Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 12406

After studying tables of current life expectancy (life expectancy increase per decade, in years, based upon United States National Vital Statistics) I found embedded a virtually perfect Fibonacci sequence. A Fibonacci sequence is a series of numbers as follows: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, …etc, where each number is the sum of the previous two. See here for more details on the Fibonacci sequence: http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/fibonac/index.asp
To my knowledge, this has not been described before. This is important because, based on my ideas regarding Global Brain acting as a catalyst for promoting extreme human lifespans (http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/03/04/indefinite-lifespans-a-n…l-brain/), it may help us predict with some accuracy any dramatic increases in life expectancy. For example, the model predicts that the current maximum lifespan of 110–120 years will be increased to 175 in the next 20–30 years.

In simple terms, the fact that life expectancy increases in a certain manner, and this manner obeys deep-routed and universal natural laws, indicates that it may be possible to:
1. Predict life expectancy in the near future. Based on the Fibonacci sequence,
a 90 year old today, can expect to live another 5 years
a 95 year old can expect to live another 8 years
a 103 year old can expect to live another 13 years, then…
a 116 year old can expect to live another 21 years
a 137 year old would expect to live another 34 years
a 171 year old would expect to live another 55 years
a 236 year old would expect to live another 89 years
a 325 year old can expect to live another 144 years,
and so on.

2. Question the presence of ageing and death in an ever-evolving intellectually sophisticated human (who is a valuable component of the Global Brain). Based on current facts, the Fibonacci sequence with regards to life expectancy ends abruptly when lifespan reaches the limit of approximately 120 years. Why is this so? Why should a naturally extending lifespan deviate from universal natural laws? Life expectancy should continue to increase as an individual manages to survive to a certain age. The presence of ageing and death could therefore be considered unnatural.

3. Support the notion that ‘you need to live long enough to live forever’ (see Kurzweil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage:_Live_Long_Enough_to_Live_Forever, and also De Grey’s ‘Longevity Escape Velocity’ suggestions http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html).

Those who manage to survive to extreme age are more likely to see their life expectancy increase even further, and so on, recursively. Kurzweil believes that this scenario will be achieved through use of technology. De Grey believes that this will be achieved via biological developments. I think that this ‘live long enough to live forever’ scenario will happen naturally (with minor input both from technology and from biological research). Those individuals who fully integrate their activities within the Global Brain will experience a natural-driven ever-increasing life expectancy.

For more details see https://acrobat.com/#d=MAgyT1rkdwono-lQL6thBQ

Marios Kyriazis

I thought I would offer a series of quotes to counter the codswallop frequently expressed here — suggesting that mainstream physicists have genuine concerns about the safety of the LHC.

So, here’s one:

“The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis.”

Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University,

Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University.

(from http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html).

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)

I am aware that the a-priori probability of my being right with the above statement is negligible – were it not for the fact that my results stay un-disproved for 4 years as natural corollaries to Einstein’s “happiest thought.”

(To witness: Einstein saw that on a lower floor, all clocks are slowed-down. I was able to add that they also are proportionally enlarged in size and reduced in mass and in charge. From this corollary it follows that “black holes” – hoped to be produced at CERN – arise more readily; do not Hawking-evaporate; are undetectable at CERN; and grow exponentially inside earth.)

All my competent critics – including Hermann Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institut and Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft – fell silent long ago. But notwithstanding the proof of danger and detector blindness lying on the table, CERN went ahead for more than a year risking “panbiocide” (Hilgartner) through inadvertently planting an at first undetectable bomb into earth.

The planet is now in the wake-up phase. In this phase, an added danger arises: a Khmer-rouge-like world-wide reflex against science and Europe. This danger it would be wise to keep under the rug – were it not for the fact that CERN has announced to boost up the risk next year.

Therefore, dear CERN and Europe: please, apologize to the planet. Or else prove me wrong, as no one hopes for more dearly than I do.

… against the publicly offered scientific proof that they risked and plan to further risk the survival of every human being. This is not a defamation but an accusation.

I ask them to defend themselves. If they do not do so, the whole world sees that they are guilty. I apologize that I am bringing them in this precarious situation if they cannot answer. The whole world sees their predicament. I would love nothing more than to help them out of it. Their cooperation is all I am asking for. Please, dear colleagues at CERN, cooperate with me in my trying to rescue you.

If you treat me as an enemy, the message to the world thereby generated is tantamount to publicly pleding guilty. Your seeming claque is a claque on the march to jail and to the end of science. Why are you so collectively blind to choose this road of non-defending yourself in the only language that can help, that of science?

With some help from colleagues, I recently produced a 365 Days of Astronomy podcast on why anti-CERN conspiracy theories about the LHC creating Earth-swallowing black holes really don’t make much sense.

The transcript is also available for reading on the 365 Days site if you are not a podcast fan.

Thanks

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)

… but it also represents the benevolent side of humanity.

I therefore herewith publicly ask UNESCO as an Austrian citizen with Jewish ancestors to convoke the scientific safety conference necessary to exculpate CERN.

I am the only friend CERN possesses on the globe through my insisting on their exculpation if possible. For the indictment against CERN reads: “Attempted Panbiocide.”

The proposed scientific safety conference has as its only aim the finding of evidence that my proof of danger is false. My proof implies that the miniature black holes officially attempted to be generated by CERN will shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time: if one of them is slow enough to stay inside earth as is bound to happen after a certain period of operation which may or may not have been exceeded already. CERN is blind to its own success (if it occurred) for refusing to install the detectors needed in light of the new result. Instead they did their best to produce black holes for about a year with increasing luminosity.

CERN still refuses to contradict my results, brough to their attention almost 4 years ago and published more than 3 years ago, by refusing to quote them in their own scientific publications. No one can understand this “Austrich policy” in violation of the ethics of science.

Please, dear UNESCO:

Do your best to exculpate CERN (and Europe) by giving the world a chance to learn that the danger seen by me and my colleagues (those who confirmed my results or arrived at them independently) is non-existent which requires falsification.

The necessary safety conference first demanded 3 ½ years ago (“PetiontoCERN”) was publicly advised by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rössler

Chaos researcher, University of Tübingen, Germany

Occupy is faceless but benevolent.

My scientific colleagues are faceless but malevolent: They refuse to try to defuse my results but agree to an experiment being continued that if those results are correct is pangeocidal.

The worst scandal of history and no public voice on my side: Can Occupy save the planet by asking for clarification?

1) Black holes can be charged — in contrast to my relativistic disproof (Telemach theorem)

2) Black holes can evaporate — in contrast to my relativistic disproof (Telemach theorem)

3) Black holes can grow in superfluid neutron star cores — in contrast to my quantum disproof

4) Black holes cannot grow exponentially inside earth — in contrast to my chaos proof

The background:
I showed 4 years ago that CERN’s LHC experiment is geocidal with a high probability.

The situation:
No one found a counterproof so far but CERN refuses to let me give a talk before them or to admit the scientific safety conference publicly requested 3½ years ago, and by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

I went before the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity 3 years ago. I am presently before the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly: No quiver so far.

I see no other way but public name-calling: I accuse my colleague professor Heuer, director of CERN, of risking the planet and hence “being worse than a Nazi” if he continues. I am allowed to say that. This is especially frightening.

Our colleague Richard J. Cook independently arrived at my results. A high-ranking member of a National Academy found an even nobler version independently. Many colleagues are on my side.

So why not interrupt the presently climaxing experiment (these very days) and admit the conference? I feel I must speak out in the name of any mother and father of the planet. Can really no one help?