Lifeboat Foundation

Professor Hermann Nicolai is the only public voice on the planet defending CERN against my scientific results, with his 3-year-old, long-refuted counterclaims on the Internet that he refuses to take back. His denial of dialog (only the day before yesterday again) enables CERN to do the same and continue. In view of the severity of the accusation accepted by CERN (“attempted panbiocide”), I dare publicly compare my responsible colleague Nicolai with a Himmler playing a musical instrument in a concentration camp.

I shall take the comparison back as soon as he exculpates himself. I apologize that I see no other way to get him to respond to my given proof of the danger consciously incurred by CERN.

There is a vast canonical literature on the properties of the surface (“horizon”) of black holes: Even up to giving quantitative estimates of the horizon’s viscosity!

The correct theory by contrast implies since 1916 that the horizon is inaccessible in finite outer time and therefore does not exist in a finite-duration universe. Many consequences follow from this forgotten fact — including non-existence of “Hawking radiation” and non-existence of charged black holes. (The latter result is detailed in my gothic-R paper in print and the simpler Telemach paper on the Internet.)

The hoped-for miniature (almost-) black holes therefore possess four new properties, being (1) generated more easily than expected, (2) undetectable by CERN’s detectors, (3) virtually frictionless at first, and (4) growing exponentially inside earth. Hence the scientific “safety conference,” publicly called-for 4 years ago and openly requested by the Cologne Administrative Court almost one year ago, is more vital than ever.

The historic refusal by CERN to dismantle the danger before starting its black-hole factory, almost a year ago, represents a breach of scientific ethics, reason and morality. I speak in the name of the young majority on the planet when I say that the refusal by CERN to defend itself against the public reproach of scientific and moral wrongdoing when risking the short-term persistence of planet earth, amounts to a first-order historical phenomenon. Dear humanists and historians: please, enter the debate or launch it at long last. Crime stories are a treat to read. This surely is the biggest treat of history – being not over on finishing reading since the intrinsic time constant is several years. All other human concerns pale by comparison.

Continue reading “The Accepted Black-Hole Theory Is Dismally at Fault” »

After posting a few weeks back on a Richard Dawkins article specific to Jesus and Atheism, I was responded by Lincoln Cannon a post called the New God Argument. I first heard this argument at the University of Utah from Lincoln while visiting the area for a conference.

Its logically sound, when the faith position is adopted. The argument is a derivative or rather an advancement on Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument and and Robin Hanson’s Great Filter argument, as the links above will tell anyone is much more detail. I’ve even sited Bostom’s 2003 paper in my own defense after being wrongfully labeled as an atheist. Its one thing to state that there is no God (atheism) or that we cant know if there is a God (agnosticism), and quite another to state that we could create or evolve into one or a vast many.

I think that Lincoln’s argument progressive and may provide the next wave of theology arguments in their defense this century. It’s fascinating to see how far the modern human mind can go in its extrapolation of our exiting technological potential. As Lincoln puts it, the logical truth that post-humans have a probability of.….……

Continue reading “Brief Critique: The New God Argument” »

Conjecture: “A fast frictionless ball that recurrently passes through “grooves” with a lowered, locally time-periodic potential loses energy on average in forward time for non-selected initial conditions.”

Even a single such groove on a ring predictably suffices. This mechanical toy then qualifies as a prototype example for dynamical friction.

Corollary: If the vibrating grooves are replaced by vibrating mounds, the ball statistically gains energy in forward time for non-selected initial conditions.

Conclusion: These are the 2 deterministic prototypes of statistical dynamical behavior in the cosmos: cryodynamics and thermodynamics. Life is an implication of the latter. The former is still largely unexplored. I thank my Tübingen group for discussions.

How can I convince my fellow planetary citizens that religion is the last hope? All religions are benevolent in their non-combative statements. They focus on the miracle of the Now with its infinite opportunities and the sub-miracles of color and other pleasures all provably non-existent in science. For science is the science of the Hades, the shadow world where to be the king is less than to be a slave on the surface of the earth, as Priamus said.

Science can be misused as the atomic bomb illustrates. Science is not science any more if it is lying. Religion says that the Now is a gift and that consciousness is a gentle stroke by the dream-giving instance who waits to be recognized through the fabric of the dream.

Imagine being chosen and being allowed to answer. Young children understand this best. They are the greatest mystics. They still respond to the smile which they recognized as containing the essence. So they invented the suspicion of benevolence being shown towards them, which turned them into persons. The biggest majesties.

How does CERN fit in? Never were there more scientists united in trying to unravel mysteries of the ultra-small. This is an almost religious legacy. It is bound to contribute to future benefit for all. Being so privileged, CERN is not allowed to lie. But this sounds like harsh criticism which never helps as such. Religion says “try to convince and move the heart.”

Continue reading “CERN Is a Religious Problem” »

CERN chose to defame me on its 4 years old website but refuses to defend itself against my results from 1998 onwards in every single scientific publication with customarily hundreds of authors each. I call this selective discrimination and technically speaking, scientific fraud.

Scientific fraud is considered forgivable when sensitive results have something to do with security. More recently I found results which have some bearing on plasma confinement. Such topics, of course, are top secret. But the Telemach result — the two years old upshot of my 4-year long criticism — which implies that black holes are stable and uncharged so they cannot but grow exponentially inside earth – reveals on the contrary that what CERN is doing needs to be publicly discussed – unless it is not unethical to sacrifice the globe in a few years’ time with a percentage-range probability.

The world’s press find it logical that such sensitive results with large political implications be kept from the public. The Nobel Foundation likewise acts against its founder’s legacy by not calling for a scientific contest across the globe to defuse the danger.

What do my readers advise me to do in a situation in which the only request made is, please to stop denying the benefit of falsification to my results in a safety conference as officially requested by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011? The fact that not a single scientist steps forward to take the responsibility on his or her shoulders by saying that there is no danger and why, is a tiny little bit alarming, or is it not?

A group of scientists is pushing to publish research about how they created a man-made flu virus that could potentially wipe out civilization.

The deadly virus is a genetically tweaked version of the H5N1 bird flu strain, but is far more infectious and could pass easily between millions of people at a time.

The research has caused a storm of controversy and divided scientists, with some saying it should never have been carried out.

Continue reading “Wiping out Civilization” »

Video — U.S. Job Market — People Staying in Jobs Longer — WSJ.com.

The Cleveland Fed shows research that people staying in jobs for longer periods of time is requiring adding the economic shock of any crisis where lay-offs or retraction is involved. The problem with this is that research also shows that people out of work are less likely ever re-enter the work force.

While economists (per the this interview) wouldn’t look at this as a “structure problem” because of the forecasted potential for worker volume to return, it is likely that their opinions are a bit too faithful in the existing model of compensating laborers for a honest days work. The enduring jobs crisis can and should of course be looked at as an economic issue and even a political issue, but it would likely be better pursued as a socio-cultural and a legal issue.

The ideal of honesty and the preferred compensation for ones good work is perhaps too subjective; having stated that, the ability for an individual to own so greatly in lieu of the potentially many other individuals that cater to the discovery, development, and distribution of goods/services is (in my opinion) the root cause of our (nation, states, humans) wealth distribution and compensation problems.

This is the first time that an instantaneous “paradigm shift” — abandonment of a reigning scientific consensus — is of vital importance for everyone. We have three months’ time left to achieve this goal while the menacing machine is under overhaul.

What is the subject matter that I am talking about? It is Einstein. More specifically, it is his “happiest thought” as he always called it. It consists in travelling in one’s mind in a constantly accelerating rockettship, and as such proves even more fertile than has been thought for a century. The implied new change of size, mass, and charge (independently discovered by professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy Colorado Springs) implies that an artificial black hole grows exponentially fast inside earth after eluding every detector when freshly produced by CERN in fulfillment of its high-flying intentions.

The proof is contained in a paper which is now “in print” again in a scientific journal after the journal that had accepted it for publication three years ago got closed-down to theoretical-physics topics retroactively, on the occasion of the retirement of its founding editor who promptly got publicly libeled by the competing journal “Nature.” The founding editor is now a presidential candidate for Egypt in recognition of his scientific achievements.

Why is the result in question so uniquely sensitive? On the one hand, this is because it may save your family, which is good news for everyone. On the other, it implies that a certain nuclear machine needs re-evaluation before it is too late, which is bad news for CERN. The scientific “safety conference” called for by the Cologne Administrative Court on the 27th of last January still goes unheeded by the United Nations which treasure their “observer status” at their sister organization, CERN. In the absence of my paper being in print, it was formally possible for the UN to screen CERN from criticism by disallowing the world’s press to report on a topic which lies before the UN Security Council for many months. This situation has changed with the paper being in print in a scientific journal.

Continue reading “Call for an Instant Paradigm Change to Save Your Family and Planet” »