Dear Plamen:
I love your response.But: it misses my point: The fact that I have provided a 
proof since 9 years' time (often published) as to why the experiment represents 
a sizeable risk. Everyone in physics is invited to invalidate my proof. 
I am not against taking unknown risks in science. I am only opposed to acting 
against known risks.
But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main and 
real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG for 
exactly as long.
But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly refuses 
to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of history), it 
is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in the world, from the 
media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to America to Asia, is even able 
to spot this fact as deserving to be alleviated or at least publicly discussed. 

Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
historically unique phenomenon? 
(Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right? Forgive me 
the pun.) 
Can you kindly distribute this response of mine?
I am very grateful for the discussion,take care, everyone,Otto

      From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <>
 To: Louis H Kauffman <> 
Cc: fis <>
 Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:42 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear Louis, Pedro and FISers,

I have been knowing Otto for about a litle less than 10 years now.
What I have learned from him is that he has a very subtle sense of humor and 
What I conclude about this issue with CERN's LHC is that he wishes nothing 
more/less than an a priori theoretical proof that the black hole experiments 
will not lead to a collaps of the Earth.
He would be more than happy if somebody provides this proof and his concerns 
about our future appear ungrounded, so that the experiments can continue 
without any fear about the possible end of humanity. But as he said, nobody has 
done this until now. Nobody has taken these concerns seriously. The key 
question for us is why do we allow such experiments without having such a 
proof? Why do we play with fire in our own kitchen without being sure that we 
can deal with its breakout? If the accident occurs, then it will be too late to 
prevent the danger, unless we have a time machine, which is not the case at the 
moment, I am afraid.

So, I think that Otto's appeal can be considered as a challenge not less 
important than the one with the proof of Fermat's last theorem.
While there was no danger from keeping this problem unsolved for 300+ years, we 
may have a real problem now.
So, why not trying to administer science for being performed in a reasonable 
way: to not place the horses (experimental science) before the cabin 
(theoretical science) - which is the case with LHC?
Otto only wishes to say: "We should not do such experients, until we have a 
theoretical proof or at least to have a computer simulation demonstrating that 
the chance of having such a disaster is diminishing." And even if this is the 
case, we should carry a referendum over 4+ billion people on Earth on wether to 
allow such experiments or not. They are not only an issue ofr a government or 
of an over-excited community of physicists. Please correct me if I am wrong, 
I hope this helps.

All the best.



On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Louis H Kauffman <> wrote:

Dear Folks,It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning 
Professor Rossler made is to be taken seriously.It is relatively easy to check 
if a mathematical reasoning is true or false.It is much more difficult to see 
if a piece of mathematics is correctly alligned to physical prediction.Note 
also that a reaction such as "THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN 
of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the form of taking a given 
conclusion for granted and using it to support another opinion that is just 
that - an opinion. 
By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political state of the 
This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of the 
possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.
At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall read and 
look forward to making further comments next week.Best,Lou Kauffman

On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <> wrote:
 From Alex Hankey-------- Mensaje reenviado --------  
| Asunto:  | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story |
| Fecha:  | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 |
| De:  | Alex Hankey <> |

<> wrote:
  Dear FISers, 
  Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions. I really hope that this 
Curious Story is just that, a curiosity. But in science we should not look for 
hopes but for arguments and counter-arguments... 
  Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year! --Pedro 
   De: Otto E. Rossler []
 Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
 Asunto: NY session
  A Curious Story   Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
  Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make it 
even more curious for me. It goes  like this: Someone says “I can save your 
house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by saying “I 
don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist bible.     It of 
course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic person 
claiming that he alone can save the  planet from a time-bomb about to be 
planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the other 
hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the moment so 
that you  don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How serious is my offer 
herewith made to you today?   I only say that for eight years' time already, 
there exists no counter-proof in the literature to my at  first highly 
publicized proof of danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black 
holes officially attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically new 
   - they cannot Hawking evaporate 
   - they grow exponentially inside matter   
   If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing 
ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth  near the town of Geneva means that 
the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there 
exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of 
undetectable growth. Therefore  the current attempt of CERN's to produce them 
near Geneva is a bit curious.    What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is 
the fact that no one finds it curious. I am reminded of an old  joke: The 
professor informs the candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the 
following words “You are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never 
understood the punchline. I likewise  cannot understand why a never refuted 
proof of the biggest danger of history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT 
check an unattended piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?     To my 
mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason that everyone 
finds it boring. A  successful counter-proof would thus alleviate but a single 
person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus my last hope that you 
might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why is it that it does not 
matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious to 
learn why attempting  planetocide is fun.  Are you not?
  For J.O.R.
 ______________________________ _________________
 Fis mailing list n/mailman/listinfo/fis
   Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
 Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
 SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
 Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India  
 Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195  Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789  
______________________________ ______________________________ 
  2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics 
and Phenomenological Philosophy       ______________________________ 
Fis mailing list bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

______________________________ _________________
Fis mailing list bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to