All secret services of the planet know about my warnings against CERN.
Prof. Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., 052811)
P.S. The following paper submitted to CERN and the Albert-Einstein-Institut got removed from the Internet:
————————————–
Einstein’s Equivalence Principle Has Three Further Implications Besides Affecting Time: T-L-M-Ch Theorem (“Telemach”)
Otto E. Rossler
Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G.
Abstract
General relativity is notoriously difficult to interpret. A “return to the mothers” is proposed to better understand the gothic-R theorem of the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity. It is shown that the new finding is already implicit in Einstein’s equivalence principle of 1907 and hence in special relativity (with acceleration included). The TeLeMaCh theorem, named onomatopoetically after Telemachus, is bound to transform metrology if correct.
(March 31, 2011)
1. Introduction
Recently it was shown that the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity admits at least one further canonical observable, the so-called gothic-R distance [1]. In terms of this distance, the speed of light c is globally constant. Is this result only a new mathematically allowed physical interpretation, or does it have deeper “ontological” significance?
A convenient way to find out is to pass over to an even more fundamental level of description. The “equivalence principle” between kinematic and gravitational acceleration, which still belongs to special relativity, is the oldest and in a sense most powerful element of general relativity since everything grew out of this “happiest thought of my life” as Einstein used to call it.
A famous “ontological” implication of the equivalence principle is the slower ticking rate of clocks at the rear end of a long constantly accelerating train or rocketship. It was deduced by Einstein in a chain of heuristic mental steps. The latter involved light-pulse emitting clocks and light-pulse detecting devices in a mentally pictured scenario comprising long hollow cylinders releasable into free fall sporting hooks and vertical slits in their sides to allow one to put in clocks and sensors at different height levels before or after release into free fall, cf. [2].
More than a half-century later, Wolfgang Rindler [3] succeeded in graphically retrieving all pertinent results of Einstein’s in the famous Rindler metric. The latter describes a long collection of simultaneously ignited infinitesimally short rocketships, or rather hollow rocket-rings, that stay together spontaneously owing to a careful choice of their systematically differing constant accelerations. The most concise description of the resulting 2-D space-time diagram, with its “scrollable” simultaneity axes that all pass through one point, can be found in Wald’s 1984 otherwise algebra-oriented book “General Relativity” [4, p. 151]. For an independent re-discovery, see John S. Bell’s intriguing paper [5].
2. The Secret Power of the Equivalence Principle
Clocks at the end of a long constantly accelerating rocketship in outer space have elongated ticking intervals when their light pulses arrive at the rocket’s tip, because the latter has in the meantime acquired a well-defined positive velocity compared to the point of origin of the light pulses, as Einstein found out in 1907. The resulting special-relativistic redshift at first sight appears to be a mere observational effect: “in reality” the clocks in question ought to tick at their normal rate (but they don’t).
We know how it is with Einstein’s deceptively simple gedanken experiments: He has a knack for following them up to a breaking point where something “impossible” occurs. Remember his previous observation of an apparent clock slowdown of a constant-speed departing twin clock which, while with constant speed returning, has an equally accelerated pulse rate, considered in his seminal founding paper of special relativity of two years before: When the twin clock with its elongated-appearing ticking intervals is turned around and comes back with its equally reduced-appearing ticking intervals, everyone would have bet that the net effect must be zero once the two clocks are re-united as physical twins. But to everyone’s surprise, a net effect (a manifest age difference) remains: the “ontological mehrwert” of Einstein’s.
Here with the constantly accelerating rocketship, the same thing occurs: A clock that is carefully lowered from the tip to the slower-appearing rear-end of the accelerating long rocketship will, after having been hauled back up, again fail to be as old as its stationary twin at the tip [6, p.18]. This proves that the clocks “downstairs” indeed are ontologically slower-ticking there. Note that the philosophical term “ontological” is utterly unfamiliar outside Einsteinian physics.
3. Three Added Implications of the Equivalence Principle
Everything that has been said so far is well known. If the clocks are genuinely slower-ticking downstairs rather than just looking slower from above: how about the existence of further ontological implications at the rear end of the rocketship? This suspicion is justified as it turns out. Einstein first found out — as described — that
T_tail = T_tip *(1+z), (1)
where z+1 is the local gravitational redshift factor that applies in the Rindler metric (Einstein called it 1+Phi/c^2, Phi being the gravitational potential [7]).
With Einstein’s result put into this simple form, one is immediately led to expect a spatial corollary: If all temporal wavelengths T are increased, the very same thing is bound to hold true for the spatial wavelengths L of the same light waves:
L_tail = L_tip *(1+z), (2)
and so by implication for all local lengths since everything appears normal locally as mentioned. Formally this conclusion follows from the constancy of the speed of light c (since L/T = c implies L = cT for light waves). If T is locally counterfactually increased by Eq.(1) as we saw, L must be equally increased in Eq.(2) if c is constant.
Although this is correct and we are here still in the realm of special relativity with its absolutely constant c despite the presence of acceleration, the conclusion just drawn is possibly premature since c is believed to be non-constant in general relativity (only “locally constant”). Therefore it is “safer” to first proceed to M and then from there back to L.
M, the mass of a particle that is locally at rest, is necessarily reduced by the very factor by which T is increased,
M_tail = M_tip /(1+z). (3)
This follows from the fact that all locally normal-appearing photons by Eq.(1) have a proportionally decreased frequency f, and hence have a proportionally reduced energy (by Planck’s law E = h f). They have so much less mass-energy by Einstein’s E = mc^2. If all locally generated photons have so much less mass at the rocketship’s tail in a counterfactual manner, necessarily all other masses — by virtue of their being locally inter-transformable into photons (like positronium)in principle — are reduced by the same factor. Hence Eq.(3) is valid.
From the M of Eq.(3), the L of Eq.(2) can now be retrieved as announced via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics: a_0 = h/(m_e*c*2pi*alpha), where m_e is the mass of the electron and alpha the dimensionless fine structure constant. But if the radius of the hydrogen atom is increased in proportion to 1/m_e, wirh m_e varying in accord with Eq.(3), then the size of all objects scales linearly with (1+z) and so does space itself. This was the content of Eq.(2) above.
With Eqs.(1−3) we have arrived at the following abbreviated new law valid in the equivalence principle: “T-L-M.” Einstein’s old finding of T thus has acquired two corollaries of equal standing, L and M for short. What about the third candidate, Ch for charge?
If mass is counterfactually reduced locally and if charge stands in a fixed ratio to mass locally, then charge is bound to be counterfactually reduced in proportion for every class of charged particles. This follows — to give only one example — from the fact that locally, two “511 keV” photons still suffice to produce a positronium atom, consisting of a locally normal-appearing electron and a locally normal-appearing positron. Since both these particles have a reduced mass content by Eq.(3) as we saw, they must also have a proportionally reduced charge content, if all laws of nature are to remain intact locally. This latter condition is guaranteed by Einstein’s principle of “general covariance” which states that the laws of nature are the same in every locally free-falling inertial system. Note that a freshly released free-falling particle (like our positronium atom) is still locally at rest. Therefore, charge is reduced in proportion to the stationary mass,
Ch_tail = Ch_tip /(1+z). (4)
The herewith obtained “completed gravitational redshift law of Einstein” comprises 4 individual equations of equal importance. The new law can be condensed into four letters, T,L,M,Ch. Since the very same consonants pertain to a famous personality of mythological history, Ulysses’s son Telemach (or Telemachus), the 4-letter result can be called the “Telemach theorem.”
To witness, the gravitational redshift (1+z) on the surface of a neutron star is of order of magnitude 2. And the gravitational redshift on the surface (“horizon” in Rindler’s terminology) of a black hole is infinite. By virtue of Telemach, objects on the surface of a neutron star must be visibly enlarged in the vertical direction by a factor of about two [8], which may be measurable. At the same time, the distance toward and from the horizon of a black hole has become infinite (as the corresponding light travel time is already well-known to be [6, p. 20]). Obviously, no known physical phenomenon contradicts the new result which can be tested further empirically.
4. Discussion
Two points need to be discussed. First: Is the Telemach result derived in the equivalence principle robust enough to carry over to the Schwarzschild metric and from there on to all of general relativity? Second: Is the result acceptable in principle from the point of view of modern physics and especially the science of metrology?
The first point is easy to answer. All arguments used above carry over to the Schwarzschild metric. The L of Eq.(2) is nothing but the “poor man’s version” of the gothic-R theorem of the Schwarzschild metric [1]. Conversely, the Schwarzschild metric would have a hard time if the “gothic-R” did not fit the “L” of the more basic theory of the equivalence principle.
Before we come to the testable second point announced, a brief digression into the literature is on line. As noted in ref. [1], similar propositions (sub-vectors of T,L,M,Ch as it were) are not unfamiliar. An analog of L was quite often conjectured to hold true in general relativity. For example, an engineer of the Global Positioning System who — in distrust of Einstein — had built-in a special switch in case Einstein’s predictions were to prove true, later wrote a paper [9] to come to grips with his own surprise; in one formula (his Eq.9 for the “local rest mass energy”), he comes close to Eq.(3) above. More recently, George W. Cox wrote an autodidactic paper arriving, in the present terminology, at T, L and M [10]; he also is the first scientist to explicitly support Ch (personal communication 2010). And professor Richard J. Cook arrived very elegantly at T,L,M (including these symbols) in general relativity [11], correctly invoking a variation in the gravitational constant G by (z+1)^2, but leaving Ch unscathed. Ch proves to be the real crux of the present return to the roots of Einstein’s theory. A discussion with members of the Albert-Einstein Institute in early 2009 made it clear that validity of the Gausss-Stokes theorem of electrostatics [4, p. 432] is put at stake by any change in Ch. So is the Reissner-Nordström metric which no general relativist would easily sacrifice. But this is not all. A change in L alone is bad enough already; for it apparently implies invalidity of the famous Kerr metric and certain cosmological solutions of the Einstein equation. Thus the above theory — while implicit in the equivalence principle and the Schwarzschild metric as the heart of general relativity — is by no means an easy-to-absorb implication of general relativity. This fact can explain some of the resistance the gothic-R theorem encountered when first proposed.
The announced second point is even more important because it makes the connection to measurement. Just as Newton’s universal second (the ” Ur-second” so to speak) was toppled by Einstein’s revolutionary finding of the gravity-dependent “local second” T of Eq.(1), so the famous “Ur-meter” adhered-to up until now is toppled by the gravity-dependent “local meter” L of Eq.(2). The same holds true for the “Ur-kilogram” which with the M of Eq.(3) has now has become different on the moon (much as its once taken-for-granted universal weight had been dethroned by Newton’s law). And the “Ur-charge” Ch (of an electron) now ceases to be universally valid by Eq.(4). The whole to be measured-out cosmos thus acquires a new face if Einstein’s happiest thought (Eq.1) has been correctly elaborated in Eqs.(2−4) above.
In return for this drawback (if it is one), four quantized physical variables arise, three of them new: Besides (i) “Kilogram times Second,” Leibniz’s later famous “action,” there are now:
(ii) “Kilogram times Meter” (“cession” [12]),
(iii) “Coulomb times Second,” and
(iv) “Coulomb times Meter” [13].
The explanation of (ii) is that time and space (Second and Meter) scale in strict parallelism (by Eqs.1,2). The explanation of (iii) and (iv) is that rest mass and charge (Kilogram and Coulomb) scale in strict parallelism (by Eqs.3,4). The quantization laws (iii) and (iv) have no names as of yet (“pulsion”?, “gression”?); they come in several particle-type specific varieties each [12]. Note also that while both G and epsilon_o (and with it mu_o) cease to be fundamental constants as a consequence of L,M,Ch, their ratio (more specifically, the square root of the product of G and epsilon_o) becomes a new fundamental constant of nature which may be named “G_o,”
(v) G_o = 2.4308 *10^(−11) C/kg,
as is straightforward to check by inserting the currently accepted values for G and epsilon_o. A particle-class specific splitting of (v) may or may not have to be reckoned with. Many experiments testing the derived results (ii-v) can be devised. Foreign new technological applications come into sight.
To conclude, a minor revolution in physics was tentatively proposed. The skepticism shown by some members of the experimental profession up until now can be hoped to be overcome with Eqs.(2−4) above. The gothic-R theorem may cease to be controversial. The author would be grateful if a currently running prestigious experiment the fundamentals of which are affected by the above results could be interrupted until the above findings have either been falsified or taken into regard. For it appears that dangers — even apocalyptic ones — cannot be excluded in the wake of the Telemach theorem. Owing to Telemach’s youthful and exotic character, it still appears possible that all of the above is “absolute nonsense” as a colleague who has since changed his mind once publicly called the gothic-R theorem. Einstein in the dusk of his life came to doubt everything he had done, the atomic bomb being the obvious reason. Now his results could for once have an opposite (globe-saving) effect. Timely criticism by the community is invited.
I thank Eric Penrose for discussions and Peter Plath for stimulation. For J.O.R.
References
[1] O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: gothic-R theorem demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric (2007; 2009). On:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf
(Remark: Bernhard Umlauf kindly showed that Eq.9 of ref. [1] contains a calculation error, with the following phrase: “the numerator of the fraction under the natural logarithm must read r_0^(1/2)+(r_0-2m)^(1÷2) and the denominator analogously must read r_i^(1/2)+(r_i-2m)^(1÷2).” Note that this correction leaves the text of ref. [1] unchanged.)
[2] A. Pais, “Subtle is the Lord …,” Oxford: Oxford University Press 1982, pp. 180–181.
[3] W. Rindler, Counterexample to the Lenz-Schiff argument, Am. J. Phys. 36, 540–544 (1968).
[4] R.M. Wald, “General Relativity,” Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1984.
[5] J.S. Bell, How to teach special relativity, Progress in Scientific Culture 1, (2) 1976. Reprinted in: J.S. Bell, “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1984), pp. 67–80.
[6] V.P. Frolov and I.D. Novikov, “Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments,” Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998.
[7] A. Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it (in German), in: “Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik,” Vol. 4, pp. 411–484 (1907), Eq.(30a), p. 479; English translation in: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2, The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900–1909, pp. 252–311, p. 306. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1989.
[8] H. Kuypers, Atoms in the gravitational field: Hints at a change of mass and size (in German). PhD dissertation, submitted September 2005 to the university of Tubingen, faculty for chemistry and pharmacy.
[9] R.R. Hatch, Modified Lorentz ether theory, Infinite Energy 39, 14–23 (2001).
[10] G.W. Cox, The complete theory of quantum gravity (2009). On:
http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/quantumfieldtheory31.pdf
[11] R.J. Cook, Gravitational space dilation (2009). On: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.2811v1.pdf
[12] O.E. Rossler and C. Giannetti, Cession, twin of action (La cesión: hermana gemela de la acción). In: “Arte en la era electronica” (ed. by C. Giannetti), Barcelona: Associación de Cultura Temporánia L’Angelot, and Goethe-Institut Barcelona 1997, p.124.
[13] O.E. Rossler and D. Fröhlich, The weight of the Ur-Kilogram (2010). On:http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/12/11/p1890
—————————-
Added May 28, 2011: Charge nonconservation – my main result – was described independently in 2009 by György Darvas of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
——————————
The problem here is, that your Eq. (1) is false. If the clock at the bottom “fails to be as old” as the clock at the top, as you write in the text, then
(1+z)T_tail = T_tip,
not the other way round, since 1+z > 1, and “failing to be as old” is tantamount to the elapsed time intervall T_tail being smaller, not larger than T_tip. (The same holds in the Schwarzschild metric, where measured time intervals become smaller relative to the distant observer’s time t when approaching the Schwarzschild radius.)
So in order to adhere to the global constancy of c, you may want to reverse your “finding” of a space dilation effect and advocate a space shrinking effect instead, which would further imply, by your own logic, that Hawking radiation could be dramatically accelerated and so the LHC would be less dangerous than expected from conventional wisdom.
Wonderful — who is this anonymous colleague? Why not speak up in public? The public yearns for a face that tells them not to worry with a reason.
Here an interesting “error of sign” krept into a fore-gone argument I would say, as it easily happens in very interesting contexts (so this is not at all meant as a criticism but as a compliment — especially as I feel I am wavering just a little bit).
Everything the author has in mind is correct. Clocks “downstairs” are slow and therefore have shorter time intervals. But do they not therefore take up more or less upstairs time with their shorter time intervals? I opted for more. You opted for less. We could take a poll.
I see this as a wonderful beginning dialogue with the CERNians. All CERNians were asked to study the above paper. It would be a benediction if more responses came.
I also would like to ask all my readers’ forgiving for my placing so much emphasis on the possibility that my result may be right: if it is right, it is of vital importance for everyone — or is it not, dear colleague?
What are you talking about? Maybe I wasn’t clear: Your first equation is false. The correct equation contradicts everything else you claim. So your argument is inconsistent hokum. End of dialogue.
I cannot believe that you cannot understand my answer to your criticism. If you have two clocks standing one above the other, the lower one ticking more slowly than the upper one, then (contrary to your claim) the seconds of the lower clock are longer (not shorter) than those of the upper clock. Okay?
I understand that you are very confused. Look how a second is defined in terms of atomic transitions. You will find there no specification of where the atom has to be placed inside a gravitational field. That is no negligence.
Try to derive your Eq. (1) from the Schwarzschild metric and you will find that your interpretation of time dilation is completely at odds with the theory.
Thank you for continuing to bravely claim that the clocks that are known to run more slowly downstairs — in proportion to the redshift factor characterizing the light emerging from the same lower level relative to the recipient level further up — were not altered.
It is interesting how well-educated members of the community can no longer visualize what the formulas say — so a whole empty dogmatism can arise out of nothing. Cannot one of the elders interfere?
Please, Mr. TRMG, tell me what is your opinion about gravitationalredshift. Do you deny its existence? Or how do you explain it in naive terms?
Do you think you can talk yourself out of admitting a simple and obvious error? Before you start contemplating what the formulas say, I advise you to use the correct ones first. Did you consider the possibility that you erred in regard to Eq. (1) because it is you and not me who is mistaken about its meaning?
So, again, what is the correct relation between “T_tip” and “T_tail” derived from the Schwarzschild metric in terms of the gravitational redshift 1+z?
BTW, since you see me using the gravitational redshift factor too, I certainly don’t deny its existence. I only deny that the units of measurement as defined by atomic transitions are altered in the gravitational field to a degree comparable to the red shift. Believing both statements to be equivalent is exactly were you are confused. Why do you think they “forgot” to specify the gravitational potential in the definition of the “second”?
Quote: “BTW, since you see me using the gravitational redshift factor too, I certainly don’t deny its existence. I only deny that the units of measurement as defined by atomic transitions are altered in the gravitational field to a degree comparable to the red shift. Believing both statements to be equivalent is exactly were you are confused.”
Thank you. But I do not believe anything — you are the believer if you deny that clocks running at different speeds can be compared and that the speed of the one (the lower one) can be expressed in the observed ratio (confirmed by the gravitational clocks paradox).
I am very grateful though that you dare take up the glove — even if hiding behind a mask.
The clocks don’t run at different speeds. For each one a second lasts exactly one second. That’s because the atomic transitions used to define “second” are not influenced by gravity, which is why gravity is nowhere mentioned in the definition. You are still confused about what time dilation means (it’s not about differing *units* of time), and you’re still trying to talk your way out of admitting a simple, but—regarding your conclusions—far-reaching error. Stop evading this question: which one is larger in your gedankenexperiment, the time “T_tail” measured below or the time “T_tip” measured above? And: show your work.
I enjoy this discussion. But you should not remain unaware that there exists the so-called “gravitational twins paradox.” If what you say were right, the latter would not exist.
If that’s what you think, then it’s really high time that you answer the question in my last comment, from which a gravitational twin paradox follows quite effortlessly.
Also you could try to calculate some atomic transitions and see whether what I said wasn’t true. Or you could just trust that the BIPM did not miss something important.
But what you should stop doing is celebrating your confusion by making random assertions that are obviously false.
“Obviously false” is a dangerous argument to use if you cannot disprove a theorem.
Your steadfastness is a streak of hope for me and the world. If only I could believe you without evidence.
By BIPM you mean the Bureau of International Weights and Measures, I presume. My paper is an answer to their — and the community’s — incorrect views. I concur that probability-wise, finding such a big result is unlikely. My impression is that this insight — “progress is a priori unlikely, period” — is guiding your statements.
But as always, the world is more interesting. So, please, show me what is the salient point in your view which I overlooked.
The world is still waiting for you to 1) admit a simple error in your Eq. (1), 2) correct that error, and 3) readjust your conclusions accordingly.
If you don’t want to believe me that your equation is false, try and derive it from the Schwarzschild metric.
Dear anonymous colleague: Science is not a matter of believing. You misunderstood my results. I never said that locally anything changes in the clock rate. The clock intervals’ enlargement “downstairs” compared to upstairs is a result that Einstein found, not me.
Thanks for repeating your error. The intervals measured by the lower clock are ***smaller***, not larger compared to the clock above. That is why the lower twin stays younger.
I did not ask you to believe me this, but to check it for yourself by means of the Schwarzschild solution. But you seem to prefer ignorance.
Sweet. Of course are the individual intervals larger lower-down. That is why a shorter time there is worth a larger time upstairs. This is called redshift.
But I admire your steadfastness.
“Of course are the individual intervals larger lower-down. That is why a shorter time there is worth a larger time upstairs. ”
Thanks again for cramming your whole confusion so flamboyantly into two consecutive sentences.
Stop embarrassing yourself and compare your Eq. (1) to the time dilation derived from the Schwarzschild metric. Will you?
I came from there in my paper on the gothic-R theorem.
Let me add that you have re-discovered that it is possible to THINK about these matters. This makes the two of us unique. The fact that we have opposite opinions does not count by comparison.
Also — Professor Tottoli concluded that the odds of a black hole formed from cosmic ray collisions moving slow enough to be captured by the Earth (< 5 km/sec inside the Moon’s orbit???) is 1 in a billion. Scale that up by a factor of 10000 in radius (1012 in volume) and there should be 1000 (10E-9 x 10E+12 = 10E+3) black holes orbiting the Sun, formed in the last 4.5 billion years, inside the orbit of Uranus.
Two consequences — when stars expand into Red Giants, they will engulf these black holes — no red giants! Not what we see.
Also, volumes of gas that collapse to form stars, they will concentrate the naturally formed uncharged, permanent black holes…surely some will capture enough atoms in the protostellar core to slow and get captured. Therefore, no star formation…just black holes everywhere, and no stars!!!
This is not what we see. I therefore conclude that Professor Rossler’s conclusion on black hole formation is wrong.
It would be important to do more calculations of this type. Alf Pretzell is a specialist here. It appears that it is way too early to draw a conclusion of the type suggested by you, dear Mr. Sweet. But such questions will play a role at the scientificsafety conference requested by the Cologne Administrative Court before CERN can — as we all hope — safely continue.
“I came from there in my paper on the gothic-R theorem. ”
Awesome. Unfortunately that doesn’t make your Eq. (1) correct. Are you going to address its screamingly obvious contradiction to the Schwarzschild metric any time soon? Or will you continue trying to convince everybody that posing as “black hole specialist” with serious research papers on the subject-matter is an acceptable substitute for a comprehensible answer?
Thank you — may I ask for a “comprehensible question” from your part?
Alternatively, kindly tell me in what way there is a “screamingly obvious contradiction”? Please, do make it obviousto a slow-thinking kid like me.
“Alternatively, kindly tell me in what way there is a “screamingly obvious contradiction”?”
In the way that if one was true the other must be false, and vice versa.
Thank you for finding an error in Otto’s work. So Otto, fix your bug and then make a new announcement of what you have found. I am glad someone typed up his mistake. That was not a bug I was capable of finding ;-) I stick to software and breathe a sigh of relief that the Europeans aren’t going to destroy the Earth — yet.
Thanks for the response. I was hoping that someone who, out of concern about the LHC, listens to Rössler actually cared whether what he said was true or even made the slightest bit of sense. I am BTW not aware that he has ever put forward any sound scientific argument to support his allegations against CERN for three years.
Also, this is certainly not the first time he was exposed to a serious flaw in his arguments. Notwithstanding Rössler’s disingenuous account of a “public refusal to look” at his evidence and alleged “orders” not to listen to him, he has been thoroughly refuted many times. He just keeps rehashing the same nonsense in superficially modified form, but never in a way to invalidate or even address any of the preceding criticisms. A result of an earlier iteration of this modification process is his now preferably promoted “Telemach theorem”, which is essentially equivalent to his earlier and long since rebutted “R-Theorem”, but framed in a vaguer, more colloquial language to hinder further criticism, and, of course, enriched by two equally inane non sequiturs—which he calls “proven results”—about “mass” and “charge”. This is his sole strategy in reponse to criticism: rephrase slightly, and fabricate some new “results” once in a while, to keep critics busy. (This is also how is superfluidity “theorem” came about. Try to find some coherent account of it that goes beyond mere assertion.) So, I think your request to revise his arguments will be in vain as they have always been. How some people seemingly still admire him for his integrity is just beyond me.
It is wonderful to read assertions without reference. Why should I lie to you? I have asked to name a single person who says of himself: I have disproved the Telemach theorem. And: here is the counterproof. Then I would stop immediately.
The title of this blog essay is “OSAMA BIN CERN”, but neither Otto nor any commentator related Osama to CERN. The best know connection is that Osama bin Laden was very interested in CERN and the French government very concerned that al Qaeda is interested. One scientist was arrested due to this.
The difference between those interested in CERN due to good reasons or bad reasons, must relate to our biology rather than the reasoning modals we created. The same genes we have had since we separated from the monkey might get us killed.
Harm can be intended or accidental. When engaging in negative behavior like drinking, than also driving can get one in serious trouble, but talking on the phone is considered positive behavior, so those talking on the phone while driving get less seriously punished and less seriously scrutinized while also driving and arrested for both the punishment for driving while texting or talking might be as serious as drunk driving, even if the threat charges were dropped.
Never has research been conducted in a more civil, more cooperative manner, than collider particle research. During previous scientific races such as the quest for Absolute Zero, scientists temporarily kept secrets from each other in order to try to be sure to get a Noble prize. Fudging results and claims of the same can plague other scientific endeavors.
But something happened that broke the tremendous spirit of cooperation on LHC research, an al Qaeda operative asked CERN researcher Adlène Hicheur some detailed questions which he answered the best he could,
http://soutien.hicheur.pagesperso-orange.fr/index_EN.html
Hicheur was arrested by Switzerland, who released him without charges saying no crime was committed, but was quickly arrested by France and held without charges. Humans and Bobono monkeys can put an injured baby bird back in the nest imagining they are doing the little bird a favor. In our minds it is almost inconceivable that such positive research as collider research, can do any harm unless people involved with groups like al Qaeda take an interest in such research. To change the subject slightly, some find positive religious significance in little charges darting together like part of a chorus line, others seem something very wrong in trying to create “a God Particle” as violating the commandment “Take no other God’s before me”. I guess that it’s due to our genes that positive religious insight is further proof that a collider is safe, or those the quote the Bible is indication that backward religion is further proof that it is safe. It is ironic is the most cooperative behavior humankind ever contemplated, could be the most dangerous. And the least agreeable among us, al Qaeda members, may unintentionally allow us to see that the research is dangerous.
I would like to go further in comparing drunk diving and driving while committing crimes on the phone.
Adlène Hicheur reminds me of an employee in a phone store whose job is to sell phones, and when customer asked a bunch of questions, about keeping the phone calls secret from the government, the sales clerk answered it was very unlikely to do so, but was happy to sell 25 throwaway five dollar phones, Hicheur’s joy in getting new people more interested in scientific discovery ended when he was arrested. And is being held now for over a year without charges. .
At the very least people should demand, especially Otto Rossler, who is persistently, that French judge Judge Christophe Teissier demand that France conducts a safety conference, or else quickly release the otherwise innocent scientist,
http://soutien.hicheur.pagesperso-orange.fr/index_EN.html
http://biosecuritycommons.org/index.php?title=Physics
Every innocent person has a right to freedom.
The planet has a right to be freed from the threat to be shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time, too.
There is the wonderful human rights act. I turned to the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity three years ago. They never respondended so far.
Otto Rossler,
If Black Holes are dangerous but can be controlled like nuclear power, it would be unlikely that we wouldn’t implode the world long before we could figure out how to control them. Nevertheless I don’t like the idea of al Qaeda being determined to understand them, or Adlene Hicheur answering their questions. If France acted in other areas like the research is dangerous, I would not fault them for arresting someone who was tutoring al Qaeda on black hole research. Anyway I think you and other critics of dangerous research would make your message clearer if you were much involved in his case.
Every human being is involved in every human rights violation.
You did not specify any link between this particular sad case which has the sympathy and support of every human being of good will and the fact — unless disproved which is my sole request for three years — that all children and their parents are acutely threatened by CERN’s current behavior.