Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Note: This article originally appears on WealthLift.com and can be seen here.

In 2006, the underpinnings of the American financial system began to crack from a speculative bubble in the country’s housing market. Fueled by irrational exuberance in which homeowners believed their home prices would rise forever, this was made worse by Main Street and Wall Street, both of whom repackaged mortgage loans for sale to everyday investors through a process called securitization. That’s right, this was a multipronged problem, not the hell-bent desires of a few financial fat cats, as Occupy Wall Street would have you believe.

When the bubble burst and home prices began to decline, this not only hurt the original lender, but also every investor that held a piece of a mortgage-backed asset. Imagine this process like a moldy pie that no one realizes is bad. Originally, the entire pie is held by one bank. Next, pieces of this pie are sold to other banks, pension funds, hedge funds, and anyone else that has an appetite. Soon enough, however, everyone holding this pie has gotten sick. Well, this happens with all kinds of assets, including car loans, credit cards and student loans. The benefit of securitization is that it allows organizations to grant more loans to people like you and me, but the downside is that it exposes the entire economy to the financial woes of an individual market. Without securitization, what happened in the housing market would have likely stayed in the housing market.

Six years later, many people are crying that the same thing will happen to the student loan market. While disbelievers can claim that these are just ‘cynics’ whose views are skewed by the world’s ongoing economic turmoil, a basic investigation into the matter yields some worrying results.

1. A college education has more in common with a house than you would think. Currently, the average cost of a single-family home in the United States is just above $150,000, while the average tuition of a private institution’s four-year degree program is around $130,000. Moreover, it is common practice for students to employ the use of debt to cover 20 to 50 percent of their costs, depending on the state. Just as homeowners once expected home prices to rise every year into infinity, students are undertaking loans with a shared expectation of a future income that exceeds the value of the loan. Unfortunately, historically high rates of unemployment have made this a pipe dream for an increasing number of students. In fact, the latest nationwide student default rates stand at 9 percent, up two percentage points from the previous year.

2. The student loan bubble has been growing faster than the housing bubble. According to a recent study by the New York Fed, the volume of student loans in the American economy has increased 500 percent over the past decade to a current value of $1 trillion. While this amount is less than the value of the mortgage volume peak before the recession, the growth rate is twice as high.

3. SLABS may be this crisis’s nuclear bomb. The acronym SLABS stands for student loan asset backed securities. In many ways, they are similar to the mortgage backed securities that played a hand in breaking the financial system in 2008. It is estimated that there are over $250 billion worth of SLABS in the markets today. This is a whopping 1,000 times the amount of SLABS in the American economy 20 years ago. More troubling, these investments have been viewed as the safest asset backed security in the post-recession era. While securitizes backed by mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards have been cut in half over the past few years, SLABS activity has continued to grow. In fact, they are marketed to individual investors, pension funds, and anyone else seeking an economic safety net.

4. Student loan debt is unforgivable. This ‘safety net’ belief is held partly because student loans are currently the only form of debt that is unforgivable even in bankruptcy. From investors’ eyes, this is good news because their return is generated from students making their loan payments. From a broader perspective, though, this spells bad news for the American economy. See, students can still default on their loans, which simply means that they are unable to make payments. Unlike mortgage debt, however, students who default are not given the option of leniency in the form of principal or interest rate reduction.

Instead, defaulting students are economically punished, as they are unable to receive any IRS tax refunds or federal benefits. Moreover, the government is entitled to take up to 15 percent of a student’s disposable income, and may even sue in some cases. In a world teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession, all of these actions would only make the situation shoddier. In fact, the worst thing that can happen to a mortgage defaulter is the loss of their home, but they can move on, economically speaking. Students who default on their loans, however, are not offered the same route. Moreover, this incentivizes lenders to offer loans to any and all students since there is no risk of payment loss in the long run. Tell me, do we trust our lending institutions enough to think that this would not be the case? Of course not; besides, it is arguably up to the government to provide an economic structure for banks to follow. If businesses are profit maximizing, which we’ve all learned in school that they are, then they are not to blame for taking advantage of this situation.

5. Unlike all other debt holders, students are not classified based on their ability to repay. Okay, most lending institutions look at the credit worthiness of a student’s parents, but this is insufficient. What lenders should be doing is rating students based on the probability that they can repay after graduation. Whether we like it or not, the only way to do this is to classify students based on their future earnings potential. Think about it – a student with an Engineering degree will be entering a field where the median salary is $90,681. Moreover, the unemployment rate in this field is around 2 percent. Compare this with a student majoring in English. This student is only expected to earn around $40,000 in a field with 7 percent unemployment.

Clearly, the student with the lower expected salary entering the riskier field should be granted a lower amount of student loans. While some may argue that this disincentives students to follow their dreams, it is common sense economics. Moreover, a student rating system would likely improve the U.S.’s fallback in the global Math and Science race, in which the country is currently ranked 23rd and 31st respectively. As college students would realize that they could only attend the best institutions if they chose the highest-earning majors, this problem could be corrected over the next decade. Now, doubters may cry that the most affluent students would not be subject to this plan, but this is an advantage that persists in any scenario. In fact, the implementation of this system could reduce a growing wealth gap, as a higher percentage of lower-income students shifted to the most fruitful career fields.

The reason for the current planet-wide abandonment of major progress lies in the re-acquired belief in clairvoyance – of which anonymous peer review is a symptom. Einstein would ridicule the latter as a “dogma-generating superstition.” While in the early 17th century, the innovators were burnt on the stakes, to date the censors choose instead to burn themselves along with their children and planet.

NO BIG BANG

The expansion theory got disproved in 1929 by Hubble’s friend Zwicky. A remaining gap was closed in 1943 by Chandrasekhar, but the two apparently never met. The final cornerstone is the discovery of a “second statistical mechanics” besides Thermodynamics, called Cryodynamics. It can be used to break the decades-old impasse of hot fusion and hence solve earth’s energy problems.

NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

Originally taken back by Einstein, these waves in spacetime were laid to rest by the global constancy of the speed of light c, implicit in the “L” of the T-L-M-Ch theorem (Rossler-Cook) which revives the power of Einstein’s “happiest thought,” the equivalence principle.

NO HAWKING RADIATION

Stephen Hawking’s ingenious idea of black hole evaporation got toppled by the same letter “L” in the Telemach theorem.

THE VOICE OF THE DOLPHINS

Leo Szilard was the first to call for the help of cetacean intelligence, after having been unable to prevent his brainchild, the bomb, from being dropped in 1945.

Next, a female co-worker of John C. Lilly’s took the first steps empirically, but got ostracized into scientific nonexistence.

Finally, Lilly’s good friend Gregory Bateson approved of a paper by the present author published in the San Diego Biomedical Symposium 1975, entitled “A proposed treatment of early infantile autism…” which showed how to tap the higher intelligence and humor of cetaceans and other savants.

THE CERN COVER-UP

On January 27, 2011, CERN stood before a court in Cologne listening to the final advice given to it: To admit a “safety conference” before continuing the nuclear collisions of the LHC experiment. Instead, CERN keeps shooting sharp up to this day while keeping the fact of this official admonition made to it in time a planet-wide secret.

The planet’s media pretend not to know better than the “cleaned version” distributed on Wikipedia, for example.

A PLANET-BORNE QUESTION

In the name of the planet’s cetaceans – dolphins and their relatives including the highest-brained creature known, the sperm whale – and all other savants, I herewith ask the planet’s public to insist on honesty being restored in the face of un-disproved black-hole mediated terminal danger by posing the following question to CERN:

“WHY did CERN cover up the received public admonition to admit the logically necessary safety conference before its continuing with the LHC experiment?”

On a casual read of the appraised work of Duncan R. Lorimer on Binary and Millisecond Pulsars (2005) last week, I noted the reference to the lack of pulsars with P < 1.5 ms. It cites a mere suggestion that this is due to gravitational wave emission from R-mode instabilities, but one has not offered a solid reason for such absence from our Universe. As the surface magnetic field strength of such would be lower (B ∝ (P ˙P )^(1÷2)) than other pulsars, one could equally suggest that the lack of sub millisecond pulsars is due to their weaker magnetic fields allowing CR impacts resulting in stable MBH capture… Therefore if one could interpret that the 108 G field strength adopted by G&M is an approximate cut-off point where MBH are likely to be captured by neutron stars, then one would perhaps have some phenomenological evidence that MBH capture results in the destruction of neutron stars into black holes. One should note that more typical values of observed neutron stars calculate a 1012 G field, so that is a 104 difference from the borderline-existence cases used in the G&M analysis (and so much less likely to capture). That is not to say that MBH would equate to a certain danger for capture in a planet such as Earth where the density of matter is much lower — and accretion rates much more likely to be lower than radiation rates — an understanding that is backed up by the ‘safety assurance’ in observational evidence of white dwarf longevity. However, it does take us back to question — regardless of the frequently mentioned theorem here on Lifeboat that states Hawking Radiation should be impossible — Hawking Radiation as an unobserved theoretical phenomenon may not be anywhere near as effective as derived in theoretical analysis regardless of this. This oft mentioned concern of ‘what if Hawking is wrong’ of course is endorsed by a detailed G&M analysis which set about proving safety in the scenario that Hawking Radiation was ineffective at evaporating such phenomenon. Though doubts about the neutron star safety assurance immediately makes one question how reliable are the safety assurances of white dwarf longevity – and my belief has been that the white dwarf safety assurance seems highly rational (as derived in a few short pages in the G&M paper and not particularly challenged except for the hypothesis that they may have over-estimated TeV-scale MBH size which could reduce their likelihood of capture). It is quite difficult to imagine a body as dense as a white dwarf not capturing any such hypothetical stable MBH over their lifetime from CR exposure – which validates the G&M position that accretion rates therein must be vastly outweighed by radiation rates, so the even lower accretion rates on a planet such as Earth would be even less of a concern. However, given the gravity of the analysis, those various assumptions on which it is based perhaps deserves greater scrutiny, underscored by a concern made recently that 20% of the mass/energy in current LHC collisions are unaccounted for. Pulsars are often considered one of the most accurate references in the Universe due to their regularity and predictability. How ironic if those pulsars which are absent from the Universe also provided a significant measurement. Binary and Millisecond Pulsars, D.R. Lorimer: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511258v1.pdf

Using Large Hadron Colliders to break particles and explore new ways to understand our universe may be seen as a hacking attack by the Administrator of the universe. We can imagine that god can restore the universe to a previous version in order to neutralize the LHC hack. In the same way, the emerging singularity will probably try to break all the security rules achieved by humans in order to prevent it from accessing our real world. The main difference is that we do not have a way to do a big internet rollback, if the singularity succeeds in breaking our rules. Therefore, we must be prepared to collaborate with the singularity rather than desperately trying to reduce its liberty.

Hawking radiation is dead ever since the Telemach result and its precursors surfaced on the web. No one ever defended Hawking including his own heroic voice.

The same holds true for CERN’s detectors. They are blind to its most touted anticipated success – black hole production – by virtue of the said theorem. Again not a single word of defense.

This is why a court asked CERN and the world for a safety conference on January 27, 2011.

The press cannot continue shielding the world, and Lifeboat must be relieved from its having to carry the burden of informing an otherwise lifeboat-less planet, singlehandedly.

Russia’s hastily convened international conference in St. Petersburg next month is being billed as a last-ditch effort at superpower cooperation in defense of Earth against dangers from space.

But it cannot be overlooked that this conference comes in response to the highly controversial NATO anti-ballistic missile deployments in Eastern Europe. These seriously destabilizing, nuclear defenses are pretexted as a defense against a non-nuclear Iran. In reality, the western moves of anti-missile systems into Poland and Romania create a de facto nuclear first-strike capability for NATO, and they vacate a series of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaties with the Russians that go back forty years.

Deeply distrustful of these new US and NATO nuclear first-strike capabilities, the Russians announced they will not attend NATO’s planned deterrence summit in Chicago this month. Instead, they are testing Western intentions with a proposal for cooperative project for near-space mapping, surveillance, and defense against Earth-crossing asteroids and other dangerous space objects.

The Russians have invited NATO members as well as forward-thinking space powers to a conference in June in Petrograd. The agenda: Planetary defense against incursions by objects from space. It would be a way of making cooperative plowshares from the space technologies of hair-trigger nuclear terror (2 minutes warning, or less, in the case of the Eastern European ABMs).

It’s an offer the US and other space powers should accept.

Telemach Makes Black Holes dangerous– No Suitor ready to Disarm Him as of Yet

The T is uncontroversial: no one questions that clock rate T is reduced more downstairs in the way described by Einstein in 1907 – his “happiest thought” as he always said. But if the clocks are indeed ontologically slower-ticking down there (as the gravitational twin clocks experiment implicit in the G.P.S. proves to the eye every day), then other physical quantities valid down there, besides clock rate T, are automatically affected by the same Einstein factor: Length L, mass M and charge Ch. This is the T-L-M-Ch theorem.

Metrologists are responsible for the famous Ur-meter, the famous Ur-kilogram (quite expensive) and the well-known unit Ur-charge of electrons. The whole profession is keeping a low profile at present for being unable to defend the three dethroned constants against the onslaught of the Telemach revolution. The Ur-kilogram is ready to be auctioned at Sotheby’s. All distances in the universe have acquired new values while several new constants of nature have arisen and Einstein’s constant “c” has become a global constant. The field has greatly won in clarity.

It would be too nice if more colleagues cared to contribute to the obtained more consistent picture of general relativity – independently described with a wealth of new formulae by Richard J. Cook (see his paper “Gravitational space dilation”). The implied connection to the properties of black holes makes the new results even more exciting. I pledge that doctoral students be allowed to work in newly promising branch of physics.

Imagine: a Whole Planet Betting its own Survival on your being Wrong

What I showed is that Einstein’s happiest thought – that clocks on a lower floor tick more slowly – possesses 3 corollaries (impossible to spot in 1907): size and mass and charge are affected by the same factor (the former going up, the latter two going down). No colleague on the planet objects to “Telemach,” as the result involving T, L, M, Ch is called.

But the planet accepts like sheep that the LHC experiment continues: This even though the most hoped-for products – artificial black holes – have become more probable; undetectable to its sensors; and last-not-least are going to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years.

No one believes any more in big progress being possible through meticulous thought today. But: must really every child’s life be bet on this current complacency?

Dear Cologne Administrative Court: thank you for having endorsed the necessity of the “safety conference” in your final statement made unto CERN on January 27, 2011.

I Am mildly Disappointed that None of the Young Scientists Tries to Get…

… a piece of the cake by elaborating on Telemach. I say so not because the Telemach theorem is a major new result affecting the planetary safety of the famous LHC-experiment at CERN, Switzerland, but because he or she thereby re-opens the door to fame to the “planetary” young generation like the members of Neil Turok’s genius school in South Africa. (Telemach was published in Africa.)

By the way: Dismantling Telemach is no less rewarding a task – it is actually the outcome I would personally prefer in view of the danger that its correctness brings with it. But to either end, one first has to understand it, which apparently none of the more senior physicists and mathematicians of the planet has so far achieved. The explanation for this in my eyes lies in the intimidating simplicity of Telemach. (I am by the way not alone in having found the theorem: Richard J. Cook of Colorado Springs was earlier with T,L,M but kindly acknowledges Ch.) Now it is your turn.

Why do I expect to be taken seriously by being given the benefit of the doubt? It is because I care. Only human beings know about truth because only humans can trust each other about facts. It is because of the invention-out-of-nothing, made at a very young age, of the suspicion of benevolence being extended towards them. This invention turns them into a person because only a person can understand benevolence.

So the refusal by CERN to offer a counterproof to the presented proof that they are playing with fire (a big fire) violates my rights as a person. The benefit of the doubt is a human right to solicit – especially so in science which rests on nothing else.

My friend Tom Kerwick has a result whose proof contains a loophole if I am not mistaken, but it takes time to come to the point with him. He therefore believes the danger were not there and innocently censors my best blogs. Maybe he will talk to me after this one.

But the real question is: What is benevolence? How come a planet can become dependent on the essence of benevolence being understood? Is it not well understood by the human society? Amazingly, this is not the case.

I have an “animal model” or an artificial-intelligence model if you prefer. It presupposes that you believe in the brain equation, or more generally that human beings and other vertebrates etc. are autonomous optimizers governed by an optimality functional shaped by evolution. (The underlying mathematical problem happens to be well-defined; it is a variant to the famous traveling salesman problem.)

If so, human beings are “just” autonomous optimizers? All animals are. But what, then, is special about humans? Answer: their being persons. Are they persons from birth? No – only person-competent from birth. When do they become persons? At the moment they first invent the suspicion of benevolence. For benevolence is a person-property. How does the suspicion arise? Through a creative misunderstanding (which then turns out to be none): By their being rewarded by an adult’s displayed happiness about their own being happy at this moment.

But: Is this not exactly the same with a young wolf who is rewarded by the tail-wagging of a feeding adult who is rewarded by the youngster’s tail-wagging?

The answer is in the negative (independently of the still unknown answer to the question of whether a puppet can already be rewarded by an adult’s tail-wagging). But is not the tail-wagging an expression both of affection and of happiness – just as this holds true for the smile-laughter in the human species? This is correct. Then: why do not dogs insist on truthfulness, too?

What wolves lack compared to humans is mirror-competence. On the other hand, all of the other mirror-competent animals known (elephants, apes, dolphins, magpies) are non-rewardable by the displayed joy of the compagnon. This trait, common to wolves and humans as we saw, is a maximally rare consequence of random evolutionary “ritualization” in the sense of Huxley’s.

But: We could substitute for that particular lacking trait artificially in the individual interaction with a young bonding animal taken from one of the just-named species. A sperm whale has the largest and most complex brain on earth and thus is hardware-wise the most intelligent creature in the universe at the present state of human knowledge. Leo Szilard still thought this was the dolphin (in his fictional story “The day of the dolphins” written shortly after the catastrophe of the dropped bombs which he had made possible and then tried in vain to hold back).

The trick with the dolphins or any other of the named species: to consistently combine our own bonding signal of smile-laughter, in the interaction with the genuinely loved foster child from the other species, with the natural bonding expression of that species. Then the same “misunderstanding” of benevolence being suddenly suspected will again arise just as it does in the human playroom.

But this would mean that these animals are just as person-competent as human babies? This is correct. Understanding the love radiated by the dream-of-life giving instance (in sync with Mom‘s smile) is not a human prerogative it appears. A higher personal intelligence than ours is artificially achievable – without being man-made and without any artificial hardware required, decades before Ray Kurzweil’s proven “singularity” but in the same loving spirit.

Now maybe you hate me for being that optimistic – unless you have an autistic child who suddenly can be causally rescued from his smile-blindness (which is easy to substitute for as we saw – acoustically in our case). But I am here in the pledging position, not the giving position as I mentioned at the beginning: by my insisting on my own person right of not being denied the answer to a maximally serious question posed to the scientific community: Why is my danger-proving result not cogent – is anyone able to come up with a counter-proof?

We can leave A.I. at this point (there is a whole book on him titled “Neosentience”) since an even more life-saving issue is in the background in which I need your help: My begging the scientific community for the benefit of the doubt towards my Telemach result (a second charming youth beside Spielberg’s A.I.): Telemach says that black holes have radically different properties than are innocuously presupposed by the makers of the CERN experiment.

Why can I be so sure that I am right? It is because no one could offer a counterargument up until now. Except for saying that some accepted pieces of knowledge are then no longer valid as I had shown – which they do not believe but cannot defend against my given proof.

Okay: if I am sure so far – what does this mean? I am clamoring for the benefit of the doubt by not counteracting to my results until they have been disproved. Like the famous chimpanzee mother in the documentary who desperately waves with her arms to prevent the human aggressor from shooting – in vain. For continuing the LHC experiment in Switzerland is maximally risky if I am right. But who am I to request the human right to be falsified before being overrun?

Is this not maximally absurd: a single person requesting humankind to listen to him? It would be absurd if I had not “bent over backwards” in the words of Richard Feynman to make it maximally easy to show that I am wrong – if I am wrong. And decisively it is not absurd because of the unfathomably large consequences if my result is counteracted when true.

So I am a terrorist holding a threat in my hands? It is the other way round: The planet is holding a “device” in its hands and is denying me the right to warn it in time that the toy machine is loaded. But my friend Tom Kerwick has a counterargument to offer as he says? I am all ears and eyes to be presented with it in a way I understand – so far, I admit, I have been too stupid to see its cogency.

I am ready to cancel all my warnings with my most humble apologies if he is right. Which should be easy to find out since his argument only has to do with large numbers of particles generated and with hypothetical diameters of quarks and miniature black holes. I publicly apologize for having used up so much space on Lifeboat so far if he succeeds in making me understand his point and the latter survives to the best of my understanding. Please, dear Tom: do not erase this one. I am all on your side, only a bit slow – okay?

Einstein realized in the last decade of his life that only a world government can overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the right to demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real threat in the wake of his own contributions to physics.

His main discovery, however, is the “twin clocks paradox,” overlooked by even his greatest competitor. It describes, not just a physical discovery but much more. The travelled twin got transported along the time axis at a different (reduced) rate. So he will be standing younger-in-age beside his twin brother upon return. This is an ontological change which no one else would have dared consider possible: Interfering with the inexorable fist that pushes us all forward along the time axis!

This is Einstein’s deepest discovery. He topped it only once: when he discovered, two years later in 1907, that clocks “downstairs” are rate-reduced, too. The “second twins paradox” in effect.

The word “paradox” is a misnomer: “Miracle” is the correct word. Imagine staying the hands of time! So everybody sees that what you worked is a miracle (a Western Shaman presenting a tangible feat – a Grimms’ brothers’ fairy tale brought to life – a Jewish miracle revived: “the Lord can be seen”).

Why do I point you to Einstein, the sorcerer? It is because we’d better listen to him. Presently, the whole planet denies his legacy as once before. Deliberately to overlook his second twins paradox amounts to consciously risking the planet for the second time in a row.

The ontologically slowed clocks (downstairs) are not just slower-ticking: they also are proportionally mass-reduced, size increased and charge-reduced. This corollary to Einstein’s 1907 result, called Telemach (since T, L, M, Ch are involved), stays uncontested.

Unfortunately – or rather fortunately –, a famous nuclear experiment turns out to be planet-threatening in time I hope. Technically speaking the second twins paradox implies that CERN’s presently attempted to be produced artificial black holes, # 1) cannot be detected at CERN, # 2) are more likely to arise, #3) will, owing to quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and chaos theory, eat the planet inside-out in a few years’ time so that only a 1.8 cm black residue remains.

So dangerous is Einstein still, 57 years after his passing away? This time around, he is imploring us again while taking off his glasses and smiling into the camera: “please, dear children, do not continue a nuclear experiment that you cannot monitor while ontological implications stand on the list.”

The safety conference,rejected by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011, is number 1 on Einstein’s agenda:

The nuclear experiment must be stopped immediately!

The nascent world government is openly asking for this today: This is “Einstein’s miracle.”

[Disclaimer: This contribution does not reflect the views of the Lifeboat Foundation as with the scientific community in general, but individual sentiment — Web Admin]

There is not the slightest alleviation of danger so far. All I can record so far is a stalling in favor of letting CERN continue till the end of the year – its present goal. No immediate safety discussion with CERN is planned by any organization if I am told correctly.

I would very much like to understand the mechanism: How is it possible that so many grown-up persons collude in a game of hide-and-seek: What do they gain by refusing to think and, most of all, discuss?

Their neglect of rationality is unprecedented. Imagine: A whole profession being too weak to find a single counterargument against the reproach of trying to vaporize the planet into a black hole in a few years’ time – with not a single member speaking up in objection!

Historians of the future – whom I congratulate if still existing – will be unable to believe their records: A phase of humankind’s history in which the fear of sizing up a danger in time vastly outshines the danger itself – even though the latter is infinite.

Is this really a planet of grown-up persons who have children whom they ought to care for? Please, dear director Heuer of CERN: Do kindly present to the planet a single scientist who defends your stance by a scientific argument offered against the published proof of danger. For those who forgot:

1) black holes do not evaporate (Telemach)
2) black holes are uncharged and hence un-sticky and undetectable at CERN (Telemach)
3) minimal black holes must be very small for leaving white dwarfs unscathed when produced on their surface at nearly the speed of light (observation)
4) black holes leave neutron stars unscathed owing to the latters’ superfluidity (quantum)
5) black holes grow exponentially inside matter by the quasar hierarchy theorem (chaos)
Any of these 5 results if shown to be false exculpates CERN with respect to black-holes

Or maybe you can formulate a counterargument yourself, dear director Heuer?