Lifeboat Foundation

Pascal claimed: When the size of a potential punishment is infinite, any finite advantage gained by taking the risk is stupid.

CERN does not dispute that the so far un-disproved Telemach theorem predicts that its currently running LHC experiment will shrink the planet to 2 cm in perhaps five years’ time with a finite probability (8 percent?).

But CERN refuses since January 27, 2011 the “scientific safety conference” requested by a court to disprove the danger if possible, and continues instead.

Pascal would say that this behavior is incompatible with reason. Is there any citizen on the planet not being an employee of CERN who agrees with the logic of CERN? For example, a member of the UN Security Council?

For J.O.R.

Science requires trust and doggedness, not reproduction. I got introduced to it by Lennartz, Bertalanffy, Weizsäcker, K. Lorenz, Rosen, Winfree, Yamaguti, E. Lorenz, Wheeler, Birman.

1) BIOGENESIS: Life as a self-improving fire (in parallel with Stu Kauffman); as an Erdös growing automaton (in parallel with Joel Cohen); as a Teilhard-Prigogine attractor

2) WELL-STIRREDNESS: Liquid finite automata

3) NP-COMPLETENESS: Traveling-salesman-with-alarm-clocks problem; Gödel as a limit; spatial Darwinism; positional adaptation (unlike metabolic adaptation) is predictable; brain equation

4) HUMANUM: Smile-laughter indistinguishability in a single species; Pongo goneotrophicus; invention of the suspicion of benevolence by the human toddler; epigenetic personogenesis (a function change in the mathematical sense of Bob Rosen); jump to Point Omega; acoustic smile therapy of primary autism; “galactic export” of personhood to other bonding species endowed with mirror competence (including artificial brains)

5) CHAOS: New attractors; chaotic hierarchy; nowhere differentiability on a Cantor set; superfat attractors; transfinite invertibility (Anaxagoras) confirmed; out of gratitude to Anaxagoras, his adopted hometown Lampsacus was later declared “hometown of all persons on the Internet” (1994)

6) PLANCK’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of h offered (based on the Sackur-Tetrode action in conjunction with classical indistinguishability); fever test in the spirit of von Neumann; message sending to another Everett world (with Peter Weibel); cession twin of action

7) EINSTEIN’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of a universally constant c offered (based on Sackur-Tetrode and finite observer diameter); microscopically exact assignment conditions testable

8) NONLOCALITY EXPLAINED: Einstein completion of quantum mechanics made falsifiable; combined ground-satellite Bell experiment to test whether more than one quantum world exists (similarly Feingold, Penrose, Zeilinger)

9) CRYODYNAMICS: Zwicky’s and Chandrasekhar’s “dynamical friction” re-discovered; the new science of cryodynamics as applicable to a gas of mutually attractive Newtonian/Einsteinian particles of different mass classes; sister science to thermodynamics; no Maxwellian velocity distribution; ectropic behavior; Boltzmann’s “hypothesis of molecular chaos” confirmed; connection to Poincaré homoclinicity; new open frontier

(Predicted negative implications: no big bang; no primordial synthesis; no inflation; no accelerated expansion; no dark energy; no distant origin of background radiation in confirmation of Guillaume-Assis; no nonbaryonic dark matter; no multiple universes; no modified gravity

Predicted positive implications: Giacconi’s ultra-distant quasars confirmed; fractal Fournier-Mandelbrot universe; new explanation for Pioneer anomaly; new machines in sight)

10) BLACK HOLES REVISITED: Telemach (T-L-M-Ch) theorem; black holes are non-charged; are eternally unfinished; a Reeb foliation of space-time forms around rotating black hole; in a merger of two [pre-] black holes, the larger one recycles every particle of the smaller one by ejecting it into the outer universe (analog to Ralph Abraham’s blue-sky catastrophe); topology inversion near horizon (Abramovicz) confirmed; quasars acting as charge generators; microscopic mini-quasars existing; exponential quasar growth inside matter; small black holes cannot grow inside superfluid core of neutron star; electrons can no longer be maximally small since they then would be black holes and hence non-charged (first empirical evidence of string theory); LHC danger

APOLOGY: I am not a detached observer. But I hope that the above chronological listing shows that my latest findings are not necessarily less cogent. In particular, point 10 means that the artificial black holes hoped to be produced at CERN are,

i) more likely to form,

ii) undetectable at first,

iii) growing exponentially inside earth,

iv) devoid of astronomical safety assurance.

Therefore, I implore the planet to at long last install the scientific safety conference necessary to deal with the black hole danger incurred by CERN.

I thank Dieter Fröhlich, Bill Seaman, Christophe Letellier and Andreas Scheider. (For J.O.R.)

The safety page of CERN – http://press.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html – is 3 years old. Everything written there is outdated. The scientists quoted by name and word therefore are at risk to lose their face. For their statements which are taken to represent their best reasoned opinion are misleading in case any new safety-relevant results have surfaced in the meantime.

Therefore I ask the scientists, quoted verbatim by CERN as its supporters, to update their reasoned opinions. Specifically, I dare ask the following 8 persons to update:

1) Dear Nobel Laureate Vitaly Ginzburg:

Do you still uphold your 2008 public statement that you think that any concern

“that LHC particle collisions at high energies can lead to dangerous black holes is rubbish. Such rumors were spread by unqualified people seeking sensation or publicity”?

I dare mention a recent scientific paper of mine in this context:

http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale.....t-l-m-.pdf

If you allow I would love to talk to you in person since I admire your work and spirit.

2) Dear Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow:

Do you still uphold your 2008 statement that

“the risks involved in the operation of the LHC […] are merely hypothetical and speculative and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis”

inspite of new findings that have accrued in the meantime?

3) Dear Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek:

Please, allow me to ask you the same question as Dr. Glashow, since you signed the same text.

4) Dear deeply respected Professor Stephen Hawking:

Do you still uphold your 2008 statement

“The LHC is absolutely safe”?

In particular, would you declare that Hawking radiation – the best and possibly only survival guarantee for the planet – has not been ruled out or made less likely by the Telemach theorem, quoted under point 1 above?

5) Dear Professor Penrose, dear Sir, dear Roger:

Do you still stick to the expression that

“I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for such wild speculations”?

I trust that you know my results obtained over the last three years which the original report does not reflect?

Specifically: would you agree that new evidence needs to be taken into account?

6) Dear Lord Martin Rees:

Do you still say

“There is no risk in LHC collisions, and the LSAG report is excellent”
from the basis of current developments?

7) Dear Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft:

Do you still uphold your three years old public conclusion

“We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC”?

If so, please state why you are sure that the Telemach theorem, which proves non-evaporation and non-chargedness of black holes, is false. (In our E-mail correspondence for which I thank you, you dropped out when I asked you this question.)

8) Dear Professor Hermann Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institute:

Are you still upholding, after having seen the new Telemach paper which as you know profited from a discussion we had in 2009, your three years old opinion that
“Rossler’s argument is not valid: the argument is not self-consistent”?

Coda:

I was emboldened toward bringing up these questions by the Administrative Court of Cologne’s official appeal to the German minister of science to convene a “scientific safety conference.”

Since time is running out as the “luminosity” (the danger-determining parameter) is being increased every day at CERN, I ask the 8 distinguished scientists to give their public answers as soon as possible.

Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher, university of Tubingen

Lease, give a statement to the effect that the planet’s short-term survival is NOT threatened by CERN’s currently running LHC experiment. There is un-disproved scientific evidence that to the contrary. Thank you.

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Germany

Suppose you have been offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: you could be one of just 20 people to start a new offshoot of humanity – a permanent and self-sustaining colony on Mars. Most people don’t get that chance, so that’s the good news. But there is also the bad news.

First, you cannot change your mind. There is no coming back. Once there, you’re there for the rest of your life, like it or not. This makes technical sense. It is hard to get something all the way to Mars, and the spaceship will have to carry not only the colonists themselves, but also everything they need to build a self-sustaining, permanent habitat. It would be technically much more challenging and expensive to to carry along the fuel, extra hardware, and so on needed for a return trip. Besides, since the purpose is a permanent colony, what would be the point? Probably even the ship itself would be repurposed to be part of the colony habitat, since flying it back would not be planned. Repurposing the ship would only be a starting point, however. The colonists would need to build and deploy sealed glass domes to grow crops in or, alternatively, more efficient insulated glass-topped tanks to grow algae and perhaps fish in. Manufacturing equipment would also need to be brought along capable of producing the materials needed for the colony, such as the glass for domes and tanks.

Another piece of bad news you are informed of is that there is a 20% chance of mission failure. That cold phrase hides a stark reality: it means everyone dies. If something goes seriously wrong in the colony, it is unlikely that the folks back on Earth could help. (Would it really be 20%? It’s just a guess, but little more than a guess is all that is possible for something so unprecedented as this mission.)

Before making your decision to go or not, also keep in mind that even if everything goes as planned, living on Mars will most likely be cramped, crowded, and aside from the occasional space-suited jaunt into a barren, dull reddish landscape, desolate from horizon to horizon, there would be no chance to get away from things for awhile. If you go, it is because the idea is exciting, not because daily life will be better than on Earth, because it won’t be.

On the other hand, modern hand-held computers loaded with everything from games to wikipedia could be brought that would satisfy an unlimited thirst for that sort of diversion. Some sort of access to the web is certainly possible as well via radio communication with Earth, thus rendering the term “World Wide Web” not only incorrect, but extremely parochial. Interplanetary Web, anyone? Imagine growing up in such a tiny, isolated outlier society with one’s understanding of Earth and all it contains obtained from a computer. This will be the impoverished experience of the next generation colonists, born and bred on Mars, indeed, genuine Martians. And even that modest window on Earth needs electronic devices, which will eventually break and be difficult to repair, although shipment from Earth of small, lightweight digital components might be a possibility, especially if a trading relationship were established. There would certainly be a market here on Earth for at least a small number of high-priced Martian rocks and the like. It might also be possible to jury-rig access to at least some basics on the Web like static text documents with homegrown electronics, especially if a portal for this was built here on Earth.

In any case, a cool-headed assessment suggests the quality of life on Mars would be a lot lower than life here on Earth for the typical reader. So. Would you volunteer, or not?

Informal polling shows that a large majority of college-age males would go for it, provided enough females were going too. But females are often more wary, viewing the downsides with a more jaundiced eye. Your mileage may vary, but it seems clear that of all the problems in putting together a one-way group tour to the red planet, finding takers is not one of them.

Teeming cities. A 20-person colony is not a teeming city, though it may be teeming enough, with living space scarce due to the difficulty and expense of building each new square foot of high tech, hermetically sealed, oxygenated habitat for housing colonists and growing food. Large domes containing crops would be nice, but much smaller tanks of algae and (hopefully) fish might be more technically realistic. Expensive or not, however, square footage will need to be constructed because, unless the colony is heading for failure, children will be born and the colony will grow.

Natural growth rates for human societies vary, but are generally under 5% per year. Overall, world population is currently growing by about 1% per year. Let’s assume for a moment that our Martian colony experiences a growth rate averaging 1% per year. How long do you think it would take for the original 20-person colony to expand into a vigorous town of 1,000 people… 100 years? 500? 1,000? 5,000? The answer can be readily found with a calculator or spreadsheet: just 394 years. How long for the original colony to become 10 million Martians – a teeming city or, more likely, a few? Take a moment to guess. Just in case you did want to guess, I’ll write the answer out next, but spelled out backwards so you don’t read it by accident. .sraey neves ythgie dnasuoht eno erem A

Why stop at 10 million? Population growth on Earth didn’t, and there is no reason why it would on Mars either. A burning question then becomes, when will Mars pass its capacity and tip into overpopulation? If capacity is 10 billion people, er, Martians, it would pass that point, starting from the original 20 colonists, in only 2014 years. Here on Earth, the road to 10 billion has already taken a lot longer than that. How long? The question is unanswerable because we don’t know when the process started. Even if we had a full fossil record, it would make no sense to say the the population was not human before some time point, but human immediately thereafter. Perhaps a rough date could be assigned based on when the mutation(s) that enabled language occurred, assuming they occurred in rapid succession as part of an evolutionarily sudden selective sweep, pervading the population over a span of, say, a few thousand or so years. The FOX2P (forkhead box P2) gene has been suggested as key in this, though necessarily indirectly since, being a transcription factor gene, its function is regulating other genes. Even if this is eventually proven, such as by grafting it into a chimpanzee genome and observing dramatic improvement in chimp language skills, it seems unlikely that its first appearance in protohumans could ever be timed. We do know that humans and chimpanzees branched off from a common ancestral species at least 4 million years go, suggesting a long-ago starting point. On the other hand, the surprisingly low genetic diversity of humans (compared to most species) suggests we “began” (in a sense) at the time of a much more recent population bottleneck and have not yet accumulated the mutations needed for much genomic diversity. The Toba supervolcano eruption about 73,000 years ago has been proposed as this starting point, by causing a multi-year volcanic winter from throwing so much dust and smoke into the atmosphere. On this view, populations of protohumans were devastated, leaving only a small community alive. That group then expanded, sweeping across the world. Adding in a modest amount of Neanderthal blood (up to 4% im much of the world), and factoring in the evolutionary changes since them, we get the human race.

Whether human colonization of Earth began 73,000 years ago, several million, or something in between, it is clearly taking a lot longer to reach a population of 10 billion here on Earth than it would on Mars, given 1% annual population growth. This is due to the scourge of infectious disease – pestilence – as well as other privations. Without those curbs, populations have been often observed to expand at rates in the 3-4%/year range. So our 1% growth rate assumption for Mars may be too low. Let’s assume growth of 3.5% instead, and see what happens.

Now our lively little town of 1,000 happens not in 394 years, but in a mere 114 years. 394 years gives us, not a town of 1,000 as before, but a teeming city of over 15 million inhabitants! A mere 583 years suffices to hit the 10 billion mark.

What Martians can do. Without uncontrolled infectious diseases to contend with, Martians will be in a good position to quickly populate their new world. Food production and other necessary technologies will be solved problems right from the beginning, or the colony could not even get off the ground. Thus, overpopulation is a real issue for Martians who seek to keep their planet as pleasant a home as possible.

What you are reading now may well be available to the Martians as well. Given the surprisingly short time scales involved, even paper could last long enough. I advise the Martians to keep in mind the experience of societies on Earth, that a high standard of living in conjunction with readily available contraception can be major factors in holding back unrestrained population growth and resultant overpopulation. Conversely, a good standard of living can be promoted by keeping population in check so that plenty of Martian resources are available to everyone. Our planet may be humankind’s first step to colonizing the cosmos. It would be best to make the experience of Mars and her teeming cities a template for colonization of the solar system and the stars beyond.

References

“The FOX2P (forkhead box P2) gene has been suggested as key in this…”: S.E. Fisher and C. Scharff, FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language, Trends in Genetics, vol. 25, no. 4, 2009, pp. 166-177.

At issue is the likely production by CERN of miniature black holes that in a small fraction will get stuck inside earth to eat it inside out in a few years’ time.

The “scientific safety conference” recently demanded by a Cologne court is being shunned by CERN while the world’s media keep their mouth shut. What is the rationale behind this “interesting time”?

Answer: Official belief in miracles. The whole physics community is convinced that even though light takes an infinite time to reach the surface of a black hole or come up from it, particles could do either trip in finite outside time. Famous theories speaking of an “information paradox” and “cosmic censorship” were built around this assumption so that the whole scientific community lost sight of the underlying breach of logic.

While clearly a treat for any future historian of science, this irrational belief remains not without consequences: Every day and every minute, the planet is being consciously sacrificed on the altar of this superstition. CERN refuses to reply. No high-ranking scientist on the planet speaks up for it.

I therefore herewith ask the Nobel committee to either speak a word of authority or schedule the scientific safety conference at once.

Dear citizens of the planet: Please, forgive me that I insist on reason. The young people are my motivation.

For J.O.R.

I herewith ask the Hebrew University to withdraw the honorary doctorate given yesterday to the German minister of science because this minister is responsible for the worst threat to the survival of Israel.

She refuses the scientific safety conference asked for by a Cologne court, the only aim of which is the assessment of the mentioned danger: just to have a look.

Not looking is the worst human sin. A father who does not look when a lion comes close to his child is no father. Please, dear fellow Jewish people, start taking seriously the scientific proof of danger of the LHC experiment that Dr. Walter Wagner and I have given.

Prof. Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen (For J.O.R.)

- Black holes do not evaporate.

- Black holes are uncharged.

- Black holes cannot eat neutron stars from within.

- Black holes grow exponentially inside earth.

- Black holes arise more readily than thought.

Everybody immediately agrees that so many simultaneous overturns of accepted wisdom are unlikely to be all valid even if no counterproof has been forthcoming for 4 years. If a single one of the first four findings is false, CERN is safe (if the fifth is false, CERN is less unsafe).

On the basis of this purely probabilistic argument, CERN quietly rejects the “scientific safety conference” requested from the German government by a court. On the same basis, the planet’s print media have resolved to spare their readers the disquieting news that there is an 8 percent chance of the planet being shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time if all 5 points are true and CERN continues.

If science were a matter of probabilistic common sense, this decision – shared by the pope, the queen, the emperor, the president and the helmsman – would be impeccable. But then the earth would still be flat too. So, please, forgive me for continuing.

- Point 1 dethrones Stephen Hawking’s famous 38 years old conjecture. (The reason is the Telemach theorem which states that along with the gravitational time dilation T, also length L, mass M and charge Ch co-vary in proportion or anti-proportion, respectively.)

- Point 2 dethrones the famous electromagnetic extensions of general relativity and the venerable physical law of charge conservation (again Ulysses’ son Telemach is responsible).

- Point 3 is an implication of quantum mechanics (frictionless superfluidity).

- Point 4 is an implication of chaos theory (Kleiner attractor).

- Point 5 is due to the empirical validity of a form of string theory (implicit in point 2).

That so many new results should hold true simultaneously is highly improbable a priori. Therefore the un-disproved five coincidences amount to a genuine trap posed to humankind by nature: To either give up on 5 scientific dogmas simultaneously or else die with a probability of 8 percent.

The most recent analog is the 7 plagues sent to a self-righteous pharaoh in an old tale. Then I would be given the role of the prophet – a 71 years old chaoticist who finds himself forced by destiny to try and bring his contemporaries to dismantling at least one out of 5 insights blown by the wind onto his desk? Fortunately, every earthling retains the chance to survive with 92 percent if CERN continues not tolisten. So maybe I should rather shut up?

Forgive me for being less risk-prone than many: I insist publicly on CERN’s stopping immediately until one of the 5 fateful coincidences has been removed. My perseverance may have to do with my having seen the uniqueness of the human smile in the cosmos. Old people have strange insights.

(Elements of an improvised talk given yesterday at the University of the Arts Berlin to unwind Olafur Eliasson’s interdisciplinary conference “Life Is Space 4 Marathon.” I thank the wonderful interactive audience and the organizer who of course do not share in the responsibility. For J.O.R.)

Dear Dr. Hawking:

Excuse the public letter.

Europe does not object that it is betting the planet on the existence of Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation got disproved implicitly by Kuypers in 2005 and explicitly in my “gothic-R theorem” of 2007 and my “Telemach theorem” of 2010. The pertinent paper which is on www.lifeboat.com goes un-rejected for months by the Albert-Einstein Institute to which it was submitted.

The impression is building up on the planet that CERN – that is, the European Nuclear Research Organization – is continuing its dangerous experiment only because they have passed a point of no return. Note that if CERN at last allowed for the scientific safety conference called for 3 years ago and officially requested by a court 5 months ago, CERN would implicitly concede having consciously risked the planet for many months in a row. Hence CERN is in a trap: No matter how high the risk, they feel they have to go on because otherwise the act of their having gone as far as they did would become known to every individual on the planet so that both science and Europe might end up being excluded from the still to be hoped for planetary future.

Please, dear Dr. Hawking: be so kind as to help CERN out of its “double bind” in the sense of Gregory Bateson. The planet justly admires you. If you declare that you take the sole responsibility on your shoulders for having made the mistake of refusing to discuss Hawking radiation with a concerned colleague, the world public will forgive CERN.

Even better: If you talk to me there is a remaining chance that we jointly find the flaw in my disproof of Hawking radiation which eluded everyone else so far. In that case the black-hole danger will be over. The world is waiting for your answer.

In deep respect,

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen (For J.O.R.)