, she hugged it more firmly in her arms. Everyone understands this example which I was offered in conversation in 1966. But is this not the essence of all love – egotism? Not among persons. The invention of the suspicion of benevolence at a very young age, and the implied sudden existence as a person wanting to do good to the other as a person, is the most tremendous bifurcation event in the universe.

I do not wish to enter into the fascinating details of reciprocal mappings. But the understanding of the mechanism allows one to “export” this “autocatalysis of mutually being moved” out to smile-blind human children who are not exposed to the double meaning of the mother’s smile as both an expression of bonding and of general joyfulness. A causal therapy of autism based on artificial “acoustic smiles” whenever the caretaker is about to laugh follows. This sacrifice mothers would love to bring if they were only told the secret. The therapy stays un-adopted – presumably because it is so easy that it can be exported to other mirror-competent bonding animals. The profession’s reluctance over 4 decades may have to do with this embarrassing fact. Gregory Bateson was its only high-ranking supporter in 1975. His friend and colleague, John C. Lilly, had come close. Leo Szilard had thought of export first.

Here the improbability of the same epigenetic function change occurring spontaneously in other branches of biology (outside the pongids) is at stake. It follows from the fact that personogenesis marks the end of spontaneous biological evolution. So there is a strong selection pressure acting against its preconditions (an overlap between laughter and smile, friskiness and bonding) occurring in highly brained animals. So despite the fact that personogenesis is tantamount to a jump up the whole evolutionary ladder into the lap of point Omega (in the terminology of Teilhard de Chardin). I always felt that the pope at least ought to understand.

Thus it can be predicted for sure that in other biologies (like that on Europa or that inside Jupiter with its inorganic biochemistry based on B-N-B-N- rather than C-C-C- backbones, or Robert Forward’s nuclear-chemical evolution on neutron stars) the same epigenetic accident is most likely to be avoided in nature. In other words, the general theory of life as an uninhibitable cosmic thermodynamic phenomenon does not include personogenesis.

Nevertheless personhood is not confined to the human species once it has been invented. The mission of planet earth is to export it. “Galactic export” begins on planet earth. This makes the latter maximally precious in the galaxy and, possibly, the whole cosmos. Singularity theory is related. Let me wish you a good Easter holiday in reminiscence of our being elected as persons: http://www.youtube.com/embed/rZKJcHVWI_4?rel=0