Comments on: I Need your Help

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:18:35 +0000

Yes, a quick fix is always necessary in a case of danger.
And assurances of not having understood a danger as existing (as Tom so sympathetically reveals) is unfortunately not a counterargument.
In an emergency, other rules of logic apply than in a relaxed anxiety-free situation. Poet Schiller once wrote a philosophical text “Über Anmut und Würde”, On Charm and Dignity. Being charming is possible only up to a threshold. Then dignity must take over. The latter in most cases is not charming but getting on the nerves of every onlooker. I ask Tom’s forgiving for not having been as relaxed and charming in every case as I would love to be and as I think indeed is the golden rule.

By: Isao

Isao — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:58:59 +0000

Whats the vibe like from around those parts. Do they except long or shortish delays? I tend to get the feeling its the former ;/An engineering problem and recall smells like a few months issue, so lets hope for a quick fix.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:21:17 +0000

Otto — I explained to you on e-mails — there is no need to write open letters to me. I am always contactable by email as I am to any of our friends/acquaintances to discuss your concerns. I would understand on the other hand if you felt compelled to write open letters to CERN/LSAG — as you state they do not respond to you.

You should be aware that Markus Goritschnig is central to arrangements for public dialog with CERN — not me. I discuss aspects of the safety report with the LSAG from time to time — I find it is a better avenue — but it is not an avenue for arranging a PR event. There is nothing in your conjectures above that changes my views.

Also — a very minor point — but just to clarify regarding your suggestion that ‘the only scientist on the planet openly defending CERN’ I am not and do not claim to be a scientist. My background is in engineering — though some people do tend to interchange these.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:48:32 +0000

Dear Tom:

You are the only scientist on the planet openly defending CERN.
So please, do not be angry with me that I tried to post the following text as an entry of its own on Lifeboat — twice, because you erased it immediately:

——————————————————–

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/10/dear-tom-2/comment-page-1#comment-155970
Oct 24, 2012

Dear Tom:

Posted by Otto E. Rössler in category: …

A systematic decay rate of white dwarf stars in the galaxy is quite possibly implicit in the data that the LSAG people of CERN now sent you.

This preliminary evidence is quite alarming. It allows one to extrapolate on the effects that the same causal agent has if it is produced on earth in ultra-slow form: collision-induced miniature black holes.

Much as in nuclear fission the “cold neutrons” (that is, slow neutrons) do, the artificial “cold mini black holes” (slow ones) would have a much larger cross section. So that the nightmare of but a few years remaining to planet earth which I publicly point to for 5 years would be vindicated.

Can you not use your connections to CERN to arrange for a public dialolg with them?

Thank you very much,

Otto

——–

1 comment

• Otto E. Rössler on October 24, 2012 3:26 am

P.S.: An Italian court just convicted 7 scientists for not having predicted an earth quake. This judgment will not prevail I predict because it was clairvoyance requested from science. But CERN’s public behavior for 5 years is in a different category. I give CERN the kind advice to stop collisions today. Thank you, dear Lifeboat administration, for leaving this text and comment on Lifeboat.

This is not a game, right?

————————–

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:06:20 +0000

Dear Mr. Fossmoen, I do not deserve your kindness. Insisting on the evidence as I do is not something I enjoy (I do it out of a religious duty if I ask myself for the ultimate reason). Ordinarily this is totally against the grain of sciene which consists in modest offerings of hopefully not entirely useless bits and pieces of preliminary potential elements of a puzzle.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:57:28 +0000

This is great, dear Tom.
As soon as definitive evidence proving there is no danger is in, everything is fine.
But the clock is running. Why not wait with the continuation of the experiment until this — dearly awaited — news is really in. To speed this up is the only reason for the safety conference being necessary immediately if they are not ready to wait for it — right?
We all hope the alarm call hovering over the planet can be switched off. But this event has not ocurred — as of yet.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:05:58 +0000

Otto — I have received detailed feedback from the LSAG this evening on the question I raised in relation to reliance on certain WD field estimates referred to in the old safety report. It would seem that more recent astrophysical measurements negate any concern whatsoever. I know you will be skeptical — but I can share with you after I wade through the new references (including a couple of arXiv papers) if you so wish…

By: Bjørn Fossmoen

Bjørn Fossmoen — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:54:19 +0000

I‘m just a ordinary guy from Norway but I have read Hawking and some other stuff. I think OItto have some interesting points and this is the only reason I‘m on this forum. Keep up the good work Otto. You have my support.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:39:05 +0000

Otto — I stated “astrophysical observations suggest there is nothing to be feared”. Yes — the evidence on this is not in yet to a sufficient extent. I was not objecting a safety conference — I was warning you about spamming the Lifeboat Foundation blogs again.

Tom — Web Admin.

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:55:25 +0000

Thank you, Tom, for trying to pour oil on the waters. This is generally a very humane attitude, which I and not only I appreciate.

But forgive me if I contradict one statement you made: (quote) “astrophysical observations suggest there is nothing to be feared”.

This is a most comforting opinion if it is correct. But as you yourself have often stated, the evidence on this is not in yet to a sufficient extent.

This is exactly the reason why the “safety conference” is needed before the CERN experiment can go on during its vital last weeks with the strongest luminosity.

Please, tell me and others: Why should anyone object to a safety conference?