Oct 4, 2011

Modern Physics Is Pure Dogmatism

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Three years ago, the head of the most prestigious relativistic institution when I asked him to give me an appointment said simply “no” – explaining me in 20 long minutes why he could not do so (because the consensus in his institute about my paper would then possibly no longer be uniform).

I thought this was a personal flaw. No it is obvious that physics as a whole has ceased to be a science and been transformed into an ideology – the deadliest of all time.

It is no wonder that journalists are not being treated any better than me: as non-persons. My comparison with another dark age appears to be much more fitting than I had feared.

Not a single physicist on the planet dares think on his own or show courage – what would he or she have to lose by talking with a dissident who publicly offers evidence he desperately wants to have disproved owing to its potentially lifesaving character?

The “Accelerated Expansion” Nobel prize of today is an example, too. The observations honored are more than worthy. But the label is a lie. That hypothesis has long been disproved. I hope my three colleagues can forgive me that I ask them to mention in their acceptance speeches that they are only responsible for new facts and that the interpretation is just an — according to the opinion of a minority — long since falsified hypothesis.

Please, der UNO, dear president Obama, dear premier Wen, dear dalai, dear pope: do dare ask for counterevidence to the proof of danger – in a tiny little safety conference – IMMEDIATELY.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. I forgot Hugo Chavez.

  2. Christopher Carr says:

    Why does this individual continue to have a platform here?

  3. At long last an engaged response: Thank you, Andrew. You are right. But maybe you can forgive me for having said the above?

    The whole community finds it okay if scientific proofs are openly ignored by CERN. The public request for a scientific safety conference is being publicly denied for 3 1/2 years, without any reason being given, but the scientific community looks away.

    Such a scandal has never happened: that reason is disallowed to be applied in a situation of an unfathomable, maximally important to investigate, consciously incurred risk to everyone.

    If then by chance you see like me that another nonsense — absolutely unimportant but a globe-wide ideology which happens to have been disproved by your own group for almost a decade — is uncritically presented as truth, the temptation to use this occasion to draw attention to the important other case is – I hope — forgivable? I would be glad if you could.

    This is the last occasion to stop the remaining 50 percent of the danger planned to be added this very month. No help is in sight.

    If you wish I took the Nobel committee hostage. Do you see a way how we could give them a hint to address the most Alfred-Nobel-like situation of history ever? Pandynamite. Would you help me approach them with the request to ask CERN to at long last tell the planet why their experiment cannot possibly kill everyone?

    Here on this web-page?

    I ask your and everyone else’s heartfelt forgiving, especially the three new laureates’. Would you help me in getting it and winning their friendship?

  4. Christopher — you had interloped without my seeing you. Would you also care to respond?

  5. Robert Houston says:

    There is no one on Earth more deserving of a platform at Lifeboat than Prof. Otto Rossler. Lifeboat was founded to focus attention on risks to the future of the planet and humanity. Dr. Rossler is the only scientist with the insight, knowledge and courage to speak out publicly over time concerning what may be the greatest risk this world ever faced: the potential production of localized black holes by CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

    The particle physics community resists a safety conference or any outside review of CERN’s potential doomsday machine, because they constitute a special interest group concerned foremost with their careers and curiosity — the most selfish of all motives. Nuclear and subnuclear physicists have brought the planet to the brink of destruction with the development of nuclear weaponry. As physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer observed: “Physicists have known sin.” Yet what may be produced at CERN — a planet-devouring black hole — could extinguish all life and is thus a threat far worse than even global nuclear war.

    Thank God for Otto Rossler –the one heroic scientist who continues to speak out against CERN’s reckless folly.

  6. Prof Rossler has platform on this blog because pretty much anyone can (heck they even let me on). It’s still a bunch of codswallop all the same.

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Codswallop is Australian for German “Stuss” = nonsense.

    I agree. But the proof of nonsense is all that is being asked for.

    Nietzsche said: “But every hollow nut still wants to be cracked.”

    Are you strong enough, dear Steve?

    Take care,

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    But to come back to Prof Houston:

    It is not the refusal to have a safety conference that is the biggest problem of humankind ever and at this most precious short moment of history: It is their refusal to stop until safety has been established by such a conference.

    The latter was first asked for most hopefully 3 1/2 years ago: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf

  9. robomoon says:

    »”…physics as a whole has ceased to be a science and been transformed into an ideology — the deadliest of all time.” >“Name the second deadliest…”. The 2nd was the 1st. This http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/49568-united-nations-he…_p__476944 response to a message regarding UN law could provoke to tell about a political standpoint in hindsight to one of the previously deadliest ideologies: racial nationalism — relabeled as socialism. »“Not a single physicist on the planet dares think on his own…”. >“Of course there are some.” Even physicists like Frank Wilczek have not done some research to reveal one risk. They only came to admit: “there could be an unexpected outcome, though not dangerous!” In http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgjlv8_frank-wilczek-debunk…e-lhc_news he revealed no assumptions about cosmic rays different from others and he also said before: “we worked very hard…”, so that barely shows he worked (thought) on his own.

  10. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I need advice from the world: How can we stop CERN until the suppressed open question is answered? We have only days since in 4 weeks’ time the danger — if there indeed is one — of earth evaporation will have been doubled.

    Note that CERN does not contradict me with a single word.

  11. AnthonyL says:

    Professor Rossler, it is surely standard for an established modern institution and its members to ignore critics if it possibly can, since as long as the critic has no major platform it is immune to his/her assault, and any response would only add to his/her credibility which is the last thing they want.

    Possibly Lifeboat is not a high enough platform to force a response from CERN or any of the institutions within the establishment wall. This is where the media are failing you, for they could provide a platform high enough to ignite debate if you could publish in say the New York Times or the Times of London, etc. This is why I provided you with an edited version of your possible Op Ed piece.

    If they have ignored it or turned it down, is it possible for you to join with any colleagues and form a united front? This would seem to be the next step. If you can not enjoin any of your colleagues to join you in your political initiative, it may be very difficult to win any response from the well known massive edifice of entrenched resistance in every field to a maverick insider, or qualified outsider.

    That edifice is a vast part of modern life. Only political movements at the grass roots level seem able to move it successfully in national politics in the US or other countries. In this case a grass roots movement is very difficult for you to muster given the fact that physicists hide behind their expertise and are impossible for anyone but a peer to contradict, and one man against the edifice is likely to be no more successful than a beatle trying to climb up the side of a bath.

    Whether or not people can understand your mathematical physics theorem however they can surely understand the basic concept that unlimited escalation of the LHC and of the even bigger colliders now in prospect now risks running into difficulty at some point since everyone agrees we do not know what may result and there is plenty of agreement that it will result in strange and unpredictable entities such as mini Black Holes and strangelets which are not yet fully worked out by physicists to a point where all agree as to what their actual shape and behavior will be.

    This basic concept of escalation being by definition a black hole of risk is surely one with which many people can instinctively agree, and could win you followers expanding into a global movement of revolutionary resistance against the highhanded and irresponsible rule of the oh-so-clever schoolboys who are currently partying at CERN without any oversight as the expansion of the LHC energy proceeds.

    You can surely join other critics is persuading the public that “keeping our fingers crossed” is not a sufficient safety strategy even if they continue to ignore your Telemach theorem.

  12. You speak from my heart over long stretches.

    But then you become too meek. You think if a ship’s boy cries: I saw an iceberg, here is my proof, this does not suffice to wake up the captain. Here you overlook that the world’s media, if refusing to report on an undispooved proof of infinite danger, are not reporters but something else.

  13. AnthonyL says:

    Professor, the media are not the high toned professionals you seem to imagine they are, in your generous spirit if respecting those in responsible positions. They are typically underfunded, lazy, corner cutting, under researched, psychologically ignorant rabble for the most part, in keeping with a fine tradition begun on Grub Street, London, is=n Samuel Johnson’s time.

    Part of the problem is that publishers cannot get the public to pay up for reporters who are very good, so they are badly lacking in time and other resources. At the New York Times they are also far too plugged into the established people in other fields who share their complacent trust in the opinion of others in the club.

    So they are easily hoodwinked by CERN officials.

  14. I know, I know, media people are in spite of their frequent heroism human beings, too. Your explanation is absolutely correct statitically speaking. Like saying that most peopleare not Mozarts.

    But as an explanation for the fact that there is not a single Mozart any more — not a single intellectual on the planet left -, your argument is not convincing. The most important intellectuals on the planet are indeed the investigative journalists.

    Thereis no holier profession.

  15. AnthonyL says:

    An excellent point, Professor, resplendent with glowing optimism and faith in humanity, a fire at which the reluctant cynic can warm his frozen hands. There is indeed a fine fraternity of investigative journalists in science proper, starting with John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune, who exposed the shenanigans of Robert Gallo, who became the most referenced scientist in the world for a time by misappropriating the discovery of “HIV” the “cause of AIDS” and pretending that he had proved it was the cause (1÷3 of patient samples only, not very persuasive, Bob). There are others, such as myself, and the distinguished Liam Scheff, Celia Farber, and a handful of other stars in a dark heaven.

    Basically, you can count them on the fingers of two hands.

    Against them is arrayed the host of lickspittle craven fellow traveling hirelings who have as much independent critical faculties as field mice.

  16. Dear Anthony:

    John Crewdson
    Liam Scheff
    Celia Farber
    Bob Woodward
    Carl Bernstein

    An impressive list of names. Is there a way to bringing them to take notice of the CERN posts that this website was daring enough to make public?

    Or but one of them? (Then it would be already two since I omitted one name.)

    Forgive me but I am driven by the feeling of fire in my back.

    Take care,

  17. If all the world’s males have failed to be rational and humane: Is there a woman journalist on the planet whom we coul contact? In Africa from where humanity in both senses of the word is coming from?

  18. AnthonyL says:

    Since those listed have failed to correct the situation they pointed to in 25 years, it seems that those that did manage to get action (Woodward, Bernstein) were helped by their platform and by the existence of a large body of political opponents of the status quo (Nixon’s reign and criminality).

    Thereffore you have to somehow get both.

  19. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No: it would suffice to get the support of a single female nobelist, for example.


  20. Robert Houston says:

    Harvard physics professor and cover girl Lisa Randall (see photo: http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/cern-ii-2011.htm ) developed the 5-dimensional Randall-Sundrum model of space-time, which is one of the major theories of multiple dimensions and is the basis for the scariest predictions about the speed of black hole growth. Given 5 dimensions as in her model (i.e. one extra spatial dimension), then “the earth would be accreted into the black hole in 27 years,” according to three CERN-affiliated physicists (B. Koch et al. Arxiv.org, July 22, 2008, v. 1). This is the exact midpoint of Dr. Rossler’s estimate of 50 months to 50 years. It is thus possible that Prof. Randall might be approachable on the safety issues.

    As for female journalists, at least one, Australian writer Marguerite Thoresen, has written an excellent review of the LHC safety issues and gave favorable attention to Prof. Rossler’s theory (see: http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/lhc.htm ),

  21. AnthonyL says:

    Do we even have a female Nobelist in astrophysics, Professor?

    A Nobelist in another field probably would not suffice.

    Do you have one in mind?

  22. Andrew says:

    Why were my comments deleted?