10/21/2018

Violating the Prime Directive:

“Changing the Laws of the Universe”
A Personal Reminiscence

Charles B. Stevens,
9/10/2018

I may have in the past months set off the next step
beyond the Super. In fact as Jack Nachamkin has already
indicated in a number of papers discussing his work with
Hans A. Bethe in the early 1970s at Los Alamos, this next
step was already emerging in embryo in inertial fusion
tests, and, even in magnetic fusion experiments as
indicated by the directly related work with Beltrami-type,
self-organized plasmas explored by Winston Bostick of the
Stevens Institute and Daniel R. Wells of the University of
Miami (Coral Gables). A more exact reading where we
stand should emerge following the 9th Int. Conf. DICE2018:
Spacetime - Matter - Quantum Mechanics
(https://cds.cern.ch/record/2307831?ln=en) where
the most recent work of Dr. Andrew W. Beckwith is to be
presented and discussed:

HOW A Laser Physics Induced KERR-NEWMAN BLACK

HOLE CAN RELEASE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

Andrew Walcott Beckwith

Physics   Department,   Chongqing   University,   College   of   Physics,   Chongqing   University   Huxi

Campus, No. 44 Daxuechen Nanlu, Shapinba District, Chongqing 401331, People’s Republic of
China

1
 Rwill9955b@gmail.com; abeckwith@uh.edu

Abstract
Abstract.
Specifically, we state that this paper is modeling the creation of an actual Kerr Newman black hole via laser physics, or
possibly by other means. We initiate a model of an induced Kerr-Newman black Holes, with specific angular momentum J,
and then from there model was to what would happen as to an effective charge, Q, creating an E and B field,
commensurate with the release of GWs. The idea is that using a frame of reference trick, plus E + i B = - function
of the derivative of a complex valued scalar field, as given by Appell, in 1887, and reviewed by Whittaker and Watson,
1927 of their “A Course of Modern Analysis” tome that a first principle identification of a B field, commensurate with
increase of thermal temperature, T, so as to have artificially induced GW production. This is compared in part with the Park
1955 paper of a spinning rod, producing GW, with the proviso that both the spinning rod paper, and this artificial Kerr-
Newman Black hole will employ the idea of lasers in implementation of their respective GW radiation. The idea is in part
partly similar to an idea the author discussed with Dr. Robert Baker, in 2016 with the difference that a B field would be
generated and linked to effects linked with induced spin to the Kerr - Newman Black hole. We close with some observations
about the “black holes have no hair” theorem, and our problem. Citing some recent suppositions that this “theorem” may
not be completely true and how that may relate to our experimental situation. We close with observations from Haijicek, 2008
as which may be pertinent to Quantization of Gravity. Furthermore as an answer to questions raised by a referee, we will have
a final statement as to how this problem is for a real black hole being induced, and answering his questions in his review,
which will be included in a final appendix to this paper.

Keywords: Kerr Newman black hole, high-frequency gravitational waves (HGW), causal discontinuity.
PACS: 98.80.-k

One possibility will be that the Penrose black hole

bomb concept could be demonstrated as feasible:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_bomb)

The scientist who would most likely oversee this

demonstration of feasibility was the scientist who
technically provided the key to successfully implementing
some of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI) during the 1980s. (Both the basis of the SDI and the
particulars of new physical principles involved were
discussed in the SPUTNIK OF THE SEVENTIES published in 1977
http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/c-sr/1977-Sputnik.pdf )
Both the recent work of Dr. Beckwith and the
resulting mobilization of the SDI scientist who might
demonstrate it were sparked when I suggested reviving
an initiative put forward by Lyndon H. LaRouche in an
April 1986 Fusion Energy Foudation Seminar on the

2
Formation of the Solar System. The Beckwith resulting
proposal could also provide the experimental means of
establishing the quantized space-time lattice concept put
forward by Dr. Robert James Moon of the University of
Chicago and the means of exploring its harmonics. Dr.
Moon’s concept was directly sparked by Lyndon H.
LaRouche’s 1986 initiative.

“It would be wonderful”

Generating Kerr Black Hole With Laser Fusion
“It would be wonderful” one leading fusion scientist noted about
the proposal by Dr. Andrew W. Beckwith to simulate the formation of a
Kerr-type black hole in the laboratory utilizing laser pellet implosion
like that being explored on the LLNL National Ignition Facility in
Livermore, California. This fusion scientist notes that:
“a black hole sheds all non-spherical perturbations as
gravitational radiation whereas the nemesis of the inertial fusion
program is that non-spherical perturbations grow with time.
Also the end point of gravitational collapse is state with low
entropy and negative pressure, whereas a laser implosion ends
up with a state with high entropy and a large positive pressure.”
Dr. Beckwith’s new idea derived from a presentation he gave at the
Rome Fifteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting in July:
Structure formation in the Early Universe as a result of non Linear Electrodynamics influencing
scale factor size with attendant changes in gravitational potential and its relationship to the 3
body problem.

Dr. Beckwith currently works with Chongqing University in China on

generating and detecting Einstein type gravitational waves—Chongqing
was formerly known as Chungking, the wartime capital and academic
center of China. In recent years Einstein type gravitational waves have
been detected from the apparent collision between black holes and

3
neutron stars in the frequency range of several hundred cycles per
second—about 256 hertz. The Chongqing program has been focused on
detecting much higher frequency gravitational waves (HFGW) greater
than one billion hertz. These HFGW might provide a window on the
formation of galaxies and the general organization of space-time.
At my urging Dr. Beckwith revived in part an initiative put forward
by Lyndon H. LaRouche in a 1986 Fusion Energy Foundation Seminar
to finally acknowledge the superiority of Johannes Kepler’s concept of
Universal Gravity versus that of Sir Isaac Newton, Laplace, etc. I got the
ball rolling in a June message circulated to leading scientists: “Cleaning
Up The Newton Mess”
I am sending you this background technical material on the three
body problem which will provide a backdrop to a forthcoming
paper of Andrew Beckwith. As I understand it, Dr. Beckwith is
correcting a major flaw in physical science that has been
permitted to fester since 1801 based on the acceptance of the
famous Newton inverse square law which had been
experimentally refuted by Carl F. Gauss in 1801. The broader
issue is that of Kepler concept of universal gravity versus that of
Newton with the inverse square law. This flaw was extended into
modern nuclear and particle physics work through the application
of the Coulomb inverse square representation of non-linear
electrodynamics.

Kepler had from his gravity concept proposed the hypothesis of

an exploded planet between Mars and Jupiter. Gauss's
successful forecast of the Ceres orbit demonstrated that Kepler's
theory was superior to that of Newton in all respects.

(See https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?
set=a.1479560358761858&type=1&l=b2c0ead531

4
And http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/fusionarchive_tcs.html TCS “How the Solar System Was
Formed
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/982_orbit_ceres.pdf

And
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?
set=a.1410339602350601&type=1&l=e1553c970d

https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/economy/phys_econ/1996/leibniz_g
auss_amer_sci_success.html
)

Newton Is A Witch

In 2010 Lyndon H. LaRouche corrected my

understanding of how Dr. Moon came up with his
quantized space-time lattice concept when he pointed out
that it was in response to his 1986 initiative at the FEF
seminar. I found that there was an actual tape of that
seminar but those who oversaw the tape refused to make
it available. Recently, while working on Dr. Beckwith’s
proposals I finally worked out that a key to LaRouche’s
initiative was the idea of “changing the laws of the
universe.” When I searched for this I found two
appropriate LaRouche articles:
https://larouchepac.com/20161121/larouche-mankind-
must-change-behavior-universe-
such#.W4wro_Kh_O0.facebook
and

5
https://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3546math_is_not_scien
ce.html
I found that this second article was actually a reprise of
Lyndon Larouche’s 1986 initiative:
KEPLER'S ACTUAL DISCOVERY:

Mathematics Is Not Science

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 5, 2008

….

A Certain Crisis in Science

So, consequently, on the occasion of a meeting

convened at Ibykus Farm back during the mid-1980s, I
shocked the assembled scientists of our international
Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), by insisting that the
problems of physics which were confronting us then, must
be addressed by aid of attention to the details of Kepler's
discovery of the principle of universal solar gravitation. I
situated my argument to that effect, in the domain of my
special competence as, as, in effect, already, then, a
leading physical economist of the world today. Such was
my tested competence in a Riemannian science of
physical economy. Most among those assembled at that
meeting had been enraged by my introduction of this as a
matter of policy, excepting, from a somewhat older
generation, Chicago's celebrated Professor Robert Moon.

That rage, from many at that table, expressed,

essentially, a knee-jerk reaction to any attack on what
had been presumed by them, academically and similarly,
to have been the absolutely sacred utterances of the

6
Black Magic specialist, Isaac Newton. For them, Newton
was deemed almost sacred among true believers. The
believers included many otherwise competent scientists
of outstanding accomplishment, but, nonetheless, still
victims of youthful classroom indoctrination in what had
been built up into the form of a shabby cult-ritual around
that dubious English creature.

In retrospect, looking back over the twenty-odd years

since that particular FEF meeting, I had been completely
correct in every feature of what I delivered, on the point
of my argument then. The relevant evidence re-
examined, repeatedly, in recent times, has shown my
argument, then, to have been thoroughly sound.

Notably, the rage expressed when the same matter

came up again during two subsequent meetings of the
FEF, although considerably lessened, showed evidence
that a large part of the such errors spread among
scientists at that time, and still today, are a reflection of
the fact that the generation of scientists produced from
among returning World War II veterans had studied
virtually nothing of Kepler’s actual work. Most among
them knew almost nothing about the way in which the
deepest issues of modern science, which had been posed,
uniquely, by those kinds of discoveries typified by
Kepler’s own, had been fraudulently put aside during the
centuries, put aside despite the De Docta Ignorantia of
the actual, Fifteenth-Century founder of modern physical
science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.

This same, inherently destructive error by my own

critics, within FEF and elsewhere during the 1980s, and,
again, now, lies in what they copied from the Newton
cult’s libels against Kepler. The influence of that same

7
philosophically reductionist cult traced from Wenck, Zorzi
(Giorgi), Fludd, and Sarpi’s lackey Galileo, is a tradition
which persists today, usually in a more vicious form today
than that of the past. The folly of that cult is now a
tradition which has been formed under the influence of
the far greater decadence which has been recently
accumulated in the dogmas and expositions among
leading academic institutions. Such has been the effect,
for science and science education today, which is to be
recognized in the tattered condition of higher education
today, since the passing away of most among the
representatives of three adult generations of matured
adults, including the two preceding my own.

……
there is virtually no sign of oncoming new waves of
scientific competence in the matter of method as such, in
the U.S.A. or western Europe today; the very worst, is to
be found usually among the digitalized devotees of
“information theory.”

…..

Thus, that decay among professionals which has

become representative of prevalent opinion and practice
around the professionals of academia and kindred
locations today, occurs as the pervasive decadence of the
recently prevalent trend, downward, in our society’s
widely accepted standards of opinion. This downward
trend is expressed by the view that there is no possibility
of rescuing civilization from a post-industrialist’s recently
accelerating rate of destruction of a civilization now
nearing a terminal phase of disintegration. Despite the
issue which I had posed, during the mid-1980s,

8
respecting an attempt to return to the founding, as by
Kepler, of a competent comprehensive form of practice of
modern physical science, there is apparently scant
chance, today, for a resumption of civilized life on this
planet, for generations yet to come.
……
End of Excerpt

Give me a fulcrum point

And I shall move the Universe
Archimedes

Dr. Robert James Moon of the University of Chicago,

scientific director of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF)
and chief science collaborator of Lyndon H. LaRouche
responded to the 1986 anti-Newton initiative by
formulating a quantized space-time model derived from
Johannes Kepler’s actual “quantized field theory”—the
same Kepler theory upon which Kepler forecast the
existence of the asteroid belt, “an exploded planet
between mars and Jupiter.” This included a new shell
model of the atomic nucleus. As Lyndon LaRouche has
previously noted Dr. Moon was the scientist chiefly
responsible for harnessing nuclear energy for the first
time in 1942 with the construction of the Chicago Pile
One. Dr. Moon developed the specifications for an

9
experiment to explore the dynamic geometry, harmonics,
and, orientation of his quantized space-time “lattice.”
This experiment would utilize spin-polarized nuclear
fusion to generate a high energy flux of relativistic, spin
polarized, directed 14 Million Electron Volt neutrons. At
the urging the FEF Dr. Hans A. Bethe got President Ronald
Reagan to initiate a crash program on spin polarized
nuclear fusion. But due to the pogrom against President
Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) carried out by
William Weld and Robert Mueller, this effort and the
Fusion Energy Foundation were shut down.
With regard to Dr. Moon himself, Lyndon LaRouche
has noted that: “We were committed to this alternative.
This proposal for the Soviet Union, SDI. SDI was a political
solution as well as a military solution. Alright, so, what did
they do? They took us out. And what they did to a lot of
other of my friends, who were older. They eliminated the
factor of the people who would have done what I would
have done, systematically. Just eliminated them. Like an
intelligence operation. Go in and wipe out people. Kill
them. Get rid of them. You have a new government. It’s
taken over. And the public and the institutions being what
they are, being cowardly, they accept orders from the
new masters. So, you eliminate dissent by killing off the
people who are credible dissenters. It is that simple.”
Even the sort of resistance which I have faced in
reviving LaRouche’s 1986 initiative was forecast in the
2008 Kepler’s Discovery article:
“…..even among my close associates …during that time,
were shocked by what I said [and] they failed to heed my
warning; rather, at that time, most of the relevant

10
persons, even among my political associates generally,
often bungled their way ahead, rather than facing up to
my challenge that they free themselves of their often
misguided notions of competence.

That contaminating element of incompetence to which I

refer as already extant then, was of a type which
persisted even among broader circles of those leading
scientists with whom I was more or less closely
associated in shared advanced programs of that time.
The error by most among them whom I had addressed on
this matter then, persists as a crippling factor in what,
unfortunately, passes for learned opinion, still today”
This sort of vicious repression of science is by no
means new. When Giordano Bruno, utilizing hypotheses
put forward by Nicholas of Cusa, was burned at the stake
in 1600. Cusa suggested that neither the Earth, nor the
Sun were the center of the Universe. Bruno therefore
concluded the stars which do not “wander” could be like
our sun and many might have planets orbiting them. This
judgment against Bruno is still extant. That is, an
acceptable “frame of reference” most be posited from
accepted authority. You must accept what is right and left,
what is up or down, and, inside and out, a priori.
Gauss points out in his second paper on biquadratic
residues:
(See 21st Century, Spring 1990, page 63):
"This distinction between right and left is, once one has
arbitrarily chosen forwards and backwards <in> the
plane, and
upward and downward in relation to the two sides of the
plane,

11
<in and of itself> completely determined, even though
we are able
to communicate our concept of this distinction to other
persons
<only> by referring to actually existing material objects.*
-------- *Kant already had made both of these remarks, but
we
cannot understand how this sharp-witted philosopher
could have
seen in the first remark a proof of his opinion that space
is
only a form of our external perception, when in fact the
second
remark proves the opposite, namely, that space must
have a real
meaning outside of our mode of perception."

On the Hypotheses which Lie at the Foundation of

Geometry
B. Riemann

It is known that geometry assumes, both the notion of

space and the first principles of constructions in space, as
given in advance. She gives definitions of them which are
merely nominal, while the true determinations appear in
the form of axioms. The relation of these assumptions
remains consequently in darkness; we perceive neither
whether and how far their connection is necessary, nor a
priori, whether it is possible…..
Notion of an n-ply extended magnitude.
In proceeding to attempt the solution of the first of these

12
problems, the development of the notion of a multiply
extended magnitude, I think I may the more claim
indulgent criticism in that I am not practised in such
undertakings of a philosophical nature where the difficulty
lies more in the concepts themselves than in the
construction; and that besides some very short hints on
the matter given by Privy Councillor Gauss in his second
memoir on Biquadratic Residues, in the Göttingen
Gelehrte Anzeige, and in his Jubilee-book, and some
philosophical researches of Herbart, I could make use of
no previous labours….This leads us into the domain of
another science, of physics, into which the object of this
work does not allow us to go to-day.”
In other words putting forward serious experimental
proposals to determine a true “frame of reference”—a
fulcrum point--can be quite perilous. A few examples are
the judicial execution of Socrates, the murder of
Achimedes, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the burning of
Giordano Bruno, the 1837 shutdown of Karl Friedrich
Gauss’s scientific work (including the exile of his
daughter), the 1987 shutdown of the FEF, the 1989
imprisonment of Lyndon H. LaRouche and elimination of
Dr. Robert James Moon. Nevertheless, Dr. Andrew
Beckwith reports that his proposal to simulate the formation of
a Kerr-type black hole in the laboratory utilizing laser pellet implosion
can be seen as an extension of Dr. Moon’s proposal with spin polarized
nuclear fusion.

13
 Black Holes
And a Universal Frame of Reference

As I have previously reported: In 1982 after going through

several review articles in A. Held's two volume
proceedings General Relativity and Gravitation, I
concluded that virtually all work on black holes and all
other cosmological singularities after 1950 were the
direct result of a deliberate axiomatic warfare tactic
initiated by Kurt Gödel. This was in response to the
terrible way in which his good friend Albert Einstein was
treated by the general mathematical physicist
community: They would kiss his feet, but not listen to a
word he said. Basically, Gödel sent them into a theoretical
black hole with a time reversal twist. After about 40 years
they would climb back out, and begin all over at the same
place where they began in 1950.”
The key article in the “General Relativity and
Gravitation: One Hundred Years after the Birth of Albert
Einstein,” A. Held is “Singularities and horizons: A review
article” by F. J. Tipler, C. J. S. Clarke and G. F. R. Ellis, paeg
97, Vol 2. They detail how after publication of a series of
papers by Kurt Gödel beginning in 1949 mathematical
physicists began to widely take up question of black hole
and big bang type of singularities in attempt avoid the
implications of the Kurt Gödel “rotating universe.”
(https://journals.aps.org/rmp/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.21
.447

14
An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of
Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation

Kurt Gödel

Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 447 – Published 1 July 1949

For example we have:

By Kurt Gödel

“One of the most interesting aspects of relativity theory for

the philosophical-minded consists in the fact that it gave
new and surprising insights into the nature of time…The
very starting point of special relativity theory consists in
the discovery of a new and very astonishing property of
time, namely the relativity of simultaneity….The assertion
that the events A and B are simultaneous…also the
assertion that A happened before B…loses its objective
meaning, in so far as another observer, with the same
claim to correctness, can assert that A and B are not
simultaneous (or that B happened before A).”

15
(Since this key article is apparently not available, I have
attached a copy.)

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?
set=a.2058623160855572&type=1&l=b12ab25c10

In a 2013 report on the status of nuclear fusion I

reprised my 1982 analysis and some response to it:

To quote an attempted refutation of my analysis:

“Black Holes Are Quite Real—You can take it to the
bank!,” a “commentator has come up with a new twist,
arguing that black holes don't really exist, but were
simply a meme implanted into modern astrophysics (sic, I
refer only to mathematical physicists since we are also
discussing quantum gravity here--CBS) by mathematician
Kurt Gödel, as some kind of ‘vengeance.’...According to
this contrarian, and believe me I'm not surprised here to
learn Tipler (author of two crackpot books, “The Physics
of Immortality” and “The Physics of Christianity” is the
lead author, claims that Gödel “created these black holes
as a proper location for the mathematical physicists who
abused his good friend Albert Einstein—with a time
reversal twist so that after 40 years or so they return
where they began in 1950.” “Well, coming from a
character (Tipler) who believes “resurrection” can emerge
from physics, as well as the Virgin Mary...”

16
 This commentator does not mention whether Clarke
and Ellis share the same, apparent theological faults of
Tipler. But in no way does he address the main conclusion
of the review article that Kurt Gödel's work was directly
responsible for the upsurge in work on black holes, big
bangs and other cosmological singularities. Nor does he
cite any of the 117 papers that I have been able to track
down that refer to the Tipler et al paper as refuting this
conclusion.

Of course, Frank Tipler et al have nothing to do with

my analysis. Once I was made aware of Gödel's modern
physics papers, beginning with the 1949 paper in Reviews
of Modern Physics on his rotating universe solution to the
General Equations of Relativity, and followed by many
others including philosophical essays, I was able to
confirm what Tipler et al. stated and go much further.

First of all, we simply note that it is well known that

Einstein had been essentially converted into a stone idol
by the 1940s. Mathematical physicists would kiss his feet,
but not listen to a word he said. Kurt Gödel had become
during that time Einstein's closest friend and interlocutor.
Gödel recognized the thuggish hand of Bertrand Russell in
terms of Einstein's situation. And Gödel, as he had
previously demonstrated in a most forceful fashion, was
an expert in dealing with Russell's thuggery.

Gödel's 1949 paper was the holy grail of modern

physics. It provided a singularity-free solution to
Einstein's equations for General Relativity. Gödel then
went on to show that it was the “only” such singularity-
free solution.

17
 From the standpoint of the buggers there were two
immediate problems with Gödel's rotating universe
solution: 1) It contained time reversal in it; 2) there was
no possibility causality. For example, if we are given three
events (A, B, C) which follow one another in our current
“frame,” there exists in Gödel's rotating universe a frame
in which the actual order of events is C,B,A, or another
with B,C,A and so on. Also there are frames in which all
three are simultaneous, or simultaneous by pairs. So
much for causality.

In response, it was generally accepted that the

existence of singularities like the big bang and black
holes would have to be axiomatically assumed. At first
things seemed to work out well with imposition of event
horizons and censorship theorems. That is, the singularity
could be cut out of the general space-time manifold with
no connection to events in that manifold. These derived
from the early simulations which generally could only
work with simple radial collapses. But as the computers
got bigger and bigger, rotation in the radial collapse
raised its ugly head. This soon destroyed the event
horizons and censorship theorems. As I forecast in 1982,
this could eventually lead to exploration the rotating Kerr-
like solution, and other rotating solutions that might
provide the means to climb out of the black hole. And
when I last looked, this is exactly what happened in the
late 1980s. But the buggers were actually right back
where they had begun in 1950.

End of Excerpt From 2013 Report

Lyndon H. LaRouche provided the essential answer to

this paradox on time raised by Kurt Gödel in

18
EIR Volume 27, Number 39, October 6, 2000

Jesus Christ
and Civilization
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

and
https://larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2739_jesus_christ.html

“This points already toward a still deeper principle. The

crucial conception, the idea of ideas, which makes that
connection comprehensible, is the notion of the
simultaneity of eternity.”

….

“It is no mere coincidence, that this notion of simultaneity

of eternity, is the most interesting, important, and
profitable idea in all physical science. (There, it appears
most frequently reflected, today, in its reflection as the
relativity of time.) I presented the groundwork for
defining this paradox in locations published earlier, where
I have emphasized the fact, that there are three distinct,
but multiply-connected qualities of universal physical
principles to be taken into account: non-living processes,
living processes, and cognitive processes.”

……As all my published writings and lecture-series on the

Leibnizian science of physical economy, have
emphasized, any competent notion of modern economy

19
depends primarily, and absolutely on the notion, that the
demonstrable increase of mankind's gains in power in
and over the universe, is the result of nothing other than
society's cooperation in applying experimentally
validated discoveries of universal physical principle. It is
from those experimental proofs of thus-discovered
universal physical principles, that the relevant
technologies are generated as by-products, thus
increasing the potential relative population-density of
humanity, as measurable per capita and per square
kilometer of surface-area.

In those writings and lectures, I have shown, that the

generation of such discoveries of principle, can not occur
through deductive methods, but only through the non-
deductive processes of cognition, in contradiction of the
Immanuel Kant, for example, who denied such knowable
cognitive processes to exist. These discoveries occur at
the prompting of what Plato's method defines
as ontological paradoxes of the sort which can not be
overcome by deductive methods, but require methods
associated with what Plato defines as a principle
of higher hypothesis.

That is the same method to which Cardinal Nicholas

of Cusa gave the title of docta ignorantia, the method
adopted by Leonardo da Vinci from Cusa's work, the
method of Kepler, Leibniz, et al. It is by the sharing of the
experience of original discovery, this by aid of sharing the
experience of both such relevant ontological paradoxes
and experimental validations, that such a discovery is
established as knowledge for practice, as opposed to
merely learned "information." It is in the same way, and
only this way, that any universal principle of physical
science can be actually known.

20
 We also have from Kepler’s Discovery…Kepler's
discovery of a general principle of gravitation, as in
his The Harmonies of the World, has an exceptional
significance today. It is a significance emphasized afresh
by Albert Einstein's emphasis on the fact that all
competent physical science today depends upon
comprehension of the specific act of genius by Kepler, on
this account…..
The essential key to the solution which led Kepler to
his uniquely original discovery of a principle of that
universal principle of gravitation underlying the
organization of the Solar System as a whole, was his
recognition of the elementary irony posed by the
contradictory effects of, first, examining the organization
of the Solar System from the standpoint of a quasi-
Euclidean idea of vision, and, then, examining the same
motion from the standpoint of the harmonically ordered
composition (hearing) of the relationships-in-motion
of the Solar System as a whole.

The systemic incongruities of the two dominant modes

of human sense-perception, sight and hearing, guided
Kepler to discover the principle on which all competent
modern science education, and also Classical modalities in
modern art, depend: the recognition that the mere
mathematical portrayal provided by sense-perception, is, at
its best, the mere shadow cast by those true scientific
principles which lie, ontologically, outside the domain of
that which could be known through the formalities of mere
mathematics.

21
 What is truly most important for science today in
Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation (within our
Solar System) on this account, is the implications of posing
the discovery, to ourselves, of the notion of our ability to
understand the organization of both inorganic and living
processes, such as the non-digital principle of human
hearing, as this experience is associated with the function
of counterpoint, as discovered, uniquely, by J.S. Bach,
existing within the presently known bounds of our Solar
System today.
This discovery of a universal gravitation of the Solar
System, by Kepler, demonstrated the systemic absurdity of
all assumptions to the effect that the universe is organized
according to the notions of simple sense-certainty. Kepler
did that in the most profoundly comprehensive, and
conclusive way. All competent approaches to matters of
essential principle since that discovery by Kepler, depend
upon locating the principle of reason which governs the
universe ontologically in the human mind, such as the
mind of Helen Keller, rather than the mere senses. That is
what is reflected in the genius expressed in common by
Max Planck and Albert Einstein, in their opposition to the
frauds of the respective followers of bad Ernst Mach
and far worse Bertrand Russell.
The essential point to be recognized in reading Kepler's
uniquely marvelous stroke of genius in that discovery, lies
in the fact that, for the first time in modern science, he, as
a follower of Cusa and Leonardo da Vinci, and also
Brunelleschi, had directly challenged that superstition,
called sense-certainty, which had been the leading
obstacle to the successful development of scientific method
in European science, since the fraud of the root-method of
Euclid's Elements. Euclid's is the same fraud spread
otherwise as the notion of allegedly "self-evident"

22
presumptions respecting the nature of the human powers
of sense-perception, which has come to dominate the
classroom in modern secondary and university education
today, British neo-Ockhamite empiricism most notably.
The point is, as Albert Einstein was to emphasize later: he
challenged this matter in a truly universal way.
Kepler's attention was aimed at the paradoxical lack of
systemic coincidence between two sensory aspects
of the observed evidence which astronomy laid before him:
vision and hearing. It is fairly stated that both of these
senses, like all aspects of human sense-perception, do not
present us reality directly; rather, like all good scientific
instruments, they present us with evidence bearing upon
what should have been our desire to be shown the
existence of ontological paradoxes which the mind must
then solve by aid of the tests

….Famously, e.g., the very idea of a "three-body paradox"

in a Solar System viewed by Laplace et al., (a problem
which does not exist for Kepler's Solar System) is a
devastating proof that Laplace's method, and that of his
associate, Cauchy, and such followers of Cauchy as
Clausius and Grassmann in the theory of heat, is itself a
fundamentally incompetent one….

From the considerations just so stated, a panorama

of implications emerges for the thoughtful observer. Most
important, the evidence of ancient calendars attests to
the human mind's ability to adduce great principles of
long span as enclosing the stellar system. This tells us
something much more than the related evidence of
modern astronomy. It shows us that the mind of the
human individual has been capable, for as much as
hundreds of thousands of years, in adducing great

23
principles controlling our universe, "as if from the
outside," that done through the agency of the cognitive
powers of the individual member of the human species….

Einstein's argument assumes the form of pointing out

that that infinitesimal of that Leibniz calculus, is not
a mathematical infinitesimal, but, rather,
an ontological one. The smallness of the infinitesimal of a
Keplerian space seen by Leibniz's calculus, is as "small"
as the inversion of the universal physical principle which
it reflects. So, as Einstein demands, the universe as a
whole is self-bounded by the set of universal physical
principles of which it is composed.

The further conclusion is, that the universe is finite in

this sense, although we can not presume that its
evolution is ontologically finite in the larger, reductionists'
sense of finiteness. We can not presume that the universe
is not negentropically finite, rather than of a simply fixed
finiteness. Hence, Einstein, in praising Kepler as the
implied founder of modern Riemannian physical science,
identified the universe as finite, but unbounded.

……

What we discover in that way—what we may rightly

term "universal physical principles," or the like—become
the means of our power to influence our universe creatively
through knowing the universal principles which regulate its
existence. Our power to exist, as a human species, distinct
in essence from all forms of mere animal life, lies obviously
in our willful assimilation of knowledge of the principles
which are universal, in the sense that they, like the
universal gravitation discovered, uniquely, by Kepler, are

24
the power provided to the knowing, to act in ways which
change the behavior of the universe we inhabit…..

….we sense the dynamic principle of all those discoveries

which empower the individual to generate ideas of principle
which move societies, and, the planets, too. Science moves
planets. Classical artistic genius moves the individuals,
who move the society, who will move the planets, then the
stars, and then, perhaps, the galaxies, too.

Excerpts from Andrew W. Beckwith paper

HOW AN ARTIFICIAL KERR-NEWMAN BLACK HOLE CAN

RELEASE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES
Use a Kerr- Newman black hole event horizon, with a charge
induced state of affairs which will be then utilized, if fed by laser
induced energy, for the generation of gravitational waves and gravitons.
The formation of an event horizon, which will be at the outer boundary
of a matter-energy ‘bubble’ of space time, in a laboratory setting.
Use the non standard treatment of electrodynamics.
Angular momentum [is not] a constant in time, i.e. we have torque in
our model!
Driven in part by a laser hitting a target, say of the sort given in
Lawrence Livermore implosion pellet experiments.
Graviton creation as if we had the ends of the spinning rod tapped by a
laser.

25
If we do have graviton production right from an induced spinning black
hole, what we can expect in relic conditions as far as GW, and gravitons
at the start of cosmological expansion.
Moreover, if graviton production is, indeed generated by a laser
implosion, it allows us to examine relic conditions for early black hole
radiation which may allow for analysis of the relationship, if any,
between electromagnetics and gravity. There as of present, no
confluence between electromagnetism, and gravity in Einstein’s theory
of relativity.
Finally, our laboratory test, if initiated properly may falsify, or give
credence to the 7.7 times 10^-23 eV/c^2 upper bound to a massive
graviton, as reported by Maggiore, in [38], on page 320 which may
clarify if there is, say a difference between relic gravitons, and later
versions of what gravitons are, well after the onset of inflation.

”In particular, if the exterior region of the Kerr family is proven to be

dynamically stable---as is widely expected---then it will follow that the
-inextendibility formulation of Penrose's celebrated strong cosmic
censorship conjecture is in fact false.”

First, we may think in terms of a battery of lasers. I.e. see [53] , [54],
[55] and secondly is due to the idea of applying an underground nuclear
explosion as a way to generate sufficient thermal applied T as given in
[56], [57]

The idea in all of this wold be to duplicate in part, say [58] , in either
laser battery induced implosions, or by kiloton level deep; underground
tests sufficient thermal applied T as to implement use of Eq. (14) above.
For political reasons, it would be most advisable to go the route of a
facility similar in part to the national ignition facility, for obtaining .
sufficient thermal applied T whereas fine tuning the problem of applied
magnetic fields taking into account [59]

26
but before moving forward, it is important to note the confluence of
what was done by Kerr, and then earlier by Kurt Godel as given in his
rotating model of the Universe as given in [67], [68] which is incidentally
often over looked. [67] also makes the point of the inexact nature of
what we call singularity theory and black holes. What [67] states is that
the Penrose censorship conjecture breaks down, and this is also part
and parcel of what we are intending to bring up in our artificial worm
hole , of Kerr-Newman type with its charge, Q. The rotating universe, as
given by Godel,

In [68] we have that, indeed, we can get some links to the Godel
spacetime.
See section 5.7 for a classic discussion of CTCs in the Gödel
spacetime. Note, that in Fig. 31, the light cones do indeed tip
over, but they also widen, so that vertical coordinate lines are
always time-like; indeed, these represent the world lines of the
dust particles, so they are time-like geodesics
In [69] we also have the original Godel paper, which can be looked up as
a precursor of the work done by Kerr and Newman, and this is a way
also, to intellectually understand the problems inherent in the Penrose
censorship conjecture. [70] and also review the issues brought up in
[71] [72], [73] and [74]. Having said that, we will address the issues next
which Corda raised in [61] about the idea of an effective temperature
for black holes, and our comments as to its relationship to our problem.

We can create a sort of artificial black hole by recognizing that the Weyl
tensor C_{abcd} defines symmetric 2-tensor components E_{ac} =
g^{bd}C_{abcd} that are analogous to the electric field. That this is a
rank 2 tensor means there are two polarization directions. The Hodge
star or with Levi-Civita you can form the magnetic field analogue. With
Bern and Dixon we have the phenomenological analogue between
gravitation and gauge fields where a rank 2 tensor of this form may be

27
formed by the entanglement of two gauge boson in a triplet state. So
gluons can define a "sort of graviton" and for SU(4) --> SU(2,2) under an
STU duality transformation this extended QCD has some duality with
gravitation. SU(2,2) ~ SO(4,2) is the isometry group for AdS_5. It is not
hard to work out the roots and weights of the SU(4), where it has an
additional weight vector and 6 additional charges. Standard SU(3) QCD
embeds into this theory. How SU(4) works in standard model or GUT
physics is hard to know, but I think the 6 additional vector terms may
form entanglements in singlet states that are the 3 Goldstone bosons of
the Higgs field and the remaining weight with its anti-color field may
form the left over Higgs particle h that was detected in 2012.
So in this way the heavy ion physics of the LHC with the A Large Ion
Collider Experiment (ALICE) there is with the lead ions an atomic weight
times the 13TeV of energy, which forms a quark-gluon plasma at
considerable energy. The ALICE work is a bit of the forgotten last child in
the LHC experiments, but in many ways it is just as interesting as proton
collisions. This should form something analogous to a black hole. The
decay of this results in gluon pairs that should have analogues with
gravitational waves.

We argue that in effect we have something similar to a rotating rod, as

far as the physics of GW, but without the problems inherent in merely
applying a laser system to the end of a rod.

The bridge between the rotating rod, and the Kerr – Newman black hole
would lie in the idea of J=J(t) i.e. that we could induce torque, in this
problem, i.e. like a spinning top, but to definitely allow us to examine
methods of GW release, say as of the early universe, which was brought
up in [79], i.e. if we have small Kerr Newman black holes, at an early
date, and this interlocks with quantum effects, we may be in a position
as to understand [77] and [78] issues as far as quantum qubits and other
information theory links of how black holes may contain quantum
information which plays a role in cosmological evolution.

28
More to the point as of [19], [22], and [23] we would be avoiding some
very practical problems which are in the idea of a spinning rod, which is
what sort of material could possibly withstand the onset of extreme laser
heat hitting the ends of a rotating rod, and also the issue of generation of
stochastic noise, i.e. the old signal to noise ratio problem, in terms of
what we could expect if a laser timed as having pulses down to 10^-9
second intervals firing and hitting the ends of a spinning laser rod.
In principle, this could be overcome, but in practicality, it would involve
problems like scattering of laser light hitting the end of a rotating rod.
Again, in principle, with sufficiently refined engineering

A wave impinging on a Kerr black hole can be amplified as it scatters off

the hole if certain conditions are satisfied giving rise to superradiant
scattering. By placing a mirror around the black hole one can make the
system unstable. This is the black hole bomb of Press and Teukolsky. We
investigate in detail this process and compute the growing timescales
and oscillation frequencies as a function of the mirror's location. It is
found that in order for the system black hole plus mirror to become
unstable there is a minimum distance at which the mirror must be
located. We also give an explicit example showing that such a bomb can
be built. In addition, our arguments enable us to justify why large Kerr-
AdS black holes are stable and small Kerr-AdS black holes should be
unstable

Hence, we wish to avoid the “super radiance bomb”. We then advise

readers to consider the physics of Appendix A, and this is, what we wish
to avoid at all costs.

Even if we do not kill off superradiance, in black hole production ,

though our experiment in the laboratory, we may be able to get a bound
on the admitted upper bound to massive gravitons.
In doing this, we are coming up with a model as to small black holes
producing gravitons and information. However , if we cannot falsify

29
Super radiance, as in Appendix A, we need to look at [85] giving at least
an upper bound to the mass of a graviton. And to consider the
situations given in [86], [87], [88] , [89] and [90]

I XII. Conclusion. A lot to do and how decoding the essence of

GW radiation in the laboratory may help us get it done.
In [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], and [96] we currently have a lot of model
related experimental work to consider, but we do not really have a
consistent theory of gravity yet. This is also to move past the Author’s
presentation as given in [84]. I.e. in effect, our level of knowledge is
equivalent to when Feynman outlined the :Parton model [97] , [98]. We
have excellent phenomenalistic models, but fail to get to the essence of
why we see what we do, in many gravitational physics situations
Aside from necessary engineering work to do, if any of what we are
trying to do is achieved, we can follow up on a suggestion made by Dr.
Crowell as to this paper, “The interior of dynamical vacuum black
holes” in [47]
As time permits, this author recommends following up on the suggestion
made by Dr. Crowell in organizing a study group to go through this
entire 217 page masterpiece.
Something along these lines will be organized, and in doing so, the
essence of information transfer in and out of black holes should be
analyzed as well as the essence of decoding what is meant by the
cosmological singularities purportedly associated with Black holes.
To which the author wishes best wishes for those brave enough to sail
to the edge and to explore what we think we know, but may have no
idea of.

30