… if he singlehandedly breaks the world-wide press curfew surrounding the fact that CERN continues with a potentially earth-jeopardizing experiment despite the official request by a court last January to first allow for a scientific safety conference.
I Offer Rupert Murdoch a Comeback of His Empire …
Posted in existential risks, particle physics
Well, what didn’t work with Mandela, Obama, Hawking and Jesus, perhaps will work with Murdoch…
This guy no dount is a genius.
Correction:
This guy no doubt is a genius.
I appreciate your not taking offense at my reminding the world of the Cologne Administrative Court’s official request. So the two of us are the only ones not opposed to the dissemination of a potentially planet-saving truth so far?
There is no official court request — only in your dreams!
If you call a request made by a court to the German Minister of Science to convoke a scientifi safety conference inofficial, I agree with you.
Rossler: I’ve seen you mentioning this court request over and over, but I’ve never seen any kind of proof for it. Can you give a reference? The only official document I could find is a press release of Cologne Administrative Court:
http://www.vg-koeln.nrw.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/03_110127/index.php
where there is no mention whatsoever of a request for a safety conference (unless Google translate, which I had to use due to my extremely poor German, is part of the worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth…)
Do you have a better official reference?
There is no request of a court. In the decision is no request. It was, if I remember it right, the private opinion of the judge who was obviously not aware of the full extent of your crackpottery as a person not trained in natural sciences.
Again at your famous safety conference there will arise the same questions like in the threads here. Scientists are trained to think critically and not to believe all crap in front of them. Of course they will ask you about the defiinitions of your variables as they are not defined in your paper in a way normally required for scientific papers.
As a native german speaker I can confirm that there is nothing like a request for a safety conference in this press release.
No. Roessler claims that after the court ruling, the judge in a private conversation told him and others, that he (privately) would ebcourage a safety conference. Again, we only have Roesler’s word that this happened, and we know what his word is worth. And even we take it at face value, this is by no means or any legal standards, an official court request. But is shos how desperate and shamees Roessler and his groupies are.
A more interesting question is: Assume CERN would organize a safety conference, inviting global experts in particle physics, but not Roessler? Would you Roessler accept the results? Or isn’t it about the safety but your glory?
Thank you, PasserByAgain. There is only one mentioning of it in a low-circulation publication for medical technical assistants, in German. But I was present at the court’s meeting and heard the judge dictate the phrase in question into the court’s official record. And I know about a letter in which this information was officially relayed to the minister as the judge had requested.
Why we should believe the statements of a prven liar?
Quote: “there will arise the same questions like in the threads here”.
Yes, but filtered so that the questions are not ludicrous but serious, and so that an answer will be taken seriously — as is so far only rarely the case here.
That is bullshit. The difference would be that you would have not the same possibilities to avoid clear answers
Hansel, it is much nicer if you are not going ad hominem in a discussion whic you want to pass for being scientific.
And please, be so kind to tell me where I ever lied. Otherwise, you will never get another answer from me, and perhaps from no one else in this round.
The only person who doesn’t take answers serious are you Roessler.
So, I have to take for it the word of a guy who just a few days ago was claiming that the UN Security Council is currently debating his theories. Hmmm…
BTW there is in fact only one questions you were asked here. The very first question any scientist would ask if he reads your “paper”. Of course the questions would be
What are the dimensions of your variables? What are the definitions of the Ts?
No one there would be satisfied by any of the ludicrous “answers” you have given here so far.
of course it is proven that you are lying. How often did you claim that there never were objections to your crap-science?
For example how often have you claimed this at lifeboat.com while there were serious objections to your “paper” in several comment sections?
I only said I had information about this (because another high gremium was not allowed to discuss this topic because it allegedly had already reached a higher level — obviously the one I had in mind and to whom I had written before in public as you know). And I always added that this was hearsay and that I wanted someone else to find out about its truth. (And you saw my appeals to the acting head of the security council, including my E-mail to him which most likel reached him.)
Yes, Guido called me last night. He told me that he cancelled all his meetings after he received an email from Otto Roessler, and is purely focusing on this issue.
Roessler, you’re lucky if the German Staatsschutz is not already investigatong you for stalking.…
Dear Hansel:
Am I lying if I say that I never saw a serious objection (in the sense that it would prove one of my results wrong) that I would have skipped answering?
Maybe I was too stupid to recognize such a case. In that case, please repeat it.
I realize that if “big” scientists in a field (such a name was often mentioned on these pages) refuse to reply to counterproofs to their own public alleged counterproofs to a scientific theorem, you and anyone could use the same strategy in science.
As long as scientist does not declare defeat with an argument he had done his best to prove, no one in the world has the right to say he has been disproved. Only after a long time in history can one say this.
Would you really be happy if I acknowledged defeat without having been defeated to the best of my knowledge? How would you call such behavior?
And it is not rare in cience that good rguments need to be repeated. I cannot exclude there was one and I did not recognitze it. But then I kindly ask the proponent not to give up because I obviously did not get the point. By repeating it, he will make sure it gets the necessary attention.
But he should please try to be clear, and do everything he can to help the person addressed to understand it. If necessary by repeating a hundred times. And usuallyl it becomes better in the process.
But the hardest, of course, is to understand when a good counterargument has come in.
Therefore scientists by definition are friends. Otherwise they could not continue. That is why it is so important to keep dialog.
P.S. I have to hurry — so take your time till in 4 hours.
Rssler, you have not disproved any counterproof of your “papers”. Not a single one.
“As long as scientist does not declare defeat with an argument he had done his best to prove, no one in the world has the right to say he has been disproved”
You have not even understood the basics of science. In science there are objective criteria to assess a hypothesis or a paper. For example the finding of inconsistent nondefined equations is already enough to dismiss the paper. It does not need your agreement.
Please, Hansel: Tell me where there is a counterproof. I will go there and do my best to either confirm it or tell why it is none. But please, serious stuff and without hatred (remember: Science is friendship).
to start with, you could go on the other thread and reply to TRMG’s post
Thank you.
“Science is friendship”
You are not a real scientist. And you are definitely the last person who should write about friendship as long as you compare scientists who try to do good science (while you are doing in fact no science) with modern nazis etc
Hansel is an irresponsible internet bully who wouldn’t deserve to shine Rossler’s shoes. The boorish rudeness of his comments is below the standards of civility in any scientific field. .
Dr Rossler is an important scientist who been a pioneer in several areas, including chaos theory and endophysics. He has written over 300 scientific papers and won several scientific awards. In addition to being a professor of theoretical chemistry at the University of Tubingen, he has been a visiting professor at a number of American and European universities.
Concerning the request by a German court for a safety conference on the LHC, here is press information from an attorney in the case: http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/cern__press_release_german_court_hearing.PDF .
As a scientist, I need friendship. As a citizen, I am obliged to warn if a scientific result proves that the daily activities of some other people (scientists) are dangerous.
I hope cou can distinguish between these two totally different identities the same person may harbor.
And as I always said, all I need is your help in kindly repudiating the friendly science if it is false.
Or do you want to argue with me as citizens opposing my political goal of saving the planet?
Then please say in what role you are using what words. Agreed?
no one should use comparisons with Nazism etc. That is an issue of moral integrity.
To do so on the basis of unfounded crackpot-science is the opposite of being a civilized scientist.
A jew fearing about the survival of Israel is allowed to speak up, even if he is a crackpot as you say.
You are not a jew, liar.
If you prefer to call me a son of Abraham, I have to live with this personal opinion of yours.
Even if you were one (and you are not) it would not allow you to express this ugly accusations against honest scientist. On the basis of unfounded crackpot-science.
You can not define even most simple equations. You have no theorem.
Opinions are gossip. Warning in the face of the worst consciously accepted tragedy and not saying things that hurt is virtually impossible. Since every single day counts, you start out with the strongest warnings that come to your mind. The final extiction of Israel taken as “side effect” is certainly something that justifies the strongest words.
Please, tell me what words I should have used. I am listening eagerly, and so does everyone else.
BTW: Here is the decision of the court, unfortunately in german:
http://openjur.de/u/148959.html
There is nothing like a request for a safety conference. On the contrary the court says :
“Eine solche Tagung durchzuführen, ist eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage der politischen Opportunität; sie kann aber nicht Folge einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung sein.”
Rössler is again a proven liar.
Eine solche Tagung durchzuführen, ist eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage der politischen Opportunität; sie kann aber nicht Folge einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung sein
translates at Babelfish as
Such a conference to accomplish, is one from the defendant one to question of the political Opportunität which can be answered; it cannot be however consequence of a judicial decision.
This looks vaguely like advice from the judge saying CERN ( presumably the defendant) should remove its finger and have a conference, but we await Hansel’s proper translation.
There is written, that it is in principle NOT the duty of court to request a safety conference.
So Rössler is lying when he again and again claims that there would be an officical request by a court. there is nothing like that.
AnthonyL, the way I read it it states that the defendant (ie. CERN) should decide for whatever they consider politically prudent, or something along these lines. My translation:
“To conduct such a conference is a question of political appropriateness to be answered by the defendant, but it cannot be the consequence of a court verdict.”
Since I never lied, HansellllI has a maximally strong point.
Hansel is apparently unaware of the fact that Otto Rossler is the son of a Jewish father. Dr. Rossler has never claimed that CERN is run by Nazis or guided by their ideology. It is certainly apparent that the leaders of CERN hope to advance scientific knowledge and have no racist or totalitarian agenda.
If however the acknowledged potential production of micro lack holes or stranglets may have catastrophic potential, as several scientists — not just Rossler — find plausible, then the consequences could be far worse in terms of human lives than all the wars and genocides in history. The cost would by the loss of not 7 million but nearly 7 BILLION humans.
A safety conference would seem an entirely reasonable and modest request, in view of the possible catastrophic downside of the LHC and the many holes in CERN’s safety arguments, which have only widened with later research (e.g. recent “direct evidence” of the superfluidity of a neutron star).
According to attorney Mohring, the Cologne court declined to require German deputies to stop the LHC operation, but the chief judge Mr. Niemeyer stated in the court record:
“The court points out its opinion that it should be possible to discuss the various safety aspects that have been the issue of both safety reports of 2003 and 2008 within the framework of a safety conference.“
(See link in my previous comment.)
Please forgive the distemper of my dear, sweet Hansel. It is very difficult for him, no? He does not like to remember that Hegel is the root; the father of the onrushing flush of fatal conceit that causes fellow travelers of the great knowing who also share my darling Hansel’s temperament to bristle at any hint their self-assumed superiority is historically rooted in a murderous legacy of national and international socialism, eugenic preening, ethnic cleansing, thought cleansing — all rooted in and largely borne of the proven science of Phrenology, its era, and the noble utopian goal of progressive man perfected under socialism — by any means necessary. It’s for the greater good, of course.
To be Hegelian is to live to condescend. It has been the bane of the academy since the early 20th Century. The stench of this hubris permeates the CERN project, its aristocracy and its sycophants.
Dr. Karl Popper and others of the Mount Pelerin Society saw the Hegelian as a genuine threat to the academy and its legacy of scholarship. Popper artfully coined the phrase “scientism” to describe the disordered and distempered style of reasoning that had infected and begun to dominate mid-20th Century academe.
Dr. Rummel has published compelling scholarship in the hope our 21st Century institutions could learn from the 200 million democides that were progressively rendered by Hegelian bureaucrats, academics and their governments practicing various derivatives of “scientism” during the 20th Century as they made many omelettes for social justice.
Poor Hansel. It’s not just the eggs. Now that they finally have the whole basket how else do you expect them to behave when inferiors, miscreants and nobodies are conspiring to take that basket away from them?
“Hansel is apparently unaware of the fact that Otto Rossler is the son of a Jewish father.”
Yes, Houston again believes anything his god Rössler said in the past. :D The “jewish father” was one of the first nazis. He became member of the Nazi-party long before the rise to power. He was a member of the SS, an organization which investigated the past of the members very carefully.
It seems to be very possible that Rössler father was a jew. Yes, Houston, again xou have made a point without knowing anything. :D
“Dr. Rossler has never claimed that CERN is run by Nazis or guided by their ideology.”
Hosuton, yoou are really a master of strawmen. I wrote about comparisons.
And your citation from the attorney.…to make it short, you have neither contradicted me nor supoorted Rösslers claim that there was a official request of the court about this “safety conference”.
BTW Rössler has shown learly in the last weeks and before that he is not qualified to attend a scientific conference. He can not even define the most simple equations in his “paper”.
(My father was a Tubingen dissident colleague of Kurt Gerstein’s, working at the university as a university docent translating foreign newspapers for the Ahnenerbe propaganda division. All university docents with special skills were spared fighting at the front, from which he was called back on reaching it, to his surprise. He refused to scientifically follow an intact Jewish community for documentation purposes, reckoning with his deportation. He later became the father figure of many African and Asian students — mostly medical — in Tübingen who called him father. I learned from him the first sentence of the “Our Father” prayer in Haussa, Ubammu wonda cikin samomi, as evidence of the Semitic nature of this African language (ubammu = avinu, samomi = shamajim). That he was Jewish he only told me on his deathbed in 1991 after my only son had been killed at age 7.)
This is somewhat wrong. Your father was certainly no dissident as he became a member of the Nazi-party already in the 1920s at the age of 17, long before the holocaust happened or even was thought of. Or, perhaps you can tell the audience the story why he was forced to leave Austria in 1934? Because he was a dissident? A mole in the NS-Party?
Additionally there are many examples of hateful antisemitic writing of your father. You are constructing a legend, nothing more. It is more than only unlikely that a person with this CV was a jew.
BTW that would not change anything. To compare scientists wiht Nazis, to accuse them to conduct a “planetocaust” has nothing to do with a civilized scientific discourse. A real scientist would not use phrases like that.
“A real scientist would not use phrases like that” [e,g„ “planetocaust”]
Was astrophysicist Carl Sagan a real scientist? He and other distinguished scientists repeatedly warned of the dangers of “a nuclear holocaust.” Dr. Sagan, director of the Laboratory of Planetary Studies at Cornell University, termed nuclear weapons “instruments of the apocalypse” and wrote: “This is the century of Hitler and Stalin, evidence…that madmen can seize power in modern industrial nations. If we are content in a world with 60,000 nuclear weapons, we are betting our lives…” (Sagan, Billions and Billions, 1997, p. 234 & 236). By such terms (holocaust, apocalypse, Hitler), was he comparing nuclear scientists with Nazis? Of course not.
Dr. Rossler’s term “planetocaust” is free of ethnic or religious prejudice. If the planet goes, we’re all sunk. The leaders of CERN are indeed democratic — they’ll risk the lives of all peoples without regard to race, creed or color. Obviously, any damage would be an unintended consequence, not a malicious goal of their experiments. In fact, there is no article by Dr Rossler that compares CERN scientists with Nazis. “Planetocaust” is an accurate term for the possibility of planetary destruction, as is “nuclear holocaust” for the horror of nuclear war.
The smear attack against Dr. Rossler’s father comes with no citations but probably derives from two blogs that specialize in distorted ad hominem attacks against Dr. Rossler and his family. Such personal hate-mongering would have no place in a scientific discussion, and in any case is irrelevant to Dr. Rossler’s theories or critique regarding the LHC. The fact is that many Germans today, perhaps even CERN director Rolf Heuer, may have former Nazis in their family tree since a generation was subjected to their rule.
Well, the NAZI were devotedly Hegelian and passionate advocates of Phrenology and other victorian scientisms. Their pursuit of the Master Race was no different than the other competing utopian memes of “progressive man perfected under socialism.”
Popper was prescient in the corrosive effect of scientism on the modern academy. The murderous legacy of scientism is well established in history. The NAZI have no monopoly upon it. The European’s do.
Now we have CERN and the policing of thought crimes relative thereto.
So much scientism; so few scientists.
What better argument for individual liberty and equal protection under the law could anyone possibly make.
Previous comments are at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/i-offer-rupert-murdoch-a-comeback-of-his-empire-%E2%80%A6/comment-page-1