Lifeboat Foundation

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**.

“We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC.”

R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read the LSAG report where all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the LHC cannot lead to catastrophic consequences.”

Continue reading “Eminent physicists who dismiss LHC conspiracy theories — 3” »

Doing an unsafe experiment is unprofessional. Refusing to check a proof of implied danger is unheard of. And when the danger is the worst of human history, the decision to ignore it and go ahead acquires an eery touch.

My request to be allowed to give a talk at CERN was not granted although the CERN young scientists had invited me years before. My kind request to the scientific community to come up with a counter-proof to my results met with dead silence after an early attempt had fizzled. The logically required scientific safety conference is being denied for almost 4 years. The identical request made subsequently by a court – the Cologne Administrative Court – on last January the 27th, is refused to be reported by the media. (Only an Internet newspaper reported on it, in German, www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34302/1.html .)

Allow me to briefly repeat the relevant facts:

1) There is a finite probability that the LHC machine of CERN can produce miniature black holes. This hope was one of the major reasons why the “Large Hadron Collider” was built.

Continue reading “Friendship Lies at the Root of Science: Dear CERN, Please, Admit the Safety Conference” »

Femtotechnology: AB-Needles. Fantastic properties and Applications

after posting this on facebook.com and seeing its shared on Scribd.com I was a bit shocked by the community of reads in their disregard for these thoughts on Femtotechnology. One reader was quoted to say

I don’t understand why people bother talking about femtotech when we barely even have nanotech…

And while the reader’s voice should be heard, I like to think that if we can imagine it, its worth being a part of the tool box. These ideas are some +50 years in the making and just as nanotech or any other tech this literature predating our abilities is necessary in crafting human kinds exploration. So this entry is a bit activist, and so what smile #fullspeedahead.

CERN’s refusal to quote scientific criticism for years represents anti-scientific behavior. The obvious explanation: a military-like obedience. All German university professors can be dishonorably discharged five years into the past while having to pay back their gross salaries for telling the truth, as happened to my wife, an endocrinologist. A similar obedience law is manifestly effective in the German-led European mini-state of CERN.

All 10.000 CERN scientists obeyed the order not to quote my results but proceed with the experiment in defiance. They thereby shut themselves out of the scientific community, a fraud that is bound to cost CERN the privilege to grant PhDs. But this academic consequence is negligible by comparison.

My danger-proving results were first sent to Dr. Mangano in early 2008, to be published in July the same year (long before his in this respect mute ”Safety Report” appeared). They survived a discussion with the Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik in March 2009 and got since sharpened into the “Telemach” theorem on the Internet. Telemach remains un-contradicted by all colleagues while confirmed independently by professor Richard J. Cook, Air Force Academy, whose arxiv paper “Gravitational space dilation” arrived independently at T, L, M (the Time, Length, Mass change of Telemach) and was followed by an explicit confirmation of number 4 (the charge change, Ch) which I was asked to make public.

If our joint result stays un-disproved, then the implications are unprecedented: a new situation brought upon every earthling – not to survive the next 5 years with an apparently percentage-range probability. By inflicting such horror, Europe makes itself an enemy of every person on the planet.

Continue reading “CERN: Stop Representing Anti-Science!” »

Greetings fellow travelers, please allow me to introduce myself; I’m Mike ‘Cyber Shaman’ Kawitzky, independent film maker and writer from Cape Town, South Africa, one of your media/art contributors/co-conspirators.

It’s a bit daunting posting to such an illustrious board, so let me try to imagine, with you; how to regard the present with nostalgia while looking look forward to the past, knowing that a millisecond away in the future exists thoughts to think; it’s the mode of neural text, reverse causality, non-locality and quantum entanglement, where the traveller is the journey into a world in transition; after 9/11, after the economic meltdown, after the oil spill, after the tsunami, after Fukushima, after 21st Century melancholia upholstered by anti-psychotic drugs help us forget ‘the good old days’; because it’s business as usual for the 1%; the rest continue downhill with no brakes. Can’t wait to see how it all works out.

Please excuse me, my time machine is waiting…

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” »