Dear UNGA:
The Security Council may have informed you about the fact that a Cologne court asked the German government – and implicitly you – to immediately order a “safety conference” because there is scientific evidence that the LHC experiment at CERN is currently producing miniature black holes that it (1) cannot detect and which (b) can shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time.
Signed: Otto E. Rossler, Nobel prize candidate
I forgot to bow.
The court asked the german government nothing.
Liar.
Thank you for taking this up, Charlie. The court made its published remark on that day and thereby agreed to this remark being made known to the defendant, which was in this case the German government.
Since the German government did not act so far, the issue now lies before the United Nations General Assembly. There never lied a more important issue before the latter.
Dear nobel prize candidate Rössler!
We were reading some of your –err- scientific tractates and want to propose a special conference meeting including you, both of us and maybe Sylvester und Tweety. For lunch we’ll bring cheese cake (shrinking to 2 cm).
Best wishes from our secret laboratory,
The Pinky and the Brain
According to an attorney in the case, chief judge Niemeyer of the Cologne court stated the following opinion, which is in the court record:
“The court points out its opinion that it should be possible to let discuss the various safety aspects that have been issue of both safety reports of 2003 and 2008, within the framework of a safety conference.“
See: http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/cern__press_release_german_court_hearing.PDF
CERN physicists have long admitted that the LHC may “become a black-hole factory” (CERN Courier, Nov. 12, 2004). A black hole that consumed the mass of the Earth would be 18 mm in diameter (about 2 centimeters), according to Wikipedia, which confirms Dr. Rossler’s estimate.
Thank you.
CERN is not just a possible danger regarding black holes (as it is regarding strangelets as no one denies): It is a proven danger.
Against possibilities humankind has learned to close its eyes since everything is always possible, perhaps.
But against a proven danger, like a diagnosis of a specific illness, refusing action is unprecedented in history.
Oh yes. That Rössler had the right diameter for a hypothetical black hole with the mass of the earth definitely confirmed his “theses”. Houston, thanks for the good jokes.
Of course the court did not make any “request”. and of course there is no proven danger. definitely not from the self-declared expert in particle and gravitaionyl physics, Rössler.
Opinions are not quite sufficient when the patient already lies on the operating table.
There is no error in Telemach — unless you can state one which the whole world is hoping will be coming forward out of a jungle of unverifiable psychological outbursts — which as I know can help in eventually coming closer to the common aim of finding an all clear.
A smile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
Old erroneous claims. Why not prove what you claim?
Science is friendly correction, not unsubstantated expression of esthetic preferences with or without accompanying curses. If I am too stupid to put Einstein’s most important insight into a simple form, please make it better, but then come to a genuine criticism of the next — new — result. Acriticism that even the dimwitted person you try to criticize can understand. Or a friendly onlooker acting as an interpreter.
Otherwise you are just waisting everybody’s time in filibustering the planet into Armageddon as an anonymous dark angel. Maybe I should no longer try to reply to you and your other pseudonyms.
Old erroneous claims
Still valid. You were never able to repair your stuff. So the case is closed.
Time to apologize, Otto.
Dear Mr. Rössler!
According to our experiments at ACME-labs most fragments of cheese cake shrink to 2 cm within a periode of 72 hours (depending on micro-climate conditions in our lousy refrigerator). How to avoid this? Dr. Rössler, please help! Could Telemach alter the shrinking rate or some “aryan-R”?
Respectfully,
The Pinky and the Brain
http://shine.yahoo.com/event/momentsofmotherhood/laughter-is-the-best-medicine-2554317/
Hansel, put on your glasses. I wrote that Wikipedia’s 18 mm diameter for an Earth-mass black hole “confirms Dr. Rossler’s estimate” — not “his ‘theses’”. Why do you misquote?
Hansel also wrote, “Of course, the court did not make any ‘request’.” I wrote that the judge stated an “opinion”. In the presence of defense attorneys for the German government, the chief judge of the Cologne court stated “its opinion” that “safety aspects” be discussed “within the framework of a safety conference.” The opinion was certainly expressed to representatives of the German government.
Houston, you are really the last person on this blog who should complain about misquoting. You have a long history of selctive and non-understanding misleading quotations from several papers so please, stop this. :D
So by the way, why was it important to mention, that Rössler have correctly calculated the diameter of a black hole with the mass of the earth? Was it not the intention to present Rösslers as a kind of expert in this field he certainly is not? By the way, it would be ridiculous to do so as inserting the earths mass in a well known equation makes no one an expert.
Before I forget: The private opinion of the judge who is a person certainly not able to qualify the substance of Rösslers “theories” is not a officiial request as Rössler is trying to present it.
The chief judge stated to German government lawyers and others present that “It is the opinion of the court” that “safety aspects” be discussed at “a safety conference.” I described it as an “opinion.”
Unlike Hansel’s, all my quotations have been accurate and usually accompanied by a reference for checking.
The reason for mentioning the corroboration by Wikipedia of the 2 cm estimate by Rossler of Earth’s mass in a black hole is that his estimate was being ridiculed by “Pinky” and others as bizarre.
Houston, we have a problem!
Oh nonono — nonono and no! The “expected-future-2-cm-shrinking-incident” (eftwosi-theorem) is fully accepted by us. We did not ridicule this as “bizarre”. We just want to discuss the special case of CHEESE CAKE shrinking, as NO SINGLE scientist on this planet has ever proven us wrong!
We now have to test how long Pinky can hold its breath: 56 seconds! The world should know!
Sincerely,
The Pinky and the Brain
The opinion of the court is written down normally in the judgement. And there you cannot find any request to the government to organize a safety conference.
There is also a difference between an opinion and a official request.
So Rössler is misleading the “public” here.
Furthermore there were several visits of Rössler at CERN, he has already discussed all of it with the scientists there. What was shown by Rössler here on this blog on questions about his equations and implications of his “theory” (much of psychological bullshit, but almost never a scientific precise statement) it is very unlikely that he even has the ability to attend such a conference. The questions presented here on this blog are exactly the questions one can expect to be asked at a conference like that. As Rössler was not able to answer them in a clear way the conference would be a complete waste of time for any real scientist in the world.
And: why is Rössler not organizing the conference himnself? He seems to have still access to some resources of his former university, if he wanted to discuss, he should organize it. But obviously he prefers to talk about planetocausts and other bllshit, accusing scientists to attempt killing people. He tries not even to participate current discussions on hot results about hawking radiation. He is not even aware of the newest literature, the state of knowledge. Why should anyone waste time in discussions with this guy?
To defense attorneys for the German government, the court asked that safety aspects be discussed in a safety conference. This qualifies as a request. (“Request 1: the act or an instance of asking for something” — Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)
To have any effect and gain sufficient participation, such a conference would need to be under official auspices, such as the German government, the UN, or CERN. There are a number of other scientists critical of the LHC who could be included.
Dr. Rossler has written of two visits to CERN, the first in July 2008. At that time he discussed some safety issues with CERN physicist Rolf Landua, who agreed that the superfluid aspect of neutron stars should be investigated. Dr. Landua even suggested an experiment using CERN’s large supply of superfluid material (helium II) to study the passage of neutral particles, but the study was never done.
Although Prof. Rossler has been remarkably patient, polite and forthcoming in answering the hundreds angry comments from a gang of CERN activists here, their hostile attitude apparently rendered them obtuse and uncomprehending to his generally clear replies. They usually responsed with obscenities and insults. The rude behavior of such foolish hecklers would be beneath the standards of any scientific conference.
As Dr. Rossler and other LHC critics have made clear, CERN scientists do not “attempt to kill people” but to conduct experiments for the advancement of science that risk such a result.
“As Dr. Rossler and other LHC critics have made clear, CERN scientists do not “attempt to kill people” but to conduct experiments for the advancement of science that risk such a result.”
Oh yes. Perhaps you can explain then this clear and accurate citation from a posting of Rössler:
“I am the Scientist Who Proved That CERN Attempts to Kill You ”
Mr. Houston!
You wrote “gang of CERN activists”. Lovely!
We want to clarify that we insist on being the “gang of ACME activists (mice division)”.
Peace!
The Pinky and the Brain
P and B: Thanks for clariifying your affiliation. I did not mean to include you in the notorious gang of CERN activists.
Hansel, congratulations on quoting Rossler correctly this time. Indeed, a recent headline says he “proved that CERN attempts to kill you.” But this differs from your prior comment that he was “accusing scientists to attempt to kill people.” The difference is that an institution such as CERN may be set on a course believed by an observer such as Rossler to risk disaster, though the motives of all its individuals are benign.
Similarly, it is understandable if an observer, concerned about a school bus that paused on the tracks, interprets an onrushing diesel train as attempting to kill the children, rather than as just trying to be on time.