Toggle light / dark theme

The LHC experiment at the European Nuclear Research Center is presently being continued in defiance of a public proof of danger — that the planet will be shrunk to a diameter of 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time with a probability of up to 8 percent if the experiment goes on. The continuation occurs in defiance of the recent public appeal by a court to allow for a scientific safety conference first.

No public voice on the planet acknowledges this critical situation – even though simultaneously another survival error unfolds before everyone’s eyes. The perhaps most cynical situation of history. What has gone awry?

Is “rational science” a myth that was imperceptibly abandoned? The scientific members of CERN cannot possibly believe that they are acting in accord with the rules of rational science, one feels. Nevertheless they are being held in high esteem across the planet – so high in fact that the world’s media appear to voluntarily observe the first global press curfew. How can the manifest irrationality – if it is one – be explained?

The reason has to do with opinion power – who would argue with 8.000 scientists? But suppose the mentioned proof is really on the table (as it is to the best of my knowledge): What would be the explanation, then? One would be forced to conclude that outdated science, if held fast to, is not science any more but rather the opposite: the most dangerous enemy of the future. We know this from medieval times where dogmatism took over under the mantle of orthodoxy (in the good sense). Did we re-arrive there again with the burden of a much more dangerous arsenal of instruments, acquired in a preceding period of rationalism?

Pursuing this tantalizing thesis could be a rewarding pastime in the last years of a doomsday-conscious planetary society once it will be too late to do anything about it. The present period of “after-science” will then be diagnosed as being characterized by a global intolerance toward novel scientific results — an intolerance profound enough to let the whole planet prefer dying to accepting any qualitative (“revolutionary”) scientific advance as necessary to uphold the premises of rationality.

A single individual is unlikely to have enough experience to spot such an overall trend in the broad scientific endeavor should it really exist. Has science been abandoned at more than one point, and so for years or decades in a row so that the diagnosed attempted suicide would be a symptom in a broader development?

In the following, I will attempt to put together a few examples which jointly could support such a diagnosis. It will be of interest to learn how others see this, and how we might be able to create a consciousness of what is happening here, so as to have some theoretical fun in our “last hour” on the planet (to quote Sir Martin Rees) in the worst case. Or to put it more hopefully: Being joint victims of a spirit of anti-progress, the planet’s citizens may take an interest in learning about an individual’s subjective experience with other cases in point. In this way, other “specialists for non-specialization” might feel encouraged to contribute their own experiences — so that at the last moment a new blossoming of an outdated spirit of progress can perhaps be triggered on the planet. The following personal selection of ten points might, in spite of its subjective character, prove to be “better than nothing” as a starting point.

1) Following the downfall of the potentially deadly East-West competition (which apart from this inherent risk also had some good sides to it like the development of space travel), the most striking example of “anti-progress,” if I may use this term, was perhaps the historical refusal by planetary protagonists to install “Lampsacus hometown of all persons on the Internet.” Vannevar Bush, Stafford Beer and Francois Mittérand had already had the same idea before the age of the Internet. Ezer Weizmann was then ready to do it jointly with Saudi Arabia, but got deposed at the worst possible moment. All other leaders and governments and churches and big foundations waived the opportunity. No billionaire loved his fellow human beings enough to give them this affordable present, and not a single country wanted to reap the immense fruits (in terms of friendship and economic connections) gained from installing this science-born and science-promoting progress on the planet, a progress necessary to make the planet a bearable place for every inhabitant. An information-science based progress which, by the way, had been made a practical option by CERN’s inventing the Internet (Tim Berners-Lee worked there). A whole new science – “the pyramid”- representing every knowledge on all levels of resolution and making all connections across levels, got consciously rejected. Only some maverick kids who invented some sub-elements of Lampsacus soon after (like Google, wiki and iPud) could not be prevented from giving a few crumbs to the world, a fact for which most everyone has grown grateful ever since.

2) A second example of manifest “anti-progress” is in my eyes the strange refusal by the therapeutic profession to discuss or apply the acoustic-smile therapy of primary autism. This harmless idea was proposed in outline in 1968 and in detail in 1975 by the present writer (who apologizes again for the use of personal experience). The apparent reason, in retrospect, for this resilience of a whole profession was the prediction made that the therapy would be so effective as to work also with non-human mirror-competent lovely young creatures (a phenomenon subsequently called “galactic export”). This heart-moving trait apparently went too much against the grain of contemporaneous science (imagine it would work: what a catastrophe to conservatism). In this understandable way, a new science based on contributions by many workers (like René Spitz, John Bowlby, Selma Fraiberg, Konrad Lorenz, John Lilly and Gregory Bateson) proved empirically unwelcome for decades. This may or may not teach us something about our present context.

3) Example number three would be the tacit abandonment of project “Lunatown” by Japan and all cooperating countries for almost two decades already. If it is true that humanity has caught a deadly virus with the invention of systematic science (as can be argued but as I try to counter-caricature here with the thesis that it is only the corruption of the spirit of science that is deadly), then this first step in a “lifeboat” type expansion of humankind across other celestial bodies is the only safe chance for its sustainable future. As brave scientist Stephen Hawking independently proposed in books written for his young grandson.

4) The fourth example of science having ceased to reign without anyone’s noticing is cosmology — a topic that most everyone on the planet finds fascinating. Edwin Hubble, the 1928 discoverer of cosmological redshift — that grandiose phenomenon of a systematic frequency change of light with distance which explains why the night sky is dark -, got his Nobel prize denied because he did not believe in the ad-hoc explanation of a “big bang.” Fritz Zwicky’s timely 1929 discovery of the correct explanation – a “dynamical friction” suffered by any fast particle traversing a churning cauldron of randomly moving gravitation centers — got rejected owing to an error in his calculation. The latter got effectively corrected 15 years later, by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, in a more limited astronomical context (the braking of fast-moving stars in a globular star cluster as is necessary in order to explain the longevity of these oldest known structures in the universe). Nevertheless “dynamical friction” stayed in-applied to cosmology for many more decades (owing to chemical friction between the protagonists?). It no doubt got re-discovered several times since; the late Ilya Prigogine was open to it, for example. The Tubingen school’s belated arrival at it, 74 years after Zwicky, got apparently never quoted. Why the resistance? The false ad-hoc-explanation of an exploding bomb (“big bang”) proves virtually in-erasable after its having been married with other falsities — like “nonbaryonic dark matter” and an alleged “cosmic” origin of the galactic background radiation (whose first discovery by Charles Guillaume in 1896 (as I learned from Andre Koch Assis) got totally suppressed following its re-discovery half a century later by Wilson and Penzias who mistook it for a fingerprint of the putative primordial fire ball). Amazingly, even quantitative numbers — the famous “13.7 billion years” for a finite cosmic age — could be erroneously extracted from the most beautiful quantitative data. I do hope that you will get a bit angry with me at this point — so as to feel ready for a debate. In this way we will understand better how excusable CERN really is with its refusal to argue with a competing much smaller school. And that scientific truth is too serious a business for majority decisions to be accepted. I forgot to add that a numerical proof of the simplest case of the underlying new sister discipline to statistical mechanics (cryodynamics) was published by a hard-working coworker last year.

5) The fifth example has to do with the many-cuts theory of quantum mechanics. The latter got initiated by Einstein’s writing a letter to a 12-year old boy named Hugh Everett in 1943. The “spooky action at a distance” first discovered (if doubted) by Einstein 8 years before, would then be explained 14 years later by that very boy. But the pertinent crucial experiment – proving that Everett is right in case of a positive outcome — which was proposed independently many times since the 1980s (by Susan Feingold, Roger Penrose, the Tubingen group and Anton Zeilinger, to mention only the short list), was never done by ESA to which it had been proposed. The reason was in the last instance, so I believe, that the to be expected further confirmation of the Bell inequalities also here (in a relativistic situation of two mutually receding measuring stations so that each station would make the first measurement in its own frame) — would have proved Everett’s interpretation to be the correct theory of quantum mechanics at the expense of the reigning Copenhagen interpretation. Since everybody still falsely believes Everett’s theory were a many-universes (rather than a many-cuts) interpretation, the predictable outcome would have been unbearable as a measured fact. In this way, the overdue empirical confirmation of microscopically sharp “assignment conditions” existing in physics besides Newton’s “laws” and “initial conditions,” got missed or rather postponed. The assignment conditions are different for each observer in his own quantum world, if Einstein’s provocative prediction that two non-commuting observables can be measured in physics in defiance of quantum mechanics is the empirically confirmed alternative interpretation of the predicted outcome: that two observer-specific quantum worlds in the sense of von Neumann have become manifest empirically) is adopted. But the latter is too scary even to be contemplated owing to its religion-rehabilitating character. So it was “wise” in a sense on the part of the physical community to forget about Asher Peres and Susan Feingold and the rest of the crew? Such a scientific tactlessness – to arrive at an empirical clash with the common sense of a century – is the hallmark of Einstein’s proposals. This time around, its empirical verification got eschewed for more than two decades, mostly for subconscious reasons I would expect. Copenhagen — Einstein’s dearest enemy — therefore still reigns to date even though it most likely is no longer alive.

6) The sixth case in point is the classical explanation of Planck’s constant as a classical Sackur-action in statistical mechanics, published 26 years ago. Any momentarily closed classical statistical mechanical system (like a gas or fluid or composite system chemical structure like a brain) contains a phase-space volume described by the Sackur-Tetrode equation which contains Planck’s constant in the denominator – but not as a constant, only as a unit. So a system-specific unit action can be calculated. In the case of the brain, it empirically coincides with h-bar to within a factor of less than two when calculated roughly. This fact may or may not be a coincidence. Evidence in favor of the second alternative was later unexpectedly found in the course of pursuing the new science of endophysics. The prospect of better understanding both quantum mechanics and relativity on this basis has come into view. Yet so, of course, without catching any one’s interest in the scientific community. Our question here is: Why the “of course”?

7) The seventh case in point that I had the good fortune to come in contact with is the classical Pauli cell. The topic of “classical indistinguishability” has an incredibly long history, going back (via Hans Primas, Hermann Weyl, Wolfgang Pauli, Josiah Willard Gibbs, the Leibniz-Clarke-Newton correspondence, Spinoza, the Mutakallimún and Gregorius of Naziance) to Anaxagoras in ancient Greece and the town of Lampsacus (Lapseki today which is still famous for its giant cherries). The physical existence of indistinguishable particles entails a rationally explicable miracle: an instantaneous jumping of particle identities at well-defined mutual positions in space in their common frame, in between two or more particles provided they are “absolutely” (transfinitely exactly) equal. No one takes notice for more than two decades of this mathematical fact as an element of quantum mechanics explained classically. Chemistry relies crucially on it. It in addition teaches us something about our own nature: Consciousness appears to be attached to an anatomically localized subset of such “transfinitely exactly polished” particles in a certain part of our brain – if the Feingold experiment has the predicted outcome. Such proposals in the footsteps of Einstein and Pauli are hard even to be made plausible today.

8) Number eight is the brain equation of 1974. If it had not been consistently ignored, the robots that are so desperately lacking to humankind today in an ongoing emergency would long be available. On the empirical side, there is a matching fact: Lack of support for the “Pandaka pygmaea Brain Research Institute” first proposed in 1990. Here the smallest biological brain functioning like ours, that of Pandaka (and that of a close relative, Gobius niger, that already is halfway in size between Pandaka’s and ours) would have been investigated in maximum detail in the footsteps of Werner Reichardt’s who had devoted his life to the house fly’s brain at age 27 (as he once told me). The prediction that many nobel prizes would be forthcoming had no charming effect on the scientific community – which is the point of interest in our present context.

9) Example number nine is a confirmation of Einsteinophobia again – directed against the young Einstein for once. It refers to the experience, collected over two decades, that it is not allowed any longer to draw new conclusions from Einstein’s old findings. Equally disallowed are deviations from ingrained conclusions derived from the latter by other workers (like the famous horizon-eliminating transformations which although mathematically admissible are unphysical). The gravitational time-slowdown of clocks (T), found in the equivalence principle by Einstein in 1907, has since acquired three natural-born twins (L, M, Ch) for length, mass, charge; the whole bunch therefore got nicknamed “Telemach” (after Ulysses’ son Telemachus). The implied improved understanding of black holes has, far from triggering a wave because of its beauty, become a planetary taboo topic. Einstein’s theory — a taboo, both in quantum mechanics and in relativity?

10) Example number ten makes the bridge to our topic proper (the LHC). A doctoral dissertation containing an early corollary to Telemach (a rotating frictionless wheel when lowered onto the surface of a neutron star is radially enlarged by 34 percent to conserve angular momentum) got rejected by the faculty in charge, despite two A grades granted in the absence of any other graded report. A nobelist asked our forgiving for his not daring to help us. It took us two years before getting a glimpse of the motivation: The result touched on the dogma of Hawking radiation and, with it, on the safety of the LHC experiment.

The absence of Hawking radiation, demonstrated by our group, does not automatically mean that there is no remaining safety net for CERN. Two important safety factors need to be taken into account: The continued existence of neutron stars in the cosmos, and an possible slow (non-exponential) growth rate a inside matter. Both are sold to the public as life insurances by CERN against better knowledge.

Case 1 (neutron stars): CERN claims that the ultrafast natural cousins to the ultraslow human-made miniature black holes, hoped to be generated in Geneva, would long have eaten all neutron stars inside out if the human made ones posed any risk to earth. However, while it is true that natural miniblackholes will get stuck inside a neutron star, the alleged high growth rate so the star will be eaten, is false: Any beginning growth in the crust comes to a standstill when the black hole sinks into the core. This is because the superfluid coreis frictionless according to quantum mechanics so the black hole cannot accrete matter there. The quantum guardian angel was communicated to CERN in time and published ahead of their (silent) “safety report.”

Case 2 (non-exponential growth): CERN claims that inside ordinary matter, black holes grow non-exponentially (just the opposite of what was assumed before). Thus while the fact that earth is going to be eaten inside out as the consequence of the experiment if successful is conceded, death allegedly will come slow. 50 million years was an estimate for which BBC conducted an opinion poll 4 years ago – with appallingly low approval rates by the public. In its subsequent “safety report,” the number was increased more than a hundred-fold. Although the corresponding paper was sent to CERN long before their safety report appeared, it remains unquoted up to this day. The fact that a chaotic attractor (a “Kleiner attractor in real space”) is formed inside matter as an exponentially growing miniature miniquasar so the eating time is reduced to the order of years is taboo.

The point in our context is not these details (or any accompanying cover-up) — it is the silence of the scientific community. Our topic proper is loss of rationalism on a suicide-prone planet. I am not sure I could convince you of an overall decline in the disciplined spirit of science with my ten points. Or of the persisting truth of Francis Bacon’s claim that nature is humankind’s enemy posing booby traps that become the more dangerous the more advanced the technology is. This healthy rationalist attitude has evaporated from the planet, or so it appears.

My friend C. Andy Hilgartner is not so optimistic. He thinks there is a virus – a lethal assumption – contained in rationalism itself. Or more specifically in the way post-hunter-gatherer societies are “languaging.” He is the first to have written an artificial grammar derived from explicit premises (the “non-Aristotelian premises” proposed in 1941 by Alfred Korzybski). From those premises, he with linguist Ronald Harrington generated a “Let us keep track of what we say” notational language. It avoids the crucial mistake which Hilgartner sees in the pretense, implicit in the usual generalized grammar underlying the Indo-European languages among others, that unlike verbs, nouns (maps) are implicitly identified with what they stand for (territory). This amounts to a built-in dishonesty in our languaging and hence in our thinking.

I hope that this advanced level of rationalism (Korzybski’s 1941 book is titled “Science and Sanity”) is not really needed for the planet’s survival, in the present short-term situation. For as we saw even the traditional rationalism called “science” is violated by the current lifeboat-defying collective inactivity of the rest of the globe in the face of CERN’s activity. But I cannot rule out that Andy has caught the real culprit so everything placed before your judgment above was naïve since the real metánoia needed remained unaddressed. The existing urgency would be my only excuse.

Let me close proposing an opinion poll in case anyone cares to reply: Please, add a Y or an N to your name and/or text answering the following question: “Should CERN take a break and allow the scientific safety conference to be convened? Yes or no?” The N answers will be of special interest to every reader.

I thank Bill Seaman, Ken Hiwaki, Artur Schmidt and Martha Bartter for discussions. For JO.R. (042711)

I am both the warner and the only reporter — a strange situation to be in. My scientific results prove that the currently running LHC experiment is going to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time with a probability of 8 percent if continued. They stay un-disproved for 3 years but no one takes notice. What is the explanation?

If my results were nonsense, some scientist would have taken the trouble to dismantle them publicly under her or his own name so I could respond and an open consensus – if need be that to disagree — could form as befits both science and the dignity of the public.

The fact that CERN currently continues in defiance of a Cologne court’s request to first admit a scientific safety conference is equally baffling, since again the public appears to have the right to know.

While CERN keeps a low profile, a well-equipped blog owned by a member of CERN’s sister institution, DESY, substitutes refutation by ad-hominem assaults to influence the media. Although experienced hatred is better than no response at all, this response throws a scant light on CERN’s science.

Why not demonstrate to the world why the gothic-R theorem and the Telemach theorem and the miniquasar theorem and the immunity of neutron stars theorem are false? A single one out of them, if disproved, will instantaneously transform me into CERN’s best ally as CERN well knows. Never was there a more manifest fear of the truth, it appears.

My last hope are the current victims of the technological hubris of another nuclear machine. They alone have nothing to lose by speaking the truth. Maybe one of them feels that a small amount of their remaining lifetime is worth investing to safeguard the lives of those dearest to them? For it is only contrition before heaven that can save us all,

Prof. Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., April 13, 2011)

Forgive me my courage because I like you. The catastrophe at Fukushima is a testimony to human fallibility. For 3 years, an analogous trap has been opened up for the planet as a whole, but no one believes my proof: An 8-percent probability of the planet being shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time if the LHC experiment at Geneva is continued.

500 planetary newspapers reported on my warnings in 2008, before the experiment fizzled. After it got resumed in 2010, there is a press curfew worldwide. Even the appeal by a court to at long last admit the scientific safety conference called for (my only request) is quietly skirted by CERN. Just finding out about the truth is asking too much.

The reason is painful and has to do with Einstein and Japan (“I made one mistake in my life,” he said). No one believes any more that he was even greater in his youth. This is what I found out: The famous equivalence principle (between gravity and horizontal acceleration) of 1907 is even more powerful than known. What is known is that clocks tick more slowly further down in gravity, as he proved. But this time-change result stands not alone: Length and mass and charge are equally affected (TeLeMaCh theorem, for T, L, M, Ch) as is easy to prove. Hence gravity is much more powerful than anticipated. Black holes have radically different properties, for example. And black holes are being tried to be generated at the LHC.

Why the planet-wide press curfew since 2008? Apparently a nobelist cooperating with the LHC gave the parole that the new result is “absolute nonsense,” which would be gratifying to believe if true. But the press for some reason forgot to ask back: “Did you discuss your counterclaim with the author?” (No.) “Has anyone proved it?” (No.) “Is anyone ready to defend it publicly in dialog?” (No.)

So this is the largest possible accident to occur to the trustworthiness of the media. The price to pay by everyone is lack of protection for the planet. Einstein’s life was crushed after the atomic bomb. Can the planet expect to be saved by his “happiest thought” as he always called the equivalence principle? I tremble asking you this question.

For J.O.R. (March 27, 2011)

I deeply feel with the Japanese victims of a lack of human caution regarding nuclear reactors. Is it compatible with this atonement if I desperately ask the victims to speak up with me against the next consciously incurred catastrophe made in Switzerland? If the proof of danger stays un-disproved, CERN is currently about to melt the earth’s mantle along with its core down to a 2-cm black hole in perhaps 5 years time at a probability of 8 percent. A million nuclear power plants pale before the “European Centre for Nuclear Research.” CERN must not be allowed to go on shunning the scientific safety conference sternly advised by a Cologne court only six weeks ago.

I thank Lifeboat for distributing this message worldwide.

1) Mini black holes are both non-evaporating and uncharged.

2) The new unchargedness makes them much more likely to arise in the LHC (since electrons are no longer point-shaped in confirmation of string theory).

3) When stuck inside matter, mini black holes grow exponentially as “miniquasars” to shrink earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years time.

4) They go undetected by CERN’s detectors.

5) They cannot eat neutron star cores (CERN’s life insurance argument is misleading).

For almost one year, CERN tries to produce them. Last week, CERN resumed operation while openly shunning the scientific safety conference publicly demanded for three years and most recently advised by a Cologne court.
The world’s media who do not believe that CERN betrays them are encouraged to ask one constructive question: Is a single physics nobelist ready to disprove one of the above 5 points?

i) O.E. Rossler, “Abraham-solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk,” in: Vernetzte Wissenschaften — Crosslinks in Natural and Social Sciences (P.J. Plath and E.C. Hass, eds.), pp. 263–270. Logos-Verlag Berlin, July 2008; online:
ii) O.E. Rossler, “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma,” in: Personal and Spiritual Development in the World of Cultural Diversity,
Vol. 5 (G.E,., Lasker and K. Hiwaki, eds.), pp.61–66. Int. Inst. Adv. Stud. Systems Research and Cybernetics, Tecumseh, July 2008; online:
iii) O.E. Rossler, TeLeMaCh theorem,

Ray Kurzweil is unique for having seen the unstoppable exponential growth of the computer revolution and extrapolating it correctly towards the attainment of a point which he called “singularity” and projects about 50 years into the future. At that point, the brain power of all human beings combined will be surpassed by the digital revolution.

The theory of the singularity has two flaws: a reparable and a hopefully not irreparable one. The repairable one has to do with the different use humans make of their brains compared to that of all animals on earth and presumably the universe. This special use can, however, be clearly defined and because of its preciousness be exported. This idea of “galactic export” makes Kurzweil’s program even more attractive.

The second drawback is nothing Ray Kurzweil has anything to do with, being entirely the fault of the rest of humankind: The half century that the singularity still needs to be reached may not be available any more.

The reason for that is CERN. Even though presented in time with published proofs that its proton-colliding experiment will with a probability of 8 percent produce a resident exponentially growing mini black hole eating earth inside out in perhaps 5 years time, CERN prefers not to quote those results or try and dismantle them before acting. Even the call by an administrative court (Cologne) to convene the overdue scientific safety conference before continuing was ignored when CERN re-ignited the machine a week ago.

This is most interesting news for singularity theorists. The majority of the currently living population of planet earth is unable to “think exponentially.” Can Ray Kurzweil or Lifeboat or the Singularity University somehow entice CERN into dialog before it is too late?

For J.O.R. (March 10, 2011)

Einstein saw that clocks located “more downstairs” in an accelerating rocket predictably tick slower. This was his “happiest thought” as he often said.

However,as everything looks normal on the lower floor, the normal-appearing photons generated there do actually have less mass-energy. So do all local masses there by general covariance, and hence also all associated charges down there.

The last two implications were overlooked for a century. “This cannot be,” more than 30 renowned scientists declared, to let a prestigious experiment with which they have ties appear innocuous.

This would make for an ideal script to movie makers and for a bonanza to metrologists. But why the political undertones above? Because, like the bomb, this new crumb from Einstein’s table has a potentially unbounded impact. Only if it gets appreciated within a few days time, all human beings — including the Egyptians — can breathe freely again.

This appreciation is vital for the planet — before the LHC machine at CERN will be re-ignited within a matter of days. No one at CERN disputes that the finding radically alters the safety equation. They only claim that the result is “absolute nonsense” and not even worth being discussed publicly.

CERN says “zero risk” of the planet getting shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps five years time — I say “8 percent risk” if the machine continues. This clearly deserves a mediating conference — as a judge strongly advised CERN on January 27, 2011 at a court hearing in Cologne, Germany (13 K 5693/08).

To insist on clarification about the “ultimate slow bomb at CERN” is a logical necessity. Is any couple in love or any parent NOT joining me in demanding the public safety conference before it is too late?

Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R.)

When examining the delicate balance that life on Earth hangs within, it is impossible not to consider the ongoing love/hate connection between our parent star, the sun, and our uniquely terraqueous home planet.

On one hand, Earth is situated so perfectly, so ideally, inside the sun’s habitable zone, that it is impossible not to esteem our parent star with a sense of ongoing gratitude. It is, after all, the onslaught of spectral rain, the sun’s seemingly limitless output of charged particles, which provide the initial spark to all terrestrial life.

Yet on another hand, during those brief moments of solar upheaval, when highly energetic Earth-directed ejecta threaten with destruction our precipitously perched technological infrastructure, one cannot help but eye with caution the potentially calamitous distance of only 93 million miles that our entire human population resides from this unpredictable stellar inferno.

On 6 February 2011, twin solar observational spacecraft STEREO aligned at opposite ends of the sun along Earth’s orbit, and for the first time in human history, offered scientists a complete 360-degree view of the sun. Since solar observation began hundreds of years ago, humanity has had available only one side of the sun in view at any given time, as it slowly completed a rotation every 27 days. First launched in 2006, the two STEREO satellites are glittering jewels among a growing crown of heliophysics science missions that aim to better understand solar dynamics, and for the next eight years, will offer this dual-sided view of our parent star.

In addition to providing the source of all energy to our home planet Earth, the sun occasionally spews from its active regions violent bursts of energy, known as coronal mass ejections(CMEs). These fast traveling clouds of ionized gas are responsible for lovely events like the aurorae borealis and australis, but beyond a certain point have been known to overload orbiting satellites, set fire to ground-based technological infrastructure, and even usher in widespread blackouts.

CMEs are natural occurrences and as well understood as ever thanks to the emerging perspective of our sun as a dynamic star. Though humanity has known for centuries that the solar cycle follows a more/less eleven-year ebb and flow, only recently has the scientific community effectively constellated a more complete picture as to how our sun’s subtle changes effect space weather and, unfortunately, how little we can feasibly contend with this legitimate global threat.

The massive solar storm that occurred on 1 September 1859 produced aurorae that were visible as far south as Hawai’i and Cuba, with similar effects observed around the South Pole. The Earth-directed CME took all of 17 hours to make the 93 million mile trek from the corona of our sun to the Earth’s atmosphere, due to an earlier CME that had cleared a nice path for its intra-stellar journey. The one saving grace of this massive space weather event was that the North American and European telegraph system was in its delicate infancy, in place for only 15 years prior. Nevertheless, telegraph pylons threw sparks, many of them burning, and telegraph paper worldwide caught fire spontaneously.

Considering the ambitious improvements in communications lines, electrical grids, and broadband networks that have been implemented since, humanity faces the threat of space weather on uneven footing. Large CME events are known to occur around every 500 years, based on ice core samples measured for high-energy proton radiation.

The CME event on 14 March 1989 overloaded the HydroQuebec transmission lines and caused the catastrophic collapse of an entire power gird. The resulting aurorae were visible as far south as Texas and Florida. The estimated cost was totaled in the hundreds of million of dollars. A later storm in August 1989 interfered with semiconductor functionality and trading was called off on the Toronto stock exchange.

Beginning in 1995 with the launch and deployment of The Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), through 2009 with the launch of SDO, the Solar Dynamics Observatory, and finally this year, with the launch of the Glory science mission, NASA is making ambitious, thoughtful strides to gain a clearer picture of the dynamics of the sun, to offer a better means to predict space weather, and evaluate more clearly both the great benefits and grave stellar threats.

Earth-bound technology infrastructure remains vulnerable to high-energy output from the sun. However, the growing array of orbiting satellites that the best and the brightest among modern science use to continually gather data from our dynamic star will offer humanity its best chance of modeling, predicting, and perhaps some day defending against the occasional outburst from our parent star.

Written by Zachary Urbina, Founder Cozy Dark

- submitted to the District Attorney of Tubingen, to the Administrative Court of Cologne, to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of Germany, to the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, and to the Security Council of the United Nations -

by Otto E. Rössler, Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

The results of my group represent fundamental research in the fields of general relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Several independent findings obtained in these disciplines do jointly point to a danger — almost as if Nature had posed a trap for humankind if not watching out.

MAIN RESULT. It concerns BLACK HOLES and consists of 10 sub-results

Black holes are different than previously thought and still presupposed by experimentalists. It is much as it was with the case with the Eniwetak hydrogen bomb test where incorrect physical calculations caused a catastrophe — fortunately a localized one at the time. Four Tubingen theorems (gothic-R theorem, TeLeMaCh theorem, miniquasar theorem, superfluidity theorem) entail 10 new consequences:

1) Black holes DO NOT EVAPORATE — hence they can only grow.

2) Artificial black holes generated at the LHC thus are undetectable at first.

3) Black holes are uncharged, so the faster majority pass right through the earth’s and the sun’s matter.

4) Only the slowest artificial ones — below 11 km/sec — will stay inside earth.

5) Inside matter, a resident black hole will not grow linerally but rather — via self-organization — form a so-called “miniquasar”: an electro-gravitational engine that grows exponentially, hence shrinking the earth to 2 cm in a few years time.

6) Since black holes are uncharged, charged elementary particles conversely can no longer be maximally small (“point-shaped”). Hence space is “bored open” in the small as predicted by the string and loop theories.

7) Therefore, the probability of black holes being generated by the LHC experiment is heavily boosted up to about 10 percent at the energy of 7 and (planned soon) 8 TeV.

8) This high probability was apparently not yet reached in 2010, since the originally planned cumulative luminosity was not achieved. But the higher-energetic second phase of proton collisions, scheduled to start in February 2011, is bound to reach that level.

9) Black holes produced in natural particle collisions (cosmic ray protons colliding with surface protons of celestial bodies including earth) are much too fast to get stuck inside matter and hence are innocuous.

10) The only exception is ultra-dense neutron stars. However, their super-fluid “core” is frictionless by virtue of quantum mechanics. Ultra-fast mini black holes that get stuck in the “crust” can grow there only to a limited weight before sinking into the core — where they stop growing. Hence the empirical persistence of neutron stars is NOT a safety guarantee as CERN claims.

MAIN QUESTION: Why do the CERN representatives disregard the above results? (Ten possible reasons)

1, The novelty of those results.

2, The limited dissemination of the above results. So far, only three pertinent papers have appeared in print, two in conference proceedings in July 2008 and one in an online science journal in 2010. CERN never quoted these results sent to it first as preprints, in its “safety reports” (never updated for two and a half years). The more recent relevant results are still confined to the Internet.

3, The a priori improbability that several results stemming from independent areas of science would “conspire” to form a threat rather than cancel out in this respect. There seems to be no historical precedent for this.

4, The decades-long intervals between new results in general relativity make sure that new findings meet with maximum skepticism at first.

5, One finding — the unchargedness result (Ch in TeLeMaCh) — dethrones a two centuries old physical law, that of charge conservation.

6, The fact that the large planetary community of string theorists suddenly hold an “almost too good” result in their hands paradoxically causes them to keep a low profile rather than triumph.

7, The waned spirit of progress in fundamental physics after its results too often proved to be “Greek gifts.”

8, The LHC experiment is the largest and most tightly knit collective scientific effort of history.

9, A fear to lose sponsors and political support for subsequent mega-projects if admitting a potential safety gap.

10, The world-wide adoption of high-school type undergraduate curricula in place of the previous self-responsible style of studying, which has the side effect that collective authority acquires an undue weight.


Why has the “scientific safety conference,” publicly demanded on April 18, 2008, not been taken up by any grouping on the planet? Nothing but FALSIFICATION of the presented scientific results was and is being asked. Falsification of a single one will wipe out the danger. A week of discussing might suffice to reach a consensus.

Neither politics nor the media have realized up until now that not a single visible scientist on the planet assumes responsibility for the alleged falsity of the results presented. in particular, no individual stands up to defend his disproved counterclaims (the number of specialists who entered the ring in the first place can be counted on one hand). This simple fact — not a single open adversary — escaped the attention of a media person or politician up until now.

Neither group dares confront a worldwide interest lobby even though it is not money for once that is at stake but only borrowed authority. Almost so as if the grand old men of science of the 20th century had left no successors nor had the gifted philosophers and writers (I exempt Paul Virilio). Bringing oneself up-to-date on a given topic paradoxically seems impaired in the age of the Internet.

Thus there are no culprits? None except for myself who wrongly thought that painful words (like “risk of planetocaust”) could have a wake-up effect at the last moment. The real reason for the delayed global awakening to the danger may lie with this communication error made by someone who knows how it is to lose a child. In the second place, my personal friends Lorenz, von Weizsacker, Wheeler and DeWitt are no longer among us.


I therefore appeal to the above called-upon high legal and political bodies to rapidly rule that the long overdue scientific safety conference take place before the LHC experiment is allowed to resume in mid-February 2011. Or in the case of a delay of the conference beyond that date, to prohibit resumption of the experiment before the
conference has taken place.

I reckon with the fact that I will make a terrible fool of myself if at long last a scientist succeeds in falsifying a single one of the above 10 scientific findings (or 4 theorems). This is my risk and my hope at the same time. I ask the world’s forgiveness for my insisting that my possibly deficient state of knowledge be set straight before the largest experiment of history can continue.

However, the youngest ship’s boy in the crow’s nest who believes he recognizes something on the horizon has the acknowledged duty to insist on his getting a hearing. I humbly ask the high bodies mentioned not to hold this fact against me and to rule in accordance with my proposition: First clarification, then continuation. Otherwise, it would be madness even if in retrospect it proved innocuous. Would it not?

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rössler, Chaos Researcher
(For J.O.R.)

Experts regard safety report on Big Bang Machine as insufficient and one-dimensional

International critics of the high energy experiments planned to start soon at the particle accelerator LHC at CERN in Geneva have submitted a request to the Ministers of Science of the CERN member states and to the delegates to the CERN Council, the supreme controlling body of CERN.

The paper states that several risk scenarios (that have to be described as global or existential risks) cannot currently be excluded. Under present conditions, the critics have to speak out against an operation of the LHC.

The submission includes assessments from expertises in the fields markedly missing from the physicist-only LSAG safety report — those of risk assessment, law, ethics and statistics. Further weight is added because these experts are all university-level experts – from Griffith University, the University of North Dakota and Oxford University respectively. In particular, it is criticised that CERN’s official safety report lacks independence – all its authors have a prior interest in the LHC running and that the report uses physicist-only authors, when modern risk-assessment guidelines recommend risk experts and ethicists as well.

As a precondition of safety, the request calls for a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment and additional astrophysical experiments – Earth based and in the atmosphere – for a better empirical verification of the alleged comparability of particle collisions under the extreme artificial conditions of the LHC experiment and relatively rare natural high energy particle collisions: “Far from copying nature, the LHC focuses on rare and extreme events in a physical set up which has never occurred before in the history of the planet. Nature does not set up LHC experiments.”

Even under greatly improved circumstances concerning safety as proposed above, big jumps in energy increase, as presently planned by a factor of three compared to present records, without carefully analyzing previous results before each increase of energy, should principally be avoided.

The concise “Request to CERN Council and Member States on LHC Risks” (Pdf with hyperlinks to the described studies) by several critical groups, supported by well known critics of the planned experiments:

The answer received by now does not consider these arguments and studies but only repeats again that from the side of the operators everything appears sufficient, agreed by a Nobel Price winner in physics. LHC restart and record collisions by factor 3 are presently scheduled for March 30, 2010.

Official detailed and well understandable paper and communication with many scientific sources by ‘ConCERNed International’ and ‘LHC Kritik’:

More info: