Lifeboat Foundation

What would it take to create and later revive a representative biosphere from frozen stores located on the Moon?

The costs of launchers is getting low enough that we can reasonably imagine the establishment of a lunar base well within NASA’s spaceflight budget.

With the discovery of ices on the lunar poles, astronauts could provide their own life-support indefinitely (water, oxygen, food, and fertilizer). While living in a sheltered habitat, they then immediately proceed to establish other basic processes to step-wise become increasingly independent of supplies from Earth (e.g. producing their own metals and glass).

Given the increasing independence of the small colony, one begins to consider if additional steps could be taken to achieve a fully independent small colony to serve as a backup for the human species should a catastrophe destroy humanity (e.g. a large asteroid or our own self-replicating technology).

Continue reading “Establishing an Off-Earth Back-up of the Biosphere” »

Lifeboat has had enough coverage across the globe and in different languages to alert all governments and media word-wide. There are major conflicts unresolved on the planet. The more surprising is the fact that all governments stand united against their own people in one respect:

The populace is not allowed to know that CERN, or the Europeans, are preparing to re-ignite a nuclear experiment to run it at five times last year’s output – even though the total risk to induce Armageddon by the successful production of miniature black holes is thereby raised by a factor of six, up to possibly 8 percent.

Ironically, CERN neither disputes that it can in principle generate black holes, nor that it cannot detect its own success at producing them, nor that the published proofs of danger are not being disputed by a single scientist on the planet claiming to do so.

I have on occasion used the term ‘the neutron star paradox’ amongst LHC safety critics to denote the existence of neutron stars, as micro black hole capture should invalidate their existence if micro black holes were stable, according to official safety reports. The oft used counter-argument being that of superfluidity, which I personally dismiss as bunkum (zero viscosity cannot slip and slide your way out from the dark side of an event horizon).

It would be more appropriate to consider the magnetic field of the neutron star such that cosmic rays are always deflected by the Lorentz force from such stars, or perhaps some solar wind type effect may do similar (though this has at least partly been argued against in safety assurance already). The alternative (and infinitely more plausible) explanation of course is that micro black holes (TeV scale, at least) do not exist, though dozens of papers on arXiv and other journals argue otherwise (and CERN scientists willfully anticipate the creation of approx. 10,000 of these over the course of LHC experiemnts). The slightly less plausible explanation is that Hawking Radiation Theory is actually effective, with the only other explanation being that MBH accretion models are flawed. Otherwise we would not have stable neutron stars in the Universe… they would all be black holes by now.

I thought I’d kick off a thread of discussion here — if anyone has the appetite to participate — on discussion of ‘The Neutron Star Paradox’, as you will see from my previous post on the flux of (hypothetical) stable micro black holes, this is quite central to LHC safety assurance.

Hi All, I have now uploaded Rev 1.7 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

Prompted by Prof O.E. Rossler’s recent publication of his Telemach theorem — but not dependant on it, this paper looks at the relative flux (km per km) of micro black holes through the Earth — if created by the LHC — when compared to the flux caused by cosmic ray collisions in nature. It endorses Otto’s viewpoint that if Telemach were correct, then safety assurance is solely based on the disputed neutron star & white dwarf safety arguments.

The focus of the paper however is that of relative flux — and a derived micro black hole flux ratio of almost a one million fold increase relative to that generated by natural cosmic ray collisions with the Earth. Furthermore, the alternative prospect to accretion in the case of such an elevated flux is planetary heating through Hawking Radiation — as explored by other research — a scenario in which the neutron star safety argument is irrelevant - as their survival does not prove/disprove anything in this outcome. Feedback as always welcome.

This derivation of flux is distinct from previous CERN statements which made direct comparisons to rates of collisions (a 10,000 fold increase during operations) - as I consider the flux of products as a function of kilometres of matter traversed — a more relevant metric.

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

It is an almost infinitely unlikely coincidence that three “colluding” results have emerged simultaneously which in their combination signal an infinite danger to the planet.

With so improbable a situation, it is not surprising that a giant group of scientists who invested their hearts’ blood into the experiment have resolved rather to (as an observer recently put it) take their own children hostage than let a safety conference evaluate the risk.

Every bus driver is ready to take his own children aboard – taking them hostage as it were. The good conscience displayed by CERN is disarming. CERN has the best of relations to Israel and to its sister organization UNO. The planetary press curfew akin to SCUN’s is hard-won. CERN’s legal immunity as a mini state equals UNO’s. No head of state can give orders to it and no member country can legally leave it (as Austria tried).

Continue reading “Telemach + Shilnikov + Superfluidity: Three undismantled Findings Render CERN a Planet-eating Time Bomb” »

I started to publish on general relativity in 1992 with about 20 papers to my credit since. I hereby brought in a differential-topological viewpoint, a sister field in which I have about 10 times more publications.

Chaos theory gives you a “feel” for nontrivial dynamical behavior. Poincaré had founded both disciplines and Birkhoff continued in both. My friend Edward Lorenz of chaos fame was a pupil of Birkhoff’s. The differential-topological perspective is in some respects broader than the differential-geometric one of traditional general relativity. Chaos theory in addition is a “barefoot science“ which allows important results to be gathered with simple geometrico-topological means and low-priced computers.

My most recent paper in the field, titled “Telemach,” is maximally simple but arrives at powerful consequences (including several new unit actions in physics). Two of its 3 new elements had already been seen by other authors. It moreover simplifies a sophisticated result obtained 5 years ago in the context of the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity; It toppled the venerable law of charge conservation in physics. I owe the simpler derivation in part to a fruitful conversation with my colleague Hermann Nicolai three years ago. It was he who opened up my eyes to the power of the new charge non-conservation in physics.

The main Tübingen insight in general relativity arose in a course held jointly with Dieter Fröhlich in 1997: If clocks are slower-ticking on a lower floor in gravity as known, what about the topology of the “1-D map” formed by light rays shuttling back and forth between two different height levels: is it chaotic (non-unique) or is it just a bijection? The latter answer – no chaos – took us by surprise. In its wake we slowly accumulated “neighboring” results. The latter proved to hold true even in the context of Einstein’s earliest seminal insight – the equivalence principle – which now is Telemach’s home.

Continue reading “A Friend Tells Me to Specify My Scientific Credentials” »

1) No Hawking radiation
2) No point charges
3) No Ur-meter, Ur-kilogram, Ur-unit-charge
4) No gravitational-waves equation
5) No Reissner-Nordström metric
6) No Kerr metric
7) No wormholes
8) No singularities
9) No big bang, cosmic background, inflation, cold dark matter, cosmological constant
10) An eternally recycling cosmos

Three consequences follow in order of increasing importance:
i) The raw data of the Planck mission must be rescued from adaptation to outdated dogma
ii) The LHC experiment must be stopped imediately since its sensors are blind to earth-eating black holes generated there
iii) This is the planet of the apes (orangutans are the highest hominid intelligence according to the brain equation of 1974) – so please, be careful. Only humans can be kind so far

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.

Continue reading “Am I Hazardeering, Too?” »