Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: existential risks

Either I am a liar or not. You treat me like being one by your observing a world-wide curfew. I must have made grave mistakes in the past that explain this attitude.

I admit that my latest post on Oppenheimer is a bit technical since I mentioned the duration of a trip down to the horizon of the black hole remnant of a collapsed star and back. But my conclusion was easy to understand: If Oppie was right then both trips take an infinite outside time. Every high-school student can confirm this.

Therefore my public request to CERN, to please before starting 8 TeV proton collisions on a large scale tomorrow give a reason as to why they stick to a theory of black holes that denies Oppenheimer’s finding, is perhaps sufficiently grounded on facts to be worth reporting.

Forgive me for my turning to you directly.

In light of continued frustration by many users, and due to a recent request by Prof Peter Howell on the lack of web administration on obscene/offensive posts and the effect this can have on the overall impression of Lifeboat, I have taken measures on cleaning up posts by a contributor who regularly depreciates the standards of what can otherwise be a fine blog of academic opinion. Apologies to Prof Otto Rossler — but referring to CERN as ‘urinating soldiers’ etc is far below the standards Lifeboat aspires to — Please clean up your act.

Tom — Web Admin.

Professor Ereditato’s basic insight – that particles sent across differing longitudes can be technically speaking superluminal – was correct. This I showed in my paper on Lifeboat submitted to Science ( https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%E2%80%9Ctwo-percent-explained%E2%80%9D-cern-overlooked-that-simultaneity-is-non-global-on-rotating-earth ).

I regret the unscientific demand for clairvoyance-in-retrospect – not to have seen that the effect is technically smaller than claimed – which led to his resignation from “Opera” about which fact I learned today from a newspaper.

His enthusiasm and openness to the new is sorely needed by the scientific community. I would like to ask CERN to re-hire him. You cannot let your best man go.

Six years before Oppenheimer declared physics to be sinful after his success at building the bomb, he had discovered the existence of black holes as solutions to the Einstein equation. It took the physics community 30 years to fully believe him.

He found two things. (1) An astronaut jumping in takes infinitely long to disappear from sight (provided one could see him that long since the frequency of the light emitted by him goes to zero). (2) On his own wristwatch, only 2 days passed until he reached the surface of the star-mass black hole. Both results are still accepted.

Oppenheimer knew that if a trampoline were installed on the surface, enabling the astronaut to jump back up uninjured, both results are valid again: Up to his return to from where he came, 2 days would pass on his own wristwatch again. But for the outside world, once more an infinite amount of time would have passed.

This simple result is universally accepted but for some reason virtually unknown. It goes under the name “gravitational twins paradox.” No specialist denies it but virtually each will admit that it is new to him or her.

What is so important about such an overlooked item in the history of physics? It is that many since accepted “facts” turn out to be unphysical. All the famous mathematically allowed transformations of the textbooks that cause the “singularity of the horizon” to “disappear” are unphysical. Most standard textbook features of black holes, including Hawking radiation, prove to be mathematical artifacts. The whole field has to be re-started virtually from scratch.

If this is so, what are the consequences? Very simple: The new old Oppie black holes cease to be pussycats. When artificially produced, they do not stop growing inside matter. Moreover they do so, as chaos theory shows, in an exponential fashion: Just as this is observationally known from their giant cousins in quasars.

Okay, what then? Then the attempt to build artificial black holes on earth is maximally dangerous. But CERN is trying to do just that? This is correct. So a discussion needs to take place before the experiment is started at higher energy next week. Correct?

[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.

White dwarfs were justly highlighted there…

These collapsed old stars in the galaxy have (with a finite fraction of their population at least) proved immune to the onslaught of nature’s own ultra-fast analogs to CERN’s anticipated artificial ultra-slow mini black holes. This fact imposes constraints on the level of danger imparted by the artificial ones on our earth if successfully produced there.

A white dwarf contains about 100.000 times the mass of earth at the latter’s volume. The fact that it remains unscathed has consequences for an artificial black hole that is slow enough not to fly away but stay inside earth to circulate there. It must circle 30.000 times at its near-Keplerian speed of 10 km/sec, in order to have equally many passages through nucleons, before it starts to grow. Since one full circling takes about 1 hour, 30.000 circlings make up 30.000 hours or about 1.000 days or 3 years. The increased residence time inside the passed-through nucleons (with their inherently ultrafast quark motions) reduces the equivalence time by a factor of perhaps 1.000 to the order of 1 day.

On the other hand, we need safety margins of perhaps 100 in view of the vast number of safe passages of ultrafast mini black holes during the lifetime of a white dwarf. Therefore, the exponential growth phase inside earth (miniminiquasar formation) can only begin after a delay of several months.

It follows that the minimal survival time of earth, in case CERN’s cherished dream of black-hole production is vindicated (note that its detectors are blind to this success), is about 5 years. This low number owes its existence to the counterintuitive nature of exponential growth – the fact that it “suddenly” jumps up after a seemingly silent phase.

The sad fact that CERN consciously incurs this risk needs to be discussed by an independent panel during the collision-free 10 days that CERN still grants our planet.

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

My danger-proving results concerning the safety of the LHC experiment were presented to CERN 4 years ago in the standard scientific format: First as preprints, then a few months later in July of 2008 as reprints of conference proceedings – the fastest possible method of scientific communication.

Today almost 4 years later, following publication in refereed journals, too, CERN continues to openly ignore the presented proof of danger. Witness the official countdown having reached 12 days until CERN’s upgraded LHC experiment officially continues its attempt to produce black holes.

In doing so, CERN officially ignores three scientific proofs regarding the hoped-for black holes:
(1) Black holes arise much more readily than expected, do not evaporate and are invisible to CERN’s detectors for their being uncharged.
(2) As soon as a sufficiently slow specimen is generated, it grows exponentially inside earth so as to shrink the planet to 2 cm after a few years’ time delay.
(3) The hoped-for black holes are not (as CERN claims against better knowledge) “proven innocuous” by the fact that nature’s own fast analogs must get stuck inside neutron stars in much the same way as an artificial one will get stuck inside earth. The reason the neutron stars are protected is solely the superfluidity of their cores.

The three results do stem from a different discipline each: the first from the equivalence principle of special relativity, the second from chaos theory (Kleiner attractor), the third from quantum mechanics. Although dismantling one out of the three suffices to dispel the LHC danger, no scientist ever succeeded in falsifying one of them.

CERN’s “safety report” of 2008 deliberately ignored all three results. Worse, this “safety report” was refused to update ever since. This deliberate neglect represents – given the severity of the consequences – a case of open scientific fraud.

The only excuse CERN can proffer against the reproach of deliberate neglect of scientific evidence is to say that my two danger-proving papers, published this year in peer-reviewed journals, have “only” been published in Africa and China, respectively. If CERN does not immediately stop the running countdown, it must therefore publicly explain why it officially considers scientific results published in African and Chinese learned journals as “safe to ignore” regardless of whether or not the survival of the planet is at stake if they are scholarly.

The planet witnessed suicidal racism two days ago in France. President Sarkozy is kindly asked to respond to the assault on France by CERN empowered by French electricity.

Verbatim quote from Richard Feynman ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn4_40hAAr0 ) at minute 45:00:

NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest and informative so that those citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of these limited resources. For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

What would it take to create and later revive a representative biosphere from frozen stores located on the Moon?

The costs of launchers is getting low enough that we can reasonably imagine the establishment of a lunar base well within NASA’s spaceflight budget.

With the discovery of ices on the lunar poles, astronauts could provide their own life-support indefinitely (water, oxygen, food, and fertilizer). While living in a sheltered habitat, they then immediately proceed to establish other basic processes to step-wise become increasingly independent of supplies from Earth (e.g. producing their own metals and glass).

Given the increasing independence of the small colony, one begins to consider if additional steps could be taken to achieve a fully independent small colony to serve as a backup for the human species should a catastrophe destroy humanity (e.g. a large asteroid or our own self-replicating technology).

We wouldn’t want just for humans to survive, but that other species could eventually be reestablished as well. If species could be stored in their frozen single cell form, millions of individual organisms could be delivered to the Moon in each 5,000 kg payload delivery.

But this leads to some interesting questions:

1) We cannot save all species. There are just too many of them. So, which should we choose in order to have a broad representation of the biosphere?

2) In what biologic form should the frozen specimen be so that they can be most easily revived? Bacteria & protozoa — frozen. Fungi — spores. Plants — seeds. But what about birds, mammals, etc? We can freeze embryos, but how do we get the adult mother to gestate them?

3) How could we eventually establish Minimum Viable Populations? (say 1,000 individuals per species).

It seems to me that these questions could form the basis for interesting biology studies. The more these questions are studied, looking for plausible solutions, the more interest there would be for establishing actual terrestrial and lunar preserves for the biosphere.

Now, if you click on the BioPreserver link on this website, you will learn that the Frozen Ark is doing something rather similar to what is suggested above. However, they focus only on endangered species and not a representation of the whole biosphere. Despite significant affiliations, the rate at which they are securing different species is insufficient to imagine backing up the biosphere in any reasonable number of years.

So please comment on the above ideas and suggest how it could be advanced.

Lifeboat has had enough coverage across the globe and in different languages to alert all governments and media word-wide. There are major conflicts unresolved on the planet. The more surprising is the fact that all governments stand united against their own people in one respect:

The populace is not allowed to know that CERN, or the Europeans, are preparing to re-ignite a nuclear experiment to run it at five times last year’s output – even though the total risk to induce Armageddon by the successful production of miniature black holes is thereby raised by a factor of six, up to possibly 8 percent.

Ironically, CERN neither disputes that it can in principle generate black holes, nor that it cannot detect its own success at producing them, nor that the published proofs of danger are not being disputed by a single scientist on the planet claiming to do so.