Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Here are links to NASA live broadcast of Curiosity’s landing on Mars. Curiosity is the one ton car-sized rover that NASA is landing on Mars today.

This is another step in Man’s great adventure into interstellar space. Well Done, NASA.

NASA TV: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

NASA Ustream: http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl

NASA TV Schedule: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html

Today’s (August 5, Sunday 2012) Schedule (All Programs Eastern Time Zone):

6 a.m. – Replay of NASA Science News Conference – Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Mission Status and Entry, Descent and Landing Overview (8÷4) – HQ (All Channels)

7 a.m. – Replay of NASA Science News Conference – MSL Mission Science Overview (8÷2) – HQ (All Channels)

8 a.m. – Replay of NASA Science News Conference – Mission Engineering Overview (8÷2) – HQ (All Channels)

9 a.m. – NASA Television Video File – HQ (All Channels)

10 a.m. – 12 p.m. — Replay of NASA Social for the Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Landing – HQ (All Channels)

12 p.m. – NASA Television Video File – HQ(All Channels)

12:30–1:30 p.m. — NASA Science News Conference Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Pre-Landing News Conference — Rover Communication overview — JPL (All Channels)

1:30 p.m. – Replay of NASA News Conference to Announce New Agreements for Next Phase of Commercial Crew Development – HQ (All Channels)

2 p.m. – Replay of ISS Update (8÷3) – HQ (All Channels)

3 p.m. — NASA Science News Conference Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Pre-Landing News Conference — Rover Communication overview – JPL (All Channels)

4–6 p.m. – Replay of NASA Social for the Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Landing – HQ (All Channels)

6–7 p.m. — NASA Science News Conference — NASA Science Mission Directorate — JPL (All Channels)

11 p.m. — Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Landing Coverage of Entry Decent and Landing (Commentary #1 Begins 11:30 p.m.) — JPL (Public and Education Channels)

11 p.m. — Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity Rover Landing Coverage of Entry Decent and Landing (Clean Feed with Mission Audio Only) — JPL (Media Channel)

—————————————————————————————————

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

Tom Kerwick challenged my warnings by claiming that the observed longevity of white dwarfs, in spite of the constant bombardment by cosmic rays, provides a convincing safety argument regarding the currently running nuclear collisions experiment at CERN. This claim is important but, unfortunately, inconclusive as I shall try to demonstrate.

It is true that the collisions performed at CERN are relatively meager compared to cosmic-ray energies. The current, approximately 10 TeV collisions between equal-momentum particles at CERN correspond to 10.000 TeV cosmic ray protons hitting a stationary proton on earth or a white dwarf. The thousand-fold increase is a consequence of the relativistic energy-momentum law being applicable.

If 10.000 TeV (= 10 to the 16 electron volt) look like much, cosmic ray energies up to 10 to the 22 electron volt (a million times more) have been measured. However, if the latter are translated back into symmetric collisions of the CERN type, they are “only” a thousand times more energetic than CERN’s (owing to the square-root rule implicit in the mentioned law).

The fact that white dwarfs appear to be resilient to this bombardment is living proof that the cross section of CERN-generated miniature black holes (as well as their up to a thousand times more massive cosmic-ray generated analogs) must be minuscule. Specifically, their diameter must lie below that of a lepton (electron or quark). While an electron’s diameter is often supposed to be zero, neutrino absorption in solid matter yields a finite value (about ten to the negative 24 meter). In addition, the Telemach theorem guarantees a non-zero electron diameter.

So far, the cosmic rays cannot be shown not to be generating ultra-fast miniature black holes. When generated, the latter need to be rare enough not to leave a black hole get stuck inside the white dwarf in question. Otherwise white dwarf stars would no longer exist, as Tom stresses. The difference between earth and a white dwarf lies in the latter’s by 5 orders of magnitude higher density. It renders the white dwarf by so many orders of magnitude more vulnerable to ultra-fast natural black holes. Hence we have 3 numbers which jointly limit the lifespan of white dwarfs: The collision rate of CERN-like (or stronger) cosmic rays impinging on their surface; the fraction of these events leading to the formation of a black hole; and the free path length of an ultrafast miniature black hole inside white-dwarf matter.

None of these three parameters is currently known. Nevertheless as long as the black hole is markedly smaller than a lepton, it is the latter’s diameter alone that determines the cross section. Therefore, it is possible to draw a conclusion: White-dwarf longevity is limited by cosmic rays if the energy of the latter (CERN size or larger) suffices to generate black holes. In this case, “very old” white dwarfs cannot exist. This is a testable prediction.

The cooling rate of white dwarfs happens to be very low owing to their minuscule surface-to-mass ratio. Our cosmos is currently assumed to be only 14 billion years old (about the age of globular star cluster in our galaxy). Ultra-old white dwarfs should not be observable for that reason alone. As it happens, the new prediction is theory-independent, however. Ultra-old cold white dwarfs are therefore worth looking for empirically. If they are found, two important implications follow: (i) our universe is older than generally anticipated; (ii) the LHC experiment is safe. If, on the other hand, ultra-old white dwarfs prove empirically absent, this fact confirms the big bang theory at face value. However, if the recent theory of cryodynamics holds true (which implies a very much larger age of the universe), a measured absence of ultra-old white dwarfs implies that cosmic rays produce white-dwarf eating black holes. In that case, there is a high probability that the LHC is currently producing earth-eating black holes.

Therefore an astronomical test of the safety of the LHC experiment, based on white dwarf longevity, exists. The same claim was made by Tom. The difference lies alone in the fact that he assumes that the collision rate of micro black holes with leptons is much higher (due to a higher lepton diameter being apparently assumed). This difference led him to predict a very much shorter lifespan for white dwarfs. Since that prediction is defied by observation, his conclusion was that CERN is safe.

It will be important for everyone to learn if Tom Kerwick (perhaps in conjunction with Giddings and Mangano whom he quotes) can defend his prediction of a much higher collision rate with leptons for ultrafast natural mini-black holes inside white dwarfs. If so, CERN can perhaps be exculpated for its public refusal to update its 4-year-old safety report while continuing at a nonlinearly increased collision rate.

I thank Henry Gebhardt, Boris Hagel and Tobias Muller for discussions. For J.O.R.

While emailing back and forth with Ron Kita, I realized that it would be useful to compile a list of researchers who have published serious papers, past & present, in the new field of propulsion physics (gravity modification is an example) at least for the purpose of finding out how many countries are at some stage in this field.

This is important to do if we are to hasten the theoretical & technological development to leave Earth on a commercially feasible scale. I was surprised by what I found.

Below is the list. I’m sure it is not complete but it is a start. If you know of anyone who should be on this list, please let me know, and I will update this post.

Here are the ground rules for including a name.

1) They must have published their research in a journal accessible to the public (preferably in English as I’m monolingual and cannot verify the validity if it is not). This excludes anyone in secret projects or black projects (therefore Greenglow, Phantom & Skunk), or could not reach the level of research where peer review would consider the paper acceptable.

2) Excludes papers related to conventional technologies. This excludes sails, tethers, conventional fuels, ion propulsion and nuclear detonations.

3) Excludes the extension of conventional physics. For example, it is estimated that doing interstellar travel to Alpha Centauri, with conventional fuels would require a fuel cost of approximately 3.4x 2011 World GDP.

4) Exclude papers requiring ‘Millennium Theories’. Millennium Theories are theories that will require more than a 100 years to falsify. This eliminates research using exotic matter. For example, it is estimated that doing interstellar travel to Alpha Centauri, with antimatter would cost of approximately 43,000x 2011 World GDP.

5) Includes researchers attempting to solve anomalies or unexplained observations, today, but exclude those whose focus is not propulsion.

6) Includes researches in established organizations but excludes researchers involved in the test methodologies or the management of such programs.

7) It would be desirable if the publishing journal/conference was associated with a national organization such as AIP, AIAA, Elsevier or other similar organizations.

Country Count People Count Country Last Name First Name
1 1 Austria Hense Klause
1 2 Austria Marhold Klause
1 3 Austria Tajmar Martin
2 4 Brazil De Aquino Fran
2 5 Brazil Alcubierre Miguel
3 6 Canada Hathaway George
4 7 China Li Ning
4 8 China Wu Ning
5 9 Finland Nieminen R.
6 10 France de Matos Clovis
7 11 Greece Provatidis Christopher
8 12 India Gupta R.C.
9 13 Italy Modanese Giovanni
9 14 Italy Ummarino G.A.
10 15 Japan Hayasaka Hideo
10 16 Japan Musha Takaaki
10 17 Japan Nishino Kimio
10 18 Japan Takeuchi Sakae
11 19 Romania Agop M.
11 20 Romania Buzea C. Gh.
11 21 Romania Ciobanu B.
12 22 Russia Podkletnov Eugene
13 23 Slovakia Sima Jozef
13 24 Slovakia Sukenık Miroslav
14 25 South Korea Tajmar Martin
15 26 UK Laithwaite Eric
16 27 USA Brandenburg John
16 28 USA Brantley Whitt
16 29 USA Chiao Raymond Y.
16 30 USA Clark Rod
16 31 USA Cramer John
16 32 USA Forward Robert
16 33 USA Fralick Gustave
16 34 USA Gaines J
16 35 USA Haisch Bernard
16 36 USA Hammer Jay
16 37 USA Kir Asit
16 38 USA Koczor Ron
16 39 USA Maclay Jordan
16 40 USA March Paul
16 41 USA Michael George
16 42 USA Milonni Peter
16 43 USA Murad Paul
16 44 USA Niedra Janis
16 45 USA Noever David
16 46 USA Puthoff Hal
16 47 USA Reuda Alfonso
16 48 USA Richland Center
16 49 USA Robertson Glen (Tony)
16 50 USA Rounds Frederic
16 51 USA Sanderson L
16 52 USA Serry Michael
16 53 USA Solomon B.T.
16 54 USA Torr D.G.
16 55 USA Villareal Carlos
16 56 USA Woods Clive
16 57 USA Woodward James

There are 16 countries! and 57 researchers. In a 2011 email to us, James Woodward had suggest that there are only about 35 of us seriously researching propulsion physics, on this planet. He came close, or I’m being generous. OK you can exclude Finland and India because I do not think these two countries have a concerted effort to develop a new propulsion technology.

Thanks to Ron Kita for pointing me to Takaaki Musha (Honda), Kimio Nishino (Toyota) and RC Gupta. I was surprised that Honda and Toyota, the car companies were interested in gravity modification.

Ron had also suggested Mike Gamble (supposedly of Boeing, and I did not attempt to either confirm or disprove his employement), and Brice Cassenti. I did not include Cassenti because his work was on Biefield Brown, which is an electric field effect.

Propulsion physics is about anything that is not related to gliding, rocketry, jets, electric motors, and internal combustion engines. I included South Korea because Tajmar is there now.

I excluded Mike Gamble, and here’s why. At SPESIF 2012 (which I had not attended) he announced that ‘Boeing has been using a “scissoring gyroscope” style of inertial propulsion for satellite maneuvering for years!’ and showed a picture (see http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Enews/EnewsMar2012.htm).

I am very skeptical. I could not make out what the picture shows, and in my opinion a “scissoring gyroscope” type technology is too jerky to be used as a means of satellite propulsion.

Kumaran Sanmugathasan had suggested Mehran Keshe of Belgium, he does not satisfy the rules. Thanks Kumaran.

Gary Stephenson had suggested many, many names. Thanks Gary. Gary had also suggested S.M. Godwin & V.V. Roschin of Russia, but I could not find enough information about them with respect to the rules, above, and have to exclude them.

Hope this blog posting will increase the number of serious researchers in the new field of propulsion physics, increase the funding, and raise the awareness of propulsion physics as opposed to astronomy or cosmology.

—————————————————————————————————

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

- From Integrationalism

In April of 2010 the Library of Congress announced that it will acquire all of the public tweets for future generations to review. It’s quite the ambitious effort from a technological standpoint, considering all of the data migration and storage as the micro-blogging social network grows. The initiative also has some uncovered ethical and democratic potential that are currently being overlooked.

Twitter as a platform is empowering the creators of the world to understand how their co-conspirers and consumers are affecting the discovery, development, and delivery of new goods & services to be brought to market. For instance, Marketing and other R&D departments across the globe at the enterprise scale are using social networks like Twitter to monitor and improve their CRM (Customer Relationship Management) processes. These aren’t rigid customer service initiatives, but also customer discovery initiatives. Social networking is giving new meaning to the idea that supply & demand are never ending sphere of interaction; further, confusing the philosophical ideal of who might our creators and consumers be.

This is important because ownership is allocated to creators of sorts, regardless of initial or latter impact.

At current, the world is enduring a series of spiking economic crisis, and as the engineers and economists try and root-cause to remedy our problems, the political conservatism that we all possess at some extent is making it difficult to justify spreading the wealth. Moral and Political arguments haven’t been working over the millennia or most recently. The books/rants/calls for gifting larger amounts to working-poor, nor distributing wealth at high rates to compensate the lesser valued have yielded a change in the gap between those with an immense value and those without. This crisis is not one of lost value, or population growth, or technological change. It is (and has always been) one of poorly allocated ownership. Those causes can be debated separately.

Ownership is paramount in distributing value to individuals and institutions, outside of charity. I don’t think it necessary to elaborate on how miniscule charity is in the known world. It’s legally defensible and mathematically quantifiable. One of the missions of the Library of Congress is to log intellectual property; further, so that it may (if necessary) be defended on the behalf of stakeholders. The initiative to capture tweets for the future generations should not only be technologically charged, but it should be economically charged to assign ownership to authors. This effort would assist greatly in identifying the degrees of separation between the various stakeholders in the discovery, development, and delivery of things.

Recently Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, wrote an article in the Huffington Post How to Find Extraterrestrial Life. He had proposed that the search for extraterrestrial life was a three-way horse race. According to Shostak:

(1) Discover Life Nearby: This is the search for life in our solar system.

(2) Sniff It Out: Do the sort of spectral analysis that might detect atmospheric gases caused by biology.

(3) Eavesdrop On ET: Otherwise known as SETI, is the effort to detect radio signals or laser flashes from technically savvy extraterrestrials.

Neat, Shostak has set the frame work for further dscussions. Note that the (1) is the search for the existance of life based molecules. That (2) is the search for life forms, whether past or present. And (3) is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

He says that a priori all are equally likely to be successful. Lets think again.

With respect to (1) Discover Life Nearby, lets look at the record. Using the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit & Opportunity, as examples, Spirit which was 2.3m wide, covered 8.81 km over 581 sols (a Martian day that is approximately an Earth day), that is approximately 19 m2 per day. Given that the surface of Mars is 144,798,500 km2 it will take Spirit about 7.6 × 1012 days or 208,340,844 centuries, to examine the total surface of Mars. That is, assuming randomness, and that life did exist on Mars in the past, the quick & dirty probability of finding life on Mars on any day with current technology is 1.3 × 10-13. We have a better idea of Mars. It is mostly barren. However, not a clue about the Europa the moon of Jupiter, that is believed to have oceans beneath its ice.

With current projections it likely that NASA will have a satellite at Europa in the 2020–2030 time frame.

So, we can make 2 types of guesses. Assuming that life started on Europa some millions ago, then the probability (from a detection perspective) of finding life on Europa is good, close to 1. However, if Europa is a liquid version of Mars, then the probability is on the order of 1 × 10-13.

Therefore, the time frame for discovery of extraterrestrial life by (1) Discover Life Nearby, is about 2025 assuming no budgets cuts or other re-prioritizations.

With respect to (2) Sniff It Out, scientists estimate that there are about 1 x 1010 Earth like planets in our Milky Way. Lets assume that the Goldilocks Zone is a necessity. Using Pluto as the outer extreme of planets in a Star Local system, and Mars and Venus as boundaries of our Goldilocks Zone, then the approximate probability of finding one of these Earth-like planets in the Goldilocks Zone is 2.89 × 10-2. This reduces the number of Earth-like planets capable of supporting life to 289,340,102. Or the probability of finding life on at least one of these planets (assuming life is present) is at least 3.45 × 10-9.

I would estimate that the time frame for detecting extraterrestrial life is between today, and 35 years from now to 2047.

It could be any day now as the Dutch using the Very Large Telescope in the Chilean Andes have detected carbon monoxide on a planet hugging the star Tau Bootis that is 51 light-years away. The other end of my estimate is 2047. This is because developing a technology like the James Webb telescope was 30 years in the making.

So (2) Sniff It Out, has a better chance of finding evidence of life than (1) Discover Life Nearby.

Now how about (3) Eavesdrop On ET? As the author of the 12-year study An Introduction to Gravity Modification, it is slim. Sorry, Tarter, Shostak and all of you at the SETI Institute. But wait, I haven’t finished.

Look at our civilization. In 1895 Guglielmo Marconi proved that long distance radio transmission was possible. In 117 years we have exponentially evolved our technological sophistication to what it is today, 2012.

As the author of the 12-year study An Introduction to Gravity Modification I have proposed (see page 195) the existence of subspace, where everything is probabilistic, and light speed is not a restriction. Therefore, if confirmed, there is the strong possibility that by 2025/2035 this planet will go radio silent, because all our transmissions will be through subspace.

That is, the window to observe a radio intelligent extraterrestrial civilization is about 100 to 150 years, then they go silent. 100–150 years is an immensely thin slice or duration compared to the distances of stars even within our own galaxy, the Milky Way. Or the probability of detecting extraterrestrial radio transmissions within our own galaxy is approximately 1.25 × 10-6. It is actually a little better than this but I am using quick & dirty for this blog posting, and this will do. This is much better than a posteriori 1 × 10-13 for (1) Discover Life Nearby and 3.45 x 10-9 for (2) Sniff It Out.

So SETI, keep eavesdropping, and we can expect confirmation of Extraterrestrial Life by 2047 latest.

—————————————————————————————————

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

In it he reports on a gorilla in a cage who could be brought to phrenetic laughter by his human friend’s pretending to bite him into his toe. Quote: “If you have never seen a gorilla in a fit of laughter, I recommend searching out such a sight before you pass from this world.”

This is absolutely human behavior. If you know about the cross-caring theory, which explains how a young child interacting with his bonding partner is getting “moved” into suspecting benevolence shown towards him, then you realize that the same thing can be accomplished with a caged or non-caged gorilla.

I recently mentioned Margaret Howe, a pupil of my late friend Gregory Bateson’s. There are important insights about the mission of humankind on our planet and beyond (“galactic export”) that would make it a great pity if this “second level of human social evolution on earth and in the solar system” was going to be clipped.

I know I am being impossible, but finding outrageous things that tickle everyone in her or his heart so as to be moved is the real mission of science. I fantasize talking with a gorilla – or orangutan – about the long-stretched “toe” of the visualized Schwarzschild metric of a black hole, both of us laughing.

If you think dolphins are preferable, I shall not object. I found a proof recently, though, that orangutans have the most highly developed brain identified so far. The fact that the latter is lightweight owing to its carrier’s arboreal existence, does not detract from its functional superiority. The proof is based on the mathematics of the traveling salesman problem (second version).

Ray Kurzweil hopes we can build artificial brains of matching caliber soon – via the brain equation, I would add. But it would be fun to first make friends with our hardware-wise stronger natural relatives. Including – perhaps – giant octopuses and mantis shrimps ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=nKgStQ8Scs0 ).

Could CERN not make a tiny little break to admit a “safety-regained discussion” as it could be called in anticipation?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/07/2012759585764599.html (at minutes 09:00–10:10, 11:00–12:03, 12:35–13:25, 16:08–17:13) gave me a world-wide forum again. The rest of the media and all colleagues of mine keep their mouths shut.

There is logic behind this schizophrenic world-wide attitude: In case the outlaw is right, one can later always claim that not the whole planet was part of the conspiracy of silence since one high-ranking international outlet reported. However, this strategy is not logical. For if I am right and the worst case materializes, the fig leaf will go under as well.

My class yesterday in which this riddle was touched upon in passing helped me see the mechanism: My results on black holes are too much advanced from the planet-wide accepted lore to be understandable to any colleague.

Imagine the “generic 3-pseudosphere.” Its lower-dimensional analog in ordinary 3-space, the 2-pseudosphere (the so-called Newton pseudosphere) looks like two trumpets with infinitely long, infinitely thinned-out mouth pieces, glued together head-on with their bells ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pseudosphere.jpg ). This smooth monster has the same volume as a sphere of the same (maximal) diameter, and also the same surface area and the same (if negative) curvature: a kind of miracle. Hence the name “pseudo-sphere.”

By cutting it in the middle to take only one half of it, and then making the trumpet generic by giving it a non-zero asymptotic radius – the Schwarzschild radius – at its infinitely far-away tip (and adding one dimension), you get the correct reality of the space surrounding a black hole. Although there is beautiful related work by Yu Tian at al. ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0411004.pdf ), this is beyond the heads of the whole community. They simply cannot follow.

My late friend Benoit Mandelbrot created a storm with the opposite insight – that there are compact finite volumes with an infinite surface area. In the present dual case, the little ant on the flat outer rim of the trumpet, headed for the middle, cannot believe that the way towards the latter (the so-called “horizon”) is infinitely long. No one saw this before.

But this is “art for art’s sake,” is it not? No: this is physics. And, strangely, the survival of the planet hinges on a single person of public clout believing me.

Thank you, everyone, for kindly having bent your mind.

“If the rate of change on the outside
exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near”
- Jack Welch

Complex societies are heavily addicted to expensive, vulnerable and potentially hazardous infrastructure. We rely on a healthy environment for production of food and access to clean water. We depend on technological infrastructure for energy supplies and communications. We are deeply addicted to economic growth to support growing populations and consumption. If one of these pillars of modern society crumbles our existence will collapse like a house of cards.

The interdependencies and complexities of the system we call modern society has become so intertangled that finding a robust and simple solution to our problems has become close to impossible. Historically the cold war gave us the logic of a “balance of terror”. This logic, originally concerned with a balance of U.S. vs. Soviet military capacities, has lead to an increasingly expensive way of reducing risk and ever expanding bureaucracies to keep us “virtually safe”.

With the onset of a global economic recession, drastic climate change, deadly natural disasters, raging civil wars and diminishing natural resources we need a new logic. A set of moral laws for reducing risk and mitigating consequences applicable at a low cost from the bottom up of entire societies.

The concept of resilience is based on the idea that disasters are inevitable and a natural part of existence. Our best defense is preparedness and engineering systems that not only can withstand heavy strains but also absorb damage. The Institute for Resilient Infrastructure at the University of Leeds gives this definition of “Resilience”;

Resilience can also be explained in terms of durability. A durable material, component or system is one which can cope with all the known, predictable loads to which it will be subjected throughout its life. As well as physical loads – stresses and strains – we include environmental loads (e.g. temperature, weather), economic loads (e.g. the scarcity of resources or financial turmoil) and social loads (e.g. changes in legislation or of use, terrorist attack, changes in demography or society’s expectations and demands).

In the 1970s about 100 disasters were recorded worldwide every year. According to the International Disaster Database an average of 392 disasters were reported per year in the last decade. In 2011 we saw record greenhouse gas emissions, melting Arctic sea ice, extreme weather and the earthquake in Japan resulting in the world’s second worst nuclear disaster. Current systems for mitigation of risk are obviously not capable of handling the overwhelming challenges confronting us.

The price tag for disasters in 2011 reached a record high of $265 billion. Most of that cost ($210 billion) came from the tsunami in Japan, but flooding in Australia, tornadoes in the United States and earthquakes in New Zealand contributed substantially. The increasingly turbulent weather patterns wreaking havoc across the planet may only be the beginning of a period of drastic climate change.

In addition to climate change industrial society faces depleted natural resources, degradation of infrastructure and systemic limits to growth. The ongoing economic crisis is a symptom of a deeper structural failure. Governments are running out of options when solving a debt crisis with more debt is the last resort. We rely on short term solutions for long term problems.

We are facing a different type of threat originating from within the system itself, an endogenous and internal failure of our civilizational paradigm. Growing populations stress our dependency on non-renewable resources supported by potentially hazardous nuclear power. The case of the Fukushima nuclear accident illustrates that large population located on limited land is extremely vulnerable to unpredictable events like earthquakes or other catastrophic “wild cards”. From the perspective of risk analysis the state of Japan is a model of the entire planet.

To make the situation even more acute the horizon of Homo Sapiens is full of threats like global pandemics and emerging technologies that could permanently wipe us off the face of the earth. Nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering hold the promise of a quick fix but also have the potential to cause irreversible harm to the biosphere and human life.

Technology is without a doubt a part of a permanent solution for sustainable life on the planet. The bottom up approach to resilience is about awakening a culture that rewards autonomy and self-sufficiency. Resilience is more than durable engineering. Resilience has to become an obligatory way of thinking and eventually a way of life.

10 robust resilient strategies:
1. Sustain a culture that rewards autonomy and self-sufficiency.
2. Share practical solutions and stockpile resilient ideas instead of canned food.
3. Support intra-generational sharing of knowledge on how to live in accord with nature.
4. Develop alternative economic systems; use Bitcoins and barter when possible.
5. Refine high-tech solutions but favor low tech; HAM radios beat cell phones in emergencies.
6. Grow your own food; become an urban gardener or start a farm revival project.
7. Reduce energy consumption with geothermal energy, local water mills, wind mills and solar panels.
8. Use a condom; think eugenically — act passionately.
9. Keep a gun; if you are forced to pull it – know how to use it.
10. Stay alive for the sake of the next generation.

This article is co-published on Interesting Times Magazine.

The whole within which we find ourselves at every conscious moment is a miraculous gift that we take for granted in our culture. Everything can be understood inside the world, so we believe in science – except for the qualia (like color) and also for the Now which both are non-existent in physics (although this is almost never mentioned).

For 4 days now, something that unlike the qualia and the Now exists within rather than outside the scope of science is just as baffling: the Higgs field. As Matt Strassler explained two years ago, the everywhere constant Higgs field is responsible for the masses of all elementary particles – without an exchange of particles being involved — provided it will be discovered experimentally via the signature of a first field-specific particle. Thus an immutable constant influence makes itself felt inside creation for 4 days. The freshly discovered Higgs particle can be called the first unmistakable miracle found in nature, because it reflects the presence of an everywhere constant field of unknown origin.

The discovery comes with a price tag which is none of its own fault. The machine made to find it was designed so as to also generate a second totally new animal in the hope that at least one of the two would be found: miniature black holes. The latter have eluded finding so far we are told, but this is not certain: a double success cannot be excluded.

This is because a trivial new implication of Einstein’s “happiest thought” of 1907 revealed that black holes possess radically new properties. The latter cause black holes to arise much more readily and make them invisible to CERN’s detectors. In addition they grow exponentially inside matter. Therefore if one specimen gets stuck inside earth, the planet will be eaten inside out after an asymptomatic period of a few years, so as to assume the size of a chestnut while retaining its gravitational influence on the moon.

No one likes this new implication of relativistic physics, published in the African Journal of Mathematics. In the current euphoria about the newly discovered Higgs miracle (a discovery planned to be made more significant by doubling the cumulative collision number during the remainder of the year 2012), there is no chance anyone will waste a thought on this unrelated second possible success of the LHC experiment. Hence no one cares about the new “safety report,” overdue after 4 years, or about the “safety conference” kindly requested by a court on January 27, 2011. When the most illuminating finding of history is waiting to be investigated further, a second sensational effect has lost all interest even if not uplifting but maximally dreadful in character.

Only if Professor Higgs himself spoke up in favor of a brief break in the experiment before the planned doubling in luminosity, would humankind get a chance to have the still valid proof that the dream result achieved is accompanied by the worst nightmare of history, punctured before continuing.

I need to talk to Professor Higgs immediately to win his sympathy and support. Is someone kind enough to introduce me to him?

P.S.: My anonymous colleague Bernd and I discovered today that the Higgs field is (like mass and charge) subject to a locally imperceptible reduction proportional to the gravitational redshift valid relative to the distant stars.

The unknown troubles and attracts us. We long to discover a reason for our existence. We look out to the stars through the darkness of space to observe phenomena incredibly far distances away. Many of us are curious about the things we see, these unknowns.

Yet, many of us look skyward and are uninspired, believing that our time and resources best be kept grounded. Despite our human-centered ideologies, our self-assured prophecies, our religious and philosophical beliefs, no existential rationale seems apparent.

We as people welcome technology into our lives and use it constantly to communicate and function. Scientific discoveries pique the interest of every citizen in every country, and technological revolutions have always preceded social and political revolutions from the creation of the internet back to man’s first use of simple tools. Leaders of nations proclaim the importance of science and discovery to our welfare to be utmost.

But what we have seen done recently contradicts these proclamations: space programs are closed; science funding for schools always falls short; and we see no emphasis of the significance of science in our modern culture. Our governments call for the best but provide capital for only the satisfactory, if even. We no longer succumb to the allure of learning simply for the sake of knowing what we once did not know. We have stopped dreaming.

The exploration of space is as related to earthly affairs as any trek, perhaps even more so, because what we learn along the way directly affects the knowledge we apply to our politics, our religions, societies, and sciences. We learn about ourselves, our dreams, our fears. We learn about our strengths and our weaknesses as nations and as a species. In searching the void all around us we learn how to interact with each other and bridge differences between races, religions, genders, and ideologies. The societies of Earth need to emphasize the importance of discovery and innovation to the longevity of mankind, as well as the very human need for the pursuit of challenge.

We are and always have been an adaptable species capable of creating dreams and accomplishing them. We should seek to explore our new frontier and chase ideas yet to even be conceived. The exploration of space has lifted our human spirit, enlightened us, and has made lucid and close our fragility and responsibilities. Perhaps our inhibitions and worries, and our craving to overcome them fuels our explorative ambitions.

If we desire greater purpose then let us earn it; through hardship to the stars! The sky is no longer a limit, but a starting point. We can define our lives, and our existence, by how we accept and handle the unknown; our significance as humans set forth by our bravery and intelligence. Regardless of our qualms and fears, exploration of the unknown is an intrinsic passion of mankind. Why not remind ourselves of what has advanced us thus far?

As the astrophysicist and activist Carl Sagan said, “We were hunters and foragers. The frontier was everywhere. We were bounded only by the earth and the ocean and the sky.” Let us now explore the boundless, and go forth into the starry-night, fresh and inspired, ready to accept any challenge, just as those before us did, when they first set sail for the unknown.

Read the original post at bmseifert.com.