Apr 8, 2012

Nil Nocere, Dear CERN !

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]

CERN insists on believing in physical nonsense as a guarantee that their LHC experiment were innocuous. They refuse an update on their false “Safety Report” for almost 4 years.

The sacrosanct safety report dogmatically posits that one particular version of string theory possessed physical reality which no string theorist claims.

They refuse up-dating, open discussion and the necessary scientific safety conference for 4 years ( ). They thereby behave like medieval dogmatists.

I publicly accuse Giddings and Mangano and acting director Heuer of the crime of scientific fraud in conjunction with consciously risking Armageddon.

The silence of the United Nations Security Council and all members and non-members of the world press club is owed to the most effective press campaign of history, launched by the inventor of the web. Even a court’s advice, given to CERN on the 27th of January 2011 to admit a “safety conference,” was prevented from reaching the public.

For future historians who hopefully will exist, this cover-up is the most momentous event to report to the next generation as a “ktéma eis aeí” – a possession for eternity – in homage to Thucydides.

CERN MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY to await the verdict of the safety conference.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. I profited very much from a blog discussion to date with Dr. Tom Kerwick.

  2. eq says:

    This blog post by Rössler has to be deleted as it contains again nly character assassinating accusations agains honest scientists.

    Otto Rössler obviously wants to hide his inability to discuss the papers pubished by CERN scientists in a scientific way.

  3. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Tom: Thank you for having restored this long-censored blog. And allow me to ask why you feel the necessity to say above that “the scientific community in general” disagrees. For to the best of my knowledge not a single scientist ever contradicted Telemach, the decisive theorem which I emplore the planet to have the kindness to prove wrong if possible.

  4. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — my understanding is that your opinion that ‘not a single scientist ever contradicted Telemach’ is your individual sentiment. The more general opinion is that ‘it would not pass peer review’ and as it did not those scientists you approached on reviewing Telemach and declined inherently disagree with it. In reality, not a single scientist seems to endorse Telemach, which is quite the opposite to your sentiment.

  5. Dear Tom: You should not have said that. You give the open impression here not to know that science has to do with facts and not opinions.
    This is a “documentum paupertatis” for which you should apologize. Okay?

  6. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto- it is theoretical science. A requirement for peer review is not a requirement for fact, but for endorsement of opinion. Without such it is just individual sentiment.

  7. Please, dear Tom: The Telemach paper was peer reviewed.
    I do not understand this arguing of yours: only because anonymous posters made slanderous remarks you should not repeat them. Right?

  8. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — my understanding was not based on slanderous anoymous remarks but by a comment attributed to Dr Hermann Nicolai on your wikipedia page, and a general sentiment expressed by the LSAG in previous correspondence, though your wikipedia page seems to have since been revised not to mention this. If Telemach has been correctly peer reviewed, I would advise you champion the physicists who have reviewed and endorsed your work. It is not my intention to argue — just responding.

  9. Hermann Nicolai never said anything about Telemach. I asked him many times. No one ever dared say a negative word about the Telemach result to the best of my knowledge.
    Please, quote by name those who made the slanderous remarks that you were propagating. Otherwise they misused you deliberately.
    And please, stop publicly doubting the competence of peer-reviewed journals. This can only be done by anonymous cowards — you are a bright star by contrast.

  10. Tom Kerwick says:…ent-en.pdf
    “To conclude: this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal.” Prof. Dr. Hermann Nicolai, Director, Max Planck-Institute on such speculations…

  11. Dear Tom: This uncautious, never published Internet comment is 44 months old and has nothing to do with Telemach. The paper which is addressed has since been both revised and published in a scholarly journal.

    Please, help me get a statement from Professor Nicolai on Telemach. The whole planet is waiting.

  12. Tom Kerwick says:

    You can be assured that the position of Prof. Nicolai — and of the scientific community in general — on your interpretations of general relativity will not have changed. That is not to say that MBH radiate — consider over some discussed phenomenological evidences…

  13. Dear Tom:

    Quote: “You can be assured that the position of Prof. Nicolai — and of the scientific community in general — on your interpretations of general relativity will not have changed.”

    Good point: They presumably do not understand Telemach (which is a million times simpler than the gothic-R theorem) either.

    But don’t you agree that what the world needs is a counterproof to a given proof that it is being risked? You sound here as if “opinions” were enough for you, dear Tom? (This is of course a rhetorical question since I have a very high regard for you as you know.)