He lost the debating battle with me but does not correct his prior public statements that reflect a state of debate prior to our only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009.
I would very much like to hear from him why he upholds the impression, both before his own scientific institution (the Max Planck Institute of Gravitation Physics or “Albert Einstein Institut”) and cooperating scientific institutions like KET and CERN, and before the whole world: that he could prove my Telemach theorem wrong even though he never came up with any criticism. The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk also never responded although doing so is a professional duty.
I agreed with him in our only discussion that the new “non-conservation of charge” implicit in my result is revolutionary if correct. So it would be his first duty to respond to my disproof of his (admittedly high-caliber) counterargument, given in a still assailable form that very afternoon and in finished form the next morning. It constitutes the main finding (the “Ch”) in the Telemach theorem.
TeLeMaCh means that T and L and M and Ch all change by the gravitational redshift factor (in the last two cases it is the reciprocal). T is time, L length, M mass and Ch charge. Telemach greatly profited from that fateful discussion 2 ½ years ago without which he might never have seen the light of day. So I am greatly indebted to Professor Nicolai.
Even greater, however, is my obligation to tell the world that Professor Nicolai has nothing to offer any more to support his outdated claim that my results were false. A scientist who refuses to take back outdated claims violates the rules of the trade, the rules of honor and the rules of responsibility toward the scientific community. In the present case, in addition the whole world is put at risk because CERN is misled into believing that Telemach were false on the authority of the leading physicist of the Albert-Einstein-Institute, the only oneof its kind on the planet.
Please, dear venerated colleague Hermann Nicolai: do care to reply at long last. The world is hanging on your lips in two senses of the word.
No one can take the responsibility for the whole world on his shoulders and then refuse to give a reason for doing so. I do not say you cannot possibly have a good reason — you may possess the insight that the whole establishment credits you with possessing. I only say: Please, dear colleague, Professor Nicolai, do not hide your privileged reason any longer from the least worthy of the world’s inhabitants, me, and everyone who listens to me. I would love to believe that you are right but I cannot do so without your giving me and the world a hint.
Quit writing about yourself.
Mr. Roessler
“He lost the debating battle with me but does not correct his prior public statements that reflect a state of debate prior to our only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009. ”
Could ya tell us more bout this discussion. When took it place, and where.
“The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk also never responded although doing so is a professional duty.”
Tell us the name of the journal ya submitted this “theorem”. Are ya talking bout the gothic-R-therorem or what ya call the telemac-theorem?
GG
Can you answer Professor Nicolai’s criticism of your “Gothic R Theorem” that it incorrectly predicts planetary orbits? Or how Telemach remedies this defect in Gothic R?
Please answer with quantitative equations and predictions and estimates indicating that Nicolai’s criticism is wrong. and that Telemach:
1.) Correctly predicts planetary orbits.
2.) Does not make any noticeable change in GPS satellite “relativity correction” formulas.
3.) Does not change relativistic precession of planetary orbits enough to measure.
Let me guess…you will write how this is “irrelevant” or “not a formal disproof” or some other bull puckey. Any my response is that this is just…weak. I know this is how you will answer. I bet that is how you will answer this. You really ARE the laziest professor in Germany. Too lazy to defend your equations with precise calculations.
If you are too lazy to answer these questions quantitatively, only a fool would take your predictions seriously.
Awaiting your (quantitative) answer.
Roger Thomas Buzweide, PhD
Institute for Advanced Studies
Dear Professor Buzweide, Princeton:
Professor Nicolai never upheld this outdated criticism.
It would be a mistake to return to an (unfortunately never officially taken back but long overhauled and, towards me, never upheld) state of the debate. Criticisms no longer upheld by those who made them do no longer exist in my humble opinion. If you disagree, I will be happy to serve you.
Or ask Professor Nicolai if he still maintains those false 3 positions that you kindly quoted. If he does, I will show you in detail where the errors lie. Is this acceptable to you?
I am amazed – if I may mention this — at the ad-hominem attack on which you end your important reply. Please, take it back if this is to remain a scientific discourse.
As you know, “Science is Friendship”. I am grateful to you because your contribution shows to the world that Professor Nicolai’s answer is greatly desirable.
I made all my predictions quantitative. Yesterday, I gave a long answer to Andrew in which many details that you might cherish are to be found. Allow me to repeat this text here after the elimination of some bugs:
———————–
“Andrew, you interloped: forgive my slowness.
You appear not to be a physicist since some technical terms I used appear to be unfamiliar to you.
It is great to be challenged to be “hard” in a few lines. I am afraid it will take me more than two.
Einstein saw in his mind that inside a gravitational field, generated not by an attracting mass but by a hind-pushing rocket engine inside a slender rocketship, the strange and totally unexpected phenomenon occurs that light rising up from the bottom to the tip arrives there redshifted, that is, frequency-reduced.
Then it is instructive to add that he saw — but virtually no one else did since — that the light loses its frequency, not on the way up inside the rocket, but rather already starts out redshifted at the hind end. Even famous names like Pound and Rebka did not know that it appeared to me once.
The clocks downstairs indeed are slowed right there: very hard to grasp. If you do not know or accept that, you have no chance to go on. So most specialists are already out of the game by now?
Second step: If time really is slowed down there, because the clocks are slower-running without this fact being locally manifest: What else is automatically changed along with the clock rate downstairs?
Beautiful question (never mind the answers), right?
You can guess. If atoms are slower with their characteristic frequencies, this implies that their energy differences are smaller. Hence they become bigger — proportionally so (interestingly). Both all masses go down and as a consequence (ake quantum mechanics), all sizes go up.
This is the M of Telemach (T was Einstein’s time expansion), and then the L (the size increase). Both trivial but — incredibile dictum — unknown. (Exempting a few blessed people like Richard J. Cook of the US Air Force Academy.)
Then what about charge? T,L,M,Ch taken together make for a name — so we need the Ch? (I am joking). Charge follows by “the principle of general covariance” (Einstein) in the sense that in every inertial system (free-falling ones of sufficiently small size included), the laws of nature are locally identical. Hence: the ratio between its mass and its charge, of a locally normal appearing elementary particlethere like an electron, must be unchanged locally, too. Therefore, if M goes down imperceptibly for the locals, so does charge. Telemach is revived.
But then Maxwell’s teacher Faraday and he himself would have been wrong? So what — this was many decades before Einstein. So it is complacency to think this question were a counterargument. But the many famous textbooks? The Gauss-Stokes theorem? Scrap. But so — of course — not outside gravitational gradients. It remains a beautiful theorem. But then: Does not special relativity require that charges are invariant? Yes, this is an often experimentally tested fact. But “special relativity with constant acceleration” is something new — STR.02 if you wish. If Einstein could live with this, so presumably can his followers?
But you draw major conclusions?, so I hear you say. Yes, I do, but not out of impishness. The situation is so wonderful in terms of novelty, on the one hand. But it is so life-threatening on the other hand: in the face of CERN’s dogmatic slumber while sleepwalking. You must not abruptly awaken a sleep-walker, he can be dangerous. But this is the smaller danger in the present case compared to his remaining unconscious. Here I stop. Did you understand a word? More important: did you not understand one item in particular? Then right there, the hoped-for falsification round could start. (Allow me to thank you for your having insisted. Only in dialog does science grow, both Plato and Buber-Levinas style. Performed with infinite humility which is the essence of science. Take care, Andrew, Otto
———————-
”
MaLeTuCh
CheToLuMi
TiLüBiCh
GaLuHoCh
TeChFat (Hihi)
TeLeMaChOs
Rö=CrPo
ThE poPe SmoKes dOpe
That is my regular (quantitative) evening prayer.
Sleep well,
Pinky
“Professor Nicolai never upheld this outdated criticism. ”
That is what you said, knowing that most probable he will never show up here to correct this or any other statement made by you about conversations with him.
The question is, you think your gothic R is still valid and related to the telemach bulshit? Bt then explain why in your paper about5 the R nothing was changed in the math, only a few sentences of the prosa. If essentially nothing was changed (and we have checked this) then the critique is still valid and therefore nothing is outdated.
There is one easy way to show that I or Nicalai are wrong: Show that Telemach or the gthic R or both give the correct orbits of the planet when this private metric of yours is applied.
Just show it.
Pinky: The self-hatred of the Greens again who will never win an election again if their abandonment of the planet becomes public.
————
Hänschen: Warming up Nicolai‘s never repeated error is a mistake.
To show that my admittedly mathematically equivalent re-formulation of the Schwarzschild metric has such nonsensical consequences will not be easy: Nothing is harder to prove than nonsense. I bet the Max-Plamck head will not be grateful to you for your your misapplied loyalty.
On the other blog you just began to understand.
I can understand why you want to get rid of this proof that your “reformulation” is bullshit. It was by the way not only shown by Nicolai, there were many more persons, e.g. the User “ICH”, who were totally diagreeing with you. And by the way, as your argument mainly consists of saying “they are wrong” without any proof like the mentioned calculation (the demonstration with the planetary orbits for example) your credibility is nearly zero from a scientific point of view.
Science is not about talking nonsense, it is about facts and hard proofs. You have nothing like this and even your prosa is selfcontradictory.
Now you forgot again that you were about to fall into the forbidden trap of thinking yourself and acquiring a personal — always unique — opinion. (I gave a proof and you were almost caught by understanding the first step.)
“ICH”, by the way, gave the 3-D version of my 1-D gothic-R theorem, exactly the non-existing theorem which Nicolai and Giulini had erroneously claimed gives false results. His equation is a big progress over mine. It not only proved Nicolai and Giulini wrong even before they published. It also is bound to stay and become famous.
By the way: you are right that “Ich” had a similarly aggressive tone to him as you have. But he was constructive in the end and found the missing more advanced equation on the last page of his paper “Entfernungen in der Schwarzschildmetrik” — Distances in the Schwarzschildmetric.
I hope you are not angry if I say that I still hope that you will do the same thing with Telemach: To make it more intelligible to those who have had less exposure and back-and-forth discussion about it than you.
Rebka may still be alive: shall we ask his opinion whether the light frequency is already reduced downstairs or not? This is a maximally interesting question — now thanks to your insisting to the whole planet.
Obvioously you have not read was “ICH ” really had written. In fact his repairing is contradicting your original claims — and it is not even included in your R-paper. As I said the paper remains the same in its core up to now. There was nothing changed. Additionally it is well known that you have not even understood his critique on your set up of preferential frames oof references, the claim that there is a kind of frame more “real ” than others.
“ICH” never said that your strange R-paper is something else than pure pseudoscience caused by deep non-understanding of general relativity.
And now it is your turn to answer the questions asked above.
To bring the questions into this thread:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/the-world-has-forgotten-that-science-is-a-fight#comments
Hansel on October 14, 2011 3:35 am
You say the photon is already redshifted downstairs. So what is happening to the photon durng traveling up? You now that Einstein and others derive the redshift by cnsidering the loss of energy during this way upwards. Conservation of energy and so on.
Nothing makes sense in your “explanations”. Like your argument aboput the mass. I bet you will start to define hundreds of different mass definitions now only to get out of the obvious trouble.
You were taliing about thiniknbg. It is obvious that you have not done this job yourself. Poor Rössler.
You forgot to read what I said. The equation of “Ich’s” is the best gothic-R theorem so far, and its author has accepted that interpretation.
He also opened my mind to the Komar mass. This man is real good.
But I appreciate that you try to contradict Einstein. That is the only way to eventually understand him. You ask the question: But if the photons are of lower frequency downstairs, since all clocks are, what happens with the classical picture of stones (and allegedly photons) losing energy when rising up?
This is a very good question. The fact that you see it puts you wide apart from your cronies whose applause you always sought. You should not have asked that question, they will tell you with a wagging finger: it shows that you have started getting infected by the virus of trying to understand, which they all have given up upon. I say: welcome in the club.
And: I do not know the answer. I only know that if you accept this point, you have accepted Einstein’s main discovery in gravitation (his “happiest thought”). The consequences still wait to be fully understood. I showed that L and M and Ch follow. But there may be much more to which my eyes are still blind. .
But L,M,Ch follow only if you have given up on that stupid (too Newtonian, in the context of relativity) thought of photons having to pay with their energy for being allowed to move up. This potential-type thinking is plain false. It presupposes a schizophrenic thinking in which first, clocks are unchanged downstairs and then found to be changed but without photons being affected. Is this really your opinion still?
It is much easier playing the all-knowing psychologist than responding to a factual statement. But you are improving on average.
By the way: I do not have to answer questions: You have been asked to find a flaw in a presented result. Very strange baby-like attitude on your part which is apparently shared by many.
You could have answered your question yourself. This time I still help you. Next time I shall give up on you. Maybe “Ich” will revive you then if he thinks that my good opinion of you was justified. And please, stop being impolite at last.
Your question: The two protons would most probably not be able to put their whole combined mass into the resulting black hole, only that of two quarks, plus the kinetic energies of the latter. There might be specialists who know more about the rubber-like forces when a quark is being extracted from the rest at a fixed speed (Will gluons participate with their own mass?). So let us take the mass energy of 2/3 of a proton, brought up to 7 TeV. Roughly that of one proton at that energy. That is all regarding the mass of the putative black hole in question. Its charge is of course zero by Telemach.
You will not understand this, of course. But try before you ask.
Rössler, the questions are about your flaws. :D You re the one accusing scientists being mass murderer based on flawed pseudoscience. It is pseudoscience, proved thousands of times not at least by your avoidnce to answewr most simple questions about your “results” and wrong equations. In review processes or safety conferences it is not the reviewer who has to answer questions, its you.
Eq1 is still wrong as you know. And that is only one example.
concerning the protons: lets assume they can create the black hole with the complete mass. or the half of it. The question remain the same: if there is the mass where is the charge so strangely disappearing? Where is the charge gone hen the mass is not vanishing — and exactly this ws your sinmple argument relating mass and charge.
BTW: You have no idead about the mass of the quarkr, isn’t it? :D
There is nothing to understood –the charge vanishes because the mass is vanishing but the mass is strangely still there.
Rössler, you are a great man. Now lets fix up the eq1. In the present form it says exactly the opposite of what is observed and what was derived by Einstein.
Rössler, the questions are about your flaws. :D You re the one accusing scientists being mass murderer based on flawed pseudoscience. It is pseudoscience, proved thousands of times not at least by your avoidnce to answewr most simple questions about your “results” and wrong equations. In review processes or safety conferences it is not the reviewer who has to answer questions, its you.
Eq1 is still wrong as you know. And that is only one example.
concerning the protons: lets assume they can create the black hole with the complete mass. or the half of it. The question remain the same: if there is the mass where is the charge so strangely disappearing? Where is the charge gone hen the mass is not vanishing – and exactly this ws your sinmple argument relating mass and charge.
BTW: You have no idead about the mass of the quarkr, isn’t it? :D
There is nothing to understood –the charge vanishes because the mass is vanishing but the mass is strangely still there.
Rössler, you are a great man. Now lets fix up the eq1. In the present form it says exactly the opposite of what is observed and what was derived by Einstein.
Deleting posts is fun,Otto?
“I made all my predictions quantitative.”
That is a straight lie. Everytime you were asked for quantitative predictions you have responded in a contrary way like above. Talking about outdated arguments (which is false) etc is not the quantitative prediction and explanation Roger asked for.
It is interesting that Rössler seems to be the only scientist in the world who can not explain his “ideas” in an unequivocal way.
It is also interesting that he did not try to find allies in his own faculty although there is still contact to physics professors. This is really inhuman. Perhaps this Prof. Schophol has a wife and kids. Isn’t it cynical not even to ask him for support in this biggest issue of the world?
Returning to anonymous lying instead of using the occasion to think for once. Poor Nicolai.
You are the liar, proved hundreds of times.
Again you are not answering questions about your “theorem”. I should add that this is not unexpeced. :D
I never deleted a post.
There was a question above which I overlooked: “the charge vanishes because the mass is vanishing but the mass is strangely still there.”
The children did not even read Telemach. Only the mass of a locally at rest particle is reduced by the redshift factor compared to above.
A particle coming down from above brings in exactly as much mass energy in the form of kinetic energy as it loses when brought to rest (Birkhoff).
“Where does the charge go?” is a sweet question. The charge certainly reappears when you pull the particle back up on a rope (just as this happens to the strictly charge-proportional Komar mass).
I am glad there was still a bit of science left amongst the punches below the waistline. Is it so annoying if someone tries to retrieve rationality? It will take many years to explain the content of the Telemach paper in this fashion.
But I should not be too critical with the only defenders my poor colleague Nicolai can muster on the planet. This fact puts them way above everyone else. I wish nothing more than that professor Nicolai’s silence could be vindicated.
P.S. Hansi interloped in his hilarious mode. I hope he still reads the above. For everyone acknowledges his reat moral merits as the only defender of CERN’s theory czar.
great
You have still no clue what Komar mass is?
Give a definition. You know, precise, non-prosaic.
And stop citing Birkhoff. That your stuff is not supported by the Birkhoff theorem was proved long ago on the achtphasen blog by a colleague called Hansi.
and no go and read something about gravitatoional time dilation and the connected redshift. You have still much to learn. Stop, perhaps you should start with asking why it is called “theory of relativity”.
Mr. Roessler
“He lost the debating battle with me but does not correct his prior public statements that reflect a state of debate prior to our only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009.”
Cause ya gave no answer on my request from October 13, 2011 3:16 pm, I searched on my own. Found this
“Prof. Hermann Nicolai schrieb am Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:20:38 +0100 (CET)
1. Die oeffentlichen Auslassungen von Herrn Roessler (in Internet Blogs und dergleichen) druecken seine Privatmeinung aus und haben nichts mit dem AEI zu tun.
2. Ein ca. 4-stuendiges Gespraech am AEI fand auf alleinigen Wunsch von Herrn Roessler statt und sollte von unserer Seite lediglich dem Eindruck entgegenwirken, seine Thesen faenden keine Anhoerung bei den Fachleuten. Fuer weitere Diskussionen mit ihm bestehen aus unserer Sicht kein Anlass und kein Bedarf.
3. Es gab kein Seminar von Herrn Roessler am AEI, und es ist auch nicht geplant, ihn in Zukunft zu einem Seminar einzuladen.”
Source: http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/blog/allgemein/otto-e-rossler-entgleisungen-zum-9-november/comment-page-2#comment-7354
Someone’s a liar. Are ya?
GG
Thank you very much, Gary, for the important information which had not reached me before.
I indeed gave a seminar talk — with two professors of the A.E.I. and two guest scientists from CERN, one from Russia, one from France, attending and participating. A fifth previously announced participant, Professor Giulini, was excused with a health problem.
I gave a talk of more than one hour, filling the whole blackboard densely in the process. The debate afterwards was spirited and not hostile – typical Max Planck. The discussion concentrated at the end on my main finding in the Schwarzschild metric, the new unchargedness of black holes. It was predictably remarked that in this case, the famous Einstein-Maxwell equations and the famous Reissner-Nordstrom metric would be false which is correct. Then the usual arguments, backed up by Wald’s still intimidating book “General Relativity” of 1984, were brought forward: that the Gauss-Stokes theorem of classical electrodynamics would be violated in gravitation in this case, which is correct.
I pointed to the new “generic 3-pseudosphere picture” of the Schwarzschild metric which I had developed, and to the infinite distance inside the “trumpet” which it entails. The audience accepted this but declared — correctly — that an infinite length of the field lines does not imply their getting weaker along the way. To this fact I had to agree. So at the end, my main argument — the “charge redshift” (the “Ch” in TeLeMaCh as I since came to call it) — stood on pretty weak legs. My attempts to find a plausible reason for the unchargedness result in my gothic-R paper so did not come to a convincing conclusion that evening. I left quite subdued as the other participants no doubt noticed.
On the way back, and during the night, the solution came to me. The locally imperceptible reduction in the local rest mass (M) proportional to the reduced clock period (T), which had not been questioned since if the local photons are proportionally reduced in their own mass-energy, clearly entails a proportional reduction in charge (Ch). I had remarked on that during the afternoon invoking Einstein’s principle of general covariance, but had missed to put this center stage, as a proof.
This I finally did in the E-mail I sent to Professor Nicolai on the next morning. “Thanks to you I have solved the problem” was the implicit message. Unfortunately I was since never blessed again with an answer or another E-mail by Professor Nicolai. He also has never retracted his false (at that seminar never brought up by him) previous counterarguments against my gothic-R theorem which had been outdated on the day they were made (by “Ich’s” previous 3-D version of the gothic-R theorem in his paper “Entfernungen in der Schwarzschildmetrik” on the Internet). Nevertheless KET and CERN still present these false claims to the public as is well known.
Now I learned from you today, dear Gary, that professor Nicolai refuses to continue oral and written discussions with me so his non-response to my Telemach paper submitted to him reflects a recognizable strategy on his part — refused dialog.
This is science, refused. Non-discussing a fundamental new finding is hard to sell to the world. If this is the message given to the younger generation by the Albert-Einstein-Institute, I wonder if this is in the spirit of Einstein himself.
No scientist to my knowledge denies that, IF my gothic-R theorem (or more simply Telemach) stays un-refuted, CERN (1) has no detectors to discover its own success in producing black holes, and (2) black holes possess radically new properties that vitally call for discussion before the experiment can possibly be continued.
Now that Professor Nicolai has bound his own mouth, another defender of CERN’s regarding the already accumulated dangers if the unchargedness result stays undisproved, is needed. Would Professor George Wald be ready to contradict Telemach in order to remove the growing fears of the world public regarding the luminosity so far accumulated by CERN?
this clearly entails
so the definition of Komar mass is found where in this long text?
And b<y the way you cann not expect that anyone will discuss with you the replacement of a weak argment with an even weaker one (the “explanation” for the vanishing charge).
Mr Roessler
thx for response. Something rests ambiguous. And more.
“I indeed gave a seminar talk – with two professors of the A.E.I. and two guest scientists from CERN, one from Russia, one from France, attending and participating. A fifth previously announced participant, Professor Giulini, was excused with a health problem.
I gave a talk of more than one hour”
Took this place at the same time as
“only verbal discussion that took place in March 2009″ (ya 10/13/2011)
and
“Ein ca. 4-stuendiges Gespraech am AEI ” (source cited 15, 2011 3:55 pm)
What about Nicolai?
“Es gab kein Seminar von Herrn Roessler am AEI, und es ist auch nicht geplant, ihn in Zukunft zu einem Seminar einzuladen.” (source cited 15, 2011 3:55 pm)
Could ya tell us the timetable of ya communication with Nicolai in more detail?
Once more. I repeat my other request
“The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk also never responded although doing so is a professional duty.”
Tell us the name of the journal ya submitted this “theorem” via the desk of Nicolai. So ya admitted
“So at the end, my main argument – the “charge redshift” (the “Ch” in TeLeMaCh as I since came to call it) – stood on pretty weak legs.“
it’s not very convincing ya ever submitted “Telemach” to any journal.
Again. Tell us more. Dates, sources, aims, talks, persons …
GG
Quote: “Could ya tell us the timetable of ya communication with Nicolai in more detail?“
I did — or did I forget to mention that professor Nicolai was the landlord of the 4-hour seminar (whose date etc. he had revealed as you quote: March 2009)
Quote: “The scientific journal to which I submitted the theorem via his desk”:
“Einstein-online”.
Quote: “it’s not very convincing ya ever submitted ‘Telemach’ to any journal“
Now a friendly colleague from a different field with whom I would love to discuss my recently co-authored book “Neoscntience” unexpectedly hitches a knife: Why GG?
Mr. Roessler
what are ya talking about?
“Einstein-online”
It’s not a scientific journal.
“Now a friendly colleague from a different field with whom I would love to discuss my recently co-authored book “Neoscntience” unexpectedly hitches a knife”
What? “Neoscntience”?, “unexpectedly hitches a knife”?
What are ya talking about?
GG
GG:
Do I have to apologize that I love Einstein and that I feel this is a very important outlet ( http://www.einstein-online.info/aboutEO/historyEO ) and that its aims — “The level of presentation of Einstein Online is meant to be somewhat below that of Scientific American” — are worthy of support. Especially if you want to increase the enthusiasm of young people with your new results.
But since you are not versant in the area – if you are the cognitive scientist whom I see in you – I should not be surprised that you have no idea what I am talking about. So if my impression of “ya” being not impartial was misguided, I herewith cordially retract my criticism of your tone. Accepted? My name is Otto
What is the difference between Harold Egbert Camping and the founder of “Neoscntience” (who has a middle name starting with “E.” too)?
You can have more fun only with another Otto: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:OttoWaalkes_7343.JPG&filetimestamp=20100727114709
My name is
Pinky
It is obvious that Rössler is not veery versant in the area.
His use of terms like Komar mass etc are straight leading to this convlusion.
By the way, Einstein Online is of course still no scientific journal.
http://www.achtphasen.net/miniblackhole/Ich/Schwarzschild.pdf
BTW, Otto, “ICh” wrote clearly that your gothic R is not equivalent to the Schwarzschild-Metric:
“diese
geänderte Metrik ist nunmal nicht die Schwarzschildmetrik, sie erfüllt nicht die
Feldgleichungen, und hat auch sonst nichts mit der Wirklichkeit zu tun.”
“this changed metric is not the schwarzschild metric, it is not solving the field equations (Einstein-equation) and has nothing to do with reality”.
So in fact “ICH” was proving your gothic R-theorem wrong. In the following he shows a way to achieve a constant coordination speed of light, but this has nothing to do with the original gothic R-theorem.
“Wir dürfen nur nicht gleichzeitig diese physikalisch völlig unbegründetete
Identifikation von dℜ mit ds fordern.”
“We are not allowed to postulate the physically unfounded identity of dR with ds”
And so on. The result has nothing to do with your original claims in the gothic R-paper, which was not changed in the presented mathematics. So Nicolais ciritque is still valid as the “published” R-theorem paper is unchanged. Furthermore to present the user “ICH” als a supporter is a straight lie.
To make it shorter: “ICH” has not delivered a 3D-version of the R, he has first disproved the R and the underlying interpretations.
But even for the then presented way of writing the metric in order to achieve a constant speed of light he repeated the critique of Nicolai et al about this way of redefinition of the metric :
“Hier haben wir nun konstante Koordinatenlichtgeschwindigkeit für radiale Lichtstrahlen,
zum Preis einer nicht ordentlich berechenbaren Funktion W. Der Koordinatenabstand
ℜ zum Ereignishorizont ist nun unendlich, das ist aber ohne
physikalische Bedeutung.”
So this wys of writing has no physical meaning and it is not even useful because of this undefined W-function. So, Rössler, it is clear that you are lying — or you have not even understood what “ICH” tried to say.
Hi Otto
“Accepted? My name is Otto”
Call me Gary.
“What? “Neoscntience”?
What are ya talking about?”
I tried on my own. Did ya talking bout “Neosentience”, that ya developed with Bill Seaman some years ago? Looks like there’s something forthcoming. Wanna tell us more bout this project?
GG
Dear Gary:
The book has appeared with University of Chicago Press and Intellect.
Ah, Rössler, writing more bullshit in a new post instead of answering urgent questions?
How unexpected :D
Where is an urgent question?
Don#t be silly, you know exactly what we mean when talking about open questions.
It is your usual strategy to ignore all objections against your “theorems” and write new postings telling the world there had been never anything like that.
You are a crackpot and a liar. And it is obvious that you do not care a shit about the planet. In that case you would try everything which included talking to your contacts in your own faculty. But apparently the planet is not that at risk, isn’t it? :D
Is there not a single serious voice anywhere in the scientific community?
BTW the theories predicting small black holes (if one can talk of real theories in this case) are also predicting certain pathways for the decay of this particles.
If you are talking about new black holes with different properties you have to develop a complete theory describing their formation and so on. Of course you have nothing like that. One of my last questions was targeting exactly this point. It was revealed by your insufficient answer that you can not even describe the formation of this uncharged hole within your own “model”. Thats rather poor when on the other side you are accusing scientists to be massmurderers.
You have heard the opinion of real experts in the filed about your stuff already. It is irrelevant whether you are accepting that or not. But it is clearly scientific misbehavior to tell the world there had been no objection against you. That is a straight lie.
Perhaps your university should check if you are worthy to hold your titles any longer.
I should add that if you really wanted to be heard in the scientific community an more appropriate way would have been to talk with your colleagues, e.g. the mentioned prof Schopohl. This would have been much better than wirting nonsensical posts on this blog where you can impress only stupid guys like Houston who have even less abilities in math than you.
Why is there no answer to my request to be falsified?
Because you are already falsified. Was done years ago.
But no you have changed your strategy — you formulate diffuse enough to be not-falsifiable. Your silly behavior in the discussion about defintions of your T and similar discusssions on other blogs are proving this competely.
BTW, above you were asked about the defintion of the komar mass and how it is connected exactly to your “theorem”. Exact definitions.
Of course you have not answered this and no one can expect that you will do so in a proper scientific way.
And in this context you are talking about falsifications. ROFL:
Sad, sadder, maximally sad:
Where is the counterprooof to Cook’s and mine results?
There is no result. The counterproof was given years ago when it was clearly shown that your understanding of relativity and your results are pure nonsense. I have cited a few comments given by the user ICH above.
I am still waiting for the defintion of the Komar mass in the conteyxt of your theory.
Older comments Otto wants to forget can be found here:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/professor-hermann-nicolai-singlehandedly-guarantees-the-planet%e2%80%99s-survival/comment-page-1#comments
Thank you.
Otto, Komar mass?
another citation of Solkars excellent summary:
The whole October 13th post of Roessler, including his comments, is a dunghill of bunt lies by Roessler.
- Prof Nicolai did NOT lose that debate with Roessler; in fact he shred his ℜ to pieces
- “User ICH” did not “reformulate” Roesslers ℜ-theorem, he showed that Roesslers dℜ is NOT a substitute for the usual radial element of the Schwarzschild metric.
With utmost goodwill, it yields a new, highly unpractical (“Lambert-W” function) chart of teh Schwarzschild metric.
New charts to old metrics can, however, NEVER yield new physics — that’s due to tensorial formulation of GR.
- From the answer to a question I had directed to Prof Nicolai some time ago concerning that mysterious “2009 talk” one can get that Rössler did NOT give a “seminar talk” at the German Albert Einstein Institute on that occasion
Citation:
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/otto-wields-banhammer.html?showComment=1319045640452#c8081928206159761707
Otto E. Rössler on October 14, 2011 1:36 pm
You forgot to read what I said. The equation of “Ich’s” is the best gothic-R theorem so far, and its author has accepted that interpretation.
User Ich has confirmed the above mentioned statement that ou are lying here again:
Naja, auf die relative Sinnfreiheit der Gleichung habe ich schon im Paper verwiesen. Dass ich die Interpretation aktzeptiert hätte ist auch nicht wahr, da müsste ich mich wohl nochmal mit ihm unterhalten. Danke für die Info.
http://www.quantenforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=254&p=2624#p2624
Rössler, there is no contradiction of the objections against your R.theorem. not a single one. Nicolai et al is still valid.
Child soldiers — the last weapon of CERN’s: Shooting with lies and hate blogs.
Nicolai still hides his face in shame. It is a tragedy. No journalist dares approach him.
Blabla. The facts are against you. And so far you have not delivered a single hint that you are even a scientist.