Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 12404

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMDSzYZxh6I&feature=player_embedded

Last week I switched to the Facebook Timeline feature and the first thing that I did was stop and gasp about what my life was like in 2005. I was in the second batch of facebook-ers after it initially left the Harvard-Yale scene. I was a recent graduate working in the real world to design vehicle interiors, but my life style was still very undergrad-centric…LOL…it was actually undergrad on steroids because my income changed drastically.

I think that the generations that were far past their undergraduate experience were received the social networking revolution differently than those of us who are 30 and under. Friends that I went to undergrad with who are in the 30–40 year old range continue (6 years later) to say that they are “too old” for Facebook, reluctant to use it as a tool.

But I see something much different when I talk to the second half of the millennials (people born between 1980 and 2000). In my experience they feel as though they should be able to post whatever they want on the web, to express their individual selves. Of course the adults of the world understanding the pending politics of elitism, pushing the inherited social normative, try our best to censor their individualistic virtues. As far as Integrationalism goes, I think that this type of self-actualization through the vetting of peers is healthy in forcing an identity on the individual that it recognized by the group (which is sometimes different than what the individual initially thinks of themselves).

A healthy argument could be made that we are all just Zombies giving Mark Zuckerberg enough information to enslave us, or that the establish social normative doesn’t break down in the virtual space, because those with information about the etiquette of modernity will conform and outcast the ignorant or unsavory. But I think that if we really want to see some potential of harmony in human interactions, whether physical or virtual, we should make an effort to be more transparent with our individual lives. The emergence of Big Data as a tool that we can use to create knowledge of the vast amount of information that social networks and other virtual domain are generating is not something that should be taken lightly in from an ethical technological innovation standpoint. For the sake of avoiding being a hypocrite I’ve upgraded (yes, I consider it an upgrade) to Facebook’s Timeline.

- From the Integrationalism blog

The famous Reissner-Nordström metric and the so-called Maxwell-Einstein equations and the Eddington-Finkelstein transformation and the Kruskal-Szekeres-Fronsdal coordinates are unphysical, and so is the Gauss-Stokes law if applied to charge in general relativity.

This follows from new results obtained at the University of Tübingen. Specifically, just as gravity is different on the moon since Newton (“no Ur-weight”) and just as time progresses at a different pace on the moon since Einstein (“no Ur-second”), so also length is different on the moon (“no Ur-meter”) and mass is different on the moon (“no Ur-kilogram”) and charge is different on the moon (“no Ur-charge”). While quite a few physical constants lose their global validity in this fashion, the speed of light, c, becomes globally valid (“Ur-speed”).

As a consequence, black holes do not Hawking evaporate and are undetectable when freshly produced at CERN. In addition, they are much easier to produce than thought because the electron is no longer point-shaped owing to the new unchargedness result for black holes implicit in the “no Ur-charge” result. Some form of string theory acquires an empirical basis.

The new results (gothic-R theorem; Telemach theorem) are anathema to CERN. (CERN two days ago preferred to announce precarious hints at a “god-particle” hoped to be found next year that if found would violate the minimum mass-energy of a unit electric charge first predicted by J.J. Thomson in the late 1890s. See also the beautiful NYT interview with professor Lisa Randall http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxious…wanted=all .)

The described conscious neglect by CERN provides a bonanza for future historians of science and politics. Unfortunately, black holes are by virtue of the new findings both undetectable and easier to generate than expected. Both facts are ignored by CERN and so is a well-known quantum effect (superfluidity of neutron-star cores) and a chaos result (exponential growth of black holes inside matter). These four new facts about black holes invalidate all safety claims so far made by CERN regarding their pursued goal to generate ultra-slow miniature black holes on planet earth.

The new results are known to CERN for years, with the essentials sent to them early on and published in July 2008. CERN after refusing to quote the new results could go ahead with the experiment for a year and plans to continue next March. Why?

The answer to this important question bears a single name: that of my esteemed colleague Hermann Nicolai. He asserted on the Internet 3 years ago that my results were false, offering arguments already defeated at the time by maverick physicist “Ich” on “achtphasen.” This public fact notwithstanding, professor Nicolai never corrected his disproved assertions and continues to refuse communication (the last refusal being two days old).

With this stance held up by a leading member of the German “Albert-Einstein-Institut,” CERN could afford to publicly ignore the Cologne Administrative Court’s call for a “safety conference” last January the 27th. Since the world’s media and the United Nations fell prey to professor Nicolai’s upheld disinformation, CERN was able to “shoot with live ammunition” for a whole year, risking that the fruit will become manifest after a few years’ time: a “slow dirty bomb” of infinite strength implanted into the planet with a sizeable probability.

I therefore challenge my honorable and in many ways admired colleague Hermann Nicolai to respond to my public accusation that he bears the chief responsibility for the assault on our planet by CERN – in case the new ”Ur” results hold water. I consider this public call for a scientific answer an act of friendship and invite more friends to join in.

Professor Hermann Nicolai is the only public voice on the planet defending CERN against my scientific results, with his 3-year-old, long-refuted counterclaims on the Internet that he refuses to take back. His denial of dialog (only the day before yesterday again) enables CERN to do the same and continue. In view of the severity of the accusation accepted by CERN (“attempted panbiocide”), I dare publicly compare my responsible colleague Nicolai with a Himmler playing a musical instrument in a concentration camp.

I shall take the comparison back as soon as he exculpates himself. I apologize that I see no other way to get him to respond to my given proof of the danger consciously incurred by CERN.

There is a vast canonical literature on the properties of the surface (“horizon”) of black holes: Even up to giving quantitative estimates of the horizon’s viscosity!

The correct theory by contrast implies since 1916 that the horizon is inaccessible in finite outer time and therefore does not exist in a finite-duration universe. Many consequences follow from this forgotten fact — including non-existence of “Hawking radiation” and non-existence of charged black holes. (The latter result is detailed in my gothic-R paper in print and the simpler Telemach paper on the Internet.)

The hoped-for miniature (almost-) black holes therefore possess four new properties, being (1) generated more easily than expected, (2) undetectable by CERN’s detectors, (3) virtually frictionless at first, and (4) growing exponentially inside earth. Hence the scientific “safety conference,” publicly called-for 4 years ago and openly requested by the Cologne Administrative Court almost one year ago, is more vital than ever.

The historic refusal by CERN to dismantle the danger before starting its black-hole factory, almost a year ago, represents a breach of scientific ethics, reason and morality. I speak in the name of the young majority on the planet when I say that the refusal by CERN to defend itself against the public reproach of scientific and moral wrongdoing when risking the short-term persistence of planet earth, amounts to a first-order historical phenomenon. Dear humanists and historians: please, enter the debate or launch it at long last. Crime stories are a treat to read. This surely is the biggest treat of history – being not over on finishing reading since the intrinsic time constant is several years. All other human concerns pale by comparison.

Why do the young scientists of the planet keep silent as if not believing that they are called upon? My young friends, please, do wake up. Rise up, “indignez-vous!” for you are – or else were – the future. Enter the ship of science as the good pirates by supporting the call for a “safety conference” on the new-versus-old properties of black holes. Nothing else is or was ever requested from CERN. The already incurred danger to the planet is presently in the low-percentage range: it must not be allowed to rise further by letting CERN continue without safety conference as planned.

P.S. I take back everything if anyone succeeds in refuting my disproof of Hawking radiation.

After posting a few weeks back on a Richard Dawkins article specific to Jesus and Atheism, I was responded by Lincoln Cannon a post called the New God Argument. I first heard this argument at the University of Utah from Lincoln while visiting the area for a conference.

Its logically sound, when the faith position is adopted. The argument is a derivative or rather an advancement on Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument and and Robin Hanson’s Great Filter argument, as the links above will tell anyone is much more detail. I’ve even sited Bostom’s 2003 paper in my own defense after being wrongfully labeled as an atheist. Its one thing to state that there is no God (atheism) or that we cant know if there is a God (agnosticism), and quite another to state that we could create or evolve into one or a vast many.

I think that Lincoln’s argument progressive and may provide the next wave of theology arguments in their defense this century. It’s fascinating to see how far the modern human mind can go in its extrapolation of our exiting technological potential. As Lincoln puts it, the logical truth that post-humans have a probability of.….……

[from Lincoln’s — angel argument, benevolence argument, and creation argument]
posthumans probably already exist
AND posthumans probably are more benevolent than us
AND posthumans probably created our world

After reading the argument I’m compelled to revisit my previous writings on spirituality. When I wrote that I was NOT and atheist I was leaving open the possibility (because of the probability) that we, as the new God argument reads, wont become extinct before becoming post-human. I was also relying on the probability that we could potentially create civilizations, worlds, galaxies, universes, multiverses, with humanoid or homo sapien like individuals. Having stated that I think that Lincoln and my definition of the God figure are much different.

When I reference the term God I’m only meaning to represent a creator figure; I am however, excluding the potential for this figure to intervene in those created lives/world/simulation. I cant find rationale that suggests the creator figure would have any incentive to intervene to interact as benevolent or otherwise.

Physics dis-Incentives: I think that there would first exist some very rigid code (computer language) that manifests in what we understand as our physical laws. Plenty of traditional atheists have identified the inconsistencies in physics as a cornerstone in their rebuttal to the spiritual realm. Their point being, physics is the great divide between what we are/can-be and what we cannot.

Management dis-Incentives: I don’t think that the creator figure would have the incentive to modify imperfections that it sees in its creation, because of the potential to recreate duplicates to modify with a searchable history for analysis are so attractive. We see these types of practices happening currently in the Information Technology (IT) industry becoming more common as computing power/speed/space become greater/faster/more abundant respectively. While There is the potential for the multiple creators in different places and times during a continuous evolution of (what some would call) our current transhuman being, to create existences like our own, they would all be quite different depending on the technology available, and unlikely curated to take advantage of the latest technologies available because of the obsolescence that exponential technological growth provides.

Economics dis-Incentives: Similar to the argument that I made in 2010 at Transhumanism & Spirituality the context in which individuals identify with “their own” spirits and a “supreme” spirit are inconsistent with the spirit having any potential actually interact on the individual’s behalf, in where, it connects the individual with physical being. The arbitrage or competition phenomenon in a competitive situation would create definite dis-incentives for benevolence.

To go a bit further, I would like to take a tangent from Lincoln’s progressive Mormon Transhumanist philosophy and bring into consideration the ideal that some Christian’s subscribe to regarding the tangible or physical creations by spiritual beings or God (see page 3); and further, spirituality being a tangible phenomenon.

Simply, there would be physical traces of spiritual activity if at any point there were any other-than-physical interactions in our physical realm. Prayers and miracles for instance would have physical manifestations. One of my favorites is walking on water or even flying. I’m reminded of the elementary science projects where student turn solids into liquids and finally into gasses. In order for either of the aforementioned miracles to happen the physical properties of air or water would have to change from less dense to more dense, in an almost instantaneous fashion.…but there are simply no traces of that type of activity. The ideal that non-physical beings are more relevant to our physical realm is (in my opinion) invalid, and in fact provides a brand of ego-centric hope that ails human kind’s potential for real harmonious interaction.

The faith assumption is the cornerstone of The New God Argument, not the probability logic behind the benevolence argument. This should be conversely true considering the “value proposition” of spirituality: connectivity (or human connections).

It could be argued that I am faithful in human-kind’s ability to generate a desirable future and create linkages between persons without any need for a creator figure to intervene, generating an organic omnipresent benevolence. And even as I have coined myself as someone with no beliefs at all, I would keep that all we have is our opportunity to live and create connections…and dream of benevolence by using our technologies to create situations where resources of sorts are NOT scarce, and creating environments where we have incentives to connect. Faith is no substitute for rationale and action.

- from the Integrationalism blog

Conjecture: “A fast frictionless ball that recurrently passes through “grooves” with a lowered, locally time-periodic potential loses energy on average in forward time for non-selected initial conditions.”

Even a single such groove on a ring predictably suffices. This mechanical toy then qualifies as a prototype example for dynamical friction.

Corollary: If the vibrating grooves are replaced by vibrating mounds, the ball statistically gains energy in forward time for non-selected initial conditions.

Conclusion: These are the 2 deterministic prototypes of statistical dynamical behavior in the cosmos: cryodynamics and thermodynamics. Life is an implication of the latter. The former is still largely unexplored. I thank my Tübingen group for discussions.

How can I convince my fellow planetary citizens that religion is the last hope? All religions are benevolent in their non-combative statements. They focus on the miracle of the Now with its infinite opportunities and the sub-miracles of color and other pleasures all provably non-existent in science. For science is the science of the Hades, the shadow world where to be the king is less than to be a slave on the surface of the earth, as Priamus said.

Science can be misused as the atomic bomb illustrates. Science is not science any more if it is lying. Religion says that the Now is a gift and that consciousness is a gentle stroke by the dream-giving instance who waits to be recognized through the fabric of the dream.

Imagine being chosen and being allowed to answer. Young children understand this best. They are the greatest mystics. They still respond to the smile which they recognized as containing the essence. So they invented the suspicion of benevolence being shown towards them, which turned them into persons. The biggest majesties.

How does CERN fit in? Never were there more scientists united in trying to unravel mysteries of the ultra-small. This is an almost religious legacy. It is bound to contribute to future benefit for all. Being so privileged, CERN is not allowed to lie. But this sounds like harsh criticism which never helps as such. Religion says “try to convince and move the heart.”

I can understand that the finding of scientific results which when remaining un-falsified imply that CERN’s activities carry an up to 1 percent risk so far of evaporating the planet in a few years’ time, represents a reason for silent anger on the part of CERN. That the Cologne Administrative Court called for a “safety conference” is especially unsettling. I can understand the fact that the media do not report.

After all, a minority of a few people has not the right to ask for the ear of the planet. So not even if this small minority was hired to sit in the crow’s nest of the Titanic. For this is a religious problem: we all believe in CERN. So we have no right to remind them of their duties. Unless there were a single saintly figure on the planet who believes me that I care when I say “CERN is a religious problem.”

CERN chose to defame me on its 4 years old website but refuses to defend itself against my results from 1998 onwards in every single scientific publication with customarily hundreds of authors each. I call this selective discrimination and technically speaking, scientific fraud.

Scientific fraud is considered forgivable when sensitive results have something to do with security. More recently I found results which have some bearing on plasma confinement. Such topics, of course, are top secret. But the Telemach result — the two years old upshot of my 4-year long criticism — which implies that black holes are stable and uncharged so they cannot but grow exponentially inside earth – reveals on the contrary that what CERN is doing needs to be publicly discussed – unless it is not unethical to sacrifice the globe in a few years’ time with a percentage-range probability.

The world’s press find it logical that such sensitive results with large political implications be kept from the public. The Nobel Foundation likewise acts against its founder’s legacy by not calling for a scientific contest across the globe to defuse the danger.

What do my readers advise me to do in a situation in which the only request made is, please to stop denying the benefit of falsification to my results in a safety conference as officially requested by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011? The fact that not a single scientist steps forward to take the responsibility on his or her shoulders by saying that there is no danger and why, is a tiny little bit alarming, or is it not?

A group of scientists is pushing to publish research about how they created a man-made flu virus that could potentially wipe out civilization.

The deadly virus is a genetically tweaked version of the H5N1 bird flu strain, but is far more infectious and could pass easily between millions of people at a time.

The research has caused a storm of controversy and divided scientists, with some saying it should never have been carried out.

The current strain of H5N1 has only killed 500 people and is not contagious enough to cause a global pandemic.

But there are fears the modified virus is so dangerous it could be used for bio-warfare, if it falls into the wrong hands.

Virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands lead a team of scientists who discovered that a mere five mutations to the avian virus was sufficient to make it spread far more easily.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066624/Anthr…z1f4YLcKcp

Video — U.S. Job Market — People Staying in Jobs Longer — WSJ.com.

The Cleveland Fed shows research that people staying in jobs for longer periods of time is requiring adding the economic shock of any crisis where lay-offs or retraction is involved. The problem with this is that research also shows that people out of work are less likely ever re-enter the work force.

While economists (per the this interview) wouldn’t look at this as a “structure problem” because of the forecasted potential for worker volume to return, it is likely that their opinions are a bit too faithful in the existing model of compensating laborers for a honest days work. The enduring jobs crisis can and should of course be looked at as an economic issue and even a political issue, but it would likely be better pursued as a socio-cultural and a legal issue.

The ideal of honesty and the preferred compensation for ones good work is perhaps too subjective; having stated that, the ability for an individual to own so greatly in lieu of the potentially many other individuals that cater to the discovery, development, and distribution of goods/services is (in my opinion) the root cause of our (nation, states, humans) wealth distribution and compensation problems.