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

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:03:14 +0000

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?

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 23:47:26 +0000

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:
http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/docs/BlackHoleReview.pdf

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?
http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/

Best regards to all.

By: eq

eq — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:40:41 +0000

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.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:07:30 +0000

“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?

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:09:33 +0000

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

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:43:58 +0000

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. http://www.lhc-concern.info 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.

By: PassingByAgain

PassingByAgain — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:37:58 +0000

there he goes again…

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:24:40 +0000

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.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:39:04 +0000

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.

By: PassingByAgain

PassingByAgain — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:23:08 +0000

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?