Hi All, I have now uploaded Rev 1.5 of my new short paper “Micro black holes — Exploring Terra Flux of Hypothetical Stable MBH Produced in Colliders Relative to Natural Cosmic Ray Exposure”: http://environmental-safety.webs.com/mbh_terra_flux.pdf
I took great personal risks by finding no flaw in my 3 new implications of Einstein’s happiest thought (L,M,Ch as corollaries to his T).• You can call this type of suggesting novelty “hazardeering.”
CERN seemingly did do the same thing with the Gran Sasso experiment. They announced with great fanfare having proved Einstein wrong. Now I am accusing them of hazardeering. But is not all science hazardeering?
Yes, it is in the sense that you put your own good name at stake. This is hazardering in the good sense. So CERN’s having hazardeered the Gran-Sasso experiment is something good and laudable? Absolutely so.
Whythen am I accusing them of hazardeering? So only because they did not re-work their paper after I had sent them my proposed error diagnosis. “Bending over backwards” was Feynman’s happy phrase. Finding a counterargument is in your own best interest. Hazardeering yes, but only as long as it can be upheld.
Prediction on Lifeboat vindicated: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-n…aster.html
CERN retracted their hundreds-of-authors long anti-Einstein paper – and the media report on the last page if at all.
Heuer must step down immediately before he commits his second crime – upgrading last year’s assault on everyone by a factor of six starting next week.
The full details of recent experiments that made a deadly flu virus more contagious will be published, probably within a few months, despite recommendations by the United States that some information be kept secret for fear that terrorists could use it to start epidemics.
The announcement, made on Friday by the World Health Organization, follows two months of heated debate about the flu research. The recommendation to publish the work in full came from a meeting of 22 experts in flu and public health from various countries who met on Thursday and Friday in Geneva at the organization’s headquarters to discuss “urgent issues” raised by the research.
It would be a “first” in history – that a whole profession refuses to think. That they would be so much scared by the fact that a trivial new result when taken seriously can prevent Armageddon that they would rather not believe than check it.
This sounds very unlikely indeed. The trivial result in question is the “ontological Einstein.” His relativity theory possesses additional ontological implications besides the famous twin-clocks paradox of 1905. Let me briefly state my point.
Every high-school student learns that a travelled twin is younger upon return than the brother who stayed at home. In other words he is ontologically younger. Einstein’s first example was two mechanical clocks on which the difference is objectively verifiable (one being late). “Ontological” is derived from the Greek word “on” (with a long “o”) which means “being in reality.” This is the single most intimidating result of Einstein. It has nothing to do with observation from a distance as relativity is often understood, but represents a tangible reality. No professional physicist puts it in doubt (except ideologists like the “100 Authors Against Einstein” of 1930). A second result of the same miraculous kind applies in gravity as specialists know (Frolov and Novikov’s book “Black Hole Physics” of 1998 provides helpful information on page 20, bottom). In this second twins paradox, it is the descended twin that after having been hauled back up again is ontologically younger than the one that stood put upstairs. Everybody is familiar to date with this “slower-aging effect” from the Global Positioning System (G.P.S.) whose earthbound clocks are manifestly slower than their twins in the satellites overhead.
But if this is well known – where lies the problem? It is only the implications that are ignored. It is three: the slowed-down clocks (and everything else downstairs) are,
Continue reading “Either Ten Thousand Physicists Err or One – A Last-Minute Pledge to the Media” »
- CERN’s annual meeting to fix LHC schedules in Chamonix: Increasing energies. No external and multi-disciplinary risk assessment so far. Future plans targeting at costly LHC upgrade in 2013 and Mega-LHC in 2022.
- COMMUNICATION to CERN – For a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment before any LHC upgrade
According to CERN’s Chamonix workshop (Feb. 6–10 2012) and a press release from today: In 2012 the collision energies of the world’s biggest particle collider LHC should be increased from 3.5 to 4 TeV per beam and the luminosity is planned to be increased by a factor of 3. This means much more particle collisions at higher energies.
CERN plans to shut down the LHC in 2013 for about 20 months to do a very costly upgrade (for CHF 1 Billion?) to run the LHC at double the present energies (7 TeV per beam) afterwards.
Info on the outcomes of CERN’s annual meeting in Chamonix this week (Feb. 6–10 2012):
In 2012 LHC collision energies should be increased from 3.5 to 4 TeV per beam and the luminosity is planned to be highly increased. This means much more particle collisions at higher energies.
CERN plans to shut down the LHC in 2013 for about 20 months to do a very costly upgrade (CHF 1 Billion?) to run the LHC at 7 TeV per beam afterwards.
Future plans: A High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) is planned, “tentatively scheduled to start operating around 2022” — with a beam energy increased from 7 to 16.5 TeV(!).
Famous Chilean philosopher Humberto Maturana describes “certainty” in science as subjective emotional opinion and astonishes the physicists’ prominence. French astronomer and “Leonardo” publisher Roger Malina hopes that the LHC safety issue would be discussed in a broader social context and not only in the closer scientific framework of CERN.
(Article published in “oekonews”: http://oekonews.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1067777 )
The latest renowned “Ars Electronica Festival” in Linz (Austria) was dedicated in part to an uncritical worship of the gigantic particle accelerator LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at the European Nuclear Research Center CERN located at the Franco-Swiss border. CERN in turn promoted an art prize with the idea to “cooperate closely” with the arts. This time the objections were of a philosophical nature – and they had what it takes.
In a thought provoking presentation Maturana addressed the limits of our knowledge and the intersubjective foundations of what we call “objective” and “reality.” His talk was spiked with excellent remarks and witty asides that contributed much to the accessibility of these fundamental philosophical problems: “Be realistic, be objective!” Maturana pointed out, simply means that we want others to adopt our point of view. The great constructivist and founder of the concept of autopoiesis clearly distinguished his approach from a solipsistic position.
It is of course widely accepted that the Greenland icesheet is melting at an alarming rate, accelerating, and is an irreversible process, and when it finally does melt will contribute to a rise in sea levels globally by 7 meters. This is discounting the contribution of any melt from the West Antarctic ice sheet which could contribute a further 5 meters, and the more long term risk of East Antarctic ice sheet melt, which is losing mass at a rate of 57 billion tonnes per year, and if melted in entirety would see sea levels rise by a further 60 meters.
In this light it is rather ‘cute’ that the site here dedicated to existential risks to society is called the Lifeboat Foundation when one of our less discussed risks is that of world-wide flooding of a massive scale to major coastal cities/ports & industries right across the world.
Why do we still continue to grow our cities below a safe limit of say 10 meters above sea level when cities are built to last thousands of years, but could now be flooded within hundreds. How many times do we have to witness disaster scenarios such as the Oklahoma City floods before we contemplate this occurring irreversibly to hundreds of cities across the world in the future. Is it feasible to take the approach of building large dams to preserve these cities, or is it a case of eventually evacuating and starting all over again? In the latter case, how do we safely contain chemical & nuclear plants that would need to be abandoned in a responsible and non-environmentally damaging procedure?
Let’s be optimistic here — the Antarctic ice sheets are unlikely to disappear in time scales we need to worry about today — but the Greenland ice sheet is topical. Can it be considered an existential risk if the process takes hundreds of years and we can slowly step out of the way though so much of the infrastructure we rely on is being relinquished? Will we just gradually abandon our cities to higher ground as insurance companies refuse to cover properties in coastal flooding areas? Or will we rise to a challenge and take first steps to create eco-bubbles & ever larger dams to protect cities?
I would like to hear others thoughts on this topic of discussion here - particularly if anyone feels that the Greenland ice sheet situation is reversible…
Once upon a time there was a cute little planet in the vast recesses of the sky. It was rich in water and mountains and was blessed – with good parents. The kids were allowed to play all day, and their coaches were able to lay the connections into the impending adult life in a way that did not hurt.
So the planet could have gone on forever. But, as in every serious fairy tale, there was a single bad sorcerer who had caused many kids to fall into holes from which they had great difficulty escaping – a sly activity which seemed to amuse him. The doting parents had to learn how to warn their children, and from then on his influence faded.
This fact caused the bad sorcerer to change his evil tactics: by confusing the parents ahead of the kids. This is where our hero – Farwinner – enters the tale. He asked his father: what does the sorcerer’s public slogan “Caution is stupid” mean? The father said it means that cars need no brakes. But this is not true!, Farwinner complained. Not even if it makes the cars very much cheaper?, his father replied. Of course not, said Farwinner: would you drive with us in a car without brakes? His father had to promise him with a slap on the hand to give up on the idea.
The sorcerer learned about this event and got furious: “This little Telemach” (he referred to Farwinner in a foreign language) is becoming a nuisance. I need to immunize everyone else against his influence.
Continue reading “The Fairy Tale of the Sky-blue Planet and the Little Kid That Could Rescue All” »
