At dette skal være lett å forstå
det har jeg alltid visst,
men dersom dette blir enklere nå
må jeg tiltake spesialist
- Dag Evjenth-
Download: LEAK on CASTOR for press (All images containing CERN-statements included in downloadable ‘LEAK on CASTOR for press’-file are taken from http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/cms/castor/html/) © and further information by Luis Sancho.
More information on start of heavy-ion collisions on 11/9 this year: 1st extinction event: CERN says LHC is ‘likely’ to produce strangelets on 11/9 at www.cerntruth.com
2) March 17 2010, quote: www.LHC-concern.info :
“Dear Ministers of Science and staff,
Dear members of the CERN Council!
We regard it as our duty to inform you about the current state of the scientific
discussion - including very recent developments you may not be aware of -
concerning the risks and dangers of the LHC particle collider.
Please consider the studies we describe below. Due to the global risks being
considered, due to the fact that there has been no neutral and multidisciplinary
evaluation of the risks and due to the fact that there is no international
standardized procedure or agency to evaluate these risks, critics of the planned
experiments urgently recommend that they not be conducted at
unprecedented energies until these deficiencies are remedied.
There are at least four possible types of existential risks associated with the
LHC: microscopic black holes, strangelets, magnetic monopoles, and expanding
vacuum bubbles. We respectfully request you to speak for a re-evaluation of
these risks at the CERN Council meeting this week and to ensure that they are
responsibly managed in best practice, which is - under a number of
perspectives - presently not the case.
Frequently the LHC collisions are compared to natural events in the
atmosphere. But this comparison, known as the “cosmic ray argument”,
contains many fundamental weaknesses and uncertainties. To start with only
the most basic problems in it: The nature, mass, velocity and origin of highly
energetic cosmic rays are presently unknown. Only their energy is measured
indirectly. Within 10 years of operation, the LHC experiments would produce as
many high-energy collisions as occur over the whole Earth in roughly 100,000
years. This also assumes that the comparison of natural and artificially-created
collisions, as argued for example in the LSAG safety report, is possible, which
is questionable. Far from copying nature, the LHC focuses on rare and
extreme events in a physical setup which has never occurred before in the
history of the planet. Nature does not set up LHC experiments.
Significantly, after a recent communication to the United Nations High
Commission for Human Rights, the Commission responded: "we appreciate the
importance of the issues at stake" and pointed to domestic administrations for
consideration. This approach to you is consistent with this recommendation.
Risk assessment expert and ethicist Dr. Mark Leggett concludes in a recent
study that the CERN (LSAG) safety report is “out of date”, “has a conflict of
interest”, and satisfies less than a fifth of the criteria for an adequate risk
assessment. Chaos theory pioneer Professor Otto E. Rössler estimates the risk
of a black hole disaster at 15% if the experiment continues as planned.
Astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga warns that a collider-created black hole
accreting at the Eddington limit would emit energy at the rate of a 12 megaton
bomb every second. Well-known physicist Dr. Tony Rothman calls for the
creation of a permanent mechanism to deal with new scientific and
technological concerns. Leading risk researcher Professor Wolfgang Kromp
supports a special environmental impact assessment of the LHC. The famous
“thinker of speed”, philosopher Professor Paul Virilio strongly criticizes the
experiment. Philosopher Dr. Toby Ord, philosopher and physicist Professor
Rafaela Hillerbrand and risk researcher Dr. Anders Sandberg of Oxford's Future
of Humanity Institute note that the extremely low risk estimates offered by
collider advocates ignore the statistical probability that the assumptions on
which the safety arguments given by CERN are based could fail and they
conclude that the LSAG safety report cannot be the last word in the issue.
Professor Eric Johnson reports in a study recently published in the “Tennessee
Law Review” and summarized in the ”New Scientist” that whether the LHC is
safe or not is an open scientific question and that most arguments in favour of
its safety lack robustness:
Until now, no court has taken any relevant action to improve safety in this
complex matter. However, the need for an open and inclusive approach to this
issue was highlighted by American federal Judge Helen Gillmor who
emphasized: “This extremely complex debate is of concern to more than just
In addition, the unexpected results of the first LHC runs last December have
raised a host of new questions that should be answered. Results indicate an
excess of strange-kaons beyond what models have predicted, suggesting an
increased risk of strangelet production. These questions should be resolved
before increasing energies by a factor of three.
We have attached some of the key studies on this issue, by authors who have
a track record of publication in mainstream high-impact peer-reviewed
Dr. Mark Leggett: “Review of the risk assessment process used for the 2008
LHC safety study”
Dr. Toby Ord, Prof. Rafaela Hillerbrand and Dr. Anders Sandberg: “ Probing the
Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and
Professor Eric Johnson: "The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End
of the World"
These studies include, in particular, assessments from experts in the fields
markedly missing from the physicist-only LSAG report - those of risk
assessment, law, and ethics and statistics. Further weight is added because the
experts are all university-level experts – from GriffithUniversity, the University
of North Dakota, and OxfordUniversity respectively. It is therefore of great
significance that none of these independent experts support the design or the
results of the LSAG report. All state that there are gaps in the LSAG risk
evaluation. The independence and similarity in result of these analyses means
they are three major red flags about the LSAG report. Positively, however, they
all recommend pathways to fill the gaps.
Given the source and authoritativeness of this material, we are confident you
will therefore consider it, and include the results of those considerations in
your forthcoming decisions concerning the LHC.
In a concrete physical concern, it is important to emphasize:
Dr. Rainer Plaga: “On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantumblack
holes produced at particle colliders”
Recently, a new study, “Black Hole Production at the LHC: A Review of the
Risks”, has been prepared. It reviews the present arguments in the LSAG
report for the safety of microscopic black hole production and concludes:
The above review has shown, however, that almost all of these cases pose unacceptable
risks to the planet. In such a situation, there can be little doubt that black hole
production at the LHC would be an unacceptable and irresponsible risk.”
The latest draft of this study is available on request.
It is important to mention that in addition to the risks associated with black
holes, many critics of the LHC experiments consider the possibility of
dangerous strangelet production to be even more underestimated. Strangelets
could conceivably convert matter or even the entire planet into a dense ball of
strange matter. A research programme to more carefully study this risk was
recommended in CERN's first safety report but not completed for the LSAG
It is also important to note that the only organizations which have publicly
endorsed the LSAG report are physics organizations. No support has been
received from any risk assessment organization, any ethical or philosophical
organization, or any citizens' organization.
Right now, the world’s governments have no mechanism to coordinate rational
thinking about these risks.
It is urgent that a panel be assembled to explore policy in the presence of
catastrophic scientific risks. The alternative is to continue to bet the future of
our planet on a process that keeps producing safety assurances that are
Despite these safety concerns, CERN plans to begin 7 TeV collisions (3.5 TeV
per beam) by March 30 -- an energy about three times the present record –
apparently without steps in between and without carefully analyzing the results
after each increase in energy.
- Several severe risks presently cannot be excluded.
- Finally, an international, neutral and multidisciplinary agency to
objectively assess the risks of high-energy experiments could improve
safety in this unregulated field, which presently still lacks standardised
procedures to evaluate the risks.
We want to remind you that the final responsibility for the safety of the LHC is
held by the CERN member states.
expecting your answer:
The authors of this request, in the name of many others:
[ International Signatories ] “
3) 03.27.2010, quote: www.LHC-concern.info
“A start up at 3.5 straight away, three times the present record, is irresponsible.
Viewing the blogs, you can see people are very sceptically.
Take part in public discussions, this has to get obvious then this will improve safety on the long term.
The two summarizing papers we provided, including many scientific sources and references are totally sufficient to demonstrate that this is not right and irresponsible.
If nothing bad happens or if it could ever be proven that nothing bad has happened respectively, this will still be irresponsible. While we cannot expect much from CERN, especially the member states totally fail in managing the risks and in ensuring citizens’ safety.
Today we might even wonder if we warned enough. Indeed…
)view 1)b), above(
5) ÐŸÐ¾Ð»ÐµÐ·Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹ Ð¸Ð´Ð¸Ð¾Ñ‚ http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=14043 (fra minuten 56.00)
6) tysk hjørne
Der reichste Mann der Welt und sein Lebenswerk; Herr R.D.Heuer.
(www.LHC-concern.info):Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, June 9, 2010:
“Why Do the Media Suppress The Hottest Story of History?”
Why do the world’s media not follow up on the “luminosity“ of the Large Hadron Collider experiment at CERN as it is being cranked up day after day? The undisputed danger of miniature black hole formation is proportional to this luminosity. Once sufficiently many such minis have been produced as the luminosity goes up, eventually one specimen that is slow enough to stay inside earth is bound to be among them – to shrink earth to 2 cm in possibly 5 years time. This proof given two years ago still stands undisproved. For some reason, this largest possible sacrifice to the child-eating moloch warned against in the bible makes for a planet-wide “non-topic“ - even though it contains all the ingredients of a journalist’s dream story.
The media’s excuse is the following: politicians and the official scientific and environmental organizations all say they are sure the risk is way smaller than the 8 percent given by Rossler. A “majority opinion“ to this effect is proudly pointed to. But this is not how science works. If there is not a single scientist on the planet who says: “I found a counterproof to Rossler’s proof and I bet that he cannot dismantle it,“ there is no counter evidence. Groups are notoriously weaker than individuals when it comes to the new. Scarcity of high-ranking support comes not unexpected.
There are 4 names behind the corporate safety consensus: Giddings and Mangano of CERN, Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institute, and Stephen Hawking of Cambridge university. The first two colleagues broke the scientific taboo of withholding relevant information known to them, in their still unupdated official “safety assessment“ of 2008, as they do not dispute. The third cut off dialogue after having been proven wrong more than a year ago with a high-caliber counterargument raised against my unchargedness result, maintaining his public claims to the latter’s validity. Stephen Hawking while reluctant to respond to the counterproof presented to the globe’s best life insurance (Hawking evaporation, for two years in a row, remains immune to reproach owing to his proven personal heroism.
The first three names, all connected to CERN, bear the brunt. Paradoxically they are treated like prophets whose written words represent revelations. The mysteriously stepped down German head of state had made his unconditional belief in the corporate safety report one of the last statements from his office. No one in the planetary scientific establishment sticks their necks out in favor of the innocuous scientific safety conference, called-for in April 2008 (see “honey I shrunk the earth“ on the web). The CERN’s LHC experiment could continue immediately once a single hole has been punched into my chain of proofs. Conversely, as long as this is not the case, a second “Alamogordo risk“ is being allowed to hover over the planet in a span of 65 years. (The risk that the first atomic blast would co-ignite the planet’s atmosphere had been estimated to be 1 percent by an official advisor whom I once encountered.)
Is it simply that in an age of restauration, no one is able to look ahead any more? I do see no colleague ready to scrutinize the fact that Einstein unearthed yet another breath-taking detail with his “equivalence principle“ of 1907. (The latter asserts equivalence between a silently accelerating long rocketship in outer space on the one hand, and the same sealed chamber standing vertically on earth on the other.) Beside the famous reduction of clock rate and photon energy at the rear, highlighted by Einstein, there is a parallel reduction of rest mass and charge downstairs, as he no doubt would happily confirm today since the equivalence principle was his “happiest thought“ as he used to quip. Every high-school senior can verify the new implication but the establishment “knows“ this is a matter of impossibility given the no longer human status of this innovator. So discussion in learned circles is tabooed.
Nature seems to have set humankind a trap by providing several totally independent reasons why different safety arguments fail simultaneously. It is my stumbling over this uncanny coincidence that forced me to call for a safety conference. The finding that quantum mechanics steps in to protect neutron stars from nature’s natural ultrafast cousins to humanity’s hoped-for ultraslow artificial mini-black holes should the latter appear is perhaps the most breath-taking. CERN is so sure that my quantum prediction that superfluids offer no friction to fast uncharged particles is false that they skipped an experiment designed to check this prediction as they had promised to do two years ago. Only human-made ultra-slow mini-black holes pose any danger to the earth, the sun and the moon. More and more scientists are joining-in as time goes by - and is running out.
Why should any father on the planet stand by idly rather than say: “please, dear CERN, present your proofs to me and the world before I can agree to your taking our lives into your hands“? The only reason this is not being said today all over the globe is the media curfew, caused by a false belief in authority as we saw. Please, dear media: return to your professional skepticism and lay the facts on the table as they are. No one is ever grateful if you report but if you don’t, it is always your fault. There is no greater planetary heroism. Thank you in advance.
Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, June 9, 2010. For J.O.R.
1) CERN keeps silent about the cumulative number of risk-prone 7-Tera-electron-Volt nuclear hydrogen collisions accomplished up until now.
2) CERN leaves undisputed the documented fraud in its 2008 “safety report“ and refuses to update.
3) The whole discipline of physics lost face since not a single scientist stepped forward to offer a rebuttal to the 5 results from Tubingen, for two years in a row.
4) The 5 new results concerning black holes are:
rapid growth inside earth;
exclusive risk from human-made ultraslow mini black holes.
(Disproving a single one would be sufficient to rehabilitate CERN.)
5) Not a single rich person or foundation on the planet offers a prize to the first scientist to disprove one of the 5 results.
6) Not a single world leader steps forward to sooth the global fear palpable on the internet or to encourage young scientists to step in.
7) No citizen of Germany requests to know how many children were killed [again] by Germany on September 4, 2009 – much as no citizen of the globe requests to know how safe their own children are. Mortal obedience?
I apologize that the Now-Giving-Instance (if this name is acceptable) gave me the temporary prominence to raise those 7 points. For J.O.R.05/17/2010
Otto E. Rossler | “Calling on Every Science Student of the Planet: Please, Rehabilitate the Establishment“
The physics community asserts in authoritative statements that my results are false – so false that the fate of the planet can be bet against them as CERN currently does. My new result reads: “The rest mass, and hence also the charge, of any material body located more downstairs in a gravitational field (or equivalently more rearward in a constantly accelerating rocket) is reduced in proportion to the local redshift factor“ (Rossler-Cox theorem). Hence rest mass and charge are zero at the horizon of a black hole.
This result is a direct – if belated – corollary to Einstein’s famous “equivalence principle“ of 1907. The corollary implies both lack of Hawking radiation and lack of stickiness of miniature black holes, hoped to be produced at CERN. A third safety-destroying argument (frictionless passage of fast uncharged particles through superfluids) was also presented to CERN two years ago. Thus, no safety-assuring argument is left as long as the above result stays undisproved. Hence a planetocidal experiment is going on as far as anyone can tell.
You – my young reader – cannot do any greater favor to the planet and the profession at large than to dismantle the above theorem. If you do not succeed – as I am afraid could happen –, please endorse my 2008 call for a scientific safety conference. Even at a delay of 103 years, any corollary to the Einstein equivalence principle – his “happiest thought“ – deserves the utmost scrutiny. The planet is putting its fate into your hands.
Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, Germany. For J.O.R. (Submitted to Associated Press, May 31, 2010)
s. a. : http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/06/17/einsteins_planetenrettende_erkenntnis_un#c3217
Otto E. Rössler | "Wenn es stimmt, dass die Größe von Körpern von ihrer Rotverschiebung im Schwerefeld abhängt, ist das Urmeter auf einmal unbrauchbar geworden als objektive Entfernungsgrundlage auf der Erde und darüber hinaus."