Even now his solution seems unlikely to be what Pierre de Fermat had in mind, since it exploits a modern result unknown in Fermat’s time (actually Wiles’s own proof of the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture for semistable elliptic curves, from which Fermat follows).

On the other hand, Pierre didn’t utter a peep about his own famous solution “too big to write in the margin” (of an earlier text by the 3rd Century Greek Diophantus) in the last thirty years of his life, so it seems likely that he found a flaw in it, too, himself.

Everyone should know the original form in which Fermat posed the problem, which was not algebraic so much as visual, in its first thought, as regards cubes. It was

“Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.”

which means, for those here who don’t know Latin, an unfortunate lack in modern education, particularly in America, means

“You can’t split a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general any power to infinity into two like powers, beyond the square. I have discover a marvelous proof of this matter, but there is no room in this margin to give it.”

First its images, then words, then mathematics. The former is where great minds such as Einstein or Professor Rossler reside, on the peak of the mountain, as it were, seeing farther than anyone, while lesser minds reside on the flanks of the mountainside and the ordinary folk who comes up with picayune objections, they live in the fields and vineyards at the base of the mountain. Call these groups A, B and C.

In the case of the LHC, which is typical in this respect, Group C tries to pick apart the conceptions of an A thinker (Professor Otto Rossler) because they are loyal to the guys on level B that they imagine for some reason reside at the peak, which they do not, which is proved by their work, which is full of inconsistencies, which are visible on the A level, but not on the C level.

Professor Rossler, you have finally made a clear statement of your position, which all of us visitors to the A level much appreciate.

Anthony, it would be desireable Otto would give us the math behind his parascience instead.

But I do not want to skirt your important question: Einstein discovered and mentioned in his 1907 paper that c is not constant in an accelerating rocketship, and 5 years later replied to his concerned mentor Max Abraham that he would not respond to the latter’s enticement to repair this inconsistency if possible.

It is a miracle that Einstein was able to work around this weak point in his superhuman effort to make his general theory of relativity congeal. The latter – in the Schwarzschild solution – is so perfect that it actually formally contains the global constancy of c, as I showed in my 2007 paper on the gothic-R theorem.

The Telemach paper on Lifeboat, submitted to “Einstein online” in an earlier version, which conforms in 75 percent with results given in the paper “Gravitational space dilation” by Richard J. Cook, contains an accessible proof. It returns to the seminal context of Einstein’s 1907 paper. Einstein had correctly seen that if you look down from the tip of his inexhaustible rocketship to the bottom, you not only see clocks in a lazy state but even light is crawling transversally there. This even though locally, everything is unchanged down there.

This fact that c is visibly reduced from above explains, for example, why light emerging from the surface of a black hole takes an infinite time for the seemingly short way up, as is well known.

So c is crawling into a standstill much as in certain quantum media in the laboratory? The profession is convinced of that and is ready to bet the survival of the planet on this false conviction.

The solution, implicit in Telemach, is that space is proportionally expanded downstairs in Einstein’s rocketship (or on the surface of a neutron star or black hole). But so in a way which is invisible in transversal directions from above!

I struggled many years (since 1998) with the problem. The salvation came when I saw that an analogous problem is well known in special relativity as taught in high schools: the famous Lorentz contraction. Every object that is in fast motion is shortened in the longitudinal direction in special relativity. But locally – if you travel along – you do not notice the change. You still are your old self, in all three directions of space. But objectively, you are shortened to the by-standing observer as we saw. You appear flattened (laterally unchanged while longitudinally shortened), but you really aren’t. It is the same thing downstairs in the rocketship – or on a neutron star (where the factor is about two) or on the black hole’s horizon (where the factor is infinite). Although space is homogeneously expanded there (so that light takes twice as long in the transverse direction on a neutron star), this is NOT because the speed of light is changed there. The latter is unchanged similarly as in the case of the Lorentz contraction. What is changed is — besides the increase in all lengths – the projection! The observed crawling leaves the locally everywhere isotropic size change intact so that c is globally constant.

I wonder if my readers can understand this. What is sure so far is that no one who invested many man years into following the finest worked out details of general relativity can force himself or herself into starting anew on so basic a level. They simply are bound to hate me (and my friends).

I sympathize with them, and so should you. But they never gave me an occasion to explain this in a way they could follow. The “accent” which I have when saying such things is absolutely repugnant to them.

Still, if I am right (and Richard J. Cook and some others), this has vital consequences for theoretical physics and for Hawking’s beautiful theorem which he can no longer uphold. Everything about black holes is changed, physically speaking. Imagine: an infinitely large volume of space, enveloping a tiny black hole! One has to dig into this constant-c theory very deeply – which takes much time.

The connection to our topic is that the people at CERN do not want and cannot afford – financially – to wait that long. So they need to trigger their bomb as long as the money is still flowing. Everyone automatically sympathizes with this fact.

I(f c is the speed of light, I was under the impression that it was globally constant even with Einstein, but I speak from ignorance.

How is that a new discovery of yours?

Meanwhile, the view of black holes as vaginas is certainly compelling, artistically, and as a description of the attitude of the superannuated adolescents at CERN. I understand the French are so averse to such an image that they refuse to use the term black hole, is that right?

“We will this year behave like professional scientists and refer to reason and evidence before proceeding with our experiments willy nilly.”