Aug 30, 2012

The 8 Reasons CERN Upholds for Continuing its Black-hole Onslaught

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

1) Hawking radiation — that the produced mini black holes would immediately evaporate

2) Chargedness — that they would get stuck immediately and hence as everyone can see do no harm

3) Competence — that CERN’s detectors could register them

4) Unlikeliness — that an unproven theory (string theory) was a precondition for CERN’s being successful

5) Familiarity — that cosmic rays would prove CERN does nothing new to earth

6) Distant safety warranty — that neutron stars would provide a safety guarantee

7) Second safety warranty — that white dwarf stars would provide a safety guarantee

8) Delay — that the death of earth would take billions of years rather than just years

Comment: All 8 reasons lie refuted before CERN’s eyes since May 2008 — before its never-updated last safety report of September 2008 (which ignores them) appeared.

Meta-comment: CERN is using mental violence in continuing its unprecedented nuclear collisions. My country of nationality left CERN in protest in May 2009 but was forced-back by CERN. No scientist on the planet defends CERN since my peer-reviewed Telemach paper appeared. The United Nations are prevented by a veto from interfering. All intellectuals and politicians are muted. This is “the most interesting time” of history.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Tom Kerwick says:

    To clarify for the reader: The G&M safety report of 2008 already considers non-existence of hawking radiation, successful production of uncharged MBH, and worst case scenario growth rates based on white dwarf and neutron star longevity — albeit based on the assumption that measurements of magnetic fields on such bodies are reasonably accurate (these are quoted at 99% confidence in the papers the LSAG take their figures from). The competence of detectors is not used as a safety assurance, though lack of competence in such could mask an issue such as what Otto proposes, while ‘no scientist defends CERN’ is a somewhat misleading comment, as in truth very few scientists take the concerns seriously enough to ‘defend CERN’.

  2. Dear Tom:

    Thank you for trying to clarify a bit.

    Allow me to say that the word “considers” that you use is too weak. It should read: “hypothetically considers.” Note that this activity is not the same thing as considering a result (which they, as I said, avoided quoting).

    Nevertheless allow me to use this occasion to publicly ask my colleagues Giddings and Mangano to defend their silence kept for 4 and 1/2 years by now. Otherwise the awkward situation arises that the only members of CERN who ever took the pains of trying to defend the LHC experiment get the full blame for CERN disregarding all safety concerns. It is obvious — I feel — that these honorable two scientists were not allowed by the political leadership of CERN to continue their very meritful — if long outdated — scientific work.

    Take care, Otto