Lifeboat Foundation

Black Holes made Stephen famous: the conjecture that they would “evaporate” through what was called “Hawking radiation.”

Unfortunately, 7 years ago black holes were first proved to be individually stable and to be growing exponentially inside matter. Hawking never defended his disproved conjecture.

CERN will bet the planet on Hawking’s falsified theory this month – by doubling up their nuclear energies as announced. No human being was ever given a weightier homage of faith.

I herewith ask CERN: Why try to generate Hawking radiation in dangerous collisions after it got disproved? Is Hawking’s dream worthy of more respect than everyone else’s life?

Continue reading “STEPHEN and the WORLD” »

Most of physical science is nice and non-fraudulent. But cosmologists and particle physicists have lost contact to reality and defend superstition in a criminal fashion.

This was my friend Benoit Mandelbrot’s experience in 2000, because he had explained the Kepler-Olbers paradox (“Why is the night sky dark?”) in a non-expansionist way. Before him, Fritz Zwicky had become ostracized for making such a proposal.

The Zwicky-Mandelbrot result has since been proved and explained with publications starting in 2003. But there is no response to the two independent proofs offered (a statistical mechanics of mutually attractive particles; a demonstration that Einstein’s constant c in the vacuum is a global and not just a local constant of nature everywhere).

So the standard cosmology as defined in any school text is based, not on ignorance but on lies? One could go so far as say so, although of course most of the worshipers of the disproved gospel never heard of its demise since the leading journals and media suppress the dogma-defying results.

Continue reading “Science becomes Misosophy” »

I am old and have not many years left. My most recent physics results are c-global and cryodynamics. Both are minor results that nonetheless upset cosmology and energy technology.

I see no way how to get them the recognition they deserve. Especially not since one of them endows black holes with properties that render the most prestigious experiment of history unsafe.

I implored CERN to renew their Safety Report before doubling their collision-energy world records — to no avail. My results require this for 7 years as CERN knows, but their Safety Report goes un-updated for equally long.

My friends John A. Wheeler and John S. Bell would help me if they could. Now only a renowned journalist can.

Do you, dear reader, know one?

c-global means that the speed of light in the vacuum, c, can no longer be added-on to other speeds like a global expansion speed.

Hence three historical events have the same structure:

• The “phlogiston” theory of fire got superseded by Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen
• The “miasma” theory of infection got superseded by Semmelweis’ discovery of asepsis
• The “big-bang” theory of the cosmos got superseded by the discovery of c-global

A collateral consequence of c-global is the fact that the deliberate attempt to produce black holes down on earth, scheduled to re-start at doubled energies in two months’ time, cannot be allowed without a prior disproof of c-global. Otherwise the re-start becomes a crime.

I thank Stephen Hawking for his recent public acknowledgment of the danger.

A revolutionary Finding waits for the final Clinch: c-global

Otto E. Rossler

Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

Abstract: The global nature of the speed of light in the vacuum, c, was reluctantly given up by Einstein in December of 1907. A revival of the status c had enjoyed during the previous 2 ½ years, from mid-1905 to late-1907, is in the literature for several years by now. The consequences of c-global for cosmology and black-hole theory are far-reaching. Since black holes are an acute concern to date because there exists an attempt to produce them down on earth, the question of whether a global-c transform of the Einstein field equations can be found represents a vital issue — only days before an experiment that is based on the assumed absence of the new result is about to be ignited. (December 22, 2014, February 6, 2015)

Continue reading “A Propos Stephen Hawking” »

http://yournewswire.com/cern-to-attempt-big-bang-in-march-st…s-warning/

The study of consciousness and what makes us individuals is a topic filled with complexities. From a neuroscience perspective, consciousness is derived from a self-model as a unitary structure that shapes our perceptions, decisions and feelings. There is a tendency to jump to the conclusion with this model that mankind is being defined as self-absorbed and only being in it for ourselves in this life. Although that may be partially true, this definition of consciousness doesn’t necessarily address the role of morals and how that is shaped into our being. In the latest addition to The Galactic Public Archives, Dr. Ken Hayworth tackles the philosophical impact that technologies have on our lives.

Our previous two films feature Dr. Hayworth extrapolating about what radical new technologies in neuroscience could eventually produce. In a hypothetical world where mind upload is possible and we could create a perfect replica of ourselves, how would one personally identify? If this copy has the same memories and biological components, our method of understanding consciousness would inevitably shift. But when it comes down it, if we were put in a situation where it would be either you or the replica – it’s natural evolutionary instinct to want to save ourselves even if the other is an exact copy. This notion challenges the idea that our essence is defined by our life experiences because many different people can have identical experiences yet react differently.

Hayworth explains, that although there is an instinct for self-survival, humanity for the most part, has a basic understanding not to cause harm upon others. This is because morals are not being developed in the “hard drive” of your life experiences; instead our morals are tied to the very idea of someone just being a conscious and connected member of this world. Hayworth rationalizes that once we accept our flawed intuition of self, humanity will come to a spiritual understanding that the respect we give to others for simply possessing a reflection of the same kind of consciousness will be the key to us identifying our ultimate interconnectedness.

Continue reading “Dr. Ken Hayworth, Part 3: If we can build a brain, what is the future of I?” »

Everyone can witness it in the scientifically well-researched blockbuster movie “Interstellar”: The protagonist had to travel fairly deep down to the vicinity of the surface of a giant black hole while feeling absolutely normal there. But there he realizes that when he is to come back home soon, decades will have passed by out there owing to his momentarily heavily slowed clocks and aging. Hence he is younger now than his own daughter whom he had so reluctantly left behind. This is the ingenious part of the script. The rest of the movie becomes inconsistent, the viewer realizes: The crew next goes down much deeper to reach the horizon and travel through the wormhole (and so a second time on the way back), but this time around the matching infinitely fast aging rate in the outside world is swept under the rug for the sake of the narrative having a happy end.

My point is that near the horizon itself, the slowdown becomes infinite. Hence “infinity plus infinity equals zero” is the axiom presupposed in the movie’s second part. Therefore we can dismiss that part as crab? Please, do not do so: this part describes exactly what modern physics is teaching. That is, the movie’s inconsistent second part is the current textbook knowledge: a belief in the presence of “equal rights” between the two time scales, the one outside and the one downstairs in gravity. This is the canonical teaching in physics for 75 years – ever since 1939 when J. Robert Oppenheimer unwittingly laid the ground to this logical error in his ingenious paper, written jointly with Hartland Snyder, in which the physical existence of stellar black holes was first predicted. It is highly technical (http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.56.455 ).

Following 1939, only the “Russian school” avoided the mentioned error by speaking of “frozen stars” rather than of “stellar black holes.” Eventually, however, peer pressure from the West caused this view to fall into oblivion following the end of the cold war. The once correctly recognized “freezing of time near a black hole” was forgotten by the profession. Interstellar now brought it to the whole world.

The mentioned emotional scene (a father suffering in his heart because the imperceptible slowing-down of time that holds true for him near a mega black hole implies that his beloved young daughter will no longer be a child on his impending return) is now an eye-opener for the whole planet.

Continue reading “‘Infinity plus Infinity equals zero’: A logical Error made by the Physics Profession” »

Imagine there existed a proof that the most reluctantly accepted feature of Einstein’s gravitation theory – that c is no longer a global but only a local constant – was unnecessary: Would that not be wonderful?

The proof was greeted with planet-wide neglect: c-global exists in the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity since 2008 and so in the more fundamental equivalence principle since 2012. It hence also holds true for the full Einstein equation – only the pertinent transform has yet be written down to enable direct unification with quantum mechanics: a holy grail.

Hence most everyone is bound to be working on this in physics? The answer is no given the embarrassment of riches that is implicit. This professional modesty is a sympathetic human trait when you look at it in a detached mood. However, the result in question has also an applied side to it. In light of the latter, a prestigious collective activity has ceased to be safe.

Such collisions of interest do usually sort themselves out spontaneously with time. Here, bad luck for once wills that the unsafe collective activity – the re-ignition of a Nobel-decorated experiment at twice its former world-record energy – has been scheduled to start in only ten weeks’ time.

Continue reading “If c-global can save the World: Why is it being shunned? An Xmas Carol” »