Apr 15, 2012

I would be Grateful to Be Allowed to Speak at the CERN-Lifeboat Conference

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

But I would suggest CERN to select the majority of speakers and to make sure they are high-ranking and not necessarily on their payroll.

And Dr. W. Wagner and Mag. M. Goritschnig should be included, as well as the editor of Leonardo.

I also apologize for my having provoked G&M: they have all the chance of the world to defend their position. And no one would be happier than me if they prevailed. For as I always said I am CERN’s best friend. My having asked for a rebuttal was the opposite of an aggressive act: “science is friendship” by its definition. Lifeboat loves science.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. The new development was prepared on a previous blog.

  2. eq says:

    Science is friendship — that must be the reason why you are accusing scientists and scientific institutions for years as modern nazis and similar. First your university and today CERN.

    Shame on you. You are not a sientist and for sure no friend of science.

  3. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler, did you ever in your lectures advocate violence to “get rid of the insane persons at cern and at mpi golm”, as alleged by “erwtreg on April 14, 2012 12:57 pm” in the thread of March 26? I would have expected you to react strongly to this slanderous suggestion. Or perhaps the reason why you are not reacting is that the allegation is true?

    BTW, it really amazes me that an open incitement to murder such as the one of “erwtreg” is allowed to stand on this blog. Kerwick, won’t you do anything about it?

  4. eq calls it friendship when he advocates CERN’s continuing to try and evaporate the planet.
    PassingByAgain also claims that calling for the firebrigade were calling for violence.

    Never in history were physicists so irrational, so full of hate as to even rather sacrifice their own families than use reason. The only sane element is their all (not just the above two’s) hiding their faces.
    The two representatives who so bravely took word above behind a mask admit implicitly to belonging to Nicolai’s staff at Golm.
    Again my esteemed colleague Professor Hermann Nicolai takes the responsibility on his shoulders by keeping silent in the face of the biggest challenge of his life, after having lost his face with false claims 4 years ago which fact he could no longer hide if daring to speak up now.
    Like no one else he became the symbol of a physics that represents the deadliest menace ever: not as physics but as antiphysics. Unless — as no one hopes for more than I do — his lie proves prescient.

    But why look back. For the first time there is hope for reason. LIFEBOAT opens up a chance for humankind. I asked Lifeboat’s founder to come to a decision soon whether he is ready to implement the scientific safety conference jointly with CERN that was publicly proposed by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011. For as everyone realizes, there is no other lifeboat on our planet.

    Even if he says “no,” the fact that Lifeboat existed is an infinite solace – a “ktéma eis aeí,” an “eternal possession” in the words of Thucydides. The planet will never forget this ray of hope opened-up for it by Lifeboat and its founder and soul.

  5. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain — I saw the comment erwtreg as sarcastic or ‘taking the mick’ and not on the same level as direct incitement to violence such as the removed post ‘dear children — sweet barrage’. I look forward to hearing more about a Lifeboat-CERN safety conference. R.I.P. Cho Seung-Hui, 5 years ago today.

  6. Dear Tom: I must take issue with your highlighting a murderer here. Please, apologize.

    And I would like to learn where, in a blog that you removed without prior consultation, a trace of violence — different from a call for the firebrigade or the police which I hope you do not call violence — was to be found.

    I insist on a public answer. So you presumably first must re-store this blog (like all the others). Otherwise the removed blogs become the most important ones which I think would not be justified.

  7. PassingByAgain says:

    Kerwick, let’s hope that you are right and that “erwtreg” was just being sarcastic. For the effect that Mad Otto’s doomsday dreams can have on impressionable minds, look no further than here:

    Rossler, as usual you are trying to avoid answering a direct question. Did you or did you not advocate violence against CERN scientists in your lectures?

  8. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I see no reason to apologise for commemorating an awful day to the lives of many inflicted by a student who went postal some years ago. In context of social responsibility.

    I do not understand your rational that posts must be restored to prove that they are inflamatory. Some are removed for this reason. Please clarify what you were requesting younger readers of Lifeboat to do when you posted ‘Dear Children — Sweet Barrage’. In your ongoing crusade of accusing CERN of willfully threatening the safety of the planet.

  9. eq says:

    do not see anything like a serious scientific review of CERN-arguments by Rössler, nowhere on this blog, nowhere at places where he was agitating before.

    What everyone can see, even in this blog, is pure agitation without any kind of serious argument.

    So what, Rössler, where is your scientific review of GM and so on?

  10. eq says:

    His talking about Nicolai is delusional, ridiculous. It was amusing before, but now it is blring. Rössler is screaming around in order to hide his lack of any kind of scientific sound argument.

  11. eq says:

    And by the way, he still has not answered Passingbyagains question.

    Instead he defends his agitaion which logically must one day lead to violence against honest scientists if the wrong person reads his agitation and propaganda.

    Shame on you, Otto!

  12. Quote: “your ongoing crusade of accusing CERN of willfully threatening the safety of the planet.”

    Dear Tom: This sounds as if you approved of CERN’s refusing to show that they are not doing so.

    Of course CERN does not BELIEVE that the proof of danger offered is correct. No one questions the honesty of their BELIEF.

    But sharing this belief without evidence makes you an accomplice.

    LIFEBOAT has the chance to bring CERN to the table so that the question of whether this BELIEF is correct or not can be decided. Please, help me and CERN to prove that this belief is not unfounded. I want them to be right, not wrong!

    If children play in all innocence with a bomb and you try to protect them: what strategy do you propose? Please tell me and the world.

    Is my recipe (dialog) really so bad a strategy that it takes LIFEBOAT more than 24 hours to come around with its invitation for a joint safety conference with CERN?

    Maybe someone can say why the bomb is not sharp after all! The planet waits for this someone. It could be you in case you already know the solution. Please, do not give up!

  13. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I actually endorsed your request for a Lifeboat safety conference and I have communicated same to Eric Klien, President/Secretary of Lifeboat. Whether in my case it is based on a belief that safety can be proven by such a conference with an agenda of social responsibility to quench such fears, or perhaps in your opinion that safety can be disproved, we are on the same team-sheet as regards such a request for a safety conference. As for how you perceive me — I am an accomplice to nothing but my own beliefs and reading of the situation. I consider our recent White Dwarf debate to be a good safety argument but of course am open to being proven incorrect in this belief.

  14. Dear Tom: How can I say how grateful I am to you? Otto

  15. eq says:

    Oh yes. But be careful to invite no serious scientists with knowlegde in the relavent fields. They could be malevolent. I mean, they could ask Otto for analysis of GM-equations or for derivations of his own(utterly wrong) equations in this silly pamphlet called “Telemach”.

    The conclusion visible for everyone who has followed the discussions with Otto is that he will never admit to be disproven. Everyone doing so was either a “dogmatis” unable to “think” or see the genius of Otto. Or he simply refused to answer at all. In that case he felt silent or called CERN “Nazis”, “worse than Hitler”, “Child murderers” and so on — in order to hide his non-answering, to hide his complete lack of knowlegde of the field or even the relevant papers.

    Even now he refused to answer Passingbyagains question.

  16. I never advocated violence in my life, and hence also not in the lecture hall, dear poor PassingByAgain.

    But I did call on the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity 3 years ago. Do I have to apologize for this fact?

  17. Adrian Goos says:

    Roessler is in good compliance with his former hoster W. L. Ph. Fasnacht and his actual friend Rudolf Uebbing, both declared CERN physicists worse than murderers and claimed violant resistance as an act of necessity to be taken into account.

  18. eq says:

    Liar. The fact that you are comapring scientists with mass murderers without any kind of substantial evidence shows that you are indeed accepting that some day the wrong person may draw some violent conclusions from your texts. BTW, the suicide mentioned in the link provided by passingbyagain above proves already the danger of your agitation.

    Your text has nothing to do with responsible warnings or with science. It is pure hateful propaganda against institutions and scientists. You are not doing this the first time. few yrears ago the people at Tübingen university were already called Nazis by you. Same bullshit, same agitation.

    Everyone can see it, at least on this blog, that you always refused to give answers to questions about your stuff. You never replied to arguments disproving you completely — your only reaction is that a new and even more agitating posting appears on the top of the lifeboat blog. You want to hide your failure again and again. A real scientist would not waste his time with propaganda like yours. A real scientist would write scientific objections against the papers published fo far. The last discussion had shown that you are not even aware of the content of for example the GM paper.

  19. eq says:

    For rhis ridiculous conference I suggest to invite the famous Mr. Goritschnig. He fits perfectly into the nonsensical Otto-environment and can provide some fantastic data about earthquakes caused by the LHC. Rudolf Uebbing has therefore also to be invited.

  20. Tom Kerwick says:

    I would add that such a conference would require at least one (preferably two) of the following individuals, who should hold final say on the debate: Ellis, Giddings, Mangano, Tkachev, Wiedemann. I believe it would show a great social conscience from CERN to agree such to participate and listen and debate the remaining concerns. And naturally critics who have felt outsiders to the debate all this time such as Rossler, Wagner, et al would have to be speaking participants as otherwise such a conference would not be fulfilling its purpose. I believe EQ would agree — in this context — it would not be a ridiculous conference. I trust Otto would also agree to bowing to a final say from the experts so long as he has had an opportunity to explain his said concerns…

  21. eq says:

    Great. On the one side: Scientists.

    On the other side: Cranks and scaremongerers

    I am already a fan of the conference

  22. eq says:

    Sorry, Tom, but I have too much experience with Rössler to trust Rössler like you. One thing is absolutely certain: Otto will never admit to be wrong because he would lose his precious stage for his crusade against science.

    You have seen it already. He will not bow, he will simply wait a little bit and start the game again. Probably he will call the experts dogmatic non-thinkers or something like that as he had done countless times in the past.

    One other thing: No scientist normally would accpet the invitation because for them the case is closed for years as Rössler never came up with seomthing like hard evidence. You have seen it yourself in the whithe dwarf discussion how Otto refuses even to look at the papers. However, how will one interprete this? Otto (and other well known cranks — I know a lot of them) will interprete this as a proof of being right while they are wrong — are you agreeing with such an interpretation?

  23. eq says:

    Last point: The administrattion should really think about whether it is really responsible to give Rössler space for his agitation. There is a real chance that some day a wrong person will read it and draw some real violent conclusions from it.

    Good luck with your conference.

  24. Tom Kerwick says:

    EQ — I can see your point of view, but is not about trusting Otto but trusting the LSAG when it has been demonstrated in public conference that ‘the cranks’ as you refer to them have been listened to. CERN regularly send representatives to Universities to discuss the science (one visited Trinity College Dublin in the last year on such I recall from personal involvement). To entertain what you see as ‘a room full of cranks’ under the Lifeboat umbrella I agree would be a step further, but surely it is important for social reasons to show that such concerns have been listened to and discussed…

  25. It gives me a deep impression how sure this unsure (since anonymous) young colleague is about my being wrong.

    He ought to be able to formulate a correction to my results which would prove that black holes are harmless.

    I cordially invite him to write such a paper. I will be the last not to get convinced if he succeeds.

    Belief can carry you over abysses, after all. So I am really with him on the side of truth. I also understand that he has difficulty understanding my dialect. Only the self-righteousness — which he wrongly perceives in me — he should shed. But perhaps I really just did not get his deepest point yet. He should trust me that all I wish for is the truth. And that I realize that getting the drift of a very learned counter-argument can take me quite a while. Like anyone else, I believe, except some young scientists who mostly do not even know how strong they are.

  26. adsfsadg says:

    out of curiosity, i last year went into rösslers lectures. I found a small group of jounger scientific staff from the chemistry department, and older academicstaff members from tübingen. I also found some older curious guests. All those united that they had a huge lack of physics, which implied that they could not figure out themselves whether rössler was either talking something wrong or right. Unfortunately, it was wrong, but they did not notice. They did not question what rössler said. I felt like i would be among the followers of some sect with their priest. Rössler was talking on his crackpot stuff in relativity which was rejected by experts for years. He also was talking nonsense on various solutions of einstein’s equations. Any relativist who would go there, would probably not return since he would die from a heart attack because of so many errors. And well, rösser often implicitely made clear that he would favor it if the scientists who refused his wrong thesis were threatened violently. However, he did not say “lets kill someone” or something. He made it more subtle. Telling that no one would listen to him but that the scientists at cern and golm must be somehow “forced” to accept his theses. He also said that he does not see any peaceful way to achive this and that this would make it necessary to employ “unorthodox” methods of presure on the scientists at golm and mpi. I honestly think that the relativity staff at tübingen should immediately visit his lectures. Perhaps then, they will recognize that rössler should be forbidden to hold lectures at Tübingen. He only confuses his listeners with anecdotes and wrong stuff. There was almost no correct thing on physics that he said. For example, all the equations he wrote on the blackboard where mathematically invalid, or wrong. I never have seen so much wrong stuff to be thaught in a lecture room of an university.

  27. Peter Howell says:


    You don’t get it. Roessler had his chance to discuss his crude ideas with CERN representatives and others. He was invited twice by CERN and met with its MD where the CERN scientists explained to him in much detail, where he is wrong. He never listened. He continues with his rant. He will never agree to anything. It starts with some of the most basic things, such as Roessler believing in the concept of an absolute time – which 100% contradicts Einstein. And it goes on and on. So his repeated clim that no one contradicts him is bullshit – an outright lie!

    Also, his claim that the Cologne court supported him is a lie. Here is a link to the OFFICIAL ruling of the court:…10127.html

    Not a single word of the court asking, supporting, favoring (whatever word you prefer) a safety conference. This is not Wikipedia, this is the official statement of the court. So Roessler once again was caught with a lie.

    On the promotion of violence: as stated here before, scientists working at Cern have received death threads. Also Roessler, Goritschnig and others have supported physical and military force against Cern (…ie_ganze_c).

    Tom, I am more than surprised that you (and everyone else at lifeboat) take posts calling for (deadly) violence so easily.

    Peter Howell

  28. Very interesting anonymous lies. The “student” should be so kind as to reveal — not his name but: the DATE of his visit. I have detailed records of all my lectures and can thus prove that he is lying.

    Anonymous liars are sometimes helpful in a just life-saving cause as this one.

    Little MD colleague Howell — if he is not an impostor:

    If UN troops are included in your word “military”, every responsible person on the planet will agree that this is a just case to call for them: [cut — web admin]. It only depends on the truth of the safety warning — right?

    The only authority you rely on is your own clairvoyance. Psychologists tend to possess this professional weakness.

    Please, stop calling for the police a “violent” act. Otherwise I need to be imprisoned because I EVEN called on the SCUN which happens to be blocked by a veto. No one is allowed to ask where it comes from: Are you involved at any rate since nothing imposes more than the authority of clairvoyance so you must already be quite advanced as a global authority.

    Don’t read me wrong: I pray that you are right with your clairvoyance. The whole conference will have no other aim than to verify the strength of your mental eye. Shall we call it the “Peter-Howell Conference” because no one is a better physicist on the planet than Sir Peter?

  29. P.S. The court document Sir Peter is quoting is fraudulent because incomplete.

  30. bill johnson says:

    Rossler, you’re saying that the official court documents from the Cologne court’s ruling are fraudulent? You do realize that you are thereby accusing the court of releasing fraudulent document right? Can you explain why they would do that if they did actually support a safety conference like you have said they did?

    “If UN troops are included in your word “military”” by what standard could UN troops not be considered to be military forces? UN troops come from member nations military forces and are very much a military force so calling for their use would be calling for a form of military action.

  31. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain/Peter — the comment from erwtreg (IP which geolocates to Munich) regarding use of munitions to murder CERN employees has been removed as distasteful even if possibly just sarcastic. I can assure you I am aware of a real problem of threats against CERN employees and others. There was a serious concern a few years ago where militant students were planning to take hostages at a University to make demands on CERN. The incident was reported to CERN/LSAG and the CIA at the time by myself and another critic who became party to the information.

    One cannot be too careful — hence the recent curtailment of posts with inflammatory rhetoric. I would hope a safety conference would allay some fears, though as Peter has pointed out — some people (most notably Prof Rossler) can have stubborn viewpoints.

  32. Peter Howell says:

    So Roessler is not denying that he had his chance to discuss with CERN, that he has been calling for violance against people and that he is a liar regarding the court ruling. Interesting little Otto.….

  33. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler, while we are at it let me ask you a personal question: how do you live with the knowledge that your rants may have been a factor in the death of a 16-year-old girl? How do you rationalize it? I’ve always been curious about it…

  34. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Sir Peter: You are defaming and evading: Why?


    Mr. Johnson: You are implying that calling the police is an act of violence?

    Our real dissent has alone to do with the question of whether or not CERN should offer counter-evidence against the proof that it is threatening lives.

    Why of all things are you opposed to CERN’s showing that it is not true that it is endangering the world?

    This is the decisive question, and I hope you will be the first to give an acceptabe answer on behalf of CERN. I do not say that they are committing a crime, I only say that they should please, give counterevidence against the published evidence that they are accepting an unacceptable risk.

    Are you really opposed to this friendly request?

  35. PassingByAgain says:

    OH NO, Rossler, you are not calling the CERN scientists criminals, you’ve only called them worse-than-Hitler Nazi monster child-murderers…

    Answer the question on the girl’s suicide, if you please. As I wrote above, I have always wondered how you feel about it, but it’s such a tragic issue that I considered somewhat bad taste to bring it up while discussing your crackpot theories. However — thanks to the smart-ass who finds it funny to fantasize about gunning down CERN scientists — the focus of this thread is now on the possible real-life consequences of your apocalyptic rants. The callousness with which you seem to reject any responsibility makes the question more than appropriate.

    You sometime liken your fear-mongering to the action of somebody who calls the fire brigade. A more apt analogy would be somebody who needlessly shouts FIRE in a crowded theater. Like it or not, he’s responsible for the people who get trampled in the ensuing panic.

  36. Otto E. Rossler says:

    These “callings” that you mention are all conditional, dear anonymous Golm-associated scientist.

    I ask the world’s forgiveness if I sometimes omitted the condition under which all my warnings were standing.

    Do you really think that in an emergency, the conditions under which the emergency applies need to be repeated in every single sentence? I agree that this would be desirable, but it obviously is impossible in practice. Yelling cannot be enriched with footnotes.

    Anyone who is angry with me about this fact, I understand. And cordially ask his or her forgiving.

    Can YOU explain to the world why there is not a single scientist — so far — who says “I can dismantle the
    - ‘Telemach’ theorem, or the
    - ‘existence of some form of string theory’ theorem, or the
    - ‘invisibility to CERN’s detectors’ theorem, or the
    - ‘exponential growth inside matter’ theorem, or the
    - ‘immunity of neutron stars’ theorem”

    You see that I always tried to make it maximally easy to my fellow scientists at CERN and elsewhere on the planet. Only anonymous fiends without visible personality make their appearance so as to skirt each of these maximally straightforward ways to show that the CERN experiment is safe on the black-hole front.

    No Nicolai, no ‘t Hooft, no Ellis, no Hawking, no Giddings, no Mangano. Instead only people who do everything to remain nobodies by refusing to give a counter-theorem, are shooting from their hips like several ones on this world-historic blog.

    Nevertheless the world is grateful to each of you for keeping the flame alive. “Rationality contradicted is a thousand times more worth-while than no rationality at all.” Therefore I am greatly obliged to each and every one of you: Thank you for your open resistance to rationality!

  37. Jason says:

    What’s the story about the 16-year-old girl’s suicide?

  38. PassingByAgain says:

    You are pathetic, at least take responsibility for [cut — web abmin] On one thing, however, you are right: if your blog is still alive it’s only because of your critics. For what I am concerned, I keep coming back to the blog for its trashy entertainment value, but the fun stops when people start blabbering about shooting physicists. Earth-gobbling black holes are a figment of your imagination, but crazy people with guns are all too real, as the news never cease to remind us. Luckily your fifteen minutes of celebrity are long gone, and [cut — web admin].

    As to the “theorems” you list above, if you had the slightest clue of what you are talking about you would know that they have already been dismantled many times in this blog. But why would you care? All that matters to you is to fuel your delusion of being the savior of the world…

  39. bill johnson says:

    “You are implying that calling the police is an act of violence?”

    Mr. Rossler, I have no idea how you thought I was implying such a thing based on what I said but I dint imply that at all. I was simply clarifying that yes calling for action by UN troops is indeed calling for a form of military action a fact you had called into question.

    Also on the Cologne court’s ruling, and the document they released that you said was a fraud, Can you explain why they would do this if they did actually support a safety conference like you have said they did?

  40. Tom Kerwick says:

    Jason — The story about the 16-year-old girl’s suicide was linked in an earlier comment re the effect on impressionable minds. To my recollection Otto has previously appologised IF his actions had any connection to this sad event, though in all likelyhood this girl probably never heard of Prof Rossler and her troubled state may have more to do with media hype of a ‘doomsday machine’ in her own home country.

  41. LHC Kritik says:

    Brief explanation to the reader:

    This thread has apparently been occupied by a small group of bloggers already well known to critics of the LHC experiment in the German speaking countries. They run a blog which in a typical aggressive manner and speech turns against any kind of theories in physics that are somehow alternative or not mainstream. Some of them have already been reported to the police in other contexts than collider safety because of things like: wrong allegations, stalking, damage to reputation, etc. LHC Kritik finds it too ridiculous to open trials against such characters but has banned them from the website according to the forum rules. Most of the hidden identities are meanwhile known to us. First we thought they could be financed by CERN but it rather seems that they made an approach to CERN that was dismissed.

    After being in the background for a while, this time these bloggers try to accuse Prof Roessler and other critics in this English speaking forum for lying or threatening with violence which is ridiculous. Everybody can see that this is not the case in the articles of Prof Roessler. (Another question is if some of his emotional and metaphoric articles are a useful approach in his own interest.)

    However, it is interesting to see the illegal way of these bloggers to try to hinder any scientific talks on LHC risks, a safety conference or a neutral risk assessment. Another wrong allegation in a post above was that LHC critics would speculate about “violence” while cynically mixing up the notions of “state forces” and “violence”, giving this link as “evidence”:…ie_ganze_c
    This statement obviously concerns the question raised by critics and their lawyers if it could be principally legitimate for the state to intervene at CERN with state’s authorities. And it is true that there is a paragraph in the contract between Switzerland and CERN that allows Switzerland to intervene at the extraterritorial CERN if the security of Switzerland is threatened in any sense. Also concerning all the other critics personally named in postings above: To suggest to the reader any other than that are wrong allegations that can be prosecuted by law. At minimum it is obvious that these posters deliberately want to mislead the reader concerning intentions and actions of critics and to accuse them for anything that might cause a short term effect. We therefore suggest to ban these posters from lifeboat.

    Remark / Disclaimer: 1.: Not everybody posting anyhow pro LHC in this thread might feel addressed by this statement, some of them seem to seek a fair debate. 2.: LHC Kritik feels not addressed by this manner of discussion and will not necessarily react to any posts by the bloggers described above. 3.: Prof Roessler here speaks as a private person about his specific approach and individually chosen proposals. Not every critic in the issue is always lucky about his style.

    Last but not least: The recommendation of the German court to hold a safety conference is in the official protocol of the trial at page 7 paragraph 4 and the citation can be viewed in this open letter by lawyer Dr. Möhring for example:

    „Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer ‘Sicherheitskonferenz‘ diskutieren zu lassen“…chavan.PDF

  42. Peter Howell says:

    Everyone is fraudulent in Roessler’s mind: the court, CERN, the press, other scientists, even lifeboat if they not bend to his opinion. Everyone is wrong, except Roessler. It’s like this old joke:
    A man drives in his car on a motorway, when the radio comes up with an emergency message. “All drivers are advised to be careful as there is a motorist driving against the traffic on motorways”. The man scratches his head and mumbles: “One? Hundreds”!

  43. PassingByAgain says:

    Kerwick: I shouldn’t have written “s#!t”, in the second paragraph that you censored, and I understand your effort to keep the discussion on a more civilized track. But why on Earth did you cut my first three sentences?

    You truncated the first sentence in a way that makes it impossible to understand what it means, and I can’t see anything against Lifeboat policies in the censored part: “…your words, instead of hiding behind conditionals.”

    As to the girl’s suicide story, you may recollect that Rossler “apologized”, but I don’t, and above he tried repeatedly to avoid the question (a question, BTW, which is fully appropriate in a thread that deals with the potential real-life consequences of Rossler’s apocalyptic rants). How directly Rossler influenced the doomsday hype in the media can be a matter of discussion, but your personal point of view on that cannot be grounds to censor mine.

  44. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain — unlike your previous questions to Otto on the matter, which were not cut, the cut you refer to was because you implied he was responsible and not just might be responsible for such a tradgedy — so I thought I’d nip it in the bud incase it develops into characater defamation. I could have removed more. No intention to cause offence.

  45. PassingByAgain says:

    LHC Kritik, can you quote also the next sentence of the “official protocol”? I suspect that it might have changed the meaning of the paragraph quite a bit…

    Anyway, as repeatedly pointed out in this blog, the official ruling of the court is public:…10127.html

    the relevant paragraph is number 88, which in no way implies that the court mandates (or recommends, or advocates, or whatever) a safety conference. That horse is long dead, when will you and Rossler stop beating it?

  46. PassingByAgain says:

    Kerwick: I see, you needed a “might”… Let’s leave it at that, but I’m still waiting for Rossler’s comment.

    However, please restore the first sentence, which had nothing to do with the girl’s suicide and now is just mangled and unintelligible.

  47. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain — if it’s cut it’s cut. If there is some additional point you made that was ommitted as part of the cut please post it in a fresh comment.

  48. PassingByAgain says:

    then, next time be more careful about what you cut

  49. Tom Kerwick says:

    I would like to clarify for the benefit of readers — the title of this thread by Prof Rossler ‘I would be Grateful to Be Allowed to Speak at the CERN-Lifeboat Conference’ may be misleading. This was merely proposed by Otto, and no such conference is currently planned and no approach to CERN yet made (or please someone clarify if I am mistaken here). Also my reference to whom should hold authority over the outcome of such a conference was not in any way intended to indicate that such persons have been approached — merely a statement as to where the final say should lie — with the experts.

    Otto — I would appreciate if you could share with us the discussions you held with CERN previously when you attended there — whether you discussed your Telemach ideas for example — and whether they explained why this was not a concern to them. I would like to get a picture of what new debate you hope to bring to a conference that has not already been discussed with CERN, or is it a case of needing a second chance to explain such.

  50. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Provocations lead to bad words also.
    Do not repeat bad words which have been already deleted.
    Do not give anything about rumors, if you were not personally involved in the issue.
    Do not hate someone if the person has not done anything bad to you personally.
    Do live in the present.
    Be friendly, we are all just people.
    But ok, it seems (we should hope) that the discussion get‘s better (and more interesting) now. Both sides should answer some scientific questions of the others.
    I think “CERN-Lifeboat Conference” should mean the blog theme here. Thank you.

  51. Niccolò Tottoli says:


  52. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear all
    It is too much for me, to read all the comments on page one. So it is possible that I am not completely informed (sorry if).
    Three questions: Did someone important reply about the safety conference?
    Dear Tom why do you think (if possible in a few words) that white dwarfs would be still a good safety argument?
    And have you changed your opinion that neutron stars would be a guarantee for the safety of the LHC-experiments?
    I hope some questions can be answered and I will take a look here later again.
    Best regards, Niccolò

  53. Richard Roache says:

    M. Niccolò you may ask M. Goritschnig, the half-baked philosopher, if he believes in this stories of LHC-induced earthquakes or could you imagine this is just another snake oil to screw these starry-eyed idealists of ecology movement. You know LHC-Critique is used in betraying this target group, just as they denounce the LHC as subnuclear reactor.

  54. Tom Kerwick says:

    Niccolò — yes some advancements are being made as regards a safety conference — Lifeboat Foundation is on-board, LSAG have expressed favor with it and thanks to them the ball is now with the CERN communications office.

    Referring to your questions above — the recent debate on White Dwarfs has been quite detailed and yes I consider it a good safety argument on MBH growth, based on the unchallenged basic calculations I presented therein, and backed up by G&M WD capture rates. I have not changed my opinion on Neutron Stars — I believe it is more difficult to be conclusive with these, as debated on the recent thread on Neutron Stars with Otto also. Apologies for linking back to older debate as way of answering your questions, but I am trying to avoid the debate going around in circles yet again.

  55. PassingByAgain says:

    Really, “LSAG have expressed favor with [the safety conference]”!

    I must say that I find it quite surprising… I would expect that — in these exciting times for particle physics, with new results coming out of the LHC every few months — the LSAG members are busy doing real work, and they don’t have time to go all over again through a debate that everybody in the scientific community considers long settled.

    I wonder if, on closer inspection, the “favor” expressed by LSAG would turn out to be of the same kind as the one supposedly expressed by the Administrative Court of Cologne… ;-)

    Kerwick, could you by chance quote (in full, not selectively) the relevant communication with the LSAG members, or is it private stuff?

  56. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain — yes private emails. I’m on occasional emails with the LSAG — I have been for a number of years — and they appreciate the interest. I’m sure the communications office at CERN are quite busy these days — we’ll see what transpires. I will share more info when I know more but will not start quoting private correspondence.

    Addendum — apparently there’s more afoot on such conference plans which I am not party to. I was just referring to an enquiry on behalf of Lifeboat. I’ll leave clarification to critics.

  57. bill johnson says:

    PassingByAgain your right it is indeed a very busy time for CERN. Just a quick update for everyone here they announced today that:

    They have now reached 1380 proton bunches per beam
    The LHC set a new maximum peak luminosity record
    There have been 60 trillion collisions thus far this year, and that number was reached in 2 weeks instead of the 12 weeks it took last year.

  58. Otto Rossler: there sadly is one thing you are missing, humankind has never done a good job of preparing for the danger none of us every experienced before. Many experienced tornadoes and do a good job preparing for more, less so with an overwhelming flood like Katrina or a volcano that never went off in human history. The solution for dealing with LHC danger sadly is not what you think Otto Rossler, it is not better math,

  59. Peter Howell says:

    Intersting — wannabe spin doctors at work!

    When someone calls me trying to sell me something, I typically appreciate the interest in me, but I never express favor in doing so!

    Tom, try to keep the discussion honest, bad enough Roessler and Goritschnig can spread their lies here unchalleneged.

  60. Tom Kerwick says:

    Peter — you don’t get it. If the guys at the LSAG forward on a request to the appropriate department and thanking you for the efforts in bringing sanity to the outsider debate, they are expressing favor. In any case, I should clarify that this was an approach on behalf of Lifeboat and peripheral to any plans in place by critics which may be viewed differently…

  61. Peter Howell says:

    Tom, you really think that G&M want to sit in the same room with the persons who have clled them “worse than Hitler” and worse? Illusional.

  62. Tom Kerwick says:

    Peter — of course not. But they might expect their PR to do so and set the record straight.

  63. PassingByAgain says:

    Expressing favor [for the conference]? Sounds more like they were politely brushing off the proposal…

    Anyway, what are these other “plans by critics” that you twice referred to?

  64. PassingByAgain says:

    Sorry didn’t see the last two comments.

    Kerwick: “of course not. But they might expect their PR to do so and set the record straight”

    How dumb is this? Do you need a PR to set the record straight on whether Giddings and Mangano are worse than Hitler?

  65. Tom Kerwick says:

    PassingByAgain — About your question on PR — If for example the company I work for was being cirticised in public to the extent that there were threats against employees in the past, of course I would want the record set straight. As I’ve said in the past — I see this not so much a scientific issue but a social issue — a PR issue. CERN would view it this way too.

  66. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It is important to say that a conditional warning — “IF you continue to shoot without having made clear that you are not aiming at our children simultaneously, you are worse than Hitler!” — is nothing anyone on the planet can get upset about.

    Except open clairvoyants who seem to have taken over physics to date on this blog.

    It is a way of saying “please!” with a shouting voice, as no one so far criticized.

    How else would you try to defend your children against a benevolent uncle who does not believe his actions can do any harm but who refuses to explain?

    It is alone the benefit of this explanation that is being asked of CERN on behalf of the planet. You seem to advocate that CERN should NOT give this information if I understand you correctly?

    Please say why and show your face at the same time.

  67. PassingByAgain says:

    there he goes again…

  68. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Tom, dear Mr. Roache, dear all
    Thanks for your answer. At the moment I only like to send a very last comment. I am sorry but at the moment I do not like to discuss here anymore and I will not take a further look too. I can be contacted otherwise, to discuss specific issues. It is up to the people to find out whether some are trying to trash the safety issue and to provoke others on the blog, instead of to handle the issues as professional and scientific as possible. Much time is lost here.
    About the definition “subnuclear reactor”: If you are referring to the posting by Admin LHC Kritik, this states:
    “At the moment we naturally cannot judge this suggested possibility but we think it should be closely considered.“
    I guess this is clear enough. understands itself as an info page with links to related articles to the issue. I do not see a reason why it should be wrong, to call the LHC “subnuclear reactor”, because accelerated particles are smashed together, to induce subnuclear reactions. Much radiation is produced in the detectors and in the long tunnel also, therefore it is closed for people if the LHC runs. The energy of a city is consumed by the LHC. Many scientists and publications referring to risks and many estimations and theories contradict some others. High energetic particle collisions with LHC-design energy have never directly observed, I think 2TeV for direct measurement is the highest value. Just the secondary (quite rare) “events” of such natural collisions with 14TeV or more have been detected. We do not absolutely know the origin of the very high energetic particles and we do not know whether these are protons or iron for sure or what else, so we have only expections and estimations. The safety issue is not over. Even huge colliders with 80TeV are planned. It is a big industry. We can just hope that people will be critical and selfcritical enough. Even LSAG has not handled all risks, for example the “Higgs/inflaton-risk”. Wikipedia tells that the Higgs is not the inflaton (and therefore can not lead to some sort of new inflation) but other quite recent publications exist which tell the contrary. Look at arxiv. Personally I do not know whether the collisions could generally induce quakes. It should be investigated further. To my mind it is quite impossible that the LHC itself would emit some sort of magnetic fields, strong enough to directly induce earthquakes but the possibility (risk) of LHC-produced exotic particles which could lead to chain reactions and quakes seems to exists. We still have no general guarantee or proof for the safety of the experiments and we do not have quantitative calculations of all risks, not in the LSAG-report too. An insurance for the entire planet would be impossible and too expensive. To compare: we even do not have a proper insurance for the risks of nuclear power plants. In the worst case of a LHC-induced chain reaction there will be no learning effect anymore. If there is no quantitative calculation of the entire risk, then the rules and standards for making such a safety report should be in direct proportion to the discussed worst case scenario. Money should not be the problem. Each reasonable concern should be considered and all important questions of all scientists or groups should be answered. Interdisciplinarity, independence, continuity and responsibility are important points for such an analysis. I should take a look whether CERN does have a public Q. and A.- page or blog yet. That‘s all for a while.
    Thank you.
    Best wishes to all.

  69. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Clarification: 7th line, 4th word should refer to the “earthquake article”, subnuclear reactors are handled more below. Best regards.

  70. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “A Classroom Topic”

    A large group of dedicated scientists performs the most grandiose experiment of history, temperature-wise. It takes many months of running.

    A single scientist stands up and says
    “I have published 5 mutually independent results in a different physical discipline each, which if all flawless imply that the currently running experiment is infinitely dangerous (it is going to shrink the earth to 2 cm after a few years’ time with a sizeable probability so that even history will be wiped out); therefore I beg you, dear CERN scientists – and all other scientists – be so kind as to try to prove at least one of the five results wrong, so the planet is rid of the black-hole danger.”

    The group of dedicated scientists openly refuse to attempt to find, or wait for, a counterproof to at least one of the 5 results — by openly continuing with the experiment.

    : What would you write if this were a classroom assignment?

  71. eq says:

    From the point of view of serious science you have not published anything. This fraud journals like the Naschie-journal is a good example for crackpottery and scientific misbehaviour and nothing else.

    Your results are simply irrelevant and the arguments given by CERN are still sufficient. You have shown nothing which would disprove their arguments — even now you refuse to do it.

    So again the only thing that matters is a scientific review of the GM paper. But we all know that you will never write something like that because you are not able to understand a single word of the paper or an equation. Otherwise you would not talk such a nonsense like in the old thread about string theoretical calculations or linear growth etc. You do not have the knowledge and competence and therefore your infamous agitation against CERN on these weak grounds is even worse.

    Behave like a scientist or shut up.

  72. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Ok, now I feel that I have to answer one more time.

    Dear EQ
    You say “So again the only thing that matters is a scientific review of the GM paper”. Here is one:

    Dear Otto Rössler
    You say “A single scientist stands up“
    Do you know the list here with various publications of many scientists (pro- and contra) for an independent safety review?

    Best regards to all.

  73. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Niccolò:

    There are many scientists who say correctly that undisproved risks exist. They are very important; but the planet has learned to live with uncertainties — unfortunately. This is how I explain to myself why they have had little effect so far. The ingenuity of my mentally vastly superior colleague Walter Wagner was always a bright light for me. And he was by a decade faster!

    But it is an entirely different matter with a PROOF of a consciously incurred – in the present case infinite — damage (not “danger”) being scoffed at. This is not something that has ever occurred before in history.

    Of course I do not say that the proof is infinitely watertight. No proof in mathematics is ever infinitely waterproof, for example, as I learned from my mentor Bob Rosen. But it deserves the best effort of the community if it has any significance. Pascal is the logical specialist in this context. Unfortunately, he “only” dealt with afterlife. Here, it is the real afterlife of everyone and his children and forebears and Life Itself that is being consciously sacrificed.

    I know no one likes to hear this because it appears so unlikely that the scientific community should not be able to respond to such a situation. And it is, of course, going to do so. Only the time frame is, unfortunately, apparently too short for the awakening to come soon enough without an outcry of reason — for example, on this blog – working a miracle.

    Does no-one realize that there is NOT A SINGLE DISSENTING VOICE OF A COLLEAGUE to my results to be found on the planet so far?