… but am I allowed to offer to the highest board of the planet to answer to its questions?
… if he singlehandedly breaks the world-wide press curfew surrounding the fact that CERN continues with a potentially earth-jeopardizing experiment despite the official request by a court last January to first allow for a scientific safety conference.
The story of “Our Last Hour” (Sir Martin Rees) has a latest twist. Since CERN cannot muster a single scientific argument or a single renowned scientist to defend its use of force against scientific evidence, it recruited a gang of anonymous science kids to defend its cause by pretending to ask a scientific question which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the scientific reputation of their only planet-widely visible adversary.
The Telemach theorem, which pits Einstein against CERN, was to be discredited, not by scientific argument but by luring its proponent into taking a pseudoscientific question disguised as a genuine concern seriously: If the size ratio between two fingers says something about the ratio between two little guys, what is the ratio between one finger and one guy?
The media cannot understand, of course, but every citizen on the planet will. Science has lost its credit by visibly misleading the planet – unless CERN apologizes immediately for its onslaught on everyone’s life. The two fingers become a world-wide symbol.
Stuart Kauffman and Giuseppe Longo
July 7, 2011
At least since Isaac Newton, an enduring belief among physicists and many other scientists has been that there is a fundamental set of laws, presumably concerning particle physics, that will deductively entail the entire evolution of the universe and all in it, including all of earthly life, the evolution of the biosphere, econosphere and even history. If so, nothing truly novel, ie un-entailed, can arise.
In this piece we provide strong grounds to say that the long held belief that there is a theory entailing all that happens in the universe is false. No Law entails the evolution of life. If so, reductionism is false, and we must think anew. Our world is not what we have thought.
Continue reading “No Law Entails The Evolution Of The Biosphere” »
From: Otto E. Rossler
To: “[email protected]“
Cc: “[email protected]” ; “[email protected]“
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 2:52 PM
Subject: shortest-term survival
Dear Mr. Secretary, dear UN Security Council:
Did you pay attention to this public appeal made to you?
https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/public-appeal-to-the-execu…esterwelle
Why does CERN continue refusing the scientific safety conference demanded by a Cologne court last January? Insiders say it is Hawking radiation.
Hawking radiation – a 38 years old hypothesis – was disproved 4 years ago by the gothic-R theorem of general relativity, followed in 2010 by the simpler Telemach theorem of the equivalence principle, and independently by the 2009 paper “Gravitational space dilation” by professor Richard J. Cook of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
CERN’s only defense consists in not quoting those findings known to it since early 2008 and in never updating its already fraudulent safety report of late 2008 – a reproach it accepts ever since.
The UN Security Council has been asked to enforce the logically necessary scientific safety conference before CERN may or may not continue with its according to current knowledge earth-jeopardizing nuclear experiment.
I am waiting for the Security Council’s decision and so does the whole of humankind.
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
Continue reading “Food for My Detractors: ALL MY SCIENTIC RESULTS IN A NUTSHELL” »
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
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
