Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: particle physics – Page 621

http://www.cinemablographer.com/2012/06/last-night.html
… is too early a movie at the present time (although it is nice). I instead re-iterate that I cannot understand the stubbornness of a whole planet refusing to check whether the offered proof of danger contains an error or not. All of the planet’s media never behaved as irresponsibly before: to refuse checking is never intelligent or defensible in retrospect, or is it?

A German higher administrative court (OVG Münster, Az. 16 A 591/11) ruled definitively yesterday that the principle of reversal of the burden of proof is not applicable in this case: You have to prove that the potentially earth-eating black holes are actually being produced before you can lawfully object to the ongoing attempt at their production.

———————————————–

Let me re-iterate how I see the situation in a manner that is maximally self-critical in a Popperian sense:

The 28 years old Einstein wrote a paper in 1907 which contained a radically new prediction: clocks located more downstairs in gravity (like at the base of a high-rise building) are slower-ticking in a locally imperceptible way. The G.P.S. later agreed.

It took quite a number of years until the automatically existing corollaries to this breathtaking result became identified unequivocally: T (clock time) is accompanied by L (meter-stick length) and M (particle mass) and Ch (particle charge), all locally invisibly affected by the same factor, the first two going up, the last two going down. Since some people have difficulty remembering 4 items at once, I call this find Telemach (T, L, M, Ch) for short. Note that Telemachus helped his father Ulysses expel the suitors of his mother’s throne.

Telemach does not interfere with general relativity: it is implicit in it. But Telemach interferes with some allegedly physical implications of general relativity – Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman amongst them. And the most famous post-Einsteinian black-hole theorems (including wormhole based time travel and Hawking evaporation) go down the drain as well. Thus there automatically is a strong lobby in existence against Telemach according to the motto “This is not true and if it is true we don’t believe it.”

Why do I insist on Telemach being important enough to deserve an attempt at falsification to be made by the scientific community? The reason is the looked-forward to hopeful production of black holes (“one every second”) at CERN in Switzerland. CERN’s scientists did publish a big paper a year ago to the effect that they did not find any. Unfortunately, shunned young Telemach predicts that CERN’s sensors cannot detect its most hoped-for success, black holes.

The prediction of an enhanced success rate combined with sensor blindness goes so much against the honor of CERN that they decided 4 years ago to sit it out. No update of the 2008 safety report appeared ever since, no talking to the press about dangers any more, no compliance with a court’s tactful kind request to admit a “safety conference” (January 27, 2011), no permission given to “CERN’s Young Scientist” to implement their invitation for a talk made to a CERN critic 2 ½ years ago, no permission for CERN’s sister organization (the United Nations Security Council) to conduct an investigation – while simultaneously the fact that this highest terrestrial body had been asked for help blocked all national parliaments from discussing the matter.

No one who is accused of committing a crime – this one could be the worst of history – can be expected to act differently. I sympathize with CERN. Few temptations for mortals are less inescapable. Imagine: you got ten billion dollars to test certain hypotheses with maximally shiny machines – and then it is revealed that if you follow the allotted task an entirely new risk is encountered: those who gave you the money will not be pleased. Will you have to give the money back if you hesitate continuing on schedule? In other words: no one would have acted differently in CERN’s place. They just had to crank up their attempt to generate these suddenly allegedly dangerous objects, every year and every month and every day – especially so during the last three scheduled months that we are living through right now before the machine will be dismantled for two years in favor of an almost doubled-in-performance successor after the end of the year 2012 .

So everyone fully understands CERN, both in the present situation and from the point of a future intelligence looking back (as we hope will exist). Only some blockheads who still believe in individual virtues like honesty and dignity are protesting: “Is this not a crime?” When the emperor asks you to die along with him, you have no choice but to comply.

Some parents love their children more than the emperor. I see no friend for the end of the world as of yet.

To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts:

1. Legal Standing. 2. Safety Awareness. 3. Economic Viability. 4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship. 5. Technological Feasibility.

In Part 1 of this post I will explore Theoretical-Empirical Relationship. Not theoretical relationships, not empirical relationships but theoretical-empirical relationships. To do this let us remind ourselves what the late Prof. Morris Kline was getting at in his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, that mathematics has become so sophisticated and so very successful that it can now be used to prove anything and everything, and therefore, the loss of certainty that mathematics will provide reasonability in guidance and correctness in answers to our questions in the sciences.

History of science shows that all three giants of science of their times, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton & Christiaan Huygens believed that light traveled in aether medium, but by the end of the 19th century there was enough experimental evidence to show aether could not be a valid concept. The primary experiment that changed our understanding of aether was the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887, which once and for all proved that aether did not have the correct properties as the medium in which light travels.

Only after these experimental results were published did, a then unknown Albert Einstein, invent the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) in 1905. The important fact to take note here is that Einstein did not invent SRT out of thin air, like many non-scientists and scientists, today believe. He invented SRT by examining the experimental data to put forward a hypothesis or concept described in mathematical form, why the velocity of light was constant in every direction independent of the direction of relative motion.

But he also had clues from others, namely George Francis FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1892) who postulated length contraction to explain negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment and to rescue the ‘stationary aether’ hypothesis. Today their work is named the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation.

So Einstein did not invent the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) out of thin air, there was a body of knowledge and hypotheses already in the literature. What Einstein did do was to pull all this together in a consistent and uniform manner that led to further correct predictions of how the physics of the Universe works.

(Note: I know my history of science in certain fields of endeavor, and therefore use Wikipedia a lot, not as a primary reference, but as a starting point for the reader to take off for his/her own research.)

Previous post in the Kline Directive series.

Next post in the Kline Directive series.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

Today is Felix-Baumgartner day since creativity wins. And today, I saw an interesting dialog about my potentially planet-saving results on the Internet. The latter was conducted by amateur physicists ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?113769-Invited-%28pe…-R%F6ssler ) who thereby have earned great merit since the whole rest of the profession refuses to come out.

The young colleagues tried to convince themselves and their readers that my “Telemach” result, which has the planet-saving potential if flawless, violates textbook and wiki wisdom and therefore is bound to be false.

Nevertheless I am very grateful to Mr. “rpenner” (pseudonym) and his friends for their being the only scientists so far who dare come out in a not totally anonymous way.

The emphasis they place on the Rindler metric at the beginning is especially meritorious. The Rindler metric is arguably the most important post-Einsteinian discovery. It implies the Telemach theorem – on the truthfulness of which the survival of the planet is predicated as no one denies.

But is the Rindler metric not well known and no one ever extracted fundamental new implications from it? Let me take this topic up for you.

The Rindler metric describes a one-light-year-long rocketship which at the tip has 1 g acceleration (earth’s gravity) and at the rear end has infinite acceleration. It consists of a very large number of “rocket rings” lined up between tip and bottom that all stick spontaneously together without touching because their constant accelerations vary in a lawfully graded manner. The best textbook still is Robert M. Wald’s “General Relativity” of 1984. It correctly reproduces (on page 151) the everywhere equal ticking times valid over the whole length of the ship – which, however, do not reproduce the local clocks’ readings, as the book correctly stresses. The local clocks rather tick more and more slowly towards the tail end to become effectively frozen there. This “local reality” of unit time intervals T inside the Rindler rocket has three corollaries: L (a meter stick’s length) is locally imperceptibly increased in proportion to T; M (a unit mass like that of an electron) is locally imperceptibly decreased by the same factor; and Ch (a unit charge) is likewise locally imperceptibly reduced in proportion.

This is maximally strange since the same rocketship – when briefly interrupted in its acceleration everywhere in the external simultaneity, while being momentarily at rest along the horizontal axis – is not infinitely long (only one light year long) and is not infinitely mass-reduced at the tail nor charge reduced there. Nevertheless these interior artifacts are “ontological”: An astronaut descending from the rocket’s tip inside is, after having been hauled back up again, indeed empirically younger on return in accordance with the equations. Thus, it is the internal picture T,L,M,Ch (“Telemach”) and not the external one which proves to be physically relevant.

My message is that this new ontology is presently being neglected by humankind at the risk of self-extinction. A “safety conference” is all that I am requesting for 4 years.

It will be my privilege – and perhaps not only mine – to learn more about these matters in the continued dialog with Mr. rpenner and his friends, Ms. Trooper and the others, on this forum here. Or if they so prefer, on theirs, to be mirrored here since the present discussion started out on Lifeboat. And if we are lucky will we even be granted a word of kind advice from grandmaster Wolfgang Rindler himself.

To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts:

1. Legal Standing. 2. Safety Awareness. 3. Economic Viability. 4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship. 5. Technological Feasibility.

In this post I will explore Safety Awareness.

In the heady rush to propose academically acceptable ideas about new propulsions systems or star drives it is very easy to overlook safety considerations. The eminent cosmologist Carl Sagan said it best “So the problem is not to shield the payload, the problem is to shield the earth” (Planet. Space Sci., pp. 485 – 498, 1963)

It is perfectly acceptable if not warranted to propose these technologically infeasible star drives based on antimatter and exotic matter, as academic exercises because we need to understand what is possible and why. However, we need to inform the public of the safety issues when doing so.

I do not understand how any physicist or propulsion engineer, in his/her right mind, not qualify their academic exercise in antimatter propulsion or star drive with a statement similar to Carl Saga’s. At the very least it gets someone else thinking about those safety problems, and we can arrive at a solution sooner, if one exists.

We note that the distinguished Carl Sagan did not shy away from safety issues. He was mindful of the consequences and is an example of someone pushing the limits of safety awareness in the spirit of the Kline Directive, to explore issues which others would (could?) not.

We have to ask ourselves, how did we regress? From Sagan’s let us consider all ancillary issues, to our current let us ignore all ancillary issues. The inference I am forced to come to is that Carl Sagan was a one-man team, while the rest of us lesser beings need to come together as multi-person teams to stay on track, to achieve interstellar travel.

In interstellar & interplanetary space there are two parts to safety, radiation shielding and projectile shielding. Radiation shielding is about shielding from x-ray and gamma rays. Projectile shielding is about protection from physical damage caused by small particle collisions.

I may be wrong but I haven’t come across anyone even attempting to address either problems. I’ve heard of strategies such as using very strong electric fields or even of using millions of tons of metal shielding but these are not realistic. I’ve even heard of the need to address these issues but nothing more.

Safety is a big issue that has not been addressed. So how are we going to solve this? What do we need to explore that others have not? What do we need to seek that others would not? What do we need to change, that others dare not?

Previous post in the Kline Directive series.

Next post in the Kline Directive series.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

Summary

The Telemach theorem rests on Einstein’s 1907 work on the essence of gravity. It retains its grip on the most derived equations found in later years. The famous clock slowdown in gravity (of our own clocks down here compared to the clocks in the high-flying GPS-satellites) acquires three corollaries under the impact of quantum mechanics. Hence equally unnoticeable to us, all local lengths are expanded downstairs by the very same factor. And all local masses are decreased by the very same factor. And, owing to the constant ratios between mass and charge valid for the different particle classes, all charges are reduced by the very same factor down here. Thus, Time and Length and Mass and Charge are affected equally strongly. The result is easy to remember by recalling the name of Ulysses’ son: Telemach(us). Unfortunately, the theorem totally upsets the properties of black holes. The latter suddenly arise much more easily than hoped for in a famous ongoing experiment designed to produce them here on earth – and they simultaneously turn out to be invisible to CERN’s detectors. And once a specimen happens to be slow enough to stay inside earth, it eventually will settle down to grow due to a self-enhancing capturing effect exerted on quarks and leptons. While at first the pace of growth is ridiculously slow, problem is that this is an exponential process like compound interest. Every gain remains minute for quite a while but suddenly, there is this famous “knee” in the curve after but a few years’ time. Subsequently, earth is a 2-cm black hole that keeps the moon on its course by virtue of its unmitigated gravity. Up until now, no physicist was able to invalidate the theorem. The Cologne Administrative Court therefore gave the advice to hold a “safety conference” before continuing. This was on January 27, 2011. The greatest leap forward in the attempted production rate of black holes takes place these very days.

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULjmY7ZqFM

… when I point to my published scientific finding that our own slower-ticking clocks down here on earth – compared to their twins installed in those high-flying G.P.S. satellites – are, apart from being slowed, also enlarged, mass-reduced and charge-reduced by the same factor.

This T-L-M-Ch theorem is a corollary to Einstein’s “happiest thought.” As long as it stays un-refuted, as it does for 5 years, no one on earth contradicts the conclusion that BLACK HOLES possess radically new properties. Hence the ongoing attempt at producing them on earth needs to be stopped immediately.

Greece could ingratiate the planet by her immediately convoking the “safety conference” suggested by a court on January 27, 2011. Humankind owes science to Greece as everyone knows. If today, Greece takes up the named suggestion (made by the Cologne Administrative Court), every mother on the planet will praise her for a whole new reason while the debts incurred by Greece will be considered a privilege to shoulder by the world community at large.

ZEYS SOTHP – Greece our savior

Previous post in this Debunking Series.

——-

This video was broadcast on G4TV, September 19th 2012.

http://www.g4tv.com/videos/60838/dr-eric-w-davis-on-new-ligh…g-science/

Major Notes from the Video are:

a. Dr. Eric Davis, Senior Research Physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin TX.

b. Use exotic energy, quantum energy from vacuum energy, to generate warp drive by surfing space.

c. Surfing on space at faster than the velocity of light.

d. Theory requires stupendous amount of vacuum energy.

e. Sonny White (correct name?) suggests that it could be done with much less energy.

f. Disruptive innovations can happen at any time.

g. Richard Obousy of Icarus Interstellar Inc, using string quantum theory shows that the limit of velocity is 10E32 x c (velocity of light) using quantum string theories.

——-

Need to bear in mind that for interstellar travel to become a reality three factors must be realized.

1) Costs:

From the video this group has not been able to quantify their costs.

2) Technological Feasibility:

As Dr Eric Davis states it might take anywhere from a 100 year to 200 years for this technology to become a reality, but you never know that some disruptive innovation might change all that.

There is another problem with this. Dr. Robert Nemiroff’s Three Photon Observation, which suggests that quantum foam may not exists, therefore falsifying the ability to do interstellar travel in this manner.

Actually come to think about Dr. Eric Davis was describing Dr. Miguel Alcubierre work but substituting Alcubierre’s General Relativity tensors solutions with ‘string quantum’ theory.

3) Safety: Don’t know how to navigate or how to protect crew.

That is a fail on all three counts.

Finally, if I remember correctly, the string theories sits on top of quantum theory and therefore all the discoveries in quantum theory have been translated into string theories. But the string theories by themselves have not been able to predict any new physical behavior, in an ‘a priori’ manner.

For a simple description of quantum foam and vacuum energy see, here.

——-

I put forward a test for these type of proposals, in the comments section of an earlier posting,

https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/10/debunking-antimatter-rocke…lar-travel

And here it is, if you had a few millions dollars can you demonstrate experimental feasibility as a propulsion device?

If the answer is ‘no’ then it is debunked if it is ‘yes’ then let’s get the funding. From Dr Eric Davis comments it is clear that the answer is ‘no’.

Appreciate your comments & feedback.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

The Ontological Einstein – One to Four

Otto E. Rossler and Dieter Fröhlich, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

One: Ontological clock slow-down downstairs in gravity

Two: Ontological rest-mass decrease downstairs in gravity

Three: Ontological size increase downstairs in gravity

Four: Ontological charge decrease downstairs in gravity

(1): Assume an upstairs and a downstairs floor to be equally strongly accelerating in gravity for simplicity. Then the situation can be transposed to a constant-acceleration rocketship of equal height in outer space that by definition is governed by the rules of special relativity alone. Here one finds that whenever a light ray from the rear end arrives upstairs at the tip, the point of arrival has, during the flight time of the photon, picked up additional speed. Hence the emitted light arrives upstairs redshifted. The normal-ticking CLOCKS and atoms present downstairs therefore appear slowed down from the point of view of upstairs owing to a receding motion of constant speed (without falling back) performed by them. This 1907 result can be called “ontological” because an upper-level clock that is brought down and then back up again predictably presents an ontological (undeniably present) deficit in the number of ticks performed in the meantime, on its being re-united with its waiting twin. Einstein always called the “equivalence principle” between gravity and ordinary acceleration (that allowed him to solve everything from within the fold of special relativity and hence intuitively) “the happiest thought of my life.” It is indeed miraculous because it derives an asymmetry from the symmetry of special relativity. (So many perspective changes were never made before in a single mind according to anthropologist George Herbert Mead.) Three corollaries are implicit: points 2–4.

(2): Since the red-shifted photons arriving from below are non-redshifted on emission, they are inter-transformable into material particles and vice versa (as in positronium creation and annihilation) down there. Hence all locally-at-rest MASSES downstairs are ontologically reduced by the redshift factor relative to upstairs.

(3): Since the wavelengths of all locally emitted photons are increased downstairs by point (1), and simultaneously all masses locally at rest downstairs are reduced by point (2), it follows logically as well as independently from quantum mechanics that all the locally normal-appearing LENGTHS downstairs are ontologically increased by the redshift factor compared to upstairs.

(4): Since all masses that are locally at rest are reduced downstairs via (2), and the charge/mass ratio is locally conserved via Einstein’s principle of general covariance, the CHARGES of all local electrons and positrons (etc.) are ontologically reduced downstairs by the redshift factor compared to upstairs. (Q.e.d.)

Remark: Ulysses’ son Telemach helps one to remember all 4 ontological changes (Time, Length, Mass and Charge). Let us add that the “Einstein dilation” (3) does not show up in the transverse direction from above in spite the locally maintained isotropy – just as the Lorentz contraction does not show up in the transverse direction despite the likewise locally maintained isotropy.

Historical note: Points number 2 and 3 have been found many times individually (and several times in combination) by specialists and aficionados. Number 4 first appeared in a conference paper in mid-2008 (and under the name “Telemach theorem” on the Internet in early 2011 and in a refereed journal in early 2012, see http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmcsr/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf ).

Acknowledgments: O.E.R. thanks Burton Voorhees and Ali Sanayei for a discussion. For J.O.R.

The Ontological Einstein: “Vertical Twin-clocks Paradox Implies reversible Change of Size, Rest-mass and Charge”

by Professor Otto E. Rossler, Chaos Researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany

Minipaper

The ordinary (horizontal) twin-clocks paradox described by Einstein in 1905 objectively transports a younger twin into the future as is well known. This is a tangible miracle.

Poincaré, who had been almost everywhere before Einstein in special relativity (except for the transversal Doppler effect), had not seen this most astounding implication of the observer-specific absolute constancy of the speed of light, c. I call it an “ontological” effect. As such it stands not alone. It possesses a much less well-known sibling of equal rank and even stronger power as it turns out, the “vertical twin clocks paradox.” It applies in gravity when the sibling is reversibly lowered to stay for a while in a redshifted region down there. The second twin paradox’s long history has yet to be written; it not only makes the twin younger: It also implies a transitory change in size, mass and charge of the lowered twin and — via the first of these three effects — amazingly re-establishes global constancy of the speed of light c in general relativity (Telemach theorem).

No colleague objects but the crowd (exempting my friends) fumes behind closed doors. There is much money involved. CERN – despite the black-hole danger revealed to the eye by Telemach – refuses to update its 4 years old “safety report” and openly ignores a court’s kind request to admit a “safety conference.” The world’s media strangely comply by the suitors (to stay in the picture of Einstein-Ulysses) while the prospect of the planet being shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time with a non-small probability is being tacitly embraced globally. Ithaka is at risk.

There never was a bigger scandal, so it appears to me. Love is the unique invention of humankind – ultraperspective: to see with the eyes of the other and let this be known to her or him. I dare officially ask Israel again (and Iran for the first time) to bring the matter up in public. The fact that the Security Council objects out of solidarity with its sister organization (CERN) is not acceptable. Every citizen of the planet hopes that the threshold toward a first mini-black hole having been implanted into our planet to grow there exponentially, has not yet been overstepped by CERN’s ongoing attempt to produce black holes even though its sensors cannot even detect them owing to T.O.E.

“Lampsacus Hometown of Humankind on the Internet” deserves to be implemented at long last by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran and CERN in an attempt at recompense, combined with world-wide prayers, for “this is what humankind was meant for” as I learned 15 years ago in Israel. Bless you all.

The profile of the most powerful man on earth is rising. I cordially ask him to support the necessity of a black-hole conference. If the new constant-c interpretation of general relativity is correct as no one publicly denies, CERN is each day trying to produce black holes that its detectors are blind to and that with a sizable probability will shrink the planet to 2 cm within a short time (5 percent?, ten years?).

A decision not to check on an extant proof of danger is one of the few acts taken by an individual or a group that is never justified. I ask the General Secretary of the United Nations to tell the planet why he backs the stance of the Security Council of the United Nations not to request clarification.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, dear revered Secretary General,

Professor Otto E. Rossler, Chaos Researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany