Blog

Latest posts

Jan 27, 2012

To settle the pendulum of MBH decay/accretion

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I write this post on specific request from Anthony, who kindly asked that I write a bottom line summary of what I found through my research which leads me to suggest the points should be cleared up in a safety conference on the LHC.

1. As HR is an unproven theory, it may prove to be inffective compared to the math model. This regardless of Rossler’s Telemach therom which attempts to prove this.

2. The G&M calculation on theoretical MBH accretion rates is fundamentally flawed, as it bases the analysis on one single MBH and fails to consider about MBH aggregation.

3. As HR is an unproven concept, it cannot be relied upon to detect MBH. The only method to be certain no MBH are created is to monitor unaccounted loss of mass/energy.

As concerns raised in the public domain were not being answered sufficiently, there is a  moral duty for a public safety conference to discuss likely MBH decay/accretion rates.

I dismissed what I would consider the more colourful risks. I’m considering writing a follow-on whitepaper on the topic of MBH aggregation. If two MBH aggregate at any point it would halve the G&M calculated time-frame, and further aggregation would reduce the accretion time-frame accordingly. If frequent MBH aggregation was a typcial expected occurrence, then you would have a run-away effect, so this requires an analysis.

Jan 27, 2012

Did Nature Put a Chain Trap to Humanity?

Posted by in category: Uncategorized

If one of the following three elements can be defused, the black-hole danger is over:

# 1: Black holes possess radically new properties in general relativity that make them both much more likely to arise and undetectable at CERN.

# 2: A new chaotic attractor (rotation-symmetric Shil’nikov-Kleiner attractor) exists in real space which implies exponential growth of black holes inside matter.

# 3: The presumed safety guarantee provided by neutron stars’ persistence is disproved by quantum mechanics.

Three different fundamental sciences (general relativity, chaos theory, quantum mechanics) are needed jointly to help humanity evade nature’s trap. Very few scientists are up to the combined task. Is this our death sentence?

Jan 26, 2012

PV will decentralize society. Will that reduce existential risk?

Posted by in categories: business, economics, engineering, existential risks, finance, futurism

From highly centralized to highly decentralized societies” describes the dramatic changes that will likely occur when photovoltaics (solar electricity from solar panels) reaches the key price point that many call “grid parity.” In short, Adam Smith’s famous “invisible hand” will take over and make electricity production highly localized. People will tend to generate their own power on their roofs. Burning coal far away to make electricity will dwindle, and that will be good: less CO2 and less reliance on centralized electricity generation with expensive, vulnerable distribution infrastructure. Highly centralized essentials of life are risky: if distribution breaks down for whatever reason, society is at risk. How can we live without electricity nowadays? Or food trucked in on highways? So I believe the future prospects for localized production of essentials like electricity are both bright, and highly desirable.

 

Jan 26, 2012

“A Beacon for the World”

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Dear Mr. President Obama: Thank you for the “Time” interview given 8 days ago. Could you, therefore, request a public answer from scientists:
“Is the offered proof that Geneva is planting a miniature but exponentially growing bomb into our planet flawed: Yes or No?”

The planet will not forget your kindness if you do. Thank you that I was allowed to ask.

Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher at the University of Tübingen, Germany

Jan 25, 2012

Does the Kerr Solution Support the New “Anchored Rotating Reeb Foliation” of Fröhlich?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Roy Kerr found a beautiful solution to the Einstein equation 49 years ago. He long deserves a Nobel Prize. The recent Telemach theorem (in print in the African Journal of Mathematics) modifies the appearance of every solution “close” to a black hole’s horizon.

What Dieter Fröhlich discovered in yesterday’s chaos course at the University of Tübingen started out from the fact that every rotating black hole has a nonrotating horizon owing to the infinite local slowdown of time. We had concluded before that the in-spiraling trajectories must form something like a “Reeb foliation” on the way to the unmoving horizon. He suddenly realized that an “anchored rotating Reeb foliation” is the answer.

I repeat: We had conjectured before that In between the outer unstable limit cycle of in-spiraling trajectories and the inner motionless horizon, there exists a “circular chain of cups” – non-crossing trajectories that in a U-turn-like fashion connect the two limiting trajectories (the unstable outer limit cycle and the stable inner limit cycle of opposite orientation). Such a beautiful differential-topological flow was discovered in 1952 by Georges Reeb (as had been pointed out to me by Art Winfree).

However, the problem is that the attractive inner limit cycle has rotation rate zero. Does this not destroy all hope for consistency? Fröhlich saw the solution in a flash: Put the standard Reeb foliation into a rapidly spinning motion, which makes no qualitative difference. Then smoothly reduce the cups’ rotation rate until the attractive inner limit cycle becomes a singular spiky (“star-node related”) limit cycle while the ring of “cups within cups” retains a constant rotation rate. The obtained “anchored rotating Reeb foliation” (anchored everywhere on the horizon) represents a new differential-topological prototype, embraced by nature.

It would be marvelous to get a response from Professor Kerr himself. (For J.O.R.)

Jan 24, 2012

Is there a Single Head of State who Is Able to Think?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

♥ Kim Jong Un dared not reply – just as Saddam Hussein did not reply when I offered him Lampsacus hometown of all persons on the Internet.

♥ Ahmadinejad I never wrote. But someone is bound to have told him about CERN’s lying to the planet about its assault on everyone and every child.

♥ Peres was the first politician whom I informed in 2007, Sarkozy the second, the pope the third.

♥ Now they are planning a war on deck while there is time bomb in the ship. No one is able to think as a captain.

— — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —

Buddha said “The house is burning but no one is thinking to leave.”
Jesus said “Who has ears to hear should hear.”
The angel said “The Lord can always be seen – haShem yera’eh.”
Mohamed said “You are in the fragrance of the flower.”
They all said “Think for a moment, my dear child.”
Hewlett-Packard agrees: “Thinking helps.”

— — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —

W H Y   N O T   C H E C K   O N   C E R N   ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jan 22, 2012

Is meaningful communication with aliens possible?

Posted by in categories: cosmology, engineering, futurism, habitats, human trajectories, life extension, space

Readers, let’s have at it. What do *you* think?

I wrote: “without faster-than-light travel and/or communication, meaningful interaction with intelligent aliens seems unlikely.”

Gary Church responds on January 22, 2012 12:39 pm:
I disagree Jared,
Since the power requirements go up in a sharp curve after about a third of the speed of light, consider .3c to be the practical speed limit for, let’s say, most of the next century. Considering acceleration and decelleration, let’s call it 4 years for every light year. “Meaningful” depends upon your own personal interpretation. Both life extension and cryopreservation will most likely redefine what is meaningful for most people– perhaps in the very near future. It might very well become meaninful for both of us.

The most likely form of star travel for the next millenium after a century of technological development is small singularity propulsion– perhaps near the end of the next century. This will boost speeds close to light where time dilation will make trips only a few years long (ship board time).
Though simplistic, my rough prediction is this century spent on colonizing the solar system and building up an infrastructure capable of manufacturing sleeper ships, the next century spent building up an infrastructure capable of manufacturing small singularity starships, and the third century will find us expanding into the galaxy in massive migrations.

We just need to consider longer time scales– and possibly living much longer. At least our children or their grandchildren may find intelligent life out there and interact with them in a meaningful way. But not considering them could mean stagnation– much like the often used example of the Chinese empire.
And of course, the reason for this blog; the possibility we might destroy ourselves or be destroyed.

Jan 21, 2012

BEO-HSF

Posted by in categories: asteroid/comet impacts, biotech/medical, business, counterterrorism, defense, economics, education, engineering, ethics, events, existential risks, futurism, habitats, life extension, lifeboat, military, nuclear, physics, policy, rants, space, transparency

I became interested in Beyond Earth Orbit– Human Space Flight by way of a college paper I helped my wife research some years ago. Her project for an ethics class was nuclear weapons. I stumbled upon the book “Project Orion, the true story of the atomic spaceship” by George Dyson and was hooked. I had been a science fiction fan in my youth but like most people I came to realize space operas were to be realized only in the far future. Project Orion changed my worldview. Since then my made-up mind has been unmade several times concerning most of the “common knowledge” floating around about space flight in this 21st century. Much of what is generally believed to be true about our space program is made up of recent hearsay used to hype products that further a business plan. When I read these infomercials endlessly repeated as fact I get pretty upset, mostly exposing these “facts” as not true results in vicious attacks. Private space cult members disgust me and I will not apologize for my hard feelings about these people. They mislead and obfuscate, and insult and dogpile anyone who disagrees with their dogma.

It was a step by step process but I came to realize the path to the stars is a narrow one. I found the U.S. space effort has been on what is called “the flexible path” and this turned out to be a contradiction of almost everything I found in my research. There is no Flexible Path. The path to colonizing the solar system is narrow and straightforward due to the laws of physics and materials science. Science fiction movies seem to have conditioned the public to believe such natural laws can be violated and technology that breaks these laws is possible and immanent. This kind of ignorance of natural limitations has led to much waste and many tragedies in the past decades by pushing said limits and there is soon to come great disappointment over breakthroughs that are far easier said than done. By way of political contributions and backroom deals, the flexible path scheme came into existence as a way of making money for a small group of investors looking to cash in on public ignorance of technology and influence peddling. It is a convoluted and confusing path and perhaps the best way to make my meaning plain despite this distraction is to start at the desired end and work backwards.

If the end goal is new worlds for humankind to inhabit, the earliest practical portrayal of a possible new world was in the 1929 work, “The World, The Flesh, and The Devil”, by socialist Joseph Bernal. I must say I am no socialist or capitalist, but I am someone who is sometimes very unhappy with people at either end of that spectrum. Space is not about politics– it is about survival. More than just surviving– thriving. Human beings need earth-like conditions to thrive– and a hollow moon can provide those conditions.Though the hollow artificial moon proposed by Bernal does not address artificial gravity, the hollow sphere concept does, if spun, allow for earth gravity on the inner surface at the equator. Hollow spheres in space can provide habitats for thousands, millions, billions, perhaps tens of billions of people. Space is big, with alot of sunlight and rock floating around waiting to be exploited. And tens of thousands of icy comets. Solar energy and low gravity resources in the asteroid belt mean that building on a much larger scale than we do on earth is practical. While we construct thousand foot supertankers and skyscrapers with some difficulty in earth gravity, the same masses of metal and concrete in space can form a shell many miles in diameter with many times less energy expended.

The most interesting fact of all about Bernal spheres is that building them is not much of a stretch of the imagination. It is the strongest shape and the energy to melt and refine ore and the various rocks and ices are available, and there are no engineering showstoppers. Fill a Bernal sphere with comet water and air and spin and humankind has created a new world to live “in.” New worlds capable of traveling for centuries to other star systems when the time comes. While we have the technology, amazingly, to build such hollow moons right now, we lack only a single medical procedure to allow for star travel with them– revivable cryospreservation. This one key piece of technology, which also breaks no laws of physics, is all that holds the human race back from colonizing the galaxy.

This future is not the hyperspace warp drive stargate winged starship fantasy the public has in mind. Though slowboats do not lend themselves well to screenplays and formula blockbusters, they are more exciting to those of us who understand what is possible in the near future. But before these new worlds can be manufactured, probably near the end of this century, humankind must first establish an infrastructure in deep space to enable that activity.

To live in space is different than to survive. Missions based on how much radiation and zero G debilitation a human being can survive on average are certain to fail. Providing earth radiation levels and gravity is certain to succeed. Radiation is the first killer, and lack of gravity as a debilitator is the second made even worse by the first. To set up an infrastructure that will allow colonies and eventually migration requires spaceships and these radiation and hypogravity hazards cannot be avoided. The only guaranteed shield against the heavy nuclei component of cosmic radiation is mass and distance. The only practical spaceship shielding is 14 or more feet of water. The only way to propel this much mass around the solar system is with nuclear energy. Nuclear activities in earth orbit are not acceptable. Lifting thousands and eventually millions of tons of water into earth orbit are also not acceptable. This path leads to the moon where nuclear activities are permissible and there is water. The only way to get to the moon is with Heavy Lift Vehicles like the Saturn V and the future SLS. The only way to transport fissionables to the moon safely is with Heavy Lift Vehicles. And this is where the private space agenda rears it’s ugly head.

HLV’s and anything needing massive governmental resources, such as nuclear energy, are blasphemy to the private space cult. While their dogma preaches that cheap lift can be had with smaller kerosene rockets with a high launch rate, they go on to enable missions beyond earth orbit by way of fuel depots and transfer in space. For a scientifically ignorant public this all makes sense. But it is the kerosene-hydrogen disconnect that exposes the private space flexible path as a business plan to fool taxpayers into subsidizing a Low Earth Orbit space tourism industry for the ultra-rich.

Liquid hydrogen does not store well and is very difficult to transfer. It is difficult on the ground but in space it has never been done because it is such a nightmare. The entire transfer system and recieving tank have to be pre-cooled with liquid helium and a perfect precool is physically impossible. This generates liquid hydrogen boil-off that must be re-liquified– which generates the exo-thermic form of hydrogen– that generates more boil-off. Compounded by space radiation and zero gravity effects, this is all a real mess that no one wants to talk about. Like radiation shielding, it is a topic avoided by private space advocates to the point of hurling insults. Not only is hydrogen hard to handle on the ground and much harder to deal with in space, an engine burning it requires a turbopump ten times more powerful than one for a kerosene engine. Which is why kerosene is hyped by private space as such a wonderful propellent– because both handling hydrogen and using hydrogen engines is much more expensive and cuts into projected profit margins.

So why does the orbital fuel depot and transfer concept specify liquid hydrogen? If kerosene is so much better then why bother with liquid hydrogen in orbital fuel depots? Because there is no substitute for hydrogen Earth Departure Stages when it comes to escaping earth’s gravitational field. Using other propellants multiplies the size of these stages several times. Any human missions Beyond Earth Orbit not using liquid hydrogen Earth Departure Stages look like Battlestar Galactica. Because of the Apollo program and every study done on any BEO missions, private space knows they cannot claim otherwise and get away with it. So private space advocates avoid this subject like the plague. Since it is not practical to store or transfer liquid hydrogen in space a direct launch out of orbit, like the Apollo program, is required. The laws of physics have not changed since the 1960’s. Since the inferior lift vehicles advocated in the flexible path are capable of boosting a few tons at a time out of orbit, Heavy Lift Vehicles become necessary.

Thus, there is no substitute for a HLV with hydrogen upper stages. There is no cheap; space flight is inherently expensive.

The resources necessary to build an infrastructure for BEO-HSF is unavailable to private space. HLV’s sending packaged fissionables to the moon are completely out of reach of “entrepreneurs” claiming the flexible path will open the solar system to colonization. In fact, private space claiming they are the future of space exploration is a lie, a deception being used to acquire taxpayer support for space tourism. Forty years of space stations going in endless circles at very high altitude is a dead end. The space tourism industry wants this truth suppressed and portrays LEO stations as the cutting edge of “exploration.”

The justification and source of funding for BEO-HSF is impact defense and survival colonies. It is the DOD that is spending money on useless cold war toys that guarantee huge profits for the defense industry while neglecting the most vital mission of the U.S. space program; safeguarding the earth and the human race.

Jan 21, 2012

Are we alone in the universe?

Posted by in categories: biological, cosmology, futurism, habitats, space

There’s the Fermi Paradox and the Drake equation, which many readers are familiar with. There is also lots of action in the astronomy community currently on discovery of new planets. Potentially habitable ones in the “Goldilocks zone” (not too hot, not too cold, juust right!), are hitting the national news periodically these days. For example Kepler-22b, Gliese 581 d (only 20 light-years away which is really close but, also, really far…), HD 85512 b, and some “KOI” planets are pretty intriguing.

Really, astronomy is just getting started. Now we know there are many billions of planets in our galaxy, so there must be lots that *could* support life. Even Titan (a moon of Saturn) might possibly have life of some sort; at least it has lots of organic molecules and more petroleum than we could ever burn, and we have actually landed there and taken pictures from the surface! (See http://www.astronomy.org/StarWatch/January/1-05-titan-huygens.jpg.) I keep one of those pics framed in my office.

In my view the next major step in habitable planet discovery is to detect oxygen in their atmospheres. That is a sure-fire sign of photosynthesis, i.e., extraterrestrial life.

Jan 21, 2012

• My Story Aimed to Make a Planet Happy (revision owed to AnthonyL)

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I am a “specialist in non-specialization”, in the words of my late Austrian mentor Konrad Lorenz, and an “interdisciplinary hybrid” in those of my late American mentor Bob Rosen. IMy work in chaos theory is a little bit well known, in that I discovered a so-called “attractor” or “reproducible dynamic phenomenon” familiar in everyday experience (a hoarse voice and an idling motorcycle’s noise being examples). My subsequent discovery of “hyperchaos” was soon used as a diagnostic tool in wards for the newborn whose cries turn from chaos to hyperchaos in case of a crisis, as H. Herzel found out. My “brain equation” is also getting some recognition lately. My “smile theory” is my oldest but hardest to understand theory (though children typically have no difficulty with it!).

My recent “Telemach theorem” – named after Ulysses’ son Telemachus – is a much more frightening conceptual structure, however. It suggests that continuing escalation of the energy of operation of the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, Switzerland, indeed has the potential of forming dangerous mini Black Holes which could consume the Earth.

A proven implication of known physical laws – a theorem – is true until a counterargument is found that topples it. The name Telemach has to do with the youth of an ancient Greek myth who recognized a beggar as the long lost father he had believed was dead. In my title the acronym stands for Time, Length, Mass and Charge (T, L, M, Ch), four entities that can be measured in everyday life by means of simple devices  —  clocks, meter sticks, scales and volt meters.

You probably already know that there exists no “Ur-Second” in physics (because of Einstein’s work); but an “Ur-Meter” and an “Ur-Kilogram” and a “Universal Unit Charge” are believed to exist and are well known. The Ur-meter and the Ur-kilogram were actually quite costly and difficult to arrive at. The struggle took scientists and engineers many decades in furthering the science of measurement (Metrology) in this regard.

Therefore it is of some interest that my Telemach theorem in summary says that three “Urs” do not, after all, exist. The Ur-meter, the Ur-kilogram, the Ur-charge are all three as non-existent as the Ur-Second, dethroned 105 years ago by Albert Einstein, and the “Ur-Pound,” dethroned almost 350 years ago and proven to be nonexistent by Isaac Newton.
You might expect an excited reaction to the new elimination of three “Urs”, but my work has been met with silence. In one way this might seem surprising, since popular opinion holds that new findings are automatically embraced, since new equipment can be built and new money can be made. But there are always the old manufacturers, as it were. Something radically unexpected is never accepted without delay.

No doubt you are skeptical here: “Three major new things and no response” is implausible. Surely such a major offering of revisionist “new science” must be crazy? No one has shown so up until now — yet I hope this “counter-reaction” will come soon. For the present confession is not meant as a bid for scientific recognition with three grand new theorems L, M, Ch as you might expect. On the contrary, I do not like these results: I wish them to be proven wrong.

The key word is “LHC”, the Large Hadron Collider, on line now: the biggest machine in history, comparable to the pyramids, the largest concerted endeavor of humanity of the past. The LHC cost about ten billion dollars and like the interior of the pyramids is well protected, and is located hundreds of feet underground, underneath CERN and adjacent to UNO. Almost no one is afraid of it except me.

Of course I am not the only critic of the LHC, but while the others speak of “possibilities” I speak of “proven probabilities” which is a different matter. Specifically, I have been saying for 4 years: “You have to stop immediately until your safety has been assessed in a scientific safety conference.” And for a whole year now, a German court has suggested the same thing — but no one in the public is informed of this, except the profession of medical laboratory assistants, a member of which filed the suit in question.

This silence has to do with the logic of the media that I find so difficult to understand. I here follow the advice of a member of the media by stating my case in front of you in the simplest and most understandable way: Why should such a beautiful experiment, the most expensive in history, be delayed even briefly for a conference about “mini black holes” to take place? You guess right: because of my Telemach. Like Diogenes basking in the sun in his town in Ancient Greece and asking Alexander the Great to move out of the way to let the sunshine reach him, this is bound to be thought crazy.

At this point my speech in defense of the planet begins with Telemach in the witness stand. L-M-Ch are the crucial new letters added to Einstein’s T. T means that the Time registered downstairs in a long vertical rocketship, that is in constant acceleration in outer space, is slowed-down compared to the tip. Here I skip the proportionally enlarged L (for Length) and the proportionally reduced M (for Mass) and concentrate on the proportionally reduced Ch, which stands for Charge. My third new claim is that charge is not conserved in nature, just as the unit of time is not fixed.

This of course must seem absolutely ridiculous: Or so almost every physicist must feel, after almost two centuries in which science has taught that the opposite holds true. And if this tail of Telemach, the claim that Ch is not constant, is false, will the Large Hadron Collider experiment (LHC) at Geneva then be predictably safe from my point of view? The answer is Yes.

Are well-known textbooks not a stronger guarantee of truth than a single man’s proof — even if the latter is as youthful and old as Telemachus? I admit that this rule ordinarily holds true but, on the other hand, young David, sculptured by Michelangelo, still proudly exhibits his nakedness – and so at this moment does young Telemach.

What he stands up against is a most “noble” mathematical result accepted for almost two centuries. This says in its current physical application that if you have managed to put a given charge (think of an electron) into a bounded surface (a closed sack of any shape), then there is no way to diminish the sack’s attractive power on another sack containing the opposite charge (a positron, say) no matter how you might internally displace the charge in your sack: “The number of field lines leaving the sack is always constant.”

Two famous 19th century mathematicians, Gauss and Stokes, demonstrated this and their proof holds up to this day in the opinion of the highest-ranking specialists in the field, as I was told by one of them who quoted Robert M. Wald’s masterly book “General Relativity” of 1984 (see pages 432 – 434). Gauss’ and Stokes’ result remains authoritative – but no one can blame them for not yet knowing about black holes.

Black holes thus are the magic word. The name is the brainchild of my late friend John Wheeler (and at the same time that of an ancient farm near my University of Tübingen called “Schwärzloch”). The issue is about “my black holes” versus ”their black holes,” David against Goliath. The new knowledge revealed by Telemach on the one hand and the teaching of the better part of a century on the other are pitted against each other.

The Ch of TelemaCh says, applied to black holes, that any charge eaten by a black hole disappears. Therefore if you put a tiny black hole into the above sack along with the charge, Gauss and Stokes remain valid until you bring the charge close to the black hole and even let it fall down towards its surface. Then the sack becomes totally uncharged by virtue of Telemach, Gauss and Stokes notwithstanding.

Yet this is so of course only if Telemach is valid — the vigorous youth brought to life in Michelangelo’s David: “David versus Goliath or Telemach versus the suitors at CERN.” The CERNians by their openly ignoring Telemach insist that Penelope – their beautiful “black-hole factory LHC” as they call her with affection – belongs solely to them as their property. Telemach objects along with his father.

Is the whole world watching breathlessly? Not at all: The suitors — CERN (forgive me for the indictment before I have clinched the case)  — do not want the world to know that they are in trouble. Even the United Nations Security Council – located not far from CERN with a sister organization that is honored with an “observer status” at CERN – stands firmly on the suitors’ side. Therefore the media of the planet keep strict silence. The fact that on September 10, 2008, more than 500 international newspapers reported on my engagement with CERN is forgotten.

But suppose Telemach were true – then the miniblack holes they hope to produce at CERN can, # 1, not even be detected at CERN. And # 2, when eventually a sufficiently slow specimen is formed amongst them, as will unavoidably occur in the long run, it will settle down inside planet earth to grow there exponentially as a mini-mini-quasar, putting the planet’s short-term survival to an end through turning it into a 2-cm black hole in a few years’ time.

This scenario is “absolute nonsense” as a scientist at CERN has said – if Telemach is not true. All I am asking my readers is to find out whether or not the youngster is right. In other words: to put a little bit of time aside so the question can be discussed by the foremost experts. This is all I have ever requested: the benefit of the doubt.

• After thus having given you the story, you may be curious for a bit more detail so as if this were a movie and after having watched it the audience could look at some omitted clips.

I stumbled across Telemach when I followed up – more diligently than this had been done before, perhaps – on the 28 years old young Einstein’s “happiest thought” (as he always affectionately called it because it was the breakthrough to his life’s work).

This had to do with his stomach, of all things. The story is well known among physicists. He was standing in front of the open window in the Swiss patent office in which he was employed, feeling an aching pull from the weight of his stomach after a heavy meal. And for some crazy reason he fleetingly imagined jumping out of the window right away – to experience in his mind’s eye an instant relief in his stomach. For he realized in a flash that his stomach would cease pulling down on him as soon as he was in free fall. And indeed, anyone in free fall like an astronaut in outer space is weightless in regard to all of his organs as we know today from broadcasts from the International Space Station. In outer space, Einstein knew, the exact laws which apply are the very laws of special relativity discovered by himself two years before. So he realized in a flash that he was empowered to solve the riddle of gravity.

The first thing he found is signified by the “T” of Telemach: Time and all clocks are slowed down closer to the surface of the earth compared to farther up – a phenomenon now well known from the operation of the GPS system.

• Regarding the other three letters of Telemach, it is easy to see that their variation could NOT be discovered at that time by Einstein or anyone else. But this new result takes a moment to explain if you allow me to try.

Stemming from this “happiest thought”, the variability of Time (the capital T of Telemach) is universally accepted today. The variability of the other three letters – L, M, Ch (if Ch is understood as a single letter like Chi in the Greek alphabet)  – is new, as mentioned, the last finding being barely 5 years old.

Now you will ask me to show you why Ch (charge) is diminished by the same factor by which time is slowed down. For it is this letter Ch on which our survival depends. For although L,M,Ch all radically change the properties of black holes if true, Ch brings in the strongest alteration. While L renders black holes immune to Hawking radiation (which, in spite of its mathematical ingenuity in combining quantum mechanics with pre-Telemach general relativity, eluded physical detection for almost 4 decades), and while M reinforces this fact, Ch in addition renders any successfully produced black hole at CERN opaque to its high-tech detectors –so that their proud announcement of not having found any acquires a bitter taste.

But I charged ahead too fast with charge, perhaps. My revision of the accepted theory – the last three consonants of Telemach – implies that Ch is reduced in proportion to the “redshift” (reduction in ticking rate T or frequency) of light that emerges from the bottom of a rocketship, compared to that emanating from an equal source at its tip (or else from the surface of a gravitating body compared to that produced at a higher-up position). The emitted light down in the lower position has a lower frequency, since time T ticks more slowly there. This well-known fact is called “redshift”, since red light has a lower frequency in our visible spectrum of colors.

Now on a black hole, gravity is so strong that the redshift is infinite there, and the energy (mass) of any ascending photon approaches zero, without this fact being noticeable for a hypothetical local, equally slowed-down inhabitant.

Every material object is transformable into photons locally. So, since physicists like to think concretely, imagine a so-called positronium atom down there which can be “annihilated” into two 511 kilo-electron-Volt gamma photons and vice versa, a familiar transformation. Photon mass and particle mass hence are altered in parallel, if it is true that all local masses are reduced in their mass-energy by the redshift factor of the photons, as we have noted.

But locally, mass and charge do keep their fixed ratio as we know (since you can release the mass into free fall locally, and immediately it is as if it is in free outer space locally, even though when freshly dropped it is still momentarily indistinguishable from its un-released, equally motionless twin). So the virtually massless (compared to the outside world) positronium atom close to the surface of a black hole is equally virtually charge-less compared to the outer world.

This is the whole Telemach story put in the form of a logical proof. Sorry, if I went too fast. But if I was not clear enough – or not right –, this does not matter at this point, because to check on this result is precisely the task of the scientific “safety conference” asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

• So far, not one specialist has stood up to say, “I, the author of XX, contradict the Ch result (or the full Telemach” for that matter). They just refuse to answer, for some unstated reason. Presumably it is because if they did, then my planet-wide pledge to be criticized in a public dialogue or conference — which CERN abhors — would be fulfilled on the spot.

A maximally simple scientific question is waiting to be answered publicly on our planet: Is it true that clocks slowed down in gravity are larger and less massive and less charged? If so then the field lines observed on neutron stars are induced by more charges, although less powerful charges, on their surface than assumed so far. The theory of neutron stars has to be re-written, of all things. And the distance to Andromeda is really longer in terms of light-years, than currently estimated, and not just that one, owing to earthly yardsticks making for somewhat-too-long yard sticks in outer space. And there are some more and deeper implications (new constants of nature) as well.

By now you can perhaps understand why almost no one has wanted to hear all this so far. Imagine: “Gauss and Stokes toppled because of Einstein” more than half a century after his passing away. Almost every specialist is laughing at the idea, ready with a good conscience to die rather than believe such nonsense. But why is their innocent refusal to dialogue unethical?

Only because time is running out in the face of a huge machine that needs money and public support on a democratic basis dependent on the popular mood. If your credibility can be lowered at any moment, would anyone act any differently in CERN’s place?

Page 1 of 5012345678Last