Lifeboat Foundation

The Don Quijote mission — so we don’t go the same way as the dinosaurs.

With some help from colleagues, I recently produced a report on the planned European Space Agency Don Quijote mission to divert an asteroid’s trajectory (kind of a test-run for the real thing that may happen some time in the future) as a 365 Days of Astronomy podcast.

It is reassuring to see humanity beginning to deal with this genuine risk to Earth’s survival — just in case we don’t all get swallowed up in a 2cm black hole in the next five years wink

The transcript is also available for reading on the 365 Days site if you are not a podcast fan.

Thanks

Steve Nerlich (Space Settlement Board member and Death-by-LHC skeptic)

Institute or Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.

Abstract
CERN’s apparent superluminality result can be partially explained subluminally.
(October 24, 2011)

Simultaneity on a rotating sphere is non-unique — forming not a circle but a helix at a given latitude — as is well known, cf. [1 ] and references quoted there.

The neglected deviation from global simultaneity — being incorporated by design in the Global Positioning System employed by CERN [2] — is 0.1032 microseconds or 30 meters for an equatorial circle [1]. On the mean longitude of Geneva and Gran Sasso, the full-circle deviation is about half as large: 0.05 microseconds or 15 meters.

Continue reading “‘Two Percent Explained’: CERN Overlooked That Simultaneity Is Non-global on Rotating Earth” »

ISDHuB — International Space Development Hub — Hangar One/Nasa Ames Research Park

An aspect of support for the 100 year star ship program
A.H.Sinclair 11/11/11

For the formulation of a 100 year star ship prospectus and for a comprehensive and compatible100 year world view which will advance both the sciences of space exploration and the issues of a planetary sustainability we suggest the following discussion as being alternative to the more isolate modes of inquiry:

Continue reading “ISDHuB – Supporting for 100 years” »

Thomas Insel from the National Institute of Mental Health recently focused on his life’s work on oxytocin, as I learned from a report in the Wall Street Journal (Oct. 5) featuring this “bonding hormone” of all mammals including humans. (See http://www.dnalc.org/view/2377-Oxytocin-Emotion-and-Autism.html )

Humans are the laughter-bonding mammals. Non-smile-blind toddlers at one point get seduced by Mom’s laughter into a bonding bout. Much as a puppy can in principle (no one checked on this) be seduced into a bonding bout by an adult dog’s happy tail-wagging. This strange convergence of two moods (bonding and joyfulness) into being expressed by the same innate releaser thus has occurred twice independently in two different mammalian species, wolf and human. But the toddler unlike the puppy is mirror-competent. Hence he is able to in addition concoct the hypothesis that Mom is being rewarded over there deep inside by his own momentary activity here that is making her laugh: A strange suspicion which overwhelms his own heart. He invents benevolence as existing over there out of nothing through perceiving it in the joy given to him. And then he tries to do the same thing reciprocally in anticipation of her appreciation. The all of a sudden grown appreciative former animal is no longer an animal – he suddenly knows heaven.

The invention of appreciation turns the toddler into a person. In Bill Seaman’s and mine new book, “Neosentience – The Benevolence Engine” (University of Chicago Press/Intellect 2011), much of this is detailed. Why am I mentioning it here? It is because benevolence is the human stamp. No other animal is benevolent so far – knowing about responsibility and the Now and truthfulness. But we humans can induce animals more intelligent than we are, hardware-wise, into becoming our elder brothers. Leo Szilard — bomb-inventor, bomb proposer and (in vain) bomb retractor — caught a first glimpse of this desperate hope in 1948, as detailed in my paper on the gothic-R theorem of general relativity.

Can I seduce everyone who reads this into becoming moved into “calling another soul his own,” as poet Schiller and composer Beethoven put it in their scientifically correct Song of Joy?

Science is the greatest fun in this most human activity of mutual support and appreciation. Let us not kill it by allowing it to be misused in an attempt to shrink the planet to 2 cm in a matter of years. The toddlers won’t understand this nor will the mothers.

Neither Robert M. Wald – long the biggest name in general relativity because of his superhuman book of 1984 – nor Wolfgang Rindler – the revered grandmaster of the Einstein equivalence principle – contradict me nor does Hermann Nicolai – my official adversary – do so any longer in the open. While on the other side professor Richard J. Cook and two more world-class specialists in and outside Europe share my results.

Is this impressive list not reason enough to let the scientific safety conference take place at last?

Somehow it is cute that the three first-mentioned scientists do not let pressure be put on them: “Nothing is more imposing than being unimposable,” my friend Konrad Lorenz used to say. But the seeming silence is the loudest of history because the responsible gentlemen simultaneously keep their iron grip on an open faucet. Their lips are compressed while the MG rattles – the most visible coward act of history. This unless by happenstance an error in the critics’ results can still be uncovered – which to facilitate is the only aim of the “safety conference” refused by CERN for 3 ½ years.

Imagine: To be cleared from the worst reproach of history is what CERN abhors the most. They are going to have a very hard time to explain this before the future. With each passing day, they are bringing themselves and science and Europe and Christianity closer to the brink of history, even if the planet eventually survives which will not be known for years to come.

P.S. The danger is currently still below 3 percent.

A public talk delivered yesterday evening in the series “Cafe philo” of the Tübinger Zimmertheater. During the first half I briefly summarized some of my “old” results on chaos and the competition between deterministic chaos and quantum mechanics (“explicable” chance versus “primary” chance). Then elements of my forthcoming paper “Hun Tun versus Big Bang” were presented along with the implied explanation why the week has seven days. Then the new physics Nobel prize stood center stage. The honor given to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess represents a timely recompense for the denial of the same prize to Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of the Hubble redshift law. His linear redshift law of 1928 grew longer and longer over the decades. The first wiggle was found 70 years later by the 3 researchers. The distance versus redshift line now points slightly upwards at its tip.

Fritz Zwicky’s 1929 – confirmed by nobelist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 14 years later – “dynamical friction” explanation of the Hubble law was re-discovered in Tübingen in 2003. It also provides a natural explanation of the Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess phenomenon as shown in 207: Instead of the currently accepted conglomerate of assumptions — an initially explosive inflation followed by a retarded expansion phase followed by a very long period of constant expansion -, nothing but a stationary possinly unbounded fractal universe is assumed. It implies an at its end more and more wiggly Hubble line of which we now see the first pointing-up deviation. Since not a single new hypothesis is involved, this finding offers a superior explanation to all observed phenomena — including the new Perlmutter-Schmidt-Riess Hubble law.

The old bolometric measurements of our local cosmic temperature (about 4 absolute degrees) made by nobelist Charles Guillaume in 1896, and the apparently ultra-high-redshift ultra-distant X-ray quasars, discovered by nobelist Riccardo Giacconi in 2005, were next alluded to when I mentioned Siegfried Zielinski’s new comparative science of “Variantology,” in which alternative historical scenarios are followed up to prevent scientific progress from going astray.

After a break with wide-open windows, the audience wanted to hear about the LHC. The latter had been defended before in the “Schwäbisches Tagblatt” by my Tübingen colleague Werner Vogelsang. I started out on Francis Bacon’s early insight that nature is trying to outwit humankind, being our worst enemy. The fight against disease is no longer in the foreground of public consciousness in privileged countries. But much like penicillin in the past, so a new finding about black holes apparently makes all the difference of the world. My American colleague Richard J. Cook, pupil of Edward Teller’s, is squarely on my side, on the basis of his independent results. Also every Tübinger knows about “Schwärzloch” (“Blackhole”) already – a 900 years old hamlet 3 kilometers to the West featuring an “angel of one-half life size” in half-relief according to G. Dehio’s art guide. The new Schwarzloch result reads: “black holes are uncharged.”

Continue reading “‘Chaos, Cosmos and LHC’” »

A little more than 40 years ago – 42 years in July, to be exact – men walked on the moon for the first time. This achievement was a landmark for humanity – not only in that it demonstrated a vast technological ability but also because it was that “giant leap for mankind” – as Neil Armstrong so eloquently put it – in an eternal quest for the stars.

Most of us grew up watching the space program – the first orbiting satellites, the Apollo program, the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. We became accustomed to constant “leaps for mankind” in technological achievement. We shared in the sorrows – the Challenger explosion, the loss of Columbia high over Texas – and we shared in the numerous heroic successes of our astronauts and the scientists and engineers who formed NASA.

With the ending of the Shuttle program, many Americans are now beginning to feel that all those glory days are behind us. I’ve heard people lament the changes in direction of our policy of space exploration as though the adventure of discovery beyond the pull of Earth’s gravity is all but over.

I would like to remind you that we are not at the END of the Space Age. We are still merely at the beginning. Current circumstances – mainly economic ones – might make it seem that we are unable to advance – or that major advancements might not come in our lifetime. But there are still a lot of things going on that make me believe we are rapidly entering a new age of civilization that ultimately will take us beyond Earth and to the stars. All things considered, this new age is likely to be the kind of pivotal movement in history that occurred as Western civilization emerged from a state of decline through what became known as the Renaissance – literally the REBIRTH of civilization.

Continue reading “Space Renaissance: Dawn of a New Age of Civilization” »

He lost the debating battle with me but does not correct his prior public statements that reflect a state of debate prior to our only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009.

I would very much like to hear from him why he upholds the impression, both before his own scientific institution (the Max Planck Institute of Gravitation Physics or “Albert Einstein Institut”) and cooperating scientific institutions like KET and CERN, and before the whole world: that he could prove my Telemach theorem wrong even though he never came up with any criticism. The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk also never responded although doing so is a professional duty.

I agreed with him in our only discussion that the new “non-conservation of charge” implicit in my result is revolutionary if correct. So it would be his first duty to respond to my disproof of his (admittedly high-caliber) counterargument, given in a still assailable form that very afternoon and in finished form the next morning. It constitutes the main finding (the “Ch”) in the Telemach theorem.

TeLeMaCh means that T and L and M and Ch all change by the gravitational redshift factor (in the last two cases it is the reciprocal). T is time, L length, M mass and Ch charge. Telemach greatly profited from that fateful discussion 2 ½ years ago without which he might never have seen the light of day. So I am greatly indebted to Professor Nicolai.

Continue reading “Professor Hermann Nicolai Singlehandedly Guarantees the Planet’s Survival” »

I am fighting a fight that can cost me my scientific reputation, begging for the privilege to be falsified.

The public does not realize this. That I have challenged the brightest minds of the planet to prove that the scientific proof I have offered contains a flaw. No one comes up with a counterproof. Also I am not alone.

My proof implies that that director-general Heuer of CERN is actively trying to kill everyone on the planet out of ideological blindness. The risk is being doubled at CERN during the present month, and is planned to be tripled once more next year. Even now it can already be too late if my presented proof holds water.

The most appalling phenomenon is not the evil nature of the accused ones but the blindness of the press. They totally forgot that science is about truth and that, if no scientist stands up and says “I can prove Rossler wrong and this is my evidence,” Rossler is right.

Authority does not exist in the face of the truth. I can save you and your child. Please, give me the benefit of the doubt.