LHC Facts

(updated January 2, 2009)

Of all the bloggers on line, I have never met a group like UCF.  This is a group of apparently primarily ex-Navy technical people (and a lawyer, a scientist and others) who have a uniquely vulgar and aggressive culture and act somewhat like Internet information police.  I became aware of this group when they posted attacks against the character of scientists I respect.

A goal of this group is apparently to silence scientists and citizens who are concerned that global scientific safety management may be inadequate and that more regulation may be needed.  My polite attempts to defend the character and arguments of scientists like Walter Wager were generally responded to with profanity and personal attacks.

The group calls themselves UCF (Union of Collaborating Founders).  Reading through some of their historical blogs provides some interesting insight to this group, and what might motivate and bring together this unique group of talent.

This is a group of primarily ex-Navy technical personal including a lawyer (Eric), scientist (John)[1] and other technical people lead by Nathan according to Janiece Murphy who lists herself second under Nathan in the list of members.[2]  Many of the members blogs started in 2007 and some of these widely geographically dispersed members have also met in person according to their public blogs.

The group has their own aggressive and vulgar culture, as if they all attended the same course of instruction on how to be vulgar and aggressive on-line.  While it may not seem unexpected for Navy enlisted personnel to be vulgar, it is a bit disturbing for a lawyer to suddenly release a torrent of profanity for apparently no other reason than to show he is capable of being vulgar.

Interestingly the group engaged in an on-line apparently counter-intelligence type exercise (International Hijack Day).[3]

I would not have any interest in this group except for the fact that several of the members appear to be on a mission to “debunk” anyone who questions the management of safety concerns related to Europe’s Large Hadron Collider experiment.  I think it is counter productive to attempt to discredit honest scientists and concerned citizens who are trying to blow a safety whistle and bring some accountability to a global safety issue.

Ex-Navy Warrent Officer Jim Wright provides an example of aggression and threats this group is apparently capable of.  Jim writes: “I’ll warn you once, and once only: You’re going to want to be real careful with that kind of bullshit, Wagner. I am a highly decorated combat veteran, who served honorably, who served in Iraq and elsewhere… and a number of folks that served with me, and that I got home alive, read my site every day, many come here to laugh at you - some, Walter, live in Hawaii. Don’t ever try that type of insinuation again.“[4]

Mr. Wright also states “I’m exceedingly familiar with the history of computer science and engineering and the associated names in the field, and hold a couple of advanced degrees in that field myself“.[4]  Jim Wright did not state if these are accredited advanced engineering degrees or if he accomplished this while serving in the Navy, but he did recently retract statements against Walter Wagner only after threat of a libel suit.[5]  (Contractors are responsible for their own legal defense).

Mr. Wright further states “I agree that there are legitimate concerns about safety. Those concerns have been addressed by actual qualified scientists. Neither Wagner nor Tankersley are qualified in any way to challenge those issues. Neither are scientists, neither are physicists…” Unfortunately Mr Wright fails to realize that legitimate safety concerns were addressed precicely because of Walter Wagner’s concern and brilliant discovery of fundamental flaws with CERN’s safety arguments.

But the comment that finally provoked me to respond with this article was from Janiece Murphy who yesterday called me Walter Wagner’s “butt monkey“.[6]  (For the record, I strongly support Walter Wagner, I think he is a brilliant and selfless scientist and we are all indebted to him for discovering flaws with safety arguments that CERN was not even aware of, but I have never met Walter Wagner in person, I’m happily married and I have no interest in being anyone’s “butt monkey”, not that there is anything wrong with that as comedian Jerry Seinfeld famously said.)

No one knows what the LHC will produce but it is interesting that LHC safety theories are based in part on a quantum model of nature that Dr. Albert Einstein himself did not find credible.[6]   Interesting discussion with one physics PHD who wrote an article including the statement “Was Einstein wrong? About quantum mechanics, yes. Yes he was.“  But after some discussion his final comment is a less decisive “hopefully someday we will be able to discriminate” [if Einstein was correct or not].  (http://startswithabang.com/?p=1304#comment-62654)

Minority opinions are important, sometimes they prove to be valid and CERN and UCF should not focus on trying to silence or unfairly discredit them.

JTankers
Administrator LHC Facts
Assistant Coordinator for Global Risk Reduction (a Special Interest Group of American Mensa)

[1] John the Scientist, UCF member, http://refugeesfromthecity.blogspot.com/2008/10/delusional.html

[2] Janiece Murphy, UCF Blog http://hotchicksdigsmartmen.blogspot.com/2008/06/im-geek-your-geek-everywhere-geek-geek.html

[3] Nathan, UCF Leader, International Hijack™ Day, Polybloggimous “Ideas get in but they don’t get out” (2008) http://polybloggimous.com/2008/01/announcing-international-hijack-day.html

[4] Jim Wright, UCF Response (2008) http://refugeesfromthecity.blogspot.com/2008/10/response.html

[5] Jim Wright UCF Blog, Walter L. Wagner is Pitifully Insane (2008) http://stonekettlestation.blogspot.com/2008/10/walter-l-wagner-pitifully-insane.html

[6] Janiece Murphy, Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men (December 29, 2008), http://hotchicksdigsmartmen.blogspot.com/2008/12/suing-scientific-method.html

[7] NewScientist, Quantum randomness may not be random (22 March 2008) http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700

On August 14th, CERN’s Dr. Jonathan Ellis presented safety arguments to CERN scientists in order that they may use this information to defend CERN. The video presentation is 73 minutes long and the mood of the scientists is serious and somber. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/

Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story unfortunately.

All of Dr. Ellis’s arguments are disputed, done best in papers by Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler[2] and Dr. Rainer Plaga[3].

By far the worst argument is for Hawking Radiation, clearly fundamentally flawed conjecture. Did you see Dr. Ellis’s slide with the outlandish reference to reverse time travel? I did not see a reference to negative energy though. LOL (Laugh Out Loud, anti-matter falling into black holes adds energy to the black hole, no matter how clever the counter arguments are to try to correct Dr. Hawking’s more than 30 year old blunder). See the following for references to a few compelling papers that argue Hawking Radiation is flawed conjecture, black holes are neutral* and do not radiate: [4][5][6]*).

Dr. Michael E. Peskin argues that the micro black hole danger scenarios are plausible except that they are excluded by cosmic ray arguments[1], but he does not address compelling counter arguments by Dr. Plaga[2] and Dr. Rossler[3], summarized well by Dr. Plaga “Concluding, G & M have not demonstrated that white dwarfs stop cosmic-ray produced mBHs in general. Their exclusion of dangerous mBHs thus remains not definite.”

(For the record I do not find plausible the arguments that safety is sufficiently proven for micro black holes created at Large Hadron Collider energies, but the safety of micro black holes created by future higher energy colliders still requires confirmation. I was unable to reconcile this line of reasoning other than it may have been creative wording to disguise and minimize minority opposition concerns in the SPC report.)

The most disturbing statement of all was the stunningly arrogant prediction that safety will be proven when the Large Hadron Collider begins high energy collisions in a few weeks.

I suspect General Custer said something similar to re-assure his troops that he would defeat the American Indian’s at the Little Big Horn. General Custer was arrogant and ignorant, but his mistake had relatively limited consequences.

Dr. Ellis comments that Hawking Radiation is “just elementary quantum mechanics” and argues only that an extremely implausible CP violation result could allow failure. Learn about Bohmian (Einstein deterministic) Quantum theory[7] Dr. Ellis then decide which passes the Occam’s Razor test by an order of magnitude and decide how sure you are about “elementary quantum mechanics” before you arrogantly potentially risk the future of humanity and belittle the genius of Dr. Rössler and others in your rush to prove yourself correct. Reverse Hawking Radiation is a theory you should familiarize your self with, it is predicted by at least one speculative theory that I find compelling[8].

An open and independent safety conference as Dr. Rössler calls for is desperately needed before micro black hole creation energy thresholds might be exceeded. The response to petition Swiss President Pascal Couchepin not to meet with Dr. Rössler appears to follow the pattern that Dr. Rossler alleges in his blog[9] “I consider it very plausible that the [disinformation] policy of CERN’s has shielded the author from his field of research for the last 18 months“

Heed the appeal for reasonable confirmation of safety arguments by an open and independent credible decision making process before collisions begin.

Sincerely, JTankers Founder and co-administrator of LHCFacts.org

• Dr. Otto E. Rössler’s brilliant yet obvious re-interpretation[6] of General Relativity theory concludes that [the horizon of black holes is infinitely far in spacetime from the outside world and never quite finished].  Dr. Rossler calculates that Earth will be destroyed in 50 months to 50 years if micro black holes are created (micro black holes become charged by capturing charged particles outside the event horizon). Dr. Ellis arrogantly and ignorantly belittles “Mr. Rössler”. Inappropriate, unbecoming and utterly misguided.

[0] http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/ The LHC is Safe - Dr. J Ellis

[1] http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14 The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? - Michael E. Peskin Paper, 8/18/2008

[2] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders - Rainer Plaga Rebuttal, 8/10/2008

[3] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma - Otto E. Rōssler Safety Counter Arguments

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1 Do black holes radiate? Do black holes radiate? - Adam D. Helfer Paper.

[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137 On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again - VA Belinski Paper.

[6] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk - Otto E. Rōssler Theory a

[7] http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, New Scientist Magazine, March 22, 2008

[8] http://www.bigcrash.org “The Pre-Big Bang Universe Model”, open source physics project

[9] http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/21/on_the_splendid_article_by_michael_e_pes “On the Splendid Article by Michael E. Peskin” by Otto E. Rossler, August 21, 2008

ATTENTION SWISS CITIZENS - WE NEED YOU!

SUBJECT: How to proceed in order to launch a Swiss nationwide initiative:
DRAFT VERSION. MAY CONTAIN ERRORS.WILL BE UPDATED REGULARLY.

Requirements:

3 Swiss citizens over 20 years old

1. Create initiative committee. Write initiative paper (proposed change of Law, usually in Swiss constitution) 3 Swiss citizens need to form this committee and sign the initiative.

2. The signed initiative paper needs to be sent to the Bundeskanzlei in Berne, Switzerland

3. The Bundeskanzlei will verify the validity of the initiative. Usually no problem. (Example: initiative to remove military was valid)

4. The Bundeskanzlei will then send back to authorisation to start getting signatures. 100,000 valid signatures of Swiss citizens are required and 2 years time is allowed to get these signatures. In order to get 100,000 valid signatures, about 115,000 signatures are required, as usually 10-15 % are not valid. All signatures have to be gathered by community (Example Bern is a community, but the little Ostermundigen next to Berne is also a community). Then the signatures for each community need to be sent back to the community for official validation. The community then sends back the validated signatures to the initiative committee.

5. As soon as the 100,000 signatures are gathered, the are sent back to the Bundeskanzlei in Berne.

6. A second validation of the initiative is made by the parliament in Berne

7. If all is OK, the whole Swiss population is then asked to vote on the initiative

Notes:
It is possible to get the 100,000 signatures. With some effort. Swiss are usually very open to sign any kind of initiative that sounds remotely interesting.It is difficult to pass the popular vote. Most initiatives (about 95%) get rejected by the population [edit: even if this effort fails the consolation is that...] popular initiative is a GREAT way to raise this awareness.

Getting popular people to support an initiative can help a lot. Dr. Roessler would be an ideal candidate Getting the signatures requires people. As far as I know, the government has to allow public space (on high frequency places) to build stands, to display information material etc.

Visit LHCDefense.org Legal Room for all the legal documents in the case.

The first hearing in US Federal Court in Hawaii (focused on the potential existential threat this experiment may pose to the planet) is scheduled for June 16, 2008. The Safety and legal issues surrounding this planned experiment may arguably be the most relevant topic related to the Large Hadron Collider at this time.

Note that the lawsuit also alleges the following on page 15 of AFFIDAVIT OF LUIS SANCHO IN SUPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

“CERN has neither asked mankind to validate these experiments, nor has it been open and clear about those risks to the public. On the contrary it has systematically hidden evidence, and hence it is, in my opinion and hopefully that of this Court, liable of criminal negligence and occultation of proofs, as it carries about what amounts to a potential global genocide“.

For a short discussion on Risk Calculations and Assumptions, I recommend the reasonable quality, short discussion of risks and calculations in the comments under one of Martin Meenagh’s recent June 2008 blogs and some related calculations at James Blodgett on Risks. including this assessment:

”If the following reasonable and plausible assumptions prove to be correct, then the uncomfortable truth may be that the probability of destruction of Earth could be closer to 100%, far from the often quoted 1 in 50 million, though only mother nature currently knows for certain due to our limited understanding of the physics involved.”

A. LHC Creates black holes as CERN Predicted (1 per second) [1]
B. Micro Black holes do not evaporate as LSAG accepts is plausible. [2]
C. One or more micro black holes are captured by Earth’s gravity as LSAG accepts as plausible. [3]
D. Micro Black holes grow exponentially as Dr. Otto E. Rossler ’s paper predicts and calculates. [4]

Unfortunately, “no risk” propaganda may be so effective in lowering the fear to the level that even mosts physicists do not bother to check the facts… they like most of society assume that other physicists would not gamble with the safety of the planet, and that what is being told to the public is an open and honest assessment of “no risk” and not just public relations propaganda…

However after reasonable fact checking it quickly becomes clear that “no risk” or even the prior assessment of “minimal risk” is far from a reasonable assessment of the real unknown risks involved, that may be a probability rather than just a possibility…

The affidavit of Luis Sancho on page 18 also includes this allegation.

CERN censors information on the risks involved. Its Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of ‘minimal risk’. This happened as he himself explained in a 2007 interview in The New Yorker, due to the growing public fear. So instead of addressing the legitimate fears of the citizenship, CERN decided to hide all risks involved;

Note that the statement “no risk” has been confidently told to the press and the public, long after CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group acknowledged fundamental flaws and omissions from prior assertions that rendered such prior assessments inadequate and invalid, and before any new safety study had been either completed nor passed any known peer review.

(… fundamental flaws and omissions including the cosmic ray theory of safety that failed to realize and/or acknowledge that the results of cosmic ray collisions with stationary particles on Earth would travel too fast to be captured by Earth’s gravity but has since been acknowledged by LSAG, and failure to realize and/or acknowledgment that credible papers exist that dispute whether Hawking Radiation exists at all, whether micro black holes might grow rather than evaporate [1][2][3][4], dispute that micro black hole might evaporate before growing, which again LSAG did later acknowledge was plausible)

Perhaps it can be argued that presenting misleading risk assessments to the press and to external scientists can be justified. I do not share that opinion.

(And just to be clear, the promised theory of safety still has not been released to the world’s scientists to peer review and validate for at least four months as demanded in the legal action submitted to US Federal Courts, though CERN reports to the press that this safety assessment has been completed.).

The legal papers have been served to CERN, copies attached.

(To view a larger image, depending on the browser you are using, you may be able to right mouse-click on the image to view and zoom in)

Visit LHCDefense.org Legal Room for all the legal documents in the case.

Dockets State of Hawaii
Case case no-1:2008cv00136, case_id-78717

Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy et al HI GILLMOR Environmental Matters Environment: Review of Agency Action
Plaintiff: Luis Sancho, Walter L. Wagner Defendant: U.S. Department of Energy, Fermilab, Center For Nuclear Energy Research (CERN), National Science Foundation, Doe Entities 1-100

Copy of Complaint:
Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy et al HI GILLMOR Environmental Matters

Affidavits:
James Blodgett
Luis Sancho
Mark Leggett
Paul W Dixon
Richard J Wagner
Rod Skinner
Walter L. Wagner

Summons for CERN to appear in US Federal Court

Federal Defendants’ Key Memorandum Filed 2008/06/24
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT