Lifeboat Foundation

I write this post on specific request from Anthony, who kindly asked that I write a bottom line summary of what I found through my research which leads me to suggest the points should be cleared up in research and/or a safety conference on the LHC.

1. As HR is an unproven theory, it may prove to be ineffective compared to the math model. This regardless of Rossler’s Telemach theorem which attempts to prove this.

2. The G&M calculation on theoretical MBH accretion rates is fundamentally flawed, as it bases the analysis on one single MBH and fails to consider about MBH aggregation.

3. As HR is an unproven concept, it cannot be relied upon to detect MBH. The only method to be certain no MBH are created is to monitor unaccounted loss of mass/energy.

Continue reading “Factors on the pendulum of MBH decay/accretion & Aggregation” »

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

If one of the following three elements can be defused, the black-hole danger is over:

# 1: Black holes possess radically new properties in general relativity that make them both much more likely to arise and undetectable at CERN.

# 2: A new chaotic attractor (rotation-symmetric Shil’nikov-Kleiner attractor) exists in real space which implies exponential growth of black holes inside matter.

Continue reading “Did Nature Put a Chain Trap to Humanity? (and other Writings)” »

Roy Kerr found a beautiful solution to the Einstein equation 49 years ago. He long deserves a Nobel Prize. The recent Telemach theorem (in print in the African Journal of Mathematics) modifies the appearance of every solution “close” to a black hole’s horizon.

What Dieter Fröhlich discovered in yesterday’s chaos course at the University of Tübingen started out from the fact that every rotating black hole has a nonrotating horizon owing to the infinite local slowdown of time. We had concluded before that the in-spiraling trajectories must form something like a “Reeb foliation” on the way to the unmoving horizon. He suddenly realized that an “anchored rotating Reeb foliation” is the answer.

I repeat: We had conjectured before that In between the outer unstable limit cycle of in-spiraling trajectories and the inner motionless horizon, there exists a “circular chain of cups” – non-crossing trajectories that in a U-turn-like fashion connect the two limiting trajectories (the unstable outer limit cycle and the stable inner limit cycle of opposite orientation). Such a beautiful differential-topological flow was discovered in 1952 by Georges Reeb (as had been pointed out to me by Art Winfree).

However, the problem is that the attractive inner limit cycle has rotation rate zero. Does this not destroy all hope for consistency? Fröhlich saw the solution in a flash: Put the standard Reeb foliation into a rapidly spinning motion, which makes no qualitative difference. Then smoothly reduce the cups’ rotation rate until the attractive inner limit cycle becomes a singular spiky (“star-node related”) limit cycle while the ring of “cups within cups” retains a constant rotation rate. The obtained “anchored rotating Reeb foliation” (anchored everywhere on the horizon) represents a new differential-topological prototype, embraced by nature.

It would be marvelous to get a response from Professor Kerr himself. (For J.O.R.)

I am a “specialist in non-specialization”, in the words of my late Austrian mentor Konrad Lorenz, and an “interdisciplinary hybrid” in those of my late American mentor Bob Rosen. IMy work in chaos theory is a little bit well known, in that I discovered a so-called “attractor” or “reproducible dynamic phenomenon” familiar in everyday experience (a hoarse voice and an idling motorcycle’s noise being examples). My subsequent discovery of “hyperchaos” was soon used as a diagnostic tool in wards for the newborn whose cries turn from chaos to hyperchaos in case of a crisis, as H. Herzel found out. My “brain equation” is also getting some recognition lately. My “smile theory” is my oldest but hardest to understand theory (though children typically have no difficulty with it!).

My recent “Telemach theorem” – named after Ulysses’ son Telemachus – is a much more frightening conceptual structure, however. It suggests that continuing escalation of the energy of operation of the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, Switzerland, indeed has the potential of forming dangerous mini Black Holes which could consume the Earth.

A proven implication of known physical laws – a theorem – is true until a counterargument is found that topples it. The name Telemach has to do with the youth of an ancient Greek myth who recognized a beggar as the long lost father he had believed was dead. In my title the acronym stands for Time, Length, Mass and Charge (T, L, M, Ch), four entities that can be measured in everyday life by means of simple devices — clocks, meter sticks, scales and volt meters.

You probably already know that there exists no “Ur-Second” in physics (because of Einstein’s work); but an “Ur-Meter” and an “Ur-Kilogram” and a “Universal Unit Charge” are believed to exist and are well known. The Ur-meter and the Ur-kilogram were actually quite costly and difficult to arrive at. The struggle took scientists and engineers many decades in furthering the science of measurement (Metrology) in this regard.

Continue reading “My Story Aimed to Make a Planet Happy” »

I was asked by a journalist friend to present my “revolutionary” results in a way that every lay person can understand to thereby enable the world’s media – if they so wish – to distribute this information in simpler form.

I first have to say who I am, background-wise. I am a “specialist for non-specialization” in the words of my late Austrian friend Konrad Lorenz, and an “interdisciplinary hybrid” in those of my late American friend Bob Rosen. In other words: I have “no character” (only a nose). A little bit known is my work in chaos theory where I discovered a so-called attractor or “reproducible dynamic phenomenon” which everyone knows from experience (a hoarse voice and an idling motorcycle’s noise being examples). Crying babies can produce “hyperchaos” which got turned into a diagnostic tool in wards for the newborn (by H. Herzel). My “brain equation” is getting some recognition lately. A “smile theory” is my oldest but hardest to understand theory (only children have no difficulty). And my recent “Telemach theorem” – named after Ulysses’ son Telemachus – forms the connection to our frightening topic.

A proven finding – a theorem – is true until a counterargument is found that topples it. The mentioned name has to do with an ancient youth who recognized his long believed-dead father cloaked in a beggar’s garment. At the same time the acronym stands for Time, Length, Mass and Charge (T, L, M, Ch) – four entities that can be measured in everyday life by means of simple devices called clocks and meter sticks and scales and volt meters. You probably already know that there exists no “Ur-Second” in physics (because of Einstein’s work); but an “Ur-Meter” and an “Ur-Kilogram” and a “Universal Unit Charge” are believed to exist and well known to date. The Ur-meter and the Ur-kilogram are actually quite expensive and were hard to arrive at in empirical struggles that took scientists and engineers many decades in a science of its own called Metrology (the science of measurement). Therefore it is of some interest perhaps that young Telemach summarily says that three “Urs” do not exist. The Ur-meter, the Ur-kilogram, the Ur-charge all three are as non-existent as the Ur-Second, dethroned 105 years ago, and the “Ur-Pound,” dethroned almost 350 years ago. The latter was proven to be nonexistent by Isaac Newton, the Ur-Second by Albert Einstein as mentioned.

There must be a cry of excitement owing to the newly eliminated three “Urs” – you might expect. The reality is silence. This is surprising since popular opinion holds that new findings are automatically embraced because new machinery can be built and new money be made. But there are always the old manufacturers as it were. Something radically unexpected is never accepted without delay.

Continue reading “Attempto: Let Me Give It a Try” »

The conference was first publicly requested on April 18, 2008 and first endorsed by a court on January 27, 2011.

Had CERN who stood before that court not said “no” almost a year ago, the danger to the planet consciously incurred during 2011 could not be planned to be quintupled this year.

The only task of the conference is to find a counterproof against a single element of the 5-element chain proof of danger which looks as if nature had posed humanity a trap. The topic is the micro black holes planned to be produced by CERN as a self-declared “black hole factory.” They have 5 new properties:

– they arise much more easily
– they are undetectable by CERN’s sensors
– they at first pass friction-free through earth’s matter
– they if slow enough to circulate inside earth get stuck after a while to grow exponentially as a mini-mini-quasar that, after some years, will make for a beautiful sight from the moon
– they are not exculpated by their ultrafast natural analogues getting stuck inside neutron stars because the latter are protected by their quantum superfluidity.

Continue reading “Can Anyone Explain Why CERN Fears Nothing more than a Scientific Safety Conference?” »

The “African Journal of Mathematics” has accepted to publish the “Telemach” paper this month. This is a world-historical event. For the paper proves on the basis of Einstein’s “happiest thought” as he always called it that black holes have radically new properties which make their production at CERN much more likely, but at the same time un-detectable by its instruments and maximally dangerous. If a single one gets stuck inside earth, the latter will be shrunk in a few years’ time into a 2 cm miniquasar – a beautiful chaotic attractor in real space.

The danger level already reached last year is planned to be quintupled during 2012. But CERN does not admit the “safety conference” requested by a Cologne court on January 27, 2011. Nor does it allow the media to report.

So Africa did something forbidden for once by its hopefully saving the world at the last minute, since now the media can no longer be told that the result were false because unpublished.

Europe’s keeping the world media silent will probably continue. But the world’s citizens have a chance now to look for themselves. Every person’s life is now not only coming from Africa but perhaps also saved by Africa.

We all are given one, totally private, at this very moment. This kind of thinking – causal thinking – got almost lost.

Inside the screen, everybody is active, forgetting the screen. This insight is more important than what I have to say inside our screens.

Nevertheless I feel like mentioning that I attended a beautiful talk today by a charming lady scientist who is a high-ranking member of CERN. I loved every word. In the public discussion afterwards, she was asked by a Tübingen citizen unknown to me about the black-hole danger. She expressed in two sentences that they are possible but would have been detected. She did not know about the 4 years old proof that the detectors cannot detect them and that Hawking radiation – which she mentioned as the reason for their detectability — does not exist according to the un-disproved Telemach theorem (now in print in an international math journal).

The most beautiful science, with a loving heart, can if consciously endowed with a blind spot – refused scientific dialog – not flourish. You cannot believe how beautiful the cathedral of the LHC is. Is a beggar allowed entry into one corner?

The TV screen is the real cathedral. Forgive me that I talked about less important things.

If I can intervene on the polarized opinions posted by some individuals on Lifeboat regarding CERN and particle physics safety debate, wherein I was name dropped recently — the person in question, Mr Church, may find my email address on page one of the dissertation linked in my bio. Regarding the safety conference asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court cited by Prof Rossler, I would suggest that with its ample funds, The Lifeboat Foundation should host a public conference on the subject and invite CERN delegates, critics and journalists alike to attend. In the spirit of the Lifeboat Foundation, however, I would suggest that the focus of such conference should be on discussion of how particle physics can be used to solve problems in the future — and the matter of fringe concerns on MBH accretion rates and so on could be dealt with as a subtext. I think it would be a good opportunity to ‘clear the air’ and could be good for the profile not just of the Lifeboat Foundation, but for particle physics research in general. I would like to hear others thoughts on this, and how Lifeboat manages its funds for such events and conferences…