Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 12403

It was with great satisfaction that I watched a recent (Horizon?) documentary on the wildlife, wolf population and introduced endangerd species flourishing in the Chernobyl district in the abandonment of the area by mankind 25 years ago — with most not willing to hunt in the area for fear of contracting radiation poisoning. One wonders if this will be the template for the future, that eco-disaster areas will be abandoned to become our new wildlife sanctuaries. Or is it morally wrong to designate such areas as wildlife sanctuaries and wilfully expose the animal kindom to such levels of radiation?

After Fukushima the world was reawakened to the real danger of fault tollerance at nuclear power plants — but as a relatively clean technology is surely here to stay. Is there a need for a more inclusive debate on the location of such reactors to areas that are a) less likey to suffer natural disasters but b) also provide a suitable follow-on purpose in the event of area abandonment due to radiation. Opinions welcome.

GO TO JOURNAL HOMEPAGE HERE

Journal for Innovation, Ethics, & Technology Management

ISSN: 2226-048X

View Journal | Current Issue | Register

Journal for the Advancement of Education

ISSN: 2226-051X

View Journal | Current Issue | Register

Journal for Biological & Health Innovation

ISSN: 2226–0501

View Journal | Current Issue | Register

Journal of Agri-Business & Sustainability

ISSN: 2226–0528

View Journal | Current Issue | Register

Journal for the Methodological Uses of Technology

ISSN: 2226–0498

View Journal | Current Issue | Register

Steamships, locomotives, electricity; these marvels of the industrial age sparked the imagination of futurists such as Jules Verne. Perhaps no other writer or work inspired so many to reach the stars as did this Frenchman’s famous tale of space travel. Later developments in microbiology, chemistry, and astronomy would inspire H.G. Wells and the notable science fiction authors of the early 20th century.

The submarine, aircraft, the spaceship, time travel, nuclear weapons, and even stealth technology were all predicted in some form by science fiction writers many decades before they were realized. The writers were not simply making up such wonders from fanciful thought or childrens ryhmes. As science advanced in the mid 19th and early 20th century, the probable future developments this new knowledge would bring about were in some cases quite obvious. Though powered flight seems a recent miracle, it was long expected as hydrogen balloons and parachutes had been around for over a century and steam propulsion went through a long gestation before ships and trains were driven by the new engines. Solid rockets were ancient and even multiple stages to increase altitude had been in use by fireworks makers for a very long time before the space age.

Some predictions were seen to come about in ways far removed yet still connected to their fictional counterparts. The U.S. Navy flagged steam driven Nautilus swam the ocean blue under nuclear power not long before rockets took men to the moon. While Verne predicted an electric submarine, his notional Florida space gun never did take three men into space. However there was a Canadian weapons designer named Gerald Bull who met his end while trying to build such a gun for Saddam Hussien. The insane Invisible Man of Wells took the form of invisible aircraft playing a less than human role in the insane game of mutually assured destruction. And a true time machine was found easily enough in the mathematics of Einstein. Simply going fast enough through space will take a human being millions of years into the future. However, traveling back in time is still as much an impossibillity as the anti-gravity Cavorite from the First Men in the Moon. Wells missed on occasion but was not far off with his story of alien invaders defeated by germs- except we are the aliens invading the natural world’s ecosystem with our genetically modified creations and could very well soon meet our end as a result.

While Verne’s Captain Nemo made war on the death merchants of his world with a submarine ram, our own more modern anti-war device was found in the hydrogen bomb. So destructive an agent that no new world war has been possible since nuclear weapons were stockpiled in the second half of the last century. Neither Verne or Wells imagined the destructive power of a single missile submarine able to incinerate all the major cities of earth. The dozens of such superdreadnoughts even now cruising in the icy darkness of the deep ocean proves that truth is more often stranger than fiction. It may seem the golden age of predictive fiction has passed as exceptions to the laws of physics prove impossible despite advertisments to the contrary. Science fiction has given way to science fantasy and the suspension of disbelief possible in the last century has turned to disappointment and the distractions of whimsical technological fairy tales. “Beam me up” was simply a way to cut production costs for special effects and warp drive the only trick that would make a one hour episode work. Unobtainium and wishalloy, handwavium and technobabble- it has watered down what our future could be into childish wish fulfillment and escapism.

The triumvirate of the original visionary authors of the last two centuries is completed with E.E. Doc Smith. With this less famous author the line between predictive fiction and science fantasy was first truly crossed and the new genre of “Space Opera” most fully realized. The film industry has taken Space Opera and run with it in the Star Wars franchise and the works of Canadian film maker James Cameron. Though of course quite entertaining, these movies showcase all that is magical and fantastical- and wrong- concerning science fiction as a predictor of the future. The collective imagination of the public has now been conditioned to violate the reality of what is possible through the violent maiming of basic scientific tenets. This artistic license was something Verne at least tried not to resort to, Wells trespassed upon more frequently, and Smith indulged in without reservation. Just as Madonna found the secret to millions by shocking a jaded audience into pouring money into her bloomers, the formula for ripping off the future has been discovered in the lowest kind of sensationalism. One need only attend a viewing of the latest Transformer movie or download Battlestar Galactica to appreciate that the entertainment industry has cashed in on the ignorance of a poorly educated society by selling intellect decaying brain candy. It is cowboys vs. aliens and has nothing of value to contribute to our culture…well, on second thought, I did get watery eyed when the young man died in Harrison Ford’s arms. I am in no way criticizing the profession of acting and value the talent of these artists- it is rather the greed that corrupts the ancient art of storytelling I am unhappy with. Directors are not directors unless they make money and I feel sorry that these incredibly creative people find themselves less than free to pursue their craft.

The archetype of the modern science fiction movie was 2001 and like many legendary screen epics, a Space Odyssey was not as original as the marketing made it out to be. In an act of cinema cold war many elements were lifted from a Soviet movie. Even though the fantasy element was restricted to a single device in the form of an alien monolith, every artifice of this film has so far proven non-predictive. Interestingly, the propulsion system of the spaceship in 2001 was originally going to use atomic bombs, which are still, a half century later, the only practical means of interplanetary travel. Stanly Kubrick, fresh from Dr. Strangelove, was tired of nukes and passed on portraying this obvious future.

As with the submarine, airplane, and nuclear energy, the technology to come may be predicted with some accuracy if the laws of physics are not insulted but rather just rudely addressed. Though in some cases, the line is crossed and what is rude turns disgusting. A recent proposal for a “NautilusX” spacecraft is one example of a completely vulgar denial of reality. Chemically propelled, with little radiation shielding, and exhibiting a ridiculous doughnut centrifuge, such advertising vehicles are far more dishonest than cinematic fabrications in that they decieve the public without the excuse of entertaining them. In the same vein, space tourism is presented as space exploration when in fact the obscene spending habits of the ultra-wealthy have nothing to do with exploration and everything to do with the attendent taxpayer subsidized business plan. There is nothing to explore in Low Earth Orbit except the joys of zero G bordellos. Rudely undressing by way of the profit motive is followed by a rude address to physics when the key private space scheme for “exploration” is exposed. This supposed key is a false promise of things to come.

While very large and very expensive Heavy Lift Rockets have been proven to be successful in escaping earth’s gravitational field with human passengers, the inferior lift vehicles being marketed as “cheap access to space” are in truth cheap and nasty taxis to space stations going in endless circles. The flim flam investors are basing their hopes of big profit on cryogenic fuel depots and transfer in space. Like the filling station every red blooded American stops at to fill his personal spaceship with fossil fuel, depots are the solution to all the holes in the private space plan for “commercial space.” Unfortunately, storing and transferring hydrogen as a liquified gas a few degrees above absolute zero in a zero G environment has nothing in common with filling a car with gasoline. It will never work as advertised. It is a trick. A way to get those bordellos in orbit courtesy of taxpayer dollars. What a deal.

So what is the obvious future that our present level of knowledge presents to us when entertaining the possible and the impossible? More to come.

If I can intervene on the polarized opinions posted by some individuals on Lifeboat regarding CERN and particle physics safety debate, wherein I was name dropped recently — the person in question, Mr Church, may find my email address on page one of the dissertation linked in my bio. Regarding the safety conference asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court cited by Prof Rossler, I would suggest that with its ample funds, The Lifeboat Foundation should host a public conference on the subject and invite CERN delegates, critics and journalists alike to attend. In the spirit of the Lifeboat Foundation, however, I would suggest that the focus of such conference should be on discussion of how particle physics can be used to solve problems in the future — and the matter of fringe concerns on MBH accretion rates and so on could be dealt with as a subtext. I think it would be a good opportunity to ‘clear the air’ and could be good for the profile not just of the Lifeboat Foundation, but for particle physics research in general. I would like to hear others thoughts on this, and how Lifeboat manages its funds for such events and conferences…

Wednesday on the Opinion Pages of the NY Times the renowned Vinton Cerf “father of the internet” published an article titles Internet Access Is Not A Human Right. It could be argued that the key word here is “access”, but before I address access again, I should start with the definition of the internet. I had this debate while at Michigan State in October of 2010 with the philosopher Andrew Feenberg. I’ll do my best not to be redundant while everything is still live via the links in this article.

Perhaps the internet requires much more definition, as the roots of the word can be confusing. Inter: situated within – Net: any network or reticulated system of filaments or the like. Its terminology is synonymous with the “web” or a web, which requires multiple linkages to points of initiation in order to exist well. If this is the internet that Feenberg is referring to then I’d think it accurate. However, the internet is not actually a web of ever connected points. Information destinations are not required.

The internet is analogous to space. Regardless of whether or not we access space, its potential exists – we can access or insert entities of sorts into the space regardless of, if another user were present to receive information of sorts from the distributed. Space is a dynamic system of expanding material potential as is the internet’s material potential. The potential of the internet expands as users (or rather, potential users) access to the internet expands – access could come in many forms including, user population(s) growth or by computing speed or by computing power… The internet, regardless of the constraints of the word, it cannot be identified as a specific technology.

While visiting MSU, Feenberg uses a “ramp” as analogous with the internet, which was at the center of his mistake. I don’t mean to read gerontophobic, but based on the pervasive analysis that I’ve witnessed from Feenberg and Cerf’s generation; I’d have to accredit their perspective to the relatively similar changes in technology that they’ve seen during the 20th century. The difference in composition and utility of a technology (hardware, software, methodology) and that of the internet are synonymous with that of an air-craft and the expanding celestial matter beyond earth’s ionosphere (that’s a sufficient analogy).

Cerf wrote “technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right.

He is correct! The problem exists when he identifies the internet as a technology, which it cannot be (to be redundant). This is in fact a human rights issue. It is perhaps the most significant human rights issue of our time, because of the internet role in providing the potential for transparencies in the public and private sectors. The deterministic nature of our technologies is bridging the cultural, political, legal, and economic GAPS of all our societies today, and if we as individuals allow a few mistaken “leaders” or the interests of institutions to control our ability to access a space, because of their resume, then we are all doomed. The implications of the masses adopting Cerf and Feenberg’s view on space are tremendous in building an ethically sound environment for human development.

Regarding Cerf’s word “access”, it may provide him an out from his varied rhetoric in the article. Near the end he transitions to civil rights where he writes “the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights” suggesting the internet hold egalitarian virtues. I’m no egalitarian, as it just doesn’t prove feasible in a world of, even, hyper-connected individuals.

While the ability to access an open space should not be prohibited, the technologies of certain kinds could be. Reference weapons of sorts. I’m no advocate for government supplying all of their citizens with camera phone (although it would be great idea for the individual and institution), but I am against governmental and other agents making efforts to restrict the individual’s ability to populate space with their entities aside from the technologies that one would hold on his/her person.

When the United Nations declared the Internet as a Human Right (PDF), they weren’t necessarily evaluating its full potential, but they were stressing that individuals should have the ability to be transparent and review information of all kinds as they so pleased, catering to the collective knowledge of the species and everything it supports. The problem with this article are the future implications of its rhetoric, even as he means well.

Tangent: Cerf having studied math, computer science, and IS for decades; knows as well as anyone that it is virtually (pun intended) impossible to prohibit internet expansion as small pockets of those educated in the knowledge community of development can find a way. Any computer (which would the blockage point) can be hacked its just a matter of time and will. I spent the last year consulting with Hewlett-Packard Global Info Security on multiple acquisitions of competitive companies and security tool providers, and as anyone in the IS/IT security industry can tell you, there are no solutions, only active management of incidents and problems. This is why methodologies are as (if not more) value than hard/software in modern business transactions. So then why wouldn’t Cerf think more thoroughly about this before publishing in the NY Times? Could it be because he has an equity stake (as an employee of multiple firms) in a less open space (internet). Speculation aside, I’m in the business services industry, I studied “control” specifically. Business is about control, which is the value proposition in establishing institutions virtues as separate from those of the individual. We can only forecast and manage risks well in areas that we can define and control. Business itself doesn’t require an suppressive type of control to make good calls on risks. A more transparent world could tell us all (individuals and institutions alike) more about the types of decisions that benefit the most in a society.

In the future let’s all make a conscious effort to keep spaces open and hope that the benefits incentivize philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and governments to provide technology to the masses at a rate that enhances the human condition.

–Originally at Integrationalism

If a single specialist says “This is an emergency!,” the world MUST listen.

Except when another scientist says in a way that can be upheld by him: “I gave the following disproof.” No such scientist speaks up. The few who tried 4 years ago on the web gave up to defend their arguments against the counterproofs offered immediately, in order to keep their mouths shut in public ever since, also against the much simplified theorem offered two years ago.

Not stopping to check the proof that this is an emergency – but instead continuing the attempt at building undetectable-at-first micro black holes in their “black hole factory” for a year – as CERN did, is undefensible before history. All currently esteemed science journalists are violating their duty. The world’s media might lose their subscribers in the wake of this worst press scandal ever.

Why this strong language here? It is because the media withhold from you, the readers of the world, that not a singlespecialist colleague speaks up against the proofs presented (Telemach theorem, Gothic-R theorem). So every person learns that checking facts is no longer fashionable on this planet: Poor youth, the brightest of history, poor future, poor planet.

It all started with Germany dishonorably discharging – retroactively 5 years into the past so as to expel the family from their inherited house – a university professor, because she had insisted on keeping her patients and lab in accord with her call for “endocrinology” and refused to accept an involuntary professorship for “gastroenterology,” a special discipline for which she held no license.

This change in the laws for public servants in Germany – the second in 20th century history – had similarly evil effects in retrospect as the first. In the first case, many scientists – the best – were dishonorably discharged as the planet knows, paving the way for the holocaust. In the second, all scientists were made slaves so as to no longer dare say the truth when duty demands, paving the way for the CERN planetocaust.

The new lawful slavedom of Germany’s elite explains the new slavedom of the scientific elite at CERN under German leadership. This at the expense of humankind’s survival with a sizeable probability, as the readers of the renowned “Lifeboat” are allowed to know after “Achtphasen” gave up under pressure.

I say all of this only to hear a reason why the planet, with the silent approval of all quality media, refuses the scientific “safety conference” asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

My colleague Nicolai upholds long disproved counterarguments, as I learned through an anonymous blog today. Everything is solved if a single newspaper has the courage to ask Professor Nicolai and me to discuss our results and counter-results about the properties of black holes.

Or else if Professor Nicolai wants to leave the right of way to Professor Hawking, this would of course also interest the readers since there is no more heroic scientist on the planet than him, and he so far did not have the time to talk to me as he let me know. The first time I was made aware of Lifeboat, by the way, was when he published his support (in his heart-moving book “George’s Secret Key to the Universe”).

Allow me to repeat a recent text:

Thank you, dear AnthonyL, for referring to my friend John Wheeler’s incredible impishness when he dared propose the name “black hole.” It took decades to become accepted in France (it long since is). They are being considered as something highly desirable by CERN who do their best to produce them even though their instruments have been proven to be blind to them when fresh.

But I do not want to skirt your important question: Einstein discovered and mentioned in his 1907 paper that c is not constant in an accelerating rocketship, and 5 years later replied to his concerned mentor Max Abraham that he would not respond to the latter’s enticement to repair this inconsistency if possible.

It is a miracle that Einstein was able to work around this weak point in his superhuman effort to make his general theory of relativity congeal. The latter – in the Schwarzschild solution – is so perfect it even formally contains the global constancy of c, as I showed in my 2007 paper on the gothic-R theorem.

The “Telemach” paper on Lifeboat, which conforms in 75 percent with results given independently in “Gravitational space dilation” by Richard J. Cook, contains an accessible proof. The latter returns to the seminal context of Einstein’s 1907 paper. Einstein had correctly seen that if you look down from the tip of his inexhaustible rocketship to the bottom, you not only see the local clocks tick lazily from above. but the reddened light is visibly crawling transversally in addition. All of this holding true even though, locally, everything is unchanged down there.

This fact – that c is visibly reduced from above – explains in the (unfortunately false) standard view why light emerging from the surface of a black hole takes an infinite amunt of time to cover the seemingly short way up. So c is crawling to a standstill much as in certain famous quantum media in the laboratory? The profession is convinced that this is the explanation and ready to bet the survival of the planet on this – false – conviction.

The solution given by Telemach is that space is proportionally expanded more downstairs in Einstein’s rocketship (or on the surface of a neutron star or on a black hole). But so in a way which is invisible in the transversal direction from above!

I struggled since 1998 with the problem. The enlightenment came when I saw that an analogous problem is well known in special relativity as it is already taught in high school: the familiar Lorentz contraction. Every object that is in fast motion is shortened in the longitudinal direction in special relativity. But locally – if you ride along – you do not notice the change: you still are your old self, in all three directions of space. But objectively you are objectively shortened for the by-standing observer as we saw so that you appear flattened (laterally unchanged) even though if you are shorter and isotropic, you ought to be shortened transversally too according to common sense.

It is the same thing in the rocketship – or on a neutron star where the factor is about two or on the black hole’s horizon where the factor is infinite. Although space is homogeneously expanded there according to Telemach (so that light takes twice as long in the transverse direction on a neutron star), this is NOT because the speed of light is halved there. What is changed is — besides the increase in all lengths – the projection! The observed crawling leaves the locally everywhere isotropic size change intact so that c is globally constant even in the transverse direction – only appearing to crawl.

I wonder if my readers can understand this. What is a tested observation so far is only that no one who invested many man years into pursuing the finest crannies of general relativity can force himself or herself into starting all over anew on so basic a level. They simply are bound to hate me (and my friends). I totally sympathize with them, and so should you.

I understand why they never gave me an occasion to explain this to them in a way they could follow: The thick “accent” which I have – outdated by more than a hundred years – when putting my findings into words is totally repugnant to them. Nevertheless if I and Richard J. Cook and some others are right, this has vital consequences for theoretical physics and for Hawking’s beautiful theorem (which he can then no longer uphold). Everything about black holes is changed, physically speaking. Imagine: an infinitely large volume of space enveloping a tiny black hole! One has to dig into this constant-c theory very deeply – which takes much time (unless you know what a “generic 3-pseudosphere” is – which only the highest boss of the Albert-Einstein Institute acknowledged knowing, my esteemed colleague Gerhard Huiskens, to immediately fall into dead silence).

The connection to our topic is that the people at CERN in a psychologically understandable way do not want and cannot afford – financially – to wait that long. So they need to trigger their bomb as long as the money is still flowing. Everyone automatically sympathizes with this fact.

Only the poor victims of Fukushima and their saintly Emperor and his equally saintly wife would not – if they were allowed to know.

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

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Dear Little Planet

=================

An old man is speaking to you. I have thought about Einstein for 50 years. I found one new thing – that his happiest thought was even happier (c is globally constant). The whole profession is jealous and furious. Nobel prizes must be given back they fear. Worse, a currently running experiment is suicidal. Every journalist on the planet knows about this fact in case I am right.

Black holes are unstoppable bombs.

Little humankind does not want to hear that. They want to continue with their wishful quarrels without caring about the primacy of responsibility, much like abandoned children.

It is the responsibility of the mothers in charge – the journalists – who have abandoned their planet. They find it acceptable if the establishment fears truth (double-checking) more than death and panbiocide. For they could insist on an inquiry. Instead, they keep silent. They appear not to love the planet on which they are allowed to play the role of the priest.

I conclude with the voice of prayer: Dear Father-Mother, whose name is holy, please, enlighten your children to seeing that truth is vital. I always evaded the duty to talk in your name since I was 13. I put the planet into your hands.

—————————————————————————————————————————

High-Ranking Physicists on the Planet Are Jealous Hoping Telemach Is Not True

==============================================================================

– not because the world goes under with a sizeable probability if he is,

– but because they would appear stupid if the theorem named after Ulysses’ son is true.

Thus the planet is being consciously risked by my esteemed colleagues ‘t Hooft and Niolai, to mention only two first-leaguers.

I hear you say there must be good colleagues on my side too. This is correct. Since they get into trouble without tilting the scales if I give their names, I mention only my revered colleague Richard J. Cook of the Colorado AF Academy for his being more knowledgeable in the new field of globally-constant-c general relativity than the Tübingen group.

I herewith re-iterate my pledge to the world’s media to arrange for the necessary safety debate regarding the LHC danger. They can do so and it is their duty to do so. One high-ranking journalist must exist who is able to smell the truth.

This does not mean that I was looking down on the average crowd in the mold of the believing citizens of North Korea whom I do not blame. They are no different than human groups everywhere. Almost no one can flee the spell of majority belief.

To take the hint: I asked Kim Jong Un three years ago for help. I today re-iterate my pledge. Perhaps the planet is given a second chance in defiance of the dictatorship of the Western media.

The children let starve in North Korea are on my side. I know how it is if your child dies.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Hush Little World Press Don’t You Cry, Your Planet Is Bound to Die

===============================================================

All of Norway is debating today whether a rationally acting individual who followed a recklessly inhumane agenda should be given the benefit of a psychiatric diagnosis that exempts him from punishment.

I herewith propose to extend this public debate to a related case involving thousands of rationally acting (in their own minds) scientists at CERN, some of them Norwegian.

There are two differences between the two cases: 1) The crime is incommensurable if the second proves equally successful. 2) There is a remaining minor chance that a fact hitherto overlooked will retroactively exonerate the CERN physicists.

Does their having charged ahead for more than a year, unmoved by the un-falsified proof that what they are doing will kill the planet in a few years’ time with a sizeable probability, make the CERN scientists accomplices of the Norwegian patient, or does it not?

What Would You Do if You Had Proof That a Group Is Attempting to Shrink the Earth?

Horst Eberhard Richter’s passing away leaves a major hole in your group. Allow me to step in for him despite my smallness.

In his and your name I, Dr. med. Otto E. Rösser, declare to the world that presently, CERN is preparing to continue a nuclear experiment that will shrink the planet to 2 cm in perhaps 5 yearss’ time with a percentage-range probability.

All I am requesting in the name of IPPNW is the “safety conference” demanded last January the 27th by the Cologne Administrative Court.

The planet is lucky that the noble IPPNW already exist: So Cologne is not alone.

It may be not too late. The youngster was born on achtphasen.net and grew stronger on lifeboat.com. The Max Planck Institute for Gravitation Physics refuses to assess his health.

Telemach is not a software system but rather consists of 4 simple physical equations, the first given by Einstein himself, the other 3 are new corollaries. The 4 quantities T, L, M and Ch all change by the factor found by Einstein — the first two (time T and length L) go up, the second two (mass M and charge Ch) go down under the influence of gravity. T is very well known because the Global Positioning System (G.P.S.) relies on it.

Two of the 4 can save the planet. The length change L is responsible for the fact that nothing can go down to or come up from the surface of a black hole in finite outer time (so the famous Hawking radiation is non-existent). The charge change Ch is responsible for the fact that micro black holes are initially frictionless inside matter. Both features taken together radically change the properties of the most looked-forward-to fruit of the biggest and most expensive experiment of history, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. The experiment’s most feverishly anticipated success hence is inaccessible to its detectors. And: any micro black hole produced which is slow enough not to fly away from earth to stay inside will, after having come close enough to a first charged particle to have it circle-in, grow exponentially inside matter from that moment on – forming a miniature quasar that shrinks the planet to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time.

All of this was published in July 2008, two months before the LHC machine got started but goes unquoted in all of CERN’s scientific publications up to this day. The “safety conference” requested by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011 from the German government is a planetary taboo topic much like Telemach.

Telemach ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/49888567/T-L-M-Ch-Theorem ) was discovered independently by Professor Richard J. Cook in the United States ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811 ) with only the fourth letter Ch missing at first. A recent European PhD dissertation ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PhDThesisTeVCollisions.pdf ) chronicles some of the scientific details which accompany the CERN cover-up.

The times they are a-changin (Bob Dylan).