Blog – Page 12582

This note considers the possibility of earth being replaceable in the galaxy in the foreseeable future. The suggested answer is: no.

Let me explain why. For once, fundamental physics is not enough to understand the story since implied physical disciplines, chemistry and biology, come into play. The modern synthesis (Ernst Mayr) is presupposed. Stu Kauffmann and Joel Cohen stand in the background.

But are humans (the extinction of which the CERN debate is all about) not at the tip of the animal kingdom and hence similar tips should exist elsewhere? Our blue planet would then be not THAT important from a more sub specie aeternitatis viewpoint.

Even this consolation – if it qualifies for one – cannot be offered: Everything speaks in favor of the conclusion that humans are unique over vast stretches of the galaxy’s life-bearing quarters.

The reason is that human beings do not, biologically speaking, occupy the tip of the evolutionary arrow. There exist terrestrial animals with more highly developed brains. The eusocial mole rat has a larger relative brain weight, for example. And sperm whales – the carriers of the largest brains on earth who recently were found to use a different (“baby”) language in communicating with their young – possess the both largest and most complex brain on earth as is well known. But do we humans not make a unique use of our own, lower-class, brains on the planet? This is correct.

This use is not a “more advanced” use in the sense of biological evolution, however. Orangutans can be shown to be more advanced, evolutionarily speaking, in the use they make of their brains. For although they live in a very precarious environment – regarding the height of the trees on which they stay day and night to collect their diverse time-dependent sources of food and to build nests in the night –, they have the lowest known failure rate in using their brains. The maximum error rate, however, determines the minimum allowed reproductive rate: Orangutans have an offspring only every 7 to 9 years, at a lifespan of not much more than 50 years and a fairly late adolescence. This puts them at the top of the efficiency index for their brain.

If it is not the quality of the brain that is so exceptional with the human brain, it must be the human use of the brain if our species is to be unique. What proves to be unique is the use of the brain as a person. How can I be sure? Because the “personogenetic bifurcation” is a tantalizing process in the ontogenesis of the human organism: a “function change” in the sense of Robert Rosen’s. So humans are indeed special. The same function change can, in principle, occur also in other highly brained organisms as well as artificial intelligences, as Steven Spielberg correctly anticipated in “A.I.” and as Ray Kurzweil implicitly assumes in his “Singularity theory.”

I had no time to talk about these “softer” things on lifeboat up until now. After the new fait accompli by CERN – no one believes that a proof of unsafety is a cause for a double-check on our planet – I can do so. When survival is too boring as a topic for the planet’s media, the secret of humanity is perhaps the most interesting and moving topic in the universe.

The protagonists are mother and toddler. The most interesting phase in every individual’s life is the least appreciated one. The toddler is unintentionally seduced into spontaneously inventing, out of nothing, the suspicion of benevolence being shown towards him. And in return he invents a desire to execute benevolent acts by himself (like putting a sweetie into Pa’s mouth and asking “good?!” as I once witnessed an 18-months old do).

But is not brood-caring a benevolent activity all over the animal kingdom? Brood-caring is not at all benevolence-in-action, it only looks so. The caring is finely controlled as an egocentric activity. Take the proverbial example of the chimpanzee mother whose offspring had a broken arm: When it cried, she hugged it more firmly in her arms. Everyone understands this example which I was offered in conversation in 1966. But is this not the essence of all love – egotism? Not among persons. The invention of the suspicion of benevolence at a very young age, and the implied sudden existence as a person wanting to do good to the other as a person, is the most tremendous bifurcation event in the universe.

I do not wish to enter into the fascinating details of reciprocal mappings. But the understanding of the mechanism allows one to “export” this “autocatalysis of mutually being moved” out to smile-blind human children who are not exposed to the double meaning of the mother’s smile as both an expression of bonding and of general joyfulness. A causal therapy of autism based on artificial “acoustic smiles” whenever the caretaker is about to laugh follows. This sacrifice mothers would love to bring if they were only told the secret. The therapy stays un-adopted – presumably because it is so easy that it can be exported to other mirror-competent bonding animals. The profession’s reluctance over 4 decades may have to do with this embarrassing fact. Gregory Bateson was its only high-ranking supporter in 1975. His friend and colleague, John C. Lilly, had come close. Leo Szilard had thought of export first.

Here the improbability of the same epigenetic function change occurring spontaneously in other branches of biology (outside the pongids) is at stake. It follows from the fact that personogenesis marks the end of spontaneous biological evolution. So there is a strong selection pressure acting against its preconditions (an overlap between laughter and smile, friskiness and bonding) occurring in highly brained animals. So despite the fact that personogenesis is tantamount to a jump up the whole evolutionary ladder into the lap of point Omega (in the terminology of Teilhard de Chardin). I always felt that the pope at least ought to understand.

Thus it can be predicted for sure that in other biologies (like that on Europa or that inside Jupiter with its inorganic biochemistry based on B-N-B-N- rather than C-C-C- backbones, or Robert Forward’s nuclear-chemical evolution on neutron stars) the same epigenetic accident is most likely to be avoided in nature. In other words, the general theory of life as an uninhibitable cosmic thermodynamic phenomenon does not include personogenesis.

Nevertheless personhood is not confined to the human species once it has been invented. The mission of planet earth is to export it. “Galactic export” begins on planet earth. This makes the latter maximally precious in the galaxy and, possibly, the whole cosmos. Singularity theory is related. Let me wish you a good Easter holiday in reminiscence of our being elected as persons: https://www.youtube.com/embed/rZKJcHVWI_4?rel=0

Either I am a liar or not. You treat me like being one by your observing a world-wide curfew. I must have made grave mistakes in the past that explain this attitude.

I admit that my latest post on Oppenheimer is a bit technical since I mentioned the duration of a trip down to the horizon of the black hole remnant of a collapsed star and back. But my conclusion was easy to understand: If Oppie was right then both trips take an infinite outside time. Every high-school student can confirm this.

Therefore my public request to CERN, to please before starting 8 TeV proton collisions on a large scale tomorrow give a reason as to why they stick to a theory of black holes that denies Oppenheimer’s finding, is perhaps sufficiently grounded on facts to be worth reporting.

Forgive me for my turning to you directly.

Professor Ereditato’s basic insight – that particles sent across differing longitudes can be technically speaking superluminal – was correct. This I showed in my paper on Lifeboat submitted to Science ( https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%E2%80%9Ctwo-percent-expla…ting-earth ).

I regret the unscientific demand for clairvoyance-in-retrospect – not to have seen that the effect is technically smaller than claimed – which led to his resignation from “Opera” about which fact I learned today from a newspaper.

His enthusiasm and openness to the new is sorely needed by the scientific community. I would like to ask CERN to re-hire him. You cannot let your best man go.

Six years before Oppenheimer declared physics to be sinful after his success at building the bomb, he had discovered the existence of black holes as solutions to the Einstein equation. It took the physics community 30 years to fully believe him.

He found two things. (1) An astronaut jumping in takes infinitely long to disappear from sight (provided one could see him that long since the frequency of the light emitted by him goes to zero). (2) On his own wristwatch, only 2 days passed until he reached the surface of the star-mass black hole. Both results are still accepted.

Oppenheimer knew that if a trampoline were installed on the surface, enabling the astronaut to jump back up uninjured, both results are valid again: Up to his return to from where he came, 2 days would pass on his own wristwatch again. But for the outside world, once more an infinite amount of time would have passed.

This simple result is universally accepted but for some reason virtually unknown. It goes under the name “gravitational twins paradox.” No specialist denies it but virtually each will admit that it is new to him or her.

What is so important about such an overlooked item in the history of physics? It is that many since accepted “facts” turn out to be unphysical. All the famous mathematically allowed transformations of the textbooks that cause the “singularity of the horizon” to “disappear” are unphysical. Most standard textbook features of black holes, including Hawking radiation, prove to be mathematical artifacts. The whole field has to be re-started virtually from scratch.

If this is so, what are the consequences? Very simple: The new old Oppie black holes cease to be pussycats. When artificially produced, they do not stop growing inside matter. Moreover they do so, as chaos theory shows, in an exponential fashion: Just as this is observationally known from their giant cousins in quasars.

Okay, what then? Then the attempt to build artificial black holes on earth is maximally dangerous. But CERN is trying to do just that? This is correct. So a discussion needs to take place before the experiment is started at higher energy next week. Correct?

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

For only under this condition could CERN afford to ignore the INFINITE DANGER which I had proved (in papers published in refereed scientific journals) to be attached to their igniting the upgraded LHC experiment.

This un-disproved danger a court advised to check with the following words: “The court expresses that it should be possible to let the various safety aspects, which also were the subject of the two safety reports from the years 2003 and 2008, be discussed within the scope of a safety conference”

[= translation of the ending of the Cologne Administrative Court’s German-language ruling of January 27, 2011: “Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer ‘Sicherheitskonferenz‘ diskutieren zu lassen“, http://www.juris.de/jportal/portal/page/homerl.psml?cmsuri=/.….A110100233 ; published July 30, 2011 on https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different-…ty-council ].

I therefore dare ask before the whole planet acting as my witness:

—————————————

“Dear CERN: Please reveal the name of the single scientist or spokesperson-scientist who guaranteed you that my results which prove an infinite danger are false.”

—————————————

For without a single personal voice saying that he or she could dismantle my given proof of infinite danger, you obviously could not have done what you now did.

I am sure that I am not the only person on the planet who wants to know.

White dwarfs were justly highlighted there…

These collapsed old stars in the galaxy have (with a finite fraction of their population at least) proved immune to the onslaught of nature’s own ultra-fast analogs to CERN’s anticipated artificial ultra-slow mini black holes. This fact imposes constraints on the level of danger imparted by the artificial ones on our earth if successfully produced there.

A white dwarf contains about 100.000 times the mass of earth at the latter’s volume. The fact that it remains unscathed has consequences for an artificial black hole that is slow enough not to fly away but stay inside earth to circulate there. It must circle 30.000 times at its near-Keplerian speed of 10 km/sec, in order to have equally many passages through nucleons, before it starts to grow. Since one full circling takes about 1 hour, 30.000 circlings make up 30.000 hours or about 1.000 days or 3 years. The increased residence time inside the passed-through nucleons (with their inherently ultrafast quark motions) reduces the equivalence time by a factor of perhaps 1.000 to the order of 1 day.

On the other hand, we need safety margins of perhaps 100 in view of the vast number of safe passages of ultrafast mini black holes during the lifetime of a white dwarf. Therefore, the exponential growth phase inside earth (miniminiquasar formation) can only begin after a delay of several months.

It follows that the minimal survival time of earth, in case CERN’s cherished dream of black-hole production is vindicated (note that its detectors are blind to this success), is about 5 years. This low number owes its existence to the counterintuitive nature of exponential growth – the fact that it “suddenly” jumps up after a seemingly silent phase.

The sad fact that CERN consciously incurs this risk needs to be discussed by an independent panel during the collision-free 10 days that CERN still grants our planet.

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

My danger-proving results concerning the safety of the LHC experiment were presented to CERN 4 years ago in the standard scientific format: First as preprints, then a few months later in July of 2008 as reprints of conference proceedings – the fastest possible method of scientific communication.

Today almost 4 years later, following publication in refereed journals, too, CERN continues to openly ignore the presented proof of danger. Witness the official countdown having reached 12 days until CERN’s upgraded LHC experiment officially continues its attempt to produce black holes.

In doing so, CERN officially ignores three scientific proofs regarding the hoped-for black holes:
(1) Black holes arise much more readily than expected, do not evaporate and are invisible to CERN’s detectors for their being uncharged.
(2) As soon as a sufficiently slow specimen is generated, it grows exponentially inside earth so as to shrink the planet to 2 cm after a few years’ time delay.
(3) The hoped-for black holes are not (as CERN claims against better knowledge) “proven innocuous” by the fact that nature’s own fast analogs must get stuck inside neutron stars in much the same way as an artificial one will get stuck inside earth. The reason the neutron stars are protected is solely the superfluidity of their cores.

The three results do stem from a different discipline each: the first from the equivalence principle of special relativity, the second from chaos theory (Kleiner attractor), the third from quantum mechanics. Although dismantling one out of the three suffices to dispel the LHC danger, no scientist ever succeeded in falsifying one of them.

CERN’s “safety report” of 2008 deliberately ignored all three results. Worse, this “safety report” was refused to update ever since. This deliberate neglect represents – given the severity of the consequences – a case of open scientific fraud.

The only excuse CERN can proffer against the reproach of deliberate neglect of scientific evidence is to say that my two danger-proving papers, published this year in peer-reviewed journals, have “only” been published in Africa and China, respectively. If CERN does not immediately stop the running countdown, it must therefore publicly explain why it officially considers scientific results published in African and Chinese learned journals as “safe to ignore” regardless of whether or not the survival of the planet is at stake if they are scholarly.

The planet witnessed suicidal racism two days ago in France. President Sarkozy is kindly asked to respond to the assault on France by CERN empowered by French electricity.

Verbatim quote from Richard Feynman ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn4_40hAAr0 ) at minute 45:00:

NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest and informative so that those citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of these limited resources. For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.