Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

A little more than 40 years ago – 42 years in July, to be exact – men walked on the moon for the first time. This achievement was a landmark for humanity – not only in that it demonstrated a vast technological ability but also because it was that “giant leap for mankind” – as Neil Armstrong so eloquently put it – in an eternal quest for the stars.

Most of us grew up watching the space program – the first orbiting satellites, the Apollo program, the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. We became accustomed to constant “leaps for mankind” in technological achievement. We shared in the sorrows – the Challenger explosion, the loss of Columbia high over Texas – and we shared in the numerous heroic successes of our astronauts and the scientists and engineers who formed NASA.

With the ending of the Shuttle program, many Americans are now beginning to feel that all those glory days are behind us. I’ve heard people lament the changes in direction of our policy of space exploration as though the adventure of discovery beyond the pull of Earth’s gravity is all but over.

I would like to remind you that we are not at the END of the Space Age. We are still merely at the beginning. Current circumstances – mainly economic ones – might make it seem that we are unable to advance – or that major advancements might not come in our lifetime. But there are still a lot of things going on that make me believe we are rapidly entering a new age of civilization that ultimately will take us beyond Earth and to the stars. All things considered, this new age is likely to be the kind of pivotal movement in history that occurred as Western civilization emerged from a state of decline through what became known as the Renaissance – literally the REBIRTH of civilization.

This new age we can call the Space Renaissance, because it comes at a time when humanity faces dire predicaments on Earth while possessing the technology to approach solutions through advancing into extraterrestrial space. And it will bring about vast changes in the way we think about ourselves – our science, our politics, our economics, even the social contracts that bind us together as human beings. It will alter, in fact, the way we regard mankind’s position in the universe, in much the same way as the notion of Renaissance astronomer Copernicus more than 500 years ago that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

The Space Renaissance will both create such changes and be forged by them. As ideas advance into new technology and new endeavours, those developments will spawn new ideas. This is the way humans have always advanced – and are advancing even today.

There is no question – in my mind – that we are progressing rapidly toward a time that human beings will routinely travel through extraterrestrial space – tapping resources such as energy, minerals and even water – not as an Earth civilization but as a Solar Civilization. Not everyone might agree with that assessment. Some are simply too pessimistic to believe that mankind will be able to work together long enough to make it happen before destroying our planet. Others think it is too futuristic to contemplate – especially during a time when we are faced with widespread joblessness, rising debt and mortgage foreclosures at home, along with wars and revolutions in the Middle East and Wall Street protests.

I have to remind my friends that although many of the ideas of space exploration and development seem spun from science fiction, in many respects they are not of the future but of the present. Consider this:

• Hundreds of people have already traveled in space.
• The International Space Station continues to operate, conducting experiments and research that have widespread implications not just for future space missions but also for developments here on Earth.
• Daily, we send and receive communications transmissions that are bounced off of manmade satellites.
• We have robots exploring other parts of our Solar System, including the surface of Mars, and devices such as the Hubble Space Telescope transmit images that provide ever increasing insights into the expanse of the Universe.

In short, we are already THERE – in space. And this is happening just 50 years after the first space missions that sent men into orbit. In many ways, it is akin to the explorations of the New World that occurred in the decades after Columbus first sailed across the Atlantic during the age of the first Renaissance centuries ago.

Now, in the decades ahead many more changes are sure to follow. I see it as a natural progression of human civilization, just as the exploration and development of the New World led to new nations built on new ideas of human freedom and democracy that were unprecedented in human history.

And just as developments then called for new ideas – new ways of looking at mankind and our relationship to the planet – there will be new ways of considering our relationship with other human beings today. There will be a need for unprecedented international cooperation as we advance not just on the basis of national interests but of the interests of all humanity coexisting on one planet. The old economic models that competed during the last century as Capitalism and Communism will give way to new models that rely on extensive cooperation between governments and private enterprise. In many ways, this is already happening. Consider the recent trends in the U.S. Space Program, in which greater reliance is placed on other governments and private companies to propel our astronauts to new discoveries.

And it in this latest development there are many opportunities opening up already to pave the way for the future of commercial space. This is certain to accelerate as systems that have failed in their missions to achieve human success are replaced by new efforts based on the long-term goal of protecting planet Earth while reaching beyond the confines of its gravitational pull toward other worlds. Space-based solar power is a prime example, with the potential to provide energy to Earth and habitats beyond.

So, the message I would like to share is that we are still heading out there, toward the stars. The same ambitions that drove Europeans to discover and explore new worlds, and inspired inventors like the Wright brothers to keep pressing forward until man could take flight, and pushed the United States into the space race that landed men on the moon are still with us, driving us ever onward and outward.

We are now, and will continue to be propelled by a new energy and new ideas into a new age for civilization. Another Renaissance – SPACE RENAISSANCE.

He lost the debating battle with me but does not correct his prior public statements that reflect a state of debate prior to our only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009.

I would very much like to hear from him why he upholds the impression, both before his own scientific institution (the Max Planck Institute of Gravitation Physics or “Albert Einstein Institut”) and cooperating scientific institutions like KET and CERN, and before the whole world: that he could prove my Telemach theorem wrong even though he never came up with any criticism. The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk also never responded although doing so is a professional duty.

I agreed with him in our only discussion that the new “non-conservation of charge” implicit in my result is revolutionary if correct. So it would be his first duty to respond to my disproof of his (admittedly high-caliber) counterargument, given in a still assailable form that very afternoon and in finished form the next morning. It constitutes the main finding (the “Ch”) in the Telemach theorem.

TeLeMaCh means that T and L and M and Ch all change by the gravitational redshift factor (in the last two cases it is the reciprocal). T is time, L length, M mass and Ch charge. Telemach greatly profited from that fateful discussion 2 ½ years ago without which he might never have seen the light of day. So I am greatly indebted to Professor Nicolai.

Even greater, however, is my obligation to tell the world that Professor Nicolai has nothing to offer any more to support his outdated claim that my results were false. A scientist who refuses to take back outdated claims violates the rules of the trade, the rules of honor and the rules of responsibility toward the scientific community. In the present case, in addition the whole world is put at risk because CERN is misled into believing that Telemach were false on the authority of the leading physicist of the Albert-Einstein-Institute, the only oneof its kind on the planet.

Please, dear venerated colleague Hermann Nicolai: do care to reply at long last. The world is hanging on your lips in two senses of the word.

No one can take the responsibility for the whole world on his shoulders and then refuse to give a reason for doing so. I do not say you cannot possibly have a good reason — you may possess the insight that the whole establishment credits you with possessing. I only say: Please, dear colleague, Professor Nicolai, do not hide your privileged reason any longer from the least worthy of the world’s inhabitants, me, and everyone who listens to me. I would love to believe that you are right but I cannot do so without your giving me and the world a hint.

I am fighting a fight that can cost me my scientific reputation, begging for the privilege to be falsified.

The public does not realize this. That I have challenged the brightest minds of the planet to prove that the scientific proof I have offered contains a flaw. No one comes up with a counterproof. Also I am not alone.

My proof implies that that director-general Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet out of ideological blindness. The risk is being doubled at CERN during the present month, and is planned to be tripled once more next year. Even now it can already be too late if my presented proof holds water.

The most appalling phenomenon is not the evil nature of the accused ones but the blindness of the press. They totally forgot that science is about truth and that, if no scientist stands up and says “I can prove Rossler wrong and this is my evidence,” Rossler is right.

Authority does not exist in the face of the truth. I can save you and your child. Please, give me the benefit of the doubt.

The California Dream Act.

The banking industry is likely California Dreaming about the day when more states get their act together. …For those of us who think that the US will see a bubble in the education industry caused by its efforts to distribute human kind’s knowledge communities outside of the affluent elite, they shouldn’t hold their breath.

The Cali Dream Act could seem like an altruistic attempt to empower our desperate relatives converging on US cities, but there are some fiscally desperate economics behind this proverbial triumph over “social evil”, as if such a thing ever existed…LOL

For-profit and Not-for-profit education is big business…consider the $4.9B income of the Apollo Group, owner of University of Phoenix or the pride of the west coast’s $16.5B endowment at Stanford University. All of these are affected by the arbitrage (my favorite word smile ) in an industry… losing applicants with the confidence that a degree or certificate is honestly their best investment.

One thing is for sure, the US is the largest knowledge community on the planet currently, and one thing it can still sell the world’s consumers on, is that they’ll want to tap into the experience in their quest to secure the ideal 20th century standard of success. To be redundant, the 20th century American Dream is still the benchmark for making it in 2011 for the vast majority world around us…even as those of us investing in the future would harshly disagree. Where better to catch a dream life than in California…or even Michigan, with residents exiting at record paces.

The reality is that undocumented immigrants are a new class of Americans or non-Americans to sell long-term deferred and/or short term deferred loans. Its an ideal way to build collateral on the balance sheet of a lending company ;-). I’m not only expecting for more states to echo California’s legislative desperation/foresight (call it how you like), but I am expecting for the near future to offer American educations with State and possibly Federal assistance (at a taxable premium + interest) to undocumented immigrants of the US… and even foreign nationals with no immediate intent on coming to the US for legal or illegal residency. It’ll be called globalization…

The US education models designed by the non-profit traditional institutions and technologized (new word for me…lol) by the more agile for-profit institutions, will be distributed throughout the world at the rate of technologies acceptance in foreign countries.

And, of course, where there is government support (large pot of $), private speculation (smaller pots of $) will follow its low risks. fueling the distribution of what we know and what we are exploring.

I admire Stephen Hawking. He did not receive me so far.

I proved that Hawking radiation does not exist because Einstein was right.

Therefore the Geneva experiment is maximally dangerous: It is going to shrink the earth to 2 cm in a few years’ time with a sizable probability unless stopped immediately.

It may already be too late but the bulk of the danger can still be avoided.

Dear planet, please choose: either death or life: either Hawking or me.

My rehabilitation of Fritz Zwicky’s “dynamical friction” as an explanation of the Hubble redshift law ( http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS001389000001000959000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no ) only increases the importance of the new Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess redshift law.

What is changed is only the interpretation: from “lower expansion rate at that early time” towards “lower mass density at that high distance.”

In case you accept this alternative interpretation of your own revolutionary finding as a possibility worth giving the benefit of the doubt, you thereby greatly help CERN accept the scientific safety conference made necessary by another result from our group. The latter states that the famous gravitational clock slowdown is accompanied by a matching change in size, mass and charge. Professor Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy independently found the first two points and supports the third.

I apologize for the publicity and urgency. It is because CERN is during the remaining weeks of this month doubling the total luminosity of its experiment so that the implied risk to the planet’s getting evaporated in a few years’ time is going to reach a sizable value within a few weeks.

The public at large has forgotten that revolutionary results have inconspicuous origins. Your endorsement of the possibility-in-principle that this uncontested result deserve the benefit of the doubt will make all the difference of the world. Forgive me that I turn to you while asking Sweden’s king to kindly help in the communication since only days remain.

The whole world complied with the Nazi murder. The whole world complies with CERN’s assault on everyone. It is the same world that lets the people in humanity’s cradle starve.

I re-read René Fülöp-Miller’s book Saint Francis. The Now, Color and the Smile are infinite miracles. I thank the Lord in your place.

And today we say Thank You to Steve.

Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess will share the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 has been awarded “for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae” acknowledging the amazing discovery announced in 1998 that — based on the measured velocities of Type 1a supernovae — the rate of the universe’s expansion is increasing over time. The prize will be shared by three astronomers, now officially ‘outstanding in their field’, Saul Perlmutter of UC Berkeley, Brian P. Schmidt of the Australian National University and Adam G. Riess of Johns Hopkins University. Continue reading “Astronomers Win 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics” | >

Three years ago, the head of the most prestigious relativistic institution when I asked him to give me an appointment said simply “no” – explaining me in 20 long minutes why he could not do so (because the consensus in his institute about my paper would then possibly no longer be uniform).

I thought this was a personal flaw. No it is obvious that physics as a whole has ceased to be a science and been transformed into an ideology – the deadliest of all time.

It is no wonder that journalists are not being treated any better than me: as non-persons. My comparison with another dark age appears to be much more fitting than I had feared.

Not a single physicist on the planet dares think on his own or show courage – what would he or she have to lose by talking with a dissident who publicly offers evidence he desperately wants to have disproved owing to its potentially lifesaving character?

The “Accelerated Expansion” Nobel prize of today is an example, too. The observations honored are more than worthy. But the label is a lie. That hypothesis has long been disproved. I hope my three colleagues can forgive me that I ask them to mention in their acceptance speeches that they are only responsible for new facts and that the interpretation is just an — according to the opinion of a minority — long since falsified hypothesis.

Please, der UNO, dear president Obama, dear premier Wen, dear dalai, dear pope: do dare ask for counterevidence to the proof of danger – in a tiny little safety conference – IMMEDIATELY.

Nobody Can Predict the Moment of Revolution

While watching the occupy wall street movement gain momentum and challenge the status quo, we in the transhumanist and technoprogressive community should be taking notes at the differences between this movement and those of the 20th century in direct opposition to some set of conservative policies.

This movement is not in direct opposition to anything. It is however, in opposition to any kind of conservative solutions being recommended to the systemic economic ailments of today. This movement attacks fascism while often improperly referencing the term, it attacks crony capitalism which is culturally vague, and corporatism which is a new word. While an academic or linguist might find them difficult to understand, it is quite simple to judge them as defending themselves as a part of society that is being depleted, as a direct result of our inability to allocate tangible value to them. They are angry. This growing mass of people across the United States is not looking to return to a socio-economic model that influences similar politics of the last century.

Watch the reference video. This is the same group of people (young and old) that are technologically transparent as Peter Singer identifies. They would likely take, but are not looking for traditional jobs, as I and so many others have talked/written about frequently. This vast majority of human potential, while looking at the numbers, can’t be satisfied their odds to compete successfully. Of course, democratic culture has a venue to argue the abstraction of political and even economic rifts in society, but there are none that allow the relatively untrained to argue root causes of the problems preventing their previously comfortable existence.

Movements that aren’t rigidly against some establishment, have a difficult time forming a set of solutions to seek. While the core argument may be “revolting against capitalism”, there is no replacement in site. Having stated that, the Smithian theories aren’t ill prepared; they do however, fail to address the very primitive ability of humans to gauge competition and allocate assets (tangible value); even in a vast market of millions of participants with relatively modest self-interest.

Those opposed, find five congruent contradictions (Ecology, Inequality, Poverty, Property, Systemic Risk) when considering the modern manifestation of what Aristotle, Adam, and Ayn elaborated on in the modern era. These contradictions are not in fact intrinsic to capitalism. They are intrinsic to the animal. In the human pursuit for ecological prudence, egalitarianism, distribution of wealth, shared property, and managed risks; we regularly reject the idea that it is impossible to achieve our goals without our technological extensions…without transparency of information, without distribution of education, without allocation of technologies based on need, as a result of our understandings through transparency. Courting technoprogressivism onto the American political stage may have been a viewed as radical in the last decade, even as its consistent economic recession ensued. But it may not be today, amongst the somewhat informed activists of virtual social networkers and physical street walkers.

In order to be rendered valuable, entities (people in this case) have to be represented well under some agreed upon or legal model. In the case of liberal desperation I think people are willing to consider the potential of living-out the interconnected scenario painted in my voting public or more vividly by Hank Pellissier‘s “representative democracy” in Invent Utopia Now. The transhuman rhetoric based around fundamentally transforming the human condition is not farfetched for the leftist movements of today. One would be naïve to think that tax reform or austerity or redistribution of wealth alone, could cure my aforementioned contradictions. There are no conservative means to remedy the problems of today, only to return to those of the past. Movements like occupy wall street are unlikely to reject transhumanist conversation because of their spiritual or educational or morally conservative roots. Further, we are witnessing an opportunity to empower activist’s discomfort with H+ solutions, to occupy all streets.