Jun 6, 2011

With no other Jewish person speaking up, I am authorized to say in the name of Jacob: “The ‘Lord’ Orders CERN to Stop until Proven Innocuous”

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I have got to explain.

I am a stupid scientist who found a new result in general relativity. When I showed it to a specialist 4 years ago, he said it has repercussions on the LHC. I did not know what LHC means (the large proton – a form of hadron — collisions experiment at CERN). In trying to defuse his apparent joke, I found that all other safety arguments fizzle, each for an independent reason. In this way the merely hypothesized danger proved real. However, with no specialist working in all pertinent subfields, it is hard to convince a CERN scientist that the colleague working in the next field lacks the liberating information that he himself admits not to have. The independent new Tubingen results are: in general relativity — that there is no Hawking radiation and there are no charged black holes; in quantum mechanics — that neutron stars are immune to invading black holes; in chaos theory — that ultraslow black holes grow exponentially inside earth. The uncanny coincidence amounts to a trap posed by nature to humankind with its on-going attempt to create miniature black holes at CERN.

My central theorem, Telemach, complements Einstein’s time-slowing effect of gravity (T) by an equally strong length-increasing (L), mass decreasing (M) and charge-decreasing (Ch) effect. Telemach meets with no public resistance from the part of the specialists who had criticized my previous more sophisticated gothic-R theorem (Hermann Nicolai, Gerhard Huisken, Gerard ‘t Hooft and Rolf Heuer). The planet’s public media do not dare interview the mentioned colleagues. And the recent official request made by a Cologne court to convoke a scientific safety conference goes unreported.

The persecution of my family by the state which culminated in the expulsion from our inherited house ten years ago may contribute to the planet-wide shrugging-off of what I say.

I learned that I am Jewish only after my young son had been killed at age 7, from my Semitist father who told me that this religion does not hold the sins of the fathers against the sons. He died soon thereafter 20 years ago. I know I am not worthy to solicit the support of Israel. But I feel a duty to make good on the sin of my father who participated translating newspapers as a less courageous dissident colleague of Kurt Gerstein’s in Tubingen. It is a strange twist of fate that I am forced by a chain of independent scientific results, which if broken at one point ceases to hold water, to act as a warner of Israel. I ask Jacob’s forgiveness for my being given the role of speaking up on his behalf by a streak of non-coincidental looking twists in the laws of nature. (For J.O.R.)


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. robomoon says:

    It is time to review the hate deriving from a misinterpretation of formerly chosen words and the later adaptation to the alternative: planetocaust. The dilemma stems from different levels of knowledge and culture, that is for sure. In absence of the right press releases, it was only suitable to avoid a different word like “genocide” or a phrase like “planet destruction” (two words, not striking enough). Not only newspapers, magazines, and podcasts must be requested to inform the public. Certainly, the journalists can choose different words for different readers and listeners. So the press has remarkably failed. We probably do not find out what can be best for the Congress to understand the urgency of the situation. But the question remains: what about our role regarding the United Nations in this case?

  2. Robert Houston says:

    Through the potential production of destructive black holes and strangelets by the LHC, CERN is threatening the world with the risk of a global catastrophe on a scale that would be 1000 times worse than the Holocaust. Horrendous as was the genocide of 7 million European Jews and others by the Nazis, the nearly 7 billion humans alive on Earth — as well as all future generations — would be the victims of a planetary cataclysm that might be unleashed in the “Big Bang” experiments of CERN’s collider. “Genocide” is too weak a term for such an apocalypse. The risk of planetary destruction is the threat of GEOCIDE.

    Dr. Otto Rossler is a humane and brilliant scientist of great courage and integrity, whose theory and warnings should be gravely considered in the highest echelons of science and government before any further LHC experiments are permitted. Unfortunately, an appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Commission was rejected on jurisdictional grounds (see: ). If not Earth, then what planet did the myopic fools on the Commission consider to be the UN’s jurisdiction?

  3. robomoon says:

    Yes, true. Perhaps the UN has to be there for a Global Accident Appraisal. Other words like assessment, estimate, rating, valuation, etc., might be better instead of Appraisal, what do you think? Might words like geocide, cataclysm, catastrophe, extinction, genocide, and death be less insulting to regional or political people while making the danger understandable to anyone like the word Accident can do? I even do not know if the word Global is already less problematic than the words worldwide, gravity, and planetary. Since one of the best scientists is already in the position to come to the American Congress, who would be there to contact the UN for this Global Accident Appraisal or same described in different words? The UN is just taking care about humans rights for minorities, look at their improvements of mental health care. Regarding the actual mental situation, we know that the public has not gotten anxious about this very great existential risk. The press has not found ways to address something serious enough. Nevertheless, there will be no minority in here, because the risk must be taken by the entire human race. So we need to look at another part of UN law while observing further intergovernmental organizations too.

  4. Very interesting. We do not need organizations, though, I believe. It suffices to have ordinary people who also see like me that a public refusal to have a look, even in a much less risky situation, does not make sense under any conditions in any conceivable society.

    There are religious groups on the planet as well. Recently, there was an evangelical mass convention in Germany. There is a famous courageous female ex-bishop there. One would expect a single parishioner would have had the courage to talk to her.

    Is there an Israeli newspaper which I could try to contact?

    Is there a person who can give me the cell phone number of the brother of the pope?

    Is there a genuine friend of the Emperor’s in Japan?

    The queen’s grandson also has deserved that someone should talk to him.

    Forgive me that I am thinking aloud. I happen to know that the human individual is holy.

  5. robomoon says:

    Yes. And now, a compact history in 3 parts. Part 1: Once upon a time, many thousand years ago, there was trade in two ways. One was supply and the other was demand. The strong humans were better in receiving the supply, because they were capable of lifting a bigger club to knock-out weak competitors. So there was a better weapon. But then happened what nobody understood. Not only the stronger, but also the smarter humans got the better weapons, because the smarter ones invented some that were better and lighter than a club. So this became the reason for mother nature to make the inventors. Part 2: Many hundred years ago, the inventive humans were better in receiving the supply, because they were capable of using a better weapon to knock-out their competitors. So there was a better weapon. But then happened what nobody understood. Not only the inventive, but also the investors got the better weapons, because the investors bought some that were just more dynamic than any other one. So this became the reason for mother nature to make the investors. Part 3: Many decades ago, the investors were better in receiving the supply, because they were capable of using a better weapon to knock-out their competitors in business. So there was a better weapon. But then happened what nobody understood. Not only the investors, but also the Internet creators got the better weapons, because the Internet creators used some that were just more informative than any other one. Today, Internet creators believe in something, like that it is good to tell the public CERN invented the Internet. If we want to change that, you must make investments into a new believe: the public should better believe that CERN has not created the LHC. Yes, in fact, only governmental investors created the LHC. The reason why they have started this is obvious, because they are already hiding important information about security away from the Internet. If you want society being conceivable to your claims, you got to talk to those who made and develop the Internet in the best possible way. Addendum: In this history lesson I only talked about weapons that knock-out competitors. Weapons that kill were not what I wanted to mention.

  6. Thank you for your rational tale. Rationality applies both in evolution and in human society. But human rationality is better, not only faster, but also knowing of kindness and friendship and cooperation. If many are sitting in the same boat — lifeboat -, it would make sense if they joined forces in the sense of realizing that no one among them has any interest in not checking whether an undisproved danger is real.

    To forbid having a look is unreasonable, is it not? I cannot believe that all the many scientists at CERN stand behind the order to refuse a double check. Imagine an aircraft in which the pilot tells the nightly passengers who learned that the night-sight landing system has a problem that he plans not to check it out before landing.

  7. robomoon says:

    A rational tale explains our history in terms of evolution. There is an evolutionary force that rules the inventors in physics. Initially, the physics experimenters happened to be inventors. Take a look what happened so far. The article Dynamite — citation: –in 1864, an explosion at the Nobels’ lab killed Emil and several other people, and new laws were imposed to prohibit experiments with explosives within Stockholm city limits.- This law made experiments dangerous in two ways. There was one risk for life and one for investors. Experimenters would have to make an investment in terms of moving out of Stockholm where a dangerous experiment was legal. But in the evolutionary process, the investors remained while potentially successful inventors like Emil Nobel were no more. Today, investors are more involved in bearing a high financial risk in decisions for research experiments than the inventors. So if you want great research experiments being double-checked, you have to ask those leaders in the economy who are ruling the investors. At!/group.php…038;v=wall I suggested to donate to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It would not make anyone wonder if there has been donated enough to help out for the human right of global security. Perhaps you should discuss this with the donors to help out with charity for gaining the right of human beings of being alive.

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The Stockholm story is absolutely fascinating and hope-giving.
    Donating to the donors also is ingenious. Why not combine and give to Stockholm?

    But the real insight you give is: Does anyone know how to alert Stockholm to their duty in the name of their venerable founder — namely to bring the security issue back up?

  9. robomoon says:

    Yes, there should be a law prohibiting all overly dangerous experimentation in physics, chemistry, and further natural science. Overly dangerous experimentation causing the risk of human extinction has no place in real science. This law, however, should be scalable for any country and continent.

  10. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I agree.

  11. Thank you for your sharing with me the view that an undisproved proven risk deserves a scientific safety conference before the experiment in question is allowed to go on raising the cumulative risk day by day.

    This protection every human being has the right to expect from the United Nations.

  12. robomoon says:

    Thank you very much for your highly important work. It seems as if the ParticleAcceleratorShield requires new suggestions that could eventually be sent from you to [email protected]. Are you in favor to suggest moving the ParticleAcceleratorShield from the section Future Programs to Current Programs? Please try.

  13. Is this not a balanced attitude from the part of lifeboat to do both?: To both feature the old CERN view and to allow for a call to re-evaluate the risk in light of later findings that imply that every person on the planet is threatened unless the disproof publicly requested for three years is at last allowed to be tried in a scientific safety conference before it is definitively too late?

  14. robomoon says:

    ParticleAcceleratorShield is an ongoing program. So it would be good to both feature the old view and an update, incl. your name and outlook about the conference, below Sir Martin Rees’ and Nick Bostrom’s assessments. A conference has to happen ASAP, so the ParticleAcceleratorShield can make a difference when available among Current Programs.

  15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You know better than me: How can I add to Sir Martin Rees and Nick Bostrom’s assessements another one to say there what you suggest?

  16. robomoon says:

    Have you already emailed a request to [email protected] to kindly ask the Scientific Advisory Board for updating the ParticleAcceleratorShield by adding the most valuable of your own suggestions from your blog articles to its content? After they have accomplished this, just email them again to make a proposition for moving the ParticleAcceleratorShield to Current Programs. Regarding a conference and related requests, I have only confirmed your educated suggestions with my own words. Certainly, I would not know better than you.

  17. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I would like to follow your suggestion but do not know how.

    Also I think the way we are discussing this is already optimal. The word will spread that a first responsible medium like Herald Tribune cannot stay silent any longer in view of Hawking having not answered. Maybe he is unable to and hence is excused. We all like him. Even the pope does.

    All we need is love. I mean, a wife of Pilatus, but one who makes sure her husband listens to her. A single Jewish mother on the planet.

  18. robomoon says:

    Hopefully, the spreading of indignities will not be continued by a medium like Herald Tribune. In the past, one problem was not only the negative comments on this blog challenging your religion. Just before, various news publishers were also tied to a negative opinion about the advocates of higher safety for experimentation. Here…esday.html we are put into the category of doom-mongers. And here,8599,1838947,00.html we are put into the category of doomsayers with old-fashioned the-end-is-nigh hysteria. This overly negative opinion about safety only puts us more into danger.

  19. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It is cute to see how the mere suggestion to look twice is perceived as an assault on her majesty‘s dignity. Like forbidding to say “please.” I am ready to apologize if someone can tell me what I did wrong.

  20. robomoon says:

    Sorry, it took a while to understand, but you did not do anything wrong. A new experiment might be cynicism while only some academic algebra people got upset, but their normal- and metaphysics are based on bone-hard calculations, suggesting: 1 dangerous particle experiment = security against risk. 2 dangerous particle experiments = 2 times security against risk. Their normally undisproved calculations require: run a dangerous experiment with algebra to show that an already 3 years old report from Nobel- and further –priced scientists will never ever become a risk. Further hard math in psychology does not work anymore, as the findings of Doctors and your hardest critics who still comment to the ongoing distribution of articles about particle physics, suggest. Normal scientists with emotional sickness and their defunct ability of having and showing real fears in hindsight to a dangerous particle experiment know best that math in psychology is less hard but their algebra, because they are intelligent to cope with the above mentioned calculation, or: 1 dangerous experiment + 1 = dangerous experiment equals less than 1 dangerous experiment. With these findings we do not need to provide hard math formulas in psychology to them, but we must trust their algebraic generosity, sometimes abusive-in-language –and algebra too- telling us that 10000 scientists are never wrong, because of normal- and metaphysics.