Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

… but it also represents the benevolent side of humanity.

I therefore herewith publicly ask UNESCO as an Austrian citizen with Jewish ancestors to convoke the scientific safety conference necessary to exculpate CERN.

I am the only friend CERN possesses on the globe through my insisting on their exculpation if possible. For the indictment against CERN reads: “Attempted Panbiocide.”

The proposed scientific safety conference has as its only aim the finding of evidence that my proof of danger is false. My proof implies that the miniature black holes officially attempted to be generated by CERN will shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time: if one of them is slow enough to stay inside earth as is bound to happen after a certain period of operation which may or may not have been exceeded already. CERN is blind to its own success (if it occurred) for refusing to install the detectors needed in light of the new result. Instead they did their best to produce black holes for about a year with increasing luminosity.

CERN still refuses to contradict my results, brough to their attention almost 4 years ago and published more than 3 years ago, by refusing to quote them in their own scientific publications. No one can understand this “Austrich policy” in violation of the ethics of science.

Please, dear UNESCO:

Do your best to exculpate CERN (and Europe) by giving the world a chance to learn that the danger seen by me and my colleagues (those who confirmed my results or arrived at them independently) is non-existent which requires falsification.

The necessary safety conference first demanded 3 ½ years ago (“PetiontoCERN”) was publicly advised by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rössler

Chaos researcher, University of Tübingen, Germany

Occupy is faceless but benevolent.

My scientific colleagues are faceless but malevolent: They refuse to try to defuse my results but agree to an experiment being continued that if those results are correct is pangeocidal.

The worst scandal of history and no public voice on my side: Can Occupy save the planet by asking for clarification?

1) Black holes can be charged — in contrast to my relativistic disproof (Telemach theorem)

2) Black holes can evaporate — in contrast to my relativistic disproof (Telemach theorem)

3) Black holes can grow in superfluid neutron star cores — in contrast to my quantum disproof

4) Black holes cannot grow exponentially inside earth — in contrast to my chaos proof

The background:
I showed 4 years ago that CERN’s LHC experiment is geocidal with a high probability.

The situation:
No one found a counterproof so far but CERN refuses to let me give a talk before them or to admit the scientific safety conference publicly requested 3½ years ago, and by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

I went before the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity 3 years ago. I am presently before the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly: No quiver so far.

I see no other way but public name-calling: I accuse my colleague professor Heuer, director of CERN, of risking the planet and hence “being worse than a Nazi” if he continues. I am allowed to say that. This is especially frightening.

Our colleague Richard J. Cook independently arrived at my results. A high-ranking member of a National Academy found an even nobler version independently. Many colleagues are on my side.

So why not interrupt the presently climaxing experiment (these very days) and admit the conference? I feel I must speak out in the name of any mother and father of the planet. Can really no one help?

The Don Quijote mission — so we don’t go the same way as the dinosaurs.

With some help from colleagues, I recently produced a report on the planned European Space Agency Don Quijote mission to divert an asteroid’s trajectory (kind of a test-run for the real thing that may happen some time in the future) as a 365 Days of Astronomy podcast.

It is reassuring to see humanity beginning to deal with this genuine risk to Earth’s survival — just in case we don’t all get swallowed up in a 2cm black hole in the next five years wink

The transcript is also available for reading on the 365 Days site if you are not a podcast fan.

Thanks

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)

Institute or Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.

Abstract
CERN’s apparent superluminality result can be partially explained subluminally.
(October 24, 2011)

Simultaneity on a rotating sphere is non-unique — forming not a circle but a helix at a given latitude — as is well known, cf. [1 ] and references quoted there.

The neglected deviation from global simultaneity — being incorporated by design in the Global Positioning System employed by CERN [2] — is 0.1032 microseconds or 30 meters for an equatorial circle [1]. On the mean longitude of Geneva and Gran Sasso, the full-circle deviation is about half as large: 0.05 microseconds or 15 meters.

Since the latitudinal separation between Geneva and Gran Sasso (7.3 degrees) covers only the fiftieth part of a circle, the applicable deviation is 50 times smaller: 1 nanosecond or 0.3 meters. The sign is the same as that found empirically by CERN, but the magnitude of the deviation measured by CERN is 60 times larger than predicted: 60.7 nanoseconds or 18 meters [2]. Thus, CERN’s result has been qualitatively confirmed from first principles for the first time, but so with only 2 percent of its size.

Experience teaches that once a mistake has been found in the design or interpretation of an experiment, further errors along the same line are likely to be unearthed. Whether or not there is a chance to quantitatively compress the improved new result by a factor of 60 is, of course, open.

A minor possibility of improvement is as follows. CERN failed to measure the light flight time between two long parallel rods of 35km length, one erected above the neutrino cannon at CERN and the other above the detector in the Gran Sasso. Two ultrahigh balloons could do the job in principle; or else a chain of alpine mirrors could be used as a substitute necessitating a more complicated discussion. This proposal was made because experience tells that radically new measured data ought to be compared with measured data directly. A second experimental proposal offers itself: To repeat the experiment in the U.S., not in the same but in the opposite (East-West) direction. In this case the rotation-specific apparent superluminality will predictably give rise to a matching subluminality. Finally, I dare mention that the present experiment — unlike other current experiments at CERN – deserves planet-wide support for its ingenuity and innocuousness.

To conclude, a partial subluminal explanation for the newest CERN experiment has been offered. I thank Eric Penrose and Walter Wagner for discussions. (For J.O.R.)

References

[1] O.E. Rossler, D. Fröhlich, N. Kleiner and F.J. Müller, Nonunique simultaneity on isochrones of the rotating disk: a timeloop in special relativity? Journal of New Energy 6(4), 210–214 (2002).

[2] T. Adam, N. Agafonova, A. Aleksandrov, O. Altinok, P. Alvarez Sanchez, S. Aoki, A. Ariga, T. Ariga, D. Autiero, A. Badertscher, A. Ben Dhahbi, A. Bertolin, C. Bozza, T. Brugiére, F. Brunet, G. Brunetti, S. Buontempo, F. Cavanna, A. Cazes, L. Chaussard, M. Chernyavskiy, V. Chiarella, A. Chukanov, G. Colosimo, M. Crespi, N. D’Ambrosios, Y. Déclais, P. del Amo Sanchez, G. De Lellis, M. De Serio, F. Di Capua, F. Cavanna, A. Di Crescenzo, D. Di Ferdinando, N. Di Marco, S. Dmitrievsky, M. Dracos, D. Duchesneau, S. Dusini, J. Ebert, I. Eftimiopolous, O. Egorov, A. Ereditato, L.S. Esposito, J. Favier, T. Ferber, R.A. Fini, T. Fukuda, A. Garfagnini, G. Giacomelli, C. Girerd, M. Giorgini, M. Giovannozzi, J. Goldberga, C. Göllnitz, L. Goncharova, Y. Gornushkin, G. Grella, F. Griantia, E. Gschewentner, C. Guerin, A.M. Guler, C. Gustavino, K. Hamada, T. Hara, M. Hierholzer, A. Hollnagel, M. Ieva, H. Ishida, K. Ishiguro, K. Jakovcic, C. Jollet, M. Jones, F. Juget, M. Kamiscioglu, J. Kawada, S.H. Kim, M. Kimura, N. Kitagawa, B. Klicek, J. Knuesel, K. Kodama, M. Komatsu, U. Kose, I. Kreslo, C. Lazzaro, J. Lenkeit, A. Ljubicic, A. Longhin, A. Malgin, G. Mandrioli, J. Marteau, T. Matsuo, N. Mauri, A. Mazzoni, E. Medinaceli, j, F. Meisel, A. Meregaglia, P. Migliozzi, S. Mikado, D. Missiaen, K. Morishima, U. Moser, M.T. Muciaccia, N. Naganawa, T. Naka, M. Nakamura, T. Nakano, Y. Nakatsuka, D. Naumov, V. Nikitina, S. Ogawa, N. Okateva, A. Olchevsky, O. Palamara, A. Paoloni, B.D. Park, I.G. Park, A. Pastore, L. Patrizii, E. Pennacchio, H. Pessard, C. Pistillo, N. Polukhina, M. Pozzato, K. Pretzl, F. Pupilli, R. Rescigno, T. Roganova, H. Rokujo, G. Rosa, I. Rostovtseva, A. Rubbia, A. Russo, O. Sato, Y. Sato, A. Schembri, J. Schuler, L. Scotto Lavina, J. Serrano, A. Sheshukov, H. Shibuya, G. Shoziyoev, S. Simone, M. Sioli, C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, J.S. Song, M. Spinetti, N. Starkov, M. Stellacci, M. Stipcevic, T. Strauss, P. Strolin, S. Takahashi, M. Tenti, F. Terranova, I. Tezuka, V. Tioukov, P. Tolun, T. Tran, S. Tufanli, P. Vilain, M. Vladimirov, L. Votano, J.-L. Vuilleumier, G. Wilquet, B. Wonsak, J. Wurtz, C.S. Yoon, J. Yoshida, Y. Zaitsev, S. Zemskova, A. Zghiche et al. (117 additional authors not shown), Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Sept. 22, 2011).
[Main result, quoted from the abstract: “An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10–5.”]

(Paper simultaneously submitted to Nature and Science)

ISDHuB — International Space Development Hub — Hangar One/Nasa Ames Research Park

An aspect of support for the 100 year star ship program
A.H.Sinclair 11/11/11

For the formulation of a 100 year star ship prospectus and for a comprehensive and compatible100 year world view which will advance both the sciences of space exploration and the issues of a planetary sustainability we suggest the following discussion as being alternative to the more isolate modes of inquiry:

Technology
The star ship continuum may readily represent a “basket” of leading edge and advanced technologies. Some may have emerged already within theory and methodology, such as solar sail propulsion, laser beaming modus and experimental plasma, nuclear and fission designations. Some may not have emerged yet into even a hypothetical realization, even so we can expect that future research and development stylistics will evolve around themes that construe for a deeper knowledge of affective issues within fields of particle and energy physics and the notable materials sciences including experiential nanotechnologies, leading into the original, insightful and creative perspectives of purpose and applications which are found through a radical scientific advancement.

Although such remote and intense inquiry spearheads and poses for the pinnacle of a scientific acumen, it occurs within the larger designations as given by expansion into the solar system and the contemporaneous potentials for cis lunar and lunar development, asteroid investigation and mitigation frameworks and martian exploration. Therefore it may be said that although 100yss is a somewhat esoteric vehicle it is also an intrinsic and central part of the overall solar system expansion strategy. Within such community it is inevitable that the designs, products, applications and research brought forward by star ship technological perspectives will have effect for the many expedient space exploration platforms including those of expedient flight, duration and settlement.

100yss should not be considered as lying outside of main stream space exploration. it should be considered as leading out for main stream space exploration although such a position remains to be carefully established.

The star ship road map can establish such purpose, the star ship continuum is perhaps easily related to as a jigsaw or puzzle play into the limitation of investigation. How far will the paradigm penetrate, to discover newer forms of space propulsion, to discover the newer materials and techniques that will make so much more possible in so many space arenas, and finally to discover the moving edge of human insight for the material world as the star field destination comes into view.

The purpose of the star ship canonical road map is to lay out and formulate the lines of inquiry, to enable related and inter-disciplinary models and alliances and most significantly to provide the genuine and highly rational scientific background which postulates star ship development into a leading vehicle for the future world proficiencies. The 100yss road map and implementation structure delivers an evolving and supporting framework which may be construed as an immediate contingency within accurate focus for space exploration parameters and for research and development, educational and public outreach potentials

Society
The star ship is above all a very human vehicle, it occurs at the early moment when our planet, our only home base since we took the first steps towards the skies of a space faring species, faces the unprecedented dangers. As mankind must stand naked and alone to view the dawnings of the Anthropocene and the ending of the chapters of human history, we might indeed ask ourselves in such serious terms what is the value of the star ship? Yet such value is inestimable and incalculable if it is considered as being the inclusive vehicle of our temporal advancement.

In order to make the decisive intellectual leap we will need to adopt an inclusive and holistic world view in regard to the formulation of the many levels of the national and international space development prospectus. This inclusive viewpoint also represents the underlying sentiment of the global populations towards the inspiring perspectives which are proffered by the view of the vibrant blue dot, as we unfold the heaven above and reveal such remarkable qualities into the accessible forums of a human skill and knowledge. And it is all of one warp and weft, despite the multitudes of categorizations. We do not have any need to discriminate the mundane from the overview, from grass roots to earth orbit, a global mass communications and informational ability now gives us the original tools with which to steer and remake our planet earth, the original star ship into the formative venues of the planetary development dynamics whose sights are set on the stars.

How could such a dramatic deed be accomplished and why? The responsibility that science bears to humanity is classical, significant and it is well intended. Unfortunately or not science is the only universal medium, space science even more so. There is no other language apart from art or music which is spoken by all peoples everywhere, and science is bountiful.

Through space development we might enable what may turn out to be an adequate safety and security for all populations and through information and data revision we could enable what may turn out to be an adequate and globalized civil society assurance and protection. Such inevitable events are already well established and supported by a strong and friendly AI. The global community which seeks the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space may prove both capable and determined in applying and understanding such formative technologies, the technologies of space which will not only assist for each unseen and autonomous individual in fulfillment of the diverse requisites but also will propose and maintain for how each nation can readily fulfill that obligation. Space disseminates the largess, science for sustainability may give us all the resources that are needed for an equitable co-existence and for the optimal usage of our limited supply.

Space can do more, it can attempt to ensure the energy prospectus of a future world, stretching hundreds, thousands or millions of years into the future. The paradigm can now be readily analyzed, space based solar power may well turn out as the feasible model, and if not, ingenuity and technological proficiency will make sure that our complex calculations are the correct ones, that we do not run out before we have enough and that we pass through the transition with our eyes wide open. So much has been done already in these few short years, we have seen focus and motivation to find the solution before the problem catches up, global carbon trading and emissions cap for example. What turmoil and how brave and courageous mankind is in face of the unacceptable adversary of a climatic extinction.

The star ship speaks to us of annihilation also and of many other and strange things. SETI estimates the no of inhabited worlds and they are surely correct, but that is all a very long way away, and we are so infinitely small between the stars. Do we envision that the star ship will carry some survivors away, or even our DNA profile when nothing else is left, in that end time, some time soon perhaps. But much, much better than final foray, the star ship can return us to ourselves, to focus our understanding on outer space as offering the vehicle for planetary prosperity and this is the true meaning of the endowment of the mundane heaven. We can take the opportunity and or we can leave it aside. Science and space is impartial, the decision for insight is made for humanity and on behalf of humanity. The 100yss is the endowment of humanity, it will bring results even from inception as an formative ideal and we will surely understand very well that only the human can breathe life into the machine. There is nothing which is artificial here, we are the organic matrix of both our technology and our environment. Human cultures are diverse, but the threads which draw us together are universal. The ancient networks of culture, compassion and insight are enabled by the skillful tools of science, a turn around has arrived.

Putting It Together
Issue for 100yss is both technological and social in nature. But such far reaching paradigms do not readily see the light of day. The delivery of the message of a star ship enlightenment is not any propaganda it is a complex, subtle and sensitive process and supposes the alignment of the methodologies of both containment and endowment. The democracy and education of space is obtainable but only if the message for the purport of such global affinities can be readily located and disseminated.

For this reason we propose the establishment of ISDHuB at the ARC on Moffett Field in the heart of Silicon Valley. The hub may act as radical nexus and focus for 100yss going forward. A fortuitous circumstance will make this unique and iconic national and global asset quickly available, a time-line is obtainable through 2012, and public and educational provision may be established within the shortest possible term following on from the preparation of the partnership alliances and criteria. Our strategy is one of inclusion. We would expect the initiation of ISDHuB to be proposed and obtained through both US and International Space Agency subscriptions. Such entities may include the ARC Lunar Science Institute as a formative settlement model, along with many other distinguished US space science proviso according to interest and demand. The ARC based space science consortia within ISDHuB represent a basic ground and verification for the 100yss independent representation. 100yss road map is informed by such attributes and it will fulfill an appropriate and negotiating role as it carries the 100 year continuum forward. The function of the star ship is not only to envision and offer support for the advanced vehicles of a future space exploration it is also to propose the enduring parameters of the 100 year space based world view. We know our time is finite and we know that we must leave our careful design behind for the generations of the future world. We know that there are many problems that were not looked at or seen before, and we know how to easily solve most if not all of them. The future generations will continue to expand the horizons of knowledge, but the more provisions that we can consolidate now, the easier the struggle will be.

The hub can educate millions upon millions for the future of our world. For space as the vehicle of a planetary endowment, and for space as an ultimate destination.. We need a practical methodology of means. ISDHuB can supply the platform because it is an inclusive and obtainable working basis for this world and the worlds beyond. The diffusion of insight and appreciation is complex and personal, and that is how the democracy of space is truly represented. The research and development of 100yss may be supported by ISDHuB continuum over all the ensuing multitudes of years. Of course any physical building only stands for a certain amount of time, but the partnership that ISDHuB will bring and the enduring message that it will undertake will live on through all the vicissitudes, because the education of a peoples, a nations and a planet for the journey to the beyond, is not anything irrelevant.

Thomas Insel from the National Institute of Mental Health recently focused on his life’s work on oxytocin, as I learned from a report in the Wall Street Journal (Oct. 5) featuring this “bonding hormone” of all mammals including humans. (See http://www.dnalc.org/view/2377-Oxytocin-Emotion-and-Autism.html )

Humans are the laughter-bonding mammals. Non-smile-blind toddlers at one point get seduced by Mom’s laughter into a bonding bout. Much as a puppy can in principle (no one checked on this) be seduced into a bonding bout by an adult dog’s happy tail-wagging. This strange convergence of two moods (bonding and joyfulness) into being expressed by the same innate releaser thus has occurred twice independently in two different mammalian species, wolf and human. But the toddler unlike the puppy is mirror-competent. Hence he is able to in addition concoct the hypothesis that Mom is being rewarded over there deep inside by his own momentary activity here that is making her laugh: A strange suspicion which overwhelms his own heart. He invents benevolence as existing over there out of nothing through perceiving it in the joy given to him. And then he tries to do the same thing reciprocally in anticipation of her appreciation. The all of a sudden grown appreciative former animal is no longer an animal – he suddenly knows heaven.

The invention of appreciation turns the toddler into a person. In Bill Seaman’s and mine new book, “Neosentience – The Benevolence Engine” (University of Chicago Press/Intellect 2011), much of this is detailed. Why am I mentioning it here? It is because benevolence is the human stamp. No other animal is benevolent so far – knowing about responsibility and the Now and truthfulness. But we humans can induce animals more intelligent than we are, hardware-wise, into becoming our elder brothers. Leo Szilard — bomb-inventor, bomb proposer and (in vain) bomb retractor — caught a first glimpse of this desperate hope in 1948, as detailed in my paper on the gothic-R theorem of general relativity.

Can I seduce everyone who reads this into becoming moved into “calling another soul his own,” as poet Schiller and composer Beethoven put it in their scientifically correct Song of Joy?

Science is the greatest fun in this most human activity of mutual support and appreciation. Let us not kill it by allowing it to be misused in an attempt to shrink the planet to 2 cm in a matter of years. The toddlers won’t understand this nor will the mothers.

Neither Robert M. Wald – long the biggest name in general relativity because of his superhuman book of 1984 – nor Wolfgang Rindler – the revered grandmaster of the Einstein equivalence principle – contradict me nor does Hermann Nicolai – my official adversary – do so any longer in the open. While on the other side professor Richard J. Cook and two more world-class specialists in and outside Europe share my results.

Is this impressive list not reason enough to let the scientific safety conference take place at last?

Somehow it is cute that the three first-mentioned scientists do not let pressure be put on them: “Nothing is more imposing than being unimposable,” my friend Konrad Lorenz used to say. But the seeming silence is the loudest of history because the responsible gentlemen simultaneously keep their iron grip on an open faucet. Their lips are compressed while the MG rattles – the most visible coward act of history. This unless by happenstance an error in the critics’ results can still be uncovered – which to facilitate is the only aim of the “safety conference” refused by CERN for 3 ½ years.

Imagine: To be cleared from the worst reproach of history is what CERN abhors the most. They are going to have a very hard time to explain this before the future. With each passing day, they are bringing themselves and science and Europe and Christianity closer to the brink of history, even if the planet eventually survives which will not be known for years to come.

P.S. The danger is currently still below 3 percent.

A public talk delivered yesterday evening in the series “Cafe philo” of the Tübinger Zimmertheater. During the first half I briefly summarized some of my “old” results on chaos and the competition between deterministic chaos and quantum mechanics (“explicable” chance versus “primary” chance). Then elements of my forthcoming paper “Hun Tun versus Big Bang” were presented along with the implied explanation why the week has seven days. Then the new physics Nobel prize stood center stage. The honor given to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess represents a timely recompense for the denial of the same prize to Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of the Hubble redshift law. His linear redshift law of 1928 grew longer and longer over the decades. The first wiggle was found 70 years later by the 3 researchers. The distance versus redshift line now points slightly upwards at its tip.

Fritz Zwicky’s 1929 – confirmed by nobelist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 14 years later – “dynamical friction” explanation of the Hubble law was re-discovered in Tübingen in 2003. It also provides a natural explanation of the Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess phenomenon as shown in 207: Instead of the currently accepted conglomerate of assumptions — an initially explosive inflation followed by a retarded expansion phase followed by a very long period of constant expansion -, nothing but a stationary possinly unbounded fractal universe is assumed. It implies an at its end more and more wiggly Hubble line of which we now see the first pointing-up deviation. Since not a single new hypothesis is involved, this finding offers a superior explanation to all observed phenomena — including the new Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess Hubble law.

The old bolometric measurements of our local cosmic temperature (about 4 absolute degrees) made by nobelist Charles Guillaume in 1896, and the apparently ultra-high-redshift ultra-distant X-ray quasars, discovered by nobelist Riccardo Giacconi in 2005, were next alluded to when I mentioned Siegfried Zielinski’s new comparative science of “Variantology,” in which alternative historical scenarios are followed up to prevent scientific progress from going astray.

After a break with wide-open windows, the audience wanted to hear about the LHC. The latter had been defended before in the “Schwäbisches Tagblatt” by my Tübingen colleague Werner Vogelsang. I started out on Francis Bacon’s early insight that nature is trying to outwit humankind, being our worst enemy. The fight against disease is no longer in the foreground of public consciousness in privileged countries. But much like penicillin in the past, so a new finding about black holes apparently makes all the difference of the world. My American colleague Richard J. Cook, pupil of Edward Teller’s, is squarely on my side, on the basis of his independent results. Also every Tübinger knows about “Schwärzloch” (“Blackhole”) already – a 900 years old hamlet 3 kilometers to the West featuring an “angel of one-half life size” in half-relief according to G. Dehio’s art guide. The new Schwarzloch result reads: “black holes are uncharged.”

The new property of black holes is an overlooked implication of Einstein’s early findings. It makes the “LHC” nuclear experiment at CERN near Geneva in Switzerland “blind” to its own most hoped-for success: black hole generation. Black holes are undetectable by the instruments available at CERN. CERN’s published result that “we did not find any black holes” jence unfortunately is devoid of content. But the new features of black holes do make a success of the LHC experiment much more likely. And their growth rate inside matter, once one slow enough to stay inside earth has been produced (which unavoidably occurs at some point) is no longer modest as CERN claims but rather exponential. Therefore but a few years suffice to let the earth be eaten inside out with nothing but a 2-cm black hole remaining. Nature’s own sister mini black holes necessarily have a very high intrinsic velocity — so that they can only get stuck in an ultra-dense neutron star. Unfortunately for humankind but fortunately for the nuclear-chemical life forms present on neutron stars (according to Robert Forward), nature has endowed neutron stars with a special quantum mechanical protection law.

At least 5 independent features of nature collude posing a “trap” to humankind, as all presently available safety arguments turn out to fizzle each for an independent reason. Such a situation is unheard of in history. CERN refuses to quote any of these results published 3 years ago. It no doubt is a subjectively forgivable form of self-righteousness which lets CERN refuse the scientific safety conference demanded 3 ½ years ago and requested anew by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011. The issue is before the United Nations Security Council but is apparently being being blocked there. This led to a remark from the audience that the popular “Stuttgart 21” street demonstrations against a new train-station are a bit naïve in comparison.

The probability of earth being shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time is going to be increased to 3 percent during the remainder of the present month by CERN if no new information applies. This fact makes the safety conference maximally urgent. To encourage the audience to ask public questions themselves, I reminded them of my own weak status in politics – that I was declared insane by the state 15 years ago for having revealed a new law in the lecture hall (involuntary out-of-field professorships) which fact had led to police being sent into my lecture hall for months in a row. This confession of mine lifted the atmosphere back to an up-beat level: Everybody tried to contribute a constructive thought. Now I hope that this brief report has a good influence on the reader so that either the necessary stop can be accomplished immediately or the salient counterargument against the implied danger can be found.