Friday, February 25, 2011

Rössler's last defender: Richard Kane

As we saw in Otto Rössler and Achtphasen: D-I-V-O-R-C-E, even Marc Fasnacht doesn't listen to poor Otto anymore. But Richard Kane, whom we wrote about in Mini black holes are not the only danger and Richard Kane on the LHC, 9/11, and more, remains steadfast.

Richard's February 6 post Doomsday Collider Revisited has accumulated ten comments. One is from a reader called "Doubter" and takes Richard to task for poor spelling. Eight are from Richard himself, sadly. But one was posted by Otto Rössler, who says of his black hole warning

If acknowledged within one week's time, it lets all human beings including the Egyptians breathe freely again.

Otto, I think the Egyptians have other things on their minds right now.

On, Richard left a February 7th comment:

The dangers of the large Hadon [sic] Collider needs [sic] to be put in context.

Every year Aug 6, 1946 [sic. 1945, thanks tk] is remembered for the bombing of Hiroshima, but more significantly a month earlier July 16 the first atomic explosion occurred dispute [sic] some credible calculation it might destroy the world. Corn was genetically injected with insecticide to be fed only [to] pigs, but national crossbreeding and wind means [sic] Mexican peasants get allergies from the insecticide in their corn tortillas.

In a [sic] auto race it [sic] there are a couple of deaths the race is stopped and the rules and road condition parameters changed, yet many froze to death chasing after the North than [sic] later South pole. There is a habit of incredible risk with now the entire earth as the laboratory,

See and comment on,
Richard Kane´s last blog ..Survivalism can be Sprouts & Potatoes not Guns

El Naschie Watch is pleased to have been given the opportunity to present Richard's latest œuvre, Doomsday Gambles or False Rumors, in its entirety. He sent it to me and Otto just today.

Doomsday Gambles or False Rumors

by Richard Kane
Friday, 25 February 2011 01:10

It's easy to confuse big numbers, and tend not to check on big claims, or when Professor Otto Rossler claims that micro black holes, may be dangerous to just add the number of experts, on the other side, who say it's safe. I hope to inspire other people to join me in drawing mental pictures that in some way approach the higher math that can lead to life and death decisions for our planet.

For starters, how does a mini black that Otto Rossler says will eat the earth compare to the size of the earth? Hint, one site said a quintillion pennies would be a cube almost as high as Mt Everest,

For this and some other reasons which I will dwell on below, I will conceptualize that a mini black hole eating up the planet would be like a dust mike consuming a solid ball the blocking out our entire solar system, but growing in size to be as big as a house. This kind of vitalizing becomes very important when arguing whether or not the collider is dangerous. Each side emphasizing conceptions, the other side misses.

Some of those who oppose collider research claim that it probably won't create anything useful. But the race to try to create absolute zero (besides loss of eyesight from exploding test tubes with some early experiments) the results have been put to use by our modern world. Without helium turned into a liquid by cooling it to almost absolute zero to put in the cooling pipes, keeping the magnets working and measuring instruments from melting would be difficult.

It's easy to get in the habit of not thinking things through. Growing up we hear children's stories such as of a little boy saving Holland from a flood by sticking his finger in a leaking dike, without asking ourselves is it possible, or a subject when ask by the King what reward he would like he answered a grain of wheat doubled for each square on the chess board, and the king's aids coming back later saying that there wasn't that much wheat in the kingdom.

I started doubling the number two 64 times reenacting the chessboard story. And continued weeks later with the help of graph paper and to correct math mistakes adding the digits,
(32+32=64, 3+2=5 x 2=10 or 1, and combining the digits of 64, 6+4=10 or 1).

I noticed that the 10th time was 1,048, and ten more doubles was 1,048,576. Ten more a little more that a billion, then a trillion, then a quadrillion, then a quintillion so the last square of the chess board would have over four quintillion grains of wheat on it, stacked up through the roof, for thousands of miles, unless knocked down by the Moon. Remember a quintillion of pennies would be a cube almost as high as Mt Everest. I did find the exact answer or a number that when adding the digits and doubling them was the same.

Anyway I'll go back to putting bread crumb bits or grains of wheat on a chess board, so to speak. Since cosmic rays and neutrons travel through stars like they are glass balls and direct hits are so infrequent that I wonder if the space molecules can be compared with the space between stars in the sky, and the spaces in the atom of similar magnitude. Otherwise, why would there only be a few direct hits? A micro black hole would supposedly have the mass of a thousand protons,

This to me doesn't make sense since the black hole could only have less mass than the speck and the cosmic wave combined. Let's vitalize little electric trains coming at each other in the collider. I doubt if the entire beams could become one black hole, but perhaps with natural black holes in the upper atmosphere if somehow if one bit of matter much smaller than dust combines with other bits near by and goes forward at the speed of light, then conceivable that would be possible for the entire two trains in a collider to join together instead of exploding. More likely the traveling hole at a tip of a cosmic ray is smaller than suspected.

Gravity is called a weak force. But any item if condensed enough would have overwhelming gravity. If the earth was a styrofoam ball of the same mass, we would seem to weigh much less. For every foot you move away from and object gravity gets four times weaker. If one took Otto Rossler earlier suggestion to wait to do collider research on the moon, and the moon collapsed into a little hole, the tides would remain the same but the moon would no longer be seen. In a rocket ship orbiting where the surface of the moon used to be and stopped on top of some kind of many miles high flag pole, the astronaut would feel the same gravity as the astronaut who walked on the moon but weightless in the spaceship. If the spaceship circled close, one's middle would seem weightless while one's head and feet would be getting heavy in opposite directions. Somehow no physicist who call gravity a weak force visualizes that every atom has almost infinite force if condensed enough.

For some reason I can't picture objects at the speed of light don't ricochet. I wonder at what point slower than the speed of light would things that hit each other start ricocheting. To try to examine some of this stuff, a seven-mile underground race track was built where something similar to but much smaller than two trains are pulled faster and faster around the track by magnets, then crashed into each other so researchers can watch what the sparks produce. If a bottomless little hole is in the sparks would it continue on at the speed the train of going, or stay somewhat still. Scientists don't ask will it ricochet and perhaps since slower than the speed of light get embedded by the sun. If stationary would they grow heavy and sink toward the center of the earth? Does Hawkins radiation exist meaning that the black hole would loss energy instead of growing endlessly in weight from whatever entered it's gravitational field. Most researchers say micro black hole must be unstable or else the entire universe would be consumed by now.

Anyway I'll go back again to putting bread crumbs on a chess board, so to speak, if the gravity at the distance of a newly formed black hole to the distance a atom once was is almost nothing one would have to get 99.9 % closer to the middle of the now a black hole to have a strong gravitational pull, and as soon as an atom bounced into another one in the hot earth core it would fall of the atom, and wait around for another to get on top of it. (I better watch my images.) Like taking a shop vac vacuum clearer to swirling tiny balls of packing material, smaller than the balls and the pull so weak that the ball being sucked into the bottomless hole fall off when another styrofoam ball hits it.

Bottomless holes could be in stellar and planetary objects but we would never know it unless our planet stayed around many trillions of years. Wait a minute if the temperature was near absolute zero like the liquid helium coolant in a collider and an atom of helium leisurely bounce around, the little hole could have a little shop vac vacuum cleaner bounce with it like it was riding a horse, and if some of the helium cooling coils were perpendicular instead of horizontal, while gravity would make the hole drift downward, it would dart up every time it grabbed a new helium atom, and when finally drifting toward the earth's core have gravity pull strong enough to finish its meals before part of its meal was knocked away. Of course micro black holes might be unstable. One reason for a tiny swirling hole to become unstable would be for a meal much larger than itself shot into it, making part of the spinning hole much heaver than the other half, (vitalize a car tire or a spinning toy top) but not at almost absolute zero temperatures the atom slowly moving toward the hole might be digestible without choking from eating too fast.

They might stay stable and if its really difficult for anything to get close enough for gravity to take over perhaps the dark matter in the universe is really tiny black holes and dark energy parts of atoms and other things that got close enough for gravity to take over. Oops, it would make it look like there was a fog out there. But if the difference between a mini black hole was of a hole the size of a dust mite, and the atom the size of a solid ball as big as the solar system so many times over that it was like a sphere the size of our solar system, added to the weight every second that the civilized world existed, there wouldn't be much blockage of the light rays despite almost an infinite number of little holes.

If tiny holes are stable the collider instruments only sees unstable ones falling apart. The likely way for researchers to discover that they are making stable very low suction tiny holes would be if many billions of them made something else heavier than expected. If traveling near the speed of light the collider formed black holes would create thin lines in the sky until one line hits the sun. Holes at the speed of light are only stopped by a neutron star, but what happens if they were traveling at less than the speed of light? If they are stop in the earth it is likely but not certain, that there are other situations were they would stop in the middle of a planet, if they can only travel at the speed of the beam that created them, all natural holes travel at the speed of light embedded in the beam that created them. In this case the collider creating what nature never could a hole traveling not at the speed of light.

A collider might also create strangelets, that are neither solid, liquid or gas, that would sink toward the center of the earth with plenty of time for our children's children to try figure out how to remove it or seek shelter elsewhere than earth. Somewhat near when earth-life would need to move to another planet, there would violent earthquakes and things would get heavy from the earth shrinking. The main way strangelets could be of immediate danger is if they are at the surface where they might look like an oil spill but act like silly putty that could blow in the air in a strong wind, and maybe get into the water as well. Something like asbestos dust but would probably take longer to kill in small quantities slower than most people will die from other causes, but this oil like type spill would be impossible to clean up until our grandchildren figure out how. If it turns up in the collider, one might throw oxygen tanks, food, water, and entertainment inside and seal the scientists in. Human nature what it is they might sneak out without telling anyone the problem. The harm done to the body by starangeletostos would be very slow, unless it affects the growth of an unborn baby or fetal creatures in general The most noticeably thing by many would be the Swiss franc losing most its value, and Swiss bank accounts perhaps evaporating, from people trying to quickly get their money out before there is a problem. When nuclear power plants are built, the people surrounding them meet and form "not in our neighborhood" organizations. The more we discover strangelets are possible the more the Swiss and French can join the "not in my neighborhood" crowd. It's senseless to worry about Swiss bank accounts instead of if our air and water will be safe, DDT affected penguins. To change the subject genetic engineering could also lead to the same problems. But the human race doesn't make sense, or else people in the past wouldn't be heading toward the South and North pole freezing to death and the one who made it their first given great honors.

I realized I might have ruined a carefully written post by emphasizing the least likely scenario when it comes to strangelets. It would be hard to be wrong suggesting a dust mite eating a solid object the size of our solar-system, since that solid object could be wood or lead, and the solar system could include or not include Pluto. The height of grain of wheat to the sky depends on how big the chess board is. If I did woefully underestimate how vastly bigger in comparison of a dust mite to the solar system perhaps this or other atomic differences can be expressed using adding the time factor to create another means of expressing huge. We will accomplish more by determinedly trying to grasp and visualize what our research computers discover than by pilling in new raw data.

There are immediate steps that could be taken to make the collider safer.

The second step to make the collider safer is not to have experiments conducted during dust or dawn and only when the likelihood of a ricocheting object striking the sun is more likely. Next, having the helium in segments flowing through the cooling tubes followed by warmer liquids. Liquid hydrogen could be a problem. Any cooling wrap that is vertical not horizontal should be replaced. Then carefully check and recheck the weight of articles to see if there are usually safe holes that don't degenerate, and thus have never been detected.

The first step would be to immediately stop all experiments until there are resolutions on the subject at the UN. Doing this would create habits that would make our planet safer even if in the end it turns out they are nothing to worry about. This is the second scare. The first scare was when there was fears that the first atomic bomb explosion might ignite the atmosphere, but the risk was considered small and Hitler might get it first, then three months after the war in Europe ended Trinity was exploded anyway. Then there was fears similar fears with the hydrogen bomb development, even if nothing dangerous can be made in the collider breaking the chain of ignoring risk might save our planet,

The US, when it was founded honored clearing the wild land. Now we and much of the world honors preserving the wilderness and the environment. There are many dangerous experiments and the world is now the laboratory. We will likely not survive unless we learn to honor caution. More detail on this last point at,
by Richard Kane

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى


  1. The link seems to be missing,

    Claiming me (Richard Kane) as Otto's last supporter doesn’t make sense.

    A maniac is driving a car and Otto claims this is the last minute at every turn. It's not considered etiquette for a learned professor to cling and carry on. So what. What matters is that Otto is tirelessly trying to protect us from destruction.

  2. Hi Richard, the link should be working now. Try it again. It's the one just following your quote.

  3. Just for the record: the bombing of Hiroshima was in 1945, not in 1946.

  4. Rössler has written a new "paper":