Menu

Blog

Mar 17, 2012

How come All World Media are United in Covering-up the CERN?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Lifeboat has had enough coverage across the globe and in different languages to alert all governments and media word-wide. There are major conflicts unresolved on the planet. The more surprising is the fact that all governments stand united against their own people in one respect:

The populace is not allowed to know that CERN, or the Europeans, are preparing to re-ignite a nuclear experiment to run it at five times last year’s output – even though the total risk to induce Armageddon by the successful production of miniature black holes is thereby raised by a factor of six, up to possibly 8 percent.

Ironically, CERN neither disputes that it can in principle generate black holes, nor that it cannot detect its own success at producing them, nor that the published proofs of danger are not being disputed by a single scientist on the planet claiming to do so.

25

Comments — comments are now closed.


  1. Remark on CERN’s anti-Einstein claim:

    I just learned (http://www.nature.com/news/neutrinos-not-faster-than-light-1.10249 ) that Carlo Rubbia has revealed that “Icarus” — the improved version of CERN’s “Opera” experiment — showed instead of the original anti-Einsteinian advance of 60 nanoseconds, only a 4 nanosecond advance lying within the error range. This new result is fully compatible with the correct 1 nanosecond advance predicted on the basis of Einstein’s theory in my pertinent paper on Lifeboat submitted to Science magazine last October (
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%E2%80%9Ctwo-percent-explai…ting-earth ).

  2. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I don’t know why you associate the Opera results — which CERN has always been highly skeptical of — with micro black hole risks from collision experiments…

  3. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Good question, Tom.

    My excuse is the temporal coincidence of the two conscious neglects openly performed by CERN, of results coming from Tübingen:

    - The first proving CERN’s malicious neglect of safety-relevant results (the most vital ones of history if correct)

    - The second proving CERN’s inexplicable neglect of the only excuse offered so far that their second public scientific blemish – again through negating an Einstein-based result – the claim of a 60 nanosecond superluminality – was NOT qualitatively false because a 1 nanoscecond apparent superluminality does indeed follow from the correct interpretation of Einstein’s universal-c result

    So the neglect of the second Einstein-based result despite the fact that it qualitatively confirms CERN’s own claim, confirms to the watching public that CERN indeed irrationally hates all results coming from Tübingen.

  4. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The world at large therefore better start paying attention to a fact which the United Nations’ Secularity Council and all governments and all press clubs know about but which they are not allowed to know themselves.

  5. Otto E. Rossler says:

    For imagine that CERN really did stop its announced plan to multiply by six the output it already attempted to produce last year, starting in about two weeks’ time from today, the world at large would begin to ask questions why CERN did already produce the sixth part of what they plan to do this year, against the explicit advice given to them by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011: to first admit the logically necessary safety conference.

  6. Otto E. Rossler says:

    So everyone realizes that CERN has no choice but to either continue trying to annihilate the planet or else irreversibly damage the name of European science and Europe as a whole.

    I pledge to hold a minute of silence planetwide two weeks from today, to show that everyone understands that CERN could not possibly act differently, in a Sophoclean tragedy that causes “fear and pity” in all onlookers.

  7. PassingByAgain says:

    You are dumb as a rock. There are currently more than 200 papers by actual physicists that offered explanations, interpretations or refutations of the superluminal neutrinos (most of them useless, as it turns out ;-)

    http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep?c=ARXIV:1109.4897

    Why would it be inexplicable that CERN neglected the blabbering of a crackpot in an anti-science blog?

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am “dumb as a rock” because I gave a result and not an opinion:
    I agree wholeheartedly for once with the Nicolai-School — CERN’s only if clandestine scientific ally on the planet who never give away their names. Please, say who you are, dear “planet.”

    I hope it is not a bad omen that a “planet” is helping destroy a planet.

  9. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — many responses but let me retort — speaking of irrational hatreds and malicious neglect does nothing for ones credibility. As we agreed before… perhaps some neglect yes — though not in the Opera case IMHO — and some of the other allegations are surely below the belt. More importantly — if you check the wiki page on the topic, it states that the plea to the Cologne Administrative Court of January 27 2011 was rejected.

    Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_a…challenges

    If there was a ruling then I would start by correcting history on Wikipedia… I don’t see how a minutes silence would achieve anything, though perhaps those at CERN who are verbally lambasted on a regular basis would appreciate it. I understand your frustration — but let’s keep the debate scientific and not sink to mud-slinging rhetoric…

  10. PassingByAgain says:

    Here is the full text of the ruling of the Administrative Court of Cologne (in German):

    http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/vg_koeln/j2011/13_K_5693_…10127.html

    Perhaps Otto wants to point out for his non-German audience where the Court demanded a safety conference — as he’s been blathering about for more than a year? Or perhaps he wants to finally admit that the Court never made such demand?

  11. It is disappointing that the original text of the official protocol of the 4 judges is not reproduced in the above-quoted versions. The latter are convenient for CERN since the subjectively clairvoyant German supreme court had made any more humane final ruling impossible to this lower-ranking court (as everyone knows). But the express opinion of the 4 judges, so courageously included before the end of their official protocol as an advice given to CERN and the world, is not contained in the above quoted allegedly “official” but objectively incomplete texts. CERN has a vested interest in explaining this.

    Deliberate non-quotation of relevant evidence is a big no-no in science, violated by CERN as no one denies. I apologize that — since the likely consequences of this “forgivable action” include panbiocide — I chose a wording which makes me feel uncomfortable myself. I have to and do apologize for not being used to finding the politically correct words for attempted atrocities — there must be more specialized minds who can convey the same facts much more softly and suavely since we all know that the CERNians are honorable men. I do need help to find the right rhetoric.

    The overarching topic here is honesty — in science and jurisprudence alike. Thank you for bringing this topic up.

  12. PassingByAgain says:

    Yes Otto, how disappointing! The ruling of the Administrative Court of Cologne is now public, and of course it does not correspond at all to the one you had in your head. It must be all a CERN cover-up!

    Anyway, the paragraph relevant to the issue of the safety conference appears to be #88:

    which the babelfish page linked by TK translates as:

    This is not very comprehensible, and in legal documents precision of language is all. It would be great if one of the German-speaking readers of this blog could provide a decent translation. However, a few things seem clear even from the automatic one:

    - the Court DOES NOT demand a safety conference, it merely mentions that CERN’s critics ask for one;

    - the Court states that such a conference cannot be mandated by a judicial ruling, and it’s up to the defendant (CERN) to assess its (political?) opportunity;

    - the Court acknowledges that the majority of scientists considers the doomsday scenarios excluded.

    Otto, if you have a shred of decency left in yourself, you will now stop repeating your absurd claim about the Administrative Court of Cologne. Come to think of it, you should also write again to Mandela, Obama, Netanyahu, Ahmadinejad, the Pope, the King, Quadafi and Saddam and retract your earlier messages…

    This said, the ruling seems to contain many other interesting points. Indeed, it would be truly fantastic if somebody could provide a proper English translation of the whole thing, but I do realize that it’s a lot of work.

  13. PassingByAgain says:

    whoops, for some reason the quotes did not appear in my comment:

    paragraph #88 of the official ruling reads:

    Die danach durch die Beklagte als Exekutive pflichtgemäß vorzunehmende Bewertung ist vorliegend erfolgt. Sie hält ein Gefährdungspotential des LHC nach dem Stand der Wissenschaft für ausgeschlossen. Der wissenschaftliche Meinungsstand zur Gefährlichkeit der von der CERN betriebenen Versuche lässt sich nach wie vor dahingehend zusammenfassen, dass selbst die Vertreter der Minderheit, die ein Schadensszenario für möglich halten, lediglich behaupten, dass die von ihnen aufgezeigten theoretischen Denkmodelle, die von einer Vielzahl unwägbarer Prämissen abhängen, bisher nicht widerlegt worden seien. Vor diesem Hintergrund fordern sie insbesondere — wie der in der mündlichen Verhandlung anwesende Prof. Rössler dort nochmals deutlich gemacht hat — eine fachwissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung in Form einer Expertentagung, die sich mit den seitens der Klägerin behaupteten Gefahren beschäftigt. Eine solche Tagung durchzuführen, ist eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage der politischen Opportunität; sie kann aber nicht Folge einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung sein. Demgegenüber schließt die Mehrheit der mit dieser Frage befassten Wissenschaftler schon die Möglichkeit des Eintritts der von der Klägerin herangezogenen Prämissen aus. Entsprechende Szenarien sehen sie sogar als widerlegt an.

    and the babelfish translation is:

    After it by the defendant one as executive obligation in accordance with evaluation which can be made took place available. It considers a hazard potential of the LHC after the conditions of the science impossible. The scientific opinion conditions to the danger of the CERN of operated attempts can be summarized still in such a way the fact that even the representatives of the minority, which considers a damage scenario possible state only that the theoretical models for further discussion, which depend on a multiplicity of imponderable premises pointed out by them, were not disproved so far. Before this background they demand in particular — how in the verbal negotiation present Professor Rössler clear there made again — a specializedscientific argument in form of an expert conference, which concerns itself with the dangers maintained on the part of the plaintiff. Such a conference to accomplish, is one from the defendant one to question of the political Opportunität which can be answered; it cannot be however consequence of a judicial decision. In contrast to this the majority of the scientists concerned with this question already excludes the possibility of the entrance of the premises consulted by the plaintiff. Appropriate scenarios see it even as disproved on.

  14. Tom Kerwick says:

    In any case, regardless of what sentiments were expressed by the judges on the day, as the official ruling was to reject the appeal, this is a dead angle…

    In wanting an intervention, I’d suggest, Otto, you spend the next week working on an updated revision of your abraham solution on exponential accretion rates, with perhaps firstly highlighting why you believe the G&M derivation — which assumed no hawking radiation — is flawed… and submit it directly to the LSAG for opinion. I have found that they can be still quite responsive when the right questions are asked — Feel free to drop me an email to run a sanity check over it in advance also — I don’t mind at all.

  15. PassingByAgain says:

    Tom, what a poor choice of words! Are you sure you want to run a “sanity check” on Mad Otto’s writings??? ;-)

  16. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain — it was a very intentional choice of words.

  17. Very strange that there is so much resistance even to a trivial truth that every journalist on the planet can check within minutes.

    Is this the only defense CERN can muster on the planet?

    And dear Tom: Please, stop defending a paper which was openly fraudulent from the beginning. If Giddings and Mangano cannot defend themselves, it is counterproductive to try and defend them. Which fact does not mean that I do not admire your own straightness in thinking. But it is simpy too late to return to a debate which went on for 4 years in vain without noticing in the first place that the two authors along with CERN refuse to this very day to update a 4 year old alleged “safety report.”

    Do I have to remind you that the clock is ticking, saying in plain shamelessness on CERN’s website “15 days left” today?

  18. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I am not defending anyone’s position here — neither the G&M safety report, nor yours. I merely pointed out that the LSAG believe you have no scientific argument, so the burden is on you to convince them otherwise — as they are the authority on the matter whether one likes it or not. In saying so I suggest you update your paper to clarify the weaknesses in the G&M accretion rate calculations, so they are at least on the same page as you… You would be able to do these updates in a week or so, right?

  19. Quote: “the LSAG believe you have no scientific argument”.

    How do you know? Why dare they not say so themselves if this is the case? Eschewing discussion is the utmost proof of weakness — especially so when combined with absolute silence for 4 years in a row while the planet is kept waiting for the overdue update.

    Your no doubt well-meaning defense of theirs is turning them into minors who cannot speak up for themselves — although they represent the only defense CERN ever could muster.

    They have a chance to reply: Can you exert a good influence on them so they cease hiding?

  20. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I was discussing micro black hole production rates with the LSAG as recently as two weeks ago — in the context of my recent paper. During this course of conversation, the LSAG openly commented about your reserach that it does not consider certain quantum mechanical effects — and regardless does not negate the G&M conclusion in any way.

    They have a point — in isolation Telemach does not negate the G&M conclusion, as G&M derive an accretion rate of billions of years even if HR was ineffective — as your Telemach theorem suggests. Therefore I have suggested you work at your paper on accretion rates.

  21. Quote: “in isolation Telemach does not negate the G&M conclusion”

    Telemach is the most important safety-relevant result. It proves what Giddings and Mangano presupposed as a mere game of thought in their “Safety Report” of late 2008: Lack of Hawking radiation and lack of chargedness of black holes. Every CERN-member knows that these two – Hawling radiation and chargedness – are the only safety assurances anyone takes really seriously at CERN (just ask them). So forgive me that I always mention Telemach in the first place as my most important safety-relevant result.

    My second safety-relevant result communicated to Dr. Mangano in early 2008 is the well-known exponential growth rate of quasars, which G and M then refused to consider in their paper. And with it, the consequence – the predictable analogous behavior of micro-black holes inside ordinary matter (earth). Instead they naively presented a more or less linear accretion rate inside earth. Of course they would have been welcome to offer counter-arguments to my disproof of their own results, as the world expects them to do for more than three years.

    Thirdly they “forgot” to dismantle my third unsafety-proving result, sent to them in the spring and in published form in July of 2008: the immunity, shown by neutron stars towards natural ultrafast analogues to the micro black holes, explicitly planned to be produced at CERN. It is explicable by the superfluidity of their cores.

    The first result of my trias obviously belongs to the theory of relativity, the second to chaos theory, the third to quantum mechanics. In at least one of the three fields, the two authors in question could and should have displayed competence – if I may say so without using a politically incorrect tone which is far from being my intention.

    But I do want to shout to the whole planet: Please, do either offer a counterproof to one of the three points offered for years, or stop the experiment immediately!

  22. To finish up on your question, Tom:

    The new unchargedness has two further implications:
    i) The probability of CERN’s suceeding in producing black holes is increased by many orders of magnitude since string theory suddenly has an empirical basis.
    ii) CERN’s detectors have become blind to its own most hoped-for success.

    (My oft-repeated warning that “nature has posed humankind a trap” is therefore understandable. The refused scientific dialogue has a tragic dimension to it. I can only ask humankind’s forgiveness for my inefficiency in making my results known.)

  23. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — Thanks for the clarification on your experiences on this. If you submitted a paper to Dr Mangano on estimated exponential accretion rates prior to the G&M safety report — I’d consider not referncing this a sin of omission, they should at least have offered a reason as to why your proposed exponential growths were not applicable to their model — particularly when the proposed linear growth seems counter-intuitive. About MBH production rates — The G&M report calculates around 10^(4) sub-Keplerian MBH over the lifetime of LHC expected at P = 5.7 x 10(−4) (for at 4 TeV). What values did you calculate?

  24. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for being so specific, Tom.

    The challenge you pose at the end is too heavy for me to answer quantitatively (misplaced concreteness is a big danger here — the formulae of G&M have a magic quality to them unless we believe in higher revelation standing behind).

    Since no one knows the energetic threshold at which black holes exist, only the assumption of a very concrete value — fallen from heaven as it were — allows one to come up with numbers. My “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma” paper of May 2008, sent to G&M when fresh and published as they knew in July 2008, only gives a rough probability of the experiment’s being successful: “16 percent.” (At half the energy, the probability is roughly to be halved.)

    How many of those produced will be slow enough to stay inside earth is a question G&M are more competent to answer. As Dr. Landua correctly emphasized towards me, the intrinsic quantum jiggle of the colliding quarks renders the percentage of sub-Keplerian (slow enough to stay inside earth) specimens quite small even if the two beams are exactly calibrated.

    Therefore, one can hope that only a rather high cumulative luminosity brings about the full risk. To my knowledge, CERN’s publications give no information about the relevant numbers already obtained — and scheduled to be obtained if the experiment is to be re-ignited in two weeks’ time at five times the previous efficiency.

    Only CERN itself can tell the planet what percentage of the estimated 8 percent danger has likely been achieved during last year’s run, and what the approximately six-fold total increase planned to be reached by the end of the present year therefore means for the likelihood of life’s continuing.