RSS

-W.S. Suits

‘This extremely complex debate is of concern to more than just the physicists’.

Judge H. Gillmor . Sancho vs. DOE

‘Those who impose truth with power will be the laugh of the Gods’

Einstein, denied by Higgs and Hawking with their theories about mass and evaporating black holes.

Abstract

The Walter-Sancho papers of this post are the last papers produced during the suits that confronted on one side, Mr. Walter, qualified as a ‘retired safety officer’ of accelerators at Livermore and Mr. Sancho,alternately considered a ‘journalist of science’ or a ‘self-styled time theorist‘  and 7 other scientists acting as plaintiffs Vs. the establishment of big science, CERN, DOE and other state organizations, which recruited the two most prominent nuclear physicists of the age, Mr. Wilczeck and Mr. Glashow, responsible for the formalism of the strong and weak force to defend the thesis that CERN was by no means a black hole factory and would not produce black holes.

Of course, the punch the two groups provided left no doubt among the P.R.ess on which was truth, without ever considering in detail the ‘naked scientific facts they simply didn’t understand, following the erroneous concepts that ‘authority is superior to truth’ and ‘nuclear physic(ist)s’ are not part of an industrial concern, which could lie for the money, as all companies do, but only an idealistic endeavor.

However if we were to consider only an objective analysis of the facts, based in the 3 tenants or legs of truth of the scientific method, experimental facts, logic consistency and mathematical consistency of the two theories confronted on those suits – Mr. Hawking’s evaporating black holes and Mr. Einstein’s immortal, fast-feeding ones – there was no doubt the risks existed, as Hawking never passed any of the 3 legs and Einstein has never failed one, and if Einstein is right a black hole at CERN will kill all of us.

Who was then right, ‘authority’ or ‘truth’. We expected to have a fair trial that would consider those risks and allow us to show truth in front of corrupted authority, but that would not be the case.

The judge refused to judge affirming that the ‘destruction of the Earth’ could not be blamed on the American Government, and the ‘authorities’ Mr. Wilczek and Mr. Glashow missed all suits, as they knew they could not defend on the basis of the scientific method, a no-risk position face to face.

The irony of CERN’s two ‘scientific authorities’ resides in the fact that Mr. Wilczek is with this author one of the 2 main proponents of a theory of mass based in the frequency of its particles, following on the path of Einstein’s work on gravitation and mass – but he renounced to the theory for the Higgs and the prizes; while Mr. Glashow and mr. Weinberg, the creators of the electroweak formalism, were the people who gave the name of ‘toilet particle’ to the Higgs. Further on Mr. Wilczek was recorded in tape saying that the black hole factory would reproduce black holes (see film section, quantum roulette) and Mr. Glashow had given an ‘unlikely’ chances to the creation of extinctive Strangelets, which in statistics means a 10% chances.

This in insurance terms means a holocaust of 7 billion x10% = 700 million, if CERN started up the LHC (regardless of if actually it happened, then the holocaust would change from ‘potential’ to ‘actual’ killing 7 billion or if didn’t, then we would survive).

This means, even if we survive, legally, whenever the possibility of making black holes at CERN (proved) and its not evaporation (on my view proved) occurs, it will become clear that CERN will have provoked a Holocaust (victims x probability) of millions of human beings – the biggest in the history of mankind. And this means legally it is still liable of genocide.

Thus, of course, under those circumstances and given their previous statements, neither Mr. Wilczek or Mr. Glashow could come exactly ‘clean’ in defense of the toilet particle and certainly they didn’t. They just missed all the suits and affirmed that we had no authority and they had. So we had to believe in the truth of authority not in the authority of truth…

The Nuclear Company adduced diplomatic immunity not to appear on those suits, as it could not defend on court its invented safety standards full of ‘damned lies and statistics’.

Thus, as a result of the faillure of our political institutions to protect mankind, today a factory of quark gluon liquid, the most explosive substance of the Universe has started production, unchecked, without any social control or safety standards, totally above the Law, and could at any time provoke the biggest genocide of human history…

Unfortunately the final judgement on our survival will not be made by CERN, our technocrats and institutions but by the true laws of science, regarding quark condensates, black holes and strangelets, which we have explained in great detail in the section on CERN dangers.

We shall thus illustrate that final judgment for the visually inclined before introducing the papers of the suit:

Here are thus simply ordered, the papers on God’s W.C. –  the W.S. vs. W.G. papers – all very eschatological, W.S. defending the future of mankind on the grounds of the objective scientific method, W.G. the toilet particle on the grounds of their subjecitve, ‘self-styled authority’.

2. No. 08-17389

_____________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS SANCHO, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, District of Hawaii, v.

_______________________ D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00136-HG

Honolulu U S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., _____________________

Defendants-Appellee’s MOTION v. SHELDON GLASHOW, et al., Movants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Sheldon Glashow et Al. Brief (Defendants)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT and INTEREST OF AMICI………………………………………………… 49

ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

I. Appellants Allegations of A Safety Risk at CERN and Injury to Them Are Purely Hypothetical, Speculative, and Not Credible…………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

II. Appellants Argument That Amici’s Conclusion That a Catastrophic Event at the LHC is “Unlikely” Supports Their Claims is Based on a Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Nature of Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54

CONCLUSION. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55

BIOGRAPHICAL ADDENDUM……………………………………………………………………………………… 55

Walter Wagner’s Brief (Plaintiff)

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….

57 A)Reply to Amicus Curiae Brief …………………………………………………………..

57 II. Reply to Defendants/Appellee’s Answering Brief ……………………………………

62 Luis Sancho Remains as an Appellant

Appellants Possess Article III Standing The LHC Funding is a Major Federal Action III. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………. 69

Luis Sancho’s Brief. (Plaintiff)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………..3 ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

I. FALSE STATEMENTS OF AMICI………………………………………………………………………………….5

II. RISKS AND LACK OF SAFETY MEASURES………………………………………………………………10

III. ‘ad hominem’ STRATEGIES…………………………………………………………………………………..16

IV. SCIENTIFIC ALIBIS………………………………………………………………………………………………….20

V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS COURT……………………………………………………………………32

VI. ADDENDA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36

AMICIS BRIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT and INTEREST OF AMICI Amici are physicists who have specialized in nuclear particle physics for most of their distinguished careers. Two of them have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the understanding of elementary atomic and sub- atomic particles; the third holds and has held endowed chairs in physics at Harvard University, was chairman and is currently a member of the Harvard Cyclotron Operating Committee, and is an expert in, and has published extensively on, the subjects of high energy physics, radiation physics, nuclear safety and risk analysis. Amici have special knowledge which they believe will assist the Court in this case. Moreover, amici are concerned that Appellants have misunderstood, misconstrued and misstated the import of amici’s submission to the district court, and have misrepresented that submission as supporting Appellants claims. Amici wish to inform the Court of the correct scientific approach to the issues of safety raised in this case. This case involves a challenge to the United States financial support for the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (“LHC”), a subatomic particle accelerator straddling the French-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland, and research to be conducted there. The core of plaintiffs complaint alleges that the United States and other defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an adequate environmental analysis of the risks of several theoretical objects that plaintiffs allege could be produced by the Collider. Plaintiffs’ central “factual” allegation is that the collisions at CERN’s LHC are unsafe and could potentially result in the destruction of the Earth. Complaint ¶ 13, SER 4; see also Order Granting Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss at SER 117. Similar claims of potentially cataclysmic disasters were made by one of the plaintiffs in this case when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) was planned, constructed, and began operation at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, New York State. One of the amici was a member of the high level committee selected to analyze the potential risks of the RHIC, and the other two amici published an article on the risks associated with the RHIC in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals, prior to the commencement of operations of the RHIC. In fact, the RHIC has been fully operation for almost ten years without incident. Amici are aware that the LHC has undergone thorough scientific safety and risk analyses, and are familiar with the numerous scientific papers examining the risks associated with the LHC. These scientific papers have examined, inter alia, the very claims asserted by Appellants here. Appellants claims have not been accepted by the scientific community and are not based on rigorous scientific analysis. Other than the purely speculative “disaster” plaintiffs recited in the Complaint, they do not allege any injury that is particularized, nor do they assert any claim with sufficient geographical nexus to the United States. Amici seek to submit their brief in support of the federal Defendants-Appellees’ argument that Appellants allegations of injury are speculative are not scientifically credible because they are based on purely hypothetical occurrences which do not pose a safety risk. Amici are concerned about the use of litigation based on misinformation about and misunderstanding of science under the guise of concern for the environment that inhibits vital and important scientific inquiry. Amici are prompted to submit this brief in part because the Appellants have misconstrued and misrepresented the nature of science and scientific knowledge, and have misused and misconstrued our amicus brief in the district court to support their fallacious arguments in this Court. The substance of this brief is the same as our amicus brief filed in this case in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, with the addition of clarification with respect to the nature of scientific inquiry and discourse.

ARGUMENT

I. APPELLANTS ALLEGATIONS OF A SAFETY RISK AT CERN AND INJURY TO THEM ARE

PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, SPECULATIVE, AND NOT CREDIBLE

In the district court, the federal defendants asserted, inter alia, that the Appellants do not have standing because the alleged injury to them is speculative and not credible. Amici agree that the complaint and affidavits filed by the Plaintiffs- Appellants in this case are without merit. Scientists who have proposed the construction and operation of the collider known as Large Hadron Collider (“LHC”) at CERN are aware of problems associated with quantitatively assessing the risks involved with this novel project. This is not a new problem and virtually every new significant activity must face it. Instead of ending the pursuit of significant scientific endeavors, the scientific community has developed processes to identify all imaginable events that may lead to adverse effects and use the best available information and scientific talent to mitigate them. No other procedure has been suggested by any professional society, any government or international organization. Amici contend that the Appellants suppositions are without merit, and cannot be the basis of a particularized injury sufficient to confer standing. Until half a century ago, industrial safety was managed by learning from past mishaps and by using appropriate measures to avoid their recurrence. For example, miners once used caged canaries as methane detectors. This management process is no longer acceptable as modern technologies have sometimes led to disasters, such as Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, so large and severe that people now demand proof-in-principle that such disasters cannot happen. Society wants to avoid failures at nuclear power reactors and chemical plants. So the old protocol for risk avoidance – try it once; if it turns out to be dangerous, modify the technology, or don’t do it again – is no longer acceptable.

In the case before this Court, one important question is whether the LHC at CERN is sufficiently understood that we can be confident that it will not cause a catastrophe of cosmic dimensions, as Appellants claim. Amici assert that the question has been asked and studied by many of the world’s best scientists and they have concluded that not only has a scientifically acceptable procedure been followed but that we do know enough to respond to the safety requirements.

During the early 1970s a process was developed to assess the safety of new technologies such as nuclear electric power plants, large oil refineries, large chemical plants, liquefied natural gas facilities, and other large and technically complex facilities. The process consists of a group of qualified individuals first imagining the worst types of catastrophic failures that could occur at the facility and then designing a system to reduce the probability of such failure occurring and reducing the potential consequences of a failure to an acceptable level. This process (often called “fault tree analysis” or “FTA” or “event tree analysis” or “ETA”) has been adopted by the nuclear, chemical, and oil industries and by government agencies such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NASA.1, 2

The amici recognize that a new procedure had to be developed for the concerns at issue in this case. It has been claimed that the new particle accelerator could trigger an irreversible process that would have enormous consequences, including the destruction of the Earth. This is not a new concern – for example, scientists working on the Manhattan Project in the 1940s seriously considered whether a nuclear explosion could release enough energy to ignite the Earths atmosphere. At that time, probabilistic risk assessment, as it is known today, did not yet exist. The Manhattan Project scientists used then existing knowledge and concluded that the catastrophe postulated would not happen, and history has proven them right. Concerns about the LHC at CERN are legitimate and are properly raised. In fact, they have been raised, studied, and answered decisively by scientists in the United States and in Europe. But the revival of the concern by the Appellants in this case is not well-founded, or even legitimate, because they have, apparently, not educated themselves about the extensive analysis that has been done and the published literature widely available on the subject.

This is not the first such new particle accelerator, or the first such study of risks, or the first reassurance of the safety of a powerful particle accelerator. The closest analogy is the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island in New York State, where beams of highly charged gold or lead atoms (the heavy ions) travelling at “relativistic speeds” (approaching the speed of light – 99.95% of light speed) sped in opposite directions around circular racetracks before colliding. RHIC truly is an atom smasher: it creates nucleus-to- nucleus impacts, taking place thousands of times per second, each impact producing thousands of secondary particles. These incredibly complex “events” are recorded by sophisticated detectors and analysed by supercomputers and a world-wide network of smaller computers. The Brookhaven RHIC studies matter at densities and temperatures never seen before in the laboratory; on a small scale, it reproduces the extreme conditions that existed in the early universe, conditions under which the constituents of ordinary matter are expected to be liberated as quark-gluon plasma. Physicists had long speculated about this state of matter, but RHIC allowed them to glimpse it. About nine years ago, a doomsday vision similar to the one put forward here by Appellants was advanced relating to the RHIC.3

One of the Amici, Frank Wilczek, in the July 2000 issue of Scientific American4 described the concern. The procedure that was followed was important and a good example for the future. The director of Brookhaven National Laboratory established a blue ribbon panel of independent experts (including Wilczek himself) to investigate the subject. The most creative scientists were tasked to imagine what might go wrong and satisfy themselves that the imagined problems did not exist. They examined carefully three scientifically conceivable disaster scenarios in which experiments might produce “black holes” that could gradually consume the Earth; or could create a “vacuum instability” that could expand catastrophically in all directions at the speed of light; or might produce “strangelets,” a kind of “strange matter” that would grow to incorporate ordinary matter, perhaps transforming the entire Earth into its form. The first two issues have been raised, and dismissed, each time a new particle accelerator opens. Using similar arguments, Jaffe, et al. were able to conclude that neither posed any threat at RHIC. There is no chance at all that RHIC could8 manufacture a black hole or gravitational singularity. Even if RHIC (or its higher energy successors) could create a black hole, such a black hole would be so tiny that it would evaporate instantly.9, 10

In the natural world, relativistic heavy ions in the form of cosmic rays have been in RHIC-like collisions with one another in space for eons (more, in fact, than will ever take place at RHIC). These distant collisions do not make RHIC experimentally less useful, because (unlike at RHIC) they cannot be directly studied, but one fact is clear: cosmic ray collisions in space have not led to the creation of a new vacuum, so we breathe easily. The third concern arose from the fact that RHIC accelerates heavy ions rather than individual elementary particles, and must be considered more carefully. Such careful consideration was given in studies by Jaffe, et al. and by Dar, et al. Both groups included theorists who were among the first11 to speculate that lumps of strange matter called strangelets, which contain many strange quarks as well as the usual up and down quarks that make up atomic nuclei, might be more stable than ordinary matter. The strangelet disaster scenario described by Glashow and Wilson would only be credible if strangelets exist (which is 12 conceivable), and if they form reasonably stable lumps (which is unlikely), and if they are negatively charged (unlikely given that current theory strongly favors positive charges), and if tiny strangelets can be created at RHIC (which was and is exceedingly unlikely); in fact it has not occurred in the several years that RHIC has been operational. The RHIC was approved, and it has run successfully, with no13, 1, 4 sign whatever of the problems described above. Plaintiffs alleged that by causing the collision of subatomic particles, the LHC could create dangerous objects that they describe as “strangelets,” “micro black holes,” and “magnetic monopoles” that allegedly might destroy the planet. The LHC is in many ways very much simpler than

the RHIC. The LHC primarily accelerates and causes the collision of elementary particles — protons. Only a small proportion of its use involves collision of nuclei. Although the LHC operates at a much higher energy level than the RHIC, the likelihood of any of the postulated catastrophes envisaged by the most imaginative physicists is much smaller than with a nuclear collider. The CERN management followed the example set by Brookhaven National Laboratory and commissioned a high level independent committee (the LHC Safety Study Group or LSSG) to imagine what could go wrong. This committee reported its conclusions in 2003. It found the likelihood of the kinds of events postulated by the15 Appellants to be insignificant. In particular, the probability that “strangelets” exist at LHC is even smaller than at RHIC, and, as noted above, there are no signs whatever that “strangelets” have been created at RHIC. Their work was reviewed by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (or LSAG), which very recently studied actual operations of the LHC and confirmed that no such events have in fact occurred.13

An even more recent paper by Koch, B., Bleicher, M., and Stocker, H., Exclusion of Black Hole Disaster Scenarios at the LHC, arXiv:0807.3349v [hep-ph] (September 28, 2008) (available at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/ 0807.3349v1.pdf, last accessed 04/09/09) addresses “fear in the public, that the conjectured production of mini black holes might lead to a dangerous chain reaction” and “summarize[s] the most straight forward proofs that are necessary to rule out such doomsday scenarios.” The authors conclude that “none of the physically sensible paths . . . can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.” Id. at 7. This paper, in turn, builds on a paper by Giddings, S.B., and Mangano, M.L., Astrophysical Implications of Hypothetical Stable TeV-scale Black Holes, arXiv:0806.3381v2 [hep-ph] (September 23, 2008) (available at http://arXiv.org/pdf/0806.3381, last accessed 04/09/09), which analyzed “macroscopic effects of TeV-scale black holes, such as could possibly be produced at the LHC, in what is regarded as an extremely hypothetical scenario in which they are stable and, if trapped inside Earth, begin to accrete matter. . .basing the resulting accretion models on first-principles, basic, and well-tested physical laws. ” The study “finds no basis for concerns that TeV-scale black holes from the LHC could pose a risk to Earth on time scales shorter than the Earths natural lifetime. Indeed, conservative arguments based on detailed calculations and the best-available scientific knowledge, including solid astronomical data, conclude, from multiple perspectives, that there is no risk of any significance whatsoever from such black holes.” _____________________________

1. See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fault Tree Handbook (NUREG-1 0492), http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0492/ sr0492.pdf, last accessed 04/09/09; NASA, Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications (2002), http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/fthb.pdf, last accessed 04/09/09.

2. An example is the Electric Power Research Institutes CAFTA software, which is used by many of the U.S. nuclear power plants, by a majority of U.S. and international aerospace manufacturers, and by the U.S. Government to evaluate the safety and reliability of nuclear reactors, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station.

3. One of the plaintiffs in this case, Walter L. Wagner, brought suits in 19993 and 2000 in the Northern District of California and in the Eastern District of New York to enjoin operation of the RHIC at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Wagner v. U.S. Dept of Energy, Case No. C99-2226 MMC (N.D. Cal. May 14, 1999) and Wagner v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC., Civ. No. 00-1656 (S.D.N.Y. March 3, 2000). Both lawsuits were dismissed (See Exs. J, items 66 and 67 (N.D. Cal. Docket Sheet) and H (E.D.N.Y. Order, 5/26/2000) annexed to the federal Defendants motion to dismiss in the district court, SER 146). In neither of these cases did the courts give any credence to Wagner’s theories about the types of dangerous effects that plaintiffs here claim would result from subatomic particle collisions. This Court should reject Appellants similar challenges in this case and dismiss their claims.

4. Wilczek, F., Letter to the Editor on the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, 281 Scientific American (July 8, 1999). Prof. Wilczek’s letter was a reply to Walter L. Wagner’s letter “Black holes at Brookhaven?” which appeared in the same issue of Scientific American.

5. Jaffe, R. L., Busza, W., Wilczek, F., and Sandweiss, J., “Review of8 Speculative Disaster Scenarios at RHIC,” 72 Rev. Mod. Phys. 1125-1140 (2000).

6. See Blaizot, J.-P, Iliopoulos, J., Madsen, J., Ross, G.G., Sonderegger, P., and Specht, H.-J., Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-ion Collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. Report CERN 2003-001 (CERN 2003) (SER 59-64).

7. Previous studies had also argued against a vacuum instability, but could not quite rule it out.

8. Dar, A., De Rujula, A., and Heinz, U., “Will Relativistic Heavy-ion Colliders Destroy Our Planet?” 470 Phys. Lett. B 142-148 (1999).

9. Glashow, S.L. and Wilson, R., “Taking Serious Risks Seriously,” 40212 Nature 596-597 (1999). 10. The RHIC White Papers, 757 Nucl. Phys. A 1 (2005). 11. See Blaizot, J.-P, et al., supra, n. 9.14 12. See Blaizot, J.-P, et al., supra, n. 9.15

13. Ellis, J., Giudice, G., Mangano, M., Tkachev, I., and Wiedemann, U.,] 14 “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions” http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf, last accessed 04/09/09 (SER 66-71) and CERN Scientific Policy Committee, “SPC Report on LSAG Documents,” http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=20&resId=0&materialId=0&con fId=35065, last accessed 04/09/09 (SER 73-74).

 

II.

APPELLANTS ARGUMENT THAT AMICI’S CONCLUSION THAT A CATASTROPHIC EVENT AT THE LHC IS “UNLIKELY” SUPPORTS PLAINTIFFS  CLAIMS IS BASED ON A FUNDAMENTAL  MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

 

Appellants argue that: “Merely being unlikely or very unlikely that the LHC will create conditions that destroy Earth is every reason not to proceed with the experiment unless and until it can be proven to be impossible to destroy the Earth.”  (Appellants Brief at 11 (emphasis supplied)).  Appellants proposed standard, that for something to be safe experts must conclude that an accident is “impossible”,  betrays Appellants fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science.  As Nobel laureate in Physics Richard Feynman put it, “Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty.  All scientific knowledge is uncertain.  This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important.  I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences.  I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown  ajar.  You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right.  Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.” Feynman,  R. P. The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist 26-27 (1999).  The Supreme Court has recognized that “it would be unreasonable to conclude  that the subject of scientific testimony must be known to a certainty; arguably, there  are no certainties in science. See, e.g., Brief for Nicolaas Bloembergen et al. as Amici  Curiae at 9 (Indeed, scientists do not assert that they know what is immutably true—they are committed to searching for new, temporary theories to explain, as best they can, phenomena).”  Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993) (footnote omitted).  As the Bloembergen amici went on to explain: “in  science accepted truth is not a constant . . . it evolves, either gradually or  discontinuously. . . . An hypothesis can be falsified or disproved, but cannot, ultimately, be proven true because knowledge is always incomplete.  An hypothesis that is tested and not falsified is corroborated, but not proved.  Thus, scientific statements or theories are never final and are always subject to revision or rejection. See L. Loevinger, “Standards of Proof in Science and Law”, 32 Jurimetrics J. 327 (1992). . . .”  Brief of Amici Curiae Nicolaas Bloembergen, et al. at 12-13, filed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579  (1993), 1993 WL13006286 (January 19, 1993); see also L. Loevinger, “The Distinctive Functions of Science and Law,” 24 Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 87 (1999).  “Even the most robust and reliable theory, however, is tentative.  A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and—as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy—may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viability.”  Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates and Others, filed in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), 1986 WL 727658 (August 18, 1986).14 Appellants note that amici are not “absolutely certain” that there is no risk and they imply that our views should therefore be disregarded.  As scientists, we would be abusing the meaning of “absolute” or “certainty” if we had written that there was no chance of any event occurring in the future, because there is nothing absolutely certain about our understanding of the future.  To claim that something is “absolutely safe” is incorrect usage and we studiously declined to play this word game in our brief to the district court or in this brief to this Court. However, we are content to tell this Court, as we did the district court, that the issue of the safety of the LHC has been properly raised by its proponents.  It has been extensively examined and discussed by many of the brightest minds that have addressed the issue. The particular concerns raised by the Appellants are not correct. Amici believe that the procedure for addressing the safety issue was proper and followed and follows the highest standards scientists have yet developed.  Whereas we do not say that it is “absolutely safe,” we have no qualms about endorsing the operation of the LHC to our colleagues, our friends, to this Court, and to the world.

14.  Indeed, the ancient motto of the Royal Society of London for the17  Improvement of Natural Knowledge (commonly known as the “Royal Society”), founded in 1663 and probably the earliest society for the advancement of scientific knowledge, is “Nullius in Verba,” which has been translated by the renowned

physicist Freeman Dyson (in 55 New York Review of Books, Number 10 (June 12, 2008)) as “Nobody’s word is final,” signifying a commitment to knowledge through experiment rather than through dogma or doctrine.

CONCLUSION

Amici consider that the operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense  of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have  thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC.  Appellants’ claims are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted  by much evidence and scientific analysis.  The appeal should be dismissed.

Dated: Larchmont, New York April 10, 2009
Respectfully submitted,

s/   Martin S. Kaufman

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

BIOGRAPHICAL ADDENDUM

SHELDON LEE GLASHOW is a Nobel Laureate in Physics.  He is Arthur G.B.  Metcalf Professor of Physics at Boston University.  Previously he was the Higgins  Professor of Physics and Mellon Professor of the Sciences at Harvard University, and.  He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the  Advancement of Science; member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,  the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society; foreign  member of the Russian and Korean Academies of Science; and founding editor of  Quantum Magazine. He is the recipient of many awards, including the Oppenheimer Medal, the Richtmyer Lecture Award, and the Erice Science for Peace Prize.

 

FRANK WILCZEK is a theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is  currently the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute  of Technology. Wilczek along with H. David Politzer and David Gross were awarded  the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004 for their discovery of asymptotic freedom in the  theory of the strong interaction.  His current research interests include “pure” particle  physics: connections between theoretical ideas and observable phenomena; quantum  theory of black holes; behavior of matter—the phase structure of quark matter at  ultra-high temperature and density; “color” superconductivity; the application of  particle physics to cosmology; and the application of field theory techniques to condensed matter physics.

 

RICHARD WILSON is Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics at Harvard University and immediate past Director of the Regional Center for Global Environmental Change at Harvard University.  Professor Wilson is a past Chairman of the Department of Physics at Harvard University, a past chairman and currently a member of the Cyclotron Operating Committee.  He is an Affiliate of the Center for Science and International Affairs and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University.  He is a founder of the Society for Risk Analysis.  He is and has been a consultant to the United States government and the governments of numerous foreign countries on matters of nuclear safety, toxicology, epidemiology, public health and safety, and risk assessment.  Professor Wilson’s areas of expertise include elementary particle physics, radiation physics, chemical carcinogens, air pollution, ground water pollution by arsenic, and human rights.  He is the author of many  articles on high energy physics, environmental pollution and risk analysis, including  PARTICLES IN OUR AIR, EXPOSURES AND HEALTH EFFECTS (with Editor John Daniel  Spengler) (Harvard University Center for Risk Analysis, 1986) and RISK-BENEFIT  ANALYSIS (with Edmund A. C. Crouch) (Harvard University Center for Risk  Analysis, 2  ed. 2001).  Professor Wilson is the author or co-author of more than 880 published papers on subjects including atomic particles, radioactive particle decay,  shielding of particle accelerators and nuclear reactors, nuclear energy production,  health risks of nuclear power plant accidents, risks and health impacts of radiation,  risks of nuclear proliferation, health effects of electromagnetic fields, acute toxicity  and carcinogenic risk, carcinogenicity bioassays, statistical distributions of health  risks, public health, cancer risk management, risk benefit analysis, and global energy  use and global warming.  He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the  Forum Award, of the American Physical Society for Forum on Science and Society  in 1990 for “Outstanding research and promotion of public  understanding of a  broad spectrum of issues dealing with physics, the environment, and public health,  including his work on reactor safety, estimation of risks posed by environmental  pollution and pioneering use of comparative risk analysis” and the Presidential  Citation of the American Nuclear Society in 2008 for “Mentoring students for over  50 years in nuclear science, engineering and technology and his tireless efforts  promoting peaceful application of nuclear power. Through over 900 papers and  publications, and myriad lectures, he has provided invaluable insight and wisdom  giving the nuclear community a profound legacy from which to draw knowledge.”

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(d) and 9 Cir. R. 32-1, I certify that the foregoing Brief for the Amici Curiae is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points, and contains  4,454  words, including the Biographical Addendum, but excluding the cover, the Table of Contents, and the Table of Authorities, determined using the word count feature of WordPerfect 13, the software application used to prepare the brief.

Dated: Larchmont, New York  April 10, 2009   s/    Martin S. Kaufman

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

 

 

 

REPLY OF APPELLANT WALTER WAGNER

______________________________________________________________________

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Appellant Walter L. Wagner replies to the Amicus Curiae answering brief and to the defendants/appellees, answering brief below.

Appellant Walter L. Wagner does not oppose the motion for leave to file the Amicus Curiae brief, and notes that it complies with the filing deadline of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 29(b), if that is interpreted to include filing within seven days of an extended appellee filing deadline as herein.

Appellant addresses initially the Amicus Curiae brief, and subsequently the defendants/appellees answering brief.

I. REPLY TO AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

The Amici couch their argument on the presumption contained in their last paragraph before their conclusion, which reads:

Amici believe that the procedure for addressing the safety issue was proper and follows the highest standards scientists have yet developed.  Whereas we do not say that it is absolutely safe, we have no qualms about endorsing the operation of the LHC to our colleagues, our friends, to this Court, and to the world.”

The Amici, while scientists [though solely physicists, with little background in the more difficult sciences such as biology], attempt to belittle the appellants and their affiants, who are scientists and technologists with expertise not only in physics, but in a wide diversity of scientific backgrounds.  The clear insinuation by the Amici is that they have a superior knowledge because they are philosophers of physics and not of the other sciences such as biology, medicine, etc., in which the appellants and their affiants also have expertise.  The facts, however, show that the Amici are attempting to hide the relevant facts of physics, as detailed somewhat below as well as by appellant Sancho.  The facts also show that several parties in support of appellants are also experienced physicists [Dr. Plaga, Dr. Rössler, Dr. Wagner, et al.] in addition to their other scientific qualifications.

In fact, the procedure detailed by the Amici for addressing the safety issue has not even complied with the law, let alone the standards of scientific protocol.  A proper scientific physics procedure risk review protocol would have included:

1)         Compliance with the NEPA requirements of the US government for hazardous research, as detailed in Appellants Opening Brief;

2)         Compliance with the European Unions requirements for hazardous research, as detailed in Appellants Opening Brief and in the Complaint, and in particular in the affidavit of Dr. Mark Leggett filed in support of the Complaint and attached thereto at filing;

3)         Initiation of a proper safety review PRIOR to construction of the LHC machine, rather than waiting until after the machine is completed, when the onus to operate becomes much larger;

4)         Usage of a Red-Team/Blue-Team protocol in identifying and evaluating risks [with a red-team envisioning risks and a blue-team attempting to shoot them down];

5)         Inclusion of mostly non-CERN scientists in a safety review committee, so that the scientists involved do not have a vested financial interest or other conflict of interest in the safety conclusion.  Indeed, one could argue that ALL of the scientists involved in the safety review should have no financial ties to CERN.  It is well detailed [including in appellant Sancho’s Reply Brief] that all of the LSAG committee members were either present or past CERN employees save one, who had strong ties to CERN.  It is, in essence, a fraud to claim that the LSAG was an independent committee free from CERN connections;

6)         Inclusion of “dissenting” or other disagreeing scientists in the analysis of the risks, even if voiced as a “minority view”.  This would include the fact that numerous scientists disagree completely with the LSAG safety report [though one won’t read about that in the current report].  This includes the analysis of Dr. Otto Rössler[1], who has falsified and invalidated the current LSAG safety report by showing the possibility that relativistic micro-black holes are “slippery” and therefore harmless when created in nature, whereas slow ones [such as would be produced at the LHC] would remain potentially disastrous.  This also includes the analysis by other theorists that show that the proton-on-Lead collisions in nature [by cosmic rays (a.k.a. high-speed-protons) striking Lead nuclei on the moon at the equivalent energy] are fundamentally different than the Lead-on-Lead collisions proposed for the LHC, even if at the same COM energies [The Amici simply assert that if the energy is the same, then it is the same thing.  That is simply false, and known to be false by the Amici].

That fundamental distinction between Lead-Lead collisions at the LHC, and proton-Lead collisions in nature, which was frequently presented to the CERN’S LSAG committee during its formulation period, was deliberately omitted from the LSAG report because there is no ready answer which allows CERN to even begin to claim that they are simply replicating what occurs in nature.  The intended Lead-on-Lead collisions at the LHC happen nowhere near Earth in nature, and of course Earth is safe from such ultra rare events in the deep reaches of intra-galactic space when, on very rare occasion, very high energy Lead cosmic rays run into each other head-on in deep space[2].  At the LHC, such head-on collisions of high-speed Lead nuclei would occur on the order of many thousands of times per second, in Earths immediate vicinity, and if non-evaporative strangelets are created, would begin consuming Earth as detailed in numerous scientific scenarios detailed in the scientific literature, as also noted by appellant Sancho.

The Amici continue to acknowledge[3] in their writing the possibility that there is a risk, but they believe that the risk is sufficiently small that it is worth taking.  They do not attempt to calculate the risk, nor are the appellants able to mathematically calculate the risk.  All we know is that it is non-zero, and that it might not be 100%, and we have no factual scientific basis upon which to make a valid mathematical calculation of the risk, other than to set it midway between 0% and 100%.  The risk scenarios are well detailed in the scientific literature; including both the details of how a small strangelet formed at the LHC might begin growing larger and converting Earth into a supernova, as well as the risk from formation of a micro black hole causing the Earth to implode. Appellant Wagner has taken the approach in accord with standard statistics, therefore, that the risk or probability should be assessed as being half way between those two extremes, as it is improper to otherwise hazard a guess without being able to do a calculation.

However, whether the risk is as small as believed by the Amici, or as large as believed by the appellants and the Affiants who filed supporting affidavits attached to the Complaint [and numerous others who are now recognizing the risk, after learning how they were deceived by CERN, such as Dr. Rössler, Dr. Plaga, et al.], is essentially irrelevant to the issues on appeal.

So long as there is an acknowledged risk, NEPA must be complied with, and it was not [as admitted by defendants/appellees].  That then leaves the sole issue on appeal as to whether or not the federal Court has jurisdiction, as detailed infra.

II. REPLY TO DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES ANSWERING BRIEF

(A)      Luis Sancho Remains as an Appellant

Contrary to the assertion of appellees counsel, Dr. Luis Sancho in fact signed the Appellants Opening Brief.  While the original submission did not have his signature, as he was away in Spain[4] and we could not obtain his signature on the joint submission in a timely manner prior to the filing deadline, this was subsequently rectified by a second submission which does contain his signature proving that he in fact filed as a joint appellant.

As has been previously explained to appellees counsel, the logistics of obtaining Dr. Sancho’s signature when he is in Spain requires that he send his signature from Spain to the US, have the document also signed by appellant Wagner, and then incorporated into the to-be-filed document.  That logistics, as previously explained to appellees counsel, has on occasion necessitated filing with initially a single signature to preserve the filing deadline, followed by a subsequent filing with both signatures to show that both parties in fact prepared the document.

(B)       Appellants Possess Article III Standing

 

Defendants/Appellees seek to resurrect their argument pertaining to Article III standing and the trial courts supposed lack of jurisdiction, which argument was not accepted by the trial court as valid, and not used by the trial court in dismissing the action.

In support of their renewed argument, they cite Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 64., and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., (2000) 528 U.S. 167, 180-181.

While citing good case law, the defendants/appellees completely garble its meaning.  The three prongs of Friends are:

1)a plaintiff must suffer an “injury in fact”;

2)the injury must be actual or imminent; and

3)the injury can be addressed by a favorable decision.

Here, the injury complained of is that the defendants failed to comply with NEPA as required by law.  This is a very concrete and particularized injury.  There are no ifs, ands or buts about it—appellees did not comply with NEPA, as even admitted by defendant/appellee DOE.

If a dam is constructed on a major Earthquake fault, and the federal agency involved failed to comply with NEPA, would the agency be able to claim that, since the dam had not yet failed, it should be filled, even while battling in court parties who’ve been complaining that NEPA requirements were not met?  Of course not.  The particularized injury is the failure to comply with NEPA, not the construction of a faulty dam [which is addressed during the NEPA procedures].  To suggest otherwise is simply an effort to misdirect the court regarding the necessity for complying with NEPA.  This is also seen in numerous cases that never make it to the appellate level, examples of which are attached hereto as an Addendum being a report of such cases in Science[5] magazine.

So too here.  The particularized injury is defendants/appellees failure to comply with NEPA.  This is very particularized.

Likewise, this is traceable to defendants/appellees, as well as being actual and imminent.  They are the parties who are required to comply with NEPA, not some other third party.

Likewise, the injury [failure to comply with NEPA] is readily redressed by a favorable court decision, requiring defendants to comply with NEPA before further funding is released for furtherance of the LHC project.

And while the deprivation of a procedural right in vacuo might prove insufficient to create Article III standing [Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142 (2009)], no such in vacuo aspect of this case exists.

To the contrary, numerous scientists have either filed affidavits in this case, or otherwise gone on the public record showing that there exists a serious risk of planetary destruction should the LHC be allowed to operate.  These scientists include [but are not limited to] Dr. Rainer Plaga [Germany], Dr. Otto Rössler [Germany], Dr. Mark Legget [Australia], Dr. Paul Dixon [Hawaii], and appellants herein [Spain and U.S.A.].  Likewise, numerous engineers and others with advanced technical training are also on record as showing that standard safety procedures as used in industry, etc., have not been complied with.

Thus, Summers reaffirms that an injury is particularized if it pertains to a procedural right when there is an underlying potentiality of injury that needs to be redressed.  The potentiality of that injury does not have to rise to an actual injury in fact [i.e., plaintiffs/appellees do not need to prove with absolute certainty that the LHC will destroy the planet], but a risk of injury is sufficient to show that the complained of breach of procedures as an injury [failure to comply with NEPA procedures] is not “in vacuo” as per Summers.

Still further, defendants/appellees argue that the relief sought [discontinuation of funding by the DOE of the LHC project] cannot redress their injury, arguing that the DOE is funding scientists who are working on the experimental chambers, not the LHC accelerator which is managed by defendant CERN [who is not an appellee, as defendant CERN defaulted at trial court level, prior to dismissal of the action].  The experimental chambers go hand-in-hand with the accelerator like a hand fitting a glove.  While they may each be operated separately [as one might operate the headlights of a car, and the car engine, separately for night driving], it is pointless to do so.  Without the experimental chambers, the accelerator has no need to exist.  Without the accelerator, the experimental chambers have no need to exist.  Discontinuation of funding of the experimental chambers wherein collisions are to take place is the desired outcome of plaintiffs/appellants herein, until such time that NEPA has been complied with, as this will serve to protect the interests of plaintiffs/appellants.

Further, defendants/appellees claim that an injury at some future point of time decades to centuries from now [which most theories show being the amount of time in which a small initial strangelet or micro-black-hole would need to grow in order to consume the Earth] from the slow growth of a strangelet or a micro-black-hole is not a threat of an “imminent” injury.  According to defendants/appellees, if it takes decades or longer to destroy the planet, then its OK to destroy the planet by either exploding it [strangelet style] or imploding it [micro-black-hole style].  This is nonsense and an absurdity.  We have an absolute obligation not only to ourselves, but to our posterity to insure that they have a world on which to live.

Finally, it is to be noted that not all of the evidence has been presented to the trial court below [as the dismissal was some nine months prior to the intended trial date].  While some of the evidence has been presented [Affiants affidavits, Dr. Plaga’s paper, etc.], more continues to be developed.  For instance, Dr. Otto Rössler[6] has recently prepared a scientific paper for publication, and has been solicited by a science journal for its publication, regarding his falsification and invalidation of the much-touted LSAG Safety Report.  Still additional evidence is being developed.  This is very much a developing field of theoretical scientific research, and the jury of scientists has not yet even begun to deliberate.  The LSAG “Safety Report” was but the opening salvo, not the final accounting, of what is proving to be a very difficult and contentious scientific debate.  That is because the LHC is intended to produce conditions that exist nowhere else in the universe, or at least nowhere in Earths vicinity, and any conjecture as to its safety is simply that—pure conjecture in the light of extensive theoretical scenarios that show plausible disastrous scenarios.

(C)       The LHC Funding is a Major Federal Action

Defendants/Appellees shoot themselves in the foot with their prior argument that the DOE only provides funding to the Experimental Chambers, not to the LHC accelerator proper [prior to 2008, DOE funding was to the accelerator proper in the form of magnet construction[7]].  The Experimental Chambers, as eloquently stated by Dr. Straus, are funded by the DOE’s Office of High Energy Physics “to conduct high energy physics research with the ATLAS and CMS detectors”[8] [which are housed in the Experimental Chambers], both of which are to be U.S. operated devices, not CERN operated.  It is, of course, in the Experimental Chambers that the U.S. funded operation would exert decision-making control so as to control when and how often collisions would take place.  The hand and glove do fit, and the courts cannot acquit.  It is this control that is 100% by the U.S., so there is no need for this Court to even find that the 10% funding of the LHC construction, and continuing DOE influence and control over CERN, gives rise to this being a major federal action.  The control over the Experimental Chambers alone allows for this Court to easily find this to be a major federal action.  Those Experimental Chambers, with continuing funding by the U.S. and not by CERN, are the heart of the operation.  While it is true that beam could still be run in the accelerator without operation of the Experimental Chambers, it would be pointless, just as it would be pointless to turn on the headlights, but not the engine on your car, for a night-time drive [or vice versa].

Moreover, defendants/appellees ignore the extensive case law cited by plaintiffs/appellants in their Appellants Opening Brief which shows that 10% funding by the federal government, over the course of many years, is not a “great disparity” nor a “very minor percentage”[9] in funding between the U.S. and the other CERN states to preclude a finding of a major federal action for the construction of the accelerator proper and the Experimental Chambers, combined.  While four CERN states [Germany, France, UK and Italy] did each separately provide more total funding than the U.S., the other sixteen states provided less, and the US, on average, provided about double the average of the 20 CERN states.

Further, defendant/appellee DOE has argued that defendant CERN is not a party to this action.  This is not so.

Defendant CERN was properly served with the Summons and Complaint, but chose to default.  The clerk of the court duly noted the entry of such default.  Defendant CERN has not subsequently entered the action in an effort to have the default set aside, or themselves dismissed as a defendant, or both.  The default remains in effect, and there is no valid basis to set aside the default.

CERN considers itself to be a sovereign entity [comparable to the Vatican State as recognized by all nations] based on an agreement it has with Switzerland, which protects CERN from any civil suit initiated against it in Switzerland, unless it chooses to be sued.  However, the U.S. has never considered CERN to be a sovereign entity, nor is there any such agreement in effect between CERN and the U.S.  This issue was briefed for the magistrate judge below, but a ruling not entered thereon due to the dismissal of the action on a claimed lack of federal jurisdiction.  In fact, CERN received actual notice of the suit by proper means [registered process server who actually delivered the Summons and Complaint to the “legal department” at CERN’s administrative offices], and has had repeated opportunities to respond, and was served with additional pleadings [as noted by their certificates of service] as they were filed until they defaulted and clerical entry of default was entered.  CERN cannot complain, nor can its DOE agents, that it was not aware of this action and had no opportunity to respond.   The letter from the process server merely notes that he was subsequently contacted by CERN, who informed him of their belief regarding their alleged sovereign status, which beliefs the process server subsequently relayed to plaintiffs/appellants.  It does not refute/contradict his earlier sworn statement that was used as a basis for entry of clerical default, nor does it vacate the clerical default that was entered.

III.       CONCLUSION

  1. There is an established risk of planetary harm from operation of the LHC Experimental Chambers controlled and funded by defendant DOE.  This risk is even acknowledged [though downplayed] by the Amici, who stated:  “… we do not say it is absolutely safe.”  This risk has been extensively detailed in the scientific literature, and there is no clear consensus, as of yet, in the scientific community as to the extent of that risk, with papers addressing the risk in the process of being published, and the risk issue currently being debated and analyzed.  Those LHC proponents who have sought to minimize the risk have done so with faulty scientific facts and/or reasoning, as detailed by the appellants in their Reply Briefs, in the Appellants Opening Brief, and in the Affidavits of the Affiants filed in support of the Complaint.  The appellants have also detailed that the risk might be exceedingly large, based on a thorough examination of modern scientific literature of the 20th and 21st centuries, especially based on Einstein’s theories of black-holes [“frozen stars”], which Einsteinian theories appellees are apparently attempting to experimentally discredit at high risk to appellants.
  2. The funding of the LHC by the DOE has been extensive over the course of many years, and has involved the DOE in every stage of the construction of the project.  Currently, the DOE is involved in the funding of the Experimental Chambers and its continuing operations, which is a vital ingredient of the LHC project, without which the LHC cannot operate as an experimental device.  The control of the Experimental Chambers is under the DOE, and the control of the LHC accelerator proper is under CERN, with DOE sitting on its board as a permanent [“non-voting” member] exerting influential control.

3.         All parties have acknowledged that NEPA has not been complied with.  Defendant DOE has claimed that it is exempt from compliance requirements in that the total funding by the US of the LHC and Experimental Chambers combined has been roughly 10% of the total cost of construction, even though defendant DOE controls the Experimental Chambers.  It has also claimed that it is exempt from compliance because the planetary destruction that might take place would not be for many years in the future.  Appellants contend that 10% funding of the project over the course of many years at all levels of participation, in a multi-nation project such as the LHC, is sufficient to show federal NEPA jurisdiction.  Appellants also contend that continuing funding and control over the Experimental Chambers by the defendant DOE also shows federal NEPA jurisdiction.  Appellants also contend that jurisdiction is also found under the Patriot Act [as per appellant Sancho’s Reply Brief].  Appellants find ludicrous the appellee argument that planetary destruction in the far distant future from LHC operations is not a violation of ethics or NEPA.

4.         Consequently, in that defendants/appellees are engaged in a high-risk operation, NEPA requirements [and Patriot Act requirements] need to be followed so those risks can be addressed by the general public for consideration, and not merely by a group of vested-interest physicists who want to find a low risk or no risk result so they can continue to receive their federal funding.

WHEREFORE, Appellants ask as a prayer for relief that this Court find that the trial court below has jurisdiction under NEPA, under the Patriot Act, or under both, and that this case be remanded for further proceedings. Appellants also request that this honorable appellate Court issue a preliminary injunction as requested by appellants from the trial court below upon remand of this case to the trial court.

DATED:         April 30, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 29(d) and 9th Circuit Rule 32-1, I certify that the foregoing Reply Brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 12 points, and contains 4138 words, inclusive of the cover, Table of Contents, Table of Authorities, footnotes, signature, and this Certificate of Compliance.  The “Reply Brief” of appellant Luis Sancho is appended hereto as an additional addendum to show its separate thought, as well as to insure compliance with 9th Circuit Rule 28.5, even though appellant Wagner and appellant Sancho are not jointly represented.  The word-count for both briefs combined is 11,132 words.

________________________

Walter L. Wagner

AFFIDAVIT OF luis sancho

0. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

I, Luis Sancho, affirm, state and declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of California as follows:

 Professional Background

 I am a System Scientist specialized in Cosmology and Time Theory. I obtained my undergraduate degree at Barcelona University, Barcelona, Spain. I followed with my post-graduate studies at Columbia University, New York and developed a career as a Writer on scientific themes in Spain. I also chair the Annual World Conferences on the Science of Duality, (the study of the Universe with 2 time arrows or directions of future, energy and information) at the International Systems Society (ISSS.ORG) and have published in European magazines, on the field of Duality and the Arrows of Time.

As a researcher in the field of Time Theory I am the author of a series of books and articles on Cosmology and Relativity (“The Organic universe”, “Time Cycles”) in which I propose an extension of Dr. Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence to explain the origin of mass. Thus, I have been interested in the experiments that are currently scheduled to take place at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that will research the nature of Mass.

LHC Concerns

I was initially in favor of the funding of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)—the biggest, most energetic, technologically advanced machine ever built on planet Earth. It consists of a 27 kilometer circumference, superconductive, super fluid ring, in which bundles of heavy atoms are to be accelerated to almost the speed of light, and collided together, to replicate the awesome energies of the “Big Bang”. Such collisions of atoms are intended to be smashed together to create showers of heavy mass particles only found in those first seconds that took place when the Universe was believed by physicists to be destroyed and recreated again.

To understand how it is possible to reach such almost unbelievable energies and replicate the “Big Bang” on Earth, a simple comparison will suffice: the first accelerator (atom-smasher) that smashed and fissioned atoms in the 1930s during the research of nuclear physics leading to Atomic bombs was 25 centimeters in circumference (about 10 inches around). That first atom smasher was more than 100 THOUSAND times smaller than the 27 kilometer ring that will accelerate and smash atoms at CERN to nearly the speed of light.

Unfortunately, in 2004 theoretical calculations (Addenda F) on the particles we expect to encounter at CERN in those ultra-energetic conditions showed beyond reasonable doubt that the LHC will very possibly produce 2 kinds of particles which are extremely dangerous for the safety of this planet, as they have been proven both theoretically to be able to swallow in a chain reaction the entire mass of planet Earth:

– Black holes; (expected by the same CERN to be produced at the rate of 1 per hour) (Addenda C).

– Strange, ultra-dense quark matter; (expected to be the main product of CERN at the rate of a million particles per second, according to Mr. Engelen, Chief Scientific Officer for the project).

In that regard, I would like to explain briefly the types of Mass and celestial bodies we encounter in the Universe.

While CERN highlights in its reports as its main goal the possible production of theoretical particles that might prove or disprove alternative, non-standard, exotic theories of the Universe, such as the Higgs Particle, and evaporating black holes, the fact is that the 2 Standard, proven theories of Physics, Quantum Theory that describes the microcosms, and Relativity, which describes the macrocosms, have observed the existence of only 3 families of Mass of increasing force, which suffice to explain the Universe, without Higgs particles or exotic, never proved evaporating black holes:

– Light or normal matter, of which humans, planets and stars are made;

– Heavier strange matter, called strange by its discoverers for its surprising stability; and

– Top matter, the heaviest and most forceful of all, which could be the components of black holes, according to Einstein’s Theory of Frozen Stars.

Their names come from the 3 types of quarks (the fundamental particle of mass in the Universe) from which they are made: normal (also called up and down quarks); strange; and Top quarks.

Moreover, in the Universe there are also 3 types of celestial bodies:

– Stars and planets made of normal matter;

– Neutron stars, made of neutrons and strange matter; and

– Black holes, which Einstein modeled as a frozen star, hence made of Top matter, which has the same density of a black hole and CERN will mass produce.

Again, strange stars and Top-matter/Black-holes feed on and transform upon contact the weaker celestial bodies, planets and stars, into replicas of themselves, according to the theories of most astronomers and astrophysicists.

Those 2 processes of destruction of normal matter by the 2 types of Dark Matter are the most violent of the Universe. They have become popularized in the lay media under the names of:

– A “Nova” or “Supernova” (that converts a celestial body of normal matter into a black hole or Neutron/Strange star).

– An “ice-9” reaction, a name given by Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Franck Wilczek, one of the foremost theorists on strange matter today, to the transformation of normal matter into strange matter. In that regard he compared its potential lethal power to that of the fictional substance “ice-9”, which in Kurt Vonnegut’s science fiction novel, “The Cat and the Cradle”, freezes the entire planet into an ice ball in a few hours. Since strange matter could convert the Earth into a strangelet, a mass of strange super fluid, in a few hours (Letters to the Editor, Scientific American, July, 1999).

Such is, indeed, the fate all of us might endure if the LHC at CERN creates either of those 2 types of ultra-energetic Dark Matter that could cause the big bang of the Earth. In the past decade, thanks to new, more powerful Telescopes, the information cosmologists have gathered about the composition of the Cosmos shows clearly that Dark Matter dominates the Universe, being 9 times more abundant than our normal type of matter, on which it feeds. For example, our Milky Way galaxy has only 10% radiant (normal) matter, being instead composed of 90% Dark Matter, whose only known real possible components are black holes and strange stars, also called MACHOS, (as they are extremely strong, aggressive entities).

Thus, a cosmological bomb billions of times more powerful than the A-Bomb that nuclear physicists researched in the 20th century, might possibly be created at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research. The difference, however, is not only about power but control: strange matter and black holes are, unlike normal Atomic Bombs, self-reproductive bombs; that is, substances, which actively attract and transform our normal matter and whose strength is such that once they become stable they cannot be controlled or destroyed by human beings, who are millions of times lighter (less dense) than those substances. It is thus extremely dangerous to produce any quantities of Dark Matter (strange matter or black holes) of any form on Earth.

For all that has been said, based on cosmological evidence and theoretical work, it is obvious that in a realistic scenario the Large Hadron Collider will create Dark Matter, which could easily feed on the radiant normal matter of this planet in a chain reaction that might destroy this planet within minutes and terminate all forms of life.

The Probabilities of such Catastrophic Event

As of today, the exact probability of a possible runaway reaction that converts the Earth into strange matter, or converts the Earth into a black hole, is dependent on alternative theories, which are still disputed. Those theories convert those experiments in probabilistic events similar to the toss of a coin: If theory A is right or Parameter C, the number of quarks needed to convert Earth into a black hole or strange star, has certain value we will become annihilated. If instead, theory B is right or Parameter C has a different value, we will survive without any adverse consequence.

In that regard, the 2 events that could destroy the Earth, the creation of strange matter or black holes (both of which are forms of Dark Matter), depend primarily upon 2 disputed theories and one physical parameter:

Regarding what appears to be the higher risk scenario, which is the creation of strange matter that can destroy the Earth, it depends on a parameter that appears in the equations of Strange matter, called the bag constant. If the so-called bag constant is small, strange matter will be stable and accrete the Earth in an ice-9 type-reaction. Yet if the bag constant is high, strangelets will not be stable and the Earth will be safe.

The problem is that the most commonly used value of the bag constant, the so-called “MIT bag constant”, considers that at the range of energies reached by the LHC the lumps of strange matter that CERN would create on Earth would be stable (Addenda A, B).Unfortunately, it has become recently clear that the main substance CERN would likely produce would be strange QGM (strange Quark-Gluon matter), which would likely account for +90% of all particles created. This appears to have been proven by similar experiments at RHIC, an American super-collider, 5640 times less powerful than the LHC1. The experiments carried out at RHIC in the past few years, with only a tenth of the LHC energy, failed to discover any of the imaginary particles of theoretical physicists, producing instead always the same substance: unstable Quark-Gluon Liquid, the prior stage to the production of stable strange matter (which further on, was a total surprise among the experimenters that now claim to be totally sure that CERN is safe (Addenda C). Thus, it is expected that with 5640 times more energy, CERN will likely create stable strange liquid, and blow up the Earth.

This is a natural consequence of the aforementioned structure of matter in 3 horizons of increasing energy and mass. Now that we open the door to big bang energies we also open the door to the stronger, predator matter that thrives on those high-density conditions. Still, if we give the benefit of doubt to the MIT constant, even against the present state of Theory and Experimental Evidence that favors the creation of stable strangelets at CERN, we would consider fair a 50% chance of creation of stable strange matter vs. a 50% chance of creation of only unstable Strange plasma at CERN (with other different bag constant).

Regarding the Production of, and Destruction of the Earth, by Black Holes

            Black Holes would be produced at CERN if String Theory, or any of the multiple theories that consider gravity to grow in force at small scales, is certain (super gravity, super-symmetry, etc.). According to Scientific Americans polls, 9 out of 10 physicists believe that String Theory is certain. Thus, we can assign a 90% chance to the possible creation of black holes by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at a rate of 1 per second. Once they are produced their stability depends on the truth or falsity of 2 alternative theories about black holes:

– What is called the Classic Theory of Black Holes, which follows Dr. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. This theory, thoroughly proven in the 20th century, affirms that black holes will be stable regardless of size and would feed and destroy the Earth in a Nova Explosion if created here.

– On the other hand, in the 1970s a young, brass Dr. Hawking asserted that “Einstein was double wrong”, believing that small black holes would not be stable but evaporate and explode into a burst of energy and particles. The result is the so-called “Hawking radiation” theory that would render small black holes harmless if it actually exists, allowing them to rapidly “evaporate”.

Scientists, however, have not accepted Hawking radiation as proven, for at least one of the 3 obvious reasons below:

– Einstein is considered the most important physicist of History, hand in hand with Sir Isaac Newton, and though many have tried to occupy his place, they have always been proven wrong when challenging the master.

– In the last 40 years of observing the Universe since black holes were first predicted, we have not observed a single black hole evaporating, despite the enormous energy that such evaporation would show (the so-called signature of a cosmological event, which in this case should be easy to observe) such as via the GLAST satellite to be launched in May, 2008.

– Hawking’s evaporation hypothesis defies not only Einstein’s Relativity, but also the laws of Quantum Physics, the laws of Thermodynamics and the laws of temporal causality, as it implies that particles travel to the past so they seem to come out of the black hole, when we observe them from past to future (Scientific American, 1977). In simple terms, what Dr. Hawking believes is that Black Holes are time machines. So in the same way, a baby would evaporate back into the womb of his/her mother if time could travel to the past, black holes instead of accreting matter should evaporate, if particles falling on them travel to the past (an idea later sponsored in his popular books that talk about building such time machines, which seem to many of us as pure science fiction). In other words, Hawking’s hypothesis defies the 4 fundamental Laws of classic science and so it has never been proven. To the contrary, Dr. Hawking’s theory can be easily dismissed using the classic tools of logic causality by ‘Reductio ad absurdum’. Since even in the highly improbable case that particles travel to the past, and so black holes evaporate, kids enter their mothers womb and the dead resurrect; we humans actually live from past to future. So we are affected only by past to future events. For that reason, we always see, from the past to the future, that black holes accrete matter, that kids are born, and the dead remain in their tombs. I would like, in that regard, to quote, in defense of Dr. Einstein, his own words about such improbable, illogical theories:

Every theory is speculative. If, however, a theory is such as to require the application of complicated logical processes in order to reach conclusions from the premises that can’t be confronted with observation, everybody becomes conscious of the speculative nature of the theory. In such case an almost irresistible feeling of aversion arises…

It is thus evident that we cannot trust the survival of mankind to a theory with no experimental proof that defies so many basic laws of science. It is safer to give the benefit of the doubt to Einstein’s proven work and not to risk mankind to see if Einstein is really twice wrong as claimed by Hawking, or vice versa. In any case, if we are fair and concede in this issue the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Hawking, we shall give him a 50% chance of being right and Dr. Einstein also a 50% chance. This would define the probability of the Earth to be destroyed by a black hole at 50% × 90% = 45% chance.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that CERN will cause 2 events that can destroy the planet, each with approximately a ±50% chance of occurring, as there are equally respectable, alternative theories and parameters in both cases for which no certain estimates can be made. On that basis, a simple calculation of probabilities shows that the real risk of these proposed experiments can be as high as 75% when we combine 2 possible events, each one with a 50% chance.

To put these risks in perspective, in the insurance business, a potential catastrophes “death toll” is calculated by multiplying the number of possible victims by the probability of the event. A similar calculation shows that the LHC experiment would be technically, in case of being allowed to take place, the biggest holocaust of history.

Such probabilities for the event of Human Extinction by CERN might be discussed and have been argued now for years. Today they range between the official minimal risk estimated by CERN, a verbal term which in mathematical literature is used for a 1-10% probability, (I believe, biased by self-interest), to a very likely estimate by those who believe in Einstein’s work and reject Hawking’s physics of black holes as an improbable form of metaphysics or those who accept the MIT bag constant for strange matter (being a very likely estimate, a conceptual term for a 75%–90% risk).

In ethical, moral and hence legal terms (as I believe The Law is the practical expression of human ethics), it is self-evident that even a reduced possibility, as those initially considered by CERN, of a 1-10% chances of extinguishing the Earth, would create a “theoretical potential” 6 billion × 1-10% = 60–600 million potential legal holocaust victims, still the biggest genocide in the history of mankind. It would be also the biggest environmental crime of history, far more harmful than Global Warming, as it could mean the destruction of all life forms on this planet.

In that regard, I will now try to explain to this court in more detail the 2 main relevant facts about the LHC (Large Hadron Collider):

A)        The LHC is not needed to advance our understanding of the Universe, only to prove or disprove alternative non-standard theories about mass, of hyper-ambitious physicists that challenge the already accepted standard model of mass and gravitation, which is Dr. Einstein’s Relativity.

            B)        The Large Hadron Collider would become a factory for production of heavy quarks, the only proven, existing particle-candidates to form Dark Matter, whose main property is to feed on radiant normal matter. Yet since the production of Dark Matter is neither necessary for the advancement of science, nor safe to mankind, but a potential environmental crime of global proportions, the LHC should be forbidden to operate—as we close for security reasons Chernobyl-like factories and forbid the reproduction of Ebola virus in an open environment, even if some specialized virologists would like to study it for research purposes. So too we should forbid the reproduction of free, uncontrolled Dark Matter, even if its protagonists would like to study it at CERN.’

 

I.  AMICIS FALSE STATEMENTS

1.  Amici affirm we have misconstrued and misrepresented the risks to Earth the experiments at LHC represent, when the opposite is truth: Amici misrepresent and downplay those risks (I). Since they affirm there is no risk whatsoever to Earth, as we do know all possible risks involved. Yet their texts and previous, public declarations of Amici and CERN prove those risks exist and we do not know how to protect mankind against them.

2. Because CERN doesn’t want to reveal them to the public, Amici don’t inform this Court about them, but use an ‘ad hominem’ strategy (III), consisting in:

Telling this Court they are people with special knowledge we must trust and Plaintiffs are people without merit we must not trust, instead of analyzing the extinction risks mankind faces and the safety measures undertaken, if the most dangerous substances of the Universe, black holes and strangelets appear  at LHC—which are null (II).

Analyzing other machine, RHIC, 5640 times less potent than LHC, as if it were the LHC0, which is like comparing the speed of a cockroach with the fastest USAF supersonic jet, the blue-bird, only 1.000 times faster. Thus, to obtain conclusions from RHIC, pretending they apply to the far more powerful and dangerous LHC is a complete misrepresentation (3,16).

Considering the real chances that a black hole or strange star forms at LHC and swallows the Earth, speculative, when there is a wealth of theoretical papers and experimental proves that those reactions are real and very common in the Universe (3,4,IV).

– Enlarging their specific profession, as if Nuclear Physicists represent all scientists of all disciplines; and marketing their experiments, as if they would reveal the ultimate meaning of it all; when in fact only Nuclear Physicists have backed these experiments (11), which are of little importance to the advancement of science and study the quantum world of particles, not the cosmos as CERN pretends (IV).

Reasons why we recommend this Court to allow a fair trial of this case, which can provoke a global genocide  (V).

3. If the blue-bird crosses the sound barrier that a cockroach will never approach, LHC is the first quark cannon that crosses the Electro-weak barrier of death of light matter that RHIC never crossed (red line, Addenda A). This is important because beyond that energy our matter dies, converted into strong quarks, which have an attractive force 100 times stronger than our weak force. And when enough quarks mass together (Addendas E, F: ± 10,000 quarks), their attractive vortex becomes so strong that the chain-reaction of death of light matter becomes irreversible, creating a mass bomb14 or Nova (M=e/c2). Since CERN acknowledges it will produce ±1 million deconfined quarks per second, and Novas happen constantly in the Universe, the scenario of destruction of Earth is by no means speculative, as Amici affirm. To hide this enormous risk to mankind, Amici misinform this Court with false scientific statements . . . Let us consider some of those statements and the naked truth:

4. Careful consideration was given in studies by Jaffe and Dar. Both groups included theorists who were among the first to speculate that lumps of strange matter called strangelets, which contain many strange quarks as well as the usual up and down quarks that make up atomic nuclei, might be more stable than ordinary matter.

 

Such disaster scenario, which Amici do not explain to this Court, is in fact described in one of the quoted Documents, Dar: “Our understanding of the interactions between quarks is insufficient to decide with confidence whether or not strangelets are stable forms of matter. Suppose that, somehow, such an object is produced in a laboratory high-energy reaction and that it survives the collisions that eventually bring it to rest in matter. At a mass above 1.5ng, for a typical nuclear density, the object becomes larger than an atom. Gravity and thermal motion may then sustain the accreting chain reaction until, perhaps, the whole planet is digested, leaving behind a strangelet with roughly the mass of the Earth and 100m. radius1.

Yet Amici consider this document to be a proof of safety. Have Amici read the documents they quote? If so, why they misinform this Court? Perhaps they think we cannot understand their special knowledge?

5. The strangelet disaster scenario described by Glashow and Wilson would only be credible if strangelets exist (which is conceivable), and if they form reasonably stable lumps (which is unlikely), and if they are negatively charged (unlikely given that current theory strongly favors positive charges).

– Amici affirm negative strangelets (lumps of strange quarks) are unlikely. And since only negative strangelets will accrete the Earth, there is no risk. This is false.SinceStrange quarks are always negative, as electrons are (they have -1/3rd charge). So in the same manner all lumps of electrons are negative, lumps of strangelets should be negative and accrete Earth2.

– Amici Sheldon and Wilson’s assertion that strangelets cannot be negative is based on their decade old paper, which regardless of their credentials is long superseded by work done on strangelets during the last years, which proves strangelets can be negative. Hence they will accrete the Earth. (Addenda F).

 

6. Amici state: In the case before this Court, one important question is whether the LHC at CERN is sufficiently understood we do know.

This is false. Precisely LHC was created because we don’t  understand completely the dangerous particles of quark and dark matter (black holes, dark atoms, strangelets, bosanovas, etc.) that might appear at LHC, as CERN’s spokesman, Brian Cox constantly recognizes:

“I have no idea what the discoveries at LHC will lead to.”

“LHC is certainly, by far, the biggest jump into the unknown.”

“We know it will discover something because we have deliberately built it to journey to uncharted waters3.”

While Amicus Wilczek affirms in a taped conference that we can provide to this Court4, in which he constantly contradicts his affidavit: Nature is so inventive and malicious that there is a logical possibility that it can lead to a catastrophe.

7. Amici state: LHC primarily accelerates and causes the collision of elementary particles—protons.  Only a small proportion of its use involves collision of nuclei.

Yet LHC stands for Large Hadron Collider. Because it Collides Large Hadrons, which are massive Atomic  Nuclei with the highest content of quarks, exactly the opposite of what Amici state.

Thus, Amici’s misinformation shows:

– A tacit recognition of the dangers of colliding Hadrons to liberate millions of quarks, since they hide the true purpose of LHC.

– A lack of respect for the intelligence and oath of truth due to this Court, which do know the purpose of LHC. Yet, if Amici lie in such obvious fact, why should this Court trust any statements Amici make on complex themes on which this Court don’t have expertise, but relies on Amici’s good faith? Obviously it can’t. Thus, we must conclude Amici and CERN are purposely misinforming this Court, despite their knowledge on the subject, to hide the dangers for Earth of LHC’s experiments.

Plainly speaking, CERN and the physicists involved in those experiments are experts in Quark matter, interested on researching energies beyond the barrier of electro-weak death of our light matter, for personal gain and scholar ambition. It is precisely their special knowledge and interest on Quarks and Dark matter what makes so biased their statements. As the expert on Tyrannosaurus Rex from Jurassic Park, who risks her life to see closer her life-time subject of study, CERN’s physicists and Amici will do whatever it takes to study Quark Matter and see closer a black hole; while the rest of us, human beings, realize better on the risks involved, since we have not any special agenda and just want to preserve life.

8. Amici affirm: Scientists working on the Manhattan Project seriously considered whether a nuclear explosion could release enough energy to ignite the Earths atmosphere. At that time, probabilistic risk assessment, as it is known today, did not yet exist.

Thus Amici recognize Nuclear physicists already, without any safety assessment, risked the planet. It is not CERN using the same procedure—going ahead, knowing they are risking the life of all of us?

It is this a proper safety procedure, or an irresponsible act of arrogance?

9. Regarding Jurisdiction, Amici again misinform this Court: (plaintiffs) do not allege any injury that is particularized, nor do they assert any claim with sufficient geographical nexus to the United States.

Since Rujula2 clearly explains a strangelet will destroy the planet, we wonder, do Amici know where is America? Perhaps Amici believe we exist in a parallel Universe? Fact is, America will evaporate if a catastrophe happens. For that reason LHC is also a danger to the United States. Thus, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Patriot Act, which expressly states the rights of the American Government to prevent the creation of dangerous substances anywhere in the planet, if they might harm the lives of American people. And there is no more dangerous substance in the Universe than a lump of strong quarks.

Humanity tends to focus on the past, failing to prevent future catastrophes. So we went to war in Iraq, which only had primitive chemical weapons of mass destruction, as those Nobel produced (28); now we are legitimately worried about the proliferation of primitive Atomic Bombs; yet we let Nuclear Physicists research blindly, without the supervision and stringent safety standards of the military the most powerful Nuclear weapons, Quark Bombs, whose force, 100 times stronger than our weak matter, is far more destructive than anything ever created on Earth.

II.  SAFETY MEASURES AND RISKS

10. Safety measures at LHC are inexistent, since there is absolutely none established in the case a quark bomb, black hole, strangelet, Bosenova or dark atom appears at CERN, nor any shield that can contain them, not any weapons that could destroy them. So the concept of Safety measures at CERN is to deny all risks, since if something happens well all die. To that aim the same self-interested party (CERN), produces irrelevant documents that merely state the safety of the experiments, without arguing the nature of its Quark Factory, the type and rates of production of lethal particles LHC will create (Addenda A,E) and the possible catastrophes those substances might cause. Since such analysis would reveal the dangers of extinction mankind faces if LHC operates. Thus, CERN’s reports search for safety alibis elsewhere in the cosmos except the LHC!, analyzing instead the interaction of black holes and neutron stars in the galaxy5!; studying the 5640 times weaker RHIC, copy-pasting from its safety report!; and making comparisons with cosmic rays, about which CERN lies, affirming they are made of quarks8!, as those LHC will mass-produce. Obviously the purpose of such speculative safety reports is to create noise and distract this Court and the press from the real issue judged here—CERNS quark factory; as any rogue Company producing polluting substances that can cause an environmental crime would do. In their brief, Amici follow the same strategy: instead of describing the substances and possible catastrophes LHC might cause, they focus his safety study on caged canaries, imaginary scenarios, new, untested procedures for LHC and false statements6.

11. Amici affirm that the review of risks or LSAG was commissioned (to) a high level independent committee7. This is false. CERN has only issued reports from people related to the experiment, and it has repeatedly denied safety risk experts, philosophers of science and bioethical experts  any saying in a potential genocide that concerns all of us (Addenda B).

The evidence is clear: the LSAG report was conducted by physicists, funded and commissioned by LHC principal, CERN, which is headed by a physicist, and reviewed by CERN’s Council Scientific Policy Committee, also composed only of physicists. Concerning participants, a “plurality of expertise”, including ethicists and safety experts, is called for by the EC. Yet of the people involved in the LSAG process (preparation and review of documents)—all 26 were physicists. These physicists only advice is then put to CERN Council for consideration to the governments. CERN Council represents the 20 governments funding LHC. The Council therefore itself has a vested interest, and so it is not at arms-length from the project, and may itself feel a bias to justify its prior decisions of support. This is embodied in one of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness: the rule against bias (‘nemo debet esse judex in propria sua cause’—“no one to be a judge in their own cause”) A further rule of natural justice is expressed in the Latin maxim ‘audi alteram partem’: “let the other side be heard”. This element of natural justice is in essence what this Appeal is asking for. Since, given the high stakes of the risks involved—namely the extinction of mankind—we cannot leave self-interested physicists to decide our supreme right to live. Or else we would not be a Democracy, the government of the people, but a Technocracy, as Germany, the main contributor to this machine, was during the Nazi Era, when the worship of technology substituted the ethical guidance and defense of life Democratic Laws provide to mankind (29).

12. Amici state that one fact is clear: cosmic ray collisions in space have not led to the creation of a new vacuum, so we breathe easily.

CERN and Amici affirm that cosmic rays repeat this experiment and so we are safe, because cosmic rays bombing the Earth have not blown up this planet. This one fact is clearly false: In a century of Cosmic Ray analyses, we never detected a single quark ray. Precisely for that reason Nuclear Physicists have built LHC, which is a quark cannon: to study quark reactions that happen inside stars, the only place where the density of matter and sheer force of the collisions involved is similar to that of LHC, causing the creation of pulsars and black holes8.

13. Despite their claims, Amici don’t make an exhaustive list of the worst risks imagined by their qualified individuals:

– A Thermonuclear reaction: LHC’s quarks flow through helium and the high energy of those collisions might trigger its fusion (LHC’s Helium already leaked out of its tubes in two accidents. That is why the machine is presently under repair.)

Bosenovas: Novas produced by the sudden implosion of the Earths mass into a super-atom9.

– Dark matter: Bcb atoms, made with massive quarks that LHC will mass-produce (Addenda A, F).

– Einstein’s accreting black holes: According to Standard Relativity, all black holes formed at LHC, regardless of size, will accrete Earth at light speed (M=E/c2)14, causing a super-nova.

– Top quarks. Einstein considered black holes to be frozen stars made with a cut-off substance10. Since top quarks have a similar density to black holes, and are the most attractive particles of the quantum world, and LHC will mass-produce them, a black hole made of Top Quarks could convert the Earth into  a Top quark star.

Strangelets made of strange quarks that could convert Earth into a strange star, also called a pulsar. This is the most likely scenario, since Standard theory predicts that somewhere between1000 and 10.000 strange quarks are enough to create a pulsar (Addenda A, red line); and CERN will produce ±1 million strange quarks per second (Addenda E).

While Bose-novas and Dark Atoms9 are still theoretical, black holes and strange stars are by no means speculative, as Amici pretend, but happen constantly in the galaxy and we have now experimental evidence it might happen at CERN, after RHIC experiments with 5640 times less mass/energy0 created quasi-stable strangelets and black holes (16).

14. Another prove that CERN hides those risks was given by Engelen, CERN’s Chief Scientific Officer, who said when the risk that LHC blows up the Earth was known: CERN officials are now instructed, with respect to LHC’s world-destroying potential, not to say that the probability is very small but that the probability is zero11.

This kind of confidentiality statements proper of a rogue company that is hiding a crime is the modus operandi at CERN that we want to avoid, making public those risks and giving mankind the chance to argue them in a due process of law. Since even if there is only a very small probability of blowing up the Earth, as CERN believes, when multiplied for the total population at risk, 6 billions, as Insurance companies do to calculate the risks of a catastrophe, the result is a genocide. Indeed, a very small quantity is a qualitative term, which science uses for probabilities or populations of  ±1%, which means still 60 million causalities, making the switch on of LHC, regardless of its final outcome, on insurance terms, the biggest genocide of History. An objective, more realistic calculus, as the one we made in our affidavits on the original suit, places the risk over 50%, as there is one event with a high probability, a strangelet formation, and one with a smaller probability, a black hole formation, both of which, according to standard science, which is not the outdated paper of Wilson and Glashow, or the fantasies of Hawking, but Einstein’s Relativity and the fundamental properties of quarks, will blow up the Earth.

III.  ‘AD HOMINEM’ STRATEGIES

15. It has been customary in this case to dismiss the suit with ‘ad hominem’ accusations against the plaintiffs, to create noise and distract attention from the real issues and catastrophes that might occur at  LHC, as CERN doesn’t want to argue them.  Amici follow the same procedure in their filing:

16. Amici affirm: Similar claims of potentially cataclysmic disasters were made by one of the plaintiffs in this case when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) was planned . . . One of the Amici was a member of the high level committee selected to analyze the potential risks of the RHIC.

Since Amici claim we do know, yet the outcome of RHIC experiments he supervised was called an Astonishing surprise—could Amicus clarify why he is now so sure that he is right about LHC? (RHIC bulletin, Addenda C):  Astonishing surprise: Scientists at RHIC had expected collisions . . . to produce a gas of free quarks and gluons. But instead of behaving like a gas, the matter created in RHIC’s energetic gold-gold collisions appears to be more like a liquid—a perfect liquid with virtually no viscosity or frictional resistance to flow.

Problem is a gas evaporates with no harm or a relatively mild explosion. Yet a strange-let, as its name indicates, is a strange-liquid similar to the one found at RHIC, with a higher density of strange quarks (>±10.000 quarks) that make it stable (Addenda F). Since LHC will replicate RHIC experiments producing 5640 times more energy/strange mass0, (±1.000.000), it should form a strangelet vortex that would convert the Earth into a pulsar.  Thus, RHIC proved the creation of a strangelet is by no means speculative but the most likely event to take place at LHC. Because Amici know this12, they mislead the court with a string of false statements:

Although LHC operates at a much higher energy level than RHIC, the likelihood of any of the postulated catastrophes envisaged by the most imaginative physicists is much smaller than with a nuclear

collider. Proved false by Einstein’s equation, M=E/c2, which means a higher energy creates much more quark mass, hence it makes strange liquid more stable13. A fact which Amici Wilczek has explained out of Court and now he denies14.

Ordinary matter is expected to be liberated as quark-gluon plasma. Proved false by the fundamental law of the scientific method, experimental evidence. Since RHIC produced quasi-stable strange liquid not gas. Yet Amici and CERN know strange liquid will be lethal to Earth; so both deny experimental evidence and talk on the creation of harmless quark-gluon plasma15.

17. Amici claim plaintiff  Wagner, who sued Brookhaven, was wrong because Brookhaven didn’t destroy the world. Yet Wagner only affirmed there was a probability that  tiny black holes could appear.  That was the case in one of the experiments (Addenda D): a quasi-stable micro-black hole appeared at RHIC. Since all experts at Brookhaven were perfectly surprised, only Wagner came closer to the truth, even if he never claimed he did know with certainty the outcome with his special knowledgeas our amici pretentiously affirm.

18. Amici affirm concern by the Appellants in this case is not well-founded, or even legitimate, because they have, apparently, not educated themselves about the extensive analysis that has been done.  This is false. This plaintiff produced in the previous suit an extensive report, showing the falsity, irrelevance and lack of independence of the LSAG Safety report5 (Addenda B, 11).

Do Amici and Mr. Kaufman take their profession seriously enough to educate themselves about the extensive analysis that has been done on the lack of independence and falsity of the LSAG?

19. Amici affirm they are prompted to submit this brief in part because the Appellants have misconstrued and misrepresented the nature of science and scientific knowledge.

Fact is, this suit responds precisely to a proper understanding of the Laws and Ethics of the Scientific Method, which are not defined by Physicists but by Philosophers of Science, my specialty. If a Judge is the guardian of the Constitution, the supreme law of Society he helps to write, and must judge upon the truth on the suits presented at Court, the philosopher of science is the guarantor of the scientific method, the supreme Law of science and so he must:

– Develop the Laws of the Scientific Method and write general theories of science16,26.

– Falsify theories, which don’t obey those Laws10 (IV).

– Consider the Ethical value of news experiments and technologies, denouncing them when they harm human life (V).

Because CERN justifies its astronomical expenses pretending to test with their experiments theories that have been falsified, it will not advance our understanding of the Universe; because it risks the life of all of us, it shows a complete disregard for the Ethics of science. Thus, as a Philosopher of Science, I was obliged to litigate against CERN. And I ask this Court, who rules on behalf of the American people, under the same cherished beliefs in the importance of knowledge, truth and ethics, to allow a fair trial in which both sides can argue the dangers of extinction and scientific misuses of LHC.

IV.  SCIENTIFIC ALIBIS

20.The 5 main theories CERN pretends to test at LHC, as part of a marketing campaign that convinced our administration and the mass-media on the need to spend those astronomical sums, are either extremely dangerous (research on symmetry breaking and dark matter), false (evaporating black holes), redundant (Higgs), unlikely (the big bang that telescopes already study) or theoretical, hence impossible to achieve through experiments (the Unification of Forces):

21. CERN’s Scientific Officer affirms discovering the Higgs, the main reason LHC was built, will be the closest will ever be to God11. Yet Amicus Glashow called Higgs a toilet particle, while Amicus Wilczek affirms only his work and nothing else, (implying Higgs), explains mass17, contradicting both their statement that LHC develops vital scientific inquiry.

Fact is, Higgs is not a new particle but its parameters correspond to the heaviest, most attractive particle of the Universe, the top quark (Addenda A), whose deconfined Higgs state was analysed by this years Nobel Prize, Mr. Nambu18. Thus, according to the scientific method, which considers the Universe simple and efficient (Occam’s razor), Higgs is a redundancy—the known top quark, whose equations were rewritten, as Microsoft rewrote Apple into windows. Since, nobody would give billions to build the plumbing tubes of LHC’s toilet and rediscover the top—a particle we already knew19.

Problem is Top quarks should be the atoms of Einstein’s frozen black holes10 that in Relativity will eat up the Earth. So the Higgs Hoax might cost mankind much more than 10 billion $ . . .

22. A telling prove that the Higgs and Hawking’s theory of evaporating black holes are at least speculative is their mutual denial: Hawking bets 100 $ we won’t find Higgs particle..20 While Higgs considers Hawking’s theory false 21 (so black holes at LHC won’t evaporate and accrete Earth).

23. If RHIC (or its higher energy successors) could create a black hole, such a black hole would be so tiny that it would evaporate instantly.

Amici once more copy-paste an article about RHIC as if it were LHC; and use a speculative theory, which has been falsified ad nauseam under the laws of the scientific method, to make us believe black holes are harmless time machines that evaporate information. Indeed, Hawking says Einstein is double wrong because black holes evaporate. Yet black hole evaporation is a speculative theory of which there is no prove whatsoever, that breaks all the main laws of science, hence it is false22:

The Duality of energy and information. Hawking pretends black holes have only entropy, the arrow of energy and death, and destroy the information of the Universe, the arrow of life and mass that increases in all systems with the passing of time. So he denies Einstein, who said that time curves energy into formal masses, information. And Darwin, who said: time evolves the forms of life23.

– The II Law of Thermodynamics: Hawking affirms that black holes invert the direction of time, getting hotter in a colder environment, which is like saying a hot coffee gets hotter when you put it on ice. Of course, if you travel to the past this will certainly happen: the coffee will boil24 (-;.

– The law of Hylomorphism, a fundamental tenet of the experimental method. Since all beings have substance, but Mr. Hawking’s pretends his black holes are mathematical fantasies called singularities10, 22.

– The law of causality in time from past to future, the foundation of logic, recently used in Fractal Relativity to prove once more Hawking wrong24, 25.

– The laws of Relativity, which affirm that all black holes regardless of size will accrete Earth, growing exponentially at c-speed, according to Einstein’s equation of  mass14 (M=E/c2).

Since Relativity means size is relative and doesn’t affect the properties of Black Holes, which always obey the Laws of Gravitation, not as Hawking believes, the laws of quantum electromagnetism, a completely different force10. For the same reason that Oligomyrmex, a diminutive ant, doesn’t become a different species because it is smaller than the giant Driver Ant.

Fact is Einstein’s Relativity is the standard theory of black holes; hence the only one that should be admitted in a process of law, where speculative theories, like Hawking’s evaporation, have no place, exactly the opposite of what Amici claim. 

24.  It is thus clear that Amici and CERN purposely choose any theory available, as bizarre as it might sound, that proves LHC safe and makes it look necessary for vital! scientific inquire. So they prefer the speculations of wannabe Nobels, Higgs and Hawking, instead of the real particles and forces: Nambu’s Top quarks and Einstein’s black holes that show the enormous dangers of creating a quark factory on Earth.

25. The 3rd goal of those experiments is to find the mathematical equations that Einstein searched for in his last decades, a Unification Equation of the Universal constants of electromagnetic and gravitational forces. This Quantum Physicists at CERN will never find, smashing particles to see what happens, since it is a theoretical result, which must be obtained as Einstein tried, with Thought Experiments, departing from Geometry and Gravitation not from Quantum Theory26. And indeed, Einstein approach was right, though he lacked the modern mathematical tools of fractal theory, discovered after his death, which was the key to find that equation, that I presented last year in a conference on Fractal Relativity25 at the Annual Congress on Time Duality, the Philosophy of Science that studies the Universe with 2 arrows, energy and information, whose International Congress I chair. Since Amici acknowledge that equation to be the Saint Grail of Modern Physics they couldn’t find, I bring it here as a prove Amici and CERN don’t have any special knowledge we plaintiffs lack, and their assertion that we have no merit, is just an ‘ad hominem’ disqualification to avoid a fair trial on an Environmental Crime and waste of public resources that can cause according to standard science a global genocide.

26. The 4th theory LHC pretends to test is the cosmic big-bang. Since, when you believe only in the arrow of energy, entropy and death, as Quantum Physicists do, it seems reasonable to re-create the biggest bang thinking it will reveal the meaning of it all.

Unfortunately, even if CERN is able to cause such huge explosion, in the past decade we found a growing number of experimental proofs that at best the big bang is local: the explosion of a galactic black hole, called a quasar—facts that obviously CERN prefers to ignore:

– Astronomers have proved that the radiation of the big-bang is local, since it doesn’t leave shadows when it crosses through far away galaxies. Thus, it doesn’t come from the remote ends of the Universe, behind those galaxies, like the cosmic big-bang theory pretends27.

– The dates of the big-bang theory coincide with the cycle of creation and destruction of the central black hole of galaxies that takes the same 13 billion years, and has, unlike the cosmic big-bang, experimental proofs.

– We found helium, overproduced in any big-bang, to be more abundant around the central bar of the galaxy that disintegrates in those cycles, and we have found black holes so huge and old that they had to be formed before the supposed cosmic big bang of 13 billion years . . .

Yet if all those proofs were acknowledged, it would mean the end of massive funding for astro-physicists as the high priests that understand it all, and the end of LHC—whose replication of that big explosion could recreate a quasar and blow up the Earth.

27. Only a question remains, to prove Einstein and Fred Hoyle right again, with their theory of an eternal Dualist, Dynamic, Steady State Universe, in which each galaxy explodes and implodes informative black holes into dark energy in infinite cycles . . . Where does the 2.7k blackbody radiation of the galaxy, formerly ascribed to the cosmic big-bang, comes from? Which blackbody creates the exact form and temperature of that radiation? The answer is relevant to this suit, because it falsifies from a different perspective the 2nd, most repeated argument for the safety of LHC: that moons bombed by cosmic rays never become black holes, since the moon is still here and so LHC will not make one. CERN’s argument is double wrong. Because cosmic rays are not quarks24 and moons do become black holes.

Indeed, that 2.7k radiation, which Penzias observed coming from the galaxy, and Gamow, an A-Bomb researcher, blew up to cosmic dimensions with no prove whatsoever, canonly be produced by a black hole with the mass of the moon that reflects as a gravitational mirror light at that exact temperature. Since the quantity of mass of the black hole determines the gravitational temperature at which it bends light, as Einstein proved. So we can easily calculate what type of black hole produces 2.7k degrees, as the reader can  test, by substituting the mass of the moon in the formula of black holes  mass= temperature28.

Thus, since 2.7k radiation is the most common of the galaxy and moons are the most common planetoids, the galaxy must be full of black holes that ate moons and now bend light at 2.7k degrees.

CERN affirms LHC will research how the electroweak force breaks its symmetry and becomes dark matter, without explaining this means to research how our weak mass dies and feeds strong, Quark matter. Further on,there is 60 times more dark matter than light matter in the Universe and the only candidates among standard, known particles that can form dark matter are quarks (Dark matter triangle, Addenda A), components of ultra-dense stars and Einstein’s black holes, called MACHOs, (Addenda F, 27), which should be in the Halo radiating at 2.7k. Thus, the conversion of weak Earths and moons into a lump of dark, quark matter should be business as usual in the cosmos, exactly the opposite of what CERN affirms. Thus, to make a quark factory on Earth is enormously dangerous. It is like reproducing Ebola viruses, without any safety measure, pretending is vital research for science. Those MACHOs of dark matter protect the galaxy, as the Oort belts of moons in which they might feed, protect solar systems. But none is evaporating. We haven’t observed with the Fermi satellite any signature of black hole evaporation. We haven’t found either any signal of human intelligence, despite growing evidence on the existence of millions of Earth-like planets in the galaxy29. It is the Fermi paradox, which he enunciated after betting, as Amici explain, that the 1st A-bomb would evaporate only New Mexico. Perhaps he was thinking that Nuclear Physicists always evolve technology to a point in which they blow up their planets, playing to be God, as CERN might do this Christmas, unless this Court accepts the suit and Judge Gillmor declares LHC a danger to the life of Americans and Mankind at large.

28.  CERN and Amici’s problem is not their professional credentials, but their professional ethics. CERN systematically lied about those risks to the press, their governments and now this Court, to obtain billions of $ for an accelerator, which is in essence a quark cannon, a military weapon, they do know to be extremely dangerous. Yet, instead of sharing that special knowledge with this Court, they use it to disguise the worldly profession of Nuclear Physicists as makers of weapons:

400 years ago Galileo published the first book on Ballistics, military compasses. A century ago, the biggest arm producer of the XIX C., nicknamed Doctor Death, Nobel, inventor of Dynamite, manufacturer of Bofors Cannons and chemical weapons used in both World Wars by both contenders, founded his prizes. He stated: my factories will put an end to war sooner than your (peace) congresses: on the day two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second30. 50 years ago, Szilard, the main lobbyist of the A-Bomb, invented the accelerator and in Nazi Germany, Hahn used it to fission the atom, starting the nuclear industry. Today, the recipients of Nobels prize construct a super fluid, light speed, 7 terabyte quark cannon that might blow up the Earth in a second, achieving the dream of Dr. Death.

Those accelerators were funded during the Cold war to find stronger nuclear weapons. In the process of destroying mass and energy, Nuclear physicists found the particles that make up matter. Today, when the cold war is over and the standard model of particles is complete, there is no need to spend enormous sums in an age of economical crisis, building strong quark cannons. For that reason, the previous Democrat administration canceled the American Supercollider (SCC), whose cost was equivalent to the budget of the National Health Agency.

Nuclear Physicists know their main profession is the creation of Weapons of Mass destruction and have an unwritten code of silence that prevents any bioethical criticism among peers. So the Nuclear Industry now markets accelerators with extravagant theories—evaporating black holes, God’s particle—which were ignored when the military funded them, to convince politicians to build the 3rd horizon of nuclear cannons, the LHC. Indeed, after weak energy bombs (E=Mc2) and hydrogen, energy/mass bombs, CERN will create self-sustained strong quark/mass bombs that need only a small amount of detonator to blow up the planet, since the combustible is outside the bomb, in all of us, made of weak matter. And Nuclear Physicists back en masse CERN’s experiments with their wrong sense of rogue solidarity against concern for the environment that inhibits vital and important scientific inquire. Yet truth in science is not proved by quantity, corrupted prizes and overgrown budgets but through the laws of the Scientific Method.

For example, in the twenty-first century, all physicists except Einstein believed in an absurd equation/substance called Ether, which was harder than steel, softer than butter and filled the Vacuum. Einstein’s best friend, Gödel, proved then that mathematics is a language that creates fictions10. So Einstein denied ethers existence against all Physicists and he was ostracised by his peers, having to work in a patent office for many years31. Finally, when Michelson measured the speed of light on that vacuum, ether evaporated by lack of experimental evidence. Today CERN wants us to believe absurd theories that put our lives at risk on pretentious Authority. Instead, we want them to prove truth in Court with the laws of the Scientific Method. Because as Einstein put it, those who impose truth with power will be the laughs of the Gods.

V.  RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS COURT.

29. The Nuclear Industry created LHCunder the Ethics of Technology so clearly expressed by Eric Fromm, father of Political psychology:

Technological civilization is programmed by the principle that something ought to be done because it is technologically possible. If it is possible to build nuclear weapons, they must be built, even If they might destroy us all. Once this principle is accepted, humanist Values (something has to be done because it is needed by man) are Dethroned and technological development becomes the foundation of ethics.

 

This ethical statement explains what LHC is all about: to make a bigger, more powerful atomic cannon, because we have the capacity to make it, regardless of its harmful collateral effects to mankind, since it means big contracts for technological companies and jobs for Nuclear Physicists, unemployed after the end of the Cold War32. As CERN said: Whatever the discoveries ahead for physicists working at LHC, the experiments will, according to its Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, “keep physicists off street corners for a long time to come33.

Yet when the costs and risks are so high, public funding should be used in a wiser way on research on other areas of science that will provide jobs and harmless results34.

Nuclear, Quantum Physicists engaged in those experiments work to achieve their scholar ambitions, or make a living at CERN and we cannot expect any control on their side. Their mastery, constructing weapons of mass destruction, is not paralleled however in the realm of knowledge, since their reductionist theories about time and the Universe have long been superseded by the work of Einstein, and the recent advances on Duality and Fractal Relativity that prove Einstein’s standard theory of Mass and gravitation, the informative force of the Universe, right22-26. Instead, Quantum Physicists like Hawking, who denies Einstein, use obsolete XIX C. models that define the Universe only with the arrow of entropy and Death, considering that information, the arrow of life, doesn’t create the future, which is false. So they research cosmic explosions, pretending they will reveal the meaning of it all, when they just can bring death to mankind. Since if Einstein is again right, Hawking’s black holes will blow up the planet. Thus, it seems an act of arrogance and irresponsibility to risk our lives to prove the best physicist of history wrong35.

In the last century nuclear physicists were never made accountable for their actions, to protect a misunderstood concept of national security, called MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction36). Instead, during the cold war, they were hailed everywhere as primus inter pares, a position which in science if any, corresponds to the Philosopher of Science that defends the bioethics and truth of the scientific method, as judges are primus inter pares who rule on the truth and ethical standing of Plaintiffs and Defendants. As a result of those undeserved privileges, today quantum cosmology feel over the Laws of the Scientific Method that falsifies their theories35 (IV) and the Laws of Democracies—since during the cold war Europeans gave the Nuclear Company diplomatic status. But our security policies have changed. We have now Environmental Laws and Laws that protect the Security of this Nation, opening a legal avenue to prevent this potential genocide. In that regard, a ruling against further evolution of Nuclear weapons is long overdue. By establishing again the Rule of Law and the supremacy of the arrow of life over the arrow of entropy and death that CERN researches37, this Court can give the first step in the right direction Mankind has to take, if we want to have a sustainable future for this planet.

30. The legal question this Court is asked to resolve is the existence of Federal Jurisdiction over CERN. On my view if the Court has the will to judge, such jurisdiction can be obtained either from NEPA, given the enormous quantitative expenses the American Government has placed on those experiments, or from the Patriot Act and other laws against terror and dangerous substances, given the enormous number of potential victims an accident at LHC will produce (14).

Thus, the true question this Court must resolve is the existence of such will and need to judge a scientific experiment that can put in harms way potentially billions of human beings; a machine which is redundant and of inferior quality to a harmless telescope, if its purpose is to study the Universe and the unlikely cosmic big bang (26); a Company, which constantly lies to the press and politicians to extract billions of $ of tax-payer money. Must this behavior, this Company, this experiment that can provoke the biggest genocide of history, happen unchecked? Obviously not. This Court, who represents the people of America also at risk, should for that reason allow a fair review in a due process of law of Plaintiffs arguments in defense of mankind, regardless of the institutional power and prestige of the Nuclear Industry. It should not be impressed by a presumption of Authority that Amici have violated misinforming and despising the oath of truth due to this Court. Since the citizens of this country have the right to proper information, guaranteed by their Constitution, which this Court should uphold, especially in issues that endangers the life of Americans without consent.

NOTES

0 RHIC collides heavy atoms at 100 GeV. per nucleus. LHC collides them at 564 TeV, with 5.640 times more energy. What this means is that LHC will produce easily strangelet drops, 5.640 times bigger, crossing well into its valley of stability. See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider Line 2 and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider Line 18.

1 The whole paragraph found in the article “Will Relativistic Heavy-Ion Colliders Destroy Our Planet?” reads as follows: Our understanding of the interactions between quarks is insufficient to decide with confidence whether or not strangelets are stable forms of matter. Estimates based on the MIT bag model leave the question open for any mass (or baryon) number, A, between a single-digit quantity and the value for neutron stars, A 1.7 × 10 57. In the case of strangelets, we are dealing with the properties of an incompletely understood hypothetical form of  nuclear matter. Imagine that, for some unforeseen reason, there is a “valley of stability” for negative strangelets. Suppose that, somehow, such an object is produced in a laboratory high-energy reaction and that it survives the collisions that eventually bring it to rest in matter. The negative strangelet would attract a positive nucleus and may eat it. The resulting object may lose positive charge and adjust its strangeness by electron capture or positron β -decays. The new strangelet may be negative again, and  maintain an appetite for nuclei. If its mass grows to some 0.3 ng (A 2 × 1014) it falls to the center of the Earth, for its weight overcomes the structural energy density of matter (109 erg cm−3 or 0.1 eV per molecular bond). At a mass above 1.5 ng, for a typical nuclear density, the object becomes larger than an atom and the positron cloud that it has been developing sits mainly inside the strangelet itself (for stable strangelets that have grown this large, the sign of Z is immaterial). Even without the help of the Coulomb attraction, gravity and thermal motion may then sustain the accreting chain reaction until, perhaps, the whole planet is digested, leaving behind a strangelet with roughly the mass of the Earth and 100 m radius. The release of energy per nucleon should be of the order of several MeV and, if the process is a run-away one, the planet would end in a supernova-like catastrophe.

2 See strangelet charge at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_quarks

3 Those declarations are found at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/moslive/article-1025725/Solve-meaning-life-The-worlds-biggest-experiment-meaning-everything.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/universe/highlights/index_textonly.shtml

http://www.nullsession.net/nullsession/?p=1716

Further on Cox says:

“We know it will discover exciting things. We just don’t know what they are yet.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4670445.ece

“We might not have thought of what turns up, but we know we’ve got to see it.”

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3403949.ece

While CERN states: “Collisions at LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth.” http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Collisions+at+the+LHC+differ+from+cosmic-ray+collisions+with+astronomical+bodies+like+the+Earth&btnG=Search

4 Amicus Wilczek contradicts constantly his statements in a taped, public conference, whose key statements are shown at http://www.lhcdefence.org

In that document (minute 3 of the film found in the main screen of that site) Amicus Wilczek states to the question that LHC might produce black holes:

. . . that is truth, otherwise respectable scientists have suggested that kind of thing.

And to the question if that might be dangerous and blow up the planet, Amicus Wilczek replies:

Nature is so inventive and malicious that . . . , there is a logical possibility that it can lead to a catastrophe (Minute 5.23).

Later he states: Most of what happens at high energy accelerators is the strong interaction. We need to understand that very, very well if we are looking for the rare events that correspond to something fundamentally new (min.34.3).

Would Amicus Wilczek care to clarify when did he lie, here in Court or in his public statements?; and why did he lie in a matter that concerns the life and safety of the entire planet?

Just in case Amicus Wilczek doesn’t answer to this important question, in the same visual document we find a tentative response, as he recognizes that: I never been so confident though as to make a prediction as when I was called  to sit on a panel about the possibility of an accelerator turning on and ending the world. Predicting that it won’t is very safe, because if your prediction is wrong, he, he (and he shrugs) (Minute 6).

Obviously Amicus Wilczek laughs, knowing that if his prediction is wrong the world will blow up and he won’t be blamed (while we, plaintiffs, will be ridiculed ad nauseam if nothing happens, despite having taken the proper bioethical standing). But he is now stating the opposite under oath . . .

5 LSAG is available at: http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf

Mr. Magnano’s paper is available at http://arXiv.org/abs/0806.3381

Both ignore completely LHC’s quark production and the possible substances it can produce (Addenda A), focusing on cosmic rays, RHIC and neutron stars, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the LHC. To make a comparison, would this Court take seriously a safety report made about the Ford Mustang by the same Ford Company (11),which studies instead other car, let us say, the Toyota Camry (RHIC), and a completely different object—let us say the chances that a comet falls over our heads (black holes colliding with neutron stars, main theme of Mr. Magnano’s paper)?

6 Let us consider some of those fallacious arguments and the curious concepts on safety standards  Amici’s hold:

Industrial safety was managed by learning from past mishaps and by using appropriate measures to avoid their recurrence. For example, miners once used caged canaries as methane detectors. This management process is no longer acceptable as modern technologies have sometimes led to disasters.

Thus, defendants acknowledge that new technologies do lead sometimes to disasters. Moreover, they acknowledge that, while at any present time scientists consider their knowledge always proper, in the future often we discover those measures were not safe enough. So if defendants accept that in the relative future what we believed had no risk brought disasters, how they are so sure that in the relative future what they claim now to be safe will not bring a catastrophe?

The amici recognize that a new procedure had to be developed for the concerns at issue in this case.

Thus amici, who claim the highest standards of safety yet developed, in fact are testing a new untested procedure in an experiment, whose mishap will be the last one, as it risks the life of all mankind.

The most creative scientists were tasked to imagine what might go wrong and satisfy themselves that the imagined problems did not exist. They examined carefully three scientifically conceivable disaster scenarios in which experiments might produce “black holes” that could gradually consume the Earth.

This pretentious new method of assessment is not scientifically acceptable. Since imagination is not a procedure of science. We either know or do not know the facts. Further on we might wonder, if CERN can imagine 3 catastrophe scenarios, doesn’t this fact imply that those 3 imagined scenarios are at least probable, especially when Amici acknowledge that in science accepted truth evolves gradually or discontinuously? Further on, our brief list (13), proofs experts’ imagination limited, as many scenarios escaped them.

 

7 In the same line of thought, the constant use by Amici of the word scientists, instead of nuclear physicists, clearly tries to mislead this Court, implying that scientists from different disciplines are in favor of the experiment. This is probably due to the fact that Nuclear Scientists have constructed all the weapons of mass-destruction of the XX century, and so they prefer to hide their responsibility, after half a century of global terror, under the umbrella of science. For the same reason CERN will be eliminating from its acronym the word Nuclear, to avoid an accurate understanding of its nature and pass as a Center of European Research, not as the Nuclear Company of Europe.

 

8 The difference between cosmic rays and the LHC is clear. Cosmic rays are lonely atoms and ions of lower density (mainly hydrogen), whose chances to collide in their center in enough numbers to liberate a mass of quarks, so close together that they can create a strangelet or mass-bomb, are null. For the same reason the Earth is not constantly detonating A-bombs despite having Uranium. The critical mass will never be achieved unless we purify and pack together the uranium. That is why cosmic rays don’t convert Earth into a Nova. Since, to re-create the conditions of a self-sustained mass-bombs we need to create the detonator that starts the chain-reaction by massing together thousands of quarks and give them the highest energies of the Universe, which CERN will achieve through a process called stochastic cooling that compresses together millions of hadrons (heavy atomic nuclei), accelerating them till reaching light speeds with super- magnetic forces. Those ultra-energetic, ultra-dense bags of quarks, target an opposite beam of millions of dense quark nuclei, making them collide in a point in which they stop at rest, forming a mass-bomb that keeps feeding on our electroweak matter, in a chain reaction that converts Earth into a quark star. This kind of precise collisions, forces and density of quark mass, only happens in the center of stars, where supernova reactions take place. So it is quite possible that the collision of 2 bags of ultra-dense quarks at the LHC will also create a Nova reaction.

 

9 A Bosenova is described in simple terms, at:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm  http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/supernova_lab_010723.html  Yet LHC is not the only lab on Earth that might produce them in the nearby future (albeit, given its  enormous energy, the most probable place).

Dark atoms are very likely formed, as Light atoms are, by the combination of the triangular base (Addenda A) of the dark matter triangle. The difference is that the quarks of the dark matter triangle are much more attractive and act/react  much faster than light atoms. For example, their individual particles mutate into their antiparticles billions of times per second. So, even if we have not observed them yet, their theoretical properties, make them very dangerous.

10 See min.15-20 of visual document at http://www.lhcdefence.org where we explain the formation of gas-9, the technical name given in Fractal Relativity25 to a deconfined state of top quarks, described also by this years Nobel Prize Nambu18, as the most attractive vortex of particles in the Universe. In fractal relativity top quarks are the atoms of Einstein’s black holes, which he called frozen stars, arguing they could only exist if we found a cut-off substance with enough density to be its atoms. Yet the obvious need of a material substance in black holes is denied by quantum cosmology like Hawking, who believe in the main religious ideology of physicists, called Pythagorism, according to which the Universe is made of numerical functions, probabilities. Pythagorism, implies that any mathematical equation must exist in reality, because, as Galileo put it, Mathematics is the language of God. And for the same reason, anything that cannot be written in equations, including information and life, must not exist or be relevant to our understanding of the Universe. So Hawking also denies the arrow of information in black holes, says Einstein’s black holes are double wrong and black holes evaporate information. It is the so-called information paradox proved wrong ad nauseam. Since Gödel, the most important mathematician of the XX century showed that mathematics is just a language that can produce, as any language does, fictions. So equations, which are logically inconsistent or describe particles that contradict known laws of science and don’t have experimental evidence are false. This is the case of Hawking’s time machines, aka evaporating black holes, and many other mathematical fantasies, from parallel Universes to multiple dimensions and super-symmetric particles that the efficiency and simplicity of the Universe forbid and the quark factory will never produce, despite CERN’s claims their quixotic search is “vital scientific research. Yet among Pythagorean Physicists Gödel is taboo. So Hawking claims to have had his biggest depression after reading him. The exception is Einstein, Gödel’s best friend who, unlike quantum cosmology, always respected the Laws of the Scientific Method and confessed to Poncaire he hadn’t become a mathematician because he could prove when a mathematical equation was truth but not when it was real. Thus, he confronted all his life Quantum fantasies with no prove, and his strict sense of veracity paid off, since all his theories have been proved right, while not a single Quantum, speculative fantasy, including evaporating black holes have been proved right by the laws of the scientific method—exactly the opposite of what Amici claim.

At his death however, Quantum Physicists tried to substitute Einstein’s proved work on Gravity and Mass, with a Quantum fantasy called quantum gravity, according to which small black holes were not made of mass, but obeyed quantum laws.  This is absurd, as Gravitation deals with the macro-cosmos and Quantum Theory with the micro-cosmos, two fractal scales of different size and forces26. But that didn’t deter Wheeler, the father of the H-Bomb, which Einstein also opposed, to invent Quantum Gravity, and change Einstein’s name of frozen stars to black holes. Wheeler did it because, as he confessed to Thorne, Hawking’s best friend, also a writer on time machines and science fiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne), he wanted to study frozen stars with the laws of quantum theory as probabilistic objects. So he defined black holes as mathematical fantasies with no substance, which had at its center, instead of quarks, infinite density and null volume. This absurd concept called quantum gravity is the speculative theory, never proved, from where Hawking’s work arouses. For many years Hawking recognized that his work on black holes was a mere mathematical fiction and he even bet with Kip Thorne that such black holes didn’t exist in Nature (see the account of this fact by his professor at www.lhcdefense.org). YetCERN and a new generation of Pythagorean physicists seem to have forgotten the fictional nature of all those mathematical fantasies, which CERN now sponsors, not to deal with the fact that if black holes are Einstein’s frozen stars, they will be produced at LHC by massing together top quarks into gas-9, the detonator of a frozen top star. Thus, if Einstein is right about his frozen stars, since LHC will produce Top quarks in massive quantities, it will very likely produce black holes, which will never evaporate, as we have never seen a quark evaporating, but grow at light speed, making us all into top quarks, M=e/c2 (Exhibit A). In that regard, despite his constant falsification, Quantum theorists like Mr. Hawking resort as the ultimate alibi to cling on his theories, to probabilistic models of the Universe in which all is possible, including an infinitesimal probability that black holes evaporate into the past24 and we survive the LHC. In one of his books the Universe in a nutshell, Mr. Hawking points out that the chances of time travel and hence of black holes evaporation (23) are 1 in a trillionth, but he ads I like to bet. Those are the chances we survive one of those black holes, if they appear at CERN (min.28 at http://www.lhcdefence.org). The use of probabilities has become in that sense customary among the gurus of quantum cosmology, because it allows them to invent all kind of bizarre theories, whose improbable testing is a good excuse to build machines like the LHC, despite Mr. Einstein dictum that God doesn’t play dices; since probabilities in science merely reflect limits on the human perception of some events, they are not a license to affirm anything is possible. But without them, people like Mr. Hamed, a critique of this suit, could not affirm because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum cosmology, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.; while sponsoring as a probable truth his theory of 10500 parallel Universes . . . some of which, I suppose, have dragoons that will travel through the probabilistic dimensions of other quantum theories into LHC:

http://neocrack.info/Crackpedia/Physics/particle%20accelerator/particle_accelerator.htm

 

11  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_kolbert

 

12  The main substance LHC will produce is a vortex of ultra-cold, super-fluid quark-gluon liquid, as the one produced at RHIC but of higher stability; called in scientific literature a bag of ice-9, (name taken from Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Cat and cradle, which, as Wilczek has often described out of Court, would trigger a chain reaction that will accrete the Earth (min.37 onwards of visual document at http://www.lhcdefence.org; SciAm, 99).

13 As a fetus born with little weight that dies before stabilizing its vital constants, at RHIC around one thousand strange quarks were formed and then the liquid dissolved. We were lucky enough that RHIC’s strange liquid didn’t stabilize. Yet if such strange liquid, considered existing in the center of all neutron stars, hence truly common, is born with more mass, it will certainly stabilize and convert the Earth into a small pulsar.This parameter is called the MIT constant of stability, and most physicists today, experts on strange theory (red line on Addenda A, Addenda C) consider this to happen beyond the 1 terabyte barrier of energy/mass, never surpassed by RHIC, which LHC will cross far beyond. Then our weak mass breaks its symmetry (a technical concept to state that it dies and becomes converted into heavy quarks). Yet, precisely LHC has been constructed to study the symmetry breaking=death of our light matter and the creation of dark matter and heavy quarks, made with it (3,27). This is why it is so dangerous. Thus, the catastrophic scenario is by no means speculative but the most likely event to take place at LHC. Further on, the quasi-strangelet fetus lived much longer and accreted 10 times more matter than scientists expected. In fact, strange quarks were called strange because physicists were surprised by their long lasting life, millions of time longer than they thought. It was as if Cleopatra were still dying of an asp bite said his discoverer. As Amici Wilczek states at http://www.lhcdefence.org, min.5.23, Nature is so inventive, that its species always survive better than expected. We might say that at RHIC physicists expected a lame duck but saw the teeth of a Tyrannosaurus Rex; and now the experts on dark matter are eager to make Jurassic Park to see all the possible monsters of the dark world fully grown, regardless of the collateral effects they might bring to mankind.

14.  The nature of those quark bombs is shown in detail by one of our Amici, Mr. Wilczek, in the taped conference available at http://www.lhcdefence.org, when he explains the creation of mass-bombs according to Professor Einstein’s inverse equations, E=Mc2 and M=E/c2, an occurrence that now he denies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, this second equation M=E/c2, which as Amicus Wilczek explains (min.13 of the visual document), was Mr. Einstein’s initial equation, creates mass-bombs, novas, black holes and strangelets. And it happens when Energy becomes mass. Thus, since LHC has much more energy than Nuclear Colliders, it will produce much more mass, increasing enormously the risks of creating black holes and Strangelets.  How then Amici can claim exactly the opposite, against Einstein’s well proved theories, when Amicus Wilczek recognizes exactly the opposite?

15 CERN also uses constantly in its site and official documents the outdated concept of a quark-gluon plasma, instead of recognizing LHC will create strange quark liquid.

16  http://www.unificationtheory.com/laws/science_unification.htm

17  Amicus Sheldon’s toilet concept is explained at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20215345/.  While you can see Wilczek declarations on min. 27.3 of the visual document at htttp://www.lhcdefence.org

I do agree with both of them. If we were to falsify the Higgs for our Amici physicists in a logic, causal manner, using the special knowledge of the Scientific Method and its epistemological laws we should write the following logical chain:

A) In the 70s in Physical review, Smolin and Zee proved that the Higgs was equivalent to a Brans/Dicke variable gravitational space/time vortex, which is based in the standard model of gravity and mass, Einstein’s Relativity, and explains the meaning and value of different masses without the need of new particles. (Addenda A)

B) In the earlier 2000s, in the book Cycles of space-time, http://dinamica-de-sistemas.com/revista/0906e.htm I used a variable gravitational space/time vortex to prove that a strong field was the quantum equivalent of a gravitational field and  showed mathematically, departing from Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence that mass was equivalent to the frequency of space-time vortex . While Amici Wilczek arrived to the same conclusions on his work on the strong force, which now he seems to deny, considering the search of the Higgs of vital importance for scientific inquire.  Thus, it became obvious to me, as it should have been to Amici Wilczek that a standard ultra-heavy particle, a quark, not a new particle or theory, would be the cause of the death, or breaking of symmetry of our weak mass.

c) Higgs equations are copycat of Goldstone, copycat of Nambu’s description of a top/antitop deconfined quark super-fluid vortex. So deconfined top quarkswere the standard particles we needed to explain the death of light matter (the breaking of symmetry), explained by Nambu, before Higgs discovered his redundant particle.

D) Further on, the weight and parameters of a Higgs are equal to those of a top quark (Addenda A)

E) Occam’s razors prove efficiency and simplicity are truths in science.

F) A+B+C+D+E means that Higgs created synonymous equations to those of a deconfined top quark super-fluid vortex of strong forces (said I am brunette instead of I have dark hair). So the Higgs is the top quark and that is why . . .

G) Nambu NOT Higgs got this year his Nobel prize. Since LHC won’t find Higgs. Instead it will produce a whirl of super-strong, attractive top quarks that will start breaking the symmetry (aka feeding) of our electroweak matter at the nice rate of a +1 billion feeds per second.

H) This in abstract writes n+p->w+z->top quark. Further on, a Top=Higgs has the same weight that the sum of a W and Z particles (w+z=t) . . . What this means is that our weak mass becomes broken first into W+Z particles that evolve into heavier quarks.

Thus, after having spending 10 billion $ in this machine, what Nuclear Physicists expect is to rediscover the Top, learn some minor details about the death of our matter, create massive amounts of quarks and dark matter, and hail Nambu as the great physicist of the age. Then have a good laugh on Higgs for the money they got with his hoax.

19  In simple terms, Leo Lederman (min. 22 of the visual document), an ambitious administrator of Super-Colliders, who wanted to create LHC in America, knew that the Standard Model of particles was closed, as all its quarks were already discovered, forming 2 beautiful, self-similar triangles of light matter and dark matter, able to explain all the other particles of the Universe (Addenda A, 27) except the mathematical fantasies of Pythagorean Physicists10. Those invented particles, such as Higgs, WHIMPS and SUSYS, that have an infinitesimal probability of existence, since the fundamental law of the Scientific Method, Occam’s razor, the law of simplicity, deems them unnecessary, are now according to CERN essential to our understanding of the cosmos. In the case of Lederman, since he knew there was no reason to spend 10 billion $. he insisted  that the Top Quark=Higgs, was a new particle of paramount importance to understand it all, not just another quark. So he called it God’s particle, wrote a book with that title and sold it to Reagan to fund the SCC (American Super-collider). Clinton, though, found out the scam and waste of resources and cancelled the project, as the present Democrat administration should do with LHC. Then, Nuclear Physicists convinced the French, eager for Grandeur, that God’s particle would solve the meaning of the Universe, and obtained the funding for LHC, in an age in which super-colliders, that were basic instruments of research in nuclear weapons during the cold war, had become an obsolete, ultra-expensive machine, which neither Russians nor Americans wanted to fund any longer.

 

20 http://www.shvoong.com/exact-sciences/physics/1838912-professor-higgs-big-bang-collision/

21 Higgs doesn’t seem to care that his belief in the falsity of Hawking implies CERN’s black holes will blow up the Earth since he backs the experiment to find his particle. Regarding Mr. Hawking in the document at http://www.lhcdefence.org he affirms (min.25) that if his theory is wrong we will become spaghetti, but if he is right, he will obtain a Nobel Prize, concluding that since we have found no prove whatsoever in more than 30 years of black hole evaporation, CERN will give him a second chance (it might be possible to observe this (black holes) at CERN, in Switzerland . . . So I might get a Nobel Prize after all). While Wilczek knows if Higgs is not found, his work  will get a revival. It seems that scholar ambition is more important to our Nuclear Physicists than the survival of the human species. Unfortunately neither Hawking or Higgs are right, because we have a perfectly tested theory of mass and gravitation, called General Relativity, which Einstein formulated a century ago, and today theorists are upgrading with the new mathematics of Fractals into Fractal Relativity18b,24-26, the most promising theory of time and space of the XXI century, which also will enter the limelight once the Higgs Hoax is discharged. As one of his main proponents23, obviously, the experimental falsification of the Higgs would have been also beneficial to my career but bioethical considerations in this case are to me far more important than scholar ambition.

22 January 1977: Scientific American, “The Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes.” In that pretentious article, which Hawking closes with the sentence, Einstein is double wrong (despite making his fortune with a book, A brief history of Time, dedicated to explain Einstein’s theories of Time), Mr. Hawking, following Wheeler10 affirms that black holes have no substance, but are mathematical fantasies, which destroy information, as he does not acknowledge Duality, the reality of 2 arrows that create the future species of the Universe, energy and information, the dominant substance of life and black holes.

Such outdated thesis departs from twenty-first-century physics, when only the arrow of entropy was known, but it has been falsified ad nauseam in serious articles and popular magazines. In fact today black holes are studied in exactly the opposite terms: they are considered the most informative=massive objects of the Universe, since in terms of Duality, mass is, as Einstein explained, and Wilczek confirms in his conferences (www.lhcdefence.org), the physical in-form-ation of the Universe, whose frequency bends energy into curved form (see cover of Sciam November 2004 at: http://www.physics.unc.edu/research/theory/gchep/images/sciam-cover.jpg : Computing black holes.)

Yet quantum cosmology still pretend to substitute Mr. Einstein’s work on mass, with their outdated, XIX C., entropic models born out of their worldly specialization in energy and weapons research, to the point they call the information arrow so evident in life beings, negantropy, the negation of entropy, as if life were an odd exception. And they affirm that the Universe is dying (min. 8 of visual document).

23 http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/viewFile/29/200

The 2 arrows of time are obvious to everybody who is alive. Since, besides the arrow of entropy=energy and death, there are multiple cycles of in-form-ation and life, which Darwin explained with his work about morphological change. Even if Doctor Deaths prize (28) cannot be given to anyone who believes in Theory of Evolution – since in-form-ation, form, was not properly mathematized when Nobel died. All this changed when, at the end of the XX century, information was mathematized properly with the discovery of fractal equations that create form, in-form-ation, not only in life but in most structures of the Universe. In essence a fractal equation is a self-generative equation that repeats the same forms of in-form-ation, in different sizes and scales, breaking constantly energy into new in-form-ations, aging your skin into form and the vacuum space into cyclical vortices of masses and charges, balancing the entropy of the Universe and making it immortal (min.16.26 of visual document). It was the most important discovery in Time theory of the last decades, which fractal theorists, like Mandelbrot, Mehaute, Nottale and this author, have applied to multiple sciences, showing that we can describe the Universe as a fractal system of energy and information that constantly self-reproduces all its beings (nt.25).

Einstein also accepted the arrow of information, as he understood mass as an attractive, accelerated vortex of Gravitation (Equivalence Principle), whose cyclical frequency of rotation in-forms, creates temporal information, which is the ultimate meaning of mass. So he believed, as Duality is proving today, that the Universe was a steady state of balances between the arrow of physical information that creates galaxies and mass and the arrow of entropy/physical energy that creates dark and light energy. In other words, XXI century science is proving Einstein and Darwin right once more, in their understanding of physical and biological information and Mr. Hawking and CERN wrong, in their obsession for the arrow of energy. But by the time quantum cosmology accept Einstein’s arrow of mass, the information of matter, and Darwin’s arrow of evolution, instead of ignoring and judging the work of millions of scientists who study life and information as having no merit, they might have killed us all.

In that regard, all theories of time depart from the first scientist of History, discoverer of the experimental method, Aristotle, who defined time as the perception of change in the Universe. And so he affirmed that a theory of time should be a theory of change, like every Philosopher of Science has done ever since. Then he proposed, as we do in Duality, 2 arrows, wills or substances in the Universe, information and energy, responsible for the 2 types of times=changes science studies, biological and physical change. If we translate his wording to modern scientific terminology we should talk of the arrow of morphological, informative change, which defines the processes of life, aging and Evolution, as an accumulation of information that happens in all the species of the Universe. And he called the arrow of energy, translational change or movement, which happens in the physical realm. Thus, he divided the study of times in 2 different sciences, Biology, the science of form, of in-form-ation and Physics, the science of energy and matter. In the modern age, those 2 types of times-changes would be further developed by Darwin in Biology (information arrow) and Galileo in Physics (energy arrow). Further on, Galileo added to verbal logic, the language of Greek Science and Biology, a new language, mathematics, to calculate with precision translational change with a new type of device, a machine called the clock that could measure the rhythms of change in the motion of beings. But clocks were simple, quantitative mechanisms that could not describe the morphological, in-form-ative, qualitative changes of the cycles of life and death, which were, therefore, ignored by physicists for centuries to come. Thus, physicists became specialized in the arrow of energy, of expansive movement in space, which they called entropy and causes also the processes of big bangs (physical death) and biological death, which is an overdrive of energy that kills and simplifies the information of life. As specialists on energy, Physicists would also make all the weapons of modern history, since weapons are mechanical devices that release an overdrive of energy that kills human beings. And since physicists ignore all what they cannot mathematize, this leads them to ignore the 2nd arrow of time, in-form-ation, and the arrow of life. Thus, Physicists by the very essence of their reductionist vision of time, are geared to destroy the Earth, seeking the pure energy of the big-bang, thinking the Universe is all about bombs and explosions, not about information and the creation of  life (min. 10 of the visual document). For that reason, even after Einstein proved that physics also has an arrow of creation of information, the arrow of gravity that bends space into mass in black holes, Hawking, a quantum physicist stuck in XIX C. entropy, affirms that Einstein is double wrong, and black holes have only energy, entropy, and evaporate information. And he finds many fans among die-hard entropy physicists and the Nuclear Industry CERN represents.

24 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/master-of-a-narrow-universe-stephen-hawking-is-on-a-voyage-to-stardom-but-unable-to-navigate-in-the-human-realm-1510340.html

25 See: http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/viewFile/29/200   http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/viewFile/27/201

from this author to grasp the essential self-similarity and fractal nature of all things created equal…

26 For the fractal structure of galaxies, stars and black holes see articles available at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe

27  http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html

28  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971111e.html

While there are small variations in the mass of moons, most of them fall within the range of ±2.5/3K degrees, when converted into black holes. Further on, if Black holes are Einstein’s frozen stars, they will be top quark hadrons26. That is, they will be as all hadrons are, all equal in weight, reflecting the same background radiation all over the Universe. In the same manner all protons have the same mass and all electrons the same charge. Thus, the remaining mass of the irregular moon, once a Moon MACHO is formed will be expelled as energy in the Nova process of conversion of moons into primordial black holes as it happens when stars become stellar black holes.

29  http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-planet22-2009apr22,0,5993692.story :

This April we found the 1st planet similar in size to Earth, so close we can extrapolate the existence of millions of them.

30 http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/biographical/articles/tagil/index.html

31 http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/einstein-nobel-prize

Today nothing remains of ether theory and physicists think that theory to be an obvious absurdity, but the same physicists think Mr. Hawking, who denies Einstein’s theory of black holes, is right, because his equations of time travel are so beautiful and he describes black holes as mathematical fantasies without substance, which seems to be a prove the Universe is Pythagorean10 (made of mathematical equations not of substances). If we survive CERN, in a few years, when we observe those black holes closely, we will realize that they have substance, which can only be ultra-dense quarks, as those CERN will mass together to produce them, and the mathematical fantasies of Hawking and his denial of Einstein will seem absurd, an act of arrogance that is risking our lives, without asking us permission. Einstein was also a pacifist, who opposed Mr. Nobels industries and so the Nobel committee denied him repeatedly the prize. 20 years later, the Nobel committee finally gave him the prize without mentioning his prove that ether did not exist (Relativity theory). But quantum cosmology never accepted his criticism of probabilistic, mathematical fantasies. Today CERN follows an ‘ad hominem’ campaign against those who challenge its experiments, backed by all kind of experts that want to prove their bizarre theories. Instead we want CERN to reason their arguments under the Laws of the Scientific Method. And for that only one Amicus is needed, if he is right.

32 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_kolbert

Some contracts went to Russian physicists who previously worked for the Soviet military; in this way, the collider has provided a livelihood for scientists whose employment options might otherwise include selling nuclear secrets.

33  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4229545.stm

34 In that regard, this case is of supreme importance for mankind, for 2 reasons:

– If the theoretical debate favors standard science (Einstein on black holes, Wen and the Standard Model of negative strange matter in strangelets1, Addenda F), CERN will commit the final genocide of History. And this Court, by not allowing a trial on that potential genocide, will have failed to protect the life of the American People, the supreme value a Federal Court is asked to protect by the American Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Natural Law of all societies.

– Yet even if the bizarre theories of Mr. Hawking were right and our present understanding of strangelets were incorrect and we survive CERN, this will not be the last technology that puts the human species at risk. Bigger accelerators will be built till they reach the threshold of creation of pulsar and black holes. Self-reproductive nano-bacteria will be built that can destroy the ecological balance of this planet and make impossible life, as Bill Joy, founder of Sun Microsystems, pointed out in Wired magazine ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html ). Further into that future super-robots will reach such degree of evolution that might make mankind obsolete . . . It is for that reason that the choice between technological29 and human ethics has become one of the fundamental issues of this century.

In that regard, this is the first case of a new brave world in which mankind, for the first time since its apparition as a species, faces a growing possibility of extinction under the ethics of technology, unless the judicial, executive and military branches of our governments decide to put some basic limits to those ethics and resurrect the ethics of life. Instead of worshipping blindly all kind of technologies, even those that can extinguish us, we should put legal limits to the evolution and reproduction of those specific lethal machines as we do with biological weapons and lethal virus . . . While this might not be enunciated expressly in the constitutional laws of this country, written before those lethal machines were even conceived by the human mind, it seems to me that Laws like the Patriot Act, which treats both kind of lethal substances under the same legal umbrella (nuclear weapons and biological weapons) expresses tacitly the need to put such limits. The present administration, with his emphasis in the defence of the environment and its opposition to Nuclear Proliferation, seems to point out also the need to establish limits to the free reproduction and evolution of lethal, nuclear technologies, such as the LHC.

35 Hawking affirms Einstein is double wrong. Yet if he is right, black holes will never evaporate and accrete the Earth. For that reason, because no human being should risk his life, without his knowledge, for the scholar ambition of a few physicists, I ask this Court to allow an open discussion in a due process of law of the real dangers of CERN’s black holes; instead of trusting Nuclear Physicists, given their ignorance and indifference towards the arrow of life, this Court must defend. That ignorance is only paralleled to their arrogance and desire to play God, which they reduce to the inverse arrow of Death=eviL≠Live. Indeed, Mr. Hawking ends his best-selling book about Einstein’s Relativity, which he now denies with his theory of evaporating black holes (A brief history of time), observing that (Physicists) know the mind of God. And so one imagines He, as Mr. Engelen (17), Mr. Higgs and perhaps our Amici, can invent any speculative theory, regardless of its truth, since God, after all, if He exists, should convert in truth=reality whatever is in His Mind. Already Kepler said, when he applied the mechanist clock to the Universe“Yes, I am the one: God Himself has waited for six thousand years for ME, who looks at His creation with understanding.”

Yet Physicist’s god is 1 single arrow of time, as Oppenheimer clarified after seeing His Work – the 1st Atomic explosion,: I am become Kali, god of Death. In that sense, LHC is a machine of death, disguised as knowledge, whose only purpose is to defend a billionaire budget and a wrong concept of the Laws of Time and Science. Teller also convinced Truman of the need to evolve Hydrogen bombs with the excuse of knowledge, because he had developed the Industrial Process that could make them (a statement which can be seen in The Atomic Bomb Movie). He wanted to create one H-Bomb so huge that could Nuke an entire country, but Eisenhower, a military, who knew better how to defend his country, called the Soviets and agreed not to make bigger H-Bombs, as Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy should do in this case, cancelling CERN’s bid for the ultimate weapon. On the opposite extreme of those attitudes we find Professor Einstein, who made only thought experiments, as most scientific discoveries are done with the power of the Human mind, not of machines. He also became a pacifist and fought against Nuclear Proliferation, correcting his initial error, (the letter to Roosevelt that started the Nuclear age), in a proof of humility and ethical standing that I ask Amici to imitate.

36 MAD theory – first expressed by Nobel30 to justify his industries of Death – was the excuse to keep churning nuclear weapons in the Cold War era. This self-interested, industrial thesis, promoted by Nuclear Physicists in both sides of the war, pretended that an arsenal able to cause the Mutual Assured Destruction of the Soviets and America would deter its use. We found recently that New York was not obliterated during the Cuban Crisis by sheer chance, as it was revealed recently on declassified material: the Soviets gave order to fire a nuclear missile but one of the submarines commanders, Arkhipov, refused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov. So we survived MAD because of the ethical standing of a single man, not because the Nuclear Industry’s strategy was appropriate . . . Might this Court show the same restrain in a similar crisis . . . Since physicists accustomed to MAD for decades, seem to consider a chance to blow up the Earth, business as usual, given the legal immunity they have enjoyed in the past for their crimes against humanity. But the cold war is over and so we have experienced a shift on our security policies, from developing nuclear weapons, to controlling polluting industries and restraining the access to those weapons of fundamentalist groups, who pretend to impose their dogmatic beliefs with violence, not with reason. In that regard, there is little difference between a religious terrorist group that uses the Yihad to impose his beliefs and Mr. Hawking, who risks mankind pretending to prove a theory of evaporating black holes that 30 years of experimental evidence and the scientific method have falsified (http://www.lhcdefence.org, min.23-30). Both are committing acts of terror, imposed to millions of people, who are not aware of them, neither share those beliefs, nor wish to put their lives at risk for them and whose will should be respected in a Democracy. In that regard, the attempt to dismiss this suit without trial, on the basis of a de facto authority, which Amici pretend to have above the Laws of Science and the Laws of our Democracies, should meet an adequate response by the legal authorities of our nations.

37 For a full understanding of the Duality of Time arrows in the Universe, and the origin of Physicists obsession for the arrow of energy, you can see the visual document we have prepared to raise awareness of this potential genocide among non-specialists at http://www.lhcdefence.org

ADDENDAS

 

 

Graphic illustrations & Sources:

A: Production of dangerous Particles at LHC and reactions they might trigger.

B: CERN’s Safety Report, made by physicists.

C, D: RHIC Bulletin: The results of the experiments were a ‘perfect surprise’:

RHIC produced a proto-strangelet (strange liquid) with a behavior similar to a black hole.

E: Production of quarks at LHC.

F: Number of quarks to make a strangelet stable.

ADDENDA  A

Quark Production at LHC, (Central Graph: Scientific American),

related to the different types of Mass-bombs they trigger (www.lhcdefence.org)

The LHC will cross deeply into the world of dark matter, which ‘breaks the symmetry’ of our electroweak matter, feeding on it and transforming us into heavy quarks, strange quarks, the components of Pulsars and Tops=Higgs particles, likely components of black holes. Thus, according to Einstein’s equivalence principle, an accelerated vortex of mass will be formed, absorbing the Earth at light speed, M=e/c2, creating an ultra-dense pulsar or hole.

ADDENDA B:  LSAG Review.  

People who made the safety report were nuclear physicists working at CERN

LHC safety report documents and their review and approval: participants.  Source: CERN,

ADDENDAS C, D

The surprising discovery of quasi-stable ice-9 at Brookhaven:

A perfect liquid, instead of unstable plasma as all scientists, except Mr. Walter, predicted.

ADDENDA E

Production expected at the Quark factory (LHC).. Source: CERN; Engelen conference.

Table 1 shows the real productions of quarks and other lethal particles at LHC. A black hole per hour, high statistics of top quarks, standard candidates to make black holes, up to a million bottom quarks/antiquarks couples and an undisclosed quantity of strange quarks the substance of ice-9. Yet since strange quarks are lighter than bottom quarks (Addenda A), their production will be much bigger probably of several millions per second, more than enough to detonate the planet (Addenda C), according to Einstein’s equation of Mass production, M=E/c2 explained by Wilczek14. Why the LSAG doesn’t report this (II)? Why the table of production omits deliberately strange quark production, given its enormous potential danger and the fact they were the main heavy quark produced at RHIC? Why Amicus contradict Einstein’s equation in their brief?


ADDENDA F

Number of quarks needed to make a mass-bomb stable. Source: Arxiv.org.

Mr. Wen, Peng and Chen from the Institute of High Energy Physics of China, wrote the first of a series of articles that explored the number of strange quarks needed to provoke an ice-9 reaction. The graphs below explain the ice-9 reaction and show between 1.000 and 10.000 quarks make strangelets (the simplest mass-bombs) stable. The graphs show that around 1000 strange quarks become stable ice-9 (strangelet liquid) starting a Nova reaction (mass-bomb) regardless of the strangelets charge. Those articles, written 6 years after the speculative paper of Mr. Sheldon and Wilson have long superseded his work, since at the time we didn’t know that strange quarks locked themselves into a far stronger, and more stable form of matter, color-flavor locked strangelets, which make strangelets far easier to produce. Yet Amici and CERN purposely misinform this court and the media, bringing obsolete papers and denying the experimental evidence at RHIC (Addenda C):


 


[1]    Dr. Rössler, in a private email to appellant Wagner, indicated that his science paper detailing the risk that micro-black-holes are “slippery” when relativistic as would be produced in nature and therefore harmless, but able to grow and accrete matter when slow such as if produced by the LHC on Earth and therefore dangerous, will soon be published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  Dr. Rössler is a noted European scientist, with backgrounds in theoretical physics, chemistry, mathematics, and medicine, holding both a M.D. degree and a Ph.D. degree and several hundred published peer-reviewed papers.  Dr. Rössler would be one of the expert witnesses called at trial.

[2]    These large Lead-nuclei type of cosmic ray are extremely rare, and do not have anywhere near the energy of the much smaller proton type of cosmic ray.  The scenario of a Lead cosmic ray striking a Lead nucleus on the moon, at the equivalent energy of the LHC, simply does not happen because they are not of the same energy as what the LHC will create.  Instead, to replicate the LHC energies, they would have to collide head-on in deep intra-galactic space, which would be exceedingly rare and remote from Earth, and accordingly be harmless to Earth.

[3]    They also continue to acknowledge they might have it wrong.   In a recent April 16, 2009 radio interview, Frank Wilczek discusses the risk issue and concludes:  “If this [the LHC] does cause the end of the world, I will not only be very surprised but very embarrassed.”        http://wfpl.org/CMS?p=4498       or http://archive.wfpl.org/soa/20090416SOA.mp3  It is the intent of this lawsuit to keep Amicus Wilczek from being surprised and embarrassed.

[4]    As a reminder to this Court, Dr. Sancho is a citizen of Spain who resides also in the U.S.  He is, in essence, a modern-day Lafayette who has come to the aid of the United States at its hour of need.

[5]    Science, 23 February 2007, Vol. 315, Page 1069, U.S. Courts Say Transgenic Crops Need Tighter Scrutiny

[6]    Dr. Rössler is a well-respected scientist who has published extensively in mathematical chaos theory, in chemistry, in theoretical physics, and in medicine.  He is well-noted in Europe for his opposition to the operation of the LHC without proper safety reviews, and was recently solicited for his scientific manuscript showing that relativistic micro-black-holes might be “slippery”, which invalidates the LSAG Safety Review “neutron star” argument.

[7]    It was not a DOE funded magnet that unexpectedly overheated and caused an explosion last September, 2008 during preliminary testing.  However, arguably, the DOE is responsible for maintenance on the DOE constructed magnets of the LHC accelerator proper, in addition to the maintenance, operation and development of the Experimental Chambers for the ATLAS and CMS detectors.

[8]    Answering Brief of the Federal Appellees, page 29, middle of the page.

[9]    Answering Brief of the Federal Appellees, page 48, end of first paragraph.


 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: