All 4 busy killing the future, none of them helping to understand and to implement the human right to be spared cruelty and be given Lampsacus (hometown of all persons on the Internet).
Will Egypt help me save the planet?
Stupi-CERN, Stupi-Europe, Stupi-Netanjahu, Stupi-Ahmadinejad
Posted in existential risks, particle physics
My heart is bumping.
You forgot Stup-Roessler!
No objections — that is why I need your help.
Egypt? Your crackpotfriend El Naschie?
LOL!
Professor Dr. ElNaschie like me belongs to the Carl-Friedrich von Weizsäcker school in physics. We both were strongly influenced by our friends John Archibald Wheeler and Benoit Mandelbrot. We both learned from Einstein that only a physics that tries to think from the perspective of the creator is up to its vocation. I am proud to be his friend.
It would be wonderful if people spent more time on science, art and beauty and far less time on gossip, ugliness and defamation. If you want to know about Otto Rossler or Mohamed El Naschie you should go and read their work published in scientific journals. You can agree or disagree but in a scientific way. More important than the scientific way is to be human. It is important to have love in your heart, not hatred and envy. Mohamed El Naschie’s latest work is quite a breakthrough in understanding entanglement. Entanglement is a consequence of a zero measure Cantor set. An uncountably infinitely many points which are separated by nothing are essentially one point. However they are uncountably infinitely many points. That is the miracle of a Cantor set. At the same time is the explanation of quantum entanglement. El Naschie’s paper is published at http://www.scirp.org/journal/jqis/.
My own explanation of nonlocality is different, invoking the transfinitely exact nature of classical particle indistinguishability and the exact attachment of consciousness to specific subcellular structures or their electrons in specific cells in the brain (similarly as Roger Penrose). But ElNaschie’s theory could again support this from below.
What fine examples of meaningless buzzword collections. :D
I think I’m done with this blog for the time being. It’s turned into a soapbox for ranting, instead of the place for reasoned discussion it once was.
Yes. I apologize for the political overtones — ideology, as always in politics.
My excuse is (perhaps) that I was brought up as a medical doctor, so “nil nocere” is still an ethical must for me. But that is my only excuse. I try not to involve my relatives and students. Take care.
“WE” order you, Rössler, in the name of Augustin Louis Cauchy to stop talking about maths because you have forfeited the right to do so!
It is a tragedy to see young persons in well-paid positions replace thinking by dogmatism. A symbol of Europe.
Dogmatism is your position, not ours. To ask questions about your stuff instead of blind believing it as you seem to prefer, is critical thinking in its purest form.
Your avoidance to make any effort to answer them in a precise and clear style is pure dogmatism. To expect that everyone should believe youor “theses” on the base of your prosaic and vague bullshit is dogmatic thinking, almost the thinking of a religious leader, but not that of a scientist.
You asked questions, but you never understood when they were answered. Please, be so kind to put your disbelief into a theorem, that is, a counterargument that can be refuted. This is called science.
Rössler, the people here are not that stupid. you have never answered any questions in a proper way. probabilities, terms like Komar mass, defintions of variables, obvious implications like black holes without mass and so on — there was never a serious answer.
And by the way, at least half of the questions were about when YOU will put your “results” in a real theorem so that it would be falsifiable. For example, to change the definitions of variables in equations from question to question like you were doing is certainly not scientific. It is more the style of a crank immunizing himself against critical questions and falsification.
You are definitely the last person to teach anyone what science is, Rössler.
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/tubingen-held-two-nazi-dissidents-tubingen-holds-one-of-two-cern-dissidents#comments
Perhaps you will explain the world why your only answer to the mathematical proof given by TRMG that your equation 1 in telesomething was wrong because it leads to utterly wrong results was “thats wrong” instead of giving a reason for this statement.
That was poor, Otto. There is the counterproof in a clear mathematical form and you have nothing to say about it?
Quite apart from Hansel’s amusingly cheeky thrusts and parries, which are as often non-specific as Rossler’s, let’s note, I would think that the distinguished Professor Rossler could now answer his basic complaint, that TRMG’s fastening on Professor Rossler’s Equation 1, and apparent demonstration that it should be Td=Tu /(1-z) and not Td=Tu (1-z), shows that his (Rossler’s) entire Telemach theorem is ill founded, and thus his conCERN is misplaced.
Surely, Professor, if this is mistaken, as Robert Houston has argued, you can show us why, and what the correct interpretation of your terms is?
If you do so, would this not geometrically increase the respect with which you are treated on this blog series, and allow Hansel to put aside his admittedly very amusing schoolboy taunts and treat you and your case for conCERN with the respect you feel it urgently deserves?
Sorry I meant “this complaint”, not “his complaint”, since here it is EQ that makes it (though EQ may only be Hansel under another name, as Houston has pointed out).
By the way, is there any other reference to back up the calumny that Professor Rossler is pestering physicists through their secretaries etc?
He has shown no sign of impolitesse on Lifeboat. Rather, it is his opponents who have been rude.
Dear Anthony:
this is a war of words, not insights. What the parties misled into this nonsensical dispute cannot fathom is that two otherwise equal clocks of differing ticking rates can stand beside each other peacefully. Each*s action can be described in terms of the other’s, and there are a thousand possible ways to descrie this in words.
In spite of the language-borne seeming contradictions, everything is clear to the two specimens themselves.
I chose a certain way of describing this which is consistent. Others my prefer other ways. But the facts are simply those seen by Einstein.
It is very strange that Einstein can cause so much non-understanding even to date. My suspicion that the presented disinformation is dishonest since the protagonist(s) refuses to agree to a personal discussion, is still alive.
Anthony, Rössler is not as polite as he is appearing here. He is lucky that most people here are not able to read and understand the german newspaper articles and so on about his bullshit in the past which was not that different to today. In the past he was accusing the university as being nazis, was walking around with the yellow “jew-star” as it was introduced for the jews in nazi-germany and so on. He was even getting rough against the lecturer who should give the lectures he refused to held in the lecture room. You can ask people in Tübingen at the university and so on, they can give you an endless list about the behavior of “polite Rössler”.
BTW, about the lecture: Rössler declared himself unable to give an introductory chemistry lecture for students of medicine being a “professor for theoretical biochemistry” and educated as a medical doctor. That sounds strange, isn’t it? He was not able to put together a little textbook-chapters for the basic course but today he claims himself to be an expert about much more complicated stuff like general relativity. Actually the conclusion of real experts in this field is clear: the papers are flawed, without basic understanding of the theory and the quantities. Additional he was never able to give substantial answers to this critics. Vague and almost completely non-defined “papers” like Telemach are not an answer to a precise formulated critique. Especially Telemach is a good example for a crackpot paper, even if written in a most simplified style there are many obvious flaws like these nondefined quantities and so on. Every real scientist would have been able to answer the questions long ago. Rössler obviously do not want to answer or, even with a higher probability, he can not answer.
It is interesting that no one of this great critical thinker here was ever thinking at least a bit critical about Rössler when there are so many obvious inconsistencies.
“German lies.”
But suppose I were as evil in my character as this is the only hope of German physicists: would that really warrant refusing to disprove my arguments which if correct can save the world?
I have told no lies –you did so more than one time.
You were not able to answer any question so far. The safety conference is over no. You have lost any debate as far as you have participated. In fact most of the time there was not a single word on at least a basic scientific level from you.
You have nevre answered the critique in a proper way. Telesomething is even worse than the already cranky paper about the R before. both are disproved.
The proof that your equation leads to utterly wrong results is there. Xou have not even start to bring a counterargument. Instead you repeat the same bullshit again. That is not scientific. But it fits into the picture of a scientific impostor who is plaing the game for a long time, paid by german tax money. A professor of chemistry who could not give a basic course for medical students but wants at the same time to be an expert in one of the most difficult fields of science. Everyone should have been suspicious at this point. Apparently in relativity Rössler is even worse than in chemisry as his non-asnwers concerning terms like Komar mass etc have shown clearly.
Hate instead of an answer from Germany. I provoked it by using the word Stupi above.
I apologize deeply that I did not find the right words so far with respect to this young man and with respect to CERN.
Oh, you are not worth to be hated, Rössler. :D
It is proven that you have no result. Telesomething is not even a paper, it is pure crap containing wrong equations (proven by TRMG and others) non-sequiturs like the “charge-vanishing” and so on. You have not even understood the criticism and arguments of TRMG concerning the clocks. You apparently do not know what a physical quantity is. Its an endless list.
I am a stupid child.
But please, be so kind as to give a counter-theorem, ot tell the world where there is one to find or who has one so one can ask him or her about it.
The world agrees with me that this will make you famous. For nothing else is needed to give a whole planet its futrure back — a future without fear.
Again you start the same silly games.
The link is above. You know exactly hthe discussions and debates you lost on this and other blogs.
after reading your last comment about the clocks above I am sure that you have not even understood TRMGs line of reasoning which would be poor for a self-declared expert in relativity or physics.
I am absolutely sure that you will never give an sufficient answer to this objections as you prefer the crackpost style of repeating the same stuff again and again trying to bury the objections under the spam of your repetitions.
“The world agrees with me that this will make you famous. ”
Cklear indication of megalomania. You really believe to be involved in some kind of public battle in front of a breathtaking world?
BTW, you were wrong. The danger is actually at 5,67%.
I know that TRMG has no line of reasoning. He does not know what a theorem is and what saying something falsifiable is. He refuses dialog as you do.
The worst thing is cowardice. Not showing one’s name after having been asked to do so disqualifies one as a scientist. Just like hiding after having been disproved with one’s false counterclaims, as my colleagues Nicolai and ‘t Hooft do whom you are defending and who might be connected with the people paying you.
You are a hero in a sense albeit on the wrong side. I have pity with you. Defending an attempt to kill the planet out of blind belief that what one is doing is a holy business since one is on the right side makes one a little “Himmler-Heuer.” (You know he is happy with publicly being called “worse than Hitler” – incredibile dictu.) You and your cronies at DESY are the only ones who defend him and his stance to disallow quoting me or talking with me or having me give a talk at CERN – presumably being paid from the same payroll yourself.
All of these accusations and fears of mine are, of course, conditional as all my readers know: as long as the public reproach of “fearing a scientific safety conference more than committing panbiocide” is not contradicted by the 4 people named above. Or else as long as no one on the planet was able to disprove TLMCh (which I always thought would be easier to do but am coming to doubt more and more). You or your named bosses can do it right here if strong enough. Please, do so if you can, or any one else can. Formulating a theorem takes only a few lines. This is holy ground to tread on if the best minds on the planet including Robert M. Wald are showing too much respect to do so.
You represent the establishment of the planet. In this sense I owe you respect. Apart from the fact that every person in the universe owes infinite respect. So please, forgive me if I unwittingly overstepped the threshold to having shown cruelty towards you which can always happen unintentionally between persons. I take back everything that goes beyond that threshold. And renew my offer to talk to you.
TRMG know better what a theorem is than you. In fact all people know it better because only aperson without that special knowledge could name telesimething a “theorem”.
In fact your style of ever changing variable defintions and so on is a very good example how to formulate something that is in principle not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. Nice try, Rössler, but the truth is obviously totally different. You are the one avoiding any hard and precise formulation to become falsifiable while TRMG has shown in a clear mathematical and therefore falsifiable way your equation and interpretation wrong (and your non-understanding of physics or physcial theories). Up to now you were not able to give at least a good reason why TRMGs proof should be wrong — only to say so is certainly not a counterproof (for true believers among your followers perhaps, but not for critical thinkers).
BTW, there will be never a private phone talk between you and anyone else here. On the one hand no one wants to give you a phone number for obvious reasons (if someone wants to know he can ask secretaries of Nicolai and other physicists). On the other hand a phone call is never public. Here on the internet we have transparency, everyone can see you fail in aswer simple questions about terms of your own “theorem”. It is obvious why you want to change always from public to private discussions when it could not be hidden any longer that you can not answer anything.
nice try, Otto.
I know that TRMG has no line of reasoning.
Prove it. Do not forget, science is about facts, not words. To say TRMG has no line of reasoning although he has one as it could be seen easily, is weak. You have to show it.
You say TRGM has a theorem. Please, ask him to give it. Or — if I overlooked it — be so kind as to repeat it here.
TRMG has shown that your simple equations are wrong. You know where you can find it. I have given ou the link several times and it is not long ago that you were writing comments there.
If you can not show why TRMGs reductio ad absurdum of your indeed absurd interpretations should be wrong, you are finished. Game over, Ottolein.
Only to say “he is wrong” is not enough. Science is about facts and proofs. It is time that you learn that, old man.
Otto E. Rössler on November 9, 2011 8:55 am wrote:
Dear Anthony:
this is a war of words, not insights. What the parties misled into this nonsensical dispute cannot fathom is that two otherwise equal clocks of differing ticking rates can stand beside each other peacefully. Each’s action can be described in terms of the other’s, and there are a thousand possible ways to describe this in words.
AL now: Greetings Professor. Can you explain a little more what this means — “two otherwise equal clocks of differing ticking rates can stand beside each other peacefully”? The two clocks concerned are the upper clock and the lower clock in the rocket, and they are ticking off time at different rates relative to each other, right? How then are they standing beside each other?
They are separated by a certain distance, are they not, and this is what determines the rate at which they differ, since their relative ticking is governed by the distance they are separated, since their position in regard to the gravitational field they are in differs, yes?
So they are not standing beside each other peacefully, are they? At least not beside each other in space. Perhaps you mean in contemplation, in our minds?
AL now cont: Then you say “Each’s action can be described in terms of the other’s, and there are a thousand possible ways to describe this in words.” Can you be more specific on what this means? The time which is ticked off by one clock, say the upper one, has a fixed relation to the time ticked off by the lower one, which is less, doesn’t it?
AL now cont: The clock down ticks off fewer hours than the other upper oclock as they tick along, right? The differing rates are determined by their different positions in regard to the gravitational field in which the rocket is accelerating, yes?
AL now cont: Now this relation between the clock times is what you described not in words but in your Equation (1), isn’t that right?
AL now cont: Isn’t the point that it is not so much a variety of changeable words which can describe this relation effectively, it is best described perfectly in an equation, in this case, you have decsribed it in your Equation (1)? Words can be used in many different ways but equations fix things nicely in a way which cannot be misunderstood.
AL now cont: Your version of the Equation 1 was td=tu*(1-z), I believe. But this equation is a statement that td is larger than tu, so it is saying that the time ticked off in the upper clock tu is shorter than the time ticked off in the lower clock. But the opposite is true, you have said, and your questioners here have agreed. Tu is bigger than Td. It is the time of the upper clock tu which is longer than the time ticked off downstairs.
AL now cont: So the form of the Equation (1) should be td=tu/(1-z), no?
AL now cont: This is the question which I am asking, which you don’t yet answer. Would you answer it? Is the answer Yes or No?
Otto E. Rössler on November 9, 2011 8:55 am cont: In spite of the language-borne seeming contradictions, everything is clear to the two specimens themselves.
AL now cont: OK words can differ, but the above is a matter of an algebraic equation, which can’t be misunderstood as words are, and is not malleable, as words are.
AL now cont:: So can you answer the question: Should you Equation (1) be inverted, to suit your statement, earlier, which agrees with Einstein, and your opponents here, that Tu is bigger than Td. Did you write your equation incorrectly? If it is correct to write the inverse, td=tu/(1-z), does this spoil your Telemach theorem which tells us that mBHs — microBlackHoles — are going to stay around and not evaporate and then may well swallow the Earth in a time from immediately to 85 years or whatever?
AL now cont: Can your Telemach theorem survive this correction or should it be reworked?
Otto E. Rössler on November 9, 2011 8:55 am cont: I chose a certain way of describing this which is consistent. Others may prefer other ways. But the facts are simply those seen by Einstein.
AL now cont: OK but is the Equation (1) you wrote, wrong, and should it be revised, and does this spoil your Telemach theorem? If not why not?
Otto E. Rössler on November 9, 2011 8:55 am cont: It is very strange that Einstein can cause so much non-understanding even to date. My suspicion that the presented disinformation is dishonest since the protagonist(s) refuses to agree to a personal discussion, is still alive.
AL now cont: But in this case your critics have said that your Equation (1) is wrong, and they are waiting for your answer. Where is the non-understanding? Do you object to their statement that your Equation (1) is backwards, and if so, what is your objection?
AL now cont: If you dont object, what is your answer? Do you agree to rewriting it in the inverse form of td=tu/ (1-z)?
AL now cont: If so, how does this affect your Telemach theorem?
AL now cont: This question has been asked since it was clearly formulated by EQ at PassingByAgain on July 19, 2011 7:04 am in the post thread at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-gag-the-korean-two-fingers-gang/comment-page-1
at Page 9 of Lifebloat Blog Series,
and earlier by TRMG on July 7, 2011 7:10 am at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern-by-not-updating-its-three-years-old-safety-page-compromises-the-quoted-scientists/comment-page-1 where he replied to a defense by Robert Houston (comments then continued for 290 Comments total)
after earlier posting at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern
(that’s on Page 10 of the Lifeboat Blog Series at present)
where you wrote that
“Einstein first found out — as described — that
T_tail = T_tip *(1+z), (1)” as in
“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]“
and TRMG replied that
“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.
to which you replied
“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.“
and
“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?“
and
“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“
to which TRMG replied
“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)”.
to which you (Rossler) replied
“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.“
to which TRMG replied
“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.“
to which you replied
“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.”
After that the discussion degenerated onto generalities.
Can you now make a specific statement as to how your Equation (1) is to be interpreted in regard to the meaning of its terms so that it is equivalent to Einstein’s Eq (30)? And satisfies TRMG’s objection to it?
After all, that point was first made on May 29.
Is it possible that you agree with Robert Houston’s explanation, which stated that the terms in the equation referred to the relation between the duration of the units of time downstairs and the (smaller) units of time upstairs? Not the time shown on the two clocks, which doesn’t fit the equation, but the units enlarged or smaller, which does?
And if TRMG continues to insist this is not the way relativity works, can you correct his understanding, so that it fits Houston/Rossler/Einstein?
on what he came to call “Rössler’s elementary mistake regarding gravitational time dilation in his “telemach theorem” on
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/06/five-fateful-coincidences/comment-page-1.
and later at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern-by-not-updating-its-three-years-old-safety-page-compromises-the-quoted-scientists
Lifeboat strikes again — the last three lines were meant to be inserted earlier after
“http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern-by-not-updating-its-th.….ent-page-1 where he replied to a defense by Robert Houston (comments then continued for 290 Comments total)”
I was just noting where TRMG had made this point repeatedly. Its displacement doesnt make any difference to what is laid out above.
Quote from AnthonL: “AL now cont: Your version of the Equation 1 was td=tu*(1-z), I believe. But this equation is a statement that td is larger than tu, so it is saying that the time ticked off in the upper clock tu is shorter than the time ticked off in the lower clock.
This is correct.
Quote continued: “But the opposite is true, you have said, and your questioners here have agreed. Tu is bigger than Td. It is the time of the upper clock tu which is longer than the time ticked off downstairs.”
This is also correct. Only there is no contradiction. The sum time elapsed upstairs “during the same time” as time got elapsed downstairs, is larger.
The secret: This is a war of words – pure disinformation for poor lay people that was waged here. There was never any disagreement between me and Einstein. This is pure sand poured into the eyes of the viewers of this blog by MALEVOLENT IDIOTS. (If they apologize or at least reveal their names, I take these two words back.)
“during the same time”
Absolute time, this is not relativity theory. perhaps you should learn what the word “relativity” means. And then please learn the meaning of physical quantity and how they are used in phsysical equations. You are apparently not very familiar with this concept.
However, TRMG has shown that your interpretation, your private theory is wrong. You never replied to that.
Disinformation is indeed done by you as you always try to delude people by meaningless blabla about non-thinking CERN-people, the genius thinking always in non-mathematical ways and so on. You never replied scientifically to the precise proofs that indeed there is a disagreement between you and Einstein.
May I remember you that calling people “malevolent idiots” instead of answering the objections in a clear and unambiguous way is neither scientific nor polite. It is in fact your capitulation.
BTW, can you now define the T exactly, Otto? or will you again avoid this serious question?
Imagine the safety conference. otto will be asked exactly this question and his answer will be to call the asking person a “malevolent idiot”. Really, otto, well done :D
No, no one will ask me whether the unspeakable is true that Einstein was right with his happiest thought. It is little Hansel and his fellow anonymous dwarfs who play this game of cat and mouse with allegedly stupid alleged lay persons.
As the equation is obviously not in agreement with the prdictions of general relativity and nature you will be asked this.
In fact you were already asked.
But it is interesting to see that you, instead of giving the precise statement disproving the “malevolent idiots”, are only producing meaningless blabla about stupid people and so on. There is not a single scientific statement from you
Apologies for writing –z instead of +z in Equation (1) both versions above, and again for transposing three lines to the end of my last megapost, but I am glad to see that neither slip was important enough to prevent Professor Rossler from responding with a breakthrough clarification which seems to deal effectively with the issue raised by TRMG Hansel EQ etc
This is his reply:
Otto E. Rossler on November 11, 2011 2:31 am
Quote from AnthonL: “AL now cont: Your version of the Equation 1 was td=tu*(1+z), I believe. But this equation is a statement that td is larger than tu, so it is saying that the time ticked off in the upper clock tu is shorter than the time ticked off in the lower clock.
This is correct.
Quote continued: “But the opposite is true, you have said, and your questioners here have agreed. Tu is bigger than Td. It is the time of the upper clock tu which is longer than the time ticked off downstairs.”
This is also correct. Only there is no contradiction. The sum time elapsed upstairs “during the same time” as time got elapsed downstairs, is larger.
The secret: This is a war of words – pure disinformation for poor lay people that was waged here. There was never any disagreement between me and Einstein.
AnthonyL now:
Thank you for this interesting clarification Professor, which certain helps us to understand your position on the meaning of your Equation (1), which TRMG and other critics suggested was the reverse of what you should have written.
So you are saying that the Equation is correct, and its inverse is correct also. It depends on what the terms means.
Td=Tu*(1+z) is correct if the T’s refer to the duration of the units of time ticked off by the clocks down in the tail of the rocket (larger) and up in the tip of the rocket.
Td=Tu/(1+z) is correct if the Ts refer to the time elapsed on each clock, since T_tip is larger than T_tail in that case.
So in the first case your Equation (1) is correctly formulated in in the second case TRMG is correct asking you to rewrite it.
The only sticking point in the way of absolute agreement appears to be that TRMG says your first way of writing the Equation (1) is not allowed because the units of time clocked are the same in both places, since a cesium atomic clock (which now defines seconds) is not affected by gravity.
You earlier replied to this objection by saying that you never said that “locally anything changes in the clock rate. The clock intervals enlargement “downstairs” compared to “upstairs” is a result Einstein found, not me.”
TRMG said no, you were repeating your “error”, since the intervals measured by the lower clock are ****smaller**** not larger compared to the clock above. That is why the lower twin stays younger.
You replied that “of course the individual intervals are larger lower down. That is why a shorter time there is worth a larger time upstairs. This is called redshift.”
The way I make sense of all this is that the clocks on both places run at the same rate, but the periods they tick off downstairs are “stretched” longer by relativity than the ones upstairs, so the clocks tick off fewer hours downstairs than upstairs.
So if you want to know how many hours elapse downstairs relative to hours elapsed upstairs, you use td=tu/(1-z) as TRMG wanted.
And if you want to know how much the individual downstairs hours are longer and thus fewer than the hours upstairs you use td=tu(1+z) as your Equation (1) has it.
This is what you mean by “language borne seeming contradictions” or “war of words” as you put it? That you had a different definition of the terms in the equation? Fair enough.
It certainly does seem that TRMG’s use of the word “interval” in his phrase “since the intervals measured by the lower clock are ****smaller**** not larger compared to the clock above. That is why the lower twin stays younger.” has a different meaning of the word “interval” than you mean when you refer to “The clock intervals enlargement “downstairs” compared to “upstairs” is a result Einstein found, not me.”
We have two very distinct and different meanings to the word “intervals”.
TRMG means interval=total time elapsed on a clock after many ticks, and you mean interval=length of time ticked off by a clock in one tick.
You surely have to admit, Professor, that this whole field of time dilation is bound to give rise to misunderstanding unless all terms are defined very rigorously.
Despite the impolite if not downright rude attitudes of some of your critics and questioners here on this blog, surely some of their “idiocy” must arise from this source, rather than malevolence.
On the other hand, it does seem to be reasonable to feel as you do that their anonymity betokens a desire on their part to be disagreeable from the start.
Anyhow I personally feel that you have answered their objections with your comment above, and that in your formulation TRMG should accept your view of time intervals as being longer to count downstairs owing to the effects of relativity in relation both to the different spatial positions of the astronauts (up and down, tip and tail) and to their different position relative to the gravitational field the rocket is escaping.
Perhaps TRMG will still object that atomic clocks don’t stretch their ticks in response to gravity but the fact that the time intervals counted downstairs are ticked off more slowly can’t be in dispute, so they must in effect be “longer” relative to the intervals in the tip.
But I have nothing but admiration for anyone who has mastered the various paradoxes of time dilation sufficiently to be versatile in thinking conceptually about bigger problems such as black holes of which this effect is only a part of the whole conception.
But then I am staggered by the fact that time dilation last year was observed using optical atomic clocks at speeds of less than 10 meters a second and with respect to gravity at the Earth’s surface at a height difference of only one meter!
Zowie.
Important quote early on: “since a cesium atomic clock (which now defines seconds) is not affected by gravity.”
This is physical nonsense. This is the opposite of the (also measured) truth. Professor Nicolai and the other professional bystanders will be most grateful for my making this remark.
Rössler has evidently never understood the meaning of a physical quantity and units of measurement.
To make it short: the excellent explanations and the disproof of Rösslers bullshit given by TRMG can be found here:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/tubingen-held-two-nazi-dissidents-tubingen-holds-one-of-two-cern-dissidents/comment-page-2#comment-94630
(Rössler never replied to the stuff seriously in a scientific manner. His answers were “that is wrong” or “he cannot hink” , without any explanation. His answers are obviously not on the same level as TRMGs.)
I have to admit that I forgot whether it was TRGM or Hansel or Hansell who said somewhere above — maybe after this last-quoted post — that what he had said he had not been meant seriously.
So it is perhaps not so bad that the above link does not lead to the alleged text.
Look at the postings of TRMG from the 25th and 27th of October there. Probably you have not understood that the rductio ad absurdum of your own interpretaion and equation was meant very seriously.
Of course you try to hide the clear disproof of your “equations” instead of answering to it.
Rossler said: mportant quote early on: “since a cesium atomic clock (which now defines seconds) is not affected by gravity.”
This is physical nonsense. This is the opposite of the (also measured) truth.
Aha, so the cesium clock is affected by gravity, and perhaps by relative speed and/or acceleration too, or not?
Can you clarify?
This seems to be a very big flub on the part of your opponents here, if so.
The second sentence above is Rossler’s too.
no, there is no “flub”. On the other hand it is really Rössler who tries to pour sand in the eyes of other people by using this kind of statement without any further explanation, by using buzzwords without knowing their real meaning (e.g. the Komar mass) and so on. It is not surprising that there is never an answer when he is asked for further explanations.
Thank you Anthony: You have come to the pivot.
These German physics kids with their teachers have no idea what Einstein discovered and the G.P.S. is measuring. I hope this does not throw too bad a light on German science.
No real physicist in his right mind would claim that earth-bound clocks are not slower than higher-up ones. (Hansel fell prey to the dishonesty of TRMG.)
Rössler, answer the questions.…and of course you have to answer to the proof TRMG gave and that both of you have apparently not understood. And again you, Rössler, are fighting against strawmen. The point is that your equation says exactly the opposite of Einsteins equation.
tdown=tup/1+z) was never denied by us but by YOU in your “paper”. Up to now you are never able to give a defintion of the variables and the connection of your equation to Einsteins precisely. You are the one no understanding relativity and the explanations why your euqation together with your explanations are directly leading to tup=tdown as TRMG has shown. Therefore it would be interesting to see your detailed comment on his posting from the 27th or 25th of October in the link I gave here yesterday.
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/stupi-cern-stupi-europe-stupi-netanjahu-stupi-ahmadinejad/comment-page-1#comments
Link to the first page
Apparently both Hansel and TRGM do stick to the claim that the clocks fownstairs are not slowed-down. Presumably so does the Albert-Einstein-Institut and DESY and CERN’s director Heuer.
I herewith ask the two institutions officially whether they indeed stick to this heresy, which could explain why they jointly proceeded with an experiment that relied on Einstein being wrong from the beginning.
Apparently you have not understood what TRMG and I are saying.
Apparently you are trying to avoid again any answer to TRMGs proof (what is in fact a condensed mathematical version of the arguments brought by many other users before) by using strawmen-arguments.
Apparently you do not want to discuss on a scientific level.
C’mon, baby.
Push TRGM back to the table where he can defend his claim that the G.P.S. is wrong. Or tell the world in his name that he does not bear with you.
Rössler, it will not work to declare us wrong while it is clearly visible that it is your equation what is wrong, not in agreement with Einstein and nature.
It is obvious what you want here. You are declaring your position as the only correct one “EX CATHEDRA” and therefore we, although that is clearly not the case, must be wrong. You do this for two obvious reasons: the speculation that at one point the other side will leave the discussion because of the ridiculousness of this way of discussing. The second reason of course is the permanent avoidance ti give the answers to serious questions on the table for months now.
To sum up, that is not scientific.
I forgot: answer the questions. Nothing else matters now
To state it shortly: of course it was not TRMG claiming GPS being wrong. In fact TRMG was demonstrating the wrong results of Rösslers interpretations.
Rössler was not able to counter this proof up to now but is quite creative in inventing new reasons to avoid this answering.
Poor baby. Poor TRGM. Pity for the good money paid by CERN or an allied institution for the lying squad. Both you and TRGM claimed clocks downstairs are not slowes. As far as I know, the G.P.S. uses data that imply the opposite.
What does professor Nicolai say? Or professor ‘t Hooft? Please, do speak up, my dear colleagues.
sloweD — I apologize.
Rössler, answer the questions. Meaningless blabla about Nicolai etc is not a scientific counter-argument to TRMGs derivation, it is not an answer to the still open questions.
I and TRMG say: tdown=tup/(1+z) Thats clearly Einstein and clearly nature in contrast to your equation.
If you want to say that this equation is wrong, your are disproving yourself. Thank you.
Hansel, what are we to conclude? That cesium clocks tick tock without regard to relative speed, acceleration or gravitational field?
If so, do you have a reference for that? Even Wiki will do.
Meanwhile, you are claiming that Rossler has made a statement that is flat out wrong?
Or does he mean to define terms differently from your distinguished self?
Perhaps he would care to explain, since he certainly seemed to reduce y’all to silence with his last actual explanation about Eq (1). TRMG has abandoned ship, it seems, and you have too, isn’t that right?
Does he get credit for that one?
Anthony, you have not even realized that this is so far not the point here.
Rössler has so far made NO statement. He has not answered TRMGs excellent posting (/27th October) which has shown his interpretations utterly wrong. If TRMG should be wrong, Rössler has to show that by adressing explicitly the mathematical derivation shown there.
There was no last explanation about the equation. There is no defintion of the variables. There is no connection to Einsteins equation.
Apparently you are completely satisfied if the greast man says “wrong” or “non-thinkers” or “malevolent idiots” or something else. A scientific statement was not there yet, not a single question was answered.
No one here has fallen silent as I have linked exactly the posting Rössler has to adress,
Which is TRGM’s “excellent statement”? Please, give the link so we can come back to it. You seem to say that he does believe in clocks being slowed-down on earth compared to the G.P.S. satellites. Let us see that!
No, I do not say that.
Nice try, Rössler, to provoke the people here :D
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/tubingen-held-two-nazi-dissidents-tubingen-holds-one-of-two-cern-dissidents/comment-page-2#comment-94056
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/tubingen-held-two-nazi-dissidents-tubingen-holds-one-of-two-cern-dissidents/comment-page-2#comment-94195
It is clear that you are plainly lying about his statement. On the other hand your srackpot interpretation with less and longer counts leads directly to wrong conclusions.
So, after adressing his post:
What is the T? Dimension?
What is the dimension of the T in L/T=c? In your paper it is the same T as the T in eq1 .
Furthermore, if the T is something special, define it and connect it to tdown=tup/(1+z), the equation of Einstein which is in agreement with nature while yours is not.
The world expects now a detailed and mathematical precise and therefore unambiguous answer to that. Every statement containing again only meaningless blabla about Nicolai et al and whatsoever is not an answer and proves you wrong immediately.,
(After looking in the previous discussion following the links with Rösslers firts reactions) I doubt that we will get a meaningful/serious answer this time as Rössler is either too stupid to see the concept of reductio ad absurdum or he simple wants to get rid of this proof that his crap is indeed crap. )
I am grateful now that the discussion with TRGM was re-opened owing to both AnthonyL and Robert Houston’s indefatigable efforts. On reading it again, I now see the mistake the young gang made: It lies in their insensitive reading of Telemach (for which fact the present authors is co-responsible owing to lack of redundancy).
Let me first repeat the relevant passage of my Telemach paper (on http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern) to which they refer:
————————————————–.-
“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.”
————————-.-
To avoid misunderstandings, I could and as I now see should have added, after the word where, a subphrase:
(where) “T is the temporal wavelength of the light waves emitted by the equal clocks in question and”.
So that the full text now reads:
———————–.-
“Einstein first found out — as described — that
T_tail = T_tip *(1+z), (1)
where
!
T is the temporal wavelength of the light waves emitted by the equal clocks in question and
!
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.”
——————-.-
With this longer version which totally preserves the intended and – in my view – conveyed meaning, ALL the misunderstandings that arose can be laid to rest. I hope that everyone is happy with this long delivery.
“Apparently you are completely satisfied if the great man says “wrong” or “non-thinkers” or “malevolent idiots” or something else. A scientific statement was not there yet, not a single question was answered.”
Actually I am most taken with his phrase “barking dogs” or similar, which unfortunately I cannot locate at present, given the sad state of Lifeboat’s software which buries so much good sense by so many careful writers and so much entertaining boyish charm on your part Hansel.
Anyhow now you are hung on your own yardarm, it appears, since Rossler has clarified precisely the term T you wanted him to, as
“T is the temporal wavelength of the light waves emitted by the equal clocks in question “.
That allows his Equation (1) to have the form he uses A=B*C and confounds your insistent scoffing, does it not?
You know, in my years of experience investigating conventional claims in science and the mavericks who challenge them in peer reviewed papers on Science Guardian, it has become a familiar phenomenon to me, that a squad of paradigm defenders will emerge from somewhere in which their interests are allied with the leading scientists who cling to the conventional wisdom, and attack the critique of the paradigm by choosing some small part of it, and demonstrating to their satisfaction that it is wrong, and arguing that by implication the entire paradigm debunking must be wrong.
Only when one exhausts their objections do they retire injured from the field, still maintaining that the debunkers are wrong. In this they are rather like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who continues to challenge King Arthur even after both his arms and his legs are cut off, blood spurting everywhere:
“King Arthur: [after Arthur’s cut off both of the Black Knight’s arms] Look, you stupid Bastard. You’ve got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It’s just a flesh wound. ”
Of course, I am aware that this can equally be said by the defenders to the debunkers, but that is just the nature of any criticism of strategies in this kind of debate — both parties can be accused of all the standard tricks — selective quotations, not reading references, refusing to reexamine their basic premise, etc.
In this case, however, it does appear to be a weakness of your entertaining tilts at Rossler’s Telemach theorem that you make no effort to understand it as a possibly cogent thesis possibly using terms in some different way from your own analysis.
Why not be conciliatory so that you at least get answers from the Professor from Max Planck, SUNY-Buffalo, Tubingen, Guelph, UCLA, Virginia, Denmark and Santa Fe on your objections earlier than 1000 Comments later?
It may be that prophets always need a dollop of faith to get their message across, even in a mathematical physics arena.
Having got the answer, then you can try to tear it to pieces, like hounds savage a fox. But first, they run it to ground.
repeating the same bullshit without giving the requested defintions, Rössler, is NOT an answer.
There was the question abozut the T. To be precise, what is a “temporal wacvelentgh, dimension, connection to Einsteins equation which is DIFFERENT from yours and, of course, if T is not a time, what is L/T?
As expected, there was no answer.
Ah, and of course not a single specific answer to TRMGs proof, which I have linked several times and to which Rössler, strangely, refuse to answer.
Repeating Telemach is poor, not even the try of an answer.
Ah, and Anthony, if I have asked for the defintion of Rösslers private terms like this “wavelength” and all i get is that the T is a “wavelength”, then I am totally surprised that you are apparently satisfied by this.
Hansel, I believe I posted on this reasonable query of your elsewhere, but only to say that “temporal wavelength” would appear to be a way of envisaging the duration of a tick-tock measured by a cesium clock, for which the phrase serves pretty well, I would think.
Dear Anthony:
Thank you for your politeness in the face of dishonesty and cowardice (someone who has no name cannot be offensed — I take this reproach back as soon as your adversaries show their face).
Temporal wavelength and temporal period would be synonyms, just as spatial wavelength and spatial period.
Since the other thread is a bit out of date now, I am reposting this challenge to Hansel and TRMG here, if you don’t mind:
Rossler complains again there that he is attacked by a squad of anonomous CERNbots, and it is surely true than civility and hard thinking tend to escape out of the window when people are allowed to remain anonymous. (See letter in the NYTimes today).
Even though it may well be that politics requires them to be discreet if they are DISAGREEING with policy, there doesn’t seem to be any excuse for being anonymous when they are SUPPORTING the cavalier CERN attitude.
It suggests that they really are just undermining Rossler for political and psychological reasons rather than having a genuine discussion designed to elicit the best version of what may be the truth, which is what genuine scientists do.
Surely this is not true? Surely Hansel TRMG etc have only the purest motives?
If they wish us to believe that, however, it is time for them to emerge in public view.
Dear Anthony:
There is a top specialist who is much better technically than me — with the same results. If they were interested in the scientific topic, they (or their masters) would focus on his parallel findings.
I always mention him and they know exactly whom I mean.
Rössler, there is still no physical defintion, no derivation from Einsteins equation and so on. Absolutely nothing.
(Hansel seems to believe that you need the Einstein equation to derive the equivalence principle.)
Einsteins equation:
tdown=tup/(1+z)
Now the world want to see the exact connection of your equation to this correct equation. Mathematical.
anything else is not an answer, Rössler.
Every reader but you can see that Einstein’s quoted equation is identical to my Eq.(1) in Telemach. AnthonyL and Robert Houston explained it a thousand times. Strange charade that this anonymous kid is making here in the name of the German relativity school — who apparently all consent.
Wrong, Rössler.
Next try, Rössler. Houston and you have explained nothing but your own inabilitiy to define the stuff in a physcial way.
The world wants to see the mathematical connection.
I should mention again that equatuons in physical theories are not about units of measurement but physical quantities, a principle Rössler apparently is not aware of.
So here we have the physical quantitiy time in Einsteins equation. Rössler has something different. The world wants to see the exact connection.
Hansi says wrong but cannot say why: weak picture. He is unable to put two clocks of differing speeds but otherwise identical side by side in his mind or on paper and compare what they are doing. Geometry is inaccessible to him. Only what Maxwell called “tunnel-followng” is available to his mind, or so it appears. These people are also needed, but they must not be made rule the world. Sometimes a wider view is vital for all.
Rössler, stop talking bullshit, give the mathematical derivation or admit that you can not even derive your own equations in a scientific way.
You know, science is about facts and exact descriptions. so far there is nothing like this from your side.
You have one last chance. It appears strange to the waiting scientific community that this great man is not able to do this.…for months now.
Hansel is lying in the name of Hermann Nicolai: Why? (Or is he really unable to think geometrically and understand a graph?)
He knows that I will take back anything derogatory, said or implied, as soon as he shows his face, as a scientist must do when asked. Otherwise he is not a scientist but a slave.
Please, demonstrate the error in Telemach (or the WM-diagram of 1998) which you cannot pinpoint so far, dear anonymous colleague or colleagues. Facts presented will allow you to keep your anonymity if you are too shy to collect the honor. The world is still waiting for the counter-theorem announced by Germany’s Albert-Einstein-Institute which is about to lose its name.
Rössler, the only thing the world wants to see is your derivation. Nothing else.
So where is it?
Stop your meaningless blabla about personal things and start to behave like a scientist.
1998, you yourself posted it, my dear little friend.
1998 there was no derivation of your eq 1 from Einsteins. There was no precise connection.
1998 — the non-defined and therefore absolutely useless diagram will not help you. BTW, there are still pen questions about the axis you strangely have not answered to ever — what a surprise :D
But here and now only your precise mathematical derivation of the telemach eq 1 from Einsteins equation matters. It is strange that instead of showing it straightforward you prefer to chat and insult around…obviosly the danger is not that great.
The world is not interested in anonymous persons crying out loud
“I am too small to understand!“
Tell who you are or deliver a counterproof, Hansi-EQ-TRGM-lein, or quit.
Rössler, stop this ridiculous chatting and give the derivation. Nothing else matters here.
BTW, the person not understanding is obviously not me.
You cannot even say what you don’t understand.
Say it and I shall answer. Someone who still believes he can find a counterproof in principle should never be stopped from starting.
And if you have said it before and I did not understand, please, say it anew in a falsifiable manner. Even a “I kannitverstan Theorem” should be put up in a falsifiable manner. Please, try again. And let your peers help you. I do not say it is impossible to falsify Telemach only because my colleagues Nicolai and ‘t Hooft are too weak to do so. Show your strength. The floor is yours.
It seems that you ave not understood anything Rössler. If someone obviously has to ask his peers, it is you.
The world is waiting for your derivation of the eq1 as shown in your crap-paper.
Einsteins equation: tdown=tup/(1+z)
And now the world wants to see the exact connection between your eq1 and this equation.
Meaningless blabla like the text above reveals only your inability. In fact it is a capitulation.
This is the last chance, Rössler.
If you can not answer again no one will care about you anymore. It is proven then that you are not a scientist and definitely not interested in a serious discussion of your stuff and therefore not interested in a serious safety conference. In fact you would have shown then that you yourself are not believing in a real danger and that all your concerns are nothing but a propaganda vehicle for entering the big stage to satisfy your ego and to continue your private crusade against science. If your concerns would be real you would have shown the derivation long before. In contrast you are insulting people and so on.
(Telemach is in fact not a theorem, it is not even a paper. Normally no one would care about it in this non-defined, vague pamphlet filled with buzzwords, non-sequiturs and obvious non-understanding of basic concepts of general relativity theory. And now we have the proof that the author is not even able to derive the simple (and wrong) equations..)
The world knows in the meantime that all Hansi-EQ can say is: “kannitverstan.”
Is there really no one who can disprove Einstein’s eq.(1) that I quoted (with periods instead of times)? No one would be happier than Einstein that at long last the error in his whole system has been pinpointed. No black holes then any more.
Sorry I insulted you by trying to save your life, my friend.
Rössler, you have failed again. The question is the derivation of your equation. How is it exactly related to the equation given by Einstein?
I should mention again that physical theories are about physcial quantities like time, not units of measurement. Something like length of a second is, as was shown countless times before, meaningless esoteric.
So last chance, Rössler. Give the exact derivation and connecntion between the two equations. If you don’t do so, stop bothering any scientist again. They have much beeter things to do with their time then listening to an old cracnk unable to define his own equations.
EQ, we should leave Rössler alone now. There will be no answer because he can not answer this either because he is aware of the consequences for his “theorem” or because he simply can not do it. It is meaningless to discuss any longer with this old scaremongerer who delivered in months of discussion not one serious argument. This discussions prove for any scientist in the world that Rössler has nothing to show, no proof, no scientific paper absolutely nothing than buzzwords filled with hot air. It was also proven that the last thing he is interested in is a serious discussion of his “theorem” and therefore he is also not really interested in a “safety conference” where exactly the same questions would be asked.
The case is closed, Rössler had his chance, he failed period. There is nothing more to say.