Lifeboat Foundation

On http://www.freitag.de/wissen/1145-der-schampus-wird-warm I wrote a few minutes ago:

Ich möchte dem „Freitag“ und Robin McKie (und „zint“) danken, dass sie das heiße Thema LHC thematisiert haben, wobei zint auch das Thema “Schwarze Löcher”, die zu generieren einmal das Hauptziel des LH waren, anspricht. Nun wurden diese (ebenso wie das Higgs) offenbar nicht gefunden.

Hierbei gibt es jedoch einen interessanten Unterschied zum Higgs: Während man bei dem letzteren zu wissen glaubt, dass man es in einem bestimmten engen Fenster finden muss, wenn es existiert, hat man keine vergleichbaren Anhaltspunkte beim Mini-Schwarzen Loch. Nur, wenn es die berühmte hypothetische Hawkingstrahlung gibt, gibt es eine sichere “Signatur”. Wenn es sie nicht gibt, bleibt noch die erwartete elektrische Geladenheit einer Teilfraktion der erhofften Schwarzen Löcher ein detektierbarer Faktor. Für beide Möglichkeiten wurden offenbar keine Anzeichen gefunden bisher. Daraus schloss das CERN in seinen entsprechenden wissenschaftlichen Papers, dass keine Schwarzen Löcher produziert wurden. Das war für die ganze Welt sehr beruhigend.

CERN widerspricht allerdings nicht, dass es bei der Mitteilung dieses “Ergebnisses” mit Bedacht wissenschaftliche Literatur unerwähnt ließ, aus der hervorgeht, dass die beiden vorausgesetzten Eigenschaften widerlegt sind.

Continue reading “An Answer to Robin McKie and "zint‘ – so far only in German” »

I thought I would offer a series of quotes to counter the codswallop frequently expressed here — suggesting that mainstream physicists have genuine concerns about the safety of the LHC.

“To think that LHC particle collisions at high energies can lead to dangerous black holes is rubbish. Such rumors were spread by unqualified people seeking sensation or publicity.”

Academician Vitaly Ginzburg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Lebedev Institute, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences

(from http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html).

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)

Einstein could see through. His most powerful (“happiest”) thought was the equivalence principle. This is the insight that you can equate what happens in ordinary acceleration with gravity. Newton had seen it before, as Thibault Damour found out, but the universal speed of light made it a magic lamp.

The “gravitational clock slowdown” immediately spotted as an implication by Einstein, is the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. It was never given the attention it deserves. 3 corollaries got discovered since. They were not embraced by Einstein at the time out of cautious modesty because quantum mechanics was not yet known in 1907. Einstein’s famous slow-down of photon frequency on the lower floor goes hand in hand with 3 further changes: a proportional reduction in the mass of all locally stationary bodies by virtue of quantum mechanical creation-annihilation; a proportional increase in all local lengths mediated by quantum mechanics; and a proportional reduction in all local charges, covarying with mass. The 4 changes (in T, L, M and Ch) are locally counterfactual. The length change L has the further corollary that the speed of light c becomes globally (and not just locally) constant.

Professor Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy arrived at the same results on the basis of Einstein’s later mature theory of general relativity. He saw the further corollary of a locally counterfactual quadratic change in the gravitational constant G. The at first overlooked change in charge was graciously conceded.

These new results have ground-breaking implications (no Ur-meter, no Ur-kilogram, no Ur-charge). Most importantly, they come at a critical moment in history. For their previous lack is responsible for an experiment being carried out in all innocence that with a sizeable probability leads to panbiocide in a few years’ time.

Continue reading “Planet versus Einstein” »

After studying tables of current life expectancy (life expectancy increase per decade, in years, based upon United States National Vital Statistics) I found embedded a virtually perfect Fibonacci sequence. A Fibonacci sequence is a series of numbers as follows: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, …etc, where each number is the sum of the previous two. See here for more details on the Fibonacci sequence: http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/fibonac/index.asp
To my knowledge, this has not been described before. This is important because, based on my ideas regarding Global Brain acting as a catalyst for promoting extreme human lifespans (http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/03/04/indefinite-lifespans-a-n…l-brain/), it may help us predict with some accuracy any dramatic increases in life expectancy. For example, the model predicts that the current maximum lifespan of 110–120 years will be increased to 175 in the next 20–30 years.

In simple terms, the fact that life expectancy increases in a certain manner, and this manner obeys deep-routed and universal natural laws, indicates that it may be possible to:
1. Predict life expectancy in the near future. Based on the Fibonacci sequence,
a 90 year old today, can expect to live another 5 years
a 95 year old can expect to live another 8 years
a 103 year old can expect to live another 13 years, then…
a 116 year old can expect to live another 21 years
a 137 year old would expect to live another 34 years
a 171 year old would expect to live another 55 years
a 236 year old would expect to live another 89 years
a 325 year old can expect to live another 144 years,
and so on.

2. Question the presence of ageing and death in an ever-evolving intellectually sophisticated human (who is a valuable component of the Global Brain). Based on current facts, the Fibonacci sequence with regards to life expectancy ends abruptly when lifespan reaches the limit of approximately 120 years. Why is this so? Why should a naturally extending lifespan deviate from universal natural laws? Life expectancy should continue to increase as an individual manages to survive to a certain age. The presence of ageing and death could therefore be considered unnatural.

3. Support the notion that ‘you need to live long enough to live forever’ (see Kurzweil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage:_Live_Long_Enough_to_Live_Forever, and also De Grey’s ‘Longevity Escape Velocity’ suggestions http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html).

Continue reading “Life expectancy and Fibonacci: Nature has designed us to live indefinitely” »

All 4 busy killing the future, none of them helping to understand and to implement the human right to be spared cruelty and be given Lampsacus (hometown of all persons on the Internet).

Will Egypt help me save the planet?

I thought I would offer a series of quotes to counter the codswallop frequently expressed here — suggesting that mainstream physicists have genuine concerns about the safety of the LHC.

So, here’s one:

“The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis.”

Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University,

Continue reading “Eminent physicists who dismiss LHC conspiracy theories — 1” »

I am aware that the a-priori probability of my being right with the above statement is negligible – were it not for the fact that my results stay un-disproved for 4 years as natural corollaries to Einstein’s “happiest thought.”

(To witness: Einstein saw that on a lower floor, all clocks are slowed-down. I was able to add that they also are proportionally enlarged in size and reduced in mass and in charge. From this corollary it follows that “black holes” – hoped to be produced at CERN – arise more readily; do not Hawking-evaporate; are undetectable at CERN; and grow exponentially inside earth.)

All my competent critics – including Hermann Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institut and Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft – fell silent long ago. But notwithstanding the proof of danger and detector blindness lying on the table, CERN went ahead for more than a year risking “panbiocide” (Hilgartner) through inadvertently planting an at first undetectable bomb into earth.

The planet is now in the wake-up phase. In this phase, an added danger arises: a Khmer-rouge-like world-wide reflex against science and Europe. This danger it would be wise to keep under the rug – were it not for the fact that CERN has announced to boost up the risk next year.

Therefore, dear CERN and Europe: please, apologize to the planet. Or else prove me wrong, as no one hopes for more dearly than I do.

… against the publicly offered scientific proof that they risked and plan to further risk the survival of every human being. This is not a defamation but an accusation.

I ask them to defend themselves. If they do not do so, the whole world sees that they are guilty. I apologize that I am bringing them in this precarious situation if they cannot answer. The whole world sees their predicament. I would love nothing more than to help them out of it. Their cooperation is all I am asking for. Please, dear colleagues at CERN, cooperate with me in my trying to rescue you.

If you treat me as an enemy, the message to the world thereby generated is tantamount to publicly pleding guilty. Your seeming claque is a claque on the march to jail and to the end of science. Why are you so collectively blind to choose this road of non-defending yourself in the only language that can help, that of science?

With some help from colleagues, I recently produced a 365 Days of Astronomy podcast on why anti-CERN conspiracy theories about the LHC creating Earth-swallowing black holes really don’t make much sense.

The transcript is also available for reading on the 365 Days site if you are not a podcast fan.

Thanks

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)